Well, I think its kinda cute how all of the Republican Cheer Squad will exert much energy and time on Europeans and others for 9-11, when an Islamo-Fascist dictator in Pakistan is allowing the architect of 9-11 hide in his country and Islamo-Fascist Monarchies (one of which sacrificed 15 of its boys to murder 3,000 of our citizens) gets our protection and debt reassurance.

Well our Cheerleader from Andover knows how to divert attention from his boyfriends in the royal family…now that’s the type of boyfriend we should all hunger for…puts on a nice show and will protect from the cops when they come hunting for you.

Posted by: scoooby at December 10, 2003 09:37 PM

My thoughts exactly. Everything is an excuse for me to vent!

Posted by: Way To Stick To The Topic at December 10, 2003 10:38 PM

Lets recal- Unemployment when Clinton took office-over 7%. Unemployment when Clinton left office- under 4%. Current- around 6%. Net Job creation under Clinton- 23 million over 8 years. Under Bush - Net LOSS of between 2 and 3 million. Yes as a Democrat I hope Bush runs on his record of job creation.

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 11, 2003 01:57 AM

If you had even an elementary understanding
of economics and business cycles, you could
examine the effects of the Kennedy tax cuts
of the 60’s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 80’s.

Minor cycles run on 15 to 20 year flutuations
with major Business cycles reinforcing either
positively or negatively on 50 and 100 year
turns.

Clinton benefited from a Positive minor cycle
and the delayed tax benefits of the Reagan
1980’s Tax cuts. There are always job losses
after minor Positive cycles.

The Bush Tax cuts are working, but the real
benefit is 10 to 15 years out because the
Democrats fought tooth and nail to push the
implementation to 1908 and beyond.

In the meantime, we are in a cycle trough, job
wise. I am not sure how long that will last, but
cycles explain broad patterns covering centuries.
It is more difficult to forecast the time you are
living in.

Sort of a “we don’t see the forest for the trees
thing”, you know.

Posted by: leaddog2 at December 11, 2003 05:14 AM

1908?

Posted by: CERDIP at December 11, 2003 11:44 AM

ABB,

A chimpanzee could create 23 million jobs if spending is increased to allow the majority of them to be government jobs at the expense of the long-term economy. But nevertheless, keep trumpeting your broken bugle. Because you will look foolish when next year the economy is booming and you, whom have blamed Bush for everything from the economy to the price of candy necklaces, refuse to give him credit for it.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 11, 2003 01:39 PM

Re: scoooooooooooooooooby’s post:

So what’s your plan, slick? How would you do a better job?

Note:”Voting for Howard Dean” is not an answer, as he has not answered this question either, despite being asked it 37 times.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 11, 2003 01:43 PM

Thanks, CERDIP. A Typo! Duh!

I meant 2008. Some things take
effect in 2010. Some things are
supposed to expire then. That was
a result of TOO MANY Democratic
flakes in the Senate. (Way too
many).

I believe that in the 2004, 2006 and
2008 elections the American people
will remove more of those whose hands
have been stealing from them for over
50 years… the Democrats.

However, it is too bad that the Republicans
are now copying the worst of the Democratic
excesses!

On Increased Taxes…. I say … a “Pox on
both your houses”.

I want to spend my own money, my way!

Say, has any recent progress been made
on that Constitutional amendment restricting
spending to a certain percentage of GNP
except during war time? Just curious. I
can find nothing on it anywhere!

Posted by: leaddog2 at December 11, 2003 03:47 PM

JohnnyMozart:
wow so this will all turn around next year? You make me laugh! HA HA HA!
Didnt Bush claim that his tax cuts would add 300,000 jobs to the economy each month! on top of the existing job growth!! And now Bush is on track if he has a good year next year(!) to only produce a net loss of almost 2 million jobs! and that doesnt consider the growth of the population (needing 100,000 new jobs a month).

Leaddog- so Republicans run the whitehouse, the house and the senate but its the democrats who are responsible for the bad economic results? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Here’s a clue: deNile is a river in africa!

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 12, 2003 05:00 AM

Well, remember that Clinton ran on the “The Economy’s Stupid” platform….

;-)

Posted by: CERDIP at December 12, 2003 08:34 AM

Bush 2004,

Let me see a citation for the Bush quote. MichaelMoore.com does not count.

We have shown on other threads the tumble started with Clinton, just as the boom started with Bush I. What we are seeing now (the growth) is Bush II letting the American people dig out from the Clinton recession and 9/11.

Posted by: jones at December 12, 2003 08:38 AM

//And now Bush is on track if he has a good year next year(!) to only produce a net loss of almost 2 million jobs!//

Huh? Payroll numbers grow again

ABB04 - You should give a bigger donation to MoveOn so that they can come up with better LIES that are a little more convincing than whats been dribbling out of you.

