I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel all that secure at the moment. All I see are huge deficits with no increase in security to show for it.

What I

is a stunning assault on our civil liberties, a war started under false pretenses with unrealistic expectations, and the complete failure to bring to justice the leader of the group considered directly responsible for 9/11. On top of that I’ve seen our relationships with our traditional allies heavily damaged, an amazing demonstration of how to flush all the goodwill and sympathy America received from the rest of the world after 9/11 down the toilet, and not a single person held accountable for the security failure that led to 9/11 in the first place.

Considering your stance with regards to those folks who have lost their jobs under the Bush administration (whom, I’ll remind you, made a campaign promise to increase job opportunities) I guess it’s safe to assume that—should you be unfortunate enough to find your job outsourced overseas—that you’ll forgo collecting unemployment even if you’re out of work for several months? After all, you wouldn’t want to contribute to the problem of Big Government, would you?

Clintons’ “surplus�? caused us our security.  It is easy to spend inhearted money.

Is this a typo?  Either way, the bit about ‘spending’ inherited money is a little off base considering the state of affairs for the social security program.  A prudent reserve is a good thing when it comes to managing a budget and now we’ve taken a giant step backward toward a Carter administration.

The whole problem of Big Government goes back to FDR and the “victimization�? of everyone.

You’re kidding, right?  I’m no advocate of ‘Big Government’  but FDR undertook some major programs in this country that made us into the ‘Superpower’ that we are today.  The real problem lies with irresponsible government and capitalistic greed.

I may not agree with Bush on every aspect but i am sick and tired of hearing that “Bush has caused the loss of 2.7 million jobs.�? I appologize if your only talent is screwing a nut onto a bolt.

Actually the number is 1.6 million and those jobs have been lost on his watch.  I would argue that at least half of those jobs lost are a direct result of poor economic, tax, and foreign policies on the part of this administration.

If you can not be competative then you fail.  Unions have destroyed our competative capabilities.  Protectionism and Antiglobalization is the cry of the uneducated.

You can’t be competitive on an uneven playing field either.  Unions in some forms are a good thing, while in other areas they have become corrupted.  Have you seen the numbers on how many people went back to school to complete their masters during the recession and still cannot find employment?  The reason is because the United States is rapidly becoming a service sector economy and that will eventually bring about a two-class system. 

I haven’t seen anyone around here crying ‘anti-globalization’.  My take on it this that if greed continues to play a dominate role in our economic policies we will be setting our selves up for a whole new onslaught of problems from developing nations and internal strife.

The fact you are insecure is what the terrorists want.  On the deficit, i can agree, they are not good.  Unfortunately Bush had to spend more money on pork barrel spending to create the Department of Homeland Security.  If he hadn’t then John Kerry would have complained that “Bush has not even tried to create a more secure country because he failed to listen to the recommnondations of the 9/11 Report.“

“On top of that I’ve seen our relationships with our traditional allies heavily damaged, an amazing demonstration of how to flush all the goodwill and sympathy America received from the rest of the world after 9/11 down the toilet” 

Let me respond to this…France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest (by the way Russia’s President supports Bush)  All three of those countries where owed money from Iraq due to the Iran Iraq War.  Now we have found out even more evidence in the Oil-for-Food program.  Kerry is not going to get these countries to follow us.

Related to the job issue.  The President does not create jobs, he levies tariffs and subsidies.  People with money and capital create jobs.  What i am going to say requires a grasp of Economic Understanding (hopefully you have taken Econ outside of highschool)  If the government levies a tariff on imports which costs other countries a total of a billion dollars then our exports go down by a billion dollars, and dollar for dollar export business creates an average of 21 more jobs than import companies.  If a subsidy is issued all of the US tax payers are responsible for inefficeincy of that company.  Does that make sense?

Let me respond to this…France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest

The governments of these countries would be derelict of duty if they wouldn’t. Was the invasion of Iraq in the best economic interest of the US?

(by the way Russia’s President supports Bush)

How many troops will Russia send?

All three of those countries where owed money from Iraq due to the Iran Iraq War.  Now we have found out even more evidence in the Oil-for-Food program.  Kerry is not going to get these countries to follow us.

