On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:36:12 GMT, "joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>simply view this graphic and tell me why
>
>http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
Here is the only answer that makes sense for me: Choosing leaders is truly
about making choices.
It is not whether we are pleased as punch about Leader X; it is whether,
overall, he/she is better than available Leader Y or Leader Z. This is
why, in a cynical, yet perceptive and even clever way, in CA some people
want Gov. Gray Davis' name on the ballot of all potential replacements if
that very same Gov. Davis loses the recall. So, let's say 60% vote in
favor of the recall. Clearly, then, "The People of California" would say
that they do not support him. Yet, on the replacement side of the ballot
if Davis got 36%, that would probably be enough to "win" by a plurality,
which is all that is necessary. Then, under the rules established by the
People of California, these same "People" would have said they support Gray
Davis for Governor. (And if The People don't like that outcome, they can
have another initiative to require run-off elections until someone wins a
majority.) As they political saying goes, "You can't be somebody with
nobody."
I don't know if the CA courts will allow Davis to run on both sides of the
ballot. There would be something poetic about Davis literally running on
"both sides", while letting him do it would seem counter to the notion of
the recall system. Yet, while I would never support Davis, there is a good
1st Amendment argument to be made for him being allowed to run for
"election", IMO. (I am not familiar enough with the CA Constitution to
know what arguments could be based on it.) Consider that in the recall
part of the ballot he might lose because 60% of the voters voted against
him and then he might face the prospect of being replaced by a plurality
winner who, arguably, had 65% voting against him/her -- i.e., winning with
a 35% plurality.
But, if Davis is allowed to do this and I were betting on the results, I
would wager big that he would "win", as winning is defined by the rules of
this game -- and he would probably win by a wide margin over the next
candidate, even if it was "just" a 36% to 25% win.
In this scenario, you could well ask "Why do people continue to support
this [Governor]?" Well, they do and they don't.
That may not "answer" your question, but it is my answer -- since you
asked.
"PC Gameplayer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And further--if the president doesn't have much control over the
> economy, why is "job creation" the big hobby horse these days?
Because it's an easy pitch for Nookular Boy to memorize and babble about.
His other policies are much more embarrassing than "the economy".
"C Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : simply view this graphic and tell me why
> :
>
> Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail
for
> 250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.
>
No. Put the money toward your life insurance payments. The Repub-controlled
congress just yanked $100-something million OUT of the air marshall program.
They say it won't affect security or services rendered. Zzzzzzz........
Wanna start, the economy takes years to revive/receed. Think of an
aircraft carrier, you don't turn them on a dime. It's also like a snow
ball rolling down a hill, it gains size and momentum. Clinton was the
benefactor of the 87 tax cut. Why do you think all the tech stuff went
nuts, because there was available capital to spend. Money is available, it
gets invested, a company gets started or offers a new product, they catch
on, hire people, spend more capital, more people working, more things
needed. GW was the poor sucker that got stuck with the 90's tax increases.
Take the peoples money, they have less to spend, no buying, business get
slow, inventories build, companies stop spending capital, people get laid
off. It's about that simple! Interesting how the Clinton administrations
figure for his last two years had to be recalculated. Basically they lied,
the economy was going south two years before GW was elected.
joe wrote:
> simply view this graphic and tell me why
>
> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> > (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> > economy, his initials are AG).
>
> Agreed...AG, who was (by the way) a Clinton appointee (C:
>
You might want to look stuff up before you just say it.......from the
Federal Reserve Website, a portion of Allen Greenspans bio:
"He originally took office as Chairman and to fill an unexpired term as a
member of the Board on August 11, 1987. Dr. Greenspan was reappointed to the
Board to a full 14-year term, which began February 1, 1992. He has been
designated Chairman by Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton."
Originally appointed in '87 (Reagan), and then reappointed in '92 (Bush Sr).
Clinton also reappointed him.
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
>
<snip of a reasoned understanding of how the economy REALLY works>
> People who attribute a successful and/or failing economy entirely to the
> President simply don't understand basic economics. This isn't an attack
> or an insult; most of don't have any real need day-in and day-out for it.
> Economies, especially in capitalism, follow waves of expansion, recesion,
> and sometimes depression. It's all but inevitable, although some things
> will influence (wars, especially). When Bill Clinton took office, the
> American economy was well out of recession and recovering grandly, but
> there's a lag between economic indicators and people starting to get
> jobs and raises. It also depends on where you live - economic
> fluctuations are felt far less severely in the flyover parts of the
> country than on the coasts.
<snip of still more of that stuff>
> Anyway. If you're quoting the NYT as evidence to back up your opinion of
> the President, I suggest that you've already decided you don't like him
> and are looking for good reasons to think so. That's fine, but understand
> that the economy is about where it SHOULD be. The tech bubble was very
> overinflated and the nation's economy was overvalued. The same thing
> happened in the late 80's and it culminated with a big dive and there were
> dire predictions of how close we came to another 1929. Obviously, we got
> over that.
>
> Look at our economic growth, especially in industry, since 1980, and
> just shave off the tech spike and the nation's economic growth is still
> incredible. Deficits? They're no larger as a percentage of the nation's
> productivity than they've ever been. I'm afraid you're the victim of
> media FUD.
There you go Ben, trying to counter a rant with a good understanding of how
money works. How silly of you! LOL It's interesting that the people who
actually wade around in the money every day, just laugh at those who think
that any one government body has much control of the money. They consider
them more of a "speed bump" on the road to forward progress. They have a
real understanding of how money works. And to those who think Greenspan has
saved you grits...do some real research on interest delay cycles and such,
and you will find that his actions were too fast on the interest raise, and
changes made in the other direction did not take into consideration the
delay to the street.
In a sideways sort of way, the people who bitch about the wealthy getting
the breaks, and gripe about their taxes (and anything else they can find)
are right. What they don't understand is that it's also not the government,
but the fact that they understand what I mentioned above. They also use
that understanding to deal with those conditions where government can be
taken in it's proper light. But then again, this is all off topic.
Digger
Digger
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Can't say that I disagree with anything you said.
Dig
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > There you go Ben, trying to counter a rant with a good understanding of
how
> > money works. How silly of you! LOL It's interesting that the people
who
> > actually wade around in the money every day, just laugh at those who
think
> > that any one government body has much control of the money. They
consider
>
> My major concern about money and our government is how much of OUR money
> they get, and how inefficiently it is spent. I'd like to see less
> taxation, and more government agencies privatized. NASA is #1 on my list
> of organizations that need government regulation but not ownership.
>
> > In a sideways sort of way, the people who bitch about the wealthy
getting
> > the breaks, and gripe about their taxes (and anything else they can
find)
> > are right. What they don't understand is that it's also not the
government,
> > but the fact that they understand what I mentioned above. They also use
> > that understanding to deal with those conditions where government can be
> > taken in it's proper light. But then again, this is all off topic.
>
> Nobody likes rich people, but we all want to be one. :) Poor men don't
> hire you to fix their roof, replace their siding, fix their car, or
> landscape their yards. It's the middle class and wealthy that create
> opportunities for wealth distribution. Were I in charge, I'd just
> eliminate the Federal Income Tax for the lowest tax bracket entirely, it
> accounts to a tiny, tiny faction of just our tax income.
>
> The problem is that if you were to eliminate taxes on anybody who makes
> under $32,000 and lower marginal rates by 3-5% for the top two brackets,
> the same politicials and media figures would be up in arms over "unfair"
> tax cuts for the rich.
>
> What's unfair is that people have to fork over their money in the first
> place in order to pay for four hundred offices full of senate and house
chamber
> lackeys running documents all over the Mall and all of the unreasonable
> waste and inefficiency of our government.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Interspersed...
Renata
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:53:17 GMT, "Ben Siders" <[email protected]>
wrote:
--snip--
> It can't be argued that our
>military operation in Iraq was one of the most impression and decisive
>victories in the modern era, with minimal casualties and loss of property.
Kinda helps a bit when the other side doesn't have a military to speak
of, donchathink?
--snip--
> I also figured the first thing he'd [Gore] do in office was
>raise taxes and spend more money, which are two things I DON'T want our
>government to do.
Much better to cut taxes and spend more money, no?
>I wasn't thrilled about Dubya, and his position on the
>ballot affirmed to me that TV is ruining American politics. The most
>qualified people are not put on ballots - the most electable are, and
>electability is determined by TV charisma. Bush's stumbling over his
>words and spasmodic gesticulating appeals to Joe American. "That guy
>talks like me." Nevermind that the latter generations of the Bush family
>were born into privilege and most of us aren't.
--snip--
At last, we agree. :-)
Just goes to show that you don't have to have 2 brain cells to be
president.
People keep saying he's smarter than he looks, but he keeps opening
his mouth.
I actually keep hoping that folks are right and he is smarter,
because, all else aside, he does hold a rather important office.
Unfortunately, he does keep proving them wrong.
Renata
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:55:34 GMT, "Ben Siders" <[email protected]>
wrote:--snip--
>I think Bush is much smarter than people give him credit for, but I also
>think that he will never go down in history as anything more than a
>transitionary bumbler, no matter what ultimately happens under his
>leadership (for better or for worse). America has decided what it thinks
>of Bush, and you've adroitly said it for me.
>
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >
> > http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
> Many Americans are not very bright and think he's doing just dandy.
> -- Ernie
>
It's because he calls them "folks". That's the equivalent of giving a free
box of fruit roll-ups to a toddler.
"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> simply view this graphic and tell me why
>
> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
Many Americans are not very bright and think he's doing just dandy.
