Repub. or Demo. Who's better for the eco nomy?

“V - The flat line stared before Bush took office.

What don't you understand?

Ever hear of the dot-com bust of the 1990s?”

“Sarge, excuses excuses, we're five years down the line now.”

“Ok - and look at the graph now.”

“I've neevr been better off myself. Everything has improved for me and I live in Ohio. Now I realize things may not be so grand if you live in DC or NJ but then again, that's your fault. LOL!”

“ditto what Nigal said”

“Nah, DC is doing great. City always thrives during wartime. YOu should see the house prices. The with the Republicans will to take so much money from anyone that'll hand it over, the lobyiing business is thriving, defense contractors, department of homeland security, all is well here.”

“LOL - house prices are high y2?

LOL

Um, that's a good thing.”

“But really, those tax cuts to the rich were helping us all out, weren't they. We're all supposed to be better off?”

“Nigal - Are you rich?”

“No Sarge - god, everything does really need to be spelled out for you. It a sign of a booming area.”

“phaedrus - house prices and tech stocks are not the same kind of economic indicators.

Why are you even discussing this if you don't understand that?

[edit] sorry y2
last edited: 6/23/05 1:18:09 PM”

“No Sarge - god, everything does really need to be spelled out for you. It a sign of a booming area.

y2 - A booming area's what? Bananas? Marriage rates? What?”

“Sarge, mebbe you need to work on your reading skills too.”

“well ok then Sarge. ;op”

“You didn't specify. Please do. It's a sign of a booming area's what?”

“Use the force!”

“Yes sarge, lets break this down for you in the simplist possible terms. DC is doing well. Largely as a result of excessive spending by the Bush Administration and the Rebublicans in charge of both houses.

The rest of the country is obviously largely flatlining with poorer than hoped-for growth. I'm able to see beyond the world outside my own window. You seem incapable of this.”

“y2 - House prices are at the 2nd highest prices of all time. Not just in DC.”

“I gotta get drunk with this guy. >8^]”

“The economy is doomed no matter who's in office because of resource depletion. Classical Smithian economics is completely reliant on infinite growth, and the Earth is a finite place. Some believe that we're near the Earth's limits right now.
last edited: 6/23/05 1:47:14 PM”

“Someday soon we'll have to tap into the other 99.9999% of the earth's resources.

Heaven help us!”

“Stay tuned as Planet Earth goes 'round and 'round!”

“Sarge is right, there is plenty more of Earth to destroy.”

“Sarge is right ...

Ahhh ... the sweet sound ...

there is plenty more of Earth to destroy

and don't forget we have plans to venture out into the solar system after that!”

“sure sarge, because it is entirely possible to transport a population of 6 billion and growing to other worlds. It seems like just yesterday we landed on the moon.”

“You guys think to microscopically.

The universe is vast. Too vast to destroy. The earth is but a dot within our galaxy, and our galaxy but a dot in the universe. Even if we each had our very own galaxy to destroy, there would be billions more left in pristine condition.

It's all good.”

“I thought the moon landings were a hoax.”

“a philospher once said human life is more of a virus than an animal.”

“Well, the good news is gas prices are high so that limits consumption.

You enviromentalist wackos should be happy of that at least.”

“Once Earth is done, our existence is done.”

“Did that philosopher work diligently to kill himself?”

“Once Earth is done, our existence is done.

We're all going to die.

Oh I see, you don't want us all dying at the same time. Nobody to bury us then. Good point.
last edited: 6/23/05 5:20:16 PM”

“I started pulling out of the market back in November of 1999. I kept pulling out all the way till 2001. When the market started to take a nose dive I started to buy again. Some things I bought too early, because the market continued to fall. I still did ok though. The market has made a pretty good comeback since then. The major reason for that is the low interest rates the Fed instituted. I rally don't care if the market rises right now because I'm buying. Run away bull markets just like the out of control housing market scare me. I'm watching the market close right now and will go to mostly cash, if interest rates or oil causes the market to slip. With oil over $60 now the sell trigger could come soon. I lost a lot of money today. The plus side is a stock I want to buy just got a little cheaper. Happy trading.”

