It's the Economy, Stupid

Unemployment had reached historic lows.
Inflation was well under control.
Even if you eliminate the crooked Republican stock bubble the country was
doing historically well.
Companies were making money.
We were not in any major wars... or planning any.

"The Dude" <The Du...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K8S19.839$_36.46...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Great economy during klinton?
> i think NOT
> it was ALL SPECULATION on the internet.
> ALL SPECULATION!!!
> it was NO REAL AQUISITION unless you are terry mccauligh. who sold out his
> insider traded global crossing stocks.
> "Cisco Kid" <ck...@attnet.net> wrote in message
> news:YRR19.30593$eH2.13...@ruti.visi.com...
> >
> > "Joshua Heard" <jhe...@novacron.com> wrote in message
> > news:0hL19.77438$L02.4...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > > Economy's doing great, only the market is going down, probably a
natural
> > > correction.
> >
> > Would you like to know what my fund manager thinks of the economy? If
you
> > want to see what a great economy is, look back just one administration
> > (hint - it was the one which was legitamately elected)...
> >
> > "At the end of your Fund's annual report period, we were in the midst of
a
> > summer marked by poor market conditions and signs of a flagging economy,
> > including weak corporate earnings and substantial work force reductions
by
> > companies nationwide. It was indeed a long, hot summer-one that
continued
> a
> > period of uneasiness that began more than a year ago. The question is,
> Have
> > we seen the bottom?
> > At this point, we believe the market is also unsure whether the economy
> has
> > truly bottomed out and is on its way to recovery.
> >
> > We think that, understandably, the market still has a healthy skepticism
> > about the state of our economy."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

It's you that is trying to rewrite history with your shallow face value
assesments.

True, but is Bill Clinton truly responsible?

Thank Alan Greenspan

Here is where your partisan hack comments show your true colors. And quite
frankly the stock bubble had no party affiliation.

> Companies were making money.

Were they really now? Major companies going bankrupt and coming under more
stringent SEC investigation indicates otherwise. You think the sudden drop
in prosperity ocurred overnight? Hardly.

No, Clinton's lobbing of a few band-aid measure cruise missiles when
stitches if not surgery was needed only served to piss more people off,
leaving a bigger mess for later. Clinton's actions were akin to a kid
'cleaning' up his room by tossing everything hap-hazardly into the
closet.....

Look at where America is under the "Bad Luck Bush" administration.....

Anyway... November is coming....Bush will spend the next two years with a
Democratic congress.

"Patriot" <Pat...@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:_7T19.235424$uw.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

Neither shallow nor "face value." What bothers the reich-wingers is that
wage-earners made gains. It didn't all play to crony captitalism.

Why?

Your second sentence is opaque. Elsewhere, you seem to say that the
corporate scandals were a legacy of the Clinton era, yet here, you seem to
say there were bankruptcies and heightened SEC scrutiny under Clinton.
If you wish to maintain that the Clinton-era economy was a "bubble economy"
you must concede that the simile implies that the "bubble" burst. That's a
discrete event. An event Repugnicans did nothing to forestall. Bush seemed
more interested in talking down the economy in his first six months in
office. Are you saying Clinton was so infinitely more influential than
Bush? That latter, at least, is plausible.
Nonetheless, there was WAGE COMPETITION. People were making money and the
decade-long declines in real wages was reversed. "Trickle-down" economics
got a black eye, welcome news to anyone who isn't superstitious.

You were undoubtedly one of the people screaming "wag the dog." Remember
the Millenium Plot? Not as significant as 9/11? Why is that? Remember the
Repugnicans frustrating Clinton's efforts to bargain with the Sudan for bin
Laden? Remember the anti-terrorist legislation proposed by Clinton and
defeated by a cabal of self-absorbed ideologues?
>
>
>
>

Please show us then, what the contributing factors were.

My question here was ignored and left unanswered.... (pun ('left'
unanswered' intended)

Because Clinton wouldn't have 'enjoyed' those figures without him.