-- Ernie
1. Because I believe it's a lot better than it would be if the last idiot
was still around or if his flunky had won
2. I believe very little published in the NY Times
"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> simply view this graphic and tell me why
>
> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
>
"PC Gameplayer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration
that
> > was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> > Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
> > you think?
>
> Sorry, Todd, but you can't have it both ways. I'm a
> slightly-left-of-center Democrat, and even I'll agree with your first
> point--that the economy he inherited was starting to slow down. But
> you can't blame the Clinton administration, and in the next sentence
> talk about how the president doesn't have much control over the
> economy (I'm paraphrasing here...).
>
> And further--if the president doesn't have much control over the
> economy, why is "job creation" the big hobby horse these days?
>
> > (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> > economy, his initials are AG).
>
> Agreed...AG, who was (by the way) a Clinton appointee (C:
>
> > No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
> > by increasing their taxes.
>
> We shouldn't increase anyone's taxes at this point...but we darned
> well shouldn't (IMHO) be cutting them, either.
>
> Jim
Just one point...I didn't say that the Clinton administration caused the
slowdown. I said Bush inherited a slow economy (which he did) and that
there was a previous administration in place who had it before he did (which
there was). You assumed I placed blame with the Clinton administration for
it.
Oh (by the way) Mr. Greenspan took office as Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Fed on August 11, 1987, replacing Paul Volcker, who
resigned. My history book says that Ronald Reagan was president at that
time. He was subsequently re-appointed by both Presidents Bush (I) and
Clinton.
todd
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > 3. He started a war that we had to pick up the entire tab for, unlike
Gulf
> > I.
>
> I don't agree with this statement in letter or spirit, but it's a matter
> of perception, and a debate on it will be circular and pointless. You
> certainly won't change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours.
Well, who else is helping us pick up the tab, according to your perception?
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:06:09 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
> > Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a
left-wing
> > think tank. <smirk>
>
> I never claimed or implied that. I said that I cannot take anything
> printed as fact in the New York Times at face value. And if you accept
> whatever statistics you are spoon-fed by a government agency, there's no
> point in continuing this discussion. I think the BLS is probably fairly
> accurate, but I have no reason to believe the NYT is reporting their
> claims accurately. Even so, it's all immaterial. The economy today is
> not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
> actions.
1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
recommendations.
2. He gave massive corporate welfare to the steel industry, textiles and
agrobusiness.
3. He started a war that we had to pick up the entire tab for, unlike Gulf
I.
-- Ernie
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
> > > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >> simply view this graphic and tell me why
> > >> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> > You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
> > They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
> > integrity of their journalism.
> Rather say that they practiced diversity and affirmative action above and
> beyond the call of sanity. A WASP reporter would have been canned long, long
> before Mr Blair was.
Not necessarily. One little-reported connection that may well have
counted for more than race in the case of Blair is that he came from the
U. of Maryland journalism school; several of the top people at the Times
came from that program, and often return there to speak. Blair came
recommended by professors in the Maryland program, and I strongly
suspect there was a fair amount of pressure to let him do his thing
because of that.
--
Mike Jones http://18minutegap.blogspot.com
If this is class warfare, my class is winning.
-- Warren Buffett
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Not necessarily. One little-reported connection that may well have
> > counted for more than race in the case of Blair is that he came from the
> > U. of Maryland journalism school; several of the top people at the Times
> > came from that program, and often return there to speak. Blair came
> > recommended by professors in the Maryland program, and I strongly
> > suspect there was a fair amount of pressure to let him do his thing
> > because of that.
> The people in charge of this debacle at the NYT flat out admitted that
> they kept him around because of his race.
And you believe them about this, but doubt everything they print in
their paper? Fascinating.
--
Mike Jones http://18minutegap.blogspot.com
If this is class warfare, my class is winning.
-- Warren Buffett
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Interspersed...
> Renata
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:53:17 GMT, "Ben Siders" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> --snip--
> > It can't be argued that our
> >military operation in Iraq was one of the most impression and decisive
> >victories in the modern era, with minimal casualties and loss of property.
> Kinda helps a bit when the other side doesn't have a military to speak
> of, donchathink?
Helps a lot when you're willing to talk about the conflict in the past
tense when we're still losing 1-2 soliders per day. "Mission
accomplished" is the biggest Bushwhopper of them all.
--
Mike Jones http://18minutegap.blogspot.com
If this is class warfare, my class is winning.
-- Warren Buffett
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> > Helps a lot when you're willing to talk about the conflict in the past
> > tense when we're still losing 1-2 soliders per day. "Mission
> > accomplished" is the biggest Bushwhopper of them all.
>
> While the death of any of our armed forces is tragic, how many servicemen
> are killed in America each year on average due to accidents? How many
> people die from car accidents? Murders? Malnourishment? Surgical
> accidents? Misdiagnosed illness? How many died every day during Vietnam?
What's your point? We have servicement who are *not* dying from those
things. And some that are nominally dying in accidents, except that the
"accident" is that their humvee turned over. After running over an
explosive.
> Uday and Qusay have assumed room temperature. Did you fail to notice taht
> shortly after, we went about 4 or 5 days without any combat fatalities?
And you think there's a linkage? Why did the fatalities start happening
again, then?
> I haven't yet seen where the PRez said we were done over there. This is
> what bugs me about President-bashers. There's plenty of good things that
> Bush is vulnerable on and deserves criticism for, but people pick apart
> things that aren't even issues. The Clinton-haters did the SAME thing,
> attacking his personal life and how he "marginalized" the office of the
> presidency. Who cares? The man had some bad policies worthy of criticism
> but his critics ignored it.
You missed the whole photo-op? With the huge "mission accomplished"
banner? And the announcement that "major combat operations" were over?
No, that's not saying we're done, but it is strongly implying that all
that's left is just dealing with criminals, getting the electricity
running, and finding those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction (where
*are* they, anyway?).
--
Mike Jones http://18minutegap.blogspot.com
If this is class warfare, my class is winning.
-- Warren Buffett
NONE, though some are more obvious than others.
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:59UXa.27475$D%[email protected]...
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > New York Times, eh? Snicker.
>
> Which newspaper do YOU feel provides totally unbiased reporting? :-)
>
>
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: "C Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: >
: > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : simply view this graphic and tell me why
: > :
: >
: > Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail
: for
: > 250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.
: >
:
: No. Put the money toward your life insurance payments. The
Repub-controlled
: congress just yanked $100-something million OUT of the air marshall
program.
: They say it won't affect security or services rendered. Zzzzzzz........
I don't think acts of terrorism are covered in some situations
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
>
> > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >>
> >> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> >
>
> You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
> They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
> integrity of their journalism.
>
Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a left-wing
think tank. <smirk>
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >
> > http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
> Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
> was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
> you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> economy, his initials are AG).
Yeah? How many times has Alan Greenspan lowered the discount rate in the
last few years? Has it fixed the problem? The fact is that you and I ARE
the ecomomy. If nobody wants to spend/invest their money, there is nothing
that Bush or Greenspan can do about it. The economy is too big and complex
for any one person to have a significant influence on it.
Frank
"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: simply view this graphic and tell me why
:
Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail for
250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:33:29 -0500, Greg O wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an
"adjustment"?
> > The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a
dump,
> > regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.
>
> After what started in March of 2000, I went from 100% stocks/funds to 25%
> stocks/funds and 75% money market. I did wait about 3 months to make the
> adjustment and got out before any heavy losses. I got back into
> stocks/funds right after the second Saddam hunt began.
Bob Brinker was your friend here. I took his advice and got out in mid-Jan
2000. If only I had caught his buy signal when he gave it a couple of
months ago instead of two weeks later, I'd really be sitting in the fabled
catbird's seat.
> The tech bust was a result of business blowing their wad on Y2K new
> equipment and software and after discovering the world didn't end, they
> were all over bought and didn't have much left to spend. Things are on
> the verge of getting back to normal in the tech world.
>
> Hiring usually lags in the recovery process as companies push outsourcing
> and overtime before finally accepting they need more people.
>
> BTW, the GDP went from an 8% rate to a less than 1% rate in the 10 months
> before Bush was elected - a real high speed dive and tough to pull out of,
> but not surprising as the bubble was a result of some one time
> circumstances and people including AG buying into the "new economy".
>
> -Doug
Seriously, it's hard to argue that Clinton was maybe the luckiest president
in US history. He was elected right at the start of an upswing, but just
before it became apparent, and left office with the economy on a downslide,
but again before it was noticed. He raised taxes and shorted the national
debt in a time of low interest rates...both ways of giving a quick-fix to
the budget deficits. All you have to do is wait a while for the effects to
bite you in the ass. I think it was Bob Brinker (he might have been
paraphrasing someone else) who compared a poor economy to a car that is
fishtailing. If you know exactly what to do, you can turn the steering
wheel in such a way as to correct it. But if you don't know exactly what to
do (anyone want to claim that there's someone in the world who knows exactly
how to fix an economy that is 21% of the entire world GDP?) the best thing
to do is nothing. Of course, the problem with politicians (on both sides of
the aisle) is that doing nothing, even when it's the right thing to do,
looks bad. By God, people expect you to do *something*, so you'd better cut
taxes or create a makework program like the WPA.
todd
I agree that the collapse was inevitable - would not have mattered if the
2000 election had given us Bush, Gore, or Bill Gates as president.
