OT: CNN has inadvertantly nailed the U.S. Economy with 2 hea

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:31 pm

Check out today´s CNN Money headlines.
 
 One is titled "America´s rich get richer". Another on the same page says "Why you´ll owe more in 2004.
 
 This pretty much nails the state of of our nation right now. The rich keep getting fatter and claim the economy is reboundiung while the middle class (and poor) struggle with layoffs, unemployment, and now higher prices.
 
 I find it sickening that I have not gotten a raise or bonus in three years due the economy tanking. Our company has laid off a number of employees and those who are left thank the boss we still have a job. Oh, and then we get to pick up the slack for all those "unneccessary" employees. Add to that rising health care, gas, insurance, etc... and you have Kraus family budget cuts in order to stay afloat.
 
 I don´t mean to sound bitter. After all, I am thankful to have a healthy wonderful family and a new home. However, each month seems to squeeze us tighter. While I wonder if I´ll have a job next month, companies like ours are planning to move jobs to China and India. Our president is only concerned with his rich corporate buddies, and his family beef with Saddam.
 
 -Matt

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:05 pm

I hear ya, hopefully things will change for the better after the 2004 election. I miss Bill <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_frown.gif">

RAMMZZ · Post by **RAMMZZ** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:27 pm

I thought this was digital sports ........... not political jerk off board.
 [ This message was edited by: RAMMZZ on 19-09-2003 18:32 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:33 pm

Rammzz:
 
 Down, boy. MattK correctly labeled this post upfront as off-topic and referred to subject in the title.
 
 If you don´t like it, avoid it. But with proper labeling, I have zero problems with political opinion as long as it doesn´t lead to endless idealogical arguments. Talking issues is cool; talking idealogy gets older than Grandpa´s buckskin rubber.
 
 Take care,
 PK

DChaps · Post by **DChaps** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:18 pm

"I find it sickening that I have not gotten a raise or bonus in three years due the economy tanking."
 
 Is it due to the economy, or is it due to the greed of publicly held corporations?

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 12:24 am

Information and communications technology improves productivity but also allows for things like outsourcing etc. This puts downward pressure on wages. Hence good productivity numbers and a weak labor market. Corporations exist in a marketplace of brutal competition. If they aren´t "greedy" they don´t survive. A good portion of the middle class owes it´s existence to transfer payments from the wealthy to to less weathly (i.e. taxes, a tax code that favors certain classes--mortage interest deduction anyone, etc.). Bush wants to get rid of a lot of these transfer payments (which started pretty much with Roosevelts New Deal) because he believes that the economy will be more efficient without them. He´s probably right but the end result will be the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 9:35 am

"Corporations exist in a marketplace of brutal competition. If they aren´t "greedy" they don´t survive."
 
 It´s the greed of the individuals at the top that are a problem, not the companies themselves. CEOs that continue to get 25% raises each year, even as their company is losing money.
 
 - Matt
 
 PS: Rammzz: Stay at SR or OS if you want filtered content. This board isn´t big enough to require the supervision OS needs.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 9:41 am

I thought this was digital sports ........... not political jerk off board.
 
 
 [ This message was edited by: RAMMZZ on 19-09-2003 18:32 ]
 
 
 You edited this? You actually had to put thought into this inane comment?

RAMMZZ · Post by **RAMMZZ** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:21 am

PK I didnt notice the OT....you are correct.....
 
 I avoid political boards and politics....because I find Dem and GOP fan boys to be the worst.
 
 Political clowns are the most biased and blind people on the planet.
 
 
 PS.
 
 Pete sorry I offended you.
 
 I am new here and didnt know you were that sensitive.
 
 I know editing bothers you but Ill have to do it again..again I apologize.
 
 
 
 
 [ This message was edited by: RAMMZZ on 20-09-2003 07:29 ]

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:31 am

Rammzz: Stay at SR or OS if you want filtered content. This board isn´t big enough to require the supervision OS needs.
 
 
 Ditto! Don´t be an asshole here...they don´t last long. This board is small enough to police itself,so chill out.
 
 Matthew sorry man ,good thread.

RAMMZZ · Post by **RAMMZZ** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:44 am

So using the word "asshole" is good?

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:14 am

So using the word "asshole" is good?
 
 It depends on what range of an asshole you are.
 
