You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Town's Crier
Moderated by Major Helper

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.38 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Town's Crier » Bush Administration: Cause of economic downturn?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Bush Administration: Cause of economic downturn?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Cyrus_
Banned
posted 10-09-08 05:47 PM CT (US)         
it seems to me that the Bush administration, if not for 9/11, would've ended up a lame duck administration, simply because Bush is not great at presenting himself as a leader, keeping the public in the loop or presenting new ideas to the country. Even now - seven years after 9/11, he seems powerless over what happens, he isn't speaking to the nation to keep everyone calm, he's doing his "minimal press interaction" routine.

Do you think that if 9/11 hadn't occurred but Bush still ran the country, the U.S. would be facing these economic problems? Do you think his administration's policies have anything to do with what's happening with the U.S. economy, and by extension the global economy?
AuthorReplies:
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 05:49 PM CT (US)     26 / 38       
These individuals are no more than cardboard cutouts, and thus are useless for true human interaction. I can feel sympathy for my next door neighbour, but you can't ask someone to feel sympathy for a rich nation of 300 million people thousands of miles away you will never meet that has just moved troops into your country Their opinion won't be swayed by the self-confidence with which this is done, that is for sure.
True, I wouldn't find much sympathy for the country you described in your example, but if I was to describe the alternative description (you'll have to check your preconceived notion at the door for this one of America which could be "A nation full of caring individuals with the intent of spreading freedom, that's being brutally attack by outside forces", certainly I could find some sympathy, no? You're thinking too much in extremes. Metaphorically speaking, a nation can be compared to an actual individual. You're arguing semantics again.
This is obviously a good thing. But does that necessarily mean America should respect its current leadership?
It doesn't have to, but wouldn't yo uwant to live in a country that does?



dannyking.me


four hundred babies
Squire
(id: Lord_Fadawah)
posted 10-14-08 08:03 PM CT (US)     27 / 38       
My firm belief: Other--concerning(some don't)--countries do not look down on us because of Bush; other countries look down on us because we look down on ourselves. Why should they respect us when we're incapable of respecting ourselves?
Well, if there's anything the world hates the American public for, it's the fact that they elected Bush twice. Once I could understand, but twice?
Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-15-08 08:29 AM CT (US)     28 / 38       
True, I wouldn't find much sympathy for the country you described in your example,
This is exactly what many people believe America to be. Particularly in the Islamic world. Even in Europe many people perceive America to be a self-righteous bully.
A nation full of caring individuals with the intent of spreading freedom, that's being brutally attack by outside forces
Point being either description is valid (although overly simplistic) as an opinion. America is a complex thing that cannot be properly summed up in a sentence. You don't live in a perfect nation, and you don't live in a totally evil one either. Neither does anyone.
certainly I could find some sympathy, no?
From some quarters. Others would reject your statement out of hand.
Metaphorically speaking, a nation can be compared to an actual individual. You're arguing semantics again.
Metaphors aren't always helpful. You can't properly encompass an entire nation with much internal variation in one personality. Out of curiosity, if you seriously believe that a nation can be summed up as an individual, describe Britain for me. It'll be interesting.

I just don't think that any comparison of nations to individuals is helpful or accurate. The individuals that embody nations are not real individuals and do not posess normal human characteristics. This means that what applies to people does not apply equally to countries - they're not remotely similar things.

America has a serious image problem, and thinking that applying the same medicine as you would to an actual person with an image problem will not help.
It doesn't have to, but wouldn't yo uwant to live in a country that does?
Not really. I think healthy disrespect is an essential ingredient of democracy. We don't want an elective dictatorship do we?

