Jobless rate up again....

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

An economic theory stating that investing money in companies and giving them tax breaks is the best way to stimulate the economy.


Proponents of this theory believe that when the government helps companies, they will produce more, thereby hiring more people and giving raises. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy.
 
Originally posted by halcyon985@Jul 11 2003, 02:55 PM
While you do have a point, excessive debt leads to problems with the dollar, and more importantly, if your debt really gets wracked up, you become unable to borrow more, and your economy closes down. Eventually somebody else comes in and "ownz joo" as it is so often put on here :p .

Don't think it couldn't happen to us either. The Ottoman Empire was once the most powerful state in the world, and it happened to them. Now whats left of them is named after food and they aren't they aren't that well off.

It's inevitable that our country will no longer be number one in the world, because nobody can be on top forever. Let's just not accelerate it with shoddy economics.

Alan Greenspan said the tax cuts were a bad idea.

Alan Greenspan = :worthy: of economics. So we should listen to him. Deficit = Bad.

Oh and P.S., to go with your theory, say you give your giving your brother $20 every week, and usually your supposed to get $1 in change... but then you start getting paid less, in fact, you only have about $19 a week now. So your about breaking even, maybe losing a bit. That isn't the time to start giving your brother a tip for getting your shit from the store. :lol:

i agree with you... too much debt is never a good thing personal or national

my biggest issue is that if the government is in debt then they should deal with it the same way we have to.... stop blowing money on shit you dont need and pay it off

but they dont do that.... they keep blowing money on pointless shit... and keep voting themselves these big ass salary increases... etc... then they raise our taxes to pay for it all... and if we say fuck you im not paying more then we go to get fucked with tax evasion charges

its 100% pure :bs:
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+Jul 11 2003, 01:01 PM-->
Originally posted by lsvtec@Jul 11 2003, 01:10 PM
New2TheCarScene
@Jul 11 2003, 11:58 AM
They don't usually cut taxes to the everyday citizen, they cut it to big business using the trickle down theory which has been proven to work.

They promote the use of big business who employs us all.


Where the fuck do you think you're going to get your green?

You give money back to the poor or moderately wealthly people and you're going to remain poor. You give the money back to industry which will use that money, produce things, and in turn employ more peoples which promotes spending and stimulates the economy.

If it proven to work then you won't mind posting some of that proof up would you?

No? I see, no proof actually exists because every time we get someone in office that tries the "trickle down" approach it fails miserably. You can't just throw out these "proven facts" (I really hate that term) without also posting this proof.

The Republicans lie to you. They are out to get rich and stay that way. The Democrats lie to you more because they want the same thing. karnash put it best when he claimed that he was a republican because he wanted to be rich someday and that was the party that would allow him to stay rich.

Through all this bitching how many of you stay up on local/state/national politics or events? And of that group how many of you exercise your right to vote? And of that group how many of you participate in your local government? Lastly of that group how many of you are working for change?

Complaining about the way things are does nothing. Voting to change things does little. It is only when you get involved and work for change that things begin to happen.

LMFAO...it is proven. I was even told this by a democratic professor who thinks that republicans for the most part are the devil, but praised this economic strategy. It works.


Look up the trickle down theory, it was used in the past and it worked.


I forget what stint of presidents used it but it was one of the dominant economic strategies for a long while and still is on top, thats why its use has been employed for so long.

And we are supposed to take you and this supposed ECON professor seriously why? So far (as per your usual) you have completely sidestepped the question and said nothing. Wanna try again? It doesn't work, it hasn't worked. SHow me a specific instance where trickle down is used successfully.
 
Originally posted by lsvtec+Jul 11 2003, 02:23 PM-->
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@Jul 11 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by lsvtec@Jul 11 2003, 01:10 PM
New2TheCarScene
@Jul 11 2003, 11:58 AM
They don't usually cut taxes to the everyday citizen, they cut it to big business using the trickle down theory which has been proven to work.

They promote the use of big business who employs us all.


Where the fuck do you think you're going to get your green?

You give money back to the poor or moderately wealthly people and you're going to remain poor.  You give the money back to industry which will use that money, produce things, and in turn employ more peoples which promotes spending and stimulates the economy.

If it proven to work then you won't mind posting some of that proof up would you?

No? I see, no proof actually exists because every time we get someone in office that tries the "trickle down" approach it fails miserably. You can't just throw out these "proven facts" (I really hate that term) without also posting this proof.

