The Straight Truth About the Bush Economy

[tieguy]

"Seriously, "what if's" are just that, what if's and shouldn't really factor into any dicussion because like time itself you just can't go back."

I can agree that can't go back I don't agree that you can't discuss what ifs. From your quoting Susie it appears she asked for Bushs accomplishments. I think you first have to determine what he inherited and how big a hole he had to dig out of. Then I think you have to determine the consequences of his failing to lead us out of that mess. Granted he is spending quite a few bucks. I've never been crazy about expanding government. I would imagine the biggest creation has been in the area of homeland security. I would also imagine george will have his label as the biggest spender history has seen until the next president that comes along and has a war run while in office. At that point george will be quietly forgotten for his spending ways.

George inherited an economy falling into a recession. George inherited a security network that was failing miserably at protecting us from terrorists. George inherited an economy about to take a hit from various corporate scandels. Whether we fully agree on Iraq the only response to 9/11 this country would accept was to go to war in afghanistan. Firing up the war machine is a very costly process and one that started him on his spending ways. Firing up the war machine has always been a means to kick start a failing economy . Thus he played the cards dealt him. The barometer in assessing Georges presidency has to start with those points in mind.

In assessing Georges presidency you do have to try to determine the impact of his taking a different direction or of his not being decisive. I believe a Carter type presidency at this time would have been catostrophic. That does not mean I fully endorse everything or agree with everything George did. But an attack of the proportion of 9/11 requires strong resolute leadership. George has definitely provided us with such.

 

[dannyboy]

I agree tie, strong leadership is very necessary. But strong leadership in a wrong direction is not all that great a thing either.

Only history will allow us to see what will become of his actions abroad. But the actions here at home leave a lot to be desired, IMHO.

d

 

[wkmac]

Personally, I don't think Bush is better or worse than most. Looking back through time and comments made about various Presidents at their time, President Bush seems about average IMO. Bush has however advanced the concept of the executive powers being beyond challenge in times of war but he's not the first. Lincoln started much of the game from suspending Habius Corpus to other acts during his tenure that quite frankly leaves one to believe he governed by force of martial law. Wilson added to the misery and then FDR took gov't to a whole new level. Bush is really a "Bush Leaguer" (some pun intended) when it comes to these guys and changing the face of executive powers. Couple of truths you mentioned is the fact the economy wasn't turning bad, it had already turned bad in the fact the down cycle had already started when Bush took office. Truth is economics are cyclical by nature and a down period whether we like it or not is a natural occurrance. Without 9/11 my guess is the economy would have turned upward much quicker but having said that IMO the Bush economy didn't show near the effects that I remember seeing during the Carter years and then in the early Reagan years. It just seems worst now because the political divisions IMO are vastly greater now and both side exploit to their advantage any edge they might find.

Bush and Carter IMO share a lot in common. It's been the people around them that have done the most damage and not the individual President himself and this gets to the real cruks of the issue. The President catches all the heat because we, being human, like to assign blame to the most elementary of causes, in this case the single solitary figure known as The President. Now some of that is founded but you also have to assign blame across the much wider plane known as gov't. Problem again, we like specifics, we like easy answers and easy questions so it's just much easier to blame the single person instead of the much broader organization of gov't.

The Katrina situation was IMO a perfect example of total gov't failure across the board from top to bottom but we want to see it not in that light but rather we want to personify it by totally blaming Bush or the Mayor or the Governor rather than stepping back and realizing and being realistic to ourselves and just accept that a massive public entity who in truth doesn't do a good job. They aren't good at delivering the mail or educating children or for that fact is so shortsided that they would assist with all their being to building an economy and society around an energy source like oil that is shrinking and more and more of it is controlled by people who quite frankly don't give a d#mn about us and now find themselves scrambling for alternatives and the push is towards a singluarity known as hydrogen which in itself has problems.

Do I believe Bush is the cause to all that ails us? Nope. Like you, I'm very disappointed in that he's walked away from the fiscal principles of a true conservative but I never voted for the man because I never believed he had those principles to begin with. At the same time I also don't believe he's the 666 anti-christ either. You know I jokingly say sometimes that every day Al Gore hits his knees and thanks God for the Supreme Court and sez, "Lord, thank you for saving me from having to face that mess!" LOL! If I were him I'm making the same prayer. In other words, I'm not convinced many of the effects Bush saw would not have happened had the 2000' election been different but how Gore would have handled that is open to speculation and that opinion will be driven by one's political opinion or affliation. With all due respect to others, I do believe we would have had war in Iraq at some point because the same saber rattling was happening prior to 2000' and it was just a matter of time. If for nothing more than to save the USA from continuing to dump large sums of money to police Saddam in the no-fly zone, we would have removed him via the war powers so that money could be freed up domestically for saving pensions, social security or some other issue that needs addressing.

Bottomline Tie, I agree, to blame Bush for all ails is totally wrong but that is the nature of the beast these days when you sit in that office. What the American people need to do is look beyond at the big picture and realize the true fault lies in the total gov't itself. One of the shortcomings of UPS which I do believe in time will come to harm the company is the thinking we can only have the experts in the theorectical run this company. I'm speaking of the fact that at one time everyone in UPS who rose up through the ranks came from the ranks of doing the job itself of loading, sorting, driving. Now that is not the case and you have folks making decisions about how the company should operate on a day to day basis by folks in many cases who have never worked loading ,sorting and driving and have no clue as to what the jobs really are. Same is true of gov't. The vast majority of those setting policy in Washington have never worked a real job or dealt with a real life and yet they rely of various political theories to set policy and law that would tell the rest of us how to live, work and play. Until we return to the concepts of limited gov't to where the citizen leaders can rise from among us, like UPS, we will continue to flounder and never really achieve the very best of what we really could if we'd just take a few steps and draw from the past.

Here's you a little something released by the Associated Press yesterday on the porkbarrel spending of our Congress. This is all on Congress IMO but at the same time we have a President who is not willing to weiled the weapon of veto either.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190745,00.html

Also here's an interesting tidbit from the article IMO.

"Earmarks have blossomed under GOP control of Congress. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., advocated the practice to help cement GOP majorities."

So much for the principles of the so-called Republican revolution and cutting the size and scope of gov't! Newt ain't what he seems folks and take it from someone who's seen this guy up close since he began his political career back in the 70's and had him for a Congressman. Nope, never voted for the man thanks in many ways because of the sage advice from the late Congressman Larry McDonald who knew about Newt's true colors all to well!

You know, where is Susie....uh Tyrone....uh whatever the name of the day is!

 

[scratch]

Wkmac,

Just a little comment about your post, I agree with it for the most part. An interesting side story, back when Newt was in Congress, he had an office near my delivery area. One day, he put on a set of "Browns" and rode around with one of our drivers. This driver was the nephew of none other than Weldon Mathis, who was secretary of the IBT, and actually ran it for a little while when one of the IBT Presidents died in office. Anyway, he got off the Package Car after a few hours, to be carried off by a staffer who followed them around in a car. The driver said he was a real horn dog, making comments about the ladies they saw! Actually I liked him, and voted for him a couple of times. Newt Gingrich lost his seat when the Democratic Governor and Georgia State Legislature redrew the voting disricts. I thought Democrate Governor Roy Barnes greatest accomplishment was to appoint Zell Miller to the late Repuplican Paul Coverdale's Senate seat!

 

[tieguy]

I agree tie, strong leadership is very necessary. But strong leadership in a wrong direction is not all that great a thing either.

Only history will allow us to see what will become of his actions abroad. But the actions here at home leave a lot to be desired, IMHO.

d

What home issues were you referring to dan?

 

[tieguy]

Personally, I don't think Bush is better or worse than most. Looking back through time and comments made about various Presidents at their time, President Bush seems about average IMO.

I agree for the most part. What will make him greater in comparison will be the strength and determination of his convictions. What makes him weaker in my eyes is that he has not been effective in selling his vision. Thus we have often have these wordy debates where we attempt to define his intentions.

