Bush says NO NEW JOBS

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pakman, Feb 19, 2004.

  1. Pakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    212
    Time's ticking for Bush. The economy's spiraling downwards. The door of hope is closing rapidly on Bush before he can get to it. One thing that wouldn't surprise me is Osama getting captured. And if Bush's ratings do up just because of that, I pretty much lost faith in the American people. Catching that one guy isn't going to change anything. It isn't going gain America anything, when you weigh it on to what America has lost.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Osama's dead. Let's just hope there isn't another taste of the terror south Asia is experiiencing in America again. That would be the Busheviks best means to keeping power.

    Longer term, the US trade and fiscal deficits, and the rise of the Euro are going to result in a serious downturn in the US economy, and who ever is in power when it happens, I think within the next decade, will pay the political penalty. In a few years, the present US economy will seem rosy in retrospect.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,920
    So ... what, then, was that report from your boss and his economic council?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    And how will the Democrats bring back those jobs? I only hear about what Bush is doing wrong but never anything about how the Democrats will fix anything. Any solutions out there from Democratic candidates or only pointing fingers??
     
  8. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Easy, by doing the opposite of Bush’s strategy. Since his strategy is designed to make his rich supporters richer at the expense of everyone else, doing the opposite will make his rich supporters poorer (but still amply wealthy) at the benefit of everyone else. All the next Democrat has to do is follow Clinton’s lead; his strategy obviously worked great. Repeal tax cuts, get out of Iraq, be optimistic rather than a big downer, drop plans to drill in Alaska & quadruple logging, re-instantiate environmental laws that were rolled back, court international relations instead of trample on them, etc. Upon seeing those positive actions business will immediately predict an uptick in the economy and will start hiring in anticipation to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any Democrat will naturally do many or all of these actions, because they are beholden to the general public rather than the elite.
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Strange that the demos candidates aren't saying that. If they repeal the logging laws then there will be fewer jobs not more. So Democratic candidates don't help their rich backers? I'd say they are helping the rich in their party as much as the Republicans help their backers so that's not much to talk about to help the Democrats. So Clintons strategy worked great, is that why less than 1 year after Bush took office we were bombed by the terrorist Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn't go after and bring to justice when Clinton was president? Also the economy can't be totally blamed on Bush because it went downhill right after 9/11 if you recall. As of now it is on the rebound if you will look at unemployment rates, housing starts and the stock market. All of those areas are looking very good.
     
  10. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    All candidates have to say what best increases their odds of getting elected. They aren’t going to talk about all their plans. Generally the less said the better given Americans’ penchant for sound bites.

    Nope, more. I suppose if we killed all the bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk etc. (whose habitat was cut down anyway) and replaced those useless national parks with productive farms, that would create more jobs too, right? Think about it.

    They help their rich backers in a long-term way, by strengthening the economy as a whole. The Republicans help their rich backers by trashing the economy; a short-term solution.

    Clinton did go after him. He couldn’t have done much more considering that bin Laden hadn’t yet done 9/11; he was properly prioritized given that the future was unknown. Bush likewise did little about bin Laden until 9/11.

    No, it started its downhill slide the day it became apparent he might actually win the election. The peak of the market was Election Day 2000. The smart money knew he would trash the economy to enrich his supporters. Between Election Day 2000 and 9/10/2001 the stock market dropped 24%!

    It’s on the rebound after being methodically trashed and the rebound is funded by a massive increase in debt that must be paid back with interest. Please, look at the whole picture.
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    The simple fact is the US is in terminal economic decline. No matter what the US does it will not be able to remain #1. Let's say that the US keeps up the process of Globalization the US will have to lose jobs, and have to give up economic power. The US will eventually look like Japan (but at least in Japan they have industry), the single greatest threat to the US imo is deflation that is when the US sticks it's foot in the grave. Already the US has the other three D's:

    i) Debt- exploding from $5 trillion in 2001 to $7 trillion today, and if Bush gets another 4 it could go up another $5 trillion. If the world abandons the US dollar for the Euro (which is not out of contention), the US is seriously f***ed.
    ii) Budget deficit- the US went from a budget surplus in 2001 of around $ 200 billion, to a $500 billion deficit today. That is $700 billion spent, 9.11 is not the cause of that. The huge and unnecessary permanent tax cuts have eaten away at the base, and other large expenditures.
    iii) Trade deficit- states with trade deficits are never in good economic situations. The US is in about $ 800 billion trade deficit with the world, with 1/8 of that being from China alone. Consider this the Chinese in 1990 were net importers from the US ($ 8 billion imports, $5 billion exports), and today the Chinese are net exporters ($116 billion exports, and $28 billion imports). That is expected to boom to about $ 300 billion in 2005, that is China alone.