“I think ENS smokes too much dope and reads too much environmental garbage. Or does he smoke too much garbage and reads to much environmental dope? Either way...the sky is not falling dude. you can smile.”

“if only howard dean had won.....”

“LOL stratdewd.

You guyses problem is all the top Dems are nutz! LOL”

“HEADLINE:

Whiny Democrats scare country into complaining about any and everything. The Democrats today succeeded in again convincing the sheep-like among us that the sky is falling even while the economy is looking great especially compared to Europe with its large social subsidies which are keeping their economies mired in sluggish growth....


GATORS are in the College World Series Championship game!!! Who needs a good economy?”

“I wonder if they taught Sarge how to spin charts at the Bush Youth Camps.”

“BB - Yeah! The chart starts dipping during Clinton and I'm spinning! LOL

Before the 2000 election, before anybody knew who would be president, everybody said the economy was going down hill.

It's just some people have selective memories.

I distinctly remember telling people if Bush is elected, the libs will blame it on him. Once again, I was right. typical
last edited: 6/24/05 7:08:01 AM”

“From now on, I'll adress you as "Private, 4th Class".

BTW - stay in PA, we have enough dolts out here in Ohio”

“^ And - right to the personal attacks instead of the issues.

typical”

“Oops - n/m

Excuse me.

I see you started with the personal attack before that post an hour earlier.

My bad.”

“I take it personally when people vote for proven failures and place my neighbors in harms way. Since people like you fail to use logic and reason, and have a proven track record of such, you're a complete dumbass, and your opinion has no value. Hopefully this feeling is mutual.”

“* MORE PERSONAL INSULTS INSTEAD OF STICKING TO THE ISSUES FROM A LIBBY *”

“The Trail Talk Sing Along Song

I’m right, you’re wrong
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!
I rule you drool,
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!
You sling muck, and you suck,
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!
You make me sick, and you’re a dick,
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!

[first page same as the fifth page]

Come on! You know the words! Everybody now!

I’m right, you’re wrong
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!
I rule you drool,
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!
You sling muck, and you suck,
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!
You make me sick, and you’re a dick,
It’s the Trail Talk Sing Along Song!

Ect…Ect…Ect…””

“An unsafe world for US companies
By Mark Engler

The Bush administration has a reputation for creating an unusually business-friendly White House. Put Vice President Dick Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force and massive tax cuts together with corporate lobbyists writing regulations for their own industries, and you've made an argument that seems pretty persuasive.

There are reasons, however, to consider a contrary notion: Maybe President George W Bush and Cheney aren't very good capitalists at all.
[...]
Increasingly, the business media is suggesting that corporate leaders, who once hoped the current administration would push the corporate globalization of the Bill Clinton years to new heights, now fear another fate from the international order Bush has created. Tax cuts and deregulation on the domestic front have been obvious bonuses, but otherwise many US multinationals face a troubling scene. The White House's failed CEOs have pursued a global agenda that, at best, benefits a narrow slice of the American business community and leaves the rest exposed to a world of popular resentment and economic uncertainty.

When it comes to the interventions of Bush, Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the neo-conservatives in the global economy, "at best an average job" might be a charitable judgment, and "messed up big-time" could be closer to reality. Those business people who have yet to join the majority that opposes the president's handling of his war in Iraq - or the increasing chorus of conservative critics who have begun questioning the administration's foreign policy - may soon have a long list of reasons to get on the bandwagon, starting with the bottom line.
[...]
The Clinton administration served as a steady advocate for building a cooperative, "rules-based" international economy - a multilateral order known to critics as "corporate globalization". The Bush administration, while purporting to be interested in issues such as "free trade", has offered up a very different set of policies.

