Dave Hall wrote:

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



Probably.

A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.

#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what
happened in 1999 and 2000

#2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the
company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is
battering Boeing's customers.

Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia.

#3) And this is the biggest clue

If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20
percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The
company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state.

If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened.

Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the
premonitions you are quoting.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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.

wrote:

A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.

#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what
happened in 1999 and 2000

#2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the
company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is
battering Boeing's customers.

Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia.

#3) And this is the biggest clue

If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20
percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The
company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state.

If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened.

Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the
premonitions you are quoting.


He's hopeless...he still thinks Bush-**** has added jobs to the economy,
when, in fact, we're still well below the number of jobs of the Clinton
Administration. It is probable the Bush Administration will roll into
the fall elections still showing a net job loss.

So Dave Hall

Is that Lead as in the metal, or Lead as in the Lead Rope used to guide the
(in this case) Surplus?

I realize it is a heavy burden for you, seeing that President Clinton took
hold of that Lead rope and showed America the way to recovery. Only to watch
pResident Bush attach all that Lead to it and watch it collapse.


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:01:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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

wrote in message
ink.net...
A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.

#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what
happened in 1999 and 2000

#2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the
company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is
battering Boeing's customers.

Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia.

#3) And this is the biggest clue

If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20
percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The
company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state.

If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened.

Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on
the
premonitions you are quoting.


They'll be easy to find. My brother was one of the mechanical engineers
laid off in 1999...exactly 3 days shy of his 1 year anniversity with the
company. If it had been 3 days later, Boeing would have had to pay his
moving expenses when he found a new job.

wrote in message news:5TRGc.4940
Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on
the
premonitions you are quoting.


Here's a great article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...oeingweb.shtml

Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it
also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was
a result of 9/11.

Here's an excerpt:

2000: May: Boeing ends two years of job cuts, reducing companywide payroll
from 238,400 in February 1998, to 191,500.

----------------------------------------------------
Feel better now?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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

Full of inaccuracies. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam. Back in the 1990s, its leader actually
levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim Brotherhood
made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his
continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al Qaeda
prefers Qatar as a hideout. According to people who know these things, the
Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order.

Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the
leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the book's
at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert Baer,
a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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.

Right. Because folks like you and I couldn't afford to buy jets during those
periods, right?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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,

The number of jobs in this country now is *more* than it was during the
Clinton years is you look at the Household Survey Data. As opposed to the
Payroll Survey Data, the Household Survey Data includes the self-employed,
and those people employed in new companies that don't yet show up in the
Payroll Survey Data. I know how you hate to be bored with facts, but I
suggest you go to the BLS's website.

http://bls.gov/cps/ces_cps_trends.pdf

If you look at Chart #1, you will see that according to the Household Survey
data, there are approximately 139 million people employed right now. When
Clinton left office there were approximately 137 million. If you look at
the "adjusted household data", you'll see that the number of currently
employed is *still* higher than was employed when Clinton took office.


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.

Wrong again. Look at the facts. Without the facts, you're just spewing
Bull****.

Full of inaccuracies

Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone
who gets his news via the mass media.

. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam.

Can you substantiate that?


Back in the 1990s, its leader actually
levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim Brotherhood
made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his
continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al Qaeda
prefers Qatar as a hideout.

Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base
of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe
very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the
opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the
war.


According to people who know these things,

And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"?

the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order.

That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that
feeds the outer network of support for terrorism.


Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the
leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the book's
at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert Baer,
a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003.

The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no
guarantee that the information contained is either factual or
complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are
either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's
highly spun recent expose.

It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from
other unconnected sources.

Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing
as absolute truth?

Dave