What 8 years of Bush/Cheney have done to our econom

What 8 years of Bush/Cheney have done to our econom

www.hightowerlowdown.org

Harry Truman said, "No man should be allowed to be president who doesn't understand hogs." That's never been more true than it will be for the man or woman who walks into the White House on January 20, 2009.

The Bush LegacyIf you've ever entered an enclosed, industrialized hog facility where hundreds of fattening porcines live out their short lives, you know that the smell of pig excrement completely redefines "stink." This stench will knock you to your knees, sear your lungs and brain, and make you scream for mercy. For nearly eight years, the White House has been a confined hog pen for corporate porkers, right-wing ideologues, imperialists, autocrats, and other swinish mess-makers. America's next president must not only set a new direction but will also have to clean up the mess and eradicate the stink left by the Bu#es.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I've always liked Jim Hightower. If more people had listened to him and Molly Ivins in 2000 we might not be in the messes that we are in now. They lived in Texas under bush minor and had a preview of how the man operated and they did their best to warn us.

www.hightowerlowdown.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

If there were such a thing as justice.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover


A typical near decade long economic cycle.. I don't know if I blame the President for this or not.

Bush Sr. Had to deal with the economy.. then Clinton dealt with Bush's, then Bush had to clean up Clinton's 2000 catastrophe.. and now who ever comes in next has to deal with Bush Jr's economic mess..

So I say its a typical economic cycle, and has little to do with the President.. who imo has relatively low control of the economy outside of tax cuts.

reply to post by Rockpuck


agree with all your line-of-thought...

and Add: the 1st 8 months of the GW Administration was characterized as a ship-of-state Without A Rudder !

then 9-11 happened, and the GW Administration took the USA on a
'reactionary' path--
A new direction which was not well thought through at all.

a lot of CT'ers will say that the 'New Pearl Harbor' was a designed event,
and Bush&Co were just sitting on their hands until the "event" ~which finally transpired on Sept 11th ..as we are aware~

the GW Administration [in my view] was meant to be a caretaker govt rather than a change-the-world govt.
And GW did not tell or influence the Federal Reserve & Greenspan to do the actions they did, which is unwinding in the destruction of the US economy and the US Dollar...

GW,,imho,,,is just another 'Patsy' like Oswald and others thru American history

The economy today is a lot different than it was decades ago. Things are more globally centered now. Blaming the president really isnt a fair thing to do. Sure he's a moron, and is good at driving things to the ground, but there are higher figures that he answers to that have more control over the economy. For instance, the Federal Reserve has deliberately been dicking over the economy since the late teens. Its a private corporation out to make money, and consolidate power of corporations for the elite at the top.

To think that what we are seeing in this country as part of a healthy economic cycle is false. (and i know plenty of people that do). This is all by design, look at the bailouts and buy ups of other banks and corporations, its happened in 1920, and in 1929. All benefitting the same group of bankers and elite as it is today. Bush really is just a patsy, a figurehead. He does a little here and there and with his ignorance, doesnt know how to adress it properly to the public. Making the situation best for crooks of the international banks that are really running the show.

Bush's administration has been drawn up long before he became president, especially in the economic area. Sure i dont like the guy, but we cant give such a dumb monkey so much credit.

and im a fan of jim hightower by the way , i read theives in high places a few years back!

[edit on 13-4-2008 by EliThebrave]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by grover

 

A typical near decade long economic cycle.. I don't know if I blame the President for this or not.

Bush Sr. Had to deal with the economy.. then Clinton dealt with Bush's, then Bush had to clean up Clinton's 2000 catastrophe.. and now who ever comes in next has to deal with Bush Jr's economic mess..

So I say its a typical economic cycle, and has little to do with the President.. who imo has relatively low control of the economy outside of tax cuts.

