Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
And I reckon you have just about lost it...
hey, since you stated we won the war and are trying our best to win the peace, thought you would enjoy this...(My bold)
Army delays retirements for Iraq-bound troops
The announcement, an expansion of an Army program called “stop-loss,” means that thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will have to stay on for the duration of their deployment to those combat zones.
The expansion affects units that are 90 days away or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. “Buster” Hagenbeck, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders have the ability to make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances.
But otherwise, soldiers won’t be able to leave the service or transfer from their unit until they return to their home base after the deployment.
Objective: ‘Cohesive, trained units’
The move will allow the Army to keep units together as they deploy, Hagenbeck said. Units with new recruits or recently transferred soldiers would not perform as well because the troops would not have had time to work together.
“The rationale is to have cohesive, trained units going to war together,” Hagenbeck said.
Previously, the Army had prevented soldiers from leaving certain units scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq. But Wednesday’s move is the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, that the stop-loss program has been ordered so widely.
The announcement comes as the Army is struggling to find fresh units to continue the occupation of Iraq. Almost every Army combat unit has faced or will face deployment there or in Afghanistan, and increased violence has forced the deployment of an additional 20,000 troops to the region, straining units even further.
Some criticize the stop-loss program as contrary to the concept of an all-volunteer military force. Soldiers planning to retire and get on with their lives now face months away from their families and homes.
Vet calls move ‘shameful’
In an opinion piece in Wednesday’s New York Times, Andrew Exum, a former Army captain who served under Hagenbeck in the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment of soldiers under stop-loss programs “shameful.”
“Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he wrote. “They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq.”
Hagenbeck said the stop-loss move is necessary only because the Army is also undergoing a major reorganization that requires some units to be taken off-line while they are restructured.
Hagenbeck had no numbers on how many soldiers would be affected.
Without the program, an average division would have to replace 4,000 soldiers — perhaps one-quarter to one-fifth of its strength — before or during a deployment, according an Army press release.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5120982/
zitboy, please take your medicine.
(the proof is no attacks here since 9-11)
By your logic and proof that we are safer at home is because there has been no attacks here since 9/11 then you must agree Bill Clinton made us real safe during his 8 years as there were zero attacks here during his watch. But no, your right-wing bias beats on Clinton's terror record like a drum, blaming him for everything, everywhere.
one could easily say that yesterday was the greatest day in iraq's history
Good grief, take another pill, please. You are sooo starved for something positive to spin out of this fiasco that the mere installation of a puppet Iraqi oh-so quasi government has you hyperventilating. If it is substance you are trying to see through those rose-colored glasses of yours, you best quiet down and wait for the mission is far from accomplished.
Sometimes, zit, news is what it is, just news. If you desire your news 'spun', vist your local 'fair and balanced' Fox News
Yeah, F6, that also caught my attention. If that is the case, this imperial presidency has absolutely no clue about uniting, not dividing, let alone winning...but, of course, the blame will conveniently be passed to the liberal media from which all evil flows.
F6, good article. One very large reason we invaded Iraq was to install new military bases there while shifting/closing bases currently in Saudi Arabia as they were creating a huge problem for the House of Saud. Truth be told and contrary to the words of this administration, we have no intention of leaving Iraq for a long, long time.
Please tell us: If we plan to return Iraq to the Iraqis, why is the U.S. currently building fourteen permanent bases there?
zitboy, you are right when you say forget i ever said that you might have a little more between your ears as I have given you far too much intellectual credit and now realize F6 nailed your mental prowess (or lack thereof) long ago. I also understand your beating of the liberal 'bias' drum pales in comparison to your own bias and inability to consider anything outside your 'independent' beliefs.
I'll tell you what: when Bush and Cheney get back to me regarding their windfall and subsequent distribution I will report back to you. Until then, you again must be right; both Bush and Cheney have nothing but 'we the people's' best interests at heart and in particular with regard to Cheney, he is serving 'we the people' solely for the good of all America and neither his 'friends' nor himself will benefit one iota, now or in the future.
Is that better??
care to explain how?......how much will cheney pocket?......are gwb and cheney splitting that windfall?........is it more than cheney would have made had he not become veep?.......did they set up a swiss bank account?...........got a link?
Dooh Nibor Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 1, 2004
Last week The Washington Post got hold of an Office of Management and Budget memo that directed federal agencies to prepare for post-election cuts in programs that George Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. These include nutrition for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeland security. The numbers match those on a computer printout leaked earlier this year — one that administration officials claimed did not reflect policy.
Beyond the routine mendacity, the case of the leaked memo points us to a larger truth: whatever they may say in public, administration officials know that sustaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes.
It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election.
That agenda is to impose Dooh Nibor economics — Robin Hood in reverse. The end result of current policies will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent, in which about 80 percent of the population will lose and the bulk of the gains will go to people with incomes of more than $200,000 per year.
I can't back that assertion with official numbers, because under Mr. Bush the Treasury Department has stopped releasing information on the distribution of tax cuts by income level. Estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which now provides the numbers the administration doesn't want you to know, reveal why. This year, the average tax reduction per family due to Bush-era cuts was $1,448. But this average reflects huge cuts for a few affluent families, with most families receiving much less (which helps explain why most people, according to polls, don't believe their taxes have been cut). In fact, the 257,000 taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million received a bigger combined tax cut than the 85 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 60 percent of the population.
Still, won't most families gain something? No — because the tax cuts must eventually be offset with spending cuts.
Three years ago George Bush claimed that he was cutting taxes to return a budget surplus to the public. Instead, he presided over a move to huge deficits. As a result, the modest tax cuts received by the great majority of Americans are, in a fundamental sense, fraudulent. It's as if someone expected gratitude for giving you a gift, when he actually bought it using your credit card.
The administration has not, of course, explained how it intends to pay the bill. But unless taxes are increased again, the answer will have to be severe program cuts, which will fall mainly on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — because that's where the bulk of the money is.
For most families, the losses from these cuts will far outweigh any gain from lower taxes. My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that 80 percent of all families will end up worse off; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities will soon come out with a more careful, detailed analysis that arrives at a similar conclusion. And the only really big beneficiaries will be the wealthiest few percent of the population.
Does Mr. Bush understand that the end result of his policies will be to make most Americans worse off, while enriching the already affluent? Who knows? But the ideologues and political operatives behind his agenda know exactly what they're doing.
Of course, voters would never support this agenda if they understood it. That's why dishonesty — as illustrated by the administration's consistent reliance on phony accounting, and now by the business with the budget cut memo — is such a central feature of the White House political strategy.
Right now, it seems that the 2004 election will be a referendum on Mr. Bush's calamitous foreign policy. But something else is at stake: whether he and his party can lock in the unassailable political position they need to proceed with their pro-rich, anti-middle-class economic strategy. And no, I'm not engaging in class warfare. They are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/01KRUG.html
zitboy, one last comment. You said:
we won the war, and we are doing our very best to win the peace.......
Flawed thinking, sir, for if one side decides the war is not over...guess what, it ain't over, and I would think the mounting deaths and casualties provide ample evidence that 'mission accomplished' is far from that.
As far as your trite 'win the peace'; if this is our very best it is time for a new administration.
Rooster, isn't that one and the same???
Easy, we know you don't like Bush. But do you like "Bush"?
Novo....are YOU having fun yet???
I'm sure we've misunderstood My Dime's post...
he speaks of this administration enriching "themselves"...
ungrammatical as it is...don't ya think he meant ...those little people who make toys?
Makes about as much sense as the rest of his diatribe, no? ;)
Good post, bulldzr...Clinton was hounded over his financial affairs for 8 years and this imperial presidency makes Bill look like he had training wheels on. bass-ackwards, indeed.
that is the creed of this administration; enrich oneselve (themselves)
care to explain how?......please tell us how much gwb has made, on top of his presidential salary, as a result of being president?..........and cheney? if cheney was in it for the money, he never would have become vice president..........and if he is in it for the money, than he's just plain dumb.....by becoming vice president, and leaving haliburton, he probably left over $100 million on the table
the liberal logic is bass-ackword when it comes to the premise that they're in it for the money.......let me guess, y'all call fundraising, enriching oneself?
zitboy, you have got to be kidding me, right?? Your ‘logic’ is only exceeded by the blinders on your rose-colored glasses. Wow…
Clinton’s was hounded most of his 8 years by your right-wing attack dogs over his financial affairs which are a mere pittance compared to Cheney. How about the bath Halliburton’s shareholders took while he conveniently sold juuuuust prior to the ‘good news’ of huge asbestos litigation. Being vice president (in name only) should help ensure the squashing of any litigation Cheney and his 'friends'.
I’m sure the secret energy meetings that Cheney is willing to go to court over (remember the yet to be resolved Cheney vs. The United States...just love the sound of that, Cheney vs, The United States, which last time I checked was 'we the people', right??) were held with ‘our’ best interests at heart and the policy formulated didn't benefit his 'friends' who attended that secret meeting. But, of course, having a good friend on the Supreme Court derives no financial benefits whatsoever.
No, zitboy, Cheney is far from dumb and so is any open minded person (liberal sounds good to me) who can be truly objective, something you sorely lack. And, of course, Cheney will not benefit one iota from the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq.
Yeah, liberal logic is bass-ackword.
Interesting post, zitboy. You cut to the chase by citing your choice, abundance, for that is the creed of this administration; enrich oneselve (themselves) regardless of the cost to others. We have a president who is unable to ascertain (admit) a mistake while conducting the most divisive domestic and foreign policies in generations, all premised on the trodden backs of others.
You preach the words and support those in power whom mouth the same...but your words (and theirs) ring hollow. My opinion: Bush and his 'compassionate conservatives' are hypocrites and will be judged this November by America and one day in the future, by a far higher power. I do hope Bush is in 'good cheer' when he faces that dark moment November 2nd/3rd.
Well great, zitboy, we will bide our time before attacking 'yesterday'. Just wondering, though, where all these troops will come from...but hey, if the 'evidence of terrorist ties becomes overwhelming' like that in Iraq that led to our invasion then yesterday will certainly be the time.
I know you have been busy working on your back swing (one one-thousand, two one-thousand) so I doubt you had the opportunity this Memorial weekend to view the highly biased 60 Minutes show with 11 minutes of photos honoring each of the 800 Americans killed in Iraq so you and your family would be safer as you hone your golf skills for the upcoming senior tour and I know your desire to fight war, any war, on multiple fronts is only exceeded by how much you really, really, really love golf, and I also know 800 dead Americans pales in comparison to the tens of thousands who have given their lives in prior wars, and correct my if I am wrong (as I am sure you will) but your propensity for war (what a Christian quality) would certainly necessitate the drafting of young men such as your son of which I am certain you would have little problem if he was so called.
Now folks such as Data Rox, eddddie and you would cring at scary Kerry running the show so it seems only fitting that a draft with NO EXEMPTIONS is the only fair solution (and answer) to ensure our future safety (and the growth of freedom in Iraq:), adequate troop strength to eradicate any new home for al queda. I mean, we cannot win the war on Iraq with 135,000 troops and it does not take a rocket scientist to surmise Syria and Iran (please do not forget Bush's good friend, Saudi Arabia) are hosting terrorist activities and this is the next logical step if Bush is elected for the first time.
I am glad to hear your golf game is coming around and your highly prized autograph of Tiger (met Tiger and Butch several years ago at La Costa but since autographs are not my thing...) is worth $$$ and good to have you back!! I missed you!
the bottom line is if gwb was successful at being the self-proclaimed 'war-president' he touts himself to be the biased media would report that as such. In fact, if Afghanistan or Iraq, just one of them was something of a success gwb would stomp on Kerry no matter what the biased media said. Bush calls himself the war president and his reelection will be determined by the results of his own words.
as for hating gwb like no other president in american history, he has no one to blame but himself. Standing on the rubble of the world trade center with that bullhorn in his hand he had the support and backing of most the world. The fact he is where he is today is of his own choosing.
Do you teach your teenage son to blame everyone else when something he does turns out wrong??
zitBOY, question: Since I think even you would agree Iran and Syria harbor terrorists and likely camps, when should we attack these two countries??
Al-Qaeda terrorist numbers increase
Date: 26/05/04
By Barry Renfrew
(Note: my bolds)
Far from being crippled by the US-led war on terror, al-Qaeda has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks, a report said.
Al-Qaeda is probably working on plans for major attacks on the United States and Europe, and it may be seeking weapons of mass destruction in its desire to inflict as many casualties as possible, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said in its annual survey of world affairs.
Osama bin Laden's network appears to be operating in more than 60 nations, often in concert with local allies, the study by the independent think tank said.
Although about half of al-Qaeda's top 30 leaders have been killed or captured, it has an effective leadership, with bin Laden apparently still playing a key role, it said.
(My Dime: is this the same bin Laden wanted 'dead or alive'??)
"Al-Qaeda must be expected to keep trying to develop more promising plans for terrorist operations in North America and Europe, potentially involving weapons of mass destruction," IISS director Dr John Chipman told a news conference releasing "Strategic Survey 2003/4".
At the same time it was likely to continue attacking "soft targets encompassing Americans, Europeans and Israelis, and aiding the insurgency in Iraq," he added.
The report suggested that the two military centrepieces of the US-led war on terror - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - may have boosted al-Qaeda.
Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appeared to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the report said.
And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.
The US occupation of Iraq brought al-Qaeda recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters had infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they were cooperating with Iraqi insurgents, the survey said.
Efforts to defeat al-Qaeda would take time and might accelerate only if there were political developments that now seem elusive, such as the democratisation of Iraq and the resolution of conflict in Israel, it said.
It could take up to 500,000 US and allied troops to effectively police Iraq and restore political stability, IISS researcher Christopher Langton told the news conference.
Such a figure appeared impossible to meet, given political disquiet in the United States and Britain and the unwillingness of other nations to send troops, he said.
The United States is al-Qaeda's prime target in a war it sees as a death struggle between civilisations, the report said. An al-Qaeda leader has said four million Americans would have to be killed "as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory," the survey said.
"Al-Qaeda's complaints have been transformed into religious absolutes and cannot be satisfied through political compromise," the study said.
Copyright AAP 2004
http://seven.com.au/news/worldnews/84998
zitBOY: I see you are back in full bloom. So much for YOUR word though I placed little value on it prior to your crybaby proclamation this board was a waste of time. Since you obviously lost your coat check ticket, lets look at your continuing creaky stool logic.
Let's just say we are all as informed as you (thank God that's not the case) and for sake of argument al Queda and Saddam were cohorts. If that was the case, Bush has still conducted the most poorly thought out and executed war plan and occupation since the French (yeah, those French) tried in Algiers. Truth is, if this is Bush's central effort on 'the war on terror', he should be tossed from office for dereliction of duty, for this is a war we are losing and will continue to lose. Blame the media, blame the left, blame all the weak-kneed liberals and countries like Spain, blame everyone but Bush as this house of cards policy continues to bleed us. But, of course, your family and you sleep well knowing we are all safer.
Good to have you back!!
Hey zitBOY: Since you love to fight wars on multiple fronts, ignore this article.
The Price of Death
Figuring Out the Price of Death
May 30, 2004
My brother, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was killed in action in Baghdad last month. Before he left, he took out the maximum Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance: $250,000. His wife gets that money and a folded flag. It should come with note: "Thanks for doing business with Uncle Sam. The medals are on us." What I'm left with is a dead brother, a fatherless nephew and a giant void where this giant man once stood.
For a guy who never made a lot of money in his life--he was a front line soldier making $2500 a month--Sherwood paid the highest price in the war, while companies and individuals in the war business are reaping maximum profits. Bush has dumped $149 billion into this war. In what reservoir does the all this money rain? Certainly not the bank accounts of widows! Who is truly rewarded for their sacrifice? How about this: Halliburton has racked up billions in government contracts since the start of the war.
And then there's Ahmed Chalabi and the INC. His organization received $39 million in 'aid' along with a fat $340,000 a month stipend for the last 2 years.
Sherwood had it all wrong. Maybe if he had helped to invent evidence to start a war, the Bush people would have been more rewarding. He certainly would have been on track to a safer and more profitable career path.
What exactly is false information worth to Uncle Sam? So long as you don't become an Iranian spy, it seems, it keeps you in the Pentagon penthouse.
But that racket wouldn't suit Sherwood. He did what most patriotic Americans do-he worked for a living. He knew he would never be rich from his job, but he wanted to help people. He was a county caseworker for the mentally handicapped. To supplement his income, he hired himself out as a DJ at local bars and clubs. Sherwood wasn't enough of an entrepreneur to make it into Harvard Business School. So, when George Bush told him to go to work with his Guard Unit in Iraq, he went willingly.
Sherwood never did own a Hummer; he was a gunner on a Humvee. Today, he's not lying on the couch in his remolded living room with a Big Screen TV and surround sound, playing video games with his son. He's lying alone in his grave.
Sherwood worked until the very end--he died pulling perimeter security for the Iraqi Survey Group. This group has assumed the responsibility of finding those elusive weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--any WMD--with the high hopes of making an honest man out of the President.
Sherwood's death presents an amazing irony. Find WMD, Sherwood? No, brother, if you wanted to make money and be alive, you should have told everybody that they existed and you knew where to find them.
Just before he died, Sherwood plainly illustrated where a life of hard work and dedication gets you--hungry and thirsty in the desert. In his last e-mail, he asked that we send him and his fellow soldiers food and water. As it turns out, the most powerful military machine in the world has its soldiers on rations.
How does this happen? I went to Halliburton's website to look for clues. After a dispute with the government over a few million dollars in overcharges, Halliburton stubbornly stated, "We may withhold all or a portion of the payments to our subcontractors" who provide food services. Which basically means that U.S. soldiers in Iraq don't eat. Despite its newfound billions in revenue, Halliburton has failed to fulfill its most basic responsibility--feed our troops. Our soldiers, on the other hand, have to do their job, no matter how hungry they are, or face courts-martial and time in Leavenworth. Just ask Camilo Mejia, the conscientious objector who was sentenced to a year in jail.
