Re: Even the Thai baht is stronger than Bush's Dollar

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:36:20 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:59:55 -0700, Ron <ron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:57:30 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:46:23 -0700, Ron <ron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:03:28 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0700, Ron <ron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:35:31 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ron wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:59:38 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ron wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:34:02 -0400, Gary <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


Unfortunately Bush's dollar is also OUR dollar. -- gj

------------------------------------------
Excerpt ---

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts245.html

"....Then there are the economic costs to the US. Nobel economist
Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted
occupation of Iraq to be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The
dollar price of oil and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost
value against other currencies, declining dramatically even against
the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars of aggression, one
US dollar was worth 45 baht. Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.

The US cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month,
US Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated
unfunded liabilities of the US government total $53 trillion dollars.
The US government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush Regime even
has to borrow the money from foreigners to pay for its wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to bankrupt the country
and dethrone the dollar as world reserve currency....."


Actually it isn't Bush's dollar, it's Congress's dollar. The Congress
is the only branch of the government that can borrow money, spend
money, or approve the spending of money. And, by the way, the
Congress has been in the control of the Democrats since before the
dollar took a dive.

I don't buy that turkey.....Clinton handed Bush a surplus to work with,
at
which point the dollar was as strong as it ever was in the international
financial community. What Bush did with it (and our economy) in the
subsequent years of his tenure reflected financial policy that was viewed
as
a failed one by that community.

In any event, trying to convince us that the "knee jerk"
Republican-controlled Congress that Bush manipulated and controlled for
the
first six years of his tenure was somehow independent of his desires (and
instructions) is insulting to our intelligence. IAC, claiming that the
Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 is belied by the fact that
they don't have enough votes to override a veto without Republican help,
which has been noted more by its absence than its appearance. As a
result,
they're unable to control Congress in spite of their ability to generate
majority votes; control only comes when they can produce veto-proof
votes,
which they haven't been able to do. So, as a practical matter, Bush
still
controls the Congress at least to the extent that if he can't make them
do
something he wants to see them do, he sure as hell can stop them from
doing
something he doesn't want them to do. All he needs to do is to convey to
his Republican congresscritters his desires on any bill on their floor
and
they can and do make it happen for him.

You Repugs can't pass the buck on everything. Sooner or later, you're
going
to have to accept responsibility for the things that you do and don't do.
Blaming the Congress for the failure of the administration's economic
policy
is putting the finger on the wrong culprit who, unwilling as he always
is,
needs to step up and take the rap for his own failures and for once stop
trying to pass the buck. Anyway, when all's said and done, what people
will
remember when they realize that they can no longer afford to travel
outside
the country because of the dollar's weakness will be that it happened on
Bush's watch and that he wasn't able to keep it from happening. That
buck
he's never going to be able to pass on to someone else.

George Z.


Well, if you really read my response you can see I wasn't passing the
buck. I was merely stating facts. The president (regardless of
party) does not control spending. Congress does.

Your facts are my bucks being passed, and I consider what you claim to be
facts to be a very naive view of reality. However, you're entitled and far
be it for me to try to enlighten you. At least I can tell myself that I
tried.

George Z.


Come on George. You know the U.S. Constitution as well as I do. Show
me where it says the Executive branch of government controls spending.

As for reality, all the President can do is veto spending bills and
that is subject to an override vote. The Executive branch can propose
a budget, but the Legislative branch can make whatever changes they
want. Whatever the end result is, only the Legislative branch has the
power to approve or disapprove the budget.

Ron


Spending is not the only dimension of the problem.
The fact that we're not taking in enough money to
cover expenses is a more complete statement.

Again, only the Legislative branch has the authority to tax. The
President can request, pressure and threaten vetoes, but in the end it
is the Legislature that taxes and spends.


If your water freezes because the atmospheric
pressure is too great, that doesn't mean the only
way to unfreeze the water is to reduce the pressure.
You knew that, of course, didn't you? If you did,
why did you present the federal deficit problem as
though spending were the only aspect? A particular
political agenda?


I have no political agenda. I was merely trying to trying to point
out the facts on who was responsible for the condition of the dollar.
It isn't the president, no matter which party is in the White House.

