Kerry is a pilot?

In article SQ_Qb.116380$Rc4.910912@attbi_s54, Michael 182 says...


"Stuart King" wrote in message
.com...
....
Even my Republican friends complain that Bush's economic policies are
disasterous.

Rescuing the economy from the collapse of the Clinton bubble has not been easy
but is well underway. We are in, I think, the third consecutive highest growth
quarter in twenty years and the employment rate is over 94% and increasing.

The presidential candidates are desperate to link Iraq and Vietnam because they
know that by summer no amount of rhetoric will be able to mask the strength and
breadth of the economic recovery.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
In article SQ_Qb.116380$Rc4.910912@attbi_s54, Michael 182 says...


"Stuart King" wrote in message
.com...
...
Even my Republican friends complain that Bush's economic policies are
disasterous.

Rescuing the economy from the collapse of the Clinton bubble has not been
easy
but is well underway. We are in, I think, the third consecutive highest
growth
quarter in twenty years and the employment rate is over 94% and
increasing.


This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom (if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

President Bush's current policy (combined with Congress) of creating massive
spending increases combined with tax cuts may, in some way, be linked to the
results of Clinton's policies. The question is does the deficit growth
policy make any sense? Sure, everyone knows it makes sense to borrow for a
good investment - but foreclosures and bankruptcies occur becasue the
investment doesn't always pan out.

I don't know macro economics very well, so I'll concede that there are many
parts to this I don't understand. The part I do understand, and that I was
taught from a young age, is pay your own way. Don't expect anyone to bail
you out. I don't see the current administration living that basic principle.

Michael

Michael 182 wrote:
This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom (if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

Not sure what you mean by "This head in the sand view..." I agree that
economic cycles are not contained within any given presidential term but
the president does have some influence. Clinton could have encouraged
the SEC to enforce the existing securities laws and perhaps diminished
the enormous amount of money fleeced from individual stockholders by
investment banks; Bush could use his veto to dampen the drunken
spending compulsions of congress.

Anyway, I was simply quoting the current economic picture from WSJ to
counter the previous posters allusions to "disaster."

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Michael 182 wrote:
This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton
for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom
(if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

Not sure what you mean by "This head in the sand view..." I agree that
economic cycles are not contained within any given presidential term but
the president does have some influence. Clinton could have encouraged
the SEC to enforce the existing securities laws and perhaps diminished
the enormous amount of money fleeced from individual stockholders by
investment banks; Bush could use his veto to dampen the drunken
spending compulsions of congress.

If Clinton had done that the recession would have been apearant sooner.
When Rubin split in '98 the gamming of the system began in earnest. I don't
believe Rubin is all that ethical, but he is not a criminal; so he bailed.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:GfiRb.154715$I06.1566269@attbi_s01...

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
In article SQ_Qb.116380$Rc4.910912@attbi_s54, Michael 182 says...


"Stuart King" wrote in message
.com...
...
Even my Republican friends complain that Bush's economic policies are
disasterous.

Rescuing the economy from the collapse of the Clinton bubble has not
been
easy
but is well underway. We are in, I think, the third consecutive highest
growth
quarter in twenty years and the employment rate is over 94% and
increasing.


This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom
(if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

Except that the Clinton FCC was the basis for saddleing the telecomm
industry with the burden then led to theri downfall and largely took the
internet stocks (not necessarily the dot com...that was stupid in any right)
down the tubes.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...mm-telecom.htm (Originally
published in October, 2002)

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/eps...ransition.html

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1166


President Bush's current policy (combined with Congress) of creating
massive
spending increases combined with tax cuts may, in some way, be linked to
the
results of Clinton's policies. The question is does the deficit growth
policy make any sense?

How about when it was used from 1932 to 1996 with just a two year respite?

Sure, everyone knows it makes sense to borrow for a
good investment - but foreclosures and bankruptcies occur becasue the
investment doesn't always pan out.

Yes.

I don't know macro economics very well, so I'll concede that there are
many
parts to this I don't understand. The part I do understand, and that I was
taught from a young age, is pay your own way. Don't expect anyone to bail
you out. I don't see the current administration living that basic
principle.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n6/crane.pdf

http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030728.html

and worst of all ... http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

Thank...I'll stay home this November.

Doug Carter wrote:

In article SQ_Qb.116380$Rc4.910912@attbi_s54, Michael 182 says...


