Bush is pushing a war agenda to cover up a bad economy? What bad economy?

Remove all ads!

I have seen a lot of talk about how Bush is pushing a war to cover up the so called "bad" US econcomy. When everyone says the economy in the US is bad, I am genuinely surprised. I really don't understand that statement, even though the out of power party (Democrats) keeps making the claim. If they mean the stock market is in a shambles, I will go along. But the stock market is really a poor indicator of the economy. Housing starts are strong, interest rates are down, inflation is holding steady, unemployment is holding steady and showing hints of going downward, and except for a couple of industries, profitability is holding strong and trending upward.

I apologize to those of you with finance backgrounds, but I think that those who don't have that experience need to understand this.

The stock markets around the world are primarily driven by one force. It is not profitability, efficiency, management, or forecasts. They are primarily driven by expectations! What the majority of people think is going to happen is what will always happen. The possible war with Iraq is a bad thing, and it scares people, so people instinctively look for "safe" investments. The stock market doesn't seem safe. You can't hold it, and know that it will be worth something no matter what. That is the reason that the gold markets are climbing, and that interests rates are so low. Gold and savings accounts are thought of a safe investments. It is simply supply and demand.

Following this argument to its conclusion, the best thing for Bush to do is to hurry up and get this Iraq thing taken care of. This will alleviate people's fears, and the unwashed masses will flood back to the stock market again. Meanwhile the "smart" money people will be laughing all the way to the bank with the profits they made by selling these people back the same stock they bought from them at depressed prices.

 

"Bad economy" as in "not as good as it was a few years ago". In the long run, I don't think it's so bad. But it could be better. Now the war side of the issue - bah, I don't even want to think about using war to justify economic conditions. Part of why I got myself out of Air Force ROTC. Not even sure why I joined in the first place.

 

There exists an organization known as the Federal Reserve. The duty of this "bank" is to stabilize the United States economy. Whenever people begin spending less money, the Federal Reserve lowers the prime interest rate. This, in turn, lowers most of the APR percentages, which makes it easier for businesses and consumers to borrow money. Since it is easier to borrow money, people become more apt to spend the greater supply of currency.

 

And if the Federal Resserve doesn't think pople are spending money fast enough, they can keep interest rates artificially low and encourage lenders to practically give money away. Unfortunately, the people on the receiving end of that money aren't necessarily in the best position. Housing starts may be going up, but defaults on home loans is at the highest level seen since WWII.

If the economy really wern't so bad, don't you think that major corporations would be making some kind of capital investments? Guess what - they're not. This problem isn't confined to the US, but is rampant in Germany and Japan, as well.

War or no war, it ain't gonna be pretty when the debt bubble bursts, folks.

 

Actually, the myth of the Fed being able to radically effect the economy has been burst. Alan Greenspan is a genius, not for all his manipulations of the interest rates, but for the myth he maintained for the entire Clinton (scumbag) administration. It is amazing that he fooled people into believing that what the Fed does has an immediate impact on the economy. It actually did have an immediate impact, but not because of the direct effect of the lowering or raising of interest rates. It again falls back to that expectations rule, it effected the economy because people thought it did. Fed rate changes actually take 3 to 5 years to play out their full effect.

As far as there being a record number of home mortgage defaults since WWII, if you normalize that figure by elimination of FHA loans, 125% equity loans, bankruptcies caused by excessive credit card debt, and defaults based on deaths, I can assure you that rates of default are not really that high. The piss-poor lending practices of our financial institutions along with the meddling of the Socialist left wing (aka democrats) have left us with an enormous amount of people who simply were allowed to borrow far more than they can repay. The dip in the stock market only served to accelerate the default rate for people who were going to have to default even if the DJIA would have stayed around at 11K until the values of the reflected companies would have been accurately represented. Many of these people were investing in or counting on a) stock options or stock purchase plans to bail them out, or b) their jobs being 100% secure. If these people would have followed the same lending rules that existed in the 40's & 50's (15 year loans, with 20% down, 6 months liquid reserves, and payments not to exceed 35% of gross income) the default rate today would be lower than it was following WWII.

