Harvard Business School Critical of Bush Economics

gregorantic writes "From BusinessWeek Online: 'George Bush, America's first President with an MBA, has been slapped on the knuckles by 169 concerned business-school professors.'"

Comments

Poll of economists

[ratsnapple tea]

Also see The Economist's poll of academic economists, which puts Bush against Kerry and finds Kerry's policies by and large coming out on top. The article notes that while academia may rightly be considered leftist (heh), the poll isn't obviously biased against Bush in its assessment of the economy's recovery and of the president's role in it.

Highly recommended.

Re:Poll of economists

[ADRA]

You bunch of tree huggin ECOnomists. Go back to russia Comrads!

Re:Poll of economists

[0x0d0a]

The article notes that while academia may rightly be considered leftist (heh)

The educated and knowledgeable tend toward the left?

I agree that this is a significant point, but I read it a bit differently than the article author does.

Re:Poll of economists

[DaoudaW]

I'm not trolling...

I consider myself a liberal, and expect most intelligent, well-educated people to have similar views. Some of the comments above make it sound like academia is a left-wing conspiracy to corrupt the country. I simply believe that when a person is exposed to a broader range of knowledge and theories that their ability to understand nuances and appreciate differing opinions grows. In a word, they become more liberal.

Re:Poll of economists

[TheCarp]

Exactly.

Its like LA Franken said in terms of the liberal media (I don't have his book in front of me so I am not quoting) Basically the media is not liberal.

Ok, certain issues sure. Journalists have all been to college, and when you go to college, or spend time near one, you will meet a much wider range of people than you will in other places. (I live in Boston, where if you throw a rock, chances are it will land on University property). So Journalists have generally met gay people, and probably even have had gay friends.

So, journalists generally are aware that gay people don't have some cohesive gay agenda, and generally arn't trying to "turn everyone gay". So In that sense yes, the media is very liberal towards gays, and you have seen much more acceptance of gays there than in society at large (unless your in Boston or osme other city with a very large gay population)

-Steve

Re:Poll of economists

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How many of these had Kerry or Bush in their classes? Something tells me that the standard teacher disappointment in a student that fails to live up to his potential may be at work here...

Re:Poll of economists

[JimFromJersey]

you should of called them tree-hugging, ECOcommunists.

This is no surprise.

[Murdock037]

It's often satisfying in its own childish way to trash on Bush for all the personal reasons-- the fake cowboy stuff, manipulation of 9/11, etc.-- but most often, the strongest argument against him is purely economic. His numbers simply do not add up.

See Paul Krugman of the New York Times for the most compelling case. His book, The Great Unraveling, is invaluable.

Re:This is no surprise.

[BoomerSooner]

Exactly. Bush is full of shit. I have a degree in Finance and MIS and I'm going for a Masters in Economics. The situation is simple to see for what it is, bad policy regardless of your political beliefs (I'm very liberal).

Normal GDP Tax rate is 20%
Normal Spending compared to GDP is 21% (Govt spending)

Bush Spending = 20% (this is good since it is lower than normal)
Bush Income (Tax Income) = 16% (this is very depressing and is the reason we have record deficits)

Re:This is no surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to comment on Bush's economic record, but Paul Krugman is one of the worst economic hacks out there. Heck, he even thought that Reagan's anti-inflation measures wouldn't work beyond the initial dip in inflation.

And don't even get me started on his politics. Ugh.

Re:This is no surprise.

[TheLink]

I don't support Bush. But I'm no Democrat - I'm not even a US citizen. I don't support Bush because not only does he lie (or if you're charitable- make mistakes), but he doesn't apologize for his lies ("mistakes") when confronted with them.

To me it is scary that the World's Most Powerful Nation is led by a unrepentant liar/incompetent (either he is lying or incompetent) AND worst most of the citizens don't appear to be that bothered about it - in fact so many support him.

Whereas look at Spain. They didn't like their Gov lying to them so they kicked them out. It's not because of the terrorists despite what the US media say.

I don't know why so many here get the idea that the rest of the world doesn't want Bush because without Bush, the US will be weaker.

To most of us smaller nations, a stronger/weaker US makes not that much difference to us. What makes a difference is when the Worlds Most Powerful Nation attacks a country based on dubious/fake justifications (lies) despite practically everyone else saying don't do it - it's not justified (and later it's proven by the US itself it's not justified).

In fact a richer and prosperous US is better for us, since the US is more likely to buy our stuff.

Bush has definitely helped terrorist recruitment with his actions. I don't see how the US is stronger because of what Bush has done - the US has alienated many allies. After the 9/11 events, the US had lots of sympathy with most of the rest of the world. But after attacking Iraq despite the UN, despite almost everyone else in the World saying there is no proof of WMD, Iraq is not a threat, the US has lost much support.

Bush and his supporters have the cheek to blame the US "intelligence" and others for not giving good info about WMD - WTF do you think the UN weapons inspectors were doing, the US authorities were saying the inspectors weren't good and were easily fooled by Saddam, and now the inspectors have been vindicated. The inspectors said they needed a bit more time to check things, the US said - no the threat was _IMMINENT_, we have to strike NOW. Now after so long, still no WMD found, just "intent". Of course Saddam wants the weapons. But ain't it cheaper to keep the inspectors there as a thorn in his flesh, rather than spending billions in the war? There was so much nasty stuff said about the inspectors, the UN and France.

The people at the top have been _proven_ to be liars and hypocrites. And if the US citizens allow them to stay at the top, they are "aiding and abetting" their leaders.

I've heard the excuses for keeping Bush in power but as far as I see, the logic/reasoning for practically all of the excuses is muddled or absent.

Re:This is no surprise.

[ArcherB]

If you were a true economist, you would know that once you adjust the past deficits to 2004 dollars (adjust for inflation, in other words), this is not a record deficit. Still, I've seen many people who should know better keep repeating that mantra.

Granted, there is no excuse for deficits at all, except for recession, war and natural or other disasters. And other than the recession, the war on terror and Iraq, 9-11, many hurricanes and one volcano, we've had none of that.

Re:This is no surprise.

[BoomerSooner]

True to an extent. However, you need to account for the surplus as well. None of the previous presidents had ever taken office with a surplus after our national debt had grown over 1 trillion dollars. The GDP numbers don't lie (they are adjusted since they are percentages instead of hard numbers). Bush is a fool. Anyone who believes his policies are going to help more than hurt is lying to themselves.

Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[mind21_98]

Something doesn't add up when one slashes taxes in the middle of a war, especially when we need the money to fight. Not that tax cuts are necessarily a bad thing, but having a deficit prevents the government from working effectively. Just my two cents.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[Yokaze]

> but having a deficit prevents the government from working effectively.

It only prevents the following government from working effectively.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[OYAHHH]

Having a deficit does not make government run ineffectively.

Actually one could make a strong argument that it makes government much more effective by providing a second way to manipulate the economy. A push versus pull sort of thing.

Without deficit spending the government could only spend what it had received from taxes in a particular year.

And due to a lack of perfect knowledge as to how much the tax coffers were going to bring in in a particular year the government would be pushed into spending very conservatively, lest it run a deficit.

Planning for long-term projects would be made far more difficult and emergency situations would tend to shutdown the government.

Deficit spending on the other hand allows lawmakers the leisure of knowing that they can start a long-term project and not have to pay cash for it today.

Emergency situations can be dealt with by using Uncle Sam's Visa card and accidental budget overruns (is there such an animal?) can be nullified.

Even more importantly the Federal Reserve can use it's enormous influence in borrowing power terms to micromanage interest rates. You wouldn't want to put Alan Greenspan out of business now would you?

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[Hard_Code]

No it doesn't, it prevents YOU from working effectively. The government can loan money from itself forever. It's your children and economy that have to pay the piper. That's why the talk of "tax cuts" is so aggravating. They aren't "tax cuts", they are "tax debts and burdens" on our future generations.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[nullportal]

If you cut taxes in the middle of a war, this means you must finance that war by borrowing, which occurs in the form of issuing government securities. If you have lots of securities outstanding, because you are one of the most stable security issuers around, this means you have a lot of people around who have a strong interest in your not losing a war, which would result in reducing the value of your securities that they hold.

Recall that WWII was financed primarily by bonds, not taxes, as have almost all modern wars in the last 200 years. The French Revolution, sparked perhaps most of all by default on previous bonds which had been issued to fight previous wars, lead to the Napoleonic Wars, themselves heavily dependent on who was purchasing government bonds to finance campaigning. Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton? BAH! The Exchange (London) bested the Bourse (Paris), more to the point! The remainder of wars from there on are wars essentially financed by BORROWING (bonds), NOT TAXES. Tax hikes in war serve to reduce consumption and thus prevent social ills of inflation due to scarcities, and as well make the populace feel they have a stake in the matter, but they don't primarily finance wars. Neither of these effects are needed in the US at present.

Don't thank me for the explanation. So many wars have been financed by borrowing and foreign policies influenced by what debt paper one is holding, that this is all very very old hat and well known. You don't need to be a Rothschild to understand the game, or even have read the US Doctrine on "Economic Warfare" that it derived in WWI and WWII.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[bersl2]

Having a deficit does not make government run ineffectively.

Correct. However, having a gi-normous, constantly-growing deficit is not.

Legally the Government is still obligated to pay back those bonds they float. However, if they don't start running surpluses, they keep floating bonds to pay for the old bonds, on top of increased gov't spending. This leads to too much inflation, which is bad.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[4of12]

It's your children and economy that have to pay the piper. That's why the talk of "tax cuts" is so aggravating. They aren't "tax cuts", they are "tax debts and burdens" on our future generations.

Notably, future generations aren't voters in the here and now when trade-offs are being decided about future taxes supporting current benefits.

From 7 years ago, this testimony from a young person about the consequences of using an overly generous CPI to boost, for example, social security entitlement payments, seems prescient.

Entitlement payments and debt interest already eat the majority of the federal budget - so-called discretionary spending - on programs that could hardly be deemed optional - is going to come under heavy scrutiny.

As someone who is going into retirement sooner than most of the population, I think it is unconsciounable that aged Americans and politicians have taken advantage of the pay-as-you-go Social Security system to milk much more from the system than they've put in.

I know it will decrease my benefits, but the system has to be changed to preserve what society actually needs as a bare minimum essential safety net instead of a pension.

Compare the percentage of people living under the poverty threshhold of those over age 65 to those under the age of 18 and you can see what kinds of decisions we're making.

