Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    A surplus usually means you are being overtaxed by your goverment. Think of it as a vacuum-cleaner, sucking money out of the economy. That money should be in the private sector. In the last 12 months of Clinton's administration, our stock market was in a tailspin and a recession was on the horizon.
    No, having a massive deficit mean that taxpayers money is beng used to payoff interest rather than beng invested back into the private sector - therefore sucking money out of the economy...having a surplus means that the governemnt are able to invest and stimulate growth...

    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I don't know of any reputable economist today that would advocate running a surplus in a recession.
    And i dont know any that reccomend having the highest deficit in history during a recession!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    The media does not treat Bush and Clinton the same because;

    Clinton is charismatic and comes across as caring and intelligent, albeit 'a bit of a boy' whereas Bush is perceived as non-caring, a recovering alcoholic, war crazy and a buffoon - hence, not to be trusted.

    He may not be those things but that is how he is seen.
    now that i find easier to believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    now that i find easier to believe.
    We agree on something - Vienna? Or is it subtle sarcasm?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    We agree on something - Vienna? Or is it subtle sarcasm?
    No you were agreeing with her an Made in USAs argument because of the last line of your post...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    No you were agreeing with her an Made in USAs argument because of the last line of your post...
    Maybe - but I didn't say who I was referring to in the last line.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Apart from this making little sense, of course there will be some liberal bias because what he stands for is at odds wth the majorirty of liberals views just as, there is conservative bias against the democrats,
    the majority of mainstream US press is liberal, NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, hence they have a harder time liking Bush. it has nothing to do with the success of the economy. i fail to see(PQ - contacts or glasses?) how it 'makes little sense'.

    a good leader is able to turn around the bias and make indisputable achievements, something Bush has not done.
    and something that Clinton did with the right-wing press?

    Bush has refused to condemn the Israeli abuses, pro-palestnian whilst supporting the wall, selling wesapons to Israel and having made no positive differnce to the process whatsoever...
    firstly, there has to be Israeli abuse. if the Israeli actions are legitimate there is nothing to condemn.

    secondly, the Bush administration has reiterated concern over the security fence,

    WASHINGTON — Israel's plan to build 565 new homes in Jewish enclaves on the West Bank (search) drew criticism and an implicit threat Friday from the Bush administration. ..

    WASHINGTON - Tough-ening his stand on construction of an Israeli security fence, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the Bush administration would abide by congressional provisions for reducing U.S. aid to Israel for settlement activity on the West Bank.
    "We have identified some problems" "We have concerns about that fence," Powell said. "We have problems with it."

    "(W)e have expressed our concerns to the Israelis about the fence," he said. "We've urged the Israelis to consider the route that the fence is taking. The Israelis have stated that they are considering the route of the fence to minimize the impact on the daily lives of the Palestinian people. And they will take our views under consideration. We will continue to talk directly with the Israelis. The president committed to an open dialogue on this issue, as well as many other issues."

    "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has vowed to continue building a controversial security fence separating the West Bank from Israel, despite opposition from US President George Bush."

    "The Israelis understand our concerns and they said that they would act to minimize the impact on the daily lives of the Palestinian people,"

    thirdly, the Bush administration criticised the assasination of Yassin and other Hamas leaders.

    fourthly, Bush is the first president to recognise that a Palestinian state should even exist.

    a little off track here, this is about the US media and their perception of Bush.

    what makes America so special that they cannot condemn these action?
    do you really need to ask that? they are in a unique position in every respect.
    what makes France so different they can sign 200million arms deals with Israel?

    How did Clinton appease the terrorists, I do believe he attempted to bomb Bin Laden in 1998.
    briefly, although i suggest you go and read the evidence from the 9/11 commission hearings, Clinton had two terms to deal with Al-Qaeda, the same evidence was available to him as was provided to Bush, indeed **** Clarke was 'kept on' by Bush from the Clinton era. an attempted bombing of the WTC, the attack on the USS Cole an Clinton did nothing despite being aware that a threat existed and despite being the first person to link Al-Qaeda to Saddam and also President of the US when it became Congress Policy to remove Saddam. months into his first term, Bush pays the price.