However, while I do cast some blame on the Enron-style "irregular"
accounting and reporting and the lack of regulation and enforcement that
allowed it to happen, that only accounts for a very small portion of the
bubble. A larger portion, in my view, was caused by an over exuberant
financial media singing in harmony with the "all knowing" market analysts
who whipped the public into believing that the New Economy was real, and
that:
A) There was no limit to how high stock prices could go
B) There was no limit to the number of profitable competitors a market could
sustain
C) Profitability was not important -- it was gaining market share that was
key
More jobs and GDP were lost due to the throngs of companies that folded
(many of which never should have been funded in the first place) than to
Enron, Worldcom, and the others who got tagged for false bookkeeping.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying there was a lack of oversight of this sort of behavior
while
> > Clinton was in office? Are you suggesting that the Clinton
administration
> > purposely let this type of behavior go on to keep the economy up?
That's a
> > pretty cynical view.
>
> Hadn't thought about Clinton at all in my comment - I am cynical tho in
> my view of many corporate behaviors. I want to believe they are trying
> to do right by the public, their employees and their stockholders but
> they disappoint me time and again.
>
> I think the collapse was inevitable as the shennanigans just couldn't
> continue as the balloon started springing leaks and wasn't able to
> support itself any longer. Also am not sure if these accounting
> restatements and revelations would have been discovered by any outside
> regulatory oversight - I think time just caught up with most of them.
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
> <http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
> <http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interspersed...
> Renata
>
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:53:17 GMT, "Ben Siders" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> --snip--
> > It can't be argued that our
> >military operation in Iraq was one of the most impression and decisive
> >victories in the modern era, with minimal casualties and loss of
property.
>
> Kinda helps a bit when the other side doesn't have a military to speak
> of, donchathink?
How can you say that when they just uncovered the Iraqi Underground Air
Force buried in the desert? :-)
-- Ernie
just what exactly does this have to do with woodworking
"Ken Johnsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1. Because I believe it's a lot better than it would be if the last idiot
> was still around or if his flunky had won
>
> 2. I believe very little published in the NY Times
>
>
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >
> > http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> >
> >
>
>
"Dennis [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The economy today is
> > not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
> > actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as
a
> > billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
> > effectively.
>
> OK. If he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
> in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
> criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
> wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
> else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
> Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
> this regard. He's also no better.
>
Sometime in the past two weeks, I heard a great quote from some dead person:
Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.
Very true in political circles.
Agreed -- he inherited more than a weakened economy -- he inherited an
overheated economy, with a massive tech balloon that was not sustainable. We
quickly forgot about all the discussion of the "New Economy" (that was such
thing) in the late nineties. According to the people who are responsible for
officiating such things, the recession began in March 2001 (article attached
below), and many of the surrounding indicators started to show major
weakness in summer 2000. If you remember, this is why Bush got so much
criticism for "Talking down the economy" in his election campaign.
------------------------------------------
Posted 7/17/2003 8:54 AM Updated 7/17/2003 8:12 PM
It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
WASHINGTON (AP) - The committee that puts official dates on U.S.
economic expansions and contractions said Thursday that the economy pulled
out of recession in November 2001 and since then has been in a recovery
phase.
The announcement from the National Bureau of Economic Research's
Business Cycle Dating Committee confirmed what many economists have
believed: that the economy has resumed growing, albeit slowly.
"At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business
activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001," the committee said
in a statement Thursday.
The committee, which consists of top academic economists, met in
Cambridge, Mass., to discuss the issue.
The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement
makes it an eight-month downturn.
The committee said the length of the downturn was "slightly less than
average for recessions" in the post World War II period.
In its statement, the dating committee stressed that its announcement
of when the downturn ended did not mean that the economy's hard times ended
at that point.
"In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee
did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been
favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity,"
the panel said.
The panel said it was determining only that in November 2001, the
recession - which it defines as a period of falling economic activity spread
across the economy - came to an end and the economy began growing again.
After contracting the first three quarters of 2001, gross domestic
product or GDP, the country's total output of goods and services, began
growing again in the fourth quarter 2001 and has been rising since, although
in a zig-zag pattern that has not been strong enough to keep unemployment
from rising.
The committee struggled for months to reconcile the fact that while
the U.S. economy resumed growing in late 2001, as measured by the gross
domestic product, unemployment continued to rise.
While the determination of the official ending date for the recession
is of interest to economic historians, it is likely to bring little comfort
to the nation's unemployed. The unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of
6.4% in June.
While an often-used thumbnail definition of a recession is two
consecutive quarters of falling GDP, the NBER uses a more complex procedure
that looks at a variety of monthly statistics to determine when recessions
begin and end.
In the past, it has not used GDP to determine the beginning and end
points for recessions because that statistic from the Commerce Department is
compiled on a quarterly basis.
However, because of the unusual nature of this downturn, where growth
resumed so far ahead of an improvement in the unemployment rate, the
committee decided to look at GDP as well as four other indicators -
employment, real income, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales.
The NBER in its statement said that it waited to call an end to the
2001 recession because it wanted to be sure any subsequent downturn would be
a separate event and not just a continuation of the 2001 slump.
"The main reason that the committee's decision in this episode was
particularly difficult was the divergent behavior of employment," the NBER
said. "The committee felt that it was important to wait until real GDP was
substantially above its pre-recession peak before determining that a trough
had occurred."
The so-called jobless recovery surpasses in duration a similar jobless
recovery that George W. Bush's father had to endure in the months after the
recession of that period ended, in March 1991.
The NBER did not declare the 1990-91 recession over until December
1992. By that time, Bush's father had lost his re-election bid to Bill
Clinton, who had made the economy's poor performance the centerpiece of his
campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >
> > http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
> Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
> was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
> you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> economy, his initials are AG).
> Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
> No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
> by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some
more
> people.
>
> todd
>
>
begin 666 clear.gif
M1TE&.#EA`0`!`)$``````/_______P```"'Y! $```(`+ `````!``$```("
$3 $`.P``
`
end
> Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
> was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy that
> you think?
Sorry, Todd, but you can't have it both ways. I'm a
slightly-left-of-center Democrat, and even I'll agree with your first
point--that the economy he inherited was starting to slow down. But
you can't blame the Clinton administration, and in the next sentence
talk about how the president doesn't have much control over the
economy (I'm paraphrasing here...).
And further--if the president doesn't have much control over the
economy, why is "job creation" the big hobby horse these days?
> (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> economy, his initials are AG).
Agreed...AG, who was (by the way) a Clinton appointee (C:
> No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some more
> by increasing their taxes.
We shouldn't increase anyone's taxes at this point...but we darned
well shouldn't (IMHO) be cutting them, either.
Jim
Hi Todd:
> Just one point...I didn't say that the Clinton administration caused the
> slowdown. I said Bush inherited a slow economy (which he did) and that
> there was a previous administration in place who had it before he did (which
> there was). You assumed I placed blame with the Clinton administration for
> it.
>
You're right...I did assume you placed blame on the previous
administration for the bad economy. That's an assumption I shouldn't
have made.
> Oh (by the way) Mr. Greenspan took office as Chairman of the Board of
> Governors of the Fed on August 11, 1987, replacing Paul Volcker, who
> resigned. My history book says that Ronald Reagan was president at that
> time. He was subsequently re-appointed by both Presidents Bush (I) and
> Clinton.
I stand corrected, sir.
Jim
> The biggest problem I have is that in 1964 I was given a candidate that
> I could vote for, Barry Goldwater. Since then the two majority parties
> have provided me with only the opportunity to pick the "least worst."
> Sad, but true.
>
> Phil
I agree that national elections are often the choice between greater
evils. However, I remember wishing in 2000 for a run between McCain
and Bradley. The debates would have been enjoyable.
I am a firm believer in gridlock. Two sides tug-o-war over issues
until compromises are made, usually providing better government.
Therefore, I would prefer either party not to be in full control of
both legislative and executive branches of government.
Meanwhile, I try to do all in my power to improve my local community.
Somehow, school boards and township trustees seem more important in
times of budgetary woes. As education is often a big ticket item that
sustains first round cuts and the trustees are the local agents for
people with immediate financial need.
As far as this president...I don't agree with many of his policies.
That said, I respect his office and I pray for him daily.
Off to solve the one cookie---two kids argument,
Jenny
While the NYT did publish this graph, the two sources of the data are quite
credible. If the source were Fox News I would still ask the same question.
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
>
> > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >>
> >> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> >
>
> You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
> They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
> integrity of their journalism.
>
> Why do people support this president? I don't know. I support some of
> what he does, and oppose some. I support lowering taxes, I support the
> elimination of the marriage penalty, I suppose tax credits, I support more
> breaks for businesses, less government involvement and taxation of the
> economy, and more freedom and liberty for people to improve themselves and
> for entrepreneurship and personal initiative. I believe many of the
> President's domestic policies encourage the things that I believe are good
> for America and good for our economy and people.
>
> I oppose him on various things that I think are going to neutralize or
> stunt the economic growth of the nation.
>
> People who attribute a successful and/or failing economy entirely to the
> President simply don't understand basic economics. This isn't an attack
> or an insult; most of don't have any real need day-in and day-out for it.
> Economies, especially in capitalism, follow waves of expansion, recesion,
> and sometimes depression. It's all but inevitable, although some things
> will influence (wars, especially). When Bill Clinton took office, the
> American economy was well out of recession and recovering grandly, but
> there's a lag between economic indicators and people starting to get
> jobs and raises. It also depends on where you live - economic
> fluctuations are felt far less severely in the flyover parts of the
> country than on the coasts.
>
> Anyway. If you're quoting the NYT as evidence to back up your opinion of
> the President, I suggest that you've already decided you don't like him
> and are looking for good reasons to think so. That's fine, but understand
> that the economy is about where it SHOULD be. The tech bubble was very
> overinflated and the nation's economy was overvalued. The same thing
> happened in the late 80's and it culminated with a big dive and there were
> dire predictions of how close we came to another 1929. Obviously, we got
> over that.
