This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net

Consider the source!!!

Jay in NH

It reads like a typical British tabloid.

Bob S.


"Noel Hegan" wrote in message
om...
This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net

"Noel Hegan" wrote in message
om...
This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

The article presents a number of statistics carefully selected to make the
administration look bad. A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc. I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British. There is no such consensus here.

Bob

The question is, can anyone disagree with these facts?

for example, something not well advertised beyond stating that the tax
cuts are NOT only for the wealthy:

"88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on
their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and
dividends taxes"

Additionally,

"$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to
enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends
taxes

$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001

$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year
in taxes

44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic
growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy"

Can anyone dispute these? Can anyone tell us why they're so enamoured
of these tax cuts that are so extraordinarily helpful to y'all? Or is
this quite the elite group, on par with the Cabinet?

Renata

On 20 Jan 2004 05:30:57 -0800, (Noel
Hegan) wrote:

This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net

smart, not dumb for email

I was in Europe last week and met with people of several nationalities,
including the UK. I was struck with the impression that the people were
completely mis-informed and had no access to, or didn't care about the truth.
Now I know why.




Remove the 'remove' in my address to e:mail me.

I guess they generously didn't include the devalued US dollar in their
stats.

A similar list of negatives could be compiled for virtually every country in
the world, including the UK.

"Noel Hegan" wrote in message
om...
This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net

"Eric Tonks" etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM wrote in message
i.com...
snip
A similar list of negatives could be compiled for virtually every country
in
the world, including the UK.

I was thinking the exact same thing. It could also be compiled for every
administration this country has ever had.

todd

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but that is NOT representative of mainstream
opinion.

"Noel Hegan" wrote in message
om...
This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:30:57 -0800, Noel Hegan wrote:

This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction" to
the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view how
does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush administration and
the US economy? This is not in anyway a political post,I've just an
interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net


I met an older woman in Denmark this past September. When the
conversation somehow turned to the Bush invasion of Iraq, she summarized
Mr. Bush quite succinctly: He is a catastrophe.

Unlike Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, etc, we get an
opportunity every 4 years to oust our "dictators". Bush's turn to move on
comes this November.

He is among the worst of presidents in modern history. He has done next
to nothing to make this country safer or more prosperous. He has been
part of an agenda from the moment he took office, and 9/11 gave him the
impetus to put that agenda into full swing. As you know, he continually
laid down ultimatums to Saddam and every time Saddam seemed to comply.
Tired of the apparent compliance, Bush decided to finally launch his
invasion based on doctored reports of weapons of mass destruction. None
have been found to date. Instead we now have more than 500 of our sons
and daughters, mothers and fathers returned in body bags. The Bush crowd
wants us to believe these young people did not die in vain but surrendered
their lives selfishly for the Bush doctrine of patriotism. Meanwhile
there are families mourning their losses and places at tables go empty
with only painfully sweet memories of the loved ones gone.

The economy is cyclic. Unfortunately it is showing signs of improving.
Bush, of course, is taking full credit and says it's because of his tax
cuts, cuts which favor the rich but leave the working American high and
dry.

If Bush weren't tragic enough, there are still too many Americans swept up
in his rhetoric and who still blindly support him without ever questioning
or challenging Bush.

What else do you want to know?

With all due respect, this type of post has no place here. Let's keep
politics out of rec.woodworking!!

"C" wrote in message news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:30:57 -0800, Noel Hegan wrote:

This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction" to
the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view how
does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush administration and
the US economy? This is not in anyway a political post,I've just an
interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net


I met an older woman in Denmark this past September. When the
conversation somehow turned to the Bush invasion of Iraq, she summarized
Mr. Bush quite succinctly: He is a catastrophe.

Unlike Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, etc, we get an
opportunity every 4 years to oust our "dictators". Bush's turn to move on
comes this November.

He is among the worst of presidents in modern history. He has done next
to nothing to make this country safer or more prosperous. He has been
part of an agenda from the moment he took office, and 9/11 gave him the
impetus to put that agenda into full swing. As you know, he continually
laid down ultimatums to Saddam and every time Saddam seemed to comply.
Tired of the apparent compliance, Bush decided to finally launch his
invasion based on doctored reports of weapons of mass destruction. None
have been found to date. Instead we now have more than 500 of our sons
and daughters, mothers and fathers returned in body bags. The Bush crowd
wants us to believe these young people did not die in vain but surrendered
their lives selfishly for the Bush doctrine of patriotism. Meanwhile
there are families mourning their losses and places at tables go empty
with only painfully sweet memories of the loved ones gone.

