Is George W. Bush the worst US president ever?



darkboong said:
The Economic landscape 25 years ago was significantly different to the ones that exist in the world today. The US debt is outrageously high and the trade deficit growth is accelerating because the US is increasingly dependant on imported goods. *IF* the wheels fall off the US economy the recovery could be particularly difficult because the majority of the income *appears* to come from trivially outsourced white collar jobs. When the going gets tough, the successful move somewhere easier to do business.
I agree that the US debt is high, however, the doom and gloom the article writer was moaning about is the same thing I heard in 1985. That is the point I was making.

darkboong said:
The surge in the property market in the US appears to be built on the premise of cheap lending, which simply can not continue with the accelerating trade deficit, national debt and stagnating/shrinking income. Somewhat reminiscent of the dot-com bubble, but on a far larger scale.
Interest rates have been quite low for several years and show no signs of increasing in any significant way. Stagnating/shrinking income? Funny, the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that for 2004, personal income grew by 4.4%, double that of 2003. Obviously 2005 figures are not available yet

darkboong said:
The GDP figure doesn't really tell you much aside from some folks are getting stinking rich at the top of the pile.
Um...I would have to respectfully disagree. The fact that our GDP is growing is a postive indicator of increased productivity and jobs. See we have a postive growth GDP of around 3.4% with unemployment sitting at 5%. On the other hand for example, Germany is forecasting a 1.6% growth in GDP for 2006 and is sitting at 11% unemployment. Whether people at the top of the pile are getting 'stinking rich' is really irrelevant considering productivity and employment are increasing.
 
Billy Fish said:
I agree that the US debt is high, however, the doom and gloom the article writer was moaning about is the same thing I heard in 1985. That is the point I was making.

Fair enough, however it's not the fact that it's high, it's the fact that it is high and the rate at which it grows is accelerating *fast*.


Billy Fish said:
Interest rates have been quite low for several years and show no signs of increasing in any significant way. Stagnating/shrinking income? Funny, the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that for 2004, personal income grew by 4.4%, double that of 2003. Obviously 2005 figures are not available yet

... Meanwhile the USD actually *dropped* in value dramatically w.r.t to the Euro for example ... The Euro was aimed to be roughly 1:1 with the USD, and traded at about .9 for a long time, currently trading at 1.21. Lots of folks *****ed about the Chinese pegging their currency to the USD, but *IF* they floated it properly the USD would suffer another dramatic fall. Great you say, more export, but what exactly does the US export these days ? Wheat ? Military hardware ? Neither of those two items strike me as a winner in the modern world. Technology - err, kinda, but that's moving offshore fast, HP for example pretty much rebadge grey boxes. Even Intel is shifting it's design work abroad, a large chunk of it's manufacturing is already offshore, notwithstanding it's investment in the Austin fab.

Billy Fish said:
Um...I would have to respectfully disagree. The fact that our GDP is growing is a postive indicator of increased productivity and jobs.

Single digit increases in GDP when the currency has taken a double digit hit doesn't strike me as a one step forward, two steps back.

Billy Fish said:
See we have a postive growth GDP of around 3.4% with unemployment sitting at 5%. On the other hand for example, Germany is forecasting a 1.6% growth in GDP for 2006 and is sitting at 11% unemployment.

OTOH the standard of living in Germany is significantly better. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Paul Craig Roberts (who served with Ronnie) is very pessimistic about the employment situation. What he is seeing is the high-revenue earning jobs moving offshore and being replaced with serving tables and flipping burgers. Another commentator pointed out that a full 20% of the white collar jobs are involved with finance, an industry that is sitting on a huge personal debt mountain in the US, as earning power falls. A rising property market that is floated on a rapidly growing mountain of bad debt in that situation is a very very bad thing. :(

Billy Fish said:
Whether people at the top of the pile are getting 'stinking rich' is really irrelevant considering productivity and employment are increasing.

It is important. It means that the average joe will get shafted. How many rich folks are going to invest their money (that is shrinking in real-world value) into a nationwide ghetto ? Rich folks have significantly more fiscal mobility, the money will walk (and has been as evidenced by the bonds trading over the last couple of years for example).

