@Mytho
are you saying you do, kid? enlighten me. have you ever been president? or a leading figure in a major political party?
You don't need to be president to figuare out how party politics work. Here, I'll enlighten you. When you sign on to a party there is a implicit agreement that you will adhere to party views and policies in exchange for the millions of dollars necessary to run for reelection.
For example, there was a controversy recently with Zell Miller, a Democrat, and his backing of Bush. He ripped into Kerry saying he wasn't a good pol but he got caught praising Kerry just 2 or so years eariler for the same views that he now condems. His excuse was that the party whips made him say it and that he didn't really believe it at the time.
This is just a small example of how party politics works. You do what the whips tell you to do if you want their support and backing which, unless you are a billionare, you'll need. Running for re-election is obscenely expensive.
mostly they are professors of business, only a few deal with economics and it doesn't say anything about doctorates.
Only a
few deal with economics? They are professors of business. What do you think they deal with?
As for the doctorates that is pretty much implied by the fact that they are tenured professors of business. Unless of course, you are suggesting that these guys are teaching business at Havard without a degree. I'd like to see you argue that with out feeling foolish.
it is definately an interesting letter, all I'm saying is that the president doesn't have as much power over the economy as many believe.
I'll state right now that I believe that the president does not have total control over the economy. The recession was going to happen whether Bush or Gore or Santa Claus got into office. I'm not blaming him for the recession. What I'm blaming him for is this "jobless recovery" and how lousy it has been for pretty much everyone in America including the rich. His policies DO have an important impact on the economy. Do you disagree with me there(and by that I mean that his policies have an important impact on the economy)?
Now, if the vast majority of the drop was caused by bush's policies, why is the economy now at nearly the same levels it was before the recession?
It's not. You obviously haven't bothered to look at any of the data.
Unemployment is higher now than it was in 2001. This is the first administration in living memory to have a net loss of jobs. The last time it occured was in the Great Depression.
Real median income has also steadily decreased.
Quote: "Since 2000, the median household income has declined consistently in real terms, down $971, $502, and $63 in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively, for a cumulative loss of $1,535—a 3.4% drop—over these years."
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20040826
Poverty has increased.
Quote: "Because the largest income declines occurred among the lowest income families, the share of the nation living in poverty increased, from 12.1% in 2002 to 12.5% last year, adding 1.3 million persons to the poverty rolls. Since 2000, poverty is up 1.2 percentage points, an addition of 4.3 million poor persons."
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20040826
Inequality has increased.
Quote: "Income inequality has also increased, both in the past year and to a greater degree over the recession and jobless recovery."
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20040826
However, the little connection you are trying to make with 9/11's effect on the economy fading and the economy going up is fataly flawed.
Quote: "Osama bin Laden announced in a video taped sometime late in 2001 that the September 11 attacks "struck deep at the heart of America's economy." Fortunately he was wrong."
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0902/ijge/gj02.htm
Oh, and just in case you think Bush's economic proposals have helped the economy, here is a little something to chew on.
Quote: "The tax cuts and other policies President Bush proposed in his $2.4 trillion budget would probably have a minimal impact on the economy, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/8136790.htm?1c
Ok, so Iraq might not have co-operated with al Qaeda, but al Qaeda was still in Iraq, and we took them out.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq and no we did not take them out.
Here is a cached copy of the usinfo.state.gov article concerning Al Qaeda dated Novemeber 2001.
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=http%3A%2F%2Fusinfo.state.gov%2Fproducts%2Fpubs%2Fterrornet%2F12.htm&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm&d=B54217AF26&icp=1&.intl=us
A copy of this article before it was taken down
including the pictures can be found here:
http://www.fred.net/tds/Osama_bin_Laden_and_al_Qaeda_2001nov10/12.htm
Compare the two and notice how Iraq IS NOT included on this list. This is from the government's own website and the cached copy from yahoo proves it is genuine. According to the government Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. Of course, NOW after we have invaded they have set up operations and are undermining our effort to rebuild Iraq, but I wouldn't call spreading terrorism a successful way of fighting the war ON terror.
This core group of [al Qaeda] members consisted originally of approximately 600 to 1,000 members. The group has shrunk to an estimated 300 members amid the U.S.-led international militant dragnet
http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=48&num=12496
yea, a think tank...or actual figures.
Err...that link concerns
SAUDI supporters of Al Qaeda. Upper echelon supporters at that. It is obvious you haven't read that link because it later on it says this:
Quote: "A third group has only recently formed. Again loosely tied into the network, this group represents mostly new recruits who have joined the movement since Sept. 11 and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The recruits are thought to number in the thousands, their numbers swelled by the growing level of anti-Americanism in the kingdom and the region since the beginning of the U.S.-led war against militant Islamism."
Quote: "What is happening in Saudi Arabia has been a long time in the making. Al Qaeda and its sympathizers inside the kingdom have been building a loose network of supporters and affiliates for years. It is tapping into the intense anti-American sentiment stirred by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and the anti-Saudi rhetoric in the U.S. media.
The naturally religious nature of the Saudi society -- and its tendencies toward secrecy and close familial relations and tribal alliances -- facilitate al Qaeda's efforts and frustrate efforts to respond. In the coming months, the movement will only intensify its activities as more members shift to active mode, even when taking action is nothing more taxing than taking opportunistic potshots at Westerners driving their SUVs home from work."
That supports my case. Not yours.
he point is, if there was a secret reason for going into Iraq, it wouldn't have been broadcast in the news. WMD is the only cover story that could even have been offered.
I agree that there was a few secret reasons for invading Iraq. Wolfowitz I believe has said himself in a few interviews that WMD was the only reason they could agree on to publically support to get the approval of the American public. I don't think this speaks too highly of the adminstration. If the adminstration is afraid the American public will disapprove of their reasons you have to wonder how sound their reasons for going in really were especially in light of the fact that terrorism has increased and not decreased.
@RPGamer
Am I the only conservative/republican here
No. There are many here. It's just people like me tend to speak the loudest(and for the longest time).
@Mouse
Re: The article
Personally, I think it is wishful thinking to hope that Bush will tone down the rhetoric. He doesn't have to worry about re-election anymore so if anything we're probably going to see a more extreme Bush. Some democrats just need to pull off the blinders and wake up. :/
You know, if I coulda gone back and chosen, it'd probably have been Lieberman.
Err...you know that is the guy that has been actively trying to censor violent videogames for mature adults.
