Watch out for scammers in Irvine

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Winex. The Iraq War is not the only reason why I dislike the man. We can just agree to disagree. Sorry about the jab....but he really riles me up.
 
<p>It's kinda amazing that this is IHB and no one has mentioned:</p>

<p>1. Regulation to prevent the subprime fiasco</p>

<p>2. Serious overspending blowing the budget.</p>
 
<p>Trooper</p>

<p>You and I are in the same camp when it comes to GW. I just get ill when he attempts to speak to the press. When he mentioned WWIII the other day I was dumbfounded. Now a few weeks later it looks like we got some bad intel. Last time that happened we went to war with Iraq. Looks like we will exit Iraq the same way as Viet Nam. The money gets shut off by congress and eventually we pull out. Or we just wait for the next president. Thank god for term limitations. I am leaning towards the blackman recently. I watched Guliiani on one of the Sunday morning shows. He is going down in flames. Without 9/11 he would not even be a contender. He has turned his 9/11 involvement into a succesfull business. Thats just wrong. IMHO. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
Bush's incompetence:





1. The Iraq war and reconstruction. There are a plethora of bad decisions here; books have been written documenting it.


2. Katrina. The poor response to this problem resulted in the destruction of a major American city and countless lives lost. The hurricane did its damage, then the Bush adminstration compounded the problem.


3. Shotgun diplomacy. Under Bush's tenure North Korea restarted its nuclear program. It was only through renewed negotation after 5 years of failed foreign policy that may have averted their obtaining a nuclear weapon. Bush's diplomacy with Iran has done little better.


4. Fiscal discipline. A Republican spent our budget surplus and expanded discretionary spending 33%.


5. There are many others, but those are some of the big ones off the top of my head.





The Republican congress was responsible for much of its own demise with their conduct after their huge majorities gained after the 2004 election. However, one of the biggest factors in their catastrophic defeat in 2006 was their steadfast endorsement of the incompetent policies of Bush. Had they abandoned him earlier, they may not have lost quite as many seats.





What major policy initiatives will Bush be remembered for positively? His tax cut that failed to stimulate the economy? His bankruptcy reform initiative that will probably be overturned or modified after the coming onslaught of bankruptcies caused by the housing fiasco?





When Bush's approval ratings were over 80% after 9/11, it wasn't likely this would last, but if he had made sound decisions and championed sound policies, his approval ratings would have hovered in the 60s throughout his presidency. He had an historic opportunity, and he blew it. He blew it in a major way. He will probably be the only president in history to see a 60 point decline in his approval rating.





The sad part is that I voted for him in 2000. I didn't want that idiot (and Nobel prise winner) Al Gore to spend the surplus...
 
"his tax cut that failed to stimulate the economy?"



I am very much interested to hear the solid facts and analysis based on that evidence in order for you to draw that conclusion. With the solid analysis you have provided in this blog, I am sure you didn't just say this as a "political view".



"His bankruptcy reform initiative that will probably be overturned or modified after the coming onslaught of bankruptcies caused by the housing fiasco"



Are you saying Bush caused the Housing Fiasco?



"North Korea"

Did the problem started during the Clinton years? Some of their nuclear technology was given to them for civilian use by the Clinton Administration in exchange for not building weapon? North Korea changed their mind not long after that. I am interested in knowing what facts there is to support this is ALL Bush's fault?



"Katrina"

No doubt that head of FEMA didn't know what he was doing. But IrivineRenter, have you been there to find out how things work in NO area? I have first hand knowledge of that. The mistakes came from all levels, Federal, State, and city. Blaming this all on Bush is just nuts! Are you aware of the facts that the people in New Orleans refused help because of the racial mixture of the labor forces one company proposed to help? Again, please present facts to show it is ALL bush's fault.
 
I voted for Bush twice. However, I am extremely unhappy with his Iraq policy. However, let's get the facts straight on other things.
 
<em>"his tax cut that failed to stimulate the economy?"





I am very much interested to hear the solid facts and analysis based on that evidence in order for you to draw that conclusion. With the solid analysis you have provided in this blog, I am sure you didn't just say this as a "political view". </em>





If his tax cut was so successful at stimulating the economy, why did the FED need to lower interest rates to 1% for over a year after these tax cuts were in place? The tax cuts undoubtedly had some impact, just not very much. (Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed lower tax rates.)





<em>"His bankruptcy reform initiative that will probably be overturned or modified after the coming onslaught of bankruptcies caused by the housing fiasco"





Are you saying Bush caused the Housing Fiasco? </em>





No, I was careful not to. There are plenty of things to blame him for without stretching.


