| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 07:50:57 AM |
| Object: |
Consumer Confidence Dips on Prices, Jobs |
From The Associated Press,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=749&e=6&u=/ap/20041008/ap_on_bi_ge/ap_consumer_confidence
Consumer Confidence Dips on Prices, Jobs
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -
Consumer confidence dropped to its lowest levels since midsummer amid
worries about high energy prices, uncertainty about the labor market
and anxiety about making major purchases like a car or a home.
The AP-Ipsos consumer confidence index slipped to 97.4 in September
from 103.4 in August, the latest measure of consumer attitudes in
recent weeks to reflect uneasiness over the economy.
___________________________________________________________
November 2 is nearly upon us.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Im Right" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Dips on Prices, Jobs |
08 Oct 2004 09:20:46 AM |
|
|
Jobs lost? 585,000 jobs lost in the past 4 years is the claim I hear in the
news.
Where is this figure from?
Unemployment is 5.4% Lower than it has been for decades.
There are MORE Americans employed now then at ANY time in the history of the
USA
The jobs "Bush" created (?) are all burger flipper jobs.
YET, Homeownership is now at RECORD high levels.
Minority Homeownership is up radically.
Now I also know that homes sell for an average price of a little over
$100,000
That would be an AWFUL lot of burgers being flipped. McDonalds sales must be
up 500%
So it foes seem something isn't jiving.
I bet it is the OUT and OUT LIES that the left are spewing.
No jobs lost, only gains since the Bush economic plan was instituted that
got us out of the clinton/gore recession.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:i93dm05j1n45rn076snkd6fl2vvu50tnjv@4ax.com...
From The Associated Press,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=749&e=6&u=/ap/20041008/ap_on_bi_ge/ap_consumer_confidence
Consumer Confidence Dips on Prices, Jobs
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -
Consumer confidence dropped to its lowest levels since midsummer amid
worries about high energy prices, uncertainty about the labor market
and anxiety about making major purchases like a car or a home.
The AP-Ipsos consumer confidence index slipped to 97.4 in September
from 103.4 in August, the latest measure of consumer attitudes in
recent weeks to reflect uneasiness over the economy.
___________________________________________________________
November 2 is nearly upon us.
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Forged Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 09:23:29 AM |
|
|
"I'm Right" <ImRight@urWrong.net> wrote in message
news:2snm10F1m5lqmU1@uni-berlin.de...
Unemployment is 5.4% Lower than it has been for decades.
Unemployment was over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a
decade ago, boopsie.
Why do you Democrats always insist on making yourselves sound like utter
fools??
.
|
|
|
| User: "soxfan" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 09:36:45 AM |
|
|
"John Forged Kerry" <MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote in message Unemployment was
over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a decade ago, boopsie.
you're funny. clinton inherited a U rate of 7.3% and that steadily
declined during his presidency. In June of '03 the U rate was at a 9 year
HIGH of 6.1%.
you can spin it anyway you want........ bush sucks.. and is the only
president to have a net jobs LOSS. way to go, bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Forged Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 09:42:45 AM |
|
|
"soxfan" <soxfan@kerrycountry.com> wrote in message
news:1Cx9d.38$uN4.1@trndny05...
"John Forged Kerry" <MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote in message Unemployment
was
over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a decade ago,
boopsie.
you're funny. clinton inherited a U rate of 7.3% and that
steadily
And, under Clinton's "leadership", it remained HIGHER than 6% for months and
months and months.
BTW, President Bush inherited the Clinton Recession.
.
|
|
|
| User: "usafguy99" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 08:40:17 PM |
|
|
"John Forged Kerry" <InventStuff@Democrats.com> wrote in message
news:FHx9d.6753$UP1.1420@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"soxfan" <soxfan@kerrycountry.com> wrote in message
news:1Cx9d.38$uN4.1@trndny05...
"John Forged Kerry" <MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote in message Unemployment
was
over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a decade ago,
boopsie.
you're funny. clinton inherited a U rate of 7.3% and that
steadily
And, under Clinton's "leadership", it remained HIGHER than 6% for months
and
months and months.
BTW, President Bush inherited the Clinton Recession.
Clinton inherited Bush Sr. clusterfuck of an administration.
I love your logic... bush sr. totally *****'s up our economy and hands it to
Clinton - but then you blame Clinton for having a high unemployment rate at
the start of his administration. Of course it's going to take time to get
it back down.
That's what I love about repubs... always have a convenient excuse. Hell if
Bush is re-elected they will use 9/11 as an excuse for the next 4 years of
Bush's screw up's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
09 Oct 2004 12:51:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:40:17 -0500, "usafguy99" <a@b.c> wrote:
Clinton inherited Bush Sr. clusterfuck of an administration.
I love your logic... bush sr. totally *****'s up our economy and hands it to
Clinton - but then you blame Clinton for having a high unemployment rate at
the start of his administration. Of course it's going to take time to get
it back down.
That's what I love about repubs... always have a convenient excuse. Hell if
Bush is re-elected they will use 9/11 as an excuse for the next 4 years of
Bush's screw up's.
It's funny isn't it how they can blame Clinton for Bush 1 and Bush 2's
***** ups?
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 10:37:07 AM |
|
|
wrote...
"soxfan" <soxfan@kerrycountry.com> wrote in message
"John Forged Kerry" <MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote in message Unemployment
was
over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a decade ago,
boopsie.
you're funny. clinton inherited a U rate of 7.3% and that
steadily
And, under Clinton's "leadership", it remained HIGHER than 6% for months and
months and months.
(Ahem. That's equally true for Bush, only under Bush it WENT UP
instead of DOWN as under Clinton.)
BTW, President Bush inherited the Clinton Recession.
Bzzzt! Bzzzt! Bzzzt! Lying GOP Operative Alert.
The definition of a recession is 3 successive quarters of negative
GDP growth.
