Discussion:
Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
(too old to reply)
Randall Nettman
2003-11-25 18:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots

They better start working fast to dig up, or fabricate, a scandal or
something.
Tony Rice
2003-11-25 19:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
caucus caucus caucus
PrinceGunter
2003-11-26 00:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
I like Wesley Clark, but he seems to be too sensible for both the wacko left
and the wacko right.
They better start working fast to dig up, or fabricate, a scandal or
something.
This is bait, right?
Randall Nettman
2003-11-26 04:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor unions, and their artificially
inflated member pay for the 4 million jobs going overseas. Do you REALLY
think Bush caused that in 2 years as the President?

Duh
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-26 04:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor unions, and their artificially
inflated member pay for the 4 million jobs going overseas.
Whoa... there are unions for programmers? Dude!
TrojanFamilyMan
2003-11-26 06:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor unions, and their artificially
inflated member pay for the 4 million jobs going overseas. Do you REALLY
think Bush caused that in 2 years as the President?
Duh
Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers to do
as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.

P.S.: Who are you? ($1)
--
TrojanFamilyMan = BigBrane StubbornF*ck -- John M. Rogers
lein
2003-11-26 17:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by TrojanFamilyMan
Post by Randall Nettman
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor unions, and their artificially
inflated member pay for the 4 million jobs going overseas. Do you REALLY
think Bush caused that in 2 years as the President?
Duh
Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers to do
as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.

--
John Leinaweaver
TrojanFamilyMan
2003-11-26 18:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by TrojanFamilyMan
Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
Congratulations.
--
TrojanFamilyMan = BigBrane StubbornF*ck -- John M. Rogers
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-26 20:42:13 UTC
Permalink
TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> wrote:
: In article <***@posting.google.com>,
: ***@my-deja.com (lein) wrote:
:
: > TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:<t*f*m*-***@news04.west.earthlink.net>...
:
: > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
: > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: >
: > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
:
: Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: Congratulations.

The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Jefferson N. Glapski
2003-11-26 22:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
: > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: >
: > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: Congratulations.
The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
Like minimum wages, right?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 02:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
: > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: >
: > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: Congratulations.
The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
Ya right...and earlier this year we got us a tax cut for the rich right?

v/r Beau
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 05:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Charles Beauchamp <***@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : In article <***@posting.google.com>,
: > : ***@my-deja.com (lein) wrote:
: > :
: > : > TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:<t*f*m*-***@news04.west.earthlink.net>...
: > :
: > : > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
: > : > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: > : >
: > : > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: > :
: > : Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: > : Congratulations.
: >
: > The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
:
: Ya right...and earlier this year we got us a tax cut for the rich right?

Who walked away with the most of that welfare plan?
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
ATN082268
2003-11-27 05:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
From: Czar Drooling Simpleton I ***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid
Date: 11/26/03 11:20 PM Central Standard Time
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Who walked away with the most of that welfare plan?
Since the Democratic/Liberal party thinks it is O.K to give Federal income
tax cuts to those who pay no income taxes, I guess it is no surprise that they
think those who keep more of what they earn are receiving welfare.

-ATN


********************
I vote Republican because it is the party which most effectively support the
concepts that people have a right only to money they earn and that people
should be held accountable only for their own actions.
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 06:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > : > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
: > : > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: > : >
: > : > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: > : Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: > : Congratulations.
: >
: > The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
: Ya right...and earlier this year we got us a tax cut for the rich right?
Who walked away with the most of that welfare plan?
Oh how about 39 million middle class families....

but then they don't count....

v/r Beau
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 07:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Charles Beauchamp <***@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > Charles Beauchamp <***@comcast.net> wrote:
: > :
: > : "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in
: message
: > : news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > : > TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > : In article <***@posting.google.com>,
: > : > : ***@my-deja.com (lein) wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : > TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:<t*f*m*-***@news04.west.earthlink.net>...
: > : > :
: > : > : > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union
: laborers
: > : > : > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: > : > :
: > : > : Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: > : > : Congratulations.
: > : >
: > : > The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
: > :
: > : Ya right...and earlier this year we got us a tax cut for the rich right?
: >
: > Who walked away with the most of that welfare plan?
: >
:
: Oh how about 39 million middle class families....

Wrong. They walked away with a small percentage of that looting.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 17:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: message
: > : > : > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union
: laborers
: > : > : > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: > : > : Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: > : > : Congratulations.
: > : >
: > : > The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
: > : Ya right...and earlier this year we got us a tax cut for the rich right?
: >
: > Who walked away with the most of that welfare plan?
: >
: Oh how about 39 million middle class families....
Wrong. They walked away with a small percentage of that looting.
Only according to you lefties.

We have a few of them in my office. Anytime one of them starts to spout off
about the evil that is the Bush tax cut..I remind one lady about the home
repair she did with her "rebate" check. And the office troll get's reminded
about the extra car payment he allegedly made this summer with the same
rebate. Usually draws a blank "oh ya" stare. You liberals are so silly.

Funny how you call people keeping more of their hard earned money...looting.

And finally the Dems are on the wrong side of the tax argument. If the Dems
were smart they wouldn't be bitching about a tax cut that is viewed by most
as sensible...and trying to convince people that they didn't get a tax
cut/refund etc. Bitching about income tax cuts is pointless. No one wants
to pay income taxes. At the rate we are going...we aren't too far away from
basically 50% of the country paying all of the federal income tax. Simply
spewing "tax the rich!" in a tiresome class warfare argument accomplishes
nothing.

If the Dems really want to make a valid argument...the argument should be to
attack the other myriad taxes out there that unfairly hit the poor and
middle class. There is no tax cut at the gas pump. No way for the poor to
pay less local utility taxes. Sales taxes at the counter absolutely hit the
poor harder then they hit the rich. (Bill Gates doesn't pay anymore for his
Charmin then I do). You really want to give tax relief to the poor?
Encourage your leftist friends to stop open ended spending and discourage
any local tax increases.

For my money the cynical argument on the right is that the emphasis on
cutting taxes was limited to income taxes when lower income folks don't
actually pay income tax.

v/r Beau
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 19:24:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:30:16 -0800, "Charles Beauchamp"
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > > Dearest Dumnerass, it would take a fuck of a lot of union laborers
: > > to do as much damage to the economy as a single Kenny Boy Lay.
: >
: > Or a Bill (let those terrorist go) Clinton.
: Your nomination for stinkiest bate of the year is now assured.
: Congratulations.
The right-wing credo: Never let a good lie die.
Ya right...and earlier this year we got us a tax cut for the rich right?
I looked at the size of our household's tax cut and said to
my wife, "Guess what, dear? We're rich!"

