Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Conservatives: How Can You Defend Bush's Fiscal Policies?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I'm constantly amazed how folks these days, who describe themselves as conservative, can support the Bush administration and its assinine economic policies. For the third straight year the dollar has plunged. This is setting the stage for the Euro to eventually take the dollar's place as the world's oil currency. What would that mean for the U.S.? Nuthin' but trouble.

Here's an article on where we stand.



Move to euro hits US finances

Mark Tran
Monday January 24, 2005

Central banks are moving out of dollars and into euros, a shift that will make it harder for the US to finance its huge current account deficit, it emerged today.
According to a survey sponsored by Royal Bank of Scotland, almost 70% of the 65 central banks that provided details of changes in their reserves said they increased exposure to the single currency over the past two years. Meanwhile, 11% said they reduced exposure to the euro.

Any sudden move away from the dollar, which has fallen in value for the past three years, spells trouble for the Bush administration, as the US depends on the willingness of foreigners to hold US dollars to fund its huge current account deficit.
www.guardian.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Why, that's simple. They know that they only way they will be able to disassemble the social safety nets like social security, hud, food stamps and the like (heck maybe even our educational system, I don't know, but some have mentioned how they want that gone also)....would be to create such a economic emergency that we have no choice...

And, well, since their real agenda is restructuring society to fit their Faith Based Values and Principles, well, those systems must go, since well, it's would be kind of hard to convince women now to take second stage to men and go back to being their humble servants, not with uncle sam there eager to take their husband's place if need be. They want the right to beat their wives into submission in other words.

Either that or they have invested in vacation homes overseas and have jobs lined up and are planning to relocate real soon!



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Why, that's simple. They know that they only way they will be able to disassemble the social safety nets like social security, hud, food stamps and the like


I'm starting to believe this is actually what they're shooting for. It's ruthless and insane.


And, well, since their real agenda is restructuring society to fit their Faith Based Values and Principles,


What an oxymoron.
This is the most ruthless administration I have ever witnessed. If Jesus were around, he'd be kicking Rove and Bush outta the temple, denouncing them for the wolves in sheep's clothing they are.


Either that or they have invested in vacation homes overseas and have jobs lined up and are planning to relocate real soon!


Oh, rest assured, the power elite (top 2-5% of the wealthiest Americans) have their assets safely tucked away OUTSIDE the USA. They will not be nearly as affected by the coming calamaties as the average Jane and Joe will be.

Looking ahead, all I can say is thank God I don't have kids. I can't imagine having to deal w/that if/when the shyte hits the fan. Unemployment and poverty is gonna cause a national nightmare, the likes of which we havn't seen since the 1930's.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Maybe i am politically retarded, but isnt a conservative ideology suppose to "conserve" money, not jsut traditional values. i can see a liberal or democratic policy more likely falling into deficeit, since they need to fund more social issues and programs. It seems the exact opposite is happening. Didnt Clinton, a democrat, have a surplus....or am i lacking some seriuos knowledge here??



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Well, it MIGHT, just MIGHT have saved a couple of hunreds of billions of dollars being literally blown up with humans together.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Maybe i am politically retarded, but isnt a conservative ideology suppose to "conserve" money, not jsut traditional values. Didnt Clinton, a democrat, have a surplus....or am i lacking some seriuos knowledge here??


1. Yes. The Republicans have traditionally been thought of as the party of responsibility and fiscal conservatism. Don't know how accurate a statement that actually is. Reagan's foreign policy, for example, drove the deficit into the stratosphere. Bush's policies and deficits have now left Reagan's stratosphere in the dust.

2. Here's a concept I will surely get flamed for.. Fiscally, Clinton was far more conservative than Dubya. In the words of my former Puerto Rican paramour: YEAH, IS TRUE.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Yes Regean pushed the defecit into the stratosphere, and as a result we got the biggest bossts to our economy ever, big enough in fact that Clinton was able to ride the rising economic tide and take credit for the state of the economy.
Personal computers, Laser's, the Internet, all technologies that are a direct result of Regean's spending on Military research.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Why, that's simple. They know that they only way they will be able to disassemble the social safety nets like social security, hud, food stamps and the like (heck maybe even our educational system


Well, I guess they need to continue to erode all the people hold dear in order to finance things like unwarranted invasions and war. I read today the price tag is $300 billion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that $1M for every man, woman and child in the U.S.?

I guess conservative = non accountability for actions and decisions as the folks who make these horrendous decisions get re-elected and promoted.



War Costing 6x Original Estimate



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Actually, I think the economic adjustments made under the first President Bush fostered the growth inherited by Clinton. Clinton's claim to fame was that he generally kept us out of war and was a good shepherd of the economy.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Then, question how much is being paid to the defence contractors and M/s Halliburton & Friends and there you have it ! The answer to just where the tax dollars are going ! Democracy, world peace and axis of evil are great revenue earners !



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I tell you what we are facing now the trade deficit things are not going the way the administration was hoping for.

Low dollar you buy cheap but is not happening, I thing other countries do not want to lose money on US goods.

People here in the US don't know how bad the dollar is over sea because most American don't travel.

But ask anybody here that are from European countries they thank US economy for their euro value, and is not funny.

I think all the scare of "terror" is to keep Americans in America so they don't have to see how bad things really are with our beloved currency.

Stop giving Reagan credit for Clinton's achievement is a lie, eight years later.

Reagan policies were a fiasco to our economy.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
The reason few people in the USA understand just how precarious a financial situation we are facing is because the mainstream media completely ignores the situation! It's a damn shame.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Actually, I think the economic adjustments made under the first President Bush fostered the growth inherited by Clinton. Clinton's claim to fame was that he generally kept us out of war and was a good shepherd of the economy.


Clinton did manage to work with Congress to produce a balanced budget. Not Bush.

as for who's taking the $?
www.publicintegrity.org...
www.publicintegrity.org...
www.publicintegrity.org...

[edit on 3/16/2005 by Noumenon]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noumenon
Clinton did manage to work with Congress to produce a balanced budget. Not Bush.


Work with congress?!
What a concept!


Balanced budget.... Where art thou?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Right now they are just printing money, I doubt they have enough gold reserves to back up every piece of money.

Money is worth something when it's backed by something like gold, paper is just worthless without it.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Right now they are just printing money, I doubt they have enough gold reserves to back up every piece of money.


Fiat money. The only reason the whole house of cards doesn't collapse is b/c of the money we make off oil trading (Petro Dollars). It pays the interest on our national debt, keeping all those checks out there from bouncing.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Problem is that as the USD continues its slide, more and more cash will have to be coughed up as costs of imports and real interest repayments rise. I am experiencing through friends and forex houses, a general dumping of USD in the market. This will make the slide even faster and costs will rise very very quickly.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
You know what else is disconcerting? China owns a massive amount of our debt. China! I think China and Russia are just waiting for our impending economic crash. With the dollar in the tank, we'd be in real trouble.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join