The economy is cyclic. Unfortunately it is showing signs of improving.
Bush, of course, is taking full credit and says it's because of his tax
cuts, cuts which favor the rich but leave the working American high and
dry.


Please define and distinguish between the "Rich" and the "working American"? Is a married couple, one working as a school teacher
and the other in a steel mill rich? They take home more than $125k/year and did benefit from the tax reductions. What about a
married couple, both working in the IT field OR a cabinet maker whose wife worke an the IT department at a local hospital? Are
these people not "working Americans"? Then just who are you referring to?

My wife and I both work hard to make a living and support our family. How dare you insinuate that I am rich and am not a working
American!!!


If Bush weren't tragic enough, there are still too many Americans swept up
in his rhetoric and who still blindly support him without ever questioning
or challenging Bush.

What else do you want to know?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:59:23 -0500, Renata wrote:

The question is, can anyone disagree with these facts?

for example, something not well advertised beyond stating that the tax
cuts are NOT only for the wealthy:

"88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on
their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and
dividends taxes"

SNIP

I'm not going to take the time to point out all the logic faults in a =
bunch
of statistics compiled by a considerably biased "news" organization,
especially considering this is a woodworking group. But for example in =
the
above figure it isn't 88% of working Americans, or 88% of Americans aged
18-65 or any other meaningful statistic. Sure the 30% of Americans under
21 will save less than $100 due to a cut in the tax on capital gains, so
what? A large portion of the Americans over 85 will probably not save a
bunch either. =20

Davis Eichelberger

Noel Hegan wrote:

This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy?

You can use statistics to prove anything. You can omit certain numbers,
include an extreme number and leave out certain information.

For example, the comparison on how many American soldier deaths after the
Iraq war vs after WWII: Well the author leaves out all the context, and
leaves out the fact that the world is not the same. The article is aimed
at fooling people unaware of the fallacies of using statistics this way.

For what it's worth, I think bush (yes, lowercase) is a blithering fool,
manipulated by the extremists in his cabinet, and utterly incapable of
leading the country towards betterment (i.e., our social security system
is mathematically proven to be headed towards disaster, but bush just
gave the rich an unnecessary tax cut instead of fixing the system).

Of course, there are people who think differently than I :-)...

--
gabriel

SteveC1280 wrote:

I was in Europe last week and met with people of several
nationalities, including the UK. I was struck with the impression
that the people were completely mis-informed and had no access to, or
didn't care about the truth. Now I know why.

That's of course assuming that _you_ are informed and know the truth (The
USA has CNN, right?!?!? :-) )... Your attitude is typical of why
foreigners hate Americans.

I do not mean to put you down, but how can you expect people in other
countries to know as much about life in the USA as you? How can you be
sure you are in the know and the others are not?

Most importantly, why should a foreigner care more about the USA than
Americans? It's always puzzling to see that many, many American people
act as of the world is there to serve us, and of course, we complain when
they fail us? *sigh*

--
gabriel

"gabriel" wrote in message rvers.com...
Noel Hegan wrote:

This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy?

You can use statistics to prove anything. You can omit certain numbers,
include an extreme number and leave out certain information.

For example, the comparison on how many American soldier deaths after the
Iraq war vs after WWII: Well the author leaves out all the context, and
leaves out the fact that the world is not the same. The article is aimed
at fooling people unaware of the fallacies of using statistics this way.

For what it's worth, I think bush (yes, lowercase) is a blithering fool,
manipulated by the extremists in his cabinet, and utterly incapable of
leading the country towards betterment (i.e., our social security system
is mathematically proven to be headed towards disaster, but bush just
gave the rich an unnecessary tax cut instead of fixing the system).


Here we go with the class warfare balony again. Just who are those damned rich? How much money do they need anyhow? Maybe we
should set the national wage to $100,000.00 then tax/refund what ever is necessary to arrive at that figure. How long do you think
that the rich will continue to invest in the economy? This is why communism is doomed to failure, and has, in fact, failed
everywhere it has been tried.

It is amazing that Russia now has Steve Forbes' flat tax and we have the Soviet's progressive tax. At least Putin understands
economy.

