Is there anything that he has done...Follow

Flish, trade deficit has nothing to do with what Meadros is talking about. There's a huge difference between buying raw materials from other countries and importing labor from those countries. The two are only very vaguely connected.

You seem to have a fixation on the word "deficit" as though it's inherently a bad thing. There's a very good reason for maintaining a trade deficit with other nations. It means that the US dollar has a presense in those nations. If you are selling more then you are buying, then you are collecting more of other nations currency, then they are of yours. Over time, that means that their currency has more "weight" on the international market. When you buy more from other countries then you sell, they are holding your money. This means that your currency will be used for other transactions, even between other nations. This in fact is exactly what happens. It also forces other nations into an economic detente with us. They don't want anything to happen unfavorably to our economy, since a devaluation of our currency hurts them as much as it hurts us.


It's kind of a unhanded thing to do, but if you are a nation that can maintain that kind of trade deficit (which we can afford to do), then it gives you huge power on the international trade scene. Once again, you show virtually no understanding of the issues you are arguing.


Jobs moving in or out of the country are completely unrelated to trade deficits. That's an entirely different issue.

Hitler liked dogs.

My point here isn't to compare Bush to Hitler.

It's to compare Ashcroft to Hitler. Oh wait, no it's not.

My point is that it's inevitable that any President will do posative things for the country. The question boild down if the ends which may be good justify the means which may be bad.

Bush lies and lies and lies and lies and lies. Nearly constantly. I'm sure a great deal of his lying is a result of him simply not being capable of doing the job he holds and being forced to rely on people who lie to him.

The result of the rampant lieng may occasionally turn out to be beneficial for the US. He didn't completely ban Stem Cell research. That's probably good. He crippled it a little, but on ballance it's probably good.

He cut taxes for the wealthiest 25 percent of Americans. That's good if you fall into that group untill you realize the absoulte crippling effct it'll have on the economy long term.

He spent a great deal of time on vacation early in his term, which is likely the best thing he's ever done for the country. That was good. He should stick with that, he's god at it.

Th removal of the Taliban from power, while sloppily handled and quite likely only temporary, is good for as long it lasts.

The White House Little Leuge is good.

He signifigantly stregthened our bond with the UK (while alienating the rest of the world) which is probably good if you're into Kidney Sandwiches and Blood Pudding.

Most importantly of all..

He made the Junior Senator from Massachussets, an empty suit jiggalo who hasn't made a decision in his life without consulting with one of his heiress wives or his care of special intrest cronies look like John ******* Kennedy when compared to him.

That's definately good.

Kinda sorta but, given that Dobbs probably thinks the Cato Institute is spreading bogus and tweaked info, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other depending on who's side you're on.

For example, Dyzalot points at a line from his Cato article that, in the article, has no source and could just as well be pulled out of the author's ***, and smugly asks "Who can prove it wrong?" How about the author proves it correct? How about Dyzalot provide some actual hard numbers from an independant source about how many positions are coming and going? It's his job to defend what his article says, not my job to defend it for him.

I'm, not saying Dobbs is right or wrong, just that no -- I'm not really amused that someone quotes from a source the original article says is 'out of bounds'. If I'm writing a persuasive article, I don't get to automatically say "Oh, and the opinions of these guys don't count so you don't use them to refute me! Ha ha!" Support what you're saying and, if you have a real bulletproof foundation, all the Dobbses in the world won't matter.

No, your link is bogus because it doesn't go anywhere except to a blank Yahoo page.

A link to the page that explains what Cato is about.
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

A link to a publication that talks a lot about what we have debated including a nice list of references.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj22n3/cj22n3-10.pdf

Flish, if you look back in the thread you will notice that the post where you included the CNN link you also quoted what I quoted about the loss of manufacturing jobs being lost to other countries. That statement about manufacturing job loss is what I refuted, you decided to bring all jobs and the trade deficit into the debate. One thing you need to realize is that we don't lose money with a trade deficit, all it means is that we are importing more goods than we export.

I still challenge anyone to show me where Cato is not true to their mission that I was challenged on. I would also like someone to show me an instance where the have not been factual with their numbers.

Is their mission propaganda based on shoddy research and study to support their tobacco financiers?
Is it to use flawed opinion data to promote their Social Securty agenda?
Perhaps their mission includes using false and misleading statements in their reports and acting as a "tax dodge" for their corporate sponsors to pump money into a 'think tank' that ultimately acts to promote their own corporate agendas
Or perhaps their mission of world peace includes claiming the Human Rights Watch never criticised Iraq while conservatives were helping Saddam gain power and gas Kurds.

If that's their mission, you are correct. It manages to uphold and protect that mission in spades.

I'm still waiting on my cite for the outsourcing bit. All that pdf had in ways of a "source" regarding jobs lost to countries like India was the Economist saying jobs are currently vulnerable to loss to India.

Edited, Fri Feb 27 03:20:07 2004 by Jophiel

That was my point earlier. They're not an objective organization. Whether it's left or right, when someone's got a serious, some may even say extreme, agenda, you have to really watch what they say. They could be going in with a point they want to prove and they prove it. That's not objectivity. It doesn't matter if it's the CATO Institute, the ACLU, the Rainbow Coalition, or the Taxpayer's League of Minnesota. You have to make sure you look at all sides. I commend you for looking at one side, but I really think you need to see both sides of the issue.

Grady

Edited, Fri Feb 27 10:55:06 2004 by Grady

Well they are neither left nor right leaning and anyone that considers them to have an extreme agenda must be against freedom.

Just to chime in here, he's right, Dyz. Cato is a propoganda machine. I happen to be a supporter of the propoganda that they spout, but it is that, none the less. That they are exremist might be called in to question, but not the zeal with which they attack their objective. Rather than simply list to starboard, they have completely layed down on the right. A good idea would be to take Cato and Rainbow numbers on an issue and average them to get a fair idea of the truth.

Not true. If you must label them then the most appropriate way would be to call them libertarian.

No, its more like the statement "An adult should be able to do whatever he(she) wants to do as long as he doesn't hurt the person or property of a nonconsenting adult." That certainly does not sound "right-wing" to me.

As soon as I learn of one I will.

Hmm... I don't think I'd say that the Cato folks (anyone else start picturing the pink panther when they read that?) are supporters of the Republican party by any stretch. When looking over their tables in the other thread (the "am I naive" one), I noticed that a lot of their graphs are very specifically designed to make the Republican party look bad. Specifically, the way they selectively choose to include or exclude non-discretionary spending when constructing graphs is very telling. The only data they had that I found non-skewed was the two charts that just had raw CBO data compiled on them (which just saves the reader the time of looking through 40+ years of CBO data). Every single graph I looked at except one had an anti-republican spin on it.


They are very much about the Libertarian party, and it shows. They attempt to pull Dems to their cause by showcasing their liberal social agenda, and they attempt to pull Reps to their cause by showcasing their economic agenda (or in this case, trying to make it look like the Rep's aren't being "conservative" enough). I wouldn't label them as anything else then libertarian.

I'd almost be libertarian myself except that I think they are a bit too extreme on the social issues and too extreme on the economic ones. We do need some controls over activities that people engage in, and we do need some controls over how people spend/recieve money. Government does serve that purpose. The almost complete hands off approach of the libertarians strikes me as only a step away from warlordism (is that a word?).