"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Ben Siders writes:

1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane
economist's
recommendations.

The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.

Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs
so
quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?



Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

Because unemployment is a typically a lagging indicator?

todd

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:33:29 -0500, Greg O wrote:

Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an "adjustment"?
The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a dump,
regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.

After what started in March of 2000, I went from 100% stocks/funds to 25%
stocks/funds and 75% money market. I did wait about 3 months to make the
adjustment and got out before any heavy losses. I got back into
stocks/funds right after the second Saddam hunt began.

The tech bust was a result of business blowing their wad on Y2K new
equipment and software and after discovering the world didn't end, they
were all over bought and didn't have much left to spend. Things are on
the verge of getting back to normal in the tech world.

Hiring usually lags in the recovery process as companies push outsourcing
and overtime before finally accepting they need more people.

BTW, the GDP went from an 8% rate to a less than 1% rate in the 10 months
before Bush was elected - a real high speed dive and tough to pull out of,
but not surprising as the bubble was a result of some one time
circumstances and people including AG buying into the "new economy".

-Doug

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:33:29 -0500, Greg O wrote:

Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an
"adjustment"?
The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a
dump,
regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.

After what started in March of 2000, I went from 100% stocks/funds to 25%
stocks/funds and 75% money market. I did wait about 3 months to make the
adjustment and got out before any heavy losses. I got back into
stocks/funds right after the second Saddam hunt began.



I was going to get out of stocks then too, but IIRC I blinked, and it was
too late! I remember looking my portfolio over, thinking it was time to
move, then getting busy on a home remodel. When I looked again, it was all
over! On the hit I took I could have bought a new house!
I have a pretty good stomach for the stack market and am still in it, hell
it is time for a rebound, mark my words! That and I have quite a few years
before retirement, so let 'er ride!
Greg

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy that
you think?

Sorry, Todd, but you can't have it both ways. I'm a
slightly-left-of-center Democrat, and even I'll agree with your first
point--that the economy he inherited was starting to slow down. But
you can't blame the Clinton administration, and in the next sentence
talk about how the president doesn't have much control over the
economy (I'm paraphrasing here...).

And further--if the president doesn't have much control over the
economy, why is "job creation" the big hobby horse these days?

(Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).

Agreed...AG, who was (by the way) a Clinton appointee (C:

No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some more
by increasing their taxes.

We shouldn't increase anyone's taxes at this point...but we darned
well shouldn't (IMHO) be cutting them, either.

Jim

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news

The economy today is
not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as a
billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
effectively.

OK. If he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
this regard. He's also no better.

Dennis Vogel

"C Wood" wrote in message
...

"joe" wrote in message
...
: simply view this graphic and tell me why
:

Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail
for
250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.

I wish. Only folks with kids get these gifts.
I guess those of us without don't spend money.
I never did hear the rationale for why they
set up this latest vote buying scheme the way
they did. But who am *I* to question our
Dear Leader?

Dennis Vogel

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news

i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to
this
effect
about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever
seen.

Based on these two examples, you seem to have me pegged as a Republican,
which isn't quite true. I've found some nuggets of truth in Fox News, but
I ignore any of their political discussion, just as I ignore CNN and
newspaper editorials. I used to soak it up because I thought it was
intelligent, educated content by knowledgable people, but it's not. Most
of it is just political moving and shaking by people with agendas. Seems
obvious to me now. Journalism has nothing to do with reporting facts and
relaying news any more. It's about sensationalism and ratings. Cable
news is entertainment first and truth second, and newspapers are getting
to be that way, too. This is why I try to accumulate sources and find the
one vein of truth that is consistant across all stories and draw my
opinions from that. Quotes are the hardest thing to deal with for me,
because I know that they're almost always taken out of context to serve
the aims of the reporter.

well i had my hunches, but was withholding judgement ... either way people
are
who they are, i just don't use the words Fox and News lightly.

cnn is fodder for the animals as well, occasionally i do read it as you do
FOX
i just found it intersting because i ****canned FOX years ago. I do often
wunder
if I'm missing anything, but a quick peek stregthens my "resolve". your
finance
backround must keep you tied to Fox they're always up someones ass about how
much money people make...

There is a common misinterpretation of terms at work here, so lets define
our key term. A recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of declining
GDP. For the recent recession, that actually began fall of 2000, with the
official recession declared in March 2001. The economic board that the US
typically looks to declare such things (NBER) recently stated that the
recession was over in November 2001, and that the GDP has since been in
recovery. This should not be confused with employment/unemployment. While
the two can be tightly related, they need not be.

To your point 2.A, what should this or any other president to increase
employment rates? There are generally two course of action:
1) Try to use fiscal, monetary, tax or regulatory policy to create incentive
for business to invest and grow, creating more jobs
2) Try to directly create jobs through adding to the federal workforce,
subsidies to various industries, bailouts, etc.

Doing the first is the traditional way to grow the economy, and has been
successful several times in US history, but is not always immediate in
reaction. Doing the second historically provides temporary employment
relief, but increases long term debt -- effectively borrowing off the
future. Bush's economic policies, by the way, almost all fall into the first
category

To your point 2.B, since taking office, tell me precisely where has Bush or
anyone in the administration placed any blame for the economy on Clinton? I
have heard many do so, and they are largely conservative voices, but I have
not read anywhere that Bush has done so -- and I read a lot.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Ben Siders writes:

1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane
economist's
recommendations.

The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.

Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs
so
quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?



Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

In article ,
"Dave Hockenberry" wrote:

Agreed -- he inherited more than a weakened economy -- he inherited an
overheated economy, with a massive tech balloon that was not sustainable.

And how much of this balloon was inflated by falsified accounting
reports and Enronian-type practices?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com
http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html

"PC Gameplayer" wrote in message
om...
Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration
that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
you think?

Sorry, Todd, but you can't have it both ways. I'm a
slightly-left-of-center Democrat, and even I'll agree with your first
point--that the economy he inherited was starting to slow down. But
you can't blame the Clinton administration, and in the next sentence
talk about how the president doesn't have much control over the
economy (I'm paraphrasing here...).

And further--if the president doesn't have much control over the
economy, why is "job creation" the big hobby horse these days?

(Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).

Agreed...AG, who was (by the way) a Clinton appointee (C:

No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
by increasing their taxes.

We shouldn't increase anyone's taxes at this point...but we darned
well shouldn't (IMHO) be cutting them, either.

Jim

Just one point...I didn't say that the Clinton administration caused the
slowdown. I said Bush inherited a slow economy (which he did) and that
there was a previous administration in place who had it before he did (which
there was). You assumed I placed blame with the Clinton administration for
it.

Oh (by the way) Mr. Greenspan took office as Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Fed on August 11, 1987, replacing Paul Volcker, who
resigned. My history book says that Ronald Reagan was president at that
time. He was subsequently re-appointed by both Presidents Bush (I) and
Clinton.

todd

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:33:29 -0500, Greg O wrote:

Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an
"adjustment"?
The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a
dump,
regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.

After what started in March of 2000, I went from 100% stocks/funds to 25%
stocks/funds and 75% money market. I did wait about 3 months to make the
adjustment and got out before any heavy losses. I got back into
stocks/funds right after the second Saddam hunt began.

Bob Brinker was your friend here. I took his advice and got out in mid-Jan
2000. If only I had caught his buy signal when he gave it a couple of
months ago instead of two weeks later, I'd really be sitting in the fabled
catbird's seat.

The tech bust was a result of business blowing their wad on Y2K new
equipment and software and after discovering the world didn't end, they
were all over bought and didn't have much left to spend. Things are on
the verge of getting back to normal in the tech world.

Hiring usually lags in the recovery process as companies push outsourcing
and overtime before finally accepting they need more people.

