JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


Bunch of stuff snipped in the interest of brevity.


No need for rebuttal, let's talk when the DOW tops 11,700 (high under
the Clinton administration)


You are changing the subject. The Dow is not a sole indicator of a good
economy.

Heck, it was below 3,000 for decades, even in the glory years of the
economy.

Seems to me the "Glory Years" would be defined as the high point -- as in
1999

Besides, the 11,700 mark was based on dot com companies with no
assets....and bust they went.

You would prefer the S&P 500? -- hit 1199.40 4/20/98

UN employment -- here's numbers from 99 to date
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.6
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.8
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.9
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.7
2004-04-01 5.5
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.5
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2

Total US Jobs Offshored

From 01/01/2000 To 02/26/2005

Jobs Offshored 348,926
Jobs Lost 166,631

National debt -- 1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
Current $7,722,693,241,750.83 And climbing -- see
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.30 *BILLION* per day since September 30, 2004!

Military lives lost about 1500 and counting

Us allies --- many less than 1999

Respect for the US -- falling

Respect for POTUS -- about bottomed out.

How would you prefer to measure things? Maybe Haliburton profits? Exxon?
Bush familys net worth?


I could care less about the *UN* unemployment figures.

Maybe because you're employed, but the UN employed sure care

Here are the actual figures from 1990 to date:

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

Went there, and the numbers agree with what I posted -- I don't understand
the numbers you posted -- what are they?

Then you can address the other questions I raised.


1990 01335.4
1990 02995.3
1990 03005.2
1990 04775.4
1990 05665.4
1990 06665.2
1990 07005.5
1990 08225.7
1990 09885.9
1990 10665.9
1990 11226.2
1990 12446.3
1991 01 226.4
1991 02 886.6
1991 03 886.8
1991 04 446.7
1991 05 116.9
1991 06 006.9
1991 07 886.8
1991 08 336.9
1991 09 006.9
1991 10 007.0
1991 11 337.0
1991 12 447.3
1992 01337.3
1992 02337.4
1992 03997.4
1992 04007.4
1992 05227.6
1992 06777.8
1992 07777.7
1992 08997.6
1992 09667.6
1992 10997.3
1992 11557.4
1992 12227.4
1993 01 887.3
1993 02 777.1
1993 03 447.0
1993 04 117.1
1993 05 997.1
1993 06 887.0
1993 07 336.9
1993 08 226.8
1993 09 556.7
1993 10 886.8
1993 11 446.6
1993 12 666.5
1994 01226.6
1994 02556.6
1994 03776.5
1994 04226.4
1994 05666.1
1994 06006.1
1994 07116.1
1994 08996.0
1994 09115.9
1994 10885.8
1994 11995.6
1994 12225.5
1995 01 885.6
1995 02 885.4
1995 03 885.4
1995 04 665.8
1995 05 445.6
1995 06 005.6
1995 07 005.7
1995 08 225.7
1995 09 995.6
1995 10 555.5
1995 11 005.6
1995 12 555.6
1996 01665.6
1996 02115.5
1996 03885.5
1996 04885.6
1996 05885.6
1996 06995.3
1996 07775.5
1996 08445.1
1996 09225.2
1996 10005.2
1996 11665.4
1996 12665.4
1997 01 665.3
1997 02 885.2
1997 03 445.2
1997 04 115.1
1997 05 554.9
1997 06 775.0
1997 07 994.9
1997 08 884.8
1997 09 664.9
1997 10 664.7
1997 11 554.6
1997 12 774.7
1998 01774.6
1998 02224.6
1998 03774.7
1998 04884.3
1998 05114.4
1998 06224.5
1998 07444.5
1998 08004.5
1998 09994.6
1998 10114.5
1998 11994.4
1998 12444.4
1999 01 664.3
1999 02 554.4
1999 03 444.2
1999 04 444.3
1999 05 224.2
1999 06 444.3
1999 07 994.3
1999 08 664.2
1999 09 664.2
1999 10 994.1
1999 11 004.1
1999 12 884.0
2000 01444.0
2000 02884.1
2000 03224.0
2000 04003.8
2000 05224.0
2000 06554.0
2000 07554.0
2000 08774.1
2000 09443.9
2000 10113.9
2000 11883.9
2000 12003.9
2001 01 004.2
2001 02 334.2
2001 03 554.3
2001 04 224.4
2001 05 774.3
2001 06 884.5
2001 07 884.6
2001 08 114.9
2001 09 335.0
2001 10 885.3
2001 11 335.6
2001 12 005.7
2002 01005.7
2002 02665.7
2002 03775.7
2002 04335.9
2002 05115.8
2002 06445.8
2002 07555.8
2002 08555.7
2002 09885.7
2002 10115.7
2002 11995.9
2002 12776.0
2003 01 995.8
2003 02 995.9
2003 03 445.8
2003 04 226.0
2003 05 446.1
2003 06 776.3
2003 07 666.2
2003 08 006.1
2003 09 116.1
2003 10 116.0
2003 11 885.9
2003 12 885.7
2004 01005.7
2004 02005.6
2004 03885.7
2004 04995.5
2004 05335.6
2004 06445.6
2004 07005.5
2004 08005.4
2004 09885.4
2004 10445.5
2004 11225.4
2004 12995.4
2005 01 445.2And your point is?