Of course, there are people who think differently than I :-)...

--
gabriel

Renny wrote:
With all due respect, this type of post has no place here. Let's keep
politics out of rec.woodworking!!

While appreciate your distaste of politics, it certainly isn't OT. What
could have more wooddorking content than getting the shaft?
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Al Reid wrote:

Here we go with the class warfare balony again. Just who are those

This is not the forum to prove it either way, at the end of the day it's just
a conflict of opinions. So I won't get into that, strong an opinion as I
might have...

I will recognize that you have a valid opinion on this as well. I will not,
though, get into a war over it.

It is amazing that Russia now has Steve Forbes' flat tax and we have
the Soviet's progressive tax. At least Putin understands economy.

Hey, here's a point of agreement... A flat tax would do me fine.

--
gabriel

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:49 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc.

As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement". The dollar is
through the floor, the deficit is enormous and all your manufacturing
base are belong to China.

Iraq has almost no infrastructure. Now I'm hardly surprised by this -
we've just fought a war through the place. I hope they will have one
soon, and I have faith that many well-intentioned soldiers are doing
their damnedest to assist this.

Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

The US government _hates_ democracy. Democracy keeps giving the wrong
answer, so America has to depose the freshly-elected popular leader.
As democracy in a united Iraq would almost certainly give power to a
Shia majority, this would lead to rapprochment with Iraq and
everything that America is most scared of. America's best hope for a
permissible democracy in Iraq is to Balkanize it (in the original
sense of the term) into federal states where no one state can dominate
the others. And then try to mollify Turkey when they have a US-created
Kurdistan on the doorstep.

I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British.

I wouldn't say that article represents anyone's opinion. It's a
collection of isolated facts that doesn't look anything like the
"opinion" of either a "My President, right or wrong" Blairite, or a
"Make noise, not war" Spartist.

Nor is the Indie a British tabloid. No tits, no royals, no soapstars.
If anyone can see a single erroneous figure in that list, then please
correct it so that we may all learn.


--
Socialism: Eric, not Tony

What could have more wooddorking content than getting the shaft?

LOLOLOLOLOL! You made my day!

--
gabriel

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement". The dollar is
through the floor, the deficit is enormous and all your manufacturing
base are belong to China.

This reminds me of the complaints about the stock market. When Republican
presidents were concerned about the market when it was up, they were
pandering to the rich. More recently, when the market was down, liberals
want something done to bring it back up for all of the 401Ks. Similarly, I
don't remember ever hearing any meaningful discussion about the dollar in
the last 10 years. Now that's it's down, the dollar is "through the floor".
Here's a question: what is China's factory output for US-bound goods
compared to the output of US factories? Should be an easy figure to get to
back up your assertion that all our manufacturing base are belong (sic) to
China.

Iraq has almost no infrastructure. Now I'm hardly surprised by this -
we've just fought a war through the place. I hope they will have one
soon, and I have faith that many well-intentioned soldiers are doing
their damnedest to assist this.

Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

How many protests were there when Saddam was in power? I guess everything
was fine then and there was nothing to protest.

The US government _hates_ democracy. Democracy keeps giving the wrong
answer, so America has to depose the freshly-elected popular leader.
As democracy in a united Iraq would almost certainly give power to a
Shia majority, this would lead to rapprochment with Iraq and
everything that America is most scared of. America's best hope for a
permissible democracy in Iraq is to Balkanize it (in the original
sense of the term) into federal states where no one state can dominate
the others. And then try to mollify Turkey when they have a US-created
Kurdistan on the doorstep.

You're right. I forgot that there was an election recently in Iraq where
Saddam received 99.9% of the popular vote. So are you saying we won't allow
elections to take place? I thought I just heard that the US has asked the
UN for help in studying how quickly elections can be held (a task the the UN
is, at least, marginally qualified to handle).

I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British.

I wouldn't say that article represents anyone's opinion. It's a
collection of isolated facts that doesn't look anything like the
"opinion" of either a "My President, right or wrong" Blairite, or a
"Make noise, not war" Spartist.

Nor is the Indie a British tabloid. No tits, no royals, no soapstars.
If anyone can see a single erroneous figure in that list, then please
correct it so that we may all learn.

