In article >,
Pan > wrote:

> Federal surplus? You mean additional income from a one time sale, and
> a national debt, is not a surplus. Dot com bust, creating a recession,
> is not a surplus.

The dot com bubble was wholly and exclusively the result of free market
capitalists.

> Market is up, compared to Clinton years.
>
> I may be stupid but I live well, because of the GOP, and their basic
> economics.

Exactly the ones responsible for the dot com bust.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Pan wrote:

>
>
>
>Market is up, compared to Clinton years.
>
>I may be stupid
>

No doubt about it. S&P 500 is actually DOWN 3% and Nasdaq is DOWN 13%
since the day GW was placed into office. The Dow portion is up by a
whopping 11% over 7-1/2 years (1.5%/yr) - less than any CD (2.65% of
that was just yesterday).


You do have a big problem with facts. Guess that's why you believe all
the GW (Rush, Beck, O'Reiley, FoxNews, etc) rhetoric.

Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major spell check
program or dictionary?

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:17:08 -0500, max >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Pan > wrote:
>
>> Federal surplus? You mean additional income from a one time sale, and
>> a national debt, is not a surplus. Dot com bust, creating a recession,
>> is not a surplus.
>
>The dot com bubble was wholly and exclusively the result of free market
>capitalists.
>
>> Market is up, compared to Clinton years.
>>
>> I may be stupid but I live well, because of the GOP, and their basic
>> economics.
>
>Exactly the ones responsible for the dot com bust.

Check your time line Max

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:59:15 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:

>No doubt about it. S&P 500 is actually DOWN 3% and Nasdaq is DOWN 13%
>since the day GW was placed into office. The Dow portion is up by a
>whopping 11% over 7-1/2 years (1.5%/yr) - less than any CD (2.65% of
>that was just yesterday).

Tell me where it was in the last six years.
Some of us saw the housing bubble bust coming, and made secure
investment.
>
>
>You do have a big problem with facts.
Just the one that you point to, only the ones you like, not the
majority of the ones available.

> Guess that's why you believe all
>the GW (Rush, Beck, O'Reiley, FoxNews, etc) rhetoric.
I do my own research. That's why I make money in the market.
>
>Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major spell check
>program or dictionary?

And in your, I'm betting foolish is missing.

Pan wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:59:15 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>No doubt about it. S&P 500 is actually DOWN 3% and Nasdaq is DOWN 13%
>>since the day GW was placed into office. The Dow portion is up by a
>>whopping 11% over 7-1/2 years (1.5%/yr) - less than any CD (2.65% of
>>that was just yesterday).
>>
>>
>
>Tell me where it was in the last six years.
>
>

OK. I'm beginning to understand. Since you've only started investing
within the last six years, it's becoming evident that you are way too
young to have lived the good times in the Clinton years.

On the other hand, considering your obvious illusions about the Bush
years, somehow I've very doubtful you timed significant investments at
the trough.


Hint - "Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic
expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a
reported federal surplus (Based on Congressional accounting rules, at
the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion)"

and as Forbes points out - " The misery index - the sum of the inflation
and unemployment rates - is at a 15-year high, with no relief in sight."

>Some of us saw the housing bubble bust coming, and made secure
>investment.
>
>
>>
>>

Another boondoggle for the current administration. It's well known that
the housing bubble was primarily caused by the artificially low interest
rates that were brought upon by the Fed in a desperate attempt to revive
the poor economy brought about by the poor Bush policies. In reality,
investors / business didn't take the bait where that cheap money went
into housing, not into business expansion, as intended.

>>You do have a big problem with facts.
>>
>>
>Just the one that you point to, only the ones you like, not the
>majority of the ones available.
>
>

I've already pointed out several (not all), but just found out since I
clipped rec.food.cooking in several of my responses, it appears you
never saw them.

