I'm completely lost in the last G.W. thread, so I will start fresh here, since, mostly, this thread is different than what that one has turned into.
1) What's interesting, firstly, is that if one knocks Bush, there is an automatic assumption that one loved Clinton. I will admit that I have defended Clinton in the past, but what I cannot deny is that he wasn't the most lackluster president, in my opinion.
Clinton, upon election in 1993, was already on too high of hopes. The people were tired of 12 years of Reaganomics and were interested in something new. Clinton, in the eyes of the left-wing, was to be something of a savior. However, that was a position he should never have been put in. I will repeat it again, but, like him or hate him, he was not a true liberal. His business policies were very Republican in practice--highly deregulatory. Hence, it really is no surprise that the largest mergers in history occurred under Clinton, when he had every power to stop some of them. This was something I verily disliked about him.
Clinton was more liberal in regards to social and environmental practices, but, obviously, this was something the Republican Party disagreed with, and, in 1995, when the Republican Party retook control of Congress, that ended all chances of a liberal agenda. What occurred next? Stalling measures: flag burning amendments, Whitewater investigations, impeachment hearings, etc. We have some here accusing the Democrats in the Senate today of being obstructionist. I would disagree with that, simply in that the Democratic Senate is pushing their agenda, or, at least, attempting to force the White House to compromise. The Republican Senate, under Clinton, was obstructionist in that they buried all agenda under piles of "moral outrages," hearings, etc., clamoring for ways to make Clinton's presidency a failure.
A successful presidency is dependent on both the president and Congress. I am not going to say that Clinton wasn't blameless in all this, because he wasn't. He was a very apt politician, and knew how to manipulate the public like the best of them. But to make this one-sided and blame it all on Clinton is sheer partisanship. Clinton, to me, was a president with promise that didn't totally meet up to expectations; but, considering how high they were in 1993, it was bound to happen.
2) G.W.--to be fair on him, he inherited centuries worth of problems that came to another apex on September 11th. To blame him or Clinton specifically for the rise of Osama bin Laden is ludicrous. Abject poverty in these regions have been a problem for a very long time. Combine that with ineffectual governments abd the rise of religious fanatics taking over their role in social welfare and education, you have a problem. You simply do not bite the hand that feeds you, and, in the case of these militants, the "hand" was religious institutions, not the government like in the Western world.
However, like Clinton's Republican Congress who used scandal as a diversion against legislating, I fear that G.W. is using the war as a diversion. Conservatism prefers laissez-faire capitalism, so "doing nothing" is preferable.
Now, however, we have Bush's "economic stimulus" packages. How kind, right? Tax breaks do nothing to stimulate the economy. Our economy is based simply on stockholder confidence, nothing more and nothing less. The economy of the 1990s was nothing real, but, as long as people kept funneling money into stocks, we believed it to be afloat. That's what the media told us, right? So we believed it.
Throwing money at corporations is not going to stimulate the economy. Throwing tax breaks at individuals or the working class even isn't going to stimulate the economy. You can tax 20% of $0 and you're still going to get zero; likewise, if you lower the tax to 10% of $0, you are still going to get zero.
G.W.'s mentality, obviously, is under the idea of trickle-down economics, whereas lavishing corporations with money means that they will lavish you with some of it too. But that won't happen, due to, once again, the legal definition of inflation. Once the economy picks up and people start getting paid again, the little bell that says "inflation" starts and interest rates are raised. Meanwhile, prices and credit continue unabated. Trickle-down economics may work well to placate the media and get the economy going for a little while, but it is a shoddy foundation. Innovation and, dare I say it, wages is what brings long-term prosperity.
3) Recessions. People like to pass around the blame for this recession onto Clinton. Onto G.W. I don't blame either, personally. Government, under the deregulatory climate, does not influence whether business succeeds or fails nowadays. The prosperity of the 1990s was due to the rise of computers and the internet, in my opinion, but, by the late 1990s, it was a false economy: dot-com speculation, fueled by the rise of 401K plans being infused into the stock market periodically. What has caused our recession is simple:
a) Reality set in, and people no longer had confidence in dot-coms, which had proven no profit, nor any future profit.
b) Business' reluctance to innovate. American business became complacent, thinking only of immediate profit and not of potential future profit. They aren't utilizing research into new technology. "New technology," computers and the internet, was what fueled the 1990s. Now it isn't so new anymore.
c) Low wages and high personal debt. Let's face it: our economy is driven by consumer spending. But who's spending is the most influential? The blue-collar working class. In the last two decades, their wages have been getting smaller when adjusted for inflation, and there is now more reliance on credit cards. While G.W. encouraged people to spend more in a "patriotic duty," people simply don't have the money, especially when most job cuts have been in the blue-collar sector and many are likely afraid of their own job being cut. Thus, they are saving.
The only thing that can solve this is the redefine inflation once again, as, during the wane of Clinton's term, when a published report declared wages to be higher, Greenspan raised interest rates. Hence, under the current inflationary structure, what is encouraged is low wages, whereas consumer prices, the former indicator of inflation (as was under Carter and before, but changed under Reagan), can now go unchecked.
4) My long-term economic prediction? In the next two decades, the European Union will continue to grow and will eventually overtake the U.S. as the strongest economy in the world. What is on their side is that they are unafraid of technological innovation and their technology is not proprietary (i.e., it is standardized), their approach to economic growth does not mean a loss of ethics in the process (unlike the U.S.), and they are united in their disgust for American economic supremacy. What will be at America's downfall is business complacency (which is what killed the American video game industry in the early 1980s), a short-term outlook regarding profits, and corporate arrogance.
