View
 Forum Home
Last Day
Last week
New Messages
Tree View
Utilities
Register
Edit Profile
Keyword Search
Documentation
Getting Started
Formatting
Troubleshooting
Available Clipart
Abbreviations Key
Contact Moderators
|
Bush Flunked Economics
David Gold Show Forum: Free For All (Attic - being cleaned): Bush Flunked Economics
| Avarice | Monday, March 04, 2002 - 11:40 pm |   |
| This President thinks that he can drill himself out of global trade for oil and he thinks that he can jaw-bone OPEC into increasing production. This President wants to impose an insane 40% tariff on steel, at the expense of consumers and workers in other industries. This President allowed the federal government to grow by a whopping 11% and while the national debt grew to $5,977,010,131,164.00. That does not even include Social Insecurity or Medifraud, which are set to go insolvent this decade. This President has done nothing to prevent the vanishing of billions of dollars of assets within the federal government, while his political "opponents" pretend like Enron executives are the relatively huge crooks.
What in the world makes David Gold think that this economic flunkie is any better at setting policy than Senator Daschle? Both of them are a laughing stock of economic dunces, and they make voting Libertarian even more enticing. |
| Sarge | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 05:14 am | |
| Doesn't he have an MBA? I'm sure they don't just hand those out like candy. Besides that, I'm certain that economic policy is not formulated by Bush alone. So, if you're going to hand out "dunce caps," you'll have to also get the names of everybody else involved in the decisionmaking - not just Bush. |
| Holman | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 08:09 am | |
| Bush Won't Seek Bailout For Retired Steelworkers
Updated March 5, 2002
By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS and NEIL KING
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
President Bush won't push for a $10 billion bailout for hundreds of thousands of steel retirees, according to industry and government officials close to the administration.
Mr. Bush's decision, which could be announced as early as Tuesday, is a particular blow for the retirees of steel companies that have collapsed or are in bankruptcy proceedings. Those retirees stand to lose virtually all of their health-care and life-insurance benefits and some of their pensions as their former employers seek to unload these so-called legacy costs in bankruptcy court. About half of the domestic steel industry has sought to reorganize or liquidate since 1998.
The decision also derails, for now, a plan by at least four domestic steelmakers to merge with U.S. Steel Corp., the country's largest steelmaker. U.S. Steel had said it would purchase Bethlehem Steel Corp., National Steel Corp., and other steelmakers currently under Chapter 11 federal bankruptcy-court protection if the federal government agreed to assume their retiree costs.
The debate over legacy costs comes as concerns mount that Mr. Bush isn't going to impose the high, across-the-board tariffs the big steel companies say they need to survive. Steel executives were particularly alarmed at indications that the administration was considering an essentially tariff-free quota system for steel slab, which accounts for roughly 20% of all steel imports by tonnage. Allowing slab in without tariffs, the industry argues, would undermine the effect of any tariffs imposed on other steel products.
As an alternative to completely underwriting the retiree costs, administration officials say they are devising a plan that would rely on existing programs, such as Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. The White House also is considering refundable tax credits to help defray the cost of obtaining health insurance. Bush advisers contend that this approach, instead of a cash bailout for the half-dozen or so companies most affected, would avoid corporate favoritism and would aim assistance more directly at the needs of workers.
Pension Benefit Guarantee coffers are flush with cash. It had a $10 billion surplus in 2000, the latest year for which the agency has publicly reported its results. Last month, the agency said that it had enough money on hand to absorb rising claims without increasing premiums, taking into account one of the largest claims ever by a single company: an estimated $2 billion bill from LTV Steel Corp., whose 85,000 retirees will lose their pensions on March 31 -- a few months after the steelmaker began liquidating its assets.
Pensions, though, aren't the main concern for steel retirees, who number about 600,000 including dependents and spouses. Their greater worries are the availability of inexpensive health care and the continuation of life insurance, both promised by steel-company management to its unionized employees during financially stronger times. The Bush plan would mean retirees' life insurance would essentially be gone. And even with tax credits, the cost to retirees for health-insurance would increase substantially.
As for industry mergers, troubled steelmakers say they are already making alternate plans, now that the U.S. Steel consolidation proposal appears to be shelved. Robert S. Miller, the chief executive of Bethlehem Steel, said the board will meet March 13 to discuss launching a series of joint ventures at each of its plants with other companies. That could make individual plants, rather than the whole company, more attractive to buyers.
Mr. Miller also holds out hope for his company's 100,000 retirees and their dependents that the Bush decision isn't the end of the administration's involvement in the legacy issue. "I believe the administration is very focused and concerned about the legacy-cost issue and is not going to ignore them, but that there is further work that needs to be done on this complicated issue," Mr. Miller said.
Anticipating that Mr. Bush will have little to offer in the way of legacy-cost relief, the United Steelworkers of America is pushing for the introduction of federal legislation that would earmark billions of dollars in assistance for steelworkers. West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller is expected to lead the charge. "We are not going to let this issue fall off the table," said Leo Gerard, president of the steelworkers union. "This is the human side of the steel debate."
Senate Democrats are also assembling a bill that would more than double the size of the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance program, to nearly $1.5 billion a year. The program is meant to provide temporary relief, including job retraining, to workers who lose their jobs because of international trade. Under the measure, much of the new money would go to unemployed workers in the steel industry, and could apply to retired workers.
Write to Robert Guy Matthews at robertguy.matthews@wsj.com and Neil King at neil.king@wsj.com |
| Netgear | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 11:39 am | |
| Sounds like an issue that would tick-off a union-type. |
| Holman | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 12:19 pm | |
| Bush is just telling the Judiciary that the federal government is not in the business of providing a net to the private sector. The steel industry bowed to union demands years ago and upped wages and benefits (labor is the biggest cost) instead of refitting their plants, and it crushed the industry.
Bad industry move by Big Steel Companies.
Now they are in the tank because they can't compete with foreign steel. So now the companies are seeking bankruptcy protection to throw off their bad decision to overpay their employees.
Well, forget it. If the courts do the right thing, they will liquidate the companies and preserve the pension deals they made with the retirees. It's what happens when management screws up and crashes their industry, but it does not absolve them from responsibility to the retirees and there is no reason why the American taxpayer - one more time - has to bail out some industry that knuckled under to nitwit Liberal Democrat pressure to overpay employees.
And make no mistake, the Democrats are going to be in favor of a retiree bailout. It will complete the circle. Their voter block killed that industry and they will exert pressure to protect the voter block that crushed jobs for the rest of the steel industry.