The Republicans lie to you. They are out to get rich and stay that way. The Democrats lie to you more because they want the same thing. karnash put it best when he claimed that he was a republican because he wanted to be rich someday and that was the party that would allow him to stay rich.

Through all this bitching how many of you stay up on local/state/national politics or events? And of that group how many of you exercise your right to vote? And of that group how many of you participate in your local government? Lastly of that group how many of you are working for change?

Complaining about the way things are does nothing. Voting to change things does little. It is only when you get involved and work for change that things begin to happen.

LMFAO...it is proven. I was even told this by a democratic professor who thinks that republicans for the most part are the devil, but praised this economic strategy. It works.


Look up the trickle down theory, it was used in the past and it worked.


I forget what stint of presidents used it but it was one of the dominant economic strategies for a long while and still is on top, thats why its use has been employed for so long.

And we are supposed to take you and this supposed ECON professor seriously why? So far (as per your usual) you have completely sidestepped the question and said nothing. Wanna try again? It doesn't work, it hasn't worked. SHow me a specific instance where trickle down is used successfully.

Mr. mod, once again pull your head out of your ass. Its used everyday. It does work.

Just because you don't see the effects of it doesn't mean that its not there. Reagan used it successfully.


So once again you're a sorry fuck and like to stroke your ego and think you're intelligent.

Don't play the game, you'll get burned.
 
Again as per your usual instead of engaging in a reasonable debate you resort to name calling. You are that pathetic aren't you?

Reagan did not use it successfully. The economy was a shit box for his second term and much of Bush Sr. How is that working?

It is certainly not my problem that you are not intelligent enough to debate or that you are still butt-hurt about being wrong with the K20.

Wanna try again?
 
Originally posted by lsvtec@Jul 11 2003, 02:34 PM
Again as per your usual instead of engaging in a reasonable debate you resort to name calling. You are that pathetic aren't you?

Reagan did not use it successfully. The economy was a shit box for his second term and much of Bush Sr. How is that working?

It is certainly not my problem that you are not intelligent enough to debate or that you are still butt-hurt about being wrong with the K20.

Wanna try again?

Hi wanna take a close look at industry and see why it was producing so well in the past? Why so many people were employed? Its when the big companies were getting the tax break.

Can you succesfully argue with me that its more effective to give the Every Day Joe money who will run out and spend his money real quickly rather than giving sufficant tax cuts to big business and allowing them to spend that money on infrastructure and employing many new people, who will in turn have a salary and more money overall to contribute to the economy?


btw, don't act as if you know me, you have no idea who i am nor how intelligent i am. You can count on me having intelligence and a decent background in business, considering this is what I'm going to major in. I constantly make it to nationals in business competitions and was accepted into the UNCW business school which is ranked higher than Chapel Hill's business school....if you know anything about colleges.

I may use name calling because you're narrow minded and ignorant and fail to listen completely but you attempt to degrade me with other words like pathetic.
 
its simple:

George Bush = recession & war with iraq
Bill Clinton = recovery
George W Bush = recession & war with iraq

:p

ah no mah pahlitiks man! ;)
 
Originally posted by rixXxceboy@Jul 11 2003, 03:03 PM
its simple:

George Bush = recession & war with iraq
Bill Clinton = recovery
George W Bush = recession & war with iraq

:p

ah no mah pahlitiks man! ;)

LOL.

I despise of Clinton. </3
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+Jul 11 2003, 02:00 PM-->
@Jul 11 2003, 02:34 PM
Again as per your usual instead of engaging in a reasonable debate you resort to name calling. You are that pathetic aren't you?

Reagan did not use it successfully. The economy was a shit box for his second term and much of Bush Sr. How is that working?

It is certainly not my problem that you are not intelligent enough to debate or that you are still butt-hurt about being wrong with the K20.

Wanna try again?

Hi wanna take a close look at industry and see why it was producing so well in the past? Why so many people were employed? Its when the big companies were getting the tax break.

Can you succesfully argue with me that its more effective to give the Every Day Joe money who will run out and spend his money real quickly rather than giving sufficant tax cuts to big business and allowing them to spend that money on infrastructure and employing many new people, who will in turn have a salary and more money overall to contribute to the economy?


btw, don't act as if you know me, you have no idea who i am nor how intelligent i am. You can count on me having intelligence and a decent background in business, considering this is what I'm going to major in. I constantly make it to nationals in business competitions and was accepted into the UNCW business school which is ranked higher than Chapel Hill's business school....if you know anything about colleges.