I've come to believe that Sherwood died for everybody else. I've had countless people tell me my brother is a hero and died defending our freedom. They may be right. In a country that promotes the virtues of the Free Market, he died for the benefit of the war profiteers and for very little benefit to himself.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-essay.story
Hey not-so-fast eddie. Since you are so enamored with our economic boom (but still holding your metals, I'm sure) thought you would enjoy this article. I spoke with a high school friend yesterday who works for the Cleveland transit dept. and said he interviews people with 20 - 25 years experience that were laid off. He stated how depressing it was to hear their stories and said companies are still laying off hundreds of people. Dubya better hope Diebold comes through!!!
May 28, 2004
THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Economy Lagging in Key State
Ohio, home to 'ground zero for the election,' is struggling to reap the benefits of the recovery. President Bush's prospects could suffer.
By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The recovery might be lifting spirits in other parts of the country, but somebody forgot to spread the word in Ohio.
More than two years after the recession officially ended, the U.S. economy finally seems to be breaking President Bush's way. Job growth has accelerated rapidly in recent months, creating an economic tailwind behind his campaign.
Yet as the president tries to reap the political benefits of the strengthening national economy, he still has a problem in some places: Several of the swing states that could determine the outcome of the election are not participating fully in the revival.
"The recovery hasn't started in the state of Ohio; it really hasn't," said Dick Kelch, president of Ashton Plastic Products in Xenia, where his 30 employees are working 30-hour weeks until business gets better. "I don't know anybody that's expanding. I know guys that are cutting back again and again and again."
"Is the economy improving for us? Hell, no," said Susan Deister, a software project manager in Columbus who has changed jobs twice since her position at bankrupt WorldCom Inc. was eliminated in 2002.
Among the 17 states expected to be most closely contested this fall, four states — Florida, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico — have been thriving since Bush took office. But others are trailing the nation in economic growth and job creation. Four swing states — Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — are still considered to be in recession 2 1/2 years after the national recession officially ended.
Unemployment did fall in Michigan last month, and Bush took note of the improvement in the jobless picture in his Saturday radio address. "This week brought further evidence that across America, more citizens are finding jobs … and these figures show that America's jobs engine is running strong," Bush said.
Though Ohio's unemployment rate has fallen slightly in recent months, the state is still near the bottom of the economic heap. Though there are signs of life, they may be too little, and too late, to erase the gloom and frustration caused by the state's three-year slide, some analysts say.
"From an economic perspective, ground zero for the election is probably Columbus, Ohio," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at the research firm Economy.com in West Chester, Pa. "You draw a circle around Columbus with a 250-mile radius, and you've got a very critical swing area where the economy is lagging. In all likelihood it will still be lagging on election day."
Perhaps no state matters more in the electoral arithmetic of the presidential campaign than Ohio; some political analysts predict the election will be decided here. Ohio has picked the winner in 24 of the last 26 presidential elections, and no Republican has ever made it to the White House without the state's endorsement.
Bush has visited the state twice this month alone and has been here 17 times as president, including a trip to Youngstown on Tuesday to talk about healthcare. Though Ohio picked Bush over Al Gore four years ago, 50% to 46%, recent polls show Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts leading Bush slightly among likely voters in the state.
Political analysts expect the candidates to focus particular attention on Columbus and the rest of central Ohio, where independents far outnumber registered Republicans and Democrats and where political sentiment appears more evenly divided.
"The road to the White House goes through Ohio, and the road to Ohio goes through Columbus" said the city's Democratic mayor, Michael B. Coleman. He said Bush's base was in the state's conservative south, while Kerry was popular in the industrial north. Central Ohio "is where they'll be competing for that swing vote," Coleman said.
Most states were battered and bruised by the employment downturn that began shortly before Bush arrived in Washington. Ohio got clobbered.
The state lost 249,300 payroll positions during the first three years of Bush's presidency — roughly one of every 23 jobs. The losses were concentrated in Ohio's factories, which shed 171,100 jobs over that period.
Bush administration officials acknowledge the state's pain. "Ohio lost more than its fair share of jobs during our recent recession," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said Friday at Ohio Transmission & Pump Co. in Columbus. But administration officials say the hard times would have been even harder and lasted longer if not for the president's tax cuts.
On May 21, the state reported that Ohio employers added 4,300 jobs in April, part of a rebound that began in January. But the gains appear to be too incremental to convince many Ohioans the economy has turned the corner.
Last month, the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll showed that 59% of likely voters disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy, while 38% approved. A year earlier, the figures were almost reversed: 57% approved and 37% disapproved.
"That's his No. 1 vulnerability now in Ohio," said Ohio State University political scientist Herb Asher. "We still have too many companies that are announcing layoffs and places that are downsizing, shutting, moving. It doesn't seem like we're out of the woods."
Last year, Bush traveled to Canton to meet with employees at the headquarters of the Timken Co., a manufacturer of ball bearings. Standing before a red, white and blue banner reading "Jobs and Growth," he assured them the Timken family was working hard to make sure "the future of employment is bright for the families that work here."
Two weeks ago, Timken officials stunned the community by announcing plans to shut down the Canton ball bearing plant, eliminating 1,300 jobs, because they could not come to terms with the union representing workers there.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," said 48-year-old machinist Bill Wright, who has worked at the Canton plant for 29 years. "I'm too young to retire, but I'm a little bit too old to start a whole new career. It's all still sinking in."
The decision became instant campaign fodder for Kerry, who asked the president to intervene in the dispute.
In Columbus, one notable casualty of the recession was Buckeye Steel Co., a firm headed for 22 years by the president's great-grandfather, Samuel P. Bush.
More than 500 union workers lost their jobs making steel undercarriages for railroad cars after Buckeye declared bankruptcy in 2002. The foundry was acquired by a management group and reopened with a new, nonunion workforce. Most of the old workers were not offered jobs.
For some former Buckeye employees, the last two years have provided a harsh introduction to the new realities of the American workplace.
Steve Abraham, 42, was making $16 an hour running a tumble blast machine at the Buckeye plant. He now earns $11 an hour delivering windshields to body shops around Ohio. Two nights a week, he delivers pizza for pocket change.
"When I first got laid off, I was bound and determined I wasn't going to work for that kind of money, but it became pretty evident I didn't have a choice," Abraham said. "As far as good-paying industrial jobs, there's absolutely nothing."
Scott Abrams, a former Buckeye welder, tried to retool himself for the new economy. He participated in a 12-month retraining program and earned certifications in computer maintenance, networking, servers and operating systems. But after six months of searching, he hasn't found anyone interested in his new skills.
"Everybody I talked to about computers, they want experience," Abrams said. "There are so many other computer technicians that have lost their jobs."
Several temp agencies suggested he look for work again as a welder.
Don Wirth, who headed the local steelworkers union at Buckeye, went 10 months without work before landing a $12-an-hour job as a teller in the county treasurer's office, a $4 pay cut. His wife is disabled, and he said the family was struggling financially.
Before Buckeye's demise, Wirth sent a letter to the White House seeking federal assistance in securing loans to keep the company afloat. "I wrote to George Bush and reminded him about his great-grandfather and about the steel industry," he said. "I never got a response."
Some disgruntled workers were never in Bush's corner, and others remain loyal to the president despite their economic anxiety. Some Ohioans say it is unfair to blame Bush for the job losses, saying the forces that caused the slump were already in place before he took office, and that there was little he could have done to head them off.
Factory workers were not the only victims of the downturn. Computer programmers and other white-collar professionals were hard-hit too. Many of those jobs are not expected to come back, and that realization may prompt Republicans to consider voting for Kerry.
John Pardon, who left a software job in Dayton last year when the firm began outsourcing work to India, said he was witnessing the "radicalization" of Ohio tech workers.
"I can't tell you the number of guys who voted Republican and considered themselves conservatives who have lost all confidence that Bush is concerned about them," said Pardon, still unemployed. "Frankly, they sound like the guys down at the union halls."
Included in their ranks are Michael and Mary Kirschenbaum, who moved back to Ohio in October after Michael's programming job in Tennessee was eliminated by a company that began moving work to other countries. "We used to be Republicans, but we're voting for Kerry now," Mary Kirschenbaum said.
Not only did her husband lose his job, the couple lost $25,000 on the sale of their Tennessee house. "For a middle-class family, that's a lot of money," she said. "If this happens with every job move, we're going to end up under a bridge." Michael Kirschenbaum is working again, but the family is still angry about the move.
The national employment slump ended in September, when the U.S. job count registered the first of seven consecutive monthly increases that had restored 43% of the jobs lost up to that point.
Ohio didn't turn the corner until January. By April, employers had added 34,800 positions, restoring 14% of the state's lost jobs.
Statewide unemployment, which peaked at 6.3% last year, declined to 5.8% in April.
But that may not be enough to assuage an anxious public, analysts said.
"It takes more than just seeing the unemployment number going down," said University of Akron political scientist Rick Farmer. "People need to see help-wanted signs going up in the windows. They need to hear that the high school kid next door got a job at McDonald's. They need to see job opportunities starting to open up."