 1. Dumb asshole(New to the site and dosen´t know any better) You are in this catagory right now.
 
 2. Stupid asshole( Knows the site and knows better)This would apply to anyone with over 25 posts.
 
 3. Fu**ing asshole(A troll who trys to mess up every thread ) This would be the type of people that speak in the 3rd person and have many screen names. You really want to avoid this catagory.
 
 
 Welcome to DS!!
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">
 
 [ This message was edited by: JackDog on 20-09-2003 08:26 ]

RandyM · Post by **RandyM** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:52 am

Well, since we´re off topic...I´m in a position where my layoffs happened during the calendar year 2001. I bopped from California, to Massachusetts, to NY. In one case, I got a really nice job at Allaire, who then got bought by Macromedia right while I was in transition, then let me go while I was still in temporary housing in Mass. I finally ended up here in Florida, and I´m happy to be working and in a good job...
 
 But here´s my point: WHAT exactly do you think that the role of government should be in making sure you have a job? When I see people ***** about the economy and blame it on the Commander in Chief, I sometimes wonder whether they´ve read the Constitution or Bill of Rights. There is no "Right to work" in either document. There´s nothing in the government mandate that involves telling people how much money they can make, even greedy corporations.
 
 I´m not siding with the corporations. I´m not saying it doesn´t suck when the CEO´s get fat raises while laying off their employees.
 
 However, you´re somehow asking the government to intervene in an area that´s basically none of their business. Their first job is to provide national security, their second job is to make sure that you have the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. THAT´S IT.
 
 Maybe your problem is you just need to become more indispensible to your employer so that they never think they can AFFORD to lay you off. Or go get into a line of work where you ARE indispensible.
 
 I realize realities of life often make this really difficult, but to point the finger of blame at the government for not telling companies how to run their businesses is just reading ´rights´ into our documents that aren´t there. And the minute you start doing that, you start eroding the very freedoms you are benefitting from.
 
 Randy

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:31 pm

Randy:
 
 Superb post. You´ll get zero argument from me -- a first! <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 
 Seriously, what is the government supposed to do? Tell the NYSE that it can´t pay Dick Grasso $140 million? That´s the NYSE´s problem -- not the government´s.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 20-09-2003 10:32 ]

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:55 pm

I agree with Randy. Try to make yourself more valuable to the company or other companies. I wouldn´t sit around waiting for Bush or any other politician to solve your problems. It makes us feel better to vent about politicians, but ultimately the ball is in our court.
 
 I think many of us just get too comfortable. I know I have. I got my CPA about 6 years ago and I said I would go on and get my MBA after a few years off from studying. Well, I never did get that MBA. Why did I slack off? Because I started making some nice money and I got too comfortable. I wasn´t hungry anymore. If I get laid off and can´t get another comporable job I won´t have anyone to blame but myself. Not the President. Not Congress. Not even the evil greedy corporations.
 
 I wouldn´t single out just those greedy CEOs at corporations. I´ve seen greed in every corner of corporations and every walk of life. From the merchandisers who collected nice bonuses on gross margins even though the company lost money after shipping costs, to real estate directors who got bonuses by the deal making frivolous transactions, to accountants cooking the books, to doctors committing medicare fraud or failing to pay back student loans, to the diner down the street that doesn´t claim half their workforce, etc. Sad but true.... <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_eek.gif">
 
 It´s just too easy to blame others. It´s not just the evil corporation´s fault that a lot of programming jobs are being outsourced overseas. I´ve seen what IT professionals make and I´ve seen the consultant costs. Some individual IT consultants at our company make over $250k a year (that´s for one person). I think greed on their part (not blaming them...hell I´d bill that too if someone would pay it. I´d just save up my money knowing the gravy train would end soon) has made corporations take a look at much cheaper alternatives. Can you blame them?

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

Leebo
 
 "...Accountants cooking the books"
 
 How dare you sir ! (slaps Leebo across the face with copy of IFRS 1)
 
 I prefer to think of my work as legitimately maximising income in areas which have multiple interpretations.
 
 Of course, I don´t feel bad about it because I work at a Further Education college, and public sector organisations make ´surpluses for reinvestment in learner services´, rather than profit.
 
