Awol Bush

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Haven't you heard?

I. Am. God.

Oh Lord - I am in some trouble

[jwd]

This whole thread has given me a good chuckle...

Thanks guys!

Rob

Rob, it's all they have(if that). The economy is looking better and better every day. The stock market is soaring, interest rates remain at an all time low, more and more jobs are being created every month. It's becoming more and more obvious that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing(with or without WMD). He really was a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kay said he was even MORE of a threat than we originally thought. Every time I read threads like this it's like reading the adult version of Chicken Little....the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You liberals need to be a little more optimistic, you wouldn't feel so bad all the time.


Joe

[Johnny Stew]

I'm actually very optimistic!
Optimistic that things will turn around for the better once we get Bush out of office!

I guess the improving economy and new job openings are in other areas, because it's certainly not happening around here.
My aunt works for a geriatric center, and they literally just laid off half of the people in her department alone, and there's talk of additional lay offs within her department.

And it's not just there, but everywhere around here (and, I can only assume, other areas in other states too). And if people don't have employment, then they're not going to be buying cars, or houses, or anything else that will help the economy.

So, things aren't that rosy.

[strandinthewind]

All signs indeed point to a rapidly recovering economy from a monetary point of view. The problem is pretty much always the creation of jobs is slower than the actual monetary recovery (corporate profit, manufacturing output, etc. = higher stock prices (which are based on future earnings)). All valid and credible economic theories indicate the jobs will come if recovery is sustained which all indicators suggest it will be barring another terrorist attack or something like that. But, people seemingly expect the job ratio/growth overnight to be where it was when Clinton left office as the recession began. It took eight or so years to get to that point with jobs and that point started from a better starting point, etc., than the current recovery.

My problem is that everyone agrees that jobs are the ticket to a successful economic turn around. Yet, W's official economic policy (the one that he signed) says (and I am not joking here) that the outsourcing of jobs (and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of them) to other countries that have cheaper labor is a GOOD thing for the American economy. While I get that cheaper labor is great for the corporate bottom line and, therefore, the people that make millions running the companies, I do not get how the President of the United States can say on the one hand that he wants every person in Amercia employed and then out of the other side of his mouth and in a IMO brazon attempt to line the pockets of the corporate fat cats that cheap non-American labor is a good thing in any scenario. I get that American labor can be twice as much as foreign labor. But come on, that American labor is the backbone of this nation by anyone's definition of that phrase. Moreover, a lot of these foreign countries have what we in the U.S. would consider inhumane working conditions (sweatshops) that would be illegal in the U.S.

Thus, IMO W again had such a great chance to hit one out of the ball park with the economic recovery, but once again he takes the low road IMO. I think this will greatly hurt him because there are millions of "blue collar" and other honest hard working Americans in fear losing their jobs to overseas competition and W supports that and is not fighting for them

[jwd]

Here's a link to what Greenspan thinks about jobs. I thought it was interesting.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news...reenspan_jobs/






Joe

[strandinthewind]

An Absence in Alabama

As Bush's military service re-emerges as an issue, here is what we know—and don't know

By MARK THOMPSON and JAMES CARNEY

Posted Sunday, February 8, 2004

When George W. Bush was running for President four years ago, stories raising questions about his Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard never got much traction. In the Republican primaries, John McCain forbid his staff to exploit the fact that while their guy was being beaten senseless in the Hanoi Hilton, Bush was safe at home, protecting Houston from foreign attack. Al Gore steered clear too. It was not until a week before Election Day in November 2000 that Gore surrogates accused Bush of having gone AWOL—absent without leave—for an entire year while in the Guard. But few journalists, and fewer voters, paid much attention.

Now, thanks to the convergence of a prolonged war in Iraq, a presumptive Democratic nominee with a chestful of Vietnam combat medals and the eagerness of anti-Bush critics to sling accusations at the President, Bush's National Guard record is under scrutiny. It began with Michael Moore, the flamethrowing documentary filmmaker, labeling Bush a "deserter." Then Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic Party chairman, leveled the less serious AWOL charge.

Citing Bush's honorable discharge, military legal experts dismiss the two accusations as rhetoric. "No military lawyer would say what's being alleged here is either desertion or AWOL," says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. But Bush's Guard record is nevertheless emerging as a Rorschach test in the 2004 campaign. Supporters cite the record as evidence of the Commander in Chief's military background and skill: he did well on an officer-qualification test, won praise from fellow pilots for his flying prowess and received an honorable discharge. Opponents see it as a laundry list of how a well-connected Texas scion pulled strings to avoid going to Vietnam, then failed to complete the scant service he signed up for—and now sends tens of thousands of U.S. troops to a war that has lost some of its rationale.