Stick with one point Jim, then perhaps I can address it. You keep changing
it to suit your needs.


The point is the economy -- I asked where you got your numbers --
because using your URL, I found numbers that agree with me. "Changing
the subject" seems to be your way of dodging the question.

I gave multiple examples of a troubled economy -- you tried to address
one of them which to quote you "I could care less about the *UN*
unemployment figures"

What ARE the numbers you posted?????

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...


"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
.. .



JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
. ..




Garth Almgren wrote:




Around 2/26/2005 12:49 PM, Snafu wrote:





Yeah, "Jim,", we told you Bush is doing a better job than
Herbert Hoover
did, and this proves it!


Well, at least people aren't forced into living in Bushvilles...
yet.



I'm so embarrassed -- I went to look at a (GASP) power boat (hangs
head in shame) today. Came back to 100+ messages so I skimmed
headers and killfiled a bunch.

If anyone has anything important for me - please repost.


NP Jim,.

Here you go:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim,....remind me again what you were saying about the state of the
US
economy?



Here, this might help:



========================================= ======

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Jeannine Aversa

Associated Press

Washington- The economy clocked in at a 3.8 percent pace in the
final
quarter of 2004 - faster than initially thought - and is now
cruising at
that speed or better. That could be good news for jobless people
hoping for
companies to increase hiring.

In the newest reading on the economy's fitness, the gross domestic
product
exceeded a previous estimate of a 3.1 percent annual growth rate
for the
October- to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported
Friday. GDP
measures the value of all goods and services produced within the
United
States.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on
capital
equipment and on inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was
less of a
drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought.

Although economic growth in the final quarter of last year was a
bit slower
than the third quarters' 4 percent, the performance was still
solid.

"We are now at a comfortable cruising altitude," said Lynn Reaser,
chief
economist at Banc of America Capital Management. "What is
significant is
that all parts of the economy were pulling their own weight."

In other news, sales of previously owned homes slipped 0.1 percent
in
January from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual
rate of 6.80
million units, the National Association of Realtors reported. Even
with the
dip, sales remained healthy, analysts said.

Also Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 7 million fewer
previously owned
single-family houses were sold in the last 16 years than the
National
Association of Realtors initially estimated, according to the
group's
revised figures.

Resales since 1989 were 10 percent lower per year on average than
previously
estimated, the association said in Washington on Friday.

The Realtors issued the revisions after comparing its estimates
with results

from the 2000 Census. Single-family home resales last year were
still

a

record 5.96 million compared with a previous estimate of 6.68
million, the
group said.

On Wall Street, the GDP report lifted stocks. The Dow Jones
industrials rose
92.81 points to 10,841.60, the best close since Dec. 28. For the
week, the
Dow rose 0.52 percent.

For the current January-to- March quarter, the economy is expected
to grow
at a rate of around 4 percent, some economists project.

Analysts are hoping that with the economy moving ahead at a good
pace,
companies will feel more inclined to step up hiring in upcoming
months.
Economists predict the nation's payrolls will expand by a sizable
225,000 in
February, which would be up from January's 146,000 gain. The
government
releases the February employment report next week.

"With decent momentum entering the New Year, we should soon be
generating
the kind of job growth that will make the expansion feel like good
times,"
said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial
Services.






Bill Cheney == name sounds familiar..... wonder if he's related to
dick?




So that is the extent of your comment on this article?

What a great rebuttal Jim,.

No need for rebuttal, let's talk when the DOW tops 11,700 (high under
the Clinton administration)

You are changing the subject. The Dow is not a sole indicator of a
good economy.

Heck, it was below 3,000 for decades, even in the glory years of the
economy.

Besides, the 11,700 mark was based on dot com companies with no
assets....and bust they went.



BTW: Why do you insist on changing the target? ??? Stick to a point.
If you want to explore other avenues, finish the first point first.

Here is what you are sounding like:

==============

We should negotiate with Iraq.

OK, the negotiations failed so we should put economic sanctions on them.

OK, those failed so we should negotiate with them again.

OK, well at least the UN put sanctions on them. We should give them
another chance.

OK, they did not abide by them...we should give them more than 8 years
to abide to the sanctions.

OH NO....you are invading Iraq? The invasion will take years.
Thousands upon thousands of US troops will die.