 So I can sleep soundly at night <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif"> [ This message was edited by: davet010 on 20-09-2003 11:54 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 4:56 pm

You can say don´t blame the president or that they really can´t affect the economy. However, nobody, neither Bush nor his opponents, seem to completely subscribe to the theory that presidents can´t do anything about the economy.
 
 Or else, what was the last round of tax cuts sold as a stimulus package all about? When he goes around the country, Bush is talking about creating jobs.
 
 He could have said, "economy is out of my hands" and "my main responsibility is to provide national security and cut the size of govt." Also that people who need jobs "are on their own."
 
 But he didn´t say any of these things. So fairly or unfairly, economy is going to be an issue. And when ITs and other white collar jobs (accountants, financial analysts, some health care positions, etc.) are getting outsourced, there will be more publicity because these people are more affluent than the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs and had to take service sector (often retail jobs). So they will make more noise to the media and their political representatives.
 
 As for whether Bush really is to blame for any of this, there is no question that he represents the interests of the CEOs and the upper classes.
 
 His policies aren´t necessarily having any economic effects yet. All the liquidity he pumped into the economy with the tax cuts should hit the economy right around re-election time, over the next year.
 
 The potential negative effects, from the high deficits, may be something that don´t hit until 2006 or so. He may get re-elected despite all the people out of work. It´s just up to Rove to spin these job losses or make voters worry more about terrorism.

cdastros · Post by **cdastros** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:12 pm

I think some of you guys don’t realize that the government serves the people NOT the constitution. That includes the president of the United States. The democracy comes before anything even the Constitution. If the people feel that the economy is more important than national security then they have that right. They also have the right to vote for the candidate that is not making the economy a top priority. It happened to the first Bush and it can happen again.

RandyM · Post by **RandyM** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:09 am

>> He could have said, "economy is out of my hands" and "my main responsibility is to provide national security and cut the size of govt." Also that people who need jobs "are on their own." >>
 
 He should´ve. But then the press would do what they always do and go with the whole stereotypical BS about how Republicans are mean people who want their grandmas to eat dog food and they want to poison our water and air, etc.
 
 >> As for whether Bush really is to blame for any of this, there is no question that he represents the interests of the CEOs and the upper classes. >>
 
 He´s not one iota more concerned about CEOs and the upper classes than Clinton or any other president was. This is rhetoric. Usually rhetoric can be found by someone stating their opinion but prefacing it with "there´s no question that" or "everyone knows that", so as to try to "shout down" challengers before they even get a chance to respond. For all the crap about Enron, they gave Clinton a ton of money too, and the main difference was that Bush did NOTHING to bail them out when they got in trouble...oh, actually that´s not true. He immediately went and pushed for stiff penalties for anyone caught cooking the books. I´m sure Enron was really happy to see their donations rewarded thusly. The post you write reads like the usual class warfare rhetoric. Let´s just paint Republicans as a bunch of evil people who are just taking care of their good ole boy network. We don´t have to PROVE anything. It´s on THEIR shoulders to prove that they aren´t what we accuse them of being. And the Democrats? Well, because they have big union money, teachers union money etc, and effectively buy votes with Government spending, they are to be considered compassionate.
 
 Maybe, since the Republicans are so pro-rich people and the Democrats so pro-poor people, you can answer why Democrats uniformly are AGAINST any kind of school voucher program even for inner city at-risk kids, when every poll I´ve seen on the issue shows huge support for vouchers among poor minorities in inner cities. Could it be that perhaps the teachers unions have dibs on that money and the politicians are bought and paid for? Could the fact that a very large # of people at the Democratic National Convention are sent there by the NEA have anything to with it? Couldn´t be!! After all, Democrats are SO compassionate and care about the smallest in society....if they oppose vouchers, it cannot have ANYTHING to do with the megabucks they get from the teachers´ unions to protect their government funding? And of course the Democrats oppose almost every standard intended to raise the education level. Why? Because that would mean holding teachers accountable for results. Why, we can´t have that!!! Unions don´t survive with accountability, they survive with SENIORITY. Any attempt to actually reward people for doing a good job would lead to a *gasp* capitalistic system whereby the achievers would be rewarded. This could be repeated for many other cases where Democrats actually want to make sure they feed the people that elect them, and make sure that more and more gov´t money goes to them. If the military would show that it would vote democratic in exchange for military budget increases, I´m sure the Democrats would be all for it. Unfortunately, the military has this nasty habit of not trusting Democratic presidents all that much with their lives, and stubbornly refuse to vote as a Democratic block. So the democrats call for more cuts in the military budget.
 
