---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Yet another attempt to ignore or obsfucate a rudderless fiscal and economic policy backed by the current administration only so you can make unfounded and mean-spirited attacks on another person...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The housing bubble has serious consequences for investment down the road. A huge percentage of assets moving into investments which are not very liquid will spell trouble when other sectors of the economy need investment dollars. If a majority of Americans have their money tied up in their house and burdened by the first and second mortgages which have been the only method which has fueled any of the consumer spending, the only way to get out of a falling housing market will be to sell. But selling will not be an option because of the debt load on those houses.

Interest rates were cut, but the ensuing rise in the deficit and loss of federal tax revenue has shifted the tax burden to the middle class. Now that national savings is at a low point, in part because of the growth of consumer debt fueled by mortgagte lending at low interest rates, the Fed is increasing interest rates to stem higher than normal inflation indicators. Interest rates now match 2001 levels and the forecast is for another 100 point rise in the next four Fed meetings. Most economists agree that a 5.5% Fed fund rate is quite likely.

If the Fed fund rate gets anywhere near 5.5, interest payments on all those variable rate adjustable mortgage loans will squeeze consumer spending beyond most American's ability to balance their personal budgets. Consumer debt will no longer be available to fuel and consumer spending. In many instances, families will be forced into bankruptcy.... (that's going to be tough, now that the recently enacted Bankruptcy 'reform' legislation has eliminated protections through bankruptcy...)

Greenspan has stated the his advice was not followed by the present administration.

Our Energy policy has not addressed ways in which we could lessen our dependance on the volatility of foreign oil supplies, this administration has refused to release oil from our strategic reserves, a move historically taken to ease energy prices, and foreign policy debacles have increased volatility in oil pricing.

Despite tax cuts promising to fuel investment, business investment is down, inventories are over stocked, consumer spending has slowed, wages have fallen, employment is stilll down, wholesale prices have risen...

Current account deficits, unfunded liabilities, and the falling dollar has pushed inflation to precipitous levels.

But according to a frustrated apologist for a failed economic policy maker, the economy couldn't look better.

Any attempt to have a discussion of where we're at or why is met with derision that ignores reality.

Hopefully, people will have the sense to look beyond the ramblings of a frustrated ideologue who wants so badly to believe in his hero that he's willing to ignore and attempt to distort reality any way he can to preserve his vision that down is really up.

A question that should be answered is why the general consensus on the economy by those who study the economy is that both the economy and the market are headed for a continueing and steeper slide in the future, yet one lone manic voice of a Bush apologist tries to say otherwise.... (and refuses to address any of the economic indicators or provide any proof of his theory other than to deride anyone who doesn't accept his version of 'faith in his hero' reality)

It doesn't take a genius to look at your own investments for indications of how well or how miserably current economic policy is performing.

---

ARP: Coltushie, Alaska. Noted economist Paul Zipferbrains was contacted today at a rest facility for further comment on the state the stock markets. Zipferbrains, when asked about recent fluctuations explained, "Nothing done by Greenspan, nothing that has happened in the oil markets, consumer spending, wholesale prices, none of that matters at all. President Bush’s tax policy is the reason for every rise in the markets; and as everybody knows, the stock market is the only true indicator of the country’s economic health."

According to Zipferbrains, the Bush tax cuts, implemented by Presidential fiat, somehow bypassing Congress, have given the country an economic boost that has fired up the housing market, lowered interest rates and generally put a smile on the face of 98.623% of the nations’ faces. Asked about recent declines, Zipferbrains explained it this way: “Well, it’s like when you reach into your pocket and find a $1,000 bill you forgot was there, then you kick yourself for being so stingy with that waitress yesterday, and for passing on that new Cadillac Escalade. Now that people have ‘found’ their tax cuts in their ‘pockets’, those pesky downturns in the market will stop.”

In related news, the Alaska Department of Health has revealed that they are having great success with recent electro-shock treatments for some of their more difficult patients. The only apparent unwanted effect seems to be a pronounced scrambling of the patient’s logic/reason centers. Asked about charring of the temples seen on noted economist Paul Zipferbrains, the Department of Health spokesperson said, “no comment”.

> ....
> Oh yeah...Siran and Tom...go git im! :-D
>



L8R....

T'Khasi Time: Saturday, 23 April 2005 - 06:42 PM --700 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr XO - L L & P _\\//
USS Vre'kasht NCC-33187
Winders 10 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Greenspan's remarks had little immediate impact on US financial markets but appeared to put him on a collision course with the White House, which has made little or no attempt to curb runaway spending.

"Under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending projections make clear that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years," Greenspan said in testimony prepared for a Senate Budget Committee hearing.