Ron



I used to hear nothing but praise from Republicans
for Reagan and Bush, and the great things they
were doing. Now you claim they really had nothing
to do with anything, it was all somebody else's fault.
Too bad you didn't think of that earlier, it might have
sounded a bit less sycophantic.


Wait a minute. We're getting off topic here. The original posts were
about who was responsible for the spending and taxing that was causing
the dollar to fall. We were pretty much discussing how the budget is
formed and who has approval and disapproval of spending. My
contention was you cannot call the dollar "Bush's dollar" any more
than you could say it was "Clinton's dollar" during his
administration.


Reagan clearly had a lot to do with the tax cuts, he was promising
them all along and he delivered. Bush I and II were the same.

I never heard anybody suggest that Reagan had nothing to do
with the tax cuts before now. In fact, it always used to be the
biggest thing he was praised for. How odd that the idea he was
innocent of them should come up only now that the chickens are
coming home to roost. I'm sure the timing is just coincidence.

Whether the Reagan tax cuts were a good thing or a bad thing is a
matter of opinion and will not be settled in a forum such as this. The
only point to be made is the fact that Congress is the branch of
government that has power to raise or lower taxes.



If you want to broaden the discussion about "the great things" any
president was doing it's a whole new discussion. There are many ways
presidents can influence "how things are going". Like Roosevelt's
"New Deal", or Johnson's "Great Society", or Nixon's opening relations
with China, or Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech. But when it
comes to spending the tax dollars the government collects, it is not
the president alone who determines where the money goes. Congress has
as much power as the president, and maybe more, since they can
override the president's veto.


That was with veto-proof numbers of Republicans in at least one
house, under Republican presidents. Both houses would have had
to get a 2/3 majority to override any presidential veto. So you
can't blame the Democrats.

Oh, I'm not blaming anyone. In different periods both the Democrats
and Republicans have had veto proof numbers in one or both houses of
Congress. That is usually the result of the voter's wishes at the
time. However, it still comes down to the powers of the branches of
government.


What did Reagan do that was good, assuming a president can
do anything at all and isn't just an empty figurehead? I really can't
think of anything good Reagan did, though I guess there must be
something I've forgotten about. Running up the debt by tax cuts
in erroneous anticipation of spending cuts that never came can't
count as "good", though if any housewife did things in that order,
it would certainly count as really, really "dumb". Surely we can all
see that by now.

Reagan didn't make the USSR collapse. The USSR did that.

As to the Berlin Wall, not only did Reagan not bring it down,
it wasn't torn even down on any order from Gorbachev, though
the famous Reagan quotation was "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down
this wall!" The wall was brought down in response to rioting
East German people, nothing to do with the USSR or her
leaders except in that Russia had become so weak that it
could no longer control its empire.


It all has to start somewhere. You could also say that the policies
of the U.S. Government in developing various weapons systems,
including SDI forced the USSR into expending too much of their
resources in trying to develop countermeasures. Of course, this too
is only opinion, but that seems to be where we are right now.

I'm sure neither of us will change our minds about our beliefs an
opinions, but you must admit the U.S. Constitution pretty much spells
out the responsibilities and powers of the various branches of the
government.

Ron
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry
    ... The biggest factor in whether goverenment spending goes up or down is ... As president, Bush created the biggest deficit in American history. ... Again, the point is that if Kerry is president, the Republican ... congress will keep him in check. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Even the Thai baht is stronger than Bushs Dollar
    ... or approve the spending of money. ... Congress has been in the control of the Democrats since before the ... all the President can do is veto spending bills and ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Even the Thai baht is stronger than Bushs Dollar
    ... or approve the spending of money. ... Congress has been in the control of the Democrats since before the ... all the President can do is veto spending bills and ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Sean Hannity wanted me to ask you
    ... Reagan ran up massive budget deficits. ... social spending, but he didn't stop government spending because he built ... program spending (there's that pesky Congress again), ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: U.S. Debt Ceiling - Well BushBOTs?
    ... "SPENDING BY CONGRESS. ... If only there were some way for the president to block legislation ... if Congress passed a hideous ridiculous ... the same shit happened with Reagan. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)