... I haven't even started on the Oil & Peak Oil stuff yet. All the western economies are heavily dependant on Oil, the price has risen *very* sharply during Bush's tenure. If anything I expect the price to continue to rise in line with the rising global political instability that the Bush foreign policy has promoted. My feeling is that the Bush doctrine is simply to maintain the US financial bubble by controlling the world's oil market. That ain't actually happening on the ground, and in practice I believe that in combination with the domestic Energy polcies it is making the US even more vulnerable.

How about if Israel actually decides to use it's "matches" on an oil field or two ? Maybe some revolutionary/terrorist works out how to throughly destroy an oil field ? Or perhaps Saudi trashes it's Ghawar field beyond redemption by overproduction ?

If anything the West as a whole should be working on dramatically reducing it's dependancy on oil and thereby reducing the risk exposure. The US has more to lose than many in this scenario, it's domestic and foreign policy centres on projecting military force to dominate oil, and in turn it needs a hell of a lot of oil to project that military force.

As an engineer I see a mutual dependancy that is leading the US towards a dead end. FWIW, the situation is little better in Europe perhaps even worse.
 
darkboong said:
... I haven't even started on the Oil & Peak Oil stuff yet.

Some more stuff... www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf

Note the focus of that report is largely on Oil as an energy source. Consider the fact that transportation accounts for a very large proportion of the oil consumption. Oil price rises and shortages will dramatically alter the way we live.

Where are you going to get your Televisions from when it becomes too expensive to ship them from China ? Countries will have to become more self-sufficient in their manufacturing than they are at present. Globalisation is railroading us into a situation where we simply can not survive without cheap transport - and that will come to an end in the forseeable future unless something very dramatic happens.

Few policymakers are even talking about that issue, but the *real* gotcha (IMO) will be the impact on manufacturing. Our entire manufacturing infrastructure is heavily dependant on oil. Just about every kind of material you care to mention requires oil directly and indirectly in it's production. Wood is the only major exception that comes to mind, and as fantastic and versatile as Wood is, it can't replace the vast majority of materials we take for granted today.
 
darkboong said:
Some of us are watching a pillock in action. :)
pillock

n : a person who is not very bright; "The economy, stupid!"



LOL! You Brits are killin' me!
 
davidmc said:
the middle class are being raped by the repuplican's, they just don't know it :eek:
As my man Joe Jackson once said: "We don't have rocks in OUR heads!"
 
Here's one for ya, Billy (a comment from a friend on another site):

"I'm a financial advisor, and I keep hearing from Wall Street how Bush has done a great job managing the economy, and telling me that the economy IS on the rebound.

Problem is, I've been hearing this ******** from the same folks since 2001, and none of the indicators that I follow are showing any upward trends at all. At best, they are flat.

Reality check, folks...
The US has been in a recession since the spring of 2000, and shows no sign at all of letting up. There's a depression on the horizon. When the US Govmint starts defaulting on its bonds, get ready for quadruple digit inflation."
 
Carrera said:
Seems to me like Bush is just one of a number of new aged visionaries who seem to entertain grandiose views of how the world ought to be, to the exclusion of known science, logic and even common sense.
Of course Mr Spock, now clean your ears will you.
 
Billy Fish said:
Whether people at the top of the pile are getting 'stinking rich' is really irrelevant considering productivity and employment are increasing.
"Increased productivity" does not equate to "increased wages." Incidentally, how do you explain the fact that an individual w/ a high school diploma could buy a house, a new car & raise a family, in the fairly recent past, but it is now a thing of the past :confused: Wages have not kept up w/ increased productivity. The norm now is to increase productivity then sell the company at a loss to-you guessed it-the workers. CEO/Worker pay has increased from 30/1 to 350/1. I eagerly await your response to this ever increasing trend :rolleyes: (Incidentally, in the late 90's it was 400/1) :mad:
 
davidmc said:
"Increased productivity" does not equate to "increased wages." Incidentally, how do you explain the fact that an individual w/ a high school diploma could buy a house, a new car & raise a family, in the fairly recent past, but it is now a thing of the past :confused: Wages have not kept up w/ increased productivity. The norm now is to increase productivity then sell the company at a loss to-you guessed it-the workers. CEO/Worker pay has increased from 30/1 to 350/1. I eagerly await your response to this ever increasing trend :rolleyes: (Incidentally, in the late 90's it was 400/1) :mad:
Define recent past. Wages on the other hand have grown and based upon the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed a 4.4% increase in personal income in 2004. As for CEO to worker pay, what of it? That has little to do with the overall economy but makes great copy to stir up class envy. I mean if the CEO of my company decided to increase my salary to say, $250K per year I could still argue that it doesn't come close to his $10 million so we're right back where we started.
 