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-15-08 02:22 PM CT (US)     29 / 38       
Julius, you're missing the point. I never said my description of America was accurate or complex. I said it can be described as such, from a subjective point of view, much like yours. As such, the analogy stands because it's possible. But again, the analogy is not important. You're still focusing on the wrong part. My simple idea was that a little nudge in the right direction is a good direction, no? Let's just keep it at face-value this time, eh? haha
Not really. I think healthy disrespect is an essential ingredient of democracy. We don't want an elective dictatorship do we?
Then this is where you and I differ. I think the ability to disrespect is absolutely essential to democracy, yet I do not feel disrespect is "healthy" for anything that strives for positive progression. No one has proposed an elective dictatorship but yourself. I never said any of our rights should be taken away. Yes, it may see confusing for some, but my point is that just because we have the right to do something does not mean we should utilize it until we're damaged. For instance, I have the right to take a knife and cut my hand off, but does that mean it's necessarily "healthy" for me to do that?



dannyking.me


Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-15-08 02:34 PM CT (US)     30 / 38       
But again, the analogy is not important. You're still focusing on the wrong part. My simple idea was that a little nudge in the right direction is a good direction, no? Let's just keep it at face-value this time, eh? haha
Your under-lying argument is legitimate, the analogy itself about America being similar to a human individual however... I find completely wrong.
I never said any of our rights should be taken away. Yes, it may see confusing for some, but my point is that just because we have the right to do something does not mean we should utilize it until we're damaged.
Wasn't there a famous quotation along the lines of "a right not used is a right lost", or something like that? If people don't like the president it's wrong to encourage them to keep quiet and neglect their rights for "the greater good".
No one has proposed an elective dictatorship but yourself
I'm fairly sure I didn't propose any such thing . I do think though that putting our elected leaders on a podium is not a democratic attitude. Refraining from criticising them seems to me to be a step in that direction. Our leaders are accountable to the people, and the people should complain if they feel their views are neglected.
For instance, I have the right to take a knife and cut my hand off, but does that mean it's necessarily "healthy" for me to do that?
Amputating your limbs is not a lynchpin of democracy.

But scrutinising our leaders is.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-15-08 02:47 PM CT (US)     31 / 38       
Your under-lying argument is legitimate, the analogy itself about America being similar to a human individual however... I find completely wrong.
Well, I'm not out to change your opinion. I'm just saying it contradicts fact.
Wasn't there a famous quotation along the lines of "a right not used is a right lost", or something like that? If people don't like the president it's wrong to encourage them to keep quiet and neglect their rights for "the greater good".
Again, you're seeing what you want to see out of my writing, rather than what's actually written. We should never discourage people in criticizing their leaders. It's natural. My original idea, that has since be twisted to F5 status (little tornado humor), was that it's also not wrong to be proud of your nation. There's always going to be things to criticize about your leaders, but it's also our insecurities that make us look weak. Is it wrong to find a balance in between?
Wasn't there a famous quotation along the lines of "a right not used is a right lost", or something like that?
This person obviously never took self-amputation into account.



dannyking.me


Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-15-08 03:00 PM CT (US)     32 / 38       
Well, I'm not out to change your opinion. I'm just saying it contradicts fact.
All right. My final summing up on this. I'm okay with your "self-confidence not arrogance" idea as one of a large number needed. The only thing I'm attacking here is your analogy. The idea that a nation of millions with huge diversity of opinions and backgrounds is in any way seen the same way as a single person, is absurd. The analogy only does your argument a disservice.
Again, you're seeing what you want to see out of my writing, rather than what's actually written
I'm only seeing what I interpret from what you write. Frankly I don't think you always do yourself justice with your analogies.

Your nation is not equivalent to your leaders. It's perfectly possible to love your country and believe in striving to improve it while despising your president. I don't see how criticising your leaders reflects badly on people's opinions of their country as a whole, and therefore I don't see why you warn against such criticism.

If anything, being prepared to openly acknowledge the weaknesses of your leaders seems more secure to me than avoiding doing so to appear secure.

How would you say dislike of the current president is hurting America?
This person obviously never took self-amputation into account.
I'm perfectly happy to lose my right to self-mutilation thank you very much.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-15-08 04:51 PM CT (US)     33 / 38       
I'm only seeing what I interpret from what you write. Frankly I don't think you always do yourself justice with your analogies.