The dogma that both sides of the political coin spew forth is of the same value as what the average house cat spits up once a week. The party who is out of power will do anything to get back in power. Even if it means lying, cheating, and doing their level best to make things worse for all of us if they think they can get away with blaming it on the other party. The flip side of that is that the party in power will sell out the future to stay in power. Reagan did it with deficit spending (though he did have a plan to get us past it) and uniting us all against the evil empire known as the Soviets. Clinton did it by caving in to every tyrant to come down the pike, accepting bribes, oh sorry, political contributions from communist countries & selling nuclear technology to regimes he shouldn't have. By doing all this he kept peace in order to prevent the stock market bubble from popping on him. Bush 43 will do try to do it by winning a war and then trying to get the economy back on track, all the while selling the environment down the river. All these actions have one common theme, the future has had to and will continue to have to pay for them.

"There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics" (Benjamin Disraeli).

[ January 28, 2003, 05:15: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

/me points at the bad economy for Darkwolf, that bad economy.

Though it is more or less a global problem and not isolated to the US, but the world has been almost in a recession since the burst of the IT bubbles and 9/11. Not to mention the crash in asia and well plenty of things that lies behind it. So things are pretty bad on a global level.

But problems that are specifically for the US is for instance that the dollar is incredible low, it hasnt been this low since 1996 or something. Makes export easier but import more expensive.
Another argument that I know not many americans care about is the extreme poverty that is rampant throughout the US. Heck it doesnt really matter if you have a job or not, minimum wages are so low that it takes a couple of them to feed a family. Healthcare and education in poor areas is in shambles which further cements the poverty there. The gap between the rich and poor has widened greatly in the last 20 years and the growth in economy during these years havent benefitted those that needs it the most at all.
But this isnt something that any of the big parties care about, the democrats may talk about it when they are not in power and blame it all on the republicans but as soon as they get into power they act in the exact same way.
Or as Micheal Moore put it, and I am paraphgrasing: The republicans say that they are going to screw you over and then they do it, the democrats say that they will care about your needs and then they screw you over, it all really comes down to honesty...

 

joacqin,

The economy has a natural cycle that cannot be avoided. The longer you hold off economic downturns, and the higher you push an economy, the deeper and longer the downturn will be. That is a historical fact with few exceptions.

A low dollar is not a completely bad thing for the US. A low dollar means that US exports are attractive, and that imports to the US get expensive, which helps balance the trade deficit.

The problems of the poor in America is vastly overstated by the liberal press and politicians.(Remember my quote above from Disraeli, statistics can be used to prove almost any point) In America at this time there is a greater percentage of self made millionaires than has ever existed before (more statistics for you!). The poor in America stay poor more often by choice than any other factor. The vast majority of people earning minimum wage or living in poverty in America, excluding minors and the mentally handicapped, have plenty of economic opportunities to improve themselves. They do not do so because of 2 factors. The government encourages them to stay poor with welfare, and they are lazy. (The mentally handicapped are also provided with welfare to make up the difference of what they need to lead reasonable lives).

And one more quote for you:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

 

You gotta love the "They are poor because they are lazy" argument. It is so convincing, and shows a clear understanding of humanity, not to mention interest and compassion for your fellow man.

[ January 28, 2003, 17:19: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

joacqin,

I have compassion for people right up to the point at which they stop taking responsibility for themselves and demand that I work to provide for them. Do you realize almost 50% of Americans who file tax returns (this is all people who work in this country) either pay no taxes, or in many cases receive back more than they paid in. Almost 25% of all wage earners receive what is called an "earned income credit". This is a credit, but it is neither earned or income. It is an amount that is paid out to low wage earners, charity that is taken from the taxpayers of America at gunpoint. That is a handout that I have to pay. In this country there are plenty of subsidies that I fully support. In America if you are poor, you can go to school for free. It may not be at a major university, but you can still get an education at a community college or vocational school with no financial sacrifice. The only thing it costs is time. The unwashed masses in this country are not motivated enough to get off their butts and take advantage of it. I call that lazy-if that isn't PC enough for you-tough! Even if they never finished high school, they can apply for aid to get a GED (a diploma that signifies the equivalence of a high school diploma) and then get in to a community college or VoTech. And I know, what about the poor single mom who has to stay home and care for her children and doesn't have the time. BS! She made her choices, she chose to be where she is. And that is a lame excuse anyway. I attend a community college, and I talk to single moms all the time. They are sacrificing their own time, and some time with their children, to provide a better future for those children. They always manage to find someone to help them out with baby sitting while they go to class. The VAST majority of poor people in America are poor BY THEIR OWN CHOICE! The choose to behave in manners that preclude them from advancing. One of my best friends in high school makes more than 2 times what I do. He started working at McDonald's in high school, worked his ass off, was nominated for McDonald's University, and now is the manager of a very busy McDonald's. He never went to a true university or college, yet he is pulling down a 6 figure salary. Most of the people who work in low paying jobs have this same opportunity, they just choose not to take it. Again they are not motivated, and unless you can explain to me why that is, I have no other word to call it than laziness.

