Is Bush Junior A Con Man?

Carrera said:

At about 2.00 a.m. last night I watched Bush Junior's speech on welfare reform e.t.c. I have a few comments and questions to put forward:
Firstly the worrying part: Did anyone notice that every time Bush opened his mouth, almost the entire audience stood up to clap slavishly? Some people may well laugh, but the last time I witnessed such a spectacle was during Stalin's speeches to the Supreme Soviet. I'm being serious here, as well. There was no criticism, debate, interaction, discussion, just blind adherence to the Republican line. The last individual to question Junior was John Kerry and it's a pity he missed a few opportunities.
The only time I saw some evidence of democratic expression last night was when Bush was briefly booed during the initial disclosure of his welfare reform plan (probably the Democrats). Granted, that wouldn't have happened under Stalin, although Krushchev was booed during the 20th Party Conference when he accused Stalin of abuse of power.
But now to get to the point about Bush being a con man of the evangelical persuasion:
He told his audience that America was presently the world's fastest growing economy and was applauded for his comments as people stood up.
Excuse me! Neither U.S. nor European economic growth would meet such a description in light of the fact countries such as China and India have far lower production/manufacturing costs.
It's a pity nobody pointed out to Bush that it costs about 10 dollars an hour to employ a general factory worker in the U.S. (or in Europe) as opposed to about 1 or 2 dollars in India or China. This is why the Chinese economy is growing at such an amazing rate, set to catch the U.S. up in about 2 decades as it accelerates forward (way ahead of Europe as well for that matter).
Admittedly, Bush can't be blamed for China's rapid economic growth but he was clearly guilty of pulling the wool over many peoples' eyes.
I didn't really know what to make about the welfare speech and wasn't sure I knew enough about economics to challenge what he said. But on the face of it, it sounded like he was trying to dress some bad news up with a generous dollop of icing on the cake.
Interesting how Bush tried to get the idea across that his welfare reform would actually improve peoples' futures in comparison with the old system that he claims is outdated. The whole reform was put forward as a positive development that would increase prosperity.
To be honest I don't really know how America's welfare system works and how it might compare with what we have in the U.K. I do recall, though, that when I went to Spain the people explained that when they work, they pay deductions into a personal social security account. In the event a Spanish worker loses his (or her) job, these deductions are paid back to them at a rate of 100 sterling a week but only for a fixed period of time (2 years), after which it runs out. In such cases, I was told, people would move in with their families or seek assistance in churches so nobody ever starved.
Here in the U.K. we get a paltry 50 odd pounds a week provided we can prove under contract we are actively seeking work. And we have a lot of people who fake disability in order to get some kind of easy income.
I'd be interested in an open discussion as to what people thought of this welfare speech (no flame wars hopefully). Do people worry about stuff like social security (as I do from time to time) and how many people feel Bush approached the issue like a dodgy door-to-door salesman? Anyone feel the Republican approach to welfare is a positive development and any thoughts as to how the whole speech went down in the U.S.?
Are Bush and Blair con men?

I don’t know what speech you watched, but the Bush administration (as far as I know) has never proposed “welfare reform”.
What they ARE proposing is a partial privatization of the Social Security system that is incapable of sustaining itself much longer.

All you have to do is get a consensus of how many people are paying into it right now, and figure how many people will be paying into it in 20 years (think about how many baby-boomers there are and factor in the ever increasing longevity and you get a system that is destined for bankruptcy).

I’m 40 now and I would much rather invest a portion of my retirement than trust it to the government.

Ask anyone if given the choice of investing their money or storing it under their pillow and I doubt you would find any “pillow investors”.

Carrera said:

At about 2.00 a.m. last night I watched Bush Junior's speech on welfare reform e.t.c. I have a few comments and questions to put forward:
Firstly the worrying part: Did anyone notice that every time Bush opened his mouth, almost the entire audience stood up to clap slavishly? Some people may well laugh, but the last time I witnessed such a spectacle was during Stalin's speeches to the Supreme Soviet. I'm being serious here, as well. There was no criticism, debate, interaction, discussion, just blind adherence to the Republican line. The last individual to question Junior was John Kerry and it's a pity he missed a few opportunities.
The only time I saw some evidence of democratic expression last night was when Bush was briefly booed during the initial disclosure of his welfare reform plan (probably the Democrats). Granted, that wouldn't have happened under Stalin, although Krushchev was booed during the 20th Party Conference when he accused Stalin of abuse of power.
But now to get to the point about Bush being a con man of the evangelical persuasion:
He told his audience that America was presently the world's fastest growing economy and was applauded for his comments as people stood up.
Excuse me! Neither U.S. nor European economic growth would meet such a description in light of the fact countries such as China and India have far lower production/manufacturing costs.
It's a pity nobody pointed out to Bush that it costs about 10 dollars an hour to employ a general factory worker in the U.S. (or in Europe) as opposed to about 1 or 2 dollars in India or China. This is why the Chinese economy is growing at such an amazing rate, set to catch the U.S. up in about 2 decades as it accelerates forward (way ahead of Europe as well for that matter).
Admittedly, Bush can't be blamed for China's rapid economic growth but he was clearly guilty of pulling the wool over many peoples' eyes.
I didn't really know what to make about the welfare speech and wasn't sure I knew enough about economics to challenge what he said. But on the face of it, it sounded like he was trying to dress some bad news up with a generous dollop of icing on the cake.
Interesting how Bush tried to get the idea across that his welfare reform would actually improve peoples' futures in comparison with the old system that he claims is outdated. The whole reform was put forward as a positive development that would increase prosperity.
To be honest I don't really know how America's welfare system works and how it might compare with what we have in the U.K. I do recall, though, that when I went to Spain the people explained that when they work, they pay deductions into a personal social security account. In the event a Spanish worker loses his (or her) job, these deductions are paid back to them at a rate of 100 sterling a week but only for a fixed period of time (2 years), after which it runs out. In such cases, I was told, people would move in with their families or seek assistance in churches so nobody ever starved.
Here in the U.K. we get a paltry 50 odd pounds a week provided we can prove under contract we are actively seeking work. And we have a lot of people who fake disability in order to get some kind of easy income.
I'd be interested in an open discussion as to what people thought of this welfare speech (no flame wars hopefully). Do people worry about stuff like social security (as I do from time to time) and how many people feel Bush approached the issue like a dodgy door-to-door salesman? Anyone feel the Republican approach to welfare is a positive development and any thoughts as to how the whole speech went down in the U.S.?
Are Bush and Blair con men?

Yes! Yes Yes Yes Yes!

ryan_velo. said:

Yes! Yes Yes Yes Yes!

It's hereditory surely, passed on genetically packaged and programmed. Is he a Bonesman yet?

Espada9 said:

I’m 40 now and I would much rather invest a portion of my retirement than trust it to the government.

My, my, what a lucky chap you are. You will probably live long enough to see the Bush family score a Hat-Trick.

Espada9 said:

Ask anyone if given the choice of investing their money or storing it under their pillow and I doubt you would find any “pillow investors”.

Hey Spade,

I thoroughly recommend endowment policies - they're great and they'll help you in retirement.

Carrera said:

Are Bush and Blair con men?

In a word "YES". Bush does'nt have any vested interest in Soc. Sec. He does'nt need it, hence he could'nt give a damn about it 😠 . Reagan worked w/ the Democrats to fix it once before but Bush wants to turn it into a privately owned system that would remove money from the general fund thus-depleteing it. The way it is now, if people die the money stays there to help the other "oldster's" who are still alive. Under Bush's plan, the money would be removed & the fund, consequently depleted. Same as the "inheritance tax", he does'nt want a dime going to Washington. He'd just as soon shut the capitol down & board it up, given the choice. Luckily he's a "lame duck" president & the evil, I mean Repub's, have to run again in 2006 so their not going to tie thier futures to dubya/king george. Blair is just along for the ride. When was the last time an English PM did'nt do our bidding 😕 .

Carrera said:

Firstly the worrying part: Did anyone notice that every time Bush opened his mouth, almost the entire audience stood up to clap slavishly? Some people may well laugh, but the last time I witnessed such a spectacle was during Stalin's speeches to the Supreme Soviet. I'm being serious here, as well. There was no criticism, debate, interaction, discussion, just blind adherence to the Republican line. The last individual to question Junior was John Kerry and it's a pity he missed a few opportunities.
The only time I saw some evidence of democratic expression last night was when Bush was briefly booed during the initial disclosure of his welfare reform plan (probably the Democrats). Granted, that wouldn't have happened under Stalin, although Krushchev was booed during the 20th Party Conference when he accused Stalin of abuse of power.
But now to get to the point about Bush being a con man of the evangelical persuasion:
He told his audience that America was presently the world's fastest growing economy and was applauded for his comments as people stood up.