My answer to many of these "statistics" would be "so what?". The number of
funerals that the President has attended? What do you want? The President
to go and invade some poor serviceman's funeral? I'm sure if our previous
President was here, he'd find a way to get in there for a photo-op and "feel
their pain". The year in which Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein a pair
of golden spurs? Who gives a damn if Saddam was a friend of the US 21 years
ago? As Lord Chamberlain once stated (I may be paraphrasing a bit), there
are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Apparently, there's a
nice photo of Wesley Clark being chummy with Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic,
an indicted war criminal. This happened just 10 years ago. Should Gen
Clark be prevented from seeking office? 88% of American citizens will save
less than $100 on their taxes? There's a bogus statistic. How many of
these don't pay any taxes in the first place? And gee...fewer people
approve of the President's job approval now than 2 weeks after 9/11? No
kidding. Maybe if we could change another statistic "Number of times
President Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden and refused", we wouldn't have
had a 9/11. I could go on, but I think you get the drift.

Socialism: Eric, not Tony

todd

Renata wrote in message . ..
The question is, can anyone disagree with these facts?

for example, something not well advertised beyond stating that the tax
cuts are NOT only for the wealthy:

"88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on
their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and
dividends taxes"

2 questions: what % saved more than $100 from ALL the tax cuts? What %
of taxes did that 88% pay in the first place?

Additionally,

"$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to
enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends
taxes

Question: how much is the average Bush cabinet member expected to pay
in taxes this year?

$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001

Question: How much federal income tax will the average household
making $42,228 pay this year?


$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year
in taxes

Question: How much in taxes is Dick Cheney expected to pay this year?

44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic
growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy"

Question: What percentage believe that taxes are mostly paid by those
they describe as wealthy?

Can anyone dispute these? Can anyone tell us why they're so enamoured
of these tax cuts that are so extraordinarily helpful to y'all? Or is
this quite the elite group, on par with the Cabinet?

I wouldn't try to dispute the stats given, because they certainly seem
OK to me. I will dispute how they are contrived to try to give weight
to your viewpoint that the evil rich aren't giving you enough of their
money.

Renata

Dave Hall

Renata wondered openly...
Can anyone dispute these? Can anyone tell us why they're so enamoured
of these tax cuts that are so extraordinarily helpful to y'all? Or is
this quite the elite group, on par with the Cabinet?

Renata


Renata, the fact of the matter is that a small percentage of the
population pays for most of the burden for all of us. It is only
natural they will see a bigger benefit from cuts. How could it be
otherwise? Also, capital gains only occur in years in which you
liquidate assets, so using a percentage of the population being below
a given level doesn't make sense. Al Gore hummed this tired tune to
defeat four years ago. Been there, done that.

Also, I noticed one "fact" that was not accurate, there may be more.
George Bush never executed anyone as Governor of Texas. The author
was either uninformed, careless, or deviant, but the Governor of Texas
has very limited involvement in capital punishment. I believe the
most he can do is instistute a stay of execution, which automatically
expires after a predetermined period of time. Therefore, the
inclusion of this statistic is clearly intellectually dishonest, as is
most of the article.

Don't be a tool, think for yourself.

Joe

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:49 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


"Noel Hegan" wrote in message
. com...
-snip-
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

The article presents a number of statistics carefully selected to make the
administration look bad. A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc. I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British. There is no such consensus here.

Bob

You mean like the 1000 new jobs at the likes of wallyworld and
restaurants created last month?

Renata
smart, not dumb for email

Sweetie, I don't need the rich's money, whether they're evil or not
(though, hey, if someone's handing out spare bags of cash, count me
in).

But, we can't afford to be giving money to the rich, a token pfenning
to the rest (so a claim can be made that all share in the tax cut),
while increasing spending out the wazoo and shelling out big bucks for
a couple of foreign skirmishes.

Notice that all the states are doing all kinds of "fund raising" (like
increasing state income tax, adding all kinds of fees, etc.) to make
up for shortfalls, and these burdens have much more impact on the
normal everyday worker, who's enjoying his 100 tax cut and shelling
out a few hundred back to the states and localities.

Renata
On 20 Jan 2004 13:28:24 -0800, (David Hall)
wrote:

Renata wrote in message . ..
The question is, can anyone disagree with these facts?

--snip--
I wouldn't try to dispute the stats given, because they certainly seem
OK to me. I will dispute how they are contrived to try to give weight
to your viewpoint that the evil rich aren't giving you enough of their
money.