>
> Look at our economic growth, especially in industry, since 1980, and
> just shave off the tech spike and the nation's economic growth is still
> incredible. Deficits? They're no larger as a percentage of the nation's
> productivity than they've ever been. I'm afraid you're the victim of
> media FUD.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >
> > http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
> Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
> was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
> you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> economy, his initials are AG).
> Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
> No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
> by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some
more
> people.
>
> todd
Hi Todd,
i thought you would see the paralell; Hoover was an idiot too ...
I find it funny, that a nation can rush to war in the modern day only to
have the companies that
benefit from it outsource the work to foreigners and then cry like babies
for more tax breaks. ww2
did wonders for putting people back to work, and though we can spend the
equiv dollars
on Iraq our economy only gets worse ... and better yet, when things just
start to turn around the
nation is put on high alert for a terrorist attack when the shrubs
popularity is in the gutter again. ( the
last time was shortly before 911). I pray to god that does not happen again,
and when looking for someone
who brought the entirety of it on the US you can blame a Bush. (remember
OBL's beef stems from the
first Iraqi war)
take a long look at Roosevelt's record ... and cry because this nation will
never be as good
(or as bad off hopefully) as that again. maybe if we're lucky we'll elect
someone as brilliant as that after the shrub
leaves office. also Harding had very little natural opposition to success,
the nation was clearly poised
for expansion, until of course the financial experts (conservatives) decided
to create the ponzi scheme
and set the wheels in motion for the depression. I would have chalked that
up to an American growing
pain if it weren't for the fact that we let these clowns repeat it.
Alan greenspan has done more to save your hypothetical butt than most will
ever know. you're right
on one count: if the shrub had more control over the economy we'd be in
worse shape, the bit that
he does have control over (mostly favoritism for gubberment contracts and
whether or not we go into
an expensive war in the middle of a recession) he managed to completely
screw up.
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:06:09 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
> > Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a
left-wing
> > think tank. <smirk>
>
> I never claimed or implied that. I said that I cannot take anything
> printed as fact in the New York Times at face value. And if you accept
> whatever statistics you are spoon-fed by a government agency, there's no
> point in continuing this discussion. I think the BLS is probably fairly
> accurate, but I have no reason to believe the NYT is reporting their
> claims accurately. Even so, it's all immaterial. The economy today is
> not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
> actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as a
> billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
> effectively.
what do you find authoritative then ? just curious.
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 16:23:20 -0400, 4 out of 5 dentists wrote:
>
> > what do you find authoritative then ? just curious.
>
> Honestly? Very little. I like to read a variety of publications with a
> variety of political motivations, and see which facts are most consistant
> among them. These have the best likelihood of being rooted in truth.
i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
effect
about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.
even when that guy who was making up shit in the NYT was writing articles
it was still better than the best factual FOX report I have ever read ( or
seen )
and that goes for the weather on FOX as well ...
i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
really
have to hand it to the BBC,
> I think Charlie Self said this earlier - you have to approach half of what
> you hear with skepticism, but eventually you have to take for granted that
> something is probably true and base your opinions on it.
>
> If I see a Fox News story, I'll usually go look it up on news.google.com
> and see what other news outlets have to say about it. The themes and
> figures that resonate in other media tend to be reliable enough to form an
> educated opinion.
like i said, fow news is off the list. i might be missing something here and
there
but for the most part it just seems a waste of time.
4 out of 5 dentists responds:
>i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
>close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
>effect
>about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
>sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.
>
You have to remember, though, that not long ago someone popped up here stating
with pride that he got most of his political facts from Sludge...whoops,
Drudge, who is an admitted fabricator.
>like i said, fow news is off the list. i might be missing something here and
>there
>but for the most part it just seems a waste of time.
I have trouble believing the level of bullshit in most news programs, but Fox
is so incredibly bad in ALL respects, I've taken to going on by quickly. The
only time I watch it is when I have to wait for a VA doctor. Seems like every
TV set in every VA clinic and hospital is permanently fixed to Fox.
Charlie Self
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush
>
> You have to remember, though, that not long ago someone popped up here
stating
> with pride that he got most of his political facts from Sludge...whoops,
> Drudge, who is an admitted fabricator.
>
Umm.......
1) I'm not a Drudge fan, but...
2) I DO read an awful lot, and ....
3) I don't remember ever hearing of any admitted fabrication on his
part.......plus....
3.B) Personal attacks and allegations without substantiation tend to
annoy me
So, precisely when, where and how did Drudge admit to fabricating
information?
Yep -- pretty demanding of me.......you accuse someone, I ask for
proof....................totally uncalled for on my part. Lets not let facts
get in the way.
But what do I know? I'm apparently just some "prissy twit" with something
sticking outta my ear.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hockenberry demands:
>
> > 3.B) Personal attacks and allegations without substantiation tend to
> >annoy me
> >
> >So, precisely when, where and how did Drudge admit to fabricating
> >information?
>
> You know, prissy twits annoy me. I might have bothered looking it up if
you had
> asked, instead of demanded.
>
> To be polite, stick it in your ear.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
> plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
> George W. Bush
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dave Hockenberry responds:
>
>Yep -- pretty demanding of me.......you accuse someone, I ask for
>proof....................totally uncalled for on my part. Lets not let facts
>get in the way.
>
>But what do I know? I'm apparently just some "prissy twit" with something
>sticking outta my ear.
You didn't ask. You demanded. My parents are dead, so demands no longer work.
Charlie Self
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hockenberry demands:
>
> > 3.B) Personal attacks and allegations without substantiation tend to
> >annoy me
> >
> >So, precisely when, where and how did Drudge admit to fabricating
> >information?
>
> You know, prissy twits annoy me. I might have bothered looking it up if
you had
> asked, instead of demanded.
>
> To be polite, stick it in your ear.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
> plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
> George W. Bush
Excellent change of subject. If you can't back up your own argument, change
the subject. Throw in some name-calling for good measure.
todd
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The economy today is
> not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
> actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as a
> billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
> effectively.
OK. If he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
this regard. He's also no better.
Dennis Vogel
Dennis Vogel responds:
>f he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
>in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
>criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
>wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
>else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
>Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
>this regard. He's also no better.
Got it in one. There was a character in some novels a while back who was called
"Otherguy." His response to everything was to blame it on the "other guy."
Damned near every politician I've seen since Harry Truman works that way,
regardless of party or espoused philosophy, and their adherents follow suit.
Charlie Self
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush
"C Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : simply view this graphic and tell me why
> :
>
> Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail
for
> 250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.
I wish. Only folks with kids get these gifts.
I guess those of us without don't spend money.
I never did hear the rationale for why they
set up this latest vote buying scheme the way
they did. But who am *I* to question our
Dear Leader?
Dennis Vogel
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
> > close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to
this
> > effect
> > about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
> > sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever
seen.
>
> Based on these two examples, you seem to have me pegged as a Republican,
> which isn't quite true. I've found some nuggets of truth in Fox News, but
> I ignore any of their political discussion, just as I ignore CNN and
> newspaper editorials. I used to soak it up because I thought it was
> intelligent, educated content by knowledgable people, but it's not. Most
> of it is just political moving and shaking by people with agendas. Seems
> obvious to me now. Journalism has nothing to do with reporting facts and
> relaying news any more. It's about sensationalism and ratings. Cable
> news is entertainment first and truth second, and newspapers are getting
> to be that way, too. This is why I try to accumulate sources and find the
> one vein of truth that is consistant across all stories and draw my
> opinions from that. Quotes are the hardest thing to deal with for me,
> because I know that they're almost always taken out of context to serve
> the aims of the reporter.
well i had my hunches, but was withholding judgement ... either way people
are
who they are, i just don't use the words Fox and News lightly.
cnn is fodder for the animals as well, occasionally i do read it as you do
FOX
i just found it intersting because i shitcanned FOX years ago. I do often
wunder
if I'm missing anything, but a quick peek stregthens my "resolve". your
finance
backround must keep you tied to Fox they're always up someones ass about how
much money people make...
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:57:06 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > OK. If he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
> > in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
> > criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
> > wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
> > else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
> > Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
> > this regard. He's also no better.
>
> I think the tax cut will partially result in an improved economic climate,
> but mostly the changes in depreciation schedules for small businesses will
> bear fruit, probably within the next 10-18 months. You can credit/not
> credit Bush as you please - he, after all, doesn't make laws, he just
> signs them.
Please. Don't make him sound like an innocent bystander.
He proposes lots of legislation and works with Congress
to shape other legislation. In addition to signing, he can
choose to veto legislation as well. Don't make it sound
like Congress pushes Bush around at its whim.
Dennis Vogel
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I also figured the first thing he'd do in office was
> raise taxes and spend more money, which are two things I DON'T want our
> government to do.
Ya know, something that gripes me about people who
say they want less government spending is that they
usually still want *their* share to continue. Hell, we
elect representatives based on how much bacon they
can bring home. We *expect* them to do that when
we elect them. If they don't, we toss them out. When
was the lat time you heard a candidate campaign on
how little money he brought to his district?
But somehow we rail when the President proposes
and Congress votes for spending programs. Shocked,
I tell you, shocked that they would spend money! And
I don't know whether Gore would have raised taxes but
Dubya doesn't seem to shy away from spending money.
Can't see much difference between them other than what
they'd spend it on. How much was that Homeland Security
department? And the wars? I don't think you will ever
have a president or Congress that won't spend money nor
would people really want it.
Dennis Vogel
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:42:14 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
>
> > As far as the second, you restatement is *way* different than
> > the original. I agree with your point that the prez alone isn't
> > responsible for the economy. But that's not at all the same as
> > "You can credit/not credit Bush as you please - he, after all,
> > doesn't make laws, he just signs them." Of course, I'm sure
> > you'll disagree and say they really are the same. Save it.