It's a vicious cycle, socialism. |
| Davidtalker2 | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 04:17 pm | |
| Actually Avarice makes some good points. I have long ago stopped counting on the GOP to roll back big government. This thread provides perfect examples of both.
I oppose tariffs in any form. Government spending is out of hand. Neither party will change that. However, the Libertarian Party has talked themselves right out of consideration due to their opposition to the War on Terror. |
| Avarice | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 08:58 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Doesn't he have an MBA?
An MBA at Harvard is no indication of economic genius. A lot of Harvard alumni work for the IMF, which has done a great job of destroying Argentina's middle class.
>>>>>>>>I'm sure they don't just hand those out like candy.
It looks like our President hasn't learned anything from the great economist David Ricardo about an idea called, "comparative advantage." I didn't have to attend Harvard in order to learn the concepts of David Ricardo. I just studied in the library of Hillsdale College, that's all.
By the President's words and actions, we may as well assume that trade for oil and steel is some sort of zero sum game, which contradicts both emperical and theoretical economic history.
>>>>>>>>>Besides that, I'm certain that economic policy is not formulated by Bush alone.
Okay, we could give Cheney, Zoelleck, Bush, AND Dashcle the collective economic dunce cap. Or, the more cynical person could just make a case that these politicians were doing what they were always good at doing - namely, bribing votes from special interest groups (READ: steel unions) with government wealth redistribution schemes like 30% across the board tariffs.
Too bad, Herbert Hoover managed to destroy the economy with exorbitant tariffs in 1929. Some people never learn from history, or maybe they are more concerned about getting re-elected. They sure could learn a lot from the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat. Don't expect that to happen until people start voting in more libertarian minded folks to office. |
| Avarice | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 09:17 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>President Bush won't push for a $10 billion bailout for hundreds of thousands of steel retirees, according to industry and government officials close to the administration.
So? This reminds me of an analogy made by radio talk show host Brian Wilson. Democrats will slam you head first into a wall at 150 mph, while Republicans will do it going 140 mph. In both cases, you are dead.
The Heritage Foundation estimated that 30% tariffs alone would cost a family of four $283.00 a year, just to pay the salaries steel workers, who earn $80,000.00 a year without the tariff. This was the same stupid economic policy that drove Herbert Hoover out of office, to be replaced by the worst tyrant of them all, FDR.
Furthermore, I don't see laid off computer programmers begging for the government to protect them with tariffs on imports for computers. What makes steel workers so special? A: They have the ability to vote themselves government booty en masse, unlike the ordinary Joe Six Pack who struggles to make it on his own merit. |
| Avarice | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 10:09 pm | |
| >>>>>>>Sounds like an issue that would tick-off a union-type.
I don't think that unions have too much to worry about, since their votes are bought and paid for by government redistribution programs. |
| Avarice | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 10:11 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Bush is just telling the Judiciary that the federal government is not in the business of providing a net to the private sector.
You have got to be kidding. What do you call a 30% across the board tariff on steel? Bush has been pushing for this insane level of taxation for weeks. |
| Avarice | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 10:33 pm | |
| >>>>>>>Actually Avarice makes some good points.
Thanks for the compliment - I got booted off the John Stossel message board, but I knew that I could find another nice "conservative-liberatarian" soapbox like this one.
>>>>>>I have long ago stopped counting on the GOP to roll back big government.
By "long ago", did you mean that you waited since the "me too" Republicans of the 1930's decided to hand over their ideology to the tyrant, FDR, on a silver platter for dinner?
>>>>>>I oppose tariffs in any form.
In my opinion, tariffs, in general, are necessary to fund the federal government. I like Harry Browne's idea of repealing the corporate tax, the income tax, the death tax, the gift tax, and the capital gains tax; while leaving tariffs and excise taxes AT THEIR PRESENT LEVELS.
Still, history has shown that low tariffs reap huge rewards for society. Take a look at Great Britain's industrial output from 1820 - 1913. Look at the booming agricultural and manufacturing output of the United States during the early Twentieth century. Bastiat was right!
>>>>>>>>Government spending is out of hand.
You'll get no argument from me there.
I still did not understand how you could assert that one man, George W. Bush, was capable of getting the economy out of recession on your KSFO radio show a few months back. Real economic growth is the result of millions of productive individuals - and it has nothing to do with the political power of one man, in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>However, the Libertarian Party has talked themselves right out of consideration due to their opposition to the War on Terror.
Libertarians have been on the political fringe far before September 11, because Harry Browne is not a viable candidate and the Party is run by a bunch of anarchist cranks. It does not follow that other laissez faire advocates cannot take over the Libertarian Party in order to re-write the Party Platform and to nominate more viable candidates.
The alternative is to support one lonely congressman, Dr. Ron Paul, one out of 535! Dr. Paul does not even represent my district!
However, I plan to cast my vote for Tom McClintock, a libertarian in Republican clothes, for Controller of California. May God bless winning election results for this guy! |
| Sarge | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 03:50 am | |
| "An MBA at Harvard is no indication of economic genius. A lot of Harvard alumni work for the IMF, which has done a great job of destroying Argentina's middle class."
Nobody said Bush was an "economic genius," however, attaining an MBA is no small feat. With regards to Harvard alumni working for the IMF, what has that got to do with Bush? Nothing, IMHO. |
| Holman | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 07:18 am | |
| Bush Taking Big Beating on Steel Decision in Editorials Across Nation
Look Who Is on the Same Page . . .
Bush goes soft on steel - Washington Times
"President Bush yesterday buckled under pressure from the steel industry, placing political calculations above the overall well-being of the economy and America's leadership in global trade."
The Bush Tax Hike - Washington Post
"President Bush yesterday buckled under pressure from the steel industry, placing political calculations above the overall well-being of the economy and America's leadership in global trade. With an eye on congressional races in November, Mr. Bush decided to erect U.S. tariffs as high as 30 percent for three years on steel imports. The president's failure to show a steelier resolve is unfortunate, since America now risks alienating key allies at a critical time and faces a costly trade dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Sen. John McCain of Arizona wrote Mr. Bush a letter opposing a rise in tariffs, citing a study that found that such a move would probably cost 13 times the number of jobs it would save. But a number of Republicans are backing the president's decision and are now poised to seek special protections for industries in their home states. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, for example, is asking for trade protection for the timber industry. And unsurprisingly, Democrats are lining up, too, with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota requesting protections for farmers."
