While I'm glad that the entire world is buckling down to focus on the collective economic problems, I was disturbed to read this:
Summit participants vowed Saturday to cooperate more closely, keep a sharper eye out for red-flag problems and give bigger roles to fast-rising nations. But they avoided many of the hardest details, leaving them to be worked out before their next summit, after Bush is gone and President-electBarack Obama is in the White House.
No question of my support of Obama and hopes (hate to even use the word) that the intellectual advisors that he has surrounding him are hard at work, but why have the world leaders "avoided many of the hardest details" waiting for Obama to be sworn in?
"Start working on this now. Why wait until President Bush "is gone"? I'm sure he would like to get things rolling also. Does the world distrust Bush all that much?"
I think the rest of the world does distrust Bush - he was not exactly forthcoming over the Iraq situation now was he. Also I think he is, rightly, perceived as the lame duck that he is. I think many countries think that the difference between Obama and Bush is a welcome change and perhaps don't see the point in working out details with one president and then having a new president to deal with in just a few months time. Also, I believe it is widely known that Obama has been consulting with some top economic advisors so perhaps they are just waiting for his input/
I agree, but given Bush's track record the rest of the world has ample reason not to trust him. I agree that two months is a long time and the situation will likely get worse, especially as consumers tighten their purse strings. The only good to come from this is that lower oil prices means less revenue for many of the people who wish us ill in the world.
Right off the bat, I can think of three reason why international leaders don't want to get too heavily involved in a BushCo solution to the economic crises of the world.
First, Bush's track record in handling challenges is execrable. Look at Iraq, Katrina, energy policy, etc.
Secondly, the Republicans are still treating the crisis here in "trickle-down" fashion. Instead of following the suggestions of FDIC head Sheila Bair to start with the roots in the subprime mortgage debacle and find a way to keep owners in their houses, BushCo led by Henry Paulson is giving money to the institutions which tried hardest to cash in on dicey paper. Paulson isn't worried about the economy, per se, he's worried about "the system". IMHO, that's a telling difference.
Thirdly, any fixes which are put into motion now could conceivably undergo a dramatic change of course on January 21. The date is only two months away. Why build up plans and expectations for so short a period of time?
Pages
While I'm glad that the entire world is buckling down to focus on the collective economic problems, I was disturbed to read this:
Summit participants vowed Saturday to cooperate more closely, keep a sharper eye out for red-flag problems and give bigger roles to fast-rising nations. But they avoided many of the hardest details, leaving them to be worked out before their next summit, after Bush is gone and President-elect Barack Obama is in the White House.
No question of my support of Obama and hopes (hate to even use the word) that the intellectual advisors that he has surrounding him are hard at work, but why have the world leaders "avoided many of the hardest details" waiting for Obama to be sworn in?
Start working on this now.
"Start working on this now. Why wait until President Bush "is gone"? I'm sure he would like to get things rolling also. Does the world distrust Bush all that much?"
I think the rest of the world does distrust Bush - he was not exactly forthcoming over the Iraq situation now was he. Also I think he is, rightly, perceived as the lame duck that he is. I think many countries think that the difference between Obama and Bush is a welcome change and perhaps don't see the point in working out details with one president and then having a new president to deal with in just a few months time. Also, I believe it is widely known that Obama has been consulting with some top economic advisors so perhaps they are just waiting for his input/
I hear and agree with what you're saying about Bush, Janet.
"The only good to come from this is that lower oil prices means less revenue for many of the people who wish us ill in the world."
Ah, a nice silver lining to my cloud.
<<Does the world distrust Bush all that much?>>
Yes.
<<I hear and agree with what you're saying about Bush, Janet.
*whimper*
Right off the bat, I can think of three reason why international leaders don't want to get too heavily involved in a BushCo solution to the economic crises of the world.
First, Bush's track record in handling challenges is execrable. Look at Iraq, Katrina, energy policy, etc.
Secondly, the Republicans are still treating the crisis here in "trickle-down" fashion. Instead of following the suggestions of FDIC head Sheila Bair to start with the roots in the subprime mortgage debacle and find a way to keep owners in their houses, BushCo led by Henry Paulson is giving money to the institutions which tried hardest to cash in on dicey paper. Paulson isn't worried about the economy, per se, he's worried about "the system". IMHO, that's a telling difference.
Thirdly, any fixes which are put into motion now could conceivably undergo a dramatic change of course on January 21. The date is only two months away. Why build up plans and expectations for so short a period of time?
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Pages