"Stuart King" wrote in message
r.com...

...

Even my Republican friends complain that Bush's economic policies are
disasterous.


Rescuing the economy from the collapse of the Clinton bubble has not been easy
but is well underway. We are in, I think, the third consecutive highest growth
quarter in twenty years and the employment rate is over 94% and increasing.

The economy officialy recovered in late 2002. We are already in our
second year of the good economy.

Newps wrote in message news:NXvRb.167758$na.277405@attbi_s04...
The economy officialy recovered in late 2002. We are already in our
second year of the good economy.

I once heard an economist jokingly define a recession as when his
friends lose their jobs. A depression, on the other hand, was when HE
lost his job.

The problem with this recovery is that it's a technical recovery only.
GNP has stopped decreasing quarter per quarter, that's the official
definition of the end of a recovery. That's the way it was defined
when I got my econ. degree and still is. But, that says nothing about
jobs still decreasing, and the ones that are being created are more
often contract temporary positions than permanent ones.

Also, indications are that the net icome for the working public, ie
those that make the majority of their income through jobs, has
decreased. Greenspan encouraged a housing boom to replace the dot com
boom. That's softened the impact of the recession greatly. But it's
a limited thing. People can only refinance and spend so much.

So, yes. We're technically out of recession, and I'll be happy to
take any good news I can get. But in this case it doesn't necessarily
mean much.

-Malcolm Teas

In article , Malcolm Teas
says...

Newps wrote in message
news:NXvRb.167758$na.277405@attbi_s04...
The economy officialy recovered in late 2002. We are already in our
second year of the good economy.

I once heard an economist jokingly define a recession as when his
friends lose their jobs. A depression, on the other hand, was when HE
lost his job.

It's not all gloom and doom, GDP and personal income are up, unemployment is
down; each of these are forecast to continue improving through 2004. If only
we could get Bush to veto some of the drunken crazed pork barrell spending by
congress things would look even better.


Jan 2004, Bureau of Labor Statistics: “...the unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent,
continued to trend down, the of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.”


Jan, 2004 “Wall Street Journal: “The economy has momentum heading into 2004.
Economists see solid growth, improvement in the labor market and growing
corporate profits.

Economists who participated in the semiannual forecasting survey expect growth
at around a 4% inflation-adjusted annualized rate throughout the year - starting
with growth of nearly 4.5% in the first quarter. They believe unemployment will
ease toward 5.5% and profits will grow 15.9%.”


December 2003, Bureau of Economic Analysis: “Personal income increased $44.0
billion, or 0.5 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $39.2
billion, or 0.5 percent, in November...”

Malcolm Teas wrote:

I once heard an economist jokingly define a recession as when his
friends lose their jobs. A depression, on the other hand, was when HE
lost his job.

And a panic is when your wife loses *her* job.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

You point out many things that are true... I do not consider myself a
luddite, nor ignorant of the impossibility of turning back the clock; nor of
reversing the industrial revolution so we can all return to Eden: But in
the name of improving the bottom line for the corporate share holders we
exported the smokestack industries leaving ourselves at the mercy of others
to produce and sell back to us those things made of metals and stamped out
by great thumping presses... Then the toaster, and furniture, and clothing,
and glass ware, and on, and on... Then we exported the making of machines
that make machines, also in the name of profit margins, now we are dependent
upon foreign sources for our precision tool machinery... Then we exported
the manufacturing of the televison we gave the world, because there was more
profit, and now we buy all of our television sets from abroad... Next, the
camera went overseas, and the film industry is rapidly following.... Then we
exported the technology of the computer chip we were foremost in inventing,
and now we depend upon others to sell us the chips to make the computers,
again because it was more profitable... Now, the highly skilled software
jobs are fleeing, like thieves in the night, to India because the corporate
CEO can increase profits and make a bonus of millions... And, currently we
are in a titanic struggle over food tariffs and if we lose our sense of
purpose we will become dependent upon foreign sources for a majority of our
basic foodstuffs...
Once, we become totally a nation of hamburger flippers where is the money to
buy the foreign products we are dependent upon going to come from?
denny

"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
The problem with this recovery is that it's a technical recovery only.
But, that says nothing about
jobs still decreasing, and the ones that are being created are more
often contract temporary positions than permanent ones.