- Customer Reviews
- Most Read Articles
- The Bush agenda : invading the world, one economy at a time
- The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair
What is Juhasz's stated reason for this life long eschewing of the automobile? One has to wonder if Juhasz was frightened by a car backfire in her cradle. I guess Juhasz's abhorrence of lining the pockets of oil company ceo's only extends to paying at the pump as she isn't as persnickety when it comes to flying to all her public speaking engagements around the country. Juhasz is a member of International Forum on Globalization and Oil Change International whose ideology and purpose is conveyed in this synopsis: "We focus on the oil industry because we understand and view the oil industry as a source of global warming, human rights abuses, war, national security concerns, corporate globalization, poverty, and addiction.
We also see their interests behind every major political barrier to a clean energy transition. Juhasz has distilled all historical and current complex geopolitical issues and events down to three grimy letters: oil. She is the Freud of the anti-industrial revolution set. Even though both are not mutually exclusive, Juhasz substitutes oil for sex as the motivation for all human endeavor.
Let's examine Juhasz's rational for Bush's continued secret ulterior motives for remaining in Iraq. The first, put into motion with the December 15, , election, is the formation a legitimate Iraqi government with the authority to, among other things, sign contracts with foreign oil companies. The second step is the completion and passage of a new national oil law that is set to conclude at the start of The third, having enough security on the ground for U. If securing the all the oil producing fields, as well as Baghdad, was the intended goal after taking out Saddam, why didn't Bush accept Gen.
Shinseki's estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq? Surely Juhasz isn't advocating Iraq oil only for Iraqis? It would seem antithetical to Juhasez's extremist views on petroleum; that any country's petroleum should be taken out of the ground, refined, and used to power evil machines belching toxic fumes. What is Juhasz's position on nuclear energy? Never mind. I'm sure there are dastardly robber barons who also enjoy a monopoly over the power of the atom.
But how would Antonia achieve martyr status if she merely eschewed atomic submarines and nuclear powered aircraft carriers as modes of transportation?
- The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush;
- Legends of Volystica: The High-Chieftains Amulet (The Necromancer Trilogy Book 1).
- Cold Light: (Resnick 6) (Charlie Resnick series);
- Harpsichord Pieces, Book 4, Suite 22, No.7: Menuets croises 1. 1e Meneut 2. 2e meneut.
- Antonia Juhasz on The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.
- Ghosts and Other Really Big Surprises.
- Sachin Tendulkar: Master Blaster.
Important Message. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April , and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit.
Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run. But the Bush administration had its own ideas.
The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in , this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. The administration crows that the economy grew—by some 16 percent—during its first six years, but the growth helped mainly people who had no need of any help, and failed to help those who need plenty. A rising tide lifted all yachts.
Most Read Articles
Inequality is now widening in America, and at a rate not seen in three-quarters of a century. A young male in his 30s today has an income, adjusted for inflation, that is 12 percent less than what his father was making 30 years ago. Some 5.
- Death of Kings: No 2 (Nick Revill)!
- The Honky Tonk Big Hoss Boogie.
- Oct. 11-17.
- The Bush Agenda : Invading the World, One Economy at a Time?
- The War Controversy: In Search of Theoretical Explanations;
A budget surplus of 2. Agricultural subsidies were doubled between and Tax expenditures—the vast system of subsidies and preferences hidden in the tax code—increased more than a quarter. In a nutshell, money was being spent everyplace except where it was needed.
The Bush agenda : invading the world, one economy at a time
During these past seven years the percentage of G. Little has been done about our decaying infrastructure—be it levees in New Orleans or bridges in Minneapolis. Coping with most of the damage will fall to the next occupant of the White House. Although it railed against entitlement programs for the needy, the administration enacted the largest increase in entitlements in four decades—the poorly designed Medicare prescription-drug benefit, intended as both an election-season bribe and a sop to the pharmaceutical industry.
