TWAers,............let your friends know.

[Barfbag]

Icahn Lackey......... :down:

 

[AA717driver]

They're ALL owned by someone and NONE have the interest of working Americans at heart. TC

 

[jimntx]

And, anyone is surprised by this, because?

(Now, all you little right wingnuts, don't start wasting bandwidth coming up with examples of Democratic candidates in hock to big money. I agree with Mark Twain who said over a hundred years ago, "Suppose you had a politician. Now, suppose he was a crook. Ah, but I repeat myself." )

 

[MCI transplant]

Icahn Lackey......... :down:

<_< -----I won't call him a "Lackey" over $2,100. But just tying his name to Giulianis raises a red flag in my book!--

 

[eolesen]

One thing about Icahn -- he might be an ass, but he's a shrewd business owner and knows damn well that if the economy sucks, he loses money, and letting Billary back into the White House stands to be a huge step backward for the economy.

 

[A/C FIXER]

And, anyone is surprised by this, because?

(Now, all you little right wingnuts, don't start wasting bandwidth coming up with examples of Democratic candidates in hock to big money. I agree with Mark Twain who said over a hundred years ago, "Suppose you had a politician. Now, suppose he was a crook. Ah, but I repeat myself." )

I'm a firm believer of term limits, one term in office and one term in prison.
You've got to believe that we've always had the best Politicians money can buy. And yet Politicians still can't seen to figure out why people trust their garbage men more than they trust them.

 

[jimntx]

One thing about Icahn -- he might be an ass, but he's a shrewd business owner and knows damn well that if the economy sucks, he loses money, and letting Billary back into the White House stands to be a huge step backward for the economy.

Well now, let's think about that--consider that at the end of the Clinton administration, business was booming and we had a huge surplus in the Federal government.

On Shrub's watch, many are out of work and the Federal government has debts that your great-grandchildren will be paying off. In addition, we as a people and a nation are hated more than we have ever been in our entire history. And, this is good for business exactly how?

Icahn wants what every billionaire wants--for the rest of us to pay higher taxes so he can pay less.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

One thing about Icahn -- he might be an ass, but he's a shrewd business owner and knows damn well that if the economy sucks, he loses money, and letting Billary back into the White House stands to be a huge step backward for the economy.

...........................................................

Just curious FM, did Mrs. Clinton EVER "DO" anything to YOU, to force you to resort to calling her "Billery"
Inquiring minds would like to know !!

NH/BB's

 

[Hopeful]

...........................................................

Just curious FM, did Mrs. Clinton EVER "DO" anything to YOU, to force you to resort to calling her "Billery"
Inquiring minds would like to know !!

NH/BB's

Now Now, NH/BB's:

Everyone is fair game. She has received a free ride from the media since she became NY Senator. Now she will undergo the "background" check where everything she has said and done for her whole life will be brought to light. This is part of the game of negative campaigning. It sucks, but it is a fact of the political process in this country. The same goes for Barack Obama. He threw his hat into the ring, and now his life becomes an open book.

As for the Billery comment. Do you think she would be on the political stage had it not been for Bill?

Did Bill not immediately appoint Hillary to "overhaul" the medical problems when he was first elected.
Like it or not, you elect someone, you can be damn sure the spouse has a lot to say about things during "pillow talk."

 

[nbmcg01]

Now Now, NH/BB's:

Everyone is fair game. She has received a free ride from the media since she became NY Senator. Now she will undergo the "background" check where everything she has said and done for her whole life will be brought to light. This is part of the game of negative campaigning. It sucks, but it is a fact of the political process in this country. The same goes for Barack Obama. He threw his hat into the ring, and now his life becomes an open book.

As for the Billery comment. Do you think she would be on the political stage had it not been for Bill?

Did Bill not immediately appoint Hillary to "overhaul" the medical problems when he was first elected.
Like it or not, you elect someone, you can be damn sure the spouse has a lot to say about things during "pillow talk."

Ok, I'll really get the ball rolling! OBAMA in '08!!!!

 

[eolesen]

Bears, go rent "Primary Colors" and get back to me after you've watched it three or four times.

The economy under Clinton was artificially boosted by the tech bubble. Lots of people were better off. Until the bubble burst (under Clinton's tenure I might add), that is.

Jim, we had a huge surplus in the Federal government because of the neglect that had gone on with regard to military spending and foreign intelligence.

We might be the most hated nation on earth, but consider this: since the fall of the Soviet Union, we're the only nation left how can step into regions of instability, and the only nation capable from a financially and military standpoint aside from China.

The Balkan wars proved that the EU doesn't have the backbone to do it, even though it was in their back yard. The Chinese won't do it because of ideology.

Some here might support isolationism and a few probably actively promote it, but personally, I'd rather piss off a few hotheads and not have the world hating us because we stood by and watched innocents die at the hands of thugs like Hitler, Milosovich, or Hussein.

 

[FWAAA]

Well now, let's think about that--consider that at the end of the Clinton administration, business was booming and we had a huge surplus in the Federal government.

