A bit of context is needed for the unemployment figures. Clinton inherited 7.3% unemployment from the first George Bush, while leaving 4.2% to the second, so Clinton looks good on this count. However, it was down as far as 3.8% under Clinton, thus showing a 0.4% rise at the end of his term that continued into Bush Jr's term. Trying to determine each president's effect on unemployment is complicated, because it is a "lagging" indicator, because of the delay between a president taking office and his policies being implemented, and because the situation each president inherits is different. So I wouldn't quite say Bush Jr is better than Clinton just yet, just that Dubya is better than what his critics say about him.

I have no quarrel with your other statistics, but I would also point out that according to an article at National Review Online, certain pollutants are down under Bush Jr. as well. On this point, as NRO puts it, his critics will "never take 'yes' for an answer".

This statement really nails it on the head about the liberal trolls that post on this blog:

"The problem is this: Extremist liberals, who hate Bush due to his stance on oft-debated moral issues, refuse to acknowledge the good that Bush has done for American citizens - they simply turn a blind eye to the obvious facts. This childish attitude does nothing to bolster their credibility as a group."

I could not have said it better. If Matt Nobles has noted it and we have seen it here, how many others have seen it too I wonder. The more the trolls post here the better we get to know them and their hissy fits. Like Nobles said, no matter what facts that have been presented here to them they trun that blind eye to the obvious facts.

Sirs, we are tired of illegal aliens infiltrating our borders. Living off our tax dollars for medical care and low cost housing. If the Republican and Democratic elected officials avoid addressing this daily growing problem, we must be forced to avoid putting those officials back in office. Close our borders now! Send those with criminal records and no social security numbers back!!!!

Nixon followed by Grant, then maybe Jackson...until history is rewritten...that is, if history is even taught anymore.

"those who forget the past are condemmed to repeat it"...unless it's rewriten...then it never happened, sort of.

the numbers - all from credible sources

No offense Matt, but says you.

Clinton dueling Bush? It isn't fair. Bush is the proverbial one armed man.

Ash translated:

Lalalalalala - I can't hear you. Lalalalala!

Ash,

The Rev is right, you've got the case of "Lalalalalala - I can't hear you, lalalalala" and do I need to re-quote "they simply turn a blind eye to the obvious facts. This childish attitude does nothing to bolster their credibility as a group." I am LOL Ash-head, you just proved Nobles statment, ah!

Ash, are you saying the Census Bureau, The US Dept. of Labor and the FBI are NOT credible sources? And you expect ANYONE to take you seriously? I have to agree with the Rev; why don't you just get the hell lost and take he who views the world from a periscope protruding from his posterior with you. Your comments add absolutely NOTHING to the debate.

Mark,

"marked with an unemployment rate of 6 percent, while the first four years of Bush's presidency produced an unemployment rate of 5.5 percent."

--Great, we are at "full employment", but the problem is that real wages have increased less than inflation, so all these employed people are making less than they did last year...or the year before...or...

"According to InflationData.com, the 8-year average consumer inflation rate during Clinton's presidency was 2.6 percent. The 5-year average inflation rate under Bush is only 2.55 percent."

--Again...with all this great news, why aren't wages going up...we have record corporate profits and sky-high productivity...so why are we making less? Where is your neo-classical BS, self-ajustment from market pressures?

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average home ownership rate for all American citizens under Clinton was 65.53 percent; under Bush it is 68.38 percent."

--When interest rates are at all time lows, and its free to borrow money, what do you think is going to happen, how about the sudden surge of foreclosures across the board because of the low-interest feeding frenzy?

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty level across all demographics under Clinton was 13.29 percent; under Bush it is only 12.25 percent."

--The point of having a "healthy economy" is that you can put more people to work, and get them on their feet, making money, and caring for their families. Over Bush's tenure, the poverty rate has risen EVERY SINGLE YEAR!, so what does that say about his policies in office? It says that they aren't doing anything to solve problems, just take more money from the programs which help to mitigate suffering, to give to people who need it much less.

"The Uniform Crime Report, administered by the FBI, lists an average of 1,429,000 violent crimes reported each year under Clinton, while there have been an average of 1,198,000 violent crimes reported yearly under Bush."

--If you actually look at the numbers, Clinton had the crime reports peak in '92 (his first year in office) with a total of 1,932,270, as you can see, the numbers dropped every year since then, chalk that up to better police work, and a strengthening economy. Unfortunately, this year, we saw a HUGE jump (4.8%) in violent-crime rates, across the board.