Are you saying that both Bush and Kerry will prevent Iraq from settling these debts, which is the reason why these countries will not follow the US?

The fact you are insecure is what the terrorists want.

 
Are you a terrorist?  All this time I thought they wanted to destabilize American capitalism and liberty in some sort of extremist attempt at revenge for our influence on their culture.  I don’t feel anymore more or less secure than I did before 9/11.

Unfortunately Bush had to spend more money on pork barrel spending to create the Department of Homeland Security.  If he hadn’t then John Kerry would have complained that “Bush has not even tried to create a more secure country because he failed to listen to the recommnondations of the 9/11 Report.�?

The HSA was established long before the 9/11 commission and well before Kerry began his run for the presidency.  The HAS wasn’t even a recommendation of the 9/11 commission.  No, President Bush established the HAS because he felt the need to do something and having no political skills to deal with the problem at hand he threw money at it in hopes that it would waylay the fears of the American public.  It was a knee-jerk reaction from an unprepared, undisciplined administration much like the Patriot Act.

“On top of that I’ve seen our relationships with our traditional allies heavily damaged, an amazing demonstration of how to flush all the goodwill and sympathy America received from the rest of the world after 9/11 down the toilet�?

You picked up on that too, eh?  Seems everyone did except the President.

Let me respond to this…France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest (by the way Russia’s President supports Bush) All three of those countries where owed money from Iraq due to the Iran Iraq War.  Now we have found out even more evidence in the Oil-for-Food program.  Kerry is not going to get these countries to follow us.

I found it interesting the country that was paid the most on its Iraqi debt from the Iran war was the United States.  I guess we gave them better weapons than the Europeans did.   How do you know Kerry won’t be able to get support from these countries?  That’s almost the same mentality the democrats took against Reagan in regards to the Soviet Union.

Related to the job issue.  The President does not create jobs, he levies tariffs and subsidies.  People with money and capital create jobs.  What i am going to say requires a grasp of Economic Understanding (hopefully you have taken Econ outside of highschool) If the government levies a tariff on imports which costs other countries a total of a billion dollars then our exports go down by a billion dollars, and dollar for dollar export business creates an average of 21 more jobs than import companies.  If a subsidy is issued all of the US tax payers are responsible for inefficeincy of that company.  Does that make sense?

It makes sense if you’re using a Macro Economics text from the 1960’s.  The pyramid has become almost completely inverted in the last 20 years with US importing more product from foreign soil but, from US held corporations.  As you can clearly see his creates a rather interesting taxation dynamic and that is where the argument truly stems forth of the tax burden being shifted to the middle class.  I know some schools will let you retake classes if it’s only been a few years so you can bone up on modern economics.

So, in the end does the president doesn’t actually hire and fire people.  (Well,  excluding a handful.)  He does, however, set policies in place that have a direct impact on the business and economic environment which in turn cause a rise and fall in the job market.  Under his watch and his policies he has lost 1.6 million jobs of which his policies are have directly impacted at least half of that number.  I’m being a tad conservative here because of the administration change to the unemployment policy and restructuring the framework of the SBA.

You picked up on that too, eh?  Seems everyone did except the President.

He was quoting me.

First off commenting on econmics, i did not mean to come off so brash.  I wanted to point out that the majority of people in this country don’t know anything about economics or what the government and what the President actually does.  This was not to imply that you don’t understand economics in your own respect.

It makes sense if you’re using a Macro Economics text from the 1960’s

My rant is published in a 2002 edition of International Economics textbook.  Also this burden on the middle class is a direct result of the subsidy needed to protect those jobs.  The government should not protect industries that can not compete in the world market.  If you don’t believe me take a look at what happened to India after World War II, their government did everything in their power to make India self sufficient and protect industries. So if that is what you are looking for in a government try India out.

I would like to make a point also on my arguments.  I am arguing an idea and not responders personally, so i hope no one becomes overly upset, i am not trying to attack you personally.  Also, i Would like to thank les for arguing and responding to my points/opinions as a whole.  Anyone else out there that just pics bits and pieces, you are no better then media saying what they want to prove their bias.