Bush and Carter IMO share a lot in common. It's been the people around them that have done the most damage and not the individual President himself and this gets to the real cruks of the issue. The President catches all the heat because we, being human, like to assign blame to the most elementary of causes, in this case the single solitary figure known as The President. Now some of that is founded but you also have to assign blame across the much wider plane known as gov't. Problem again, we like specifics, we like easy answers and easy questions so it's just much easier to blame the single person instead of the much broader organization of gov't.

however average Bush may be I still can't equate him with Carter who I would believe to be the absolute worst president I ever saw.

The Katrina situation was IMO a perfect example of total gov't failure across the board from top to bottom but we want to see it not in that light but rather we want to personify it by totally blaming Bush or the Mayor or the Governor rather than stepping back and realizing and being realistic to ourselves and just accept that a massive public entity who in truth doesn't do a good job.

tends to support our position that too much government is not a good thing.

Do I believe Bush is the cause to all that ails us? Nope. Like you, I'm very disappointed in that he's walked away from the fiscal principles of a true conservative but I never voted for the man because I never believed he had those principles to begin with. At the same time I also don't believe he's the 666 anti-christ either. You know I jokingly say sometimes that every day Al Gore hits his knees and thanks God for the Supreme Court and sez, "Lord, thank you for saving me from having to face that mess!" LOL! If I were him I'm making the same prayer. In other words, I'm not convinced many of the effects Bush saw would not have happened had the 2000' election been different but how Gore would have handled that is open to speculation and that opinion will be driven by one's political opinion or affliation.

For Gore I think it would have been worse. Gore was part of the prior administration. Gore would have taken more blame for some of the issues Bush inherited. Thus I think Gore would have been forced to spend more time playing political defense.


With all due respect to others, I do believe we would have had war in Iraq at some point because the same saber rattling was happening prior to 2000' and it was just a matter of time. If for nothing more than to save the USA from continuing to dump large sums of money to police Saddam in the no-fly zone, we would have removed him via the war powers so that money could be freed up domestically for saving pensions, social security or some other issue that needs addressing.

Agreed. As I have said before I am not crazy about our role as world police. If we don't act on Iraq then the previous war and all the violated sanctions were a wasted effort.

The rest of your post ommitted for expediencys sake. I agree that Bush will catch the blame for all the ills of his tenure. I think he has earned his fair share. Comes with the territory. I don't think Bush has been all that effective and I don't think he is as bad as some have made him out to be. My support of him over Kerry does not mean i have blinders on. I have no problem with assessing his effectiveness but it has to take in consideration the unusual conditions he faced. JMHO

 

[dannyboy]

Things like illegal immigration, inflation, lawlessness, corruption, etc etc.

When a man has too many things to focus on, his attention is too divided to really do a great job on any one thing. And when the eyes of the public are hard on the leader, he tends to try and "fix" the easiest of the problems to show he is hard at work. And I think for most presidents in the past, and W is no exception, foreign policy is the easiest to fix.

He has a golden opportunity to not relegate himself to be a lame duck, but I dont know if he has the ability.

Rising gas prices and record profits of gas companies has not helped either. More than ever you can see the artificial manipulation to the supply and demand that should set the price for gas in this country. And in our area, price fixing is a real problem, both in the past and present. I would dare say it is also a problem with the national supply. Not to mention OPEC illegally fixes oil prices.

As for the ports fiasco, the jeez, i didn't know a thing about it does not cut it with me. I would find it hard to understand how Clinton can make 30 mil from the same bunch, and they have not had meetings with Bush or his top aides? Really? Aw come on..........

I guess you could say I am disapointed. I had higher hopes. And he seemed to have more promise. But then again, congress has a large part to play in what has and has not been done. So I am not really happy with either one.

d

 

[wkmac]

Yeah Scratch, I remember Weldon and Lamar. Considering what we've been through in 728 over the last many, many years since them I almost wish we had em' back!