<em>


"North Korea"


Did the problem started during the Clinton years? Some of their nuclear technology was given to them for civilian use by the Clinton Administration in exchange for not building weapon? North Korea changed their mind not long after that. I am interested in knowing what facts there is to support this is ALL Bush's fault?</em>





The problem did start in the Clinton years, and Clinton agreed to pay the North Korean ransom. When Bush came into office, he cut off the aid payments which were part of the Clinton agreement. It should have been no surprise when North Korea restarted their program. Notice how we have gone back to the Clinton solution to fix the problem?





Personally, I think the Clinton solution was not to great because it was simply giving in to extortion, but Bush's policy proved even worse.





You are putting words in my mouth on Katrina. I never said it was <em>all </em>his fault. The corruption of Louisiana politics created the conditions leading to the disaster. What <em>was </em>Bush's fault was the terrible response to the disaster. Lyndon Johnson went to New Orleans for a photo op with a flashlight, and the federal government acted. Neither Bush earned high marks with their handling of natural disasters. I imagine it is part of their philosophy of government which says the federal government should stay out. It is a bad philosophy for dealing with natural disasters.
 
"if his tax cut was so successful at stimulating the economy, why did the FED need to lower interest rates to 1% for over a year after these tax cuts were in place?"



Come one, IR, you know better than that. Lowering interest rate to 1% has nothing to do with Bush policy. Our economy was recovering from the burst of the other bubble. And you know well that tax cut takes some time to see results. Do you know that the federal government has been taking in more tax revenue in the recent years?



In regards to Korean, their ruler is a nut case. Doesn't matter what approach you use, that crazy guy would have started his nuclear problem. What is making a big difference right now is China's influence on North Korean. China is only starting to play a more meaningful international role in the last two years due to increasing economy power. Most of N.K's food and fuel come from China. North Korean has pissed off China during the last two years negotiation by pulling surprises in front of the Chinese, and the latest round of agreement proved China is serious about not wanting N.K. to have nuclear weapon.



Again, for Katrian, there is no doubt Bush administration shares the blames, since there is plenty of it to go around. If Kerry or Gore were the president, I am sure things won't be too much different. We just had our wild fire here, did you see security issues at the Qualcomm stadium like what happened at the Louisiana doom? Major of San Diego ordered massive evacuation, what did Nader do? After having first hand knowledge of what was going on there, and then Nader got re-elected as the major of NO again after Katrina, I gave up on NO/LA. There is no doubt in my mind what happened there has a lot to do with the local politics, and believes. It is a different world out there. Bush, Core, Clinton, or Kerry will make no difference.
 
IR, first of all, thank you for the civil response. We are all adults here, and an unemotional conversation on the issues at hand can lead to enlightening conversations. The nature of the topics you raised will require more depth than can be covered this evening, but should provide for an interesting conversation that helps prevent this venue from becoming an "echo chamber".





With that having been said, consider this to be a springboard to future conversation.





<strong>IR>1. The Iraq war and reconstruction. There are a plethora of bad decisions here; books have been written documenting it.</strong>





Could you provide a little more detail here? Is your problem with the decision to go to war? Prosecution of the war? Both?





Without knowing which books you are referring to that document your concerns, it's impossible to address this one further. I am prepared to discuss either the decision to go to war, prosecution of the war, or both. I just need a little more direction to engage you in conversation.


<strong>


2. Katrina. The poor response to this problem resulted in the destruction of a major American city and countless lives lost. The hurricane did its damage, then the Bush adminstration compounded the problem.</strong>





Personally I'd like to see FEMA eliminated. I feel that people should be free to make their own decisions, and should be free to live with the consequences of those decisions. If you choose to live in a city that is below sea level, then living with floods is one of the consequences of that decision.





Of course, it would be impossible to talk about Katrina and ignore the incompetence and corruption at local levels that made the impact of a natural disaster worse. Even if President Bush had made the goal of rebuilding the levees in the area the top priority of this country on his first day in office, adequate protection for the storm wouldn't have existed in time. And, of course, given the state of Louisiana politics, it's certain that any resources dedicated to the task will be siphoned off for the benefit of a few.





Problems with inadequate flood control were compounded by local authorities who didn't use existing resources to evacuate the area. (Who can forget pictures of all those flooded school buses that weren't used to evacuate the people of New Orleans? ( For those who have forgotten, check out this link:http://www.geocities.com/perry_peterson_1999/busses.jpg) )





Of course, there are those who say that refusal to sign the Kyoto accord, President Bush is actually responsible for the storm. (I have had people tell me that) To them, I can only say that if you believe that Republicans really can control the weather, then you should fear us.