Trust me, we're not. But our tax cut was noticeable. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Lone Victor
2003-11-26 07:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor unions, and their artificially
inflated member pay for the 4 million jobs going overseas. Do you REALLY
think Bush caused that in 2 years as the President?
Waaayyy off base. The only really large base the unions have left are
govt. workers. And nobody is exporting those jobs.





----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Jeffrey Davis
2003-11-26 16:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor unions, and their artificially
inflated member pay for the 4 million jobs going overseas. Do you REALLY
think Bush caused that in 2 years as the President?
Duh
Well, uh, sure.

The only sensible thing he's done has been the little dribs and drabs
of the last tax cut that made it to the middle class. The result is
all over the papers.

BTW, were the dribs and drabs that made it to the middle class in the
original White House draft of the tax cut or was that forced on W?

But it's all spit in the bottom of the glass. W is a Midas-in-reverse.
It'll all come to s*** for the rest of us.
Eastoe Peckalye
2003-11-29 01:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
In a ridiculous pointless article
m04.aol.com>,
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass
Party
From: Randall Nettman
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard
Time
l.net>
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that
will have flowed overseas during W's watch >are
flowing back this direction? Good economy
does not necessarily equate to chickens in
every pot.
Dearest Dummass, you can thank the labor
unions, and their artificially inflated member >pay
for the 4 million jobs going overseas. Do you
REALLY think Bush caused that in 2 years as
the President?
Duh
____
Not so....the money barons have been doing it
for years...the Jap autoworkers, in relation to
local economy, make as much as USA autoworkers...their companies like
much of whom are/have been invested heavily
with large percentage ownership like
Mitsu/Ford....The rest of it is like the "greedy"
taking from the "needy"..like Michael Jordan
getting couple million per year advertising Nike,
and Gifford's wife allowing her name be used
to advertise clothing....both made with sweatshop labor where
wages,working conditions would be illegal in the USA, thanks,
as it should be, to the power of the Labor Unions...Example: Shrub wants
to cut out overtime pay..so now work 10 hours for 8 hours pay....to pay
for his Iraq war...while the Iraq
oil money is held "in trust" by the USA the
"no overtime" taxpayers pay $87 billion + $79
billion, total $166 billion this year alone, and
who will get the oil money "in trust" at a later
date? (after the public is bamboozled to forget)
why the exec's/Shrub cabal who have catered to his wishes while
bamboozling the dumbest
Pres. in recent, maybe all history, so they
can make millions overseas at sweatshop
wages/working conditions..by the way that
will include Iraq....the current neocon leadership, if it is fair to use
that word, is
on a "loosers" course

Easto

I live in the hell of WebTV
tarepanda
2003-11-29 19:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi, i just want to do some research here =), is there any NIKE's fan??
buy a lot of things which is related Nike Brand? Like the mp3 player,
watches and so on too?? The reasons to buy those is it because of the
brand name? Or you really like those design?? plase tell me about
that, thank you =)

Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
2003-11-26 15:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
I like Wesley Clark, but he seems to be too sensible for both the wacko left
and the wacko right.
Wesley Clark gives me the willies, like Paul Tsongas did. No matter
how good they are; they'll never get past the muppet factor.

Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com
Dennis
2003-11-26 15:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
I like Wesley Clark, but he seems to be too sensible for both the wacko left
and the wacko right.
Wesley Clark gives me the willies, like Paul Tsongas did. No matter
how good they are; they'll never get past the muppet factor.
but people love the sockpuppets of Karl Rove...



"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux
s***@yahoo.com
2003-11-26 21:53:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:58 GMT, Dennis
Post by Dennis
but people love the sockpuppets of Karl Rove...
They look cool in a leather jacket.
lein
2003-11-26 22:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
I like Wesley Clark, but he seems to be too sensible for both the wacko left
and the wacko right.
Wesley Clark gives me the willies, like Paul Tsongas did. No matter
how good they are; they'll never get past the muppet factor.
Clark is nothing more than a Clinton puppet. Clark's job is to
knock Dean out of the lead (and nomination). If Dean does become the
Democratic canidate, he'll fire Terry MacAuliffe and the Clintons lose
control of the party's money.

--
John Leinaweaver
Lazlo Hollyfeld
2003-11-26 23:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed overseas
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does not
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
I like Wesley Clark, but he seems to be too sensible for both the wacko left
and the wacko right.
Wesley Clark gives me the willies, like Paul Tsongas did. No matter
how good they are; they'll never get past the muppet factor.
Clark is nothing more than a Clinton puppet. Clark's job is to
knock Dean out of the lead (and nomination). If Dean does become the
Democratic canidate, he'll fire Terry MacAuliffe and the Clintons lose
control of the party's money.
--
John Leinaweaver
More stinky bait. Is that all you can do?
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 02:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PrinceGunter
Post by lein
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
Subject: Bad Economic News for the Jackass Party
Date: 11/25/03 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Are there any signs that the 4 million jobs that will have flowed
overseas
Post by lein
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
during W's watch are flowing back this direction? Good economy does
not
Post by lein
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
necessarily equate to chickens in every pot.
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
I like Wesley Clark, but he seems to be too sensible for both the
wacko
Post by PrinceGunter
left
Post by lein
Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Post by PrinceGunter
and the wacko right.
Wesley Clark gives me the willies, like Paul Tsongas did. No matter
how good they are; they'll never get past the muppet factor.
Clark is nothing more than a Clinton puppet. Clark's job is to
knock Dean out of the lead (and nomination). If Dean does become the
Democratic canidate, he'll fire Terry MacAuliffe and the Clintons lose
control of the party's money.
--
John Leinaweaver
More stinky bait. Is that all you can do?
How else is Bill gonna get to boink more White House interns? He has to be
first lady.

v/r Beau
Dave Reid
2003-11-27 07:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Clark is nothing more than a Clinton puppet. Clark's job is to
knock Dean out of the lead (and nomination). If Dean does become the
Democratic canidate, he'll fire Terry MacAuliffe and the Clintons lose
control of the party's money.
Nice fantasy, but you need to work in a Hillary reference somewhere.

dave
Lone Victor
2003-11-26 07:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
Don't be so smug. The first two of those could turn around.





----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-26 08:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Randall Nettman <***@westwnt.com> wrote:
: Economic Growth at 8.2%

When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.