Here are the figures from 1999Q2 on (source: http://www.nber.org
[Nat'l Bureau of Economic Research], the non-partisan source of
economic data for 65+ years).
1999Q2 3.35
1999Q3 4.75
1999Q4 7.30
2000Q1 1.02
2000Q2 6.43
2000Q3 -0.46
2000Q4 2.09
Show us the fictional "Clinton Recession," *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 11:01:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:42:45 GMT, "John Forged Kerry"
<InventStuff@Democrats.com> wrote:
"soxfan" <soxfan@kerrycountry.com> wrote in message
news:1Cx9d.38$uN4.1@trndny05...
"John Forged Kerry" <MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote in message Unemployment
was
over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a decade ago,
boopsie.
you're funny. clinton inherited a U rate of 7.3% and that
steadily
And, under Clinton's "leadership", it remained HIGHER than 6% for months and
months and months.
Gawd but you're a pathetic spinner and liar.
No wonder you won't post the actual figures. They show just how
incredibly bogus your spin is.
Yeah it was above six because it was coming DOWN from Bush the first's
7.3%
It took 20 months to pull that Bush high down below 6% and then it was
below 6 for 76 months of Clinton's term. And below 5% for 43 months.
Clinton first term
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
Clinton second term
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9
and here's what Bush did with it:
Bush
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7
2002 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7
2004 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.6
BTW, President Bush inherited the Clinton Recession.
Another GOP lie. Saying it over and over won't make it so. (It comes
the same place as Saddam's WMDs.) Again go sell stupid somewhere
else.
No less a business source than business week has blown the whistle on
this foul:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm
FEBRUARY 23, 2004 • Editions: N. America | Europe | Asia |
Edition Preference
Commentary: Inventing The "Clinton Recession"
NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY/Commentary
Inventing The "Clinton Recession"
The CEA is trying to alter the start date in a way that benefits Bush.
`Tain't fair
No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming
out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an
election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with
political consequences -- that's going too far. President George W.
Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N.
Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist
history. The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9,
unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit
Bush's reelection bid. Instead of using the accepted start date of
March, 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in
the fourth quarter of 2000 -- a shift that would make it much more
credible for the Bush Administration to term it the "Clinton
Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA
had looked at the available data and "made the call."
Advertisement
This simple statement masks an attack on one of the few remaining
bastions of economic neutrality. For almost 75 years, the start and
end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group based
in Cambridge, Mass.
While there have been complaints over the years, this arrangement has
been accepted by economists, government agencies, and politicians --
until now. "For the first time, the federal government is intervening
in the process," says Robert Hall, an economist at Stanford University
and the conservative Hoover Institution who since 1978 has chaired the
NBER panel of seven prominent economists who make the actual decision.
The NBER's decisions have been dragged into the political arena
before, but without impact. In the early 1980s, the Reagan
Administration tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the NBER to combine
the 1980 and 1981-82 recessions into a single downturn that could be
called the "Carter Recession." During the '92 election season, the
first Bush Administration kept hoping that the NBER would announce
that the recession of 1990-91 was over -- a statement that didn't come
until December, 1992.
To be fair, even if the latest recession did begin after Bush took
office in January, 2001, no one can say he caused it. And Mankiw is
also under attack from Republicans for what they consider his overly
tin ear on other subjects, most notably his statement that the
outsourcing phenomenon is "a plus for the economy in the long run."
Still, his decision to fiddle with economic convention can't be seen
as anything less than manipulation in an election year. In his press
conference, Mankiw justified his decision by saying, correctly, that
the NBER panel was already considering moving the recession start date
forward. Some key data that the NBER watch -- including industrial
production and inflation-adjusted business sales -- peaked in
mid-2000. On the other hand, the latest revisions from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics shifted the peak of nonfarm employment slightly
later, from February to March, 2001. That's important, because the
recessions of 1981-82 and 1990-91 both started in or after the month
that employment fell.
But rather than waiting for the NBER's decision, Bush's CEA jumped the
gun. And it made the biggest change possible, despite considerable
debate within the NBER panel. The revised date is "very much up in the
air," says Hall. Adds Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the NBER panel, an
economist at Harvard University, and a former member of Bill Clinton's
Council of Economic Advisers: "The way I read the data, there isn't a
strong case for moving the date up by more than one month." That puts
the start date at February, 2001, after Bush took office. The lack of
a clear picture has led the NBER to hold off making a final decision
pending more accurate data. There's "no sense of time pressure," says
Hall. "We want to do this right."
Economists who go to Washington always struggle to maintain their
objectivity against the political demands of the administration they
work for. Based on its latest performance, the CEA seems to have lost
the battle.
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kim1" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 06:21:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:23:29 GMT, "John Forged Kerry"
<MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote:
"I'm Right" <ImRight@urWrong.net> wrote in message
news:2snm10F1m5lqmU1@uni-berlin.de...
Unemployment is 5.4% Lower than it has been for decades.
Unemployment was over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a
decade ago, boopsie.
Why do you Democrats always insist on making yourselves sound like utter
fools??
Year 2004 1999
Intel* 78000 70000
Advanced Micro Dev 32000 14300
Motorola 88000 128000
Nokia * 51400 55200
Applied Materials* 12000 13000
American Airlines 96400 116000
McDonald's 32000x 26000x
Home Depot 300000 200000
Walmart 1500000 865000
* includes numerous acquistions
x number of restaurants
You want fries with that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Increases on Prices, Jobs, thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 10:51:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:23:29 GMT, "John Forged Kerry"
<MrDesperate@DNC.com> wrote:
"I'm Right" <ImRight@urWrong.net> wrote in message
news:2snm10F1m5lqmU1@uni-berlin.de...
Unemployment is 5.4% Lower than it has been for decades.
Unemployment was over 6% during the Clinton Era. That was LESS than a
decade ago, boopsie.
Do you really believe people are that stupid?
Actually is was 7.3% when Clinton took office a present from W's
father. And it went down virtually every month till it was 3.9 when
handed over to W. And it was below 5% for 43 months in Clinton's
second term.