Don't get me wrong - the elderly ought not to suffer in abject poverty. But they ought to exercise the responsiblity and wisdom in their voting not to financially oppress their progeny.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[Hard_Code]

I know social security is a problem and from what I hear the sheer mathematics will eventually make the system untenable as people simply live longer. It will have to be changed one way or another. Note however, that as people live longer, their health costs still GO UP. So there is some chance that we can reduce the COST of being older through science, but also through simple things we've known all along: if you have good health habits your entire life, you will be healthier in old age. This in turn would put less burden on future generations. Whether that is statistically significant I don't know. The "paying for doing nothing" however is outright waste, and society is just going to have to come up with a better way. There is also massive waste in other parts of government... perhaps this will put pressure to eliminate that waste (i.e. eliminate the bad waste and move it over to the "good waste").

Any way you cut it, it is my and future generations that are paying the bill for our parents and grandparents retirement. I sincerely doubt I will ever see the money that is taken out of my pay check for social security, and frankly it's insulting. (note that I consider myself left of center and do not object to taxes for social services in general, but social security is particularly aggregious...for one thing I have to live until retirement age to even GET any of it back).

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[4of12]

You're actually right, Medicare is a much more vexing problem than Social Security from a financial perspective.

IIRC, an interesting feature of our health-care cost profile is that something like 90% of the medical expenditures on people will occur during the last 6 months of their lives. For what?

Even if the threshhold age is increased where the elderly qualify for Medicare, this won't make as big an impact financially as it would for the financial integrity of the Social Security system.

These are hard problems to solve within the constraints of simultaneously showing compassion for people and fiscal responsibility. It's too easy to dismiss one or the other of those constraints and come up with an unsatisfactory solution.

Health care cost growth has been compounded by a number of "inefficiencies" in the system we have currently. Getting rid of those inefficiencies is an uphill battle against specific constituencies that rely upon them, including lawyers, doctors, medical schools, HMO's, hospital buying groups, pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and health care consumers (only the best for me and mine).

For starters, free and open flow of information about costs and benefits, and some direct payment in proportion to cost could help wring out some of the distortions.

Eg, if I choose to use an RN with a track record of whatever to treat my broken thumb for a certain amount what are my risks of developing a weird complication compared to choosing expensive doctory Y who will order expensive tests to decrease his malpractice insurance premiums, etc. Distributing the costs of liver transplants as liquor taxes, etc.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[WindBourne]

Actually, I am considering buying euros. This deficit is higher than many 3'rd world countries (relative to GDP).

Funny thing, is that when reagan got into office, the debt servicing was less than .1% of the budget. When Poppa Bush left it was at about 13% of the budget. When Clinton left, it was less than 10%. Now, it is something like 17%. Off hand, I would say that the democrats are the fiscally conservatives (and I am a libertarian).

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[maraist]

Funny thing, is that when reagan got into office, the debt servicing was less than .1% of the budget. When Poppa Bush left it was at about 13% of the budget. When Clinton left, it was less than 10%. Now, it is something like 17%.

Hehe, and don't forget that the Fed is being nice to Mr. Bush by keeping interest rates low.. This means that the "burden" is far less than it would normally be. All this new deficit spending is going into the newer low-interest bonds, as well as payment for the maturing bonds. Pretty soon, the rates will be higher, so "rolling over" the debt is going to get MUCH more expensive.

Sad thing is that the candidates only expect to half the deficit spending within 4 years, not eliminate it. Hopefully GDP increases and thereby tax revenues, otherwise we may see a downward spiral (a la USSR) much sooner than our comfort.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[WindBourne]

Pretty soon, the rates will be higher, so "rolling over" the debt is going to get MUCH more expensive.

I have been thinking about the raising of the interest. From where I sit, other than Oil, nothing is really rising. The only reason why the Feds might wish to raise it, is to attract funds for servicing of our debt. Up until recently, only the yen or the pound was considered stable. But they were from much smaller economies. Now, there is the Euro. It is from an economy similiar in size to America. In addition, they are following fiscal responsible practises. I really think that we will see a lot of nations move to the euro for the stable dollar. If that happens, the servicing of this debt will require interest rates of 20%. Scary

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[maraist]

Without deficit spending the government could only spend what it had received from taxes in a particular year.

The problem isn't whether we should allow deficit spending. Certainly there is no way of knowing what the next years' income will be. The problem is that we are budgeting expendetures which exceed all projected income. It's fine to be optimistic and budget for the best case revenue, but to knowingly spend more than you'll make in the foreseeable future is something that requires serious scrutiny. Surely being in a legitimate war where the future of your country is at stake is adaquate excuse for deficite spending. In fact, these usually involve what are called "war bonds", which are easier for the government to deal with. If you're in a depression, then you come up with some package like "The new deal".

Now, as best I can figure, Bush believed he could squander the future to make today better, and somehow come out ahead. He squandered international acceptance in hopes that the ends would justify the means in Iraq and Afghanistan (the jury is still out on Afghanistan, but it's too shadowed by Iraq, so everybody is willing to use it as a compromise tool).

He squandered our comparatively wonderful deficit level. Hopeing that by borrowing today, the economy would pass off this recession and thus be in a better fiscal standing tomorrow. As far as I can tell, the reasoning is that by both spending more and borrowing more (so as to burden the citizens less), companies would operate with an extra boost, consumers would have a new burst of spending capability, and the government wouldn't have to cut back on spending (which might add to the bubble of retracted purchases).

There is a flaw in this direction. The primary tax break dollars went not to businesses, but to would-be entrepeneurs. This type of money typically goes to the stock market / bond market. By simultaneously keeping bond rates low, there is a bigger incentive to put money into the stock market instead of bond market (and companies also have less competition for selling corporate bonds). But people haven't trusted the stock market since the crash; while some companies might have become "bargains", most are still over priced (by virtue of PE-ratios). So people are throwing their money into safe real-estate (the one thing that hasn't been hurt by the crash).

So Bush really only helped the real-estate market. Take the inheritance tax away as well, and by-golly, this is the best place to put your money bar-none. Course places like DC (my area) are expected to be bubble markets and thus not be as safe as initially believed; but time will tell.

The bigger problem is the consumers.. You can't sell anything unless you have buyers; and with the exception of military hardware, there aren't many avid buyers. Why are we in such a rut? Think of he stock market crash of 29. People were doing so well, that they were being optimistic.. They saw that having money ment that you could make more money. Seeing this success happen again and again gives a sense of confidence. Thus people start making consumer purchases based on projected future income levels. We start buying on "credit". I too was a victim of this mindset. I was layed off right along with the bubble, and my new income level could barely even make the interest payments, much less continue my previously purchasing level. Thankfully I primarily purchased assets instead of expending that money (e.g. I'm still using all that nice electronic equipment I bought in that day).

So when the bubble hit, consumers saw that their projected income levels were a thing of the past. But instead of just adjusting their budget to new income levels, they had to pay off their back-debt. Suddenly there was zero disposable income. (I'm exaggerating obviously). Of what I hear on the radio (NPR), apparently all income levels had this problem. People that make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year were spending well beyond their means jus

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[maraist]

From where I sit, other than Oil, nothing is really rising.

Well, the CPI shows steady manageable inflation, but I've seen lots of inflation in my personal life. Only problem is that I haven't been scientific about which years which consumer items trippled in price. Most items I've noticed have gone up by 50% to 100%. Blockbuster rentals, on average were about $3, now there's up to $4.75. Movie going use to cost $7, and now costs $9, AND the matinee (formerly $5, now $7) has been moved from 5pm down to noon (reducing to almost zero the number of times I can make it).

Don't even mention housing prices or renting (though I demonstrate in another article how I think this is Bush's direct fault as well as a reaction to the market bubble, and not an inflation factor), but the net result is that rent goes up (as property value, taxes, etc go up). Cell phone sur-charges have gone up from $1 to $7 for a $40 plan (effectively rasing the cost of an average plan from $41 to $47). Cable bill goes up with inflation. Electric fluxuates too often for me to get a good idea.

As I said, not a scientific measurement, but I definitely notice inflation.

Oil prices, I would argue are more dynamic and thus would be hard to calculate inflation levels, but I would be willing to bet that we'll never see $10/barrel again. This will have ramifications throughout all sectors of the economy, given enough time.

That being said, I agree that the biggest fear is losing the status as a nexus for world funds. We represent something like 90% of all monetary exchanges (people first change their money into dollars, then change it into the currency of their neighboring country). We also have the largest physical number of debt dollars, while simultaneously demonstrating a reasonable ability to pay off the debt in the far future, and thus people feel good parking their extra money here.. There is another good part about this though.. We are the worlds largest consumer.. People want to sell to us.. Problem is that they don't buy too much from us (at least not proportionately). Thus the market would normally deflate the US dollar. But this would make their products more expensive to US consumers, so China, Taiwan, Japan, etc all decide to use all their excess trade-deficit dollars to purchase US bonds. This way their desired exchange rates are maintained. Our Gov. bonds are safe resting houses for money they otherwise aren't ready to spend.

If Japan, for example, decided to rest their excess money in the EU, they would have to first take their US bond money out of the US; exchanging it for Euros. This exchange rate is already getting bad. Doing so will only promote the problem and provide larger losses.. Also, don't forget that they still have to keep money inside the US to keep their desired relative price levels, so they can't simply take their profit in Yen then buy directly from the EU at the Yen Euro rate. Individual companies can, but the government (who acts on their behalf) can not. Losing their exchange rate means Hondas suddenly get more expensive, etc. (They can only obsorb so much loss of profit).

But certainly, any loss in confidence in US bonds will require an increase in interest rate. I just don't think it will be a rapid or even a dramatic event.

Finally, The Fed is [supposedly] independent of the Treasury, and thus could give a crap about short-term Government revenue targets. The Fed is tasked with inflation, employment GDP management. So long as the Fed believes there are unemployed people and that inflation is not incombent, they can maintain low interest rates all they want. The Fed literally prints money when it purchases US Bonds.. It keeps interest rates low BY purchasing Bonds. So in effect, what the Fed is doing is purchasing back bonds owned partially by the Japanese or Europeans or what-have-you. If the Bonds mature while in Fed hands, the Fed forgives the debt and doesn't require the Government to pay back the matured bond. Th

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush theory is that the tax cuts stimulate the economy. When you grow the economy, you increase the size of the tax base, and thus grow the yield.

This makes sense to me. I'd like to see the numbers. Alas I don't know where to go to get realistic numbers (not slanted to make one or another politician look bad).

Ask yourself this: which is better for the economy, letting people keep the money (and probably use some of it to buy things), or skim it off to Washington D.C., filter it through a huge bureaucracy, skim some off for pork-barrel projects, and then return it unevenly to the same people from which it was taken?

Kerry is promising to raise taxes, and he claims his plan will create ten million jobs. These two ideas are opposed.

The ideal plan would be to cut taxes... and cut spending. And I don't mean a Washington D.C. "cut" where you reduce the rate of increase, I mean a cut.

If you ever propose to cut spending to anyone, you get flamed bigtime, however, so the country is probably doomed.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[pete-classic]

I take issue with your use of the word "middle."

Tax Cut

June still comes before September.

