Bush economic policy approval soaring

[BTox]

Dang, those poor dems have to get some good news one of these days, don't they?

President Bush (news - web sites) is getting good marks on the economy from a clear majority of the public at a time when consumer confidence has risen to its highest levels since early 2002, an Associated Press poll finds.

People are increasingly optimistic about the economy in the next six months and feeling more secure about their jobs, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. The uptick in Bush's rating comes on an issue certain to be central to the 2004 presidential campaign.

In all, 55 percent of registered voters said they approve of Bush's handling of the economy and 43 percent disapproved, according to the survey. That is Bush's best number on this measure in Ipsos polls since the third quarter of 2002, though he briefly came close to this level — at 52 percent — last July.


A month ago, 46 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved of Bush on the economy.



Source: bush economic poll (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ap_poll_economy)

[Jocko]

Well, this could certainly mean trouble for Nader. :D

[aerocontrols]

The third-quarter showed the highest economic growth in 20 years, and supposedly the economic growth is supposed to be quite high this quarter as well.

Good economic news is good news for Democrats.

Just not good news for Democrats who happen to be running against Bush for president.

MattJ

[Otther]

Maybe it shouldn't be the economy, stupid?

[Snide]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Good economic news is good news for Democrats.

Just not good news for Democrats who happen to be running against Bush for president.

MattJ Indeed. I didn't and won't vote for GW, but I still don't see this as bad news.

[shanek]

Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery. These are large cycles that are affected by long-term trends. I know that Presidents like to take the credit for a booming economy, and a President's detractors like to blame him for the recession, but the reality of the situation is that there's really nothing the President can do to have such a major effect on the economy, short of the really drastic measures such as Nixon's wage and price freeze. And even then, the effect they can have is almost always detrimental.

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek
Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery. These are large cycles that are affected by long-term trends. I know that Presidents like to take the credit for a booming economy, and a President's detractors like to blame him for the recession, but the reality of the situation is that there's really nothing the President can do to have such a major effect on the economy, short of the really drastic measures such as Nixon's wage and price freeze. And even then, the effect they can have is almost always detrimental.

While what you say is true, it's not what either party has done so counter measures must be implemented from time to time. Remember when it first took the hard drop and all of the detractors were placing the blame and asked if they would also give the credit when it picked up? I'm not giving anyone credit or blame for it, I'm just enjoying the one's that didn't understand how it works when it dropped, squirm now.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek
Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery.

I'm pretty sure that everyone in this thread knows this, just as you are aware that the state of the economy affects the election nonetheless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I'm pretty sure that everyone in this thread knows this, just as you are aware that the state of the economy affects the election nonetheless.

Yes, I actually seem to recall someone who invented an algorithm to predict who would win the Presidency based on how the economy was doing. It wasn't 100% accurate, but it pretty much beat out anyone else's predictions, including that of the pollsters.

I guess people vote the way Reagan told them to: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" While, of course, avoiding the question, "If you are better off, is it because of or in spite of what the President has done?"

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek

I guess people vote the way Reagan told them to: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" While, of course, avoiding the question, "If you are better off, is it because of or in spite of what the President has done?"

Let's look at that. Four years ago:


We were in the midst of the Internet boom.
Unemployment was low (or very low).
Interest rates, while not great, were certainly reasonable.
Investment was high in all things that sounded "reasonable" ( ;) )
The government's budget had been balanced.
Predictions were being made about erasing the national debt.


Since then:


The Internet boom has gone bust.
Unemployment has climbed considerably.
Interest rates are extremely low, but is it really helping?
Stock market IPOs are probably 10% of what they were.
The government is (firmly) back into deficit spending.
The debt, like it did under Reagan, will see a significant jump up in the short term.


Are you better off than you were four years ago?

[Larspeart]

um. . . dsm?

I worked in computer sales in 1999, at the end of the Clinton Era. The 'internet boom' was THOROUGHLY busted by November of that year. The Dot-coms were already in the advanced stages of failure, and most had already filed chapter 11-12-13. Had Gore won, he would have inherited the EXACT same thing. I am in no way a Bush supporter, but tell your facts right. I witnessed it all crash (and felt it in my pocketbook) LONG before Bush was in office.

Also, you don't seem to know economic 5-year cycles very well, do you? We were due, and we are due right about now. ALL OF THIS is a natural up-down economic cycle that repeats roughly every 5 years.

"4. Investment was high in all things that sounded "reasonable"

Are you for real? This was the WORST PERIOD SINCE THE 1920'S in terms of stupid, arrogant, ignorant investing. The crash and fall of 99-00 is the DIRECT result of idiots like you investing in all of those fake, start-up, no-product and no-revenue 'good idea' companies! THAT is what caused the recession of the last few years. That, and the natural progression of economies.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by dsm



Since then:

[list=1]
The Internet boom has gone bust.

As it was bound to do eventually, regardless of what was happening in Washington.

Unemployment has climbed considerably.

As will happen when inventories are high, investmens slackens and the economy goes through its normal cycles. Plus, 6% isn't that high - 5% is considered "full employment" by economists, IIRC. And let's not forget that little incident on 9/11/01 that put a kink in the economy's knickers.

Interest rates are extremely low, but is it really helping?

If you have debt or wish to buy durable goods, it helps immensely because those are the kinds of purchases that build the economy, not your 20% credit cards. Plus it boosts real estate, gets people refinancing and saving money... in fact, how is it NOT helping?

Stock market IPOs are probably 10% of what they were.

Which is closer to where they should be after the aftificial inflation of the market during your beloved internet boom. The market is still overvalued today, most would say.

The government is (firmly) back into deficit spending.

There's a two-front war on during a freakin' recession. FDR should have had critics like this.

The debt, like it did under Reagan, will see a significant jump up in the short term.

Which is automatically a bad thing... why? This is the American economy, not your personal checkbook register. Deficit spending has occured in about 90% of all years since we became a nation, so while you're blaming Reagan and Bush, be sure to blame everyone from Washington to Kennedy as well.


Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Not really. But I expect I will be by November. That's what counts.

[shuize]

Originally posted by dsm

Are you better off than you were four years ago? [/B]
Thank you for asking. Yes, I am.

[dsm]

Originally posted by shuize
Thank you for asking. Yes, I am.

Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Larspeart

I worked in computer sales in 1999, at the end of the Clinton Era. The 'internet boom' was THOROUGHLY busted by November of that year. The Dot-coms were already in the advanced stages of failure, and most had already filed chapter 11-12-13. Had Gore won, he would have inherited the EXACT same thing. I am in no way a Bush supporter, but tell your facts right. I witnessed it all crash (and felt it in my pocketbook) LONG before Bush was in office.


As someone who worked in sales, you may have seen things drying up sooner than I did (backroom programmer). You say that things were "busted" by November, 1999, yet I saw significant amounts of employment happening on into early 2001. The NASDAQ peaked in about March, 2000 and the DOW began steady sliding in 2001.


Also, you don't seem to know economic 5-year cycles very well, do you? We were due, and we are due right about now. ALL OF THIS is a natural up-down economic cycle that repeats roughly every 5 years.


True and also something that both candidates should've prepared for. Bush came in with an agenda based upon the government running a surplus, so he was motivated to provide a big tax cut. The economy then tanked immediately upon his taking the job and the surplus was predicted to dry up. His solution -- provide a big tax cut. :(


"4. Investment was high in all things that sounded "reasonable"

Are you for real? This was the WORST PERIOD SINCE THE 1920'S in terms of stupid, arrogant, ignorant investing. The crash and fall of 99-00 is the DIRECT result of idiots like you investing in all of those fake, start-up, no-product and no-revenue 'good idea' companies! THAT is what caused the recession of the last few years. That, and the natural progression of economies.

I know -- thus the reason for quoting "reasonable". ;)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek
Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery. These are large cycles that are affected by long-term trends. I know that Presidents like to take the credit for a booming economy, and a President's detractors like to blame him for the recession, but the reality of the situation is that there's really nothing the President can do to have such a major effect on the economy, short of the really drastic measures such as Nixon's wage and price freeze. And even then, the effect they can have is almost always detrimental.

Cool...
I agree with Shanek 100%.

[shuize]

Originally posted by dsm


Wish you'd define how...

By understanding that Bush (or any other president for that matter) is not responsible for my personal financial success or failure.

If it makes you feel better though, by all means, keep blaming him for yours.

[BTox]

Originally posted by dsm
True and also something that both candidates should've prepared for. Bush came in with an agenda based upon the government running a surplus, so he was motivated to provide a big tax cut. The economy then tanked immediately upon his taking the job and the surplus was predicted to dry up. His solution -- provide a big tax cut. :(




You should get your facts straight. The economy began "tanking" in the 3rdQ 2000. Perhaps the economy knew Bush would get elected and decided to get a head start. :rolleyes:

[BTox]

Originally posted by dsm


Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Yes.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by dsm


Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

Does it have anything to do with "offshore outsourcing"? Who was it that was pushing globalization of our economy so hard a few years back?

[Troll]

Originally posted by dsm


Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

I was employed full time until Clinton. Kept working electronics jobs the whole time he was in and got laid off usually after 6 months to 1 year later. The last two years he was in office I was unemployed the entire time. Had one job with Bush, am unemployed now and going back to school. did either president cause my unemployment? Nope. Well, Clinton did have a little to do with my getting cut before retiring from the Marines, but I don't hold it against him, much.;)

It's just the cycle of things.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by dsm


Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

If you don't mind me saying so, it looks like you're in a bit of a loser industry. don't blame Bush, blame the counselor back in college who recommended you pursue whatever line you're in.

Sheesh, you'd probably blame him if you had the crabs, too.

[Troll]

Hey, want a job? Doesn't pay well but there's always a need for shipping and transporting any and all goods. Go build either portion of tractor and or trailers. I did that for the longest period of time since I've been out of the service. I even got called back after only 60 days of my last layoff. It didn't fit the school schedule which I already shelled out a few grand for so I didn't go back.

[a_unique_person]

All he has done is the classic Keynsian pump priming by the government. The very thing the Democrats are always accused of doing, and what is regularly touted as the reason for the ruination of America.

He has run up a massive, ( and it is massive), government deficit. That has injected god know how many billions of dollars into the economy and made government debt balloon. It's just a shame that most of the debt has gone into life destroying arms, and not more useful things, like hospitals or schools.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
All he has done is the classic Keynsian pump priming by the government. The very thing the Democrats are always accused of doing, and what is regularly touted as the reason for the ruination of America.

He has run up a massive, ( and it is massive), government deficit. That has injected god know how many billions of dollars into the economy and made government debt balloon. It's just a shame that most of the debt has gone into life destroying arms, and not more useful things, like hospitals or schools.

Actually, we had the biggest spending increases in education lately, but that's really just part of an ongoing trend.

[Ion]

Originally posted by shuize


By understanding that Bush (or any other president for that matter) is not responsible for my personal financial success or failure.

If it makes you feel better though, by all means, keep blaming him for yours.
Bush spends more than $100 billion of taxpayer money in a wasteful war, instead of stimulating the consummer economy by injecting this $100 billion in it.

He thought that the $100 billion was well invested long-term into developing Iraq's oil exploitation for the U.S. benefit, but that's a blunder because he is under international scrutiny.

[shuize]

Ion,

My statement was in response to dsm's query about how I'm better off today.

But, if it makes you feel better, I guess you can blame Bush for your own financial failures, too.

[NullPointerException]

He is using a lot of reservists to fight the war thus creating a temporary boost in temp employment. Not to play devils advocate, but who says a cleansing of the nastier elements of human civilization wasn't entirely called for? Bush's foreign policy as far as wars are concerned is okay with me because he's finally dealing with problem countries that should have been spanked heartily years ago.

Also, as a skeptic or a religious person you have no grounds for saying that things that kill are a bad thing. Is Bush a swaggering cowboy? Heck yeah, he brought justice to a lawless land!

[Ion]

Originally posted by shuize

...
But, if it makes you feel better, I guess you can blame Bush for your own financial failures, too.
Well Bush does spend over $100 billion of taxpayer's money in a wasteful war, instead of stimulating the consumer economy by injecting this money in the economy, doesn't he?

Here we go:

recession by Bush, with only the money-losing military economy hiring now.

Pathetic Bush...

[NullPointerException]

Originally posted by Ion

Well Bush does spend over $100 billion of taxpayer's money in a wasteful war, instead of stimulating the consumer economy by injecting this money in the economy, doesn't he?

