"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than
the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which
is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.


So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS.

Max

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than

Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.

the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which

According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.

is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.

They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than


Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.


the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which


According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.


is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.


They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS.


Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...

In article ,
katy wrote:

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...

Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g

Interesting article.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...


Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g

Interesting article.

Yeah..it mostly refutes what you were saying...or seriously diminishes
what you were saying...

In article ,
katy wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...


Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g

Interesting article.

Yeah..it mostly refutes what you were saying...or seriously diminishes
what you were saying...

I was thinking it actually supports it. I think you need to read it
again.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
katy wrote:


http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...


Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g

Interesting article.


Yeah..it mostly refutes what you were saying...or seriously diminishes
what you were saying...


I was thinking it actually supports it. I think you need to read it
again.


From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that
although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine? A less than 5% unemployment rate means
the employable are employed...people buying durable goods means they
have the money to do so or the credit, and the hosuing market has been
so overinflated nationwide that it was due to take a decline just to
even itself out..speculation building has been going on for quite some
time and now new real estate isn't the commodity it was...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take
issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last
year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than

Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.

Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?


the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed
the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15%
to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally,
which

According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some
people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.

They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and
ABS.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 26 Mar 2007 23:07:44 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.


Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?