> > I'm not convinced.
>
> I was prepared to explain further, since I think you're getting tripped up
> by a linguistic device/trick I used, but it's clear here that you're not
> really interested. So I'll honor your request and save it and leave you
unconvinced.
Oh, wait, let me rescind my request. I can't wait to hear
your "linguistic device/trick". This should be good.
Enlighten all of us, please.
Dennis Vogel
"Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You missed the whole photo-op? With the huge "mission accomplished"
> banner? And the announcement that "major combat operations" were over?
> No, that's not saying we're done, but it is strongly implying that all
> that's left is just dealing with criminals, getting the electricity
> running, and finding those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction (where
> *are* they, anyway?).
Oh, I guess you didn't get the double plus good official
speak explanation for the "Mission Accomplished"
pronouncement from Dear Leader, did you? *After*
the criticism came out the White House explained that
our feeble little partisan minds didn't understand that
the banner was about the crew on *that* ship. You
(and a lot of other naive people!) assumed little Shrub
was talking about the war effort in Iraq. The fact that
he didn't say this or imply this nor did anyone else in
the administration until well after the speech is well,
uh, give us a few days to get the propagan, er, speech
writers together to explain that. ;-)
Dennis Vogel
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > I hate to burst your bubble but the source for the data
> > shown in the Times article is the Bureau of Labor
> > Statistics, part of the Executive branch of our government.
> > In other words, it's the President's people who are
> > responsible for this data, not the Times.
> >
> > Dennis Vogel
>
> Don't worry, you didn't burst my bubble. But imagine this: you make
> $75,000 a year. You tell somebody how much you make. That person tells
> one of his/her friends that you make $50,000. When that friend says, "How
> do you know that?" the person you originally told says, "Dennis told me."
OK. That sure clears things up.
Dennis Vogel
All I know is I can't find a job and that's with a college degree.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:53:58 -0500, "todd"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Of course Greenspan can't singlehandedly fix the economy, but you can't
>> > really know what you're talking about and say that he doesn't have a
>> > significant influence over it. I suppose you know that things wouldn't
>be
>> > worse if the Federal Funds rate hadn't been lowered. I think
>Greenspan's
>> > biggest mistake at the end of 1999 and into 2000 was putting the brakes
>on
>> > too hard.
>> >
>> > todd
>> >
>> > todd
>> >
>>
>> todd todd,
>>
>> Are you saying that Greenspan caused the predicament we are in? I don't
>> believe this to be the case.
>>
>> Frank
>
>I'm saying that having a restrictive monetary policy with what the economy
>was doing at the time was, at least in hindsight, detrimental to the
>economy. We had the economy (as measured by real GDP) going essentially
>sideways to down from 2000Q2 through 2001Q3. Instead of easing monetary
>policy, the Fed kept the discount rate at the highest level since 1991 all
>the way through the last half of 2000.
>
>todd
>
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
>
> > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >>
> >> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> >
>
> You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
> They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
> integrity of their journalism.
Rather say that they practiced diversity and affirmative action above and
beyond the call of sanity. A WASP reporter would have been canned long, long
before Mr Blair was.
-- Ernie
I support him because he is a great president
who is doing a fantastic job in spite of the tactics
of the demoCROOKS who are doing everything
imaginable to sabatoge his efforts in order to get
back in power. The man who preceded him in
office was a traitor who gave away our valuable
secrets in order to get illegal campaign money.,
and not one of his party had the integrity to vote
in favor of impeachment. That makes them
demoCROOKS. When the hell are you dumbassess going to wake up?????
"Dennis [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > I hate to burst your bubble but the source for the data
> > > shown in the Times article is the Bureau of Labor
> > > Statistics, part of the Executive branch of our government.
> > > In other words, it's the President's people who are
> > > responsible for this data, not the Times.
> > >
> > > Dennis Vogel
> >
> > Don't worry, you didn't burst my bubble. But imagine this: you make
> > $75,000 a year. You tell somebody how much you make. That person tells
> > one of his/her friends that you make $50,000. When that friend says,
"How
> > do you know that?" the person you originally told says, "Dennis told
me."
>
> OK. That sure clears things up.
>
> Dennis Vogel
>
>
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:33:29 -0500, Greg O wrote:
> Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an "adjustment"?
> The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a dump,
> regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.
After what started in March of 2000, I went from 100% stocks/funds to 25%
stocks/funds and 75% money market. I did wait about 3 months to make the
adjustment and got out before any heavy losses. I got back into
stocks/funds right after the second Saddam hunt began.
The tech bust was a result of business blowing their wad on Y2K new
equipment and software and after discovering the world didn't end, they
were all over bought and didn't have much left to spend. Things are on
the verge of getting back to normal in the tech world.
Hiring usually lags in the recovery process as companies push outsourcing
and overtime before finally accepting they need more people.
BTW, the GDP went from an 8% rate to a less than 1% rate in the 10 months
before Bush was elected - a real high speed dive and tough to pull out of,
but not surprising as the bubble was a result of some one time
circumstances and people including AG buying into the "new economy".
-Doug
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
> recommendations.
...while breaking virtually every financial promise he made after 9/11 to
fund improvements for local-level first responders.
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Of course Greenspan can't singlehandedly fix the economy, but you can't
> > really know what you're talking about and say that he doesn't have a
> > significant influence over it. I suppose you know that things wouldn't
be
> > worse if the Federal Funds rate hadn't been lowered. I think
Greenspan's
> > biggest mistake at the end of 1999 and into 2000 was putting the brakes
on
> > too hard.
> >
> > todd
> >
> > todd
> >
>
> todd todd,
>
> Are you saying that Greenspan caused the predicament we are in? I don't
> believe this to be the case.
>
> Frank
I'm saying that having a restrictive monetary policy with what the economy
was doing at the time was, at least in hindsight, detrimental to the
economy. We had the economy (as measured by real GDP) going essentially
sideways to down from 2000Q2 through 2001Q3. Instead of easing monetary
policy, the Fed kept the discount rate at the highest level since 1991 all
the way through the last half of 2000.
todd
What I find somewhat amazing is that no one seems to have pointed out the
obvious flaw in presentation of this NYT graphic. rec.woodworking is
typically filled with thoughtful, analytic people who like to figure things
out, and I was sure someone would have noted this.
Statistically, they are comparing employment growth/loss on per Presidential
term. The total potential sample space for G.W.Bush is effectively 2.5 years
(Jan 2001 - July 2003), versus an average of sample space of 5.4 years
across all other presidential terms. Could it be that, for any other
president listed, there might exist a 2.5 year interval that equaled or
exceeded the negative employment numbers of either Hoover or G.W. Bush? Of
course it could, and its very likely as well, given the poor economic cycles
we know that occurred in the 70s under Nixon/Ford/Carter, for example. It
may be that, at the end of our current president's term, the employment
numbers under his watch reflect poorly when compared to other presidential
terms. But as portrayed, this graph does not use equal treatment for all
listed.
AND, by the way, I would not hesitate to say the same if numbers were to
represent less or more favorably on either political party or candidate. The
issue I am noting is one of unequal statistical rendering, which is wrong
whoever the victim happens to be.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> >
> > http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
> Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
> was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
> you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
> economy, his initials are AG).
> Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
> No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
> by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some
more
> people.
>
> todd
>
>
"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> simply view this graphic and tell me why
>
> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).
Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some more
by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some more
people.
todd
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave Hockenberry" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed -- he inherited more than a weakened economy -- he inherited an
> overheated economy, with a massive tech balloon that was not sustainable.
And how much of this balloon was inflated by falsified accounting
reports and Enronian-type practices?
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:06:09 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
> Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a left-wing
> think tank. <smirk>
I never claimed or implied that. I said that I cannot take anything
printed as fact in the New York Times at face value. And if you accept
whatever statistics you are spoon-fed by a government agency, there's no
point in continuing this discussion. I think the BLS is probably fairly
accurate, but I have no reason to believe the NYT is reporting their
claims accurately. Even so, it's all immaterial. The economy today is
not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as a
billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
effectively.
> There you go Ben, trying to counter a rant with a good understanding of how
> money works. How silly of you! LOL It's interesting that the people who
> actually wade around in the money every day, just laugh at those who think
> that any one government body has much control of the money. They consider
My major concern about money and our government is how much of OUR money
they get, and how inefficiently it is spent. I'd like to see less
taxation, and more government agencies privatized. NASA is #1 on my list
of organizations that need government regulation but not ownership.
> In a sideways sort of way, the people who bitch about the wealthy getting
> the breaks, and gripe about their taxes (and anything else they can find)
> are right. What they don't understand is that it's also not the government,
> but the fact that they understand what I mentioned above. They also use
> that understanding to deal with those conditions where government can be
> taken in it's proper light. But then again, this is all off topic.
Nobody likes rich people, but we all want to be one. :) Poor men don't
hire you to fix their roof, replace their siding, fix their car, or
landscape their yards. It's the middle class and wealthy that create
opportunities for wealth distribution. Were I in charge, I'd just
eliminate the Federal Income Tax for the lowest tax bracket entirely, it
accounts to a tiny, tiny faction of just our tax income.
The problem is that if you were to eliminate taxes on anybody who makes
under $32,000 and lower marginal rates by 3-5% for the top two brackets,
the same politicials and media figures would be up in arms over "unfair"
tax cuts for the rich.
What's unfair is that people have to fork over their money in the first
place in order to pay for four hundred offices full of senate and house chamber
lackeys running documents all over the Mall and all of the unreasonable
waste and inefficiency of our government.