Here we go:

recession by Bush, with only the money-losing military economy hiring now.

Pathetic Bush...

How is the war wasteful? I think it represents an excellent zero sum transaction on the part of Americans considering who is allowed to take reconstruction contracts. So to rebut an earlier comment from a non-cogitating bleeding heart socialist... yes that money is going to build schools, just not in your country. Also, the part after Here we Go: makes no sense... would you like to clarify? Government agencies, to the best of my understanding, are not businesses in the traditional sense that they are expected to generate revenues. Maybe if you were talking about the INS which doesn't serve citizens all the time, but otherwise I would think asking government created and funded departments to generate revenues would be double dipping.

[Evolver]

Watch the gas prices.

The oil companies used to provide "reasons" for the large fluctuations of gas prices.
Late in the Clinton years, the prices just rose for no particular reason, up to nearly $2 a gallon. This drives the cost of business way up and lowers productivity. Gas prices lately have been coming way down. To as low as $1.30 a gallon around here.

It's my theory that the oil companies are playing with prices to try to get their puppet another term.

Merry arbitrarily-designated-supposed-birthday-for-an-imaginary-mythologial-creature to you all.

[Ion]

Originally posted by NullPointerException

How is the war wasteful?
...

When missiles are fired in the wild, there go millions of wasted dollars.

When Bush's commission looks for WMDs in Iraq, there go millions of wasted dollars.

And so on.

A self-sufficient war was during the World War 2, because it was international with U.S. exporting weapons to allies.

Bush's war in Iraq is not international and it doesn't export weapons to allies to bring any revenue to it.

(The revenue that Bush expects from the war in Iraq is the long-term exploitation of the Iraq's oil, but Bush is under international scrutiny for this hidden agenda and the Iraqi guerilla is constantly sabotaging oil pipelines).

Bush was begging for money in U.N. in October, because his war is not self-sufficient but it drains taxes from the consumer economy.

Wasn't he?

He makes the same mistakes that U.S.S.R. was doing in the 80s, when U.S.S.R. was 'liberating' Afghanistan with a military complex but no consumer economy and U.S.S.R. eventually collapsed economically.

I can see Andropov (the leader of the U.S.S.R. in the 80s), Bush and Rumsfeld being equally imbeciles on this concept of having a military complex but little consumer economy to support it.

Under Bush, the U.S. consumer economy is dying while supporting a money losing war in Iraq.

I saw in the newspaper that Europe is not investing anymore in venture capitals in U.S., and European investors in the U.S. economy like Ericsson (Swe.), Alcatel (Fra.), SG Thomson Microelectronics (Fra.), Siemens (Ger.), and Nokia (Fin.), are divesting money from their U.S. operations, projects and jobs.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Ion

When missiles are fired in the wild, there go millions of wasted dollars.

When Bush's commission looks for WMDs in Iraq, there go millions of wasted dollars.

And so on.

A self-sufficient war was during the World War 2, because it was international with U.S. exporting weapons to allies.

Bush's war in Iraq is not international and it doesn't export weapons to allies to bring any revenue to it.

(The revenue that Bush expects from the war in Iraq is the long-term exploitation of the Iraq's oil, but Bush is under international scrutiny for this hidden agenda and the Iraqi guerilla is constantly sabotaging oil pipelines).

Bush was begging for money in U.N. in October, because his war is not self-sufficient but it drains taxes from the consumer economy.

Wasn't he?

He makes the same mistakes that U.S.S.R. was doing in the 80s, when U.S.S.R. was 'liberating' Afghanistan with a military complex but no consumer economy and U.S.S.R. eventually collapsed economically.

I can see Andropov (the leader of the U.S.S.R. in the 80s), Bush and Rumsfeld being equally imbeciles on this concept of having a military complex but little consumer economy to support it.

Under Bush, the U.S. consumer economy is dying while supporting a money losing war in Iraq.

I saw in the newspaper that Europe is not investing anymore in venture capitals in U.S., and European investors in the U.S. economy like Ericsson (Swe.), Alcatel (Fra.), SG Thomson Microelectronics (Fra.), Siemens (Ger.), and Nokia (Fin.), are divesting money from their U.S. operations, projects and jobs.

This is completely absurd. If there is ONE thing the US does well is consume. Do you really think there is a parallel between the USSR's consumer economy and the US?

Futhermore, the USSR always put something like 20+ percent of their GDP into their armies. At the height of Ronald Reagan it never went over 7% in this country. That percent has been going down for a long time.

[dsm]

Originally posted by BTox
You should get your facts straight. The economy began "tanking" in the 3rdQ 2000. Perhaps the economy knew Bush would get elected and decided to get a head start. :rolleyes:

Hardly a significant difference in relation to what I said. Get your own facts straight.

:rolleyes:

[dsm]

Originally posted by shuize
By understanding that Bush (or any other president for that matter) is not responsible for my personal financial success or failure.

If it makes you feel better though, by all means, keep blaming him for yours.

Not entirely true. One example: Reagan fires the airport traffic controllers. More generally, a president may not be able to cause the problems, but he can certainly exascerbate them through poorly thought out policies.

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Does it have anything to do with "offshore outsourcing"? Who was it that was pushing globalization of our economy so hard a few years back?

I'm not sure -- was his initials GHWB?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Troll
It's just the cycle of things.

Mostly agreed. Did any president directly cause my (or any other person's) particular situation. No. Did the president's policies potentially indirectly cause a domino chain of economic shifts that exascerbated problems in the economy (and, thus, affect me and others). Sure.

That also is the cycle of things.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Jocko
Sheesh, you'd probably blame him if you had the crabs, too.

Hey, if he wants to take credit for fixing the economy, then he also has to take the blame when his fixes don't work out for everyone.

:rr:

[NullPointerException]

Originally posted by Ion

When missiles are fired in the wild, there go millions of wasted dollars.


In wild life or the actual cost of the missle? The material components are a relatively minor element of a missles price and the actual loss for a misfire of your run of the mill missle is something like 1k. But yeah, millions of dollars, I'll support that.


When Bush's commission looks for WMDs in Iraq, there go millions of wasted dollars.


Is millions the word of the day for you? Do you have statistics on how much is actually being spent to find WMDs in Iraq?

And so on.

Getting ahead of yourself there buddy, we can't start addressing the first two points until you identify the extent and type of losses you alledge.

A self-sufficient war was during the World War 2, because it was international with U.S. exporting weapons to allies.

Yeah, we made a killing than forgave the debt and gave European nations millions to rebuild. The only reason that war benefited the United States economically is that European industry was destroyed and the US was going full gear.

Bush's war in Iraq is not international and it doesn't export weapons to allies to bring any revenue to it.

We are training the new Iraqi army, which count as allies for now. Also, due to the contracting restrictions he is just creating high paying jobs for Americans and their allies, which is utterly intolerable and almost socialist!

(The revenue that Bush expects from the war in Iraq is the long-term exploitation of the Iraq's oil, but Bush is under international scrutiny for this hidden agenda and the Iraqi guerilla is constantly sabotaging oil pipelines).

This is an unsupported statement, the government cannot gain revenue from Iraq in oil profits and such would be clear to anyone with half a brain. Rather the more rational conspiracy theory is that Bush is attempting to remove power from OPEC and a ring of terror supporting fanatical Islamic nations who have undue control over American policy. Of course this doesn't support your cause so it's overlooked in favor of a preferential conspiracy theory that looks good when written in the center of a big black sheet of paper but no basis reality.(please try and prove me wrong)

Bush was begging for money in U.N. in October, because his war is not self-sufficient but it drains taxes from the consumer economy.

What support do you have for this statement, maybe he was just trying to get other nations involved to give legitimacy to the soon to be reformed country of Iraq and repair relations damaged during the initial steps of the war.

He makes the same mistakes that U.S.S.R. was doing in the 80s, when U.S.S.R. was 'liberating' Afghanistan with a military complex but no consumer economy and U.S.S.R. eventually collapsed economically.

We are building an economic complex, including classes for Iraqi women on running small businesses. Please provide facts to support your assertion and prove me wrong.

I can see Andropov (the leader of the U.S.S.R. in the 80s), Bush and Rumsfeld being equally imbeciles on this concept of having a military complex but little consumer economy to support it.

That explains how focused they are on reducing crippling Iraqi debt, developing businesses, and restoring civil services... all along I thought they were just trying to um.. occupy them and not improve it. Once again, if you think I'm wrong provide facts for me to address.

Under Bush, the U.S. consumer economy is dying while supporting a money losing war in Iraq.

I require facts sir, not your opinion. My investments are doing well and all of my unemployed family members and kin are no longer unemployed.

I saw in the newspaper that Europe is not investing anymore in venture capitals in U.S., and European investors in the U.S. economy like Ericsson (Swe.), Alcatel (Fra.), SG Thomson Microelectronics (Fra.), Siemens (Ger.), and Nokia (Fin.), are divesting money from their U.S. operations, projects and jobs.

Which newspaper?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Mike B.


This is completely absurd. If there is ONE thing the US does well is consume. Do you really think there is a parallel between the USSR's consumer economy and the US?

Futhermore, the USSR always put something like 20+ percent of their GDP into their armies. At the height of Ronald Reagan it never went over 7% in this country. That percent has been going down for a long time.
This is completely absurd:

if there is one thing that the U.S. was doing well, it was consuming.

The consumption in U.S. is down now.

That's where Bush should have reduced taxes, in the consumer economy.

The fool didn't do it, and wastes taxes from the consumer economy in a money-losing military complex.

Ther are countless examples like Palm from the Silicon Valley, making palm gadgets running under their proprietary Palm OS.
Their gadgets sell less now than they were in 2000.
Their gadgets export less now than they were in 2000.
Palm lays off high-tech Engineers.
These laid-off Engineers will earn less and will pay less taxes.

[NullPointerException]

lon, you don't make sense or give enough background for your opinions. Also, you have this obsession with a "money losing" industry receiving more money. News flash! NASA, the FDA, EPA, and almost any other government agency will be money losing. The DoD, DARPA, and other government agencies including the Health department(can't recall exact name) contribute billions to "money losing" research.

If you have a bone to pick with the military industrial complex, don't base it on specious reasoning and cowardly attacks on it's profitability.

[Ion]

I won't waste my time with the blah-blah below, I will debunk only the first inept claim in it to show what standards are expected from the rest of the post:
Originally posted by NullPointerException

...
In wild life or the actual cost of the missle? The material components are a relatively minor element of a missles price and the actual loss for a misfire of your run of the mill missle is something like 1k. But yeah, millions of dollars, I'll support that.
...

Designing, building, manufacturing, transporting and firing missiles are costing in the millions of dollars.

The war in Iraq is over $100 billion wasted.

These $100 billion do not come from the military economy.

These $100 billion come from the consumer economy.

Bush was asking for help in war money in U.N. in October 2003, wasn't he?

And U.N. did rebuke him, didn't it?

That's it:

consumer economy kept in recession because of this wasteful war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
lon, you don't make sense or give enough background for your opinions.
...

I don't make sense to someone who is off topic like you are.

[NullPointerException]

If its off topic because it's a response to an earlier post int he thread which was on topic, is it off topic? I'm not psychic you know, I can't figure out what you think is on topic.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
If its off topic because it's a response to an earlier post int he thread which was on topic, is it off topic? I'm not psychic you know, I can't figure out what you think is on topic.

You know, Ion is the reason they made the Ignore list.

[Ion]

Originally posted by NullPointerException

...
...I can't figure out what you think is on topic.
What I think is on topic is 'Bush economic policy approval soaring'.

Bush economic policy is to waste taxes from the consumer economy into the military economy, expecting to get later on oil revenues from this.

It's a blunder.

Obvious after seeing the people he surrounds himself with:

Cheney, people from Halliburton, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc..

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You know, Ion is the reason they made the Ignore list.
But you are not using it so it must be that you have no reason.

How are your I.T. and welfare going these days?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

But you are not using it so it must be that you have no reason.

How are your I.T. and welfare going these days?

Oh great, thanks to evil Bush's classist tax cut to the rich my boss can give me a good raise and a nice Christmas bonus. Damn that evil president.