As for Zell being appointed to take Coverdell's spot, it sure didn't set well at first but Zell sure proved the maverick he was. I jumped for joy when he proposed to eliminate the 17th amendment to the Constitution and returned to Senators being selected by the State legislatures. True checks and balances! My wife and I got a chance to talk with Zell about that and he was realistic enough to know it wasn't going to happen but having been Governor of Georgia and been forced to comply with unfunded Federal mandates and in what was in effect the Federal gov't passing down the heat to the States along with in many cases the tax increases as well while the Washington politicos sat safe with the "We aren't raising your taxes!" response. Zell understood this whole process and wanted to throw it to the 4 winds.

I also liked the fact that Zell showed us what it use to be like when both parties had amongst it's ranks both conservatives and liberals and thus we had more division of thought and in effect a checks and balance within a checks and balance. When the democrats had folks like a staunch conservative like a Larry McDonald or a real hawk like Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Oh well, life in America I guess. Cry and moan about Clinton all you want but the true is with him in the White House and the republicans controlling the Congress by a thread, that divided gov't sure had life in America not doing to bad. It wasn't perfect mind you and some things got put aside for another day that we now must face but things were pretty good for those 6 or so years. That division IMO kept both political sides a little more honest and pointed in their needed directions.

Dboy,
Your post is why I think a real common sense democrat could wipe the map into the White House in 2008'. You brought up a number of good issues that have many people concerned and some issues like healthcare cost and pension concerns as well. People every day ask themselves what is the deal with spending all this money on building a country in Iraq when the struggles at home appear to be growing and growing.

My postition is very solid in that I don't believe the federal gov't has any constitutional authority to be doing many of the things they are currently involved in on the domestic front as well as the international front and notice I said "FEDERAL GOV'T" only. Now that said I also believe what we now have can't and is not going anyplace for the time being so I do believe what you do have should be run not only at the highest efficency both costs effective wise and services provided wise. Make it the best it can be so that we see people being helped, problems solved and in fact where people become able to move away from not only the problem but having to rely on the public solution as well. What better statement to have than to say "we are eliminating this gov't program because nobody no longer uses it!"

Sometimes the only way to get these clowns to listen and do the right thing is to say, "we really don't need this as we could use the alternative of such and such." It's like a huge volume customer of UPS who has a shipping problem and calls Corp. to say, "we have a problem with you "fill in the blank" so we're considering going to FedEx, or DHL, etc. and leaving you for good" Now in many cases, because there is an alternative solution, this would force UPS to look at the situation and address the problems if founded. In our case with gov't, we have no ability to choose for the most part and they know it so they sit in Washington doing as they wish and we for better or worse have to suffer the results of their actions.

Until we show them that we would really consider alternatives then tell me what is their incentive to do anything any different than they already do. Who are the bigger idiots here?

The old saying is true, "we get the gov't we deserve!"

BTW Dboy, nicely expressed what you said.

Tie, Scratch, Dboy, Enjoy the weekend. I'm on vacation next week so I'll think about you 3 uh well at least 2 of you slaving for the big Brown Machine. Just remembered Dboy, you got the good life.

 

[wkmac]

Hey Tie,
Here's something that supports your point that not all things are bad and you are right.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081204165037/http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/07/D8GR5RA00.html

This is also good for us in that more shipping will take place. I normally don't say to much about volume, etc. here but I've been shocked on our local sort this week. Last week was the end of the 1st business quarter and volume traditionally is always up for this and it was. Continuing with tradition, normally the first week after the end of the business quarter combined locally with Spring break, volume is down. Not for us. Everyday this week we've been near peak season volume. Sort manager and I were talking about this walking around last night so we started discussing some peak season "what if" scenarios. We plan on having many more of these walking conversations in the near future to hopefully get ahead of the game and be prepared for the worst.

"THE WORST!" Did I say that about volume out our ears?

 

[tieguy]

Hey Tie,
Here's something that supports your point that not all things are bad and you are right.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081204165037/http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/07/D8GR5RA00.html

This is also good for us in that more shipping will take place. I normally don't say to much about volume, etc. here but I've been shocked on our local sort this week. Last week was the end of the 1st business quarter and volume traditionally is always up for this and it was. Continuing with tradition, normally the first week after the end of the business quarter combined locally with Spring break, volume is down. Not for us. Everyday this week we've been near peak season volume. Sort manager and I were talking about this walking around last night so we started discussing some peak season "what if" scenarios. We plan on having many more of these walking conversations in the near future to hopefully get ahead of the game and be prepared for the worst.