Bush is toast.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
ZU
2003-11-26 14:32:48 UTC
Permalink
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by potato chips and chicken,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
Do you remember who said this corrected statement?
Randall Nettman
2003-11-26 14:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: Economic Growth at 8.2%
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
Bush is toast.
I'd love to lay a bet on that one you poor misguided ass party member.
Whitebread Enslin
2003-11-26 15:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: Economic Growth at 8.2%
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
Bush is toast.
I'd love to lay a bet on that one you poor misguided ass party member.
As much as I hate to agree with this poster who can't seem to put a
coherent thought together, I think he is right.

Bush has now co-opted the medicare issue, gotten the economy turned
around even if it may cause long-term problems, and IMO looks like he
will eventually turn around things in Iraq.

Furthermore, demographically things are set up perfectly for him. If he
wins the same states in 2004 that he won in 2000 he'd win 278-259
instead of 271-266. (Of course, if Florida switches it wouldn't
matter....but Bush shored that up with the Medicare deal up above.)

Finally, although I like Howard Dean, it seems to me that he would have
very little appeal on a national level. The rest of them are 8
wondering fools....


Jon
--
"It seems all you can do is step on our collective joy whenever Canada
achieves a milestone in sports." - rob
Eastoe Peckalye
2003-11-29 01:45:24 UTC
Permalink
( snip )
Finally, although I like Howard Dean, it seems
to me that he would have very little appeal on >a
national level. The rest of them are 8 >wondering
fools....
Jon
--
____
Whitebread.....let's not forget the "redneck"
vote// like the successful Southern strategy
of Nixon, and the Kennedy theory of when
a hole opens in the line run right through it,
the door is open for Dean..he doesn't presently carry the wornout
baggage of the other leading
candidates....and he is not a skull and bonesman as Shrub and Kerry are,
while Shrub will likely have his tricksters attack Deans' signing the
civil unions bill..that's not near as much albatross as Shrub is
presently carrying,
and Dean can claim he did/does not endorse "Gay" marriage.



Easto

I live in the hell of WebTV
Tony Lima
2003-11-26 18:30:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Randall Nettman
2003-11-26 18:51:44 UTC
Permalink
In a ridiculous pointless article
Post by Tony Lima
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP. - Tony
SEE!
Eastoe Peckalye
2003-11-29 02:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
In a ridiculous pointless article
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar
Drooling Simpleton I
When your economic growth is fueled >primarily
by mortgage refinancing, you're not exactly
building something likely to last.
The lack of knowledge of basic national >income
accounting in the above statement is
breathtaking. For starters, mortgage >refinancing
does not affect any newly produced goods or
services. Therefore it has no direct impact on
GDP. - Tony
SEE!
____
In 1900 the great Prussian mathematician Hilber put forth 23 math
problems for the
20th century, No's 6, 8 and 16 remain unsolved, though the pretty 22 yr
old swe. girl has partially solved No. 16...whoever can successully
solve No. 6 below, I will believe:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article.jhtml?articleID=3D678371

6. Mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics
The investigations on the foundations of geometry suggest the problem:
To treat in the same manner, by means of axioms, those physical sciences
in which mathematics plays an important part; in the first rank are the
theory of probabilities and mechanics.
As to the axioms of the theory of probabilities,14
it seems to me desirable that their logical investigation should be
accompanied by a rigorous and satisfactory development of the method of
mean values in mathematical physics, and in particular in the kinetic
theory of gases.
Important investigations by physicists on the
foundations of mechanics are at hand; I refer to the writings of Mach,15
Hertz,16 Boltzmann17 and Volkmann. 18 It is therefore very desirable
that the discussion of the foundations of mechanics be taken up by
mathematicians also. Thus Boltzmann's work on the principles of
mechanics suggests the problem of developing mathematically the limiting
processes, there merely indicated, which lead from the atomistic view to
the laws of motion of continua. Conversely one might try to derive the
laws of the motion of rigid bodies by a limiting process from a system
of axioms depending upon the idea of continuously varying conditions of
a material filling all space continuously, these conditions being
defined by parameters. For the question as to the equivalence of
different systems of axioms is always of great theoretical interest.
If geometry is to serve as a model for the treatment
of physical axioms, we shall try first by a small number of axioms to
include as large a class as possible of physical phenomena, and then by
adjoining new axioms to arrive gradually at the more special theories.
At the same time Lie's a principle of subdivision can perhaps be derived
from profound theory of infinite transformation groups. The
mathematician will have also to take account not only of those theories
coming near to reality, but also, as in geometry, of all logically
possible theories. He must be always alert to obtain a complete survey
of all conclusions derivable from the system of axioms assumed.
Further, the mathematician has the duty to test
exactly in each instance whether the new axioms are compatible with the
previous ones. The physicist, as his theories develop, often finds
himself forced by the results of his experiments to make new hypotheses,
while he depends, with respect to the compatibility of the new
hypotheses with the old axioms, solely upon these experiments or upon a
certain physical intuition, a practice which in the rigorously logical
building up of a theory is not admissible. The desired proof of the
compatibility of all assumptions seems to me also of importance, because
the effort to obtain such proof always forces us most effectually to an
exact formulation of the axioms.
So far we have considered only questions concerning the foundations of
the mathematical sciences. Indeed, the study of the foundations of a
science is always particularly attractive, and the testing of these
foundations will always be among the foremost problems of the
investigator. Weierstrass once said, "The final object always to be kept
in mind is to arrive at a correct understanding of the foundations of
the science. ... But to make any progress in the sciences the study of
particular problems is, of course, indispensable." In fact, a thorough
understanding of its special theories is necessary to the successful
treatment of the foundations of the science. Only that architect is in
the position to lay a sure foundation for a structure who knows its
purpose thoroughly and in detail. So we turn now to the special problems
of the separate branches of mathematics and consider first arithmetic
and algebra.

Easto

I live in the hell of WebTV
Doug Sorensen
2003-11-26 20:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP. - Tony
I don't think that's what CDS is implying. Refinancing puts money in pockets
that gets spent. That spending does have an impact on GDP. OTOH, refinancing
isn't a one shot deal. Your mortgage payment is lower every month, so the money
keeps flowing. I also think that refinancing is not that big a factor and is
almost certainly not the primary factor. Refinancing was occuring all through
2001 and 2002. The last thing CDS wants to admit is that the tax cuts are
working, but that appears to be the case.