You need to sell stupid somewhere else. here's your bogus BS will be
called.
Clinton first term
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
Clinton second term
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Forged Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
08 Oct 2004 09:30:54 AM |
|
|
"I'm Right" <ImRight@urWrong.net> wrote in message
news:2snm10F1m5lqmU1@uni-berlin.de...
Where is this figure from?
Unemployment is 5.4% Lower than it has been for decades.
That figure is apparently out of your *****, since Unemployment was greater
than 6% during the failed Clinton Administration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
10 Oct 2004 02:37:01 AM |
|
|
John Forged Kerry wrote:
"I'm Right" <ImRight@urWrong.net> wrote in message
news:2snm10F1m5lqmU1@uni-berlin.de...
Where is this figure from?
Unemployment is 5.4% Lower than it has been for decades.
That figure is apparently out of your *****, since Unemployment was greater
than 6% during the failed Clinton Administration.
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage by
Reagan and Bush.
By the end of Clinton's two terms, unemployment had dropped steadily
to 3.9%.
Bush got elected and its gone up.
In 2003 unemployment was above 6% for Bush.
Its hovering at 5.4%
And Bush has lost 1 million jobs overall
amnd many have had to accept lessor jobs than
they had under Clinton.
Bush, bad for America.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
10 Oct 2004 09:17:52 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage by
Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
Was this Clinton's fault? No. Presidents
have very little affect on the economy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
11 Oct 2004 01:51:07 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage by
Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
Hardly much of a rise,and what there was was beciuse
Bush finally cut a deal with the Democrat Congress.
That cut $500 billion off of future deficits.
No, Clinton gets credit for the steady rise on his watch.
Now, at the end, we have a business cycle downturn, but
presidenst don't cause those. That is the nature of capitolism.
Clinton had the longest peacetime expansion of the economy since WWII, and
Reagan's was third by the way, behind Kennedy/Johnson.
When you run for president, if you are too stupid, and Bush was, to note
after a long, long period of expansion you are due for the usual
downturn, you are too stupid to be president.
Bush is.
You need to be preparing America for the inevitable, and preparing for a
"soft landing" and quick rebound. Bush did not do this. Because Bush is
stupid.
*************
BARE SUBSISTENCE RECOVERY -- THE JOBLESS RECOVERY -- THE ECONOMYLESS
RECOVERY -- WHAT WILL BAD TIMES LOOK LIKE???
Check the graph just received from Lindstet, below. It shows the dates on
which recessions (a period of successive quarters of personal income decline
rather than growth) have ended and, besides each date, the percentage of
personal income growth that followed over the next two years.
............
In the 24 months following each of the previous recessions there has always
been double-digit percentage growth in Personal Income -- the AVERAGE
post-recession Personal Income growth being 17.6 percent.
This time there has only been 3.9% growth in Personal Income.
Check the graph just received from Lindstet, below. It shows the dates on
which recessions (a period of successive quarters of personal income decline
rather than growth) have ended along with the percentage of personal income
growth that followed in the next two years.
***** Eastman
(Richard P. Eastman M.S., M.A.)
Yakima, Washington
--------
Recession End Personal Income Growth
26 Mos. Post-Recession-End Personal Income Growth Rate
3/61 12.9 %
12/70 23.7%
3/75 24.7%
8/80 21.5%
12/82 11.1%
3/91 11.6%
Average
17.6%
11/01 3.9% <------------Bush
www.contraryinvestor.com
*******************
Here is the problem. Bush did not plan properly
for an economy obviously near a business cycle
end with a stock market bubble burst added in.
He did not notice or deal with the accelerated jobs
outsourcing phemnomenon, except to late in the
game appoint a "Jobs Czar" who had to immediately
quite as his only job qualifications were outsourcing
several factories to China.
You can't have a good economy with a lackluster dolt
like Bush at the helm.
As a result of his bad planning, he has exacerbated
the problems and has as result, had the weakest post
war recession recovery since WWII.
He is too stupid to be president.
We cannot blame Bush for being unlucky enough
to become president at the end of a long business cycle,
a stock market bubble bust and a new phnomenon
of job outsourcing of manufactoring jobs.
We can blame him for not recognizing these things were
a problem, providing leadership and solid policies
to ameliorate them. He has made these problems
worse and has only accomplised letting the goverment
grow an astounding 26%, adding $1.5 trillion to our deficits
GOP pork spending double, lying us into a $120 billion tar
baby war and having as his only known policy massive
tax giveaways to the rich.
We are down 1 million jobs and he hasn't a clue what to do.
That is not working, he has not been competent, and shows
no signs of ever being competent.
His plans for the furture? More of the same.
Which is why ten Nobel Prize winning economists
have come out for Kerry.
***********************************************
Nobel economists back John Kerry
Democratic presidential nominee wins endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning
economists.
August 25, 2004
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel
Prize-winning economists on Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for
policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.
The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists
saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme
course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.''
They cited "poorly designed'' tax cuts that, instead of creating jobs, have
turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits. A "fiscal
irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of
our nation,'' they concluded.
The endorsement, in the form of an open letter to American voters, was
signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California
at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel
Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of
Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and
Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.
Kerry, in remarks prepared for an appearance in Philadelphia, called for
"jobs that don't just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let
you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little
for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while.''
Now, he said, good jobs are being replaced "with ones that just don't pay
the bills,'' citing 1.8 million private-sector jobs that have been lost and
replaced by ones that pay $9,000 less and are more likely to be temporary
and less likely to offer health insurance.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/25/news/economy/kerry_economists.reut/index.htm
Was this Clinton's fault? No. Presidents
have very little affect on the economy.
Presidents can have great effect on an economy.
I'll take the word of ten Nobel Prize winning economists
that we need Kerry, not Bush, whose policies are dangerous and bad.
Bush has stated his policies and Kerry his, ten of the world's best experts
have told us, Kerry is preferable.