From the start, Bush's military record shows evidence of favoritism, beginning with the way he won a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968—a time when nearly 300 Americans a week were coming home in body bags. "I'm saying to myself, 'What do I want to do?'" Bush told a Texas interviewer in 1989. "I think I don't want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly."

After graduating from Yale, Bush leaped to the top of a 500-man Texas Guard wait list, despite scoring poorly on a pilot aptitude test. At the time, Bush's father was a G.O.P. Congressman from Houston, and Ben Barnes—who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968—testified in 1999 that he had put in a good word for Bush with Guard officials at the request of a Bush family friend. Bush got into the Texas Guard's "champagne unit" (along with the sons of other Texas politicians, like John Connally and Lloyd Bentsen) and was trained to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger. After spending more than a year in training, Bush was obligated to report for duty one weekend a month at Houston's Ellington Air Force Base, protecting the Gulf Coast of the U.S. from aerial attack. "No one used political influence to get him into the Guard," Walter B. (Buck) Staudt, Bush's commanding officer in the Texas Guard, insisted last week. "He passed all the tests, did all the stuff that's required. I thought he was a success."

The Texas Guard immortalized Bush's first solo flight in an F-102, issuing a press release at the time celebrating the patriotism of the freshly minted jet jockey. "George Walker Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot, hashish or speed," it began. Bush got all the high he needed, it continued, flying the F-102. "I've always wanted to be a fighter pilot, and I wouldn't want to fly anything else," the 23-year-old Bush said.

But the thrill soon wore off. Bush spent two years flying part time with the Texas National Guard and then in May 1972, he headed to Alabama to work for six months on the unsuccessful Senate campaign of family friend Winton Blount, who had resigned as chairman of the U.S. Postal Service to seek the seat. Bush applied to perform "equivalent" service with the Alabama National Guard during the campaign. But Bush, a self-admitted carouser in his younger days, apparently played some hooky: no official record of his Alabama service has ever surfaced. Because the Alabama Guard did not fly F-102s, Bush accepted "non-flying status" in Montgomery, according to Texas Guard records. And because he was not flying, he elected not to get his annual flight physical, which forced the Guard to bar him from flying.

Bush was told to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Turnipseed told the Boston Globe four years ago. "If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." But by last week Turnipseed's memory had grown cloudy. "I did say in 2000 that I didn't remember seeing him," Turnipseed, now 75, told TIME. "But after I said that, I backed up and realized I didn't even remember if I was on the base in 1972 or not." Turnipseed said he was so busy checking out new airplanes outside Alabama and training, "I couldn't even follow football." He also noted that he voted for Bush in 2000 and plans to vote for the President again this year.

Bush returned to Houston after Blount lost his Senate race in November 1972. But there is no official record that Bush performed Guard drills during the next six months. In May 1973, Bush's superiors in Houston wrote that they could not give Bush his annual evaluation because he had "not been observed at this unit during the period of this report"—from May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973. Also in May 1973, the Texas Guard issued two "special orders" directing Bush to report for duty. Over the next three months, Bush returned to his original Texas Guard unit and crammed in 36 days of active duty, apparently fulfilling the Guard's demands. In October 1973 he received an honorable discharge—nearly eight months early—so he could attend Harvard Business School.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic front runner, received an early discharge from military service too—because he had earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star during 11 months in Vietnam. That's a comparison his campaign hopes voters will be making this fall. But Kerry and the other Democrats may cause a backlash if they go too far in criticizing Bush's military record. Kerry's statement last week on Bush's service seems to equate National Guard service with avoiding the draft. "I would defend the President's choice with respect to going into the Guard," Kerry told Fox News. "I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard." Says Bush campaign spokeswoman Nicole Devenish: "John Kerry's statement was a huge insult to the 400,000 people who serve in the National Guard." Indeed, 48 of those killed in Iraq have been members of the National Guard.

Kerry aides told TIME last week that they were worried their candidate had already come close to crossing the line. "There were a lot of people cringing around here when John let himself get engaged in this thing," said one. "It could backfire, no matter what the truth is." Yet Kerry's war record seems to be working for him. In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 60% of voters say John Kerry did his duty for the country during the Vietnam War, while only 39% make that same assertion for President Bush.

