Thought I'd repost one here as this is what this forum was created for:
To: American Spirit who wrote (1562) 9/29/2004 1:32:42 PM
From: R. D. Buschman of 1576
"Soros was one of the first to accurately predict that the Bush ecoinomic [sic] policies would hurt, not help, the country. He means this in a macro sense. That is, a debt-driven boost to the economy would not deliver jobs and would shift wealth from the middleclass into the pockets of - well - people like George."
LOL. I know YOU didn't write that. Where'd you "borrow" it from?
But since you'll deny plaigarism, let's see if you can defend your (or whoever's) position, shall we?
First, please provide evidence in support of your first claim, i.e. that Bush economic policies have "hurt ... the country." The fact is that the economy was collapsing when Bush took office, due to the collapse of the financial market bubble and correction of the related business overinvestment in capital goods and human resources. Furthermore, fiscal stimulus from "Bush policies", together with monetary stimulus from the Fed, both softened the impact of that collapse versus what might be expected based on similar historical experiences and succeeded in reversing it, as shown by the resumption of economic growth in the Fall of 2001 and later acceleration of that growth.
Second, please explain what policy you, when facing such a collapse of asset values and investment, would suggest to "deliver jobs." The fact is that fiscal stimulus, through either deficit financed spending increases or tax cuts, while a blunt policy tool, is really the only effective tool in the government's toolbox when dealing with a problem of the weight and magnitude of the collapse of the Clinton/Fed bubble.
Third, please provide evidence to support your claim that Bush's policies have "shift[ed] wealth from the middleclass into the pockets of [the rich]." The fact is that, on an income basis (which is the only measure available to gauge "wealth" distribution), the top 5% of households have lost ground relative to lower income groups in terms of share of income, dropping from 22.1% in 2000 to 21.4% in 2003. Both the highest fifth (i.e. top 20%) and the middle fifth were exactly flat in terms of income shares. The 60-80% group gained .4% and the bottom tow fifths each lost .2%.
More notable is the gains made by the "rich", at the expense of the middle class and the poor, under Clinton. From 1992 to 2000, the top 5% went from 18.6% to 22.1% and the top fifth went from 46.9% to 49.8% income shares, while ALL the lower four quintiles lost significant ground.
census.gov
As for the last part, "Soros paid particular attention to the dollar which dure enough plummeted 35% under Bush's watch and therefore has made us muich [sic] weaker in the world", you're demonstrating your economic illiteracy again. You really should take a remedial course.
First, according to the Fed's index of the trade-weighted value of the Dollar (1997=100), the US currency has fallen from an index value of about 123 to about 116 since Bush took office in January 2001 - a 5.7% drop, not 35% as you claim.
woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us
Second, and here's where you need remedial help, a decline of the dollar makes US industry and workers MORE competitive in the world markets, not less so. Your claim that the "plummet" of the dollar, whether your exaggerated 35% number or the real one, has "made us [much] weaker in the world" is completely without merit or support.
I await your informed, factual rebuttal (though I won't hold my breath waiting for it).
Message 20580737 |