>
>
>> Guess that's why you believe all
>>the GW (Rush, Beck, O'Reiley, FoxNews, etc) rhetoric.
>>
>>
>I do my own research. That's why I make money in the market.
>
>

If you just started, it's possible you've made a few dollars. On the
other hand, you seem to think a few percent return is "making money".
Furthermore, inflation has essentially wiped out all of the negligible
returns in the Bush years. About the only way to have made money in
the Bush years would have been to invest heavily into oil / energy.
Hmm, I wonder if Bush / Cheney had anything to do with that?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:00:19 -0400, clams_casino
>
>OK. I'm beginning to understand. Since you've only started investing
>within the last six years, it's becoming evident that you are way too
>young to have lived the good times in the Clinton years.

Wrong again. I'm 67 years old, and I have been investing since about
1965.
>
>On the other hand, considering your obvious illusions about the Bush
>years, somehow I've very doubtful you timed significant investments at
>the trough.

Well yes I sure you would know that. Are you clairvoyant?
>
>
>Hint - "Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic
>expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a
>reported federal surplus (Based on Congressional accounting rules, at
>the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion)"

And yet there was a recession, at the time he was leaving.

>>Some of us saw the housing bubble bust coming, and made secure
>>investment.

>Another boondoggle for the current administration. It's well known that
>the housing bubble was primarily caused by the artificially low interest
>rates that were brought upon by the Fed in a desperate attempt to revive
>the poor economy brought about by the poor Bush policies. In reality,
>investors / business didn't take the bait where that cheap money went
>into housing, not into business expansion, as intended.

Your circular logic is amazing. The bad economy was brought about by
the housing bubble, not the other way around.
Yes Bush's overspending didn't help


> About the only way to have made money in
>the Bush years would have been to invest heavily into oil / energy.
Yes and pharmaceuticals.
>
>

In article >,
Pan > wrote:

> I said hate Bush, if I had meant hate America, I would have said
> that.

Eh? Is there some reason NOT to hate W (and by "hate" I mean "sincerely
wish endless hellfire on him and every one of his supporters domestic
and foreign")?

What exactly has he done for America besides mire us in debt, divide us
as a nation, insult our foreign friends, send thousands of American
soldiers to be maimed and killed in a wasteful war of choice, ignore the
pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of American citizens and
dance like frigging loon on international TV and bicycling while our
Rome burns?

Hate W? You have no idea.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.

Ken Lay > wrote:
> In article >,
> Pan > wrote:
>
>> I said hate Bush, if I had meant hate America, I would have said
>> that.
>
> Eh? Is there some reason NOT to hate W (and by "hate" I mean
> "sincerely wish endless hellfire on him and every one of his
> supporters domestic and foreign")?

> What exactly has he done for America besides mire us in debt, divide
> us as a nation, insult our foreign friends, send thousands of American
> soldiers to be maimed and killed in a wasteful war of choice, ignore
> the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of American citizens
> and dance like frigging loon on international TV and bicycling while
> our Rome burns?

Avoided another anything like 9/11.

> Hate W? You have no idea.

You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message m...
>
> cybercat wrote:
>
>>
>> "Pan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>> >>
>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>> >>
>> >>your pal,
>> >>blake
>> >
>> >
>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>
>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
> when
>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>
>
> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years? Be
> *specific*...

Thats amazing, just ****ing amazing


>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
> message m...
>>
>> cybercat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Pan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>>> >>
>>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>>> >>
>>> >>your pal,
>>> >>blake
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
>> when
>>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>>
>>
>> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years? Be
>> *specific*...
>
> Thats amazing, just ****ing amazing
>

he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
>> message m...
>>>
>>> cybercat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Pan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>your pal,
>>>> >>blake
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
>>> when
>>>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years?
>>> Be
>>> *specific*...
>>
>> Thats amazing, just ****ing amazing
>>
>
> he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.
>


And he's amazing like a train wreck.

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
> > "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
> > message m...
> >>
> >> cybercat wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Pan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>your pal,
> >>> >>blake
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
> >>>
> >>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in
than
> >> when
> >>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
> >>
> >>
> >> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years?
Be
> >> *specific*...
> >
> > Thats amazing, just ****ing amazing
> >
>
> he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.


Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face,
blake... :-)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm


Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2001

Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services

Clinton's Economic Legacy

by Mark Weisbrot

"America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, is likely to be
remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American
history, which coincided with his two terms.

A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if
anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine
and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really.

It is often maintained, by people who have not looked at the economics, that
balancing the federal budget and moving it to surplus were responsible for
the economic boom that followed.

But there is no foundation for this claim. The underlying theory is that
these budget changes lead to lower long-term interest rates, because the
government is borrowing less. The lower interest rates then stimulate more
investment and therefore growth.

Even if one accepts the theory-- which is quite a stretch-- the facts don't
fit the case. This was not an investment-led upswing. And the effects of the
post- 1992 budget changes on interest rates are much too small to have had
any noticeable positive impact on growth, according to any standard model
used by economists.

How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has
multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a
change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The
Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent
unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating
inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its
current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed,
in the past, would have pulled the plug.

The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock
holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend
freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth
that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy--
much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by
the federal government.

Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he
necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy
shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic
policy in the last 20 years.

The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim
responsibility-- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade
Organization-- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from
sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare
reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of
the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.

In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income
and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the
Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its
pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years
ago.

Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating.
His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank,
presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and
worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from
the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record,
economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.

Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares
badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by
comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies--
especially working Americans-- in favor of big business and the rich will be
judged an economic and political success.

In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the
House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the
South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single
Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats
continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her
economic situation, many voters-- and not only in the South-- will continue
to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their
economic well- being.

George W. Bush may well hand the White House back to the Democrats in 2004,
if his extremist cabinet nominations are any indication of his political
judgment. But if Bush's successor is to do any good for America or the
world, we will first need an honest evaluation of the Clinton years..."

Mark Weisbrot is Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington and Co- author, With Dean Baker, of "Social Security: the
Phony Crisis" (University of Chicago, 2000)

</>

Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
>
>
>Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face,
>blake... :-)
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm
>
>
>
>


What you and the author of this article don't seemed to understand is
that presidents may do little directly, but they set the tone for the
country through their actions. The economy is a direct reflection of
such perceptions. Investors invest, people spend and business expands
based on future expectations. With GW, the masses flocked to bonds &
CDs, fearful of his leadership . The Fed tried to bail him out though
historically low interest rates, but neither investors nor business took
the bait. That cheap money simply went into the housing bubble - not
into investment / business expansion, as intended.

Under Clinton, most thought the party would never end and spent /
invested accordingly with business expanding on most all fronts. Jobs
were plentiful, wages climbed and tax receipts grew accordingly.,

Under GW, it's been doom and gloom from the day he won the election..
Investment slowed, spending slowed, sentiment soured and business
expansion came to a halt / reversing direction. A recession soon
developed. He has done little to change any of those negative
perceptions, thus the poor economy has lingered on over the past seven
years. The mid term stock market gains were primarily a rebound from
being oversold after 9/11. It's gone essentially nowhere over the
past eight years with an incredible increase in debt and a greatly
deteriorated value to our dollar.

Reagan was good at that - motivating people into believing times were
good & that they would get better. He basically talked the economy
around. Clinton was able to further that perception after the economy
nearly fell apart under Bush Sr. Ford tried to talk the US out of its
problems in the 70's (Whip Inflation Now), but he was not dynamic enough
to carry it off.

The major difference between McBush & Obama is that Obama is firing up
people, building hope & expectations. McBush comes across as just a
tired old guy who intends to continue down the same old tired path set
by GW - more doom and gloom.

clams_casino > wrote
> Gregory Morrow wrote

>> Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face, blake... :-)

>> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

> What you and the author of this article don't seemed to understand is that presidents may do little directly, but they
> set the tone for the country through their actions.

No they dont. Thats just the line of bullshit their sales fools claim and you are stupid enough to buy that.

The only real effect any Prez has is with stuff like the invasion of Iraq and
even with that, there is just the tiny matter that Congress supported that.

> The economy is a direct reflection of such perceptions.