I may use name calling because you're narrow minded and ignorant and fail to listen completely but you attempt to degrade me with other words like pathetic.

When was industry producing so well? When were these glory days of Reaganomics that you claim exist? In the past is not clear. When in the past?

How is it different to give Joe his money so he can run out and spend it or give it to industries? They end up with it anyways? It is a great idea, unfortunately it doesn't work. It does not create more jobs.

Ah, then I would advise you to do the same, do not claim to know me or how intellignet I am. I don't care what you say your major is, I don't care what you scored on this test or that test, I don't care what college you get into. None of it matters. I could tell you that I scored a 36 on my ACT's and am attending Rice on a full ride to studying EE, but that does not make it so.

And your name calling makes you embody the things that you claim I am. If you cannot rebut a point, don't waste everyone's time by turning this into a flame fest. I use pathetic because the person you show this board is a moronic fool that has to prove themselves to everyone here.

This might help a little, say to yourself "I can be wrong" repeat that a couple of times. I don't bow to this kind of pissing match I don't give a fuck about the status of the school you attended. I can't count on you having shit. Some of the CS majors I am in class with are the most ignorant people when it comes to computers. Majoring in business does not make you smart, going to college does not make you intelligent. What makes a person intelligent is the ability to admit when they are wrong and learn from it. I am perfectly willing to admit that you are right if you are capable of proving it. So do so already and quit wasting our time trying to build credibility with this school and that competition.

Trickle down does not work. During the Reagan Dynasty unemployment was up (where were the mythical jobs you speak of) , the deficit was up, comsumer spending and confidence were both down. That sounds like a depressed economy to me.
 
I agree with LSVTEC's view of things. Let me spell out why. None of us are great intellectuals. We are simply regurgitating things we read elsewhere, occasionally making our own connections. I can guaruntee this debate is way over all of our heads. If its not, that means you either don't have a job or it is your job to think about this stuff. That said, this is where I get most of MY info from.

Noam Chomsky is a professor at MIT, and the NYTIMES says of Chomsky: "Arguably the most important intellectual alive". The Nation says "Noam Chomsky... is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance."

Now this doesn't make the guy right, but it means that maybe we should consider his opinions. I suggest his book "Understanding Power" as it covers most of the entirely fucked up stuff I have said on this board. Fascinating stuff for anyone that even utters a word about economics and politics. At any rate, this is his take on economics:

Basically there are two ways the Government could spend its money to stimulate the economy. The current system revolves around the pentagon and defense spending. The government collects taxes, artificially creates fear around the world, so that we feel we need defense spending. This tax money (lots of it, the more afraid we are the more they get) is spent in the civilian sector producing weapons and new technologies for war and war related fields. This makes sense as its classic economics that a war time economy is generally a good economy. Examples of our government lying about threats (as has been demonstrated with Iraq now) are reported BY our government. It's all there. Chomsky has footnotes for reference to most things he talks about. One example is in the cold war our country knew russia had less nukes, but kept saying they had more so we could build more.

The other system involves what new said, giving money to the average person to spend back in the economy. Chomsky doesn't try to make the point that this would necessarily lead to a better economy, but it wouldn't make it worse, and joe six packs life would be a bit better.

Now why is it done the way it is then? Because if Joe Six Pack (mmmm six packs :p ) were to get money and get educated and get involved and organize, that would undermine the current power structure in america where big business, not the government, runs things. Many examples follow etc. etc., including info about aforementioned COINTELPRO... all rocksolid arguments, with footnotes leading back mostly to government sources.

So basically all I'm saying is this guy is smart as shit, thats where I get my info from, and I think it says Republicans should stop being pigs. It also says however that democrats aren't much better :D . But hey, you gotta start somewhere.
 
:cliffs:

Noam Chomsky is smart as shit and he says keeping money from the underprivledged is just the white man trying to keep us down, or something.
 
Originally posted by halcyon985@Jul 12 2003, 10:08 PM
keeping money from the underprivledged is just the white man trying to keep us down, or something.

I knew B has been keeping us down all this time. :p :lol:
 
you wrote


"enter clinton, a D. Other than getting heady-momo from a couple interns, i think he was the 2nd best president of this century behind FDR. fuck JFK, what did he do? nothing but look good and almost get us blown up by cuba and russia. worst president ever."

