America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 22 years ago by RICKAMAVEN. 26 replies replies.
HELP YOURSELF
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Recession Probably At End Of The Beginning
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32679-2001Nov2.html?referer=email

Unemployment Jumps To Five-Year High
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/business/03JOBS.html

Liberty, Freedom, And Democracy With The USA PATRIOT Act
http://www.bushnews.com/nancy.htm
tailgater Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I don't have to log into these to know what they are. They are Ricks' constant barage of negativity towards our President. Rick, I've got a couple of questions. First, do you honestly think that our current recession is the fault of the current administration? Could it possibly be an economic adjustment which was boosted by the events of Sept 11th? Also, Do you think Gore could have provided an economic lift? Or how about your vote, Nader? How do you think he and his likely cabinet would be handling this world wise crisis? Thank God Bush won so we can deal with this responsibly and allow the negative minded to remain hidden deep in some cigar site forum...
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
1. are you miss cleo?
2. i have not discussed the kid or made any political statements for over a month so constant barage is inaccurate.
3. believing someone is an ineffective dodo is not negative.
4. i never said gore was better.
5. is the kid responsible for the recession, i doubt it. his handling of the recession is not the answer and he doesn't know it. reducing capital gains tax does not put money into the economy, it means people of wealth can play around in the market and when there is a recovery, pay less in taxes. bailing out the airlines? come to my office and drop off some bailout money. retroactive tax rebates to corporations, you have got to be kidding. cabinet members you "feel comfortable with" is ok, but shouldn't they at least know something about what they are to be responsible for. why do you have to "feel comfortable" with the people working to assist you, nothing gets done. give me someone that disagrees with me so i can test what i think i know and make changes for the better.
6. bottom line is the kid is spoiled rotten, has had life handed to him on a silver platter, does not read, waltzed through college and his "military career", can't speak because he can't think, without his father he would be saying "fill er up", but luckily for him, he is "of the manor born."
abennett23 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-15-2001
Posts: 126
Well lets discuss the economic issues: first off lets get to the "bottom" of the clinton economic legacy. Simple economics tells you about the ripple effect which takes several years before the effects of a change in policy is seen in the economic sector. Here is a cut and paste portion taken from Mark Weisbrot who is Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington and Co- author, With Dean Baker, of "Social Security: the Phony Crisis" : "America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, is likely to be remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American history, which coincided with his two terms.
A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really.

It is often maintained, by people who have not looked at the economics, that balancing the federal budget and moving it to surplus were responsible for the economic boom that followed.

But there is no foundation for this claim. The underlying theory is that these budget changes lead to lower long-term interest rates, because the government is borrowing less. The lower interest rates then stimulate more investment and therefore growth.

Even if one accepts the theory-- which is quite a stretch-- the facts don't fit the case. This was not an investment-led upswing. And the effects of the post- 1992 budget changes on interest rates are much too small to have had any noticeable positive impact on growth, according to any standard model used by economists.

How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed, in the past, would have pulled the plug.

The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy-- much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by the federal government.

Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic policy in the last 20 years.

The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim responsibility-- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade Organization-- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.

In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years ago.

Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating. His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank, presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record, economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.

Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies-- especially working Americans-- in favor of big business and the rich will be judged an economic and political success.