BTW, the GDP went from an 8% rate to a less than 1% rate in the 10 months
before Bush was elected - a real high speed dive and tough to pull out of,
but not surprising as the bubble was a result of some one time
circumstances and people including AG buying into the "new economy".

-Doug

Seriously, it's hard to argue that Clinton was maybe the luckiest president
in US history. He was elected right at the start of an upswing, but just
before it became apparent, and left office with the economy on a downslide,
but again before it was noticed. He raised taxes and shorted the national
debt in a time of low interest rates...both ways of giving a quick-fix to
the budget deficits. All you have to do is wait a while for the effects to
bite you in the ass. I think it was Bob Brinker (he might have been
paraphrasing someone else) who compared a poor economy to a car that is
fishtailing. If you know exactly what to do, you can turn the steering
wheel in such a way as to correct it. But if you don't know exactly what to
do (anyone want to claim that there's someone in the world who knows exactly
how to fix an economy that is 21% of the entire world GDP?) the best thing
to do is nothing. Of course, the problem with politicians (on both sides of
the aisle) is that doing nothing, even when it's the right thing to do,
looks bad. By God, people expect you to do *something*, so you'd better cut
taxes or create a makework program like the WPA.

todd

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dave Hockenberry" wrote:

Agreed -- he inherited more than a weakened economy -- he inherited an
overheated economy, with a massive tech balloon that was not
sustainable.

And how much of this balloon was inflated by falsified accounting
reports and Enronian-type practices?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com
http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html

Are you saying there was a lack of oversight of this sort of behavior while
Clinton was in office? Are you suggesting that the Clinton administration
purposely let this type of behavior go on to keep the economy up? That's a
pretty cynical view.

todd

Dennis Vogel responds:

f he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
this regard. He's also no better.

Got it in one. There was a character in some novels a while back who was called
"Otherguy." His response to everything was to blame it on the "other guy."
Damned near every politician I've seen since Harry Truman works that way,
regardless of party or espoused philosophy, and their adherents follow suit.

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

"todd" wrote in message
news
"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).

Yeah? How many times has Alan Greenspan lowered the discount rate in the
last few years? Has it fixed the problem? The fact is that you and I ARE
the ecomomy. If nobody wants to spend/invest their money, there is nothing
that Bush or Greenspan can do about it. The economy is too big and complex
for any one person to have a significant influence on it.

Frank

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news

3. He started a war that we had to pick up the entire tab for, unlike
Gulf
I.

I don't agree with this statement in letter or spirit, but it's a matter
of perception, and a debate on it will be circular and pointless. You
certainly won't change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours.

Well, who else is helping us pick up the tab, according to your perception?

"Dennis " wrote in message
...
"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news

The economy today is
not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as
a
billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
effectively.

OK. If he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
this regard. He's also no better.


Sometime in the past two weeks, I heard a great quote from some dead person:
Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.

Very true in political circles.

"PC Gameplayer" wrote in message
om...


And further--if the president doesn't have much control over the
economy, why is "job creation" the big hobby horse these days?

Because it's an easy pitch for Nookular Boy to memorize and babble about.
His other policies are much more embarrassing than "the economy".

I hate to burst your bubble but the source for the data
shown in the Times article is the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, part of the Executive branch of our government.
In other words, it's the President's people who are
responsible for this data, not the Times.

Dennis Vogel

Don't worry, you didn't burst my bubble. But imagine this: you make
$75,000 a year. You tell somebody how much you make. That person tells
one of his/her friends that you make $50,000. When that friend says, "How
do you know that?" the person you originally told says, "Dennis told me."

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:49:40 -0400, 4 out of 5 dentists wrote:

your
finance
backround must keep you tied to Fox they're always up someones ass about how
much money people make...

I don't have a finance background. My college education resulted in a
B.A. in English, as I had some stupid idea of becoming an author some day.
I'm not tied to Fox, I've probably watched a total of an hour of Fox
News in my life. I pop over to their web site in the morning, then I
check out CNN's web site, and then I check the page for our local paper.

