*JimH* wrote:
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.

Idiots ARE easily amused!

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

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.

Kevin is projecting his own shortcomings again.....LMAO........or maybe he
was smoking the cash crop again.

And he wonders why he is the "King of the NG idiots"

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
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.

Idiots ARE easily amused!


Yes you are.

NOYB wrote:
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: U.S. unemployment rate in 2000 - 4%
U.S. unemployment rate in 2004 - 5%

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

Fact: Still a larger percentage of Americans without a job.

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: And still fewer jobs than in 2000.

Fact: You're a dimwit

Fact: Childish name calling will give you SO much credibility.

... 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.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
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.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost
too, and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





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.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.



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."


So how come FOX News isn't shouting aboout how Jimmy Carter is
implicated in the oil-for-food scandal? ;)

There are at least 2 other people with Repub & VP connections not
mentioned in this article. But I'm impressed that you actually looked.

DSK

wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and "Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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?

Because we couldn't afford to let this one play out. Imagine what would
have happened to oil prices (and our economy) if we let al Qaeda oust us
from Saudi Arabia, and overthrow the House of Saud. Meanwhiel Saddam
continued to sell oil to Russia, China, Syria, etc. and re-arm himself in
violation of the embargo.

Our economy would have gone to ****, our military weakened, China, Russia,
Syria, and Iraq's military strengthened, and Iran would have obtained nukes
with no US presence on either border.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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?


Now you're learning! The manufacturing jobs peak happened in 1998...two
years before Clinton left office. The mass exodus started then...and
continues today. Picture a roller coaster. We reached the zenith in 1998,
and it's been all down hill from there.


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

You think it's good that Clinton presided over a 2 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by 4%?



... 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,

You really can't follow a thread, can you?

4% drop...not 2%.


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.

At least you admit that he inherited a "downward trend".





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"

Because he *did* say 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.


I've got news for you:
The conventional wisdom is changing. There has been a huge discrepancy
between the Household and Payroll surveys. Historically, folks (at the CBO
and Fed) relied more heavily on the payroll data. However, things are
beginning to change. Even the most hardened conventionalists admit that the
real job picture falls somewhere between the two surveys. The more
progressive and sophisticated analysts are going so far as to state that the
household survey is the more accurate of the two.

"Jeff Rigby" 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.

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.


The day after we hit that convoy in early April, Condi Rice (an expert on
the former Soviet Union) went to Moscow to meet with Putin. Perhaps to say
"we know what you're doing. Cut it out, stay on the sidelines, and we'll
agree to keep it under lids."

Deputy undersecretary of defense, John Shaw, exposed the Russian involvement
right before the election, but we were still trying to use diplomatic
maneuvering with the them.

Interestingly, right after Shaw was silenced by the White House, Putin came
out and practically endorsed Bush. The backroom deal had been struck.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's. In
the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to them.

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and
"Why *the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.
off

you forgot one word ;-)

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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?

Because we couldn't afford to let this one play out. Imagine what would
have happened to oil prices (and our economy) if we let al Qaeda oust us
from Saudi Arabia, and overthrow the House of Saud. Meanwhiel Saddam
continued to sell oil to Russia, China, Syria, etc. and re-arm himself in
violation of the embargo.

Our economy would have gone to ****, our military weakened, China, Russia,
Syria, and Iraq's military strengthened, and Iran would have obtained
nukes with no US presence on either border.

Interesting fantasy, but Iraq was in no way connected with our ability to
come to the aid of Saudi Arabia if the AQ scenario played out as you say.
Matter of fact, it can be easily demonstrated that in our current situation,
we are less able to defend Saudi oil.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's.
In the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to
them.


So? We violate treaties when it's convenient.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and "Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

Really? Show me how you came to that conclusion, NOYB. What piece of
literary information do you have that says that "why TO ****" isn't
proper, and "why THE **** is"?

Now, for your information, because you think you are such a profanity
genius, it would be the DAMNED saying, not the damn saying.

NOYB wrote:
Now you're learning!

Learning what? That you still can't do math? That you still think
everything bad is Clinton's fault?



... We reached the zenith in 1998,
and it's been all down hill from there.


Yep... following the longest peacetime economic boom in history. Not a
bad record over all. There were still a LOT more jobs, and more
manufacturing jobs, when Clinton left office than when he was elected.

Why do you keep skipping over this fact, NOBBY? Too painful?



You think it's good that Clinton presided over a 2 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by 4%?

I think it's better than Bush presiding over a 4 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by more, and all other job growth was
pathetically low.


Yes, by golly, a 2 percent drop in the very last part of Clinton's 2nd
term,


You really can't follow a thread, can you?

4% drop...not 2%.

Do the math, NOBBY.



... Now
look at Bush's record... he took a downward trend and let it get far worse.


At least you admit that he inherited a "downward trend".


And has failed to even slow it down, much less reverse it. But hey, the
economy's booming folks! Really it is!


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"


Because he *did* say 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.



I've got news for you:
The conventional wisdom is changing. There has been a huge discrepancy
between the Household and Payroll surveys. Historically, folks (at the CBO
and Fed) relied more heavily on the payroll data. However, things are
beginning to change.

Oh, so now you try to backpeddle and pretend it's a mix up in the
sourcing of statistics?

Did President Bush admit that he had lost America jobs, or didn't he? I
sure don't recall such a statement, OTOH I do recall a LOT of
spinmeistering of the sort you're trying to pull now.

Was Bush honest enough to admit the facts which you stated earlier
(although you had a hard time with the numbers)?

No.

Case closed.

Oh wait, that list of important things Bush has lied about... add this
to it... never mind, it's already so long we can't see the end of it
from here...

DSK

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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?

Because we couldn't afford to let this one play out. Imagine what would
have happened to oil prices (and our economy) if we let al Qaeda oust us
from Saudi Arabia, and overthrow the House of Saud. Meanwhiel Saddam
continued to sell oil to Russia, China, Syria, etc. and re-arm himself in
violation of the embargo.

Our economy would have gone to ****, our military weakened, China,
Russia, Syria, and Iraq's military strengthened, and Iran would have
obtained nukes with no US presence on either border.

Interesting fantasy, but Iraq was in no way connected with our ability to
come to the aid of Saudi Arabia if the AQ scenario played out as you say.
Matter of fact, it can be easily demonstrated that in our current
situation, we are less able to defend Saudi oil.

Look at a map, Doug. There is no better geographically strategic location
in the Middle East than Iraq for stomping out terrorism and protecting the
region's oil supply. We now have Iran and Syria sweating bullets...and it
gives us the flexibility to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia to help
quell their extremist uprising.

It has put tremendous pressure on neighboring countries to clean up their
acts, lest we do it for them.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's.
In the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to
them.


So? We violate treaties when it's convenient.

So what. You specifically mentioned the US weapons found in Iraq during the
first Gulf War. I simply reminded you that those weapons were sold to Iraq
during the Iraq/Iran conflict when no trade embargo existed.

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and
"Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

Really? Show me how you came to that conclusion, NOYB. What piece of
literary information do you have that says that "why TO ****" isn't
proper, and "why THE **** is"?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/thehell.html

NOYB wrote:
So what. You specifically mentioned the US weapons found in Iraq during the
first Gulf War. I simply reminded you that those weapons were sold to Iraq
during the Iraq/Iran conflict when no trade embargo existed.


Hmm... no trade embargo against Iraq in the 1980s, yes... but wasn't
Saddam just as brutal a dictator then as he was in the 1990s? Wasn't he
trying to build atom bombs so he could launch them with Bull's orbital
super-cannon? Didn't he shoot up a U.S. Navy warship and kill a bunch of
American sailors?