-Peter

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[pete-classic]

They aren't "tax cuts", they are "tax debts and burdens" on our future generations.

That presupposes that the budget just can't be any smaller.

Do you realize that the income tax wasn't instituted until 1913? That's 124 years (121, actually, but that's an unnecessary digression) we operated without an income tax.

Now, we don't get to have all the feel good programs we're used to if we don't maintain the current level of taxation. I think it would be well worth it to cut those programs.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[Hard_Code]

Huh? The government CAN be smaller. But:

tax cuts + spending INCREASES == massive deficit

cutting taxes without also cutting the programs that those taxes fund just mean the programs will use phony borrowed money.

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[pete-classic]

You seem to have stopped reading half way through my post. I said:

Now, we don't get to have all the feel good programs we're used to if we don't maintain the current level of taxation. I think it would be well worth it to cut those programs.

Thank you for your kind attention.

-Peter

Re:Record deficits, and we still want tax cuts?

[Hard_Code]

What is your problem? You think we need to cut programs. I do too. Why do you keep reposting this to me? We are in agreement.

Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Nagatzhul]

Odd how they don't acknowledge that the economic deterioration began before he took office. Without that major acknowledgement, that makes their statements looks suspiciously partisan.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Odd how they don't acknowledge that the economic deterioration began before he took office

Bush has been in office for nearly 4 years, don't you think it's time he took responsibility for his own policies now instead of blaming the previous administration?

If the economy was doing GOOD, Bush would try to take credit. So why not take responsibility for his actions?

(For the record, I didn't vote for Clinton).

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Nagatzhul]

Economics is a long range crap shoot and is certainly not an exact science. It takes four to five years for policies to trickle through. There is a lot of inertia, for want of a better word.

That means that if Bush does everything right, then we would just start to be seeing the effects of that now. Just like we were starting to see the affects of Clinton's policies (or rather lack of action) as he left office.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Colazar]

Just like we were starting to see the affects of Clinton's policies (or rather lack of action) as he left office.

Bush didn't cause the recession. But Clinton didn't cause it either, he (and the Republican Congress) *delayed* the normal cyclical recession by 2 years or so. I'd call that a plus for Clinton.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I'd like to see more objective evidence about the lag time. It's not that I disbelieve the numbers, and I've heard your numbers before. But it really seems like these numbers are stacked to provide a convenient excuse to deflect any blame off the current administration.

"It takes $years_current_administration_in_office + 1 year for policies to trickle through"

Certainly different economic policies have different lag times-- some are immediate, like tax cuts increasing the national debt.

Clinton was in office for 8 years. Which means his economic polices should have "trickled through" at the beginning of his second term. And indeed, the national deficit DID begin to decline around that time.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Nagatzhul]

Gratis, it does look like that. And most of my knowledge is old. It was based off of classes to understand the stock market (I decided it was too much like gambling and bowed out of it.) and to understand the effect on stock market of economic trends.

Tax cuts don't increase the national debt. Spending increases the national debt. That is the problem, not tax cuts. Of course, the Democrats would like you to THINK that tax cuts increase the national debt. They want to turn that into a boogie man so they safely raise taxes again.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[0x0d0a]

Just like we were starting to see the affects of Clinton's policies (or rather lack of action) as he left office.

You're posting on an Internet that owes a lot of its rapid growth to Clinton-Gore work. Maybe the Internet funding and policies weren't worthwhile on the whole (I think they were, but I don't know what else could have been done with the funds), but I think that Clinton-Gore helped the US public become Internet-connected ahead of other nations and thus gave the country an edge up on establishing itself. Clinton's policies generally didn't hurt me too much. They placed less emphasis on increasing police powers of federal agencies, and more on transparency and oversight, which I like.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[DAldredge]

Newt is why the debt went down (well, it didn't but we will ignore that for now). Clinton, just a year or so before, had submited a budget plan that had deficits for the next 5 years.

It ain't that hard to look this shit up so why do people just make shit up?

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[DAldredge]

No, Greenspan caused the recession when he raised rates too much or too short a time to combat 'nonexistant' inflation.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[TykeClone]

I think that the real Y2K catostrophe was the recession. All businesses threw out their normal upgrade cycle in the late 90's and upgraded a lot of hardware and software that would have normally been done later rather than sooner.

As soon as 1/1/2000 passed, businesses took stock and saw that everything was working - and running on shiny new hardware and software. At that point, they didn't need to spend their normal upgrade budgets because they were good to go for a couple of years. So they reduced spending and cut back on staff - helping out with the recession.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[TykeClone]

Newt and the fact that the pie that the government was pulling taxes from was growing (fast!).

I'll get mod'd into oblivian for saying this - but the 90's showed what Ronald Reagan said was true - hold the line on spending, cut taxes a bit, and the economy will balance the budget.

I'll grant that they didn't balance the budget - they used social security to show it as balanced - but it was as close to being balanced as it was for 30 years prior.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[moof1138]

So I guess you'd agree that Nixon's horrible econoic policies were what we were seeing under Carter, and Carter's thoughtful economic policies were what caused the growth in the Reagan Administration, while Reagan's disastrous policies brought us the awful Bush I economy.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[DaoudaW]

Just like we were starting to see the affects of Clinton's policies as he left office

Umm, right, except for the small detail that Clinton served 8 years and other than a down-turn in the stock market in the last few months of his term it was an unprecedented period of economic expansion. So even with your 4-5 years of "inertia" thats still 3-4 years of Clinton's reaping the benefits of his own policies. Even as a distractor, you have to admit that he kept his promise of balancing the budget.

You can have your own opinion, but facts are for everybody.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[mc6809e]

but I think that Clinton-Gore helped the US public become Internet-connected ahead of other nations and thus gave the country an edge up on establishing itself.

Bah.

The public got interested in the internet when was added to HTML, and modem makers figured out how to make cheap 14.4K modems so images would download at a reasonable rate.

The average Joe thinks text is boring and isn't going to pay for it, no matter what Clinton-Gore might have said.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, thats why no one ever connected to BBS systems over slow modems.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[2short]

"Tax cuts don't increase the national debt. Spending increases the national debt"

Do you understand the meaning of "debt"? If you cut taxes without cutting spending, that you increases the debt.

If you cut taxes and increase spending that really increases the debt fast.

If you cut taxes and increase spending while saying you are against big government that makes you stupid or a liar.

If you cut taxes and increase spending by stupefyingly larger amounts than anyone else ever has, while saying you are against big government, and calling others fiscally iresponsible, you've pretty much got to be both stupid and a liar; which is to say, George W. Bush.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[JimFromJersey]

Mary, mary quite contrary how does your internet grow?
With porn and warez and ... something else, you get the picture.

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Peyna]

Odd how they don't acknowledge that the economic deterioration began before he took office

Because it it wasn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Ivory Tower Partisanship?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 insightful.

And, on the heels of this recession, the 9-11 disaster slammed the economy, destroying millions of jobs. The Kerry supporters dance around chanting that Bush is the first President since the Depression to have a net job loss during his term, but it's dishonest to blame his policies without even mentioning the recession+9-11.

Mind you, Bush is not perfect and his budget plans aren't perfect. I'd rather have Bush than the dishonest Kerry, and Kerry's economic plans just scare me. Bush wants to spend too much, Kerry has already promised to spend nine times more than that, and raise taxes as well!

Curious

[meta-monkey]

Hmmm...I wonder how he would do in poll of business owners and managers? That is, people who actually DO things, as opposed to those who merely talk about them?

Bias?

[kajoob]

Just for full disclosure's sake, one of Harvard Business School's former Professors is Yoshi Tsurumi. Yeah, the guy that came out and tried to say that Bush, while a student there, came up to him and said something to the effect of, "My daddy got me into the guard despite the waiting list".

Think he's telling the truth? Well he went on Air America to further smear the President and got caught in other lies....

In the beginning of the interview they ask:

Seder: Alright, let's start with something simple. How was his attendance?

Tsurumi: Well attendance was not that bad. But his attention span was very short.

But then later on he says this about Bush's attendance:

Seder: '73-74. Now when we left. I posed the question to you. I would not let you answer. How many times did George Bush come drunk to your class, as a student?

(silence)

Seder: He's counting on his fingers. He's counting

Garofalo: Hangovers count as well, because sometimes there is residual.

Tsurumi: Well certainly he missed quite a few.

SederS: He missed quite a few classes?

Tsurumi: And when he came to classes some times he stays half-drunk.

...and another quote

Tsurumi: The lack of leadership quality we like to expect of any president. Certainly presidency of the United States. For example, lack of compassion, lying, indulging self-denial. Blaming the victims there are others. Certainly in trying to justify his own prejudices as if they are the American Way. Now a days he is trying to justify his prejudices as if they are given by God.

So just because it's Harvard Business School doesn't mean they don't have an ax to grind.

Re:Bias?

[Yokaze]

So? I fail to see a discrepancy.

In the beginning, he tries to emphasise that he didn't missed as many classes as either Mr. Seder or others might suspect or as other students might have missed.

Later, he was asked how his alcoholism affected his attendency. In that context, he notes that "he missed quite a few [classes]" due to hangovers.

This is not contradictory.

> So just because it's Harvard Business School doesn't mean they don't have an ax to grind.

How convenient. Blame criticism on partisanship.

But the criticism of the same institutions on Kerry's economic program, especially his stance against out-sourcing is valid and well founded?

Re:Bias?

[demachina]

Uh, where in this did you prove anything Tsurumi said was untrue?

"My daddy got me into the guard despite the waiting list"

George's dad did get him in the guard ahead of a waiting list with 500 or so candidates, there was only a handful of openings. Even worse George outright flunked the aptitude test, and should have been disqualified immediately. Instead he was pushed to the head of the list over people who actually passed the aptitude test.

The only question here is if George had the bad judgement to brag about it. Privileged kids, and I went to college with a bunch of them, often do brag about their privilege.

"Tsurumi: Well attendance was not that bad. But his attention span was very short."

Uh, I imagine most professor can assess the attention span of their students. This doesn't qualify as a smear campaign/agenda.

"How many times did George Bush come drunk to your class, as a student?"

Its no secret George was a massive partier during this period to put it politely. To be impolite about it he was probably an alcoholic, cocaine abuser and a skirt chaser. Its a near certainty he did go to class hungover, most college students do, and its certainly plausible he may have gone to class under the influence. Again you haven't got made a case that Tsurumi was being untruthful. What he is saying is plausible and you can't prove its not, unless maybe you can find someone with sterling credentials in all the same classes who disputes him.

Either Tsurumi doesn't like Bush and has an agenda or Bush had deep character flaws especially around this time. He and his whole family admit he was a very troubled young man, at least until he quit being a drunk, quit doing Cocaine, found Jesus and decided he was going to be President though he clearly isn't qualified for the job.

