What about the bosses?


Nookular Boy said they weren't important. Remember?

They're not important once they're forced into hiding, unable to
communicate with and train the mercenaries.


Hmm... I guess that's why we have been able to pull all the troops out
of Iraq, eh? That must be why the Bush Administration squelched the
State Dept's annual terrorism report, eh? Things are going just peachy
here, boys!


Doug Kanter wrote:
What makes you think this has been done?


Surely if there was any terrorism going on, they'd tell us, wouldn't
they? President Bush said so... just forget about what he said before!

DSK

Oh right, you claimed that Bush's tax cuts are going to erase the deficit
someday... funny how that didn't work last time, and the pros don't think
it's going to work this time either...

NOYB wrote:
Shall I use a clip and paste from the wikipedia website link that you posted
here?

" According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending by
the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget
Projections), the trend of growing deficits under Bush's first term will
become shrinking deficits in his second term. In this projection the deficit
will fall to $368 billion in 2005, $261 billion in 2007, and $207 billion in
2009, WITH A SMALL SURPLUS BY 2012. "

Funny how you left out the part about this being based on leaving out
the Iraq war expenditure, on letting the tax cuts expire, and that
assuming the tax cuts stay in place and the economy grows at a
less-than-record pace (BTW in case you were wondering, that 3.5% you
were crowing about ain't nowhere near "record"), then that wonderful
2012 surplus turns into a walloping huge ongoing deficit.

Maybe you thought a little editing would fool somebody? Maybe it's your
reading skills?


A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US.

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?



Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow? How come Bush hasn't been able to reverse the
downward trend since then, with all his tremendous job growth? How come
you point with pride to a measly 3.5% GDP growth when that would be one
of the *lowest* GDP growth rates under Clinton?



... It makes US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement is
erroneous: the dollar has been heading back up against all currencies
except for the yuan.

This week yes, largely due to a panic on the euro.


Why is there panic on the euro? Perhaps because the EU economy is
horrendous?


The EU economy is quite a mixed bag, including a number of those cheap
labor, no environmental standards countries you complain about. The
panic is largely due to the recent 'Non' vote in France.



But the long term trend is certainly down, and the dollar is still
averaging lower than it's been in a long time.


The short term trend is up. These are lagging indicators. The short term
trend is more important for predicting the near-future.

blah blah blah... so you think the US dependence on oil, the deficit,
the growing trade imbalance, are going to 8strengthen* the dollar in the
near future??

Short term thinking, is that what you base your strategy on? I thought
short term greed was a moral failing?



But hey, according to you, the economy is booming!


Not according to just me...but according to the economic indicators that
I've posted here.


Really? How come the economic indicators you've posted hear point to
modest growth *at best* and the rest is all hot air and
self-contradictory blather? Does the Fed drop the prime rate on an
economy that's booming? Is the deficit shrinking yet?

How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"
instead trying to twist labor statistics to show that there had not been
a job loss?

The facts speak for themselves, NOBBY.

DSK

So thats why it took drunkya so long to
put down "My Pet Goat" on 9-11, superior GPA.

HA, OBL Determined to Strike US, Aug, 2001

JG

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Oh right, you claimed that Bush's tax cuts are going to erase the deficit
someday... funny how that didn't work last time, and the pros don't think
it's going to work this time either...

NOYB wrote:
Shall I use a clip and paste from the wikipedia website link that you
posted here?

" According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending by
the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget
Projections), the trend of growing deficits under Bush's first term will
become shrinking deficits in his second term. In this projection the
deficit will fall to $368 billion in 2005, $261 billion in 2007, and $207
billion in 2009, WITH A SMALL SURPLUS BY 2012. "

Funny how you left out the part about this being based on leaving out the
Iraq war expenditure, on letting the tax cuts expire, and that assuming
the tax cuts stay in place and the economy grows at a less-than-record
pace (BTW in case you were wondering, that 3.5% you were crowing about
ain't nowhere near "record"), then that wonderful 2012 surplus turns into
a walloping huge ongoing deficit.

Maybe you thought a little editing would fool somebody? Maybe it's your
reading skills?


A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US.

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?



Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow?