A good president can make a bad situation bearable, a bad one makes a
problem a long term disaster.
Chose.
Chose carefully for America's sake.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
11 Oct 2004 11:36:59 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<416a39f3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Bob wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage by
Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Hardly much of a rise,and what there was was beciuse
Bush finally cut a deal with the Democrat Congress.
That cut $500 billion off of future deficits.
More revisionsit history?
1990q1 4.7
1990q2 1.0
1990q3 0.0
1990q4 -3.0
1991q1 -2.0
1991q2 2.6
1991q3 1.9
1991q4 1.9
1992q1 4.2
1992q2 3.9
1992q3 4.0
1992q4 4.5
1993q1 0.5
1993q2 2.0
1993q3 2.1
1993q4 5.5
www.bea.gov
As you can easily see..the economy was doing rather well after the
recession of 1991
No, Clinton gets credit for the steady rise on his watch.
He gets "credit" for the actions he actually did
Now, at the end, we have a business cycle downturn, but
presidenst don't cause those. That is the nature of capitolism.
Clinton had the longest peacetime expansion of the economy since WWII, and
Reagan's was third by the way, behind Kennedy/Johnson.
When you run for president, if you are too stupid, and Bush was, to note
after a long, long period of expansion you are due for the usual
downturn, you are too stupid to be president.
Bush is.
Spin Wbarrell, spin
You need to be preparing America for the inevitable, and preparing for a
"soft landing" and quick rebound. Bush did not do this. Because Bush is
stupid.
The recession of 2001 was one of the mildest on record
Any other theories you need debunked?
T.Carr
*************
BARE SUBSISTENCE RECOVERY -- THE JOBLESS RECOVERY -- THE ECONOMYLESS
RECOVERY -- WHAT WILL BAD TIMES LOOK LIKE???
Check the graph just received from Lindstet, below. It shows the dates on
which recessions (a period of successive quarters of personal income decline
rather than growth) have ended and, besides each date, the percentage of
personal income growth that followed over the next two years.
...........
In the 24 months following each of the previous recessions there has always
been double-digit percentage growth in Personal Income -- the AVERAGE
post-recession Personal Income growth being 17.6 percent.
This time there has only been 3.9% growth in Personal Income.
Check the graph just received from Lindstet, below. It shows the dates on
which recessions (a period of successive quarters of personal income decline
rather than growth) have ended along with the percentage of personal income
growth that followed in the next two years.
***** Eastman
(Richard P. Eastman M.S., M.A.)
Yakima, Washington
--------
Recession End Personal Income Growth
26 Mos. Post-Recession-End Personal Income Growth Rate
3/61 12.9 %
12/70 23.7%
3/75 24.7%
8/80 21.5%
12/82 11.1%
3/91 11.6%
Average
17.6%
11/01 3.9% <------------Bush
www.contraryinvestor.com
*******************
Here is the problem. Bush did not plan properly
for an economy obviously near a business cycle
end with a stock market bubble burst added in.
He did not notice or deal with the accelerated jobs
outsourcing phemnomenon, except to late in the
game appoint a "Jobs Czar" who had to immediately
quite as his only job qualifications were outsourcing
several factories to China.
You can't have a good economy with a lackluster dolt
like Bush at the helm.
As a result of his bad planning, he has exacerbated
the problems and has as result, had the weakest post
war recession recovery since WWII.
He is too stupid to be president.
We cannot blame Bush for being unlucky enough
to become president at the end of a long business cycle,
a stock market bubble bust and a new phnomenon
of job outsourcing of manufactoring jobs.
We can blame him for not recognizing these things were
a problem, providing leadership and solid policies
to ameliorate them. He has made these problems
worse and has only accomplised letting the goverment
grow an astounding 26%, adding $1.5 trillion to our deficits
GOP pork spending double, lying us into a $120 billion tar
baby war and having as his only known policy massive
tax giveaways to the rich.
We are down 1 million jobs and he hasn't a clue what to do.
That is not working, he has not been competent, and shows
no signs of ever being competent.
His plans for the furture? More of the same.
Which is why ten Nobel Prize winning economists
have come out for Kerry.
***********************************************
Nobel economists back John Kerry
Democratic presidential nominee wins endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning
economists.
August 25, 2004
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel
Prize-winning economists on Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for
policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.
The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists
saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme
course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.''
They cited "poorly designed'' tax cuts that, instead of creating jobs, have
turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits. A "fiscal
irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of
our nation,'' they concluded.
The endorsement, in the form of an open letter to American voters, was
signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California
at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel
Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of
Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and
Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.
Kerry, in remarks prepared for an appearance in Philadelphia, called for
"jobs that don't just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let
you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little
for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while.''
Now, he said, good jobs are being replaced "with ones that just don't pay
the bills,'' citing 1.8 million private-sector jobs that have been lost and
replaced by ones that pay $9,000 less and are more likely to be temporary
and less likely to offer health insurance.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/25/news/economy/kerry_economists.reut/index.htm
Was this Clinton's fault? No. Presidents
have very little affect on the economy.
Presidents can have great effect on an economy.
I'll take the word of ten Nobel Prize winning economists
that we need Kerry, not Bush, whose policies are dangerous and bad.
Bush has stated his policies and Kerry his, ten of the world's best experts
have told us, Kerry is preferable.
A good president can make a bad situation bearable, a bad one makes a
problem a long term disaster.
Chose.
Chose carefully for America's sake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush - jobs.gif |
12 Oct 2004 12:14:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 11 Oct 2004 09:36:59 -0700, (T.Carr) wrote:
The recession of 2001 was one of the mildest on record
And yet the recovery is the weakest.
***********
BARE SUBSISTENCE RECOVERY -- THE JOBLESS RECOVERY -- THE ECONOMYLESS
RECOVERY -- WHAT WILL BAD TIMES LOOK LIKE???