[NullPointerException]

lon this relates to his economic approval ratings because it explores the alternative view to his spending. Also, 100billion dollars of debt spending does not represent money taken from a consumer economy. It represents funny money changing hands between the U.S. Government and U.S. Corporations and soldiers. You provide no justification for your statements after constant proding, you merely state the same things over and over again. For instance, your posts reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the budget process in the united states. It's also reflects the classic misconception of the zero sum model of government. Transactions can be zero sum, centralized governments cannot if they are "debt spending" because a lot of this debt spending is represented in infinitely renewable funny money(bonds, private loans, etc). Essentially Bush is pumping up the economy artificially by adding money to the consumer economy through tax cuts and military spending which I constantly reiterate. How much of the DOD budget do you think is given directly to American citizens and companies?

*edit* as long as consumer confidence and GDP are high the funny money is infinitenely renewable. Both of these are doing fine.

[Ion]

Originally posted by NullPointerException

...
...Also, 100billion dollars of debt spending does not represent money taken from a consumer economy. It represents funny money changing hands between the U.S. Government and U.S. Corporations and soldiers.
...

I don't know what 'funny money' means to you:

the "...funny money changing hands between the U.S. Government and U.S. Corporations..." if true is still a tribute to the consumer economy because it has "...U.S. Corporations..." in it, and the "...changing hands..." part in it is likely your fictious world until you have a link to prove it.

I know that the $100 billion come from taxpayers, the Congress approves this spending of the taxes by Bush, and it comes from the taxing of the consumer economy:

.) in U.S. there are the military economy and the consumer economy, and $100 billion they are not funded by the military economy so it must come from and drain the consumer economy;

.) Bush begged for more money in U.N. in October since the military economy is not self-sufficient in this war, and he was was rebuked because of his agenda serving Halliburton.

I also know that you know nothing about what I mentioned in high-tech consumer economy being taxed but lacking investments now:

Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel, ST Microelectronics, Motorola, Palm, Intel, etc. they suffer today.

Get a degree in Science and Engineering, work in high-tech for the consumer economy, then and only then talk to me.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Oh great, thanks to evil Bush's classist tax cut to the rich my boss can give me a good raise and a nice Christmas bonus. Damn that evil president.
You still make less money than I make Gramma, by working like you do as an associate in I.T. with or without the support of your "...evil president." and me by working in high-tech design.

My concern is beyond your I.T. guy horizon.

[Troll]

I think I may have to trade names with Ion. I use Troll because it's a nickname I got in the Marines before the net's definition of it. But Ion is just head over heels priding himself in his abilities to actually troll.

I mean with comments like:

"Get a degree in Science and Engineering, work in high-tech for the consumer economy, then and only then talk to me."

and my personal fave:

"I don't make sense to someone who is off topic like you are."

there's gonna be some that wanted to challange him for the title that will now back out of the fight for it.

[Ion]

What you quote me on, are conclusions to paragraphs.

Understand the paragraphs.

For example, I remember that in another thread I told you that Bush cannot be a 'liberator' of Iraq, since he supports a dictator similar to Saddam Hussein (Iraq) in Uzbekistan;
you asked for a link;
I provided you with a link;
now is your part to do: do you understand the paragraph (terminated with a conclusion)?

When you don't understand, we don't exchange nicknames, you stay the troll.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
What you quote me on, are conclusions to paragraphs.

Understand the paragraphs.

For example, I remember that in another thread I told you that Bush cannot be a 'libeartor' of Iraq, since he supports a dictator similar to Hussein in Uzbekistan;
you asked for a link;
I provided you with a link;
now is your part to do: do you understand the paragraph (terminated with a conclusion)?

When you don't understand, we don't exchange nicknames, you stay the troll.


the question is do you understand? You're trying to nullify someone's post to you with some obscure conditions on posting to you.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

the question is do you understand?
...

Understand what?

That Bush is not a 'liberator' of Iraq like he is not a 'liberator' of Uzbekistan?
I understand that.
You don't, even after I gave you a link about Bush supporting the dictator in Uzbekistan.

That Bush takes tax money from the consumer economy and wastes it in a war for oil in Iraq?
That the consumer economy is hurt?
I understand these.
You don't, even after I spell it slowly in this thread.

You remain the troll.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Understand what?

That Bush is not a 'liberator' of Iraq like he is not a 'liberator' of Uzbekistan?
I understand that.
You don't, even after I gave you a link about Bush supporting the dictator in Uzbekistan.

That Bush takes tax money from the consumer economy and wastes it in a war for oil in Iraq?
That the consumer economy is hurt?
I understand these.
You don't, even after I spell it slowly in this thread.

You remain the troll.

You say he can't be a liberator in one place because he's not in another.

You say the consumer economy is down and the numbers are proving you wrong.

Then when someone tries to tell you otherwise you give them some condition as to when they can post to you about the subject. What argument are you trying to make about those? Because whatever argument you are trying tomake is the only thing I don't understand.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


You say he can't be a liberator in one place because he's not in another.

You say the consumer economy is down and the numbers are proving you wrong.
...

First statement represents correctly what I say.

Second statement is incorrect.

Companies in high-tech working for the consumer economy, did this:

.) Ericsson closed in San Diego,

.) Alcatel and ST Microelectronics did pull money from San Diego,

.) Motorola is hurting in San Diego, and laid-off massive numbers of Engineers,

.) Panasonic is hurting in San Diego,

.) Qualcomm is hurting in San Diego,

.) Nokia scales down investments in San Diego,

.) Intel lays-off Engineers and is hurting in San Diego,

because they pay taxes that fund a war and don't get investments.

Trust me, I am the 802.11b, the 802.11a, the 802.11g and Bluetooth software guy, these days.
I was the 56k modem and set-top-box software guy, before now.

To say "...the numbers are proving you wrong." is sheer imbecility.

The numbers don't count discouraged workers whose unemployment benefits expired, don't count Engineers who are underemployed now, count temporary work like Christams help, and the numbers are misleading as in multilying a quarter by four and proclaim a bigger grow.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

First statement represents correctly what I say.

Second statement is incorrect.

Companies in high-tech working for the consumer economy, did this:

.) Ericsson closed in San Diego,

.) Alcatel and ST Microelectronics did pull money from San Diego,

.) Motorola is hurting in San Diego,

.) Panasonic is hurting in San Diego,

.) Qualcomm is hurting in San Diego,

.) Nokia scales down invetments in San Diego,

.) Intel lays-off Engineers and is hurting in San Diego,

because they pay taxes that fund a war and don't get investments.

Trust me, I am the 802.11b and the 802.11a and Bluetooth software guy, these days.
I was the 56k modem and set-top-box software guy, before now.

To say "...the numbers are proving you wrong." is sheer imbecility.

Even if what you say is true, that does not mean the entire whole of the consumer market is down, which is exactly what you said when you stated "The consumption in U.S. is down now." in an earlier post. So now you're saying it's just down in the cell phone and mobile wireless industry? Hell a few months ago it was bad in the trucking industry as well, but then it picked up before the overall economy started to pick up. You can't judge or base the economy on one industry. They tried that with the dot.com industry and when it tanked people freaked.

And Qualcomm isn't something I'd use to base a judgement on. They have a noticable trend in layoffs and rehires. Do you recall the layoffs from there when they wanted to buy the stadium?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion


Trust me, I am the 802.11b, the 802.11a, the 802.11g and Bluetooth software guy, these days.
I was the 56k modem and set-top-box software guy, before now.

To say "...the numbers are proving you wrong." is sheer imbecility.

Apparently, only if I live in San Diego. This may shock you, Ion, but most people live elsewhere and do other things than you do for a living.

Who is it here who includes "the plural of anecdotes is not data"? in his sig line?

By the way, if you're involved in bluetooth work, things are about to get a lot worse for you- that standard's just about moot by now. Of course, it's all George Bush's fault.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


Even if what you say is true, that does not mean the entire whole of the consumer market is down, ...
...

The whole of the consumer economy is down.

Just about two times per week The San Diego Unio Tribune says so, and the next time I will keep a San Diego Union Tribune so that I can show you a link,

The U.S. consumer economy is down.

I saw in the paper that the total U.S. national payroll is going down since 2000.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

The whole of the consumer economy is down.

Just about two times per week The San Diego Unio Tribune says so, annd next time I will keep a San Diego Union Tribune so that I can show you a link,

The U.S. connsumer economy is down.

The total U.S. national payroll is going down since 2000.

As stands San Diego, so stands the nation! Someone alert Wall Street, since the index is sitting atop 13000 and they obviously haven't heard the news.

The only industry more adept at complaining about the "awful economy" than farmers is the tech industry. That hardly makes you the canary in the coal mine. If anything, my work in the advertising industry is a better indicator - and business is up. Way up in some markets. It's a good indication when industry begins spending on marketing again.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

Apparently, only if I live in San Diego.
...
By the way, if you're involved in bluetooth work, things are about to get a lot worse for you- that standard's just about moot by now. Of course, it's all George Bush's fault.
Apparently not only if you live in San Diego, but in Silicon Valley too and all over U.S..

The only companies that move a little are L3Communications, Raytheon, Titan, Lockheed-Martin and General Atomics, doing military work funded by taxes from consumer economy.

Read the Electronic Engineering Times on this.

Yes, is Bush's fault to let the consumer economy pay taxes to death, while he is chasing oil in Iraq.

The superiority of U.S. up until 2000 compared to the rest of the world, was the consumer economy.
Which is fading, nationwide.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Apparently not only if you live in San Diego, but in Silicon Valley too and all over U.S..

Read the Electronic Engineering Times on this.

Yes, is Bush's fault to let the consumer economy pay taxes to death, and chase oil in Iraq.

The superiority of U.S. up until 2000 compared to the rest of the world, was the consumer economy.
Which is fading, nationwide.

A couple of things:

First off, you mentioned one area and one industry. In a machine as massive and complex as the US economy, sorry bud, you mean exactly jack squat. Most hi-tech purchases have been coming from overseas for 20 years anyway. Sorry if you had a lean Christmas, but it's not making a dent on the economic recovery which most certainly is in progress.

Secondly, how much to you pay in local, county and state taxes there in California? Compared to your federal taxes? Even Ahhhnold has figured out that local and state taxes have chased business away, not the Bush Bogeyman.

Thirdly, how much has the was in Iraq cost you? Your company? Inreal, measurable dollars, that is?

Fourth, your "pre-2000" closer sounds nice as sound bites go, but it's a little lacking in details. Explain please?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
Secondly, how much to you pay in local, county and state taxes there in California? Compared to your federal taxes? Even Ahhhnold has figured out that local and state taxes have chased business away, not the Bush Bogeyman.
...

Let me see a paycheck:

it's $93,600 per year, bi-weekly of $3,600, $681.50 in Federal and $242.70 in California (so three times less in California than in Federal) and FICA of $275.40.

So Bush Bogeyman gets three times more than California.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Let me see a paycheck:

it's $93,600 per year, bi-weekly of $3,600, $681.50 in Federal and $242.70 in California (so three times less in California than in Federal) and FICA of $275.40.

So Bush Bogeyman gets three times more than California.

So I presume your federal taxes have somehow risen while the rest of the nations have stayed the same or dropped. At your salary, I imagine you would have seen a modest drop.

It doesn't matter anyway, until you include your costs in sales tax, property tax, vehicle licensing taxes and all the other things that don't show up on a paycheck stub. Do the math and I think you'll see your problem is a little more local than you suspect.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

So I presume your federal taxes have somehow risen while the rest of the nations have stayed the same or dropped. At your salary, I imagine you would have seen a modest drop.
...

That's what I pay every two weeks.

The total (including CA DIS of $32.40 that I didn't mention yet, whatever CA DIS is) is $1,232, which is over 1/3rd of my paycheck.

So, I give more than 1/3rd in taxes, including $681.50 bi-weekly to Bush (that's in excess of $1,363 every month) so that he can waste it when looking for oil in Iraq and killing Iraqis.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
consumer economy kept in recession because of this wasteful war.

A pity you don't know what a recession is...

[Ion]

A pity you don't know what I know.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

The whole of the consumer economy is down.

Just about two times per week The San Diego Unio Tribune says so, and next time I will keep a San Diego Union Tribune so that I can show you a link,

The U.S. consumer economy is down.


The San Diego Union Tribune says so? Tinkerbell the fairy tells me you don't know what you're talking about...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
A pity you don't know what I know.

I know that you know nothing about this topic... you know?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

That's what I pay every two weeks.

The total (including CA DIS of $32.40 that I didn't mention yet, whatever CA DIS is) is $1,232, which is over 1/3rd of my paycheck.