Your nation is not equivalent to your leaders. It's perfectly possible to love your country and believe in striving to improve it while despising your president. I don't see how criticising your leaders reflects badly on people's opinions of their country as a whole, and therefore I don't see why you warn against such criticism.

If anything, being prepared to openly acknowledge the weaknesses of your leaders seems more secure to me than avoiding doing so to appear secure.

How would you say dislike of the current president is hurting America?
Okay... this is definitely going in circles now. This is at least your third accusation stating that I'm saying anything we're doing now is wrong or that not liking your leaders is wrong. Maybe we have been talking about two different rights. I'm speaking of not just criticizing our leaders, but advertising it blindly without offering a solution, which is what most people do, in my experience. You seem to just strictly be speaking about criticizing out leaders. There's nothing wrong with that.

Maybe I made this unclear the first time?
... or who knows, maybe I worded it to cleverly.



dannyking.me


nav
Squire
(id: nav_2004)
posted 10-15-08 10:25 PM CT (US)     34 / 38       
People are usually quick to blame economic problems on the president. The truth is that the president usually has a lot less power than most people think he does. While his departments have an impact, he has little power over bills that Congress writes (his power seems to be limited to the extent that he can threaten to veto them).
To be honest, Simmy, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. Yes, in the ideal government outlined by the US Constitution, it is true that the President will have little power over laws, other than the veto. In practice, however, this has become less and less true through the second half of the 20th century up until now. I recently listened to a very well thought-out argument that concluded that Congress now more or less exists for the purpose of electing Congress (and it could be added the next President as well). Rather than a strong legislative body that thrives on the compromising of a wide variety of ideas and perspectives, Congress has largely become an institution designed to either do almost anything the President wants (as is the case when the political party dominating Congress and the White House is the same) or to discredit the President in the hopes of getting one from the other party elected next time (as is the case when one political party controls Congress and the other controls the White House). The conclusion of the argument is basically the development of an imperial presidency, and I think one can make a strong case that this is, unfortunately, the reality now.

I've oversimplified and probably mutilated terribly the real argument, but I found the link if anyone is interested. Bill Moyers interviewed Andrew Bacevich, a former US Army Colonel and a Professor of International Relations at Boston University. Here is the link. It's long, but it's worth it.


Cyrus_, I still don't entirely agree with your linking of 9/11 and the economy. While yes 9/11 gave President Bush a political carte blanche, I don't think it seriously altered the course of the US economy, unless you can somehow argue that the war in Iraq is the reason the US economy is on a downward track. How could you argue this? Well, 9/11 gave Bush the ability to get enough support across the board in the US to do whatever he wanted to do. With this, he chose to invade Iraq. However, I'm not sure you can successfully argue that Iraq is a large cause in the US economic downturn right now, which, in my opinion, breaks the 9/11 link to the economic downturn. Still, I understand what you are saying.



(This space intentionally left blank.)
Cyrus_
Banned
posted 10-15-08 11:52 PM CT (US)     35 / 38       
How could you argue this? Well, 9/11 gave Bush the ability to get enough support across the board in the US to do whatever he wanted to do. With this, he chose to invade Iraq. However, I'm not sure you can successfully argue that Iraq is a large cause in the US economic downturn right now, which, in my opinion, breaks the 9/11 link to the economic downturn.
I can't argue that Iraq is a large cause, rather a limited cause that increases the US debt and certainely makes the economic problems worse. I think I understand what you're saying tho: I can't successfully link the two, so it shouldn't be a cause for debate, I appreciate you being civil
nav
Squire
(id: nav_2004)
posted 10-16-08 09:55 AM CT (US)     36 / 38       
Sure thing. Threads like this die mercilessly (and rightfully so) if the discussion degenerates into something less than civil.

I think you got it, but just to clarify my position: Is the debt racked up by the US government in Iraq going to be a problem in the future? Absolutely. Will the US government have to raise taxes and create inflation to get out of the record debt? No doubt. Did the spending on the war in Iraq cause the current economic downturn? Not directly.


