Lou Dobbs calls Paul Wolfowitz an idiot

[Higgly]

The latest budget projections for Afghanistan and Iraq now show a budget draw of One Trillion Dollars over the next ten years. To date, Bush has spent over 800 million dollars on this little adventure. When reminded by a correspondent that Paul Wolfowitz once projected that the Iraq war would be paid for by oil revenues, Dobbs commented that Wolfowitz is an "idiot".

Dobbs, probably one of the only iconoclasts in American newsmedia, an certainly the only one on CNN, has been giving the Bush administration hell long before it was popular, starting with what he refers to as "the war on the middle class" which has seen jobs shipped off without check to the nether regions of the world, thanks to outfits like Walmart.

Dobbs notes that the American economy is now largely backed by bondholders in China and India and that the dollar is falling like a stone. Dobbs has attracted some big talent, including Christine Romans, once star performer from CNBC.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Higgly

[August1991]

Dobbs, probably one of the only iconoclasts in American newsmedia, an certainly the only one on CNN, has been giving the Bush administration hell long before it was popular, starting with what he refers to as "the war on the middle class" which has seen jobs shipped off without check to the nether regions of the world, thanks to outfits like Walmart.

Lou Dobbs is a populist demagogue in the line of Pat Buchanan. (What ever happened to Ross Perot and his great "sucking sound"?)

Dobb's economic pronouncements are generally misinformed. You can safely ignore anyone who speaks about "shipping jobs abroad". More jobs are lost every year because of new technology and no one would suggest that we should halt new technology to preserve jobs. The same logic applies to jobs lost to foreign trade and outsourcing.

As the cost of the war, $200 billion per year strikes me as an exaggeration. The US military takes about 4% of US GDP or about $440 billion per year. I don't think half is spent on Iraq. Nevertheless, it is accurate to say that the Iraq war has been costly for the US economy. US GDP is lower than it otherwise would have been.

[bush_cheney2004]

The latest budget projections for Afghanistan and Iraq now show a budget draw of One Trillion Dollars over the next ten years. To date, Bush has spent over 800 million dollars on this little adventure. When reminded by a correspondent that Paul Wolfowitz once projected that the Iraq war would be paid for by oil revenues, Dobbs commented that Wolfowitz is an "idiot".

Errr...perhaps you meant $800 billion, but then that would be sophistry. Actually, the US Congress makes all appropriations...Bush can't spend a constitutional dime.

Dobbs, probably one of the only iconoclasts in American newsmedia, an certainly the only one on CNN, has been giving the Bush administration hell long before it was popular, starting with what he refers to as "the war on the middle class" which has seen jobs shipped off without check to the nether regions of the world, thanks to outfits like Walmart.

Yep, and one of the first countries to siphon off US jobs was Canada, but that's OK, right?

Dobbs notes that the American economy is now largely backed by bondholders in China and India and that the dollar is falling like a stone. Dobbs has attracted some big talent, including Christine Romans, once star performer from CNBC.

Weak dollar policy is by design....Japan holds more US paper than China or India, because it's still the best game in town.

[Topaz]

Errr...perhaps you meant $800 billion, but then that would be sophistry. Actually, the US Congress makes all appropriations...Bush can't spend a constitutional dime.

Yep, and one of the first countries to siphon off US jobs was Canada, but that's OK, right?

Weak dollar policy is by design....Japan holds more US paper than China or India, because it's still the best game in town.

Lets remember its US corporation coming here to Canada and then they move to Mexico or Third World countries to make their profits and thats ALL they care about it the profits. 67% of Carlyle Group manufacturing has ownership in North American until they move it out to Third World countries. No wonder each private shareholder makes a billion yearly!

[bush_cheney2004]

Lets remember its US corporation coming here to Canada and then they move to Mexico or Third World countries to make their profits and thats ALL they care about it the profits. 67% of Carlyle Group manufacturing has ownership in North American until they move it out to Third World countries. No wonder each private shareholder makes a billion yearly!

So it is OK for US corporations to move "American" jobs to Canada for profits, but not to China?

[Topaz]

So it is OK for US corporations to move "American" jobs to Canada for profits, but not to China?

Let look at the reasons they, the US corps. would come. Canada is alot closer than China and it would be cheaper to send the finsihed product back home. US has always come down on China because of issues of freedoms, but they don't mind taking their money even though their products are produced by companies owned by the military. US companies go down to Mexico and set up shop because its closer but they are having problem with education of their work force and every PM, its time for alittle nap! So the reality of this question is that US companies care MORE about large profits than their people!

[Higgly]

Errr...perhaps you meant $800 billion...

You're right. My mistake.

[Higgly]

Lou Dobbs is a populist demagogue in the line of Pat Buchanan. (What ever happened to Ross Perot and his great "sucking sound"?)

Dobb's economic pronouncements are generally misinformed. You can safely ignore anyone who speaks about "shipping jobs abroad". More jobs are lost every year because of new technology and no one would suggest that we should halt new technology to preserve jobs. The same logic applies to jobs lost to foreign trade and outsourcing.

As the cost of the war, $200 billion per year strikes me as an exaggeration. The US military takes about 4% of US GDP or about $440 billion per year. I don't think half is spent on Iraq. Nevertheless, it is accurate to say that the Iraq war has been costly for the US economy. US GDP is lower than it otherwise would have been.

Look at the numbers. How many are in Iraq as opposed to the rest of the world? Why is the US shoving forced re-enlistments down the throats of volunteers? I have no problem believing the US is spending $200 billion a year in Iraq.