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying that the Clinton era SEC left much to be
desired regarding investigations, and the reason we're all the scandals now
is because the Bush SEC is on the ball. Had Clinton's SEC been doing it's
job, I contend these scandals would have come to light much sooner. Decades
long success followed by overnight bankruptcy? Sure, it happens, but this
doesn't smell right.

<rest of incorrect interpretation snipped>

Bush simply told the truth, and outlined an attack plan to deal with it.

Define "Real Wage" You can't.

Nope

> Remember
> the Millenium Plot?

Yep

No, Clinton made his own bed there.

Remember how Clinton tied the hands of the FBI and the CIA?

On the road to recovery.

It's like this. Let's look at the economy as if it were a car. When
Clinton got behind the wheel, the car was running pretty good, having just
gotten out of the shop (H.W. Bush economy had recovered from recession and
was clipping along at just under 3% growth when he left office. Historical
all time average growth is guess what - 3% - a benchmark ). Well, Clinton
drove this car for miles and miles, taking advantage of it's performance -
but guess what. He forgot to keep it tuned and to change the oil (the
evidence is right there for everyone to see in all the economic indicators
for 2000. Economic growth numbers were in decline across the board,
manufacturing numbers were down, layoffs were occurring, retails sales were
off and inventories were not being reduced). So what did Bush have when it
was his turn to drive? A car that was sputtering, backfiring and burning
oil. Clinton didn't maintain the car, it's that simple. He treated it
like it was a rental is what he did!

You must have missed 48 Hours last night. In LA Murder is up 100% due to
clintons "win at all cost" and gore's "no higher ruling authority" crap.
Let's not forget, "They all do it so why punich anyone?"

As Vice President Chaney has said, The wheel has turned" but the turbulence
has been brutal because of the wake of Clintons' gore.

You may be right, not for anything virtuous in a DemocRAT senate but because
of ignorance. DemocRATs will destroy America the Republic, its capitalist
markets and bring in Socialist controls of the Third Way of constraint. It
will be the end of freedom and the rise of fascism. No more fast food to
make us fat, no more SUV's to keep us save, no more free association nor
free choice.

CB
--
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that
John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people
like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making
them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out
to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference

Now?

Uhh... Isn't Bad Luck Bush president?

Oh! That's right.

He's never responsible for anything.

I guess that whenever something good happens... he'll be responsible.

I've waited 19 months, 40% of his term. I guess I still have to keep waiting
for something good to happen.

"Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:ai96v9$i7p$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

Utter rubbish. Bush went forward with unsound policies, against the
warnings of many. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, Reps. are
desperate to shuck off the blame, and so ideologically blinkered that they
won't abandon those policies. The idea is that, when a Democrat occupies
the WH in approximately two years, they'll take credit for his success,
despite the unending stream of gloom and doom we're enduring now.

Consider this; if the economy remains as volatile as it has been the last 18
months, you'll have to abandon the Clinton defense, or admit that your
"corrective action" is simply another failure for trickle-down voodoo.
According to survey reported on NPR today, nearly one-third of Americans
have altered their investment strategies. The same poll reports
hyperinflationary pressure on real estate markets in several sections of the
country. You'd better pray for a miracle, because it looks like a dose of
egg-on-the-face for the right. Bush did mightily to talk down consumer
confidence. Now he needs it.
Oh! and the poll indicates that, on average, Americans have pushed their
retirement back a little more than 3 years. There's an end of wage gains in
the near term, and the loss of baby boomer capital in the markets in the
long term. We may be talking depression instead of recession.

I'm perfectly secure in what I know. Your comments speak of a concerted
attempt to turn things in just the way your preferred conclusions demand.
It is incontrovertibly true that real wages went up consistently after years
of declining.

That's untrue.

No, I don't, cheifly because he didn't.
>
>

First off, learn how to trim posts, either that or quit ignoring my
questions asking you to qualify statements you've made.