I don't care how much money people make. I hope everybody makes as much
money as they possibly can (legally).

I believe their actions were straight up traditional racism against a
black man.

just what exactly does this have to do with woodworking
"Ken Johnsen" wrote in message
...
1. Because I believe it's a lot better than it would be if the last idiot
was still around or if his flunky had won

2. I believe very little published in the NY Times


"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:37:46 +0000, Duane Stenzel wrote:

just what exactly does this have to do with woodworking

Nothing, it's an intellectual diversion. Ignore it.

"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message
.net...

"todd" wrote in message
news
"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why


http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration
that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over
the
economy, his initials are AG).

Yeah? How many times has Alan Greenspan lowered the discount rate in the
last few years? Has it fixed the problem? The fact is that you and I ARE
the ecomomy. If nobody wants to spend/invest their money, there is
nothing
that Bush or Greenspan can do about it. The economy is too big and
complex
for any one person to have a significant influence on it.

Frank

Of course Greenspan can't singlehandedly fix the economy, but you can't
really know what you're talking about and say that he doesn't have a
significant influence over it. I suppose you know that things wouldn't be
worse if the Federal Funds rate hadn't been lowered. I think Greenspan's
biggest mistake at the end of 1999 and into 2000 was putting the brakes on
too hard.

todd

todd

The biggest problem I have is that in 1964 I was given a candidate that
I could vote for, Barry Goldwater. Since then the two majority parties
have provided me with only the opportunity to pick the "least worst."
Sad, but true.

Phil

I agree that national elections are often the choice between greater
evils. However, I remember wishing in 2000 for a run between McCain
and Bradley. The debates would have been enjoyable.

I am a firm believer in gridlock. Two sides tug-o-war over issues
until compromises are made, usually providing better government.
Therefore, I would prefer either party not to be in full control of
both legislative and executive branches of government.

Meanwhile, I try to do all in my power to improve my local community.
Somehow, school boards and township trustees seem more important in
times of budgetary woes. As education is often a big ticket item that
sustains first round cuts and the trustees are the local agents for
people with immediate financial need.

As far as this president...I don't agree with many of his policies.
That said, I respect his office and I pray for him daily.

Off to solve the one cookie---two kids argument,
Jenny

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:01:16 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Ben Siders writes:

I believe their actions were straight up traditional racism against a
black man.

How?

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

He was treated differently because of his race. That's racism. His
incompetance and bad behavior were overlooked. "He's black! What do you
expect? We can't fire him for it!" That's racism. Racism isn't only bad
when it hurts the victim of it. Prejudgices and stereotypes aren't okay
if they're positive ("Japanese people are math wizards!", "Black guys play
basketball well!", "Jews are good with money!"). Neither is racism not
racism if it benefits the victim of it. Blair was kept around because of
his color, and his unprofessionalism was excused because he's black. They
didn't do him any favors, although he does seem to be capitalizing on his
15 minutes pretty well (and I applaud him for it).

Ben Siders responds:


I believe their actions were straight up traditional racism against a
black man.

How?

Charlie Self


He was treated differently because of his race. That's racism. His
incompetance and bad behavior were overlooked. "He's black! What do you
expect? We can't fire him for it!" That's racism.

Nah. That's fear of legal recourse on the part of the firee. Incompetence
should always be a fear-free factor in a firing, but it hasn't been for 20 or
30 years, at least, and not only in racial cases.

Prejudgices and stereotypes aren't okay
if they're positive ("Japanese people are math wizards!", "Black guys play
basketball well!", "Jews are good with money!"). Neither is racism not
racism if it benefits the victim of it.

It's called affirmative action, and has been around since LBJ. Prejudice has
been around since the day someone noticed another person had brown eyes and his
eyes reflected blue from the pool in front of them: blue eyes are icy, killer's
eyes. That bull**** was wandering around full blow in the '30s and '40s and
probably earlier.