Doug

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgement."
Will Rogers
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-26 21:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Doug Sorensen <***@attbi.com> wrote:
: In article <***@4ax.com>, Tony Lima says...
: >
: >On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: ><***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >
: >>When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: >>you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: >
: >The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
: >the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
: >refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
: >services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP. - Tony
: >
:
: I don't think that's what CDS is implying. Refinancing puts money in pockets
: that gets spent. That spending does have an impact on GDP. OTOH, refinancing
: isn't a one shot deal. Your mortgage payment is lower every month, so the money
: keeps flowing. I also think that refinancing is not that big a factor and is
: almost certainly not the primary factor. Refinancing was occuring all through
: 2001 and 2002. The last thing CDS wants to admit is that the tax cuts are
: working, but that appears to be the case.

It's pure Keynes. I thought you guys dismissed Keynesian economics.

The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
flat economy.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Tony Lima
2003-11-26 22:08:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
flat economy.
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"

See my earlier post to Doug about confusing money, income
and wealth. Same comment applies to you, Mike. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-26 22:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:
: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
: >is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
: >while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
: >economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
: >may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
: >but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
: >way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
: >flat economy.
:
: Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
: increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
: once then forgotten?"

One-time refunds, like Bush passed. Duh.

Are you really this dense?
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 02:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
: >is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
: >while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
: >economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
: >may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
: >but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
: >way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
: >flat economy.
: Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
: increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
: once then forgotten?"
One-time refunds, like Bush passed. Duh.
Are you really this dense?
One time $300 checks simply cannot account for an 8.2% rate of growth.
Further they cannot fuel the bull market that we have seen on Wall Street
this year. And finally, unemployment numbers are lowering...it would take a
Hell of a lot more $300.00 checks out there to get Walmart and Target to
cause a bump in UI figures (Walmart and Target of course representing your
supposed service related jobs only argument).

v/r Beau
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 05:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Charles Beauchamp <***@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:
: > : On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > : <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > :
: > : >The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
: > : >is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
: > : >while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
: > : >economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
: > : >may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
: > : >but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
: > : >way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
: > : >flat economy.
: > :
: > : Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
: > : increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
: > : once then forgotten?"
: >
: > One-time refunds, like Bush passed. Duh.
: >
: > Are you really this dense?
: >
:
: One time $300 checks simply cannot account for an 8.2% rate of growth.

Hence the mortgage refinancing. Duh.

: Further they cannot fuel the bull market that we have seen on Wall Street
: this year.

Return of the bubble. P/E's are still too high to sustain.

: And finally, unemployment numbers are lowering...it would take a

No, we're still subtracting jobs much faster than we're adding them.

: Hell of a lot more $300.00 checks out there to get Walmart and Target to
: cause a bump in UI figures (Walmart and Target of course representing your
: supposed service related jobs only argument).

Let's put the burden of solving this riddle on you, then.

If:
- GDP is up; and
- Jobs are down;

Then who is doing well?
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 06:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > : On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > : >The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
: > : >is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
: > : >while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
: > : >economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
: > : >may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
: > : >but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
: > : >way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
: > : >flat economy.
: > : Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
: > : increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
: > : once then forgotten?"
: >
: > One-time refunds, like Bush passed. Duh.
: >
: > Are you really this dense?
: >
: One time $300 checks simply cannot account for an 8.2% rate of growth.
Hence the mortgage refinancing. Duh.
: Further they cannot fuel the bull market that we have seen on Wall Street
: this year.
Return of the bubble. P/E's are still too high to sustain.
: And finally, unemployment numbers are lowering...it would take a
No, we're still subtracting jobs much faster than we're adding them.
No...we are not.
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: Hell of a lot more $300.00 checks out there to get Walmart and Target to
: cause a bump in UI figures (Walmart and Target of course representing your
: supposed service related jobs only argument).
Let's put the burden of solving this riddle on you, then.
- GDP is up; and
- Jobs are down;
Then who is doing well?
Except that GDP is up and jobs are up...so um...dood...I guess the Dems just
lose, not me but you.

v/r Beau
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 07:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Charles Beauchamp <***@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > Charles Beauchamp <***@comcast.net> wrote:
: > :
: > : "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in
: message
: > : news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > : > Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:
: > : > : On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > : > : <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : >The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
: > : > : >is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
: > : > : >while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
: > : > : >economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
: > : > : >may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
: > : > : >but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
: > : > : >way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
: > : > : >flat economy.
: > : > :
: > : > : Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
: > : > : increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
: > : > : once then forgotten?"
: > : >
: > : > One-time refunds, like Bush passed. Duh.
: > : >
: > : > Are you really this dense?
: > : >
: > :
: > : One time $300 checks simply cannot account for an 8.2% rate of growth.
: >
: > Hence the mortgage refinancing. Duh.
: >
: > : Further they cannot fuel the bull market that we have seen on Wall
: Street
: > : this year.
: >
: > Return of the bubble. P/E's are still too high to sustain.
: >
: > : And finally, unemployment numbers are lowering...it would take a
: >
: > No, we're still subtracting jobs much faster than we're adding them.
: >
:
: No...we are not.

Down 385,000 in October.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Tony Lima
2003-11-27 03:44:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:15:37 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
: >is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
: >while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
: >economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
: >may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
: >but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
: >way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
: >flat economy.
: Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
: increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
: once then forgotten?"
One-time refunds, like Bush passed. Duh.
Are you really this dense?
There were several parts to the Bush tax package. One part
was the one-time rebates. However, a permanent reduction in
marginal tax rates went into effect in July, 2003.

No, I am not dense. Back at ya. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
RJ
2003-11-26 23:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:32:42 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
flat economy.
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"
Didn't you see the 'drooling simpleton' part?
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-27 17:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"
Government spending in excess of revenues increases taxes, no matter what
the nominal rate. (Unless you consider default a possibility.)
Tony Lima
2003-11-28 01:54:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:07:33 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"
Government spending in excess of revenues increases taxes, no matter what
the nominal rate. (Unless you consider default a possibility.)
Oh, my, another one. The federal government can spend more
than its revenue (taxes). It does this by borrowing. Since
it's the government and borrows in large quantities it can
issue bonds instead of having to fill out loan applications.

Look up the statistics on the national debt to get a picture
of the U.S. government's net borrowing since 1776.

And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-28 05:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:

: And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: modicum of economics.

You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.

(Let me pre-empt you now and admit in advance that I'm a
partisan more than an economist, but I don't claim otherwise.)
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Jefferson N. Glapski
2003-11-28 16:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: modicum of economics.
You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
Yet, who gets paid for their economic nowledge?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com
Lazlo Hollyfeld
2003-11-28 17:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jefferson N. Glapski
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: modicum of economics.
You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
Yet, who gets paid for their economic nowledge?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com
Tony does too, if he is the guy who is an econ prof at a college in Cali.
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-28 18:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jefferson N. Glapski
Yet, who gets paid for their economic nowledge?
All of us.
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-28 19:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Jefferson N. Glapski <***@pennstateglapski.com> wrote:
: "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:
: >
: > : And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: > : modicum of economics.
: >
: > You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
: > done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
: > much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
: > ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
:
: Yet, who gets paid for their economic nowledge?

Paul Krugman.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
RJ
2003-11-28 21:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >
: > : And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: > : modicum of economics.
: >
: > You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
: > done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
: > much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
: > ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
: Yet, who gets paid for their economic nowledge?
Paul Krugman.
He's stealing his paycheck, then.
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-28 22:05:49 UTC
Permalink
RJ <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Czar Drooling Simpleton I <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: > Jefferson N. Glapski <***@pennstateglapski.com> wrote:
: > : "Czar Drooling Simpleton I" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > : news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > : > Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: > : > : modicum of economics.
: > : >
: > : > You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
: > : > done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
: > : > much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
: > : > ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
: > :
: > : Yet, who gets paid for their economic nowledge?
: >
: > Paul Krugman.
:
: He's stealing his paycheck, then.

Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 01:17:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:18:01 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: modicum of economics.
You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
(Let me pre-empt you now and admit in advance that I'm a
partisan more than an economist, but I don't claim otherwise.)
Then your training is defective. I make a pretty good
living working and consulting as an economist. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 19:27:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:17:24 GMT, Tony Lima
Post by Tony Lima
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:18:01 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
: modicum of economics.
You know... I have some training in economics, and you haven't
done anything here to demonstrate to me any reason why you're
much of an authority. Quite the reverse, you seem to be an
ideologue more than an economist, much like Glapski.
(Let me pre-empt you now and admit in advance that I'm a
partisan more than an economist, but I don't claim otherwise.)
Then your training is defective. I make a pretty good
living working and consulting as an economist. - Tony
Oh, yeah, and I'll stack my academic training up against
anyone you'd care to choose. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-28 08:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:07:33 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"
Government spending in excess of revenues increases taxes, no matter what
the nominal rate. (Unless you consider default a possibility.)
Oh, my, another one. The federal government can spend more
than its revenue (taxes). It does this by borrowing. Since
it's the government and borrows in large quantities it can
issue bonds instead of having to fill out loan applications.
Look up the statistics on the national debt to get a picture
of the U.S. government's net borrowing since 1776.
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
Explain who's supposed to repay the debt, and where the money is supposed to
come from. Governement spending equals taxation. Pay now or pay later,
it's still a tax.
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-28 10:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:07:33 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"
Government spending in excess of revenues increases taxes, no matter what
the nominal rate. (Unless you consider default a possibility.)
Oh, my, another one. The federal government can spend more
than its revenue (taxes). It does this by borrowing. Since
it's the government and borrows in large quantities it can
issue bonds instead of having to fill out loan applications.
Look up the statistics on the national debt to get a picture
of the U.S. government's net borrowing since 1776.
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
Explain who's supposed to repay the debt, and where the money is supposed to
come from. Governement spending equals taxation. Pay now or pay later,
it's still a tax.
Got any tips on where to lower spending?

v/r Beau
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-28 18:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Got any tips on where to lower spending?
That's a valid topic for debate -- without making those choices, tax "cuts"
contributing to budget deficits really just shift the timing (or structure)
of tax payments rather than reduce them on an aggregate basis.
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-28 19:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Got any tips on where to lower spending?
That's a valid topic for debate -- without making those choices, tax "cuts"
contributing to budget deficits really just shift the timing (or structure)
of tax payments rather than reduce them on an aggregate basis.
Mumbo gobbledy jumbo. Ifn you spend more then you take in...you have a
deficit. So...suggest spending cuts and then bug the Hell out of your
Congressman/Senator and vote accordingly.

Neither party is against spending. What the real debate in this country is
always about is what the spending is on.

v/r Beau
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-28 22:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Neither party is against spending. What the real debate in this country is
always about is what the spending is on.
And who's going to pay for it, and when, and who is lying by calling
shifting the tax burden a tax "cut".
Randolph M. Jones
2003-11-29 02:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Neither party is against spending. What the real debate in this country is
always about is what the spending is on.
I agree with you. But it can't be denied that a large number of
people make their living by *claiming* that Republicans are against
spending.
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-29 08:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Neither party is against spending. What the real debate in this country is
always about is what the spending is on.
I agree with you. But it can't be denied that a large number of
people make their living by *claiming* that Republicans are against
spending.
Name some. Seriously. I think that the GOP has championed balanced budgets
for the last 20 years or so....but that isn't the same as saying they are
against spending. The Republican right has always (at least that part of
always that has been in cluded in my political lifetime...since oh the late
70's) championed "high" defense spending for example.

v/r Beau
Randolph M. Jones
2003-11-29 15:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Neither party is against spending. What the real debate in this country
is
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
always about is what the spending is on.
I agree with you. But it can't be denied that a large number of
people make their living by *claiming* that Republicans are against
spending.
Name some. Seriously. I think that the GOP has championed balanced budgets
for the last 20 years or so....but that isn't the same as saying they are
against spending. The Republican right has always (at least that part of
always that has been in cluded in my political lifetime...since oh the late
70's) championed "high" defense spending for example.
You're kidding, right? Try doing a google search on "big spending
liberal", "big government liberal", and "tax and spend liberal". Or
search for "big spender" or "big spending" next to *any* democratic
presidential candidate's name. Or go ahead and listen to Rush
Limbaugh or *any* other conservative pundit. At the same time that
Reagan and Bush I were blowing the deficit sky high, they were running
against Mondale and Dukakis, calling them "big spenders" at every
available chance. As you correctly point out, they were big spenders
themselves, and yet the public seems to eat up this urban myth, and
republicans for the most part keep using it (they'd be stupid not to,
since it seems to work).
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-29 18:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Neither party is against spending. What the real debate in this country
is
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
always about is what the spending is on.
I agree with you. But it can't be denied that a large number of
people make their living by *claiming* that Republicans are against
spending.
Name some. Seriously. I think that the GOP has championed balanced budgets
for the last 20 years or so....but that isn't the same as saying they are
against spending. The Republican right has always (at least that part of
always that has been in cluded in my political lifetime...since oh the late
70's) championed "high" defense spending for example.
You're kidding, right? Try doing a google search on "big spending
liberal", "big government liberal", and "tax and spend liberal". Or
search for "big spender" or "big spending" next to *any* democratic
presidential candidate's name. Or go ahead and listen to Rush
Limbaugh or *any* other conservative pundit. At the same time that
Reagan and Bush I were blowing the deficit sky high, they were running
against Mondale and Dukakis, calling them "big spenders" at every
available chance. As you correctly point out, they were big spenders
themselves, and yet the public seems to eat up this urban myth, and
republicans for the most part keep using it (they'd be stupid not to,
since it seems to work).
You stated that a large number of people make their living by claiming that
Republicans are against spending. Then you named sorta one. Rush Limbaugh.
For the record I don't listen to Rush. He irritates me. He is often full
of hot air. If I listen to any of the talk radio types with any regularity
it is Hannity but only because his show runs during my lunch time...and then
I only tune in if there isn't a good guest on KJR sport radio at that time.
Usually there is a good guest on KJR sports radio at that time.