'Nice" use of '80's lingo.... Lame. Consider this, the economy may not be
growing as fast as we would all like it, but it is growing. It is folks
like you who are downplaying reality. Growth is there, unemployment stable,
inflation down. That's a pretty solid foundation.

As many will who are thinking short term.

I don't think so.

No he didn't. He simply told the truth. Now Gephardt, Daschle and even
Gore, they're not telling the truth regarding the economy - stretching the
realities to extremes. I note they haven't come up with any recommended
solutions.

Gee, this has never happened in the country's history ever........
pulllleeeeaaassseeeee!

OH NO! Doom and gloom! OK, so it was not cool that Bush told the truth
about the shape of the economy in 2000, but it's OK for dems to misinform
and talk down the economy now...... Can you say, "hypocrite?" I think you
can.....

I really don't care what you think you know, you need to qualify that
statement. Median household income went up under Clinton true enough, but
just as they did for Reagan and H.W. Bush. You still can't define "real
wage." Oh, and by the way, figuring the performance and rates in increased
median household incomes, Reagan finishes first at 30% improvement, Clinton
finishes second at 23%, H.W. Bush pales in at third with 6%, but still ahead
of the rate of inflation.

http://www.1980sflashback.com/

Sure he did! You're not at all familiar with how Clinton hated then FBI
Director Freeh? Not familiar at all with requests denied? Never has there
been an FBI so isolated from the White House. You're not at all famiar with
how Clinton curbed the use of "less than steller" persons in operations? Or
do you conveniently forget?

If anyone tied the hands of the FBI, it was the Republicans.

Just think how much anti-terrorism work could have been accomplished if
the FBI agents weren't redirected by the GOP to inspecting Clinton's
penis.

200 agents were used during the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation.

--
"...Republicans use patriotism the way snipers use tall buildings, it's
just a way of getting a better shot at the people they want to take out
anyway..."
--Terry Sawyer

Don't lecture me.

Market capitalization has shrunk. Even by conservatuive reckoning that
shrinkage is in excess of 20% Foreign investment is down. Dollars are
cheap, but exports are down.

June is the last month for which figures are available for unemployment.
From May, 2002 to June, 2002 the number of unemployed increased by 0.8%,
from 8.351 million to 8.424 million. The unemployment rate increased from
5.8% to 5.9%
The CPI increased by 0.1% in the same period.

Those near retirement are thinking short-term. The baby boomers will ensure
that the proportion of short-term investors reaches historic highs and
remains there for perhaps a decade. That's potentially a problem that could
cause structural deformities in capital markets. That is, above and beyond
the deformities we're faced with right now.

To cite but one example, in Boston, real-estate prices have inflated by a
little more than 8% in the last month. That's hyperinflation - hell, that's
Brazil inflation.

Nonetheless, a president talking down the economy, by current standards of
judgment is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're saying that the right wanted
a recession to stain the cachet of good feeling about the economy that is
Clinton's legacy. No corrective was applied. No cushion for the adjustment
was put in place. We hear about Repugnican wisdom now. Where was it then?

You should pay attention. The Democratic Party does have a recommended
corrective.

But it's okay as long as your boy is in the WH? You need to co-ordinate
facts. Unemployment is increasing, and people are delaying retirement.
What does that mean?

Who's "misinforming?"

I simply told the truth, you don't know how to trim posts.

And has been, this isn't an overnight occurrence.

Translation: Stable

And those who are near retirement that did not diversify their portfolio's
to more conservative investments as is appropriate, then shame on them. It
is not the fault of the president as you are trying to paint here. You are
so lame and logically challenged.

No, it's a man telling the truth. Documented facts support everything the
president outlined during the campaign 2000 season. He outlined a plan of
attack to address issues that the Clinton administration and Gore - for
obvious reasons - did not want to mention themselves.

No, I'm not saying that at all, don't put words in my mouth. The recession
is a matter of fact, and the groundwork was laid by Clinton's passiveness
towards the economy. History shows that Clinton had little to do with the
boom of the '90's economy. History will further show that its inflated
value is something that Clinton could have prevented.