You say it's perfectly OK to sell weapons to a brutal anti-US dictator
under those circumstances, even if he didn't have WMDs in 2003 or any
links to Al-Queda?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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



What real money does government generate?

Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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



What real money does government generate?

Tariffs. Port fees. To name a couple.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and
"Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

Really? Show me how you came to that conclusion, NOYB. What piece of
literary information do you have that says that "why TO ****" isn't
proper, and "why THE **** is"?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/thehell.html

Thank you for making my point, NOYB! Um, did you even READ what you
gave? First, it deals with Hell, being a place. **** is not a place.
Second, it CLEARLY says EITHER "in" or "to" but not both. So, dimwit,
you just gave a URL that proves yourself wrong!!! Good job!

Bill McKee wrote:
What real money does government generate?


I take it that your endorsing the theory that US Treasury note, bills,
bonds, etc etc are just "worthless IOUs" and "empty promises"?

The government "generates" all money, in the sense that the US Mint
prints it. The Federal Reserve tells them how much, the US Treasury
keeps Uncle Sam's checking & savings account(s).

'But but but,' you protest, 'Uncle Sam doesn't have a savings account,
the U.S. is running a deficit and is carrying a huge national debt.'
True, but the Treasury debt instruments are the US savings account in
the same way that an individual may have savings even if he's carrying a
huge credit card debt. Cash flow & cash balance are two different things.

Does the government generate *wealth*? No. Other than the way they hand
out favors to certain corporate interests, which is a whole 'nother topic.

What makes a US Treasury debt instrument not worhtless? It's just a
printed piece of paper. Well so is a twenty dollar bill. If the U.S.
gov't does not default on it's debts, then a Treasury bond or bill is
the most secure interest-bearing investment in the world, bar none. OTOH
if the gov't does default, then both the Treasury and the twenty are
worthless pieces of paper.

DSK

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

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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



What real money does government generate?

Anyone that believes that the paper sitting in SS files has any real value
doesn't have a 'lick of sense"

P.Fritz wrote:
Anyone that believes that the paper sitting in SS files has any real value
doesn't have a 'lick of sense"

OK, send me all your ten & twenty dollar bills. Why do you want to keep
them? They are just worthless pieces of paper.

DSk

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
What real money does government generate?

I take it that your endorsing the theory that US Treasury note, bills,
bonds, etc etc are just "worthless IOUs" and "empty promises"?

The government "generates" all money, in the sense that the US Mint prints
it. The Federal Reserve tells them how much, the US Treasury keeps Uncle
Sam's checking & savings account(s).

'But but but,' you protest, 'Uncle Sam doesn't have a savings account, the
U.S. is running a deficit and is carrying a huge national debt.' True, but
the Treasury debt instruments are the US savings account in the same way
that an individual may have savings even if he's carrying a huge credit
card debt. Cash flow & cash balance are two different things.

Does the government generate *wealth*? No. Other than the way they hand
out favors to certain corporate interests, which is a whole 'nother topic.

What makes a US Treasury debt instrument not worhtless? It's just a
printed piece of paper. Well so is a twenty dollar bill. If the U.S. gov't
does not default on it's debts, then a Treasury bond or bill is the most
secure interest-bearing investment in the world, bar none. OTOH if the
gov't does default, then both the Treasury and the twenty are worthless
pieces of paper.

DSK


Printing excess paper does not generate wealth. Mostly, it generates
inflation. Where is the money for those IOU's going to come from?

wrote in message
ups.com...


Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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



What real money does government generate?

Tariffs. Port fees. To name a couple.


I guess you figure income taxes are real money generated by the government.

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


Jeff Rigby wrote:
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.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out the
cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash then
maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost too,
and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





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.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.


