NationStates Jolt Archive

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal on Saturday, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.

Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the U.S. president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.

That he is.

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal on Saturday, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.

Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the U.S. president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.
Amen Joerg!

Austria, Austria. Nope, can't think of anything of interest to come out of austria lately except for arnold, and he moved to the US.

Austria, Austria. Nope, can't think of anything of interest to come out of austria lately except for arnold, and he moved to the US.
What is the relevance of this comment?

It's OK, the American media doesn't report much beyond your borders so it's all you know. After all, America has a greater population and thus Americans are superior.

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal...

Haha, a Nazi calling a Fascist bad. Hilarious.

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal
Well, I guess right-wing Austrian politicians would know all about facist war criminals now, wouldn't they?

What is the relevance of this comment?

It's OK, the American media doesn't report much beyond your borders so it's all you know. After all, America has a greater population and thus Americans are superior.

being a European meself, maybe i can shed some light. the US arent very popular in europe becuase they ovverided all of the rest of the worlds wishes for them NOT to go to war on iraq and pollute the hell out of the planet, the effects of which are felt not in America but in costal reigions of europe. the only european country that supported the way was britain, and i must say that it was only Blair that supported it. we common brits hated the decision (well most of us) even resorting to the time honored brit tradition of rioting in the streets.

The Austrian government are douchebags. They are the most right-wing authoritarian government in Europe since the death of Generalissimo Franco. This is no doubt some flagrant attempt at populism by whoever said this.

Pfhhh, Austrians. They're just Germans who think they're not Germans.

Pfhhh, Austrians. They're just Germans who think they're not Germans.

Brilliant socio-political insight there.

The Austrian government are douchebags. They are the most right-wing authoritarian government in Europe since the death of Generalissimo Franco. This is no doubt some flagrant attempt at populism by whoever said this.
Probably. Supporting the Iraq war almost anywhere in Europe is political suicide.

Pfhhh, Austrians. They're just Germans who think they're not Germans.
Ein Volk!

Brilliant socio-political insight there.

Thank you.

Ein Volk!

Fuck straight.

We should listen. Those Austrians have plenty of experience with war criminals.

We should listen. Those Austrians have plenty of experience with war criminals.

I guess when one can't say "B-b-but Clinton!" one can always fall back on "B-b-but Nazis!"

being a European meself, maybe i can shed some light. the US arent very popular in europe becuase they ovverided all of the rest of the worlds wishes for them NOT to go to war on iraq and pollute the hell out of the planet, the effects of which are felt not in America but in costal reigions of europe. the only european country that supported the way was britain, and i must say that it was only Blair that supported it. we common brits hated the decision (well most of us) even resorting to the time honored brit tradition of rioting in the streets.

Actually, US pollution levels are even with it's planetary GDP. Per capita it is higher than the average European country, but then that means that China (which has 18 of the most polluted cities on Earth) can pollute FIVE TIMES more than it is now, which already verges on eco disaster. It all depends on what numbers you want to use.

As for Iraq, that's been debated for years on here. I'll grant it is a reason why the US isn't popular right now.
But are Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, and the UK unpopular because of Iraq as well? Nope. At least, not to any of the myriad of people I spoke to in Prague a few weeks ago. (I speak Slovak, which is similar to Czech and Polish and generally comprehensible. I also met some Swedes, Norwegians, Germans and Austrians that spoke English as well. That, and the HUGE number of Brits.)

And the US gets the pollution from China.

I suport the US-led efforts in Iraq. 98% of Kurds in Iraq love president Bush according to a large galup poll, made with help from pan-arab research center (Dubai). Think about that.

I am a European (Icelandic). The largest Icelandic party supported the war, and got re-elected.

If Bush lied about WMD, than so did Chirac, Hillary and Bill Clinton and others who said Iraq had those weapons long before Bush did.

Europe is brainwashed by anti-americanism. It is probably the most common form of rascim in the world, as well as anti-semitism.

But are Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, and the UK unpopular because of Iraq as well? Nope.
That's because their populations did not support the war, or come up with the idea.

Think about that. I am a European (Icelandic). The largest Icelandic party supported the war, and got re-elected.
Probably for reasons other than the war, or terrible opposition. The war was unpopular in Iceland.

That's because their populations did not support the war, or come up with the idea.

Fair enough, but there's a sizeable anti-war populace in the US, too.
As for the idea... Blair was right there with Bush when the Invasion was declared. Yet the UK still isn't nearly as maligned as the US, it seems.

Ah well. We'll have a new President in about 18 months, though I doubt it'll change anything as far as European perspectives... from Carter on, I can't recall a Prez the average Euro liked while in office. (And the only reason I mention Carter is that he's the first Prez I really remember. The Ford years are a little hazy to me).

Pfhhh, Austrians. They're just Germans who think they're not Germans."Austrians our brothers? More like distant cousins... twice removed..."

As much as i would love bush to be a war criminal, no.
Europe is just as bad, (IM BRITISH!) and britain is the suxxor. (under labour, liberals or conservatives. Vote Statists :D)
Because we let it happen. we didnt say "You bomb them we'll bomb you". which is what we should have done. Regardless of the fact america would eat us.

Fair enough, but there's a sizeable anti-war populace in the US, too.
As for the idea... Blair was right there with Bush when the Invasion was declared. Yet the UK still isn't nearly as maligned as the US, it seems.

Ah well. We'll have a new President in about 18 months, though I doubt it'll change anything as far as European perspectives... from Carter on, I can't recall a Prez the average Euro liked while in office. (And the only reason I mention Carter is that he's the first Prez I really remember. The Ford years are a little hazy to me).

We loved clinton.
You are monsters.
Die.

The war was unpopular in Iceland.

True, but many of those who were against it, did not feel strongly about it enough to 'vote against it'. At least 15% supported it (perhaps more), more people than voted for the only true leftish party in Iceland. (Vinstri-greanir)

Supporting the war is not a political suicide in Iceland. That is for sure.

Lets be fair.
We do hate America.

...
Oh NO wait we dont...
did we hate the democrats?
No... strange... i dont recall any amount of hostility other than friendly ribbing when the democrats we're in power... maybe its the Ultra-Conservative foreign policy hawks in america we hate. if only we could attach a name to this bunch of inbred morons... perhaps they have a political party.

We loved clinton.
You are monsters.
Die.

Lovely.

:sniper:
bush started a war in which war crimes were commited and as supreme commander he´s got to take the blame.
so much to war criminal. haider isn´t much better (as most politicians, especially right winged, but the other side in europe isn´t really worth it neither), he´s a straight descendant of the fascistoid mentality governing in the first half of the last century.
and if u try to relativize pollution with GDP, well spend some of the money to reduce it, no? if u got the money u can spend it, and, like china if u don´t got it, it´ll be difficult to compete against us rich western snobs.:gundge:

I would like to remind you all that inherent in being a Nazionalsozialist is being excessively proud of das Vaterland (Germany/Austria) and despising all foreigners, regardless of perceived similarities on the part of various leftists throughout the board. And while I condemn Bush as an inept doofus, trying to play the foreign policy game with a 1/4 of the map, a die that's missing half of its sides and only three of the required 928 cards, a fascist he is not.

