The economy -- Bush, no, Hillary & Edwards si, & Obama hedges his bets

Volitility in the world's financial markets. Turmoil in the capital markets. A growing recession in the US. A cutback by American consumers on bad habits which pulled the economic growth here and there and especially in emerging markets. A desperate and almost unheard of 0,75 per cent cut in the Fed prime rate to buoy up the NYSE, so that the tumbling Asian and European markets rebound, and also to give some weight to mini mouse Bush's anemic influsion of us$170bn into the US economy.
Utter confusion. Panic, you might say. David Frum, the former dolthead Bush speech writer, the man who gave him the facile 'axis of evil' hook, Frank Rich in his Sunday 'New York Times' op ed musings, cited this passage from Frum's new book 'Comeback' that the rich kid Bush 'had led his party to the brink of disaster; and cost it 'a generation of young Americans'. Well, Herr Bush has led his country to the end of the rope, and sacrificed almost 4000 Americans on the battlefields of his lying war in Iraq. He has not a whit of feeling for his suffering citizens unless they belong to his class and caste of bloodsuckers, coupon clippers, the vermin of his clique of cronies...in brief, the super rich. He has no remedy short of the same old, same old to rescue them...permanent tax cuts, lowering capital gains and abolishing inheritance taxes, etc. etc. etc. If you look at Hillary Clinton and John Edwards they want to use the government as a prod for fairer income distribution, for putting the mass of the un and under employed back to work, for rescuing homeowners who are going to be thrown out on the street owing to the subprime scam practised on them, for tilting towards taxing the rich, which include Clinton and Edwards, so that they pay their fair share, and establishing a crash course of new and fair deal like programmes to jumpstart an economy which has run into a brick wall. In a word, to undo the great harm the sainted Ronald Reagan has caused by favouring the rich and starving the rate payers so that roads buckle, bridges collapse, crime soars, education dumbs down, puts the burden of eke ing out a living by two parents causing untold harm on family life, so on and on and on. The grey old lady of journalism 'the New York Times' ironises on Clinton's and by extension Edward's appel of popularism which makes it sound bad. The newspaper of note is a multimillion dollar corporation whose interests lie in Bush's camp. [And lest we forget, young Salzburger the publisher met with Bush before the 2004 elections and promised to hold back info which would affect Bush's 'landslide' victory!]As a company run on capitalist interest, don't tell 18Brumaire that Salzburger & his swine do not understand that the US government favours the capitalists by either subsidising or giving them whopping tax cuts. So, if Clinton and Edwards want to right Bush's wrongs, what's so funny about using the government to make the rich and the corporations with fat earnings cough up what they really owe the American people? And now to Obama who is smarting because he praised the ogre Ronald Reagan. Every Republican candidate is trying to distance himself from the hated Bush, so he is looking to don the mantle of a second rate actor and president. Obama tries to wear that cloak even though he says that he disagrees with the nefarious policies of that man. Shame! In his fervour to include everyone Obama has to move to the right, and his platform on issues like healthcare are resounding proof of his conservative nature. As the heat of losses in primaries mount, the junior senator from Illinois is beginning to show a nasty side and his melliflous flow of sweet words has turned brackish and very sour. So it is not with an ounce of exaggeration that 18Brumaire says, he is playing two sides of the street. He wears proudly the armband of business as usual.