Check the graph just received from Lindstet, below. It shows the dates on
which recessions (a period of successive quarters of personal income decline
rather than growth) have ended and, besides each date, the percentage of
personal income growth that followed over the next two years.
..........................
Now, usually in the two-years after a recession ends there is considerable
growth in personal income, but NOT THIS TIME.
In the 24 months following each of the previous recessions there has always
been double-digit percentage growth in Personal Income -- the AVERAGE
post-recession Personal Income growth being 17.6 percent.
This time there has only been 3.9% growth in Personal Income.
Check the graph just received from Lindstet, below. It shows the dates on
which recessions (a period of successive quarters of personal income decline
rather than growth) have ended along with the percentage of personal income
growth that followed in the next two years.
***** Eastman
(Richard P. Eastman M.S., M.A.)
Yakima, Washington
--------
Recession End Personal Income Growth
26 Mos. Post-Recession-End Personal Income Growth Rate
3/61 12.9 %
12/70 23.7%
3/75 24.7%
8/80 21.5%
12/82 11.1%
3/91 11.6%
Average
17.6%
11/01 3.9% <---------------- Bush
www.contraryinvestor.com
Bush certainly isn't exactly covered in glory here.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 01:13:01 AM |
|
|
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416a39f3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Bob wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage by
Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Hardly much of a rise,and what there was was beciuse
Bush finally cut a deal with the Democrat Congress.
That cut $500 billion off of future deficits.
More revisionsit history?
1990q1 4.7
1990q2 1.0
1990q3 0.0
1990q4 -3.0
1991q1 -2.0
1991q2 2.6
1991q3 1.9
1991q4 1.9
1992q1 4.2
1992q2 3.9
1992q3 4.0
1992q4 4.5
1993q1 0.5
1993q2 2.0
1993q3 2.1
1993q4 5.5
www.bea.gov
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
.................................
When you type out the full chart so we can compare,
we see Clinton has a deep cut in deficts as 5 of GDP.
Yet the economy was slow to take off under Clinton in
the first years.
Why was this? Bush in his last two years gave us
the budget deal with the Democratic Congress and that
cut $50 billion or so off of future deficits, it did not take effect
immediately under Bush.
Clinton in his first year gave us a budget that raised taxes
among other things and over future years cut another $500
billion off of future deficits.
Passed without a single GOP Senate vote, showing you what
assholes they were.
About $1 trillion cut off deficits is no small matter.
Combine that with a good economy and you get surpluses.
Such a concept!
But you never get surpluses with Republicans.
Bush has given us about $1.5 trillion in deficits spending
over his three budget years and CBO tells us us point blank
that Bush's policies get 66% of the blame for all deficits to date,
not the recession, and the war, well, he gets credit for lying us into a
$120 billion quagmire.
Now let us look at Bush's deficits.
2002 -1.5%
2003 - 3.5
2004 - 4.5 (estimate)
2005 - 3.0 (estimate)
And just for jollies, let us check out, for comparison that bad,
bad Jimmy Carter. (Carter! Hisssss!)
1978 -2.7% Deficits as a % of GDP
1979 -1.6
1980 -2.7
1981 -2.6
Both Bushes and Reagan gave us large deficits growth, Carter
and Clinton gave us far less, Clinton gave us the only adminstration
that managed to not create deficits each year.
Conclusion, if you want a competent government without vast
deficits spending, vote Democratic always.
If you love vast deficits, spending out of control,
government growth gone hog wild (26% Under Bush
the largest since WWII save for one quarter of 8.2% growth
under Ford) vote GOP.
Bush doesn't even stack up to Carter, much less Clinton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Falling, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 09:38:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:13:01 -0400, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
................................
Hey warbell I appreciate your posts but can you please change their
Big Lie Subject headers when you reply to them?
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Falling, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 08:35:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:13:01 -0400, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
................................
Hey wbarbell I appreciate your posts but can you please change their
Big Lie Subject headers when you reply to them?
S'all right!
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 05:02:28 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<416b8280$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416a39f3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Bob wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage by
Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Hardly much of a rise,and what there was was beciuse
Bush finally cut a deal with the Democrat Congress.
That cut $500 billion off of future deficits.
More revisionsit history?
1990q1 4.7
1990q2 1.0
1990q3 0.0
1990q4 -3.0
1991q1 -2.0
1991q2 2.6
1991q3 1.9
1991q4 1.9
1992q1 4.2
1992q2 3.9
1992q3 4.0
1992q4 4.5
1993q1 0.5
1993q2 2.0
1993q3 2.1
1993q4 5.5
www.bea.gov
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
................................
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt increased
US National Debt
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
When you type out the full chart so we can compare,
we see Clinton has a deep cut in deficts as 5 of GDP.
Yet the economy was slow to take off under Clinton in
the first years.
What part of the GDP growth dont you understand?
1993 (Clinton) was lower than 1992 (Bush)
Why was this? Bush in his last two years gave us
the budget deal with the Democratic Congress and that
cut $50 billion or so off of future deficits, it did not take effect
immediately under Bush.
The 'dems promised 3$ in spending cuts for every $ in increased taxes
They lied
Bush let them get away with it
Thats why I didnt vote for him in 1992
Tell us again about the bad economy Clinton inherited?
Maybe in 50 years or so people might believe the revisionist spin
T.Carr
Clinton in his first year gave us a budget that raised taxes
among other things and over future years cut another $500
billion off of future deficits.
Passed without a single GOP Senate vote, showing you what
assholes they were.
About $1 trillion cut off deficits is no small matter.
Combine that with a good economy and you get surpluses.
Such a concept!
But you never get surpluses with Republicans.
Bush has given us about $1.5 trillion in deficits spending
over his three budget years and CBO tells us us point blank
that Bush's policies get 66% of the blame for all deficits to date,
not the recession, and the war, well, he gets credit for lying us into a
$120 billion quagmire.
Now let us look at Bush's deficits.