OK he got called a war criminal so what. He did what he needed to do to protect the country from growing threats. And thats just the knowledge we common ppl have, im sure as president he had even more knowledge then we have about the reasons to go to war.

I suport the US-led efforts in Iraq. 98% of Kurds in Iraq love president Bush according to a large galup poll, made with help from pan-arab research center (Dubai). Think about that.
And everyone else in the country hates him because of the pain and suffering he brought from across the ocean. Kurds arent even really Iraqis anyway, they are Kurds who dont really want to be a part of Iraq and see this as they're best chance.

I am a European (Icelandic). The largest Icelandic party supported the war, and got re-elected.
This has happened in other countries but for other reasons than the war and in fact the war almost lost it for several of them. Look at Spain and Italy, they supported the war, and were not asked to stay in power.

If Bush lied about WMD, than so did Chirac, Hillary and Bill Clinton and others who said Iraq had those weapons long before Bush did.
erm, I dont remember Chirac being for the war or sending French troops to Iraq.

Europe is brainwashed by anti-americanism. It is probably the most common form of rascim in the world, as well as anti-semitism.
I dont think Europe is brainwashed, they are whats that word... oh yeah, smart.

I believe that 60-68% of Iraq supported the nation. Just some knowledge for u. So if the very country that we invaded supports the war, y should any1 else have a problem with it?

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal on Saturday, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.

Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the U.S. president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.



Austria, Austria. Nope, can't think of anything of interest to come out of austria lately except for arnold, and he moved to the US.



What is the relevance of this comment?

It's OK, the American media doesn't report much beyond your borders so it's all you know. After all, America has a greater population and thus Americans are superior.


Actually the kind of stereotyping Ravenshirke has shown is not to unlike the European protrayal of American politicans, this is a great example. For an Austrian politician to show such childful tactics as to say - once President Bush has left after an extended stay mind you - a President of America could ever be a war criminal is misleading at the best.

To those who don't know of the American political system the President needs the Senate to pass a declaration of war in the first place and a willing Senate then after to approve of the funding needed.

So unless the somewhat misleading politician wants to make the Senate, President Bush, and the people who elected them "war criminals" - all the people who have voted, including several Austrians - then I would say he should keep quiet and maybe bring that up with the UN Security Council. Oops, I just realized, any sanctions imposied by the whole of the EU - if they could somehow get that size of unity which has been lacking greatly since the outset of that idealistic venture - would probably wreck any 'economic security' in Europe as American consumers would sadly not be able to buy any of the great products. At least we don't need Airbus, I would actually prefer to ride in a new model this side of 2010-2020.

Fair enough, but there's a sizeable anti-war populace in the US, too.
But they were a powerless minority, all the same.

There are other reasons. For example, Europeans who supported the Iraq war were mostly self-styled intellectuals who wrote about it. Americans who support it were, or at least were perceived as loud mouthed ignorant rednecks with racist motives.

Most European Christians, especially Catholics were enraged that the US Christian Right perverted the faith in order to support the aggressive (some say murderous) foreign policy of the government.

As for the idea... Blair was right there with Bush when the Invasion was declared. Yet the UK still isn't nearly as maligned as the US, it seems.

Did Blair come up with the idea to invade Iraq? No, it was all the Bush admin.

But they were a powerless minority, all the same.

I wouldn't consider the vast majority of the liberal and Democratic Party a powerless minority.


There are other reasons. For example, Europeans who supported the Iraq war were mostly self-styled intellectuals who wrote about it. Americans who support it were, or at least were perceived as loud mouthed ignorant rednecks with racist motives.

It seems there is rednecks everywhere (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487710&page=3), in that thread it seems people with language issues and spelling problems all gang up on Mr.Bush because one of his aides made fun of some guys shades, the man later turned out to be blind. They attack Mr.Bush anyhow in their demented nature, stereotyping Americans rednecks as Republicans - the people who continue to mainly support the war - is not very accurate.


Most European Christians, especially Catholics were enraged that the US Christian Right perverted the faith in order to support the aggressive (some say murderous) foreign policy of the government.
I actually have not seen a new Bible version saying along the lines of "Iraqi invasion gooooddddd, Bush is Gooooddddd", only a few of the American far right religious entities ever made more than personal opinions about the war. I am still at a loss how these individuals in anyway changed Christianity in any more than facial way.


Did Blair come up with the idea to invade Iraq? No, it was all the Bush admin.


You are judged by the comapny you hold, to make one un-accountable to actions of the same comapny is not acceptable for adults nor politicans.

Lets be fair.
We do hate America.

...
Oh NO wait we dont...
did we hate the democrats?
No... strange... i dont recall any amount of hostility other than friendly ribbing when the democrats we're in power... maybe its the Ultra-Conservative foreign policy hawks in america we hate. if only we could attach a name to this bunch of inbred morons... perhaps they have a political party.

Then Americans will have to get used to hearing Europeans cry. Republicans will win elections, there will be Republican presidents, even if Europeans don't like it.

But they were a powerless minority, all the same.

There are other reasons. For example, Europeans who supported the Iraq war were mostly self-styled intellectuals who wrote about it. Americans who support it were, or at least were perceived as loud mouthed ignorant rednecks with racist motives.

Most European Christians, especially Catholics were enraged that the US Christian Right perverted the faith in order to support the aggressive (some say murderous) foreign policy of the government.

Did Blair come up with the idea to invade Iraq? No, it was all the Bush admin.


That's a pretty wide paintbrush. And sterotypical. :(
(I admit that I support the war for purely selfish reasons: I work in the Chrysler Building. It is a likely terrorist target, as is all of Midtown Manhattan. Fighting there keeps the numbers trying to blow stuff up here down. Or, at least it has apparently.)

I don't think we'll ever know if it was Bush admin alone. Seriously.

I guess when one can't say "B-b-but Clinton!" one can always fall back on "B-b-but Nazis!"
Alright, how about this? We should listen to them. They have plenty of experience with foreign policy successes.

being a European meself, maybe i can shed some light. the US arent very popular in europe becuase they ovverided all of the rest of the worlds wishes for them NOT to go to war on iraq and pollute the hell out of the planet, the effects of which are felt not in America but in costal reigions of europe. the only european country that supported the way was britain, and i must say that it was only Blair that supported it. we common brits hated the decision (well most of us) even resorting to the time honored brit tradition of rioting in the streets.

Just a side note, the British Parliment Approved the decision. They could have voted against it.

Actually the kind of stereotyping Ravenshirke has shown is not to unlike the European protrayal of American politicans, this is a great example. For an Austrian politician to show such childful tactics as to say - once President Bush has left after an extended stay mind you - a President of America could ever be a war criminal is misleading at the best.

To those who don't know of the American political system the President needs the Senate to pass a declaration of war in the first place and a willing Senate then after to approve of the funding needed.

