Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Given he's receiving fresh flak, I doubt it: CNN LinkyStravo wrote:I will walk away from these elections in utter disgust if the Democrats do not at least try to expose some of the bullshit going on in Baghdad. Our troops deserve so much better than what they're getting. Anyone think that Bush will be absolutely soulless and air a campaign commercial with him on that aircracft carrier?
First acknowldge that there is a problem which the Bush administration refuses to do (they've ostrasized Rummy because of that leaked defense memo he wrote which tells me that Bush is of the mindset that if we don't say its going bad then its not. A page torn from the books of teh Vietanm era presidents.)Stormbringer wrote:Personally, I wish the Democrats would stop harping how bad things are and tell us how they'd fix it. I've seen a lot of finger pointing but precious little in the way of sane, solutions.
You want a solution? Buckle down and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It will cost ridiculous amounts of money, during an economic downturn no less. It will cost lives. Unfortunately, Dubya has left this mess on the doormat, and whoever gets elected has to deal with it. And there's no magic wand solution.Stravo wrote:First acknowldge that there is a problem which the Bush administration refuses to do (they've ostrasized Rummy because of that leaked defense memo he wrote which tells me that Bush is of the mindset that if we don't say its going bad then its not. A page torn from the books of teh Vietanm era presidents.)Stormbringer wrote:Personally, I wish the Democrats would stop harping how bad things are and tell us how they'd fix it. I've seen a lot of finger pointing but precious little in the way of sane, solutions.
Then we can discuss solutions. Not that any will be very palpable.
You want a solution? Buckle down and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It will cost ridiculous amounts of money, during an economic downturn no less. It will cost lives. Unfortunately, Dubya has left this mess on the doormat, and whoever gets elected has to deal with it. And there's no magic wand solution.
The problem isn't that Bush administration isn't acknowledging the problem; you can be sure they damn well know what they are. The real problem is that any admission of problems automatically means the situation is going to hell in a handbag. That's nothing more than sensationalism and panic-mongering. As long as that attitude remains the White House can't really afford to concede any problems.Stravo wrote:First acknowldge that there is a problem which the Bush administration refuses to do (they've ostrasized Rummy because of that leaked defense memo he wrote which tells me that Bush is of the mindset that if we don't say its going bad then its not. A page torn from the books of teh Vietanm era presidents.)
Then we can discuss solutions. Not that any will be very palpable.
To be fair to them each and every one of them said they were voting against the measure as a protest against the Admistration's actions so far in the occupation. There really is very little else Congress can do to make their displeasure mean something to the Executive branch.theski wrote:SirNitram wrote:You want a solution? Buckle down and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It will cost ridiculous amounts of money, during an economic downturn no less. It will cost lives. Unfortunately, Dubya has left this mess on the doormat, and whoever gets elected has to deal with it. And there's no magic wand solution.
So what does that say about most of the Dem candidates that did not want to fund the $87 billion??
They might not have said "fuck the troops and Iraq too" but that's certainly the effect. At least Bush is doing something to try and rememdy the mess. The Democrats have fallen all over themselves to critisize Bush the loudest but have done fuck all about fixing the problem.Stravo wrote:To be fair to them each and every one of them said they were voting against the measure as a protest against the Admistration's actions so far in the occupation. There really is very little else Congress can do to make their displeasure mean something to the Executive branch.
Its not like they said "Fuck the troops." We leave that to Bush.
To be fair to them each and every one of them said they were voting against the measure as a protest against the Admistration's actions so far in the occupation. There really is very little else Congress can do to make their displeasure mean something to the Executive branch.
Its not like they said "Fuck the troops." We leave that to Bush
Aww, how noble of them.To be fair to them each and every one of them said they were voting against the measure as a protest against the Admistration's actions so far in the occupation. There really is very little else Congress can do to make their displeasure mean something to the Executive branch.
What does that have to do with the fact that a large number of Democrats, some of whom think they should be President, essentially voted to make things more difficult for the United States, the Iraqi people, and the U.S. military just to stick it to the the Bush administration?Its not like they said "Fuck the troops." We leave that to Bush.
well, we don't really have a choice now, do we?Dubya wrote:Bush said he isn't worried that Americans' patience would run out as the death toll ticks upward, even if it continues during the election year.
Well, thank you so much for the vote of confidence! Hey, guys, guess what?! Our president think we gots us some intelijunce!Dubya wrote:"They tend to be able to differentiate between politics and reality,"
Probably 'cause yer up fer ree-lekshun?Dubya wrote:he said. "There's no question politics can -- will -- create ... a lot of noise and a lot of balloon drops and a lot of hot air. I'll probably be right in the mix of it, by the way
)
New jobless claims are at ~400,000 per month, which is a sign of a stagnant economy. 400k is considered to be the level at which new unemployment equals new employment. Of course, employment's what's called a "lagging indicator," meaning that it's not a predictor of the future market. It tells us what the market was like six months ago. For actual production, every sector except Defense was down for the third quarter. All growth was in Defense Spending, which suggests that manufacturing and services have not recovered from the recession, and all apparent economic growth is due to the increased demand for Homeland Security. The economic problems are still there, though the increased consumer confidence is a positive sign. It's possible that the appearance of a recovery will lead to a recovery.Durran Korr wrote:Just to nitpick, we're not in an economic downturn anymore, even if the job market hasn't quite recovered yet (although new jobless claims are on the decline, a good sign).
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Actually most of the economic recovery we have seen thusfar is due to genuine growth in foreign markets. Asia (China especially) has been a booming market for US tech exports which is why tech-heavy companies like Intel are doing so well right now.Darth Wong wrote:There is also a possibility that your lagging dollar is artificially boosting exports.
It's no different. Frankly, were the choices any better, I would vote for a Democrat. But they aren't, they've adopted a foolhardy policy which would create the worst of both worlds. They harp about Bush's conduct but all of them stand against any further spending on Iraq and Afghanistan while keeping the troops there. All of them, though Dean in particular, want peace keeping and rebuilding but won't spend the cash.Darth Wong wrote:On the one hand, the Bush Administration has no choice now but to pay the bills for their big kegger in Iraqi. On the other hand, why shouldn't they be punished in the next election for creating such a mess?
Social programs are notoriously difficult to shut down once the money has already been committed and the wheels start turning, so in a sense, they are irrevocable costs, at least in the short term. Yet that has never stopped opposing politicians from making these programs into campaign issues. How is this any different?
I said "downturn." The economy isn't great, but it isn't going downward, either. Therefore, we're no longer in a downturn.The Dark wrote:New jobless claims are at ~400,000 per month, which is a sign of a stagnant economy. 400k is considered to be the level at which new unemployment equals new employment. Of course, employment's what's called a "lagging indicator," meaning that it's not a predictor of the future market. It tells us what the market was like six months ago. For actual production, every sector except Defense was down for the third quarter. All growth was in Defense Spending, which suggests that manufacturing and services have not recovered from the recession, and all apparent economic growth is due to the increased demand for Homeland Security. The economic problems are still there, though the increased consumer confidence is a positive sign. It's possible that the appearance of a recovery will lead to a recovery.Durran Korr wrote:Just to nitpick, we're not in an economic downturn anymore, even if the job market hasn't quite recovered yet (although new jobless claims are on the decline, a good sign).