Industry wins, consumers lose on steel tariffs - USA Today
"Bush's decision to meet some of their demands might save a few thousand jobs in an industry where employment has fallen 75%, from 580,000 to 142,000 since the late 1970s. But it will also raise the price of steel, pushing up the cost of cars, farm equipment, washing machines — everything made of steel. The effect: a special-interest sales tax, perhaps $200 or more, on every U.S. family. Additionally, the higher prices will almost certainly cost thousands of U.S. jobs elsewhere: at ports such as New Orleans that handle steel, at steel-using companies in towns such as Aurora, Ill., which depend on specialty products that must be imported, and in ripple effects across the country. More broadly, even the tariffs Bush OK'd are certain to trigger retaliation by other countries against U.S. export products, potentially costing jobs in those industries as well. Already there are threats to cut off U.S. farm exports. And steel protection undermines U.S. efforts to create more export jobs by persuading other countries to lower their tariffs and trade barriers."
Bush gets spineless on steel - Chicago Tribune
"They wanted tariffs of 40 percent. They're getting less than that. They wanted across-the-board tariffs. They're only getting tariffs on some steel products, and then only on imports from some countries. They wanted the government to pay unfunded health and pension costs for all those retired steelworkers. They aren't getting that. Bush could have turned this into a powerful victory for the free trade agenda that he purports to support. By bucking the industry and opposing any tariffs, he could have sent this message to the world: We know how hard it is to make tough choices. We understand that opening your markets threatens powerful domestic constituencies. We're willing to take the heat because we know the result is worth it. Now, how about you? But Bush decided that self-serving politics trumps the national interest. He decided that the jobs of people who make cars and tractors and refrigerators aren't nearly as important as throwing a bone to steel. He decided to discard a historic opportunity to advance trade and instead sent this message to the world: When we talk about free trade, we mean you should make the tough choices. We don't have the stomach for it. This decision will hurt consumers and cost jobs. It invites retaliation from European, Asian and Latin American countries. The irony for Bush is that it won't come close to satisfying the nation's giant, uneconomic steel companies. It is being billed as giving the steel companies breathing space so they can restructure and modernize. But they won't. The overhang of those retiree legacy costs prevents it. So they will continue to lose money and they will continue to lobby for more protection even though 30 years of bail-outs, tariffs, import quotas and other protectionist measures have failed to stem their losses."
Limbaugh will attack Bush today. This marks a first if he doesn't carry talkshows. |
| Boedark | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 08:53 am | |
| I like Bush. Compared to the last person to hold the office of President he is a pleasant change, however Avarice is right about the Bush economic policy. The fact that we appear to be pulling out of a short-lived recession, IMHO, has more to do with the strength of American capitalism than the short-sighted economic policies bandied by all our spend-spend-spend politicians. |
| Sarge | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:07 am | |
| I'm not an economist, so I can't really comment on what is good and what is bad. However, I do know that it is not easy to attain an MBA, so Bush is not as dumb as his detractors say. |
| Holman | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:44 am | |
| Bush knows his base has no place to go. He knows anyone to the right of him is un-electable. Mid-terms are here and he's helping those up for election to slice into Democrat strongholds.
He's cut deals.
Maybe if The Libertarians get Gov. Gary Johnson to run.
Naaah.
Bush will have to screw up bigger than this. Besides, the WTO will probably counter with some kind of action he can retrograde under after the mid-terms . . . which will further infuriate the right.
No doubt he's taking a risk since the conservative element has a history of blowing up the party when they get mad, and allowing a Clinton to win.
Must be the Libertarian in them. |
| Netgear | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 10:27 am | |
| Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is on one of its last breaths. |
| Avarice | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:12 pm | |
| >>>>>>>Nobody said Bush was an "economic genius," however, attaining an MBA is no small feat.
You just contradicted yourself with semantics games.
>>>>>>>With regards to Harvard alumni working for the IMF, what has that got to do with Bush? Nothing, IMHO.
You were the one who asserted that an MBA at Harvard was "no small feat." I disproved your assertion by showing that other graduates of Harvard learned nothing about sound economic principles. Therefore, your assertion is false. |
| Avarice | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:31 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, for example, is asking for trade protection for the timber industry. And unsurprisingly, Democrats are lining up, too, with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota requesting protections for farmers."
Here is an example of media bias that Bernard Goldberg talks about. We are to expect Daschle to worship big government at every turn, but one of the top five pork barrel lovers in Congress, Trent Lott, does not get stuck with the same "unsurprisingly" label on the same issue.
>>>>>>>>Limbaugh will attack Bush today. This marks a first if he doesn't carry talkshows.
Rush Limbaugh has been a consistent mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Although I admire his talent for creating a boon for the radio talk show circuit, I would much rather hear Walter E. Williams substitute for Rush on this particular subject. |
| Avarice | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:44 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>>I like Bush. Compared to the last person to hold the office of President he is a pleasant change.......
This statement is irrelevant, since Bubba has been term limited out of office by virtue of the Twenty-Second Amendment.
>>>>>>>>The fact that we appear to be pulling out of a short-lived recession, IMHO, has more to do with the strength of American capitalism than the short-sighted economic policies bandied by all our spend-spend-spend politicians.
You are making progress. Now we can stop looking to government for role models and we can get to work in order to provide goods and services that people really want. |
| Avarice | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:57 pm | |
| >>>>>>>I'm not an economist, so I can't really comment on what is good and what is bad.
Do you hold an advanced degree in the field of moral subjectivism?
>>>>>>>>However, I do know that it is not easy to attain an MBA, so Bush is not as dumb as his detractors say.
I notice how you continue to talk in the present tense, as if Bush has graduated from Harvard with an MBA recently.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that many corporate executives do not even know how to draft a simple business letter in English grammar. So an advanced degree does not automatically consign one with a higher level of intelligence.
I have not attacked the President's grammar abilities, as "his detractors" have done. My case rests on President Bush's tariff hikes, which offset the niggardly income tax cuts that haven't even phased in yet. |
| Avarice | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 10:19 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Maybe if The Libertarians get Gov. Gary Johnson to run.
That won't do any good. Libertarians ought to nominate people from Hollywood - Kurt Russell or Clint Eastwood. These actors would be the perfect politicians, since they already know how to promote their image with photo ops and sound bytes from the media.
>>>>>>>>>Bush will have to screw up bigger than this.
Agreed, it will take a huge depression to elect third party candidates. I know that it may sound sick, but socialism has failed every single time that it has been tried, and the United States is not exempt from the inevitable failure of big government.
>>>>>>>>>>No doubt he's taking a risk since the conservative element has a history of blowing up the party when they get mad, and allowing a Clinton to win.
Bush already had conservative politics blow up in his face. Witness the huge failure of Democrat clone Dick Riordan in California, despite all of the efforts of Team Bush. Conservative voters do not want to choose between two Democrats this November. |
| Avarice | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 10:30 pm | |
| >>>>>>>Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is on one of its last breaths.