My favorite Bush quote of the week, when is in White tie and tux giving a speech to the "the haves and the have-mores." Bush smirks: "Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

Its bad enough that most politicians serve the elite and not the people, but George had the poor judgement to admit it in front of a camera, smirk and make a joke out of it. This is not a person who should be President of the United States.

Re:Bias?

[Brandybuck]

This looks like a job for Obvious Man(tm).

Tsurumi: Well attendance was not that bad.

...and then...

Tsurumi: Well certainly he missed quite a few.

If it still hasn't sunken in, I have a sledgehammer here that can help drive the point home.

Re:Bias?

[demachina]

Those two statements aren't contradictory, "not that bad" is a polite way to say his attendance wasn't the greatest, so is "he missed quite a few".

You are reading a lot more in to those two lines than I think most reasonable people would. To put it another way I think you may be the one with the agenda here. Apparently its to try and discredit Harvard Business School profs, by making one of them, Tsurumi out to be a liar. Unfortunately nothing you've shown so far makes your case.

Are you upset a bunch of smart people banded together to criticize your president? Is the cognitive dissonance thing kicking in, as its want to do with Bush fanatics.

Re:Bias?

[foniksonik]

I think these two quotes are the ones under scrutiny:

First: "Well attendance was not that bad."

Later: "Well certainly he missed quite a few (classes)."

IMHO those two statements are contradictory. Now he is speaking in vagueries so it's not exactly quantitative... but the implication is that he BOTH had decent attendance AND missed quite a few classes.. which was it OR is this the norm in Harvard Business School and if it is then there is no comparison to be made regarding Bush and other Students.

Re:Bias?

[Brandybuck]

Where the fsck do you get off calling me a Bush fanatic! All I did was point out to you the obvious point of the prior post. That's all I did, point it out. Then you go on some tirade about me having some agenda or something.

If you can't see the difference between "not that bad" and "missed quite a few", then you're the one with cognitive dissonance. It's not about being for or against Bush, it's about the freaking English language!

Re:Bias?

[demachina]

OK I'll say it again, there isn't any real contradiction between those two statements, I'm baffled why you think there is unless you are REALLY reaching for something that isn't there. It sure as hell isn't "obvious".

The original poster was clearly out to trash a Harvard Professor for having an "agenda" and all his fellow professor though a guilt by association and his case simply isn't there. He's pretty obviously out to defend his man Bush. You come along and support him, and again your arguement just isn't there, and I'm baffled why your trying to make it.

Maybe you could tell me what your motivation is.

Re:Bias?

[demachina]

Christ there is no contradiction there. "Well attendance was not that bad." is an extremely relative term and its depends on your idea of what "bad" is. It in no way, shape or form suggests he had a stellar/perfect attendance record in fact is suggests his attendance was not great, it just wasn't THAT BAD. "He missed quite a few" says exactly the same thing. He did miss some classes but he did show up most of the time, if his attendance was bad he would have said "he missed a lot of classes" and "his attendance was bad".

I'm dumbfounded you all are willing to hang this guy's credibility out to dry over this zealous parsing of two very vague phrases. I sure wish you could be so zealous about Bush administration statements about Saddam's ties to 9/11 and his WMD's all of which have proven to be outright lies, lies that have gotten a lot of people killed. Even worse they are at various times denying they said them or are still making the same assertions in the face of overwhelming reality. If you want to parse some statements and paint some people as liars why don't you work those over because they weren't even remotely vague and are increasingly, provably false.

Re:Bias?

[phyruxus]

I just went through this so maybe I can get it right this time.

>> Where the fsck do you get off calling me a Bush fanatic!

You backed up someone who is clearly trying to defend Bush any way possible. It makes it appear that you sympathize with him. The fact that what you call obvious is in fact very tenuous adds to the appearance that you are on a Bush-backing mission. There are so many Bush fanatics, and the rest of us are really getting tired of "Now before all the bush bashing starts" and "it's just liberal bias".

"Not that bad" could mean "stellar but I'm going to understate it" or "shitty but I'm going to be polite". Bush spent college boozing and snorting coke; it's not suprising he missed class. As for the freaking English language, if you can't see that Tsurumi was just being polite, then wow, I can't help you. Also, kajoob's post, "Bias?" is just an attempt to soften the blow to Bush and open up this forum to radical conservatives. Conservatives are quick to label any liberal view as "partisan" but even absurdly partisan conservative views are bandied about as "patriotic". Liberals are going to fight back now. Don't be suprised that we're pissed off, we've held our peace a long time, since 2000 for some, since Iraq or Patriot for others. We're not gonna take it anymore. And especially not in places that are considered liberal anyway!

If I posted something critical of a cardinal or priest on a church forum, it'd be no suprise if people flamed. And I get knocked plenty for being liberal, right here on slashdot, thank you very much. So don't be suprised that the teeth are out. The upcoming election is too important for this country and for the whole world for us to knuckle under to the conservative agenda.

Oh yeah, someone has a sig that says terrorists support Kerry. I heard someone recently on NPR say that they had visited the extremist muslim websites where terrorist supporters talk, and guess what? The terrorists literally are praying that Bush gets reelected, because he's a flashpoint for antiamericanism, and they expect he'll continue to fuck up in their favor (eg, Iraq). They are quite afraid of Kerry being elected, because they know he could have diplomacy with the moderate arab leaders. Terrorists for bush! Who'd have thunk it? (besides most liberals, a long time ago already).

Re:Bias?

[Brandybuck]

OK I'll say it again, there isn't any real contradiction between those two statements

Consider the task of awarding a plaque to the student with the best attendence. One student's attendance was not that bad. The other student missed quite a few days. Which one do you give your award to?

The literal wordings of Tsurumi's statements aren't the problem, it's what's he is implying by them. "Not that bad" quite literally means "good". It implies that Bush had good attendance. "Quite a few" is synonymous with "many". It implies that Bush missed many days and thus had bad attendance.

Maybe you could tell me what your motivation is.

The original poster (kajoob) quoted Tsurumi to make a point. You completely missed his point and focused your rebuttal upon irrelevancies. I merely tried to steer you back to the central point of kajoob's post because you were wandering miles off topic.

Let me be as plain and clear as I can possibly be: my understanding of the central point to kajoob's post is wholly irrelevant to my support or non-support of Bush!

Re:Bias?

[Brandybuck]

I really really do not understand you Democrats. I am a Libertarian. I am going to be voting for Badnarik next month. Not Bush. Not Kerry. But if I had to vote with party had the most hate filled rhetoric, it would have to be the Democrats.

You're going to "fight back now"? You're "not gonna take it"? Who are you, Twisted Sister? What the fuck have you been doing the last four years, just warming up? I have never seen so much absolute hatred for one man ever in my life than I have seen with the Democrats hating Bush. You guys have lost all rationality because the hatred leaves no room for it. You almost quiver in the intensity of your hatred.

I was at a party two years ago where a man went into a shouting rage because he caught a glimpse of Bush on the television. (Hey, if you can go off on irrelevant tangents, so can I!) His quote, as near as I can remember, was "oh my god he's wearing a fucking cowboy hat does he think he's a fucking cowboy oh my god!" He then went around grabbing people by the shoulders and pointing them towards the television so that they could see the cowboy hat too. At another gathering (still off topic) a man said "someone should put all of the Republican's out of their misery". Advocating murder! When I pointed out to him that not a half hour before he said he was ashamed of his mother being a Republican, he backed off. Apparently it's okay to kill Republicans as long as they're not your mom! Last year I went on a vacation. (yup, like you, I'm still off topic) I got to a friend's house, a Democrat. When I asked him about Dean, he went off on a tirade shouting about how Bush was evil. Let me repeat, I asked about Dean and he starts yelling about Bush.

You probably don't see this hatred because you're right in the middle of it. But it's there. Ask anyone but a Democrat and they will point it out to you. You need go no further than the Slashdot political section to see it. Please note that I am *NOT* saying Republicans are acting Emily Post, because they certainly are not. But you Democrats definitely tip the scales in the rudeness department.

Now here you come full of just as much hate. You start off trying to calmly explain why I could be mistaken for a Bush supporter (in summary, because I didn't excoriate another suspected Bush supporter), but after a few rational sentences you suddenly leap off the deep end and begin doing the Twisted Sister impersonation, and finish off talking about terrorists voting for Bush!

Re:Bias?

[N3WBI3]

You backed up someone who is clearly trying to defend Bush any way possible. It makes it appear that you sympathize with him.

I love the fact that the left who pissed and moaned about the 'with us or against us' attitude of Bush do it themselves... Maybe its tru you most hate in other people what you see of yourself. Beware those who sympathize with Bush sympathizers...

Phyruxus you have to stop jumping on people because you either 1) disagree with them, or 2) hate the fact that they defended somebdoy the left attacked.

Conservatives are quick to label any liberal view as "partisan" but even absurdly partisan conservative views are bandied about as "patriotic". Liberals are going to fight back now.

And in doing so will you stop bitching about it when conservatives do it? are you that bored in Albany, I've been there its a nice area..

Don't be suprised that we're pissed off, we've held our peace a long time, since 2000 for some, since Iraq or Patriot for others.

Really! there has not been pissing and moaning for four years? And why did seing many liberal senators (including Kerry) vote for the patriot act and the Iraq war not draw fire from your gut?

Well Im out to NY to visit my wifes family, play nice kids..

Re:Bias?

[foniksonik]

I suspect you may be a Kerry supporter... ;-p

This is off-topic and I won't argue your statements, only say this:

The best way to fight terrorism is to establish popular accountability in the governments of any nation in the world where terrorist groups have found sanctuary at any time past or future and particularly the present time.

Any other strategy is a stop-gap solution at best as it requires constant policing of the entire world by a single nation or at best a small cadre of peace seeking nations with the resources to do so.

Establishing freely elected and popularly accountable government (whether via an American style democracy, British style democracy, Australian style democracy, Russian, German, Turkish, Greek, Italian, Brazilian, Japanese, Afghanistan style democracy) is THE best way to ensure that terror groups can find no sanctuary, no place to hide, to regroup, to train, to recruit, to refinance.

The alternative is to chase after each and every individual person, cell, organization that seeks to use terror tactics for whatever goal they happen to pick that day... through all the countries in the world who do not have an accountable government, meaning that they are capable of trading their citizens safety for personal gain.

Current existing WMDs or not, Saddam was known to have the technology, the inclination and now we know (through the oil-for-food program) the funding to put said technology in the hands of terrorist organizations who had the agility and determination to carry out attacks that Saddam himself could not, due to the scrutiny he was under via the UN Security Council. Even if he was too senile or mad to have taken such action, the raw materials were in Iraq and available... which makes his potential incompetence as a steward of WMD technology that much more dangerous. He easily could have traded said tech for Cash to build more palaces to make his mark on history that much more memorable (old age seems to have that effect.. people tend to forget about the future other than how that future will remember them).