An excellent point but a minor correction. It requires both houses to approve of it, not just the Senate.

We loved clinton.
You are monsters.
Die.

oh brother :rolleyes:

If he's a criminal come and arrest him . Who the fuck cares what some nitwit from moron land has to say about Bush or any other American politicion.
We voted for him ..they can do nothing . Must be frustrating for them .
They want to do something become an American citizen and vote.
If not STFU..or try to do something about it . Itstead of bleating like a sheep .

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal on Saturday, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.

Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the U.S. president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.

Despite being an American, I agree.

Despite being an American, I agree.

Despite the fact that he has committed no war crimes.....

snip

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.

I'd say you better your buddies with more diligence. Haider is a crypto-nazi in cahoots with folks like David Irving.

I don't like Bush and his oil-mafia too much myself, that's for sure...but the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Certainly not the extreme right-winger Joerg Haider.

I wouldn't consider the vast majority of the liberal and Democratic Party a powerless minority.
Most senior Democrats supported and continue to support the Iraq war.

They attack Mr.Bush anyhow in their demented nature, stereotyping Americans rednecks as Republicans - the people who continue to mainly support the war - is not very accurate.
You mean that support for the war is not strongest in the very conservative US South?

I actually have not seen a new Bible version saying along the lines of "Iraqi invasion gooooddddd, Bush is Gooooddddd", only a few of the American far right religious entities ever made more than personal opinions about the war. I am still at a loss how these individuals in anyway changed Christianity in any more than facial way.
So many US Christians seem to believe that God is on America's side in the wars that she fights, and that the Bible can be used to justify these wars. You see it in the likes of Pat Robertson (arguably George Bush too) and right here on NS in the form of DesignatedMarksman and Corneliu.

Most Europeans believe that Christianity is a religion of peace and reconciliation, not of bloodthirsty warmongering.

You are judged by the comapny you hold, to make one un-accountable to actions of the same comapny is not acceptable for adults nor politicans.
I'm just explaining why Britain is not as frowned upon as the USA is among most Europeans, not giving my opinion.

Actually the kind of stereotyping Ravenshirke has shown is not to unlike the European protrayal of American politicans, this is a great example.
What I found objectionable was Ravenshrike's American Supremacist attitude. He thinks that an Austrian politician's opinion doesn't matter* because Austria is a small country.

*i.e. is not worth refuting, and is dismissable.

Europe is brainwashed by anti-americanism. It is probably the most common form of rascim in the world, as well as anti-semitism.
Yeah. You sound completely objective and levelheaded.:rolleyes:

Lets be fair.
We do hate America.
So? Whats bad about that?

It was not too long ago in the grand scheme of things that Europeans and the United States got on fairly well. Then we dug up foreign policymakers whose point of view was discredited long before they got jobs in the Bush Administration. These neo-conservatives are the foreign policy equals in credentials to the John Maynard Maynard Keynes, whose economic policy was thoroughly discredited long before the Republicans dredged up the "trickle down theory" and made it their idea of good economics.

Without entering into the realm of screaming my head off, Iraq was a bad war in the beginning and it's a bad war now. The decision had no bearing in facts that were used as a tool to gain populist approval for the war.

Did you know 85% of US soldiers still think Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the planning and implementation of 9/11? This was, of course hogwash and misdirection. It has been repeated on the Republican stump even though it is thoroughly discredited, up until a year ago almost 70% of US citizens thought the same thing.

The public argument now is "if you don't support US (the Bush Administration) you do not support the troops." Again, lies and misdirection. It has long been the purview of the US population to support the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, but not the political apparatus that sent them into a dangerous situation.

By any rational, non-emotional standard, the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq. This has been compounded by egregious mistakes in the execution of post-offensive operations. We are running our Treasury dry, and the combination now of uncertainty in the supply of oil, the rising consumption of oil in China, and a very skittish Commodities market has made the price of oil drastically rise in both Light, Sweet Crude and Brent Crude Oil markets.

All of these things are rational measures of success. We are now financially worse off than we were before, we continue to spend vast sums of money and throw it into a money pit, and World opinion is solidly against us (not just Europe).

I warn all of my fellow US citizens, we are on the verge of a stock market meltdown not unlike that of Black Friday. Consumer debt has skyrocketed above manageable levels, the manufacturing of luxury goods exceeds that of staples (necessary items) by over a 5 to 1 margin, the housing market is about to collapse within the next half-decade and the bubble has already started to burst in key cities, we have no manufacturing sector to fall back on like we did in the 1930's, btw. Tie all this into a negative savings index (Americans do not save money, they spend it all), a service economy (we no longer manufacture heavy goods), real wages falling into a downward spiral (as higher paying jobs are supplanted by lower paying service jobs), lower minimum wages (as politicians "trust" corporations to pay a living wage).

This nasty brew is just one tip of the balance scales away from a real economic disaster. There is one more factor. As you price your lower and middle classes out of the economy, you have fewer consumers of those luxury goods, and when the appetite for big-ticket items goes into the dumper, so does the economy. Soon, fully half of the population of the United States will not be able to genuinely afford an automobile, the length of the average car loan is now six years as consumers can no longer afford to pay off a car loan in 3 to 4 years like was common for a 25 year period.

Indeed, good times are upon us all. So think about these factors as you drive your enormous H-2 to work, and you spend every dime you have on eating out, and contributing to this hollowed out shell of an economy.

Maybe Bush is a war criminal, but empirical evidence shows he certainly is no friend of the middle and lower classes, either. Social policy aside, we have the worst stewards possible of the domestic economy in power.

I used to vote in fairly equal numbers for both Dems and Republicans, I will vote straight party line for the first time in my life in 2006, all Democrat.

By any rational, non-emotional standard, the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq. This has been compounded by egregious mistakes in the execution of post-offensive operations. We are running our Treasury dry, and the combination now of uncertainty in the supply of oil, the rising consumption of oil in China, and a very skittish Commodities market has made the price of oil drastically rise in both Light, Sweet Crude and Brent Crude Oil markets.

Oil prices are rising more due to demand than to the Iraq war; the price has been rising since 1998, and would continue to rise regardless of the war. However, the Iraq war has reduced spare oil capacity and has led to the market's volatility and some of the risk premium on it. Nevertheless, the rise in oil prices is mostly not attributable to the Iraq war although it does have a part.


I warn all of my fellow US citizens, we are on the verge of a stock market meltdown not unlike that of Black Friday. Consumer debt has skyrocketed above manageable levels, the manufacturing of luxury goods exceeds that of staples (necessary items) by over a 5 to 1 margin, the housing market is about to collapse within the next half-decade and the bubble has already started to burst in key cities, we have no manufacturing sector to fall back on like we did in the 1930's, btw. Tie all this into a negative savings index (Americans do not save money, they spend it all), a service economy (we no longer manufacture heavy goods), real wages falling into a downward spiral (as higher paying jobs are supplanted by lower paying service jobs), lower minimum wages (as politicians "trust" corporations to pay a living wage).