Actually, they didn't. Manufacturing jobs peaked at 17,708,000 jobs in June
of 1998. By the time Bush took office, the number of manufacturing jobs had
fallen all the way to 16,993,000.

For the mathematically impaired folks (like yourself) that's about a 4% drop
in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last 2 1/2 years of Clinton's
presidency. That shows that a pretty clear downwards trend had already
begun at least 2 years before Bush took office. What caused the drop?
Maybe you should ask Ross Perot.



www.bls.gov




How come Bush hasn't been able to reverse the downward trend since then,
with all his tremendous job growth? How come you point with pride to a
measly 3.5% GDP growth when that would be one of the *lowest* GDP growth
rates under Clinton?

Let's look at a comparison (based on chained 2000 dollars):

Bush 1st quarter of second term: 3.5%
Clinton 1st quarter of second term: 3.1%

Bush 3rd year of 1st term: 3.0%
Clinton 3rd year of 1st term: 2.5%

Bush 4th year of 1st term: 4.4%
Clinton 4th year of 1st term: 3.7%





... It makes US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement
is erroneous: the dollar has been heading back up against all currencies
except for the yuan.

This week yes, largely due to a panic on the euro.


Why is there panic on the euro? Perhaps because the EU economy is
horrendous?


The EU economy is quite a mixed bag, including a number of those cheap
labor, no environmental standards countries you complain about. The panic
is largely due to the recent 'Non' vote in France.

....and unemployment numbers.




But the long term trend is certainly down, and the dollar is still
averaging lower than it's been in a long time.


The short term trend is up. These are lagging indicators. The short
term trend is more important for predicting the near-future.

blah blah blah... so you think the US dependence on oil, the deficit, the
growing trade imbalance, are going to 8strengthen* the dollar in the near
future??

I hope not. The dollar is at a level that will bring investment (and jobs)
back to America *if* the Chinese ever begin to float their currency.



Short term thinking, is that what you base your strategy on? I thought
short term greed was a moral failing?

Short term trends are a crystal ball for the immediate future. We've
already had 42 months of GDP growth, and 23 months of net job gains. The
short term trends are very positive right now. When coupled with the recent
economic data from the last couple of years, it shows our economy is doing
pretty darn well.






But hey, according to you, the economy is booming!


Not according to just me...but according to the economic indicators that
I've posted here.


Really? How come the economic indicators you've posted hear point to
modest growth *at best*

As I showed you, the economy's numbers over the last 2 1/4 years are better
than the numbers from the last 2 years of Clinton's first term. Were you
full of so much doom and gloom in early 1997 when Clinton had poorer numbers
than Bush in the same time frame?


and the rest is all hot air and
self-contradictory blather? Does the Fed drop the prime rate on an economy
that's booming?

They'll drop the rate whenever they can get away with it...until inflation
starts to peak.


Is the deficit shrinking yet?

No.



How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"

He did say exactly that.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Oh right, you claimed that Bush's tax cuts are going to erase the
deficit someday... funny how that didn't work last time, and the pros
don't think it's going to work this time either...

NOYB wrote:
Shall I use a clip and paste from the wikipedia website link that you
posted here?

" According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending
by the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget
Projections), the trend of growing deficits under Bush's first term will
become shrinking deficits in his second term. In this projection the
deficit will fall to $368 billion in 2005, $261 billion in 2007, and
$207 billion in 2009, WITH A SMALL SURPLUS BY 2012. "

Funny how you left out the part about this being based on leaving out the
Iraq war expenditure, on letting the tax cuts expire, and that assuming
the tax cuts stay in place and the economy grows at a less-than-record
pace (BTW in case you were wondering, that 3.5% you were crowing about
ain't nowhere near "record"), then that wonderful 2012 surplus turns into
a walloping huge ongoing deficit.

Maybe you thought a little editing would fool somebody? Maybe it's your
reading skills?


A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US.

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?



Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow?

Actually, they didn't. Manufacturing jobs peaked at 17,708,000 jobs in
June of 1998. By the time Bush took office, the number of manufacturing
jobs had fallen all the way to 16,993,000.