—With reporting by Douglas Waller with Kerry

____________________________________________

Again, although W probably was not the best soldier in the world and he used his connections to get in, all of the facts we have just do not support the cry that W was a deserter or that he was AWOL in any significant manner. Maybe more evidence will surface.

[DeeGeMe]

I live in South Carolina. Last week, Blue Cross/Blue Shield announced they were cutting almost 1,500 jobs in our state, almost 800 in the city where I live--representing something like 3% of all jobs in our small city. Where are those folks going to find new jobs? What happens to their families?

Every other week in this area and in North Carolina, it seems you hear about manufacturing or textile plants closing with those jobs going overseas--and those jobs aren't ever coming back.

I've seen friends, family, and neighbors lose their jobs, have their hours cut back, etc. My next-door neighbor graduated with an engineering degree last year, with honors. He still hasn't been able to find a job. When I graduated from college in 1987, industries were lining up outside the doors ready and waiting to hand out high-paying jobs to engineering grads.

We have a deficit that has spiraled out of control. When Bush entered office, he inherited a budget surplus. The truth is that you can't fight a war (or two or three or whatever number we're up to now) and cut taxes. It does not work. You also can't cut the taxes of the wealthiest citizens in this country and expect them to "trickle" down the wealth to the rest of us. It's not happening.

I've actually doubled my income in the past four years--but I'm that very rare exception. But am I spending my money or spending that tax cut? HELL NO--because I realize that the bottom could fall out at any moment and I'm holding onto every bit of money that I can.

My guess is that plenty of other people in this country are doing exactly the same thing. Employers aren't hiring because they don't have faith in the economy--and they can always get their current employees to take on extra duties instead of hiring new employees to do a job. So as a result, the middle class continues to get squeezed--we work longer hours, for less money.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
Here's a link to what Greenspan thinks about jobs. I thought it was interesting.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news...reenspan_jobs/

Great article. I just would not want to be one of the people whose job got outsourced. I mean Greenspan is talking about statistics and percentages when real people are out of work. To them, I think the suggestion that they will have to be trained for something new and probably have to move across the country to get the new job, which will not be availbale until about two years from now is little solace. But, I get that that is the reality of it because we are a global economy and U.S. companies like GM cannot sell $25,000 (avg. price) cars in a foreign country where the average income is $8,000 per year, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Rob, it's all they have(if that). The economy is looking better and better every day. The stock market is soaring, interest rates remain at an all time low, more and more jobs are being created every month. It's becoming more and more obvious that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing(with or without WMD). He really was a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kay said he was even MORE of a threat than we originally thought. Every time I read threads like this it's like reading the adult version of Chicken Little....the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You liberals need to be a little more optimistic, you wouldn't feel so bad all the time.


Joe

Improving economy? Tell that to tens of millions of working class individuals who aren't seeing any improvement in their lives. And wasn't it Greenspan who said just yesterday that although the economy is improving, the deficit is f*cked up that it threatens to flush the economy down the ****hole?

[dissention]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
I live in South Carolina. Last week, Blue Cross/Blue Shield announced they were cutting almost 1,500 jobs in our state, almost 800 in the city where I live--representing something like 3% of all jobs in our small city. Where are those folks going to find new jobs? What happens to their families?

Every other week in this area and in North Carolina, it seems you hear about manufacturing or textile plants closing with those jobs going overseas--and those jobs aren't ever coming back.

I've seen friends, family, and neighbors lose their jobs, have their hours cut back, etc. My next-door neighbor graduated with an engineering degree last year, with honors. He still hasn't been able to find a job. When I graduated from college in 1987, industries were lining up outside the doors ready and waiting to hand out high-paying jobs to engineering grads.

We have a deficit that has spiraled out of control. When Bush entered office, he inherited a budget surplus. The truth is that you can't fight a war (or two or three or whatever number we're up to now) and cut taxes. It does not work. You also can't cut the taxes of the wealthiest citizens in this country and expect them to "trickle" down the wealth to the rest of us. It's not happening.

I've actually doubled my income in the past four years--but I'm that very rare exception. But am I spending my money or spending that tax cut? HELL NO--because I realize that the bottom could fall out at any moment and I'm holding onto every bit of money that I can.

My guess is that plenty of other people in this country are doing exactly the same thing. Employers aren't hiring because they don't have faith in the economy--and they can always get their current employees to take on extra duties instead of hiring new employees to do a job. So as a result, the middle class continues to get squeezed--we work longer hours, for less money.

AMEN!!!