Debt is not as bad as it was a few years ago; the ratio of debt to income is falling fairly rapidly and has been since 2004. The main concern is not the ability to pay off debt, but the fact that growth is being fueled by debt; if people were to cut back on spending and pay off their debt, it would slow the economy considerably and possibly cause a recession. We can't keep up our growth without debt, and that is the main threat facing the economy; it's not going to collapse, but it can slow massively if people start to slow their spending.

Manufacturing is not the backbone of a healthy, modern economy. The US has seen faster growth in productivity and living standards since the economy has transitioned from heavy industry to services. However, although services pay much more than manufacturing, they also require a much larger skillset than industry; the reason why real wages are falling is due to the decline in low-skill, high-pay manufacturing. Globalization is enabling us to buy more and more products for less and is reducing inflation, but at the cost of low-skill manufacturing. This is not bad, but when people in those fields are unable to afford the retraining necessary to get a new, high-pay job it is a problem.

The product of the transition to services has been both greater wealth and greater income inequality; inequality in itself is not bad, but the wall to progress arising to prevent people from moving upward is a serious problem.
The savings rate is massively understated because it doesn't take in to account money from investments; the savings rate for all retired persons is always negative if they are not working because their money comes from their retirement investments, so as people more retire the rate will appear artificially lower and lower.

The US economy will not collapse anytime soon, but there are some serious problems facing it that will need to be addressed to keep it growing and healthy. However, these problems are not new and predate Bush and the Iraq war by at least two decades. They've only worsened more and more rapidly in the 1990's and today.

I suport the US-led efforts in Iraq. 98% of Kurds in Iraq love president Bush according to a large galup poll, made with help from pan-arab research center (Dubai). Think about that.

I am a European (Icelandic). The largest Icelandic party supported the war, and got re-elected.

If Bush lied about WMD, than so did Chirac, Hillary and Bill Clinton and others who said Iraq had those weapons long before Bush did.

Europe is brainwashed by anti-americanism. It is probably the most common form of rascim in the world, as well as anti-semitism.

Mikið djöfull ertu vitlaus.

Europe is brainwashed by anti-americanism. It is probably the most common form of rascim in the world, as well as anti-semitism.

My hole. Europe has a problem with being lied to by a friend and ally. If you cant make the distinction between a dislike and distrust of bush and a hatred of the american nation you have a problem.

Despite the fact that he has committed no war crimes.....

How do you know? Have you been by his side this whole time?

Probably for reasons other than the war, or terrible opposition. The war was unpopular in Iceland.
Unless someone was directly attempting to attack or threatening to attack Iceland has war EVER been a popular thing to them? Seriously, they're like the swiss but not in the center of europe and with less banks. Also less pompous on the subject of their neutrality, at least governmentally speaking.

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal on Saturday, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.

Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the U.S. president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.

George Bush is not some big scary person who took a dart and a map of the world and threw it at it randomly and then decided to declare war. The past two presidents of the united states have dealt with Iraq militarily, for violating several treaties. Even President Clinton bombed Iraq on more than one occasion. Bin laden is a war criminal, Al-Qaeda are war criminals, President Bush is not a war criminal. If you say that going in to take out a countries government, that has had definite ties to 9/11, brutally tortured and killed its own people, and was a safe haven for terrorists all these years makes you a war criminal, then I don’t understand your logic. No president wants to be a war time president, Bush has already said that he does not like having to deal with Iraq the way he is. If Clinton had done his job as commander in chief all those years instead of fooling around with Monica we would not have having the problems that we do. And who is this person to say that our president is a war criminal?

President Bush is not a war criminal. If you say that going in to take out a countries government, that has had definite ties to 9/11...FOX/CNN , etc.

Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called President Bush a war criminal on Saturday, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.

Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the U.S. president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.

"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

06-17-06 13:31 EDT

Comment: I agree, Bush is a War Criminal.


I don't think Bush is a war criminal.

So? Whats bad about that?


Depends on the reasons.

Oil prices are rising more due to demand than to the Iraq war; the price has been rising since 1998, and would continue to rise regardless of the war. However, the Iraq war has reduced spare oil capacity and has led to the market's volatility and some of the risk premium on it. Nevertheless, the rise in oil prices is mostly not attributable to the Iraq war although it does have a part.

Lets get down to brass tacks. Iraq is one the larger oil suppliers in the world market. Production is down until that nation is stabilized. The volatility of the market is not driven by demand, the volatility and instability is due to supply factors. Supply must come before demand, that's just pure old-fashioned economics. I never maintained that the cost of oil is due purely to the Iraq war although it is a strong factor. Instability in the main area of the world where oil is produced always drives up prices. Speculation by commodities analysts to some extent drive the market towards a false high, remember they are speculating on supply based on the demand for oil. It is not too inaccurate to say that this is more than a mere upwards adjustment.


Debt is not as bad as it was a few years ago; the ratio of debt to income is falling fairly rapidly and has been since 2004.

Figures please? This makes no sense when adjusted for cost of living increases and the rising cost of living. Perhaps you are looking at figures for the upper 25% of wage earners, but I assure you that in the lower 75% debt is still on the rise, and strikingly so. Financial services providers and bankers are still targeting the higher risk consumer for loans and services and charging a premium interest rate for that risk. Second chance and "less than premium" financial services are still a premium product for the second tier financial services companies. Second mortgages are still being taken out at a very high rate, and those rates and risks are pushing up the debt service ceiling. Further, such services "push" the debt further into the future giving you your more optimistic figures.


The main concern is not the ability to pay off debt, but the fact that growth is being fueled by debt; if people were to cut back on spending and pay off their debt, it would slow the economy considerably and possibly cause a recession. We can't keep up our growth without debt, and that is the main threat facing the economy; it's not going to collapse, but it can slow massively if people start to slow their spending.

Using debt to grow an economy is the financial equivalent of putting two bullets in a .44 caliber handgun and playing russian roulette. Plus, the ability to service debt (pay it off) as it gets further out of reach slows an economy and drags it down. Greenspan and Ben Barnanke both speak at length about making sure debt gets paid off, rather than raising debt limits. Paying off debt might slow the economy down in the short run, but paying off debt allows the individual consumers the opportunity to increase their credit rating and take out fresh loans and inject that into the economy. The longer you let debt fester, the weaker the growth. Eventually you have an economy that is driven by high risk debtor consumers, and we all know where that leads.

It is naive to think that debt can continue to drive the economy without deliterious effects. Once again, Greenspan, Barnanke and even Rob Rubin know this.


Manufacturing is not the backbone of a healthy, modern economy. The US has seen faster growth in productivity and living standards since the economy has transitioned from heavy industry to services. However, although services pay much more than manufacturing, they also require a much larger skillset than industry; the reason why real wages are falling is due to the decline in low-skill, high-pay manufacturing.

No, a MIXED economy is much better. Right now, low-paying service economy jobs dominate the entry level positions for not just teenagers anymore, but young adults. Heavy manufacturing has a place in a healthy economy.