So...GOP candidates rightly slamming Democrats on their spending does not
equate to Republicans making a living on lower spending. You are right..it
is an urban myth. President Bush is as much a heavy spender as anything
that anyone has ever accused his predecessors for being.

v/r Beau
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-29 18:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
So...GOP candidates rightly slamming Democrats on their spending does not
equate to Republicans making a living on lower spending. You are right..it
is an urban myth. President Bush is as much a heavy spender as anything
that anyone has ever accused his predecessors for being.
So... where's the outrage.
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 01:16:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:34:39 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:07:33 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
Again, breathtaking. A permanent tax cut permanently
increases disposable income. How can that possibly be "felt
once then forgotten?"
Government spending in excess of revenues increases taxes, no matter what
the nominal rate. (Unless you consider default a possibility.)
Oh, my, another one. The federal government can spend more
than its revenue (taxes). It does this by borrowing. Since
it's the government and borrows in large quantities it can
issue bonds instead of having to fill out loan applications.
Look up the statistics on the national debt to get a picture
of the U.S. government's net borrowing since 1776.
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
Explain who's supposed to repay the debt, and where the money is supposed to
come from. Governement spending equals taxation. Pay now or pay later,
it's still a tax.
Hey, trust me, if the government runs a deficit today I'm
not gonna be the one paying later. Which is exactly the
point. Unlike individuals, modern stable governments last
quite a while. Currently the U.S. is over 200 years, U.K.
somewhere over 500, and so on. We expect the government
will outlive all of us. Will it last long enough so the
discount factor by which future debt repayments will be
multiplied becomes exceedingly small? Probably.

You are attempting to argue using a household as an analogy.
The analogy doesn't work because households die eventually.
Governments last considerably longer. The issue of exactly
when the debt must be repaid (a precise date, if you please)
is extremely important. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-29 01:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
Hey, trust me, if the government runs a deficit today I'm
not gonna be the one paying later. Which is exactly the
point. Unlike individuals, modern stable governments last
quite a while. Currently the U.S. is over 200 years, U.K.
somewhere over 500, and so on. We expect the government
will outlive all of us. Will it last long enough so the
discount factor by which future debt repayments will be
multiplied becomes exceedingly small? Probably.
You are attempting to argue using a household as an analogy.
The analogy doesn't work because households die eventually.
Governments last considerably longer. The issue of exactly
when the debt must be repaid (a precise date, if you please)
is extremely important. - Tony
Interesting. As in, what about debt service cost.
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 04:25:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:45:19 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
Hey, trust me, if the government runs a deficit today I'm
not gonna be the one paying later. Which is exactly the
point. Unlike individuals, modern stable governments last
quite a while. Currently the U.S. is over 200 years, U.K.
somewhere over 500, and so on. We expect the government
will outlive all of us. Will it last long enough so the
discount factor by which future debt repayments will be
multiplied becomes exceedingly small? Probably.
You are attempting to argue using a household as an analogy.
The analogy doesn't work because households die eventually.
Governments last considerably longer. The issue of exactly
when the debt must be repaid (a precise date, if you please)
is extremely important. - Tony
Interesting. As in, what about debt service cost.
Included in government expenditure for the current fiscal
year. But hardly related in any meaningful way to the whole
issue of taxes to pay off the national debt since interest
costs run about 5% of the total debt. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-28 22:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
BTW, I don't have tenure, so the only modicum of economics I care about is
that the job market sucks and I haven't had a real raise in three years.
The crowing and happy talk from Karl Rove's marketing machine doesn't change
that.
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 01:18:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:25:59 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
BTW, I don't have tenure, so the only modicum of economics I care about is
that the job market sucks and I haven't had a real raise in three years.
The crowing and happy talk from Karl Rove's marketing machine doesn't change
that.
Perhaps if you had taken more economics courses in school
this wouldn't be such a problem for you. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Justo Y. Equilibrado
2003-11-29 01:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Lima
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:25:59 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
BTW, I don't have tenure, so the only modicum of economics I care about is
that the job market sucks and I haven't had a real raise in three years.
The crowing and happy talk from Karl Rove's marketing machine doesn't change
that.
Perhaps if you had taken more economics courses in school
this wouldn't be such a problem for you. - Tony
How do you figure?
Tony Lima
2003-11-29 04:26:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:26:45 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Tony Lima
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:25:59 GMT, "Justo Y. Equilibrado"
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
Post by Tony Lima
And don't enter a debate like this again until you learn a
modicum of economics. - Tony
BTW, I don't have tenure, so the only modicum of economics I care about
is
Post by Tony Lima
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
that the job market sucks and I haven't had a real raise in three years.
The crowing and happy talk from Karl Rove's marketing machine doesn't
change
Post by Tony Lima
Post by Justo Y. Equilibrado
that.
Perhaps if you had taken more economics courses in school
this wouldn't be such a problem for you. - Tony
How do you figure?
The unemployment rate among economists is very low. Among
Ph.D. economists it is virtually zero. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 02:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >
: >On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >
: >>When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: >>you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: >
: >The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
: >the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
: >refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
: >services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP. - Tony
: >
: I don't think that's what CDS is implying. Refinancing puts money in pockets
: that gets spent. That spending does have an impact on GDP. OTOH, refinancing
: isn't a one shot deal. Your mortgage payment is lower every month, so the money
: keeps flowing. I also think that refinancing is not that big a factor and is
: almost certainly not the primary factor. Refinancing was occuring all through
: 2001 and 2002. The last thing CDS wants to admit is that the tax cuts are
: working, but that appears to be the case.
It's pure Keynes. I thought you guys dismissed Keynesian economics.
The difference, though, between tax cuts and increased spending
is that the effect of tax cuts is felt once and then forgotten,
while spending keeps money pushing through the arteries of the
economy (whatever its effects on inflation and interest rates
may be). It's possible that tax cuts have produced a bump here,
but that's not even what the government is saying. And, either
way, it's still likely to be just another spike in an otherwise
flat economy.
Me thinks you have it wrong again. The tax "rebate" checks that were mailed
out are a one shot..but hmmm...if'n my paycheck is $X more each pay period
now because of less withholding then broman...that is pretty much every pay
period...and that is constant enough for me to see!