Osama is one man and much like our own presidential office his organization will not die with him.

Apprehending Osama or killing him is not a solution to terror tactics... follow the money... the resources, the regions in the world which offer sanctuary and support either officially or unofficially. Historically wars have been one time and time again by cutting off the supply chain. Wars have never been won by destroying one regiment or even entire armies... more armies can be raised... even leadership can be renewed if the 'cause' is fanatical enough. Cut off the supply chain and you win.

Establish popularly elected and accountable governments in all nations of the world and you are 99% of the way there... and this is the only solution that will work for the future. It will work because governments that are accountable to their electorate can not deal with terrorist organizations, they will in fact police themselves and work with other free nations to monitor such activity and squash it before it can gain support. As a free nation they are not only accountable to their electorate but to the world body as well... the government is transparent because they must answer to their own elected members and the people they represent... thus they are transparent to the world, their policies are known and predictable...

Think about it. The only solution that works. It's not Kerry's solution. He just wants to kill Osama so everyone can feel good about themselves and say "look Osama is dead... it's over, right?"

But it won't be over and there will be no plan for what happens next.

Establishing freely elected and accountable governments IS WINNING THE PEACE! It is a plan and it is the only solution.

Seriously think about it. It worked in Germany, it worked in El Salvador, it worked in Japan, it worked in Italy, it worked in Spain, it worked in Mexico, most recently it worked in Tur

Re:Bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not that bad" quite literally means "good".

No. "Not bad" literally means "good". "Not that bad" means that it is "bad", but "hey look at the bright side, it could have been worse".

Goodbye!

Re:Bias?

[TheLink]

Uh:
While "Not bad" can mean good, "Not that bad" means something different - it could mean average, or just below average. Whatever it is it's quite subjective.

And perhaps the average student at that time "missed quite a few days".

In the absence of more facts, saying someone is biased and contradictory because of those two statements is a bit of a stretch.

Re:Bias?

[demachina]

"I suspect you may be a Kerry supporter... ;-p"

Well you guessed wrong. Gotta love America, you are either Repubulican or Democrat and there is no third option. The only thing I'll say in Kerry's favor is he is the lesser of two evils compared to the crony capitalists and liars currently occupying the White House, though just barely. Kerry is a prep school elitist, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Yale Grad, Skull and Bones exactly like little George, sure to serve the elite first and the people second if at all. There isn't really a dimes worth of difference between them deep down. The American people were denied much choice in this election when Kerry locked up the nomination.

All I can say about the rest of your post is its straight out of the Bush propaganda book, which is little more than trying to explain away why invading Iraq wasn't a war based on lies when it clearly was. "Oh sure we lied about all the original reasons for it but we are bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to the world, and thats what God put me on Earth to do, he told me himself, so its OK, trust me, lock and load".

If you were to really apply this strategy here is what you need to do. You need to take out the governments of:

- Saudi Arabia
- Pakistan
- Egypt
- United States

The first two, in particular, have for years worked with, funded and harbored muslim extremists. When the Taliban fell the U.S. had to let Pakistan evacuate hundreds of its secret service and military people from Afghanistan that were working with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The tribal area of Pakistan is still Al Qaeda's home base and they are largely unhindered by the Pakistan government there. Pakistan's military seldom goes in there except to put on a show to keep the American's happy. Pakistan is harboring Al Qaeda far more than Saddam ever did.

The first three on my list are dictatorships, and the forth is heading that way. Why don't we take them down because, I'll tell you because those dictators are our friends, and the Saudi's own a big piece of the American economy. While your at it our biggest trading partner China is a dictatorship and Russia is pretty much back to one. Why don't we take them out if "Freedom and Democracy", at the point of a gun, is the solution to the worlds problems.

Pakistan has the single biggest proliferater of nuclear weapons on the planet. It appears they single handedly jump started the nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran. The Bush administration likes to brag about the great work they did busting up the A.Q. Khan. They forget to mention the let the ring run for years, Pakistan's current government was thouroughly aware of it too, and its done grievous damage on the nuclear proliferation front. The forget to mention A. Q. Khan received a full pardon in Pakistan, is free as a bird, wealthy, and a revered hero in the Muslim world for giving the Muslim world the bomb. By contrast we leveled Iraq and jailed Saddam over a vague supsicion of nuclear proliferation, though Iraq didn't have any nuclear program, let alone actually proliferate nuclear technology to rogue states or terrorists.

Saddam was a secular dictator, Iraq was unique in the Arab world in that its men didn't have beards. Why, because Saddam outlawed them as a way to obstruct fundementalist Islam. He in fact aggressively suppressed fundementalist Islam, he gave women more equality than they got in the rest of the Arab world, and their rights are rapidly eroding in the new Iraq which is rushing towards an Islamic government. It defies logic for Al Qaeda and Saddam to have worked together, Saddam was an infidel in the eyes of Al Qaeda, and Saddam hated fundamentalists.

Despite all of your rambling about "Freedom and Democracy" its going to take a miracle for Iraq to not end up with:

- An islamic government, potentially a harsh one modelled after Iran
- A puppet government like Allawi's installed by the U.S. through rigged elections. You wer

Re:Bias?

[demachina]

""Not that bad" quite literally means "good""

No it doesn't, "Not bad" means "good", you insert "that" in it and you are saying it wasn't "good" but it wasn't "bad" either.

You are the one that is completely missing something here, as the other two replies to your post point out. Unless you have an "agenda", give it up.

If you want an example of "contradiction" so you understand the concept in the future:

Cheney on Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed, that he(Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior Official of the Iraqi Intelligence service.""

Sometime later in a CNBC interview after it had been thouroughly established Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plot, never met Iraqi Secret Service in Prague:

CNBC: "You have said in the past that it was quote "pretty well confirmed."

Cheney: "No, I never said that. Never said that. Absolutely not."

Now that is an example of a contradiction.

Re:Bias?

[tmortn]

Have to pick a couple of nits. The first is that bit about the US 'haroboring' the 9/11 terrorists. There is a major difference between state harboring and people who happen to live in a state while preparing for terrorist activities.

The FBI had suspicions but our protections of their FREEDOM (which you so snidely disparage America as no longer championing) prevented the FBI from taking any action. In my mind should still be the case to this day unless enough proper evidence can be gathered. Hopefully in the future our intelligence agencies will have the ability to compile the needed information to connect all the dots on such suspects before they have a chance to complete their plans as happend with 9/11.

Regarding Saddam and Iraq in general

Are you really stating that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam? In the short run I would have to agree. It was a relatively stable government but that is not to say he was a good long term solution. While everything you say about the regime is true in that it had little ties to Islam you forget that perhaps the largest reason for that is that Saddam would not share power with the Muhllahs. It was certainly not out of any altruistic desire to improove the fate of the Iraqi people. You paint the guy in a far nicer light than he deservs.

As regards the likely formation of an Islamic regieme in general... you do realize that everything else aside that the population of Iraq is largely Muslim. It is quite possible that in making their own choices by a democratic process they would CHOOSE an islamic regime of their own free will and all that comes with it. If you know history you will find that during the Womens Sufferage movement there were many women that did not belive in their right to vote. Not that I agree with such views but frankly if people choose their fate I have little problem with it. The goal of elections in Iraq is not that they have a government exactly like ours but that they have a system in place which allows the people to make changes if they so desire. Remember that our system allowed for the emmergence of womens rights among other changes in its history.

As far as the WMD shit goes you fail to account for the entire history of the issue of Iraq dating back to the end of the Gulf war. The sanctions levied by the UN had a great deal to do with suspicions of Iraqi WMD. The debate over the invasion of Iraq was not about should something be done but about how it should be done. The UN waffled over sanctions and enforcement for a decade. Bush called them on the carpet and they continued to waffle and no good evidence was presented one way or the other at the time regarding WMD. On the other hand the Brutality of the Baath regime was well documented and further more its willingness to use WMD was also well established. There was and to this day is little argument about whether or not they would have started creating WMD once they could get away with it. The argument was about whether that point had already come of if it was still in the future.

In the end would you rather we invaded as we did only to find out there were no WMD or waited and let the UN waffle and let the only leader of a nation in power with actual use of WMD on his resume remain in power in tight control of a known brutal regime and an industrial base capable of returning to production of WMD the second the oversight was removed ? While the existence of WMD is now known to have been overblown that is hindsight. The ability to produce chemicle weapons is not now nor never was in doubt. The only 'lie' I know of in that regards were the fantastical mobile chemicle weapons production platforms and at the time it was presented it was belived.

Now there is and always has been a very large problem of hypocracy regarding the issue of disarmament of nations developing WMD while we and a few other nations currently possess and even actively create new ones. However I just don't think Iraq falls into an area of delima. Wether he had them or not was imma

Re:Bias?

[Edax Rarem]

Admittedly, there are some pretty fanatical people on both ends of the spectrum here (liberal and conservative, Right and Left), but we all have the right to dissent. I definitely don't agree that all Republicans should die, but everyone has a right to voice their opinioin, passionately or not. And from what I can see, is that you don't want people to be doing that?
I think they should be doing it MORE.
This president has done some pretty radical
things IMO, and people are outraged by that.
Let 'em scream... It is their right and certainly not yours to tell them not to.

Re:Bias?

[AlphaSys]

As is Bush's denial in the last debate where he says

" Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

But in 2002 it went like this:

" I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins."

Those that can, do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those that can't teach

Re:Those that can, do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who can't teach, teach gym.

-Paul

Re:Those that can, do...

[Temporal]

And win Nobel prizes, apparently.

Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[Mycroft_514]

These guys are blaming Bush for things he has no control over. They want to cut waste out of the budget, but fail to admit that he has no facility to do so.

They fail the partisan test.

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[phyruxus]

So, you're smarter and more expert than 169 professors, including 50 from Harvard? I don't think so.

You fail the partisan test.

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a Republican president with a Republican Majority in both the House and Senate and you're saying that he doesn't have control over the budget?

Unfortunately it is you, not these profs that fail the partisan test.

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[DigiShaman]

More like 169 zelots of the indoctrinated. I'm curious to know how many of those "professors" actually run sucessfull businesses.

I'm sorry, but I want resaults. Don't give me a bunch of hot air, give me the burn.

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[DigiShaman]

I would rather live poor than have to depend on government. What bush is doing is the right thing. People have pride to support themselves and not to accept handouts.

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[foniksonik]

Is it possible that a mere 169 professors (out of millions of MBAs and tens of thousands of professors... more than 50 from 'Harvard'), may have failed the partisan test?

I say the parent is less than insightful... more like an ignorant hater hopping on a bandwagon in a pitiful attempt to claim some of the attention.

BTW what are YOUR credentials?

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[mrmtampa]

Are you speaking only for yourself? Or do you intend to subject your children to poverty?