What? No post from drive-by Steve?

Hatred is blind. It's all the left has. No ideas, no plan, just hate.

Yes TEO, we have conquered inflation also. Your welcome.

!@$%#&^* -- I thought the Server Error problem was fixed!!!

Matt- If Bush is doing such a great job, why are members of his OWN party distancing themselves from his policies? John Thune stated that if he were running for re-election in '06, he would be forced to run "away" from the Bush agenda. Also, Michael Steele- Republican candidate for the Senate - has criticized Bush on the war in Iraq and Katrina and recently stood up the president at a Maryland fundraiser. When asked if he would like to have Bush campaign for him he said "Probably not!"-Why don't Republicans want to run on these great statistics? If what you say is true, they should be embracing the Bush agenda!!!

Kahn,

congrats on your inflation numbers, too bad they are larger than the median income numbers...how does it feel to have less buying power with your pay-check?

The majority of Americans don't listen to the moonbat infested liberal fake memo media.

Must be why President Bush received more votes than any president in history.

Gonna bookmark this one...good ammo for shooting down the lefty trolls. Even the ones with their heads up their Ash's or suffering Turd Eye Blind disease.

Ash-

Sounds like the "chefs" are cooking the books again, huh. I love the fact that these Regressives can never ever give Bill Clinton one ounce of credit for anything positive. All the while they try turning it around on us by saying we "hate" Bush. LMAO!!! I think Bush is a terrible president and from the polls it looks like the country agrees with me but, hate? Pah-LEEze!!

The man's presidency is going down in flames but hey , at least you 30%ers got another chance to malinge a Democrat you could'nt beat at the ballot box.

HURRAH!!! The President has a brand new suit!!!! LOL!! Pathetic.

I think Bush is a terrible president

Most idiots do, welcome to your peer group, benny boy.

Nebraska,

I'm sorry you are unable to read government press-releases and those darned confusing charts, but all these numbers come straight from them, not some EEEEEVIIIIIIIL MSM.

The economically ignorant think that all we have to do to have people make more money is to pay them more. Sooooo easy, right, Eye?

Let me give you an example even you might understand.

I live near a resort area. If I go to Burger King and buy a bacon croissant and a bottle of water, as I often do, I pay $4.13. In a big city, the same breakfast will be closer to $3.50-$3.60, depending on the city. That's a pretty big differential, percentage-wise. Wonder why that is so?

Giant resort corporations gouging the tourist market to get (gasp!) EVEN RICHER? Not hardly. It's because the burger-flippers in the resort areas get about $10.00 an hour----which is passed on to each and every consumer.

But, you say, if burger flippers get ten bucks an hour, then they are making good money! "Cept in an area where burger flippers make ten bucks an hour, rent is $700 a month for a single room sharing a bath, and a skimpy fast food breakfast is more than four dollars.

It's economics, pure and simple. When employers have to pay a premium for help, the costs get passed on to the purchaser----always. ALWAYS.

The way the market works is simple. When you have no skills and no experience, you start in minimum-wage jobs. NOT to live on, NOT to support a family, but to gain skills and experience and a good work record. Then you move up within that job, or you move on. Minimum wage jobs are basically training grounds, with pay, for people who need training.

And most minimum-wage workers are not trying to support families on what they make. Most are part-timers, students or retirees.

When and if a worker does not acquire additional skills in his minimum-wage job, merely giving him a pity raise will not solve his problem. If all the minimum-wage people get pity raises, just for showing up, then the costs of goods and services will rise for all, including those making better money.

No, the solution is to educate people to understand that the entry-level minimum-wage jobs are not supposed to be permanent, and that making more money than minimum wage is up to the worker, who has the responsibility (gosh, how Libs hate that word) to improve his job skills, work in a way that will give him a good work record, and give him experience so he can move upward on onward to a better-paying job.

When people are not making more money, it is NOT the evil money-grubbing CORPORATIONS geting rich on the backs of the workers---socialist cant to the contrary. Millions and millions in this country are making more than they ever have, and moving up the economic ladder. But it takes work, initiative, and determination to find the best path in a constantly changing economic market. Yes, those who tend to sit around and waith for others to give them something do get passed up---look at Hurrican Katrina for recent proof of that.