    Likely outcome:

    iv) With the loss of jobs to cheap overseas labour, and the almost inevitable lower costs, of things and lower wages deflation will eventually hit the US imo. The world in globalization will balance itself out, where inflation exists in the 3rd world and deflation in the 1st to reach a synthesis.

    With the US dollar going who knows where, and the strength of the Euro, OPEC seriously considering using Euros and the Chinese and Japanese openly expressing interest in Euro currency who will buy America? It may be that the US is a slave to exchange rates of the almighty Euro. Possible, but we will have to wait and see. But the US will not keep her position for much longer. So any growth in the US (imo) will be largely jobless, and the symptom of Globalization. Welcome to pseudo-growth.
     
  12. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    That outcome may indeed be likely. You still want a Democrat in the White House to make the outcome as best as possible. Globalization may lower the average American’s standard of living in the short term. In the long term (a century or more) the US will be much better off having embraced that route. If population can be reduced the equalized world could be a paradise relative to what we have today.
     
  13. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Globalization may lower the average American’s standard of living in the short term.

    What would you characterize as "short term"? The US decline may last up to 20 years if not even more.

    In the long term (a century or more) the US will be much better off having embraced that route.

    IMO only if man has begun to colonize other planets, it is estimated to bring all of the world's ppl to out current western standard of living there has to be two other earths. If Globalization runs its course, there will be no such thing as the US, and other nation-states. I fear globalization due to the fact that it will eventually collapse if left to it's own devices, mergers, and chronically lower wages, until you have a capitalist dictatorship which employs all. Imagine Wal-Mart being the ruler of the world? I mean it sounds idiotic at first, I am the first to concede that fact, but without nation states, who regulates capitalism?

    If population can be reduced the equalized world could be a paradise relative to what we have today.

    The big problem is that "if".
     
  14. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Undecided, your kind of a pessimist aren't you? (joke)
    If The American dollar does start to deflate American goods become cheaper to other countries, then they buy more American and the dollar goes back up. If the Euro becomes worth a lot more than the US dollar Americans can't afford to buy european goods and their economy drops. If every American jobs goes to Asia, Americans will not have jobs and not be able to buy the goods American companies make in Asia. If the US economy crashes so will the rest of the worlds.
    The problem since Dubya took office, has been American companies not spending on anything, the Fed raised interest rates to high and companies quit investing, then Dubya's economic policies and 911. Getting a Democrat in office will hopefully give the companies a good warm feeling and make them start spending again, not to mention better economic policies.
     
  15. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Undecided, your kind of a pessimist aren't you? (joke)

    No I am an optimist for the world economy...

    If The American dollar does start to deflate American goods become cheaper to other countries,

    The American dollar has already been in major deflationary pressures, and the Fed to the best of my knowledge likes that, like you said it increases the viability of American made goods overseas. But the problem is that China is not budging on her Reninimbi and is frozen at I think around 8 for the dollar, making Chinese goods extra ordinarily cheap on the international markets, which is the new reality in the NWO. The US is angry that the Chinese are playing the game. So really American exports aren't really getting much of a boost if the Chinese goods are still that much cheaper.

    then they buy more American and the dollar goes back up.

    A country like China and Japan are already looking else where to invest their billions. The US needs $1.5 billion a day to feed her appetite, this is unsustainable. The country is living beyond her means in almost every faucet from importation of capital, to importation of goods, and even oil. You are dependants as us as we are you.

    If the Euro becomes worth a lot more than the US dollar Americans can't afford to buy european goods and their economy drops. If every American jobs goes to Asia, Americans will not have jobs and not be able to buy the goods American companies make in Asia. If the US economy crashes so will the rest of the worlds.

    Maybe right now and maybe in the next 10 years, but the whole basis of Globalization is to make new markets. You must understand the money getting out of the US is not money that simply disappears, no rather three things happen:

    - Wealth is concentrated at the top.
    - More workers in the 3rd world are employed making a new market.
    - The US will simply go into deflationary mode like Europe and Japan.