    Pre 2001 what had Bush done by way of capturing Bin Laden or bringing down the Al'Queda network if what you say is true that terrorism grew and grew under Clinton?
    President Bush was elected in 2000. Again, youll find the evidence heard in the 9/11 commission hearings demonstrates that Bush had a matter of months to prevent an attack that he and state departments knew very little about. what we can see are the efforts Bush made with the state departments to gain clear evidence about Al-Qaeda, Iraq and global terrorism. had he had approximately 8 more years, he may have been able to do something about an attack that was itself years in planning.
    again, the 9/11 commission and any authority on terrorism can assert that Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist activity grew under the Clinton administration, from the beginning of the 90s.

    1. The economy is not growing at a faster rate in 'real' termss.
    real GDP growth?

    - the third quarter of 2003, US growth of 8.2% was the highest since 1984
    - for 2004, Real GDP growth was 4.8%, the best in 20 years.

    2.Under Clinton unemplyment fell by 3.9million, under Bush how many jobs have been created compared to how many have been lost?
    according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics who forecast employment levels, " the U.S. economy suffered a number of serious setbacks, including: the bursting of the technology bubble; the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; significant losses of stock market wealth; a stagnant job market; corporate accounting scandals; and uncertainties related to the war in Iraq"

    most, if not all related in some way to Clinton, with which Bush has had to deal with. quoting figures without any respect to context is certainly valueless.

    GDP/Capita is the highest it has ever been - correct, it is also now increasing at a far lower level than it had been for the preceeding 12 years, economic slowdown is not something Bush should be particularly proud of!!
    economic slowdown? are you not seeing the groth figures, its going like a train. Bush should be proud that such growth is being acheived, unemployment is a steady ~5% and on the back of a global recession, unprecedented terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and a state of war.

    Not a single country in the Eurozone has a budget deficit percentage anywhere near that of the US, you can stroke the figured as much as you like they will not lie, as a group of course the percentage will be higher - how coult they not be???
    French budget deficit was 4.6% in 2003
    German budget deficit was over 4% in 2003.
    US budget deficit was little over 5% in 2003.

    nowhere near? bearing in mind the context and growth of each, remarkably good.

    my apologies, my statement referred to state debt, which across the Eurozone is over 70% of GDP and in the US roughly 60%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    We agree on something - Vienna? Or is it subtle sarcasm?
    no, i agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, i agree.
    No, WE agree. The concensus on Blair and Bush is portrayed by the media, not me or you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    No, WE agree. The concensus on Blair and Bush is portrayed by the media, not me or you.
    im hoping were talking about the same thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    im hoping were talking about the same thing.
    Perhaps we're not then - oh well, whatever :confused:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    And i dont know any that reccomend having the highest deficit in history during a recession!!
    Highest deficit in history? Deficit as a percentage of GDP is much lower than it was in the early 1980s to the early 1990s. Historically, we have seen periods of vast economic growth following large deficits. I also challenge you to find one single economist that does not favor allowing the budget to go into deficit in a recession.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    im just dazzed and confuzed do to the too much postage thing :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BabyBallerina, you hit it on the head.

    Generally speaking, Americans do like the sound of their own voices, glory in their ignorance, and feel everyone has to jump through hoops to indulge them. Don't feel special, though, Americans seem to treat each other that very same way.
    But, please let me clarify.......not all Americans are like that. Only the overprivileged, elitist types I mentioned in my reply over the D'you hate Americans? poll...do i sound bitter? Perhaps.

    Klichey82, I mean you no harm, but do understand that not "most" Americans have the financial support that your family has afforded you. Maybe "most" Americans within your circle, not in mine.
    I believe "most" Americans are us working poor who are struggling through administrative budget cuts to reach for educational opportunities that are very quickly drying up!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Re: American Accents

    Most of the Americans I have talked to have always said they wanted an English accent (although most of them don't realise that there are more than 2 types of english accent), so I don't know if they all love their own voices... but then the vast majority of Americans I talk to are girls in their late teens And they usually have this fond view of Britons, I'm sure you know what I mean.