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 16:23:20 -0400, 4 out of 5 dentists wrote:
> what do you find authoritative then ? just curious.
Honestly? Very little. I like to read a variety of publications with a
variety of political motivations, and see which facts are most consistant
among them. These have the best likelihood of being rooted in truth.
I think Charlie Self said this earlier - you have to approach half of what
you hear with skepticism, but eventually you have to take for granted that
something is probably true and base your opinions on it.
If I see a Fox News story, I'll usually go look it up on news.google.com
and see what other news outlets have to say about it. The themes and
figures that resonate in other media tend to be reliable enough to form an
educated opinion.
> Not necessarily. One little-reported connection that may well have
> counted for more than race in the case of Blair is that he came from the
> U. of Maryland journalism school; several of the top people at the Times
> came from that program, and often return there to speak. Blair came
> recommended by professors in the Maryland program, and I strongly
> suspect there was a fair amount of pressure to let him do his thing
> because of that.
The people in charge of this debacle at the NYT flat out admitted that
they kept him around because of his race.
> 1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
> recommendations.
The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.
> 2. He gave massive corporate welfare to the steel industry, textiles and
> agrobusiness.
I hear you on this. I'm really getting weary of corporate bailouts. On
one hand, manufacturing got hammered over the last few years, but this
kind of constantly fiscal meddling violates the principles of a free
market.
> 3. He started a war that we had to pick up the entire tab for, unlike Gulf
> I.
I don't agree with this statement in letter or spirit, but it's a matter
of perception, and a debate on it will be circular and pointless. You
certainly won't change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours.
Ben Siders writes:
>> 1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
>> recommendations.
>
>The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
>me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
>recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
>one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.
Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs so
quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?
Charlie Self
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush
>
> Are you sure there are 14,000 *US* employees for Stanley? Seems many of
> the packages I've seen lately say "Made in China". Though I don't spend
> much time contemplating buying Stanley products any longer since they
> cheaped out years ago- much rather support folks like Brusso, Fuller and
> others of the like. What happens when Stanley then moves their
> manufacturing to China - still a US corporation? Not if they move to the
> Bahamas - they are no longer a US corporation; in my eyes they become a
> foreign company on par with Toyota or Honda with US plants and should
> have import restrictions favoring domestic competitors.
>
You are probably correct the employees are not all US -- my intention was to
position an example, not to fully document.
And I would agree with you that, if they move HQ or some % of their
operations our of the country, they are no longer principally a US company.
They do, however, become a multinational company that (generally) get the
advantages of being local and foreign in any given market that participate
in.
To be clear, I don't like either occurring, but between the two, I'd rather
buy from a company incorporated somewhere else where most of the jobs are
stateside then buy from a company that is US in name only (with all./most
jobs exported overseas). This is the dilemma with the auto companies at this
point -- we have heard for years that we should support labor and buy US.
Well, a growing % of the US automakers production is occurring in Canada and
Mexico, while Toyota, Nissan and Honda have setup MFG here. It would appear
that buying a Japanese car would create/sustain more jobs than buying and
American one.
>
> Here in Oregon, the unemployment rate is/was about 8.5%. How many of the
> hundreds of thousands of jobs lost nationwide in the last 3-5 years were
> not lost due to business bankruptcies or takeovers verses how many were
> simply shipped outside our borders?
>
> We need to come down hard on companies, like Stanley, that decide to
> move their HQ's to the Bahamas or some such place for the tax
> advantages. We all want to pay as few taxes as we can, but to side step
> the taxes by relocating off shore while still expecting benefits of US
> "corporate citizenship" is underhanded and should be dealt with harshly.
>
I hate to parse this further, but there are really two separate issues you
are bringing up -- Losing jobs overseas, and corporate tax strategies, and
the two are not necessarily joined. The first point to be made is that
corporations NEVER really pay taxes -- all tax costs are rolled into the
costs of goods/services that end consumers purchase, so *we* get to pay them
in the form of higher prices. If a company moves their headquarters alone to
Bermuda, Delaware, Nevada, wherever to gain tax advantages, I have no
problem with this as it is a legal and ethical method of reducing costs. For
some states with very high corporate state taxes, I completely understand
the motivation to move, in many cases simply in order to compete with
international market pressure.
This is different than moving jobs overseas. As a matted of fact, I would
venture to say (and will probably do some research on this to verify) that
more jobs have been lost overseas to companies who kept their headquarters
in the US than those who moved all operations offshore. The IT sector has
been hammered due to the huge number of US corporations that have outsourced
IT functions to India, China, etc. Many of the large tech leaders (MS.,
Intel, etc.) have either already or are in the process of moving
development, design and engineering functions there as well.
To clarify the difference. lets assume the Stanley HQ administrative and
executive staff is about 300 people, and is moved to Bermuda. Based on the
press releases, this is to be the parent company, with all other existing
subsids staying essentially where they are today. They had ~14,000 employees
at the end of 2002. If this move allows them to compete more successfully
against products from China, etc, this move actually could help to retain
and stabilize these US jobs. The alternative would be to move the 14K jobs
overseas and keep the HQ here to pay taxes. I think the HQ move is the
lesser of the 2 evils.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> Because there are people in other countries that will work for less
> money than an American. Once again proof that America is a charitable
> nation. We are helping other countries economys get off the ground
> and raising the standard of living through out the world.
It has little to no basis in charity, in my opinion, and all to do with
profits. Did anyone catch the Vermont Rep on C-span giving a talk to
WashDC high schoolers? His opinion is that we are not a world power in
the sense we were during WW2 - China has surpassed us, in large part,
because we've shipped a majority of our manufacturing over there for the
cheap labor, super lax enviro laws and scant worker health oversight.
I'm not solely blaming corporate America, the average US consumer is
just as guilty. Price uber allus.
> How we deal with it is an open question. Do we wish to be a closed
> country w/o trade or do we want to give much of the world a hand up?
We need to treat other countries as they treat us with respect to
import/export taxes, quotas and the like.
Here in Oregon, the unemployment rate is/was about 8.5%. How many of the
hundreds of thousands of jobs lost nationwide in the last 3-5 years were
not lost due to business bankruptcies or takeovers verses how many were
simply shipped outside our borders?
We need to come down hard on companies, like Stanley, that decide to
move their HQ's to the Bahamas or some such place for the tax
advantages. We all want to pay as few taxes as we can, but to side step
the taxes by relocating off shore while still expecting benefits of US
"corporate citizenship" is underhanded and should be dealt with harshly.
If you continue to believe we are sending jobs overseas for charitable
reasons, consider the carpenter who fixes all his neighbors houses while
his own crumbles from lack of care. We need to build and protect US jobs
and manufacturing first.
Sorry about the rambling and many-topic reply. I feel strongly about
losing our manufacturing and the accompanying jobs while we get sand
kicked in our face, trade-wise, from other countries.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave Hockenberry" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hate to parse this further, but there are really two separate issues you
> are bringing up -- Losing jobs overseas, and corporate tax strategies, and
> the two are not necessarily joined.
Thanks for responding Dave. I didn't mean the two issues are tied very
closely other than corporations always looking for the lowest expense
without truly considering or caring about the effects on the citizenry
or employees as a group. There are many times in my daily life that I
choose to pay more for things just due to the benefits it provides
others. To buy locally helps my neighbors and my town to maintain their
properties - always seeking out the lowest cost may inevitably have a
detrimental effect on my neighbor's job status, juvenile crime, property
values, city services, etc and in the end affecting my property,
security and income.
> The first point to be made is that
> corporations NEVER really pay taxes -- all tax costs are rolled into the
> costs of goods/services that end consumers purchase, so *we* get to pay them
> in the form of higher prices. If a company moves their headquarters alone to
> Bermuda, Delaware, Nevada, wherever to gain tax advantages, I have no
> problem with this as it is a legal and ethical method of reducing costs. For
> some states with very high corporate state taxes, I completely understand
> the motivation to move, in many cases simply in order to compete with
> international market pressure.
My opinion is: you move your headquarters out of the country, you become
a foreign entity. And domestic entities should get preferential
treatment over foreign ones.
> This is different than moving jobs overseas. As a matted of fact, I would
> venture to say (and will probably do some research on this to verify) that
> more jobs have been lost overseas to companies who kept their headquarters
> in the US than those who moved all operations offshore. The IT sector has
> been hammered due to the huge number of US corporations that have outsourced
> IT functions to India, China, etc. Many of the large tech leaders (MS.,
> Intel, etc.) have either already or are in the process of moving
> development, design and engineering functions there as well.
And wasn't it, within the last 20 years that we've lost our heavy
manufacturing, that the rallying cry was that the US would excel in
technology based manufacturing and development? Technology ain't
sticking around long either - in search for the lowest paid employee. I
fear our security when we have little heavy manufacturing, many of our
farms have been plowed under the parking lots of the Borgs since we now
import large amounts of foods from other countries, etc. Anyone know how
much of our military equipment and munitions has some portion
manufactured out of the US (meaning we're reliant on others for our
defense and security)?
Bottom line to me is that most companies have little regard for their
fellow citizens, the environmental impacts of unregulated manufacturing,
and the ill effects of unmonitored health and safety for the new foreign
populations.
> To clarify the difference. lets assume the Stanley HQ administrative and
> executive staff is about 300 people, and is moved to Bermuda. Based on the
> press releases, this is to be the parent company, with all other existing
> subsids staying essentially where they are today. They had ~14,000 employees
> at the end of 2002. If this move allows them to compete more successfully
> against products from China, etc, this move actually could help to retain
> and stabilize these US jobs. The alternative would be to move the 14K jobs
> overseas and keep the HQ here to pay taxes. I think the HQ move is the
> lesser of the 2 evils.