 >> His policies aren´t necessarily having any economic effects yet. All the liquidity he pumped into the economy with the tax cuts should hit the economy right around re-election time, over the next year. >>
 
 It´s hit already. Once the check arrives, and you spend some or all of it, it hits the economy that quartrer. I got my refund check, and happily pumped it into our economy. Thanks to that refund, some people at restaurants got more business, some people at stores got profit off of stuff I bought that I might otherwise not have...and my buying that stuff keeps people working (not me individually, but collectively all that money in the tax cut DOES go into the places where it is spent, and DOES help.)
 
 >> The potential negative effects, from the hit deficits, may be something that don´t hit until 2006 or so>>
 
 Dude, you do realize that the Democrats´ proposed spending bill is 1.9 Trillion dollars, about 3-4 x larger than Bush´s tax cut. You also do realize there was this little event called 9/11. And you do also realize that the economy started diving from the stock market´s perspective during the Internet in the spring/summer of 2000 - BEFORE Bush was elected (The time period is etched in my memory because it´s when my stock options at the company I was at, which had just gone public...TANKED!). I always laugh when I hear Democrats talk about how Bush inherited such a great economy and threw it all away, hoping that people will have short memories and believe what they are saying. Well I remember all too well when it happened and what it felt like, and Clinton was president, and when Bush warned that bad times were a´comin, the Clintons and Democrats screamed that Bush was trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy ahead of time. Now they claim that the economy was just wonderful until the January that Bush took office.
 
 >> He may get re-elected despite all the people out of work. It´s just up to Rove to spin these job losses or make voters worry more about terrorism.>>
 
 Jobs are a direct result of people spending their money on the businesses that provide them. When your profits take a dive and your stock price takes a dive, and your sales take a dive, you lay people off. Yes, there are some who line their pockets at the expense of workers, and that´s terrible, but for every one of those there are 10 companies that do NOT want to have to lay people off. It´s a downward cyclical spiral. You lay people off because you are selling less, but the loss of the people hurts your ability to create the things that people buy or continue to innovate, and therefore you sell less, and then you have to lay off again. I´ve been in companies where its happened.
 
 
 Yes Bush has some issues with the fact that he´s trying to be a nice guy whom everyone likes....he even tries to lean Democratic on some issues when he should stand his ground. It´s definitely a human thing to want people to like you and to try to compromise to make yourself popular and it´s upsetting when Bush does it.
 
 Randy
 
 
 
 Registered to :
 18-09-2003
 
 Messages :2
 
 OFF-Line
 
 New Message Posted!2003-09-20 20:12
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I think some of you guys don’t realize that the government serves the people NOT the constitution. That includes the president of the United States. The democracy comes before anything even the Constitution. If the people feel that the economy is more important than national security then they have that right. They also have the right to vote for the candidate that is not making the economy a top priority. It happened to the first Bush and it can happen again.

RandyM · Post by **RandyM** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:22 am

>> I think some of you guys don’t realize that the government serves the people NOT the constitution. >>
 
 Ah, Blissful ignorance. It may not sound sexy, but the presidential oath of office doesn´t say "serve the people" unless I heard a different one than you did. It says he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
 >> That includes the president of the United States. The democracy comes before anything even the Constitution. >>
 
 Do you think we live in a democracy? Democracy is MOB RULE. We live in a representative republic, with a constitution and a bill of rights to ensure that no public passion will be able to circumvent basic human rights, regardless of how popular such public passion is. The three branches of our government were expressly designed to ensure that our Democracy was not unbridled mob rule, but a system with checks and balances to ensure that what´s MORALLY right based upon the Bill of Rights and Constitution, whose principles this country was founded upon, would always take precedence.
 
 Those that believe that Democracy should be above the constitution should have no problem with forfeiting every right they have as soon as their rights become unpopular with the majority of people. I´m sure if we ran the South as a "Democracy" during the days of slavery, it never would have been abolished. The voting majority probably would have kept it around. Perhaps during waves of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany, the "Democratic" response of the German people would be to wipe out the Jews as sub-human. Hey, it´s Democracy first, right?!
 