    And about the loudness .. well I'm very well travelled in Europe and, having been to some of the most touristy places in the world, I have to concur. You can always tell when there's an American group in the crowd. I'm not trying to criticise them or anything, I'm sure they don't realise it. Most of them seem to know basic things like currency and perhaps 1 or 2 words of the country's language, but when it comes to culture it seems to me that most of them either aren't interested or just don't know. For instance, one American I met on a tour bus of Barcelona, he was the owner of ****'s Sporting Goods in the PA area (apparently it's quite a well-known chain!) and he and his wife were spending 2 days in a major city of europe... barcelona, paris, rome ... I forget the other ones. Anyway I suppose this is the most economical way for Americans to see Europe (although just going to the major cities doesn't cut it for me), but he was so ferociously loud I considered visiting the local hopistal to get my ears checked. I think it annoys people when Americans display even a hint of arrogance. Another example - in Prague once I was sitting in the hotel lobby playing poker with my brother, and a group of very loud, very stereotypical Americans sat next to us. It was difficult not to listen to them... I think when Americans say things like "oh we did that country last month" Europeans might take offence. Is it possible to "do" a country? To me that sounds like they've gone all over the country and seen most of what it has to offer, whereas in this group's case they were talking about France and had been to Paris for a few days. Another thing was when they were talking about what to do the next day and they said things like "let's go down the river what's-its-name again". To a European, that could seem pretty rude. I know they didn't mean to offend anybody or appear to be rude, but when they had left and I went to get some more complementary mints from the reception, the guy there looked at me, rolled his eyes and said 'Americans'.

    I guess you could call it ignorance. And I'm sure that not all Americans are like this when they come to Europe (I mean I can only say things on what I've seen and heard already... which is only a tiny percentage of the total number of American tourists).

    In my city, which is quite touristy, the Americans are pretty knowledgeable and pleasant... but that's probably why they're in my city and not London in the first place.


    But in response to the original question, I don't think Brits do hate Americans ... but we certainly do hate their sports.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find quoting people to be much effective in debates like these..

    These were from a BBC programme.

    "What strikes me is how the most powerful country in the world, with all its resources and wealth manages to breed such an ignorant people. They know very little about the world beyond their shores, despite the fact that their collective heritage is derived from all over the world. Power breeds arrogance no doubt. Yet arrogance combined with ignorance is fatal."
    Michele, Singapore

    "For those of you that have such strong criticisms of the US, I ask you, have you ever even been to the US? Do you actually know any Americans or have any as friends? People only hate or fear that which they are ignorant about."
    Krista Little, USA

    "Krista: considering that 85% of Americans don't even own a passport, perhaps you should be asking the question in reverse?"
    Jan Helens, Belgium

    "85% of Americans do not have a registered passport. For my US readers, this means 85% of Americans have never left the 'homeland'. Is there anything else to say?"
    Koko, Canada

    "I do worry that American culture brain washes children at an early age to consider America superior in all respects to other countries. Can you see English children clasping their hand to their heart and swearing 'God Bless Britain'? I think this attitude is at the very core the way American people and American politics interact with the world. I also think that history has taught us that no matter how strong a nation or empire becomes, eventually it collapses."
    Roy Matthews, UK
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daiquiri)
    "85% of Americans do not have a registered passport. For my US readers, this means 85% of Americans have never left the 'homeland'. Is there anything else to say?"
    Koko, Canada
    How many Canadians have left Canada? How many Brits left the UK? Or, to make a better comparison in terms of geographical and population sizes, how many Russians have left Russia or Europeans Europe? And what would be the relevance of such statistics anyway?

    People often speak of the ignorance of an average American but do you really believe the 'average' Englishman is any less ignorant?

    If Americans are supposed to be so dumb, maybe you should ponder the following:

    Since the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901, Americans have won 76 medicine prizes, 65 physics prizes, 44 chemistry prizes and 27 prizes in economics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daiquiri)
    I find quoting people to be much effective in debates like these..