Homes are a LONG term investment and people need to look out 30 years into
the future when they are designing them. Assume that energy costs are going
to become the biggest expense for the home owner and try to make the house
energy efficient. High ceilings, ceiling fans, lots of insulation, solar
water heaters, appliances that turn on at night to use energy when it's less
expensive, Driers that pull air out of the attic that's already 130 degrees
and doesn't have to be heated, lcd panel tv's instead of plasma (80 watts vs
900 watts), solar powered refrigerators, and more that could be developed.
All of these are doable NOW.

You still need the power grid in most areas at least for some of the
seasons. But you could reduce energy needs by about 50%. An economic
payoff that at todays energy cost would pay for it'self in 20 years and if
energy costs increase allow you to maintain the same comfort level without
damaging your pocketbook.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

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


Jeff Rigby wrote:
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.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost too,
and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





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.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.


Homes are a LONG term investment and people need to look out 30 years into
the future when they are designing them. Assume that energy costs are
going to become the biggest expense for the home owner and try to make the
house energy efficient. High ceilings, ceiling fans, lots of insulation,
solar water heaters, appliances that turn on at night to use energy when
it's less expensive, Driers that pull air out of the attic that's already
130 degrees and doesn't have to be heated, lcd panel tv's instead of
plasma (80 watts vs 900 watts), solar powered refrigerators, and more that
could be developed. All of these are doable NOW.

You still need the power grid in most areas at least for some of the
seasons. But you could reduce energy needs by about 50%. An economic
payoff that at todays energy cost would pay for it'self in 20 years and if
energy costs increase allow you to maintain the same comfort level without
damaging your pocketbook.



You need to the power grid to make in financially feasible. Most ot the
solar powered houses and businesses, feed excess power into the grid. The
power companies pay the generator for the power. So, during the day, you
generate an extra 5kw, and at night, you use 6 KW. You only have to pay for
1kw of power. And in California, the power company is required to pay you
at their highest cost to generate power.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
P.Fritz wrote:
Anyone that believes that the paper sitting in SS files has any real
value doesn't have a 'lick of sense"

OK, send me all your ten & twenty dollar bills. Why do you want to keep
them? They are just worthless pieces of paper.

DSk


You missed the point dude, The money is not there if Bush has to borrow
dollars to finance the private accounts. IF it was there then he wouldn't
have to borrow the money.

For one department of the federal government to come up with the money to
redeem the Treasury notes another has to borrow money by issuing more
treasury notes. You try to do that and you will go to jail, it's called
floating a check.

Bill McKee wrote:
Printing excess paper does not generate wealth.

Define "excess."

... Mostly, it generates
inflation.

Agreed. However, if the U.S. decides to print it's way out of debt, we
have a really long way to go.

... Where is the money for those IOU's going to come from?


The same place it has always come from.

So, you think the U.S. is going to default on it's debts? That will
affect the value of $20 bills almost as much as Treasury instruments.

The funny thing is that the people who are screaming about Treasuries
being "worthless IOUs" are the same people who most loudly support the
administration which is driving us headlong towards bankruptcy & default.

DSK

Jeff Rigby wrote:
You missed the point dude,

No, I didn't. But it's obvious that you know NOTHING about macro
economics... my bad, you've written as if you have some sense at other
times. Maybe it's more that you refuse to learn.

... The money is not there if Bush has to borrow
dollars to finance the private accounts.


Horse hockey. The money was borrowed from hundreds of years back. Why
should it change overnight?

... IF it was there then he wouldn't
have to borrow the money.


Is this an excuse for President Bush to spend like a drunken sailor on
everything *else*?

For one department of the federal government to come up with the money to
redeem the Treasury notes another has to borrow money by issuing more
treasury notes. You try to do that and you will go to jail, it's called
floating a check.


Gee, I never realized that gov'ts have to follow the same rules as people.

You can't print my own money either, or declare war and start killing
people, or bury spent plutonium & medical hazardous waste your my back
yard, etc etc etc.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
You missed the point dude,

No, I didn't. But it's obvious that you know NOTHING about macro
economics... my bad, you've written as if you have some sense at other
times. Maybe it's more that you refuse to learn.