They
didn't do him any favors, although he does seem to be capitalizing on his
15 minutes pretty well (and I applaud him for it).

Sorry, but in my opinion he's a scamming shammer who should be ashamed of
himself. Instead, he'll make megabucks at least for a short while, until the
crappy work habits he's formed catch up with him.

The NYT goofed, but I'm not sure whether the goof was in hiring an unqualified
person because he was black, or in letting him run with too little supervision
because he was black. Either way, it was a bad thing, and he took advantage of
the situation because he was lazy, incompetent or both. Or he thoght he was
pulling a ****ty and getting away with something.

The human condition. Got not much at all to do with race, other than the human
race. People with poor attitudes do it a lot, thinking they're screwing the
other person, company, whatever. Good cure for that: a tour through Parris
Island. That's a 12-14 week course that will change a person's life.

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

I agree that the collapse was inevitable - would not have mattered if the
2000 election had given us Bush, Gore, or Bill Gates as president.

However, while I do cast some blame on the Enron-style "irregular"
accounting and reporting and the lack of regulation and enforcement that
allowed it to happen, that only accounts for a very small portion of the
bubble. A larger portion, in my view, was caused by an over exuberant
financial media singing in harmony with the "all knowing" market analysts
who whipped the public into believing that the New Economy was real, and
that:
A) There was no limit to how high stock prices could go
B) There was no limit to the number of profitable competitors a market could
sustain
C) Profitability was not important -- it was gaining market share that was
key

More jobs and GDP were lost due to the throngs of companies that folded
(many of which never should have been funded in the first place) than to
Enron, Worldcom, and the others who got tagged for false bookkeeping.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"todd" wrote:

Are you saying there was a lack of oversight of this sort of behavior
while
Clinton was in office? Are you suggesting that the Clinton
administration
purposely let this type of behavior go on to keep the economy up?
That's a
pretty cynical view.

Hadn't thought about Clinton at all in my comment - I am cynical tho in
my view of many corporate behaviors. I want to believe they are trying
to do right by the public, their employees and their stockholders but
they disappoint me time and again.

I think the collapse was inevitable as the shennanigans just couldn't
continue as the balloon started springing leaks and wasn't able to
support itself any longer. Also am not sure if these accounting
restatements and revelations would have been discovered by any outside
regulatory oversight - I think time just caught up with most of them.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com
http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html

(Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).

Agreed...AG, who was (by the way) a Clinton appointee (C:


You might want to look stuff up before you just say it.......from the
Federal Reserve Website, a portion of Allen Greenspans bio:

"He originally took office as Chairman and to fill an unexpired term as a
member of the Board on August 11, 1987. Dr. Greenspan was reappointed to the
Board to a full 14-year term, which began February 1, 1992. He has been
designated Chairman by Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton."

Originally appointed in '87 (Reagan), and then reappointed in '92 (Bush Sr).
Clinton also reappointed him.

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:57:06 -0400, Dennis wrote:


OK. If he'll agree to not take credit for any improvements
in the economy over the next two years I'll agree not to
criticize him for any problems with it. Trouble is, he
wants it both ways. He wants you to think it's someone
else's fault when it's bad but his success if it's good.
Mind you, he's no worse than any other President in
this regard. He's also no better.

I think the tax cut will partially result in an improved economic climate,
but mostly the changes in depreciation schedules for small businesses will
bear fruit, probably within the next 10-18 months. You can credit/not
credit Bush as you please - he, after all, doesn't make laws, he just
signs them.

Please. Don't make him sound like an innocent bystander.
He proposes lots of legislation and works with Congress
to shape other legislation. In addition to signing, he can
choose to veto legislation as well. Don't make it sound
like Congress pushes Bush around at its whim.

Dennis Vogel

What I find somewhat amazing is that no one seems to have pointed out the
obvious flaw in presentation of this NYT graphic. rec.woodworking is
typically filled with thoughtful, analytic people who like to figure things
out, and I was sure someone would have noted this.