Productivity is a false measure of a healthy economy and I don't know where you got the living standards argument, but I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Let's address productivity first. Productivity is a measure of the individual worker's meeting of a goal. When that goal is lowered, you naturally get higher productivity numbers. The service economy is dominated by jobs with relatively low productivity requirements.

Services pay far LESS than heavy industry does and I am certain that's what you meant, and the skillset in some instances MAY be higher than heavy manufacturing jobs, but overall this is another false argument. Realistically they simply don't compare. It's apples and oranges.

Let's also address the "low-skill" heavy manufacturing jobs. I doubt very seriously if you can go out and (for example) skillfully manufacture a car without a high degree of skill. Yet, most people with a good deal common sense can hold down a mid-level technical support job. I will accept that the skillsets are different, but NOT that one set generally requires a higher degree of skill. If these skills are so much in demand, then why are the jobs going overseas to India and other places? Because the workers there are payed a WHOLE LOT LESS than a US worker of comparable skill.

Finally, you don't even properly address the decline in real wages.


Globalization is enabling us to buy more and more products for less and is reducing inflation, but at the cost of low-skill manufacturing. This is not bad, but when people in those fields are unable to afford the retraining necessary to get a new, high-pay job it is a problem.

That's complete tripe. Globalization is allowing US companies to reduce workforces in the United States, pay less in salaries and increase the company bottom line without accepting real responsibility for their US workforce. US companies are not willing to pay the higher US wage and seek their answers overseas. With unchecked deregulation comes these types of business tactics. Business running unchecked without taking responsibility for the welfare of it's workers is not unlike what the US faced at the turn of the last century.


The product of the transition to services has been both greater wealth and greater income inequality; inequality in itself is not bad, but the wall to progress arising to prevent people from moving upward is a serious problem.

No, income inequality is decidedly very bad. Because this inequality is causing the "wall to progress" upward to have a very hard and inflexible ceiling. It puts money into the hands of the people LEAST likely to return money to the economy in a way that encourages "jumping" classes. A person born into a poor family in the United States has a miniscule chance of gaining the skills necessary to "pull themselves up" into a higher earning bracket. The cost of college is too high, the US education system is a shambles at the secondary level. The scales are tipped firmly in the favor of those born into the upper 25% of wage earners.


The savings rate is massively understated because it doesn't take in to account money from investments; the savings rate for all retired persons is always negative if they are not working because their money comes from their retirement investments, so as people more retire the rate will appear artificially lower and lower.

My God, where did you go to college? The investment rate below a certain financial point in this country is NON-EXISTENT. People cannot afford to invest if they live paycheck to paycheck. With pension plans bailing out and companies bullying the Federal government to intervene in their quest to reduce their responsiblity for their worker's welfare (corporate health insurance and retirement plans will soon be a thing of the past). Such services are now being contracted out to service companies that offer inferior products at a HIGHER a la carte' rate, and 401K's STILL notoriously underperform.


The US economy will not collapse anytime soon, but there are some serious problems facing it that will need to be addressed to keep it growing and healthy. However, these problems are not new and predate Bush and the Iraq war by at least two decades. They've only worsened more and more rapidly in the 1990's and today.

Here I agree with you on some things. Not many, but some. The problems do pre-date Bush. These problems started in the Reagan Administration. Carter was a crappy steward of the economy, but he did not order massive deregulation in the name of unfettered, cut-throat competition like Reagan did. You know why the Airline industry is so damned unstable? Deregulation. Why the communications industry is headed down the same road? Deregulation.

The US economy has always fared better with a LIMITED free-market economy. Some regulation is necessary in order to provide stability. Is Reagan completely to blame? No. Succeeding governments have had the opportunity to fix the underlying problems with the right stewardship of the economy.

The Iraq war may not fully tip the scale, but there is a time bomb waiting a generation or so down the years that we have planted. Limited re-regulation of certain key sectors can stabilize things...but we are right and properly brainwashed and we won't do it.

It's nice to talk with someone who speaks with a knowledge of economics, even if we don't agree on much of anything.

Mikið djöfull ertu vitlaus.

Það er einmitt svona sem vandaðar og góðar rökræður fara fram

erm, I dont remember Chirac being for the war or sending French troops to Iraq.

I dont think Europe is brainwashed, they are whats that word... oh yeah, smart.


Chirac did not send troops to Iraq, and he was against the war, still he insisted that Iraq had WMD

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

If Bush lied, so did Chirac

As for Europeans being smart, I think arrogance would be a better word.

Chirac did not send troops to Iraq, and he was against the war, still he insisted that Iraq had WMD

Just not with enough certainty to start a war over. See, it's not black and white. It turns out his caution was 100% correct.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

If Bush lied, so did Chirac

As for Europeans being smart, I think arrogance would be a better word.

Bush lied as to the level of certainty. He SOLD the War on evidence that turned out to be flimsy. The LEAST he could be guilty of is committing "one of those 'exaggerations'."

I mean, English is a subtle and complex language, but even a simpleton can tell the difference between "we have evidences that he may have WMD" and "He has them, let's invade."

I suport the US-led efforts in Iraq. 98% of Kurds in Iraq love president Bush according to a large galup poll, made with help from pan-arab research center (Dubai). Think about that.
That's because the US is blowing the crap out of the rest of Iraq but has left most of the Kurd bits alone so that they don't risk shooting them and upsetting the rest of the world. The Kurds will also have everyone other than Saddam.

Did you know 85% of US soldiers still think Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the planning and implementation of 9/11?
How can they be so wilfully ignorant?

Unless someone was directly attempting to attack or threatening to attack Iceland has war EVER been a popular thing to them? Seriously, they're like the swiss but not in the center of europe and with less banks. Also less pompous on the subject of their neutrality, at least governmentally speaking.
Wars against countries that are not threats should not be popular.

Except...

http://www.memphismuseums.org/media/vikings%201.jpg

As for Europeans being smart, I think arrogance would be a better word.
Americans are the people incessantly claiming the moral high ground, incessantly claiming to be the beacon of freedom and democracy and yet we're the arrogant ones?

I used to vote in fairly equal numbers for both Dems and Republicans, I will vote straight party line for the first time in my life in 2006, all Democrat.

Ya know? This has got to be the most dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. That is saying something since I just met you. Voting straight ticket, even if it is your first time doing so, is illogical and downright stupid.

That's because the US is blowing the crap out of the rest of Iraq but has left most of the Kurd bits alone so that they don't risk shooting them and upsetting the rest of the world. The Kurds will also have everyone other than Saddam.

We are? Oh brother. I don't see cities in flames due to US Bombing raids. So no we are not blowing the crap out of Iraq. The insurgency was doing a much better job of it and killing more IRAQIS than foreigners.

Americans are the people incessantly claiming the moral high ground, incessantly claiming to be the beacon of freedom and democracy and yet we're the arrogant ones?


America is the beacon of freedom . I would love to see how your country deals with 12 million illeggal immigrants walking around protesting for citizenship rights and the right to enter illegally etc.

You have a scewed view because of your left wing idiology .
As far as morals go...I dont believe there is such a thing as the " MORAL" high ground .

