| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Ping....Jim,
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. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... Jim,....remind me again what you were saying about the state of the US economy? Here, this might help: snip Good news...we have lots more goods & services to sell you. Come on up! |
Yeah, "Jim,", we told you Bush is doing a better job than Herbert Hoover
did, and this proves it! What do you have to say for yourself now? "JimH" wrote in message ... 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. |
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. -- ~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat" "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats." -Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows |
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. |
"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. |
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? |
"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,. |
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) |
"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. |
"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 ;-) |
JimH wrote:
"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. 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? |
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 |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "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. 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. Here are the actual figures from 1990 to date: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru 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? |
"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. |
"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) And why did Clinton and Greenspan allow the DOW to get so overheated? Maybe as a former economist for the SEC stated, was to allow the banks to get out from under enormous financial liabilities, and then let the market crash. |
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? |
"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. |
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? What is our exit plan? How long will we stay? -- Yep spout away "as long as it takes", but will my grandchildren be fighting there? (oldest 7) What have *WE* as in US citizens gained from the invasion? What about Osama? (I remember Bush saying "dead or alive") He's doing better now than 1500 American soldiers What about Afghanistan? Iran? And please don't accuse *ME* of changing the subject -- You brought it up! |
Calif Bill wrote:
"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) And why did Clinton and Greenspan allow the DOW to get so overheated? Maybe as a former economist for the SEC stated, was to allow the banks to get out from under enormous financial liabilities, and then let the market crash. I remember Greenspan warning about "Irrational exuberance" about 1995-6 |
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. |
John H wrote:
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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:57:39 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
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. I *said* 'Jimcomma'! See the line just above. Hell, I'm not so senile I can't recognize the difference between your posts and Jimcomma's. 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 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 15:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
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. Well, I'd sure rather they be holding ours than us be holding theirs. If you'd listened to Sen. Biden on Meet The Press today, you'd realize that Bush's trip was a resounding success! You're spending too much time on the SciFi channel or in rec.boats. 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 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 Funny thing the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Lebanese,Palestians (well maybe palestinians) don't seem to think so. How many letters have come in thanking us? How many bombers have tried to drive us out? |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:33:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 Funny thing the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Lebanese,Palestians (well maybe palestinians) don't seem to think so. How many letters have come in thanking us? You won't see any thanks in what you watch or read. Remember, it must be anti-Bush. Therefore nothing good can be shown. How many bombers have tried to drive us out? I believe they're killing many more Iraqis now, especially in or around mosques. Wake up. 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 23:33:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 Funny thing the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Lebanese,Palestians (well maybe palestinians) don't seem to think so. How many letters have come in thanking us? You won't see any thanks in what you watch or read. Remember, it must be anti-Bush. Therefore nothing good can be shown. Even on Faux news?????? How many bombers have tried to drive us out? I believe they're killing many more Iraqis now, especially in or around mosques. More is a relative thing -- we are still loosing about 5/week; and that's 5 too many for Me! Wake up. 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 ... John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 Funny thing the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Lebanese,Palestians (well maybe palestinians) don't seem to think so. How many letters have come in thanking us? The latest count is 698,263. |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:33:31 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:33:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 Funny thing the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Lebanese,Palestians (well maybe palestinians) don't seem to think so. How many letters have come in thanking us? You won't see any thanks in what you watch or read. Remember, it must be anti-Bush. Therefore nothing good can be shown. Even on Faux news?????? How many bombers have tried to drive us out? I believe they're killing many more Iraqis now, especially in or around mosques. More is a relative thing -- we are still loosing about 5/week; and that's 5 too many for Me! Wake up. 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 Fox news shows the good, the bad, and the ugly. But, like all news it holds to the credo, "If it bleeds, it leads." One is too many. Three thousand in twenty minutes is also too many. Without some significant changes in the mideast, which are occurring, it will happen again. Better a few now, than thousands upon thousands later. 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 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:33:31 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:33:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:45:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: 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 Here is the DRAFT of an OFFICIAL report John -- Suggest you read what our own Center for Strategic and International studies has to say. http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article01042005a.pdf Chapter 1 Failures in recognizing the growth and character of the insurgent threat Chapter 2 Evolving threat tactics and pressure on government forces Chapter 3 The evolving nature of the insurgency Were mistakes made? Yes. Could we have done better at recognizing the insurgent threat? Yes. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? Yes. Have major changes occurred in the political processes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and, most recently, Syria? Yes. So you keep up your whining if it makes you feel better. Please note the *past tense* used throughout your cited report. 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 Funny thing the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Lebanese,Palestians (well maybe palestinians) don't seem to think so. How many letters have come in thanking us? You won't see any thanks in what you watch or read. Remember, it must be anti-Bush. Therefore nothing good can be shown. Even on Faux news?????? How many bombers have tried to drive us out? I believe they're killing many more Iraqis now, especially in or around mosques. More is a relative thing -- we are still loosing about 5/week; and that's 5 too many for Me! Wake up. 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 Fox news shows the good, the bad, and the ugly. But, like all news it holds to the credo, "If it bleeds, it leads." One is too many. Three thousand in twenty minutes is also too many. Without some significant changes in the mideast, which are occurring, it will happen again. Better a few now, than thousands upon thousands later. 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 "Better a few now, than thousands upon thousands later." Every one we kill has brothers, cousins, friends ready to avenge him. That's been their way of life for thousands of years. Don't forget those (is it 700?) virgins they get for killing an infidel. (Wonder what the women get?) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com