OK, so it took a couple of days with few US military casualties....but
you will never be able to take Baghdad.

OK, so you took the city. The civilians will resist you.

OK, so the citizens rejoice in your coming...but you will never find
Sadam.

OK, you found Sadam, so what about the future of Iraq? Will it ever see
free elections?

OK, so you have a plan for the elections with an interim governenment.
But an election will never happen.

OK, so you put an election date of January 30th. It will not happen.

OK, so it looks like the election will happen. But there will be
thousands killed in the process.

OK, the election happened and only a few hundred died.....well you will
insert next whine

;-)

Gee, and *I* read your article as being about the economy. But I agree
with you -- Iraq is a mess -- thanks to Bush


How so? Please be specific.
See above -- we had no justification to invade Iraq -- The president was
either lied to (but he reappointed the liars), or he himself lied.

Where are the WMD?

How does that make Iraq a mess?


What is our exit plan?


I am sure it is classified. Ask GWB. But how does that make Iraq a mess?


How long will we stay? -- Yep spout away "as long as it takes", but will
my grandchildren be fighting there? (oldest 7)

How does that make Iraq a mess?


What have *WE* as in US citizens gained from the invasion?

You don't see what is happening in the Middle East? Take your blinders off
Jim,. Regardless, how does that make Iraq a mess?



What about Osama? (I remember Bush saying "dead or alive") He's doing
better now than 1500 American soldiers

How does that make Iraq a mess?


What about Afghanistan? Iran?

How does that make Iraq a mess?

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


Bunch of stuff snipped in the interest of brevity.


No need for rebuttal, let's talk when the DOW tops 11,700 (high under
the Clinton administration)


You are changing the subject. The Dow is not a sole indicator of a
good economy.

Heck, it was below 3,000 for decades, even in the glory years of the
economy.

Seems to me the "Glory Years" would be defined as the high point -- as in
1999

Besides, the 11,700 mark was based on dot com companies with no
assets....and bust they went.

You would prefer the S&P 500? -- hit 1199.40 4/20/98

UN employment -- here's numbers from 99 to date
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.6
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.8
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.9
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.7
2004-04-01 5.5
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.5
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2

Total US Jobs Offshored

From 01/01/2000 To 02/26/2005

Jobs Offshored 348,926
Jobs Lost 166,631

National debt -- 1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
Current $7,722,693,241,750.83 And climbing -- see
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.30 *BILLION* per day since September 30, 2004!

Military lives lost about 1500 and counting

Us allies --- many less than 1999

Respect for the US -- falling

Respect for POTUS -- about bottomed out.

How would you prefer to measure things? Maybe Haliburton profits?
Exxon? Bush familys net worth?


I could care less about the *UN* unemployment figures.

Maybe because you're employed, but the UN employed sure care

Here are the actual figures from 1990 to date:

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

Went there, and the numbers agree with what I posted -- I don't
understand the numbers you posted -- what are they?

Then you can address the other questions I raised.