What ... "we people kill others for better reasons than you do" ?


So Nahhh na nanna na we have the high ground ?
I see the US standing for freedom and Democracy . Or are you still waiting for our oil we stole from Iraq to show up ?
We gave them hundreds of billions of our dollars and gallons of our blood and in return we gave a Democracy and will leave when that mission is secured .

This country isn't free, the government assumes that just because someone calls an Al Qaeda leader, it means their terrorist. One of the institutions that has safeguared the Constitution since the Founding, the ACLU, makes the compelling case of a peace activist that simply might want to work out a truce between the US and Qaeda.

Only in Bush's America would a peace activist be made into a terrorist.

I'm scared for the country.

This country isn't free, the government assumes that just because someone calls an Al Qaeda leader, it means their terrorist. One of the institutions that has safeguared the Constitution since the Founding, the ACLU, makes the compelling case of a peace activist that simply might want to work out a truce between the US and Qaeda.

Only in Bush's America would a peace activist be made into a terrorist.

I'm scared for the country.

And you really need to look at all the friggin facts before you start spouting off on pure bs.

And you really need to look at all the friggin facts before you start spouting off on pure bs.

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/irony

Ya know? This has got to be the most dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. That is saying something since I just met you. Voting straight ticket, even if it is your first time doing so, is illogical and downright stupid.

No, it's a protest vote. After taking the care and concern to vote my conscience for 24 years, I am willing to try desperate measures.

<sigh> In the long run, I will likely change my mind when I walk into the booth.

One of the hallmarks of the current Republican Party is that it is encouraged that you as a Republican voter, walk in and pull the party lever. (This used to be a trait of the Democratic Party).

You find a rational way of countering that, and I will be very happy.

No, it's a protest vote. After taking the care and concern to vote my conscience for 24 years, I am willing to try desperate measures.

Desperate or not, it is still rather stupid and a waste of a vote.

<sigh> In the long run, I will likely change my mind when I walk into the booth.

I hope so.

One of the hallmarks of the current Republican Party is that it is encouraged that you as a Republican voter, walk in and pull the party lever. (This used to be a trait of the Democratic Party).

This I will agree with. It is also still a trait of the Democratic Party.

You find a rational way of countering that, and I will be very happy.

I'm going to have to think about that. LOL

Lets get down to brass tacks. Iraq is one the larger oil suppliers in the world market. Production is down until that nation is stabilized. The volatility of the market is not driven by demand, the volatility and instability is due to supply factors. Supply must come before demand, that's just pure old-fashioned economics. I never maintained that the cost of oil is due purely to the Iraq war although it is a strong factor. Instability in the main area of the world where oil is produced always drives up prices. Speculation by commodities analysts to some extent drive the market towards a false high, remember they are speculating on supply based on the demand for oil. It is not too inaccurate to say that this is more than a mere upwards adjustment.

True. Iraq's effect is mainly in the supply cushion and not production, but the effect is mainly to make the price more volatile and not higher. Oil prices would be at a minimum of $50/barrel even if the US were not in Iraq and terrorism was a much smaller threat.



Figures please? This makes no sense when adjusted for cost of living increases and the rising cost of living. Perhaps you are looking at figures for the upper 25% of wage earners, but I assure you that in the lower 75% debt is still on the rise, and strikingly so. Financial services providers and bankers are still targeting the higher risk consumer for loans and services and charging a premium interest rate for that risk. Second chance and "less than premium" financial services are still a premium product for the second tier financial services companies. Second mortgages are still being taken out at a very high rate, and those rates and risks are pushing up the debt service ceiling. Further, such services "push" the debt further into the future giving you your more optimistic figures.

From US Census bureau (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/econodayframe.asp?page=http://www.nasdaq.com/econoday/index.html)

If you notice, both the debt-to-income ratio and the rate of credit growth are falling, suggesting the overall debt burden is falling. This suggests that the debt burden is falling rather than rising.

Even so, as cavalier as it sounds the well-being of that 75% is not what drives the economy. The bulk of the consumer spending is driven by that remaining 25%; although a serious reduction in spending by that 75% would hurt the economy, it would not be anywhere near as serious as a major cutback by the remaining 25%


Using debt to grow an economy is the financial equivalent of putting two bullets in a .44 caliber handgun and playing russian roulette. Plus, the ability to service debt (pay it off) as it gets further out of reach slows an economy and drags it down. Greenspan and Ben Barnanke both speak at length about making sure debt gets paid off, rather than raising debt limits. Paying off debt might slow the economy down in the short run, but paying off debt allows the individual consumers the opportunity to increase their credit rating and take out fresh loans and inject that into the economy. The longer you let debt fester, the weaker the growth. Eventually you have an economy that is driven by high risk debtor consumers, and we all know where that leads.

Not necessarily. Debt is important because it grows the money supply and increases economic growth; without debt the economy would be unable to advance and grow, and entrepreneurial investment would be greatly reduced. The key to debt management is being able to pay for it; it doesn't matter if a person has $1 billion in debt as long as they are able to afford it.

Unsustainable, high-risk debt is a problem, as is speculation on debt that the debtor is unable to finance; that's the kind I am guessing you are talking about and not "good" debt like investment loans. Speculation and high-risk debt have their advantages, but they also incur severe penalties if the market collapses like it did in 2000 and 2002.

It is naive to think that debt can continue to drive the economy without deliterious effects. Once again, Greenspan, Barnanke and even Rob Rubin know this.

Well, consumer credit and government deficits, absolutely. However, the other types of debt are absolutely vital to a healthy economy, and even the aforementioned could also

No, a MIXED economy is much better. Right now, low-paying service economy jobs dominate the entry level positions for not just teenagers anymore, but young adults. Heavy manufacturing has a place in a healthy economy.

A good deal of that is due to lack of skills. If you enter a field that is in demand, like biotech, IT, or finance you will have a lot of opportunities upon graduation from college. An information and service driven economy requires education and skills in order for a person to be successful.

Productivity is a false measure of a healthy economy and I don't know where you got the living standards argument, but I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Let's address productivity first. Productivity is a measure of the individual worker's meeting of a goal. When that goal is lowered, you naturally get higher productivity numbers. The service economy is dominated by jobs with relatively low productivity requirements.

Productivity is one of the most vital aspects of the economy. It keeps inflation in line and enables the economy to produce more for less cost per unit, allowing people to buy more and invest more ultimately increasing overall employment and wages. Living standards rise due to falling costs per unit; productivity is the biggest deflationary aid to our economy aside from trade. For example, 1 MB of data cost $1,700 dollars to store in 1970 and today it is in minute fractions of a cent. This benefit is massive to consumers and business alike, and without productivity growth

Productivity is productivity, regardless of the industry. It is the cost per unit of output whether that unit is cars, computers, or portfolio management. The only way to increase productivity is to lower cost per unit; reducing production has no effect on productivity, so setting the bar lower is meaningless and likely inflationary.