Though some employers say they are convinced the economy is on the mend, they remain reluctant to start hiring.
Business has been booming lately at Knape Industries, a Columbus machine parts maker that pared back from 16 to 12 workers during the downturn. Owner John Knape figures he could use one or two more people, but he's hesitating.
"We were looking at running an ad in the paper this last week, but didn't," Knape said. "I'm just cautious."
Jeff Davis, proprietor of the Cafe Brioso coffeehouse down the street from the state Capitol, said he sensed the change, too. Tips have been bigger, and people have started to buy his most expensive beans, Jamaican Blue Mountain, at $36.50 a pound. Last week he had his best sales day ever, taking in nearly $2,000.
If it keeps up, Davis said, he might add a part-time worker to his eight-person workforce. But not just yet. "Things are improving, but it's painfully slow," he said. "I feel uneasy trying to forecast too far into the future."
Some employers are hiring in Ohio. But the number of jobs being created has barely begun to exceed the number of jobs being eliminated.
Mark Swepston, president of Atlas Butler Heating & Cooling in Columbus, said his commercial work was growing rapidly, and he was hiring new technicians as fast as he could train them. Over the last year, he has expanded his workforce from 86 to 105.
"A lot of businesses have been doing very well. They're moving ahead with projects. There's a lot of pent-up demand," Swepston said. "We see people spending the money now."
Data Exchange, a California firm that contracts with other companies to fix computers and other devices, has opened a big repair facility in Columbus. Most of the 200 jobs will go to trained technicians.
"Quite honestly, the fact that the Columbus area is a little depressed is helpful to us," said Senior Vice President Alan Kheel in Camarillo. "It makes the real estate cheaper. It makes the labor cheaper. It's certainly a lot less than in California."
Others are still waiting for the recovery to show its face.
"They say the recession ended a couple of years ago," said Bob Juniper, owner of 3C Body Shop of Columbus.
"Not in Ohio."
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-ohio28may28,1,5812689.story
To Tell the Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 28, 2004
Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.
But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn't willing to report negative information about George Bush.
People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.
But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?
The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.
The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.
So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.
Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations.
And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters.
Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers.
The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?
A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent who believe that it has been too critical. More important, journalists seem to be acting on that belief.
Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.")
It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.
But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2...
zit...you just can't help yourself, can you?! Good to see you brought your creaky, three-legged stool back along with your lame logic and weak-minded rhetoric. Let's see now, you couldn't have your way and decided to take your ball (and creaky three-legged stool) and go home...telling rooster:
rooster and ej.........this board has become a complete waste of time, waste of mind
just wanted to let both of you know that i'm done-gone-bye!
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3105602
and then you 'pop' in to respond to your hero with:
ed.....they've got the america they want on this board now....no discussion, no discourse, no balance
What a joke you are; go home crying to moma you'll never play with the big boys again and then coming back to cry there is no discussion, no discourse, no balance. Talk about waste of mind...Grow up, zitBOY!!
The Wastrel Son
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 18, 2004
He was a stock character in 19th-century fiction: the wastrel son who runs up gambling debts in the belief that his wealthy family, concerned for its prestige, will have no choice but to pay off his creditors. In the novels such characters always come to a bad end. Either they bring ruin to their families, or they eventually find themselves disowned.
George Bush reminds me of those characters — and not just because of his early career, in which friends of the family repeatedly bailed out his failing business ventures. Now that he sits in the White House, he's still counting on other people to settle his debts — not to protect the reputation of his family, but to protect the reputation of the country.
One by one, our erstwhile allies are disowning us; they don't want an unstable, anti-Western Iraq any more than we do, but they have concluded that President Bush is incorrigible. Spain has washed its hands of our problems, Italy is edging toward the door, and Britain will join the rush for the exit soon enough, with or without Tony Blair.
At home, however, Mr. Bush's protectors are not yet ready to make the break.
Last week Mr. Bush asked Congress for yet more money for the "Iraq Freedom Fund" — $25 billion for starters, although Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, says that the bill for the full fiscal year will probably exceed $50 billion, and independent experts think even that is an underestimate. And you know what? He'll get it.
Before the war, officials refused to discuss costs, except to insist that they would be minimal. It was only after the shooting started, and Congress was in no position to balk, that the administration demanded $75 billion for the Iraq Freedom Fund.
Then, after declaring "mission accomplished" and pushing through a big tax cut — and after several months when administration officials played down the need for more funds — Mr. Bush told Congress that he needed an additional $87 billion. Assured that the situation in Iraq was steadily improving, and warned that American soldiers would suffer if the money wasn't forthcoming, Congress gave Mr. Bush another blank check.
Now Mr. Bush is back for more. Given this history, one might have expected him to show some contrition — to promise to change his ways and to offer at least a pretense that Congress would henceforth have some say in how money was spent.
But the tone of the cover letter Mr. Bush sent with last week's budget request can best be described as contemptuous: it's up to Congress to "ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need when they need them." This from an administration that, by rejecting warnings from military professionals, ensured that our men and women in uniform didn't have remotely enough resources to do the job.
The budget request itself was almost a caricature of the administration's "just trust us" approach to governing.
It ran to less than a page, with no supporting information. Of the $25 billion, $5 billion is purely a slush fund, to be used at the secretary of defense's discretion. The rest is allocated to specific branches of the military, but with the proviso that the administration can reallocate the money at will as long as it notifies the appropriate committees.
Senators are balking for the moment, but everyone knows that they'll give in, after demanding, at most, cosmetic changes. Once again, Mr. Bush has put Congress in a bind: it was his decision to put American forces in harm's way, but if members of Congress fail to give him the money he demands, he'll blame them for letting down the troops.
As long as political figures aren't willing to disown Mr. Bush's debt — the impossible situation in which he has placed America's soldiers — there isn't much they can do.
So how will it all end? The cries of "stay the course" are getting fainter, while the calls for a quick exit are growing. In other words, it seems increasingly likely that the nation will end up disowning Mr. Bush and his debts.
That will mean settling for an outcome in Iraq that, however we spin it, will look a lot like defeat — and the nation's prestige will be damaged by that outcome. But lost prestige is better than ruin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/opinion/18KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2...
What Prison Scandal?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON
Maybe anyone who was once married to Liz Taylor — at a time when she favored tiger-striped pantsuits and Clyde's chicken wings — would not flinch at wrangling with another aging sex symbol and demanding diva: Rummy.
Or maybe, at 77, Senator John Warner is at a stage in life where he can't be intimidated into putting a higher value on Republican re-election prospects than on what he sees as the common good.
In a bracing display of old-fashioned public spiritedness, the courtly Virginian joined up with the crusty Arizonan, John McCain, to brush back Rummy and the partisan whippersnappers in Congress who are yelping that the Senate Armed Services Committee's public hearings into prison abuse by American soldiers are distracting our warriors from taking care of business in Iraq.
"I think the Senate has become mesmerized by cameras, and I think that's sad," said a California Republican, Representative Duncan Hunter.
Then Senator John Cornyn of Texas weighed in, suggesting that Mr. Warner, a Navy officer in World War II, a Marine lieutenant in the Korean War and a Navy secretary under Nixon, and Mr. McCain, who lived in a dirt suite at the Hanoi Hilton for five years, were not patriotic. Their "collective hand-wringing," Mr. Cornyn sniffed, could be "a distraction from fighting and winning the war."
Rummy had a dozen Republican senators over to the Pentagon for breakfast on Tuesday, and Mr. Cornyn said the secretary was exasperated by the "all-consuming nature" of the Congressional hearings.
The man who David Plotz of Slate says is widely "considered one of the dumbest members of Congress" chimed in, dumbly. Following up on his inane rant defending the soldiers accused of abuse at Abu Ghraib and whingeing about "humanitarian do-gooders," Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma wondered whether Mr. Warner was trying to help the Democrats with public hearings.
The most absurd cut was delivered by Speaker Dennis Hastert, who responded to Mr. McCain's contention that Congress should not enact tax cuts during wartime because it prevented a sense of shared sacrifice by barking: "John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There is sacrifice in this country."
It just shows how completely flipped out the Republicans are about how the Iraq occupation is going that they are turning on a war hero and P.O.W., and on a man who enlisted in not one war, but two.
It's hard to believe that even if the generals weren't testifying here, they could do much to stop the spiral into anarchy there, with each day bringing some new horror.
Gen. John Abizaid told the panel that the hearing helped establish an image in the Arab world that Americans face up to their problems and handle them in the open. Certainly, he wasn't echoing the often Panglossian view of Donald Rumsfeld yesterday. He predicted that "the situation will become more violent" after the June 30 transfer of power and that he might then require more than the 135,000 troops now in Iraq.
Senator McCain, who has long advocated more troops, said that the Pentagon and its cheerleaders were silly to think they could throw a blanket over incendiary developments. "It's only a matter of time before the Pentagon's new disc of abuse pictures starts bouncing around the Internet," he said.
When I asked about Mr. Hastert's crack about visiting Walter Reed, the man whose temper used to be so close to the surface just laughed. "My," Mr. McCain murmured, "they certainly are angry. There has been some obvious resentment because of my `independence' for a long time."