Last year, the government produced a budget deficit of $412bn, a record in dollar terms. The deficit for this year is projected to shatter that record, coming in at an estimated $427bn.

The Herald

---

oh screw it...i dont feel like doing research today...here's the site, you guys that REALLY care, look it up and post it and ill read it. http://presidentelect.org/

---

hmm...im checking my facts now, but until i get my stuff together, ill just show everyone this site, makes for some interesting reading if nothing else. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

---

> Oh no...I was going to stay out of all this but this is just starting to get
> crazy. Now you are comparing two totally separate election results.

Uh, smokeyrd said 2004 ...... I said 2004 ......

totally seperate elections?





>
> With regards to the stock market. In the longer term graph, from 2000 to
> current, it seems that the market has recovered much of the ground lost after
> the 2000 election, 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Keep in mind
> as well that there are still many lucrative "spoils of war" to go to US and
> allied companies.


>
Wonderful, ...how could we have forgotten the 'spoils of war'......?

---

> Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S.
> history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.5%
> more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was
> 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular
> votes, his victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of
> any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Furthermore, more votes
> were cast for candidates other than the winner than in any previous U.S.
> presidential election.
>
> Short but only 'sweet' if you have some other way of measuring reality.

Oh no...I was going to stay out of all this but this is just starting to get crazy. Now you are comparing two totally separate election results. No matter how close the 2000 election was, the 2004 election found Bush to be the clear winner. Like it or lump it, more people chose Bush to be your president than anyone else.

With regards to the stock market. In the longer term graph, from 2000 to current, it seems that the market has recovered much of the ground lost after the 2000 election, 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Keep in mind as well that there are still many lucrative "spoils of war" to go to US and allied companies.

Anyway as I said, this is all pointless banter, so I'll leave it at that.

---

Kolch - Crunching for the BOINC@Australia team since July 2004.
Search for your own intelligence...

> I'll be short and sweet with this:
> 2004 election: widest spread in over 25 years for a presidential election.
> that tells me that a fair majority of the people recognized that bush was the
> best man for the job.

Huh?

Wikopedia.....

Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Furthermore, more votes were cast for candidates other than the winner than in any previous U.S. presidential election.

Short but only 'sweet' if you have some other way of measuring reality.

---

> All the woes of the United States are caused by ONE man George W. Bush....

Gross generalization..... you go ahead an believe what you want, though, it's easier to dismiss what you see if you can ascribe it to a 'source' you have keyholed to suit your own wishes.

I've been specific about any number of things which are the policy of any number of people or organizations... lumping that all into a category of Bush hating or anti Americanism is merely a convenient way to dismiss the info.


> I will say this ONE more time.. George W. Bush does not own every company in
> America. He does NOT control every company on the NYSE or the NASDAQ. He is
> not the soul law maker in this country.

That point was never suggested or disputed.... In light of what I said about what his budget forecasts are, what does that have to do with it? In light of what his policies are... what does that have to do with it?

> Your continued rhetoric is without substance because you pick and choose to
> tell little tidbits of infomation and refuse to even acknowledge the bigger
> picture.

The 'big' picture is staring at all of us, ....in this case, (the economy), what's happening in the economy is not something I culled out of any larger picture.... take all the posts and all the links and see what it adds up to.

My, so called. 'rhetoric' is offered with corroborating reports, links, quotes and press stories. My, so called, rhetoric could be refuted with conflicting reports, or studies.... but I see no evidence other than opinions not corroborated with anything more than more opinion.

Show me this information from other economists which dispute our economic position.

Show me these studies that show policy decisions are not a driving factor in determining economic realities....

---

>
> (Besides an opinion based on your imaginings of what I might think)
>

What you think is rather obvious. Almost everything you post is Anti-Bush. All the woes of the United States are caused by ONE man George W. Bush....

I will say this ONE more time.. George W. Bush does not own every company in America. He does NOT control every company on the NYSE or the NASDAQ. He is not the soul law maker in this country.

Your continued rhetoric is without substance because you pick and choose to tell little tidbits of infomation and refuse to even acknowledge the bigger picture.

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

> And you need to stop showing graphs that fit your agrument and start showing
> the long term trends that don't.

Pick any graph you want.... My original post, 99282 speaks of the general buzz about how Bush was going to be good for the market. The results are not 'made' up or massaged. For a number of reasons, the forecasts were not borne out.

I submit that some of those reasons were because of the overall uncomfortable sense of inattention to some basic economic principles revealed when the budgets and policies of the Bush administration were put forth. Cabinet shake-ups do not instill confidence.

> The Stock Market dips EVERY election and has since before you and I were born.
> How fast it recovers is the key indictor after an election and your chart
> does show that it bounced back.