 Cases like these are why you do NOT want to live in a "true" democracy, when any group can route out and destroy a minority simply because they are the minority and would lose any vote. Your rights and freedoms of this country are bound to the constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that NO ONE takes your rights and freedoms away, regardless of how many they are or how few YOU are. If you throw away our constitution and bill of rights, it´s open season on any minority on any issue . Is that the country you choose to live in ? Is that what you want to see the President fighting to bring this country to? If you seriously ponder it, and READ the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I think you´d end up agreeing that the system of laws and founding documents are a far better gurantee of our freedoms than mob rule democracy.
 
 >> If the people feel that the economy is more important than national security then they have that right. >>
 
 No one said you don´t have that right. But it does NOT mean you have to be listened to by our government on the issue. You can use your votes to try to vote in a power who will flush our national security down the toilet and unilaterally disarm so we can throw all this money at domestic programs. You´re certainly welcome to that. But any President who gets into office with the idea of doing that should realize that he is forgoing his oath of office which makes his priorities crystal clear, and should be based not upon the whim of public sentiment or poll, but upon the need to protect our freedoms with force if necessary, regardless of how many people in the country are taking their freedoms for granted.
 
 >> They also have the right to vote for the candidate that is not making the economy a top priority. It happened to the first Bush and it can happen again. >>
 
 Yes, it can. And it might. But as usual, the credit or the blame for the economy never lies entirely at the doorstep of one party. Do not forget that Clinton´s first 2 years were an unmitigated disaster that resulted in the Republicans seizing control of the House and Senate for the first time in over 50 years, and the cover of Time had a picture of an Elephant squashing a Donkey so bad its eyes came shooting out. Between then and the end of Clinton´s term, the Republicans had the power to negotiate budgetary terms with the President, and ANY credit Clinton deserves for his handling of the economy and the balancing of the budget HAS to also include the Congress for making it happen. It certainly was never in the cards when all of Congress and the Executive Branch were Democrat controlled. The Contract with America came in and with it came the hard bargaining that got us out of financial hot water. He also had the good fortune of being the President during the Internet boom and the stock market boom that accompanied it. Until the bubble burst in 2000 anyway...by which time it was time to hand the thing off to someone else and ride into the sunset.
 
 I hear a lot of people ripping into the President about his handling or lack thereof of the economy. What I never hear is what YOU think the President should be doing. Not vague concepts like "he should be doing more" and "he should make the economy his #1 priority", but actually WHAT EXACTLY do you expect him to do for YOU that is going to make YOUR life better? What freedoms are you willing to give up to our government in exchange for a little more financial security?
 
 Randy

RAMMZZ · Post by **RAMMZZ** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:49 am

Jack Dog thanks for the clarification.
 
 I will leave the OTs to the OTers.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:15 am

"If the military would show that it would vote democratic in exchange for military budget increases, I´m sure the Democrats would be all for it. Unfortunately, the military has this nasty habit of not trusting Democratic presidents all that much with their lives, and stubbornly refuse to vote as a Democratic block. So the democrats call for more cuts in the military budget."
 
 
 Amen Randy! Great point. I joined the military at the end of Carter´s flop in the White House. He had cut military spending to the bone. My wife and I had to apply for food stamps as a PFC my first year in. My wife and I were good old fashion black Democrats. Until President Reagan came along.
 
 The military got four raises in his time in the White House. Three during President Bush´s terms.
 
 We got off food stamps and started to see through the bullshit that was feed to us by the Democrats.We were told by black leaders and Democratic politicians that Republicans were racist bastards that wanted us to stay uneducated and poor.
 
 Well I had never seen so many blacks vote Republican when President Reagan got his second term. At the time the US Army was 74% black. It sure looked like the Racist basterd Republicans were taking care of some brothers at that point. And blacks in the military picked up on that.
 
 The US military was taken care of during the Republicans time in the White House. Three years after Clintons election I saw new soldiers putting in requests for food stamps.Men that were going to marry,held off so their girlfriends with child in tow could apply for welfare.
 
 I knew then that the fighting men and women of this country were on the bottom rung of the Democratic economic ladder.
 
 Its no secret that Clinton hated the military,look at the cuts he made to it in his eight years. But he sure called on us to go take our poor asses to die in Somalia and Bosnia.
 
