Posted on 12/23/2006 1:35:14 AM PST by JohnHuang2
if you're going to make an argument for anything, make it a good one and please leave the garbage out of your posts. If the economy is going so well there, why are there several posts today talking about President Bush considering the ISG's suggestion that there be an infusion of capital for a massive jobs program in Iraq? A good economy could be left bt itself to grow jobs. I would guess prior to 1990, Iraqis did without cell phones; let them do without them, again, if the insurgents use them to communicate the progression of our troops on patrol to hit them with IEDS. If that makes me a critic of the war, or you feel that I have the idea that Iraq is a quagmire, you're entitled to your judgement. In the meantime, Merry Christmas to you and your family.
I agree with you, there is not a civil war, and I am hopeful one will not occur. I believe this in spite of what the media tell us, because I have heard Iraqi after Iraqi say the same thing, that there will be no civil war, they fear a civil war,etc. I am also hopeful, that, though they don't admit it, the AP and their ilk have been shamed into providing some coverage other than regurgitated propaganda by the exposure of the Jamil Hussein fraud. I am hopeful for greater success in Iraq in the new year than any of us coukd even imagine today. I do not believe our enemies there have either inexhaustible will or resources and that continued pressure will cause their collapse. Who could have predicted at the beginnig of 1989 what the end of the year would bring?
The nation and economy known as the new Iraq is succeeding, and those who dispute this are simply lying.
In calling anyone who disagrees a liar, one would think that McCullough would be very careful to avoid making any errors and being likewise branded a liar. Amazingly, however, his editorial is chock full of errors or, if you prefer, lies. For example, the seventh paragraph states:
While we in the U.S. are thrilled to hear about GDP (gross domestic product) growth coming in at around 4 percent (so much so that it begins to bring down our national debt faster than expected), imagine enjoying Iraq's GDP growth of 13 percent in 2006 – which followed a record year in 2005 of 17 percent.
Of course, anyone who knows anything about our national debt knows that it is going UP, not coming down "faster than expected". The following table shows the total (gross) federal debt and the debt held by the public since 1997:
TOTAL FEDERAL DEBT (billions of dollars)
Intra-
Fiscal Debt Held Gov't Total
Year End by Public Change Holdings Change Debt Change
---------- --------- -------- --------- -------- --------- --------
9/29/2006 4843.1 241.9 3663.9 332.4 8507.0 574.3
9/30/2005 4601.2 293.9 3331.5 259.8 7932.7 553.7
9/30/2004 4307.3 383.3 3071.7 212.6 7379.1 595.8
9/30/2003 3924.1 370.9 2859.1 184.1 6783.2 555.0
9/30/2002 3553.2 213.9 2675.1 206.9 6228.2 420.8
9/28/2001 3339.3 -66.0 2468.2 199.3 5807.5 133.3
9/28/2000 3405.3 -230.8 2268.9 248.7 5674.2 17.9
9/30/1999 3636.1 -97.8 2020.2 227.8 5656.3 130.1
9/30/1998 3733.9 -55.8 1792.3 168.9 5526.2 113.0
9/30/1997 3789.7 1623.5 5413.1
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt,
online at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
As can be seen, the total debt has been increasing by over a half trillion dollars a year for the past 4 years. This includes the monies being borrowed from Social Security and other trust funds. Even the debt held by the public (which excludes the trust fund borrowing) has been increasing for the past five years. McCullough would likely claim to have been talking about the DEFICIT rather than the DEBT. But, by the standard he set in his first sentence, he is a liar.
McCullough states that U.S. GDP growth is coming in at about 4 percent. According to a 12/21/06 BEA news release, however, real GDP increased at just 2.0 percent in the last quarter. McCullough appears to be talking about the current-dollar (uncorrected for inflation) growth of 3.8 percent. It's possible that the 13 percent growth in Iraq's GDP is likewise not corrected for inflation. This is significant in that an article on the Online NewsHour website states the following:
The IMF reports insurgent violence is responsible for much of the markup on consumer products as well, and predicts Iraq's year-end inflation will sit near the same rate it's been since 2004, 30 percent.
In addition, the article states the following:
Following the Persian Gulf War oil export sanctions crippled the country's social programs. Even after the United Nations negotiated the 1996 oil-for-food program to allow limited exports in exchange for food and medicine -- and after the export caps were ultimately removed in 1999 -- the country was unable to achieve pre-1990 oil production levels.
That blow has been felt throughout the economy. Per capita income also has yet to recover. The International Monetary Fund estimated a 2006 GDP per capita of $1,687, less than half its early 80s $3,600 peak.
Hence, per capita GDP is less than half the level it was at in the early 80s. Much of this drop was due to the economic sanctions. It's therefore not surprising that the GDP is rebounding now that those sanctions have been removed and the U.S. is spending reconstruction money to rebuild the infrastructure.
When and if the problems that the Online NewsHour article lists (such as security, unemployment, corruption, and inflation) are addressed, there's little doubt that the economy will do better than it did under a dictator. But Iraq has not yet solved those problems adequately to be called a success and those who suggest otherwise, as McCullough would say, "are simply lying".
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.