"THE WORST!" Did I say that about volume out our ears?

mac are you a steward? If so I think its great that you two are actually planning together.

Economy is doing well. Can't really dispute that point. continuous growth and lowering unemployment. And Bush did have a hell of hole to dig out of.

Spending out of control. Some of it is not Bush fault. Some of it is. Starting to look like an Oil Barons free for all. I thought Clintons administration was too anti Business. I actually think Bushs is too pro business. Wish we could find some balance in between. Oil prices shoot up a buck a gallon in a month and all we get is a few congressmen grandstanding for the cameras.

I think Oil prices are the single biggest threat to this economy at this time. Its crazy. Oil inventories go up due to reduced usage but the prices jump 30 cents a gallon because of some political instability somewhere in the world.

 

[wkmac]

Am I a steward? No and H#LL NO!

I was for a couple of years but just got tired of all the BS that just went with it. My hat's off to those who can take this job on and continue it for years and years.

I work with operations as much as I can because the more I know what they need and what they face the better I'm able IMO to adapt the conveyor systems for them if need be or have everything prepared for what they face.

As for oil prices, I'm not defending the oil companies here but at least part of the recent spike is a result in many locale's like ours of the switching over to what is called the "Summer Blends" to combat summer smog. We've seen it every year at this time as a result of our area not meeting Federal Air quality standards so we are mandated by federal law to run this higher cost blend. I also think you are correct that oil prices are the biggest threat to our economy.

It's also ironic the good news within the announcement of the jobs increase as Wall Street sees this as somewhat negative and a threat of pending inflation. When large public sees this reaction, it's no surprise they view the broader investment community as more bad than good. Also the good and bad within the numbers are the good of more jobs leads to more tax revs including on the Social Security and Medicare side. The Bad? One of the leading sectors in jobs creation is the area of gov't so like many, many administrations of the past, the current one is using gov't as a massive jobs program that makes the numbers on employment a little more smoke and mirrors than truly good news. Personally, I've always advocated private sector jobs only and excluding all levels of gov't jobs from these reports to get a really true picture of what the private sector economy is really doing.

Notice in the same article that manufacturing and transports lost jobs. IMO, not only bad for America but bad for UPS as one sector gives volume and the other could be pointing to a shrinking market from which we pull volume from domestically. JMO.

 

[tieguy]

Check out my new signature line. I thought of it while watching John Kerry speaking on Meet the Press.

Speaking of which the wife and I are thinking of going independent. While there were other candidates running for president eventually the choices filtered down to Bush and Kerry and the other idiot. A c plus, d minus and friend minus for presidential candidates.

The Question remains why we can't get better politicians. One explanation I heard today which makes sense is that those who get elected do so by selling their soul to special interest groups before they get elected. If so it explains a lot.

 

[moreluck]

Maybe if we had ridiculously low campaign spending limits some good people might come forward.

 

[wkmac]

Check out my new signature line. I thought of it while watching John Kerry speaking on Meet the Press.

Speaking of which the wife and I are thinking of going independent. While there were other candidates running for president eventually the choices filtered down to Bush and Kerry and the other idiot. A c plus, d minus and friend minus for presidential candidates.

The Question remains why we can't get better politicians. One explanation I heard today which makes sense is that those who get elected do so by selling their soul to special interest groups before they get elected. If so it explains a lot.

Selling the soul IMO is likely the more correct answer. Look at what it takes to get elected to especially a federal level office and getting $10 donations from average folk ain't gonna get it. In fact, this thing as I see it has become a vicous cycle where private concerns, business interests, special interest, lobbyists come to Washington (K Street, they have their own geographic ID now)to push and push for more and more to become federalized and taken away from State and or local control. Even worse are the unfunded federal mandates where federal law tells the local folks to do this and that and the local jurisdictions have to raise local taxes to pay for it. In many cases, you find it was a cut finger somewhere else that went unchecked and some special interest grabbed it to go national to make a buck. It would be like for example have earthquake building codes in the west that add onto the cost of a home being seen by national builders as a means of driving in more profits from them if imposed nationwide via the US gov't when in many parts of the country these standards and this expense really aren't justified at all. This might be one example of how this crap works and this is an example. To my knowledge this specifically hasn't taken place but other nonsense like it has and/or very well could. The point is only centralization of power allows for a quick and easy mechanism like this to be thrusted on the nation as a whole so obviously the powerbrokers and power manipulators want and thrive in this type of environment. Diseases need the right conditions to harm and kill.