    This will essentially mean the there will be bigger and more exploitable markets overseas. Most Americans soon will not be able to consume anymore they are in debt to their eyeballs, and when interest rates goes up who is going to pay all that extra debt? That is a very serious issue.

    The problem since Dubya took office, has been American companies not spending on anything, the Fed raised interest rates to high and companies quit investing,

    Watch your tongue; the US companies are not investing in the US. Be holistic please...

    Getting a Democrat in office will hopefully give the companies a good warm feeling and make them start spending again, not to mention better economic policies.

    That is a hope, but I don't think it's much of a reality.
     
  16. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    That’s short term in this context for me.

    No question that resources do not support the western standard of living being adopted by all of the current population. I mean that US will be much better off having embraced globalization than if it embraced the alternative.

    True, they will be nominalized.

    No reason it has to be a dictatorship. I consider that unlikely. The global average wage is increasing.

    The global democracy.

    It’s doubtful that population will exist at its maximum for long. It’s now above the maximum that is sustainable long term. People will wisen up or die miserably. I’m confident they’ll make the best choice. A globalized world will make the choice easier to implement. I think all things considered we’re entering a golden era for the greatest number of people.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    That’s short term in this context for me.

    Ok, whatever floats ur boat.

    I mean that US will be much better off having embraced globalization than if it embraced the alternative.

    I think Americans won't live like they live now. I think Americans will have a generally lower living standard then today. It is impossible for the earth to maintain the current level of US standards for the next 100 years, and still develop other nations around the world. I think that America will live well, but not as good as today.

    No reason it has to be a dictatorship. I consider that unlikely. The global average wage is increasing.

    I don't see the difference btwn communism, and capitalism at the end of the day. They both are either anarchical in nature, or authoritarian. If you look at the mergers, and acquisitions they are increasing (although I think the last year was not a good one). The overall trend is bigger and bigger and bigger, without governmental power to curb monopolies I think we are in for big trouble. Soviet Capitalism...

    The global democracy.

    I think this is true, but only for shareholders, not for the ppl of the world.

    A globalized world will make the choice easier to implement. I think all things considered we’re entering a golden era for the greatest number of people.

    Very utilitarian indeed, but the question is what is that standard for the world? I mean consider this, the US GDP per capita is $37,000 in 2002. The average world GDP / capita is $7,500 in 2002. If Globalization is to reach it's entelechy the US would (let's use today's dollars) decrease by $30,000! Is this really feasible?

    I find something quite disturbing from the democrats; they are being very reactionary with Free Trade and jobs. Yes it does damage to the US economy, and ppl (and of course presidents should avoid that) but the question is will this decade become protectionist after two decades of neo-liberalist reforms?
     
  18. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    “Good” is debatable. In terms of GDP/capita, agreed, until population subsides. In terms of quality of life I think America will be better off. For example Spain has a lower GDP/capita than the US but to even the untrained eye their quality of life in many ways surpasses the US’s. People actually talk to strangers there! And take long vacations. Too much money has made the average American fearful, isolated & wanting more more more. As the GDP/capita decreases people will demand a higher quality of life in return. They won’t be so quick to blow away kids in other countries to raid their resources, in a quest for ever more money & things that ultimately bring less satisfaction than, say, playing a board game with the neighbors.

    The democratic power to curb monopolies is still exercised in the US. There are exceptions like Microsoft but it’s mostly done well. Mergers and acquisitions can be good for the consumer too. When 20,000 redundant people get laid off that’s good in the long run.

    It’s always up to the people to protect their power. If a minority of shareholders has the reins that is because the majority gave it to them. Such is the case now in the US.

    Or the world GDP/capita could become $15,000 while the US GDP/capita becomes $15,000.

    Doubtful. I think they’re just saying what it takes to win (required to compete against lies from the other side). The cat’s out of the bag; protectionism won’t fly again except on small scales. A Democrat likely would manage globalization for the US better than would a Republican.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004
  19. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    True, I saw the poll with either Kerry or Edwards beating Bush by double digits. But that doesn't mean anything right now. There's no truly accurate way to judge how the American people feel about this president or how strongly until election day. I think that Bush will win, but I hope that he won't. I wouldn't be surprised if another major terrorist attack is thrown at us near the end of his term, especially if he's doing poorly in the polls. Whoever winds up being the frontrunner for the democrat nominee (still up for grabs, first tuesday in march will pretty much decide the victor however) may have to worry about an assassination--they killed Wellstone and Hatfield, why not Kerry?