Wurm said:
Here's one for ya, Billy (a comment from a friend on another site):

"I'm a financial advisor, and I keep hearing from Wall Street how Bush has done a great job managing the economy, and telling me that the economy IS on the rebound.

Problem is, I've been hearing this ******** from the same folks since 2001, and none of the indicators that I follow are showing any upward trends at all. At best, they are flat.

Reality check, folks...
The US has been in a recession since the spring of 2000, and shows no sign at all of letting up. There's a depression on the horizon. When the US Govmint starts defaulting on its bonds, get ready for quadruple digit inflation."
Interesting. Maybe he should call Greenspan and tell him he's doing a lousy job. Exactly what indicators is he following? He is looking at US economic indicators right?

Recession? Well based on usual economic indicators a recession is defined by two quarters of declining GDP. Now, considering the economy is chugging along at a healthy 3.4% and has been for the last several years, I'd say I have to throw the BS flag on that one.

Now should say, Saudi Arabia go south and oil supply really crunch then yes, we're all going to be looking at a major depression. Europe and Asia need oil too so its not just the US that will have to take a bite from the **** sandwhich.
 
Billy Fish said:
Define recent past. Wages on the other hand have grown and based upon the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed a 4.4% increase in personal income in 2004. As for CEO to worker pay, what of it? That has little to do with the overall economy but makes great copy to stir up class envy. I mean if the CEO of my company decided to increase my salary to say, $250K per year I could still argue that it doesn't come close to his $10 million so we're right back where we started.
The obscene CEO/Worker wage disparity is indicative of Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, ect...CEO's &/or Robber Baron's believing that they have no allegiance, whatsoever, to the people who made thier success possible. I just read "The Social Contract", by Rousseau. I highly recommend it. Rome suffered from reckless, overindulgence before it's eventual demise. No wonder the CEO's don't have any patriotism, they'd just as soon send their dirty money "off shore" & have thier product made in sweatshops w/o labor laws. Incidentally, CAFTA just passed the house, w/ an overwhelming Republican majority, shafting the American worker once more, for good measure. There were only 3 dissenting votes. Both sides of the aisle are culpable :mad:
 
Billy Fish said:
Interesting. Maybe he should call Greenspan and tell him he's doing a lousy job...
Greenspan IS doing a lousy job:

By Mike Whitney
"The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops."
-- The Economist​
I sold my home three weeks ago anticipating what I believe will be "Economic Armageddon" in the United States. It wasn't an easy thing to do. My wife and I have lived in the same home for 25 years, raised both of our children there, and owned the property outright without any loans or mortgage. The house was paid for in "sweat-equity", that is, by wielding a shovel day-in and day-out in my one-man landscape business. I don't say that for sympathy, but to illustrate that we played by the rules, worked hard, paid our taxes, and took advantage of the American dream of home-ownership.

All that has changed.

I sold my home for one reason; George W. Bush. He and his protege at the Federal Reserve have submerged the country into a morass of "unsustainable" debt, disrupted the nation's economic equilibrium and thrust us towards fiscal disaster. They've also generated a humongous housing bubble through their irresponsible and self-serving manipulation of interest rates.



The facts are astonishing.

The current housing bubble "is larger than the global stock market bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stock market bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history." (The Economist)

The banks have lowered the standards for home loans to such an extent that the traditional loan of 20% down and a fixed interest rate is virtually a thing of the past. Instead, those conservative practices have been replaced with "creative financing" schemes that put the entire housing market at risk.

Consider this: In 2004 "one-fourth of all home-buyers -including 42% of first-time buyers--made no down payment". (New York Times)

No down payment?!?

Sorry, but if a buyer can't come up with at least $5 thousand dollars for a down payment, he shouldn't qualify for a home loan.

Equally troubling is the fact that "nearly one third of all new mortgages this year call for interest-only payments (in California, its almost half)" (NY Times) This tells us that a large number of new buyers can barely make their payments, but are gambling that their property value will go up enough to justify their investment. This is "equity-roulette"; a shell-game that anticipates that salaries will go up while interest rates stay low.

