April 05, 2005

Problem? What problem?

from - Buck

So when you pull up to the pump this week and see that you're paying almost $2.50 for a gallon of gas, don't blame George Bush....don't blame the oil companies....and don't blame the gas station. Blame your friendly neighborhood environmental leftist who won't allow any new refineries to be built and opposes oil exploration in this country at every turn.

You've just got to love Neal Boortz. His infatuation with our current oil-soaked Republican administration is complete. Unless and until prices rise to their highest historically recorded levels then things are fine. It is fun to watch him and those like him have to resort to hearkening back to the days when things were at their absolute worst in order to make their King Bush look competent. If it were not for term limits perhaps the next Bush slogan could be

Bush/Cheney: Not as bad as Hoover/Curtis......yet.

Boortz almost starts sounding like an eco-nut himself when he says

Perhaps if people hadn't been tripping all over themselves to buy gas-guzzling cars these past couple years, they wouldn't be feeling the pinch. Maybe if they lived a bit closer to work things might be better. It might not be a bad idea to tell the rug rats to walk every once in a while also.

Why don't we just ban the internal combustion engine Neal?

Yeah, Bush gets elected and suddenly China needs oil. I think if we knew the content of these meetings we would find that everything is progressing pretty much as planned.

::

Posted by Buck at April 5, 2005 10:28 AM
Comments

Buck, Hoover often gets blamed for a depression for which he was not responsible. He inherited the conditions that led to the inevitable crash of the stock market. He did not set up the sweeping social programs to put people back to work that Roosevelt is credited with, but he did do other things that were not effective.
http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/index.html

Hoover Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the nation's first Federal unemployment assistance.
Increased public works spending. Some of Hoover's efforts to stimulate the economy through public works are as follows:
Asked congress for a $400 million increase in the Federal Building Program
Directed the Department of Commerce to establish a Division of Public Construction in December 1929.
Increased subsidies for ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board.
Urged the state governors to also increase their public works spending though many failed to take any action.
Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act establishing the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home.
Increased subsidies to the nation's struggling farmers.
Established the President's Emergency Relief Organization to coordinate local, private relief efforts resulting in over 3,000 relief committees across the U.S.
Urged bankers to form the National Credit Corporation to assist banks in financial trouble and protect depositor's money.
Actively encouraged businesses to maintain high wages during the depression. Many businessmen, most notably Henry Ford, raised or maintained their worker’s wages early in the depression in the hope that more money into the pockets of consumers would end the economic downturn.
Signed the Reconstruction Finance Act. This act established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which made loans to the states for public works and unemployment relief. In addition, the RFC made loans to banks, railroads and agriculture credit organizations.
Raised tariffs to protect American jobs. After hearings held by the House Ways and Means Committee generated over 20,000 pages of testimony regarding tariff protection, Congress responded with legislation that Hoover signed despite some misgivings. Instead of protecting American jobs, the Smoot-Hawley tariff is widely blamed for setting off a worldwide trade war which only worsened the country's economic ills. This is a classic example of how government actions, despite good intentions, can trigger negative, unintended consequences. Hoover is blamed for what he did and did not do because as we all know, "the buck stops" at the oval office.

When you compare him to Bush, you should remember:
Our economy has made steady improvement under the Bush administration.

Consider what President Bush inherited:

The worse attack on America since Pearl Harbor.
The most controversial social issues of this century.
The most devastating natural disasters on record.
A scandal in the UN that needs to be dealt with promptly.
An unfair and unprecedented negative attack by the media throughout his time of service.

When we consider that he inherited a sliding economy and an unstable situation in the Middle East, I believe that history will record him as one of the greatest presidents of our time.

univar.jpg Posted by Jan on April 6, 2005 08:19 PM
Link to comment

Both Roosevelt and Hoover attempted to solve problems by growing the government. In my opinion the government is more a problem than a solution. I chose Hoover because he is recognized as a lousy president by most everybody.

Bush did not "inherit" 9/11. It just happened on his watch.

I am not sure which social issues you are referring to so I don't know whether the government has any business attempting to solve these problems or not.

Natural disasters are pretty much a constant. Are you referring to hurricanes in Florida or tsunami's half a world away or both?

I don't think the oil-for-food scandel had any effect on my lifestyle at all.

And when it comes to negative attacks Bill Clinton suffered through 8 years of the worst I have ever seen.

