5 Comments

1. Kyle
   Posted February 10, 2007 at 02:19 pm | Permalink

   I just want to highly recommend this article. It’s long (12 pages printed out in 12-pt Times New Roman font, 1.5 spaced), but it’s really, really, really good. Make it your shitter material if you must.

   It’s basically an economic explanation of where America is headed.

   While there is definitely a dislike for the President and his policies, it basically says that he isn’t doing anything that other presidents haven’t done since Eisenhower was in office, which is to strengthen the power of the executive; the difference is that this President, at the behest of his Vice-President (who has been working to this end since the 1970s) has made it almost the entire focus of his legacy. So, while the author of this piece doesn’t like the President’s policies, it doesn’t come off like a “liberal attack.” If anything, it comes off as a common-sense economic explanation.

   Seriously — even for liberal skeptics such as Justin — this is a great read.

2. justin
   Posted February 11, 2007 at 02:11 pm | Permalink

   Covert-liberal attack
   “Every president has sought greater authority, but Bush—whose father lost his position as forty-first president in a fair and open election—appears to believe that increasing presidential authority is both a birthright and a central component of his historical legacy.” I object on pure speculation.

   Anyway, while this country spends a gazillion dollars on defense, we also make money on the technologies we create. We do sell guns. But that is beside the point. He uses comparisons between our defense spending and our GDP. “A spike in defense spending in one quarter would see a spike in GDP, and a drop in defense spending would likewise see a drop in GDP.” But this will tend to happen when we are spending the amount we are spending in Iraq. If we were not there I do not believe this correlation would be as pronounced. But even if it is true and our economy rests on our defense spending I do not see an abrupt change happening anytime soon. The author gave the example of Clinton and what happened during his second term what is to say that something in that nature couldn’t happen again.
   I do not put too much on trade deficits at this stage because I believe that we are in the early stage of a strong global economy and with more companies will be multi-national. Trade deficits are and ebb and flow between countries and will be less important as we get further into this new economy. But even if I am wrong, and I am no economist, if the deficit starts to affect the economy the deficit will begin to fall. We have a deficit because we like to buy stuff that other countries make (and in turn those countries take our money and usually invest it back in the US in treasury bills, stocks, or real estate sometimes even baseball teams) PS3’s Nokia Phones, flat screen TV’s Ect, most of this stuff is non-essential stuff. So as the economy starts to slow because of this we will probably stop buying as much stuff. Like I said I am not an economist but I do not believe trade deficits are as bad.

   And for the increasing power of the executive branch all I have to say is 8 years. That is the longest that person can stay in office and with that comes a balance. If anything the Supreme Court holds much more power then the president.

3. Kyle
   Posted February 12, 2007 at 01:27 pm | Permalink

   No response to your comment, but I would like to say that it was a nice one for your 400th. Nice work, sir.

4. somedude
   Posted March 6, 2007 at 01:31 pm | Permalink

   how many comma-ments am i behind?

5. justin
   Posted March 6, 2007 at 02:35 pm | Permalink

   A lot dude but keep trying you will eventually ketch-up