So, I give more than 1/3rd in taxes, including $681.50 bi-weekly to Bush (that's in excess of $1,363 every month) so that he can waste it when looking for oil in Iraq and killing Iraqis.

Let me respond by stating again what I stated before:

Repeated issue #1: Own a house? Own a car? Buy anything retail in-state? Those are all taxes which you conveniently ignore.

Repeated issue #2: Are you stating that your taxes have gone up? Or was it okay when Clinton was "wasting" your money in Bosnia, Haiti, etc.?

Repeated issue #3: How much is the war in Iraq costing you, or your employer, in measurable dollars?

BTW, in regard to Btox, I believe the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth (it's been a long time since Econ class, though). I'm not up to date with the scorecard, but the economy is definitely experiencing decent positive growth by pretty much any measure...

... any measure outside of San Diego, that is.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

That's what I pay every two weeks.

The total (including CA DIS of $32.40 that I didn't mention yet, whatever CA DIS is) is $1,232, which is over 1/3rd of my paycheck.

I don't live in CA but I'd guess that is CA disability insurance. It's usually helpful to know all the deductions from your paycheck.

Originally posted by Ion
So, I give more than 1/3rd in taxes, including $681.50 bi-weekly to Bush (that's in excess of $1,363 every month) so that he can waste it when looking for oil in Iraq and killing Iraqis.

You paid more taxes under Clinton, I guess you really complained then, eh?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BTox



You paid more taxes under Clinton, I guess you really complained then, eh?

Clinton wasn't his problem, Gray Davis was. Still is, in many ways. Like I said above, even Ahnold understands the suffocation of business by state taxes in CA.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


I know that you know nothing about this topic... you know?
toxy,

I know that you don't know much:

zero arguments from you, toxy?

You must know though, how does it feel to be a zero?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

...
You paid more taxes under Clinton, I guess you really complained then, eh?
The recession is now, not under Clinton.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Jocko

BTW, in regard to Btox, I believe the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth (it's been a long time since Econ class, though). I'm not up to date with the scorecard, but the economy is definitely experiencing decent positive growth by pretty much any measure...

... any measure outside of San Diego, that is.


Correct about the definition of recession. Here's the scorecard of late, Ion's inane ramblings to the contrary, of course:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031223/capt.nyet25712231714.economy_nyet257.jpg

[Ion]

That idiot is posting GDP:

(this forum is definetily way more naive than infidels.org)

.) the GDP grows when people like me work overtime to compensate without extra pay for laid-off workers;

.) the GDP grows when companies invest in I.T. equipment, which is not a measure of employment;

.) the GDP grows when companies are outsourcing software off-shore, and the executives get rich.

Regarding two other claims, I repeat:

.) I pay in Federal three times what I pay in California;

.) the newspaper speaks about a lowering of the total national payroll;

.) this quarter with encouraging news is a quarter, it is not a proven trend out of the recession.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

The recession is now, not under Clinton.

Seems that a dose of factual data always sends poor brain-dead Ion scurrying back into his hole...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
The idiot is posting GDP:

.) GDP grows when people like me work twice to compensate for laid-off workers;

.) the GDP grows when companies invest in I.T. equipment, which is not a measure of employment;

.) the GDP grows when companies are outsourcing off-shore, and the executives get rich.

Regarding two other claims, I repeat:

.) I pay in Federal three times what I pay in California;

.) the newspaper speaks about a lowering of the total national payroll;

.) this quarter with encouraging news is a quarter is not a proven trend out of recession.

Santa didn't bring you a brain for Christmas? Too bad... maybe next year if you're a good boy!

[Ion]

toxy,

the recession is now.

Read my post about your imbecility in posting GDP.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion


Regarding two other claims, I repeat:

I pay in Federal three times what I pay in California;

Yes, I see you repeating, but not answering the question. Do you own a home, a car, or buy things in-state?

the newspaper speaks about a lowering of the total national payroll

Which hasn't impacted GDP, which is a primary yardstick for the economy (as opposed to what you discuss around the watercooler while waiting for bluetooth to become officially obsolete... again, Bush's fault).

this quarter with encouraging news is a quarter is not a proven trend out of recession.

As I read things, we've had almost 2 years of slow growth, and two quarters of significant growth. That looks like a trend to me.

And again, are you paying more or less in federal taxes? How much did you put down for that check made out to "Bush's evil imperialist war"?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


Santa didn't bring you a brain for Christmas? Too bad... maybe next year if you're a good boy!
Any data in this, toxy from New Jersey?

There is none.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Any data in this, toxy from New Jersey?

There is none.

I'd say he's got a wealth of supportive data, yeah.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
Which hasn't impacted GDP, which is a primary yardstick for the economy...
...

No, the GDP is not the yardstick for the economy.

Read my criticism about GDP on the previous page.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


I'd say he's got a wealth of supportive data, yeah.
To your and toxy's pathtic level maybe, naive believers in the GDP.

Not to my level.

Read what I said about GDP on the previous page, and learn.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
How much did you put down for that check made out to "Bush's evil imperialist war"?
Ask Bush.

He takes my taxes and wars.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Ask Bush.

He takes my taxes and wars.

Do me a favor, Ion, and let me know soon how long you're going to dodge those simple questions. Question-and-answer is the means by which a debate progresses.

And while you're at it, please explain why the GDP is a meaningless measurement, beyond your criticism that it doesn't agree with your personal experience.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


Do me a favor, Ion, and let me know soon how long you're going to dodge those simple questions. Question-and-answer is the means by which a debate progresses.

And while you're at it, please explain why the GDP is a meaningless measurement, beyond your criticism that it doesn't agree with your personal experience.
Do me a favor and ask Bush how much tax money he needs for a $100 billion dollars war in Iraq.

Do me a favor and understand what I posted on the GDP:

to be idiotic and naive like you are now, is no further excuse for you.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Do me a favor and ask Bush how much tax money he needs for a $100 billion dollars war in Iraq.

Do me a favor and understand what I posted on the GDP:

to be idiotic and naive like you are now, is no further excuse for you.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that for a $100 billion dollar war, you need...... hold on I'm trying to do the math here........uh........$100 billion dollars? Do I still need to ask Bush?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that for a $100 billion dollar war, you need...... hold on I'm trying to do the math here........uh........$100 billion dollars? Do I still need to ask Bush?
troll,

ask Bush.

He will also correct your question.

You are too stupid for me:

I am not a Marine like you, you know?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

troll,

ask Bush.

He will correct your question.

Your question is too stupid for me.

I guess you are stupid.

Gee, it was you that asked the questions. I merely answered the easy one before someone else could beat me to it.

[Ion]

Looks to me that understanding the question of how much money Bush needs to tax me to war in Iraq, that's beyond your Marine IQ.

Do they ask you to learn additions and subtractions too, in the Marines?

Can you jump and bark, too?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Do me a favor and ask Bush how much tax money he needs for a $100 billion dollars war in Iraq.

Do me a favor and understand what I posted on the GDP:

to be idiotic and naive like you are now, is no further excuse for you.

You sound like a guy who got a tax break but wound up in a loser industry. Care to discuss any of that, or can I take it as read? The only thing that astonishes me is that someone like you pulls down 93k a year and has the cajones to bitch about it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
Looks to me that understanding the question of how much money Bush needs to tax me to war in Iraq, that's beyond your Marine IQ.

Do they ask you to learn additions and subtractions too, in the Marines?

Can you jump and bark, too?

Adding, subtracting, dividing and conquering.

They also taught me that if I want to ask a question pertaining to myself that I should word it as such. You didn't. Now you want me to ask him how much he needs from you? Well, I would guess it would be a portion of the amount you pay, no more, no less, so don't expect to see your taxes going up because of it.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


You sound like a guy who got a tax break but wound up in a loser industry. Care to discuss any of that, or can I take it as read? The only thing that astonishes me is that someone like you pulls down 93k a year and has the cajones to bitch about it.
I told you that the overall payroll in U.S. dropped since 2000, not just one industry, not just one place.

As for "...bitch about it.", you have to understand what I bitch about:

.) I have work;

.) people are laid-off;

.) the consumer economy in many fields across U.S., declines since 2000 (no GDP garbage here, see my comments on GDP on the previous page);

.) my taxes fund a war for oil that I don't want.

[Ion]

This was understood from the beginning:
Originally posted by Troll

...
Well, I would guess it would be a portion of the amount you pay, no more, no less, so don't expect to see your taxes going up because of it.
So you didn't add anything to the discussion.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

I told you that the overall payroll in U.S. dropped since 2000, not just one industry, noy just one place.

But not explained why that matters to anything outside your own personal space, which you seem to be obsessed with.

DID YOU GET A TAX CUT?

As for "...bitch about it.", you have to understand what I bitch about:

I have work;

Yeah, that really sucks. What's your point?

DID YOU GET A TAX CUT?

people are laid-off;

A normal part of the cycle of the economy, unless you prove differently, which you have not. People are hired, too.

DID YOU GET A TAX CUT?

the consumer economy in many fields across U.S., declines since 2000 (no GDP garbage here, see my comments on GDP on the previous page);

Again, barring any actual evidence from you, the ebb and flow of money to different sectors of the economy is as old as money itself. What makes Bush and 2003 different? I want examples, not what you hear around the office.

DID YOU GET A TAX CUT?

my taxes fund a war for oil that I don't want.

Then vote him out. If your can't, then you're in the minority. Ipso facto. What, should the rest of us take up arms against the government because you're feeling uneasy about your job security? Maybe you should look for another job, learn another skill? You know, like millions of Americans who DON'T have the luxury of a 93k salary?

Yes, this all sounds like bitching to me.

DID YOU GET A TAX CUT?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

I told you that the overall payroll in U.S. dropped since 2000, not just one industry, noy just one place.

As for "...bitch about it.", you have to understand what I bitch about:

.) I have work;

.) people are laid-off;

.) the consumer economy in many fields across U.S., declines since 2000 (no GDP garbage here, see my comments on GDP on the previous page);

.) my taxes fund a war for oil that I don't want.

I'm laid off, I got called back but had a schedule conflict because I was going back to school. I'm looking into other jobs right now so I'll be reducing the number for ya.

And the consumer economy increases in other fields which is what is spurring the economic turnaround.

My taxes help support art I don't like. Been doing that for longer than this war has gone on. I say we fix that first since it's cost us in the past and will after the war is long paid for and over with.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
DID YOU GET A TAX CUT?
...

Looks like whether I got a tax cut is your main question.

I don't know,

I jumped from a $84k job last year to a $93k job this year.

I could compare the taxes in their respective paychecks.

But the thing for me is that I am in the consumer economy, the consumer economy is dying nationwide under Bush, and my taxes pay for Bush's war escapades when he looks for oil and kills.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion
Looks like whether I got a tax cut is your main question.

I don't know,

I jumped from a $84k job last year to a $93k job this year.

I could compare the taxes in their respective paychecks.

But the thing for me is that I am in the consumer economy, the consumer economy is dying nationwide under Bush, and my taxes pay for Bush's war escapades when he looks for oil and kills.

You're IN the economy. The economy is measured by more than YOU. I've heard of people thinking the world revolves around them, but you're the first one I've encountered who thinks the economy revolves around him.

And you're preaching economic measurement, and don't even know what you pay in taxes. Riiiiiight.

Goodnight, folks, you've been a great audience.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
My taxes help support art I don't like.
...

The arts that you don't like are harmless compared to a war.
Originally posted by Jocko

...
I've heard of people thinking the world revolves around them, but you're the first one I've encountered who thinks the economy revolves around him.
...

False, I posted this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
.) I have work;

.) people are laid-off;

.) the consumer economy in many fields across U.S., declines since 2000 (no GDP garbage here, see my comments on GDP on the previous page);

.) my taxes fund a war for oil that I don't want.
It si Jocko that revolves the economy around me only, by insisting to ask whether I had a tax cut.

I am going to rest now.

I am a fierce swimmer into competitions, and I need to rest for a club workout that I will do tomorrow.

See you later.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

The arts that you don't like are harmless compared to a war.

False, I posted this:

I am going to rest now.

I am a fierce swimmer into competitions, and I need to rest for a club workout that I will do tomorrow.

See you later.

Skip the workout; you're already all wet.

[shuize]

Ion,

You sure amuse me.

Nearly every post of yours is critical of the United States. And yet, where do you choose to live and pay taxes?

If I hated the french government as much as you claim to hate the current U.S. administration, I sure wouldn't stick around and support it with as much money as you claim to pay in taxes.