... The money is not there if Bush has to borrow dollars to finance the
private accounts.


Horse hockey. The money was borrowed from hundreds of years back. Why
should it change overnight?

... IF it was there then he wouldn't have to borrow the money.


Is this an excuse for President Bush to spend like a drunken sailor on
everything *else*?

For one department of the federal government to come up with the money to
redeem the Treasury notes another has to borrow money by issuing more
treasury notes. You try to do that and you will go to jail, it's called
floating a check.

Gee, I never realized that gov'ts have to follow the same rules as people.

You can't print my own money either, or declare war and start killing
people, or bury spent plutonium & medical hazardous waste your my back
yard, etc etc etc.

DSK

Then he doesn't have to borrow the money and your statement was in
error????? If the money is there he doesn't to have to borrow it! You
can't have it both ways. We are talking practical here not the Orwellian
logic that is so often practiced (double think) by those in the federal
government.

The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent on SS.
This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent to
finance other areas of the Federal government. Not only is the money not
there but extra money coming into the SS system is already spent!

Beware the most vocal in criticizing Bush's plan for they have eyes on the
SS money and want to spend it on their pet projects. This includes
Republicans as well as Democrats.

The deficit spendinginflation/sliding scale income tax system that was
started in the 60's breaks down if congress reduces the tax rates or if we
don't have inflation above interest rates that are paid by treasury notes.
This is what we have had for the last 7 years. THEN we have to rely on GDP
growing at a astronomical rate to balance the budget. The Republicans are
overly optimistic about the latter and refuse to continue the previous
system started by the Democrats in the 60's (Johnson). Eventually either
they have to reduce the size of the federal government (republicans talk
this but don't carry thru), or raise taxes. This will be the true test of
their resolve.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Then he doesn't have to borrow the money and your statement was in
error?????

Of course not.

... If the money is there he doesn't to have to borrow it!

Uh huh. And since when did the Bush Administration propose a budget that
was anything close to balanced?

... You
can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to
familiarize you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce
some fairly simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.
2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.
3- that the above two points are actually sensible.


The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent on SS.

Correct.

This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent to
finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the
money the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.


Beware the most vocal in criticizing Bush's plan for they have eyes on the
SS money and want to spend it on their pet projects.

Wrong. The most vocal critics of Bush's SS plan are the ones who don't
want Social Security to go bust all the sooner, and who have the fiscal
responsibility to not want to run up an even larger deficit to make up
the difference in SS income/payouts.



The deficit spendinginflation/sliding scale income tax system that was
started in the 60's breaks down if congress reduces the tax rates or if we
don't have inflation above interest rates that are paid by treasury notes.

???

That almost sounds like an intelligent statement. But I suspect it's
another one of those delusions which you can't let go of.

Please explain further. Also explain why we haven't had this "breakdown"
when we've actually had inflation rates below Treasury return rates many
times over the past 40 years, inlcuding for about the last 10 ~ 12.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Bill McKee wrote:
Printing excess paper does not generate wealth.

Define "excess."

... Mostly, it generates inflation.

Agreed. However, if the U.S. decides to print it's way out of debt, we
have a really long way to go.

... Where is the money for those IOU's going to come from?

The same place it has always come from.

So, you think the U.S. is going to default on it's debts? That will affect
the value of $20 bills almost as much as Treasury instruments.

The funny thing is that the people who are screaming about Treasuries
being "worthless IOUs" are the same people who most loudly support the
administration which is driving us headlong towards bankruptcy & default.