1990 01335.4
1990 02995.3
1990 03005.2
1990 04775.4
1990 05665.4
1990 06665.2
1990 07005.5
1990 08225.7
1990 09885.9
1990 10665.9
1990 11226.2
1990 12446.3
1991 01 226.4
1991 02 886.6
1991 03 886.8
1991 04 446.7
1991 05 116.9
1991 06 006.9
1991 07 886.8
1991 08 336.9
1991 09 006.9
1991 10 007.0
1991 11 337.0
1991 12 447.3
1992 01337.3
1992 02337.4
1992 03997.4
1992 04007.4
1992 05227.6
1992 06777.8
1992 07777.7
1992 08997.6
1992 09667.6
1992 10997.3
1992 11557.4
1992 12227.4
1993 01 887.3
1993 02 777.1
1993 03 447.0
1993 04 117.1
1993 05 997.1
1993 06 887.0
1993 07 336.9
1993 08 226.8
1993 09 556.7
1993 10 886.8
1993 11 446.6
1993 12 666.5
1994 01226.6
1994 02556.6
1994 03776.5
1994 04226.4
1994 05666.1
1994 06006.1
1994 07116.1
1994 08996.0
1994 09115.9
1994 10885.8
1994 11995.6
1994 12225.5
1995 01 885.6
1995 02 885.4
1995 03 885.4
1995 04 665.8
1995 05 445.6
1995 06 005.6
1995 07 005.7
1995 08 225.7
1995 09 995.6
1995 10 555.5
1995 11 005.6
1995 12 555.6
1996 01665.6
1996 02115.5
1996 03885.5
1996 04885.6
1996 05885.6
1996 06995.3
1996 07775.5
1996 08445.1
1996 09225.2
1996 10005.2
1996 11665.4
1996 12665.4
1997 01 665.3
1997 02 885.2
1997 03 445.2
1997 04 115.1
1997 05 554.9
1997 06 775.0
1997 07 994.9
1997 08 884.8
1997 09 664.9
1997 10 664.7
1997 11 554.6
1997 12 774.7
1998 01774.6
1998 02224.6
1998 03774.7
1998 04884.3
1998 05114.4
1998 06224.5
1998 07444.5
1998 08004.5
1998 09994.6
1998 10114.5
1998 11994.4
1998 12444.4
1999 01 664.3
1999 02 554.4
1999 03 444.2
1999 04 444.3
1999 05 224.2
1999 06 444.3
1999 07 994.3
1999 08 664.2
1999 09 664.2
1999 10 994.1
1999 11 004.1
1999 12 884.0
2000 01444.0
2000 02884.1
2000 03224.0
2000 04003.8
2000 05224.0
2000 06554.0
2000 07554.0
2000 08774.1
2000 09443.9
2000 10113.9
2000 11883.9
2000 12003.9
2001 01 004.2
2001 02 334.2
2001 03 554.3
2001 04 224.4
2001 05 774.3
2001 06 884.5
2001 07 884.6
2001 08 114.9
2001 09 335.0
2001 10 885.3
2001 11 335.6
2001 12 005.7
2002 01005.7
2002 02665.7
2002 03775.7
2002 04335.9
2002 05115.8
2002 06445.8
2002 07555.8
2002 08555.7
2002 09885.7
2002 10115.7
2002 11995.9
2002 12776.0
2003 01 995.8
2003 02 995.9
2003 03 445.8
2003 04 226.0
2003 05 446.1
2003 06 776.3
2003 07 666.2
2003 08 006.1
2003 09 116.1
2003 10 116.0
2003 11 885.9
2003 12 885.7
2004 01005.7
2004 02005.6
2004 03885.7
2004 04995.5
2004 05335.6
2004 06445.6
2004 07005.5
2004 08005.4
2004 09885.4
2004 10445.5
2004 11225.4
2004 12995.4
2005 01 445.2And your point is?



Stick with one point Jim, then perhaps I can address it. You keep
changing it to suit your needs.
The point is the economy...

Fair enough. I agree.

Does this explain things?
===============================================

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Jeannine Aversa

Associated Press

Washington- The economy clocked in at a 3.8 percent pace in the final
quarter of 2004 - faster than initially thought - and is now cruising at
that speed or better. That could be good news for jobless people hoping for
companies to increase hiring.

In the newest reading on the economy's fitness, the gross domestic product
exceeded a previous estimate of a 3.1 percent annual growth rate for the
October- to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. GDP
measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United
States.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on capital
equipment and on inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was less of a
drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought.

Although economic growth in the final quarter of last year was a bit slower
than the third quarters' 4 percent, the performance was still solid.

"We are now at a comfortable cruising altitude," said Lynn Reaser, chief
economist at Banc of America Capital Management. "What is significant is
that all parts of the economy were pulling their own weight."

In other news, sales of previously owned homes slipped 0.1 percent in
January from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.80
million units, the National Association of Realtors reported. Even with the
dip, sales remained healthy, analysts said.

Also Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 7 million fewer previously owned
single-family houses were sold in the last 16 years than the National
Association of Realtors initially estimated, according to the group's
revised figures.

Resales since 1989 were 10 percent lower per year on average than previously
estimated, the association said in Washington on Friday.

The Realtors issued the revisions after comparing its estimates with results
from the 2000 Census. Single-family home resales last year were still a
record 5.96 million compared with a previous estimate of 6.68 million, the
group said.

On Wall Street, the GDP report lifted stocks. The Dow Jones industrials rose
92.81 points to 10,841.60, the best close since Dec. 28. For the week, the
Dow rose 0.52 percent.

For the current January-to- March quarter, the economy is expected to grow
at a rate of around 4 percent, some economists project.

Analysts are hoping that with the economy moving ahead at a good pace,
companies will feel more inclined to step up hiring in upcoming months.
Economists predict the nation's payrolls will expand by a sizable 225,000 in
February, which would be up from January's 146,000 gain. The government
releases the February employment report next week.

"With decent momentum entering the New Year, we should soon be generating
the kind of job growth that will make the expansion feel like good times,"
said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"JimH" wrote in message
...



"Jim," wrote in message
...



JimH wrote:




"Jim," wrote in message
. ..




JimH wrote:




"Jim," wrote in message
.. .





Garth Almgren wrote:





Around 2/26/2005 12:49 PM, Snafu wrote:






Yeah, "Jim,", we told you Bush is doing a better job than
Herbert Hoover
did, and this proves it!


Well, at least people aren't forced into living in Bushvilles...
yet.