You are right about Dobbs. He is indeed a populist demagogue. But he is right about Wolfowitz.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Higgly

[GostHacked]

So it is OK for US corporations to move "American" jobs to Canada for profits, but not to China?

You can just blame Corporate America for this problem. Americans are too expensive to hire, they want high salaries to buy things. To keep up the American Dream lifestyle. So corporations come to Canada, and go to other countries.

Most of the stuff you buy comes from outside of the USA. Even here in Canada, I am hard pressed to find anything that is 100% made in Canda, or the US for that matter.

Cheap labour and lax environmental and political systems that account for the move to China and build a big plant there is way cheaper for the company and makes bigger profits for the fat cats in the company. All about the shareholders profit. Pure and simple. If the host country is cheaper........?? But blame Canada for Corporate America's pursuit of the all mighty dollar.

[August1991]

Look at the numbers. How many are in Iraq as opposed to the rest of the world? Why is the US shoving forced re-enlistments down the throats of volunteers? I have no problem believing the US is spending $200 billion a year in Iraq.

Your own quote above implies that the war would cost about $100 billion per year over the next ten years. That would be less than 1% of US GDP. This is costly to the US economy but not impossible. Presumably the President and the Congress consider it to be money well spent when the alternative is considered.

You are right about Dobbs. He is indeed a populist demagogue. But he is right about Wolfowitz.

BTW, Wolfowitz did not say that the war could be paid for with Iraq oil. Wolfowitz said - in 2003 - that Iraq's oil revenues (royalties paid to the Iraqi government) could pay for Iraq's reconstruction. That is sensible if it was optimistic. For example, Alberta's oil revenues (royalties) pay for infrastructure in Alberta - and the rest of Canada too.

It is not incorrect to say that much of the turmoil in Iraq now is due to the inability of the Iraqi government to collect oil royalties or even decide who should collect them. BTW, Nigeria has a similar problem.

The quickening pace of oil deals between Kurdish regional leaders and foreign companies is another sign that Iraq is spinning out of control and the Bush administration has no idea how to stop it.

President Bush set enactment of a national oil law that centralizes development and ensures an equitable division of the profits as a key benchmark of progress. Iraq’s leaders, who have little interest in equity or reconciliation, have blithely ignored it. So the Kurds have taken matters into their own hands, signing nine legally questionable exploration deals with foreign companies.

NYT

You'll admit that the NYT is hardly a pro-Bush rag.

Edited October 23, 2007 by August1991

[Higgly]

Your own quote above implies that the war would cost about $100 billion per year over the next ten years. That would be less than 1% of US GDP. This is costly to the US economy but not impossible. Presumably the President and the Congress consider it to be money well spent when the alternative is considered.

They may, but the international money markets are showing what they think of all this. If I were an American, I would think healthcare would bring a bigger return on my tax dollar. The alternative (we're talking at the time Wolfowitz held sway here) was to leave Saddam in place, embargoed and powerless. Your alternative probably involves abandonning Iraq to the hothouse of terrorism that the US invasion has turned it into. Congress is without choice because of the mess that Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. has brought about. If they had it to do all over again, I very much doubt they would let themselves be lead into this trap.

BTW, Wolfowitz did not say that the war could be paid for with Iraq oil. Wolfowitz said - in 2003 - that Iraq's oil revenues (royalties paid to the Iraqi government) could pay for Iraq's reconstruction. That is sensible if it was optimistic. For example, Alberta's oil revenues (royalties) pay for infrastructure in Alberta - and the rest of Canada too.

Can you cite any reference to the proportion of Canada's infrastructure build (and don't forget that this country has a healthy infrastructure to start with) that is being paid for by Alberta oil revenues? I am doubtful you can make this case.

It is not incorrect to say that much of the turmoil in Iraq now is due to the inability of the Iraqi government to collect oil royalties or even decide who should collect them. BTW, Nigeria has a similar problem.

NYT

You'll admit that the NYT is hardly a pro-Bush rag.

Well sure, but whose fault is that? I'd say it's the fault of guys like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and that guy Cheney has working for him. Infrastructure under Saddam may not have been great, but it was a damned site better than exists now. The whole idea that Bush still thinks he can direct this sort of thing inside of a foreign state is the problem in the first place.

[bush_cheney2004]

Cheap labour and lax environmental and political systems that account for the move to China and build a big plant there is way cheaper for the company and makes bigger profits for the fat cats in the company. All about the shareholders profit. Pure and simple. If the host country is cheaper........?? But blame Canada for Corporate America's pursuit of the all mighty dollar.

Thanks for stating the obvious....but it doesn't explain the lack of Canadian outrage when US corps sent American jobs north, making any complaints about outsourcing to Mexico or Asia ring quite hollow.

[Higgly]

Thanks for stating the obvious....but it doesn't explain the lack of Canadian outrage when US corps sent American jobs north, making any complaints about outsourcing to Mexico or Asia ring quite hollow.

Maybe because in our case, the trade flows both ways?

[ScottSA]

Why is the US shoving forced re-enlistments down the throats of volunteers?

Link please

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe because in our case, the trade flows both ways?

Oh sure...many thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs were relocated from Canada to the USA....LOL!

[jbg]

Lou Dobbs is a populist demagogue in the line of Pat Buchanan. (What ever happened to Ross Perot and his great "sucking sound"?)

He's an absolute buffoon.