As for the spink in a flat economy...the only sector of economic growth
study that is "flat" has been job growth and even that is starting to move
upward.

Hell I'm not a fan of Reaganomics or the supply side, but it looks pretty
obvious to me that the economy sucks argument is going to lose any power.

v/r Beau
Tony Lima
2003-11-26 22:07:01 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Nov 2003 12:27:39 -0800, Doug Sorensen
Post by Doug Sorensen
I don't think that's what CDS is implying. Refinancing puts money in pockets
that gets spent. That spending does have an impact on GDP. OTOH, refinancing
isn't a one shot deal. Your mortgage payment is lower every month, so the money
keeps flowing. I also think that refinancing is not that big a factor and is
almost certainly not the primary factor. Refinancing was occuring all through
2001 and 2002. The last thing CDS wants to admit is that the tax cuts are
working, but that appears to be the case.
Doug
That may well have been what he meant. It wasn't what he
said. Excuse me if I refuse to even try to read Mike's
mind. It's simply not worth the effort.

I have taken the liberty of excerpting from your reply
Post by Doug Sorensen
Your mortgage payment is lower every month, so the money
keeps flowing.
You get no particular grief from me for confusing money,
income and wealth, but only because it's such a common
mistake among those who don't think clearly about economics.
- Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-26 21:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Tony Lima <***@att.net> wrote:
: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: >you're not exactly building something likely to last.
:
: The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
: the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
: refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
: services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP.

Oh, please, save me the sanctimony. First of all, I didn't come
up with that little factoid -- the government did. Secondly,
when debt is restructured such that consumers have additional
cash with which to stimulate consumer spending, that *does*
affect "newly produced goods or services." It's a simple chain
reaction.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Tony Lima
2003-11-26 22:09:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:18:01 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: >you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: The lack of knowledge of basic national income accounting in
: the above statement is breathtaking. For starters, mortgage
: refinancing does not affect any newly produced goods or
: services. Therefore it has no direct impact on GDP.
Oh, please, save me the sanctimony. First of all, I didn't come
up with that little factoid -- the government did.
Please point to whatever web page on which you read this.
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Secondly,
when debt is restructured such that consumers have additional
cash with which to stimulate consumer spending, that *does*
affect "newly produced goods or services." It's a simple chain
reaction.
That's not what you said earlier. Please learn to describe
your ideas more clearly. - Tony
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Bryan S. Slick
2003-11-26 18:28:41 UTC
Permalink
[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]

:Randall Nettman <***@westwnt.com> wrote:
:: Economic Growth at 8.2%
:
:When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
:you're not exactly building something likely to last.
:
:Bush is toast.

You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-26 21:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: [Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]
:
: :Randall Nettman <***@westwnt.com> wrote:
: :: Economic Growth at 8.2%
: :
: :When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: :you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: :
: :Bush is toast.
:
: You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
: moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
: President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
: November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.

Reading the numbers right now is mostly an exercise in self-
gratification. When a plurality of respondents say that they
would prefer that Bush not be returned to office, but he wins
matchups against each individual Dem candidate, that means one
thing: nobody has the right combination of support and name
recognition.

Well, that's normal at this point in the election cycle. Most
people aren't even paying attention to politics yet.

When it comes to decide, the electoral center that decides
elections invariably vote their perceived self-interest: are
they better off now than they were four years ago? It would
take a boom of unprecedented intensity to put enough jobs
back into the economy for Bush to avoid being the first guy
since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs. Worse, we've
lost well-paying professional jobs and replaced them with
low-paying service jobs. Thus, the employment picture is
even bleaker than a quick reading of the numbers suggests.

Further -- and most people miss this -- the Republicans have
laid the groundwork for the next re-alignment by abandoning
their old base of fiscal conservatives and social moderates
for their new southern base of social conservatives with no
strong fiscal convictions at all. (Look at what the Republican
president and Republican Congress did with the surplus, turning
it into a record deficit. These are not your father's fiscal
conservatives.) Howard Dean is Ross Perot without the paranoia
or twang, and he will win many former Republican votes if he
is nominated.

Finally, Bush is highly vulnerable on the issue of national
security. Iraq is now a millstone around his neck that won't
go away, and he is vulnerable to attack from the right about
his weak effort in fighting terrorism. The Dems have been
saving that message for the big push next year, knowing its
potency. But Bush's abandonment of the war in Afghanistan,
along with his coddling of the Saudis, will be featured in a
lot of TV ads. Rove shows every sign of gearing up to attack
the Dems for being soft on terror, but that's just going to
give them the opportunity to spotlight Bush's weak record.
The discussions of who supported the Iraq invasion when will
be a distant memory by next fall.

In short, Bush is vulnerable on the economy, on national
security, on trustworthiness (most voters now believe that
he exaggerated or lied about WMDs in Iraq), and on his social
conservatism. He has completely abandoned his "compassionate
conservative" stance from 2000 that held the old-style
Republican voters in line. He has no Democratic Congress to
push blame upon. And he is likely to face a Democratic
nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
a liberal northeastern state. I just don't think they can
manufacture enough Willie Horton ads to save themselves this
time.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Jefferson N. Glapski
2003-11-26 22:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: [Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]
: :: Economic Growth at 8.2%
: :When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: :you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: :Bush is toast.
: You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
: moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
: President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
: November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.
Reading the numbers right now is mostly an exercise in self-
gratification. When a plurality of respondents say that they
would prefer that Bush not be returned to office, but he wins
matchups against each individual Dem candidate, that means one
thing: nobody has the right combination of support and name
recognition.
Sounds like you should be making a shitload of money trading futures.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com
RJ
2003-11-26 23:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And he is likely to face a Democratic
nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
a liberal northeastern state.
Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
Vermont is.

