########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
> > >It is very interesting indeed, Samir. The truth of the matter is that in spite of the economy losing 1.9 million jobs due to the recession that >Bush inherited, and in spite of the economic fallout of September 11, Gimme a break; Bush inherited recession? My understanding was that the economy was its peak in 2000, late 2000. The recession (at least in the IT field) began just as Bush took over, and then 9/11 made things worse. Where are you getting your data from? >the Bush administration created an economic stimulus package which resulted in the recovery of over 800,000 jobs. ..and it continues to grow for the 14th straight month. Manufacturing has increased too. >Unemployment is down by more than 1 percentage point, and is as low as Unemployment down, compared to when? >it was during the prosperous Clinton economy of 1996. So, "despite the bad economy, people losing jobs", it is only as bad as it was when Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Nobody was complaining then, and the American people who were affected by it during the last 4 years seem to think it's only as significant a problem as it was in 1996. The United States share of the world's GDP at the time Bush took office was about 25%, it's now 33%. There is no cause to complain about the superb growth in GDP. No, they also voted based on economic concerns as I outlined above. People do vote based on religious feelings, one of many factors. Values play an important role too. In a country where the rule of law is paramount it must come as a given that a strong moral code undergirds the foundation of that law. I think it was Malcolm X who once said "if >you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". Bush stands for muscle flexing, for the "might is right" kind of order. As we have seen as a justification of Iraq war, even facts dont come in the way of Bush's muscle flexing. One thing is sure that this will create more terrorists. For instance, those who are keeping people hostage now, and massacaring, they were nowhere to be seen before the Iraq war. >The fear factor coupled with the fact that the United States has been effectively protected against any major terrorist act since September 11, 2001 has been an important contributor in the re-election of George W. Bush. There have been many planned attacks which have been stopped, >and terrorist sleeper cells have been uncovered. This is well documented. What about 1000 American casualties? Going by how things are going, these are only going to increase in the next four years, it looks like. > >The outsourcing of manufacturing has several benefits, among them the average household in the United States has about $2,000 each year in spending cash. The outsourcing of tech jobs to Bangalore and other places has several benefits, one of which is that American consumer goods end up in the hands of foreign consumers. I won't bore you with more detail, but there are liberals and conservatives alike who share that sentiment. You might want to check articles on the subject by Thomas Friedman (a liberal), the influential foreign affairs editor of the New York Times, or the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal (conservative). Regarding war costs: there are significant amounts of the money spent there which comes back to the United States since American contractors such as Raytheon and Halliburton have been >providing infrastructural support. I frankly think that this needs more study; whether outsourcing in general benefits the American people or just the corporates or both. >Of course, if the Iraqi resistance calms down, and Bush is >able to get cheap oil from Iraq --- which was his main aim anyway --- then >it may be good for the American economy. > > Sir, you have no idea what you're talking about. Spending an extra $100 >billion a year does not make oil cheaper. Hey, if you get oil fields free, spending that much money could make economic sense. Certainly it does not make any legal sense (and I am talking international law here), and certainly not moral sense. And, people say they voted Bush on moral basis? People's morals must be in their knees, man. I think it was Gore Vidal who said : Half the Americans dont read newspapers. Half don't vote. Hope it is the same half. Cheers, Samir >Peter D'Souza