I dont know...I think the difference between bushs mess and clintons is that clintons was due to a very good run and was due to a natural cycle and he at least had something to show for it and that was a surplus. Bushes however was self caused due to really poor policies of income distribution not to the poor but to the wealthy and there was a nice little boom but I promise you the top 3% made out a hell of a lot better than the bottom 97%. Whoever gets to try to fix this mess doesnt get a surplus to do it with they get a record high deficite...way to go Bushey

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

agree with all your line-of-thought...

and Add: the 1st 8 months of the GW Administration was characterized as a ship-of-state Without A Rudder !

then 9-11 happened, and the GW Administration took the USA on a
'reactionary' path--
A new direction which was not well thought through at all.

a lot of CT'ers will say that the 'New Pearl Harbor' was a designed event,
and Bush&Co were just sitting on their hands until the "event" ~which finally transpired on Sept 11th ..as we are aware~

the GW Administration [in my view] was meant to be a caretaker govt rather than a change-the-world govt.
And GW did not tell or influence the Federal Reserve & Greenspan to do the actions they did, which is unwinding in the destruction of the US economy and the US Dollar...

GW,,imho,,,is just another 'Patsy' like Oswald and others thru American history

No no one did tell greespan to do what he did but it didnt help that bush then in times of crisis passes credit card company sponsared bankruptcy laws and tax breaks that puts money directly into the hands of the top 3%. Now Im all for those cuts if they are used in the trickle down theory. The problem is the trickle down theory only went halfway there were new jobs created yes...but wages went absolutely no where and all that money saved from the lack of payraises and bick tax cuts went right into execs pockets and the govs own statistics show this.

Now the housing boom saved our ass because people just pulled equity and paid off all their bills but what people didnt realize is that isnt real money that they are taking its really just borrowed money one big credit card...now people are in massive debt and there will not be another bubble to save butts.

I dont think its safe to say that Clinton did anything good for the economy- we have him to thank for NAFTA!!!
HOORAY!!

Let's see
George W Bush promised to reduce government but instead he tripled it in size. He promised a non-interventionist foreign policy but instead he has created one of the biggest intervening foreign policies I've ever seen. He promised to promote less government spending and then turned around and spent more of the taxpayers dollar and borrowed millions from the Fed. Here's the Acceptance speech of George W. Bush so read it and then you'll know what he promised and what he has done. I would like to say that he has us fighting over there instead of here. Edit just to say that we are in a recession after eight years of Bush.



[edit on 4/13/2008 by Solarskye]

This is less breaking news and more idiotic partisan mudslinging.

I feel stupider after reading this thread.

Originally posted by Johnmike
This is less breaking news and more idiotic partisan mudslinging.

I feel stupider after reading this thread.

I agree it is not breaking news but thats where the agreement ends.....you should feel smarter because you get to see the incompetence we have in our government and not just bush all the dems too.

reply to post by mybigunit

I dont know...I think the difference between bushs mess and clintons is that clintons was due to a very good run and was due to a natural cycle

Say WHAT?

Clinton's economic melt down at the end of his term (8 year term, exactly like Bush's economy melting down after his 8 years) was largely due to the fact that money was created from absolutely NOTHING from the massive explosion of so called "dot com" businesses. (note essentially the same problem within the financial sector under Bush) .. the Dot Com's burst, then just a few months later 9/11 happens.. Not to mention NAFTA ..

And all of this lead to the extension of massive credit.. to offset the recession that we where in.. which was largely due to Clinton's era.. (not saying its Clinton's fault, just under Clinton) .. and when you think of the problems plaguing Bush's presidency, wars, Katrina (any other country loosing an ENTIRE metropolitan area would have been crippled..) 9/11 and now the break down of everything that was holding it together.

The credit extension to the population was because the economy never fixed its self, the people would not have had the money to spend and thus the economy would not have grown. All because of 1999-2001 .. it was a temporary bandaid. imo .. after 2001 America should have been in a depression .. and I think that now that not only is our cash maxed out, our credit maxed out and now there is little else to resort to.. unless a new "bubble" forms to create money, we may be heading to the depression we tried to off set 8 years ago..