Q: what is the population of the second biggest city in Vermont?
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 00:21:50 UTC
Permalink
RJ <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Czar Drooling Simpleton I <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: > And he is likely to face a Democratic
: > nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
: > a liberal northeastern state.
:
: Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
: Vermont is.

And yet they find the money to succeed anyway. So much the more
impressive.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
RJ
2003-11-27 02:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > And he is likely to face a Democratic
: > nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
: > a liberal northeastern state.
: Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
: Vermont is.
And yet they find the money to succeed anyway. So much the more
impressive.
I didn't say Vermont was poor.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-11-27 01:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJ
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And he is likely to face a Democratic
nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
a liberal northeastern state.
Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
Vermont is.
But we've got a real good idea how close you hew to the party line.
RJ
2003-11-27 02:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Post by RJ
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And he is likely to face a Democratic
nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
a liberal northeastern state.
Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
Vermont is.
But we've got a real good idea how close you hew to the party line.
You are a master of the non-sequitur. My statement is all about
demographics and size, not politics.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-11-27 14:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJ
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Post by RJ
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And he is likely to face a Democratic
nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
a liberal northeastern state.
Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
Vermont is.
But we've got a real good idea how close you hew to the party line.
You are a master of the non-sequitur. My statement is all about
demographics and size, not politics.
Odd. But the RNC says the same thing.
RJ
2003-11-27 16:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Post by RJ
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Post by RJ
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And he is likely to face a Democratic
nominee who balanced budgets, cut taxes and added services in
a liberal northeastern state.
Apparently you have no idea how tiny and non-representative of the US
Vermont is.
But we've got a real good idea how close you hew to the party line.
You are a master of the non-sequitur. My statement is all about
demographics and size, not politics.
Odd. But the RNC says the same thing.
Anybody who has been to Vermont will say the same thing, dumnass.
Bryan S. Slick
2003-11-27 03:14:25 UTC
Permalink
[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:12:47 GMT]

:In short,

After five paragraphs of trying to convince I don't know who (yourself,
I suspect), the above two words were really out of place.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 05:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: [Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:12:47 GMT]
:
: :In short,
:
: After five paragraphs of trying to convince I don't know who (yourself,
: I suspect), the above two words were really out of place.

I got carried away. I'm a dumn aggee.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Jeffrey Davis
2003-11-27 01:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]
:: Economic Growth at 8.2%
:When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
:you're not exactly building something likely to last.
:Bush is toast.
You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.
Things never look good for liberals. We're not a majority and haven't
been a majority since, well, 2000. But before that: 1944.
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 05:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Jeffrey Davis <***@alltel.net> wrote:
: Bryan S. Slick wrote:
:
: > [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: > [Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]
: >
: > :Randall Nettman <***@westwnt.com> wrote:
: > :: Economic Growth at 8.2%
: > :
: > :When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: > :you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: > :
: > :Bush is toast.
: >
: > You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
: > moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
: > President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
: > November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.
: >
:
: Things never look good for liberals. We're not a majority and haven't
: been a majority since, well, 2000. But before that: 1944.

1964?
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Jeffrey Davis
2003-11-27 14:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > [Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]
: >
: > :: Economic Growth at 8.2%
: > :When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: > :you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: > :Bush is toast.
: >
: > You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
: > moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
: > President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
: > November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.
: >
: Things never look good for liberals. We're not a majority and haven't
: been a majority since, well, 2000. But before that: 1944.
1964?
Sympathy vote.
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2003-11-27 20:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Jeffrey Davis <***@alltel.net> wrote:
:
:
: Czar Drooling Simpleton I wrote:
: > Jeffrey Davis <***@alltel.net> wrote:
: > : Bryan S. Slick wrote:
: > :
: > : > [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: > : > [Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:43:34 GMT]
: > : >
: > : > :Randall Nettman <***@westwnt.com> wrote:
: > : > :: Economic Growth at 8.2%
: > : > :
: > : > :When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
: > : > :you're not exactly building something likely to last.
: > : > :
: > : > :Bush is toast.
: > : >
: > : > You may have a point, but I don't think that those in the running at the
: > : > moment on the Democratic side have the slightest chance of unseating
: > : > President Bush. We'll see.. something may change between now and next
: > : > November, but it's not looking good for the liberals.
: > : >
: > :
: > : Things never look good for liberals. We're not a majority and haven't
: > : been a majority since, well, 2000. But before that: 1944.
: >
: > 1964?
:
: Sympathy vote.

Hrm. I'm pretty sure that JFK would have pummeled Goldwater.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 02:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: Economic Growth at 8.2%
When your economic growth is fueled primarily by mortgage refinancing,
you're not exactly building something likely to last.
Mortgage refinancing is not factored into GDP figures in anyway that I am
aware of. If I am wrong please splain to silly me. I don't think it is
though.
Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Bush is toast.
The Dems are French Toast.

v/r Beau
Joshua
2003-11-25 20:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
They better start working fast to dig up, or fabricate, a scandal or
something.
Ah, but economic success never stopped the Republicans from using the
"tax-and-spend" argument against the Democrats. Now, I'd like to see
what the Democrats do with the "tax-cut-and-spend" Republicans.
Jungle Jim
2003-11-26 16:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Nettman
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
They better start working fast to dig up, or fabricate, a scandal or
something.
What on God's green earth does this have to do with college football
during the season ?

Save it for off-season and preface the subject with OT, please.

Thank you.
Randall Nettman
2003-11-26 16:47:54 UTC
Permalink
In a ridiculous pointless article
<***@65.24.7.150>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by Jungle Jim
Post by Randall Nettman
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
They better start working fast to dig up, or fabricate, a scandal or
something.
What on God's green earth does this have to do with college football
during the season ?
Save it for off-season and preface the subject with OT, please.
Thank you.
Who are you? ($1)
Charles Beauchamp
2003-11-27 02:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jungle Jim
Post by Randall Nettman
Economic Growth at 8.2%
Jobless Claims down by 14,000
Their entire field of Presidential candidates for 2004 are idots
They better start working fast to dig up, or fabricate, a scandal or
something.
What on God's green earth does this have to do with college football
during the season ?
Save it for off-season and preface the subject with OT, please.
Thank you.
Off season started exactly 1 second after the Apple Cup ended on Saturday so
there.

v/r Beau
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...