I didn't watch the speech because he is a liar.
But what you describe above was the same posturing (applauding every sentence) when he made the address a few years ago when Bliar was there.

Carrera said:

Excuse me! Neither U.S. nor European economic growth would meet such a description in light of the fact countries such as China and India have far lower production/manufacturing costs.
It's a pity nobody pointed out to Bush that it costs about 10 dollars an hour to employ a general factory worker in the U.S. (or in Europe) as opposed to about 1 or 2 dollars in India or China. This is why the Chinese economy is growing at such an amazing rate, set to catch the U.S. up in about 2 decades as it accelerates forward (way ahead of Europe as well for that matter).
Admittedly, Bush can't be blamed for China's rapid economic growth but he was clearly guilty of pulling the wool over many peoples' eyes.

The US economy US dollar thread, details just how uncompetitive the US is.
USA is importing far more than it exports.

US companies are relocating - en masse - to territories outside of the USA because production levels are higher and costs are cheaper.

Interestingly, the US goverment has realised this in part.

To try to capitalise on this - they have given their companies a one year tax break to repatriate foreign-earned profits backs to the USA.
Johnson & Johnson, is already availing of this and is repatriating the $1.1 billion it made in 2004 back to the USA.
(interestingly, the rest of the world accounts for 75% of all J&J manufacturing, research and development - J&J believe it's too costly to make product in the USA !).

Carrera said:

Interesting how Bush tried to get the idea across that his welfare reform would actually improve peoples' futures in comparison with the old system that he claims is outdated. The whole reform was put forward as a positive development that would increase prosperity.
To be honest I don't really know how America's welfare system works and how it might compare with what we have in the U.K. I do recall, though, that when I went to Spain the people explained that when they work, they pay deductions into a personal social security account. In the event a Spanish worker loses his (or her) job, these deductions are paid back to them at a rate of 100 sterling a week but only for a fixed period of time (2 years), after which it runs out. In such cases, I was told, people would move in with their families or seek assistance in churches so nobody ever starved.
Here in the U.K. we get a paltry 50 odd pounds a week provided we can prove under contract we are actively seeking work. And we have a lot of people who fake disability in order to get some kind of easy income.
I'd be interested in an open discussion as to what people thought of this welfare speech (no flame wars hopefully). Do people worry about stuff like social security (as I do from time to time) and how many people feel Bush approached the issue like a dodgy door-to-door salesman? Anyone feel the Republican approach to welfare is a positive development and any thoughts as to how the whole speech went down in the U.S.?
Are Bush and Blair con men?

The US social security system was developed after the 1929 Wall Street Crash.
But let's be clear here.
The value of contributions to that system is diminishing due to fewer people working, more people being exempted from having to pay welfare, greater
levels of people claiming welfare through job losses.
So in so far as Bush has identified the problem, he is correct.
There is a problem.

Instead of tackling it, in a logical way, he instead has decided to allow the private sector (funds-shares/stocks) to have access to these funds, which were under public finance control.

This privatisation means only one thing - putting funds in to the hands of the
gamblers who are called financial advisors/brokers/investment analysts, in the financial markets.
Thus, these cretins will invest these funds in dotcom type-hyped companies, or ventures like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, while hoping (praying) for a better return over and above what this money should be invested in, such as goverment-backed investments.

Yep - Bush is a con man.

limerickman said:

This privatisation means only one thing - putting funds in to the hands of the
gamblers who are called financial advisors/brokers/investment analysts, in the financial markets.
Thus, these cretins will invest these funds in dotcom type-hyped companies, or ventures like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, while hoping (praying) for a better return over and above what this money should be invested in, such as goverment-backed investments.

You are mistaken i beleive. The money must be put into 1 of 5 different diversified moderate managed funds. The money can not be invested into risky ventures as the ones you have suggested. Much like a 401k, there is a list of diversified funds-like buffets plan that he offers. My issue is the removal of the money from the trust fund in the 1st place.

davidmc said:

You are mistaken i beleive. The money must be put into 1 of 5 different diversified moderate managed funds. The money can not be invested into risky ventures as the ones you have suggested. Much like a 401k, there is a list of diversified funds-like buffets plan that he offers. My issue is the removal of the money from the trust fund in the 1st place.

How do you know that the funds are diversified ?
What guarantee is there that they are moderate managed funds ?
What underpins the rate of return ?
Nothing in this life is a sure bet - apart from goverment backed investment.
At least with a goverment backed investment, you have some hope of retrieving your money.
Any money that is invested privately - no matter how Blue Chip the vehicle may be - is open to the vageries of losses through inept investment decisions, theft, fraud, conflict of interests.