Is that a reasonable judgment?

No, Greenspan has said that he will continue to ratchet up interest rates to head off inflation. This means that an economic slowdown is a near certainty. Remember, "class-warrior" Alan Greenspan lowered the prime rate to a ridiculously low 1% in 2002 to keep the economy humming-along while $300 billion was sluiced into Bush's "preemptive" war in Iraq and while the tax cuts were siphoning the last borrowed farthing out of the public coffers. The Bush tax cuts transferred an average of $400 billion dollars per year into the flannel pockets of Bush's primary constituents; American plutocrats. Now, the country is flat-broke and Greenspan will have to "incrementally" raise rates to stabilize the sagging dollar. This means a sluggish economy for most of us and doomsday for over-extended homeowners.

Greenspan assumed he could carry out his plan without too much unnecessary carnage. Unfortunately, gluttonous mortgage lenders have lowered long-term loans while the prime rate continues to go up. The banks, it seems, are addicted to the "cash cow" of shaky lending and are providing even riskier loans to new applicants. This has upset the Fed-master's strategy for a "soft landing" and Greenspan has begun feverishly issuing warnings about an inevitable "adjustment" when the market bogs down. The bottom line is that the housing bubble is getting bigger by the day and increasing the potential for catastrophe.

The current problem is compounded by a dramatic up tick of speculation in the housing market. As "The Economist" says, "A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) found that 23% of all American houses bought in 2004 were for investment, not owner-occupation. Another 13% were bought as second homes. Investors are prepared to buy houses they will rent out at a loss; just because they think prices will keep rising--the very definition of a financial bubble."

What will happen to these "speculative" buyers when the market "flattens out" or the economy takes a sudden dip?

And, what will happen to the US economy when the jobs that depend on new home sales vanish overnight?

"Over the past four years, consumer spending and residential construction have together accounted for 90% of the total growth in GDP. And over two-fifths of all private-sector jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors, such as construction, real estate and mortgage broking." (The Economist)

"Two out of every five" private sector jobs are now entirely dependent on an industry that is built on pure quicksand.

So, why would banks foolishly loan money to people who can't even scrap together a few thousand dollars for a down payment or who can scarcely meet their "interest-only" obligations?

The reason is simple; because they are not the one's taking the risk. Mortgage loans are acquired by investment banks and chopped up into various securities where they are sold in mutual funds, hedge funds and pension funds etc. To some extent, this takes the lenders off the hook, but it also means that the shock to the system will be much more widespread when the day of reckoning finally arrives. If we encounter a major glitch in the economy the shock-waves will be felt throughout the world. "Investors now hold $4.6 trillion in mortgage backed securities. That's more than the outstanding value of the US Treasuries." (NY Times) Think about it.

Shaky lending, interest-only loans, no down payments, a US government that is $8 trillion in debt due to Washington's profligate spending, and a "ticking-time bomb" of adjustable-rate mortgages that will reset within three years; the table is set for a disaster of Biblical proportions. If we hit a bump in the economic road ahead (rising gas prices? recession?) the "Land of the free" will be knee-deep in bankruptcies and foreclosures. We'll all be fighting for a soft-spot under the freeway on-ramp.

The fatuous Greenspan believes that all this can be avoided by regulating the money supply.

He's dead wrong, and I bet my house on it.

Note: The current dilemma could have been avoided if Greenspan had incrementally raised rates as the bubble began to appear. Instead he lowered rates to facilitate Bush's war in Iraq. It was purely a political decision that "postponed" the economic pain of the conflict and allowed the Bush administration to shift the cost of the war onto future generations.

Consider, also, how Greenspan paved the way for the budget-busting tax cuts (which he enthusiastically approved) and how they have increased America's debt by $3 trillion. This is real money that American workers will eventually have to pay back in the form of taxes and a higher cost of living. This "class loyalty" is strikingly at odds with his philosophy as a young man when he said, "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth."

So it is; and the $3 trillion dollars that evaporated on Greenspan's watch was in fact stolen from the American people while the Fed-chief concealed the crime behind the smokescreen of low-interest rates.
In the final analysis, Greenspan will be seen as a greater traitor than Bush.
As far as your remark about Saudi Arabia and oil, etc., the fact is that the Saudi's largest field - Ghawar - has reached it's peak production or is past peak, which means that it will from now on only produce less and less until it inevitably runs dry. The Saudi's have promised higher overall oil production on 2 occasions in the past year or so, but have not been able to deliver on their "for public comsumption" BS. Maybe you should wave a few flags at that?
 
