Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that
he'd caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of
net job loss under Bush were all lies.

Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to
not know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed
(did you lie?), or less than 1 million.

It seems to me that if you can't explain the situation without either
using two different sets of numbers for the same figure of merit (they
send accountants to jail for that, y'know) and/or calling other people
liars (among other names), then you probably aren't very close to the
truth yourself. The truth is usually simple & commonsense, real world
facts are usually rather consistent.

Why do 'conservatives' fear the truth, and why do they engage in so much
doubletalk?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

NOYB wrote:
Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last November
& December.

The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months. The
economy lost a little over 2 million in the first 20 months. That's a net
gain of around 900,000 new jobs.

At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even. However,
in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added approximately
900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of 900,000 new jobs
since Bush took office in 2001.


That would be very impressive.

"After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry
supporters were quick to declare that Bush was the first American
president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his term.
However, since Bush officially took office in January 2001, he still had
the November and December numbers to add to his total. By the time of his
second inauguration in January 2005, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs
for his first term."

No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!

You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that he'd
caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of net
job loss under Bush were all lies.

It *is* a lie to say that there has been a *net* job loss under Bush.



Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to not
know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed (did
you lie?), or less than 1 million

I've posted the exact numbers on here befo


We're up 3.466 million jobs in the last 23 months. That's 23 straight
months of net jobs *gained*.


Since Bush took office, we've had a total net gain of 839,000 jobs.



So that means there was a net loss of 2.627 million jobs in the first 20
months, and a net gain of 3.466 million jobs in the most recent 23
months...giving us a net gain of 839,000 jobs since Bush first took office
in 2001.

Employment data is a lagging indicator. The first 6-12 months of Bush's
Presidency are a reflection of where the economy was 6 to 12 months earlier.
The next 6-12 months are a reflection of what happened on 9/11. The last 23
months (3.466 million *net* jobs gained) are a reflection of Bush's economic
policies, rather than those of his predecessor.

Got it?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike the
terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them in
custody.



What about the bosses?


Nookular Boy said they weren't important. Remember?

Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL


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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that
he'd caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of
net job loss under Bush were all lies.

It *is* a lie to say that there has been a *net* job loss under Bush.



Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to
not know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed
(did you lie?), or less than 1 million

I've posted the exact numbers on here befo


We're up 3.466 million jobs in the last 23 months. That's 23 straight
months of net jobs *gained*.


Since Bush took office, we've had a total net gain of 839,000 jobs.



So that means there was a net loss of 2.627 million jobs in the first 20
months, and a net gain of 3.466 million jobs in the most recent 23
months...giving us a net gain of 839,000 jobs since Bush first took office
in 2001.

Employment data is a lagging indicator. The first 6-12 months of Bush's
Presidency are a reflection of where the economy was 6 to 12 months
earlier. The next 6-12 months are a reflection of what happened on 9/11.
The last 23 months (3.466 million *net* jobs gained) are a reflection of
Bush's economic policies, rather than those of his predecessor.

Got it?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike
the terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them
in custody.



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.

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


NOYB wrote:
Jobs going to countries with uneven labor playing fields.

Really? GM is moving jobs to which overseas country?



, huge gov't deficits


Already been asked and answered.


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...


, dropping the prime rate,


As I said...
To offset the oil spike

How do you explain increased profitability then? Can you cite *any*
economic theory without having it bite you in the butt?

... *and* to create a more level field with our
international competitors who receive government-subsidized loans for cheap.


Hmm, these darn foreign gov't can afford to buy up our debt *and* offer
cheap subsidy loans to businesses stealing our jobs? Wow, we should
elect guys who can do that well.


increasing trade imbalance,


China won't float there currency. It's indexed to the dollar, making it
artificially depressed.

But didn't you say the dollar wasn't depressed? Can you make more than
two statements without contradicting yourself?


... Besides being cheaper due to a lowcost labor
supply, their stuff also appears much, much cheaper due to their
artificially deflated currency.


dropping dollar, etc etc?


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

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?

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

But hey, according to you, the economy is booming! We have no troubles!
Let's all sing!

DSK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last November
& December.


NOYB wrote:
The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months.

But they said (and the BLS agrees) that as of Aug 2004, the Bush
Presidency had a net loss of jobs.

Hmm, who to believe, NOBBY or the econ pros? What a tough call.


At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even. However,
in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added approximately
900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of 900,000 new jobs
since Bush took office in 2001.

Shucks, that's barely 100,000 jobs per month. The Clinton economy added
well over 200,000 per month. What gives, NOBBY, is the economy booming
or isn't it?




No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!


You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

You obviously don't understand any concept at all. All you do is parrot
the yay-Bush propaganda, and then look for facts later. Let's see, how
many times has NOBBY contradicted himself in this thread? Is it a new
record?

DSK

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL

LOL. I always hold out for that last glimmer of hope, even from the dimmest
of bulbs. Since DSK is slightly dumber than the average dummy, I'm hoping
that is why it's taking longer than usual.

There are some people, like basskisser, who I have totally have given up on.
I'd rather pull a fish out of the Gulf and explain things to the fish.