<strong>


3. Shotgun diplomacy. Under Bush's tenure North Korea restarted its nuclear program. It was only through renewed negotation after 5 years of failed foreign policy that may have averted their obtaining a nuclear weapon. Bush's diplomacy with Iran has done little better.</strong>





Actually you are mistaken about North Korea's nuclear program. Though the Clinton administration gave in to blackmail, North Korea never froze their program. Forget all of the mainstream news sources on this one. It's all too easy to find conflicting, but wrong information on the topic. The most unbiased source I can think of on this (or similar) topics is the Federation of American Scientists. If you go to their website, you will find a PDF athttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB91141.pdfon this subject. The following quote starts at the bottom of page 12 of that PDF:


<em><strong>


North Korea’s secret highly enriched uranium (HEU) program appears to date from at


least 1996. Hwang Jang-yop, a Communist Party secretary who defected in 1997, has stated


that North Korea and Pakistan agreed in the summer of 1996 to trade North Korean long


range missile technology for Pakistani HEU technology.7 Other information dates North


Korea-Pakistan cooperation to 1993. The Clinton Administration reportedly learned of it in


1998 or 1999, and a Department of Energy report of 1999 cited evidence of the program. In


March 2000, President Clinton notified Congress that he was waiving certification that


“North Korea is not seeking to develop or acquire the capability to enrich uranium.” The


Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun reported on June 9, 2000, the contents of a “detailed


report” from Chinese government sources on a secret North Korean uranium enrichment


facility inside North Korea’s Mount Chonma. Reportedly, according to a CIA report to


Congress, North Korea attempted in late 2001 to acquire “centrifuge-related materials in


large quantities to support a uranium enrichment program.”</strong></em>





I'll need a little more clarity about your statements about Iran. If you believe the declassified portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that was released last week, Iran abandoned their nuclear program in 2003.





You might ask yourself what world events happen in 2003 that would lead to such a decision.





Here is a clue.





Libya also abandoned their nuclear program in 2003. The reason stated by Khadaffi is that he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein.





<strong>


4. Fiscal discipline. A Republican spent our budget surplus and expanded discretionary spending 33%.</strong>





While I agree that Republicans acted all too much like Democrats when they controlled the purse strings, let's be honest with ourselves here. The reason the Federal budget looked better at the end of the 90's (it wasn't truly a surplus if you recognize that the books were only balanced by the excess in collections of Social Security over disbursements) was because we had a stock market bubble. The Nasdaq lost half of it's value in Clinton's last 6 months in office, and people who had been writing fat checks to the IRS during the bubble years no longer had reason to do so.





While the increase in discretionary spending under President Bush has been disgraceful, you simply can't ignore the collapse of the stock market and the impact on Federal revenues.





Another thing worth noting is that you can't ignore the need to rebuild our military. Are you aware that at the end of the Clinton administration our warfighters actually trained with blanks instead of live ammunition? (There is an ammunition shortage to this day that impacts our police department because manufacturing resources have been rediverted towards rebuilding military stockpiles and supplying our troops at war) The neglect of our needs goes far beyond mundane things like ammunition and extends to spare parts needed to keep various machines of war operational. Also, because we didn't replenish things like cruise missiles when President Clinton exercised diplomacy the only way he knew how (lob a few cruise missiles at them, then appear on TV and pronounce the problem solved), we were left with something like 39 CALCMs (Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles) at the start of the Bush Administration. We actually had to convert nuclear cruise missiles to conventional weapons so that we could fight the war.


<strong>


5. There are many others, but those are some of the big ones off the top of my head.</strong>





Feel free to add more points to the list.
 
IR> If his tax cut was so successful at stimulating the economy, why did the FED need to lower interest rates to 1% for over a year after these tax cuts were in place? The tax cuts undoubtedly had some impact, just not very much. (Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed lower tax rates.)








Hmmm, I never expected to see you write anything like that. Not only did the Fed not need to lower interest rates to 1%, but doing so was irresponsible. But that having been said, one of my favorite indicators on the future health of the economy is the Weekly Leading Index (WLI) from ECRI. Of course the numbers I am quoting are from 4 1/2 years ago, but if I recall correctly, the economy was in the dumps because of the collapse of the tech bubble and a recession that was unusual in that it was started by the suspension of corporate spending everywhere. Added to that was uncertainty caused by the looming war in Iraq.





Though October 2002 was the bottom of the stock market crash, things weren't much better when the war started in late March 2003. But both the stock market and the WLI took an upturn when uncertainty was removed with the start of the war. While removing uncertainty helped somewhat, both the WLI and stock market took dramatic swings for the better IMMEDIATELY after the Bush tax cuts of 2003 were passed. (This was in the last week of May 2003)





If you would like, I can dig up supporting data tomorrow.
 