Oh, and Eye....ya gotta stop getting all your "information" from Air America. They LIE, Eye. They simply lie. Why? To hook gullibles like you, and to fill them up with psuedo-information and send them out to harangue people like us. Why are they so successful? Because they know that there are plenty like you, who start from a position of needing someone to hate, and needing someone to tell them they are smarter than the average bear because THEY understand what the simple masses do not. They play on a carefully calculated mixture of feeding hatred and stroking ego, and for people like you, it works. Witness your many many many many posts. All wrong, all the time, but oh so righteous, oh so filled with semi-facts, and oh so angry.

BUSH JOB NUMBERS FOR JULY 2006

USA Today/Gallup 7/21-23/06 disapprove 59%
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 7/11-12/06 disapprove 53%
AP-Ipsos * 7/10-12/06 disapprove 63 %

I would have put the approve numbers up but I didn't want to embarrass you further. So I have a pretty big peer group wouldn't you say, Reverend keefer?

And Reverend Keefer, you have shied away from answering my last post to you so I brought it here in for you to address. Go ahead, we are all ears.

"Can't trust a poofter."

Posted by: Reverend Scaramonga at July 25, 2006 09:22 PM

Reverend-

MARK BINGHAM

May 22, 1970 - September 11, 2001

Died on United Flight 93 storming the cockpit along with several other passengers. He is an American Hero....

and yes he was OPENLY GAY or as you so eloquently described "a poofter" .

Keep running your mouth. I'm sure you're making Conservatives mighty proud.
Breezy huh?

TEO,
Sorry, but you have about as much credibility as...Dan Rather.

I think I'll rely on my real estate/401K portfolio's, paystub, and 1040 to judge how great a job President Bush and Karl Rove are doing.

You post under the name Third Eye Open...is that some kind of reference to your Ash? I get it...you talk out your Ash. Just wondering

ooohhhh, look what crawled out of the woodwork to prove Matt Nobles' theory, once again.

Prove that Bush is a better president than Clinton was and you get the whine that this is the same as "hating" Clinton, and the old canard that Bush did not win his elections.

Oh, and of course, the standard default position---the books are cooked, it's all fake, it's all a LIE! These terminally silly weenies will believe the most bizarre, far-fetched, elaborate conspiracy theories imaginable, theories that I think are often invented as a joke only to surface as "fact" in some fever-swamp rabid post a few weeks later---but show them simple figures such as tax revenues and so on and they deny, deny, deny.

oooohhh, the rads get oh so miffed when faced with facts! And Ranty's show isn't on till later, so they don't know what they are supposed to "think" about them.

Almiranta,

Which one do you live by, I remember when I had to goto A-Basin and Keystone, stuff was pretty cheap, but we stopped on 285 to "fuel-up" on cheetos and slim-jims before a hard day staring at scantly-clad women on snowboards...but I digress.

What we are talking about is median income, the middle-of-the-road worker, not minimum wage earners. The government's numbers are always accounted for in "median income" context.

i really don't know which part (if any0 of my post you are trying to rebut, but the simple fact is that inflation has been growing faster than median wages, therefore, our dollar has less velocity than it did a year ago, and a year before that.

This isn't about paying people more, it is about asking the question, "If we (workers) have done our part, ramped-up productivity, and are making corporate America record-profits, why are we getting less wages after inflation?"

Nebraska,

Why don't you go look-up the term "Money-Illusion" and get back to me about your paystubs and 1040.

"Your comments add absolutely NOTHING to the debate."

Bite me.

Debate? Ha.

President George W. Bush will go down in history as the greatest president in american history, even more so than Abraham Lincoln. Even considering all that President Lincoln had to deal with, and it was alot, he never had to deal with suicide bombers in the same world with weapons of mass destruction. In todays world, one suicide bomber with a nuke could kill more people in one instant than all those who died during the entire civil war.

Must be why President Bush received more votes than any president in history.

Uh, there's more voters than any time in history. Try again later Militia.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the first four years of Clinton's presidency were marked with an unemployment rate of 6 percent, while the first four years of Bush's presidency produced an unemployment rate of 5.5 percent.

I can see that. What with all the boys and girls "employed" in Iraq, there is a lot more job openings in the U.S.

TEO,
You probably complain, too, that the middle class is shrinking. You will ignore the fact that the upper class is expanding.

If you would work your way up, and out of McDonald's, you would see larger paychecks. Try a place with tips. Oooops, never mind, you need a good attitude to make good tips.

