Various Topics on Internet News

.... ....

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:01:41 -0700, Littleguy
<mlittleguy@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:46:28 -0400, Just Judy
><gopanth@invalid-addy.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:04:25 -0700, Littleguy
>><mlittleguy@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I've worked with numbers almost my whole life. You can pretty much
>>>make them look anyway your want.
>>
>> That's what mom used to say, too, but she lied. If that were
>>true, I could make my bank account look good. <g>
>
>The trick is to have account (s) - not account. <g>

I have two accounts, which merely means that I am twice as
screwed up as I would be with one account. Oh, the horror of math.

..y

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:04:25 -0700, Littleguy <mlittleguy@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:20:22 -0500, Ray <lcrc@wayoo.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:56:34 -0700, Littleguy <mlittleguy@myrealbox.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:52:44 GMT, Al Superczynski
>>><modeleral@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "...job-growth begins to catch up with U.S. economic expansion,
>>>>scotching talk of a 'jobless recovery' and bolstering Bush's claims
>>>>that his policies create jobs..."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5214916/
>>>
>>>According to an article in my paper this morning, 1 out of 3 is going
>>>to an illegal immigrant...-
>>
>>Which walked by the border patrol to get here as they have been told not
>>to move from where they were told to park. Was just on CNN with Lou. So
>>far I have not heard who told the Border Patrol to do that.
>
>I've worked with numbers almost my whole life. You can pretty much
>make them look anyway your want.

That was Al with the Nr.
--

Ray
Mind over matter, if you don’t mind, it don’t matter.
(Confucius)

..ridi.. ..ewa..

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:52:44 GMT, Al Superczynski
<modeleral@deadspam.com> wrote:

>
> "...job-growth begins to catch up with U.S. economic expansion,
>scotching talk of a 'jobless recovery' and bolstering Bush's claims
>that his policies create jobs..."

But does it really create any more jobs than the policy of the
previous administration? Maybe if we had someone else in office, the
recession would not have been as bad.
--
=================
Mike Burell
http://burell.com
=================

That leaves you, you'll have to do it - T Rundgren

.. ..perczyns..

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 04:56:08 GMT, Meridian Leeward <mburell@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>...does it really create any more jobs than the policy of the
>previous administration?

You mean the dot.com bubble? Great jobs while they lasted, I
guess.....

>Maybe if we had someone else in office, the
>recession would not have been as bad.

Or maybe it would have been even worse and lasted even longer.

..o.. ....

"Meridian Leeward" <mburell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90h7d05bs9jf4lkrka6ecvtkiitrhc36sq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:52:44 GMT, Al Superczynski
> <modeleral@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "...job-growth begins to catch up with U.S. economic expansion,
> >scotching talk of a 'jobless recovery' and bolstering Bush's claims
> >that his policies create jobs..."
>
> But does it really create any more jobs than the policy of the
> previous administration? Maybe if we had someone else in office, the
> recession would not have been as bad.

The recession began in 2000. In other words, it was a result of the policies
of the previous administration.

It might not have been so bad if the attacks of 9/11 had not occurred. The
attacks might not have occurred had the previous adminstration done more
than launch a token attack against Afghanistan in 1998.


--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."

..

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:53:47 GMT, "Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm>
wrote:

>The recession began in 2000. In other words, it was a result of the policies
>of the previous administration.

It started on the prior administration's watch. It shouldn't be laid
at the feet of that administration since there were many more
significant factors contributing to the recession. OTOH, the same
can't be said of the current administration since it is obviously a
President's job to pull us out of a recession regardless of the causes
of that recession.

It is common knowledge among anyone with a scintilla of intelligence
that tax cuts have an obviously negative impact on an economy so
dominated by ever increasing governmental spending - the deficits will
kill you.

That being the case, not only does the current administration deserve
no credit for the on-going recovery, it is responsible for any future
recessions because of its lack of economic savvy. The credit belongs
to the next administration if that administration is Democratic.
Otherwise it belongs to market forces encouraged by the long standing
Democratic commitment to free enterprise and smaller government.

Just as the prior administrations efforts to downsize government has
enhanced our military capabilities. I don't know what we would be
doing right now without their efforts in this area. Hell the deficits
would be real ugly.

>
>It might not have been so bad if the attacks of 9/11 had not occurred. The
>attacks might not have occurred had the previous adminstration done more
>than launch a token attack against Afghanistan in 1998.

Now, now, now. We all know that the prior administration's
identification with European appeasement and dependence on diplomacy
kept the 9/ll damage down. If the prior administration had recognized
and responded to OBL's declaration of war on the U.S. we'd have
started going through all this unnecessary **** even sooner.