I do not normally contribute to a thread that involves politics, but it is <em>very </em>late, and I want to get my €0.02 in on North Korea.





NK has been a disaster of blind eye policy for decades. To blame Bush or Clinton for the current despot dictator and his heavily medicated ideas, is ludicrous. This spans for decades of ignoring a huge problem. No one, nationally, or internationally has stepped up to do something. Blame whatever president you want, but not one has had the balls or brains to stop the tyranny of this lunatic. Was Clinton extorted and blackmailed to get what they need? Sure... But at least Clinton provided food. Granted, it was seized, sold on the black market, and there is video of the rice being sold at the market directly from the Red Cross bag. But, it was food that they needed. During this time, kids would drink water from the muddy pot hole water. Gawd knows where their parents were. Maybe their parents were dead from starvation, or stuck in some prison camp.





What has been happening in NK for years, is genocide. Thousands upon thousands of people have been dying in this country for decades. All the while, this despot has been dining on lobster, washing it down with the finest cognac, in one of his thousands of expensive cars, inside one of his ridiculous palaces. I don't care what you think about Bush, but he cut off food to an already starving nation. If kids were drinking muddy water from pot holes during Clinton's time, then try to picture what it must be like without our food aid. This was, and is wrong. Great... I have a tax cut, and I have benefited from them, but I can sacrifice a latte a year to know people are not suffering in mass of starvation. Corrupt or not, they need food, and I am willing to give up a tiny, tiny portion to help.





This isn't meant to be preaching for a cause, as much as it is a wake the bleep up. I thought genocide was supposed to be prevented. But, that hasn't happened, and no one knows how bad it really is, and no one is doing anything to stop it. And, if you believe that NK will stop their nuclear efforts, because of the new policies issued by this administration, then be prepared for another round of disappointing spin.
 
<p>Just to set the record straight, I only like Bush in comparison to the options presented to me in 2000 and 2004. It would be more correct to say I really despised Al Gore and John Kerry.</p>

<p>Liz, some people think I like Bush because they confuse my crusade against political kool-aid servers with support for Bush and his policies. I'm not supporting Bush, I'm calling bullshit on people for either perpetuating an internet meme or oversimplifying a very complex issue or flat-out lying or presenting opinion as fact. When the mantra on the 2004 election was "Anybody but Bush" and it resulted in John Kerry standing for the DNC, I held my nose and voted for the evil I knew rather than the evil I didn't. There are more than a few very real reasons that I think Bush has squandered every last bit of political capital Reagan created for conservatives, and not one person can point to any post of mine on the entire internet and say "there, you are clearly supporting Bush in his implementation of this policy", but they can point to several where I take people to task for taking the intellectual short-cuts offered to them by political hacks. I don't defend Bush when he is attacked on the facts, but I do speak up when the poster is spewing bullshit or attributing things to him that he can't possibly be responsible for happening.</p>

<p>Eva, get your facts straight or kindly STFU. If you want to post your opinion about me, fine, but don't purport it to be factual or representative of my position or beliefs without also linking to the posts that led to your opinion.</p>
 
<p>Nude, I was under the distinct impression that you were a Bush supporter. Thank you for clarifying that you are not.</p>
 
<p>Troop-</p>

<p>I'd point you to our conversation back on 9/28 in the headlines thread: "...there are real, valid, true reasons for you to hate Bush; no one needs to invent new ones that aren't true as it's just confusing an already complicated issue." -Nude</p>

<p>I thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't a Bush supporter. Not allowing a lie to be called "truth" isn't support, it's honesty.</p>
 
<p><strong><em>For awgee:</em></strong></p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.diersfamily.com/Ron_Paul/RonPaulCopperHighRes.jpg" /></p>
 
Prof - That is too funny. Where in the world did you find that? How appropos, especially the Gold Standard reference.
 
<p>I voted for Bush in 2000, and whoever the libertarian was in 2004; don't even remember his name.</p>

<p>However, if I had seen the Gore of the ecology movie, who acted like a human being, instead of acting like he had a stick up his er,,, innards, I think I would have voted for him. Since I live in Florida, that would have narrowed the vote difference by a significant amount.</p>

<p>And, of course, it may be that the operant word here is "act".</p>

<p>Seeing how awful Bush has been, it's hard to see how Gore could have been awful-er. Sometimes people are nuch better, or much worse than one would expect.</p>

<p>Nude--relieved to hear your opinion of Bush.</p>

<p>Bush didn't even have the cojones to agree that giving that raped Saudi woman 200 lashes because she was out with a male non-relative was a bad think. Pandering to voters in one thing, pandering to Saudis far worse.</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top