If you blame it on 9/11 blame it on Ashcroft and Condi Rice, she did not do anything as National Security Advisor and Blame Bush. I blame him for actions after 9/11 with this war and handling of this disastrous economy. See a chart on the NASDAQ stock index since 2000 for more economic news you can use.
Once again, why does it not surprise me you would not place blame where blame belongs? It's as if you intentionally shield terrorists. I can't imagine why I supposed next, you'll be blaming Bush for the finger print in your jello.
for 9/11, i blame the people who actually FLEW the planes into the buildings. While I may not have total faith in our government, I have a hard time thinking they would intentially let something slip like that. It is a tough job, I'm sure, sorting out the intelligence, and hindsight is 20/20. I don't agree with all of President Bush's actions after 9/11 however, and think that our going into Iraq was not a wise idea. The connection between them and the terrorists attack was shady at best, and I believe he had another agenda. But to blame someone OTHER then the individuals for the attack is just silly. It's like saying that if I take a walk at night and got mugged, it would be my fault.
OK MIA you want to talk about the stock market, well here is a long term chart on the (FULL CAP) Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 which reflects a hell of a lot more stocks than the DOW 30. Quote The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index represents the broadest index for the U.S. equity market, measuring the performance of all U.S. headquartered equity securities with readily available price data. No other index comes close to offering its comprehensiveness. When the index was created in 1974 Wilshire's founder took advantage of then-new technologies that made it possible to collect stock prices and calculate returns for a volume of issues never before brought together. The index was named after the nearly 5,000 stocks it contained when it was originally created, but it has grown to include over 5,000 issues, reflecting the growth in U.S. equity issues as a whole.
No GTech but I do blame him for the following, OIL PRICES under Bush have skyrocketed and he has served his masters well (Halliburton, Exxon, BP, Shell Oil). The following is a long term chart the "XOI" American Stock exchange Oil Index. Note after President Cheney and Bush were elected that Oil started moving up and has not dropped much since they have been in office. Wonder why? What a dummy I am, should have known that Oil was a can't miss investment when the Oil Men from Houston stole the election in 2000.
It doesn't surprise me you are gullible enough to believe he can control oil prices. Doesn't surprise me that you don't denounce terrorists either. Looks like things are heating up in the UK: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=629208
Maybe they decided to get off their asses after the reporter drove into the castle with a fake bomb last week GTech
I knew you wouldn't be disappointed, but I figured you'd post something like: Oh well, we don't always get what we expect
Next they should look at why Tony Blair is such a bone head and figure out how that Bozo got into office, that is almost as amazing as the story on how Bush got in twice here in the USA
Well, personally, I like it when oil prices are high. Most of the people I know have at least family members who work in the oil industry. Higher prices means they get to keep their jobs, since when it drops to below $20 a barrel we start seeing all kinds of layoffs since they cut down drilling in California. The stock market has migrated from the heyday of the tech boom in the late '90s to a more stable asset and value based system that it functioned as prior to all the hype. The economy took a downturn as a result, but it was inevitable. The war, and 911 had less to do with our economy than it would have in previous years when that kind of government spending led to an increase in jobs and a dramatic change in manufacturing and other industries. We've spent a ton of money on the war, but the job market has remained relatively unchanged with a good deal of our money being spent on increased production outside our country. The spending has helped the world economy as a whole, but changed the US market very little. I've watched my competitors go out of business left and right over the past several years, but I have adapted well and built myself up by avoiding their failures. Too many people were making too easy money 5 years ago. Anybody and everybody was pimping out tech guys for $80/hr and paying them $30. I think our economy could be better with some better decisions made over the past several years, but we can't expect that every president is going to try to make millionaires out of the middle class. Some of them (most of them) are going to do more to help the upper class remain upper class, cater to the needs of the big corps and the high spending lobbyists, while trying to focus on accomplishing a relatively small set of goals that will lead to their legacy. Bush has done exactly that, which is what he was supposed to do. I've got big problems with the way the country has responded under his leadership to 911 with a huge decrease in civil liberties and a bevy of laws passed that would never have passed at any other time in history. We've got this mentality of "we should deal with terrorists like other countries do - torture them, imprison them without trials, hold them indefinitely, etc." while completely ignoring the fact that they are people just like us who have children and mothers and siblings. There are plenty of guys who should be locked up and never come to light again, but there should be an open decision process that puts them there. This trial by night without facing your accusers or your judges accompanied by warrantless searches, undocumented wiretapping all may be effective, but it's a system that is so open to abuse without any set of checks and balances it could easily be compared to what happened during the crusades. Bush isn't responsible for that though - the people are. The whole country frenzied after 911 and hasn't calmed down yet. The press has gotten so many people onto the "your either with us or against us" philosophy without anybody stopping to think about long term careful solutions. These times remind me of the Red Scare. People who know better and are in a position to fix things are afraid to do so for fear of political repurcussions.