Why? With 50 (States) or more (1000's of local) jurisdictions to contend with, the cost to special interests, business and other concerns to steer gov't in a specific legislative direction is very costly and in many cases impossible. Moving all aspects to a central control (federal level) consolidates not only the power and point of focus but is more cost and energy efficent for those who lobby the Congress. In other words, using the Abramoff model, why divide gov't and have to bribe 1000's of politicians when you can centralize and only bride a few and for a lot less money, time and effort.

Our founding fathers understood that a divided, fragmented and limited gov't was one that would be hard to subvert for ulterior motives. When our country first started, it's very limited federal level had little impact but over the years it did grow and grow and as it did special interests including very powerful interests began to have more and more impact. As this influence grew so did the size and scope of gov't because the intrests knew in order to exert their will they needed something that only gov't by law had the authority to do and that was to exert force. Gov't is the only authority that can pass a law and then force you by threat or action to specifically perform according to that law. If you have a specific will you want to exert and force the people to submit to, then gov't is in reality your only mechanism to do so. So in my view you can only have one if you have the other. The medium or culture dish is gov't and the disease is special interests, ulterior motives or will of others that you might on your own not follow to do whether that will is good or bad.

I would hope this response would go a long way in helping you or anyone else understand my political views and my position for very little federal level gov't. IMO the best place for a gov't that has the greatest day to day impact directly on the people is the local gov't. Close at hand allows the people to watch and control it and if it gets out of hand I'd rather have a situation where you have a bad cut on a finger rather than terminal cancer of the brain. The cut finger although bad for the finger is not typically terminal to the entire body whereas cancer on the brain typically kills the entire body. However, a small cut in an isolated part of the body left untreated and unchecked, it spreads to kill the entire body over time.

You know, like Hollywood has done to the rest of America!


Something to think about in all of this is the following:
One can rightly argue that there are certain areas where a larger gov't body can be more effective with those areas however consider this for a moment. If the size and scope of gov't were the same today as it was during George Washington's presidency, how important in our daily lives would GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. really be in the big scheme of things? If you are thinking of throwing in 9/11 or Iraq, don't! If you really research the issues, persons and histories of the Middle East you'd very quickly conclude that a 1787' US gov't today would have never seen a 9/11 attack nor would a Saddam ever gotten as powerful if in power at all because there would be no political games having been played in the Mid-East to drag us into that situation to begin with.

However, we might not also be the global facist/capitalist empire dominating the economic scene either. (BTW: when you see facist from me don't fall for the boogey man liberal buzz word some like to throw out because I use it more in it's truest definition with no suggestion of relating Bush or US gov't to Hitlerian abuses) To understand my economic/global position point, that one you'll just have to learn what the thinking was behind Art. 1 Sec. 10 of the US Constituiton when the founders addressed that one. There are 14 words within this section that if adhered to would make it impossible for the economic wheels to turn that would place us in positions to be involved with moving and manipulating global economics and thus we would not be in position to manipulate the politics to protect that economic position. Osama and Company therefore would be no more likely to attack us than he would a penguin colony in interior Antartica in the middle of it's winter grip!

JMO

 

[DS]

Being Canadian,I dont usually have much to say about what you yankees do,but I gotta say we have done a good job of recruiting immigrants that pay taxes.How about an amnesty that will allow illegals become a citizen of the united states of america.Certain conditions may apply.We have very few mexicans up here.The one I met explained to me what the word colitas meant in the eagles song hotel california.
anyway I found this site with mikes contributuions...kinda cheap I thought
https://web.archive.org/web/2006032...com/ceo_political_donations/Michael_Eskew.php