P.Fritz wrote:
Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL


He seems to enjoy that more than he enjoys facing reality.

So tell us, Puff Fritzy, when are you going start quoting facts &
figures showing what a great job President Bush has done with the
economy? Don't let NOBBY hog the show.

DSK

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

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL

LOL. I always hold out for that last glimmer of hope, even from the
dimmest of bulbs. Since DSK is slightly dumber than the average dummy,
I'm hoping that is why it's taking longer than usual.

There are some people, like basskisser, who I have totally have given up
on. I'd rather pull a fish out of the Gulf and explain things to the fish.

Yeah, the fish would understand a lot sooner than kevin.

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike
the terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them
in custody.



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.



What makes you think this has been done?

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042501554.html

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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


NOYB wrote:
Jobs going to countries with uneven labor playing fields.

Really? GM is moving jobs to which overseas country?



, huge gov't deficits


Already been asked and answered.


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...

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. "



, dropping the prime rate,


As I said...
To offset the oil spike

How do you explain increased profitability then? Can you cite *any*
economic theory without having it bite you in the butt?

... *and* to create a more level field with our international competitors
who receive government-subsidized loans for cheap.


Hmm, these darn foreign gov't can afford to buy up our debt *and* offer
cheap subsidy loans to businesses stealing our jobs? Wow, we should elect
guys who can do that well.


increasing trade imbalance,


China won't float there currency. It's indexed to the dollar, making it
artificially depressed.

But didn't you say the dollar wasn't depressed?

No.

Can you make more than two statements without contradicting yourself?

Yes. Can you follow a thread?



... Besides being cheaper due to a lowcost labor supply, their stuff
also appears much, much cheaper due to their artificially deflated
currency.


dropping dollar, etc etc?



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.


... 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?


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.


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.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last
November & December.


NOYB wrote:
The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months.

But they said (and the BLS agrees) that as of Aug 2004, the Bush
Presidency had a net loss of jobs.

That was 9 months ago. Today, we have a net gain of jobs.




Hmm, who to believe, NOBBY or the econ pros? What a tough call.

Believe the *CURRENT* BLS statistics.




At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even.
However, in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added
approximately 900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of
900,000 new jobs since Bush took office in 2001.

Shucks, that's barely 100,000 jobs per month. The Clinton economy added
well over 200,000 per month. What gives, NOBBY, is the economy booming or
isn't it?

3.466 million jobs gained in 23 months is an average of 150,000+ jobs each
month.







No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!


You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

You obviously don't understand any concept at all. All you do is parrot
the yay-Bush propaganda, and then look for facts later. Let's see, how
many times has NOBBY contradicted himself in this thread?


None.

Is it a new record?

No. I never contradict myself. It's par for the course.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:24:56 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that he'd
caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of net
job loss under Bush were all lies.

It *is* a lie to say that there has been a *net* job loss under Bush.



Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to not
know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed (did
you lie?), or less than 1 million

I've posted the exact numbers on here befo


We're up 3.466 million jobs in the last 23 months. That's 23 straight
months of net jobs *gained*.


Since Bush took office, we've had a total net gain of 839,000 jobs.



So that means there was a net loss of 2.627 million jobs in the first 20
months, and a net gain of 3.466 million jobs in the most recent 23
months...giving us a net gain of 839,000 jobs since Bush first took office
in 2001.

Employment data is a lagging indicator. The first 6-12 months of Bush's
Presidency are a reflection of where the economy was 6 to 12 months earlier.
The next 6-12 months are a reflection of what happened on 9/11. The last 23
months (3.466 million *net* jobs gained) are a reflection of Bush's economic
policies, rather than those of his predecessor.

Got it?

Do you see why I stopped? This is worse than Kevin!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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.

"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.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:38:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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.

Did you overlook this?
"The Iraq Survey Group's main findings -- that Hussein's Iraq did not
possess chemical and biological weapons and had only aspirations for a
nuclear program".

If he didn't *possess* WMD, how could he have moved them?


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.

What? The ISG couldn't prove a negative? I can't absolutely deny that
you are from a different planet, but then . . . ;-)

"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?)

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?

... 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.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
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.

Your point? 'Conventional' energy system ain't cheap, nor are they
trouble free.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound
as is available in a pound of gasoline.


... Having your solar cells
feed back into the electric grid is the best solution now.

Not really. A lot of people are taking their houses off the grid,
putting in 24V lighting & fridge etc etc. It works acceptably. How much
is your electric bill each month?

Personally, my solution is to buy stock in the gas & oil companies, but
that doesn't work for everybody either.


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.


Why bother? A yay-Bush person like yourself isn't going to believe any
link I post. However, the facts are out there even if Fox News isn't
shouting it at you 24/7.

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.

Oh, so now Bush Sr is part of the problem? Golly, during the election
the RNC was trying to make us believe that 1988 to 1992 was a golden era
where everything was perfect.

... 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.

Did the resolution call for spitting on the UN and destroying former
alliances in order to go it alone?


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's the way it's *supposed* to work now.


... 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.

Horse ****. Go read the NAFTA treaty... which was passed by a Republican
Congress... another yay-Bush lie which you eagerly swallow.