Well let's start by pulling the rock from your head and replacing it with your original brain shall we?

JFK, while no more honest then your buddy, blowjob billie, did avert the end of the fucking world by putting his money where is mouth was in the biggest bluff call of the century.

Clinton on the other hand played the Puss card in 99 when the CIA told him they could get Bin Laden, Clinton didn't approve it, it didn't happen. He did however have our Navy fire over 70 cruise missles into Afganistan (at a cost of over 20 million each to YOU!!!), which hit abondoned military camps and did zero in the way of keeping us safe. I don't need to tell you what that led to.

you said

"Who ruined it? Regan an R. who ever shot the bastard and missed is a fucktard. "

"The last great Lionhart" as my father called him not only won the Cold War (yes by spending us into oblivion), he told an entire body of labor to go fuck themselves when they thought to strike at the cost of the nation. Not that the Cold War was important, errr, nevermind....

you said

" enter R George bush Sr.. Had I been old enough, my vote would have went to Dukakis (sp?). instead, we had to go play cowboy over in the middle east. I don't deny that it was the right thing to do, but it wasn't helping terms back home. The deficit grew to leaps and bounds.... and finially, he was done."

Vote for Dukakis?? With thoughts like that one your lucky you can feed yourself, let alone run this site. LOL, Dukakis, yeah you and six other people pal. Your right, it was the right thing to do. However, war=debt. It's not free, it never will be, you can't have your cake and eat it too, suck it up. But the guy did have less charisma then 10 Al Gores.

The state of the nation's ecomony (regaurdless of what the nay sayers would have you belive) is that it has picked back up. And while it has not yet returned to its former glory, neither did it fall as low as it did in the early 90's (after the Regan Bull run you forgot to mention). The ecomony does this, this is how it works. You cannot have a flux like we did in the l8t 90s without seeing something in a down turn to keep us from "runing away with the sppon", which would lead to the second great depression. People who cal out Jr on this fail to notice this and, that the economy was in a downward trend BEFORE GW took office, not that 911 helped (which could be blamed on Clinton [see above]!!!)

Note- I willnot, fix my type o's :p
 
Originally posted by rixXxceboy@Jul 11 2003, 03:03 PM
its simple:

George Bush = recession & war with iraq
Bill Clinton = recovery
George W Bush = recession & war with iraq

:p

ah no mah pahlitiks man! ;)

Bill Clinton =ed Economis stimulus, erosion of the integrity of the office of the President of the United States of America, a teardown of almost all our international public safety, a laughable forgein policy to include a middle east peace plan that flopped so bad American history probably won't choose to remember it, the most (tax payer funded) expensive impeachment to date.

Clinton was a lier, a thief, and a corrupt politician. He stole $100,000 worth of art from the white house the ngiht he left and signed countless presidential pardons (I think you could buy them on EBAY) for family and friends alike. And lied to the entire country about his sex life and cheating on his wife (which isn't "funny" or "cool"), and used his stature as our President as a springboard to get laid. and all your concered with is the number from the Dow on the news paper?

:rant:
 
Silverchild:

JFK didn't call any bluffs, he simply agreed not to invade cuba, which we were days away from doing before the cuban missle crisis broke. Nukes in Cuba was the Cubans using the russians for defense against the planned invasion, and Russia using Cuba for a place to put Missles. No bluffs, just negotiations.

Clinton definately wasted lots of $$ on those missle strikes, as well as Operation Desert Fox (also a total waste of time). Keep in mind however the irony of hte fact that Clinton wanted to go into Iraq but the public support was overwhelmingly not there. Interesting.

As far as Reagan goes, Reagan supported more global terrorism than anybody. The cold war didn't end during his administration, and the beginnings of the biggest blow to the USSR weren't started during his either, they were started during Carter's Admninistration, or possibly before. What brought down the Russians was "their vietnam", their war with Afghanistan. We caused that, by training and funding Islamic fundamentalists recruited from all over to fight them. Among these fighters was Osama Bin Laden... worked out well didn't it?

As far as the economy, the economic downward trend happened as soon as GW was elected. I'm not gonna blame it all on him, cause he isn't smart enough to fuck it up this bad, but I do think that there was a lack of confidence on wall street upon hearing of his election. He didn't help matters by saying there was going to be a recession either.
 