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[DigiShaman]

As long as USA doesn't stand for United Socialists of America, then they will never be poor.

Thank GOD the USSR is gone!!! Fuck big government for it's the great evil of a free ecconomy.

Re:Ok, I read the article, and I have an MBA

[A_Known_Coward]

How many successful businesses has President Bush run? An oil man who couldn't make money in Texas in the 70s and 80s? Lost money on a MLB team?

Yeah, I'm sure these professors are the business-impaired, not our business-savvy President. ;)

Re:Bias? mods

[evilmousse]

this needs modding up

in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone educated or with half a brain knows that Bush's policies are good for him and his friends only. Screw the rest of the population.

Plus for Clinton?

[Nagatzhul]

I don't personally think so. I don't see him as holding it off. I see him as pumping things up like a bodybuilding using steroids. Sure, he got short term growth that looked great for a little while, but when it crashed, it crashed hard. And the signs were there long before he got out of office (Remember what the stock market did April 14, 2000?).

Instead of slow, long term growth, he went for flash and it cost us all in the long run.

Re:Plus for Clinton?

[antifoidulus]

"Sure, he got short term growth that looked great for a little while, but when it crashed, it crashed hard.

Um, no, you are wrong, unless you consider the longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country to be "short term growth that looked great for a little while", wow, by lacking even basic economic knowledge, you sure do make Bush supporters look dumb.

Go back and learn some basic econimics, then we will talk.

The US Federal Gov't Will Always Deficit Spend.

[c.ecker]

Look, it doesn't matter how much money the Feds take in, there will never be enough, and they'll always spend every cent they have. If they don't, that's only by accident -- don't worry, they'll make up for it the following year.

There's plenty of people in the US with their hand out ready to jump on the dole. Ride the Federal gravy train. There's plenty of Career Politicians up on Capitol Hill buying votes for their next term.

Therefore, I'm all for squeezing the Congressmen to try to cut costs from the Federal Budget by requiring a balanced budget, and then taking in as little in taxes as is possible to get passed through the Congress.

Unless the deficit gets way out of control with respect to GDP, it matters little one way or the other. The Federal Gov't is always the least efficient entity to get anything done -- and any taxes that get there are always a drag on the economy.

Re:The US Federal Gov't Will Always Deficit Spend.

[innosent]

The whole problem is that there is a group of people who are paid with other people's money, who get to decide how to spend other people's money (even voting for raises for themselves), with no real penalties for making a wrong decision. I say set a flat tax at around 15%, set standard percentages of budget for certain areas (defense, research, education, etc.) and pay congress and the president out of the surplus. If they can't balance the budget, they shouldn't get paid. We don't need to hold elections for people to spend our money, we'd be a much more efficient society if we just burned our money every 4th of July in a big patriotic bonfire.

Those who can do, those who can't teach

[eht]

what a surprise

mod me down, i have plenty of karma to burn

Re:Those who can do, those who can't teach

[DaoudaW]

Or go into politics!!!

Seriously! Bush is probably the greatest example of affirmative action known in modern politics. Time after time he failed to perform. Time after time he got bailed out by Daddy's friends. Finally they made the supreme sacrifice and made him president.

Unavoidable Partisan Answers

[DesScorp]

Harvard and the Ivy League are bastions of the Democratic Party. If you had asked business professors from a conservative college (like, perhaps Hillsdale College in Michigan), I'm pretty sure they'd say Bush's policies are just fine, thanks.

Like it or not, we're in a partisan age, and everything is looked at through a political prism now.

Veto.

[DAldredge]

Yes, he does. If he was true to what the GOP says they believe in he would veto every spending bill till he got what he wants.

But he hasn't vetoed anything yet.

Re:Veto.

[foniksonik]

It has been stated that Pres. Bush has specifically requested that the republican controlled Senate and House should not send him legislation regarding spending that he will need to veto. Because both houses are republican controlled they have been able to withhold bills of spending until they were at the point where no veto would be needed.

If you are a coder you might understand this analogy...

Imagine coding a application with no bugs in it.

Then imagine being judged, performance reviewed based on the number of bugs that you fixed.

Do you see my point?

numbers that don't add

[phyruxus]

Bush's federal budget was full of numbers that didn't add up... He counted some money twice, slating the same money for Iraq and Social Security. There was lots of stuff anyone could see was the worst kind of deceitful trickery. We're not talking about little mistakes either, we're talking systematic abuse.

spin elsewhere, bush apologist!

[phyruxus]

Harvard? Isn't that where republicans go before they climb the republican ladder to world domination? Real liberal. But you're right about one thing... conservative professors would have said bush's policies are fine. Of course, they'd have said he was 6'10 and had walked on Venus too, if bush asked them to.

As for the partisan age, all that's happened is liberals are finally catching up to conservatives in terms of being "energized". All those times republicans said liberals should "get over" the 2000 florida debacle just gave us party cohesion.

Bush is going down like a clown in a dunk tank.

Re:spin elsewhere, bush apologist!

[DesScorp]

I hate to ape O'Reilly, but sorry, no spin here. Look up any survey of academics in this country. See where they overwhelmingly vote.

As for Bush going down, care to make a friendly wager on that? I say he wins the popular vote 51-47 percent, more for the electoral college vote.

Re:spin elsewhere, bush apologist!

[gothzilla]

In talking to as many people as I can, I'm finding a lot of people who are afraid to admit that they are voting for Kerry. I live in a conservative bible-belt state and there are actually reasons for fear.

I've had a couple friends lose jobs because they admitted they support Kerry. Of course they weren't fired for that reason directly, but anyone in management knows it's extremely easy to find valid reasons for firing anyone if you really want to find them. On the net I keep hearing stories pop up here and there about people losing their jobs because they support Kerry but I have yet to hear of anyone losing a job because they support Bush. I'm sure it happens, but I don't see it. It's really not much different than admitting you're not christian in the bible-belt. You just don't do it and you dance around the question or even straight out lie to protect yourself.

It's scary admitting that you support Kerry here. The peer pressure and hostility you encounter here isn't very fun. I'm wondering if many other places are like this and if the polls are representing that fear, and I wonder if we'll all be very surprised after the votes are counted if enough secret Kerry supporters come out of the woodwork.

For me and a number of other people I know, our votes are being more swayed by the verbal violence we encounter from Bush supporters than it is by the candidates themselves.

Re:spin elsewhere, bush apologist!

[DesScorp]

"It's scary admitting that you support Kerry here."

Here?? At Slashdot???

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

This is one of the most Bush-hating sites on the Internet. Please. The only reason you have to fear voicing support for Kerry here is criminally insane Nader supporters. If it wasn't for Pudge, the Politics section icon would be circle-slash over the letter W.

Re:spin elsewhere, bush apologist!

[gothzilla]

Reread my post. I first stated that I lived in the bible belt. I talked about people losing their jobs. I never once mentioned the net or online. It's scary admitting it HERE as in REAL LIFE. That was the context of my whole post.
You really need to get off the net once in a while if you really thought that I meant here on slashdot. :)

Re:spin elsewhere, bush apologist!

[fozzymatt]

That is a bummer. I live in Boulder, CO, where it is scary to admit that you might vote for Bush. And CO is a swing state this year!

Go Kerry!

Bush is a disaster on all fronts, plus he has a bad temper.

They're smarter than that

[metalhed77]

Look, these people come up with the models that everyone uses. If it weren't for them there would be no crap shoot. They know damn well that a single president is not responsible for the entire economy. The extremely anti-bush (though not extreme) economist brad delong at berkely goes on at length over the media's focusing on a president as the sole actor in an economy's performance.

All this being being said, it is entirely possible for a president to issue economic policies that are nothing but terrible; and that is what these professors are angry over.

Open letter? Where?

[j1m 5n0w]

Does anyone have a link to the text of this "open letter"? I didn't see a link to it in the article text (maybe I missed it somehow), nor was I able to find it with a few quick google searches.

-jim

Whoever modded this one down, you're a coward

[DesScorp]

" Hmmm...I wonder how he would do in poll of business owners and managers? That is, people who actually DO things, as opposed to those who merely talk about them?"

The parent post has a point, and the guy that modded it troll did so only for partisan politcal reasons. Whoever you are, you're a coward, and you suck, big time.

Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[DesScorp]

"The educated and knowledgeable tend toward the left?"

The parent post said ACADEMIA, but while academics are certainly intellegent and knowledgeable, where is it written that they can't be biased? During the cold war, some of our brightest minds failed us miserably by either willfully overlooking the horrors of communism, or even outright embracing it.

An advanced degree doesn't neccessarily equal wisdom. In fact, it seldom does.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[Planesdragon]

An advanced degree doesn't neccessarily equal wisdom. In fact, it seldom does.

"Wisdom" would be seperating the political label from the ethic. The evils of the USSR were many--intolerant atheism, tyranny, despotism, facism, war-mongering, etc., etc.--but "communism" was by far the least of them.

Remember: the USSR beat the snot out of the Germans in the latter part of WWII, and then went boondoggle for boondoggle with the USA for close to fifty years. There has to be SOMETHING to their economic policy.

Some of our brightest minds may have betrayed us during the Cold War, but many of our leaders betrayed us by turning what should have been a right-angle dispute into a head-on staring contest.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[mc6809e]

"Wisdom" would be seperating the political label from the ethic. The evils of the USSR were many--intolerant atheism, tyranny, despotism, facism, war-mongering, etc., etc.--but "communism" was by far the least of them.

Mikhail Gorbachev had this to say about the fall of the USSR:

"It was a shame, and I continue to say that it was a shame, that during the final years under Brezhnev, we were planning to create a commission headed by the secretary of the Central Committee, [Ivan V.] Kapitonov to solve the problem of women's pantyhose. Imagine a country that flies into space, launches Sputniks, creates such a defense system, and it can't resolve the problem of women's pantyhose. There's no toothpaste, no soap powder, not the basic necessities of life. It was incredible and humiliating to work in such a government. And so our people were already worked up, and that is why the dissident movement occurred."

Remember: the USSR beat the snot out of the Germans in the latter part of WWII, and then went boondoggle for boondoggle with the USA for close to fifty years. There has to be SOMETHING to their economic policy.

In terms of numbers killed, the Germans rolled the USSR. The weather also had a lot to do with slowing the Germans down. That, and the fact they were fighting on two fronts.

As far as going "boondoggle for boondoggle", reread Gorbachevs quote about toothpaste and washing powder.

An economic policy that can't provide such things is horribly flawed.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[Mattcelt]

The USSR's economic policy was built on a house of cards - which is what eventually caused their demise. At the height of the cold war, the Soviet Union spent more than 70% of their GNP on war materiel (not a misspelling) and military operations. The United States never spent more than 10% of its GNP on the same. And when U.S. weapons finally went head-to-head with Soviet weapons during the liberation of Kuwait, Moscow knew that our M1s could kick the snot out of the Russian T72s, for example. Everything they threw at us was easily defeated by the advanced weaponry we had. That was what precipitated the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the communist state.

The Soviets kicked ass in WWII? The USSR lost almost 28 million lives (9 million military and 19 million civilian) - compare that to Germany's losses at 5.5 million (3.5 military/2 civvy). I'd say the Germans came out on the better end of that deal. It was only the fact that Germany was fighting the war on four fronts (Eastern Front, Western Front, African Front, Italian Front) and Stalin's paranoia that allowed the Soviets to make the progress they did toward Berlin at the end of the war.

Another example would be Kruschev's first visit to a U.S. supermarket. It took a lot of convincing before he would accept that it wasn't just for show, that it hadn't been set up just to impress him. The ordinariness of it was the kicker, the fact that there are tens of thousands of supermarkets just like it across the U.S. He held his head in his hands the entire flight back, as the enormity of the disparity between western prosperity and Soviet survival came crashing down on him.

Did you know it used to take two to five years to get an apartment in the USSR? There was a waiting list for almost anything you could afford to buy - cars (6-12 months), refrigerators (3 months), vacuums (3 months), etc. A friend of my fathers said that their lettuce used to look all the way through like the sometimes brown outer layer we throw away.

So I think we can safely say that the capitalist and Soviet-style communist economies isn't really equivalent.

Now, if you want to have an interesting discussion, consider the differences between Chinese and Russian communist economies. (Though the Chinese economy is starting to look more and more capitalist...)

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[w3rzr0b0t5]

The USSR's economic policy was built on a house of cards

Not only that, but they polluted the HELL out of their country while they were struggling to keep us from spending them to death. I know, I was their in 1988 and it was a joke.

The leftists forget about that. They are intellectually dishonest when they talk about how much they respected Soviet policies. Their environment was and is a total disaster. Kyoto will not make a dent in it.

I guess the commies and the environmentalists are just another example of the balkanized "base" of the left. Like inner city African-Americans vs. teachers unions, gun-owning union members vs. anti-gun forces, etc.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[TheCarp]

Well the chinese are just amazing. I find more respect for them every time I hear a story about anything other than human rights abuses or their internet censorship.

I would like to think that they will eventually come around on both.

The interesting thing is that china is rather progressive in its communism. They have been experimenting with more capitalists systems for years now. The changes that they are making to their economy now come out of ideas that they began small scale experiments with back in the 1980s

They seem to do alot of experimentation and planning, and it seems to work. China has a booming economy. I am glad someone out there is trying to advance.

Most debates between communists and laissez-faire capitalists (I tend to argue with them anyway ;-) ) tend to be about rights and theoretical market forces etc. You see claims like "the market self-regulates". Common arguments are "well if a company sold bad beef, they would get a bad reputation and people would stop buying from them, so they have no incentive to" are way overly simplistic, and even demonstratably false even under our current regulations. People are only as rational as what they know about, and obscuring information or making it hard to tell what the best value or best product is, many companies seem to have down to an art form.

That said, its hard to find good examples of large scale working communism. Sure there are some communities here and there, but generally no larger than a small town. (The Farm is the only one I know off the top of my head, some artists community I forget the name of, stuff like that).

However china... china is activly out there experimenting and trying to make things work better and more equitably.

I kinda like it, and again really do hope they come around in terms of human rights and free speech.

-Steve

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[Planesdragon]

An economic policy that can't provide such things is horribly flawed.

Yes, it is. A proper method for the USSR would have been to focus on building their country, not going boondogle for boondogle.

But if communism was as horribly flawed as some capitalists make it out to be, the USSR would have starved to death long before Mir was launched.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if communism was as horribly flawed as some capitalists make it out to be, the USSR would have starved to death long before Mir was launched.


Instead of its demise coming shortly after, as it did?

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[autopr0n]

During the cold war, some of our brightest minds failed us miserably by either willfully overlooking the horrors of communism, or even outright embracing it.

I know, those smart bastards just didn't hate the commies enough. Perhaps if they had, we wouldn't have had to open the school of the americas.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[Anonymous Coward]

The leftists forget about that.

The leftists? You're implying a bit too much with that. Maybe the extreme leftists, but they'r actually quite close to the extreme rightists. At least when it comes to their methods.

Left, right, left, right, who's right?

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[w3rzr0b0t5]

In exactly what way is this flamebait? Is it flamebait because someone disagrees that the Democrats' base is balkanized?

Does someone disagree that the majority of inner-city African Americans support school vouchers to give their children a chance in life, which are opposed by teachers unions?

Whoever marked this as flamebait, you're a coward.

Maybe it's because you're a stupid Kyoto-loving "person of tolerance" idiot who doesn't have the brains to closely examine what Kyoto actually is.

There's your flamebait, sweetheart.

Re:Whooaaaaa there, horsey...

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be SOMETHING to their economic policy.

Actually, no.

Grab a copy of Robert A. Heinlein's book Expanded Universe. The free sample I linked doesn't include the part I am talking about.

He has an analysis of the economy in the USSR, with numbers that show that the USSR had a negative GNP. They would have been better off to have taken their raw materials (timber, iron ore, etc.) and shipped them to the West, and used the profits to buy finished goods.

The economy in the USSR did not operate according to the laws of supply and demand; it operated according to central planning. There is a lot of know-how distributed throughout the whole economy when you use supply and demand, and a lot of give-and-take, that is missing under a top-down economy like the USSR had.

The USSR took more resources to make things, and the things they made were less good than the things the West made.

What enabled the USSR to last as long as it did were several factors:

A huge amount of land, with a huge amount of natural resources to exploit. (And "exploit" is the word; they paid little attention to environmental issues.)

An iron grip on their citizens.

Financial policies designed to drain hard currency from the West at every chance, while giving soft currency in return. (On the black market, rubles were dramatically less valuable than the official exchange rate. The official rate was a fantasy.)

You're relying on Krugman???

[DesScorp]

Krugman is a democrat first, and economist second. He's abandoned any pretense of fairness or objectivity in his columns. You might as well go to James Carville for economic advice.

Oh, and thanks for at least being honest about the pettiness of the Bush-hating (" It's often satisfying in its own childish way to trash on Bush for all the personal reasons").

Re:You're relying on Krugman???

[dave-tx]

A lack of fairness or objectivity does not necessarily invalidate Krugman's points. You just have a pretty good idea before reading him which direction his column is going.

Bias and predisposition aside, Krugman is often quite right about the economic fallacies of this administration.

Re:You're relying on Krugman???

[navak]

Krugman is a democrat first, and economist second.

... hence he will be the first to be right about Bush economics failure.

He's abandoned any pretense of fairness or objectivity in his columns.

Indeed, but then he relies on actual facts and data, as an economist.

go read this.

[maxume]

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004940.htm l

clicky link

200 economists ain't barely nobody...

Is gi-normous similar in meaning to huge-gantic?

[Futurepower(R)]

"Correct. However, having a gi-normous, constantly-growing deficit is not." (I agree with that.)

Is that word gi-normous similar in meaning to huge-gantic?

U.S. Government: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion.

Maybe I've been wrong about Bush

[DaoudaW]

Maybe Bush is cut out to be president after all.

He ran an oil business and he spent more money than he took in and, well, he's not running an oil business anymore.
He bought a baseball team and he spent more money than he took in and, well, he's no longer running a baseball team.
He got elected president and he spent more money than he took in and, well, he may get elected president again.

Maybe he has finally found his calling...

Slashdot is not as liberal as you think

[phyruxus]

>>"It's scary admitting that you support Kerry here."

>>Here?? At Slashdot??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Yes actually, admitting that you're liberal here can get you modded troll/flamebait/overrated real fast. It's been extreme over the past month. I'm glad you think it's funny, because it means you haven't noticed it, and so it could be worse. But from a liberal point of view, slashdot has been or is being assimilated by the far right. Conservative leaning comments are modded insightful when they are nowhere near; insightful comments that have substance but are liberal get modded way down real fast. I'm not saying that no liberal comments are modded up or that all conservative comments are modded up, but it's a running battle.

The pressure and hostility are very real. I've very recently decided that I'm going to be as loud and openly pro-democrat as I can on slashdot, to do my part to keep the liberalness alive or at least half alive. You republicans may not realize this, but your party is very very good at propaganda. And liberals in general seem to have a hard time dealing with conflict based on raw emotion; we'd rather avoid the fight. Especially on a geek site like slashdot, lots of us avoid conflict.

Aww crap, I think I just bonded a little with you, DesScorp. If only because you don't know how much propaganda and suppression of dissent is going on, right here on /. let alone across the country on mainstream media (which are one step away from being state propaganda machines). Not just Fox News, but all the players repeat what they're told by the administration without question; there is no journalism, let alone investigative journalism.

Fellow liberal slashdotters, rise and criticise! Don't let the pro-bush people push their message here! If this is a liberal site, let's take it back! To arms! *dah*doot*dah*doot*! Don't back down! We're going to be called partisan anyways, let's go ahead and be partisan! There's a lot of complaining about Bush bashing, but I don't hear any, so either let's start rebutting the partisan conservatives who think anything liberal or critical is bush bashing, or let's *gasp* Talk About Bush's failures (which are legion)!! We've got a politics section, now let's rally! There's an election to be won! To arms! To arms! The Red states are coming! The Red states are coming!!

Re:Slashdot is not as liberal as you think

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely right. I am not American, but the same thing is happening here in Europe: the right-wing neo-cons are flooding the bulletin boards, weblogs, newsgroups and traditional media, trying to suppress any left-wing dissenting speech as much as possible, all the while crying that the media is left-biased.

As a Libertarian Socialist myself, I tend to be quite perturbed by this, especially by this inability to see reality: the constant insistence that a media dominated by the right is actually left. An inability to see reality is in fact a sign of an unhealthy mind.

I have modpoints today. I have seen posts that are flamebait by any objective standard (like the smear attack on that Harvard professor), and I dare not mod them down. I have done so in the past, and thanks to that my Metamod rating has dropped to only 85% Fair. Yes, you will be Metamodded Unfair if you downmod Neocon flamebait (also if you downmod Microsoft flamebait, but that's another story).

So, in the interests of balance, I will spend a modpoint on your post. Hope you get to see this.

Re:Slashdot is not as liberal as you think

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to be called partisan anyways, let's go ahead and be partisan! There's a lot of complaining about Bush bashing, but I don't hear any, so either let's start rebutting the partisan conservatives who think anything liberal or critical is bush bashing, or let's *gasp* Talk About Bush's failures (which are legion)!!

Nice patch! It crushes a long standing bug, and not just in slashcode. :)

Re:Slashdot is not as liberal as you think

[Sponge Bath]

*dah*doot*dah*doot*!

