Do you treat people differently..?.

[dems4me]

sweetie!!! check your pms please

~bump~ Sparx ????

 

[Sparx]

Sure, big differences in those examples. It's the facts that have been posted here that are spun out of recognition I'm talking about.

Like this one
http://www.ibew.org/Rev042304-JustFacts.pdf

 

[dems4me]

Sure, big differences in those examples. It's the facts that have been posted here that are spun out of recognition I'm talking about.

Like this one
http://www.ibew.org/Rev042304-JustFacts.pdf

You're back check pmer please ....

 

[Lenny]

Any of you ever consider, maybe it's not my family but me?

I don't know why y'all gave him such a hard time for saying this. I think he's right. It IS him!

 

[vraiblonde]

Like this one
http://www.ibew.org/Rev042304-JustFacts.pdf

I fail to understand your point. Wouldn't it make sense to you that high unemployment would mean a higher defict? Less people paying taxes, less money in the sytem, more going out for unemployment benefits and welfare.

I will suggest that rather than high deficits means high unemployment, it's the reverse: high unemployment means high deficits.

Right? Or am I just goofy?

 

[Sparx]

I fail to understand your point. Wouldn't it make sense to you that high unemployment would mean a higher defict? Less people paying taxes, less money in the sytem, more going out for unemployment benefits and welfare.

I will suggest that rather than high deficits means high unemployment, it's the reverse: high unemployment means high deficits.

Right? Or am I just goofy?

Your just goofy sweet cheeks...lol. The point is they go hand in hand. bush, cheney have increased the deficit AND lost jobs. these are facts.

Clinton wiped out the deficit AND created jobs.

The conservative trickle down theory of economics doesn't work. Put money and jobs in the hands of working people and it will get spent and help the economy. Put money in the hands of corporate America and that's where it stays.

Our countrys' money is called currency because it has to move to be effective.

 

[dems4me]

Your just goofy sweet cheeks...lol. The point is they go hand in hand. bush, cheney have increased the deficit AND lost jobs. these are facts.

Clinton wiped out the deficit AND created jobs.

The conservative trickle down theory of economics doesn't work. Put money and jobs in the hands of working people and it will get spent and help the economy. Put money in the hands of corporate America and that's where it stays.

Our countrys' money is called currency because it has to move to be effective.

Sweet cheeks : See Vria... Sparx is trying to be nice to you too...

 

[Ken King]

Sure, big differences in those examples. It's the facts that have been posted here that are spun out of recognition I'm talking about.

Like this one
http://www.ibew.org/Rev042304-JustFacts.pdf

What the chart shows me is that Clinton inherited an economy on a path of recovery and let it ride for his terms not recognizing the change of direction that started in 2000. What Bush inherited was unemployment on the rise and major economical situations with the energy crisis in the west, rampant corruption by many major energy marketers, and the collapse of the DOTCOM industry (the one that over-inflated Clinton’s employment data numbers). It is ludicrous to blame the man that stopped the recession Clinton led us to for those problems.

Bush, realizing the obvious indicators that the Clinton/Gore team seemed ambivalent to, was able to stimulate the economy by returning to the taxpayers the money that had been overpaid to the government. Had it not been for the attacks of 9/11, the war with Iraq and the many natural disasters that we have dealt with in the past 3 years, all of which were unexpected, the deficit would only be a fraction of what it currently is.

 

[vraiblonde]

The conservative trickle down theory of economics doesn't work. Put money and jobs in the hands of working people and it will get spent and help the economy. Put money in the hands of corporate America and that's where it stays.

That whole paragraph is what's goofy. Trickle down obviously works - we've seen it twice now in our lifetime and both times it's been tried, it reduced unemployment and boosted the economy.

Put money in the hands of corporate America and that's where it stays.

This might be the most "unique" thing you've ever posted, but I'd have to reread your posts to say for sure. What do you think "corporations" do with their money? Stuff it in a mattress? Well, they don't - they buy equipment, they give raises and they hire more employees, among other things. All of this makes the economy go 'round.

You say "put money and jobs in the hands of working people" - how do you intend to do that if you shortchange the corporations where they work? Corporations employ people - Joe Sixpack doesn't employ anyone.

Dur.

 

[Sparx]

What the chart shows me is that Clinton inherited an economy on a path of recovery and let it ride for his terms not recognizing the change of direction that started in 2000. What Bush inherited was unemployment on the rise and major economical situations with the energy crisis in the west, rampant corruption by many major energy marketers, and the collapse of the DOTCOM industry (the one that over-inflated Clinton’s employment data numbers). It is ludicrous to blame the man that stopped the recession Clinton led us to for those problems.

Bush, realizing the obvious indicators that the Clinton/Gore team seemed ambivalent to, was able to stimulate the economy by returning to the taxpayers the money that had been overpaid to the government. Had it not been for the attacks of 9/11, the war with Iraq and the many natural disasters that we have dealt with in the past 3 years, all of which were unexpected, the deficit would only be a fraction of what it currently is.