For the mathematically impaired folks (like yourself) that's about a 4%
drop in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last 2 1/2 years of
Clinton's presidency. That shows that a pretty clear downwards trend had
already begun at least 2 years before Bush took office. What caused the
drop? Maybe you should ask Ross Perot.



www.bls.gov




How come Bush hasn't been able to reverse the downward trend since then,
with all his tremendous job growth? How come you point with pride to a
measly 3.5% GDP growth when that would be one of the *lowest* GDP growth
rates under Clinton?

Let's look at a comparison (based on chained 2000 dollars):

Bush 1st quarter of second term: 3.5%
Clinton 1st quarter of second term: 3.1%

Bush 3rd year of 1st term: 3.0%
Clinton 3rd year of 1st term: 2.5%

Bush 4th year of 1st term: 4.4%
Clinton 4th year of 1st term: 3.7%





... It makes US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement
is erroneous: the dollar has been heading back up against all
currencies except for the yuan.

This week yes, largely due to a panic on the euro.


Why is there panic on the euro? Perhaps because the EU economy is
horrendous?


The EU economy is quite a mixed bag, including a number of those cheap
labor, no environmental standards countries you complain about. The panic
is largely due to the recent 'Non' vote in France.

...and unemployment numbers.




But the long term trend is certainly down, and the dollar is still
averaging lower than it's been in a long time.


The short term trend is up. These are lagging indicators. The short
term trend is more important for predicting the near-future.

blah blah blah... so you think the US dependence on oil, the deficit, the
growing trade imbalance, are going to 8strengthen* the dollar in the near
future??

I hope not. The dollar is at a level that will bring investment (and
jobs) back to America *if* the Chinese ever begin to float their currency.



Short term thinking, is that what you base your strategy on? I thought
short term greed was a moral failing?

Short term trends are a crystal ball for the immediate future. We've
already had 42 months of GDP growth, and 23 months of net job gains. The
short term trends are very positive right now. When coupled with the
recent economic data from the last couple of years, it shows our economy
is doing pretty darn well.






But hey, according to you, the economy is booming!


Not according to just me...but according to the economic indicators that
I've posted here.


Really? How come the economic indicators you've posted hear point to
modest growth *at best*

As I showed you, the economy's numbers over the last 2 1/4 years are
better than the numbers from the last 2 years of Clinton's first term.
Were you full of so much doom and gloom in early 1997 when Clinton had
poorer numbers than Bush in the same time frame?


and the rest is all hot air and
self-contradictory blather? Does the Fed drop the prime rate on an
economy that's booming?

They'll drop the rate whenever they can get away with it...until inflation
starts to peak.


Is the deficit shrinking yet?

No.



How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"

He did say exactly that.


Now there you go again....confusing the poor guy with facts.

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up.

Really?
Let's see what the pros say
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

Hmm, 3.5% which isn't bad, but it darn sure isn't "great." The previous
quarters were less though.

So why are we having layoffs

Jobs going to countries with uneven labor playing fields.

So thats the reason for 70,000,000 layoffs during 2001-2004 and
hundreds of
thousands of H1B visa slaves imported.

JG

No comment on your attempted lying by editing that wikipedia quote,
NOBBY? It's not like you to give up so easy when when you're losing.


Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow?


NOYB wrote:
Actually, they didn't. Manufacturing jobs peaked at 17,708,000 jobs in June
of 1998.

Really? I seem to recall that Clinton was President from 1992 to 2000.
Isn't 1998 almost right at the end?


... By the time Bush took office, the number of manufacturing jobs had
fallen all the way to 16,993,000.

And that's still quite a lot more than when Clinton took office, isn't
it? And quite a heck of a lot more than we have now?

So what happened to your claim that Bush's Presidency has been good for
the econmy?


For the mathematically impaired folks (like yourself) that's about a 4% drop
in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last 2 1/2 years of Clinton's
presidency.

Very good, at least if the hyperbole is discounted. Did one of your kids
help you work out the math on that?

... That shows that a pretty clear downwards trend had already
begun at least 2 years before Bush took office.

Yes, by golly, a 2 percent drop in the very last part of Clinton's 2nd
term, following the largest sustained peacetime economic boom in
history. Now look at Bush's record... he took a downward trend and let
it get far worse.