I'm so embarrassed -- I went to look at a (GASP) power boat (hangs
head in shame) today. Came back to 100+ messages so I skimmed
headers and killfiled a bunch.

If anyone has anything important for me - please repost.


NP Jim,.

Here you go:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim,....remind me again what you were saying about the state of the
US
economy?



Here, this might help:



======================================== =======

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Jeannine Aversa

Associated Press

Washington- The economy clocked in at a 3.8 percent pace in the
final
quarter of 2004 - faster than initially thought - and is now
cruising at
that speed or better. That could be good news for jobless people
hoping for
companies to increase hiring.

In the newest reading on the economy's fitness, the gross domestic
product
exceeded a previous estimate of a 3.1 percent annual growth rate
for the
October- to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported
Friday. GDP
measures the value of all goods and services produced within the
United
States.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on
capital
equipment and on inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was
less of a
drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought.

Although economic growth in the final quarter of last year was a
bit slower
than the third quarters' 4 percent, the performance was still
solid.

"We are now at a comfortable cruising altitude," said Lynn Reaser,
chief
economist at Banc of America Capital Management. "What is
significant is
that all parts of the economy were pulling their own weight."

In other news, sales of previously owned homes slipped 0.1 percent
in
January from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual
rate of 6.80
million units, the National Association of Realtors reported. Even
with the
dip, sales remained healthy, analysts said.

Also Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 7 million fewer
previously owned
single-family houses were sold in the last 16 years than the
National
Association of Realtors initially estimated, according to the
group's
revised figures.

Resales since 1989 were 10 percent lower per year on average than
previously
estimated, the association said in Washington on Friday.

The Realtors issued the revisions after comparing its estimates
with results

from the 2000 Census. Single-family home resales last year were

still

a

record 5.96 million compared with a previous estimate of 6.68
million, the
group said.

On Wall Street, the GDP report lifted stocks. The Dow Jones
industrials rose
92.81 points to 10,841.60, the best close since Dec. 28. For the
week, the
Dow rose 0.52 percent.

For the current January-to- March quarter, the economy is expected
to grow
at a rate of around 4 percent, some economists project.

Analysts are hoping that with the economy moving ahead at a good
pace,
companies will feel more inclined to step up hiring in upcoming
months.
Economists predict the nation's payrolls will expand by a sizable
225,000 in
February, which would be up from January's 146,000 gain. The
government
releases the February employment report next week.

"With decent momentum entering the New Year, we should soon be
generating
the kind of job growth that will make the expansion feel like good
times,"
said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial
Services.






Bill Cheney == name sounds familiar..... wonder if he's related to
dick?




So that is the extent of your comment on this article?

What a great rebuttal Jim,.

No need for rebuttal, let's talk when the DOW tops 11,700 (high under
the Clinton administration)

You are changing the subject. The Dow is not a sole indicator of a
good economy.

Heck, it was below 3,000 for decades, even in the glory years of the
economy.

Besides, the 11,700 mark was based on dot com companies with no
assets....and bust they went.



BTW: Why do you insist on changing the target? ??? Stick to a point.
If you want to explore other avenues, finish the first point first.

Here is what you are sounding like:

==============

We should negotiate with Iraq.

OK, the negotiations failed so we should put economic sanctions on them.

OK, those failed so we should negotiate with them again.

OK, well at least the UN put sanctions on them. We should give them
another chance.

OK, they did not abide by them...we should give them more than 8 years
to abide to the sanctions.

OH NO....you are invading Iraq? The invasion will take years.
Thousands upon thousands of US troops will die.

OK, so it took a couple of days with few US military casualties....but
you will never be able to take Baghdad.

OK, so you took the city. The civilians will resist you.

OK, so the citizens rejoice in your coming...but you will never find
Sadam.

OK, you found Sadam, so what about the future of Iraq? Will it ever see
free elections?

OK, so you have a plan for the elections with an interim governenment.
But an election will never happen.

OK, so you put an election date of January 30th. It will not happen.

OK, so it looks like the election will happen. But there will be
thousands killed in the process.

OK, the election happened and only a few hundred died.....well you will
insert next whine

;-)

Gee, and *I* read your article as being about the economy. But I agree
with you -- Iraq is a mess -- thanks to Bush


How so? Please be specific.

See above -- we had no justification to invade Iraq -- The president was
either lied to (but he reappointed the liars), or he himself lied.

Where are the WMD?


How does that make Iraq a mess?


What is our exit plan?



I am sure it is classified. Ask GWB. But how does that make Iraq a mess?


How long will we stay? -- Yep spout away "as long as it takes", but will
my grandchildren be fighting there? (oldest 7)


How does that make Iraq a mess?


What have *WE* as in US citizens gained from the invasion?


You don't see what is happening in the Middle East? Take your blinders off
Jim,. Regardless, how does that make Iraq a mess?