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay with your money. --G. Gordon Liddy

 

Darkwolf, is it just a coincidence that most poor people come from poor families? Environment doesn't play an important factor, it's is entirely a case of the, as you so arrogantly refer to them, "unwashed masses," not having the same intestinal fortitude as a great man such as yourself?

 

That is the key Darkwolf not all mothers have some one to watch their kids while they try to better themselves.I would also be willing to bet none of your freinds or yourself had to live off welfare ever.IF you think these people enjoy the humilation that goes with the process you are sadley mistaken.
Saying people want to be poor because they are lazy is the most ignorant statement people can make.Most people in America today live one or to pay checks away from losing there homes.Even alot of moderate to middle calss people live like this.
If you think the promblems of the poor are vastley overstated try to volunteer in an inner city soup kitchen for awhile.Talk to these people about how they got in this postion and see if that doesnt change your mind.

 

Hmm, if there's one thing I can't stand it's someone who doesn't know what it's like to walk on the other side, so to speak. Darkwolf, I appreciate your comments, and I can even agree with some of them, but I definitely don't agree with the "poor people are poor by choice" shtick. Now, I came from a middle-classed family, I suppose. Lived well, and I still do to this day, however, I lived in a place that was poor, and let me tell you, they weren't poor by choice. Many of the people were smart, they could've easily gotten good jobs and the like, but they couldn't support themselves because of being so easily classified as poor. And employers seem to think that if they look bad, then they won't be a good worker, a good investment in their business. I can't stand it how these people are judged just by looking at them, it's almost discriminatory.

I can understand how you may argue that that's a hypocritical statement, and that I should put myself in the footsteps of the employer, but blah, I say! I know that first impressions are everything, but even employers can't see two feet in front of them. And you know, not everyone gets the opportunites that others can get. I've known plenty of people that tell me, "If only I'd gotten the opportunity that you got." Let's face it, not everyone gets them, and the people that do get them and squander them are useless baggage that needs to be weeded out.

As for this economy thing, hmm. Let me say it like this, if the government was run like a business instead of this helter-skelter thing there is now, there would be no national deficit, the economy would be booming, and more then likely, the word "poor" wouldn't exist in our vocabulary. That's what we need, we need a few CPAs up there in Capital Hill, instead of all these lawyers that know how to lie. Figures don't lie, and if we had a president that was a CPA, he...or she...would never have allowed the nation to fall into the momentary monetary lapse.

Damn, I'm good. That was actually a pretty good speech, right? Maybe I should run for president. lol

 

Ok, we are way off topic here, but what the heck, it is my thread, so I will run with it.

Laches,

Take you argument to its completion. If it is all environment, then none of us are responsible for anything we do, so turn loose all the criminals. You are actually going to argue that people, even though they know what it takes to be successful, are not responsible for themselves? They don't know that hard work is going to get them ahead. They can't see that those who work hard around them get promoted, and that the slackers get nothing? I know that many of us want to blame our failures on others. "Oh, I won't kiss the manager's butt like Johnny does, so I won't get the promotion". That is a cop out and a sign of weak thinking. That is what socialism and public schools get you. When Johnny gets caught chewing gum and is asked the inevitable question, "Johnny, did you bring enough gum for the rest of the class?” his response should be, "No Ms. Smith, I didn't, and I don't think it is my job to share what I earned with the rest of the class, let them get their own gum". Guess what, life isn't fair, and hard working people should not be punished to make up for those who won't work hard, regardless of their environment.