How about another headline you would like, "Gravity Ongoing Burden on Corpulent".

can see that.

Translation of Ashhat's blather:

"Help me! I'm drowning in my own offal. Lalalalala!"

Regressives,

Has to hurt when you see headlines like this.

GOP candidate calls party affiliation 'an impediment'
Maryland's Steele calls Republican R a 'scarlet letter'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/26/republicans.bush.ap/index.html

LMAO!!!!!!!

Yea keep running Reverend Keefer. We see you.

Lie much, benny boy?

Michael Steele's campaign confirmed Tuesday that the Maryland lieutenant governor made the comments a day earlier on the condition reporters only identify him as a GOP Senate candidate. However, the campaign said his published remarks were just a sampling from a wide-ranging, 90-minute interview in which he praised the president.

Oopsy! Accidentally left that out from that venerable champion of accurate reporting CNN's hit piece? What a maroon.

The Salt Lake Tribune has this about liberal hero, Chuckie Schumer and his view on Democrats:

Schumer cited the effectiveness of Bush and his colleagues in selling themselves as the stronger guardians of national security, while reducing the Democrats' posture to cut-and-run against terrorism in Iraq. On other issues as well, he said, the opposition has done a much superior job in phrasing its message for the man and woman on the street. "We don't have 80 words" to sum up the Democratic agenda, he lamented. "We don't have eight."

Schumer, unlike Steele, is actually an elected national politician and shaker and mover in the party of the jackass. Steele is a wannabe and a notlikelytobe.

Then there's This story from Baltimore. Another fine Democrat in the Clinton mold:

TOWSON, Md. -- Baltimore County police arrested a candidate for the U.S. Senate and charged him with rape and assault on his Latvian wife.

David Dickerson, a Democratic candidate for one of the two Maryland Senate seats, was arrested Saturday after police were called to a hospital where his wife claimed she was raped. Dickerson was charged with second-degree rape, second-degree assault and fourth-degree sex offense.

David Dickerson......charged him with rape and assault on his Latvian wife.

Seems like Mr. Dickerson has that 'Clinton' style.

LaMano,

So you're extoling the fact that the middle-class is disapearing? maybe someone hasn't reminded you recently that the 'gulf' between rich and poor is an EMPTY space.

McDonald's employees aren't counted in the "median income" statistics, that would be the people making ~$44,000 a year, according to the government's numbers, these people (y'know, the backbone of America) have seen their paychecks stagnate, even in a time of record profits and extremely high levels of productivity.

Anything else you want to blather on about?

Another fine Democrat MIA?

Rep. Cynthia McKinney was a no-show this week in the U.S. House, as WSB Washington Correspondent Jamie Dupree reports that the Georgia Democrat missed all four days of legislative business and every vote on the House floor as well.

McKinney's office offered no comment as to why the Congresswoman did not return to Washington after Tuesday's primary election, where she was forced into an August 8th runoff against Hank Johnson.

Also left unanswered Thursday night was whether McKinney would be back at the U.S. Capitol next week. The House has one more week of work before a scheduled August break.

McKinney missed 19 votes over four days on the House floor, including an attempted override of President Bush's veto of a bill dealing with embryonic stem cell research, a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and a bill designed to prevent federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"It's an impediment. It's a hurdle I have to overcome," Steele, who is running in a Democratic-leaning state, said of his GOP label, according to Tuesday's edition of The Washington Post. "I've got an 'R' here, a scarlet letter." - michael steele

He is right about that

Maryland
Ben Cardin (D) - 48.8%
Michael Steele (R) - 39.4%
Zogby Poll

"However, the campaign said his published remarks were just a sampling from a wide-ranging, 90-minute interview in which he praised the president." Reverend keefer

Soooo then what you are saying is that he NEVER said that being a republican was hurting his campange? LOL righttttt..

"Schumer, unlike Steele, is actually an elected national politician and shaker and mover in the party of the jackass. Steele is a wannabe and a notlikelytobe." rev Keefer

Look cast it any way you want your party is in spiral. Draft all the "values" legislation you can it isn't budging those number one bit. Honest Republicans know what's happening out there.

"Your comments add absolutely NOTHING to the debate."

Bite me.

Debate? Ha.

Thanks, Ash, for making my point.

Reverend gaybasher-

Don't have anything to say to or about Mark Bingham?

................................................yea, I didn't think so.