You claim to have university-economics.
The only sure bet - where the money invested is guaranteed come what may,
is a goverment backed fund.

People can say that private funds are bullet proof, honest etc etc.
History shows this not to be the case.
.

davidmc said:

You are mistaken i beleive. The money must be put into 1 of 5 different diversified moderate managed funds. The money can not be invested into risky ventures as the ones you have suggested. Much like a 401k, there is a list of diversified funds-like buffets plan that he offers. My issue is the removal of the money from the trust fund in the 1st place.

I've got two excellent investment vehicles which the Bush goverment might invest in : Monmore and Brough Park.

Both investments attract large followings and they get a lot of media coverage
(free advertising).
Both investments move quickly and the odds are very good.

limerickman said:

I've got two excellent investment vehicles which the Bush goverment might invest in : Monmore and Brough Park.

Both investments attract large followings and they get a lot of media coverage
(free advertising).
Both investments move quickly and the odds are very good.

I think they've done their dough there already. Like you say, a nice big fat overround book.

limerickman said:

How do you know that the funds are diversified ?
What guarantee is there that they are moderate managed funds ?
What underpins the rate of return ?
Nothing in this life is a sure bet - apart from goverment backed investment.
At least with a goverment backed investment, you have some hope of retrieving your money.
Any money that is invested privately - no matter how Blue Chip the vehicle may be - is open to the vageries of losses through inept investment decisions, theft, fraud, conflict of interests.

You claim to have university-economics.
The only sure bet - where the money invested is guaranteed come what may,
is a goverment backed fund.

People can say that private funds are bullet proof, honest etc etc.
History shows this not to be the case.
.

You are correct, even moderately risky investments are susceptible to a complete loss. I just remembered about the gargantuan loss to all Americans a couple years back. Even moderate investors lost @30+ of their net wealth. My apologies. I did hear, although, that there will be strict guidelines to the type of investments & the regulation of the wall street types as to the amt which they can charge for such services. Knowing Bush's ideology, I would; of course want that in writing 😄 .

FredC said:

It's hereditory surely, passed on genetically packaged and programmed. Is he a Bonesman yet?

Do what now?

davidmc said:

You are correct, even moderately risky investments are susceptible to a complete loss. I just remembered about the gargantuan loss to all Americans a couple years back. Even moderate investors lost @30+ of their net wealth. My apologies. I did hear, although, that there will be strict guidelines to the type of investments & the regulation of the wall street types as to the amt which they can charge for such services. Knowing Bush's ideology, I would; of course want that in writing 😄 .

I will give Bush credit for identifying the problem in the welfare system (although it's not nuclear physics to diagnose the problem, either).

I feel though that his remedy - is not a remedy for the problem.
It is, instead, an oportunity for him to allow his silver spoon cronies to get their inept and incompetent hands on public finances.
Investment analysts/financial advisors are only interested in one thing : making money for themselves and then making money for their clients.
In this instance, the American public is the client.

limerickman said:

I thoroughly recommend endowment policies - they're great and they'll help you in retirement.

how good are endowments for helping to pay off a mortgage?...*crosses fingers*

He pulled a Clinton. He took all the Dem/Liberal points and gave them a Republican/Conservative twist. That's why both sides of the aisle were standing and applauding him.

MountainPro said:

how good are endowments for helping to pay off a mortgage?...*crosses fingers*

sssshhhhhhhh.
Spade might just go and buy one !

Trekker2017 said:

He pulled a Clinton. He took all the Dem/Liberal points and gave them a Republican/Conservative twist. That's why both sides of the aisle were standing and applauding him.

So who were those people shouting "no" during his speech ?

limerickman said:

I will give Bush credit for identifying the problem in the welfare system (although it's not nuclear physics to diagnose the problem, either).

I feel though that his remedy - is not a remedy for the problem.
It is, instead, an oportunity for him to allow his silver spoon cronies to get their inept and incompetent hands on public finances.
Investment analysts/financial advisors are only interested in one thing : making money for themselves and then making money for their clients.
In this instance, the American public is the client.

Correct we just have to come up w/ a way for it to remain solvent. Here are three ways that could help out, only one is necessary. 1) lower the benefits 2) increase taxes 3) increase the retirement age. Bush just wants to take some of the money & go to Las Vegas (Wall St.). At least in Las Vegas, they give you free drinks as they are slowly but surely taking your money.