Dorion,

Don't presume to know too much about others. Half of my family is on welfare. I grew up around a great deal of people on welfare. And I see what they spend it on. I could have collected welfare myself on more than one occasion. Humiliation is a poor motivation technique. Many people will take a humiliating handout over a job every time. Try offering a job to one of those people you see with the "will work for food" signs. They will laugh in your face. And humiliation only tears the psyche down even further, removing motivation to work. A program was started where people receive a bonus if they got off of unemployment before a certain amount of time had passed. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember that the turn around time for people to find jobs was greatly reduced! Stop giving handouts and stop rewarding failure.

Also, you are going to tell me that there is this vast ocean of women who could not find anyone to watch their children 1 evening a week if they had to go in for chemo, or some other regular medical procedure? Well what if it was to go see their sick mother once a week? What if it was to go to school once a week? I really doubt that there are that many. It is just another cop out.

Dark,

As I said to Dorion, don't assume anything about someone you do not know. You are being somewhat hypocritical. You are judging my past based upon insufficient data.

Now, McDonald's will hire anyone who is clean. There are shelters in just about every town that will allow you to come in and clean yourself up. The fact of the matter is that most of these people are using another cop out. "If only I had the chance!" Yada, yada, yada. Unless someone is too physically deformed or mentally retarded to be productive, they are responsible for making their own chances. Successful people are not where they are because they won life's lottery. They made opportunities for themselves.

Stop buying into the socialist propaganda! Expand you mind to be more than it is today. Set reachable goals, and when you attain them, set new higher goals. Funny thing, that’s what successful people do to become successful!

Another good quote:

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. Herbert Spencer

That is what welfare does. I believe that a safety net is a good thing, but it has to be limited to make people responsible for themselves.

 

Sigh, it's as if I'm caught in a loop of people making the same logical mistake over,and over, and over, and over, and over..... but anyways, here we go:

Darkwolf, you wrote:

(1) Please show me where anyone in this thread has said that none of us are responsible for anything we do.

(2) Please show me where it has been stated in this thread that people are not responsible for themselves.

I do see where I and others have stated there are environmental factors are important considerations in determining how to best address poverty and I see you rejecting that stance. What you've constructed is a straw man to knock down -- logical fallacy.

(3) The implication you make that someone who believes the environment plays an important role in determining a person's future economic success is therefore a product of socialism or is a socialist product is laughable. It's difficult to say how you meant this. However, I'd say it is likely that in drawing in this unrelated point you are either committing a complex question logical fallacy or perhaps more likely you meant it in a demeaning manner in which case you are committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

 

You know that I have to respond, that's just the way these things work in a debate. First off, when did I judge you, personally? I disagreed with some of your statements, but I don't know a thing about you, so I can't judge you. Maybe you took one of my statements the wrong way, or it was misdirected at you, I take the blame for not making myself clearer.

Now, I have no idea which socialist propaganda you think that I'm buying into, let me know, 'cause if I'm gonna actually believe it, I want to know what it is. I am in no shape or form knocking the successful business person, a person that had next to nothing and turns it into this major conglomerate. More power to them. I do believe though, that sometimes, it gets to them, and they lose perspective of where they came from and how they got that little push into successfulness. Not all people possess the ability to just get up and say, "Hey, I think I'll get off welfare and get a job." They can't do that because they fall into a funk, of sorts. This is what I hate about welfare. Like, they offer no type of make-your-life-better programs or anything like that. They just give handouts, as you so eloquently put it, and that's what makes me highly angry with welfare. I think it should be just like unemployment, you know. Give it to them for a few months, then cut it off if they don't use it wisely and responibly and don't show any signs of trying to better themselves.

Oh, and I know what people who have welfare spend it on, and it's disgusting to see that they have a better car then I do and I work so hard. But I also know the good sides of welfare as well. It's really a double edged sword, I think, and getting back to topic, the way it's been handled so poorly for these last umpteen years show that the economy needs a serious overhaul. Right now, I believe that if the economy is only going to serve or be serviced by the people with the money, then the situations won't change. It'll just get better for the rich and worse for the poor, and that's the truth.