Statistically, they are comparing employment growth/loss on per Presidential
term. The total potential sample space for G.W.Bush is effectively 2.5 years
(Jan 2001 - July 2003), versus an average of sample space of 5.4 years
across all other presidential terms. Could it be that, for any other
president listed, there might exist a 2.5 year interval that equaled or
exceeded the negative employment numbers of either Hoover or G.W. Bush? Of
course it could, and its very likely as well, given the poor economic cycles
we know that occurred in the 70s under Nixon/Ford/Carter, for example. It
may be that, at the end of our current president's term, the employment
numbers under his watch reflect poorly when compared to other presidential
terms. But as portrayed, this graph does not use equal treatment for all
listed.

AND, by the way, I would not hesitate to say the same if numbers were to
represent less or more favorably on either political party or candidate. The
issue I am noting is one of unequal statistical rendering, which is wrong
whoever the victim happens to be.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------

"todd" wrote in message
news
"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).
Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some
more
people.

todd

You need to research the source more closely -- the source of the raw data
is the BLS, but the report that the NYT is referencing is from the Economic
Policy Institute, a decidedly left of center think tank. Does that make the
raw data from BLS incorrect? No. Does that make the EPI wrong? No, but, as
with all voices in the public square, we need to scrutinize the message and
the presentation.

As I'm sure y'all know, a good statistician using a single set of numbers
can make several sound, logical arguments that contradict each other

--
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why


http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif


You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.


Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a
left-wing
think tank. smirk

You have to remember, though, that not long ago someone popped up here
stating
with pride that he got most of his political facts from Sludge...whoops,
Drudge, who is an admitted fabricator.


Umm.......
1) I'm not a Drudge fan, but...
2) I DO read an awful lot, and ....
3) I don't remember ever hearing of any admitted fabrication on his
part.......plus....
3.B) Personal attacks and allegations without substantiation tend to
annoy me

So, precisely when, where and how did Drudge admit to fabricating
information?

Yep -- pretty demanding of me.......you accuse someone, I ask for
proof....................totally uncalled for on my part. Lets not let facts
get in the way.

But what do I know? I'm apparently just some "prissy twit" with something
sticking outta my ear.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Dave Hockenberry demands:

3.B) Personal attacks and allegations without substantiation tend to
annoy me

So, precisely when, where and how did Drudge admit to fabricating
information?

You know, prissy twits annoy me. I might have bothered looking it up if
you had
asked, instead of demanded.

To be polite, stick it in your ear.

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

Dave Hockenberry responds:


Yep -- pretty demanding of me.......you accuse someone, I ask for
proof....................totally uncalled for on my part. Lets not let facts
get in the way.

But what do I know? I'm apparently just some "prissy twit" with something
sticking outta my ear.

You didn't ask. You demanded. My parents are dead, so demands no longer work.


Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Dave Hockenberry demands:

3.B) Personal attacks and allegations without substantiation tend to
annoy me

So, precisely when, where and how did Drudge admit to fabricating
information?

You know, prissy twits annoy me. I might have bothered looking it up if
you had
asked, instead of demanded.

To be polite, stick it in your ear.

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

Excellent change of subject. If you can't back up your own argument, change
the subject. Throw in some name-calling for good measure.

todd

"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message
k.net...

"todd" wrote in message
news

Of course Greenspan can't singlehandedly fix the economy, but you can't
really know what you're talking about and say that he doesn't have a
significant influence over it. I suppose you know that things wouldn't
be
worse if the Federal Funds rate hadn't been lowered. I think
Greenspan's
biggest mistake at the end of 1999 and into 2000 was putting the brakes
on
too hard.

todd

todd


todd todd,

Are you saying that Greenspan caused the predicament we are in? I don't
believe this to be the case.