Are you sure there are 14,000 *US* employees for Stanley? Seems many of
the packages I've seen lately say "Made in China". Though I don't spend
much time contemplating buying Stanley products any longer since they
cheaped out years ago- much rather support folks like Brusso, Fuller and
others of the like. What happens when Stanley then moves their
manufacturing to China - still a US corporation? Not if they move to the
Bahamas - they are no longer a US corporation; in my eyes they become a
foreign company on par with Toyota or Honda with US plants and should
have import restrictions favoring domestic competitors.
Now I'm all pissed off --- knew I shouldn'ta started reading this
thread. ;)
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:52:50 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs so
> quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
> losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?
>
>
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
> plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
> George W. Bush
I responded to this but I haven't seen my post show up. Weird.
The recession *IS* over, Charlie, by all practical and economic
definitions. It began in 2000 and ended in 2001. A recession is a period
of negative economic growth, or economic growth whose short-term trend is
significantly under the long-term trend. We're no longer at that point,
and haven't been for awhile. What we had was a massive productivity spike
during the Clinton years that was the result of foolish investing and Y2K
hype. When that hype turned up to be much ado about nothing, the bubble
burst. Suddenly companies had invested insane capital into people and
equipment who no longer have any purpose. The IT markets were saturated
with underqualified employees who, in another decade, would have been
flipping burgers for a living instead of saying stuff like, "Let's make a
web site to sell cat food" and having investors stumbling over each other
to shove money into these kids' hands.
What is Bush doing?
1) Lowering taxes on people. This puts more investment capital into the
hands of small business owners. This is where people bitch about tax
breaks for the rich, but that's garbage. Poor men don't expand their
workforce. Self-made business owners invest a lot of personal income back
into their businesses.
2) Child tax credits/reduction of the marriage penalty. This one doesn't
do near as much, but it does help. My wife is a Catholic schoolteacher,
making $22,000/year. She was paying taxes in the $100K bracket because of
the marriage penalty.
3) Accelerated depreciation schedules. This permits businesses making
large equipment purchases to write off more depreciation loss up front and
reduce their tax burden. This leaves more capital in the business's
coffers for reinvestment and hiring. This is also encourages equipment
purchases, which will help get our manufacturing sector back on its feet.
Bush is also doing plenty of things wrong, but I probably don't need to
explain those to you, the media goes over it daily.
There is a common misinterpretation of terms at work here, so lets define
our key term. A recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of declining
GDP. For the recent recession, that actually began fall of 2000, with the
official recession declared in March 2001. The economic board that the US
typically looks to declare such things (NBER) recently stated that the
recession was over in November 2001, and that the GDP has since been in
recovery. This should not be confused with employment/unemployment. While
the two can be tightly related, they need not be.
To your point 2.A, what should this or any other president to increase
employment rates? There are generally two course of action:
1) Try to use fiscal, monetary, tax or regulatory policy to create incentive
for business to invest and grow, creating more jobs
2) Try to directly create jobs through adding to the federal workforce,
subsidies to various industries, bailouts, etc.
Doing the first is the traditional way to grow the economy, and has been
successful several times in US history, but is not always immediate in
reaction. Doing the second historically provides temporary employment
relief, but increases long term debt -- effectively borrowing off the
future. Bush's economic policies, by the way, almost all fall into the first
category
To your point 2.B, since taking office, tell me precisely where has Bush or
anyone in the administration placed any blame for the economy on Clinton? I
have heard many do so, and they are largely conservative voices, but I have
not read anywhere that Bush has done so -- and I read a lot.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ben Siders writes:
>
> >> 1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane
economist's
> >> recommendations.
> >
> >The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
> >me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
> >recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
> >one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.
>
> Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs
so
> quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
> losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?
>
>
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
> plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
> George W. Bush
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ben Siders writes:
>
> >> 1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane
economist's
> >> recommendations.
> >
> >The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
> >me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
> >recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
> >one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.
>
> Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs
so
> quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
> losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?
>
>
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
> plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
> George W. Bush
Because unemployment is a typically a lagging indicator?
todd
> i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
> close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
> effect
> about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
> sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.
Based on these two examples, you seem to have me pegged as a Republican,
which isn't quite true. I've found some nuggets of truth in Fox News, but
I ignore any of their political discussion, just as I ignore CNN and
newspaper editorials. I used to soak it up because I thought it was
intelligent, educated content by knowledgable people, but it's not. Most
of it is just political moving and shaking by people with agendas. Seems
obvious to me now. Journalism has nothing to do with reporting facts and
relaying news any more. It's about sensationalism and ratings. Cable
news is entertainment first and truth second, and newspapers are getting
to be that way, too. This is why I try to accumulate sources and find the
one vein of truth that is consistant across all stories and draw my
opinions from that. Quotes are the hardest thing to deal with for me,
because I know that they're almost always taken out of context to serve
the aims of the reporter.
> even when that guy who was making up shit in the NYT was writing articles
> it was still better than the best factual FOX report I have ever read ( or
> seen )
I don't agree with that. I've seem Fox at least report things that are
true. Blair was making up landscapes, towns, people, and interviews that
never existed and/or took place.
> and that goes for the weather on FOX as well ...
Amen.
> i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
> really
> have to hand it to the BBC,
What's sad is that the BBC has more information in its reports on what
goes on in America than most American news agencies.
> I hate to burst your bubble but the source for the data
> shown in the Times article is the Bureau of Labor
> Statistics, part of the Executive branch of our government.
> In other words, it's the President's people who are
> responsible for this data, not the Times.
>
> Dennis Vogel
Don't worry, you didn't burst my bubble. But imagine this: you make
$75,000 a year. You tell somebody how much you make. That person tells
one of his/her friends that you make $50,000. When that friend says, "How
do you know that?" the person you originally told says, "Dennis told me."
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:49:40 -0400, 4 out of 5 dentists wrote:
> your
> finance
> backround must keep you tied to Fox they're always up someones ass about how
> much money people make...
I don't have a finance background. My college education resulted in a
B.A. in English, as I had some stupid idea of becoming an author some day.
:) I'm not tied to Fox, I've probably watched a total of an hour of Fox
News in my life. I pop over to their web site in the morning, then I
check out CNN's web site, and then I check the page for our local paper.
I don't care how much money people make. I hope everybody makes as much
money as they possibly can (legally).
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:49:15 +0000, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>
> "Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> All I know is I can't find a job and that's with a college degree.
>>
>
> Well a degree isn't a guarantee of a job. What is your degree and where do
> you live?
>
> Frank
A degree is a piece of paper. I landed a job in computers based on
nothing but a good interview. I had no experience, no degree, nothing but
a little talent and personality. It's been 4 years, I've changed jobs
once and been laid off once and experienced no period of unemployment
longer than a week.
A degree means you went to college and graduated and that's it. If your
market sector is down, or the area you live in is just not growing, you
won't find work. There's also the problem of overqualification. There
are smart, talented people who can't get work because they're too good for
the available positions and people don't want to hire somebody who'll just
bail once the job market opens up.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:50:37 -0400, clutc wrote:
>
> I listen to the BBC on the way to work on NPR most nights. I have
> been told that more conservatives listen to NPR than liberals. That
> might be total bravo siera but knowing one's opponent is part of being
> informed.
I believe this. Most of the conservatives I know prefer NPR over Rush
Limbaugh. And, strangely, most of the liberals I know are closet Limbaugh
listeners who spend 3 hours a day being really ticked off. :)
> During the war, I would watch Fox and we were winning, listen to BBC
> and we were loosing, see CNN in lunchroom on the nights they didn't
> alternate with Fox and we were loosing. How can that be?
Yeah the slants were bad. I was especially annoyed with how hellbent CNN
was on misrepresenting our progress in Iraq. It can't be argued that our
military operation in Iraq was one of the most impression and decisive
victories in the modern era, with minimal casualties and loss of property.
It even blew Gulf 1 out of the water. If people want to argue to debate
whether or not we should have done it, that's one thing. But to pretend
it was anything other than a massive success? Claptrap.
> As far as BBC and information, it has a lot of detail but most people
> interviewed are not conservatives.
What I like about the BBC, and any foreign news agency, is a slant on
American politics that isn't by Americans.
> Does George rock my boat? No. Does Ashcroft have my complete
> confidence. No. Sadly, it is the best thing that I could get with Al
> Gore or Nader being worse.
Darth Nader! I really wanted to like Al Gore but I just couldn't get past
this feeling I had that he'd have automobiles outlawed by 2006 and such
strict restrictions placed on emissions that he'd bankrupt half of the
nation's automakers. I also figured the first thing he'd do in office was
raise taxes and spend more money, which are two things I DON'T want our
government to do. I wasn't thrilled about Dubya, and his position on the
ballot affirmed to me that TV is ruining American politics. The most
qualified people are not put on ballots - the most electable are, and
electability is determined by TV charisma. Bush's stumbling over his
words and spasmodic gesticulating appeals to Joe American. "That guy
talks like me." Nevermind that the latter generations of the Bush family
were born into privilege and most of us aren't. I was glad to see Ari
Fleisher go. That guy was a weasel. I've been really impressed with
Rumsfeld and how down-to-earth he is. I also like how adroitly he
manhandles the media with their idiotic questions that aren't even
questions, just political assertions.
> Before that, I wasn't around to have an opinion.