What about Osama? (I remember Bush saying "dead or alive") He's doing
better now than 1500 American soldiers


How does that make Iraq a mess?


What about Afghanistan? Iran?


How does that make Iraq a mess?



Well in the strict definition of the word mess -- Iraq is a mess because
the US bombed most of the infrastructure all to hell.

In the mode I intended it, Iraq is a mess because we have accomplished
little, at a loss of 1500 lives, Billions of Dollars, infinite loss of
respect from both the countries of the middle east, and out former
allies in Europe.

As for Osama -- he was declared to be our primary target following 9/11.
It's been well over 3 years and we haven't got him -- probably because
of the distraction of Iraq.

Do *YOU* think Iraq is a well ordered, well run place you might like to
vacation to?

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:


Bunch of stuff snipped in the interest of brevity.



No need for rebuttal, let's talk when the DOW tops 11,700 (high under
the Clinton administration)


You are changing the subject. The Dow is not a sole indicator of a
good economy.

Heck, it was below 3,000 for decades, even in the glory years of the
economy.

Seems to me the "Glory Years" would be defined as the high point -- as in
1999


Besides, the 11,700 mark was based on dot com companies with no
assets....and bust they went.

You would prefer the S&P 500? -- hit 1199.40 4/20/98

UN employment -- here's numbers from 99 to date
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.6
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.8
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.9
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.7
2004-04-01 5.5
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.5
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2

Total US Jobs Offshored

From 01/01/2000 To 02/26/2005


Jobs Offshored 348,926
Jobs Lost 166,631

National debt -- 1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
Current $7,722,693,241,750.83 And climbing -- see
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.30 *BILLION* per day since September 30, 2004!

Military lives lost about 1500 and counting

Us allies --- many less than 1999

Respect for the US -- falling

Respect for POTUS -- about bottomed out.

How would you prefer to measure things? Maybe Haliburton profits?
Exxon? Bush familys net worth?


I could care less about the *UN* unemployment figures.

Maybe because you're employed, but the UN employed sure care


Here are the actual figures from 1990 to date:

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

Went there, and the numbers agree with what I posted -- I don't
understand the numbers you posted -- what are they?

Then you can address the other questions I raised.


1990 01335.4
1990 02995.3
1990 03005.2
1990 04775.4
1990 05665.4
1990 06665.2
1990 07005.5
1990 08225.7
1990 09885.9
1990 10665.9
1990 11226.2
1990 12446.3
1991 01 226.4
1991 02 886.6
1991 03 886.8
1991 04 446.7
1991 05 116.9
1991 06 006.9
1991 07 886.8
1991 08 336.9
1991 09 006.9
1991 10 007.0
1991 11 337.0
1991 12 447.3
1992 01337.3
1992 02337.4
1992 03997.4
1992 04007.4
1992 05227.6
1992 06777.8
1992 07777.7
1992 08997.6
1992 09667.6
1992 10997.3
1992 11557.4
1992 12227.4
1993 01 887.3
1993 02 777.1
1993 03 447.0
1993 04 117.1
1993 05 997.1
1993 06 887.0
1993 07 336.9
1993 08 226.8
1993 09 556.7
1993 10 886.8
1993 11 446.6
1993 12 666.5
1994 01226.6
1994 02556.6
1994 03776.5
1994 04226.4
1994 05666.1
1994 06006.1
1994 07116.1
1994 08996.0
1994 09115.9
1994 10885.8
1994 11995.6
1994 12225.5
1995 01 885.6
1995 02 885.4
1995 03 885.4
1995 04 665.8
1995 05 445.6
1995 06 005.6
1995 07 005.7
1995 08 225.7
1995 09 995.6
1995 10 555.5
1995 11 005.6
1995 12 555.6
1996 01665.6
1996 02115.5
1996 03885.5
1996 04885.6
1996 05885.6
1996 06995.3
1996 07775.5
1996 08445.1
1996 09225.2
1996 10005.2
1996 11665.4
1996 12665.4
1997 01 665.3
1997 02 885.2
1997 03 445.2
1997 04 115.1
1997 05 554.9
1997 06 775.0
1997 07 994.9
1997 08 884.8
1997 09 664.9
1997 10 664.7
1997 11 554.6
1997 12 774.7
1998 01774.6
1998 02224.6
1998 03774.7
1998 04884.3
1998 05114.4
1998 06224.5
1998 07444.5
1998 08004.5
1998 09994.6
1998 10114.5
1998 11994.4
1998 12444.4
1999 01 664.3
1999 02 554.4
1999 03 444.2
1999 04 444.3
1999 05 224.2
1999 06 444.3
1999 07 994.3
1999 08 664.2
1999 09 664.2
1999 10 994.1
1999 11 004.1
1999 12 884.0
2000 01444.0
2000 02884.1
2000 03224.0
2000 04003.8
2000 05224.0
2000 06554.0
2000 07554.0
2000 08774.1
2000 09443.9
2000 10113.9
2000 11883.9
2000 12003.9
2001 01 004.2
2001 02 334.2
2001 03 554.3
2001 04 224.4
2001 05 774.3
2001 06 884.5
2001 07 884.6
2001 08 114.9
2001 09 335.0
2001 10 885.3
2001 11 335.6
2001 12 005.7
2002 01005.7
2002 02665.7
2002 03775.7
2002 04335.9
2002 05115.8
2002 06445.8
2002 07555.8
2002 08555.7
2002 09885.7
2002 10115.7
2002 11995.9
2002 12776.0
2003 01 995.8
2003 02 995.9
2003 03 445.8
2003 04 226.0
2003 05 446.1
2003 06 776.3
2003 07 666.2
2003 08 006.1
2003 09 116.1
2003 10 116.0
2003 11 885.9
2003 12 885.7
2004 01005.7
2004 02005.6
2004 03885.7
2004 04995.5
2004 05335.6
2004 06445.6
2004 07005.5
2004 08005.4
2004 09885.4
2004 10445.5
2004 11225.4
2004 12995.4
2005 01 445.2And your point is?