Bounced back, fell again, and at some times, possibly due to 'rumors' and the president sacking his economic chief, and another time, stating that John Snow should be looking for another job. Bush was, for some reason, unable to find anyone to replace John Snow, so the next public pronouncement was that the president had every confidence in John Snow..... sending a message of uncertainty about commitments to policy.

Revelations of budget voodoo and non-disclosure of all proposed spending also is not something that breeds confidence in economic policies.

Now, are these things only the imaginings of my mind? No, that has played out in the financial press over the course of recent years.

>
> Now lets go back to the Bush's first term.. The stock market was spiraling
> down before Bush took office.

And the message was that with changes to be introduced, and budget projections touted, that everything would change.

Promises to shake up the SEC did not pan out.... a number of other factors, such as dissonance about the tax cuts, did nothing to aid the investment market to any degree.

Volatility became the defining issue.



>I suspect in your mind that too was all Bush's
> fault.

Suspect whatever you want, have I stated that? Or is that a convenient way to explain something else?

>I wil grant you that post the 2000 Election the market did not respond
> well. Largely because companies like Enron (oh wait they were a textas based
> company guess that was Bush' fault too) had cooked there books. The companies
> the market used as indicator were not responding well; however, there were
> starting to respond.

Though I made no referance to that degree, Bush's involvement with Ken Lay and the fact that Enron was his largest campaign donation did not instill confidence.....

Did I create that from thin air, .... no. It, is something that played out in the press and you can go back and look....

I guess it could make someone more comfortable to just think I created that.... but that is disengenuous.

>Then the major thing I am sure you believe was caused by
> Bush happened - 9/11.

You are sure of what? Find any reference to that ?

Again, it may make someone more comfortable to ascribe something to me that I did not say, in order to attempt to discredit what I do say, but that's bordering on juvenile fantasy.

>What was left of the tech stocks tumble into the dirt.
> It was not just the US companies that felt the affects of 9/11.

And if you care to look it up, there are studies which attempt to glean out what's ascribed to what effect and why. That event is harder to analyze than more historically repeated events, but none the less, the 'recovery' was indeed and result of a myriad of causes.



>Things are
> starting to turn around again. Now whether that can be contributed to George
> W. Bush or not is still to early to tell..

Things are starting to turn around again? That's a matter of opinion.... and it's not shared by some people who know a hell of lot more than many of us here, let alone you or I.

The info I have stated has been sourced for reference if someone happens to disagree.

I have requested any studies which may show that the info I offered was 'wrong' or that I was missing .

....zip

Doesn't seem to matter where I look, .... jobs are down, wages are down, productivity is not resulting in business or employment creation investment, the dollar is down, interest rates are rising and will have to be raised substantially higher, and the deficit is at record levels, with disastrous consequences if not checked.

Most of the concern being expressed is directed at economic policy initiatives either being unlikely to occur or not even in existance.

That's not something I made up, check the links....
>
> I suggest Paul that you start looking at the rest of story and not just the
> one or two facts that may or may not fit your argument.

I'm still looking for something that supports whatever anyone cares to put forth.

What do you have?

(Besides an opinion based on your imaginings of what I might think)

---

ok, ok, celtic...you too. SICK IM! BITE HIS HEAD OFF. I just thought...since this is the net and all, should it be "Byte his head off"? :-P

---

living his wonderfully busy life and will probably check back in a bit to see
> how things are going. Oh yeah...Siran and Tom...go git im! :-D
>

Hey what am I chopped liver??

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

I'll be short and sweet with this:
2004 election: widest spread in over 25 years for a presidential election. that tells me that a fair majority of the people recognized that bush was the best man for the job.

Stock Market: Does not watch only P-Span (president's personal tv show) It watches CNN, Fox, and C-Span. This means to me that simply because the president delays his morning cup of coffee, the stock market will not collapse. In more reasonable terms, the stock market is not solely influenced by the presidents actions or policies, so i would really appreciate it if you un informed posters would PLEASE stop blaming EVERY little drop in any economic sector on the president. I would also submit that just because the economy is doing well, that doesnt mean it is all because of the president either. The economy is much more complex than that. Come on, give capitalism some credit here, it's not A+B=C. It's closer to quantum physics than algebra. Now, the lowly College student will step off his soap box to go back to living his wonderfully busy life and will probably check back in a bit to see how things are going. Oh yeah...Siran and Tom...go git im! :-D

---

>
> No, you need to learn how to read a post....
>
> Bush took office in 2000, since then, until today the numbers I stated hold
> true. That is what I stated, that's why I put up a chart showing that time
> period.
>

And you need to stop showing graphs that fit your agrument and start showing the long term trends that don't.