Renata

Dave Hall

smart, not dumb for email

In article rs.com,
gabriel wrote:

SteveC1280 wrote:

I was in Europe last week and met with people of several
nationalities, including the UK. I was struck with the impression
that the people were completely mis-informed and had no access to, or
didn't care about the truth. Now I know why.

That's of course assuming that _you_ are informed and know the truth (The
USA has CNN, right?!?!? :-) )... Your attitude is typical of why
foreigners hate Americans.

I do not mean to put you down, but how can you expect people in other
countries to know as much about life in the USA as you? How can you be
sure you are in the know and the others are not?

Most importantly, why should a foreigner care more about the USA than
Americans? It's always puzzling to see that many, many American people
act as of the world is there to serve us, and of course, we complain when
they fail us? *sigh*

Funny. The reason that you give for "foreigners hat(ing) Americans" is
that stereotypical Americans display a lack of knowledge about other
cultures, and then you use foreign lack of knowledge about American
culture to justify foreign hatred of us.

Eh?

Kevin

Found this and it explains a few things better than I could. This is
not an isolated interpretation of where this country may be headed.

Renata



By Daniel N. Shaviro, Newsday

What's the difference between Pete Rose and the George W. Bush
administration?

The main one is that at least Pete Rose has admitted he had a
compulsion and promises that if reinstated he will not act on it
again. You may believe him or not, but admission is a necessary first
step.

The Bush administration isn't hooked on sports gambling. Instead, what
it likes to do is spend money in wild binges while also constantly
cutting taxes and pretending that nothing has to be paid for.

Eighty-seven billion dollars for a year in Iraq, with the occupation
expected by many to continue indefinitely? No problem.

A new Medicare prescription drug benefit, with no financing and an
estimated long-term cost of $12 trillion, or more than our entire
economy produces in a year? Why not?



A permanent space station on the moon, plus manned trips to Mars
within a decade? Sounds expensive, but who's counting?

Repeal any of the Bush tax cuts of the last few years? Unthinkable.

The administration is also, at long last, facing something akin to the
baseball commissioner, albeit lacking his powers: The International
Monetary Fund. The IMF - long the scourge of political leaders from
Brazil to Kenya to Indonesia for its insistence on budget discipline -
has now trained its sights on American policy. The IMF notes that,
within a few years, our trade debts to the rest of the world may
exceed 40 percent of the size of our economy - and this before the
Baby Boomers' retirement puts our budget even more massively and
permanently in the red. It warns that our ever-expanding budget and
trade deficits and national debt endanger not just our own economy,
but worldwide economic growth.

Only, unlike in Brazil or Kenya, the IMF cannot threaten to pull the
plug on us, because there is no plug to pull. We have not borrowed
money from the IMF, or at least not yet. Keeping the Bush
administration's budget policies in place would make about as much
sense as letting Pete Rose manage the Cincinnati Reds again and bet on
their games as much as he likes. What happens if the federal debt
keeps growing and growing, with no end in sight?

A recent Congressional Budget Office report lays out this scenario:
"Foreign investors could stop investing in U.S. securities, the
exchange value of the dollar could plunge (as is already happening),
interest rates could climb, consumer prices could shoot up, or the
economy could contract sharply.

"Amid the anticipation of declining profits and rising inflation and
interest rates, stock markets could collapse and consumers might
suddenly reduce their consumption."

Now for the bad news: That is only Step 1. At some point, if the
United States continues to increase spending while cutting taxes, the
government may no longer be able to sell enough bonds at any
reasonable interest rate. At that point, with seniors clamoring for
their Social Security and Medicare benefits and tax increases a
political third rail, the temptation to keep things going a bit longer
by printing money may become irresistible.

The Congressional Budget Office therefore feels compelled to point out
that this would "lead to hyperinflation (as happened in Germany in the
1920s, Hungary in the 1940s, Argentina in the 1980s, and Yugoslavia in
the 1990s)." Quite extraordinary company, even if it is just
hypothetical for now, for the world's largest economy and greatest
democracy to keep. Even Bush's chief economist, Gregory Mankiw, the
chair of his Council of Economic Advisers, has warned about this
scenario - although not, at least publicly, since taking office.

