Bush is ruining the economy!!!

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

Screw that socialist freak, he was an author of FICTION and spent an inordinate amount of his life dwelling on FANTASY. We want to kill people and break things, its good for our economy, and its good for my wallet at the gas pump if we make Iraq a US outpost.

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it.

 

[ElFenix]

eh, the gov't has little to do with consumer confidence, and thats by far the largest part of the economy. if you're seeing giant companies with supposedly sound financials restating billions in losses, and people around you are losing their jobs, you're not going to be confident. if you're watching the gains of the last 4 years evaporate, causing you to have to rethink retirement, you're not going to be confident. if you watch planes fly into the world trade center, killing thousands and causing billions in damage, you're not going to be confident. the economy is a self-fulfilling prophecy... if people think its going to go up, it most likely is.

it doesn't help that alan greenspan probably squeezed the brake on this supertanker a little too hard a couple years back.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

Screw that socialist freak, he was an author of FICTION and spent an inordinate amount of his life dwelling on FANTASY. We want to kill people and break things, its good for our economy, and its good for my wallet at the gas pump if we make Iraq a US outpost.

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it.

The jews never attacked us.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

Screw that socialist freak, he was an author of FICTION and spent an inordinate amount of his life dwelling on FANTASY. We want to kill people and break things, its good for our economy, and its good for my wallet at the gas pump if we make Iraq a US outpost.

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it.

The jews never attacked us.

Didnt Israel sink a US navy ship once?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

Screw that socialist freak, he was an author of FICTION and spent an inordinate amount of his life dwelling on FANTASY. We want to kill people and break things, its good for our economy, and its good for my wallet at the gas pump if we make Iraq a US outpost.

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it.

The jews never attacked us.

As far as I know, neither did the Iraqis.

My point was the attitude of invading a country because it's good for our economy is what started Hitler's rationale.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

Just like with Vietnam. Oh, wait.

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

I'm not making judgment one way or another on the use of war to stimulate the economy. I'm simply saying that war doesn't hurt the economy as rchiu implied.

 

[Red Dawn]

[sarcastic note]A War with Iraq will help the economy. All these kids here who are out of work can go over there and fight for our freedom and if more than a few die that just means less competition for the rest of us.[/sarcastic note]

All I know is if the economy doesn't pick up by the next presidential election we will have a Democrat in office. Right after the Gulf War The Bush without a Speech Impediment enjoyed great numbers in the polls. But when the economy went south so did his numbers. Hey that guy actually was at the helm when our country did a great thing, all GW has done so far is just be in the office when we were attacked. The only thing in his favor(Junior George) is that the Dem's Candidate might be Al Gore who has a smell of defeat about him.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

Just like with Vietnam. Oh, wait.

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

I'm not making judgment one way or another on the use of war to stimulate the economy. I'm simply saying that war doesn't hurt the economy as rchiu implied.

At the same time, I was saying it can hurt the economy if it is an unpopular, morale draining war.

 

[rchiu]

Yeah, War keeps economy going. But you know why? That's because government spends the big buck, not the private sector. And you know how government gets the money?? Federal deficits!! And you think we won?t pay it down the road, either via less social benefit, education funding?etc??

I am talking about the problem with private sector now with Bush?s little war. If you watch any business news or watch what?s going on in Wall St. is saying, you know that every time Bush says something about going into Iraq, stocks take a dive. You think companies will make big investment in let?s say IT purchasing or hire people when their stock is not doing well and they have to make the number to boost their stock?? Just use your logic.

On today?s NBC new, a poll says 2/3 of the American prefer to wait for UN for the weapon inspection and solid evidence of Iraq having weapon of mass destruction before invading Iraq. Maybe if Bush listens to American people, and not just pushing for his war agenda, he will help the economy a little.

 

[kherman]

Does anyone get it. The UN, or the US is going to offer an ultimatum to Iraq with no baragining. We are going to try diplomatic means.

