agoodlibertian

• Propped Articles (2) »
• Submitted Articles (0) »

Recent Activity

agoodlibertian's privacy settings prevent you from viewing their activity.

Talkin’ to agoodlibertian View All (4) »

•  
  

  kotakpeluang4 months, 3 weeks ago

  visit my blog, http://kotakpeluang.blogspot.com

•  
  

  keathjohn257 months, 2 weeks ago

  Your articles was very nice. and ur profile was great. I think u r amazing
  make money online

•  
  

  mackenzie227 months, 3 weeks ago

  Thanks for the articles - it's good to have a complete view of the issue
  
  revival

•  
  

  chevydog1 year, 2 months ago

  Since it is the Prez who takes a country into a war, wars can cause economic problems like the Iraq war which is the main reason oil went up in price(along with the rants about attacking Iran). The Prez can make suggestions about things like changing our energy policies, education policies etc. This prez took us into a war which he had prior knowledge that
  it could cause gas prices to rise, he did not seem to care. So your statement is incorrect. Bush is one of the main reasons this economy is in the toilet so to speak.
  
  Thought I'd reply to you via this instead of cluttering up the humor thread. You hit a lot of notes with me.
  
  I consider myself a traditional, somewhat conservative Repub. We used to have the prefix Chamber of Commerce or Main Street attached to us. Many of my ilk were small-town businessmen. I'm the son of one of these. Fiscal prudence was very high on the priority list with us. This alone puts me at odds with GWB and those who worship Reagan. As a Repub committeeman in 1980, I supported Bush I over Reagan. But I was the only one in the caucus who did (we also had one John Anderson guy). To give you some idea where I fit in the Repub spectrum, I've worked in campaigns for William Scranton, Arlen Specter, and John Danforth. Not many of these guys have much in common with GWB, nor do I. Also believe that many of GWB's acolytes and supporters have a severe lack of class.
  
  Specifcally on Iraq, I was livid about it. To me, Mr. Bush spit in the face of our country's traditions and ideals. And the guy has the guts to wear a flag pin. Terrible policy plus complete lack of class.
  
  I can accept part of your argument. Bush went into Iraq about the same way he does too many things, by reflex and with too little thought. Sometimes one wonders whether he was educated at all. Or maybe he just doesn't want to think. Dunno. Anyway, he's antagonized many friends and trashed our ability (which we prize, maybe egotistically) to argue from the moral high ground. Not to mention the huge deficit, which has noticeably hurt even an economy as big and diverse as ours.
  
  Charlson, in the post before yours, kicks Bush for deregulating the financial orgs and allowing them to make stupid loans. I don't entirely agree with this. Deregulation is one thing. Acting prudently is another. You're still responsible for your own actions as a manager, even if you're acting within the law. So I tend to blame them more for the mortgage debacle than the fact that the law let them do what they did. Frankly, i'm a little surprised that there weren't more stockholder actions against senior execs in that industry than there were. After all, they're entrusted not only with growing an asset (stockholder capital) but also with protecting it.
  
  In the always interrelated economic world, the major deficits unquestionably hurt the Government's ability to respond to the weakening economy. And you shouldn't be preaching what you don't even try to practice. And even if you do preach it, your credibility is zero.
  
  Anyway, it seems that you're arguing that Iraq caused the recession. My opinion is that the R is a normal business cycle thing, and that Iraq by-products compunded it. Don't see that either view is necessaily incompatible with the other and does not have some element of truth. If it's OK with you, we can leave it at that.
  
  Chevydog