Stick with one point Jim, then perhaps I can address it. You keep
changing it to suit your needs.

The point is the economy...


Fair enough. I agree.

Does this explain things?
===============================================

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Jeannine Aversa

Associated Press

Washington- The economy clocked in at a 3.8 percent pace in the final
quarter of 2004 - faster than initially thought - and is now cruising at
that speed or better. That could be good news for jobless people hoping for
companies to increase hiring.

In the newest reading on the economy's fitness, the gross domestic product
exceeded a previous estimate of a 3.1 percent annual growth rate for the
October- to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. GDP
measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United
States.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on capital
equipment and on inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was less of a
drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought.

Although economic growth in the final quarter of last year was a bit slower
than the third quarters' 4 percent, the performance was still solid.

"We are now at a comfortable cruising altitude," said Lynn Reaser, chief
economist at Banc of America Capital Management. "What is significant is
that all parts of the economy were pulling their own weight."

In other news, sales of previously owned homes slipped 0.1 percent in
January from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.80
million units, the National Association of Realtors reported. Even with the
dip, sales remained healthy, analysts said.

Also Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 7 million fewer previously owned
single-family houses were sold in the last 16 years than the National
Association of Realtors initially estimated, according to the group's
revised figures.

Resales since 1989 were 10 percent lower per year on average than previously
estimated, the association said in Washington on Friday.

The Realtors issued the revisions after comparing its estimates with results
from the 2000 Census. Single-family home resales last year were still a
record 5.96 million compared with a previous estimate of 6.68 million, the
group said.

On Wall Street, the GDP report lifted stocks. The Dow Jones industrials rose
92.81 points to 10,841.60, the best close since Dec. 28. For the week, the
Dow rose 0.52 percent.

For the current January-to- March quarter, the economy is expected to grow
at a rate of around 4 percent, some economists project.

Analysts are hoping that with the economy moving ahead at a good pace,
companies will feel more inclined to step up hiring in upcoming months.
Economists predict the nation's payrolls will expand by a sizable 225,000 in
February, which would be up from January's 146,000 gain. The government
releases the February employment report next week.

"With decent momentum entering the New Year, we should soon be generating
the kind of job growth that will make the expansion feel like good times,"
said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.





YOU WANT TO GO AROUND AGAIN?!?!?!?!? NO, I won't play your silly game!
Try reading the thread again -- maybe slower so you might comprehend
something

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:29:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

Well in the strict definition of the word mess -- Iraq is a mess because
the US bombed most of the infrastructure all to hell.

Bull****. In almost every case the infrastructure is better than before the war
started.

In the mode I intended it, Iraq is a mess because we have accomplished
little, at a loss of 1500 lives, Billions of Dollars, infinite loss of
respect from both the countries of the middle east, and out former
allies in Europe.

Bull****. Most of the world would agree that the changes to the mideast amount
to a very significant accomplishment.

As for Osama -- he was declared to be our primary target following 9/11.
It's been well over 3 years and we haven't got him -- probably because
of the distraction of Iraq.

More bull****. It took the police and FBI twenty plus years to catch the BTK
killer in Wichita. What the hell are you folks going to bitch about when Osama
*is* caught? Ninety percent of your whining rationale will be gone.

Do *YOU* think Iraq is a well ordered, well run place you might like to
vacation to?

I suppose it would be better off if the Iraqis were getting killed and dumped at
the rate of 30,000 =/- per year?

Would you like to vacation in Kosovo?