While we're on the subject of economy, I heard any interesting comment from one of the members of Congress while debating the $700 billion bailout plan. He stated: "Why is it that we [the US] have capitalism on the way up but socialism on the way down?" Honestly, I think this is a very valid question. Any takers on discussing this?



(This space intentionally left blank.)
Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-16-08 10:54 AM CT (US)     37 / 38       
I'm speaking of not just criticizing our leaders, but advertising it blindly without offering a solution, which is what most people do, in my experience. You seem to just strictly be speaking about criticizing out leaders. There's nothing wrong with that.
Then I agree with you.
I heard any interesting comment from one of the members of Congress while debating the $700 billion bailout plan. He stated: "Why is it that we [the US] have capitalism on the way up but socialism on the way down?" Honestly, I think this is a very valid question. Any takers on discussing this?
Because Capitalism is the best way we have devised to grow the eonomy and improve living standards in the good times. And some degree of Socialiam is required to prevent ideological purism bringing about needless human suffering in the bad times.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
InquilineKea
Squire
posted 10-17-08 02:13 AM CT (US)     38 / 38       
Hey nav - thanks for your reply. I'm kind of curious on how President Bush influenced the laws of the past 8 years. We tend to associate many of these laws with Bush - laws like "No Child Left Behind" and the "Clear Skies Act of 2003". Technically, those laws were brought up by senators of both parties. But the media portrays the president as responsible for those laws. I find it especially interesting that Democratic voters (not congressmen) tend to oppose the No Child Left Behind act - even though Democratic senators were the ones who wrote the legislation.
Rather than a strong legislative body that thrives on the compromising of a wide variety of ideas and perspectives, Congress has largely become an institution designed to either do almost anything the President wants (as is the case when the political party dominating Congress and the White House is the same) or to discredit the President in the hopes of getting one from the other party elected next time (as is the case when one political party controls Congress and the other controls the White House).
It seems that political parties have become increasingly polarized and single-minded as of late. The Republican party, in particular, seems to have unified around the neoconservative agenda - it seemed as if the Republican Party completely changed overnight with the election of President Bush. Dissenting senators like Chuck Hagel are the exception rather than the norm. And when you view lists of congressional endorsements, pretty much ALL the republicans have endorsed the Republican Presidential nominee and pretty much ALL the Democrats have endorsed the Democratic Presidential nominee. I suspect (but cannot prove) that there has been no time in history when the parties have been as unidirectional as they have been in the past. Of course, the Democrats no longer have the segregationists with them, and the Republicans no longer have the Rockefeller Republicans with them. Perhaps this trend has led congressmen to increasingly conform to their party lines - and to either fully supporting or fully opposing the president. Even though Bush's approval rating is now 23%, the only notable Republican to speak out against Bush is Chuck Hagel.

It's especially sad to see McCain pander to the party base. He panders to the party base because he *has to*. Just because the Republicans have become so uniformly supportive of the Bush agenda.

What I find *especially* interesting is what senators do once they leave a political party. They seem to feel much freer to support/oppose the president. Lincoln Chafee could only endorse Obama after leaving the GOP - as did Jin Leeach. Joe Lieberman could only endorse McCain after leaving the Democratic Party. Zell Miller may have been an exception, but he was caucusing with the Republicans at that time.

EDIT; and yeah I'm watching your video now
I recently listened to a very well thought-out argument that concluded that Congress now more or less exists for the purpose of electing Congress
Wow - that's interesting. Do the DNC and RNC both fund candidates that they prefer? (they may prefer candidates that are more likely to go with the party line).

EDIT: And here's an interesting picture:
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/BushBigSpender.jpg

Bush was a bigger spender than even LBJ

Former Tonto_Simfish/Simfish.

simfish@gmail.com

[This message has been edited by InquilineKea (edited 10-17-2008 @ 03:19 AM).]

« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames