What Bush-II wants....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by limitdown, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. Thank you for your eloquent, logical and timely post.

    It's refreshing when such an event occurs around here.

    The way some people speak, you'd think China and India are former satellite states of the U.S.S.R., recently spun off...

    ...and that Greenspan's legacy of being a giant pussy, and cutting rates to the bone to help his handlers, instead of manning up like Volker did, even though it cost Carter an election (and Bush isn't even running for election for G_d sakes), is a noble trait (Jawbone Ben Bernanke).
    #21     Jun 11, 2008
  2. Exactly. Bush has a direct role in interest rates being low. He has spent way too much money and increased the debt way too much. Simple way to deal with this is for Bush to pressure the Fed to keep interest rates low so national debt payments are lower.

    People that blame the Fed for inflation, high oil prices, and the devaluation of the dollar should really be blaming Bush since he set up many of the factors that are causing the Fed to keep rates low.
    #22     Jun 11, 2008
  3. I love it when people say "the increases are justified because of increases in demand". Commodity prices may have doubled, tripled or whatever in the last year or two, but the world's population certainly hasn't.
    #23     Jun 11, 2008
  4. No, you can blame the tree hugging democrats who refuse to allow the oil companies to develop our own oil fields or build refineries or build Nuclear Plants.

    The tree huggers want and have always wanted high gas prices so that people would use less of it.
    #24     Jun 11, 2008
  5. Not only that, oil consumption has increased at - drum roll please -

    3% per year (mathematically provable, just like 2 +2 =4), even with China, India and everyone else!
    #25     Jun 11, 2008
  6. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
    #26     Jun 11, 2008
  7. Although I traditionally have been a Republican, no one is more to blame than the Bush Administration. He spends like a Democrat himself I might add. You can't blame the Democrats even though they have a majority. What happens in Congress is not that significant anymore because Bush alone has equal power. Bush's veto power and the Republican minority in the Senate & House easily override any controversial Democrat initative. Furthrmore, Bush has greatly extended the power of the executive like no other president has done before.

    I'm not a Democrat and strongly oppose their social welfare aims, but you certainly cannot blame them for the economic issues of our country. Bush has had the most power out of any president in U.S. history and his neo-conservative administration has dismantled the economy.

    I am somewhat optimistic to the future because history shows that any central banking system results in boom and busts cycles, but it is looking very bad now. Still, I believe the circumstances were worse after the Vietnam War in the late 70s and we prospered after that. The major difference then, however, was that the Soviet Union declined on its own and we were the only remaining superpower. Now, unfortunately, we must compete with the emerging economies (Brazil, India, China,etc.) as well as the revival of Europe with the creation of the European Union. I will also add that our image has been tarnished as a result of the wars in the middle east as well as policing the entire rest of the world (particurarly in defending Taiwan from China).

    *** I also will not be voting for McCain because he is a war-monger (research his stance on Iran and support for the War on Error) and knows NOTHING about the economy. What ever happened to real conservatism? Now the right is dominated by dumb fundamentalist evangelicals (no difference than the Taliban) that believe in the rapture and support unjust wars in Iraq and fight on irrelevant social issues for the majority. On the other side, are the people that profit from wars. What ever happened to fiscal conservatives and defending America within our own borders and not of those in other countries on the other side of the world?

    Ron Paul?:D
    #27     Jun 11, 2008
  8. So many things to reply to in this post. I'll try to keep it brief.

    Lower dollar is a major cause of higher oil prices, but Bush did not engineer this. The FED did. It doesn't matter that Bush appointed Bernanke. He was next in line, and a Dem president would have done the same thing, but it was actually Greenspan that set the low dollar policy through low rates, not Bernanke. The FED is bipartisan by the way. They try too keep the economy chugging along with low inflation no matter who is in charge.

    Now with the whole low inflation thing. The FED lowered rates beginning with the tech wreck, and then more so after 9/11 fearing a deflationary spiral. They got away with it for years thanks to China which kept both our rates low, and inflation low. Now its quite the monster that this doesn't work anymore. The FED doesn't really know what to do now. I wish they'd just let the damn recession happen and get it over with.

    As for "borrowing" from China. This actually is not the case. We put our bonds up for sale in the open market, and China just happens to buy more than anyone else, mainly cause they have no choice. They have to recycle their dollars, and it is in their advantage to keep our rates low, and thus our consumer economy strong. Without it they are toast. They are completely dependent on exports still, and HAVE to have 10% growth just to employ all the new people entering the job market each month. If China wasn't buying the bonds, someone else would. It would be no different. Same debt but higher rates.

    As for your numbered items 1 - 5, yes those are facts, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bush family is enriching themselves through their policies. Bush's and Cheney's investments, by law, are all in a blind trust. I personally do not believe a president would do such a thing anyway, unless I saw proof.

    As for the post that points out that crude consumption has only been growing at 3%. This is true, but it is twice the previous growth rate, and excess capacity is only 2%. Does this justify the higher prices of 100%+? Absolutely not. The dollar and speculation has a lot to do with it. But fears of future supply do as well. The point is that this thread is all about Bush engineering this, and other dastardly deeds. I say that's bullshit. He sucks as Prez, but has very little to do with crude or the dollar.

    #28     Jun 11, 2008
  9. heypa


    By all means -----Vote for the Greater of Two Evils.
    #29     Jun 11, 2008
  10. Jayford,

    Why does the FED alter interest rates? It cuts rates when the economy is bad.... The economy is bad = Bush's fault ... Can't blame him 100%, but yes he is certainly the biggest blame.

    Also, the Carlyle Group is a great example of Bush profiterring from higher oil prices and war. Its a private fund and is heavily invested in those industies. So is the Bush family. This is fact.

    Just because the assets under George W. Bush do not show income from these funds does not indicate he is not benefiting. Those close to him can.

    Look at the case of McCain. He hides is wealth with his wife, whereby some estimate that she may be worth close to 100 million. There was that huge issue of how she doesn't disclose her taxes. Though the pressure amounted to her disclosing the figures several weeks ago, it was not complete. Gotta love how McCain talks about transparency! Still, McCain's networth was several million. Big difference. She controls the money = political trick obviously.

    My point is that the Bush family is heavily invested in defense contractors and oil. So are other members of his administration. Don't be ignorant just because FOX never discusses these issues. Be open-minded, nothing in politics will be told straightforward. Do your own thinking, read books from two perspectives, try to attain a view that is least influenced by bias. What you will discover is that Bush and oil go hand in hand.
    #30     Jun 11, 2008