They managed to pull off a nice drug war ad spread in USA Today in a relatively short period of time.
Here are the next steps:
1. Get rid of the ridiculous "non-initiation of force" pledge
2. Re-write the Party Platform
3. Kick out the anarchist cranks
4. Enlist Hollywood actors to run for Libertarian office
5. Continue to show conservatives how the "War on Drugs" has failed
Does anybody else have suggestions on how to create a viable third party alternative to big government politicians? Any suggestions would be helpful at this point. |
| Netgear | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 12:58 am | |
| Ask Ralph Nadar or Pat Buchanan...on second thought... |
| Sarge | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 04:21 am | |
| “Nobody said Bush was an "economic genius," however, attaining an MBA is no small feat.”
“You just contradicted yourself with semantics games.”
No, you don’t have to be a genius to get an MBA, but you can’t be an ignoramus and get one, either. Read it again – no “semantic games” are being played here.
“With regards to Harvard alumni working for the IMF, what has that got to do with Bush? Nothing, IMHO.”
“You were the one who asserted that an MBA at Harvard was "no small feat." I disproved your assertion by showing that other graduates of Harvard learned nothing about sound economic principles. Therefore, your assertion is false.”
You disproved nothing and your logic is flawed. Pointing out that a small segment of graduates from a particular degree program at a particular institute of high learning aren’t doing as well as you’d like for them to do does not in any way, shape or form discredit that particular institute of higher learning nor does it discredit that particular degree program. Forming opinions based upon anecdotal evidence benefits nobody and "proves" nothing.
“I'm not an economist, so I can't really comment on what is good and what is bad.”
“Do you hold an advanced degree in the field of moral subjectivism?”
No, I normally don’t comment on issues unless I know enough about the issue to make an informed comment. Since I know very little about the dynamics of economics, I have not commented specifically on economics. I have only made comments on the title of your thread - "Bush Flunked Economics." I maintain that he must not have flunked or he would not have received his degree - which is a true and correct statement.
Do you hold and advanced degree in trolling? Maybe that might explain why you "got booted off the John Stossel message board."  |
| Netgear | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 05:15 am | |
| "I love the smell of napalm in the morning; smells of victory."
-- Lt. Colonel Bill Kilgore |
| Holman | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 07:02 am | |
| The Libs need a personality. Perot had a sharp tongue, spoke pretty good Libertarian, but what they need is something like Talk Radio. They need a national blow torch to cut away conservatives, either to join the battle with the Libertarians or form a new party. Bush will have to fall on his sword to have that happen.
The obvious problem is any factionalization of the right puts a socialist in the WH and hands over majority of Congress, or so the fear factor goes. And its happened to the Democrats also (Nader).
And right now, we need every ounce of unity we can get because this nation is near the point of no return on the voting majority riding in the wagon but not paying for the largesse.
Once we go consistently above 50% voter turnout, it will signal that the majority will have awakened to the fact:
"When a society bases its political power on a majority vote, it is inevitable that those wishing to have power will seek to satisfy the needs of those who will provide it (vote) by transferring wealth. This leads to ever increasing public spending fueled by the self-interest of producers. With each increment in the common realm, more people are brought into the class of those receiving benefits . . . these people will take their benefits into account, desire to maintain or increase their level of benefits, vote for those who will support them, and thus, the level of spending will ever increase. The needs of the voters will eventually exceed the treasury’s ability, so fiscally unsound policies will be undertaken."
Us angels are flying too close to the treetops.
It may require a catestrophic societal event to alter this trend. |
| Boedark | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 11:48 am | |
| Boe::
I like Bush. Compared to the last person to hold the office of President he is a pleasant change.......
(If you are going to be so anal in your arguments - I'd like to point out that an
ellipsis is three periods. This "......." means nothing. Maybe Avarice flunked English.  )
Avarice::
This statement is irrelevant, since Bubba has been term limited out of office by virtue of the Twenty-Second Amendment.
So what? He was term limited, Bush is still a pleasant change compared to your Bubba.
Avarice::
Here are the next steps:
1. Get rid of the ridiculous "non-initiation of force" pledge
2. Re-write the Party Platform
3. Kick out the anarchist cranks
4. Enlist Hollywood actors to run for Libertarian office
5. Continue to show conservatives how the "War on Drugs" has failed
Does anybody else have suggestions on how to create a viable third party alternative to big government politicians? Any suggestions would be helpful at this point.
Unfortunately, your party has been so tainted by its extreme element that you'd be better off starting a new party from scratch.
The Libertarian Party has become inconsistent in its ideology. The Libertarian Party supports abortion rights, under any / all circumstances - "We (The Libertarian Party) oppose legislation restricting ... women's access to abortion", totally ignoring the rights of the unborn.
The Libertarian Party is against military intervention like our current military commitment in Afghanistan, preferring to ignore a threat that could easily cripple - if not destroy - our country. The Libertarian Party's view "... that a non-interventionist foreign policy is still the best defense against the threat of terrorism. And Libertarians retain their traditional wariness about infringements on civil liberties, with an overwhelming majority opposing all or most of the search and surveillance provisions contained in proposed "anti-terrorist" legislation." is downright dangerous and leaves this country as open to attack as it was on 9/11. They are like the ostrich who, when confronted with danger, sticks it's head in the sand.
The Libertarian Party has morphed to a kind of cultish anarchist religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.
(Stuff in quotes from The Libertarian Party official website) |
| Avarice | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 09:39 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Ask Ralph Nadar or Pat Buchanan...on second thought...
Yeah, you can do better than that. |
| Avarice | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 09:42 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>No, you don’t have to be a genius to get an MBA, but you can’t be an ignoramus and get one, either. Read it again – no “semantic games” are being played here.
Nice cheap shot - the word "feat" means some sort of extraordinary effort. You are playing semantics games and that is why you have managed to contradict yourself. |
| Avarice | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 09:44 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>"I love the smell of napalm in the morning; smells of victory."
Netgear gets first prize for posting sublime one-liners. |
| Avarice | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 09:59 pm | |
| >>>>>>>The Libs need a personality.
Good point, a Hollywood actor who already makes a living off of hyping up his public image would be the ideal candidate. It worked well for Ronald Reagan.
>>>>>>The obvious problem is any factionalization of the right puts a socialist in the WH and hands over majority of Congress, or so the fear factor goes.
You've got nothing to worry about. All ten planks from the Communist Manifesto have already made it into federal law. We still live in a Constitutional republic, but the Supreme Court does not strike down laws from Congress very often.
>>>>>>>>"When a society bases its political power on a majority vote.....
Everything that you worry about has been accomplished by plurality vote.