Eight years of Clinton and you think it was inherited?

 

[Sparx]

That whole paragraph is what's goofy. Trickle down obviously works - we've seen it twice now in our lifetime and both times it's been tried, it reduced unemployment and boosted the economy.


This might be the most "unique" thing you've ever posted, but I'd have to reread your posts to say for sure. What do you think "corporations" do with their money? Stuff it in a mattress? Well, they don't - they buy equipment, they give raises and they hire more employees, among other things. All of this makes the economy go 'round.

You say "put money and jobs in the hands of working people" - how do you intend to do that if you shortchange the corporations where they work? Corporations employ people - Joe Sixpack doesn't employ anyone.

Dur.

Yeah I know that's why during the Enron debacle we saw pictures of the good things corp. America does instead of the mansions, yaughts, parties......etc...etc...etc.

 

[Ken King]

Eight years of Clinton and you think it was inherited?

It's what the chart shows. When Clinton took over the economy was improving as both the deficit and unemployment were going lower, thus he inherited the trend.

 

[Ken King]

Yeah I know that's why during the Enron debacle we saw pictures of the good things corp. America does instead of the mansions, yaughts, parties......etc...etc...etc.

What did the Clinton administration do to curb or thwart the corruption? Nothing, it was left to the next administration to fix.

 

[Sparx]

What did the Clinton administration do to curb or thwart the corruption? Nothing, it was left to the next administration to fix.

I don't know, I'm not an economist but I can see the facts. Job creation and the economy are tied together. Clinton created jobs and killed the deficit and bush can not or has not been able to to date. Don't blame 9/11 for the debit either. That's REAL old news.

 

[Sparx]

Seems funny to me that you can give a Democrat 4 years or 8 years and the trends are still the same so how can inheritance have anything to do with it?

 

[Ken King]

I don't know, I'm not an economist but I can see the facts. Job creation and the economy are tied together. Clinton created jobs and killed the deficit and bush can not or has not been able to to date. Don't blame 9/11 for the debit either. That's REAL old news.

Seems funny to me that you can give a Democrat 4 years or 8 years and the trends are still the same so how can inheritance have anything to do with it?

First, Clinton did not create any jobs; businesses create jobs and not a President. Next, trends are all about what an administration has inherited. Clinton caught the tech bubble wave as it was cresting, rode it out, claimed the accolades, and did nothing when he sailed over the peak and the trends reversed themselves. It took a little less than 8 years to run its course from action taken by Bush the First. Look back at what Carter did, inherited an improving economy and allowed it to get away from him and Reagan took action to get it heading in the right direction. All of this is observable from your chart.

And 9/11 is not old news, it is what has thrown us on the current path and is more relevant than anything Clinton did or didn’t do in regards to the economy and our unplanned for expenditures.

 

[Sparx]

First, Clinton did not create any jobs; businesses create jobs and not a President. Next, trends are all about what an administration has inherited. Clinton caught the tech bubble wave as it was cresting, rode it out, claimed the accolades, and did nothing when he sailed over the peak and the trends reversed themselves. It took a little less than 8 years to run its course from action taken by Bush the First. Look back at what Carter did, inherited an improving economy and allowed it to get away from him and Reagan took action to get it heading in the right direction. All of this is observable from your chart.

And 9/11 is not old news, it is what has thrown us on the current path and is more relevant than anything Clinton did or didn’t do in regards to the economy and our unplanned for expenditures.

B.S. Your simply spinning the facts like I've been saying all along.

 

[Ronchad]

First, Clinton did not create any jobs; businesses create jobs and not a President. Next, trends are all about what an administration has inherited. Clinton caught the tech bubble wave as it was cresting, rode it out, claimed the accolades, and did nothing when he sailed over the peak and the trends reversed themselves. It took a little less than 8 years to run its course from action taken by Bush the First. Look back at what Carter did, inherited an improving economy and allowed it to get away from him and Reagan took action to get it heading in the right direction. All of this is observable from your chart.

And 9/11 is not old news, it is what has thrown us on the current path and is more relevant than anything Clinton did or didn’t do in regards to the economy and our unplanned for expenditures.

Just to add to the above--->Unless I'm mistaken (as I can be too often), the economy started to stagnate during the first few months of W.'s first term... I would think that's a legacy of the Clinton admin.
Clinton had a unique period of time that was a burst of economic growth thanks to Reagan defeating the Soviets and bringing us a time of 'relative' peace, imho. Once again we're at war (if ya like the definition of war or not...) and when at war debt goes up.

 

[Ken King]

B.S. Your simply spinning the facts like I've been saying all along.

What spin, it's what your chart clearly shows. The fact that I see something different then what you've been told the chart shows does not make it spin nor does it make what you have been told the truth.

 

[vraiblonde]

Give up, guys. According to Sparx, Presidents hire people and create jobs - just manufacture them out of thin air. And economies magically turn overnight - why, George Bush is such crappy President that all he had to do to tank the economy was take the oath of office.

This is like talking to my friggin' grandmother.