    If I were the democratic nominee, I would pull the same stunt that Bush did. Campaign on moderation, then do whatever the hell I want when I'm elected. It worked for Bush...

    Nothing is definite. You can predict what'll happen with as many numbers and quotes as you want but you can never say definitively that we'll live to see the day when the United States of America has truly lost its hegemony.

    It's not just about Democrats. I wish a Republican, like McCain, would try for it again, give "that fucker Bush" a run for his money. I hate to say that all it comes down to is anyone but Bush. Anyone can do a better job than him. You, me, anybody.

    I fail to see the logic here. We were gaining jobs under Clinton, we were out a' globalizin' just as much, if not more, than we are now. What's the difference? All that matters is that you've got a smart cookie at the helm. We, unfortunately, do not--all we have are clueless balding graying men who were born into their majesties. Globalization does not necessarily equal job loss.

    Perhaps Europe will take back its hegemony, perhaps not. You cannot definitively say that we will lose our power because these poor conditions our country is experiencing are reversible. Why? Because, until the twilight days of Clinton's reign, they did not exist. Different man at the helm equals different condition.

    Yes, exactly. Somehow, taxing and regulating companies the liberal way makes them and their customers wealthier.
     
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    We were gaining jobs under Clinton, we were out a' globalizin' just as much, if not more, than we are now.

    During the Clinton era you had a economic growth spurt true, but do you really think that jobs did not leave the US? In the 90's you had merely the begining of true Globalization, and the US was benfiting from good fiscal policy, and confidence. But as new markets opened for instance in China, NAFTA, and free trade agreements with other states, you would notice that the luster of the American economy was lost. The Clinton era created what? 30 million jobs, but now those jobs are threatened by open job markets, and more lax governments overseas.

    Globalization does not necessarily equal job loss.

    Globalization means that living standards go down, good paying jobs will not exist like they do now. It is generally accepted that wages have gone down, that productivity is up, and you know why? Productivity is going up because of the fact that those jobs are overseas. The company is saving money, and it looks as if productivity has gone up, but it really hasn't. Rather the way it works is that company X exports 2 jobs, it takes 10 ppl to make a computer let's say, so in the US it now looks like 8 ppl are doing the job of 10, but they really aren't. What does that mean? Less jobs.

    You cannot definitively say that we will lose our power because these poor conditions our country is experiencing are reversible.

    I very highly doubt the US can reverse now.

    Why? Because, until the twilight days of Clinton's reign, they did not exist. Different man at the helm equals different condition.

    Not nessecarily the president really can only do so much in a capitalistic economy. Clinton was the instagator, and Bush only continued the process. Globalization is free of whose in power, fiscal policy isn't don'y confuse the two.
     
  21. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    I'm not aware as to the definite numbers but I think 30 million jobs is a bit much, if you're talking about just the United States, which has a population of 280 million. You're talking about one in nine Americans getting a job under Clinton...it just doesn't add up.

    This just depends on the leader you've got at the moment. Our president favors whoever has or can make the most money, so he could care less about our jobs going off to India or China. If I were President, ideally, I would give breaks to large multinational corporations that worked in the US instead of abroad. However, this would not be at the center of my strategy for holding corporations accountable. I would work toward an era where governments everywhere have to be held to the standard of work environment that we have established in the United States, which, in comparison to places like India and China, is heavenly. Through whatever means. There is no reason for the people behind of different borders to be subject to draconian labor laws.

    Oh come on. I doubt there has been any noticeable change in standard of living in this country. I hate to say it but standard of living has likely increased in hells like India because of the money, however minimal, our corporations are putting there.

    I disagree. We give them the jobs that don't require the skill or education that comes with being an American citizen. Well paying jobs remain here until people start going to India to get their educations instead of the United States.

    That's hyperbole. Odd how it switched itself from the golden years under Clinton to the apocalypse under Bush almost overnight. That leads me to believe that we can return to an era where our president (like Clinton) still kind of sucks but at least knows how to do a few things right--unlike our own, who has either on purpose or through bumbling yokel idiocy crumbled the spires of the gleaming American citadel upon the hill. Heh...I love metaphors....