I was born in '76, I don't remember much before Reagan. I have the most
vague memory of his first election.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:42:14 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
> As far as the second, you restatement is *way* different than
> the original. I agree with your point that the prez alone isn't
> responsible for the economy. But that's not at all the same as
> "You can credit/not credit Bush as you please - he, after all,
> doesn't make laws, he just signs them." Of course, I'm sure
> you'll disagree and say they really are the same. Save it.
> I'm not convinced.
I was prepared to explain further, since I think you're getting tripped up
by a linguistic device/trick I used, but it's clear here that you're not
really interested. So I'll honor your request and save it and leave you unconvinced.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:03:42 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
> "Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Ya know, something that gripes me about people who
> say they want less government spending is that they
> usually still want *their* share to continue. Hell, we
What share? I want the government to provide basic infrastructure and
some regulations and standardization initiatives. By "recuding spending"
I'm not talking as much about cutting programs (although we have plenty
that can stand to go, as they've been demonstrative failures), but
reducing and eliminating waste and inefficiency.
> elect representatives based on how much bacon they
> can bring home. We *expect* them to do that when
> we elect them. If they don't, we toss them out. When
> was the lat time you heard a candidate campaign on
> how little money he brought to his district?
Bringing money to the private sector is much different from pork barrel
programs.
> But somehow we rail when the President proposes
> and Congress votes for spending programs. Shocked,
> I tell you, shocked that they would spend money! And
I'm not shocked. I'm irritated.
> I don't know whether Gore would have raised taxes but
> Dubya doesn't seem to shy away from spending money.
No, he doesn't. That's the point I was making.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:09:18 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
> "Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:42:14 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > As far as the second, you restatement is *way* different than
>> > the original. I agree with your point that the prez alone isn't
>> > responsible for the economy. But that's not at all the same as
>> > "You can credit/not credit Bush as you please - he, after all,
>> > doesn't make laws, he just signs them." Of course, I'm sure
>> > you'll disagree and say they really are the same. Save it.
>> > I'm not convinced.
>>
>> I was prepared to explain further, since I think you're getting tripped up
>> by a linguistic device/trick I used, but it's clear here that you're not
>> really interested. So I'll honor your request and save it and leave you
> unconvinced.he, after all,
>> > doesn't make laws, he just signs them.
>
> Oh, wait, let me rescind my request. I can't wait to hear
> your "linguistic device/trick". This should be good.
> Enlighten all of us, please.
>
> Dennis Vogel
As you wish, though I (obviously) question your sincerity here, and I'm
not "enlightening" anybody, just explaining myself. Read again: "he,
after all, doesn't make laws, he just signs them." My intent
here was to make fun of the people who think like this. "I like Bush,
therefor I will exempt him from any accountability on the economy's
current state." Somebody (maybe even you) cornered me on this before, and
I explained that obviously the President frames the nation's fiscal
policy. He sets the budget. Duh. Congress votes on it, but it's HIS
budget. He goes around badgering and bartering with people to get his
budget passed. All of the Presidents go through this.
People want to have it both ways. People blame the Democratic congress
for Bush 1's tax hike, and credit the Republican congress for the economic
boom during Clinton's reign. But somehow Reagan is creditted for getting
us out of the inflation and unemployment debacle of the 70's.
The truth is (I thought obviously) that, first of all, the President is
one factor in fiscal policy. Congress another. The Fed is another.
Plenty of things are beyond the control of any of them.
So what I was trying to convey, using a bit of sarcasm and emulation, was
that people are going to blame whoever they want and credit whoever they
want as they please based on their personal political slant. There are
plenty of Clinton revisionists running around doing this, and an army of
Bush apologists getting a jump-start on it.
I hope that's a little more clear.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:55:20 +0000, Renata wrote:
> Kinda helps a bit when the other side doesn't have a military to speak
> of, donchathink?
Helps a lot. Which begs the question of why certain parts of our country
were so convinced that thousands of Americans would die and that this war
was going to be so hard, and it was going to bog down, blah blah.
> Much better to cut taxes and spend more money, no?
No, that's bad. Cutting taxes is good, but increasing spending at the
same time can be dangerous in the long-term. If they'd cut taxes and left
the spending rates alone, I'd be a little more comfortable, but Bush is
pushing all kinds of stupid new entitlement programs that aren't
necessary.
> At last, we agree. :-)
> Just goes to show that you don't have to have 2 brain cells to be
> president.
I think Bush is much smarter than people give him credit for, but I also
think that he will never go down in history as anything more than a
transitionary bumbler, no matter what ultimately happens under his
leadership (for better or for worse). America has decided what it thinks
of Bush, and you've adroitly said it for me.
> Helps a lot when you're willing to talk about the conflict in the past
> tense when we're still losing 1-2 soliders per day. "Mission
> accomplished" is the biggest Bushwhopper of them all.
While the death of any of our armed forces is tragic, how many servicemen
are killed in America each year on average due to accidents? How many
people die from car accidents? Murders? Malnourishment? Surgical
accidents? Misdiagnosed illness? How many died every day during Vietnam?
Uday and Qusay have assumed room temperature. Did you fail to notice taht
shortly after, we went about 4 or 5 days without any combat fatalities?
I haven't yet seen where the PRez said we were done over there. This is
what bugs me about President-bashers. There's plenty of good things that
Bush is vulnerable on and deserves criticism for, but people pick apart
things that aren't even issues. The Clinton-haters did the SAME thing,
attacking his personal life and how he "marginalized" the office of the
presidency. Who cares? The man had some bad policies worthy of criticism
but his critics ignored it.
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > simply view this graphic and tell me why
> > >
> > >
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> >
> > Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration
that
> > was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
> > Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
> that
> > you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over
the
> > economy, his initials are AG).
>
> Yeah? How many times has Alan Greenspan lowered the discount rate in the
> last few years? Has it fixed the problem? The fact is that you and I ARE
> the ecomomy. If nobody wants to spend/invest their money, there is
nothing
> that Bush or Greenspan can do about it. The economy is too big and
complex
> for any one person to have a significant influence on it.
>
> Frank
Of course Greenspan can't singlehandedly fix the economy, but you can't
really know what you're talking about and say that he doesn't have a
significant influence over it. I suppose you know that things wouldn't be
worse if the Federal Funds rate hadn't been lowered. I think Greenspan's
biggest mistake at the end of 1999 and into 2000 was putting the brakes on
too hard.
todd
todd
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dave Hockenberry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Agreed -- he inherited more than a weakened economy -- he inherited an
> > overheated economy, with a massive tech balloon that was not
sustainable.
>
> And how much of this balloon was inflated by falsified accounting
> reports and Enronian-type practices?
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
> <http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
> <http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
Are you saying there was a lack of oversight of this sort of behavior while
Clinton was in office? Are you suggesting that the Clinton administration
purposely let this type of behavior go on to keep the economy up? That's a
pretty cynical view.
todd
Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an "adjustment"?
The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a dump,
regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.
Greg
"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> simply view this graphic and tell me why
>
> http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
>
>
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:33:29 -0500, Greg O wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an
"adjustment"?
> > The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a
dump,
> > regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.
>
> After what started in March of 2000, I went from 100% stocks/funds to 25%
> stocks/funds and 75% money market. I did wait about 3 months to make the
> adjustment and got out before any heavy losses. I got back into
> stocks/funds right after the second Saddam hunt began.
>
I was going to get out of stocks then too, but IIRC I blinked, and it was
too late! I remember looking my portfolio over, thinking it was time to
move, then getting busy on a home remodel. When I looked again, it was all
over! On the hit I took I could have bought a new house!
I have a pretty good stomach for the stack market and am still in it, hell
it is time for a rebound, mark my words! That and I have quite a few years
before retirement, so let 'er ride!
Greg
"Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
>> really
>> have to hand it to the BBC,
>
>What's sad is that the BBC has more information in its reports on what
>goes on in America than most American news agencies.
I listen to the BBC on the way to work on NPR most nights. I have
been told that more conservatives listen to NPR than liberals. That
might be total bravo siera but knowing one's opponent is part of being
informed.
During the war, I would watch Fox and we were winning, listen to BBC
and we were loosing, see CNN in lunchroom on the nights they didn't
alternate with Fox and we were loosing. How can that be?
As far as BBC and information, it has a lot of detail but most people
interviewed are not conservatives.
My favorite form of news is watching C-span.
Does George rock my boat? No. Does Ashcroft have my complete
confidence. No. Sadly, it is the best thing that I could get with Al
Gore or Nader being worse.
Reagan was the last President that I felt good about. Jerry Ford
doesn't count, good man filling a slot to get us through things
knowing that he wasn't going to get elected. I felt good about Nixon
until he blew it. If Nixon had played it straight he would have been
one of our greatest Presidents. He had a clue about world geo
politics.
Carter had my respect as being a good man, though too naive until he
started dissing GWB. That isn't the protocol. GHWB didn't go after
Clinton for the most part though I have to believe he was a bit
irritated.
Johnson has been proved to be a liar and fool.
JFK had a lot of hope as he tried to get his act together.
Before that, I wasn't around to have an opinion.
Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NONE, though some are more obvious than others.
>
I see.
You need to research the source more closely -- the source of the raw data
is the BLS, but the report that the NYT is referencing is from the Economic
Policy Institute, a decidedly left of center think tank. Does that make the
raw data from BLS incorrect? No. Does that make the EPI wrong? No, but, as
with all voices in the public square, we need to scrutinize the message and
the presentation.
As I'm sure y'all know, a good statistician using a single set of numbers
can make several sound, logical arguments that contradict each other ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ben Siders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
> >
> > > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >> simply view this graphic and tell me why
> > >>
> > >>
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
> > >
> >
> > You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
> > They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
> > integrity of their journalism.
> >
>
> Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a
left-wing
> think tank. <smirk>
>
>