But, on behalf of the United States of America, thanks for being such a hypocrite and not putting your money where your mouth is.

[NullPointerException]

Maybe if you understood the concept of funny money you would understand what I meant in my previous post and than quit bugging us about Bush wasting your money:

We pay about 1 trillion dollars in interest...

We issue bonds to pay these bounds...
"The government is set to issue Rp 5 trillion (around US$625 million) in bonds on Sept. 9 as part of its efforts to help cover the deficit in the 2003 state budget.The bond, which is the second tranche this year, will mature on Dec. 15, 2012 and will carry a fixed coupon to be paid twice a year, the Ministry of Finance said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that the coupon rate had yet to be determined. The bond issuance is part of government plans to issue new bonds to finance maturing government bonds."
http://www.sumatera-online.org/News/news_collect/english/govt_to_undertake_second_bond_is...htm

We issue bonds to buy new things...
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/5/4/51734745.html
Venezuela, Dec 11, 2003 (BNamericas.com via COMTEX) -- The government of Venezuela is to issue 160bn bolivares (US$100mn) in federal bonds to finance the construction of a bridge across the Orinoco River, state news agency Venpres reports. The project carries a preliminary price tag of US$300mn.

We only have to pay for about half of what we do now, and by the time we get to the time to pay for the bounds readjustments in currency make it so that the government pays out at a discounted rate adjusted for inflation.

If we issue bonds to pay bonds, and buy things with bonds, and pay bonds back at a reduced rate... as long as we pay less than a third of revenue in taxes, etc... we are fine. Currently we are only at about 1.2 trillion in interest payments which is less than a third by about 10%.

[shanek]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
How is the war wasteful?

War is wasteful from an economic standpoint because everything it creates is destroyed; and since this action destroys other forms of wealth in the process (which we'll have to end up paying for with our reconstruction efforts) war represents a destruction of wealth in the economy, not a creation of wealth. War has NEVER been good for the economy.

The example people always point to is how WWII got us out of the GD, but the truth of the matter is the government wanted to spend money on the war efforts, so the Fed finally did what they should have done years before and released their stranglehold on the money supply. This not only let the government spend on the war, it finally let people invest money and create wealth again.

I think it represents an excellent zero sum transaction on the part of Americans considering who is allowed to take reconstruction contracts.

A very few corporations benefit from war, but make no mistake, the economy as a whole suffers.

[shanek]

Some misconceptions here:

[i].) the GDP grows when people like me work overtime to compensate without extra pay for laid-off workers;[/b]

This has no effect on GDP, presuming that you're doing the same amount of work that the laid-off workers are doing. Now, if you're getting paid time and a half for overtime, that will result in an increase in nominal GDP, but not real GDP, and the economy will slightly inflate to make up for it.

.) the GDP grows when companies invest in I.T. equipment, which is not a measure of employment;

Investments do, in fact, increase GDP. So this one is right.

.) the GDP grows when companies are outsourcing software off-shore, and the executives get rich.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. GDP is Gross DOMESTIC Product, which actually lowers as jobs move outside the country.

Keep in mind that GDP is made up of four components: Consumer spending, Investments, Government purchases, and Net Exports. Let's say a widget maker makes and sells 100,000 widgets in the US economy. The 100,000 widgets times the price of an individual widget gives you the amount that widgets provide to the Consumer Spending component of GDP.

Now let's say the widget maker moves his operation overseas. Let's say that all other things are equal: the same amount of widgets being consumed in the US economy at the same price and no other changes anywhere else. People are still buying the 100,000 widgets at the former price, so this consumer spending component will remain the same...BUT (ooh, that's a big but!) we now have to consider the change to Net Exports. The widgets are now being imported to the US instead of produced there. Since Net Exports is exports - imports, then the Net Exports compoent will be reduced. There was no change to the consumer spending component, but a reduction in the net exports component. So GDP goes DOWN.

.) I pay in Federal three times what I pay in California;

Keep in mind that you pay more than just income tax. Look at sales tax, capital gains, and all the excise taxes (such as the gas tax or the phone tax) that you pay.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

To your and toxy's pathtic level maybe, naive believers in the GDP.

Not to my level.

Read what I said about GDP on the previous page, and learn.

Well, it's obvious you know nothing about economics and probably never will. This is pointless to continue.

However, perhaps you are amenable to learning a little American etiquette. It is in extremely poor taste to divulge your salary to anyone other than direct family. As an example, only my wife knows what I make. FYI.

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek



Investments do, in fact, increase GDP. So this one is right.





Just a heads up, but given Ion's referring to his job and his alone throughout this thread, I think he actually believes that if no one is buying or investing in IT equipment it shows that the GDP will not increase, even if other areas are getting heavy increases in investments.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Troll
Just a heads up, but given Ion's referring to his job and his alone throughout this thread, I think he actually believes that if no one is buying or investing in IT equipment it shows that the GDP will not increase, even if other areas are getting heavy increases in investments.

Possibly, but I was referring to the specific language of the point, which is, in fact, true. I'm not going to attempt to respond to Ion's main points as doing so would obviously be utter foolishness. I think I'd just as soon get involved in another gun thread...

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek


Possibly, but I was referring to the specific language of the point, which is, in fact, true. I'm not going to attempt to respond to Ion's main points as doing so would obviously be utter foolishness. I think I'd just as soon get involved in another gun thread...

Well, I gotta do a little shopping right now, but when I get back I'll look into starting a gun thread for ya.;)

By the way. I thought you post on the economy and generating wealth was spot on.

[Ion]

Let me see what the wimpy right-wing Americans have posted since yesterday.

I see this:
Originally posted by shuize
Ion,

You sure amuse me.

Nearly every post of yours is critical of the United States. And yet, where do you choose to live and pay taxes?

If I hated the french government as much as you claim to hate the current U.S. administration, I sure wouldn't stick around and support it with as much money as you claim to pay in taxes.

But, on behalf of the United States of America, thanks for being such a hypocrite and not putting your money where your mouth is.
When people ask me why I am in the U.S., I tell them that it is not for work -the greedy and the religious dog-eat-dog Corporate U.S. that is illustrated also in Bush's war for Iraq's oil- because work is only the official passport that I use in order to subsidize my lifestyle:

I had better work, more intellectual and with a genuine collegiality in France, after I graduated there.

It is not by chance that I am in San Diego, and that today December 26, under a blistering sun I swam 5,200 meters (not dark-ages U.S. yards, but international meters) in one and a half hours, by leading a lane of racing swimmers competing for a private club.

I tell people that this lifestyle is paradise for me, and they believe me because physically and mentally I look the part.

I also see this:
Originally posted by BTox


Well, it's obvious you know nothing about economics and probably never will.
...

I posted this:
Originally posted by Ion

The whole of the consumer economy is down.

Just about two times per week The San Diego Union Tribune says so, and the next time I will keep a San Diego Union Tribune so that I can show you a link,

The U.S. consumer economy is down.

I saw in the paper that the total U.S. national payroll is going down since 2000.
Let me back it up.

Today, October 26, 2003, The San Diego Union Tribune in page A 34, has 'Looking for the rebound'.

I see the graphs I was talking about in my post.

(They are credited to the 'U.S. Department of Labor', 'U.S. Department of Commerce' and 'The Conference Board').

.) 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

.) 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.

toxy from New Jersey, messing up with me with nonsense (respective to jobs) GDP from the height of a low IQ?
Originally posted by BTox

...
However, perhaps you are amenable to learning a little American etiquette. It is in extremely poor taste to divulge your salary to anyone other than direct family. As an example, only my wife knows what I make. FYI.
You know what?

I divulge my salary to mock your kind.

And, me the foreigner, I am changing your ways too:

American religious greed for money, eh?

This needs to be changed.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

I divulge my salary to mock your kind.

And, me the foreigner, I am changing your ways too.

Mocks my kind? I'd love to hear in what way.

[Ion]

In doing it.

[Ion]

This is incorrect:
Originally posted by Troll


Just a heads up, but given Ion's referring to his job and his alone throughout this thread, I think he actually believes that if no one is buying or investing in IT equipment it shows that the GDP will not increase, even if other areas are getting heavy increases in investments.
Man, why am I surrounded by people of this caliber?

Regarding "...given Ion's referring to his job and his alone throughout this thread...", I repeatedly stated the opposite to it (but this American imbecile is deaf and blind), and today I back it up here:
Originally posted by Ion

...
Today, October 26, 2003, The San Diego Union Tribune in page A 34, has 'Looking for the rebound'.

I see the graphs I was talking about in my post.

(They are credited to the 'U.S. Department of Labor', 'U.S. Department of Commerce' and 'The Conference Board').

.) 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

.) 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.
...

Regarding "...he actually believes that if no one is buying or investing in IT equipment it shows that the GDP will not increase, even if other areas are getting heavy increases in investments." this:

http://persia2.asia1.com.sg/NASApp/RegAuth2/en/GetUser.jsp?url=business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,94718,00.html

(with registration required, unfortunately)


has this quote about U.S. manipulating GDP with IT numbers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of a boost has this 'innovative' growth accounting contributed to US real GDP? Between Q2 2000 and Q2 2003, American real GDP has grown by a cumulative 4.6 per cent. As seen above, real investment in IT equipment has increased 43.5 per cent in this period. Further, the average contribution of computers and peripheral equipment to US real GDP growth - based on Table 8.2 of the National Income Tables - works out to 11.4 per cent over the last three years.

That is, 'real investment' in computers and peripheral equipment has contributed 5 per cent (43.5 per cent multiplied by 11.4 per cent) to US real GDP growth over this three-year period. This exceeds the real GDP growth rate of 4.6 per cent. In other words, but for the hedonic adjustment to prices (quality-adjusted price change) of IT equipment, American real GDP over the last three years would have stagnated at best or contracted at worst. So should one be surprised that the American economy still sheds jobs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, it reveals the truth behind the recent surge in productivity numbers: output boosted by hedonic accounting and divided by a shrinking labour input would naturally result in a higher productivity rate. It is just a statistical artefact.

Not only are these tales not being fully told, these statistics are used to berate the economic performance of other countries and regions in the world. In fairness, comparisons should be made only after removing the effect of quality-adjusted deflation in the US data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. statistics on GDP could be a grander version of Enron books.


So, no more garbage about U.S. GDP measuring economic output, OK?

[Troll]

You sure you read the right story?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20031226-9999_1b26recovery.html

Some of the other stories seem to have a better view

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/index.html

[Ion]

Are you denying that the two graphs showing the recession exist?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
In doing it.

Ah, so you are saying that showing your ignorance of economics, politics and etiquette is mocking us? Perhaps you should look up the word "mock"...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

has this quote about U.S. manipulating GDP with IT numbers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of a boost has this 'innovative' growth accounting contributed to US real GDP? Between Q2 2000 and Q2 2003, American real GDP has grown by a cumulative 4.6 per cent. As seen above, real investment in IT equipment has increased 43.5 per cent in this period. Further, the average contribution of computers and peripheral equipment to US real GDP growth - based on Table 8.2 of the National Income Tables - works out to 11.4 per cent over the last three years.

That is, 'real investment' in computers and peripheral equipment has contributed 5 per cent (43.5 per cent multiplied by 11.4 per cent) to US real GDP growth over this three-year period. This exceeds the real GDP growth rate of 4.6 per cent. In other words, but for the hedonic adjustment to prices (quality-adjusted price change) of IT equipment, American real GDP over the last three years would have stagnated at best or contracted at worst. So should one be surprised that the American economy still sheds jobs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, it reveals the truth behind the recent surge in productivity numbers: output boosted by hedonic accounting and divided by a shrinking labour input would naturally result in a higher productivity rate. It is just a statistical artefact.

Not only are these tales not being fully told, these statistics are used to berate the economic performance of other countries and regions in the world. In fairness, comparisons should be made only after removing the effect of quality-adjusted deflation in the US data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. statistics on GDP could be a grander version of Enron books.


So, no more garbage about U.S. GDP measuring economic output, OK?


Here's a clue, try to find a source that knows something about economics. Your weekly reader quotes are unimpressive...

[Ion]

Did you refute the two graphs showing recession, toxy?

When?

Do they feed you GDP, over there in New Jersey?

[BTox]

It is so easy to poke holes in your kooky kindergarten data:


Originally posted by Ion
.) 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

Don't know what constant degradation means, or simply do not know the facts? The fact is nonfarm payroll employment bottomed out in July 2003 at 129,846,000 and since has risen to 130,174,000 (as on nov). Strike one...


Originally posted by Ion
.) .) 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.

Again, consumer confidence bottomed out in march at 77. Has since risen over 14 points. Strike two...

Originally posted by Ion
.) toxy from New Jersey, messing up with me with nonsense (respective to jobs) GDP from the height of a low IQ?


I am curious, just how low is your IQ? I'm convinced it started at birth at perhaps 100, and then a constant degradation up until today at something like 60.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
Did you refute the two graphs showing recession, toxy?

Perhaps you don't know what a graph is. The only graph in this thread is the one I provided which clearly shows the recession has been over for more than a year.

Originally posted by Ion
When?

Who?

Originally posted by Ion
Do they feed you GDP, over there in New Jersey?

Yes, it is quite tasty.

[Ion]

'Bush economic policy approval soaring', eh, toxy the light of New Jersey?

Go to the U.S. Department of Labor, at:

THIS PAGE (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm)

click in the box under "Seasonally adjusted" next to "Total nonfarm" (on the top line), then scroll to the bottom and click on the "Retrieve data" button, you will get the chart to which I am referring.

It shows a peak value of 132,560,000 jobs right after Bush took office in February, 2001.

Jobs immediately begin to be lost, with the bottom of the recession being a value of 130,204,000 jobs in July, 2002, followed by a blip upwards and a double-bottom in December, 2002, at 130,198,000 jobs.

It blipped upwards again and then gave us the triple-bottom number of 129,846,000 jobs in July of 2003.

The number of jobs has been bouncing up again (to the latest figure of 130,174,000 jobs), but it is too early to say with any certainty that there won't be a quadruple bottom sometime early next year.

So far, the economy just isn't creating any jobs to speak of (or else, isn't creating jobs as fast as they are being shipped overseas....).

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

...
Who?
...

toxy.

Of course:

toxy.

toxy needs to learn what does a graph from the U.S. Department of Labor mean:

.) after toxy gets the chart of numbers, as I described, above, toxy must click on the check box near the top that says "Include graphs (new)" next to it;

.) then toxy must select a year range of 1999 through 2003 and click on the "Go" button.

The peak of this graph showing U.S. employment is at Bush's inauguration.

Then it peaks out under Bush.

Until now, November 2003.

Suuuuuure (by toxy's imbecility):

"...soaring...".

[Ion]

Regarding the Consumer confidence index, I found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm

which shows a peak in 2000, then a decline under Bush in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

So is not like Jocky, Trolly, and Toxy (aka: The Bush-Lapdog-Brothers) claim in this thread that it is just in my wireless telecommunications industry, and that it is just a lack of confidence in the consumer industry in San Diego only:

the lack of consumer confidence under Bush is nationwide and is in all fields.

After my two demonstrations of job and confidence loss under Bush, to summarize my position again:

Bush takes tax money from the consumer industry, develops the U.S. military complex while bringing a lack of consumer confidence that maintains until today the U.S. economic recession, and he invests this tax money in a war for oil in Iraq.

So, suuuuure toxy-the-light-of-New-Jersey:

"...soaring..." eh?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

It shows a peak value of 132,560,000 jobs right after Bush took office in February, 2001.

Jobs immediately begin to be lost, with the bottom of the recession being a value of 130,204,000 jobs in July, 2002, followed by a blip upwards and a double-bottom in December, 2002, at 130,198,000 jobs.

It blipped upwards again and then gave us the triple-bottom number of 129,846,000 jobs in July of 2003.

The number of jobs has been bouncing up again (to the latest figure of 130,174,000 jobs), but it is too early to say with any certainty that there won't be a quadruple bottom sometime early next year.

So far, the economy just isn't creating any jobs to speak of (or else, isn't creating jobs as fast as they are being shipped overseas....).

See, you're learning something. You just re-iterated exactly what I posted. At least you admit you were wrong... a start.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

toxy.

Of course:

toxy.

toxy needs to learn what does a graph from the U.S. Department of Labor mean:

.) after toxy gets the chart of numbers, as I described, above, toxy must click on the check box near the top that says "Include graphs (new)" next to it;

.) then toxy must select a year range of 1999 through 2003 and click on the "Go" button.

The peak of this graph showing U.S. employment is at Bush's inauguration.

Then it peaks out under Bush.

Until now, November 2003.

Suuuuuure (by toxy's imbecility):

"...soaring...".

It took you two posts to confirm what I posted in one paragraph? Gee, you're right, you really do have a low IQ.

BTW, the "soaring" is Bush's approval rating on his handling of the economy, which is, although it pains you greatly to even read it, the truth.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
Regarding the Consumer confidence index, I found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm

which shows a peak in 2000, then a decline under Bush in 2001, 2002 and 2003.


And you now also see that consumer confidence is on the rise after the recession ended over a year ago, with the economy booming at a rate not seen in over 20 years. Case closed, once again.

Pleasant dreams, nitwit!

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


See, you're learning something. You just re-iterated exactly what I posted. At least you admit you were wrong... a start.
I admit that you are learning from me that you are wrong:

the peak in employment is at Bush's inauguration:

.) 132,560,000 jobs in February 2001, before Bush;

.) 130,174,000 jobs in November 2003 under Bush.

How is this for a recession, dumby?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

...
BTW, the "soaring" is Bush's approval rating on his handling of the economy, which is, although it pains you greatly to even read it, the truth.
Only toxies are soaring with approval.

The graph shows a loss of jobs under Bush.

But toxies soar with approval.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


And you now also see that consumer confidence is on the rise after the recession ended over a year ago, with the economy booming at a rate not seen in over 20 years. Case closed, once again.

Pleasant dreams, nitwit!
Compared to 2000?

The confidence is lower:

.) 136 in 2000;

.) 91.7 in November 2003.

"...the economy booming..."?

I showed you a loss of jobs and confidence compared with 2000.

toxy, this must be hard for you...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

Compared to 2000?

The confidence is lower.

"...the economy booming..."?

I showed you a loss of jobs and confidence compared with 2000.

toxy, this must be hard for you...

You try the same tactics as that other lunatic Rouser. Make a false claim, have it shot down with facts, then say you claimed differently. Let's repeat:

Ion: 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

Wrong.

Ion: 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.

Wrong.


Keep hoping that maybe Santa brings you that functional brain next xmas!

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


You try the same tactics as that other lunatic Rouser. Make a false claim, have it shot down with facts, then say you claimed differently. Let's repeat:

Ion: 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

Wrong.

Ion: 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.

Wrong.


Keep hoping that maybe Santa brings you that functional brain next xmas!
I think you just showed that my claim is right, dumby:

.) 132,560,000 jobs in Feb, 2001, before Bush;

.) 130,174,000 jobs in Nov. 2003, under Bush;

and

.) 136 consumer confidence index in 2000, before Bush;

.) 91.7 consumer confidence index in Nov. 2003, under Bush.

Got the recession now, dumby?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ion

I think you just showed that my claim is right, dumby:

.) 132,560,000 jobs in Feb, 2001, before Bush;

.) 130,174,000 jobs in Nov. 2003, under Bush;

and

.) 136 consumer confidence index in 2000, before Bush;

.) 91.7 consumer confidence index in Nov. 2003, under Bush.

Got the recession now, dumby?
dumby,

are you there?

dumby?

dumby?

where are you?

Let me try this:

toxy? are you there?

[Ion]

toxy-the-light-of-New-Jersey-aka-dummy-aka-dumby:

do you think that (132,560,000-130,174,000), which is 2,386,000 less jobs under Bush, and many underemployed under Bush, that explains why the consumer confidence index dropped from 136 in 2000 before Bush to 91.7 under Bush in November 2003?

I think, it does, dumby.

This is the key of the recession in the consumer economic that persists under Bush:

Bush wastes tax money -taken from the consumer economy- into an useless war.

dumby?

Do you follow?

dumby?

[Jocko]

Btox and Ion, you're both going nowhere until you agree on terms. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth - by definition. Ion, if you're claiming that things are tight and the recovery is slow, fine, but to call it a recession is outright incorrect.

I've heard it called a jobless recovery; perhaps that term better addresses your point?

[Ion]

Every sequence of two consecutive quarters until now, fits the definition of recession.

There are no two consecutive quarters of growth, since the beginning of 2001.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
I've heard it called a jobless recovery; perhaps that term better addresses your point?
It is not a jobless recovery, it is a downright recession compounded by irresponsibly wasting tax money in a war for oil.

For a jobless recovery, see how I debunk the myth of the GDP on the previous page, where I show that U.S. is massaging GDP numbers with investments in the IT equipment.

Without this massage, the GDP goes down, and so are the jobs going down.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion
Every sequence of two consecutive quarters until now, fits the definition of recession.

There are no two consecutive quarters of growth, since the beginning of 2001.

I should have remarked also that negative growth defined by GDP. Now, some sources I find also include employment, which would bolster your position, but then others include deflation, which we haven't experienced and would therefore disagree. The one uniform definition I find is negative GDP growth.

Frankly, you and Btox tossing employment numbers back and forth has crossed my eyes so I'm bowing out on that issue.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

It is not a jobless recovery, it is a downright recession compounded by irresponsibly wasting tax money in a war for oil.

For a jobless recovery, see how I debunk the myth of the GDP on the previous page, where I show that U.S. is massaging GDP numbers with investments in the IT equipment.

You didn't debunk squat, all you gave were opinions and I don't feel like getting into a spat with you over it. Nor over your assertions that the war is for oil, etc. etc. Just trying to help clarify your terms.

[Ion]

I debunked U.S. GDP here:
Originally posted by Ion

...
Regarding "...he actually believes that if no one is buying or investing in IT equipment it shows that the GDP will not increase, even if other areas are getting heavy increases in investments." this:

http://persia2.asia1.com.sg/NASApp/RegAuth2/en/GetUser.jsp?url=business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,94718,00.html

(with registration required, unfortunately)


has this quote about U.S. manipulating GDP with IT numbers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of a boost has this 'innovative' growth accounting contributed to US real GDP? Between Q2 2000 and Q2 2003, American real GDP has grown by a cumulative 4.6 per cent. As seen above, real investment in IT equipment has increased 43.5 per cent in this period. Further, the average contribution of computers and peripheral equipment to US real GDP growth - based on Table 8.2 of the National Income Tables - works out to 11.4 per cent over the last three years.

That is, 'real investment' in computers and peripheral equipment has contributed 5 per cent (43.5 per cent multiplied by 11.4 per cent) to US real GDP growth over this three-year period. This exceeds the real GDP growth rate of 4.6 per cent. In other words, but for the hedonic adjustment to prices (quality-adjusted price change) of IT equipment, American real GDP over the last three years would have stagnated at best or contracted at worst. So should one be surprised that the American economy still sheds jobs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, it reveals the truth behind the recent surge in productivity numbers: output boosted by hedonic accounting and divided by a shrinking labour input would naturally result in a higher productivity rate. It is just a statistical artefact.

Not only are these tales not being fully told, these statistics are used to berate the economic performance of other countries and regions in the world. In fairness, comparisons should be made only after removing the effect of quality-adjusted deflation in the US data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. statistics on GDP could be a grander version of Enron books.


So, no more garbage about U.S. GDP measuring economic output, OK?

[Jocko]

Found a nice primer page you may want to look at, Ion. It even mentions the jobless factor, though it doesn't exactly endorse it:



Everything you wanted to know about recessions and were forced to find out (http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000274.php)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
Nor over your assertions that the war is for oil, etc. etc.
...

For a war for oil, do a search in this forum, and you will see links where I show that since October, Chevron sells for profit in U.S., the Iraqi's oil.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko
...It even mentions the jobless factor, though it doesn't exactly endorse it:
...

The jobless recovery is a myth as long as I showed that the U.S. GDP is declining.

Only massaged numbers inflate the GDP numbers.

See, three posts ago about artificially inflated GDP.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion
I debunked U.S. GDP here:


That's an editorial, as far as I can see. And didn't I just say I didn't want to go into the war for oil issue? That's been done to death already around here.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


That's an editorial, as far as I can see. And didn't I just say I didn't want to go into the war for oil issue? That's been done to death already around here.
Then it's an editorial.

That makes points.

Worth considering.

Instead of a robotic and mindless GDP graph by toxy.

As for the oil, that's why I didn't bring the link here, because of not going into "...the war for oil issue..." but I mention that "...the war for oil issue..." is amply documented with links in this forum.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Then it's an editorial.