Frank

I'm saying that having a restrictive monetary policy with what the economy
was doing at the time was, at least in hindsight, detrimental to the
economy. We had the economy (as measured by real GDP) going essentially
sideways to down from 2000Q2 through 2001Q3. Instead of easing monetary
policy, the Fed kept the discount rate at the highest level since 1991 all
the way through the last half of 2000.

todd

All I know is I can't find a job and that's with a college degree.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:53:58 -0500, "todd"
wrote:


"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message
nk.net...

"todd" wrote in message
news

Of course Greenspan can't singlehandedly fix the economy, but you can't
really know what you're talking about and say that he doesn't have a
significant influence over it. I suppose you know that things wouldn't
be
worse if the Federal Funds rate hadn't been lowered. I think
Greenspan's
biggest mistake at the end of 1999 and into 2000 was putting the brakes
on
too hard.

todd

todd


todd todd,

Are you saying that Greenspan caused the predicament we are in? I don't
believe this to be the case.

Frank

I'm saying that having a restrictive monetary policy with what the economy
was doing at the time was, at least in hindsight, detrimental to the
economy. We had the economy (as measured by real GDP) going essentially
sideways to down from 2000Q2 through 2001Q3. Instead of easing monetary
policy, the Fed kept the discount rate at the highest level since 1991 all
the way through the last half of 2000.

todd

"Ben Siders" wrote:

i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
really
have to hand it to the BBC,

What's sad is that the BBC has more information in its reports on what
goes on in America than most American news agencies.

I listen to the BBC on the way to work on NPR most nights. I have
been told that more conservatives listen to NPR than liberals. That
might be total bravo siera but knowing one's opponent is part of being
informed.

During the war, I would watch Fox and we were winning, listen to BBC
and we were loosing, see CNN in lunchroom on the nights they didn't
alternate with Fox and we were loosing. How can that be?

As far as BBC and information, it has a lot of detail but most people
interviewed are not conservatives.

My favorite form of news is watching C-span.

Does George rock my boat? No. Does Ashcroft have my complete
confidence. No. Sadly, it is the best thing that I could get with Al
Gore or Nader being worse.

Reagan was the last President that I felt good about. Jerry Ford
doesn't count, good man filling a slot to get us through things
knowing that he wasn't going to get elected. I felt good about Nixon
until he blew it. If Nixon had played it straight he would have been
one of our greatest Presidents. He had a clue about world geo
politics.

Carter had my respect as being a good man, though too naive until he
started dissing GWB. That isn't the protocol. GHWB didn't go after
Clinton for the most part though I have to believe he was a bit
irritated.

Johnson has been proved to be a liar and fool.

JFK had a lot of hope as he tried to get his act together.

Before that, I wasn't around to have an opinion.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:49:15 +0000, Frank Ketchum wrote:


"Ramsey" wrote in message
...
All I know is I can't find a job and that's with a college degree.


Well a degree isn't a guarantee of a job. What is your degree and where do
you live?

Frank

A degree is a piece of paper. I landed a job in computers based on
nothing but a good interview. I had no experience, no degree, nothing but
a little talent and personality. It's been 4 years, I've changed jobs
once and been laid off once and experienced no period of unemployment
longer than a week.

A degree means you went to college and graduated and that's it. If your
market sector is down, or the area you live in is just not growing, you
won't find work. There's also the problem of overqualification. There
are smart, talented people who can't get work because they're too good for
the available positions and people don't want to hire somebody who'll just
bail once the job market opens up.

Hi Todd:

Just one point...I didn't say that the Clinton administration caused the
slowdown. I said Bush inherited a slow economy (which he did) and that
there was a previous administration in place who had it before he did (which
there was). You assumed I placed blame with the Clinton administration for
it.


You're right...I did assume you placed blame on the previous
administration for the bad economy. That's an assumption I shouldn't
have made.

Oh (by the way) Mr. Greenspan took office as Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Fed on August 11, 1987, replacing Paul Volcker, who
resigned. My history book says that Ronald Reagan was president at that
time. He was subsequently re-appointed by both Presidents Bush (I) and
Clinton.

I stand corrected, sir.

Jim