Back in 1995, when the debt and deficit picture was much more
innocuous than it is now, he warned about a capital market meltdown
involving the U.S. government and wrote that it is "hard to think
about because things can go wrong in such a rich variety of ways."

What is keeping us on this disastrous course? Three main things: The
first is the administration's total and reckless disregard for
elementary principles of fiscal probity. The second is the moral
failure of Republicans and conservative intellectuals who know better
but say nothing because they want to play on the team, or else care
just about the next election. And the third is the political cowardice
of Democrats who dare neither to challenge the Bush tax cuts head-on
nor to tell seniors that they cannot keep on getting ever-larger
government handouts.

As Pete Rose is learning, when you do something wrong it is not
necessarily enough to later come clean. But at least coming clean
about its disastrous budget policies would be a start for the Bush
administration, which continues to deny the undeniable.

Daniel N. Shaviro is a law professor at New York University and author
of "Making Sense of Social Security Reform."

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

smart, not dumb for email

SNIP of a bunch of crap
The economy is cyclic. Unfortunately it is showing signs of improving.
Bush, of course, is taking full credit and says it's because of his tax
cuts, cuts which favor the rich but leave the working American high and dry.

This shows your sad mentality. You hate Bush so much that you WANT our economy
to be bad and find it "unfortunate" that it is "improving". It is unfortunate
that liberals need and want our country to go to hell in a hand basket so that
they can regain power.

Dave Hall

In article ,
says...
Sweetie, I don't need the rich's money, whether they're evil or not
(though, hey, if someone's handing out spare bags of cash, count me
in).

But, we can't afford to be giving money to the rich,

GIVE MONEY TO THE RICH!!!????? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The
government ain't printing cash and mailing it in bags to the "rich". It
is simply taking less of the money that they have earned.

Here's a statistic for you in the same flavor as the more than slightly
biased article that started this fest:

% of wage earners paying 65% of federal income taxes: 10%. That's
right 10% of wage earners are paying well above half of all income
taxes.

% of wage earners paying 96% of federal income taxes: 50% Of course
the lower wage earners aren't getting "big" tax breaks, they don't pay
much of the tax to begin with.

a token pfenning
to the rest (so a claim can be made that all share in the tax cut),
while increasing spending out the wazoo and shelling out big bucks for
a couple of foreign skirmishes.

Notice that all the states are doing all kinds of "fund raising" (like
increasing state income tax, adding all kinds of fees, etc.) to make
up for shortfalls, and these burdens have much more impact on the
normal everyday worker, who's enjoying his 100 tax cut and shelling
out a few hundred back to the states and localities.


So keeping federal taxes high is going to help this how?

It's like the old saying -- "There are lies, damn lies ... and statistics".
:-)


I don't think the article was an attempt to represent American opinion. I
think it was pointing out information. As far as whether most Americans
would be nooding or shaking their heads when they read the information is
debatable.

As the national politicians are well aware, the country is very evenly split
between Democrats and Republicans these days. The party that wins the
presidency is the one that doesn't lose it's members to a 3rd party
candidate. (Perot & Buchanon during Clinton years & Nadar during Bush).

Bush has to hype terrorism because that's his angle for keeping Republicans
in line (and you can be sure that events will lead to it being center stage
come the next election). How else can Bush keep conservatives voting for him
when he shows no fiscal responsibility with his deficit spending, greatly
increases the intrusion of the federal government through federal education
programs and medicine entitlements, does nothing to protect blue collar jobs
or discourage overseas outsourcing, and throws open American borders to
illegal immigration in order to pander to the hispanic vote?








"Noel Hegan" wrote in message
om...
This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political
post,I've just an interest in world affairs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

Rgds

Noel

noel dot hegan at virgin dot net

Greetings and Salutations...
First off..other than the question of how much
MDF it would take to build a coffin for Saddam and his
boys, what does this have to do with woodworking?
(don't answer, son, that was a RHETORICAL question).

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:33:40 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:49 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc.

As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement". The dollar is
through the floor, the deficit is enormous and all your manufacturing
base are belong to China.

This is a point. The economy sucks here in America...
although it probable will turn around eventually. The events
of 2001 really kicked the props out from under that recovery, though.

Iraq has almost no infrastructure. Now I'm hardly surprised by this -
we've just fought a war through the place. I hope they will have one
soon, and I have faith that many well-intentioned soldiers are doing
their damnedest to assist this.

Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

And the amazing thing is that there are no reports of
those protestors vanishing, or getting gunned down in those same
streets.

The US government _hates_ democracy. Democracy keeps giving the wrong
answer, so America has to depose the freshly-elected popular leader.

I mainly was moved to toss some gasoline on the fire because
of this statement. The fact of the matter is that Saddam was NOT
the "freshly-elected popular leader". It is meaningless to get
100% of the vote in a country where it is not only illegal NOT
to vote but physically hazardous to even CONSIDER voting for
any candidate but the incumbent.
Saddam was a dictator who was not above cheerfully
slaughtering thousands of his own people in order to maintain
his own power. He may have been "our boy", but that shows
more the questionable judgement of our government than any
sense of moral correctness in his reign or policies.
As for whether or not the government hates democracies...
how would we know? We don't have a true democracy here...it
is a representative Republic. If it WAS a true democracy, then
we would be bitching about President Gore instead of President
Bush.
However much it may suck, though, it sucks a LOT
less than many other forms of government, and, even with
the increase in totalitarianism that has afflicted us
in the past few years, it is still better than most
alternatives.

As democracy in a united Iraq would almost certainly give power to a
Shia majority, this would lead to rapprochment with Iraq and
everything that America is most scared of. America's best hope for a
permissible democracy in Iraq is to Balkanize it (in the original
sense of the term) into federal states where no one state can dominate
the others. And then try to mollify Turkey when they have a US-created
Kurdistan on the doorstep.

It would be nice to think that we can accurately
predict the future. However, there has been VERY little
luck in that in years past.
I agree, though, that an American Democracy in
Iraq is a pipe dream. For this form of government to work,
it has to have deep roots and a general agreement among
the citizenry. Neither of those exist in Iraq just now.
However, it IS possible that, like Japan, we still might
be able to leave Iraq a better place than we found it.
I REALLY hope this is the outcome...it would be a big
disappointment to most Americans if the self-serving
and greedy parts of society tried to create a puppet
state there.
I said, when the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq
started, that I thought we might well succeed where the
Russians failed because we were NOT going to try
to annex the country...

I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British.

I wouldn't say that article represents anyone's opinion. It's a
collection of isolated facts that doesn't look anything like the
"opinion" of either a "My President, right or wrong" Blairite, or a
"Make noise, not war" Spartist.

Nor is the Indie a British tabloid. No tits, no royals, no soapstars.
If anyone can see a single erroneous figure in that list, then please
correct it so that we may all learn.

Don't know. I have developed a deep suspicion of statistics
because I have seen VERY few cases where they have not been
carefully picked and groomed to support a particular agenda.
Also, while some of those items may be true...there is some
question in my mind about what the current administration
could have done to affect them. It is a difficult world,
even under the best of times, and these are not
the best of times.
Regards
Dave Mundt


--
Socialism: Eric, not Tony

Noel Hegan wrote:

To be fair, the last statistic says it all.

To about half of this country Bush and those people are an embarrassment
and would agree with the tenor of the article. The other half don't know
any better and would agree with anything they're told.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:26:08 -0500, "Walker" wrote:

Bush has to hype terrorism because that's his angle for keeping Republicans
in line (and you can be sure that events will lead to it being center stage
come the next election).

Maybe Osama's Evil Plan is to _not_ attack America during the election
campaign ? It's the most damage he could do to Bush.

The absolute best thing for the Bush campaign is a car bomb against
disposable American grunts (and preferably a cute blonde BAM or two)
somewhere foreign, a day before the vote. It would give him a a
landslide.

(cont. conspiracy_theories/maine ...)

Andy Dingley writes:

The absolute best thing for the Bush campaign is a car bomb against
disposable American grunts (and preferably a cute blonde BAM or two)
somewhere foreign, a day before the vote. It would give him a a
landslide.

Maybe not. Like all conspiracy theories, this one has a huge hole: many
Americans are getting downright unhappy about the number of deaths in this
"easy" war. Add a dozen or so more the day before elections, and it's quite
possible that Bush will retire early.

Now, I'll let you explain to the American public what "BAM" is. As a former
Marine of a non-PC era, I know better than to stick my foot in that one.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

We should not be cutting revenue intake at the same time we are
shoveling money out the door.