That makes points.

Worth considering.

Instead of a robotic and mindless GDP graph by toxy.

An editorial cannot debunk anything. It's an opinion, perhaps backed by facts, perhaps not. In this case, it does raise some interesting issues, but the fact remains that 6 months of negative GDP=recession, and all the letters to the editor in the world won't change that by itself.

As for the oil, that's why I didn't bring the link here, because of not going into "...the war for oil issue..." but I mention that "...the war for oil issue..." is amply documented with links in this forum.

About as amply as your editorial "debunking" of the GDP. Maybe that's good enough for you, but I don't get my opnions from just one page in the newspaper. No offense meant, but you seem to be confusing opinions with facts, and assumptions with conclusions.

[Troll]

Ion please pay attention to reality for a moment.

This thread was a bout Bush and his economy policy approval. It is up. His ratings in te poll as far as economy are up. Dispute it if you like but to do so means you have to show a poll that says his aproval ratings as far as the economy goes are down.

Now you've skipped it and people other than you and even you yourself have posted links and other evidence that shows a rise in the economy. Yes it's been like the last two to three months, but even your links show it.

You don't like Bush, you wish it was otherwise. I can understand and deal with that. But even you own numbers in your own links show that recently things are getting better.

Now ya pissed me off on a tech level though. Software? that's what you do? Kiss my ass. I did the prototyping for numerous things including Direct TV equipment. Others engineers and software guys like you would send stuff to me and others and pray we made it work. When we found faults and errors you freaks would spend more time whining than anything before you discovered you were wrong and then went back and corrected your mistakes.

But at least you're consistent. You seem to be applying the same to your posts. You try something, get told it's wrong, see the proof, deny it, argue it, then go back and fix it later. You're just shy of fixing it right now.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
I had better work, more intellectual and with a genuine collegiality in France, after I graduated there.


It all makes sense, now. No wonder you know nothing about economics, or anything else - you were "educated" in France. And no wonder you're a maniacal Bush-hater - you're a cowardly Frenchman! Gee, I should've known...

In any event, forget the Santa advice - you need to seek out the Wizard of Oz. You need a brain AND courage!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
Every sequence of two consecutive quarters until now, fits the definition of recession.

There are no two consecutive quarters of growth, since the beginning of 2001.

Still don't know how to read a graph - there's that French education for you! I see why you are so bitter about your occupation and meager salary.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Jocko

Frankly, you and Btox tossing employment numbers back and forth has crossed my eyes so I'm bowing out on that issue.

That fool doesn't realize that employment and consumer confidence always lags a recovery. The fact is both are increasing now and have been for months.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll
Ion please pay attention to reality for a moment.

This thread was a bout Bush and his economy policy approval. It is up. His ratings in te poll as far as economy are up.
...

With jobs from 132,000,000 in Feb. 2001 to 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003, with consumer confidence from 136 in 2000 to 91 in Nov. 2003, there is no approval "...soaring...".

Otherwise the consumer confidence would be higher than 91, would be around 136.

So:

no "...soaring...".

[Ion]

This:
Originally posted by Jocko

An editorial cannot debunk anything. It's an opinion, perhaps backed by facts, perhaps not.
...

is too general.

In particular here, U.S. sheds jobs, so the GDP must be massaged like that article calculates the fake.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


It all makes sense, now. No wonder you know nothing about economics, or anything else - you were "educated" in France.
...

You speak like if you knew better than me..

132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001 before Bush, 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003 under Bush, and consumer confidence of 136 in 2000 before Bush, 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush, that's recession.

During this recession, Bush took taxes from the consumer economy and wasted them in a war for oil.

During this recession, Bush didn't invest these taxes in the economy.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


Still don't know how to read a graph - there's that French education for you! I see why you are so bitter about your occupation and meager salary.
I read graphs better than you:

.) 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001 before Bush and 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) consumer confidence of 136 in 2000 before Bush and 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion
This:

is too general.

In particular here, U.S. sheds jobs, so the GDP must be massaged like that article calculates the fake.

It doesn't make anything fake. It's an opinion, an interpretation of what a "recovery" is. I could say I measure a recovery by the amount of trick-or-treaters I got last Halloween - that doesn't make it a fact.

If you're complaining that the recovery isn't impacting all sectors at the same rate, I'd agree. I'd also point out that's always been the case. And what BTox says is true - employment always lags behind GDP increases because producers want to know if hiring makes sense in the long term. I don't know how to quantify that, but it's always been true in the past.

Recovery starts with spending. Accumlated inventories drop, and eventually producers must ramp up production. But they're not going to do it until they have to, right? It all makes perfect sense if you think about it.

All the same, you'd best invest in a dictionary before you use "recession" erroneously again.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

I read graphs better than you:

.) 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001 before Bush and 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) consumer confidence of 136 in 2000 before Bush and 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush.

The tech bubble burst. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame your own marketing department and the investing fools who listened to them.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

That fool doesn't realize that employment and consumer confidence always lags a recovery. The fact is both are increasing now and have been for months.
Really?

Comparing worst under Bush with mediocre under Bush?

You have to show me that both jobs and consumer confidence increase under Bush for a sustained sequence of many quarters, to say that there is a trend (and a trend only) out of the recession.

As of now, there are not even two consecutive quarters of job and consumer confidence growth, under Bush since 2001.

It there are -ever under Bush- many quarters of growth, that would be only a trend out of the recession, and the question is why did Bush not invest money in the economy so that the recession wouldn't have taken place to begin with?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


It doesn't make anything fake.
...

The loss of jobs -a hard fact- makes the GDP calculation a fake.

That article explains how.

[Ion]

There we go:
Originally posted by Jocko


The tech bubble burst.
...

Here is where Bush could have invested some of the $100 billion that he wasted in a war for oil in Iraq.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

The loss of jobs -a hard fact- makes the GDP calculation a fake.

That article explains how.

You mean the EDITORIAL OPINES how.

Sorry, Ion, you're obviously far too convinced that the entire world is wrong for me to continue. Good luck in your industry.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion
There we go:

Here is where Bush could have invested some of the $100 billion that he wasted in a war for oil in Iraq.

What, to prop up your vaporware-oriented industry? The burst is your own industry's fault. I'd rather get the oil, if there's an option. Not that the war is about oil, but you seem to think it is.

Oil burns better than your IPO's do.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


You mean the EDITORIAL OPINES how.
...

Yes, I mean the editorial opines how.

The hard fact is that U.S. sheds jobs since Feb. 2001 under Bush, Bush wastes money, and the loss of jobs points to a fake in the calculation of the GDP.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


What, to prop up your vaporware-oriented industry? The burst is your own industry's fault. I'd rather get the oil, if there's an option.
...

Yes to my vaporware-oriented industry.

Don't be so sure about the oil.

Oil is old school, is heading towards world shortage (hence Bush's rush), and there are alternative forms of future energy that an intellectual president would pursue.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Yes to my vaporware-oriented industry.

Don't be so sure about the oil.

Oil is old school, is heading towards world shortage (hence Bush's rush), and there are alternative forms of future energy that an intellectual president would pursue.

Why can't I get out of this ridiculous discussion?

You do know what the colloquialism "vaporware" means? If you do, then I take your post to be in extremely poor taste. I'd rather see the government subsidize the snake oil industry. And impending shortage or not, I'm not going to be able to fill my tank with 801.1 standards anytime soon. But even that is moot, since the war wasn't about oil, no matter how you see it.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
I'd rather see the government subsidize the snake oil industry. And impending shortage or not, I'm not going to be able to fill my tank with 801.1 standards anytime soon. But even that is moot, since the war wasn't about oil, no matter how you see it.
Again, don't bet on oil.

The war was about oil like I told you, so do a search for my posts about Chevron selling Iraq's oil.

There are forms of energy that don't ask you to fill your tank with oil.

These forms of energy don't pander yet to industrial interests, and Bush goes with the old oil industrial interests.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

Again, don't bet on oil.

It's foolish to bet against the only game in town.

The war was about oil like I told you, so do a search for my posts about Chevron selling Iraq's oil.

No, it bloody well wasn't. Otherwise we'd be experiencing a glut that would have gas selling for 50 cents a gallon. As to Chevron, I don't see where it's relevant - what oil company DOESN'T sell for a profit, regardless of whether it's from Iraq or Venezuela?

There are forms of energy that don't ask you to fill your tank with oil.

Tell me about it. I still get people pointing at the widmill on my hood. Boy, talk about backing the wrong horse...

These forms of energy don't pander yet to industrial interests, and Bush goes with the old oil industrial interests.

No, at the moment they pander to extremist environmentalist groups and other lobbyists, sucking up federal development subsidies, and will continue to do so until they become profitable and practical - at which time they will become another evil industry for you to blame for your woes.

You don't grasp the recent economic trends of the past, and you don't seem to grasp the economic realities of the near future, and none of this addresses the point of this thread, which is that people support the administration's economic policy.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
As to Chevron, I don't see where it's relevant - what oil company DOESN'T sell for a profit, regardless of whether it's from Iraq or Venezuela?
...

I see where is relevant:

oil for blood and not free market.
Originally posted by Jocko

...
Tell me about it. I still get people pointing at the widmill on my hood. Boy, talk about backing the wrong horse...
...

I can tell you about this.

In fact one of Bush's promises in 2000 during his campaign was to invest in alternative sources of energy.
He doesn't keep this promise.

The subject of alternative forms of energy is a big subject, with lots of scientific research, and we can open another thread for it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

I see where is relevant:

oil for blood and not free market.

So you're saying Chevron sent troops, and is profiteering? What did you expect to happen after the war, Ion? Oil is all that country has to sell, after all. I'd be surprised if every oil company on the planet isn't in on this, but that does NOT equate to "blood for oil," which is no more true now than it was in '91.

Iraq was allowed to sell oil during the sanctions as well; with Saddam funneling the money away from his own needy people, HE is the one you ought to ask about "blood for oil." It takes more than protest slogans to change that fact.

I can tell you about this.

In fact one of Bush's promises in 2000 during his campaign was to invest in alternative sources of energy.
He doen't keep this promise.

Er, yes he has.

UDSA summary of Bush funding of ethanol and other biofuels (http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/10/0458.htm)

Bush invests 1.2 billion in alternative energy (http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2003/02/17/story2.html)

He's also funding the development of hydrogen cell cars, which pretty much everyone agrees is the only feasible substitute for the internal combustion engine. I can't find a link for it, but I remember reading that he's spending more on alternative energy than Clinton did (anyone who can verify or deny this, please speak up).

Funny behavior, coming from a president who is, according to you, interested only in two things:

1. Wrecking the conomy and the San Diego IT industry in particular, and
2. "Blood for oil."

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


So you're saying Chevron sent troops, and is profiteering?
...

No, Bush sent troops and Chevron is profiteering.

While Bush neglected the consumer economy.
Originally posted by Jocko

...
UDSA summary of Bush funding of ethanol and other biofuels (http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/10/0458.htm)

Bush invests 1.2 billion in alternative energy (http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2003/02/17/story2.html)

He's also funding the development of hydrogen cell cars, which pretty much everyone agrees is the only feasible substitute for the internal combustion engine.
...

Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

And it shouldn't be a puny $1.2 billion.

At least $20 billion.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

No, Bush sent troops and Chevron is profiteering.

While Bush neglected the consumer economy.

Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

And it shouldn't be a puny $1.2 billion.

At least $20 billion.

Here's your ethanol

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/10/0458.htm

Now I see you agree it's being done, which is progress, since just a minute ago you said:

"In fact one of Bush's promises in 2000 during his campaign was to invest in alternative sources of energy.
He doesn't keep this promise."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion


Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

And it shouldn't be a puny $1.2 billion.

At least $20 billion.

So let's see, there's 100 billion for the floundering and self-destructing IT industry (in San Diego), and 20 billion for ethanol and hydrogen.

That's some funny stuff coming from someone who got a tax cut and doesn't even realize it.

Seems to me that you want to restructure the whole shebang. Ever thought about running for office? You could sit down with Greenspan and explain to him what a recession REALLY is.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
What did you expect to happen after the war, Ion? Oil is all that country has to sell, after all.
...

You know what I expect to happen before, during, and after the war?

Something like this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=475890

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Christmas truce of the Great War in 1914 was started by a "peace movement" of German soldiers who won over their trenchbound British foes by lobbing chocolate cake at them instead of hand grenades, a new book claims.
...