As for why blair got into power, it's simple really. He's a smiling goon, but less of a goon than the opposition. He has to deal with the looney left within his own party, and he's not done a bad job of that. What really amazed me was that 'Red' Ken ran as an independant for the mayor of London and won - he got susspended from the Labour party for doing so - and I have to admit, he's done a damn good job in London whilst being mayor. I'm not a Labour supporter in anyway (nor socialism in general) but last election I voted labour for the first time in my life - simply due to the lack of credible opposition. We've got another election in May, and I really think I'm going to have to adstain from voting (again for the first time ever). I can't vote for the opposition (they seem to be wanting some things I'm vehemenly against) and I don't think I can bring myself to vote Blair (after he lied to take us into Iraq). Looks like I'm going to have to read through the manifesto's. Sitetutor - the transport system in London has to be good because the road system is shit. Trying to get anywhere in a car takes forever. From the cities I've been to in the US, your road system is nothing short of amazing compared to ours. The problem with the transport systems in the UK come when you head out of the major cities. The population (and hence the money) simply isn't enough to provide good systems.
More of the Cheney/Bush Terror on the economy slipping into depression QUOTE: By Greg Robb, MarketWatch Last Update: 8:31 AM ET April 15, 2005 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Manufacturing activity in the New York area slowed to a crawl in April, the New York Federal Reserve Bank said. The bank's Empire State Manufacturing index fell to 3.1 in April from a revised 20.2 in March. This is the lowest reading since April 2003. Economists were expecting the index to sink only to about 17.3 in April from the initial estimate for March of 19.6, according to a survey of economists prepared by MarketWatch. See Economic Calendar Readings over zero indicate expansion. The Empire State index is of interest to traders primarily because it's seen as an early forecast of the national Institute for Supply management factory survey due out in two weeks. In March, the ISM manufacturing inched lower to 55.2% from 55.3% in the previous month. The new orders index fell to -0.2 in April from 8.6 in March. This is the first negative reading since April 2003. Shipments sank to just above zero from 21.9 in March. The unfilled orders index improved slightly to -8.3 in April from -10.1 in March. This is the third straight negative reading. The employment index fell to 8.6 from 11.3 while the workweek index fell to -4.4 from 9.1. The prices paid index fell to 43.4 from 53.6 in March. The prices received index fell to 13.9 from 16.4.
Mia wrote "It's called an election.". Yes, and it speaks volumes about the people that voted. That is how negative views get applied to people based on their elected leaders. I will say this in their defense, though - at least they bothered to vote. 30, 40 , even 50% don't even bother. Jlawrence There seems to be a crisis in politics, one of credibility. We are looking at a reform in our provincial election next month that will see half the representatives allocated by virtue of winning their riding, but fully half of the parliament based on popular vote alone, and not on 'winner take all'. The US is a recent example of %51 of the voters giving 100% of the power to one party/leader, but even worse is how %44 of the popular vote led to a landslide in my province, virtually wiping out opposition representation in the 'house'. But the very fact that it has become a popularity contest ruled by advertising budgets and special interest funding has made a mockery of the whole process.
Mia A near defunct military? Where in the world do you get this froM??? Show me how you arrived at this conclusion, please. Secrests of nuclear technology given to CHINA? And this is proven how? And spying and stealing secrets and sellouts are different before and after then how??? Terror on a regular basis? LMFAO that is until we waged a war on it???LMFAOx2terror is worse now, FFS Scandals, lies, deceit Yeah???? Getting a bj is a national emergency, but Oliver North and Reagan selling drugs to finance arms for terrorists is not even an impeachable offense? Give me a break, mia, and get some facts into your badly biased opinion. Star by explaining your claims you made. The relationship of the US economy to the world is worse now than it was under Clinton, it is not just what is going on interneally, but you have to look at trade deficits and national debt. The National debt of the US is now above 4 trillion dollars. What was it in 2000? The difference between the 'haves' and the 'have not's' ie the distribution of wealth is used as a measure of a countries economic health, and it is the worst in history in the US. The national debt and record borrowing under Bush is becoming a serious concern to economists as more are realizing that the debt load may already have profoundly disasterous consequences, and some predicit that within ten years, the US will be in a position of beng unable to service the debt ie keep up with the interest payments. And anyways, why all the comparisons to the past? It is now that Bush is policies are in effect, in the economic enviornment NOW in the world. Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, Clintons policies were as damaging as Bushes, it is still a fact that the US dollar is weaker than in a long, long time, and that investors are turning to ther currencies away from the us dollar. I remind you that the Canadian dollar is valued higher against the us since 1972, and our economy, which is tied very strongly to the US is running surplus budgets against your overwhelming deficits. Any appearance of a healthy economy right now could be attributed to your living on credit. I remind you that the US is vulnerable because of your trade deficit, as opposed to countries like Canada, and many others, with a trade surplus. The US is becoming more dependent upon other economies, and is no longer the only major economy in the world. China and the EU are. These changes relative to the world at large are a result of Bushes policies, not lagging effects from ptrevious administrations. Again, I implore you not to rely solely on US media for your imformation.
One more, while on my visit here, and that is the inherent self-centeredness of people that think terrorism started in 2001, or that 'the war' on terrorism started then' This is a grave insult to all the countries that have had to fight it in their own borders for decades already, Spain and the UK from internal factions, and almost every country in africa, the mideast, asia etc, etc. Decades of death and destruction and madness precedes the intrusion into your sheltered little sanctuary. Welcome to the real world. What an insult. I just found this, maybe we can all use it to find information: Web Sites for Tracking the U.S. Economy