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.

Yep. However, there are key differences between building a nuclear power
plant and building a bomb.

... 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.

Which is what they *weren't* doing, and verifiably so. But guess what,
the Bush Administration has let both the military options and the
intelligence assets slip away.

... The technology to build the detonation system and delivery
system isn't developed overnight either.

No, they developed and tested the missiles back in the 1980s. But hey,
it must be all Clinton's fault, right?



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.

Look at how the current war was started by greed & ignorance. Which do
you prefer?


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


YES


Doubtful, Arafat was old & sick and it was surprising he had lived as
long as had. Well overdue.


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.

I guess that's why so many "problems" are being solved around the world?
Iran & North Korea with nukes, a thousand+ US deaths in Iraq and ten
thousand maimed, terrorism on the rise, fewer countries willing to
cooperate with US counter-intel & counter-terrorism ops, and then
there's all the economic issues which NOBBY keeps trying obfuscate. You
think this is good going?

DSK

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK


Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent. To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of sense.

DSK


To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


Did the resolution call for spitting on the UN and destroying former
alliances in order to go it alone?

Yes, it did called for spitting on the people that were ****ting on us.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

I've seen both of their transcripts. He took even easier classes than
Bush.

Proof?

Proof from Harry? When he posts Bush's transcripts, I'll post
Kerry's...and
then you can compare the two.

Perhaps you didn't understand my request. YOU SAID "I've seen both of
their transcripts. He took even easier classes than Bush", did you
not? Just look above, you did! So, I asked for the proof. Do you have
any, or is it business as usual with you, just trying your hardest to
make the right look better than they really are?

When Harry posts Bush's transcript, I'll post Kerry's.

Nice try, NOYB. My question has absolutely NOTHING to do with Harry.
NOTHING!
I asked for proof of YOUR STATEMENT. Have any? Let's see it.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


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.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have to
try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some of the
news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks were
reporting comments from the military, and even companies like Raytheon,
about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which needed work).

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student
His 4-year average on par with Bush's
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005

WASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry
was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while
George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually
identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had
received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and
a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his
senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his
four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when
he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his
freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later
years.

(In the interest of upholding international copyright laws, a
significant portion of this article has been snipped. Go to the link
below to see the article in it's entirety.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...dent? mode=PF



What did Kerry take?

He got 4 D's his freshman year. D's!

I got one D in my *life*. Thermodynamics I. In Thermo II, I finally
decided to read the damn book back to chapter 1. Once I knew the
difference between an open and a closed system, I aced Thermo II.

I'm surprised Yale let someone with 4 D's stay in school. Purdue's
Engineering schools would have tossed him...and he'd have finished up as a
grad of the restaurant and hotel management school.

My alma mater would allow you to stay if your overall GPA was still about a
2.0, or you continued to get above a 2.0 each quarter if your overall was
below a 2.0. (academic probation) However, some of the colleges within the
institute would kick you out of the major if you received less than a 'C' in
any two required major courses, (including withdrawls, and including
repeating the class).....so even if you got a second 'D' in you last
quarter, you would not receive a degree in that major.


Which middle school is that? Your actions here are so childish that no
one would think that you're older than middle school age.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... 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.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
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.

Your point? 'Conventional' energy system ain't cheap, nor are they trouble
free.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.

For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have 10
batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work but
for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys. And every
2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical at the current
cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and transporting fuel
is too prohibative in cost economics again.


... Having your solar cells feed back into the electric grid is the best
solution now.

Not really. A lot of people are taking their houses off the grid, putting
in 24V lighting & fridge etc etc. It works acceptably. How much is your
electric bill each month?

$100 and most of that is Air conditioning for the 90 degree 99% humidity
days, I have a very efficient (good insulation) home. Can't use solar power
for Air conditioning. There are some locations that have climates that lend
themselves to well designed homes that use the sun to heat and solar power
to provide electricity for appliances. Their electric bills today are
probably (without solar panels) $25 per month.

I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

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.

Why bother? A yay-Bush person like yourself isn't going to believe any
link I post. However, the facts are out there even if Fox News isn't
shouting it at you 24/7.

I googled and look what I found:

"With regard to the three individuals cited in the CIA report and "revealed"
by the Times, two of the individuals have been known since January 2004 when
the Scandal information was first publicized in Iraq. The first American is
Iraqi-born Samir Vincent who has lived in the U.S. since 1958 and once
organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet
with former president Jimmy Carter. And the other person is Shaker
Al-Khafaji who has historically had an indepth involvement with the Hussein
regime. He is described by The Middle East Mediar Reseach Institute (MEMRI)
as "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates,"
and financed a film by Scott Ritter, former UN inspector, [which argued]
against UN sanctions, admitted to having financial ties to the Hussein
regime, been active in the anti-Iraq-war movement and accompanied
Congressmen Jim McDermott (D- Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif), and David
Bonior (D-Mich) to Baghdad prior to Gulf War II in 2002 to criticize the
impending war."

wrote in message
ups.com...


P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The
stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real
estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth
was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since
Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?


"You are anywhere near bright enough..."? "Why to f*#k..."? OMG, how
funny.