DSK



My definition: Excess: More than required. We need to go back to a gold
standard / silver standard. Currency that is backed by some hard item.
Plutonium? ;) That way the government can not just print more paper and
generate inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.).
The $20 bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago. 25
years ago it took about 150 $20 bills to buy a mid range car, now it takes
about 1250 $20 bills. And the US may default on it's debts. We would not
be the first nation to do it. As to the present administration going
headlong towards bankruptsy, all the previous ones have paved the trail.
Even Clinton. Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb and remember
Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount. Even he admitted that he raised
them excessively. The government has to get the money from the people. The
same people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they
cough up? Cough up without having a revolution? When the people get fed
up, the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs. I
see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the political process,
if they get some decent leadership, that just does not press for pot
legalization.

Bill McKee wrote:
My definition: Excess: More than required.

Sounds reasonable.

... We need to go back to a gold
standard / silver standard. Currency that is backed by some hard item.
Plutonium? ;)

My gawd, that would be disastrous. You obviously have no idea what clue
even looks like!

Here's what you do... go down to the your local college and ask the
economics professor what would happen. Most likely he'll have a stroke
laughing, but if he survives, listen carefully to his explanation, maybe
take notes, it'll be an education for you.

OTOH shrug it off like all the other facts you seem resistant to. After
all, it's just a buncha pointy-head intellectual elitist blather, right?

... That way the government can not just print more paper and
generate inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.).
The $20 bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago.

Well, duh.

Would you prefer going back to the pre-Fed monetary system where we had
a series of booms & panics, instead of steady inflation? Everything is a
trade-off. As long as inflation is reasonable (which I tend to think of
as anything less than about 15%) then it is far far FAR better than a
never ending cycle of some inflation, some deflation, interspersed with
super-inflation & collapse.

Here's a hint: look up the definition and origin of the word "shinplaster."


.... And the US may default on it's debts. We would not
be the first nation to do it.

True but we would be the biggest & the richest to do so. We are not even
close to being in danger of default... yet... although plunging towards
it without looking back...

... As to the present administration going
headlong towards bankruptsy, all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?

Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?

...Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb

Not really.

... and remember
Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount.

???

... Even he admitted that he raised
them excessively.

When?

.... The government has to get the money from the people. The
same people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they
cough up?

I take you're in favor of tax cuts for billionaires, but not in favor of
making up the shortfall out of middle class & lower class pockets? WTF
are you doing cheerleading for Bush & Cheney, then?

In any event, you're living in the same fantasy land as most of the
Krause-obsessed retardo-fascist crowd. Maybe you should join their club?
The fact is, Reagan and Bush jumped the national debt by orders of
magnitude more than any other administration. Remember the Gramm-Rudman
Act, a response to Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility?


.... the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs.

Possibly. Don't hold your breath.

... I
see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the political process,
if they get some decent leadership, that just does not press for pot
legalization.


Why should they not? There is absolutely no Constitutional grounds for
the federal gov't outlawing marijuana. Same for gun control, making
abortion illegal, etc etc. I suspect that you would *hate* the
Libertarian platform if it was explained to you in plain English.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
My definition: Excess: More than required.

Sounds reasonable.

... We need to go back to a gold standard / silver standard. Currency
that is backed by some hard item. Plutonium? ;)

My gawd, that would be disastrous. You obviously have no idea what clue
even looks like!

Here's what you do... go down to the your local college and ask the
economics professor what would happen. Most likely he'll have a stroke
laughing, but if he survives, listen carefully to his explanation, maybe
take notes, it'll be an education for you.

OTOH shrug it off like all the other facts you seem resistant to. After
all, it's just a buncha pointy-head intellectual elitist blather, right?

... That way the government can not just print more paper and generate
inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.). The $20
bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago.

Well, duh.

Would you prefer going back to the pre-Fed monetary system where we had a
series of booms & panics, instead of steady inflation? Everything is a
trade-off. As long as inflation is reasonable (which I tend to think of as
anything less than about 15%) then it is far far FAR better than a never
ending cycle of some inflation, some deflation, interspersed with
super-inflation & collapse.

Here's a hint: look up the definition and origin of the word
"shinplaster."