Aggressive and unilateralist, it has fashioned a new model of "imperial globalization", which has even put multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization, decried by globalization activists, in jeopardy. Rather than working through such bodies, the current administration has regularly shown intransigence in international negotiations around trade and development; it has focused on tying its aid for other countries directly to its militarist prerogatives; and it has tried to deny war-weary "Old Europe" its traditional role as a junior partner in the globalization endeavor. In the process, it has begun dismantling an international order that served multinational corporations very well in the booming 1990s, and facilitated their rise over the past 30 years.
[...]
Whether the administration's bold gamble for US global dominance will prove profitable either in the near future or in the long run, the business costs of this approach are already becoming evident. For starters, the new wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the planet goes far beyond KFC bombings in South Asia or widespread hostility in the Middle East.

In Asia, the South China Morning Post has noted that a "strong, growing hostility" toward the United States has complicated Disney's expansion plans in the area. The Bush imperial foreign policy, moreover, is inspiring consumer backlash even among traditional allies.

In December 2004, Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service reported on a survey of 8,000 international consumers released by the Seattle-based Global Market Insite (GMI) Inc. The survey noted:
One-third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom said that US foreign policy, particularly the "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, constituted their strongest impression of the United States ... "Unfortunately, current American foreign policy is viewed by international consumers as a significant negative, when it used to be a positive," comments Dr Mitchell Eggers, GMI's chief operating officer and chief pollster.
Brands the survey identified as particularly at risk at the time included Marlboro cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, American Airlines, ExxonMobil, Chevron Texaco, United Airlines, Budweiser, Chrysler, Barbie Doll, Starbucks and General Motors.
[...]
The costs associated with rising anti-American sentiment are exponential. From security and economic costs to an erosion in our ability to engender trust around the world and recruit the best and brightest, the US stands to lose its competitive edge if steps are not made toward reversing the negativity associated with America.
[...]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GK05Dj01.html”

“After the booming 1990s when incomes and stock prices were soaring, this decade has been less of a thrill ride for most American families.

Average incomes after adjusting for inflation actually fell from 2001 to 2004, and the growth in net worth was the weakest in a decade, the Federal Reserve reported Thursday.

Many families were struggling in the aftermath of the 2001 recession and the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000, the Fed's latest "Survey of Consumer Finances" showed. The comprehensive look at household balance sheets comes every three years.

Average family incomes, after adjusting for inflation, fell to $70,700 in 2004, a drop of 2.3 percent when compared with 2001. That was the weakest showing since a decline of 11.3 percent from 1989 to 1992, a period that also covered a recession.

The average incomes had soared by 17.3 percent in the 1998-2001 period and 12.3 percent from 1995 to 1998 as the country enjoyed the longest economic expansion in history.

The median family income, the point where half the families made more and half made less, rose a tiny 1.6 percent to $43,200 in 2004 compared with 2001.

Economists said the weakness in the most recent period was understandable given the loss of 2.7 million jobs from early 2001 through August of 2003, when the country was struggling with sizable layoffs caused by the recession, the terrorist attacks and corporate accounting scandals.

The weak income and the stock market decline in the early part of the decade, which wiped out $7 trillion of paper wealth, had an adverse impact on family balance sheets.

Net worth, the difference between assets and liabilities such as loans, rose by 6.3 percent in the 2001-2004 period to an average of $448,200, after adjusting for inflation. That gain was far below the huge increases of 25.6 percent from 1995 to 1998 and 28.7 percent from 1998 to 2001, increases that were fueled by soaring stock prices.

The 2001-2004 performance was the worst since net worth actually declined by 9.9 percent in the 1989-1992 period.

The median family net worth, the point where half the families owned more and half owned less, stood at $93,100 in 2004, a rise of 1.5 percent after adjusting for inflation from 2001.

The report showed that the slowdown in the accumulation of net worth would have been even more sizable except for the fact that homeowners have enjoyed big gains in the value of their homes in recent years.

The gap between the very wealthy and other income groups widened during the period.

The top 10 percent of households saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent to an average of $3.11 million while the bottom 10 percent suffered a decline from a net worth in which their assets equaled their liabilities in 2001 to owing $1,400 more than their total assets in 2004.

http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/02/23/ap2549825.html”

“... always trying to make Americans feel bad ...”