Bush administration good for boaters!
 

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gary Warner wrote:
"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.



You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid
soiling them in Bush-****.

As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's.

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.

Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer
jobs now than there were during the Clinton years.

And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television
and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states
right after the Democratic convention.

Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush
misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared
to the Clinton years.


Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss.

You've written to Dubya's handlers, of course, telling them to stop
taking credit for non-existent job growth?

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. ...

To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on
hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable
by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand,
you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no
effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration
was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right
decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy. Some
examples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses.
(And
this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social
programs.) I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well
as his
general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both
inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling. And that this helped lead
to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy
was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem.
Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy.
And
Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a
way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools
well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started
creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people
feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is
uncertain,
business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending
on
war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs"
of it's own.)

you guys are so easy!
 

Haha! I even paid Harry a compliment and he completely missed it.

See Ya'll around election time.

--


Keith
__
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of
that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. ...

To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on
hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable
by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand,
you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no
effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration
was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right
decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy. Some
examples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses.
(And
this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on
social
programs.) I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well
as his
general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people
both
inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling. And that this helped
lead
to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy
was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no
problem.
Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy.
And
Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a
way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these
tools
well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he
started
creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When
people
feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is
uncertain,
business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending
on
war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs"
of it's own.)

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gary Warner wrote:
"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.



You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid
soiling them in Bush-****.

As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's.

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.


Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs
created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey
Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it was
2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in the 6
months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances.

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing,

Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and
2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html

In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms in
boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason.
Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early
1980s and early 1970s.

But many leading economists don't expect a Boeing-led recession this time --
not as long as the healthy sectors of the state and national economies stay
that way.

"If Boeing is the only change, and all other things remain the same, then I
don't think we'll see a recession here," said Chang Mook Sohn, executive
director of the state Office of the Forecast Council.

---------------------------------------------------
It looks like Chang was wrong about his recession prediction. Signs of a
recession were beginning to peak in late 1999 and 2000. Wall Street was the
first to notice...but the Democrats *still* can't admit it.

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to
the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record,
because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis
to
be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases
from
Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford
to
pay
for
them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One
reason
they
couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they
quaintly
call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case
of
the
aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the
purchase
price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military
equipment.
Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense
machinery,
next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it
much,
since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region.




What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from
Airbus,
and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the
world,
buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus
planes
mean jobs for overseas workers.


Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no
self
control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure
they
keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In
addition
to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family
competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes
all
over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood
sees
us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi
economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous
behavior
by people in power.


But according to Harry, it's ok as long as they're buying from us and
giving our workers jobs. Perhaps you do see a bigger picture than
Harry does.....

Dave


Dave, I see a larger picture

Drug-induced hallucinations, Doug? Oh, the colors!

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

NOYB wrote:

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.


Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs
created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey
Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it was
2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in the 6
months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances.


You're still using the wrong terms, fella. There was no net job gain as
a result of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration is still in
the "lost jobs" column and will be through the elections. The number of
jobs in this country now is less than it was during the Clinton years,
during which 22 million jobs were added to the economy.

Bush can't get us back to the total during the Clinton years...there has
been NO job gain under Bush. None. Zip. Zilch.

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:28:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Dave, I see a larger picture than almost anyone. I chalk this up to my
continual use of old technology: Brains and books. You can learn about the
latter on the web. ROFL! The former....too late for that.



Since you like to contemplate the bigger picture, perhaps you might
enjoy reading this:

http://www.ainsof.com/view.htm

Granted, it's not "old technology", but it does bring an interesting
perspective to our current middle east situation, and makes our
strategy look a little less random, and unguided.

Dave

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:01:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gary Warner wrote:
"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.



You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid
soiling them in Bush-****.

As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's.

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.

Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer
jobs now than there were during the Clinton years.

And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television
and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states
right after the Democratic convention.

Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush
misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared
to the Clinton years.


Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss.

You've written to Dubya's handlers, of course, telling them to stop
taking credit for non-existent job growth?

As soon as you write to Clinton and tell him that nothing he directly
did, lead to the budget surplus.......

Dave

Bush administration good for boaters!
 

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:05:02 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. ...

To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on
hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable
by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand,
you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no
effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration
was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right
decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy.

I would certainly like a list of just what those "decisions" were.
Remember, congress creates the bills. The president either approves or
vetoes those bills.

Someexamples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses.
(And this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social
programs.)

Do you think that the budget surplus just might have more to do with a
republican controlled congress for the first time in decades? The
"contract with america" spearheaded the effort to cut government
spending. Clinton had little choice but to go along, with the notable
exceptions of when he held the government payroll hostage and then
blamed it on the congress' "unwillingness" to do things "his way".


I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well
as his
general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both
inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling.

The same "calm" he used when he passed up the opportunity to take
Osama Bin Laden from the Sudanese? Or perhaps the calm he displayed
when indiscriminately bombing those aspirin factories to take the
public's eyes off of the depositions in the Paula Jones trial?

And that this helped lead
to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy
was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem.
Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy.

Then you should understand why it was necessary. The economy was on a
downturn before election 2000. The recession was official before
Bush's first budget hit the floor. The tax cuts were a good way to
prop up the core spending of the American consumer. Since the
recession was not overly deep, and has been recovering for the last
year or so, it could be effectively argued that this was a good
strategy.


And
Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a
way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools
well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started
creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people
feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is
uncertain,
business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending
on
war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs"
of it's own.)

Of course, having a fanatical terrorist group fly planes into some
high profile targets on U.S. soil just might have a much broader
effect on economic "uncertainty".

But I guess that's Bush's fault too......

Dave