Services pay far LESS than heavy industry does and I am certain that's what you meant, and the skillset in some instances MAY be higher than heavy manufacturing jobs, but overall this is another false argument. Realistically they simply don't compare. It's apples and oranges.

It depends on what services you mean. Finance, IT, utilities, oil and gas, engineerin, management, business services, trade and the like all pay comparable or more than most manufacturing. The key is the level of skill required; high-skill services jobs pay much more than any job in manufactuing, while low-skill services pay much less.

Let's also address the "low-skill" heavy manufacturing jobs. I doubt very seriously if you can go out and (for example) skillfully manufacture a car without a high degree of skill. Yet, most people with a good deal common sense can hold down a mid-level technical support job. I will accept that the skillsets are different, but NOT that one set generally requires a higher degree of skill. If these skills are so much in demand, then why are the jobs going overseas to India and other places? Because the workers there are payed a WHOLE LOT LESS than a US worker of comparable skill.

Services like computer programming, finance, IT, engineering and the like all require many more skills and a more extensive education than production line manufacturing. Also, within the US the decline in manufacturing is not across the board. High-tech manufacturing, machinery manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and similar high skill sectors are all doing fairly well to excellent further reflecting the emphasis on education in the workforce. The decline in manufacturing is almost all in heavy manufacturing, which is simply no longer competitive with lower cost nations like China or Mexico. Even Canada is gaining automotive jobs from the US.

Outsourcing is a very small part of the job market. About 1.3 million jobs have been offshored over the past 10 years, and the rate is slowing as the costs and benefits of outsourcing make it less and less attractive; the net loss was less than 1% of potential payrolls over that period, an amount less than 1 year's worth of growth.

Finally, you don't even properly address the decline in real wages.

It's a combination of the 1970's inflationary spiral, the decline in American manufacturing which pushed down wages at the bottom, and the trend for investments to comprise a bigger share of income than they did in the past. Investing in stocks is generally a middle and upper class opportunity, and the bulk of wage-earners are either in the middle or lower classes both during the 1970's and today. As a result, the prosperity experienced in the 1980's and 1990's with its heavy emphasis on investments and stock wealth was unfelt by the lower levels who saw their wages erode during the entire period.

It's a combination of economic change, poor education and social programs, falling competitiveness in American manufacturing, inflationary shocks, and poor government decisions that have dragged down real wages.

That's complete tripe. Globalization is allowing US companies to reduce workforces in the United States, pay less in salaries and increase the company bottom line without accepting real responsibility for their US workforce. US companies are not willing to pay the higher US wage and seek their answers overseas. With unchecked deregulation comes these types of business tactics. Business running unchecked without taking responsibility for the welfare of it's workers is not unlike what the US faced at the turn of the last century.

Globalization is the main reason besides productivity why the cost of goods and services has remained low and economic growth high. Since the initiation of GATT in the 1950's, the US economy has been more stable, less inflationary, and has had a lower rate of unemployment and faster GDP growth than th period before it. American living standards have risen rapidly and the gains have been permanent. Milder recessions are also a product of this trend. The casual evidence is overwhelmingly in support of globalization; the negative effects have been totally outweighed by the benefits.


No, income inequality is decidedly very bad. Because this inequality is causing the "wall to progress" upward to have a very hard and inflexible ceiling. It puts money into the hands of the people LEAST likely to return money to the economy in a way that encourages "jumping" classes. A person born into a poor family in the United States has a miniscule chance of gaining the skills necessary to "pull themselves up" into a higher earning bracket. The cost of college is too high, the US education system is a shambles at the secondary level. The scales are tipped firmly in the favor of those born into the upper 25% of wage earners.

Well, that's a problem that needs to be fixed. The only way it will happen is if the government provides money for education and attacks the problems in poor neighborhoods rather than just panders to political interests.


My God, where did you go to college? The investment rate below a certain financial point in this country is NON-EXISTENT. People cannot afford to invest if they live paycheck to paycheck. With pension plans bailing out and companies bullying the Federal government to intervene in their quest to reduce their responsiblity for their worker's welfare (corporate health insurance and retirement plans will soon be a thing of the past). Such services are now being contracted out to service companies that offer inferior products at a HIGHER a la carte' rate, and 401K's STILL notoriously underperform.

Pensions are inferior to private investments by any measure. The main reason why the PBGC has been overwhelmed is because the cost of pensions is simply too great for companies to bear; given the choice between bankruptcy and shedding their pensions, companies will choose the latter because it is for the better. Corporate health care faces a similar situation, especially with th

The savings rate is understated, because it is that top 25% whose income constitutes the biggest share of the economy and it is them who command the biggest share of consumer spending. A higher savings rate at the top mitigates a negative one at the bottom.

Here I agree with you on some things. Not many, but some. The problems do pre-date Bush. These problems started in the Reagan Administration. Carter was a crappy steward of the economy, but he did not order massive deregulation in the name of unfettered, cut-throat competition like Reagan did. You know why the Airline industry is so damned unstable? Deregulation. Why the communications industry is headed down the same road? Deregulation.

They have their origins mainly in Johnson and Nixon, who both spent wildly and tried to control prices which lead to the devastating effects of the 1970's oil crises. Carter deserves some credit for his handling of the 1979 crisis; it was his elimination of price controls that kept the shortages of 1973 from reoccurring and helped to prevent it from happening again. Reagan's legacy is far more difficult to discern than others because of the fact that he was not responsible for the trend of inequality in income and declining wages but it accelerated during his and later administrations.

Airline deregulation has been successful; real fares are lower and there are many more destinations and routes available as well as more carriers than there were in the 1970's. This has broken the old monopoly system that was present during regulation, just like telecom deregulation broke up AT&T. The bankruptcies and instability are far superior to the monopolies during regulation; overall service is better and cost is lower in telecoms and airlines than it was in the 1970's pre-deregulation.

The only area in which deregulation has failed is electricity, for the simple reason that the technology in the industry enables the electricity and natural gas markets to be linked and encourages collusion between the sectors to drive up prices. No other market has this ability to link markets, which is why electricity deregulation has been a major problem.

As everyone knows, we would all rather have Haider in charge of the US.... :rolleyes:

As everyone knows, we would all rather have Haider in charge of the US.... :rolleyes:dont be silly.

America is the beacon of freedom

*snip*
I accuse Americans of arrogance, so an American goes right ahead and proves it to me. Isn't NS wonderful?

True. Iraq's effect is mainly in the supply cushion and not production, but the effect is mainly to make the price more volatile and not higher. Oil prices would be at a minimum of $50/barrel even if the US were not in Iraq and terrorism was a much smaller threat.

I don't really think US consumers would mind $50/barrel, in fact most would kill to go back to $50-55/barrel. Gas prices would go back to the mid to low 2.00 per gallon range everywhere but Hawaii and California, where prices would be around 2.65/gallon.


If you notice, both the debt-to-income ratio and the rate of credit growth are falling, suggesting the overall debt burden is falling. This suggests that the debt burden is falling rather than rising.

