[fluff]

Interesting info on the BBC website. Go to BBC Article

Then click on the graph 'Signs of Growth'.

It's worth bearing in mind when Bush took office.

Also I am intrigued that (according to this article) in the state of the union address he alluded to the safety of the US with regard to terrorist attacks. I'd like to see comparative data on how many attacks/casualities the US has suffered during his administration compared to any others. Anyone have that info handy?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Interesting info on the BBC website. Go to BBC Article

Then click on the graph 'Signs of Growth'.

It's worth bearing in mind when Bush took office.

Also I am intrigued that (according to this article) in the state of the union address he alluded to the safety of the US with regard to terrorist attacks. I'd like to see comparative data on how many attacks/casualities the US has suffered during his administration compared to any others. Anyone have that info handy?

Any data is going to be completely and totally skewed by 9-11 and the fact that US troops are still engaged in two combat zones.

IF you were to remove that from the data then the number of deaths and attacks has gone down from the Clinton era.

Clinton era would include the first Twin Towers attack, Khobar towers, and the two African embassy bombings.

Bush era attacks would include USS Cole, and Riyadh housing bombings.

The invasion of Afghanistan, treasury operations, and other operations have apparently put a severe crimp in al Queda's ability to carry out organized large scale terrorist attacks, like 9-11 and the African embassy bombings. The only real exception to this would be the HSBC/Consulate bombings in Turkey last November.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Any data is going to be completely and totally skewed by 9-11 and the fact that US troops are still engaged in two combat zones.

IF you were to remove that from the data then the number of deaths and attacks has gone down from the Clinton era.

Clinton era would include the first Twin Towers attack, Khobar towers, and the two African embassy bombings.

Bush era attacks would include USS Cole, and Riyadh housing bombings.

The invasion of Afghanistan, treasury operations, and other operations have apparently put a severe crimp in al Queda's ability to carry out organized large scale terrorist attacks, like 9-11 and the African embassy bombings. The only real exception to this would be the HSBC/Consulate bombings in Turkey last November.

But that's the whole point, you can't remove those incidents, they did occur. How many allowances would you make for attacks underother administrations? It's Bush making the boasts. And the attack in Turkey took place too...

Anyway, how 'bout those economics?

 

[llkoolkeg]

So what else is new? Pols take credit for all successes and spin the blame for all failures- regardless of whether or not they actually affected any of the changes- and are elected or not based on their ability to thereby win the popularity contest and dupe a largely ignorant electorate. At this stage of the game, I have seen no challenger to Bush worthy of my vote. We'll see as the year progresses, however. I am much more impressed by people who put forth their own agenda than those who Monday Morning Quarterback the status quo. If the stereotypes hold true, though, I would find it difficult to vote for a non-Southern Democrat...and New England and CA Dems need not apply.

 

[LordOpie]

The spoken message was that a vote for George Bush is a vote for continued progress in safety and prosperity, but supporting an opponent would be a vote for outdated policies that would make America less safe.

I dunno, Dean seems more extreme than Bush when it comes to safety... to the point where I'd be scared.


As for the economy... I continue to hear about layoffs and I do not hear about new jobs.

It's interesting to see how the two main parties are overlapping. Bush's spending policies seem more like a Democrat. Any administration could get a surge in GDP with the kind of budget deficit they're running. And groups like the IMF aren't sitting on the sidelines. We're in a global economy and global balance is the key... we will *have* to fall inline with more reasonable taxing and spending sooner or later by the simple principles of global economics.

I can see why the BBC is so concerned and why they keep writing such articles... they're closely tied to our economy so while some nations may improve from our downslide, the G7 would slide with us.

Interest rates: When they slide as low as they are, the Federal Reserve loses one of it's main tools for making adjustments in the economy. Low interest and low inflation may sound like a good idea, but it's a recipe for disaster.

Lastly, I'll finish up with a personal pet-peeve of mine...

Unemployment numbers are a joke!
Anyone who says that unemployment is down has their head in the sand. Period! They "numbers" are down because they don't count people who have given up, gone back to school, and/or are underemployed. Is it at all *reasonable* for anyone to have given up??!! :angry: That is total garbage!

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
But that's the whole point, you can't remove those incidents, they did occur. How many allowances would you make for attacks underother administrations? It's Bush making the boasts. And the attack in Turkey took place too...

Anyway, how 'bout those economics?

The attack in Turkey was not against US interests nor US citizens and that's what you asked about.

If you are going to count those killed in a combat zone as vicitims of terrorist activities then Lincoln gets the title. I didn't include attacks against US soldiers in Somalia under Clinton nor in Bosnia/Kosovo. You will notice that I did include US troops killed in Khobar towers as that was not a war zone.

Osama or whomever you wish to put at the head of the "terrorist" world had been tweaking the US for years. Since the Lebannon in 1983, it has been a contest of sorts to see how far you could push the US and get away with it. But then 9-11 happened and all of a sudden the game changed across the board and it got the US attention completely. So the US could have done nothing (or what it had been doing) and encouraged further action OR it could do what it did. Which seemingly has created a world that is MORE difficult for terrorists to plan and excute large scale operations.

Based on all that I read and saw from folks that said his reactions to 9-11 would do nothing but bring about full scale terrorist attacks everyday in the US. I do not see evidence that is true.

OR unless, as usual, you just want this to be Bush's fault then I'm wasting my time.

As for the economics. A US president can control very little in regards to the economy. The parts Bush can control, the government budget, is and will continue to be a total diaster unless he either cuts spending big time or quits cutting taxes at every turn.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Interest rates: When they slide as low as they are, the Federal Reserve loses one of it's main tools for making adjustments in the economy. Low interest and low inflation may sound like a good idea, but it's a recipe for disaster.

Amen keep right on preaching. Let me give you more. It also makes it more difficult for the US to address the trade deficit as it greatly reduces the attractiveness of the dollar as an investment instrument for foreign funds.

Originally posted by LordOpie

Lastly, I'll finish up with a personal pet-peeve of mine...

Unemployment numbers are a joke!
Anyone who says that unemployment is down has their head in the sand. Period! They "numbers" are down because they don't count people who have given up, gone back to school, and/or are underemployed. Is it at all *reasonable* for anyone to have given up??!! :angry: That is total garbage!

And to add a little more here. This time the economic turnaround has NOT sparked a huge number of new jobs as most companies are waiting to see if this recovery is going to hold. Most are meeting increased demand by being more efficient with their current work force and paying overtime.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
OR unless, as usual, you just want this to be Bush's fault then I'm wasting my time.

Easy tiger, I thought you knew I was anti-US not just anti-Bush (that's a joke btw).

Numbers of casualties can only be looked at in certain ways (it seems incredibly cold typing that and I apologise for it). Basically the two attacks on the WTC equate in terms of terrorist attack and aim if not in end result. Therefore those cancel each other out for respective administrations.

I also wouldn't count combat zone fatalities.