# 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 #
##########################################################################
Samir Kelekar writes:
Gimme a break; Bush inherited recession? My understanding was that the economy was its peak in 2000, late 2000.
That's not a fact. It peaked in the second quarter of 2000--the GDP growth rate reached 6.4%. It dropped drastically in the third quarter of 2000 (before the elections) to -0.5%, that's minus zero point five percent. It's not what you'd call an economic peak.
The recession (at least in the IT field) began just as Bush took over, and then 9/11 made things worse.The IT recession, as you call it, started as a consequence of the fallout of the dot com industry, which started as early as March 2000. Check the figures for the second quarter of 2000 to get an idea.
Where are you getting your data from?
The Bureau of Economic Analysis. www.bea.gov. Where do you get yours from?
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.Yes, most of us didn't see them. People on the planes which crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon got to see some of them. There's a fellow named Osama who had been around before the Iraq war. People in Israel get to see them (terrorists) every other day. Yasser Arafat knows many on a first name basis. America had heard from them before the Iraq war--remember the US embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi, the bombing of the _USS Cole_ in Yemen, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, ... My point is that the war didn't transform peace-loving folks into mass murderers.
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.Maybe, maybe not. Remember what was said about Afghanistan. It's worth waiting to see the eventual outcome of the war.
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.I don't understand how spending a premium of $100 billion per year can make economic sense. Your argument seems to stem from skepticism more than reality. .
And, people say they voted Bush on moral basis?22% of voters thought that morals were the most important factor, 78% thought otherwise. Almost 1 of every 5 people who thought morals were the most important factor voted for Kerry. (source: pewforums.org). I'm tired of this talk about all of Bush's supporters being fools who only consider morals in their choice for President. The morals issue is being blown out of proportion by liberals who are determined to divide America. Why do we hear so little about the 19% of Americans for whom terrorism is the key issue and so much more about religion being the main factor? In fact, the Bush-Kerry divide on religion is smaller than the divide on the issue of terrorism. (source: BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm )
People's morals must be in their knees, man.
Whatever.
Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.
Adeus, Peter D'Souza