Once again, it suggests that the debt burden in the upper two income brackets is falling. But these two income brackets are not in any sort of real danger of defaulting as long as they maintain their income and faithfully service their debts.


Even so, as cavalier as it sounds the well-being of that 75% is not what drives the economy. The bulk of the consumer spending is driven by that remaining 25%; although a serious reduction in spending by that 75% would hurt the economy, it would not be anywhere near as serious as a major cutback by the remaining 25%

I daresay if 75% of the consumers stopped consuming and defaulted on their loans, the US would be in deep finanacial trouble. That 25% drive the economy through the proceeds of the other 75% of the consumer base spending money into the economy and taking those six year auto loans and those second chance, less than premium consumer loans, not to mention the vast amount of credit card debt that unheralded 75% represent at over 18.99 APR per quarter. You get a recessionary economy and a mildly serious spike in inflation.


Not necessarily. Debt is important because it grows the money supply and increases economic growth; without debt the economy would be unable to advance and grow, and entrepreneurial investment would be greatly reduced. The key to debt management is being able to pay for it; it doesn't matter if a person has $1 billion in debt as long as they are able to afford it.

Correct, but the problem is that the average consumer in the US is uneducated on the finer points of responsible financial management. Corporations take educated risks, US consumers make blind stabs in the dark. Most people who have a credit card cannot afford to pay the card off, many middle class consumers are leveraged up to their eyeballs on their mortgages. Too many financial services firms give uneducated consumers the keys to cars they cannot properly drive. These consumers in an attempt to solve their financial problems take out second mortgages to "pay off" bills, while driving their debt load higher in the long term for the sake of a short term fix.

[/QUOTE]
Unsustainable, high-risk debt is a problem, as is speculation on debt that the debtor is unable to finance; that's the kind I am guessing you are talking about and not "good" debt like investment loans. Speculation and high-risk debt have their advantages, but they also incur severe penalties if the market collapses like it did in 2000 and 2002.[/QUOTE]

There are a lot of medium and small size businesses in this country that are overleveraged and have a debt load at an unsustainably high level. Most major corporations may write their own tickets unless they just get idiotic like Enron, Worldcom and other corporations that sought to "game the game."


Well, consumer credit and government deficits, absolutely. However, the other types of debt are absolutely vital to a healthy economy, and even the aforementioned could also...

At manageable levels, you are absolutely correct. But it doesn't take long for the unsustainable debt load the government is carrying to cause "blowback" in the market, add the rampant consumer debt to the problem and all of the good things happening elsewhere can south very fast.


A good deal of that is due to lack of skills. If you enter a field that is in demand, like biotech, IT, or finance you will have a lot of opportunities upon graduation from college. An information and service driven economy requires education and skills in order for a person to be successful.

I will take it from an IT point of view. I had a relative who worked for Big Blue (IBM) close to thirty years. She was just below the executive suite. Her salary was right between 125-150k. She got caught up in the period where corporations bought into the theory they could hire 4 guys making around 25k per year each to do the job she was doing all by herself. Entry level IT positions, even with a Baccalaureate degree average between 17k and 30k per year. Hardly a glamourous salary. Last I checked, this is where the line is drawn.


Productivity is one of the most vital aspects of the economy.....(snip).

Sustainable productivity is vital. Productivity is hardly sustainable if you have a reduced workforce and each person working for 3 people. The Japanese discovered this quickly when workers started having nervous breakdowns and jumping out of windows. Reduced productivity quotas are the inevitable result of more jobs being "part time" (less than 35hrs/week for an hourly worker), and they are hardly inflationary when you pay less in salary and benefits than you would pay a true full-time worker.


It depends on what services you mean. Finance, IT, utilities, oil and gas, engineerin, management, business services, trade and the like all pay comparable or more than most manufacturing. The key is the level of skill required; high-skill services jobs pay much more than any job in manufactuing, while low-skill services pay much less.

Note that a large number of these jobs are leaving the US economy now too.


Services like computer programming, finance, IT, engineering and the like all require many more skills and a more extensive education than production line manufacturing....(snip)

Quite true, but I was speaking of jobs for middle class workers. Re-education (a term I hate) for these folks late in life is expensive, counter-productive and puts them "back in school" and making little to no money to support a family.


Outsourcing is a very small part of the job market. About 1.3 million jobs have been offshored over the past 10 years, and the rate is slowing as the costs and benefits of outsourcing make it less and less attractive; the net loss was less than 1% of potential payrolls over that period, an amount less than 1 year's worth of growth.

I strongly recommend you look at all of those workers in the eye and tell them that the sacrifice of their job will personally benefit them in the long run. In this case, I am interested in the well being of these workers that go from making a decent living and a reasonable contribution to the economy to unemployment, bankruptcy and other such miseries. If the benefits and losses are so little, then why are the CEOs doing it? I can think of a quite a number of companies that "offshored" their jobs, ostensibly to save on overhead. Realistically, these tactics do little more than to give a very short term boost to the bottom line. Bluntly put, the reason it looks less attractive is that US company CEOs are afraid that Congress will legislate very heavy financial penalties for "off-shoring" US jobs.


It's a combination of the 1970's inflationary spiral, the decline in American manufacturing which pushed down wages at the bottom, and the trend for investments to comprise a bigger share of income than they did in the past. Investing in stocks is generally a middle and upper class opportunity, and the bulk of wage-earners are either in the middle or lower classes both during the 1970's and today. As a result, the prosperity experienced in the 1980's and 1990's with its heavy emphasis on investments and stock wealth was unfelt by the lower levels who saw their wages erode during the entire period.

Indeed, and these are the very reasons why Keynesian economics are not healthy for a sustainable and healthy economy. One day the butcher's bill will come due after the assertions that the upper 10% of wage earners will spend back into the economy at a clip equal to the old line middle class. To be blunt, one does not get rich by spending money. You grow an economy with participation from all classes.


It's a combination of economic change, poor education and social programs, falling competitiveness in American manufacturing, inflationary shocks, and poor government decisions that have dragged down real wages.

No real disagreement here. But these are the symptoms, what is the REAL disease here?

I am going to stop here for now, and take back up later tomorrow (for me).

I hope they do they right thing and throw him in the slammer in an unnamed country with no disclosure to the Red Cross.

What is the relevance of this comment?

It's OK, the American media doesn't report much beyond your borders so it's all you know. After all, America has a greater population and thus Americans are superior.

By this argument, China is actually superior to the US. Your'e dumb.

By this argument, China is actually superior to the US. Your'e dumb.
You need to re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

You need to re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

And we have a saying around our house: "If you have to explain your jokes, they aren't funny."

You need to re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

itt wasnt that bad a joke, i got it, but please Francis Stree, No more

What is the relevance of this comment?

It's OK, the American media doesn't report much beyond your borders so it's all you know. After all, America has a greater population and thus Americans are superior.
By your logic we also think China is superior. Being the most powerful nation in the world is what makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. :p

I hope they do they right thing and throw him in the slammer in an unnamed country with no disclosure to the Red Cross.

There's no cause for that and that would be illegal.