2002 -1.5%
2003 - 3.5
2004 - 4.5 (estimate)
2005 - 3.0 (estimate)
And just for jollies, let us check out, for comparison that bad,
bad Jimmy Carter. (Carter! Hisssss!)
1978 -2.7% Deficits as a % of GDP
1979 -1.6
1980 -2.7
1981 -2.6
Both Bushes and Reagan gave us large deficits growth, Carter
and Clinton gave us far less, Clinton gave us the only adminstration
that managed to not create deficits each year.
Conclusion, if you want a competent government without vast
deficits spending, vote Democratic always.
If you love vast deficits, spending out of control,
government growth gone hog wild (26% Under Bush
the largest since WWII save for one quarter of 8.2% growth
under Ford) vote GOP.
Bush doesn't even stack up to Carter, much less Clinton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 08:22:37 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2004 15:02:28 -0700, (T.Carr) wrote:
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt increased
US National Debt
Free clue - these numbers show how badly Bush screwed things up.
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
600 billion added to debt
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
560 billion added to debt
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
420 billion added to debt
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
200 billion added to debt
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
Clinton years:
18 billion added to debt
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
130 billion added to debt
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 09:09:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 12 Oct 2004 15:02:28 -0700, (T.Carr) wrote:
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt increased
US National Debt
Free clue - these numbers show how badly Bush screwed things up.
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
600 billion added to debt
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
560 billion added to debt
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
420 billion added to debt
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
200 billion added to debt
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
Clinton years:
18 billion added to debt
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
130 billion added to debt
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
7.379 - 5.807 = 1.572 / 3 = $524 billion / year average.
$524 billion / 300 million Americans = $1746 per American.
Somehow, right wingers think these debstall disappear and
never have to be repaid.
No, no, no! Do NOT notice the debts Bush stacks up
in outr names. Just lick you lips at that minor little tax
break Bush dangles in front of you.
Do NOT subtract $1746 - $300 tax break = $1476 future taxes.
So many stupid people so many easy votes!
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 10:25:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:09:19 -0400, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
7.379 - 5.807 = 1.572 / 3 = $524 billion / year average.
$524 billion / 300 million Americans = $1746 per American.
Somehow, right wingers think these debstall disappear and
never have to be repaid.
No, no, no! Do NOT notice the debts Bush stacks up
in outr names. Just lick you lips at that minor little tax
break Bush dangles in front of you.
Do NOT subtract $1746 - $300 tax break = $1476 future taxes.
We are facing about 7.5 TRILLION in debt to be paid by just under 300
million. That's $23,333 per person. SO your average family of four
owes almost $100,000 on the national debt!! And nothing to show for
it. No college education, no house, no business. And one third of that
was added during Bush's term!
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 11:12:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:09:19 -0400, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
7.379 - 5.807 = 1.572 / 3 = $524 billion / year average.
$524 billion / 300 million Americans = $1746 per American.
Somehow, right wingers think these debstall disappear and
never have to be repaid.
No, no, no! Do NOT notice the debts Bush stacks up
in our names. Just lick you lips at that minor little tax
break Bush dangles in front of you.
Do NOT subtract $1746 - $300 tax break = $1476 future taxes.
We are facing about 7.5 TRILLION in debt to be paid by just under 300
million. That's $23,333 per person. SO your average family of four
owes almost $100,000 on the national debt!! And nothing to show for
it. No college education, no house, no business. And one third of that
was added during Bush's term!
Amazing, I have never managed to get a single right winger to do
the math, and admit, Bush and the GOP controlled Congress are
not competent.
I haven't over 8 years on the net gotton a single one of
'em to admit that Stockman's massive and admitted
error on Reaganomics was a mistake as admitted.
There seems to be something wrong with their brains.
Apparently the idea is to bnever, ever admit any error
whatsoever, big or small, much less change behavior.
So Bush stacks up massive taxes for the future to pay off?
Turn your head and go vote for more of the same!
Its just insanity.
We now have debt of $7.418 trillions.
Of that we started with $1.029 trillion with Carter.
$7.418 - 1.029 = $6.389 trillion.
Clinton gave us $1.114 trillon
6.389 - 1.114 = $5.275 trillions
The GOP presidents gave us $5.275 trillion.
Carter gave us $241 billions in deficits.
12 years of Carter and Clinton = 1.755 trillions over 12 years
15 years of Reagan, Bush and Bush gave us $5.663 trillions.
Yet, Reagan, Bush good, Carter, Clinton bad!
Someday we get to pay of that $5.6 trillion.
Yet the clowns refuse to admit it.
It drives me to despair for this nation.
I cannot come up with a way to make
a right winger think, be rational, reasonable,
want to do good for this country.
Its just impossible, its like arguing with pigs.
All numbers from the 2004 Economic Report of the President.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 09:00:06 PM |
|
|
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416b8280$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416a39f3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Bob wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage
by Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Hardly much of a rise,and what there was was beciuse
Bush finally cut a deal with the Democrat Congress.
That cut $500 billion off of future deficits.
More revisionsit history?
1990q1 4.7
1990q2 1.0
1990q3 0.0
1990q4 -3.0
1991q1 -2.0
1991q2 2.6
1991q3 1.9
1991q4 1.9
1992q1 4.2
1992q2 3.9
1992q3 4.0
1992q4 4.5
1993q1 0.5
1993q2 2.0
1993q3 2.1
1993q4 5.5
www.bea.gov
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
................................
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt increased
Of course! Deficit spending is only part of the problem.
But you have to beat that to beat the rest of the problem.
We see Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II aren't doing THAT.
US National Debt
Bush
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
$1.572 trillion / 3 years = $524 Billion/year
Clinton
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
$1.15 trillion / 8 years = $139 billions.
Bush
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
$1.027 trillion / 4 years = $256.7 billions / year
Obviously we want more Bush's.
Not that bad old Clinton who cut deficit
spending greatly.