I've indeed noticed though, that there are programs and grants and so on and so forth that help to break the feeling of hopelessness that's been inbred into the poorer communities, it just has to get there, and it has to inspire them to want more for themselves. Some people need motivation, some can't do it on their own, and who am I to deny them the spark of hope that some so desperately need? I'm not expecting the government to just roll over for everyone, 'cause it can't do that, but if something's not done and with the quickness, only one thing will come of it, and that's total economic shutdown.

Hmm, I think I should become a CPA, then run for President. Hee hee hee

 

The Goddess gets it! I took your statement about having never walked on the other side to mean that I had never fallen on hard times and couldn't understand. My apologies m'lady!

Laches, you and I are closer on this issue than I thought. I thought that you were a socialist, wanting all the poor people in the world to be given a share of the unrightful wealth that the rich have appropriated. This was based on this and other threads of yours I had read. My apologies to you, I shouldn't ridicule others for judging and then turn around and do the same.

We actually seem to share a belief that the current form of welfare is destructive to a persons confidence and self esteem.

That a person cannot overcome their economic status due to environmental factors beyond their control, and that welfare is the only means to balance this out, is a key stance of the liberal ideology in the US. As the liberal left is in favor of socialism, for purposes of arguments of US politics I equate liberals with socialists. A logical mistake perhaps, but hey, I am entitled to my beliefs.

I thought that you were making the argument that environment has so much control over a person that they cannot be expected to make something better of themselves, and that they were not responsible for their lack of motivation. If you keep expanding that argument you ultimately lose self determination. I like to think that I have freedom over myself, not that God or my environment determines who and what I am.

Sorry that I am not up on all the rules of debate and philosophy, as you are. I unfortunately haven't had a class in philosophy since 1989, and frankly, don't have the time or inclination to take it again. I guess that puts a country boy like myself at a bit of a disadvantage to your superior intellect. Basically I fall back on three tests, the laugh test, the smell test, and the does that work in the real world test. I am impressed with your vocabulary though! Argumentum ad hominem? Latin?

 

Darkwolf? You've never had the ad hominem approach used on you before? It's #14, right above the strawman fallacy in the Big Book O' Silly Terms to Make you Look Intelligent in a Debate.

(No offense Laches, I do think you are intelligent, but we could do without the Latin )

Next time someone shoots the old ad hominem[/I}breeze around just tell them Obi-Wan said to "Feel not think. Let go your conscious self."

OK, where were we? Ah yes, can we just agree that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the poor are lazy/just in it for welfare and woe is the poor? They both seem like extremes to me.

[Hehe you guys. "Argumentum ad hominem" means you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. - BTA]

[ January 29, 2003, 04:14: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Thanks for the info BTA. I know what it means, and knew it all along, but I wanted to make a point. Thanks for the assist BigB.

Now that we have made our run through the positives and negatives of welfare, lets get back to the topic.

Does anyone still want to make the argument that Bush is pushing a war strictly for political reasons?

And lets add to the flip side of that coin, did the Democrats make themselves look like obstructionists last night after Bush's State of the Union address. I think they are against the war because they are afraid that if it is successful, Bush will be unbeatable in the next election. But then I am a cynic, so lets hear your opinions. Oh, and please be sure to justify them with some good arguments!

 

So what you meant to say is my family is poor by choice I am lazy and poor by choice this doesn't add up to your comment sorry Darkwolf,IF your family is truely on welfare i find it hard to belive you would make this comment.If it is true I dont know how you can think that.
Your assertion that if you or poor you can go to school for free is way of base.Money for these programs is very limited and only a few benifit from these programs.
I dont know why you assume I buy into the soicialist propaganda as you put it.Their are numerouse promblems with the welfare program as it stands.
Mcdonalds is not going to save the poor man.working for subpar wages does not get you out of poverty.The promblem is many of these people get more offf welfare than they could from working these kinds of jobs.
Anyway perhaps we should open anther topic on welfare before this one gets derrided by this debate.

Back to the topic.

I dont believe Bush is running this war to avoid domestic promblems with the economy.However I do believe this economy is well on its way to the tank.Job growth is down unemployment is climbing(though I think it is starting to level off).
Companies are doing far more firing than hiring.Invetments are down.Perhaps some the tax cuts Bush is proposing can help to reverse this trend but only time will tell.