So I still do not say the President himself has anything to do with this.. blame the Fed.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mybigunit

 

I dont know...I think the difference between bushs mess and clintons is that clintons was due to a very good run and was due to a natural cycle

Say WHAT?

Clinton's economic melt down at the end of his term (8 year term, exactly like Bush's economy melting down after his 8 years) was largely due to the fact that money was created from absolutely NOTHING from the massive explosion of so called "dot com" businesses. (note essentially the same problem within the financial sector under Bush) .. the Dot Com's burst, then just a few months later 9/11 happens.. Not to mention NAFTA ..

And all of this lead to the extension of massive credit.. to offset the recession that we where in.. which was largely due to Clinton's era.. (not saying its Clinton's fault, just under Clinton) .. and when you think of the problems plaguing Bush's presidency, wars, Katrina (any other country loosing an ENTIRE metropolitan area would have been crippled..) 9/11 and now the break down of everything that was holding it together.

The credit extension to the population was because the economy never fixed its self, the people would not have had the money to spend and thus the economy would not have grown. All because of 1999-2001 .. it was a temporary bandaid. imo .. after 2001 America should have been in a depression .. and I think that now that not only is our cash maxed out, our credit maxed out and now there is little else to resort to.. unless a new "bubble" forms to create money, we may be heading to the depression we tried to off set 8 years ago..

So I still do not say the President himself has anything to do with this.. blame the Fed.

Essentially I agree with what your saying on the dot com bubble but if you look at the 90s real wages went up Rock. This is what Im talking about. Real wages have not gone up in 10 years and that is according to the governments own data.

Clinton also did not spend near as much money as Bush or Regan. www.thechiefsource.com...
see the link above in fact the democrats spending all the money is a lie...the bushes and Regan spent 3 to 10x more than Clinton and Carter.

Now overall I agree the government is spending all sorts of money we dont have and right now there is 14 trillion of existing money out there so I dont by the crap the fed gives about there is not enough money out there because there is way to much money out there. The problem is it is all in the hands of the top 3% and they arent lending or spending it and right now the middle class is tapped out. Yes the FED is part of the problem no doubt but government spending is not helping so we agree there. My point in my first thread like I said is that Bush and Clinton both had a big bubble the only difference is under clinton wages went up and there was a surplus.

Heres another good graph bp3.blogger.com...
which shows our national debt since the 30s. Under Clinton really for the first time from 95 to 2000 the debt kinda went sideways it didnt go up like on all the other terms. Then look at Bushes debt and that is without this huge bill for this year...every president has issues rock clinton did also besides the BJ. I dont like to be put in a spot to be a Clinton apologist but the facts are the facts and bush has really screwed things up

Thanks for that piece of information grover, we have been turned into a bankrupt superpower.

Now thanks to the fed trying to keep the illusion of America's prosperity alive we are now to be downgraded by our creditors (I mean the foreign nation that buy our debt) credit worthiness.

Then we have another Republican running for president that wants to extend the worthless but expensive Iraqi war to another 100 years, off shoring, free trade, work visas and China imports are only benefiting the corporate fat cats and the Bushes/Cheney cronies.

Oh I forgot Bush has been very good to the Arabs oil producing countries, leaving Iran out of it.

What is the price of oil lately, yes . . . it was almost 112 this week.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Solarskye
Let's see

George W Bush promised to reduce government but instead he tripled it in size. He promised a non-interventionist foreign policy but instead he has created one of the biggest intervening foreign policies I've ever seen. He promised to promote less government spending and then turned around and spent more of the taxpayers dollar and borrowed millions from the Fed.

in reply to you and mybigunit... GW campaigned and
'wrested' the Presidency on the Republican platform of less-gov't etc.