You are truly pathetic.

"Your comments add absolutely NOTHING to the debate."

Bite me.

Debate? Ha.

Thanks, Ash, for making my point.

Reverend gaybasher-

Don't have anything to say to or about Mark Bingham?

................................................yea, I didn't think so.

You are truly pathetic. Troll

Thanks, Ash, for making my point.

You're a troll - you have no point. Get lost.

Left,

Facts don't jive well with Rev's version of reality, maybe all that time breathing Agent Orange finally got to him.

At this moment he is probably making up more alter egos, so that someone will agree with him.

Don't have anything to say to or about Mark Bingham?

He was a rump ranger. Does what he did on the flight change that? Erase it? I applaud his heroic action, but his lifestyle was pretty disgusting. Was there something else, poofter?

Our Fiscal Future

Debt Reduction Relative to GDP4
The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003).5 It increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.

Trade Deficit Reduction Relative to GDP6
The trade deficit increased during both administrations. It increased by 0.52 percent of GDP per year under Clinton and by 0.37 percent per year under Bush.7 This is one of two indicators where economic performance under Bush appears to be better than it was during the Clinton administration. But underneath that data is a less flattering story for the Bush years. The trade deficit grew at the rate it did under Clinton for two main reasons: because the first Bush Administration's recession had cut imports to an artificially low level, and because the economy was expanding rapidly. People were confident, so they were buying a lot of imported goods. Businesses were growing, too, so U.S. factories were importing materials to manufacture their products. Throughout this period, export growth was very strong. In the Bush years, the trade deficit has been a product of a different, and less healthy dynamic: U.S. exports have dipped dramatically relative to imports.
Employment

Jobs8
One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush.9 While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law.10 This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).11

Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs12
The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.

Jobs with Good Wages
The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush.13 A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.14

Americans with Health Insurance15
Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.16
Incomes

Productivity17
Productivity measures the amount of economic output that each hour of work produces. It is an important indicator of economic performance because high rates of productivity traditionally correlate with strong growth in living standards. The most accurate measure of productivity covers non-farm businesses. During the Clinton administration non-farm business productivity grew 1.83 percent per year. During the Bush administration, it grew by an average of 3.76 percent per year. This is one of the only bright spots in a period of otherwise lackluster economic performance, and it is a measure that suggests hope for the economy in the coming years. But it is important to note that the late 1990s saw both productivity growth and job growth, producing a double benefit for the economy. During the Bush years, productivity has grown while jobs have not. Whether the nation can maintain the robust levels of productivity growth we have enjoyed since 1996 depends in large part on whether we put in place the right policies, including investments in research and development, and the skills of the workforce; promotion of the digital economy, including high-speed broadband deployment; and fiscal discipline to keep interest rates low.18

Per Capita GDP19
Simply comparing the annual growth of GDP under each administration would be misleading, because the population continues to grow. Per capita GDP -- in other words, how much output there is each year relative to the total population -- is a more accurate measure. While per capita GDP rose 2.42 percent under Clinton, it has risen just 1.62 percent per year during the Bush presidency. In large part, this is because fewer people are working.

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

Poverty Reduction21
Poverty statistics are telling indicators of the country's economic health. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell 2.29 percent annually in the Clinton years, but has since gone up 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years.

Homeownership22
No economic indicator can embody the American dream in quite the same way as homeownership. Indeed, one of the successes that President Bush frequently points to under his watch is the increase in homeownership. But while the home ownership rate has increased 0.37 percent per year during the Bush administration, that is a slowdown compared to the average increases of 1.94 percent during the Clinton administration.

Facts don't jive well...

Still here, troll? Get lost. Make it a fact that you have crawled back under your rock.

RS,
That comment was not aimed at you, but rather the B4B resident troll.

Rev,

I can't, you're occupying my rock

Third Eye-

"maybe all that time breathing Agent Orange finally got to him"

Oh doing something that would put him at risk of that would take courage and the Rev has certainly shown he is devoid of any of that. Let's not entertain any of his fantasies about himself. The only toxic chemicals that guy ever ingested would have to involve an aerosol can and a plastic bag.

"At this moment he is probably making up more alter egos"

I think he's having enough trouble keeping up with the alias' he already has. He had to drop keefer which completely threw Jeremiah off his pulpit. I personally think he's two other people on this site as well. Something in the phrasing seems very similar. The Rev is just his "kick back and shoot my mouth off" persona.