No corrective action? Tax cuts for one, we would have been in a deeper
recession without them. In addition various proposals have been made such
as continued welfare reforms, social security reforms etc.

I note that you did not specify it. Just what is it?

Didn't say that, there you go again putting words in my mouth.

Look numnuts, I'm saying that we're in a down cycle, shit happens. It's not
like we haven't been in a down cycle before you pinhead. Look at history
and you will see that people adjust their investment strategies as the
market changes.... duh, it's the natural order of things. Your attempt to
use it as Bush's ball and chain is ludricrous.

You are you alarmist. As are your buddies Gore, Gephardt, Daschle and all
their liberal cohorts. All are badmouthing and talking down the economy -
only to tear down Bush. It's called ugly politics.

The DJIA was hovering around 10,000 for months. Now it's hovering around
8,000.

The change is upward. The figures are seasonally adjusted. If such a
change were to occur for, say, six months running, the unemployment figure
would be 8.863 million, or 7.9%

You cannot impose your ready-made conclusions on empirical data.

Who's logically challenged?

Name one.

You talk about shrinking government, then complain of a hands-off approach
to the economy?

History will not show anything by dint of will.

Tax cuts = Budget deficits. What if the mummers in the House had got their
Balanced Budget Amendment? Or do you guys pull John Maynard Keynes out of
your hat when the Voodoo isn't mojo?
And what if the surplus had been used to buy down debt? Surprise! smaller
budget when debt service is removed. I resent paying interest for the
Repugnican Bribe.

The evidence suggests the exact opposite. Wisconsin was the model state for
the "welfare reform." Check its success now.

And if SS had been in anything even remotely tied to the stock market, what
would we be saying now about the mounting losses? Would we still be making
excuses for the likes of Ken Lay?

Biden, Gephardt, Clinton, Gore, and others have discussed it. Do you only
read Repugnican news?

And yet your comment does nothing to change the fact that you are
referencing a relatively overnight swing in the market. Never mind that
your basis for making such comments don't necessarily or directly hinge on
the market.

You are pathetic. A June to July change and your claiming ALARM with such a
prognostication..... an economist you're not.

Pot, kettle, black...... you take month to month data and declare doom and
gloom. Go crawl back under your rock.

You, absolutely. You want to blame Bush for all our ills, do so based on
basically two months worth of data....... yer funny!

Um, already did in my previous post, yer reading retention sucks...... tax
cuts, various reforms to name a few...... Can you say, "Can't read worth a
shit?" I think you can.......

Where did I talk about shrinking government? And where did I say that
government should not respond when necessary?

For sure not yours.

No, tax cuts do not equal budget deficits, that's the dem party voodoo line.
Yer lame. Tax cuts combined with budget cuts, as Bush has proposed with
exception to education and military increases - works. Do you deny that the
deficit decreased, I say again decreased during Reagan's second term after
his policies took up a full head of steam? Deny it and I'll slam 'ya.

Show me - and keep in mind that Tommy's not running the show anymore.

I wouldn't mind having my SS invested in the market one bit. It's the likes
of you, a grossly uninformed person that would have a problem. You don't
like to do homework. You expect people to do it for you. You have the
victim mentality.

Why so VAGUE? They haven't talked about shit, and if they have, you would
have provided specifics. You suck at this! I challenged you and you failed
to answer....... go figure.

The dems have no agenda other than to dog out the GOP. You have failed to
show otherwise. Specifically regarding the economy the dems have provided
no proposal, other than, "fire the Bush economic staff." Now that's not
politicizing an issue is it......... right......

Thank you so much for your graceful concession.

I'm a wage earner you dink and because my ever increasing skills are in more
demand than yours, capitalist choice will keep me employed and you sweeping
the floors and wondering why your so poor.

Because unlike clinton, Greenspan does his job.

Ever-increasing stupidity is a skill?