Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (489132)	11/7/2003 2:52:12 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769667

Clinton Recession: 'Bill' Comes Due for 8 Years of Corruption Charles R. Smith Wednesday, March 21, 2001 Despite the media effort to pin the 2001 recession on President Bush, the fact remains that he had little to do with the last eight years of economic policy from the White House. The infamous miracle bubble of Bill Clinton's economy burst last summer when OPEC oil price increases rocked the world economy. In February 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visited Saudi Arabia when prices were at their lowest. Richardson reportedly pressed Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi on the "oversupplied market" and expressed concern about "extreme price volatility." Former Saudi minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani told a Houston oil conference that Richardson had "saved the oil industry" during that visit because his "intervention" had "persuaded" the Saudis to change policy by raising prices. After Richardson's visit, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, an industry newsletter, quoted Saudi officials as wanting "a price of $18 to $20 as soon as possible." In 1999, then-President Clinton pressed OPEC to raise prices in order to finance the brutal Russian war in Chechnya. Clinton needed Russia's help settling that pesky little war in Kosovo. However, Bill was unable to aid Boris Yeltsin directly because of the rampant corruption inside Moscow. Clinton quietly used OPEC oil diplomacy to supply Russia increased energy profits. The influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company. However, there were also unexpected results. The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession. Anti-Energy Movement In the 1990s, OPEC wanted to re-establish monopoly control by flooding the market with cheap oil. In 1973 OPEC cut off all oil to the West during the October war. The result was a sudden influx of investment in domestic and alternative production that peaked just before Clinton took office in 1992. Clinton cooperated with OPEC by destroying domestic production. Clinton's main weapon was a war of propaganda waged by Al Gore. Gore led the attack on the U.S. energy industry using "green" policies of radical environmentalism. Despite the many variables in domestic energy, there is a basic flaw in the anti-energy argument. It is far more "environmentally friendly" to pump oil from static fields here in the U.S. than it is to import foreign oil in fragile ocean-going tankers. OPEC in 2001 just squeezes harder, having learned never to let the U.S. go cold turkey again. The Clinton economy was built on artificially low cost foreign energy that has suddenly become very expensive. The United States is now more dependent on foreign energy than ever before. Blackouts on the West Coast, skyrocketing gas and oil prices and an unstable stock market all add up to a recession in progress. There are no fast answers for eight years of declining domestic oil production and climbing oil consumption. Chinese Army Inc. . Just as there is no quick fix for the energy crunch there is also no easy solution to the trade crash. During the 1990s, Clinton also sponsored a so-called trade boom with China that actually busted America. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed out of America in the largest single trade deficit in history. Today, firms backed by the People's Liberation Army dominate consumer markets in America. American workers, unable to compete against the slave labor amassed by the PLA, are losing manufacturing jobs to China at a rate never before seen. Chinese army firms compete unfairly against U.S. companies inside America for financing on the stock market, and even for U.S. government-backed loans. For example, documents from the files of Chinagate figure John Huang show that $200 million in World Bank loans for a Chinese "Technology Development Project" actually went to weapons research labs and businesses wholly owned by the Chinese army. Huang later cited his Fifth Amendment rights more than two thousand times when asked under oath if he had ties to Chinese intelligence. The funded projects included: $5 million to Northwest Institute for Nonferrous Metal Research for "rare earth materials" used in "chemical, aviation," and "nuclear power stations." Northwest Institute for Nonferrous Metal Research is part of China National Nuclear Corp., maker of nuclear weapons for the Chinese army. More than $5 million to Harbin Research Institute for "welded steel products" used in "aviation" and "ship building." Harbin was identified by the Department of Defense as a Chinese army front used to buy JET engines for the PLA in 1996. More than $4 million to the Marine Design & Research Institute of China for "ship design software and services." The Marine Design & Research Institute is part of the China National Ship Building Corp. and the primary design facility for Chinese warships, including nuclear-powered submarines. More than $4 million to Nanjing Radio Factory for "audio/visual" products used in "T.V.s, satellite equip., radios, CD players, etc." Nanjing Radio Factory produces electronics for the PLA, including satellite equipment, and secure military radios. $3 million to Xi'an Jiatong University for "fluid machinery" research used in "turbo-compressors". Xi'an Jiatong University was identified by the Dept. of Defense as a major research center for Chinese Army chemical and biological weapons. More than $5 million to "China Textile Academy" for "productivity enhancement." China Textile Academy produces camouflage uniforms for the Chinese army and for export to other armed forces. Legacy of the Black Beret Chinese army companies can now bid on U.S. government contracts. U.S. firms could not match a Chinese low bid for a U.S. Army contract to manufacture black berets. The black beret, made famous in World War II by the U.S. Army Rangers, was a symbol of pride for an elite force. The new fashion statement by the U.S. Army is intended to improve morale in the ranks. According to published press accounts, a Chinese firm won part of the U.S. government contract, and many of the new Army hats are made outside the United States. The new headgear is an embarrassing reminder of the stained Clinton legacy. The Pentagon is determined to distribute what has become known as the "Monica" to every single soldier. The recent parade of liberal media pundits that now call the 2001 recession the "Bush" economy are missing the mark by a few trillion dollars. The left is attacking President Bush for the legacy of Bill Clinton. The eight-year ride of "corruption, collusion, and nepotism" is over, and the "Bill" is now due.