That's got to be good coffee.
Strong with a hint of liberal zeal.

Re:Slashdot is not as liberal as you think

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, most US citizens do *not* realise that it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to the neocons calling the media "liberal". Bush is shaking down every last US citizen of as many dollars as he can lay his hands on. I believe he has only managed to increase the hatred on this planet that 'foreigners' have for the US because pre-emptive strikes are outlawed under international law and Sadaam is a CIA stooge as well as Bin Laden while many innocent people are being chopped into little pieces on the streets of countries most Americans cannot point to in an atlas. It stinks to high heaven, the incredible amount of hogwash that comes up on this site.

What's happened to the rule of law ? Habeas Corpus ? International Treaties ? The US foreign policy is a two faced hypocritical outrage launched by one of the most corrupt presidents in history. Wake UP! Save yourselves, save your country.
Do you really think there was a war on drugs ?
Do you really think Prescott Bush DIDNT make money out of business deals with the Nazi regime of Hilter's Germany ?

It's not about right-wing, left-wing at all. That's just a whole load of mumbo jumbo flag waving nationalistic or self righteous fervour. It's about the mass of people being shagged up the butt big time by your Great Dear Leader.
Don't believe it if you don't want to..... but just ask yourselves where's the unions now to help me out when my boss presses me into unpaid overtime ? Why are you working longer and longer hours to make ends meet ? If there were tax cuts for all, why do you need to work *harder* than before ? What was Norad doing when those jets hit the WTC ? Why is Iraq and Afganistan important to the New American Century ? Why is it that you can now be arrested at anytime without a warrant, for just about any reason and not even be presented to judge with charges filed ? *wake up*
The biggest swindle of the century is happening now and you have it in your butt right now. Can't you feel it ? Where are your senses ?

*don't believe the hype*

I doubt Harvard made it up out of spite

[phyruxus]

Yeah, academics and scientists do lean left. But I highly doubt Harvard is making things up just to hurt Bush. You're right about everything being viewed through a political prism now. It seems to me that republicans always have and that liberals are just now catching up. The national discourse is going to boil over if the mainstream media keep acting as mouthpieces for the administration. Maybe even before the election.

As for a bet, I'm not rich but I'll put my money where my mouth is. How about five bucks? If Bush wins I'll mail you a fiver before I jump off a bridge. My email address is on my (lame) page.

What axe to grind?

[phyruxus]

>>Yeah, the guy that came out and tried to say that Bush, while a student there, came up to him and said something to the effect of, "My daddy got me into the guard despite the waiting list".
Think he's telling the truth?

Who's got an axe to grind now? Cause so far it looks like you.

>>Well he went on Air America to further smear the President and got caught in other lies....

I'm sorry for you that you think telling the truth about the past is equivalent to "smearing". I also think it's really sad that you find something conspiratorial or contradictory in the quotes you posted, cause it's simple and true. Not to mention insightful.

Tax cuts, propaganda for the stupid

[SmallFurryCreature]

After all it doesn't really matter how much taxes you pay. [pause to hear all the idiot republicans cry out] What matters what you get in return for those taxes.

Simple example, in holland we used to have a license fee for radio and tv. Payable for each receiver although it was usually just a standard tax, not like anyone really paid more for having two tv's. For this fee the tv was funded in a very complex way (basically we have broadcasters who get an amount of money and an amount of air time on the available channels, 10 or so broadcasters on 3 channels).

Anyway it ensured that the broadcasters were not totally reliant on advertising incomes and that minority broadcasters could get airtime.

This has changed as the fee was cancelled and it is now paid from regular taxes.

So american pay taxes + their HBO subscription, we pay taxes and get the HBO. Yes I know it is not as simple as that and we both still got to pay cable subscription but that is my basic idea.

If you pay high taxes but get free quality medical care, free quality education, a safe enviroment, a good legal system, affordable housing, free public transport etc etc are you then better or worse off then someone with low taxes but who has to pay himself from the medical bills, the education of his childeren, needs two cars, has to bribe the cops and have heavy insurance on everything etc etc?

Good goverment isn't about cutting taxes. It is about making sure the taxes are spent without waste and that they benefit the whole of society, not just the few priviliged rich.

But shouting "I am gonna cut your taxes" sounds good. To few people are capable of really doing their math and check that the X you get is not offset by Y you will have to spend extra. Where Y is always higher but to subtle for most people to see.

harvard faculty

[quewhatque]

i'd rather be be governed by the first 20 people in the boston phone book than the faculty of harvard.

Re:harvard faculty

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd rather be be governed by the first 20 people in the boston phone book than the faculty of harvard.

My name is Albert Aaronson and I command you to open your eyes to the truth.

Re:harvard faculty

[Anonymous Coward]

Governed, not commanded. That means you can pick up my trash, and sweep the streets. Get cracking!

Re:Is gi-normous similar in meaning to huge-gantic

[PickyH3D]

Oh those poor Iraqi civilians! They're all just as innocent as can be.

Not only does that website not list WHOSE gunfire killed who, but it also just believes any figure thrown at them. I bet I could email them and say 50-140 people were killed at another wedding, without cake (at midnight+ of course because apparently that's prime time for weddings over there) by US Special Forces just walking in a mowing them down.

I am sure it is the goal of our military to walk around and kill innocent people as you idiots try to make it out to be.

None of these websites take circumstances into anything AND you're the same people bitching about Fallujah and Najaf and how we are just letting them go crazy. Once something is done, you try to find civilians. Hell, if they weren't holding a gun at that instant, then they aren't terrorists I guess. Zarquawi could probably be hit directly by a bomb and get listed on that site.

Mod me down.

Right on

[bitwiseNomad]

Nice post.

Cheekiness aside, you have a valid point about the way criticisms of the bush administration are recieved (not just on slashdot, either). I'd like to add to it.

The fact is everyone is partisan in some respects, and anyone who expects to recieve a netural, objective analysis of what's going on is only fooling themselves. That said, if I took the attitude of dismissing everyone whose comments were even remotely colored by political leanings, I wouldn't have learned anything at college.

Someone who's really concerned about having a dialog about politics will try to strip away the political bias (since it will be there anyway) and look at the underlying message. It is irresponsible of an adult to reject criticism because it is coming from a biased source. Instead, an adult would try to understand the criticism and then provide a rebuttal to it.

For the past four years, there has been a thick "us or them" stigma around anything related to the policies of this administration. I'd like to remind everyone that the working class of this country is made up of both liberals and conservatives, and that they all contribute to the well-being of our economy and culture. To say that a person's opinion is unimportant because they happen to be a Democrat is foul play in a dignified discussion.

If somebody says something you disagree with, tell them that you disagree, but also tell them why. If you really believe in your own viewpoint and believe that it is just, then you should be itching to get into a conversation where you have the chance to tell people your opinion, explain it and then hear theirs in return.

This liberal-conservative schizm has got to go. We're all adults here, and should act like adults. There's still time to stop it.

This article is a joke post, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick glance at the article, and I'll pull out some quotes: "Harvard professors David Moss and Louis Wells, who drafted the note, say the signatures aren't purely partisan." {ed. note: admitting that it is partisan, just not "entirely" partisan} and: "I think almost every policy the Bush Administration has undertaken is wrong, whether it's economic or military." That's when I bailed. Don't waste your time.

Re:Is gi-normous similar in meaning to huge-gantic

[maraist]

While I respect what you're trying to say, the fact of the matter is that American Soldiers and Politicians are not being very respectful of civilian casualties. Just today on CNN, there was a controversy about a released camera footage of a air-targeted bomb which hit calmly walking civilians. It is hard to believe from the footage that the slowly walking line of people were covert militia. Michael Moore's movie showed soldiers talking about shooting at anything that moved at first.

While, it is natural in a war situation, especially with 18 year old troops, to have bad judgement on whom to shoot, my problem is that I am not seeing reconciliation for these atrocities. Moreover, I'm hearing self-praise for how well we're "targeting" to avoid civilian casualties.. How many weddings need to be destroyed before there is a public appology for our less than perfect Army. To say that we only hit 5 building suspected of military importance and avoided damaging non-targets is great. But such numbers are fantacy. If the aftermath of the cosovo war is any basis, our ability to target and actually hit desired targets is good for homeland propaganda, and not much else.

Yes, it's better than carpet bombing to be sure, but please be respectful of our occupied countries, for fear of God's wrath if not the impending retaliatory terrorism.

Republican controls 2 house of congress & Exec

[Tungbo]

So you tell me that their leader has no control over this country's fiscal policy?

Great case for kicking the whole bunch out. Thanks!

Who does corporate America hires?

[Tungbo]

an Harvard MBA or Hillsdale MBA ?

Do you really think that all of Corporate America are bastion of Democrats? Or MAY BE the Harvard MBAs know better which end is up on a toilet plunger?

If you read the article, you'll see that Business Week (hardly a leftist rag) opined that Hardard B-School is known for its apolitcal business-centric views.

Economics as an old time religion

[americanorganist]

Bush isn't the first Republican (or Democrat, for that matter)to follow the dogma: Whenever we give to the rich, we give to the middle class. Never mind that there are banana republics out there that disprove this mantra completely; the dogma makes Americans "invincible", and if we follow it, God will love us, etc., and there will be lots of money for everybody. Forget the experts. Well, the dogma is false, and that's what these business profs are pointing out. Economies don't need rich people to operate, but they do need a middle class. Only in America is that considered a liberal viewpoint.

Re:Republican controls 2 house of congress & E

[Mr. Arbusto]

Not really, you need 60% of both to have control.

Not saying thats good or bad, just the way it is.

Two Words to help with budget bloat.

Term Limits.

I have a feeling

[Peyna]

that you could probably also find just as many economists willing to sign something in favor of Bush's policies, and that several of them would be high profile influential people in the field.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Biggest trading partner is not China

[djmurdoch]

While your at it our biggest trading partner China is a dictatorship and Russia is pretty much back to one.

Oops, you're looking as ignorant as GW. China is not your largest trading partner, nor is Mexico (as Bush thought). Your largest trading partner is the democracy just north of you.

kruschev.

[earthstar]

who is kruschev?

Re:kruschev.

[Mattcelt]

Here's the Wikipedia article.

Yes, but they never seem to have surpluses

[jayster]

It is true that deficit spending definitely has its place -- it's a macroeconomic truism.

However, when was the last time the Federal Government ran a surplus before Clinton? Not since FDR?

It makes sense to run deficits during economic downturns in order to stimulate the economy, and to keep things on a even keel. However, it also makes sense to run surpluses during boom times for the same reasons, which the government never seems to do, so the national debt keeps growing.

I seem to remember that under Carter (and before) they always mentioned the national debt along with the deficit. Ever since Reagan, and after the debt passed the one trillion mark, the news seemed to stop mentioning the national debt, and only mentioned the deficit.