As internal documents later revealed, the true cost of the measure was hidden from Congress. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies received special favors. The law also prohibited the U. As a result, American consumers pay far more for medications than people elsewhere in the developed world. The bang for the buck—the amount of stimulus per dollar of deficit—was astonishingly low. Therefore, the job of economic stimulation fell to the Federal Reserve Board, which stepped on the accelerator in a historically unprecedented way, driving interest rates down to 1 percent.
- Pinocchio - Texte abrégé (Classique t. 97) (French Edition).
- Original Articles?
- Obras de Álvares de Azevedo (Portuguese Edition)?
- Le Théâtre français à létranger au XIXe siècle: Histoire dune suprématie culturelle (French Edition).
In real terms, taking inflation into account, interest rates actually dropped to negative 2 percent. The predictable result was a consumer spending spree. Credit was shoveled out the door, and subprime mortgages were made available to anyone this side of life support. All of this spending made the economy look better for a while; the president could and did boast about the economic statistics.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair
But the consequences for many families would become apparent within a few years, when interest rates rose and mortgages proved impossible to repay. The president undoubtedly hoped the reckoning would come sometime after It arrived 18 months early. As many as 1. For many, this will mean the beginning of a downward spiral into poverty. Between March and March personal-bankruptcy rates soared more than 60 percent.
The war in Iraq along with, to a lesser extent, the war in Afghanistan has cost the country dearly in blood and treasure.
source site The loss in lives can never be quantified. Today, government figures officially acknowledge that more than half a trillion dollars total has been spent by the U. They do not include the lifetime of disability and health-care benefits that will be required by tens of thousands of wounded veterans, as many as 20 percent of whom have suffered devastating brain and spinal injuries. Astonishingly, they do not include much of the cost of the equipment that has been used in the war, and that will have to be replaced.
If you also take into account the costs to the economy from higher oil prices and the knock-on effects of the war—for instance, the depressing domino effect that war-fueled uncertainty has on investment, and the difficulties U. To which one needs to add these words: so far. It is natural to wonder, What would this money have bought if we had spent it on other things?
The president made a big deal out of the financial problems facing Social Security, but the system could have been repaired for a century with what we have bled into the sands of Iraq. The soaring price of oil is clearly related to the Iraq war. The issue is not whether to blame the war for this but simply how much to blame it. In retrospect, the only big winners from the war have been the oil companies, the defense contractors, and al-Qaeda.
Market players expected to see more demand from China and India, sure, but they also anticipated that this greater demand would be met mostly by increased production in the Middle East. The war upset that calculation, not so much by curtailing oil production in Iraq, which it did, but rather by heightening the sense of insecurity everywhere in the region, suppressing future investment. Leave aside the environmental reasons for weaning the world from hydrocarbons—the president has never convincingly embraced them, anyway.
The economic and national-security arguments ought to have been powerful enough. During the past six years, America—its government, its families, the country as a whole—has been borrowing to sustain its consumption. Meanwhile, investment in fixed assets—the plants and equipment that help increase our wealth—has been declining.
The American economy can take a lot of abuse, but no economy is invincible, and our vulnerabilities are plain for all to see. As confidence in the American economy has plummeted, so has the value of the dollar—by 40 percent against the euro since The disarray in our economic policies at home has parallels in our economic policies abroad.
President Bush blamed the Chinese for our huge trade deficit, but an increase in the value of the yuan, which he has pushed, would simply make us buy more textiles and apparel from Bangladesh and Cambodia instead of China; our deficit would remain unchanged. The president claimed to believe in free trade but instituted measures aimed at protecting the American steel industry.
The United States pushed hard for a series of bilateral trade agreements and bullied smaller countries into accepting all sorts of bitter conditions, such as extending patent protection on drugs that were desperately needed to fight aids. We pressed for open markets around the world but prevented China from buying Unocal, a small American oil company, most of whose assets lie outside the United States.