Nutjobs Ranting About Politics. - Page 57

Sidd Finch · 07-30-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I note that the Bush Recession cost me one hell of a lot more than $20,000.

Whereas, the Clinton Boom was one hell of an economic party in these parts!

-- Greedy (oh yeah!), Greedy, (very, very) Greedy

On that note, I've been waiting for Club to address yesterday's economic news -- an unprecedented two-year income decline for Americans. He'll blame it on the stock market, of course, but there wasn't even a one-year income decline in 1987 or during the bear market of the 1970s.

Replaced_Texan · 07-30-2004, 02:42 PM

I think I may have a word or two with my assistant, just to make sure she doesn't say anything at all when transferring calls from reporters.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mpaign_jobs_dc

Unhappy Workers Should Take Prozac --Bush Campaigner

Thu Jul 29, 1:50 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A campaign worker for President Bush (news - web sites) said on Thursday American workers unhappy with low-quality jobs should find new ones -- or pop a Prozac to make themselves feel better.

"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?" said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.

The comment was apparently directed to a colleague who was transferring a phone call from a reporter asking about job quality, and who overheard the remark.

baltassoc · 07-30-2004, 03:06 PM

Bush has gone on the offensive

Bush Derides Kerry as Man of Few Achievements

And now the lie:

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush did not see the speech.

"He went to sleep last night. That was a late speech," McClellan told reporters, but he said Bush had "read some of the coverage." "

So he does read the news.

SlaveNoMore · 07-30-2004, 03:22 PM

One more thing.

Kerry kept referring to himself as a "soldier".

Isn't he really a "sailor"? Is he ashamed of the Navy? Does the Army even want him?

Atticus Grinch · 07-30-2004, 03:23 PM

Sidd Finch · 07-30-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One more thing.

Kerry kept referring to himself as a "soldier".

Isn't he really a "sailor"? Is he ashamed of the Navy? Does the Army even want him?

Wow, you are getting really desperate.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 07-30-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
On that note, I've been waiting for Club to address yesterday's economic news -- an unprecedented two-year income decline for Americans.

The problem with the figures is that they don't seem to explain what portion of that decline is due to two things:

1) Lower value of stock options
2) Decreased capital gains income, both from fewer increased-value stocks and losses (starting in April 2000) used to offset gains.

If nothing else, it goes to show how much of a bubble was created during the Clinton years.

SlaveNoMore · 07-30-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Sidd Finch
Wow, you are getting really desperate.

No. Desperate is going to be the GOP when we aren't able to recruit Rudy to run against Hillary and the "really, really, really angry at Bush" Democrats in 2008.

Right now, I'm feeling rather cozy.

Shape Shifter · 07-30-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No. Desperate is going to be the GOP when we aren't able to recruit Rudy to run against Hillary and the "really, really, really angry at Bush" Democrats in 2008.

Or when battle breaks out in the Bush clan over succession rights.

Sidd Finch · 07-30-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The problem with the figures is that they don't seem to explain what portion of that decline is due to two things:

1) Lower value of stock options
2) Decreased capital gains income, both from fewer increased-value stocks and losses (starting in April 2000) used to offset gains.

If nothing else, it goes to show how much of a bubble was created during the Clinton years.

As predicted, the response doesn't account for the fact that there wasn't even a one-year decline -- let alone a two-year decline -- after the '87 crash.

Sidd Finch · 07-30-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No. Desperate is going to be the GOP when we aren't able to recruit Rudy to run against Hillary and the "really, really, really angry at Bush" Democrats in 2008.

Right now, I'm feeling rather cozy.

Do you and Penske have a little circle-jerk thing going where you imagine Hillary as the next Dem nominee?

Does he let you borrow the doll?

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-30-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You think all the flag-waving will make the majority of vets forget this:

The upside-down flag is a really nice touch.

Yep. Its like Bush's DUI. Non-issue.

And it would do the GOP very well not to bring up Vietnam in this election. If I were Kerry's people, I'd love for W to bring up Vietnam in the debates. Kerry could crush him with a comment like Lloyd Bentsen's "You sir, are no John Kennedy" comment to, I think, Dan Quayle, by citing that Iraq is Vietnam now and that bush wouldn't know jack about Vietnam because he never got within ballistic missile range of it.

Gattigap · 07-30-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yep. Its like Bush's DUI. Non-issue.

And it would do the GOP very well not to bring up Vietnam in this election. If I were Kerry's people, I'd love for W to bring up Vietnam in the debates. Kerry could crush him with a comment like Lloyd Bentsen's "You sir, are no John Kennedy" comment to, I think, Dan Quayle, by citing that Iraq is Vietnam now and that bush wouldn't know jack about Vietnam because he never got within ballistic missile range of it.

It's why you won't see either Bush or Cheney utter such words in any debate or public statements during the campaign.

Surrogates, OTOH, will go fucking nutso with it.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 07-30-2004, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As predicted, the response doesn't account for the fact that there wasn't even a one-year decline -- let alone a two-year decline -- after the '87 crash.

Sure, Reagan had the economy in better shape in 1987 than Clinton in 2000.

Remember that the markets came back to their pre-crash levels in less than 2 years. We're still well short of Nasdaq 5000 and Dow 12000.

But really comparing the two is pretty simplictic, because you ought to look at the underlying economic and psychological factors that created the two crashes.

The 1987 crash really is without good explanation--there was no triggering event or particular realization of overvaluation. It was only a one-day event, with prices going steadily up the day after the crash.

In contrast, 2000 was strongly rooted in a recognition that the IT/IP boom was overblown and that the valuations of these companies were not rooted in any sound financial basis. The paper wealth created (and actual wealth for those precient enough to sell) disappeared not overnight but over a period of months, as the bubble deflated much more slowly (perhaps in part a result of learning from earlier crashes).

What's more, you really need to look at the figures in forming a coherent response, rather than unsupported analogy. As this article explains, wage and salary income actually rose (albeit slightly) during the 2000-2002 period. The entire decline (actually more than the entire decline) is a result of reduced capital gains. If it's solely capital gains, of what direct relevance does it have to the health of the economy, other than that people aren't taking K-gains as rapidly now than before for two simple reasons: they already took them or they have losses to offset them.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-30-2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's why you won't see either Bush or Cheney utter such words in any debate or public statements during the campaign.

Surrogates, OTOH, will go fucking nutso with it.

The GOP is living in 1955 if it thinks it will win any voters it needs by calling Kerry a traitor/pinko, etc... for protesting Vietnam. The sort of person who'd think protesting Vietnam was unpatriotic is already voting for Bush. Hell, that guy would vote for Agnew if you ran him. Bush doesn't need to shore up the base - he needs to keep the moderates - so I doubt you'll see too many "Kerry is a no good Commie loving hippie" ads.

W has to go back to the middle. He has to work an even bigger lie than Iraq - convincing the American moderates again that he actually is a compassionate conservative. Good luck on that one, George. Watch him carefully - he's already tacking toward the middle again.

I heard something funny on NPR this morning - of the people voting for Kerry, something like 65% have no opinion of Kerry, but just want Bush gone.