How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"


He did say exactly that.


No, he didn't Nobby. If you're going to lie, at least make it *slightly*
difficult to disprove. The RNC put up a huge smokescreen campaign based
on the household survey statistics, which weren't intended to be used as
a labor indicator at all.

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the
UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and
only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he
issued his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but
that the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took
place.



So, based on this, you're comfortable assuming that the transfer DID take
place? What does that accomplish? Answer carefully. This is a trap.

It allows the Russians to hide their involvement in helping Saddam build
post-embargo WMD's.




So now it's my turn to ask you a question:
How does this help Syria?

(Hint: Putin just made a trip to Israel. What issue did the Israelis want
to discuss?)


Even more interesting: How does it help Russia?

If the Russians were wangling to maintain access to oil, they were certainly
doing it the old way, which works just fine - play one party against the
other by giving arms to whoever is most useful. Hey....we do that sometimes,
too. Works great, usually. This leads to an important question: Since this
sort of power brokering often results in no violence, but lots of fear and
respect, why do you suppose your president chose a way which accomplished
the exact opposite?

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.

The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage. Current battery technology is terrible. Having your solar cells
feed back into the electric grid is the best solution now. So we still have
to have the current generation system. With fuel cell technology you still
have to have the energy to crack water to make the hydrogen. Thus the
reason for nuclear power plants. France is 80% nuclear power (one of their
reasons for supporting the kyoto treaty).


Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were
getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?

Yeah and thats one of the resons we had to invade Iraq, the job was never
finished. We had to maintain a no fly zone to protect the north and south
of Iraq from Saddam. That cost us 2 billion a year. We lost our major base
(airport) in Saudi arabia and couldn't maintain the no-flys as economically.
Also we had Democrats in congress calling for and passing the depose Saddam
resolution. Just no-one with courage to implement it.


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't,
yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...

NO, but we can add taxes to the incoming goods that equal the difference in
burdon that our plants have when competing with one that doesn't have the
same restrictions. That makes it less attractive to polute in third world
countrys. Currently it's illegal for us to do that because of trade
language that was passed when the democrats controlled congress.

Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly, they
might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very few
Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the chance
to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians,
Bush had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took
the money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder
reactors and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line
with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities if
they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show under
Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have put in
charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about what
was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens with a
stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.

Yes their nuclear program has been going on for more than 10 years. Much of
it while Clinton was in office. Think about the time it takes to build a
nuclear reactor, gather the uranium ore, process the ore and load the
nuclear reactor. Then run the breeder reactor for 2 years to make enough
plutonium to be extracted, then to seperate the plutonium out of the uranium
fuel rods. The technology to build the detonation system and delivery
system isn't developed overnight either. All of these take a lot of money
and a dedicated government with savy managers to coordinate all these
technologys.

Yes Clinton talked about using the stick, Democrats talk the same line as
Republicans but rairly do anything. Actually that's unfair, there have been
far sighted Democrats....just very few of them. Look at how many wars start
in the world when a power vacuum is created by our system.


Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management
and Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

YES

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get
is some positive world press because we tried while the people we are
trying to help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20
million dollars from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game
now too."

Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in foreign
policy, I guess.

Yup, he refused to deal with or give money to them. We have been supporting
both sides (money) and it has been in their interest to continue the
conflict. Now it's in their interest to solve the problem.


DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.

The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing "incriminating
technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they they were moving
records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems, Computers, missles and
other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell Saddam. Trucks were seen
loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving east. Since they had
information on our satellite systems they could time the travel so that we
couldn't see where they went.

It's very easy to produce biological and nerve gas agents. The delivery
systems are the hard part. HE had the delivery systems. Biolgical would
take 10 days. Chemical would require less time but chemicals we were
tracking were hard to accuire. When sanctions were lifted that would be no
problem. That's why he had to go, all it takes to have and use these
weapons is the will to use them. They are cheaper and more effective that
nuclear or conventional explosives. They leave the infrastructure intact,
perfect weapons for a dictator who wants to control the worlds major oil
reserves. Once he has them he can threaten to blow them up if he is
attacked. Heard that before?