Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by shmessy, Nov 14, 2007.
The weak dollar really sucks. The last time I was in England, the cheapest meal (and I mean cheap--a cruddy sandwich and cup of soup in a styrofoam cup) cost $25 for two and ride on the subway (privatized under Blair) toa nearby suburb cost $7.
Now, countries like China are moving towards greater diversification of their currency investments, which I think will lead to higher interest rates, and the weaker dollar is putting more and more pressure on foreign companies to raise prices here, resulting in inflation (at a rate even the government with its fraudulent calculation methods can't hide).
Too much government spending as a % of GDP, solution, reduce government spending as a % of GDP.
Oh yeah, develop muke energy, start drilling our own oil (Gulf and Anwar & Utah tar sands, coal out west ect), build some refineries (none built for over 30 years), this would dramatically our balance of trade deficits.
I've seen the value of the dollar cut almost in half here in Lithuania, since I arrived 11 years ago. Where once the local currency was pegged to the dollar, it is now pegged to the Euro, and we all know how that has risen against the dollar. Life goes on.
Nonetheless, the weak dollar is the only thing that keeps millions upon millions of jobs in America. American goods cannot compete very well in a world being undersold at every turn when ridiculously cheap Chinese goods are everywhere. You take dirt cheap Chinese labor (average worker makes $50 to 100 a month), coupled with the poorest safety and health conditions for those Chinese workers, and there is no way American workers can compete for the world market. Even the high-tech industries, traditionally ruled by American companies -- corporations, almost all -- are now feeling the Chinese (and other nations) nipping at the heels. (IBM personal computers/laptops are now "Lenovo", a Chinese company.)
A cheap dollar is what makes U.S. goods attractive and what keeps the economy afloat. It's what is keeping U.S. firms in business and people employed. If the dollar were to suddenly rise, you'd see millions of jobs disappear over night. Nobody wants to see that.
Let them raise prices so people buy American. That's not a problem for us, that's a benefit. China is going to have serious problems in about 10 years, when their population reaches a critical age demographic, and they begin to loose working age people. If you want to see what inflation is like, watch what happens in China in the years after 2015.
We need to keep the economy in balance, something Clinton did effectively. The cheap dollar certainly has its benefits to the country, but at the same time more and more of our country is being bought up by foreigners. For instance, one of the reasons that real estate prices have held their own in places like NYC is because foreigners are buying it. Americans can't compete even at home. In addition, the dollar was quite strong under Clinton and we still competed very effectively.
Clinton wasn't fighting a war. In fact, it is BECAUSE Clinton ignored national security issues so flagrantly, a gross dereliction of duty as bad as having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, that America has been burdened so much with the cost of this war, now about 1.5 Trillion. If Clinton had just kept the watch on duty, allowed the CIA and FBI to do their jobs (checking to see why foreign nationals were learning how to fly planes but not how to LAND them, instead of getting all cranked up with burning down religious zealots at Waco and taking children from American relatives and sending them back to Castro's Cuba), then the American economy today would be MUCH stronger than it was under Clinton.
Tax cuts and a national security re-investment worked for Reagan, reviving a moribund U.S. economy under a brain-dead Jimmy Cahter, and they would work again. But because of Clinton's gross dereliction, we are now all paying the price.
America would disappear as the world leader if the Clinton's ever got back into the White House.
You have to believe that since your world view is apparently built on it. The fact is Clinton did far more for national security than Bush. We lose people every day under Bush, Iran and North Korea are both on the way to becoming nuclear powers, and even during his first 8 months he did nothing to fight threats to our homeland.
Yep, that's the Christian way. Let's separate kids from their dads in the name of politics. And, why didn't Bush do anything during his first 8 months? I think both Clinton and Bush acted according to the available intelligence which had kept the country safe for many many years.
Deficit spending worked for brain dead (literally, practically) Reagan and the economy actually started to improve during Carter's last year. That said, Reagan, like Clinton, did what he was supposed to do, kept the country in good shape (by many measures) during his term.
The fact is historically, the economy has done better under Democrats since 1900, so you don't even have history on your side:
America has been disappearing as a world leader since Bush showed the world that Al Qaeda could attack us during the watch of a "tough Republican," that we can't find Osama, that we can't win in Iraq, and that we can't stop Iran or N. Korea from going nuke. Bush is a weakling (relative to other presidents). I knew that the moment he hid out and the nation cowered on 9/11 when he refused to order Air Force 1 back to DC. Republican presidents: bad for the economy, bad for security.