He reiterated that he would never run with John Kerry. "I'm a loyal Republican," he said. "A lot of their resentment goes back to campaign finance reform."
I asked whether Mr. Warner, who helped Mr. McCain, as a shattered P.O.W., reorient to America after Vietnam, was a good example of the exemplars he writes about in his new meditation, "Why Courage Matters."
Agreeing that his colleague had shown strength, Mr. McCain concluded: "I believe from my experience that the only way you get one of these things behind you is to get everything out as quickly as possible."
Open and sharing Bushies. Now there's a novel concept.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/opinion/20DOWD.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2...
F6, I agree regarding Ohio. Having lived close to that area for 20 + years, Buckeye's smell the bs/lies from far away. As I told our dear Eddie who has been touting the 'great' economic numbers of late, Bush will be spending a lot of time in Ohio trying his best to carry the state but I do believe it will take a Diebold miracle to pull that one out. But, of course, Timken will come up with a 'solution' to keep the plant going...or should I say postpone any 'decision' until after 11/2. Actually, with Timken being such a fervent Bushie, I am surprised this discussion is occurring.
Had to repost this quote by our president, compliments of you!
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says 'fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. You fool me -- can't get fooled again.'"
George W. Bush, September 17, 2002, speaking in Nashville, Tennessee.
And your point is...???
Eleven out of a group of 19 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans pictured in Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign literature demanded on Monday that he stop misrepresenting them as supporters.
Bush is gonna lose Ohio this time around. Hear me, Eddie??
I see the hen house hasn't changed since we last corresponded. Just wondering, do all roosters have blinders on???
Lucky, good article. I agree with the writer that to 'sanitize' pictures such as the four Americans being mutilated, burned and hung from that bridge is really doing a disservice in educating 'all people' to the reality that surrounds 'all people' and the evil that is perpetuated by humans upon humans.
Likewise, I think it is a disservice to not show the pictures of Americans killed in action, coming home in flag draped coffins that truly shows one of the greatest costs to our country. And I think it is a disservice not to show the death and horror of the thousands of innocent Iraqi's killed by Americans as we bring 'freedom and democracy' to THEIR country. Fact is, I believe we Americans as well as the rest of the world should have unfettered access to as much information, pictures and video to truly ascertain the true ramifications of our government's policies and abilities to achieve their stated goals.
There were those on this board who clamored that the Berg video should be viewed by everyone...and I agree, but yet pictures of Americans in flag draped coffins were considered off limits and were only being shown to undermine this president and his war effort. Can't have it both ways, in my opinion.
Mr. Lucas also goes on to say:
Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on "diversity," we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.
It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest,the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.
Yes, we are a tolerant people as well as a diverse country, yet he questions our backbone and then states the smartest,the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions. Now I can only venture a guess as to Mr. Lucas' political leanings but, in my opinion, this 'war on muslim fanatics' has not been fought smartly and to equate backbone with blind committment is a specious arguement.
I am also sure Mr. Lucas was as committed to showing the pictures of American's abusing Iraqi prisoners. The truth is, in my opinion, if we are fighting a smart, well thought out plan to make us, and world in general safer, the vast majority of Americans (and the world) can handle any pictures that confront our senses and will exhibit far more backbone than Mr. Lucas could ever imagine.
After catching up on 300 + posts I have come to several conclusions. One is: Rooster, you are as dumb as a box of rocks. Have a good day!
OT: wrong board, WayHaw, but I thought bin Laden was wanted, "Dead or Alive"???
He got his man!
Zit, I know you are a tuff guy, tuffer than even the average Republican, ready to kick some azz whenever and wherever. But once again y'all take some repulsive act and then somehow infer this justifies policy.
I watched the video of Berg, twice, and could feel the hate boil within me for retribution against these 'people', but to take this event and equate/justify our occupation of Iraq and the need to kick some more butt is ludicrous. We face an evil foe, but we are a stronger country, one whom should have the moral high ground, with ample resources to defeat, or at the very least, neutralize... and I would also like to think our country is smarter than most if not all (though this is becoming more difficult to believe).
Bush made a comment after 9/11 that the war on terror would involve many aspects, most of which 'we the people' would not be aware of. Sadly, though I am sure this is partially the case, Bush CHOSE to invade Iraq as a centerpiece of his policy and I will say it again; this choice has seriously hurt our efforts on this war on terror. We can disagree until the cows come home but this invasion/occupation is costing us bigtime.
You can blame the Democrats and all the weak-kneed liberals you want, but in world opinion, the abuse of these prisoners harmed our efforts immeasurably. Remember, this 'war' on terror is a global effort so to ride cowboy around the world is of questionable value. While you blame the Democrats for all that is wrong with OUR country, your party has been hijacked by extremists believing bombs and invasion is the answer to remake the world in THEIR vision. I wasn't a big fan of Reagan but in the same situation I doubt he would have invaded Iraq.
By the way, in all your anger over the Berg tragedy and the Democrats hitting new lows, have you asked yourself once what happened to bin Laden, wanted Dead or Alive???
all the words, all the descriptions, pale to the reality.........i've got a tough gut, but immediately my stomach churned furiously after viewing the video..........every american who truly wants to understand what we're fighting against NEEDS to see this just once........and the comparisons made by democrats between this and the prison pictures proves that democrat politics has reached the lowest floor in this country's history
A Crude Shock
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 14, 2004
So far, the current world oil crunch doesn't look at all like the crises of 1973 or 1979. That's why it's so scary.
The oil crises of the 1970's began with big supply disruptions: the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war and the 1979 Iranian revolution. This time, despite the chaos in Iraq, nothing comparable has happened — yet. Nonetheless, because of rising demand that is led by soaring Chinese consumption, the world oil market is already stretched tight as a drum, and crude oil prices are $12 a barrel higher than they were a year ago. What if something really does go wrong?
Let me put it a bit differently: the last time oil prices were this high, on the eve of the 1991 gulf war, there was a lot of spare capacity in the world, so there was room to cope with a major supply disruption if it happened. This time there isn't.
The International Energy Agency estimates the world's spare oil production capacity at about 2.5 million barrels per day, almost all of it in the Persian Gulf region. It also predicts that global oil demand in 2004 will be, on average, 2 million barrels per day higher than in 2003. Now imagine what will happen if there are more successful insurgent attacks on Iraqi pipelines, or, perish the thought, instability in Saudi Arabia. In fact, even without a supply disruption, it's hard to see where the oil will come from to meet the growing demand.
But wait: basic economics says that markets deal handily with excesses of demand over supply. Prices rise, producers have an incentive to produce more while consumers have an incentive to consume less, and the market comes back into balance. Won't that happen with oil?
Yes, it will. The question is how long it will take, and how high prices will go in the meantime.
To see the problem, think about gasoline. Sustained high gasoline prices lead to more fuel-efficient cars: by 1990 the average American vehicle got 40 percent more miles per gallon than in 1973. But replacing old cars with new takes years. In their initial response to a shortfall in the gasoline supply, people must save gas by driving less, something they do only in the face of very, very high prices. So very, very high prices are what we'll get.
Increasing production capacity takes even longer than replacing old cars. Also, major new discoveries of oil have become increasingly rare (although in my last column on the subject, I forgot about two large fields in Kazakhstan, one discovered in 1979, the second in 2000).
Petroleum engineers continue to squeeze more oil out of known fields, but a repeat of the post-1973 experience, in which there was a big increase in non-OPEC production, seems unlikely.
So oil prices will stay high, and may go higher even in the absence of more bad news from the Middle East. And with more bad news, we'll be looking at a real crisis — one that could do a lot of economic damage. Each $10 per barrel increase in crude prices is like a $70 billion tax increase on American consumers, levied through inflation. The spurt in producer prices last month was a taste of what will happen if prices stay high. By the way, after the 1979 Iranian revolution world prices went to about $60 per barrel in today's prices.
Could an oil shock actually lead to 1970's-style stagflation — a combination of inflation and rising unemployment? Well, there are several comfort factors, reasons we're less vulnerable now than a generation ago. Despite the rise of the S.U.V., the U.S. consumes only about half as much oil per dollar of real G.D.P. as it did in 1973. Also, in the 1970's the economy was already primed for inflation: given the prevalence of cost-of-living adjustments in labor contracts and the experience of past inflation, oil price increases rapidly fed into a wage-price spiral. That's less likely to happen today.
Still, if there is a major supply disruption, the world will have to get by with less oil, and the only way that can happen in the short run is if there is a world economic slowdown. An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched.
It is, all in all, an awkward time to be pursuing a foreign policy that promises a radical transformation of the Middle East — let alone to be botching the job so completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/opinion/14KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2...
Good find, easy. Say what you will about Buchanan, on many issues he cuts to the chase and, in my opinion, is often right. I copied this article again to make sure our resident right wingers and so-called independent can't say they didn't see it even though I am sure they will take a pass on commenting.