Posted by: AnyonebutDEAN2004 at December 12, 2003 10:59 AM

Hey jones,

Y’know, I’ve looked at it and I think Bush 2004 is right. All that positive economic news coming out of the private sector…..

All a ruse.

I know what will make it better—hey, let’s repeal every last dime of the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the cap on the personal income tax! Yeah!! Even though that has failed every time its been tried, that will stimulate growth!!

One can only hope, Bush 2004, that you and the likes of you continue to actually believe what you come here and spout. Thankfully, most voters see through it.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 12, 2003 11:14 AM

By the way,

Nader’s apparently running, by all accounts, despite people in his base trying to dissuade him.

In a New York Post poll, Bush leads Dean by 27 points in NH.

I’m becoming convinced that the only way Bush can lose if if Republicans get cocky and don’t show up to vote. But as bitter as this election is going to be, I doubt that that is going to be the case.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 12, 2003 12:18 PM

ABD2004

Your link is broken.

Posted by: jones at December 12, 2003 01:39 PM

And you asked for it!
President Bush claimed that his tax cut proposal would create 1.4 million additional jobs by the end of 2004. It is important to note, however, that these 1.4 million additional jobs are an increase in job growth compared to what would happen with no change in policy. THis is in addition to the normal job creation of To be more specific, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that the total expansion of the employment level over the next 19 months would be 4,110,000 without the tax cuts; and the Bush tax cut would ad 1.4 million more jobs—for a total of 5,510,000—will be created between July 2003 and end of 2004.

This is discussed here (see chart-last page)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_growth_package_macroeconomic_effects.pdf

and you can look at this press release (which only discusses generallities so its not very helpfull- Im still looking)

Oh and these people point out that after the positive effects (lasting through 2004) of the Bush tax cuts, the tax cut effect on job growth then goes negative in succeeding years.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_05072003

www.Jobwatch.org has this summary:
[the presidents recent tax cuts and accompanying cea predictions result in] 306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. Although jobs increased by 57,000 last month, November 2003, the “Jobs and Growth Plan” still fell 249,000 jobs short of the administration’s projection. The administration projected that a total of 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months after the tax cuts took effect. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs.
They also note that:
If jobs had grown by 5.0% in the last two years, there would have been 7.3 million more jobs in November. [instead] 726,000 jobs have disappeared, a 0.6% contraction.

And here’s an an article by Robert Freedman discussing why once again Bush is running the economy into the ground.
http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 13, 2003 12:42 AM

Thanks for the opinions. Where are the FOX lies? Why is the economy doing well NOW? Your projections don’t mean much until they happen?

Posted by: jones at December 13, 2003 08:29 AM

They arent my projections or opinions, they are the presidents. And the economy is not doing well now- one good quarter of GDP growth does not make a good economy! And it cetainly doesnt do anything about all the other negative factors (exploding spending and deficit, and weakened dollar - now worth almost .8 euro down from 1 euro, and of course anemic substandard job creation.)
As for the Fox lies- Ive already gotten off subject enough.
appendix- “jobs.” missing in first para, my last post.
—missing second sitation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030107.html

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 14, 2003 07:58 PM

When the 1980’s BOOMING ECONOMY was going around guess what the Liberals said back then?

“The Large Government Deficit and Militay Spending is proof that this economy is not going well, not nearly as well as Reagan had promised it would.”

Really folks. The liberals TODAY are nothing more than the liberals in the 1980’s. And the 1980’s liberals are no different than the 1960’s.!

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at December 15, 2003 10:18 PM

Gee Jeff,
Lets review 12 years of Reagan-Bush1 average GDP growth 2.4% yearly.
8 years of Clinton- average GDP growth 3.5% yearly. Now mostly these same Republican senators and congressman are spending money like… well like drunken sailors
And who was president when the Reagans deficit got paid off- Clinton…

Now in contrast I must ask are Republicans the same as they were in the 90’s? In the 90’s they were into this ‘contract with america’ and one of the points was that the budget would be balanced. . So could you tell me why I shouldnt think they just a big bunch of hipocrits?????????????????????

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 16, 2003 02:45 AM

Blah, blah, blah. While reading through the numerous posts on this page, I saw many attempts to give credit to conservatives/liberals for booms/recession.

After reading the posts, it is clear that none of you have even a, if I may borrow a quote from leaddog2, “elementary understanding
of economics and business cycles.” In fact, I seriously doubt that any of you have even ever taken a macro- or microeconomics course.

Recessions happen for many reasons, usually least among those reasons being political economic policies.