My "world view" does not make the facts. Facts make facts. And the fact is that because Bill and Hillary Clinton both abhor the military and all things related with national security, they utterly and totally FAILED to get Osama bin Laden and the other radical Islamists when they had the chance. Those are FACTS, not my "world view".
The FACT that the Clintons allowed foreign nationals -- people from nations where KNOWN anti-Western radicals were growing in number daily (Saudi Arabia, for one) -- to enter the U.S., attend commercial flight school to learn how to fly jumbo passenger jets but NEVER finished their courses on HOW TO LAND, and then slip off into the night speaks unequivocally to the FACT that the Clintons are completely AWOL on the issue of national security. It was the CLINTONS who gave the U.S. 9/11, no one else.
So Bill Clinton tried to lure Elian Gonzalez father from Cuba to join his son in America ???? I mean, Elian's mother only gave her life to escape from that hell hole of communist dictatorship, that's all. Might have been worth a try for Clinton to try to bring in the father, but Clinton didn't even lift a finger. Instead he caved like a sand castle at high tide. Might not count for much in your book, but it does in mine.
:rofl: Started to "improve" in Carter's years!!! You must be too young to remember the odd/even days when people could buy gas; the four hour waits (and longer) to get five or ten gallons. You forgot/never knew the 18% inflation rate. Economists had to invent a new term, "stagflation", where the economy was going down the tank while inflation was hitting historical all-time highs.
"Slate", now there's a non-biased source.
Yes, the economy under the Dems has often heated up ... because the Dems discovered how to BORROW MONEY by the BOATLOAD, and then stick the next generation with the tab. FDR did some good things with the public works projects, etc, but he left a debt that is still being paid off.
I know it breaks the hearts of many liberals to admit that things are turning around in Iraq, but thems the facts. At the rate it's going, they will be a fully functioning democratic republic in less than ten years, with a middle class of well-educated and very capable young people ready, willing, and able to lead Iraq into a new future. It's happening, as even CNN and the BBC have to admit, even as some in their employ are trying hard to ignore it.
Patters, since you chose to lead off by laying my statements all on my "world view", I'm going to say in return that the real reason you back liberal Dems over more conservative Repubs is because you are scared to death that a more conservative value system is gaining greater and greater momentum, as it begins to replace the off-the-wall "world view" of the free-sex and homosex movement to which you have chosen to adhere. There can be no doubt that a Dem candidate -- ANY Dem candidate, from Hillary to Edwards to even Obama -- will be FAR MORE beholden to the liberal wing of the electorate, the wing that condones or even favors same-sex marriage and those kinds of things, than any of the Repub candidates, including Rudy Giulliani. You are down on conservatives and Repubs because you want to continue your personal lifestyle, not because of Iraq, military spending or food programs for the poor. You pick on conservatives and Repubs because they are a danger to what you want to do in your PERSONAL LIFE. And putting your personal individualistic life above the public good is where you are gravely mistaken.
Of course, Gisele's probably the only Brazilian eschewing the American dollar... all the rest of them are breaking the door down to get in here for our free money, health care, education, etc...
Heh heh... Patters calling someone else a "weakling"... almost as funny as when you called him "effete"... :rofl: :rofl:
BTW, he did order Air Force 1 back to DC so he could address the nation from the Oval Office that very night. Truth hurts, don't it..?
Hey, quit citing facts will ya!
Giselle must have one of those shrewed money managers/personal financial advisors.
What did Bush do during his first 8 months? What did he do with the Richard Clarke report? He obviously did nothing and, as you seem to be saying, should have known about it. In fact, Bush is worse than Clinton because it happened on Bush's watch. That's a fact. He failed to protect us. Clinton protected us quite well for 8 years. Under Bush we've lost 7,000 people and counting. That is the bottom line.
It was a family matter and handled as such, but highly partisan people tried to turn it into a much bigger issue. For the Clinton administraiton it wasn't about Cuba, which their foreign policy, like Bush's, was hardly directed at. It was a routine matter that people like you, who wanted to rip the poor boy from his father to make some stupid political point, pushed. The whole issue was fabricated by right-wing radicals.
I'm not defending Carter. He did a bad job with the economy, though many economist credit Paul Volcker with turning the economy around by putting us through a recession. And it is true, that inflation parallels Volckers moves at the time. At any rate, I've always said that a president is responsible for what happens during his term. Of course, all of history figures into it, but the fact is that only the man in the driver's seat has the ability to control things.
Actually, maybe you're thinking of Salon, but Slate is considered moderate to the best of my knowledge.
Thank you for playing right into my hands. Yes, you are right about FDR, but the other big borrowers are Reagan and Bush II. They pushed the deficit up to record levels. They are the ones who sustained the economy through debt. That's a fact. The other Democrats, including the likes of Carter, Clinton, and JFK were actually fiscally responsible from a budgetary point of view.