Iraq's "Compliance" is a stall tactic. htey've been stalling for 10 years. We(the US) are pushing for a new UN resolution that is specific and which will state consequences. We are not interested in Iraq saying we can come in now. We are going to state the rules, not just smile and knodto Iraq. Smiling and nodding has't worked for hte past 10 years. More specifically, the past 4 years

 

[GasX]

This thread proves that knowing how to work on computers means absolutely nothing in the real world. More idiotic economic BS is being spouted than I can keep up with! :Q

1. Bush is not ruining the economy.
2. Clinton (if anyone...) can take the blame
3. We are in the downturn of an economic cycle
4. Wars often stimulate the economy

Just read Viper GTS' posts and go away.

All of you.

Thread closed.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
This thread proves that knowing how to work on computers means absolutely nothing in the real world. More idiotic economic BS is being spouted than I can keep up with! :Q

1. Bush is not ruining the economy.
2. Clinton (if anyone...) can take the blame
3. We are in the downturn of an economic cycle
4. Wars often stimulate the economy

Just read Viper GTS' posts and go away.

All of you.

Thread closed.

Well that just makes everything okay...

No one can take the blame for the economy downturn. It's a semi-normal part of an economic cycle. If the economy is still doing poorly (which I think is more of a misconception than a truth) when '04 rolls around, George II will likely take the blame.

As I said above, Dubbya didn't help anything with his tax cuts. Therefore, he can somewhat affect the economy.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

Screw that socialist freak, he was an author of FICTION and spent an inordinate amount of his life dwelling on FANTASY. We want to kill people and break things, its good for our economy, and its good for my wallet at the gas pump if we make Iraq a US outpost.

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it.

The jews never attacked us.

Didnt Israel sink a US navy ship once?

i don't think it was sunk. several sailors were killed, though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

Just like with Vietnam. Oh, wait.

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

vietnam did help. it also helped bring down the international monetary system. the gold standard sucked anyway.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: TranceNation
that's just it. everyone knew it the economy was going to turn down, a good leader will find away to not make it so.

Just because your welfare check is getting smaller doesn't mean the economy is worse.

Blame the voters. Voters put Clinton into office.

 

[Red Dawn]

Blame the voters. Voters put Clinton into office.

Ah another mindless post from a hysterical Limbaughtista

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: TranceNation
Ever since Bush was elected the economy has gone down ever further!
Anybody else feel this way?

Hey, I thought AT refused posts from AOL???



nik

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: TranceNation

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: TranceNation
that's just it. everyone knew it the economy was going to turn down, a good leader will find away to not make it so.

Have you ever actually taken an econ class?

Do you know what policy lag is?

Do you know ANYTHING about the BS you're spreading?

Read up

Viper GTS

and read my reply, true leaders find creative ways , they dont just accept the way things are!

You must have missed the whole "Tax Cut" plan when it was being announced, and deterred by the liberals...

 

[Mrburns2007]

If the economy is good in 2004 Bush will probably get re-elected because it's hard to run agianst a sitting President when the economy is good. If the economy is in the crapper still then Bush will have a very tough time.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Almost 24 hours later, we've recieved and ascertained the following from Moron #1.

He has no clue how the economy works.
He enjoys blaming Bush for the economy.
Is completely clueless, hence nickname Moron #1.
Has illustrated ignorance and stupidity in regard to presidential powers.
Realizes criticism is much easier than actually coming up with a viable solution to the problem. (See the trend in my posts here people?)
Et al.

Anyone want to disagree with me here?

Oh, and I thought I did a half decent job.....perhaps my flamethrower isnt as good as red dawn's.

*sets to extra crispy*

-PAB

 

[Random Variable]

I ruined the economy all by my lonesome.

 

[rickn]

while the president doesn't directly control the economy, all the warmongering going on does create an atmosphere of uncertainty, and that can effect the economy.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: rickn
while the president doesn't directly control the economy, all the warmongering going on does create an atmosphere of uncertainty, and that can effect the economy.

It does effect the economy. That's why we can't debate the issue indefinitely.

 

[JellyBaby]

it also helped bring down the international monetary system. the gold standard sucked anyway.

Why did a standard based on a finite resource suck? It's been said the reason (or one of the reasons) our economy porpoises so much is because we use an artificial currency system and not something like the gold standard.

I'm not sure either way but I do know if Greenspan farts the wrong way, the economy changes for the worse. Should his flatulence have such a dramatic impact on the nation's economy?

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

As I heard before, war makes money, i.e. WW2 as someone mentioned on the 1st page.