The Stock Market dips EVERY election and has since before you and I were born. How fast it recovers is the key indictor after an election and your chart does show that it bounced back.

Now lets go back to the Bush's first term.. The stock market was spiraling down before Bush took office. I suspect in your mind that too was all Bush's fault. I wil grant you that post the 2000 Election the market did not respond well. Largely because companies like Enron (oh wait they were a textas based company guess that was Bush' fault too) had cooked there books. The companies the market used as indicator were not responding well; however, there were starting to respond. Then the major thing I am sure you believe was caused by Bush happened - 9/11. What was left of the tech stocks tumble into the dirt. It was not just the US companies that felt the affects of 9/11. Things are starting to turn around again. Now whether that can be contributed to George W. Bush or not is still to early to tell..

I suggest Paul that you start looking at the rest of story and not just the one or two facts that may or may not fit your argument.

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

> >
> >
> > Such terrific news, (as some try to tell you),.... today, for a time,
> you're
> > only down 800 points since Bush took office.
>
> Paul, you have to learn how to read a chart.

No, you need to learn how to read a post....

Bush took office in 2000, since then, until today the numbers I stated hold true. That is what I stated, that's why I put up a chart showing that time period.

You have chosen to speak of performance only from the second term. And not addressed what I posted.

>that a trend does not consist of just a
> couple days of data. That is why your original thread dealing with the recent
> stock market losses can be so easily dismissed as partisan ranting.

My original thread spoke to a nearly four month period since his new term and his entire tenure in office, I believe it has been your emphasis on one or two days activity to explain away the larger trend. You evidently didn't read that post very comprehendingly either.


>
> > Greenspan <a> href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050421/greenspan.html?.v=12">Warns[/url]
> Bloated
> > Budget Deficits Pose Threat to the Nation's Long-Term Economic Health
> >
> > "Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming
> years
> > unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," Greenspan said.
>
> But that article also pointed out that Greenspan was one of those in favor of
> the tax cuts put in place in 2001, and that may very well explain why we have
> pulled out of the recession that followed the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, and he clearly stated that he was wrong. His statements don't support what you say about 'pulling out of the recession. That is not implied or spoken to..... Here's the relevant information from the article in quotes:
-----------------------------------------------------
""Greenspan repeated his support for a return to budgeting policies that would require Congress to offset future increases in government spending or new tax cuts with reductions in other government programs or tax increases.

A decade-long pay-as-you-go provision expired in 2002.

"Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," Greenspan said.

Greenspan touched a nerve with Democrats, some of whom are still stinging from the Fed chairman's endorsement of Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001. That cut was proposed when the government was expecting a decade of budget surpluses.

"I was wrong like everybody else on the issue of surpluses," Greenspan said.

In 2001, Greenspan said the tax cut should be accompanied by a mechanism that would rescind the tax cut if economic forecasts changed. He said it was "frankly unfair" for people not to remember that point.
----------------------------------------------------------


So, .......Two things here, One he did not just support the tax cuts...... he had a qualifying statement attached to that support and said they should be rescinded if things changed, and two, .....That pulling out of the recession you claim is open to interpretation.

One cannot point to one or two indicators and claim that all is fine. Productivity did rise but most of the historical benefits of a rise in productivity were/are not in evidence. That's why it's been called a jobless recovery..... a rare occurance and one not felt by the middle class or workers.

>
> You also fail to point out that Greenspan seems to favor <a> href="http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-03-15GreenspanRehash.htm">private
> accounts[/url]. With such one-sided reporting, one would hope that you never
> disparage the "fair and balanced" reporting of Fox News.

I also 'failed' to report on any number of things, but that's just irrelevant to the topic or my post. Adding that and referring to Faux News is your way of making what point?

As with many in Bush's camp or outside of Bush's camp, support for privatization is a sometimes thing with Greenspan. He's spoken against it when he speaks of what it will mean to the deficit without serious cuts or raising of taxes to pay for it, and at other times he has parroted the line that private accounts 'can' be valuable...... with Greenspan you have to listen to his qualifying conditions to all that he says.... there are usually 'conditional' terms to cover his pronouncements.

Just as there were when he said he 'supported' the tax cuts..... he supported a pay go stance..... he repeats that above.

> So, you do hear yourself!

Yes, I've consistently asked you to address specific economic indicators and explain how what you say is not found in any of the research or reading that I've been doing....

And so far, it's been the same old, same old, either no content, no rebuttal or some diversion amid weak attempts at derision.....

Typically pitiful.....

---

It is sad but true that , it is the few that run the many,it is the few that create the hatred,it is the few that impose,it is the few that control. I believe that in the US (as in my Land )it is the few that are looking after their interests first and foremost. Rising Interest rates are good for the self funded!
Regards
John

435.

---