It is entertaining to watch him get all bent out of shape so easily though.

It is entertaining to watch...

So now you're hitting on the troll? Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh poofter?

Left,

No doubt, but the funny part is that he doesn't get any smarter with any of the alias', so it's just as easy to smack him down.

refuse to acknowledge the good that Bush has done for American citizens

Well, he hasn't done any good for me, so what is there to acknowledge? The most I can hope for--the most--is an extra $20 on my tax return. For some, that's enough to buy loyalty. Not for me.

Millions and millions in this country are making more than they ever have, and moving up the economic ladder.

And yet even higher numbers of people are moving down the economic ladder into poverty. We had a record low poverty rate in 2000. Since then, the rate has climbed every year. I guess all those families who slide down the ladder contributed to those constant poverty rate increases should be grateful to Bush, hmm? Classic Li'l Almy. So ranty, so righteous...so wrong.

so it's just as easy to smack him down.

The troll made a funny...Trolls don't do anything but suck, troll.

TEO-

LMAO!!!!! The Rev. Keefer is certainly lossing it huh. This is hilarious!! LMAO!!!!!

Do you think we'll ever grow tired of making fun of this weezle?
I wonder who he'll be next after he grows tired of being beaten up by us?

Left,

I just don't care about this fool, the people around here who want to have a serious discussion about issues will continue to write, this fool will continue to confirm how much of an ignorant fool everyone assumed he was.

Personally, I get paid to be here one way or the other.

Ash, Which proverb is about a one-armed man? I can't find that one.

how come i don't get paid to be here? oh, that's because i have a job already.

maybe brown eye is from the BlameBush site. a magnificent parody. or somebody is not getting their money's worth on you. or maybe your "employer" is Carl Rove?

Of course Bane I use the English language quite metaphorically. Or colorfully. Or inappropriately. Or loosely. Remember the funny Norm Crosby? I expoliated his humor.

I almost went to the dictionary to look up metaphorically, but that would be playing into your hands. I'm sure you will let me know if it is wrong.

How was your vacation? Wine country? I forgot. I have a sister that lived in Temecula and I certainly enjoyed visiting the plethora of wineries near her house.

*shakes head*

I sure am glad the real people around here have reasoned debate skills.

What was the topic on this one again?

I have a question: is it reasonable to suggest that as soon as a president takes office he will have an immediate effect on the economy, one way or the other? It seems to me that whatever policies they are responsible for, they would take a while to have an effect. Some policies could be expected to have a longer lag time than others, but none of them are immediate. So what's the point of comparing the first four years of a given adminiatration to any other if most of what happens in the first couple of years or so is inherited from the new president's predecessor?

I have a sister

She a chubster, too?

Go away little droll: you're not wanted here.

Leftorium:

Do you really think the Rev is keefer? Heck, even keefer seemed smarter than Rev. Knuckledragger.

I have a question: is it reasonable to suggest that as soon as a president takes office he will have an immediate effect on the economy, one way or the other?

Sure it is. Even if one came in and declared some kind of "emergency" and took extraordinary executive action, the impact of it would take a significant amount of time to be felt throughout the economy.

It seems to me that whatever policies they are responsible for, they would take a while to have an effect. Some policies could be expected to have a longer lag time than others, but none of them are immediate.

Correct again. Raising the prime lending rate has a lag, but not very long. Interest rates go up immediately and borrowing drops off pretty quickly. The purchase of big ticket items falls pretty quickly as a result. Inventories rise just as quick. If the business judgement is that this is the beginning of a downturn, layoffs and cutbacks are likely to follow. From the rate hike to that point could be as short as a couple of months or as long as a year, depending on who got impacted.

So what's the point of comparing the first four years of a given adminiatration to any other if most of what happens in the first couple of years or so is inherited from the new president's predecessor?

Assuming that the new president dramatically changes the policies of the old one and does it quickly after being sworn in, you should see the fading of the old and an increasing influence of the new within a year or two at the most. It can be a time of much turmoil and change. But remember, there's not much the president can do without working through the congress. He doesn't have a checkbook per se, congress does. He has a veto pen and he has the biggest megaphone, and if he has a majority in both houses, the wind at his back. But you're right about time lags. And sometimes, the full impact of the changes aren't felt for decades. Take for example the Civil Rights Act. It took years for the impact on the economy to be felt by that one bill alone. Examples abound.