But- as i pointed out, 9-11 happened, basically 'out-of-the-blue'
as far as the two Parties and the nation's defenses were concerned. !

so the change of tack by the (stolen) party-in-power resulted in the massive shift of priorities (and the resulting expenses) for dealing with 'terrorists' in Afghanistan first and additionally Iraq (for the administrations' own contorted/distorted reasons)...
thereby adding totally unexpected costs to the national budget....
[actually around $1 trillion and 4,000 American lives later...]

we could bicker=> till the cows come home

reply to post by mybigunit


The huge bill this year is actually more debt to our already indebted nation and is at the mercy of our foreign creditors (I mean the nations that buy most our debt China and Japan) but with the devaluation of the dollar, I think we are going to see some change of harts here.

In nearly the last century politics have been ever more corrupted by the infiltrating tentacles of the money managers until what we have now is a bunch of puppets, puppets are of questionable moral character, those with dirt on them may be more controllable.

Bush didn't do this to the economy, but that's what most people will Initially point the finger to.

The enemy is the central bank of the united states , and it needs to be abolished for the third time in our nation's history. To be more clear it is fractional reserve lending and high rates on interest which needs to be abolished, because as history is a guide, the debt builds up until their are no more "suckers" and then the elite bail themselves out (get the first life boats) and then the economy which was supported by a ponzi scheme of fractional reserve lending and debt implodes, social classes all experience rapid delclines in their standard of living (as well as perhaps destroying the currency) and then these periods of trauma are often ripe for a Revolt.

The money changers/ bankers know this. This pattern has played out on this planet a few times. This time the international dynastic banking families i.e rothschild's (like any business that is ruthless) want to do better than there predecessors. When the economy built on a pyramid of debt collapses they want to capitalize, they want "world gov't" under the guise of puppets (who not co-incidentally get the headlines and are first in line should a revolt actually happen) , they want more control and they no people's desire to revolt needs to be quelled. They want and know world gov't by consent is their best chance. Ever since the first "current group" of cental banks was founded over 300 years ago (the bank of england) this group of tireless business men have had a plan , and a plan of ultimate control. and they have done very well for themselves since they exported Englands monetary policy (central banks) all over the freakin world!! Now they must "evolve" and one up their banking predessors of century's ago, lThey have to approach people of various belief systems with a plan that stems revolt when the # hits the fan IMO and keep the unwind steadu but rather orderly.

They want people to beleive they have to accept a lower standard of living, they want people to WILLFULLY feel guilty for giving mother nature a "fever", and thus accept the lower standard of living (which is not advertised) as a shameful (but to be accepted) as a "fair enough" punishment. They want to reach another (not mutually exclusive) group thru religion and have them sit back and wait for the evil to be "uprooted" , taking a watch and wait type of attitude i.e let god take car of it (to a degree IMO) and lastly i think they may take care of another (again not mutually exclusive group) thru food shortages and rising cost of living as a means of control and leverage to accept any new laws (losses of freedom) because they will have their concentration on surviving.

bankers know ponzi schemes built on fractional reserve lending at interest can not sustain high standards of living for long, but this time when the cycle ends they want (not just a golden parachute) but the whole enchalada.

in the hierarchy of errors, cognitive dissonace at this point in history (knee jerk dismissals) may prove much more costly than developing a plan B.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by cpdaman]

[edit on 13-4-2008 by cpdaman]

surprised that my last response didn't get much reply

seems lilke a good assesment and the biggest issue of our day. an issue by which other events and political movements may be orchestrated to help provide the infrastructure and the leverage to change laws (do away w/ freedoms) so that order can be maintained when the standard of living drops very low.

also to add to my last post. Many gov't gladly accepted central banks because their fractional reserve lending gave them the ability to spend much more than they would otherwise be able to do, Gee what a tough decision for "Public serpants" to make and in return our own politicians sold us (and our constitution out) by giving bankers the right to coin money.

NWO = lower freedoms and standards of living and revamped laws to maintain order after the latest credit/debt pyramid on which the world's economy rests implodes, just like all other central banking debt pyramid's in history.