India is hardly a good example.

Consider the costs placed on their economy for such things as…
[] Literacy rates
[] Rate of transmitted (and preventable) disease
[] ...want more ?

The Indian economy, especially after WWII, was largely the result of British looting.  CottageIndustry economics makes sense, if you are concerned more about economic-justice than getting rich.

Russell - I’m sorry I singled you out but your stance on this issue just seems a little off the mark.  If the business and government functioned in reality the same way they do in theory we may be able to apply some more of your logic, but alas, that is not the case.

Anyone else out there that just pics bits and pieces, you are no better then media saying what they want to prove their bias.

Didn’t you come into this thread with Limbaugh ditto-head six-shooter ablaze?

Also, many view O’Reilly as a conservative and if he was considered liberal he would could have gotten a BJ in the Oval Office and lied about it on television, and still be revered by all the victims in this counrty.
To all you victims, big government is not the answer.  Franklin D. Roosevelt was a hack and has screwed this county with welfare and social security. 
Keep taxing the Rich, they are at fault!  Big Governments are wastefull. Only business’ are effecient if not they go out of business and file for bankruptcy.  What will happen when the Government files for bankruptcy?

in response to .rob adams

India is hardly a good example.

Consider the costs placed on their economy for such things as…
[] Literacy rates
[] Rate of transmitted (and preventable) disease
[] ...want more ?

Honestly i can not comment on the Transmitted diseases, i did not know they had a problem.  However their government thought that it would be a good idea to take from the productive and rich and give food to the poor.  Know what happened?  More poor unproductive people.  Considering the weather there you dont really need shelter and clothes, so once you have food what other incentive is there.  I can drown the world in ants if you give me enough sugar.

The Indian economy, especially after WWII, was largely the result of British looting.  CottageIndustry economics makes sense, if you are concerned more about economic-justice than getting rich.

This is absured.  At the time Britain was for the most part for free trade and democracay.  Britain controlled Hong Kong for many years…I wonder how they are doing?

to deadscott

Russell - I’m sorry I singled you out but your stance on this issue just seems a little off the mark.  If the business and government functioned in reality the same way they do in theory we may be able to apply some more of your logic, but alas, that is not the case.

The government functions today because everyone wants whatever they can get from the government.  The only thing that government should do is provide courts, military, and police….NOTHING ELSE.  Leave me and my stuff alone, if i am not productive than i suffer the consequences.

Lastly, the best form of government “IN THEORY” was communism.  Last time i checked it failed because without the right to property no one cares.  If an individual takes property from one person to give to another, that is stealing.  Criminals can’t do it but the government can.  Does that make sense?

Actually, the most efficient form of government is a monarchy. The communism that really developed from the 1917 revolution, and others, was only a modified form of monarchy, called despotism. Where the government is all powerful, it is all corrupt. The U.S. Constitution was not written to give power to a government, but to tie the hands of those who governed and prevent them from gaining too much power. It hasn’t always worked too well, has it?

Russell:

“Clinton Recession:“ ‘Clinton never did anything for the economy accept [sic] pass a recession to Bush Jr.  Reagan and Bush Sr. handed prosperous times to Clinton’
Your arguments have a huge logical flaw in them. If you concede that 6 years of non-inflationary growth in the nineties have little to do with Clinton, then 7 years of growth in the 80s would have little to do with Reagon. And therefore, all one is left after the Reagon era is a huge sum of debt. You either take the position that government affects the economy or does not affect the economy. And if it does

“Hindsight”
Again your arguments have a logical flaw. If you adopt the position that Clinton’s lack of offensive action following the attacks under his terms in office as reason for 9/11. It means that one can be faulted for lack of hindsight. If that is so then the same criticism is reflected on Bush. Since Bush obviously knew of the two initial attacks and also he has the memo that “Bin Laden is determined to attack inside US,“ it would suggest that if you find Clinton responsible for 9/11 because of negligence then Bush would be even more responsible for 9/11 for the reckless disregard of intelligence.