Of course tax cuts stimulate economic growth. Anytime billions of extra dollars become available in the economy, the result is increased GDP. For those conservative Republicans who tout the value of huge tax cuts for leading to the booms of the 1960s and 1980s, it might be wise to remind you of the mother of all tax cuts in the twentieth century: the tax cuts of the 1920s. We all know how that ended. However, it was not the economic polices of the 1920s that led to the great depression, per se. It is widely believed to be caused by enormous excesses in income distribution to the wealthy and a speculative stock market (to keep it simple). It was however, almost entirely the fault of Herbert Hoover and the Republican Party’s “hands-off” approach that allowed the depression to reach the unimaginable depths that it did. If it were not for the “big government” programs of FDR, which created jobs, cut unemployement in half by 1939 and restored confidence, the decade of the 1930s would have been even more miserable than it ended up being. Of course, World War II was what finally got the economy firing on all 12 cylinders again. The 1960s, which is frequently given credit for being a “tax cut” boom was also a period that involved the Vietnam War, which the US government spent billions of dollars on for equipment, supplies etc. The value of a long war for an economy must never be ignored.

Fast-forward to the 1970s. As a result of over-regulation, of which the liberal Democrats were chiefly responsible and the mideast oil crisis, the US economy stalled and entered recession THREE times in eleven years. (1969-1970, 1973-1974 and 1980.) Ronald Reagan cut taxes and deregulated the economy, which helped lead to the boom of the 1980s. However the boom, which began in late 1982 failed to push unemployment below 7% until 1986, four years into that “great boom.” This of course, was a result of several factors, major among them being high interest rates. Interest rates were higher than they should have been because of the high inflation rates of the 1970s and the enormous budget deficits of the 1980s.

Then came the 1990s. I’m sorry that so many Republicans think of Bill Clinton as liberal. However, I can’t show you a liberal who’s main economic policy was a reduction in the budget deficit and increased spending on education to improve long-term economic performance. The 1990s were good because taxes were low, regulation was low, a budget deficit steadily turned into an enormous record-breaking surplus, interest rates were low and “times were good.” Kudos to the Republican congress for helping to focus on the balanced budget, lower taxes and decreased regulations.

For the record, only two Presidents in the twentieth century were fortunate enough to preside over recession-less terms: LBJ and Bill Clinton. Don’t believe me? Check the NBER’s website of official economic recession/expansion dates: http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

In the end, different times call for different measures. Nothing is full-proof and most policies lead to problems down the road. All expansions lead to excesses, which lead to burst bubbles, etc, etc. However, I think the model of the 1990s was probably the best we’ve had. Responsible government spending, steadily but not excessively reduced tax rates, and continued yet responsible deregulation of industry. The Bush tax cuts were not deep enough or quick enough to really have the positive effects that they were intended to have. And, they SHOULD NOT be permanent. We mustn’t forget that we still have a MAJOR budget crisis brewing on the horizon vis-a-vis Medicare and Social Security. We must balance our budget now so that we can afford to have the enormous deficits we will face in the coming decades.

I wish that I had the economic knowledge to shed more light on this for you guys, but I’ve taken one macroeconomics class at a good business school, and done a great deal of personal research. Yet I am, at best, an amateur economists. To all of you I say, try to check your facts before you launch insults at one another and for Christ’s sake, let us not forget about the future problems we have completely ignored since 9/11.

Posted by: tdkimel at January 11, 2004 01:41 AM

Art is vision, not expression.

Posted by: Gamber Jenifer Lee at January 22, 2004 01:48 AM

Adhere to System Appearance. Does your application use all the sweetly colored buttons, delightfully shaded windows, and all the other “bells and whistles?”

Posted by: Henry at January 24, 2004 02:36 AM

In building your amazing Aqua application, one of the most important things to consider is the Dock. There are three things your app needs to be “Dock Compliant.” Now, I write this knowing that the Dock will be going through some major changes soon, but for the most part, these should still hold true.

Posted by: Gerrard at January 24, 2004 02:37 AM

Other examples of these animations might be to show the status of an FTP transfer, the progress of media being digitized, or an updated time signature. And don’t forget that users may want to have some control over this, so give them plenty of options, including the ability to turn these functions off.

Posted by: Roman at January 24, 2004 02:38 AM

The economy is up, and going way up.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1009121/posts

From the amazing amount of ignorant views and liberal spouting on this site, I’m a little skeptical that this article will get its due time and be read COMPLETELY. But there’s the address and here’s just 1 highlight of many. And this is from October 2003. Funny thing is, it’s all being proven true now in early April. Here is an excerpt:

Especially when that 3 million figure is so shaky. Democrats and the media cite the Labor Department’s so-called “establishment survey,” which asks established firms about payroll. Yet the Labor Department also conducts an employment survey of individual households that shows a much smaller net job loss of 180,000 since March 2001 and says that more than 1 million jobs have been added this year. Lisanti of Standard & Poor’s writes that the establishment survey often excludes self-employed workers. And the elimination of second and third jobs shows up as job losses on this survey, even though that often is a sign of families getting back on their feet. And Wesbury points out that new small businesses that drive the economy often are excluded from the establishment payroll survey. “If I were a Democratic candidate, I would cite the payroll survey, but the household survey has been most accurate at predicting booms,” Wesbury says.

Posted by: YoungRepublican :-* at April 3, 2004 03:01 AM