To further my proof of my previous statement ...
Linkage

SAN JOSE, California (AP) -- Peter Kerrigan encouraged friends to move to Silicon Valley throughout the 1980s and '90s, wooing them with tales of lucrative jobs in a burgeoning industry.

But he lost his network engineering job at a major telecommunications company in August 2001 and remains unemployed. Now 43, the veteran programmer is urging his 18-year-old nephew to stay in suburban Chicago and is discouraging him from pursuing degrees in computer science or engineering.

"I told him, 'Unless you're planning to do this as a path to technical sales, don't do it,"' said Kerrigan, who lives in Oakland. "He won't be able to have a career designing and building stuff because all those jobs have moved to India."

Who's to blame?
Like many unemployed programmers, Kerrigan blames the sour labor market on offshore outsourcing -- the migration of tech jobs to relatively low-paid contractors or locally hired employees in India, China, Russia and other developing countries.

The hemorrhaging of tens of thousands of technology jobs in recent years to cheaper workers abroad is already a fact of life -- as inevitable, U.S. executives say, as the 1980s migration of Rust Belt manufacturing jobs to Southeast Asia and Latin America.

But a new wave of technology outsourcing -- involving tasks that involve greater skills -- could be cutting to the industry's bone, threatening to prolong the three-year U.S. economic downturn.

Strengthening foreign tech
Some who oppose the trend, which such industry stalwarts as Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell and Microsoft are embracing, believe it could even usher in the end of American domination in technology.

"We're giving countries like China and India the support they need to build up their technology industries, and the result could disadvantage us in the long run," said Phil Friedman, an electrical engineer and chief executive of New York-based Computer Generated Solutions, a 1,200-employee software company that targets the apparel industry.

"We outsourced electronics manufacturing. We're closing steel mills. Every week, 400,000 people file for new unemployment claims," said Friedman, a 54-year-old Ukrainian native who immigrated in 1976. "At the same time, we're shipping tech jobs offshore -- it's a shortsighted approach and cheats the American work force."

Cost-conscious executives have been shifting lower-level tech jobs in data entry and systems support abroad to cheaper labor markets for more than a decade. But now they are exporting highly paid, highly skilled positions in software development -- jobs that have been considered intrinsic to Silicon Valley and tech hubs such as Seattle; Boston; and Austin, Texas.

Russia project grows
Critics say it's the equivalent of exporting not just the automobile industry's assembly line jobs -- but the core engineering and car design jobs, too.

According to Forrester Research, companies in the United States and Europe will spend 28 percent of their information technology budgets on overseas work in the next two years.

Boeing, Dell and Motorola have opened software development centers in Russia. Intel employs 400 full-time Russian software research engineers and nearly 200 others in marketing and sales, wireless Internet access and modem projects.

Santa Clara-based Intel entered the Russian market with a small contract project three years ago. But within months, the world's largest chip maker hired all the programmers who write compiler software to optimize the microprocessors' performance, and opened the Russia Software Development Center in Nizhny Novgorod.

"We intend to invest in the fastest-growing markets, and those are India, Russia and China -- that's the long-term plan," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.

Looking to India
Microsoft is adding software development jobs at its India Development Center in Hyderabad, opened in 1999 to create versions of Windows for giant corporate computers. Bill Gates said late last year that the expansion was part of an estimated $400 million in corporate investments in the subcontinent.

On its corporate Web site, Microsoft lists dozens of Hyderabad openings, many requiring five years of experience, fluency in multiple computer languages, and college degrees in computer science -- far from the hourly telemarketer jobs that financial services and insurance companies exported to the Philippines and elsewhere in the early '90s.

Some say sending those jobs abroad may cause American tech workers' wages to stagnate.

According to the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, non-inflation-adjusted wages for tech workers grew 1.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2002 -- not enough to keep up with the period's inflation rate of 2.2 percent.

Cuts payroll and training costs
The average computer programmer in India costs $20 per hour in wages and benefits, compared to $65 per hour for an American with a comparable degree and experience, according to consulting firm Cap Gemini Ernst & Young.

But executives say outsourcing offers advantages beyond wage differences.

Jean-Marc Hauducoeur, a senior vice president at Cincinnati-based human resources consulting firm Convergys, said his 47,000-employee company will employ 6,000 customer service representatives and network engineers in India by year's end.

