"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

Okay, Jon, how was NAFTA good for the US? You admitted job loss, so where
did it help us? Oh, did you mean that GM, Chrysler, and Ford watched their
profits grow, thanks to cheaper Mexican and Canadian labor? Did you mean
that those companies profitted because Canada and Mexico have relaxed
EPA-type regulations, compared with the US? Hmmm. Strange logic for a
liberal. :-)

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

Say what? The unemployment rate is currently at a lower rate than the
average during the entire Clinton administration.


I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton.

Then you are in denial. The facts are the facts. The downturn began during
Clinton's last year. But ya know what? I don't even blame Clinton for
that. Business cycles just happen. Of course you knee-jerk liberals love
to blame Bush for rainy days and earthquakes, too.

It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession.

Semantics. The process was underway, regardless of whether you call it a
"slowing" or a "recession."

Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost.

Most of those were lost after 9/11.

We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

The effect of a tax cut will never be immediate. It takes time. But I do
agree that the tax cuts should have benefitted the middle class more than
they did. Putting money in the hands of the wealthiest insures only that
they will invest more overseas these days. Unfortunately the democrats only
want to rescind tax cuts, rather than giving the middle class their fair
share. Clinton promised a huge middle-class tax cut in his first campaign.
Gave us one hell of a tax increase, IIRC.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Most of your reasons came from moveon.org. no doubt.

Max

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly. Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and
a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

Okay, Jon, how was NAFTA good for the US? You admitted job loss, so where
did it help us? Oh, did you mean that GM, Chrysler, and Ford watched
their
profits grow, thanks to cheaper Mexican and Canadian labor? Did you mean
that those companies profitted because Canada and Mexico have relaxed
EPA-type regulations, compared with the US? Hmmm. Strange logic for a
liberal. :-)

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

Say what? The unemployment rate is currently at a lower rate than the
average during the entire Clinton administration.


I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton.

Then you are in denial. The facts are the facts. The downturn began
during
Clinton's last year. But ya know what? I don't even blame Clinton for
that. Business cycles just happen. Of course you knee-jerk liberals love
to blame Bush for rainy days and earthquakes, too.

It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession.

Semantics. The process was underway, regardless of whether you call it a
"slowing" or a "recession."

Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost.

Most of those were lost after 9/11.

We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

The effect of a tax cut will never be immediate. It takes time. But I do
agree that the tax cuts should have benefitted the middle class more than
they did. Putting money in the hands of the wealthiest insures only that
they will invest more overseas these days. Unfortunately the democrats
only
want to rescind tax cuts, rather than giving the middle class their fair
share. Clinton promised a huge middle-class tax cut in his first
campaign.
Gave us one hell of a tax increase, IIRC.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Most of your reasons came from moveon.org. no doubt.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max

Obviously, you don't read very well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

On the rest, you're completely WRONG.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer
months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between
the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be
ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest
expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he
responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Obviously, you don't read very well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

On the rest, you're completely WRONG.

Another Ganzian, all-encompassing rebuttal.

Max

So, you didn't bother to read it. Got it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Obviously, you don't read very well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

On the rest, you're completely WRONG.

Another Ganzian, all-encompassing rebuttal.

Max

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:13:35 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

And golly gee, that was the best economy in 84 years!



Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

I guess you don't remember the Reagan years.


The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Agreed. The demoncrats got nothing. They got nothing on the economy.
They got nothing on health care. They got nothing on Iraq.

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.


(I better not say anything bad about Edwards, he'll sue me.)





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Hey idiot... hate to tell you but it was the best economy in 30 years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:13:35 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

And golly gee, that was the best economy in 84 years!



Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

I guess you don't remember the Reagan years.


The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond
Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Agreed. The demoncrats got nothing. They got nothing on the economy.
They got nothing on health care. They got nothing on Iraq.

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.


(I better not say anything bad about Edwards, he'll sue me.)





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.

Ya know, I think I like that idea.

Of course he may also sue anyone who votes against him. His nature, and all
that . . .

Max