Like hell it is. The .com fiasco had nothing to do with the Prez
and the sub prime fiasco wasnt caused by the Prez either.

Not even indirectly via Prez policy in either case.

> Investors invest, people spend and business expands based on future expectations.

Yes, but thats got nothing to do with who is the current Prez.

> With GW, the masses flocked to bonds & CDs, fearful of his leadership .

Pig ignorant lie.

> The Fed tried to bail him out though historically low interest rates,

Pig ignorant lie.

> but neither investors nor business took the bait.

Have fun explaining the real estate boom.

> That cheap money simply went into the housing bubble

Yep, and that was nothing to do with bailing out any Prez.

> - not into investment / business expansion, as intended.

That is investment / business expansion, fool.

> Under Clinton, most thought the party would never end and spent / invested accordingly with business expanding on most
> all fronts.

Nothing to do with Slick, everything to do with the usual herd mentality stuff.

> Jobs were plentiful, wages climbed and tax receipts grew accordingly.,

Nothing to do with Slick.

> Under GW, it's been doom and gloom from the day he won the election..

Bare faced pig ignorant lie. The .com boom went bust before the shrub ever showed up.

> Investment slowed, spending slowed, sentiment soured and business expansion came to a halt / reversing direction.

Nothing to do with the shrub, everything to do with the .com fiasco going bang.

> A recession soon developed.

Nothing to do with the shrub, everything to do with the .com fiasco going bang.

And that happened before the shrub showed up too.

> He has done little to change any of those negative perceptions, thus the poor economy has lingered on over the past
> seven years.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

> The mid term stock market gains were primarily a rebound from being oversold after 9/11.

And 9/11 had nothing to do with the shrub anyway.

> It's gone essentially nowhere over the past eight years

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

> with an incredible increase in debt

Due to the very low interest rates, stupid.

> and a greatly deteriorated value to our dollar.

Thats only happened very dramatically relatively recently.

> Reagan was good at that - motivating people into believing times were good & that they would get better.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

> He basically talked the economy around.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

> Clinton was able to further that perception after the economy nearly fell apart under Bush Sr.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

> Ford tried to talk the US out of its problems in the 70's (Whip Inflation Now), but he was not dynamic enough to carry
> it off.

No prez ever can.

> The major difference between McBush & Obama is that Obama is firing up people, building hope & expectations.

Only the fools.

> McBush comes across as just a tired old guy who intends to continue down the same old tired path set by GW - more
> doom and gloom.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

On Jul 30, 9:12*am, James > wrote:
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. *After
> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. *Perhaps
> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.

If ya only do it now and then, it won't affect your health. Just buy
V-8 juice at the store.

On Jul 30, 12:16*pm, "Stephanie" > wrote:
> James wrote:
> > Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. *After
> > looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> > guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. *Perhaps
> > juice is more about a nice drink than good health.
>
> Yes, absolutely. The fiber and much of the nutrients is left behind in the
> meat.

There may be conentrated pesticides in the fiber. (systemic
pesticides , esp- in apples/carrots can't be washed off)

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:40:31 -0400, Marsha > wrote:

>No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still
>differ greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just
>about any Republican over just about any Democrat.

Thus speakeath pinhead Marsha.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:53:28 -0400, Marsha > wrote:

>In general, yes, I am pleased. Have you paid any attention to Obama's
>flipflops? He said just what he needed in order to gain the nomination
>and is now changing his mind so fast, the hardliner Dems are disappointed.

They are following the footsteps of the Rethuglicans: down the path to
fascism, destruction, and nuclear holocaust. Just remember: YOUR
people led the way. And I'm SURE you're pleased with that, being the
pinhead you clearly are.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:23:46 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:

>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>the next election.

No point arguing with pinhead Martha. She's clueless...and evil.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:00:08 -0400, Marsha > wrote:

>That's the best you can come up with? Your credibility just dropped to -50.

Thus speaketh pinhead Marsha.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:33:24 -0700, Pan > wrote:

>And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.

Clueless is as clueless does.