>>>>>>>>It may require a catestrophic societal event to alter this trend.
If the attacks of September 11 wake up Americans to the dangers of Islamic jihad warriors, an economic catastrophe may very well wake up the remnant to the dangers of big government in general.
The original settlers of America embraced liberty precisely because they tried communal living and they ended up starving as a result. |
| Avarice | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 10:01 pm | |
| >>>>>>>(If you are going to be so anal in your arguments - I'd like to point out that an
ellipsis is three periods. This "......." means nothing. Maybe Avarice flunked English. )
Nice cheap shot - you and Sarge get first prize for conversational terrorism. |
| Netgear | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 10:05 pm | |
| "Netgear gets first prize for posting sublime one-liners." :: Av
Hey, thanks, guy! I'm kind of at that one-liner stage of my online posting life. Have already passed through incendiary stage, introspective stage, and currently leaving nanny stage.
I just hope this stuff isn't circular in nature... |
| Deanna | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 10:45 pm | |
| No No No, Netgear! you can't leave the Nanny stage! At least until I come out of my dark cloud... 
Avarice, we welcome you here, but you gotta understand - it's a better idea to hang around a while and give yourself and us enough time to get to know each other (I bet we'd agree on many things) before you post your more challenging notes... =] |
| Netgear | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 10:50 pm | |
| Have no fear, D - I can be bi-phase-al! or is that bi-stage-al?
...and my worst fears are probably reality; that this stuff is circular. I just want to stay away from that incendiary stage. <g> |
| Deanna | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 11:11 pm | |
| LOL... I dunno, it might be fun to see you incendiary!
Actually, though, I think a few years online, watching some arguments get done to death with no resolution tends to cool a lot of the passion we had back in the day when we thought we were saying something new... |
| Netgear | Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 11:25 pm | |
| That's so true - I remember the day when it occurred to me I wasn't going to change the world, by posting. Especially when under the pressure of a bad temper... The mind just doesn't work very well when it gets over-heated; it's similar to silicon in that respect. High heat, means low performance, or worse, no performance.
Type to ya later, D; gonna go sit on the back porch, smoke a stogie, and contemplate my navel. |
| Sarge | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 04:26 am | |
| feat
n.
1. A notable act or deed, especially an act of courage; an exploit.
2. An act of skill, endurance, imagination, or strength; an achievement.
Obsolete. A specialized skill; a knack.
Cheap shot from me? It was only after and in response to this little gem from you:
"“Do you hold an advanced degree in the field of moral subjectivism?”
My response is no worse than your initial wisecrack (which was totally uncalled for).
I help moderate this forum and I’d like to offer you some friendly information:
I'm glad you're here in this forum and I look forward to discussing issues with you. However, (historically) I've observed that most of the Forum members will simply not respond to comments made by a Forum member whom they think is "overly aggressive." So, for that reason, the person deemed as being "overly aggressive" ends up making comments to himself and the thread dies because nobody wants to participate in some sort of never-ending flame war. Some people have too many things going on right now to want to immerse themselves in such a war of words. No doubt, there are others who do have the time, but choose to divorce themselves from any and all involvement in such flaming threads.
Having said that, I’ll be leaving (but observing) this conversation. Maybe the participants will bring up information about economics that will help me learn a little more about it and I’ll be a little better informed about it. |
| Boedark | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:11 am | |
| me (edited by Avy)::
>>>>>>>(If you are going to be so anal in your arguments - I'd like to point out that an ellipsis is three periods. This "......." means nothing. Maybe Avarice flunked English. (smiley face missing here - edited out by Avy so he could ignore the attempt at humor and use my line as some kind of moral low-ground))
Avy::
Nice cheap shot - you and Sarge get first prize for conversational terrorism.
OOooo conversational terrorism!
Now you are playing semantics games. Okay for you but not for Sarge? Hmmmm.
Terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.", Merriam Webster Online.
Personally, I thought the last of my message was more of a cheap shot - though true:
"The Libertarian Party has morphed to a kind of cultish anarchist religion, which churns out annoying flamers (<- that's you Avy!) who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk. "
If you are going to come off as some kind of cyber-punk expect cheap shots.
Net - I just can't picture you as incendiary. But D?
Net gets first prize for the most significant comment made in the thread:
I remember the day when it occurred to me I wasn't going to change the world, by posting.
Or was it:
... gonna go sit on the back porch, smoke a stogie, and contemplate my navel. |
| Netgear | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 06:31 pm | |
| "Net - I just can't picture you as incendiary." :: Boe
O'man, Boe, I was absolutely relentless, and foul, and mean, and pompous, and... <g>
That was then, this is now, but I still have to bite my tongue, on occasion.
Hey, thanks for the prize, too - I jest don't get many. |
| Avarice | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 08:57 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Hey, thanks, guy!
You are welcome. You deserve first prize for sublime one-liners. That is your strong point. |
| Avarice | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:02 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Avarice, we welcome you here, but you gotta understand - it's a better idea to hang around a while and give yourself and us enough time to get to know each other
Thanks for the friendly welcome. I hope that I am happy to know you and I do not plan on leaving this message board.
I listen to David Gold whenever they let him substitute on KSFO. David Gold seems like a smart guy with superb speaking skills. |
| Avarice | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:05 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>>That's so true - I remember the day when it occurred to me I wasn't going to change the world, by posting.
I don't have to worry about that problem, since I have never desired that much power, anyway. The purpose of posting messages, for me, is to sharpen my thinking skills and to keep on top of current events. I will let people like David Gold try to convince the remnant about the virtues of liberty. That is his job, not mine. |
| Boedark | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:15 pm | |
| Avy::
The purpose of posting messages, for me, is to sharpen my thinking skills !
You've a lot of work. Maybe you should try a slow speed stone. The high speed stone you're using has destroyed your temper and thus any edge you may have had. |
| Boedark | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:22 pm | |
| Avy::
You are welcome. You deserve first prize for sublime one-liners. That is your strong point.
Whoa! Was that a cheap shot? I thought you were above that!?
3rd prize (out of a 3 man race) goes to Avy for conversational terrorism.
Thanks for showing your true colors. |
| Netgear | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 11:33 pm | |
| "You are welcome. You deserve first prize for sublime one-liners. That is your strong point."
Well, you know what Will said; brevity is the soul of wit. Personally, I'll take brevity over verbosity, any day. It's one of those quality or quantity issues... <g>
|
| Netgear | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 11:37 pm | |
| "I don't have to worry about that problem..." :: Av
No, you don't. |
| Avarice | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 03:29 pm | |
| >>>>>>>Well, you know what Will said; brevity is the soul of wit.
