US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History

[Ithaca 37]

BERLIN - American Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the "worst ever" in American history, the online site of the weekly Der Spiegel magazine reported Tuesday.

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy," said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley......................

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm

 

[Tom]

He wants the baby boomers to be able to retire well. Did he say anything about 9/11? That's what changed the direction of things. Bush made a conservative decision with stem cell research that was a mistake. At least it can proceed with private funds though.

 

[feclnogn]

teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley......................

Why am I not surprised

 

[JohnSWA]

Hmmmm. Said this outside of the country....during an election year.....nah, can't be an agenda.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Not exactly. Carter is high on the list of "worst presidents ever".

"CARTER ECSTATIC, FINALLY FREED OF 'WORST PRESIDENT EVER' LABEL"

"Former Horrible President Thankful Bush's Reign Will Leave Him Just Some Sucky Ex-President".....

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i1news3.htm

 

[Hangar18]

The Washington Post requires registration, but I'm not putting up the entire article. I'll try to keep the snipet in context, which is mainly to point out that Mr. Akerlof, already shown as being from UC Berkley, is also on the Kerry campaign's payroll. The CommonDreams article does not make this known.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48168-2004Jul13?language=printer

From a tightknit group of experienced advisers, John F. Kerry's presidential campaign has grown exponentially in recent months to include a cast literally of thousands, making it difficult to manage an increasingly unwieldy policy apparatus.

The campaign now includes 37 separate domestic policy councils and 27 foreign policy groups, each with scores of members. The justice policy task force alone includes 195 members. The environmental group is roughly the same size, as is the agriculture and rural development council. Kerry counts more than 200 economists as his advisers.

In contrast, President Bush's campaign policy shop is a no-frills affair. Policy director Tim Adams directs about a dozen experts who make sure the campaign is in sync with the vast executive branch that is formulating policy. Adams's group also analyzes Kerry's proposals and voting record. Fewer than a dozen outside task forces, with five to 10 members, also help out on education, veterans' issues, the economy, and energy, environment and natural resources, said campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Kerry's expanding universe has opened the campaign to a torrent of suggestions and second-guessing, useful or not. George A. Akerlof, a Nobel prize-winning economist and Kerry adviser, recently became so agitated about what he considered Kerry's muddled campaign message that he crafted an entire speech for him, straying far from his economic expertise to pit what he calls the Democratic Party's moral view of human nature against the sinister forces that Republicans see driving humanity. The campaign politely declined.

"I thought it would be useful to see if I could write a speech," the University of California at Berkeley economist mused. "It was just in me."

At the very least, it has become draining for campaign staff members to finance and coordinate all the conference calls and meetings. Sarah Bianchi, Kerry's domestic policy chief, said her justice policy coordinator, Sarah von der Lippe, orchestrates four conference calls a week for her group. One campaign aide, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he feared angering task force members, said even the team names have developed "their own microdynamics." One task force is still arguing whether it should be titled the council on babies, children and youth or just children and youth.
.
.
.

 

[Hangar18]

Ithaca, that's pretty funny. It sounds like an article from the Onion.

 

[Nemont]

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And secondly, you disagree with giving tax relief primarily to wealthier Americans. The GOP argues that those people deserve it for working hard.

Akerlof: The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their savings . Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the US in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy are going in the exactly wrong direction. The worst and most indefensible of those cuts are those in dividend taxation - this overwhelmingly helps very wealthy people.

One reason the higher income people got the tax breaks is because they are the ones paying the taxes. I thought economist, for years, have been be bemoaning the low saving rates of U.S. citizens? Now is is a bad thing? Also the bulk of the tax break went to people earning between $45,000 and $100,000 per year I don't think that qalifies as the "wealthy" certainly won't starve but it isn't wealthy either.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If so, why's the President still popular?

Akerlof: For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets. It's my hope that voters are going to see how irresponsible this policy is and are going to respond in 2004 and we're going to see a reversal.

I think these two quotes sum up the reasons that conservatives have done well in the past few years.
1. They think they can spend my money better then I can.
2. They think if a person doesn't agree with them then it is because they are stupid.

Both quotes should be extemely insulting to any think American.

Nemont

 

[A-con]

The worst in American history ?

The left would have a lot more credability if they would cut out all the "sky is falling" rhetoric.

First Nixion, then Regan was the worst, then Bush Sr., now W.
Basicly, any president that isn't a Dem. is "the worst". Give me a break.

 

[danr55]

"George A. Akerlof, a Nobel prize-winning economist and Kerry adviser, recently became so agitated about what he considered Kerry's muddled campaign message " I wonder if that's because Kerry keeps switching directions?

...but then what more can you expect from someone from Berkely? I'm surprised the whole city hasn't fallen off the left edge yet..