Fallujah: High Tide of Empire?
by Pat Buchanan
At Versailles, 1919, Lloyd George, having seized oil-rich Iraq for the empire, offered Woodrow Wilson mandates over Armenia and Constantinople. “When you cease to be President we will make you Grand Turk,” laughed Clemenceau.
As there were “no oil fields there,” writes historian Thomas Bailey, “it was assumed that rich Uncle Sam would play the role of Good Samaritan.” Though unamused, Wilson accepted the mandates.
Fortunately, Harding won in 1920 and reneged on the deal. Lloyd George and Churchill were left to face the Turks all by their imperial selves. Had we accepted Constantinople, Americans would have ended up fighting Ataturk’s armies to hold today’s Istanbul.
After 9/11, however, our neoconservatives, who had been prattling on about “global hegemony” and a “crusade for democracy” since the end of the Cold War, sold President Bush on their imperial scheme: a MacArthur Regency in Baghdad.
And so it is that we have arrived at this crossroads.
What Fallujah and the Shi’ite uprisings are telling us is this: if we mean to make Iraq a pro-Western democracy, the price in blood and treasure has gone up. Shall we pay it is the question of the hour. For there are signs Americans today are no more willing to sacrifice for empire than was Harding to send his nation’s sons off to police and run provinces carved out of the Ottoman Empire.
In bringing Bush’s “world democratic revolution” to Iraq, we suffer today from four deficiencies: men, money, will, and stamina.
First, we do not have the troops in country to pacify Iraq. Some 70 percent of our combat units are committed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Korea already. If we are going to put more men into Iraq, U.S. military forces must expand.
Those who speak of democratizing Iraq as we did Germany tend to forget: in 1945, we had 12 million men under arms and four million soldiers in Europe. German resistance disappeared in 1945 with the death of Hitler. There was no guerrilla war against us. Today, our army is only 480,000 strong and scattered across 100 countries. And we have 129,000 troops in an Iraq that is as large as California and an escalating war against urban guerrillas.
Second, we are running out of money. The U.S. deficit is $500 billion and rising. The merchandise trade deficit is headed toward $600 billion, putting downward pressure on a dollar that has been falling for three years. Nations with declining currencies do not create empires, they give them up.
Then there is the deficit in imperial will. President Bush sold the war on Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was a man of unique evil who could not be trusted with a weapon of mass destruction. Today, whatever threat Saddam posed is gone.
While America supported the president in going to war, we have not bought into the idea that we must democratize the Islamic world or we are unsafe in our own country. Polls show that nearly half the nation believes we should start coming home.
Which brings us to our fourth deficiency, stamina. Empire requires an unshakeable belief in the superiority of one’s own race, religion, and civilization and an iron resolve to fight to impose that faith and civilization upon other peoples.
We are not that kind of people. Never have been. Americans, who preach the equality of all races, creeds, and cultures, are, de facto, poor imperialists. When we attempt an imperial role as in the Philippines or Iraq, we invariably fall into squabbling over whether a republic should be imposing its ideology on another nation. A crusade for democracy is a contradiction in terms.
While it would be nice if Brazil, Bangladesh, and Burundi all embraced democracy, why should we fight them if they don’t, and why should our soldiers die to restore democracy should they lose it? Why is that our problem, if they are not threatening us?
What Iraq demonstrates is that once the cost in blood starts to rise, Americans tend to tell their government that enough is enough, put the Wilsonian idealism back on the shelf, and let’s get out.
If attacked, Americans fight ferociously. Unwise nations discover that. Threatened, as in the Cold War, we will persevere. But if our vital interests are not threatened, or our honor is not impugned, most of us are for staying out of wars.
That is our history and oldest tradition. It may be ridiculed as selfish old American isolationism, but that is who we are and that is how we came to be the last world power left standing on the bloodstained world stage after the horrific 20th century.
Americans will cheer globaloney. They just won’t fight and die for it. Nor should they.
May 10, 2004 issue
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_05_10/buchanan.html
Hey, its like the comedy hour here. Love this one rooster
Your reaction proves that women only think with their emotions and not their head!
So, since you are a man (rooster), this must mean you think with your head. ROF God help us all.
Zit, one of your best posts....read it, had me laughing as I clicked forward only to come back to it...lol. If I remember right, way back then, I think for a short time coco puffs had in its box as a prize a mba from Harvard. Thanks, great way to start a Friday morning!! :)
.......so gwb requests to get out 6 months early, so he could move on to his destiny, becoming the only president with an mba from harvard.
Old News, zit, so you can skip this...
WEST CHESTER, Pa. - A U.S. diplomatic official in Iraq (news - web sites) told the family of slain American Nicholas Berg that he was being detained by the U.S. military when they lost contact with him for several days in early April, according to e-mails provided by the family Thursday.
U.S. government officials have said Berg, who was found dead last weekend in Baghdad, was detained by Iraqi police and was never in the custody of American forces.
He is believed to have been kidnapped within days of his release by either Iraqi police or coalition forces, and later beheaded by militants who videotaped the slaying.
To back its claims that Berg was in U.S. custody, the family showed The Associated Press an April 1 e-mail from Beth A. Payne, the U.S. consular officer in Iraq.
"I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly," the e-mail said.
In two e-mails later that day, Payne wrote that she was still trying to find a local contact for the family.
Berg's brother, David Berg, called on the government to come clean about its contacts with the slain American before he died. The family has blamed the government for keeping him in custody for too long while anti-American violence escalated in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_re_us/american_beheaded_f...
old news, because it's been reported that nick berg had opportunities to come home after that, and MADE HIS OWN DECISION(S) TO STAY
Iraq Prison Scandal Hits Home, But Most Reject Troop Pullout
76% Have Seen Prison Pictures; Bush Approval Slips
Released: May 12, 2004
Public satisfaction with national conditions has fallen to 33%, its lowest level in eight years, in the wake of revelations of prisoner abuse committed by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. President Bush's overall job approval rating also has dropped into negative territory: 44% approve of his job performance, while 48% disapprove.
The Iraq prison scandal has registered powerfully with the public fully 76% say they have seen pictures depicting mistreatment of Iraqis by U.S. soldiers. There also has been a sharp rise in the number of Americans who think the military effort in Iraq is going badly. For the first time, a majority of Americans (51%) say the war is not going well and the percentage saying the war was the right decision continues to inch downward. The survey was conducted before release of a videotape showing the decapitation of an American in Iraq.
For all that, however, public sentiment continues to run against an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. By 53%-42%, Americans favor keeping the troops there until a stable government is established. That number has changed little since early April, after four U.S. contractors were murdered and their bodies desecrated.
President Bush has lost some ground in the presidential race, though voter opinion remains closely divided. Sen. John Kerry holds a 50%-45% lead over Bush in a two-way race, and his lead narrows to 46%-43% when Ralph Nader is included. Most of the president's supporters say they consider their vote as a choice for the president. By contrast, Kerry's supporters by roughly two-to-one (32%-15%) view their vote as one against Bush.
But confidence in Bush relative to Kerry has eroded on major issues like Iraq and the economy. Bush holds a slight 44%-41% edge as the candidate better able to make wise decisions in Iraq policy; in late March, he held a 12-point advantage (49%-37%). At the same time, Kerry has opened up double-digit leads on both the economy and jobs. Kerry's advantage on the key domestic issue of health care is even larger. Currently, 51% say Kerry would be better able to improve the health care system, while just 29% say that about Bush.
The latest national survey of 1,800 Americans, conducted May 3-9 by the Pew Research Center, finds that finds that Bush retains a sizable advantage over Kerry on key personal qualities relating to leadership and judgment in a crisis. Yet roughly a quarter (26%) say their overall impression of Bush has gotten worse in recent weeks, compared to 16% who say that about Kerry. And perceptions of Bush as steadfast and determined are proving to be a double-edged sword for the president: by 65%-23%, the public views Bush, rather than Kerry, as willing to take a stand, even if unpopular. By an even wider margin (68%-12%), Americans say the word "stubborn" applies to Bush.
The survey also highlights clear weaknesses in Kerry's personal image. By 42%-30%, the public says the phrase "changes his mind too much" better describes the Massachusetts Democrat. That perception is reinforced in respondents' one-word descriptions of the candidates. In February, as Kerry was sweeping through the Democratic primaries, positive descriptions outnumbered negative ones by two-to-one. Today, just 23% use a positive word to describe Kerry, while 28% describe him negatively. Among the most frequently used negative terms to characterize Kerry are "liar," "dishonest" and "wishy-washy."
Voters continue to express relatively strong interest in the presidential race. About six-in-ten (59%) say they have thought "quite a lot" about the campaign, up from 48% at this stage in 2000. Nearly half of voters (45%) say they are hearing the right amount about the campaign. But people in swing states, who have been exposed to millions of dollars in political ads from the campaigns, are somewhat more likely than people in "red states" (predominantly Republican) or "blue states (predominantly Democrat) to say they have heard too much about the presidential race. However, voters in the battleground states are about as interested in the campaign as those elsewhere.
Sober Assessments of Iraq
News of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American military personnel, coupled with continued unrest and violence throughout the country, have combined to send public assessments about the war to their lowest levels yet. Just 46% believe the war is going well, the first time that less than a majority of Americans have felt that things in Iraq were going at least "fairly well."
