Somebody call a doctor...I'm dying laughing! (Page 14/40)
Old Lar JUL 08, 08:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by zardoz:

I do not understand why we still believe just because ANYBODY that
has arms, legs, torso, head, etc. is chosen by our society to have such
an ultimate power over our lives, that they are somehow
empowered with some "super-human" aura, that they must have some
"moral" superiority over the rest of us.

Does power corrupt, or do the corrupt seek power?

Off Soap Box


My minimum expectation is that anyone that I would want to represent me would have better honor and moral characteristics than I have. Many elected politicians give off an aura of a sleaze factor. (Our last president, Slick Willy, being one of them).

zardoz JUL 08, 08:46 PM
Yes, if that is what you expect, then you have still have that freedom (I think) to vote via secret ballot for
that candidate.

True freedom and liberty would let us all elect a schizoid dictator to "president" if that was the will of the
people. Constitutional safeguards theoretically provide checks and balances to restrict such an individual.

Personally, and this is only personal observation, I do not care whether or not a person has socially
unapproved sex, or inhales restricted agricultural products, or gets sloppy drunk. Morals are always
defined within a "religous" framework. That is OK, because people must use religion to shield themselves
from the horrible truth.

By the way, I usually vote straight elephant ticket, because in my perception, that party is usually more
closely aligned with constitutional principle. (changing as of late)

What I do care about, is how much of that persons personal behavior is inflicted upon my day to day activities.

Do I pay more tax? Do I sign more release forms? Do I trade personally perceived "safety's" for restricted
behaviors. One could go on and on.

In essence, personal freedoms always come at the highest costs. Ask D-Day men if guns are necessary to
preserve liberties.

I am glad you expressed your opinion here.

It is neither my place or intention to change it, and I thank you for letting me express mine.

Boondawg JUL 08, 08:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by zardoz:

Yes, if that is what you expect, then you have still have that freedom (I think) to vote via secret ballot for
that candidate.

True freedom and liberty would let us all elect a schizoid dictator to "president" if that was the will of the
people. Constitutional safeguards theoretically provide checks and balances to restrict such an individual.

Personally, and this is only personal observation, I do not care whether or not a person has socially
unapproved sex, or inhales restricted agricultural products, or gets sloppy drunk. Morals are always
defined within a "religous" framework. That is OK, because people must use religion to shield themselves
from the horrible truth.

By the way, I usually vote straight elephant ticket, because in my perception, that party is usually more
closely aligned with constitutional principle. (changing as of late)

What I do care about, is how much of that persons personal behavior is inflicted upon my day to day activities.

Do I pay more tax? Do I sign more release forms? Do I trade personally perceived "safety's" for restricted
behaviors. One could go on and on.

In essence, personal freedoms always come at the highest costs. Ask D-Day men if guns are necessary to
preserve liberties.

I am glad you expressed your opinion here.

It is neither my place or intention to change it, and I thank you for letting me express mine.


Bravo!
*sound of applause*
Tugboat JUL 08, 11:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by edhering:

You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections. The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy.
EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT


Yep, it was a tedious time around the election. Polls showed it might be close, and a lot of people knew that if Bush got the office, the economy would tank. So it was partly a self fulfilling prophecy, as people were afraid to invest. The more it looked like Bush would get it, the worse it got.

Then came Enron and buddy Ken. Who wrote that energy policy?


quote
Originally posted by zardoz:
By the way, I usually vote straight elephant ticket, because in my perception, that party is usually more
closely aligned with constitutional principle. (changing as of late)

As of late??? Reagan tried to curtail the first ammendment.

BTW, I like the rest of your post.

GL

edhering JUL 09, 02:14 AM

quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:
Yep, it was a tedious time around the election. Polls showed it might be close, and a lot of people knew that if Bush got the office, the economy would tank. So it was partly a self fulfilling prophecy, as people were afraid to invest. The more it looked like Bush would get it, the worse it got.

Sorry, I'm afraid that's not entirely correct.

As you can see, the downward trend that started in 1999 steepened early in 2000. And also, it turned sharply UPWARD at the beginning of 2001. As Bush was inaugurated Jan 20, 2001 (and the resolution of the graph is admittedly rather low) it's kind of hard to support the notion that those who had capital to invest were worried that Bush would ruin the economy.

What happened in 1999? The Dot-Com Bust, which happened after the Justice Dept (the Clinton Justice Dept, run by Janet Reno) announced that Microsoft would be broken up into smaller companies. And what happened in 2000? A bitterly cold winter drove energy prices sharply upward. (This was also around the time that California was experiencing its energy crisis BTW.)