Who knows, maybe that would have resulted in the Sears Tower being
bombed or increasingly destructive tornadic activity in Ark. after
hijacked airliners were used to seed the thunder clouds. No, it was
much better to stand back at missile's length and watch U.S. ships of
war being nearly sunk or emb***ies bombed. After all, those things
happened on the other side of the ocean and didn't really impact us
all that much.

Yup, moderation in all things (well except for things ***ual) was
really the best approach.

--
cg

..ori..

Hooda Gest <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote:

> The recession began in 2000. In other words, it was a result of the policies
> of the previous administration.

Nice shortcut.
You sure are a master in macroeconomy.

--
Florian

"Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire

..o.. ....

"cg" <cgrams007@{take-this-out}yahoo.com> wrote in message
newslf8d09v7gf52fl0qnem6h66jb5oje9dgm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:53:47 GMT, "Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm>
> wrote:
>
> >The recession began in 2000. In other words, it was a result of the
policies
> >of the previous administration.
>
> It started on the prior administration's watch. It shouldn't be laid
> at the feet of that administration since there were many more
> significant factors contributing to the recession. OTOH, the same
> can't be said of the current administration since it is obviously a
> President's job to pull us out of a recession regardless of the causes
> of that recession.

I have to apologize. I initially thought you were being serious.


--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."

..o.. ....

"Florian" <firstname@lastname.net> wrote in message
news:1gfmvzl.24f4ys1jvyvpcN%firstname@lastname.net ...
> Hooda Gest <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote:
>
> > The recession began in 2000. In other words, it was a result of the
policies
> > of the previous administration.
>
> Nice shortcut.
> You sure are a master in macroeconomy.

No, I am a student of factual data. Go ahead, go do some research, check the
numbers for 2000. Look back at when the DotCom bubble was burst and what
preceded it and then succeeded it.

I do realize that France is still wallowing in economic hardship and
unemployment and has been for many, many years but we are talking about the
US.


--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."

.... ..

"cg" <cgrams007@{take-this-out}yahoo.com> wrote in message
newslf8d09v7gf52fl0qnem6h66jb5oje9dgm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:53:47 GMT, "Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm>
> wrote:
>
> >The recession began in 2000. In other words, it was a result of the
policies
> >of the previous administration.
>
> It started on the prior administration's watch. It shouldn't be laid
> at the feet of that administration since there were many more
> significant factors contributing to the recession. OTOH, the same
> can't be said of the current administration since it is obviously a
> President's job to pull us out of a recession regardless of the causes
> of that recession.

Without government 'make work projects' like Roosevelt's WPA and CCC
programs, which would make the government a major employer through deficit
spending to support such make work programs, suggest how the president can
pull us out of a recession without entering deficit spending and tax
increases.


>
> It is common knowledge among anyone with a scintilla of intelligence
> that tax cuts have an obviously negative impact on an economy so
> dominated by ever increasing governmental spending - the deficits will
> kill you.


If you were to ***ume tax cuts have a negative effect on economy, conversely
may it be said that tax increases will have a beneficial effect on economy?
If tax increases are, IYO beneficial in speeding economic recovery, may it
be ***umed that the greater the tax burden the speedier the recovery? If
heavier tax burdens are imposed on personal income and upon corporate
America, what would you suggest the nations industrial complex do to secure
the necessary finances to invest in itself so that industrial growth would
lead to a healthier economy and an increase in employment?


>
> That being the case, not only does the current administration deserve
> no credit for the on-going recovery, it is responsible for any future
> recessions because of its lack of economic savvy. The credit belongs
> to the next administration if that administration is Democratic.
> Otherwise it belongs to market forces encouraged by the long standing
> Democratic commitment to free enterprise and smaller government.
>
> Just as the prior administrations efforts to downsize government has
> enhanced our military capabilities. I don't know what we would be
> doing right now without their efforts in this area. Hell the deficits
> would be real ugly.
>
> >
> >It might not have been so bad if the attacks of 9/11 had not occurred.
The
> >attacks might not have occurred had the previous adminstration done more
> >than launch a token attack against Afghanistan in 1998.
>
> Now, now, now. We all know that the prior administration's
> identification with European appeasement and dependence on diplomacy
> kept the 9/ll damage down. If the prior administration had recognized
> and responded to OBL's declaration of war on the U.S. we'd have
> started going through all this unnecessary **** even sooner.
>
> Who knows, maybe that would have resulted in the Sears Tower being
> bombed or increasingly destructive tornadic activity in Ark. after
> hijacked airliners were used to seed the thunder clouds. No, it was
> much better to stand back at missile's length and watch U.S. ships of
> war being nearly sunk or emb***ies bombed. After all, those things
> happened on the other side of the ocean and didn't really impact us
> all that much.
>
> Yup, moderation in all things (well except for things ***ual) was
> really the best approach.
>
> --
> cg