On the same day as it was announced that the U.S. economy lost 17,000 jobs, the U.S military says al-Qaida in Iraq was responsible for bombings in two popular Baghdad pet markets. The death toll has been raised to 99, making it the deadliest day in the capital in several months.
Authorities say the two blasts, which occurred 20 minutes apart, were carried out by two mentally disabled women strapped with explosives set off by remote control. Earlier in the week 5 more U.S. servicemen died bringing the number of U.S. military deaths to 3,943 in Iraq (29,038 wounded).
But Iraq has been pushed off the front page. Instead, Newsweek, this week, leads with The
Road to Recession. The highlights (or low lights) of the struggling economy is the subprime collapse that bust the housing bubble (includig more foreclosures than at anytime since before 2003; Wall Street's resulting credit crunch, the Euro vs. the Dollar (.68 euro = 1 dollar) and more. Like $3+ price at the pump. Meanwhile, thanks to surging oil prices, Exxon Mobil’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.
Road to Recession. The highlights (or low lights) of the struggling economy is the subprime collapse that bust the housing bubble (includig more foreclosures than at anytime since before 2003; Wall Street's resulting credit crunch, the Euro vs. the Dollar (.68 euro = 1 dollar) and more. Like $3+ price at the pump. Meanwhile, thanks to surging oil prices, Exxon Mobil’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.
Has the pivotal issue now become how the candidates will lead us out of economic doldrums, and the 1992 election strategy of "It's the economy stupid," has replaced the 2006 strategy of "Being in Iraq is stupid?"
President Bush acknowledged economic troubles on Friday, as he called for quick passage of the tax cut stimulus package:
Bill Clinton's camp made famous the, "It's the economy, stupid," quote. And under President Clinton's leadership, Forbes magazine ranked Bill Clinton as the top proserity president in modern era.
"To be sure, there is a sharp debate as to the ability of any president — or government — to control the economy. But that doesn't prevent the heads of Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup from rooting for one candidate over another based on expectations of economic performance. Fairly or not, each president was judged by how much prosperity is delivered on his watch. Some presidents, it seems, have watched a lot more effectively than others. (We did not rank the current president, whose term is not yet over.) "
How much impact each presidential candidate could have on the ecomony is debatable. But there were a couple of ecomomic endorsements on Friday. Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Paul Voelker endorsed Barack Obama, and Steve Forbes (founder of Forbes magazine and former flat-tax presidential candidate) is backing John McCain.
Reuters has a fact box on the presidential candidates plans on the economy:
So what is the biggest issue to you this campaign. The War in Iraq? The Dying Economy? Or is something else?
5 comments:
Iraq and Globalization are my biggest issues. One of the reasons I am supporting McCain is because he supports free-trade agreements. As for Iraq, we certainly screwed up our strategy, but we need a stable democracy in the Middle East. Everyone wants to see our troops home, but I don't support candidates who vow to cut and run. That will only lead to chaos and a failed Iraqi state. Remember, though, the President does not have control over the economy. Effects of their policies are generally relative.
People talk about cutting and running, but what alternatives do we have? Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and nothing we do is going to change that. We could leave now with just under 4,000 dead soldiers, or stick it out and leave in 20 years with who knows how many dead Americans. In either case, there is still going to be a civil war in Iraq.
This is a good example of the polar opposite opinions expressed by the Republicans and Democracts respectively. I think that we can agree that Iraq has become a quagmire for the United States but I wish politicians would more pragmatic and realize this. As I said time and again, America should have never invaded Iraq but the fact is that it is occupying the country. The mess in Iraq is mostly America's fault. So, having said this, America should have the goal to leave Iraq but ONLY AFTER a stable democracy and government are set in place. America's goal should not be to stay in Iraq for 20-30 years nor should it be to "cut and run". Their are options. I realize their are many reasons against Iraqi stability, like the civil war and government instability. But history has proven to us that stability is possible even in the most heterogenous socities. One way to facilitate democracy and stability is to change America's priorities in Iraq. Thier is reasonable evidence to believe that Bush invaded Iraq because of the oil and we can see this by the outrageous oil profits and skyrocketing stock prices which started rising in 2003 (the year of the invasion). The current Iraqi officials realize this so they know that America won't care if they take bribes and abuse their power. So, just by changing the priorities, the face of the Iraqi government will change as well because they realize the pressure to establish a stable government. Even today, America has a lot of influence over other country's. It just needs to remember how to use it properly.
I think that MSM is fianlly getting sick of discussing the Iraq War. After all, how many times and ways can they possibly say that President Bush screwed up? Therefore, they have moved on to their next issue and they will no doubt beat that to death until something else comes along. Personally, I disagree with Will. We cannot just leave Iraq now, it is too unstable still and I am worried that leaving too quickly will cause even more problems for our country as well as for Iraq. As for the economy, the government should just let it be and Garrett is right, the President doesn't have any control over the economy.
When it comes to Iraq, there are two viable options for the United States. One is a draft, so we don't have soldiers going on 4th and 5th tours of duty, because that didn't even happen in Vietnam. The draft would have to get an additional 600-800 ground troops in addition to 100-200 support troops. However, this is never going to happen. The fact is, from a purely military standpoint, there is no way to sustain the presence we have there now, and come out of it without huge losses of life, or without huge problems in the military. However, since that will never happen, the only viable option is to do what we've done in so many other countries: keep elite military units there to keep the peace (on non permanent bases), and "advise" the Iraqi's on what to do in order to gain control over thier country. To be perfectly honest, as soon as the US leaves, Muqtada Al-Sadr will take over the country. But to just up and leave is not only ludicrous, but is disasterous, and we owe the Iraqi PEOPLE much more than that.
Post a Comment