How about KISS? - Keep It Simple Stupid? I just wish that government laws were only one sentence long, rather than hundreds of thousands of pages. |
| Netgear | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 03:52 pm | |
| Me, too, and I like the KISS method. Some might call it the flat tax of debating styles. |
| Davidtalker2 | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 05:16 pm | |
| Do you want to know why Bush slapped those tariffs on imported steel? For the wrong reasons. These guys may have a few jobs saved. But this will result in others losing their jobs. Problem will be, they won't realize how this happened to them. Even Klintoon refused to slap on these tariffs. NY Times.
In Big Steel States, the Bush Democrat May Be Born
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, March 7 — Bernie Ravasio, local steelworkers' union boss and zealous Democrat, offers a smile somewhere between mischief and delight in contemplating the notion that a new political hybrid may have been born this week, here in the bitterly depressed Ohio Valley.
"Bush Democrats? I'd say there's a good probability of that around here now," Mr. Ravasio said in open pleasure that President Bush chose last week to resort to tariffs to protect what is left of Big Steel in its struggle against foreign competition.
"The man helped us, he stepped up to the plate," said Mr. Ravasio, who as president of Local 1190 of the United Steelworkers of America has had to master triage as much as labor negotiations. He has watched 31 American steel companies fall into bankruptcy in recent years and 17 of them die, leaving thousands of workers jobless.
"I may be a staunch Democrat, but I'll sure remember Bush for helping us," said Mr. Ravasio, whose membership has shrunk by more than half, to 1,750 workers, who have lately had to accept a 27 percent pay cut to keep the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation mills open.
"We all remember Clinton and Gore showing up in '92 and promising to save the mills and then abandoning the issue and betraying us; we never heard from them again," said Mr. Ravasio, adding that the Clinton administration had concentrated on economic globalization at the expense of the Democratic Party's old-line, blue-collar backbone in the mills.
President Bush campaigned as a free-trader but criticized Mr. Clinton for failing to protect steelworkers from unfair competition. On Tuesday, Mr. Bush announced the three- year tariff of up to 30 percent as a temporary measure so the steel industry could restructure.
In their relief, Local 1190 members are planning to show some political gratitude sooner or later. Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the steel states where jobs are most directly protected, are approaching crucial elections that could settle control of the next Congress. Mr. Ravasio said that this year and beyond union members would remember candidates who helped them, whatever their party line.
With this in mind, the Democrats are fighting to retain their clout among the steel unions by emphasizing that President Bush, while announcing the tariffs, did not take any action on a proposal now in Congress for a bailout of up to $12 billion for hundreds of thousands of retired steelworkers. Their health care plans went bust as the domestic steel industry contracted and mills liquidated.
"This has been a desperate situation," said Charlie Stock, the local's grievance chairman, as workers visited the union hall to discuss the moment of hope presented by the Bush tariffs.
"It'll be very interesting in the next election to see if the national union considers supporting Bush for standing by us in our worst hour," Mr. Stock said.
The tariff decision resounded through the valley mill towns like an 11th-hour bugle call. A week earlier, a caravan of 30 buses had winded eastward as Local 1190's contribution to the steel industry's big rally in Washington that pleaded for tariffs. Steelworkers, retirees worried about their health and pension plans, plus wives, children and all eight local high school bands, were aboard.
Those steelworkers still at work say they are taking a deep breath of gratitude for the president's decision, but they emphasize that they are hardly out of the woods yet. Their fresh hopes — and budding new political stratagems — arrive after five years of economic fear in which Local 1190 has weathered two bankruptcies, three work stoppages and three pay cuts in the struggle to keep Wheeling-Pittsburgh alive.
"This is just the beginning of a long row to hoe," said John Casey, 50, a local vice president who has worked 29 years in the mills. "But you're starting to see a couple of smiles now, and we know it's in our hands to make the best of this."
One sober fact in the union hall was the workers' common acceptance of what they long thought was a management ploy — plant consolidation in the name of saving the industry.
"Consolidation is inevitable," Mr. Ravasio said, "and then there'll be a job squeeze and a new battle over which plants keep operating."
Union members say that far from instantly restoring workers to a more prosperous past, the tariff protection will mainly make the surviving mills more attractive to banks freeing up money for the task of consolidation.
The workers denied the contention that the rising cost of steel resulting from the tariffs might force cuts and layoffs in steel-using industries that more than offset the protection of steel laborers.
"I always heard every steelworker's job is worth five or so spinoff jobs in other industries," Mr. Casey said. "This should be a matter not of politics but of America first: we should take care of our own."
Staring at the Ohio River, Ken Aspenleiter, 56, the local's compensation chairman, took a long puff on his cigar outside the union hall as he assessed the effects of protectionism.
"It buys a little more time, another lift in the roller coaster," Mr. Aspenleiter said. "We've faced everything but liquidation, and the tension is still everywhere," he explained of the years of scrambling to keep the mills going.
"So, somebody takes care of you," the steelworker said of President Bush, "you take care of him." |
| Boedark | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 05:42 pm | |
| Hmm. No answer from Avy. Could Avarice be a poser? If so who - oh who - could Avy be? For that matter is VP (Vancypants) a poser? Inquiring minds ... |
| Davidtalker2 | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 10:04 pm | |
| Was this the lowpoint of the Bush Administration. Maybe. London Telegraph.
Mark Steyn: Sorry, Mr President, you've lost a fan
The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) | 03/10/2002 | Mark Steyn
ABOUT a month ago in these pages, I had cause to complain about the headline appended to my review of George W Bush's first year: "My, How You've Grown".
I pointed out that, as I've always regarded the President as a colossus who bestrides the planet, he could hardly grow any more in my eyes. Well, if the Executive Editor (Headlines) is short of inspiration this weekend, feel free to use my suggestion: My, How You've Shrunk.
Last Tuesday was the absolute low point of the Bush presidency. Even in the wobblier moments of September 11 and 12, he never said or did anything flat-out, stinking-to-high-heaven wrong. But last week he slapped tariffs of 30 per cent on imported steel.
Canada and Mexico are exempt, because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and so are selected developing countries, beneficiaries of the new Bush Doctrine of "compassionate protectionism".
But among those stiffed by the President are pretty much everybody with troops on the ground fighting alongside the 10th Mountain Division and the 101st Airborne in Afghanistan - fellows like Australia, whose Prime Minister, John Howard, summed up his country's support for the US better than anyone else in the days after September 11: "This is no time to be an 80 per cent ally." No, indeed. Bush to Howard: You're now a 30 per cent ally.
Presumably, the Administration figures it can afford to slough off the Aussies. But this decision also flips the finger at the only two allies who really matter, Britain and Russia. Steel is important to Moscow, and it may yet prove significant in whether or not Tony Blair can bring his party with him on Iraq. But to hell with Blair, it also stiffs me.
I look outside at the impressive fleet of luxury Sports Utility Vehicles and rugged trucks parked in my yard and start musing on the replacement costs. Bush's "protectionist" measures will apparently add about $1 billion annually to the cost of buying cars and trucks.
Not for me, for the whole country, but even so: every American should wander round the house and take a look at how much stuff has got steel in it; George W Bush has just made all those things more expensive, and their manufacturers less competitive.
Whoever he's "protecting", it isn't the American people: for every steel-producing job these tariffs save, they'll cost 10 jobs in the steel-consuming sector. So, if it's any consolation to my conservative chums in Britain, the •••••••'s not doing anything for Americans with this decision either.
I wouldn't mind what's effectively the introduction of a covert sales tax: there's a war on and we must all make sacrifices. The problem is that this particular sales tax undermines the war effort - or, at any rate, the moral basis for it.
In the autumn, with America fretting over the economic consequences of September 11, the President declared that the attack on New York was an attack on "free trade". "We will keep our country open," he insisted, "and our markets open for business."
Well said. A couple of years back, I found myself in conversation with, ahem, a senior member of the Royal Family who opined that it was just awful that Rolls-Royce had been swallowed by Volkswagen. I like being an oleaginous royal suck-up as much as the next guy, but this was too much.
I replied that one of the refreshing aspects of US capitalism was its open-mindedness: when Daimler takes over Chrysler - manufacturers of the Jeep - Americans don't go around whining about the loss of this powerful national symbol and why doesn't the government intervene.
If you can make it, ship it and sell it, the American market is yours for the taking. As the Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill said, barely a week ago: "Freer trade can help stimulate growth: it fuels competition, and innovation."
But it doesn't stop there. Giving the rest of the planet access to G7 markets is the best way not only to improve the living standards of the world's poor, but also to bring them within the purview of civilised (or anyway non-deranged) nations.
Lest anyone doubt the relevance of this, consider that 50 years ago Egypt and South Korea had more or less identical per capita incomes. Today, Egypt's is less than 20 per cent of South Korea's. This isn't the leftie's lamebrain poverty-breeds-resentment argument: the fact that Egypt is a fetid backwater is nobody's fault but the Egyptians'.
South Korea, on the other hand, has transformed itself, and is a significant exporter of cheap steel to grateful American manufacturers. So Bush has chosen to penalise the Koreans - to blame the chronic sickness of the US steel industry on the foreign steel industry.
Scapegoating breeds resentment, and so it should. Free trade is the mitigating circumstance of America's unprecedented global hegemony: it says, "Yes, we're a behemoth never before seen in the history of the world, but you can grab a piece of that. We're loaded, sell us something."
Take that away and what you're left with is perilously close to the global bully The Guardian and the Euroweenies drone on about. If you're a Saudi loser who'd rather hole up in Tora Bora than put in a decent day's work, we'll drop a Daisycutter on you. But, if you're a wiry little Korean slogging away in the factory all week, we'll still screw you over.
Most Presidents get to pick their priorities. After September 11, Bush had no choice in his. But, six months on, it's increasingly clear that, on the non-war fronts the Bush presidency has died. His much-vaunted education bill was gutted by Ted Kennedy of anything meaningful.
On "campaign finance reform" - a racket Bush once dismissed as "unconstitutional" - he seems to lack the will to resist. And last Tuesday he pulled off the remarkable feat of making Bill Clinton look principled. With hindsight, Clinton had two bedrock convictions: he believed oral sex didn't qualify as adultery and he believed in free trade.
Bush, by contrast, thinks a little bit of union featherbedding doesn't count as political adultery, and will swing enough votes among the Red Robbos of the Appalachians to make the difference. Don't bet on it. Protectionism breeds ingrates.
By November, some pandering West Virginia Democrat will be agitating for 40 per cent tariffs. In 2004, Bush will win or lose for reasons entirely unconnected with an irrelevant, dying industry.
But, in the meantime, some of us conservatives are wondering: if he weren't slaughtering Islamofascist nutters in the Hindu Kush, why exactly would we support this guy? The sooner the invasion of Iraq starts, the better. |
| Avarice | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 11:33 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>Do you want to know why Bush slapped those tariffs on imported steel? For the wrong reasons.
No kidding, wasn't this the same guy who gave us the infamous sound byte, "Not over my dead body..."? Indeed, the Bush family seems to be stricken with the proverbial "Read My Lips" syndrome.
Sorry, but I refuse to vote for pathological liars, and the last three Presidents make Tricky Dick look like a Saint. It is no wonder why most folks refuse to vote - the two major parties put political power over integrity and the third parties are a disorganized mess. |
| Avarice | Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 11:53 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>>Was this the lowpoint of the Bush Administration.
Yes, I started to believe your assertion on the radio that Tom Daschle was an economic ignoramus, compared to the President.
Now, one wants a 40% tax and the other wants a 30% tax. Both of them want to rape your wallet with exorbitant tariffs. What is the difference? A confiscatory tax like this one is unjust, no matter if it is at 30% or 40%! |
| Davidtalker2 | Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 02:36 am | |
| Actually Specter was a prosecutor. He was DA in Philly before becoming a Senator. He may have practiced in private practice but that was many moons ago. |
| Avarice | Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 02:22 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>>>Actually Specter was a prosecutor. He was DA in Philly before becoming a Senator. He may have practiced in private practice but that was many moons ago.
Are you on the right thread? I was talking about Arlen Specter's son, Shanin Specter, who happened to be the greediest trial lawyer in Philadelphia. It just happens to be a coincidence that the old man bucks his own party line on the issue of tort reform? Gee, it must be nice to have the fortunate son benefits of a U.S. Senator.
January 24-25 -- Philadelphia juries pummel doctors.
Southeastern Pennsylvania's medical community is still reeling from a $118 million jury award last fall against St. Luke's Hospital in Bethlehem and St. Christopher's Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. That topped verdicts of $55 million and $49.6 million in other malpractice cases within the same three-month span, the latter awarded to a client of Shanin Specter, one of the city's most successful personal-injury lawyers. Specter also won a $158 million product-liability case against Ford Motor in 1998, as well as huge verdicts in cases involving motorcycle helmets and swimming pools; he happens to be the son of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican who often breaks from his party on issues of litigation reform. (Karl Stark, "In Phila., malpractice awards have 'gone haywire'", Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 10; Hudson Sangree, "Jury Slams Ford with $153 Million Verdict for death of 3-year-old boy", Lawyers Weekly USA, Jan. 11, 1999, reprinted at Kline & Specter site).
http://overlawyered.com/archives/01/jan3.html#0124a |
| Davidtalker2 | Monday, March 11, 2002 - 06:07 pm | |
| This Washington Post column sums things up well. Not only about Bush but the GOP in general. Lot of talk and no walk.