Concerning the economy I can only speak from my personal position and it has worsened under Bush. I know that one day you read the headlines that profits are soaring and the very next day you read that consumer confidence is down. I don't know how to grade the current economy but I do know that the Dow Jones Industrial average is lower now than it was when Bush took office 5 years ago so I would give him a flat line in that area. We won't even get into borrowing and spending and deficits.

And by the way, the situation in the Middle East was nowhere near as unstable when Bush took office than it is now. We could ask the tens of thousands of dead their opinion but they cannot answer us.

univar.jpg Posted by Buck on April 6, 2005 10:21 PM
Link to comment

I always wonder where you and Smijer get your statistics, "tens of thousands dead"? Are you referring to the mass graves that were found in which Saddam buried his own people (those he murdered)? Certainly 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush took office. Had Clinton taken care of business rather than spending his time with Monica, it might not have occurred at all. He had opportunity to arrest Bin Laden who slipped through his fingers due to Clinton's neglect. Actually, Bill Clinton got great press considering the scandal he brought to the white house. As for Bush and Kerry, the following was published by ABC News on March 14, 2005, "NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday." I, personally, did not need that study to tell me this. I watched it as it happened. The reason you and many others judge his presidency as harshly as you do at the present time is the press. Your sources are biased. History will not be nearly so biased unless our country loses all freedom of the press.

univar.jpg Posted by Jan on April 7, 2005 04:03 PM
Link to comment

Just a note, Jan, there's an interesting conversation in the comments of this post between myself and another fellow, where we argue whether the dead should be counted in the tens of thousands or the hundreds. Although there isn't enough data to say for sure, I advocate against claiming any certainty on the hundreds of thousands figure. I'm sure that the number will change depending on whether you are counting only those directly killed by violence, or those who lost their life due to decreased availability of medicine, clean water, and sanitation during the chaotic aftermath of the war.

The methodology used by Iraq Body Count yields a current minimum figure of 17,337 civilians killed by violence. Its maximum figure is 19,722. The Lancet study, on the other hand, estimates approximately 60,000 total Iraqis dead from violence - that includes both combatants and non-combatants.

Some people have more sympathy for the civilian victims of this war (at least among the Iraqi victims). The authors of the Lancet study does not feel it is the researchers' place to separate combatant dead from civilian. They feel that such distinctions are too subjective for responsible scholarship. While I agree with them on this point, I think the IBC folks are smart to include only civilians in their count, because there are fewer Americans who care about those Iraqis who died while resisting the American invasion.

univar.jpg Posted by smijer on April 7, 2005 05:17 PM
Link to comment

You can't have a war without killing people Jan. If that bothers you then try to advocate peace. And if you believe that Bill Clinton is the first President to play around on the side you are kidding yourself.

And those "mass graves" were for the most part filled with people killed during the Iran/Iraq war back when Saddam was our friend shaking hands with Rumsfeld.

univar.jpg Posted by Buck on April 8, 2005 12:16 PM
Link to comment

Buck, A person would have to be very young to not know that Roosevelt and Kennedy were both accused of philandering with women with whom they were not married, and that they are not the first presidents to be accused. Does this excuse Clinton or make what he did more acceptable? I don't think so.

Do I believe that war kills people? Well, I think that it does. Does that mean that if we stop all wars, killing will stop? Of course not. We all know that people kill people. Look at what Hitler did to the Jews. Look at what was done to our people on 9/11! When wars are fought, people die. Wars are fought for a lot of reasons. The majority of the people of Iraq have decided that they are glad Bush sent American forces to stop Saddam Hussein. They are the once most affected and the ones who should be the harshest critics. Somehow, they have not been. It is the extreme left in this country who complains. Bush's political enemies are the most critical. I think those who desire socialism in the USA are the ones who hate Bush most.

Behind all wars there will be political pundits who will use the war and polls for their own means and attempt to prove whatever it is they want to prove. I guess your blog is a good example of this.

univar.jpg Posted by Jan on April 8, 2005 06:47 PM
Link to comment

Jan,

The only thing that I would like to "prove" is that a military solution is no solution at all or at best it is the worst solution. I would much prefer to work towards proving that war is senseless than I would choose to convince people that war is the solution of choice.

We lament the fact that non-state sponsored terrorists destroyed two buildings in New York and then we send a state sponsored army into a country not even remotely connected to the event to destroy entire cities. It makes no sense to me.

And some day when you have nothing to do I would love for you to give me your definition of "socialism" and tell me how it differs from the system we currently live under.

univar.jpg Posted by Buck on April 11, 2005 09:55 AM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.