Ash,
I was trying to figure out the reference to a one-armed man, but I see I was thinking too much. If you’re going to reference a parable, then allegory would be more appropriate than metaphor, just a suggestion.

Vacation was good, thanks for asking, I can’t afford Denmark so I support the Danes living in Solvang. Augusts’ vacation will be Vegas, September in San Francisco, October along PCT from Mammoth to Whitney, November in Acapulco, December in San Diego and January in Fairbanks if all goes well.

You want me to send you postcards?

Rico,
Right as rain, the recession in 2001 was caused by the drop in GDP in the third quarter of 2000. Bush’s first Budget was 2002 so the fair comparison will be the period from 1994 to 2002 and 2002 to 2010. Even so, many programs started by the Clinton Administration had to be continued into the Bush Administration, no comparison is totally without influence from the previous Administration. Statistically, we are just beginning to understand what happened in the 1990’s, and we won’t have a good handle on Bush’s impact until four or five years after he leaves office.

Having said that, the numbers presented are a fair comparison of two time periods that include the period you are referencing along with the situation as inherited from each of their predecessors. The real challenge to judging the administrations’ effectiveness is improving on the record of the precedent. Bush’s pledge to lower taxes after winning office had an immediate impact on Wall Street, as did Clinton’s raising of taxes retroactively to a period before he took office. Wall Street rallied in 1995 when the democrats lost control of the government’s purse strings long before any real legislation had an impact. Although the euphoria was misplaced as republicans continue to spend to buy votes as the democrats did for forty years.

Just so you know, the cut-and-paste posted by: lovedaright at July 26, 2006 01:19 PM was for 2003 numbers from the "Progressive Policy Institute" (October 18, 2004) and are based on the recession numbers and post 9-11 economics, comparing 8 years of Clinton to 2½ years of Bush. Since then the situation has changed dramatically.
And TEO's insipid statement, "Over Bush's tenure, the poverty rate has risen EVERY SINGLE YEAR!, is wrong, what else is new. The Poverty rate has gone down. Check the US Census reports for 2005 back.

Real tired of the blue screen.
Just so you know, the cut-and-paste posted by: lovedaright at July 26, 2006 01:19 PM was for 2003 numbers from the "Progressive Policy Institute" (October 18, 2004) and are based on the recession numbers and post 9-11 economics, comparing 8 years of Clinton to 2½ years of Bush. Since then the situation has changed dramatically.
And TEO's insipid statement, "Over Bush's tenure, the poverty rate has risen EVERY SINGLE YEAR!, is wrong, what else is new. The Poverty rate has gone down. Check the US Census reports for 2005 back.

Sees through it, getting a small tax return is just a sign that you have not given uncle sam an interest free loan. I make sure that I pay the minimum, and get a very small refund, that is being intelligent.

You want me to send you postcards?
Bane:

If I could figure out a way to get it without letting you know where I live exactly. Maybe a P.O. Box would be good.

I'll be back in Glacier in August. Yellowstone in September. Arches in October. Bryce/Zion in November. And up to Rocky Mountain every weekend I'm not out of town. I'll have to go home (St. Louis) in December for Christmas.

Not as glamorous as your destinations, but are places I love. In lieu of postcards, you can click on my name and see some of the travel photos I have posted.

We could become, like, pen pals or something.

P.S. Bane:

Please, no comments about my wife.

"...without letting you know where I live exactly." Loveland? Near Taft Ave?

Your wife seems like a charming lady, when have I ever commented on another poster's wife?

Of course, Bane, you do seem fair in that respect. The statement was directed at someone else.

And like someone else said, she puts up with me. I have to agree with that.

Do you really think the Rev is keefer? Heck, even keefer seemed smarter than Rev. Knuckledragger.

Keebler is back alright, but it's not as the Rev. See if you can spot our little resident toll-booth attendant in some of the other posts.

maf53-

I found him in his original incarnation. He's posting on another subject and as expected attacking me, ,,,,,again.
Although I must point out he never left us. He's been trolling aroud the left wing blogs for a while (i've seen him)and posting as different people here in the mean time, but now he's Keebler again.

maf53-

I found him in his original incarnation. He's posting on another subject and as expected attacking me, ,,,,,again.
Although I must point out that he never left us. He's been trolling aroud the left wing blogs for a while (i've seen him)and posting as different people here in the mean time, but now he's Keebler again.