Lots of Talk, Precious Little Walk
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, March 11, 2002; Page A21
George W. Bush was not supposed to be his father. A western conservative, not an eastern country-clubber. A domestic president, not some preppy diplomat. But the differences are fading. Terrorism has turned the younger Bush into a foreign-policy president. And the signs are that, in Afghanistan, he'll win the war and lose the peace because he won't commit the peacekeepers needed to rebuild the country -- just as father lacked the nerve to complete the Gulf War by toppling Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile on the domestic front, there's little sign of conservative pro-market principle. Bush has betrayed free trade by caving in to steel lobbyists, granting them protective tariffs that amount to a tax increase for the rest of us. He shows no sign of standing up to the farm subsidies being cooked up in Congress. And his energy policy is based on the assumption that markets are dumb.
Bill Clinton faced enormous pressure to impose steel tariffs. George Becker, the old steel union leader, looked him in the eye and growled, "Who the ---- gave you the right to take away our jobs." But Clinton stood up to him. Meanwhile, Bush has chosen protectionism plus ambitions for a government-brokered deal to reduce global steel capacity. His staff has numbers on how many furnaces should be closed in each steel-producing country. That is central planning on steroids.
Bush's steel tariffs are not just anti-market. They make no sense on their own terms. The business opening created by excluding foreign steel will barely help the old-line companies that are languishing in bankruptcy: The opportunities will be grabbed instead by the newer and more nimble mini-mills. If you doubt that, listen to the markets. The share price of Bethlehem Steel, one of the firms that was supposed to gain from Tuesday's tariff announcement, did no better than the Dow Jones Industrial Average last week. On Thursday Standard & Poor's, the credit-rating agency, declared that the outlook for the old-liners has not improved with the promise of tariffs.
Then there are the farm subsidies. As with trade, Bush says the right thing: Last year his agriculture department made the case against paying billions to middle-class farmers, who are no more deserving of government support than mechanics or hairdressers. But the president shows no sign of vetoing the monstrous package of subsidies that Congress is preparing -- a package that regards the $20 billion or so in annual production subsidies as merely the "baseline" and adds about $25 billion over five years.
As with steel sanctions, the farm subsidies make no sense on their own terms. They induce farmers to produce so much that prices fall and more subsidies are needed to keep farmers afloat. A free-market, small-government guy ought to be outraged by this. But Bush seems more intent on finding excuses to throw money at the countryside. He even told an audience of cattle ranchers recently that beef is a national security issue.
What about energy policy? Last year Bush proclaimed the need for a national energy plan. At the time, oil and gas prices were spiking, and California was mired in its electricity crisis. But a quick look at the futures market would have told Bush that the "crisis" would correct itself. Last year's high energy prices were drawing new supply into the market, and futures traders were anticipating that this would force prices down. Sure enough, prices have fallen. The whole market-doubting premise of the Bush plan turns out to have been wrong.
The plan's details weren't much better. Though the White House came up with some good measures -- notably ideas to reduce regulatory obstacles to building electricity transmission lines -- it proposed many big-government follies too. There were tax subsidies for clean coal, nuclear power, hybrid cars, solar panels and biomass, costing $10 billion over 10 years. When House Republicans tripled the president's proposed subsidies, the administration grinned gamely. Nobody seemed interested in the energy policy most economists favor -- a simple tax on carbon.
The point here is not that Bush is worse than other politicians; he is certainly more faithful to markets than the big spenders in Congress. The point is that Bush is not a whole lot better either. Despite some real free-marketers on his staff, and despite formidable approval ratings, he lacks the courage to stick up for economic principles when pollsters yell at him to duck. |
| Netgear | Monday, March 11, 2002 - 08:28 pm | |
| Can someone, who can actually be elected to office, ever be a whole lot better than other past Presidents? {Granted, President Bush is heads above that lying sack of stuff, Bill Clinton...} I mean it seems as though you must pass muster with the "Good Ol' Boy" network, before you'll ever get on the ballot. Sad, but this seems very apparent. |
| Avarice | Monday, March 11, 2002 - 10:13 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>>Can someone, who can actually be elected to office, ever be a whole lot better than other past Presidents? {Granted, President Bush is heads above that lying sack of stuff, Bill Clinton...} I mean it seems as though you must pass muster with the "Good Ol' Boy" network, before you'll ever get on the ballot. Sad, but this seems very apparent.
That was why I voted for Harry Browne a couple of years ago. Sure, he may sound like an anarchist crank from time to time, but anybody is better than Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dum. Call it a protest vote, or the lesser of three evils. |
| Davidtalker2 | Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 12:35 am | |
| I like Harry Browne very much. I agree with nearly all he has to say UNTIL foreign policy comes up. The LP loses all credibility when it comes to US involvement abroad and immigration issues. |
| Avarice | Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 10:38 pm | |
| >>>>>>>>>I like Harry Browne very much. I agree with nearly all he has to say UNTIL foreign policy comes up.
Although I agree with Harry Browne's thrifty plan to cut the military budget down to $25 billion, I cannot support his inane suggestion that the United States should not be blasting Islamic jihad countries in response to September 11. On the contrary, the U.S. military ought to be blasting (in relatively short order) at least five more countries that support Islamic jihad on the United States. The United States military has more than enough means at its disposal to blast these countries into oblivion. However, even President Bush doesn't have the guts to do it. That is why I have signed the following petition:
A Petition Demanding War Against Governments That Sponsor Terrorism
To: The President of the United States
We believe that the cause of the mass slaughter of Americans on September 11th is the American policy of the past fifty years of compromise, cowardice, and appeasement toward those who spit on and slaughter Americans. Terrorists, and the governments that support them, gleefully know that they can murder Americans, because America’s leaders care more about the "world opinion" at the United Nations, the "innocents" that despots use as human shields, and the mindless chanting of Ivy League hippies, than they care about the life, liberty, and happiness of Americans.
http://www.petitiononline.com/CAAT/petition.html
>>>>>>>>>>The LP loses all credibility when it comes to US involvement abroad and immigration issues.
I cannot understand why conservatives hate immigrants so much - they want freedom to trade but they despise freedom to travel. What is the difference? Each one is necessary for human survival, and we have a God given right to exercise these freedoms to the maximum extent possible. |
|
 |