In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her economic situation, many voters-- and not only in the South-- will continue to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their economic well- being." So as you can see it was the feds decisions during Reagan's administration that cause the economic success Clinton is so quick to claim for himself. And to address the daddy's boy thing you tend to insinuate with GWB it seems to me that AL Bore JR got where he is today (which is at this point nowhere) by being the son of a US Senitor and this poor boy from Tennessee attended harvard (im sure on government loans and grants) couldnt have come from DADDY bore.
tailgater Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
1. That's Ms. Cleo to you. 2. "Constant with a two month recess" is what I meant to say. 3. blah, blah, blah. My reference to Gore was based on the fact that he was the only other realistic choice. As for your vote (which you THREW AWAY), you have never given a solid reason why Nader was even on the ticket. What if millions of others chose to throw away their votes and Nader got elected? What would our current situation be in regards to the War? Rick, I enjoy your democratic banter, but you seem to whine about nothing in particular. At least when Bubba was on the pulpit we had actual fodder to wipe our feet on. You're grasping at straws. You don't have to like Dubya to realize that destiny put him there. God help us if he weren't...
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Hey! How did Abs sneak in before me? Especially with that novel. I must t y p e v e r y s l o w l y ...
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
please define whine? i am not a democrat, and in good conscience could not be a republican. i did not throw away my vote, i voted for my second choice after dirty tricks pushed my first choice, mccain, out of the running. (would voting for mccain make me a republican?) i wanted someone in the white house that had some brains. remember half the country did not even vote, because they did not like either gore or bush. do you only read one source? i read not only bushwatch but the national review, freepers, and a bunch of other far right sites, pete hamill, breslin, molly ivens. somewhere in all of these i can decide the truth for myself.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
i also like warner and flute for the same reason, both had the ba**s to continue in spite of all the odds against them. sort of like howard roark.
Charlie Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Rick, Websters defines whine in the following: 1. a: to utter a high-pitched or distressed cry b: to make a sound similar to such a cry. 2. to utter a complaint with or as if with a whine. I believe Mewl best describes the situation: TO WHIMPER! All the people you named for choices would surely mess up any chance for getting us out of this mess. Thank God we have George Bush in office! Charlie PS It could be Bill whining and mewling to Monica, "you ruined my last Montecristo #2, Monica!"
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
i believe it was a monte "a"
tailgater Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Nader. I'm still waiting to know what his attributes are (or were). And aren't you at least a little glad that Bush is in the Oval Office for this crisis? No one else on the ticket could have put together the group that will guide us through this ordeal. Forget GOP vs Dems vs Others. Look at the individuals. Ralph Nader was, is, and always will be nothing more than a consumer advocate. And he has your vote for the most important seat in the world. The more I type, the more I realize why you haven't answered my question...
jjohnson28 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 09-12-2000
Posts: 7,914
Well Tailgater,I for one am damn glad that Al Gore wasn't able to steal the election he and his handlers tried so hard to.The best man for the job,George W. Bush is exactly where he is supposed to be,in the Oval Office.It scares the hell out of me to think of any other scenario.
Todog Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2001
Posts: 804
MCCain and then Nader? Who was your third choice? Pat Buchanan or Drew Carey?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
none of the above. "Nader. I'm still waiting to know what his attributes are (or were)". try a lifetime dedicated to the interests of you and me. start with seatbelts and go from there. by the way, do you think ashcroft is getting too much power?
tailgater Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Let's start with seatbelts. Ok. I'm waiting. What else? Are you saying that his advocacy for consumer protection qualifies him for the position of commander in chief? And don't ask what Bush's qualifications were. He has proven all the pundits wrong. He has put together a team of individuals who will support the United States as well as any group before them. Who would Nader have on his team? Paul Harvey? Tom Martino? As for AG Ashcroft, I feel the current situation merits the more expiditious law making capability. The last thing we need to do is get caught up in partisan debates from either side. And don't kid yourself, we still live on a system of checks and balances. He does not have carte blanche abilities to push through anything he'd like. It has to have merit and make sense. Don't be so afraid of common sense, lest you be compared with those democrats again...
Charlie Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
I am sure some of our more Liberal Left would say that Mr. Janet Reno was a better Attorney General than Ashcroft, but oh what a mess we would be in if HE had the job now! God Bless America, God Bless George Bush!

Charlie
abennett23 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-15-2001
Posts: 126
SEATBELTS? what the h*ll do seatbealts have to do with running the country?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
"I feel the current situation merits the more expiditious law making capability". (almost a quote from the nuremberg trials.) five israelis still in custody after 2 months awaiting deportation because their visas have expired, but caught up in bs paperwork. their attorney not allowed to talk to them, except through glass and not in their own language. (only an example of who knows how many other innocents caught up in the hysteria). read "it can't happen here" and don't forget "the night of broken glass"
abennett23 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-15-2001
Posts: 126
cigsmoke welcome back!!
tailgater Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
What's your point? That in this time of war that these two individual NON-citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt while living here illegally? Let me repeat that last part: "ILLEGALLY". Turn the situation around and any two Americans caught in a foreign warring nation would be tortured and shot. Wake up. This "over-reaction" to err on the side of caution is a necessary evil. I don't suggest we keep innocents in a dark, dank cell, but I bet the biggest injustice committed is the lack of more premium stations on their television.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
there are 5 and they have been cleared. why are they still in jail? premium stations? they are in cages. it's your 22 year old kid. he has been arrested and interrogated and investigated and found to have an expired visa, no other crime. you always renew your plates and driver's license on time? he is locked in a cage for several months. too bad. he'll be home when the red tape is done. and he can't watch tv. too bad. you ae not allowed to visit him. too bad. your attorney can not talk to him in private. too bad. too bad. too bad.
Charlie Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Rick, I am sure that you are a good and caring person, but you are placing values in the wrong areas. Seat belts? Gee, I really enjoy the benefit of those things! Makes me sleep soundly at night to know that we have had a consumer advocate solve that problem. Would he make "safe bombs" or not quite so lethal naplom if he were President? Wake up and enjoy the fact that for once you have a President that represents the people of this country and has PROVEN the "pundits" wrong! I remember your post of GWB as Hitler, and wonder how you feel about that one today!

Charlie
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
i already apologized for my lack of taste with the hitler post. you are right (no pun intended, yes there is), the country supports him in his war effort and i support our response up to a point. nadar vs the kid, the kid was of no value as the governor of texas, and managed to give anything and everything away to corporate interests (the same people that gave so much for his campaign) (and exactly what he is doing now). so nader has as little experience running a country. the seatbelt example is just that. nadar who had no recognition, and no money did take on the automotive industry and won. we might never have had a 911 if he had been president, a post he will never hold. if however mccain had won, i don't think we would be at war now because we might not have had a 911.
Charlie Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
You really are sick! Charlie
Charlie Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Rick, maybe sick is a little on the strong side, how about "misguided to a degree"? Charlie
ellesson Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 05-13-2001
Posts: 150
I dont normally get involved in political arguements wiyh those have such a twisted view of things but I just find it hard to believe that there really are poeple out there who think like this. That god GWB has a good pair of ba**s and isnt afraid to to show it cj
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ellesson: thanks for getting involved in the discussion. it is necessary to get involved to keep the lamp lit.
Users browsing this topic
Guest