To: American Spirit who wrote (489132)	11/7/2003 2:53:25 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769667

Economy Rebounding from Clinton Recession September 3, 2003 By GREGORY J. RUMMO LATE AUGUST BROUGHT a long list of economic positives. Much of this was missed by Democrats and their sycophants in the mainstream media who instead were quite content to focus on whatever negative economic news they could to make President Bush look bad. News of the capture of former Iraqi leader “Chemical Ali” helped push the Dow to a new 52-week high along with a 17,000 drop in jobless claims for the week of August 16, marking four out of five weeks that the reading was under 400,000. Among other positive economic news reported in The Wall Street Journal were: Intel raising its revenue forecast due to increased demand for PCs, Wal-Mart raising its August sales forecast saying it could possibly “post its largest monthly gain in over a year, a sign consumer spending continues to accelerate,” United Airlines reporting improved results for July and an operating profit of $35 million and the rebounding of advertisements on the Web. Taken separately these indicators would be meaningless. But taken together, they are significant and reflect an improving job market and a rise in consumer confidence, which will inevitably lead to increased spending and an increased demand for goods and services. Since more people were willing to “fly the friendly skies,” this is not only an encouraging sign for an airline industry that was dealt a near-fatal blow on nine-eleven but an indication that more business travelers are taking to the skies. And that means businesses are also in the mood to spend more money. The one big negative is the spike in gasoline prices—hardly the fault of the Bush administration—which continues to find itself stymied by radical environmental groups filing lawsuits to hamper drilling for both oil and natural gas. Nevertheless, by early September, both Brent crude oil and light crude oil futures were trading below the benchmark $30/barrel, a good sign that the price of gasoline should soon ease from its late August highs. The party continued into September. On Sept. 2, the Dow Jones Industrials Average closed at 9523.27, its best close in 14 months. The NASDAQ closed at a 17-month high. The rally in the tech sector was due to optimistic outlooks from Dell Computer and IBM and a report that manufacturing grew for the second straight month, “another sign the hard-hit sector may finally be on the rebound,” The Wall Street Journal reported on its front page the next day. The US economy is driven by the engine of consumerism. If consumers aren’t in the mood to buy or if they do not have the means to purchase goods and services, our economy comes to a screeching halt. Lower interest rates have done a lot to help in this regard. Historic, near-low rates have put more money into the hands of consumers by allowing them to do such things as refinance their homes or purchase cars through zero-percent financing. When is the last time you saw an old, rusted-out junker on the highway, belching a plume of blue-white exhaust from its tailpipe? Yet, in the midst of all this good economic news comes a report that poverty actually increased in the United States. “Nearly 1.4 Million More in Poverty,” the Associated Press headline blared. If you stopped there, you would be misled. Even a cursory read of the story revealed the truth: “‘The increase in poverty in 2002 was not out of the ordinary for a recession, and less severe than expected,’ said Sheldon Danzinger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. ‘Results of the surveys have been consistent with what one would expect during a down economic period,’ said Chuck Nelson, who helps oversee income and poverty statistics for the Census Bureau.” And Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, explained that welfare reform helped keep more single mothers working than in previous economic downturns, and therefore, out of poverty. “‘So now coming out of the recession, in terms of child poverty, it's a very optimistic picture,’ Rector said. ‘In terms of the population overall, it looks like an ordinary recession.’” Democrats, hoping you get your news from sound bites and glances at headlines, will attempt to pin this dour characterization of the economy on President Bush just as they have blamed him for the economic downturn that began during Clinton’s last year in office. Yes that’s right—you read the last sentence correctly. Data cited by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed two of the four indicators used by the bureau started contracting in 2000 before Mr. Bush took office. And according to the Commerce Department, the economy limped along in the third and fourth quarters of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. In 2001, GDP declined in the first three quarters—hardly the fault of a president who had only just been inaugurated. George Bush inherited a weak economy, teetering on the brink of recession. The terrorist attacks of two years ago pushed it over the edge. Critics of the president’s economic policies—his tax cut—are guilty of selective memory. And they hope yours will be in sync with theirs. “It’s the economy, stupid.” Yes it is. I guess that’s why the word stupid ends in a “D.” n geocities.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (489132)	11/7/2003 2:56:02 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

To:khang8537 who wrote (489054) From: Dan B. Friday, Nov 7, 2003 1:55 PM Respond to of 489137 Re: "But if you're going to make the crude argument — as Gephardt basically does — that the president is automatically responsible for everything that happens economically during his time in office, well, then Clinton is responsible for the NASDAQ crash in the spring of 2000, the decline of manufacturing and industrial productivity in 2000, and the loss of some 200,000 manufacturing jobs before Bush took office." ---from your posted, just so the fools here get another chance to fail to counter the truth. Dan B.

To: American Spirit who wrote (489132)	11/7/2003 5:51:54 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I said I'll take reality. The economy had been crashing for a year prior to your March 2001 recession date(i.e. on Clintons time), and Bush had done nothing by then which could have shown in the Economy so soon. Re: "He gave us the best any president could hope to and ought to be given full credit." Sure, re: "To:khang8537 who wrote (489054) From: Dan B. Friday, Nov 7, 2003 1:55 PM Respond to of 489137 Re: "But if you're going to make the crude argument — as Gephardt basically does — that the president is automatically responsible for everything that happens economically during his time in office, well, then Clinton is responsible for the NASDAQ crash in the spring of 2000, the decline of manufacturing and industrial productivity in 2000, and the loss of some 200,000 manufacturing jobs before Bush took office." ---from your posted, just so the fools here get another chance to fail to counter the truth." There, complete credit added...to bad things had to be so bad during his last days, eh? Someone elses fault you say? Quit trying to have it both ways, the case against Clinton here is bolstered by his 7 preceding years leading directly into the bad economy(NOT this recovering economy we see today). Dan B.