Although a majority of the public (51%) continues to say that the U.S. made the right decision to use force in Iraq, this is the lowest level of confidence since the war began. The percentage believing the war was the wrong decision has now inched up to 42%, five points higher than it was just two weeks ago.
Views about the decision to go to war remain highly divided along partisan lines, with a 50-point gap separating the opinions of Republicans (80% of whom say the U.S. made the right decision) and Democrats (30%). A potentially ominous sign for President Bush is that the percentage of independents who think the U.S. was right to go to war has now dropped below 50% for the first time (48%).
Moreover, since January of this year, support for the decision has dropped dramatically among key swing constituencies: white Catholics (now 49%, down from 68%) and mainline Protestants (49%, down from 71%). But key elements of the president's base remain solidly behind the decision to go to war. Republicans (at 80%) have dropped only six points since January, and white evangelicals (at 68%) are down only four points since January.
Assessments of how the war is going also have a partisan cast. Far more Republicans (70%) than Democrats (32%) say the war is going at least fairly well. Those who say they are certain to vote for Bush in November are even more sanguine about the war (78% going well), while about the same number of Kerry voters (75%) take a negative view of progress in Iraq. Male veterans have a somewhat more negative assessment of the war than non-veterans.
No Increase in Support for Withdrawal
Despite the prison abuse scandal and the recent surge in violence in Iraq, a majority of the public (53%) continues to support keeping troops in Iraq until a stable government is established; 42% say the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible. As on other questions, there is a significant partisan division on this question, with 72% of Republicans in favor of remaining in Iraq compared with only 40% of Democrats. Voters who are not yet firmly committed to one candidate or another divide about like the nation overall: 54% of swing voters support keeping troops in Iraq, 39% support a pullout.
There is also a considerable gender gap on the question, with a solid majority of men (62%) in favoring of remaining in Iraq, while women favor pulling out by a margin of 49% to 45%. Blacks (at 68%) tilt strongly toward withdrawing the troops, and young people (at 52%) are more likely than older people to favor bringing the troops home as quickly as possible.
Compared with less educated respondents, highly educated Americans express the greatest reservations about the decision to go to war. Yet they also express the strongest support for maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq.
Those with a college degree divide evenly (48% each) on the question of whether the war was the right decision, but by about two-to-one (63% to 31%) believe that the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there. By contrast, people with a high school education generally support the decision to go to war, but are evenly divided on the question of staying in or pulling out.
Prison Abuse: Huge Exposure
Public exposure to reports of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners has been widespread; 58% say they have heard a lot about this matter and 34% have heard a little. Roughly three-quarters of Americans (76%) say they have seen some of the pictures on which reports of mistreatment are based. This compares with 55% who said they had seen the graphic photos or video of the attack on U.S. civilian contractors in Falluja in early April.
But Some Say Too Much
A narrow plurality of the public (39%) believes news organizations have provided the right amount of coverage of the prison abuse story. But more than twice as many people say there has been too much (36%) coverage of the scandal as say there has been too little coverage (17%).
Opinion about the coverage divides along partisan lines. Half of Republicans say there has been too much press attention to the matter, but just 26% of Democrats agree. Independents fall in between (36%). A majority of male military veterans (52%) say there has been too much coverage of the story, compared with 36% of men who are not veterans.
With the disturbing images from Iraq's prisons and continuing violence against coalition forces, some people have responded by becoming more emotionally involved in the news from Iraq while others have become less involved. In response to a question about how "people you know" are reacting to the news these days, 34% say their acquaintances have become more emotionally involved; 26% say people they know have become less involved; and 36% say they have seen no change.
About twice as many liberal Democrats as conservative Republicans say the people they know are more emotionally involved in the situation in Iraq (48% vs. 25%). Young people age 18-29 are most likely to say people they know are becoming less involved (39% say this, compared with 17% for people aged 65 and older).
Is Criticism of the War Patriotic?
Nearly half of Americans (49%) say that criticism of how the war is being handled is neither patriotic or unpatriotic, while the other half divides evenly on the question (22% say it is unpatriotic, 23% say it is patriotic). Not surprisingly, views about criticism are highly partisan and strongly related to views about the war itself, with 43% of conservative Republicans saying critics of the war are unpatriotic, while just 6% of liberal Democrats agree. Interestingly, more male veterans than non-veterans weigh in on either side of the patriotism debate, though there is no agreement on the issue: 27% of male veterans say such criticism is unpatriotic, while 31% view it as patriotic.
Those who say criticism of the handling of the war is either patriotic or unpatriotic were asked why they feel this way. Several themes run through comments by people who see criticism as unpatriotic. Many mention the need to support the troops, or the idea that criticism undermines their efforts. A typical comment was that criticism is wrong "because it's a smack in the face to those boys over there." Mentions of George W. Bush and the need to support the president in time of war were also very common. "I just think you should stand by what your president does. He wouldn't send our boys to war to fight for our freedom for no reason," said one respondent.
Those who said criticism is patriotic tended to stress the principle of freedom of speech. "Patriotism is your ability to disagree," said one respondent. Another said that criticism is patriotic "because this country is founded on the idea that you can express opinions which are unpopular." Many people said we need to hear the criticism in order to avoid costly mistakes. One person remarked that "knowing the truth will prevent another Vietnam."
Bush's Bad Weeks
The past few weeks have clearly been worse for Bush than for his Democratic opponent. His overall approval rating has softened a bit since late April. Moreover, about one-in-four Americans (26%) say their overall impression of the president has gotten worse over the past few weeks, while just 7% say their impression has improved. By comparison, impressions of John Kerry are mixed, with 16% saying he looks worse to them than he did a few weeks ago, and 12% saying he looks better.
The campaigns, for the most part, are reinforcing the impressions of those who have already made up their minds. Fully half of committed Kerry supporters say their impression of Bush has gotten worse in the past few weeks, and 37% of committed Bush supporters feel the same about Kerry. And while smaller minorities say their impressions of Bush and Kerry have improved recently, any improvement has come among committed backers. Somewhat fewer cite improvement in this area because many partisans say their impression couldn't get any better than it already is, and thus has stayed the same.
Bush Approval Declines Among Swing Voters
By comparison, the vast majority of uncommitted voters say their impressions of Bush and Kerry have remained unchanged, and there is no difference in this regard within the all-important battleground states, where campaign advertisements have been running heavily. Just one-in-five swing voters (21%) say their impression of Bush has changed, though the trend has been decidedly for the worse (18% vs. 3%). A similar minority says Kerry's image has changed, some for the worse (13%) and some for the better (9%).
Overall presidential job approval has slipped notably among these swing voters over the past few months. In February, twice as many swing voters approved as disapproved of the president's overall job performance (by a 55% to 28% margin). Today, approval has slipped to 44%, and disapproval has grown to 38% among voters who are not committed to either candidate.
Divided Views of Bush
The current poll reflects unprecedented levels of partisanship with respect to evaluations of the president's performance. As has been the case since Bush first took office, Republicans are solidly behind him, with 85% approving and just 11% disapproving of the job he is doing. But for the first time, Democrats are nearly as unified in opposition to Bush. Just 13% of Democrats approve of the president's job performance, while 79% disapprove. Prior to this year, Democratic approval of Bush had never dipped below 23%.
Equally important, recent surveys have found Bush's job approval among independents to be at an all-time low. In the current survey, as well as three other surveys conducted in late March and April, more independents disapprove of the president's performance in office (49% currently) than approve (40%).
Terrorism Still Bush's Strength
Most voters continue to favor Bush over Kerry when it comes to defending the country from future terrorism (52% Bush/33% Kerry). But that is the only policy issue on which the president holds a clear advantage over his Democratic opponent.
Republicans overwhelmingly back Bush on defending the U.S. against terrorism (and Democrats favor Kerry), while swing voters also line up squarely behind the president on this issue. By more than four-to-one (60%-14%), swing voters say Bush is better able than Kerry to handle the threat of terrorism.
On most other issues, however, the president has lost ground to Kerry since late March. The two men are in a virtual tie over who would be batter able to handle Iraq and foreign policy generally. In late March, swing voters by more than two-to-one (45%-21%) opted for Bush over Kerry as the candidate who could make wise decisions on Iraq. But the margin has narrowed considerably currently, 41% of swing voters say Bush could do better on Iraq, while 32% say Kerry.
Kerry also has a substantial advantage with respect to who is better able to improve the health care system and education. Roughly half (51%) say Kerry could better handle health care; just 29% say Bush. And Kerry holds a substantial advantage in improving education (50%-35%). In the presidential campaign four years ago, Bush ran close to former Vice President Al Gore on education, helping to neutralize what had been a Democratic issue.
Personal Qualities: Two Sides of Bush
Voters continue to view Bush as a strong leader and possessing good judgment in a crisis. Roughly half of voters say these descriptions apply to Bush; only about a third say they better describe Kerry. Bush holds a significant advantage on these personal qualities among swing voters. More than half of swing voters (54%) view Bush as a strong leader; just 14% say that phrase better describes Kerry. Similarly, by four-to-one (53%-13%) swing voters view Bush, not Kerry, as using good judgment in a crisis.