The truce collapsed shortly after Christmas 1914 when news of the ceasefire reached the horrified high commands and strict military discipline was reinforced. Jürgs writes that in one area, Ploegsteert forest in Belgium, the ceasefire continued until the end of February 1915.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God forbid anyone should want to get along, say the ruling classes.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

You know what I expect to happen before, during, and after the war?

Something like this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=475890

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Christmas truce of the Great War in 1914 was started by a "peace movement" of German soldiers who won over their trenchbound British foes by lobbing chocolate cake at them instead of hand grenades, a new book claims.
...

The truce collapsed shortly after Christmas 1914 when news of the ceasefire reached the horrified high commands and strict military discipline was reinforced. Jürgs writes that in one area, Ploegsteert forest in Belgium, the ceasefire continued until the end of February 1915.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God forbid anyone should want to get along, say the ruling classes.

Sounds like a subject for a different thread to me. Hell, I'd love it if life were all pixie dust and chocolate ice cream too, but I'm not waiting for it to happen.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

So let's see, there's 100 billion for the floundering and self-destructing IT industry (in San Diego), and 20 billion for ethanol and hydrogen.
...

There is surely over $100 billion to spend on:

.) alternative forms of energy,

and

.) the consumer economy nationwide,

instead of oil for blood.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

Sounds like a subject for a different thread to me.
...

Not really.

It would fit 'Bush economic policy approval soaring' way better than loss of jobs, loss of consumer confidence and oil for blood:

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/truce.asp

"German and British front-line soldiers sang carols, exchanged gifts, and played soccer during a World War I Christmas truce.
...
The Germans set trees on trench parapets and lit the candles. Then, they began singing carols, and though their language was unfamiliar to their enemies, the tunes were not. After a few trees were shot at, the British became more curious than belligerent and crawled forward to watch and listen. And after a while, they began to sing.

By Christmas morning, the "no man's land" between the trenches was filled with fraternizing soldiers, sharing rations and gifts, singing and (more solemnly) burying their dead between the lines. Soon they were even playing soccer, mostly with improvised balls.

According to the official war diary of the 133rd Saxon Regiment, "Tommy and Fritz" kicked about a real football supplied by a Scot. "This developed into a regulation football match with caps casually laid out as goals. The frozen ground was no great matter . . . The game ended 3-2 for Fritz."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

There is surely over $100 billion to spend on:

.) alternative forms of energy,

and

.) the consumer economy nationwide,

instead of oil for blood.

That's one too many mindless platitudes for me. Good luck, Ion, because it will take a miracle for Bush to lose next year.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko


That's one too many mindless platitudes for me. Good luck, Ion, because it will take a miracle for Bush to lose next year.
That's not a platitude.

Dean, an intellectual, would do this.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion

That's not a platitude.

I'm afraid it is. It's the mindless mantra of irrational Bush haters. You've been guilty of this beahvior yourself, in fact. Let's summarize:

You blame Bush for the collapse of the IT industry, which happened before the election and was overdue in any event.

You blame Bush for confiscatory taxes, yet received a tax cut last year (93k salary would have gotten you a cut).

You blame Bush for perpetrating a war for oil, yet the Bush family is unconnected to Chevron.

You blame Bush for not bailing out a charlatan's industry.

You blame Bush for not pursuing alternative fuels, when in fact he has, moreso than his predecessor.

Platitudes are a substitute for thought, and this is what you demonstrate.

Dean, an intellectual, would do this.

God save us from self-styled intellectuals. I'm sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't.

Edited to add: That's enough for me. I'm out, yo. See you in November, Ion, when we see what the public sentiment really is... even in San Diego.

[Ion]

Now, you see this is a platitude:
Originally posted by Jocko

...
God save us from self-styled intellectuals. I'm sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't.
...

I demonstrated in this thread that:

.) there were 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001, before Bush;

.) there are 130,000,000 jobs in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) there was a consumer confidence index of 136 in 2000 before Bush;

.) there is a consumer confidence index of 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) Bush spent over $100 billion of tax money to war.

Now, if you are "...sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't." and if you don't want to stay in platitudes, then go out and prepare to vote for Dean.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ion
Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

Ethanol, IMO, should be scrapped as a fuel source. At current production efficiency it would take over 1.6 million square miles of corn fields to meet gasoline demands of the US for 1 year. The total area of the US is only 3.5 million square miles! And most of that is not suitable for corn production. It gets even worse when you factor in the fact that it takes 1 gallon of gasoline to produce 1.25 gallons of ethanol. And the amount of fertilizers dumped on fields to achieve the yields necessary for that yield is staggering.

Ethanol is really just another agricultural subsidy, not a serious or responsible energy policy.

Fuel cell research has much more promise, if a cheap way of obtaining hydrogen can be found.

[Ion]

A shortfall of oil can happen 10 or 15 years from now (Kenneth Deffeyes predicts an oil peak in 2004 in the New Scientist in 1999, Colin Campbell predicts an oil peak in 2010, while the U.S. Department of Energy predicts a peak in 2037), and this discussion of alternative energy sources is important, needs to be organized in a debate with structured issues and is beyond me as of now but I can catch up gradually.

A few points are:

.) I take your point about ethanol;

.) thermally split hydrogen (costly technology right now) can be used to power fuel cell cars and these cars can be commercially available in 15 years;

.) as for liquefied natural gas for fuel in cars, one can synthesize hydrocarbons to run on engines like biodiesel;
the Australian bus system in Queensland runs on LPG;

.) at the moment, France is bidding to host the world first's viable fusion prototype plant and 10 to 15 years down the road large scale fusion plants are possible;

.) the wind blowing across North Dakota can provide the windmills that produce about 10% of the electricity in U.S.;

.) Denmark has gone into windpower providing 10% of its energy needs and since 1972 Denmark halved its need for oil;

.) isolation and solar roofs can be used;

.) coal, pebble-bed reactors (as in Chernobyl) and fission present dangers;

.) nuclear plants, river hydro, gas turbines and thermal plants are working;

.) methane hydrates from sea and tundra is an energy resource twice as abundant as coal, oil and gas;

this is worth exploring more than a war for oil in Iraq.

[NullPointerException]

Hey lon, what are the employment numbers for Sept 11, 2001 and January 1, 2000. Also, what is the cost per mega-watt hour of wind power.

[Ion]

I will answer these tomorrow.

[BTox]

Let's see if the dimwitted and cowardly Frenchman has learned what a recession is yet...


Originally posted by Ion
Now, you see this is a platitude:

I demonstrated in this thread that:

.) there were 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001, before Bush;

.) there are 130,000,000 jobs in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) there was a consumer confidence index of 136 in 2000 before Bush;

.) there is a consumer confidence index of 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) Bush spent over $100 billion of tax money to war.

Now, if you are "...sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't." and if you don't want to stay in platitudes, then go out and prepare to vote for Dean.

Nope - maybe tomorrow he will learn!

[aerocontrols]

Btox: I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time, unless you're just having fun.

Bush really won't need Ion's vote.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Bush really won't need Ion's vote.

Assuming that he's bothered - and is eligible - to register to vote.

[BTox]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Btox: I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time, unless you're just having fun.


What else is there with the likes of Ion? :D

[Troll]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Btox: I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time, unless you're just having fun.

Bush really won't need Ion's vote.

Can Ion vote?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Troll


Can Ion vote?

Does he know how?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox
Let's see if the dimwitted and cowardly Frenchman has learned what a recession is yet...
...
Nope - maybe tomorrow he will learn!
and
Originally posted by BTox

Does he know how?
Let me see what you struggled to learn:

me, being a "...Frenchman..."?

No, I have never been a Frechman.

But I bet I see something about you, toxy:

I picture you being fat, with brown eyes and a bent crooked nose, wearing a goatee, wearing wrinkled shorts and sandals or dirty sneakers, having myopia, not knowing what recession means, and trying to speak one language in an entire life.

Could your children improve on your life 'performance'?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


What else is there with the likes of Ion? :D
People better than you.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

and

Let me see what you struggled to learn:

me, being a "...Frenchman..."?

No, I have never been a Frechman.



Too much of a coward to even admit it? Wow!

[Ion]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Hey lon, what are the employment numbers for Sept 11, 2001 and January 1, 2000.
...

From the U.S. Department of Labor:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

in September, 2001 there were 131,550,000 non farm jobs in U.S. under Bush.

Almost one million fewer jobs than 132,436,000 in January 2001, before Bush.
Originally posted by NullPointerException

...
Also, what is the cost per mega-watt hour of wind power.
I don't know.

The larger the wind program the greater the instability of the grid from frequency and voltage problems.

King Mountain in Texas, 278 MW, was finished in December 2001.

This gives an idea of the windmill program across U.S.:

http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html

I can see windmills, biomass and solar contributing 15% to the energy of a country.

Nuclear and coal plants would do 50%.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


Too much of a coward to even admit it? Wow!
No.

I have never been French.

You do have learning disabilities in life, toxy...

Are your shorts dirty today?

Did you wash your hands today?

[Ion]

What's the matter with you BTox?

Are you hiding in the bathroom now until I go to sleep, then you will try to post something that lasts this night until I wake up tomorrow?

That's how you live over there, in New Jersey?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
What's the matter with you BTox?

Are you hiding in the bathroom now until I go to sleep, then you will try to post something that lasts this night until I wake up tomorrow?

That's how you live over there, in New Jersey?

No, I'm simply waiting for you to learn what a recession is. When you figure it out, we can continue. Until then, there is nothing else to do but ridicule your stupidity and ignorance. Nighty-night!

[Ion]

toxy,

how does it feel for you to follow your threads going down the toilet since you don't know that Bush kept the recession by losing over two million jobs in two years?

Should I flush the toilet, after your threads and you, you both go down the toilet?

[BTox]

Today's another day. Perhaps Ion has learned what a recession is? We shall see...

[Ion]

Your life existence is a continuous personal recession, and I don't figure why you were born to begin with.

I told you what the recession in the U.S. consumer economy is, so maybe today -which is another day- you will finally catch up with the rest of the world and you will learn.

We shall see...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion
I told you what the recession in the U.S. consumer economy is.

But your life is a continuous recession.

I don't know why you were born to begin with.

I am impressed, the last sentence indicates that Ion knows exactly why he was born. Perhaps he would care to enlighten us all with the meaning of life.

[Ion]

You nailed something:
Originally posted by Grammatron


I am impressed, the last sentence indicates that Ion knows exactly why he was born. Perhaps he would care to enlighten us all with the meaning of life.
Yesterday I told someone, why I was born, what I did for years until today, what I want, and how.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
Your life existence is a continuous personal recession, and I don't figure why you were born to begin with.



I know one reason - to annoy ignorant woowoos. Your posts confirm the success of that endeavour!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

Yesterday I told someone, why I was born, what I did for years until today, what I want, and how.

So tell us, what do you want to be when you grow up? An astronaut? A fireman? Movie star??

[Ion]

To answer your question, I wanted to be what I am now.

With more growing to do, indeed.

(I got your attempt at humor about what I will want to be when I "...grow up...", it is a cliche because you are full of cliches (see the meaning of the recession discussed here), but my answer is not a cliche).

Re-read the post a few pages back where shuize asked me if I am in the U.S. to live and pay taxes, then why I criticize aspects of the U.S..

I answered about what I am now.

Also, look into my profile.

I am not French and never was.

But this changes the topic of the thread.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


I know one reason - to annoy ignorant woowoos. Your posts confirm the success of that endeavour!
Any progress yet in your quest to what recession means, toxy?

Are you going to the bathroom today and clean up?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

Any progress yet in your quest to what recession means, toxy?

Are you going to the bathroom today and clean up?

See? Dang, I'm good!

[Ion]

You cannot just bragg, like this:
Originally posted by BTox


See? Dang, I'm good!
Let me test your improvement:

what was the number of non farm jobs in January 2001, before Bush?

(More tests to come later, if you pass this one).

[BTox]

No dice. You have to know what a recession is, first. Quit skirting the issue!

[Ion]

Nope.

You are skirting the issue of you not knowing what the recession is.

So:

what was the number of non farm jobs in January 2001, before Bush?

(There are more tests like this for you, later on, after you learn how to pass this test).

[TillEulenspiegel]

To no one in particular..............
YAYA, well Your dick is small and You can't even screw.

[Ion]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

...
...well Your dick is small and You can't even screw.
That would be toxy:

I guess his dick is small and he can't screw.

It can't be me.