Jimcomma, you lost the election. Your whines and rants do nothing to serve your
liberal interests.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:31:38 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

snipped

YOU WANT TO GO AROUND AGAIN?!?!?!?!? NO, I won't play your silly game!
Try reading the thread again -- maybe slower so you might comprehend
something

The fact is that the US economy is the envy of most of the world. Bush did it.

Stop whining.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:31:38 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

snipped

YOU WANT TO GO AROUND AGAIN?!?!?!?!? NO, I won't play your silly game!
Try reading the thread again -- maybe slower so you might comprehend
something


The fact is that the US economy is the envy of most of the world. Bush did it.

Stop whining.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Mum John -- don't forget that "Most of the world" is holding US debt.

As to their opinion of Bush, there's a cartoon in todays paper --
showing bush getting back from his "successful" trip to Europe. He is
saying something to the effect that he sure impressed them, but he has a
bunch of "Kick Me" stickers on his back.

Jimcomma wrote that John, not me.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:29:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

Well in the strict definition of the word mess -- Iraq is a mess because
the US bombed most of the infrastructure all to hell.

Bull****. In almost every case the infrastructure is better than before
the war
started.

In the mode I intended it, Iraq is a mess because we have accomplished
little, at a loss of 1500 lives, Billions of Dollars, infinite loss of
respect from both the countries of the middle east, and out former
allies in Europe.

Bull****. Most of the world would agree that the changes to the mideast
amount
to a very significant accomplishment.

As for Osama -- he was declared to be our primary target following 9/11.
It's been well over 3 years and we haven't got him -- probably because
of the distraction of Iraq.

More bull****. It took the police and FBI twenty plus years to catch the
BTK
killer in Wichita. What the hell are you folks going to bitch about when
Osama
*is* caught? Ninety percent of your whining rationale will be gone.

Do *YOU* think Iraq is a well ordered, well run place you might like to
vacation to?

I suppose it would be better off if the Iraqis were getting killed and
dumped at
the rate of 30,000 =/- per year?

Would you like to vacation in Kosovo?

Jimcomma, you lost the election. Your whines and rants do nothing to serve
your
liberal interests.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:


Stick with one point Jim, then perhaps I can address it. You keep
changing it to suit your needs.

The point is the economy...


Fair enough. I agree.

Does this explain things?
===============================================

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Jeannine Aversa

Associated Press

Washington- The economy clocked in at a 3.8 percent pace in the final
quarter of 2004 - faster than initially thought - and is now cruising at
that speed or better. That could be good news for jobless people hoping
for
companies to increase hiring.

In the newest reading on the economy's fitness, the gross domestic
product
exceeded a previous estimate of a 3.1 percent annual growth rate for the
October- to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday.
GDP
measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United
States.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on capital
equipment and on inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was less of
a
drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought.

Although economic growth in the final quarter of last year was a bit
slower
than the third quarters' 4 percent, the performance was still solid.

"We are now at a comfortable cruising altitude," said Lynn Reaser, chief
economist at Banc of America Capital Management. "What is significant is
that all parts of the economy were pulling their own weight."

In other news, sales of previously owned homes slipped 0.1 percent in
January from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
6.80
million units, the National Association of Realtors reported. Even with
the
dip, sales remained healthy, analysts said.

Also Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 7 million fewer previously
owned
single-family houses were sold in the last 16 years than the National
Association of Realtors initially estimated, according to the group's
revised figures.

Resales since 1989 were 10 percent lower per year on average than
previously
estimated, the association said in Washington on Friday.

The Realtors issued the revisions after comparing its estimates with
results
from the 2000 Census. Single-family home resales last year were still a
record 5.96 million compared with a previous estimate of 6.68 million,
the
group said.

On Wall Street, the GDP report lifted stocks. The Dow Jones industrials
rose
92.81 points to 10,841.60, the best close since Dec. 28. For the week,
the
Dow rose 0.52 percent.

For the current January-to- March quarter, the economy is expected to
grow
at a rate of around 4 percent, some economists project.

Analysts are hoping that with the economy moving ahead at a good pace,
companies will feel more inclined to step up hiring in upcoming months.
Economists predict the nation's payrolls will expand by a sizable 225,000
in
February, which would be up from January's 146,000 gain. The government
releases the February employment report next week.

"With decent momentum entering the New Year, we should soon be generating
the kind of job growth that will make the expansion feel like good
times,"
said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.





YOU WANT TO GO AROUND AGAIN?!?!?!?!? NO, I won't play your silly game!
Try reading the thread again -- maybe slower so you might comprehend
something

Actually *you* would be wise to take your own advice.

And you may want to educate yourself on the economic effects of the dot com
bust and 9-11. We have rebounded from both, and quite nicely.

Have a nice day. And try laying off the personal attacks.....they lessen
your credibility in a discussion.