We need Bush with his mssive tax cuts to the rich,
massive increases in government spending, domestic
and military and out of control Pork Spending and
massive 26% growth in size of govenrmnet.
Lie us into a few more expensive tar baby wars and we
will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.
Clinton was real BAD! he didn't cure Reagan and Bush's
debts and fix all their mistakes whil ebattling Netty Newt
with the other hand.
Clinton - average = $139 billions real deficits / year
Bush - average = $524 billions real deficits / year
As we can see, Bush is obviously the superior economist.
1 / 139 =.000719 X 524 = 3.77.
Bush has given us 377% the yearly average real deficit Clinton
did.
CLINTON BAD! BUSH GOOD!
Vote Bush, we will deficit spend our way to wealth.
Carr, you are a dolt.
You spray charts to prove Bush is god, and you
fail to do the obvious math.
You refuse to think.
What is Bush's campign promises for the next four years?
More massive tax cuts for the rich. More deficits.
More failure.
Clinton is bad because he had deficits?
And Bush is good because he has bigger deficits,
377% bigger?
I just don't understand right wingers.
***********
Nobel economists back John Kerry
Democratic presidential nominee wins endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning
economists.
August 25, 2004
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel
Prize-winning economists on Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for
policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.
The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists
saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme
course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.''
They cited "poorly designed'' tax cuts that, instead of creating jobs, have
turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits. A "fiscal
irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of
our nation,'' they concluded.
The endorsement, in the form of an open letter to American voters, was
signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California
at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel
Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of
Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and
Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.
Kerry, in remarks prepared for an appearance in Philadelphia, called for
"jobs that don't just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let
you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little
for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while.''
Now, he said, good jobs are being replaced "with ones that just don't pay
the bills,'' citing 1.8 million private-sector jobs that have been lost and
replaced by ones that pay $9,000 less and are more likely to be temporary
and less likely to offer health insurance.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/25/news/economy/kerry_economists.reut/index.htm
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
12 Oct 2004 10:18:35 PM |
|
|
T.Carr wrote:
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt increased
Let me help you with your basic confusion:
(The 1999 report this is from would interest you too. Social Security
and Surpluses. It outlines how the Clinton Surpluses were scheduled to
save Social Security.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/a399096t.pdf
For most people, the different types of .debt. in the federal budget
may be confusing.especially since what is .good news. for a trust fund
may be .bad news. for total debt and vice versa. This is so because
total debt (or gross debt) is the sum of two very different types of
debt.debt owed to the public and debt owed by one part of the
government (general fund) to another part of the government (trust
funds). Therefore, if a trust fund surplus grows faster than debt held
by the public falls, total debt grows.even if the trust fund surplus
is created as an attempt to .save. or to .pre-fund. some of the future
benefit payments. These contradictory movements emphasize the need to
differentiate between different types of debt and what they mean. Both
debt held by the public and debt held by trust funds are
important--but for different reasons. Analytically, therefore,
what is most important is not whether total debt increases but rather
the reasons behind the increase--does it represent an attempt to
..advance fund. through substantive reform or merely the promise of
future resources?
Debt held by the public and debt held by trust funds represent very
different concepts. Debt held by the public approximates the federal
government.s competition with other sectors in the credit markets.
This affects interest rates and private capital accumulation. Further,
interest on debt held by the public is a current burden on taxpayers.
Reducing this burden frees up capacity to meet future needs.
In contrast, debt held by trust funds performs an accounting function
and currently represents the cumulative annual surpluses of these
funds (i.e., excess of receipts over disbursements plus accrued
interest). Importantly, debt held by the SSTF does not represent the
actuarial present value of expected future benefits for either current
or future participants. Nor does this debt have any of the economic
effects of borrowing from the public. It is not a current transaction
of the government with the public; it does not compete with the
private sector for available funds in the credit market. It
reduces the need to borrow from the public and so may hold down
interest rates. Unlike debt held by the public, debt held by trust
funds does not represent an immediate burden on current taxpayers.
Rather, it is a claim on future resources. The surplus is held in
Treasury securities that give the SSTF a claim on the Treasury equal
to the value of those securities. When the securities have to be
redeemed, the Treasury must come up with the cash. At that time,
taxpayers will see some combination of a lower surplus,
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
13 Oct 2004 05:23:56 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<416c98b3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416b8280$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416a39f3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Bob wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4168f33a$0$174$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
It started high because Clinton had to repair ten years of damage
by Reagan and Bush.
Clinton inherited an economy on the rise,
and left with an economy on the decline.
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Hardly much of a rise,and what there was was beciuse
Bush finally cut a deal with the Democrat Congress.
That cut $500 billion off of future deficits.
More revisionsit history?
1990q1 4.7
1990q2 1.0
1990q3 0.0
1990q4 -3.0
1991q1 -2.0
1991q2 2.6
1991q3 1.9
1991q4 1.9
1992q1 4.2
1992q2 3.9
1992q3 4.0
1992q4 4.5
1993q1 0.5
1993q2 2.0
1993q3 2.1
1993q4 5.5
www.bea.gov
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
................................
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt increased
Of course! Deficit spending is only part of the problem.
The "problem is that most of the so called "surplus" under Clinton
was counting the SS surplus as current revenue
A equivalent example would be you taking a loan for $10k, calling it
income and pretending your debt load had not increased
But you have to beat that to beat the rest of the problem.
We see Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II aren't doing THAT.
US National Debt
Bush
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
$1.572 trillion / 3 years = $524 Billion/year
Clinton
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
$1.15 trillion / 8 years = $139 billions.
Bush
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
$1.027 trillion / 4 years = $256.7 billions / year
Obviously we want more Bush's.
Not that bad old Clinton who cut deficit
spending greatly.
Interesting you "snipped" the part of the previous post that
debunked your original claim
------
"What part of the GDP growth dont you understand?
1993 (Clinton) was lower than 1992 (Bush)
Why was this? Bush in his last two years gave us
the budget deal with the Democratic Congress and that
cut $50 billion or so off of future deficits, it did not take effect
immediately under Bush.