Any thoughts?
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
1) What's interesting, firstly, is that if one knocks Bush, there is an automatic assumption that one loved Clinton. I will admit that I have defended Clinton in the past, but what I cannot deny is that he wasn't the most lackluster president, in my opinion.
Clinton, upon election in 1993, was already on too high of hopes. The people were tired of 12 years of Reaganomics and were interested in something new. Clinton, in the eyes of the left-wing, was to be something of a savior. However, that was a position he should never have been put in. I will repeat it again, but, like him or hate him, he was not a true liberal. His business policies were very Republican in practice--highly deregulatory. Hence, it really is no surprise that the largest mergers in history occurred under Clinton, when he had every power to stop some of them. This was something I verily disliked about him.
Clinton was more liberal in regards to social and environmental practices, but, obviously, this was something the Republican Party disagreed with, and, in 1995, when the Republican Party retook control of Congress, that ended all chances of a liberal agenda. What occurred next? Stalling measures: flag burning amendments, Whitewater investigations, impeachment hearings, etc. We have some here accusing the Democrats in the Senate today of being obstructionist. I would disagree with that, simply in that the Democratic Senate is pushing their agenda, or, at least, attempting to force the White House to compromise. The Republican Senate, under Clinton, was obstructionist in that they buried all agenda under piles of "moral outrages," hearings, etc., clamoring for ways to make Clinton's presidency a failure.
A successful presidency is dependent on both the president and Congress. I am not going to say that Clinton wasn't blameless in all this, because he wasn't. He was a very apt politician, and knew how to manipulate the public like the best of them. But to make this one-sided and blame it all on Clinton is sheer partisanship. Clinton, to me, was a president with promise that didn't totally meet up to expectations; but, considering how high they were in 1993, it was bound to happen.
2) G.W.--to be fair on him, he inherited centuries worth of problems that came to another apex on September 11th. To blame him or Clinton specifically for the rise of Osama bin Laden is ludicrous. Abject poverty in these regions have been a problem for a very long time. Combine that with ineffectual governments abd the rise of religious fanatics taking over their role in social welfare and education, you have a problem. You simply do not bite the hand that feeds you, and, in the case of these militants, the "hand" was religious institutions, not the government like in the Western world.
However, like Clinton's Republican Congress who used scandal as a diversion against legislating, I fear that G.W. is using the war as a diversion. Conservatism prefers laissez-faire capitalism, so "doing nothing" is preferable.
Now, however, we have Bush's "economic stimulus" packages. How kind, right? Tax breaks do nothing to stimulate the economy. Our economy is based simply on stockholder confidence, nothing more and nothing less. The economy of the 1990s was nothing real, but, as long as people kept funneling money into stocks, we believed it to be afloat. That's what the media told us, right? So we believed it.
Throwing money at corporations is not going to stimulate the economy. Throwing tax breaks at individuals or the working class even isn't going to stimulate the economy. You can tax 20% of $0 and you're still going to get zero; likewise, if you lower the tax to 10% of $0, you are still going to get zero.
G.W.'s mentality, obviously, is under the idea of trickle-down economics, whereas lavishing corporations with money means that they will lavish you with some of it too. But that won't happen, due to, once again, the legal definition of inflation. Once the economy picks up and people start getting paid again, the little bell that says "inflation" starts and interest rates are raised. Meanwhile, prices and credit continue unabated. Trickle-down economics may work well to placate the media and get the economy going for a little while, but it is a shoddy foundation. Innovation and, dare I say it, wages is what brings long-term prosperity.
3) Recessions. People like to pass around the blame for this recession onto Clinton. Onto G.W. I don't blame either, personally. Government, under the deregulatory climate, does not influence whether business succeeds or fails nowadays. The prosperity of the 1990s was due to the rise of computers and the internet, in my opinion, but, by the late 1990s, it was a false economy: dot-com speculation, fueled by the rise of 401K plans being infused into the stock market periodically. What has caused our recession is simple:
a) Reality set in, and people no longer had confidence in dot-coms, which had proven no profit, nor any future profit.
b) Business' reluctance to innovate. American business became complacent, thinking only of immediate profit and not of potential future profit. They aren't utilizing research into new technology. "New technology," computers and the internet, was what fueled the 1990s. Now it isn't so new anymore.
c) Low wages and high personal debt. Let's face it: our economy is driven by consumer spending. But who's spending is the most influential? The blue-collar working class. In the last two decades, their wages have been getting smaller when adjusted for inflation, and there is now more reliance on credit cards. While G.W. encouraged people to spend more in a "patriotic duty," people simply don't have the money, especially when most job cuts have been in the blue-collar sector and many are likely afraid of their own job being cut. Thus, they are saving.
The only thing that can solve this is the redefine inflation once again, as, during the wane of Clinton's term, when a published report declared wages to be higher, Greenspan raised interest rates. Hence, under the current inflationary structure, what is encouraged is low wages, whereas consumer prices, the former indicator of inflation (as was under Carter and before, but changed under Reagan), can now go unchecked.
4) My long-term economic prediction? In the next two decades, the European Union will continue to grow and will eventually overtake the U.S. as the strongest economy in the world. What is on their side is that they are unafraid of technological innovation and their technology is not proprietary (i.e., it is standardized), their approach to economic growth does not mean a loss of ethics in the process (unlike the U.S.), and they are united in their disgust for American economic supremacy. What will be at America's downfall is business complacency (which is what killed the American video game industry in the early 1980s), a short-term outlook regarding profits, and corporate arrogance.
Any thoughts?
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