Billy Fish said:
Recession? Well based on usual economic indicators a recession is defined by two quarters of declining GDP. Now, considering the economy is chugging along at a healthy 3.4% and has been for the last several years, I'd say I have to throw the BS flag on that one.

Odd, Greenspan thought there was a recession going on in March 2001. Are you telling us that Greenspan doesn't know what he's talking about ? It was still going on in February 2002, although Greenspan believed that it was coming to an end at that time (he was wrong by the analysis of just about everyone in the money business outside of the Whitehouse and the Fed).

It really depends on whose opinion you trust. Personally I don't trust happy noises from folks who have a career on the line when the currency and the bonds are on a slide.
 
Billy Fish said:
Define recent past. Wages on the other hand have grown and based upon the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed a 4.4% increase in personal income in 2004. As for CEO to worker pay, what of it?

It's the Cashflow stupid !

The majority of CEO money does not actually feed the local economy, it lives in Switzerland, and other money laundering outfits. All that is happening is that the market place is being significantly weakened, because the money ain't getting spent locally. The massive disparity in wages will certainly mask falling wages for the workforce at large, which puts more pressure on the economy (note : personal Debt is massive and rising *fast* - the UK shares this problem).

Also the Corps and the CEOs will simply walk away if the Economy takes a dive. They aren't charities, they'll just convert their USD to gold and bugger off out of the country, do business elsewhere. I guess they might spend a few pennies on building gated communities and massive estates in the US, that might keep a few $3/hr serfs in employment too.
 
Ever Think Maybe If We Quit Making Money So Important In Our Lives That Maybe We Would See The Evil It Causes Us To Inflict On One Another. It's An Inanimate Object. Maybe If The Us Of A Would Quit Spending All Our Money On Finding New Ways To Kill People, And Put All That Into Curing The Famines Of This World. I Believe We Could Possibly Gain Back Our Respect In International Society!
 
NYY2183 said:
Ever Think Maybe If We Quit Making Money So Important In Our Lives That Maybe We Would See The Evil It Causes Us To Inflict On One Another. It's An Inanimate Object. Maybe If The Us Of A Would Quit Spending All Our Money On Finding New Ways To Kill People, And Put All That Into Curing The Famines Of This World. I Believe We Could Possibly Gain Back Our Respect In International Society!
What do you think you are doing, bringing "logic" into this discussion :mad: :rolleyes:
 
Is George W. Bush the worst US president ever?

i think it is time for one of Limerickman's world famous 'The fall of the US economy under Bush' speeches.

then you can make up your mind...
 
MountainPro said:
Is George W. Bush the worst US president ever?

i think it is time for one of Limerickman's world famous 'The fall of the US economy under Bush' speeches.

then you can make up your mind...
I didn't initially care too much for President Clinton. Then I grew to like his policies. Conversely, I initially didn't care too much for Mr. Bush. I feel the same way, to a greater extent, in his second term. I guess it isn't him so much as the people who elected him. Many of them, no doubt, are realizing the magnitude of thier blunder in reelecting him & his henchmen :(
 
we must consider the bush reports of productivity include such credible parameters as
the total number of burgers flipped,
and number of wal-mart customers greeted in the rosy picture.

"are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
-campaign ad copy of the not so distant past...


davidmc said:
"Increased productivity" does not equate to "increased wages." Incidentally, how do you explain the fact that an individual w/ a high school diploma could buy a house, a new car & raise a family, in the fairly recent past, but it is now a thing of the past :confused: Wages have not kept up w/ increased productivity. The norm now is to increase productivity then sell the company at a loss to-you guessed it-the workers. CEO/Worker pay has increased from 30/1 to 350/1. I eagerly await your response to this ever increasing trend :rolleyes: (Incidentally, in the late 90's it was 400/1) :mad:
 
for the money laundering, yes. then there is the health benefit of the alpine air and water, to escape the life expectancy reducing pollution the petrochem industries belch in the process of makin' their profitable goods...


darkboong said:
It's the Cashflow stupid !

The majority of CEO money does not actually feed the local economy, it lives in Switzerland, and other money laundering outfits.