.... And the US may default on it's debts. We would not be the first
nation to do it.

True but we would be the biggest & the richest to do so. We are not even
close to being in danger of default... yet... although plunging towards it
without looking back...

... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?

Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?


...Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb

Not really.

... and remember Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount.

???

... Even he admitted that he raised them excessively.

When?

Do a little research.


.... The government has to get the money from the people. The same
people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they cough
up?

I take you're in favor of tax cuts for billionaires, but not in favor of
making up the shortfall out of middle class & lower class pockets? WTF are
you doing cheerleading for Bush & Cheney, then?

In any event, you're living in the same fantasy land as most of the
Krause-obsessed retardo-fascist crowd. Maybe you should join their club?
The fact is, Reagan and Bush jumped the national debt by orders of
magnitude more than any other administration. Remember the Gramm-Rudman
Act, a response to Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility?


.... the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs.

Possibly. Don't hold your breath.

... I see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the
political process, if they get some decent leadership, that just does not
press for pot legalization.


Why should they not? There is absolutely no Constitutional grounds for the
federal gov't outlawing marijuana. Same for gun control, making abortion
illegal, etc etc. I suspect that you would *hate* the Libertarian platform
if it was explained to you in plain English.

DSK


You are not very smart. Can not understand what you read. I am for the
Libertarian stand, but mostly they push the pot button. No broad enough of
a public platform. As long as they have a cheap, quick test for driving
while under the influence of pot, ala Breathalyzer, legalize it. Will not
happen as to much money is being made from illegal drugs. Both in the
marketing side and the enforcement side. Fiscal responsibility? 15%
inflation? How long to double prices at 15% rate? Remember Jimmy Carter
years? The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about 50%,
What a job killer that is.

... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.


... Even he admitted that he raised them excessively.

When?


Do a little research.

In other words, this is the latest from right-wing hate-talk radio and
it never really happened.


You are not very smart.

Possibly.

... Can not understand what you read.

???
You mean you can't understand what I write?

... I am for the
Libertarian stand, but mostly they push the pot button.

When & where? Baradnik barely mentioned this in his campaign last year.

We have several Libertarians elected in local positions. Mostly they
seem to be common sense conservatives of a kind that is getting rarer &
rarer.

If you want to see what the Libertarian Party is *really* all about,
read this
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Perhaps you will do a little backpedalling, or perhaps you'll quit
altogether talking about things you know nothing about.


.... Fiscal responsibility? 15%
inflation? How long to double prices at 15% rate?

About 4 1/2 years. Know how to work 'the rule of 75'?

So, did you look up the origin & definition of the word "shinplaster"?
Are you advocating a return to the good ol' days of extreme monetary
swings & national fiscal panics?

... Remember Jimmy Carter
years?

Yes. I also remember the early Reagan years, and the massive gov't
spending that was his prescription to end 'stagflation.'

Funny thing, how come Bush & Cheney's massive spending has not given a
similar boost to the economy?

... The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about 50%,
What a job killer that is.


You just plain don't have the facts.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...criptions.html

For 1998, the total federal budget was 29% of GDP. Do you think it's
almost doubled since then? How can it, when Bush & Cheney have cut taxes??

I suggest you get in touch with reality before making these kinds of
dire pronouncements. Or it may be that you'd prefer to live in
right-wing fantasy land, and that's OK by me... just don't try to drag
the rest of us in there with you. You already have enough company in the
form of "Bert," "P.Fritz," John H, NOBBY (although you may want to watch
him, he's actually a Socialist infiltrator) and the other wrecked.boats
fascist whackoes.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced for
a couple of years. However, the deficit increased over the life of his
Presidency.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced
for a couple of years. However, the deficit increased over the life of
his Presidency.

It wasn't 'balanced' anyway.....since it depended on the SS surplus to
achieve a 'balance' That is like believing you are living on a balanced
budget by using you credit card to supplement your living.