No, all that's happening there is that we've made deals with local leaders to quell the violence. That's good news, but it makes a political settlement even more difficult. The central government of Iraq is a powerless joke. Iraw for all intents and purposes in run by various warlords. We've set it back at least a century.
Just as the conservatives lost the battle for intelligent design during Bush's administration and lost the battle on gay marriage, as well; just as they failed to outlaw abortion despite being in power for so many years; just as they failed to bring in prayer in school, they will continue to fail. Fog, your views are dead views. They belong in the past and with each generation they recede further and further. The conservatives of today, 100 years ago would have opposed a woman's right to vote, Civil Rights, child labor laws, and so much more. History teaches us that conservatives (and by conservatives I mean those who have a narrow view of right and wrong, like the Communists and many religious folk, like you).
I'm not in the least worried about gay rights. I am confident that, barring a revolution, they are secure. The issues I'm worried about is world peace, an end to bigotry, greater economic fairness, clean environment, and so on. Do not project your narrow world view on to me. We all know that you are guided by the views of the man you and a few other hero worshippers see as a God, namely the Reverend Moon. We all know you want him to be everybody's daddy, and those who don't listen to that nonsense, in your worldview, are acting selfishly. In my opinion, there is much about the Unification Church (such as Moon marrying off his dead son!) that even more perverse than your obsession with the sex lives of people.
Well the truth is he hid out in Omaha all day for some reason even though every fighter plane in the nation was available to provide defense for him while traveling and the White House itself is actually a damn-near impregnable fortress in everything but name. Thing is, in Nebraska he wouldn't have to face the press with the deer in the headlights look he was sporting all day. Its probably for the best that he stayed there. The last thing the nation needed that day was to see its President cowering like a child after a bad dream.
Here's the truth.
It must hurt the rumpswabs so much that they can't watch :
Actually, that's not the truth. He followed standard military procedure which had been in place for decades and he was in Omaha for no more than a couple hours.
You read too many Tom Clancy novels. The White House itself was very vulnerable... why do you think when the sh*t hit the fan, the secret service forceably grabbed Cheney and carried his ass to the sub-basement levels..?
And fortunately when he addressed the nation that night, we saw nothing of the sort. It was nothing but the steely resolve that he has maintained to this very day.
You and Patters are doing nothing but the typical liberal history revisionism... don't worry... I don't believe either you or he are retarded enough to believe your own nonsense...
Whoops..!! I did a quick newspaper check (I still have newspapers from that fateful day) and it seems Bush arrived at around 3:00 in the afternoon and left at around 4:30 (the article was a bit vague since even the reporters on board had no idea where they were or what the status was).
I look forward to your admission of error in saying he "hid out in Omaha all day"... unless you consider 90 minutes to be "all day"... actually, I don't look forward to that admission from you because I know you're too gutless to give one.
I'm supposed to apologize because you say you checked a newspaper and proved me wrong?
Nice try Quiggy; but you'll need to come up with something a tad more reliable.
What is indisputable is that this event happened the morning of 9-11 and our leader, the person we're supposed to turn to when the chips are as down as they can get, was nowhere to be found until that evening. You can say that this was a matter of standard military protocol; but last I checked, the Prez gives the military its marching orders, and if he says 'F the protocol' then that's what they do.
The nation needed steady leadership that day and YOUR guy was nowhere to be found. Nothing can change that.
Here are three links below, demonstrating exactly what I have said. They are all in rough agreement of the timeline I have said. NOTE: I don't really know the agenda of the following websites... they seem to be somewhat anti-Bush and these links are mostly critical of Bush's actions throughout the day, but they support my statement 100%.
So should I expect that admission that you were wrong...? Or are you too gutless to do that...? (I think we both know the answer to that). Perhaps you have some links of your own that contradict what I have said...? No, I didn't think so....
Translation: You totally got caught and called out completely making up a load of bullsh*t, so now it's time to try a different approach.
Since when is addressing the nation from the Oval Office to be considered "nowhere to be found"..? Yeah I guess there were people in the Australian outback without a TV or radio that couldn't hear the speech...
Here are those links I promised you:
2:50 p.m. â€“ Air Force One lands at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska.
4:33 p.m. â€“ President Bush departs for Washington.
Air Force One landed at Offutt shortly before 3:00 p.m.
Air Force One left Offutt around 4:30 p.m.
3:07 P.M. - President Bush arrives at U.S. Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska.
4:36 P.M. - President Bush leaves Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska.
Separate names with a comma.