    It's odd how, since Reagan's coronation, we've only had poor economies under Republican president's. The rich fatten their legs while the poor flee with theirs. Under the last democratic president, this was still true, but to a lesser extent. Apparently it can be concluded that the president does have some power in the economy when this pattern is examined. I'm not sure if we could ever know for sure, but if a democrat wins the presidency, and if the economy improves under him, we will only have more evidence to prove the point.
     
  22. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Sorry, I'm just popping my head in for a minute. That statement, what you wrote Pollux, is wrong. I couldn't help myself from posting this. The economy, for those of us who remember, started to go south during the year 2000 with the fall of the Dot Com's. This all happend under Clinton's administration. Not to mention the fact that we tend to go into a recession every ten years or so. It's normal. Completely normal.

    And here, let me give you something: Washington Post - Registration Required (Give a fake email if you want, I did).
     
  23. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    I'm not aware as to the definite numbers but I think 30 million jobs is a bit much,

    it just doesn't add up.

    Read above

    This just depends on the leader you've got at the moment.

    Leaders whether be democrat or republican are slaves to public interest groups, no matter how much rhetoric Kerry may say about this issue of special interests, American politics are held hostage by these interests. The leader of the moment is swayed by capitalism as are all American presidents. I don't think American presidents are going to want to have inflation so high that ppl can't buy goods that is what would happen if trade and exportation of jobs are stopped.

    Our president favors whoever has or can make the most money, so he could care less about our jobs going off to India or China.

    Nether did Clinton, don't fool yourself, and don't get caught up in the rhetoric's that politicians speak. More jobs were exported during the Clinton era then in the Bush era, by far 2000 was the biggest year of that with FDI levels reaching over $200 billion.

    If I were President, ideally, I would give breaks to large multinational corporations that worked in the US instead of abroad.

    Most major American corps. work abroad what you are doing is essentially telling these companies to move offshore. They will if they have too, you are dealing with a HUGE segment of American business here. This is will be stopped most likely in the republican senate and congress.

    I would work toward an era where governments everywhere have to be held to the standard of work environment that we have established in the United States, which, in comparison to places like India and China, is heavenly.

    This negates the whole purpose of globalization, firstly companies export jobs in the first place b/c of low wages, we benefit because we have cheaper goods, secondly their wages are increasing, and hundreds of millions of ppl are being lifted out of poverty what you are advocating is the stop of that growth, and increasing prices, and decreasing wages.

    Through whatever means. There is no reason for the people behind of different borders to be subject to draconian labor laws.

    $$$ is the reason...

    Oh come on. I doubt there has been any noticeable change in standard of living in this country.

    Just because it is not noticeable at first doesn't mean it doesn't exist. PPP in the US has decreased from $15/hr in 1975 to around $9/hr today, meaning that in order for Americans to buy for things they need low cost goods, which cheap labour markets overseas give them. Also from that point onward, debt has boomed, a consequence. America is living in a fake economy, a economy built on debt.

    I hate to say it but standard of living has likely increased in hells like India because of the money, however minimal, our corporations are putting there.

    Firstly India is not hell, sorry but please let's avoid your Amero-centrism please it almost made me want to barf. Secondly in India today they have homegrown industries and employ more hi-tech employees then Silicon Valley in the US. A huge middle class erupted in India, so please what are you saying?

    We give them the jobs that don't require the skill or education that comes with being an American citizen. Well paying jobs remain here until people start going to India to get their educations instead of the United States.

    LMFAO! No comment, seriously.That's hyperbole.


    Odd how it switched itself from the golden years under Clinton to the apocalypse under Bush almost overnight.

    Under Clinton actually the net fain of jobs decreased by millions due to trade believe it or not.

    That leads me to believe that we can return to an era where our president (like Clinton) still kind of sucks but at least knows how to do a few things right--unlike our own, who has either on purpose or through bumbling yokel idiocy crumbled the spires of the gleaming American citadel upon the hill. Heh...I love metaphors....


    You don't seem to understand that in terms of trade Clinton was just as bad as Bush. The boom was due to other factors.


    but if a democrat wins the presidency, and if the economy improves under him, we will only have more evidence to prove the point

    The weird thing is that presidents usually inherit their economic problems from their predecessors.
     

Share This Page