Bush also is generally viewed as "willing to take a stand, even if unpopular." However, fully two-thirds of voters (68%) also say the description "stubborn" better applies to Bush rather than Kerry. To a degree, these perceptions of Bush both positive and negative cut across party lines. A substantial minority of Democratic voters (41%) look at Bush as being willing to take an unpopular stand; roughly the same number of Democrats say that describes Kerry (44%). A solid majority of Republicans (57%) believes the term stubborn applies to Bush; just 20% say it better describes Kerry.
Kerry's primary attribute is that he is seen as caring "about people like me." A 45% plurality says that phrase better describes Kerry; 34% think it better describes Bush. While partisans divide in predictable fashion over who this phrase better describes, swing voters say it better characterizes Kerry by 37%-21%.
A substantial plurality of voters (42%) think the phrase "changes his mind too much" better describes Kerry; just 30% say it applies to Bush. There is a significant gender gap in these perceptions, especially among voters under age 50. Among men in this group, 48% believe Kerry changes his mind too much, while 34% say that about Bush. However, women voters under age 50 are split (32% Kerry/32% Bush).
Race Moves in a Narrow Range
Voting intentions remain closely divided, with registered voters favoring Kerry over Bush by a slim 50% to 45% margin. Preferences on both sides continue to be shaped predominantly by voters' views of President Bush.
Nearly two-thirds of Kerry supporters (64%) describe their choice as more of a vote against George W. Bush than as a vote for John Kerry. There is little to suggest that affirmative support for Kerry is increasing. At the close of the Democratic primaries in March, 40% of Kerry voters expressed their support in positive terms, but this has declined to 30% today. Bush backers overwhelmingly describe their preference as a vote for the president, not against Kerry, by a 74% to 21% margin.
While the overall horserace has remained close since February, more voters are making up their minds, though Election Day is still more than five months away. In February, nearly three-in-ten voters (29%) were either undecided, only leaned toward one of the candidates, or supported a candidate but said they might still change their minds.
Today, just 22% of voters fall into these categories. Consequently, the proportion of voters who say they have already made up and will not change their minds has increased from 71% in February to 78% today. Both Kerry and Bush have gained committed supporters at roughly the same rate over this time period.
This level of commitment is no lower in the key battleground states in which both campaigns have been particularly active. As many voters in "swing" states have already made up their minds about who to support as is the case in "red" or "blue" states, though they are more evenly divided between the two candidates. Currently, 24% of voters in battleground states have not committed their support to a candidate (compared with 22% overall).
One-word Descriptions
The descriptions respondents use to describe Bush and Kerry have changed substantially over the past three months.
Compared with a February survey conducted at the peak of the Democratic primary cycle, far fewer today can even come up with one word to describe Kerry. And among those who can describe him, there has been a decidedly negative shift in the terms being used.
In February, twice as many said something favorable about Kerry as unfavorable (38% vs. 19%). Since that time, positive remarks have declined, and negative remarks have increased and today Kerry receives roughly the same amount of both (23% positive and 28% negative).
The most frequently used words to describe the Democratic nominee are the lukewarm terms "good," "hopeful," "okay," and "better than Bush." The top negative term applied to Kerry is "liar," and is mentioned far more often than it was three months ago. Perhaps more directly showing the impact of the campaign on the candidates image, a number of respondents described Kerry as "indecisive" "wishy-washy" "undecided" and "uncertain," terms that went virtually unmentioned three months ago.
But no single word has come to dominate the public's perception of John Kerry as "boring" did with Al Gore four years ago. Across multiple surveys during the early election season, this word was associated with the former vice president more than any other, often by large margins.
While the balance of positive and negative responses about George W. Bush have remained largely the same, the negative terms Bush's critics use to describe the president negatively have shifted. Three months ago, "liar" was the most often used negative word used to describe the president, mentioned twice as often as terms like "incompetent" or "stupid."
Today, the order of these phrases has reversed, with "incompetent" most frequently mentioned by Bush's critics, far more often than references to the president's dishonesty. One criticism of the president that has remained consistently high over the past year is "arrogance," which has been the first or second most used word by Bush opponents in three consecutive surveys.
Bush's supporters continue to describe the president as "honest," "leader," "strong,"and cite his "integrity." Mentions of Bush's faith also arise frequently: many of his supporters describe Bush as "Christian."
Who Will Win?
By 52%-31%, more voters believe Bush will win reelection in November than predict a Kerry victory. This is largely unchanged from February, when 56% predicted that Bush would win, and 32% said Kerry would.
Democrats are no more optimistic, or dispirited, about their party's chances than they were during the primary season. While Republicans overwhelmingly predict a Bush victory (78% vs. 9% who think Kerry will win), Democrats are more divided, with half choosing Kerry, and 34% Bush as the likely victor. While they may not have made up their minds yet themselves, more swing voters expect a Bush victory than a Kerry victory by a margin of two-to-one (52% to 25%).
Earnings Satisfaction Up, Especially Among Republicans
While news from Iraq has generally been bad, working Americans are expressing somewhat more satisfaction with the lifestyles they can afford than has been the case over most of the past decade. Asked whether they earn enough to lead the kind of life they want, 51% of employed respondents say yes, 48% say no. This is comparable to a February survey where 53% of working Americans expressed financial satisfaction, but is significantly higher than any previous survey conducted in the past ten years. From 1994 through 2002, roughly 41% to 44% said they earned enough to live the kind of life they wanted, with very few exceptions.
There is little to suggest that this increase in personal financial satisfaction is related to employment rates while unemployment figures have fluctuated over this time period, the fluctuations are not what is underlying this apparent increase in the proportion of workers who earn a comfortable wage.
But there is a significant, and relatively new, partisan component to this viewpoint. While throughout the trend, employed Republicans have typically expressed somewhat more satisfaction with their earnings than employed Democrats, this mostly reflects the fact that Republicans, on average, earn more. But the gap between Republican and Democratic earnings satisfaction has exploded in recent surveys, suggesting that political attitudes are becoming more associated with more personal, quality-of-life evaluations.
Today, 68% of employed Republicans say they earn enough to lead the kind of life they want, compared with just 46% of employed Democrats. Since January of 2001, this reflects a 21-point increase among Republicans (from 47%) by far the most sizeable shift in this attitude ever measured.
Democrats, too, are feeling a bit better today than in 2001 (46%, up from 39%), but the gap between Democratic and Republican earnings satisfaction is greater than it has ever been previously.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=213
Good question, Raymond. A step in the right direction would be a new president come November.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration’s next request for financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will push next year’s total beyond $50 billion, a top Pentagon official told Congress on Thursday.
The remark by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz put a partial price tag on operations in both countries for the budget year that begins next Oct. 1. The administration has long insisted it will not be able to accurately estimate those costs for many months because of uncertainties over conditions in Iraq and possible contributions by allies.
President Bush had formally sought an initial $25 billion for next year’s military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday. Administration officials notified congressional leaders about the request a week earlier, abruptly reversing earlier declarations that they would not seek the money until after the November elections.
On Thursday, Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration’s second request for funds will come early next year.
“It will surely be much larger than $25 billion,” he said.
That would bring the total requested so far for next year to over $50 billion. Many lawmakers of both parties have said they believe even that figure will ultimately prove short by many billions of dollars.
Bush’s initial request for $25 billion would give him nearly unfettered control over details of how the money would be spent, which drew fire from senators.
Approval considered certain
Though Congress is considered certain to provide the money he wants, it is uncertain whether it will grant him such leeway in dispensing it. Democrats and some Republicans, rankled by reports that the administration used earlier funds for Iraq war preparations without telling them, are leery of providing him with unlimited flexibility in spending the money.
“This is not responsible because it’s just a blank check for $25 billion,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the committee. “So in terms of balance with Congress, there’s no balance here.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he was troubled by a request “that basically outlines some priorities and that states it can be used for any fund.”
Wolfowitz defended the administration’s request for flexibility.
“We’re not looking for a blank check,” he said. “We are looking for the kind of flexibility that will make sure that when a need arises, we can allocate funds to where that need exists.”
According to the lower request, the $25 billion would be placed in a fund under Bush’s control. He could decide how the money would be spent, as long as he informed Congress that his request was “an emergency and essential to support activities and agencies in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
“This reserve fund will ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need when they need them,” Bush wrote in a brief request barely longer than three pages.
Most money is for Army
The documents said the largest portion of the funds — up to $14 billion — may be used for Army operations and maintenance, which includes items like fuel purchases and equipment repair. As much as $6 billion could be for Navy, Marines, Air Force and Defense Department-wide operations and maintenance, and up to $5 billion would be for classified and other programs.
But the request says the Defense Department could transfer any of the $25 billion “to any fund” of the department or to classified programs, as long as the administration notifies Congress five days in advance.
The $25 billion is just a first installment in paying for U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, and it excludes any additional costs for rebuilding the two countries. Some lawmakers have said they expect the final amount to reach $75 billion for the Pentagon alone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970228/