Convergys' average technical employee in India stays on the job for nearly three years -- more than double the U.S. average, saving tens of thousands of dollars in recruitment and training per employee per year, he said.

"People in India are very ambitious and very well-educated, but they're also ready to invest in a company, and they have less of a tendency to move out of the company," Hauducoeur said.

Betting on the next big thing
Many U.S. corporate executives say they simply can't afford to overlook foreign computer workers -- especially in India, which produces roughly 350,000 college engineering graduates annually.

Others say the genius of American enterprise is its leaders' knack for envisioning the next big thing -- and workers' ability to redefine job roles and retrain. Americans pioneering developments in nanotechnology and biotech will have far more job security than simple programmers, they argue.

Bob Pryor, who heads the outsourcing practice of Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, said it's "naive" to think outsourcing software jobs could ruin America's tech dominance.

"The reality is that we live in a global economy and we compete against global players. We need to look at where we have strategic advantage -- whether it's resources or skills," Pryor said. "It frees up people and dollars to do much more value-added strategic things for clients."

Supporting globalization
Marcus Courtney, a former contract worker for Microsoft and Adobe Systems and president of the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers, said many tech workers understand and even endorse free trade and globalization.

They even enjoy living on the cutting edge -- taking courses in advanced computer languages, getting experience in a variety of business disciplines, and endorsing a philosophy of continuous improvement, he said.

But many find it tough to reconcile their macro-economic outlook with their own unemployment.

"We need to move beyond the idea that individuals can simply cope and retrain," said Courtney, whose 275-member union is asking Congress to study and possibly regulate offshore outsourcing. "Workers need a voice over their economic future and a voice against the executives making these unilateral economic decisions."

 
first off, i disagree with war. look at canada. ive never been to canada and know nothing about thier government, but i do know i dont see them going to war all the time and damn if they dont appear to have a decent standard of living. imo, its cause they mind thier own business, odviously we dont have america under control and at its peak, so going by what im sure all our mothers told us growing up, why do we need to go screw with other countries, get yourself straight and stop worrying about others.

i know little about politics but it appears to me that jwb sr. started everything with iraq, now his son is ATTEMPTING to finish it off. personally i think this could all be avoided if america would worry about america and let the other countries worry about the other countries.

if people dont like it in south africa, iraq, or wherever else, well, they can move to alaska, that american state has a ton of land waiting to be homed on.
 
Originally posted by Silverchild79@Jul 13 2003, 01:52 AM
Bill Clinton =ed Economis stimulus, erosion of the integrity of the office of the President of the United States of America, a teardown of almost all our international public safety, a laughable forgein policy to include a middle east peace plan that flopped so bad American history probably won't choose to remember it, the most (tax payer funded) expensive impeachment to date.

Clinton was a lier, a thief, and a corrupt politician. He stole $100,000 worth of art from the white house the ngiht he left and signed countless presidential pardons (I think you could buy them on EBAY) for family and friends alike. And lied to the entire country about his sex life and cheating on his wife (which isn't "funny" or "cool"), and used his stature as our President as a springboard to get laid. and all your concered with is the number from the Dow on the news paper?

:rant:

It seems like we hear tons about how crooked Clinton was, but nothing about how crooked Jr, his VP, or his cabinet are. How about:
George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
 
AWOL from national guard for more then 10 days during a time of war (deserter). Funny, I'm an NCO in the Air Force and I can tell you that you CAN'T BE THE FREEKIN PRESIDENT IF YOU'VE DESERTED!!!! Holy Felony conviction batman!!! I hope to god we're not stupid enough to buy into this lot of shit. And assuming the rest of your statement was on par with this little tidbit I'd adivse you shoot yourself in the head now because that's exactly what it is. I'd asume now you would have me believe my president is a Felon? And for your information, President Bush DID awnser the question about his drug use stating "I have not used any drugs within the past seven years" which IS the legal awnser. I'm not even gona get into the rest of your statement which has holes in it large enough in it to drive an Element through. Strongest ecomony in US history? well numerically yes, however we should consider inflation. Inflation (believe it or not) makes numbers rise just a tad, not to mention that the size of the country is alot larger then it was during what was known as the "roaring 20's". The seeds of our resession were sewn well before "Jr" took office (nice nickname for our freekin president by the way), and all your "conspericy theories" do little to sway me. Please redirect wich actual information, and the weekly world news doesn't count...
 
Back
Top