“Microsoft Monopoly”
Whether you adopt Fama’s position that market is inherently efficient or you adopt the Thaler’s idea of how market behaviour may prevent the market from acting efficiently, Microsoft’s anticompetitive action prevents the market from working in an efficient and competitive manner that produces innovation. One reasoning is that they use their monopoly power to distort the market. After all if you accept that unions destroy competitive capabilities due to it’s control of the labor market, you have to accept that Microsoft’s near monopoly also affects one’s competitive advantage. So the spending of money on an antitrust suit is not a waste of money.

“France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest”
So are you saying that invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the US own economic interest? While the invasion may not have been solely because of oil, without the oil there would have been no invasion. There may have been a few or a number of strategic strikes on areas where they suspect there was WMD but there would be no boots on the ground. A simple look at other nations where there genocide such Sudan shows how oil may act as the lubricant for invasion.

By the way, the French was prepared to send 10,000 to 15,000 troops and have already set them aside. And their generals did visit the pentagon to discuss military plans and base of operations for their planes. But negotiations broke off after personal disagreement between Chirac and Bush.

“...only thing that government should do is provide courts, military, and police….NOTHING ELSE”
So the government should not also provide emergency services such as the fire service or the ambulance? What about funding for the CDC. How about Education, transportation, safety standards, environment. What about injuries during an emergency? So if there was a nuclear blast, the only health to be provided would be those who has insurance, specifically insurance that covers radiation?

What do you mean by provide “courts.“ I would assume it means enforcement of the law? If the government only provides for military and police then all laws by the government would relate to the police and military. Wait but since the police enforce the law but one is not suppose to provide anything then their only role is to support the military.
“Leave me and my stuff alone”
The problem is you and your stuff may have a huge range of externalities. What if I were to start up a nuclear waste storage processing plant at the heart of New York.

Finally, would you please stick to the argument rather than running away from it by bringing up other topics. You went from praising Reagan and Bush and attacking Microsoft and 9/11 to invasion of Iraq to trade matters to economic development of India to how government should function and their role. Also please substantiate your argument by following through them rather than making a one line statement of claim without any concrete supporting argument and explaining the position.

larkinsjapn:
Your quote on power is attributed the to wrong person. It was Lord Acton who first said it. And furthermore your quote has effectively edited what he said.

Lord Acton said “All power TENDS TO corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.“ Then there is the follow up sentence “Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more, when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

Although his words are directed on power, one must not forget that this sentence has a strong religious undertone. It is based on Jesus and the New Testament and the idea that it is easier for a poor man to go to heaven than it is for a rich man for if wealth corrupts, power which is a form of wealth also corrupts by multiplying opportunities for selfish actions.

Well done, PT. I gave up trying to argue with Russell when it became clear he was going to toss out standard Republican one-liners without bothering to substantiate them. He’s not arguing so much as practicing Republican Apologetics.

Pop Tarts - I know we haven’t seen eye-to-eye on other issues but, I’m developing a whole new appreciation for you as of late.  Another great post.

I wasn’t bothering to follow the discussion too much, because I know next to nothing about economics.  And what I -do- know about economics came from reading the Communist Manifesto, which can hardly be considered an impartial source.

This is one of those areas where I have to simply accede to the appeal to authority.

Authorities like the Harvard business professors and two Nobel Laureate economists who described Bush’s economic policy as Teh Worst Polisy Evar!

http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000486.php
Carter Reagan economics

Economics Profs criticize Bush economic policy

But Russell’s comments about the redistribution of wealth, and minimalist govt., sound more ideologically consistant with Libertarian philosophy, rather than traditional conservatism.

While I like -many- aspects of Libertarian social philosophy, I think their economic philosophy is even more idealistic (and unrealistic) than Communism’s.

Criticisms of Libertarian philosophy

I enjoyed your post Pop Tarts—particularly when you pointed to the problem with the “have our cake and eat it too” way of looking at economic growth.  If it happened during a Republican’s term, he’s responsible for it, if it happened during a Dem’s term, the Repub that preceded him is responsible for it.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

I think I’m going to adopt that as my personal philosophy, as it seems to have a decent rate of payoff.