The 'dems promised 3$ in spending cuts for every $ in increased
taxes
They lied
Bush let them get away with it
Thats why I didnt vote for him in 1992
Tell us again about the bad economy Clinton inherited?
Maybe in 50 years or so people might believe the revisionist spin
T.Carr
-----
We need Bush with his mssive tax cuts to the rich,
massive increases in government spending, domestic
and military and out of control Pork Spending and
massive 26% growth in size of govenrmnet.
Lie us into a few more expensive tar baby wars and we
will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.
Clinton was real BAD!
Actually Clinton was lucky. The "tech boom" matured and accelerated
under reign.
he didn't cure Reagan and Bush's
debts and fix all their mistakes whil ebattling Netty Newt
with the other hand.
Actually the period or lowest growth in federal spending occurred
"Netty Newt's" congress from 1995-98
But dont let the facts get in the way of a good rant
btw..tell us again about your original claim about the economy
Clinton inherited.
T.Carr
Clinton - average = $139 billions real deficits / year
Bush - average = $524 billions real deficits / year
As we can see, Bush is obviously the superior economist.
1 / 139 =.000719 X 524 = 3.77.
Bush has given us 377% the yearly average real deficit Clinton
did.
CLINTON BAD! BUSH GOOD!
Vote Bush, we will deficit spend our way to wealth.
Carr, you are a dolt.
You spray charts to prove Bush is god, and you
fail to do the obvious math.
You refuse to think.
What is Bush's campign promises for the next four years?
More massive tax cuts for the rich. More deficits.
More failure.
Clinton is bad because he had deficits?
And Bush is good because he has bigger deficits,
377% bigger?
I just don't understand right wingers.
***********
Nobel economists back John Kerry
Democratic presidential nominee wins endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning
economists.
August 25, 2004
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel
Prize-winning economists on Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for
policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.
The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists
saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme
course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.''
They cited "poorly designed'' tax cuts that, instead of creating jobs, have
turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits. A "fiscal
irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of
our nation,'' they concluded.
The endorsement, in the form of an open letter to American voters, was
signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California
at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel
Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of
Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and
Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.
Kerry, in remarks prepared for an appearance in Philadelphia, called for
"jobs that don't just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let
you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little
for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while.''
Now, he said, good jobs are being replaced "with ones that just don't pay
the bills,'' citing 1.8 million private-sector jobs that have been lost and
replaced by ones that pay $9,000 less and are more likely to be temporary
and less likely to offer health insurance.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/25/news/economy/kerry_economists.reut/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
13 Oct 2004 12:09:06 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2004 03:23:56 -0700, (T.Carr) wrote:
Of course! Deficit spending is only part of the problem.
The "problem is that most of the so called "surplus" under Clinton
was counting the SS surplus as current revenue
You really don't understand this stuff do you?
"The Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (P.L.99-177) repealed the off-budget
status of these entities and placed social
security (federal old-age and survivors
insurance and the federal disability insurance
trust funds) off-budget. Though
social security is now off-budget and, by
law, excluded from coverage of the congressional
budget resolutions, it continues
to be a federal program."
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/fedgov.pdf
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Consumer Confidence Rises, Thanks to President Bush |
13 Oct 2004 08:25:53 AM |
|
|
T.Carr wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<416c98b3$0$173$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
T.Carr wrote:
******************
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com
Economic report of the President 2004
Chart B-79
Yearly Deficit as % of GDP
Reagan
1981 -2.6%
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1988 -3.2
1989 -2.8
Bush
1990 -3.9
1991 - 4.5
1992 - 4.7
1993 - 3.9
Clinton
1994 -2.9% Deficits as % of GDP
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 - .3
1998 .8
1989 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
................................
Yes..the surplus when in each and every year the national debt
increased
Of course! Deficit spending is only part of the problem.
The "problem is that most of the so called "surplus" under Clinton
was counting the SS surplus as current revenue
That's BADDDDDD! Why is it good when Reagan,
Bush and Bush II do it?
Why pinpoint Clinton, but not the jerks on teh GOP side
who did it and are doing it?
Clinton repeatedly challenged Congress to stop this, Newt and Lot just
laughted at him.
The GOP is responsible for this, and even now as we have a GOP Senate,
House and President, they have been stealing from SS hand over fist
since Bush was sworn in.
And Bush shows noto signs whatsoever of asking Congress to stop any time
soon, and we don't see Hastert or that useless cretin Frist offering to
stop stealing from SS either.
So, why single out Clinton and ignore the thieves that are stealing as we
sit here posting?
ALL the figures above involve stealing from SS.
The day newt Gingrich grinned and shook hands
announcing that first balanced budget, the government
stole $60 billion from SS.
In teh last year, that bastartd Trentt Lott
offered up tyhree, count 'em three lock box bills loaded to teh gills
with poison pills he knew Clinton could not accept, and then cynicaslly and
publically blamed Clinton for not accepting bills he knew Clinton would not.
Doid any of yoy right wingers take excepetion tothis nasty and cynical game
playing on his part?
Not one I ever met.
I myself have been FURIOUS at this theft for years and years.
Reagan started it.
Senator Moynihan tried to stop it and the GOP slapped that
effort down two years running.
When you say SS theft, think GOP.
20 long years of theft.
Over $2 trillion worth and still stealing, strealing, stealing.
One more reason I would never vote GOP.
Thieves to a man, all of them, and chronic thieves.
A equivalent example would be you taking a loan for $10k, calling it
income and pretending your debt load had not increased
No *****, a plan polsihed to prefection since Reagan started
stealing the large sums SS collected starting in his second term
when they started to accumulate.
Bush is stealing today.
Its reflected in the sum of $1.611 rillion deficits Bush has
accumulated in 3 budget years.
Not that Bush and the GOPs continuing the | | | | | | | | | | | |
