So now what, Mr. Bush (or why coming home sucks)?

Author: Ms. TekPublished: Aug 31, 2003 at 9:27 am 6 comments

What a homecoming this is about to be

I am returning back to Chicago from a 3 month jaunt to Scotland to an unemployment rate in Illinois of 6.5%- the highest it has been in years. Unemployment in Illinois is so bad that the BBC Nightly News actually mentioned Chicago in a recent international news story. It went on to talk about how many workers have been displaced, esp. in the IT field. I can tell you that I am not looking forward to going back to Chicago. I’ll be lucky to find a job at Starbucks there. Shows you what a 4 year college degree and post secondary school training and education can do for a girl these days. If only I could get the money back for my tech training… as its obvious it was a waste now. I just don’t see the market coming back, esp. with most of our basic IT support jobs, call center, and banking analyst jobs going to countries such as India. It’s quite depressing

In the meantime, our great Commander and Chief, the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush gives great speeches about how the economy is slowly on the mend… yet there are still no new jobs opening up- well, I guess unless you want to work in a tank factory, gun factory, or anything in the military supply sector. Oh, and as a side note in case you didn’t notice, the US deficit is projected to be near 500 billion dollars in 2004, yet we are going to need to expect to spend billions of dollars” to rebuild Iraq“Tens of . Remember Iraq? The place where we sent off men and women, many of whom joined the military due to lack of jobs (and now look to return to lack of jobs) who are getting shot on a daily basis for trying to help Iraqis who allegedly were harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction? (Pray tell… if you can find Saddam’s sons, why can’t you find these weapons?) Things are so bad in Baghdad that the International Red Cross has removed most of its staff. On top of it, after it finally dawns on Mr. Bush the staggering monetary cost of this campaign that he was so determined to go it alone on, he now wants more help from the UN… no doubt to offset some of the US spending on this mission that it seems had no point from the get go. Then he seems suprized that the UN really doesn’t want to get involved. Are Iraqis better off now that the US has ousted Saddam? Sadly, it seems that more and more Iraqis are saying “no”. At least they had water and power when Saddam was in office

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - mike

    Aug 31, 2003 at 12:43 pm

    I don't like Bush, obviously, but I think the economy is what will get him re-elected, since it's now poised to recover. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic trends, and is showing signs of stabilizing, if not improving. The tax cuts and defense spending are kicking in and will provide stimulus.

    Bush critics suffer from a "gloom and doom" mentality. One of the reasons Bush's advisors are so cocky is that they know the economy is primed to recover and that the huge deficits will prevent any movement towards social programs. The poor are screwed and middle class is stressed but racial scapegoating at home and military adventurism abroad will insure a docile and dutiful populace.

  • 2 - John Mudd

    Aug 31, 2003 at 1:31 pm

    (1) It's not poised to recover.

    (2) Spin is only believed for a short period of time; and

    (3) Unemployment causes less consumer spending, which deflates the economy (which could be the cause for massive deflation in the U.S.), and deflation causes lower capital earning, resulting in fewer capital expenditures (such as employment of new employees).

    Three things are causing this:

    1. The trade deficit (see jobs leaving the U.S. for India for details...)

    2. The massive and bludgeoning deficit, which, in contributing to the national debt, isn't good, economically.

    3. The lack of free trade agreements benefitting American workers and companies (they're hard to negotiate when the rest of the world is mad at us).

    I'm an optimist at heart, but numbers and news stories don't lie. News stories may take things out of context, sometimes, but if you read as many newspapers as I do, you will get the truth, peace by peace.

    If you more closely look at the numbers and the facts, you will discover that only select industries benefitted from the Bush presidency, while other industries greatly suffered.

    I am not a "Bush hater" per se. After all, I did vote for him and did speak for him and bash Al Gore live on MSNBC for him in 2000.

    I am simply disgusted that he campaigned as a conservative, then governed as an oligarchich liberal, and has virtually become the hypocrite that he said Clinton was and promised us he would not become.

    If he changes his ways, I will vote for him in 2004, but I doubt that if he does change them, that they will be real. He has broken the trust I had in him. There are other conservatives who feel this way, as well, and then there are the false or desparate conservatives (like Ann Coulter, et al) who take up for him. I'm principled. I just won't do that.

  • 3 - mike

    Aug 31, 2003 at 3:19 pm

    According to economic statistics, demand is rising and inventories are falling; that's a clear cut sign businesses will have to rev up production.

    What we're seeing is a cyclical upturn within a downward or stagnant economic trend.

    In 1982, liberals said the economy was doomed and would never recover. It recovered. In 1992, people said jobless recoveries and stagnant growth were the future. They weren't.

    Doom and gloom is the norm among hard core idealogues, and consistently underestimates American capitalism's ability to rejuvenate itself.

    A major reason for this ability is the huge role the state sector plays in the economy. The state's role is hidden through defense spending, which provides the economy with tremendous technological innovation. Despite views to the contrary, the U.S. is one of the most centrally planned economies on earth.

  • 4 - Jim Carruthers

    Sep 01, 2003 at 4:21 pm

    Why is it that whenever 'murricans talk about "free trade" they mean tarriffs which favour USAians? If it's "free trade" it means no tarriffs. Assholes.

  • 5 - John Mudd

    Sep 01, 2003 at 4:48 pm

    "Free Trade" means that foreign countries trade equally with their foreign counterparts. The U.S. currently imports more foreign goods than it exports. This created and maintains the growing trade deficit we have with other countries around the world.

  • 6 - Jim Carruthers

    Sep 01, 2003 at 5:38 pm

    So, if the USAians arbritarily impose duties without any rationale that is fair?

    Give your head a shake.

    You're setting protectionist tarriffs against Canada and whine to the WTO about your barrifs and tarriers.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 21, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs