...'bout as sharp as a spoon in a knife drawer.

Start beating the drum KK. I love it. Oh,and by the way you are one of the few guys I do remember meeting at Tim's. Could have something to do with you staking a claim to my sleeping bag.

Sounds funny, but I don't even truely believe there was a real recession at the end of the Clinton years to start with. Think about it. you are coming into office after 8 years of continued growth. If you claim that a recession is inevitable, then you can't lose. If the economy stays the same you are great, if it gets better you are a genius, if it gets worse, you couldn't have prevented it.

One reason for the good economy we have had is from the lower interest rate that has been allowing people to borrow more and more money and then spend it on consumer goods while going into deeper debt. With the increase in the interest rate, we finally could see a real slow down of the economy. Who benefits from higher interest rates? Not me. Only those with big cash reserves. Who gets hurt by inflation? Not me? My home goes up and my debt costs me less. Who does get hurt? Banks or others holding debt and people with large cash reserves.

Also, think about it, if you borrow huge amounts of money and then spend it, shouldn't the economy grow as a result. Think of the new deal. The only real problem is that like under Reagan, this president is blowing the money on social programs and the like, rather than infrastucture like FDR.
Rory is right that Clinton was lucky with all the growth during his years, but at least he didn't do anything to stifle it. Do we really want a president that is responsible for everything, or one that allows things to happen as naturally as possible and only steps in when truely needed.
As a true conservative, I can't think of one effect that the Clinton administration had that truely affected my life in a negative way. He was a great politican in that he sounded like he was doing something, and actually doing nothing. Take Gays in the Military, we went from outlawing it outright to saying if we know about it, then we will kick you out. Any difference, I don't see one. He tried to socialize medicine and nothing changed. He did, however, reform welfare.
The republicans will talk about his immorality destroyed America, but fail to explain how drug use, teen sex/pregnancy, abortion and other vices all fell, while college rates went up.
I feel all of these can be tied to the good economy that gave Americans something to look forward to. With gas prices and inflation and war, watch for our young people to start disbelieving in the American dream again and for gang violence and all the gains to start slipping away.
Always look to the reality, rather than the perceptions. Thats my 2cents.

Solid post, Krijack.

Oh what a beautiful morning, The mountain is alight with alpenglow, the air is cool and clear, and the brown nitrous oxide miasma seemingly generated by my monitor is being dissapated by the fan.
Count your blessings. The origiastic verbal bashing of Rory give many of you a means of offloading and outgassing that would probably become self-abuse if not vented. I cannot help believe that most of you are normally polite folk. However, Rory seems to catalyze a mean streak in the librocrat sectors. Why is that?
You bemoan his cut and pastes and yet you all do it from time to time. You call names, insult in every possible facet of behaviour and just generally act like a bunch of vandalistic juveniles.
Ah well. 'tis too beautiful a day to continue in this vein. Shalom and Aleikum Salaam.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


<b>It's working great!!!!

If you buy now you'll be wasting your money...it's not "bargain basement" at all yet...I'd give the ME crap a bit of time to play out, and see what happens.

I have a feeling things are going to drop quite a bit more in the next week at least, the next several weeks if tensions ramp up over there.

Fish on...

Todd

Made round to go round. KK Go make some of that round stuff. Enjoyed your post. I have been reading the mail for some time. And you are not quite so into the vile rejoinder as some. I just get a chivalrous streak now and then and stick one for the underdog deserving or not.
What line of pecunary endeavor do you challenge?
Ciao TK, oops I mean KK. lol

Yeah, those recently retired boomers whose retirement funds are dependent upon the market are loving this.

Neocons are devoid of empathy.

As you know the Tk was in jest. Seemed appropriate somehow. I bet Wenatchee is more fun, probably more challenging too.

one thing people need to understand is that economic "growth" isnt all that it is cracked up to be... you can have a growing economy where all of the growth is benefitting a small portion of the population at the expense of the rest.....

economic strength is far more important, the earth is like a spaceship with limited resources. GDP is basically the speed in which we are turning those resources into garbage. yet it doesnt take into account any of the costs of cleaning up the mess....take superfund cleanup sites required to clean up after a corporation makes huge profits and leaves a huge problem behind when they leave- the profits go to increase GDP but the billions in taxes required to clean up the mess dont subtract anything from GDP and often actually are calculated as an increase in GDP-
we are basically defining economy with terms that have nothing to do with the bottom line for the working man

70% of economic growth is from getting more work out of the same amount of employees or less employees- take the computer for example: it makes everything way easier but are you able to work less because of it, of course not, you just get more done in the same time.... only a very small portion of economic growth benefits the working man......

we need to protect familly values thru the familly economy- we need to work towards making it possible again for one working parent to support a familly financially. for parents to be able to spend more time with their kids and raise healthier kids and communities that require less in social services.... it isnt materialism necessarilly that is forcing two parents to need to work to support the familly budget, it is that it costs us so much more to have the basics than ever before. homes are increasing in price so fast that it is impossible for most to afford to buy in the areas where they grew up- but salaries are not going up in any way that makes up for it.... we are needing to work harder and harder to have the same as the generation before us- and this is all happening under a growing economy. what we need is a strong economy, one that can weather storms and protect the entire population and not just mean more plastic trickets are being produced......

U.S. stocks rise as Dow hits another record
Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:57pm ET

Wall St Week Ahead: Dow nears 12,000 before

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks rose on Friday, driving the Dow to another all-time high as positive retail sales data helped the broader market.

The Dow Jones industrial average <.DJI> was up 12.81 points, or 0.11 percent, to end at a record 11,960.51, which also marked a fresh intraday all-time high. --Now's a GREAT time to buy and take advantage of some bargin basement stock pricing!!</b>

This whole dip in the DJIA is predicated on what's going on in the Middle East with Iran and Syria backing the Hezzbollah terrorists.

It will probably get worse before it gets better, but once the dust settles investors will mellow out--only idiots are selling off right now--the smart thing is to buy the right stock aggressively now at temperarily low pricing.

Another place people will hide their money is in the Bond market which cause interest rates to go back down again and a lot of people feeling uneasy in adjustables will be able to comfortably and beneficially secure fixed products and many more homebuyers will be able to lock and load and it will be yet ANOTHER BOOM to the Housing market which benefits all aspect of society and our economy expedentially.

Then if Bernanke signals that the Fed. is done raising the funds rate next time they meet or perhaps the time after that then you'll see Wall Street and investors take off like gangbusters!!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Tahoma,verdana,arial,helv">

Thanks for the stock tips Rory. Hell... you could just be the next Jim Kramer! :p

I just gotta remember to sell BEFORE the market tanks this time!

Hey, not bad. Only took this administration 6 years to get back to where Clinton left them. Weakest recession in history, and it only took them 6 years to recover. No one applauds mediocrity like God's Own Pedophiles (GOP).

Now if the middle class wages could just catch up with inflation...

Who wants to bet the DJIA doesn't hit an ALL TIME record high of 12,000+ tomorrow?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


More mainscream media bias

by Larry Elder
Posted: October 12, 2006

Can the Bush administration get just a little bit of credit?

The unemployment rate just dropped from 4.7 percent to 4.6 percent. The Washington Post, not exactly a Bush administration cheerleader, recently wrote "that just about every worker with the skills and desire to work can find a job." Yet the same article cited its own poll that shows only 39 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the economy, with 59 percent disapproving.

The tax cuts, as tax-cutting former President John F. Kennedy predicted, sparked the economy. Kennedy once said that it may sound "paradoxical," but in order to increase tax revenues, we must decrease tax rates. Under Bush, "tax collections have increased by $521 billion in the last two fiscal years," reports The Wall Street Journal, "the largest two-year revenue increase – even after adjusting for inflation – in American history." Even with the irresponsible spending, this puts the deficit at 2 percent of GDP, well below the recent 40-year average of 2.7 percent. Inflation and interest rates remain low. And labor analysts just revised upward the figures on job creation, adding an additional 810,000 jobs!

But what about giving Bush credit?

Nonsense, the Los Angeles Times now editorializes, credit our Energizer-bunny economy. You know, it just goes, and goes, and goes, irrespective of the president behind the wheel. After calling unemployment and inflation "reassuringly low"; after noting that "growth is steady"; after calling the recent record Dow Jones averages a "tribute to the resilience of the U.S. economy"; and after pointing out that "hourly wages in September were up 4 percent from a year earlier" – the Times editorial gave the Bush administration no credit.

But, take a look at quotes from past editorials from the Times:

July 17, 2003: The White House's deficit of 2003, as well the one projected for the next year, "isn't as bad is it seems. It's worse."

Sept. 20, 2003: As Bush's unfulfilled spending promises continue, "Bush risks not just his personal credibility but the nation's security, economic future and natural resources."

Oct. 6, 2003: "The administration's tax cuts are the economic equivalent of steroids; they may quickly pump up economy, but the long-term effect on fiscal health will be dire."

Jan. 29, 2004: "The unreal quality of the Bush administration's economic program reached new heights last week."

June 2, 2004: " ... President Bush risks fiscal meltdown by addressing the federal budget deficit as if there's no day after tomorrow," and criticized Bush policies "that would further inflate the deficit. ..."

Now let's talk ethics. A recent poll, in the wake of the Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., scandal, gives Democrats higher marks for "ethics" than Republicans.

Consider the last 30 years, when the House instituted post-Watergate ethics guidelines. The tally, as of late 2004, over the same period, comes to 70 House members who faced investigations for ethical misconduct: 55 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

Recall how Democrats defended former President Clinton against accusation after accusation. The president's defenders dismissed allegations by former Arkansas state staffer Paula Jones, who accused then-Gov. Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. Clinton defender-in-chief James Carville said, "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." But after pleading guilty to lying under oath and becoming the first sitting president to be found in contempt of court, Clinton settled Jones' "non-meritorious" civil sexual harassment case out-of-court for $850,000.

Kathleen Willey, a former Democratic contributor, claimed on "60 Minutes" that the former president took her hand and placed it on his genitalia. Incredibly, feminist Gloria Steinem wrote that it was not sexual harassment because when Willey asked him to stop, he did. Call this the "one grope rule."

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer for Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, accused him of rape. Yet Clinton defenders simply dismissed her as a liar, just as they dismissed, minimized or attacked others claiming to have had affairs with the married Clinton. Mistresses include Arkansas "saloon singer" Gennifer Flowers. Clinton initially denied having an affair with her, but later admitted, under oath, to one sexual encounter. The president, of course, famously wagged his finger and denied intern Monica Lewinsky's claim of a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, Clinton defenders played hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil.

In the case of former Republican Rep. Foley, he promptly resigned after the revelation of sexually explicit messages to a former page. Despicable? Yes. Rape? No. In any case, the Republican Party dumped him faster than you can say "Ken Starr."

An old trial lawyer once told me, "Juries don't decide cases based solely on fact, evidence and law. They reach their verdicts based on 'impressions.'" In the battle for "impressions" over the economy and ethics, Democrats – with the complicity of the liberal mainscream media – think they're winning. Let's wait until the jury returns with its verdict.

"Real incomes for the middle class are not rising at the same rate under Bush, as under previous presidents.
Must be the tax policy, or else"

Which incomes are you using there Mr I Talk Tuff and "I Am really good at research"

Would those incomes be the ones adjusted for inflation only on the take home. The incomes that leave out benefits,perks etc. when calculating total compensation. Imagine that the smart guy using number sto tell a lie. Are you a liar KK?

KK,

Here you go tough guy. I should not have to spoon feed you if you are the self proclaimed blue intellectual you claim.

Enjoy dipwad!

http://www.forbes.com/home/economy/2006/...1017median.html

Demographics
The Average American: 1967 And Today
Tom Van Riper, 10.17.06, 6:00 AM ET

As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7:46 a.m. Tuesday (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the typical family is doing a whole lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.

Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.


Throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class with not only better cars and televisions, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices, and it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Median are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents.

So why are they so unhappy?

Yes, despite their material prosperity, the Medians are a grumpy lot. A Parade Magazine survey (a good source for all things median) performed by Mark Clements Research in April showed that 48% of Americans believe they're worse off than their parents were. A June 2006 study by GFK-Roper group showed that 66% of Americans said that their personal situations in the "Good Old Days"--defined by the bulk of respondents as anywhere between the 1950s and the 1980s--were better than they are today. And in May, a Pew Research Center poll showed that half of U.S. adults believe the current trends point toward their children's future being worse than their own present.

Attribute some of the dissatisfaction to what economist Milton Friedman dubbed "Permanent Income Theory," which assumes that people measure where they are relative to where they expected to be a few years ago. They don't care a bit what the average income was four decades ago.

"If you expect a 3% rise in income and you get 2.5%, you're disappointed," says Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, a private research group in New York.