Renata

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:54:20 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Sweetie, I don't need the rich's money, whether they're evil or not
(though, hey, if someone's handing out spare bags of cash, count me
in).

But, we can't afford to be giving money to the rich,

GIVE MONEY TO THE RICH!!!????? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The
government ain't printing cash and mailing it in bags to the "rich". It
is simply taking less of the money that they have earned.

Here's a statistic for you in the same flavor as the more than slightly
biased article that started this fest:

% of wage earners paying 65% of federal income taxes: 10%. That's
right 10% of wage earners are paying well above half of all income
taxes.

% of wage earners paying 96% of federal income taxes: 50% Of course
the lower wage earners aren't getting "big" tax breaks, they don't pay
much of the tax to begin with.

a token pfenning
to the rest (so a claim can be made that all share in the tax cut),
while increasing spending out the wazoo and shelling out big bucks for
a couple of foreign skirmishes.

Notice that all the states are doing all kinds of "fund raising" (like
increasing state income tax, adding all kinds of fees, etc.) to make
up for shortfalls, and these burdens have much more impact on the
normal everyday worker, who's enjoying his 100 tax cut and shelling
out a few hundred back to the states and localities.


So keeping federal taxes high is going to help this how?

3 days before at least. Gotta give him enough
time to learn how to read the impromptu speech.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
am
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message ...

The absolute best thing for the Bush campaign is a car bomb against
disposable American grunts (and preferably a cute blonde BAM or two)
somewhere foreign, a day before the vote. It would give him a a
landslide.

"Renata" wrote in message ...
We should not be cutting revenue intake at the same time we are

The point that is almost always missed is that each time taxes (marginal tax rates, etc.) have been cut, the end result is more
revenues, not less.

shoveling money out the door.

I agree that spending is completely out of control. Fortunately, a rising economy and lower taxes will help to bring things back
into balance.


Renata

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:54:20 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Sweetie, I don't need the rich's money, whether they're evil or not
(though, hey, if someone's handing out spare bags of cash, count me
in).

But, we can't afford to be giving money to the rich,

GIVE MONEY TO THE RICH!!!????? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The
government ain't printing cash and mailing it in bags to the "rich". It
is simply taking less of the money that they have earned.

Here's a statistic for you in the same flavor as the more than slightly
biased article that started this fest:

% of wage earners paying 65% of federal income taxes: 10%. That's
right 10% of wage earners are paying well above half of all income
taxes.

% of wage earners paying 96% of federal income taxes: 50% Of course
the lower wage earners aren't getting "big" tax breaks, they don't pay
much of the tax to begin with.

a token pfenning
to the rest (so a claim can be made that all share in the tax cut),
while increasing spending out the wazoo and shelling out big bucks for
a couple of foreign skirmishes.

Notice that all the states are doing all kinds of "fund raising" (like
increasing state income tax, adding all kinds of fees, etc.) to make
up for shortfalls, and these burdens have much more impact on the
normal everyday worker, who's enjoying his 100 tax cut and shelling
out a few hundred back to the states and localities.


So keeping federal taxes high is going to help this how?

Kevin Craig wrote:

Funny. The reason that you give for "foreigners hat(ing) Americans" is
that stereotypical Americans display a lack of knowledge about other
cultures, and then you use foreign lack of knowledge about American
culture to justify foreign hatred of us.

The point you chose to ignore about what I said is the key: Foreginers
don't come to the USA and stroll around saying how stupid we are (and we
Americans, as a whole, are VERY stupid). Americans go abroad, refuse to
try to speak the local language, and tell people in their countries what
to do and how dumb they are.

Of course, not all Americans are like that... Some are unaware that
other countries even exist!

As for internation awareness, how many Americans would you bet can point
out the USA on a world map?

--
gabriel

Andy Dingley wrote:

Maybe Osama's Evil Plan is to _not_ attack America during the election
campaign ? It's the most damage he could do to Bush.

Osama would be smarter to attack the USA to keep bush in power. bush would
then retaliate by attacking North Korea, or invading Uruguay.

--
gabriel

Al Reid wrote:

I agree that spending is completely out of control. Fortunately, a
rising economy and lower taxes will help to bring things back into
balance.

Now there's a Nobel-prize worthy statement! You should print it, frame it,
and put it on your wall. Then practise it in your own home, and hire a
good bankruptcy lawyer.

You gotta love self-delusion.

--
gabriel