    These were from a BBC programme.

    "What strikes me is how the most powerful country in the world, with all its resources and wealth manages to breed such an ignorant people. They know very little about the world beyond their shores, despite the fact that their collective heritage is derived from all over the world. Power breeds arrogance no doubt. Yet arrogance combined with ignorance is fatal."
    Michele, Singapore

    "For those of you that have such strong criticisms of the US, I ask you, have you ever even been to the US? Do you actually know any Americans or have any as friends? People only hate or fear that which they are ignorant about."
    Krista Little, USA

    "Krista: considering that 85% of Americans don't even own a passport, perhaps you should be asking the question in reverse?"
    Jan Helens, Belgium

    "85% of Americans do not have a registered passport. For my US readers, this means 85% of Americans have never left the 'homeland'. Is there anything else to say?"
    Koko, Canada
    Is there anything else to say? That 22% of American adults have visited the Europe, but less than 14% of Frenchmen have visited the US? Americans dont claim to have the default monopoly on all things cultural? Why would the most powerful nation with "all its resources and wealth manages" breed a people so desperate to leave or emigrate? The British tourist is the most xenophobic and jingoistic of any foreign national in Paris. The American media is far more diverse than almost anything a European nation has to offer. American tourists for the most part are among the most humble and inquisitive people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting?

    "this means 85% of Americans have never left the 'homeland'" - what is the purpose of the single quotes on homeland?

    By all means, there will be plenty of ignorant Americans, but I think Europeans, especially the French and the British, only make hypocritical fools of themselves, by trying to point this out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    How many Canadians have left Canada? How many Brits left the UK? Or, to make a better comparison in terms of geographical and population sizes, how many Russians have left Russia or Europeans Europe? And what would be the relevance of such statistics anyway?

    People often speak of the ignorance of an average American but do you really believe the 'average' Englishman is any less ignorant?

    If Americans are supposed to be so dumb, maybe you should ponder the following:

    Since the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901, Americans have won 76 medicine prizes, 65 physics prizes, 44 chemistry prizes and 27 prizes in economics.

    Europeans in general travel the most in the world (notably England and Germany) both within the Euro-Region and transcontinental. (statistics-wise)

    Ignorance does not mean stupidity, neither does having Nobel Prize winners make a nation intelligent.

    Americans aren't any more "intelligent" than anyone else because they have scholars who have gotten prestigeus prizes and fames. Like Albert Einstein was a genius, yes, but because he was does not make America any smarter than the rest of the world.

    And the fact of the matter is, that we are all humans. Meaning all people have the same capability of achievement and success.

    But America has brought more successful people in the 20th century because of many factors: easy access to technology, high GDP, large spendings on R&D, and a high standard of living.

    Like take for example the Olympics. You have people of all different ethnicities and races winning the gold medals. But that doesn't mean a certain race is any better than another. But the majority of medals are won by USA and China.

    Are we saying that China has more capable athletes than anyone else? Because they won so many golds?

    No, the fact that the matter is it involves situations on where they live, do they have access to equipment, facilities, etc.

    Professors at Harvard have actually correlated these things and annually guess the rankings of the Olympics. Major factors are: GDP per Capita and population. China may not hold a strong GDP per capita, but their population offsets disadvantage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    People often speak of the ignorance of an average American but do you really believe the 'average' Englishman is any less ignorant?
    I have met both visiting Americans and Englishmen and Im embarassed to say the British win the ignorance award, each and everytime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daiquiri)
    Ignorance does not mean stupidity, neither does having Nobel Prize winners make a nation intelligent.

    Americans aren't any more "intelligent" than anyone else because they have scholars who have gotten prestigeus prizes and fames. Like Albert Einstein was a genius, yes, but because he was does not make America any smarter than the rest of the world.

    And the fact of the matter is, that we are all humans. Meaning all people have the same capability of achievement and success.
    I wasn't trying to claim that Americans are better than anyone else, just pointing out how meaningless it is to say that Americans are ignorant and dumb.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.