 I really hate politics now. I hate the bullshit of it all. My wife is a Republican and I am just hanging out. I vote for no party in particular,just who I think is the best man or women thats crazy enough to want the job of President.
 
 Randy I think your points are valid and not political rhetoric. Thanks for your thoughts.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:17 am

Holy Jeez, this has gotten deeper than I care to get into politics.
 
 Basically, I feel that the government in general, not just the president, has let our economy get out of control. And yet, the focus is still on Iraq.
 
 I am not a democrat or a republican. In fafct, I hate politics in general. Politicians are nothing more than empty talking heads to me. They will lie at will in order to be popular.
 
 Despite my current dislike for politics, I still feel it is their duty to act in the best intrests of the people, not a few CEOs.
 
 For those who think I was whining in my original post, let state it this way. I work for a manufacturing company in the IT department. I have seen many factory and office jobs be eliminated over the past couple of years. Do I think the government owes it each of them to ensure they have a job? NO. But I also believe it is part of their duty to make sure our country is healthy enough to provide jobs for everyone that wants one.
 
 The Bush administration passed a tarrif on steel about 2 years ago. That act increased our steel prices by over 25%. Thank you Mr. Bush for knife in our side as we try to compete with China.
 
 Randy, good for you that you have a well paying job that you like. I have a decent paying job, but I don´t love it, and it´s hard right now to find anything better due to the lack of openings. With a wife and two kids, I also can´t hopskotch around the country on a whim when going from job to job. It also makes going to school a bit difficult as well.
 
 I feel our government does owe me AT LEAST the effort to try and help our economy out. The child tax "bribe" we got is not a solution. It was an advance on what we were owed come tax time anyways. They should be concerned more with helping (help, not solve) US businesses find ways to compete with the Chinas and Indias.
 
 As for my position, I am safe for now. However, no matter how indespensible I am to my current employer, NONE of us in the office (except for the high execs) have gotten any sort of increase in three years. THAT is a result of a poor economy. I don´t blame Bush, I blame our government, DEMS and REPS all included. BTW, I know from a source in our company that while have gotten zero, our execs get private xmas parties, $10,000 bonuses, and more. Now tell me why I should not be upset.
 
 -Matt

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:24 am

RAMMZZ......No man don´t do that. Please post your opinion and don´t take me so serious <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 
 Again welcome to DS!

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 2:42 pm

Bush fashions himself as the CEO POTUS. He´s into the little accessories like cuff links with the POTUS seal.
 
 He was buddy buddy with Lay before Enron´s name became mud. More importantly, he received more donations from the energy industry than any other candidate in history. Not just Enron but the Reliants and others, many of which it turned out were gaming the CA energy market with deliberate schemes to drive up electricity prices. Unless you sat through rolling blackouts, all induced by companies conveniently taking their generators offline so they could see market prices shoot up and then turning them back on, don´t say Bush doesn´t care more for the corporate interests over those of the electorate.
 
 Some people had to choose food over power. Others just sat in the dark. Still others chose to wrap themselves in blankets to help with conservation efforts. The Bush admin. made sure the FERC did NOTHING to prevent these abuses, all of which were documented by the agency AFTER the fact. Only reason CA and the Western States saw any relief was that Jeffords defected and changed the balance of the Senate. Now the Democratic senators (including both CA senators) threatened to hold hearings. Guess what, the FERC imposed wholesale price caps, which stopped the price-rigging.
 
 As for Bush inheriting a bad economy, there was a recession in 2001. Two quarters of negative GDP growth. And then it ENDED by Nov of 2001. We´ve had positive but tepid growth since then. The Conference Board declared the recession of 2001 over, after just 2 quarters, the minimum time required to declare a recession.
 
 Estimates of job losses vary from 2.5 to 3.5 million during the time Bush has been in office. Sure Bush isn´t directly responsible for that. But despite the lowest interest rates and all the supply-sider tax cuts, jobs aren´t being created. No matter what happens over the next year, Bush will face re-election with net job losses during his term.
 
 Sometimes in sports, teams fire coaches or managers even though it´s not their faults that the teams fail to win. A change at the top helps change the attitudes of the players and fans, even without a substantial change in the makeup of the team. For whatever reason, consumer confidence and the willingness of companies to invest for growth just hasn´t been there.