In MA, we are suffering an economic crisis. We don't even have the funds to plow roads during snowstorms. In my city, we have the most percentage of lost jobs in the past year (over 8%!), but nothing is being done about it. Our state government just passed an increase in their pay, but what about all of the ohter people out there? No one cares. The Big Dig in Boston has turned out to be the biggest turd of a development in the history of the state and they can't even fund it. In order to get more money for this project, they have raised everything imaginable. Property taxes, highway tolls, licensing increases, you name it, they raised it. In the past six months, two local factory closed down in my city. And place like McDonalds and Wendy's aren't even hiring. What does that tell you? It tells me that we being screwed up the arse.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention


Improving economy? Tell that to tens of millions of working class individuals who aren't seeing any improvement in their lives. And wasn't it Greenspan who said just yesterday that although the economy is improving, the deficit is f*cked up that it threatens to flush the economy down the ****hole?

Now Now - be fair The economy cannot recover overnight and all signs indicate it is recovering. Given the events of 9-11 and the corporate scandals that immediately took away trillions of dollars in wealth and hundreds of thousands of jobs, I say haveing the DOW at 10,700 up from around 8,000 two years ago is a good sign, even if the DOW is not the be all and end all of economic indicators. The jobs will follow if history shows us anything. My greatest fear is there will be another terrorist attack which will send us to economic hell again.

As for the deficit, I am unsure what to think. I think some deficit is good. But, this one is the largest. But, then again, we are at war. Then, every economist has a different opinion. It makes my head spin

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for the deficit, I am unsure what to think. I think some deficit is good. But, this one is the largest. But, then again, we are at war. Then, every economist has a different opinion. It makes my head spin

Not this deficit.

And if Bush wants to ensure that we won't be in economic hell if another terrorist attack occurrs, he shouldn't have cut taxes a second time and he shouldn't be advocating for permanent cuts. He's a f*cking moron to cut taxes in a time of war.

Here are some facts:

-He said his first tax cut would create 800,000 jobs. It didn't.

-He said his second tax cut would create 1 million jobs. it didn't.

-He said last year that we would gain 1.3 million jobs. We lost 53,000.

-We've lost 3 million jobs and our deficit is at a staggering $521 billion.

-His latest economic report says shipping jobs overseas is a good idea. Is he still snorting coke or did all his years of abuse finally make his brain burst?

The silver spoon he sucks on (or snorts from) is clouding his judgement and making him out of touch with the rest of our country.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not this deficit.

And if Bush wants to ensure that we won't be in economic hell if another terrorist attack occurrs, he shouldn't have cut taxes a second time and he shouldn't be advocating for permanent cuts. He's a f*cking moron to cut taxes in a time of war.

Here are some facts:

-He said his first tax cut would create 800,000 jobs. It didn't.

-He said his second tax cut would create 1 million jobs. it didn't.

-He said last year that we would gain 1.3 million jobs. We lost 53,000.

-We've lost 3 million jobs and our deficit is at a staggering $521 billion.

-His latest economic report says shipping jobs overseas is a good idea. Is he still snorting coke or did all his years of abuse finally make his brain burst?

The silver spoon he sucks on (or snorts from) is clouding his judgement and making him out of touch with the rest of our country.

What about the 500,000 or so new jobs gained in the last two quarters? Moreover, people are spending again because they have more money partly due to the tax cuts. I do not see how people do not get that. I mean if people are losing their jobs right and left and spending is up, where is the money coming from? I say some, but certainly not all, is coming from the rebates and tax cuts

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What about the 500,000 or so new jobs gained in the last two quarters? Moreover, people are spending again because they have more money partly due to the tax cuts. I do not see how people do not get that. I mean if people are losing their jobs right and left and spending is up, where is the money coming from? I say some, but certainly not all, is coming from the rebates and tax cuts

Oh, I see, you actually believe in voodoo economics.

That tells me a lot, doll.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh, I see, you actually believe in voodoo economics.

That tells me a lot, doll.

Again, money must come from somewhere. it does not just appear. Interestingly, Kennedy cut taxes and the D's went hooray Finally, what else could the govt. do to help the economy recover? Raise taxes? If you raise taxes, people have less to spend. When people spend less, the govt. gets less income So, again, cutting taxes was the correct thing to do and no one has provided an economically feasible alternative - if you have one - spill it Would it be better if, like Kerry suggests, the tax cuts went only to people making around less than $100,000 a year? Would that be more palateable because the arbitrarily determined "rich" get nothing?

Again, you are talking to someone who believes in a flat income tax.