And because people generally judge their fortunes not in absolute terms, but by comparing themselves to others, the super-success of the top 1% can make Mr. and Mrs. Median feel relatively poorer. Take CEOs--the $19 million that Wal-Mart Chief Lee Scott raked in last year was 410 times what Mr. and Mrs. Median made, as opposed to the $469,000 a year earned by Exxon's Ken Jamieson in 1975, which was a mere 40 times more.

It's the same with celebrity athletes. Those who worshipped Joe Namath in the 1960s could at least identify with the $142,000 a year he made ($848,000 in today's dollars). But how many can identify with the $87 million Tiger Woods took in last year? And not only are the elite making much more today, relatively, than the Medians, the rise of cable television and the Internet assures that they know all about it.

"It's now easy for us to see how other people around the world live, not just how our neighbors live," says Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College. Schwartz also argues that the plethora of consumer choices today, while generally a good thing, can be a catalyst for bringing people down. Not everyone can have a new flat screen television with both a 60 inch screen and premium sound.

"The more options you look at, the more you have to give up," he says.

It's true that the wealthy have grabbed up a larger share of the growing economic pie over the past 40 years. Census Bureau stats show that the percentage of pay collected by the middle 60% of wage earners dipped to 46% in 2005 from 52% in both 1965 and 1975. That figure doesn't include income from investments, which would make the gap even larger.

But the overall pie is much larger too. A near quadrupling of the Gross Domestic Product since 1967 means that today's Americans share $12.5 trillion in wealth, or $41,579 per capita, compared to the $3.8 trillion, or $18,951 per capita, enjoyed by 200 million people back then.

Of course, the super-rich have done even better. When the first edition of the Forbes 400 hit newsstands in 1982, the top-ranked person was shipping magnate Daniel Ludwig, with an estimated net worth of $2 billion. That was about 20,000 times the net worth of Mr. and Mrs. Median at the time. There were only 12 billionaires on the list that year.

The top person on the 2006 edition of the Forbes 400, Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Co-Founder Bill Gates, had a net worth of $53 billion, or 133,741 times the Medians. That means that while Mr. and Mrs. Median have seen their net worth rise 130% percent since the first Forbes 400, the richest man in the country is worth 1,225% more. Oh, and every member of the list is now a billionaire.

But what does the pay of celebrities and CEOs have to do with the average American, other than provide fodder for jealousy? It would be one thing if growing incomes at the top stretched prices of goods and services so much as to dramatically push inflation ahead for everyone else. But inflation has been tame for over two decades.

The fact is that in real terms, the Medians are doing great. Mr. Median makes 25% more than his father did 30 years ago, even after holding for inflation. Mrs. Median is a lot more likely to work in the professional ranks than her mom was, and to be paid about three times as much doing so. And though she still makes only 77% of what her male counterparts earn, this is up from 33% in 1965. They dote on the same number of children (two), but waited longer to have them, until both careers are well under way. They also pay less tax to the federal government and have 8% more purchasing power than they did 20 years ago, including 5.7% more than they had just ten years ago.

But, if despite their prosperity, the Medians need some cheering up, there is one powerful person whose wage growth they have outpaced nicely over the last two generations.

When Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House in 1965, he earned $100,000 a year, or 14 times what the Medians earned. This year, George W. Bush will earn $400,000, or just eight times the Medians.

KK,

So if you are of the opinion that the Bush tax cuts have NOT been beneficial to the economy and the Treasury revenue receipts--Are you suggesting (like liberal Democrat Darcy Burner ) that RAISING TAXES would be a better way to stimulate the economy?

Mr. Internet tuff guy top of the line researcher know it all never wrong,

A little refresher

You made this statement

"Real incomes for the middle class are not rising at the same rate under Bush, as under previous presidents."

I asked this ?

"Would those incomes be the ones adjusted for inflation only on the take home. The incomes that leave out benefits,perks etc. when calculating total compensation. Imagine that the smart guy using numbers to tell a lie. Are you a liar KK?"

You still have not answered on what your statement is based. A requirement in a debate.
In fact you refused to answer it because you cannot support it.

The 30 years is just a little salt in the wound for a liar.

Answer the question liar or continue to squat to pee as you usually do.

The Kommunist Kid the all seeing all knowing cannot even get that one right. Seems that when he gets a taste of the dish he serves he tucks tail and runs. Wait that sounds very familiar! and it all makes so much sense.