& here's the article that graph came from:

It was run in the Wednesday, July 7 issue of the Chicago Sun-Times, on page 61.

Ed

Tugboat JUL 09, 08:06 AM
So you're saying the economy was at it's worst when Bush took office and has improved (more or less) steadily since? I don't know a lot of people who see it that way. The Dow Jones peaked in January 2000, the Nasdaq in March.

In 2000, the Dow lost 6.17% of its value (11,497.10 to 10,788.00)
In 2001, the Dow lost 5.35% of its value (10,788.00 to 10,021.60)
In 2002, the Dow lost 16.76% of its value (10,021.60 to 8,341.63)

In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52).
In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40).
In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).

But the economy was improving?? People seeing their savings evaporate don't tend to spend a lot. Of course since the market's been in the crapper, people have been investing in houses and other things that build the GDP instead of the market and the GDP figures are inflated.

Unemployment in Virginia was 2.2% in 2000, 4.1% in 2002 and 2003.

GL

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-09-2004).]

Toddster JUL 09, 09:40 AM

quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:

So you're saying the economy was at it's worst when Bush took office and has improved (more or less) steadily since? I don't know a lot of people who see it that way. The Dow Jones peaked in January 2000, the Nasdaq in March.

In 2000, the Dow lost 6.17% of its value (11,497.10 to 10,788.00)
In 2001, the Dow lost 5.35% of its value (10,788.00 to 10,021.60)
In 2002, the Dow lost 16.76% of its value (10,021.60 to 8,341.63)

In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52).
In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40).
In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).

But the economy was improving?? People seeing their savings evaporate don't tend to spend a lot. Of course since the market's been in the crapper, people have been investing in houses and other things that build the GDP instead of the market and the GDP figures are inflated.

Unemployment in Virginia was 2.2% in 2000, 4.1% in 2002 and 2003.

GL


First off all your numbers are a little off. If the Dow Peaked in January of 2000 then it did so a full 12 months BEFORE Bush took office who did so on January 20, 2001. Secondly, the Dow Jones is a measure of Stock sales and has little to do with the President. If you look at your Dow Jones history you will see that the the Dow started it's meteoric rise on January 20, 1995. The EXACT day that the Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. The reason is obvious. A Republican led Congress was an inspiration to investors who fueled the Dot Com Boom in the first place. Who ever sat in the White house was just along for the ride. Up or down!

True, the amount of stock people buy is often determined by a President's social and fiscal policies. Clinton passed no legislation that had anything to do with the economy so it could be argued that people were inspired to buy more stock as a result iof Clinton's desire to stay out of the way and not gum-up the works. But under Bush's watch the President had no choice but to enact dramatic legislation in the face of a recession handed to him upon taking office. Then throw 9/11 and 2 wars into the mix. Frankly, it's amazing anybody has a job at all let alone a growing economy. His tax cuts clearly have worked.

CABBY JUL 09, 10:27 AM
I need another beer
Tugboat JUL 09, 12:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


First off all your numbers are a little off. If the Dow Peaked in January of 2000 then it did so a full 12 months BEFORE Bush took office who did so on January 20, 2001. Secondly, the Dow Jones is a measure of Stock sales and has little to do with the President. If you look at your Dow Jones history you will see that the the Dow started it's meteoric rise on January 20, 1995. The EXACT day that the Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. The reason is obvious. A Republican led Congress was an inspiration to investors who fueled the Dot Com Boom in the first place. Who ever sat in the White house was just along for the ride. Up or down!

True, the amount of stock people buy is often determined by a President's social and fiscal policies. Clinton passed no legislation that had anything to do with the economy so it could be argued that people were inspired to buy more stock as a result iof Clinton's desire to stay out of the way and not gum-up the works. But under Bush's watch the President had no choice but to enact dramatic legislation in the face of a recession handed to him upon taking office. Then throw 9/11 and 2 wars into the mix. Frankly, it's amazing anybody has a job at all let alone a growing economy. His tax cuts clearly have worked.


I never tried to say the market wasn't declining when Bush took office, but it continued to decline badly despite the growing GDP. The Repug led congress sure didn't help in '02, did it?

Yeah, tax cuts for the rich solve everything. Riiight.

GL

fierobear JUL 09, 12:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:


I never tried to say the market wasn't declining when Bush took office, but it continued to decline badly despite the growing GDP. The Repug led congress sure didn't help in '02, did it?
GL


Toddster, you can post numbers and proofs until you're fingers hurt from typing, these people will NEVER believe anything different than what they want to. They believe the Democrats are their saviors. Fine. Whatever.