I'll grant you that business boomed during the eight years that Clinton occupied the White House. No doubt about that. But "huge" surplus? For fiscal 2000, the surplus was $236 billion and for fiscal 2001, it was $128 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf (page 2)

Huge? Well, many moons ago, my leftist anti-war economic professors taught me that deficits were typically expansionary and that surpluses were generally contractionary. And what happened to GDP growth in late 2000 and early 2001? That's right: very slow growth. From May, 2001:

In the United States, real GDP is now expected to increase by only some 1¾ per cent in 2001, a very abrupt deceleration from an average growth rate of 5 per cent in 1999. In Japan, economic growth is expected to only slightly exceed 1 per cent in 2001, and even that is uncertain given disagreements over economic policy and delays in introducing another economic emergency programme.

Slow down in the United States

In the United States, the long economic expansion, which, if maintained in the first quarter of 2001 will have lasted for 10 years, was expected to slow down in 2001 against the background of tighter monetary policy and the real income effects of higher energy prices. In fact, a slowdown was seen as highly desirable, given that actual output had grown at a rate significantly above potential for quite some time with increasing risks of overheating and a hard landing. There were, moreover, mounting concerns about the huge imbalances which had accumulated over the past five years as the result of an unsustainable investment and consumption boom. These were reflected in a decline of personal savings to a very low level (in fact, they turned negative in 2000), increases in corporate and personal debt to very high levels, a huge current account deficit and, last but not least, a stock market bubble, notably, but not only, in the market for high-technology shares.

The orderly unwinding of these imbalances is the central assumption of the "soft landing" scenarios, which assume a gradual slowing down in economic expansion to a rate somewhat below potential. This in turn would spread the inevitable adjustment costs to be borne by the rest of the world over a reasonable period of time. In the event, however, there was an unanticipated abrupt cyclical downswing in the United States economy after the second quarter of 2000, a development which serves as a sharp reminder of the inherent difficulties of forecasting cyclical turning points. The investment boom in information technology equipment, a major force behind the long expansion, petered out in the face of growing excess capacity in the manufacturing sector. To this was added a sharp fall in the demand for consumer durables and for exports in the last quarter of 2000, which led to a build-up of excess inventories and a weakening of industrial activity. The reaction of the United States monetary authorities to the deteriorating economic conditions was very swift. The target for the federal funds rate was lowered in three steps by 1.5 percentage points between January and March of 2001. Against this background and the decline in actual and expected business profits, there has been a sharp decline in equity prices for a broad range of stocks in the first quarter of 2001, with adverse consequence for households’ net wealth and the debt-equity ratios of the corporate sector.

http://www.unece.org/press/pr2001/01gen05e.htm

On Shrub's watch, many are out of work and the Federal government has debts that your great-grandchildren will be paying off. In addition, we as a people and a nation are hated more than we have ever been in our entire history. And, this is good for business exactly how?

Icahn wants what every billionaire wants--for the rest of us to pay higher taxes so he can pay less.

That darned President. Why'd he go and throw all those people out of work?

I suppose President Bush teamed up with OBL to engineer the terrorist attacks that devastated the travel industry in September, 2001, right?

On the afternoon of September 11, as I sat on the top floor of a skyscraper at the bar of a very somber private supper club, grieving with friends, I couldn't help but think that yet another fallout of that horrible day would be worldwide economic recession or even economic depression. Over the next few days, airlines furloughed over 100,000 employees; theme parks and vacation destinations saw their attendance plummet; spending fell off a cliff.

You fault the President for all that's bad - that's fine with me. But I'm still amazed that you were ever recalled from furlough. Between September 11 and today, AA grounded/disposed of a couple hundred mainline airplanes. And somehow managed to avoid bankruptcy. The week of September 11, I assumed that AA would gradually move toward a mainline fleet count of 350-400 by 2003. I'm still amazed that didn't happen.

 

[jimntx]

I'll grant you that business boomed during the eight years that Clinton occupied the White House. No doubt about that. But "huge" surplus? For fiscal 2000, the surplus was $236 billion and for fiscal 2001, it was $128 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf (page 2)

Huge? Well, many moons ago, my leftist anti-war economic professors taught me that deficits were typically expansionary and that surpluses were generally contractionary. And what happened to GDP growth in late 2000 and early 2001? That's right: very slow growth. From May, 2001:
http://www.unece.org/press/pr2001/01gen05e.htm
That darned President. Why'd he go and throw all those people out of work?

I suppose President Bush teamed up with OBL to engineer the terrorist attacks that devastated the travel industry in September, 2001, right?

You fault the President for all that's bad - that's fine with me.

Oh, I see. It's ok to predict that the economy will tank if Hillary Clinton becomes President, but it's unfair/unrealistic to blame Shrub for what's happened on his watch. Just want to make sure I undertand the rules. I was just responding in kind to the pronouncement that "Billery" would destroy the economy.

Oh, and I got recalled for no other reason than enough of the senior people retired/quit/died that they HAD to recall.

 

[Barfbag]

Ok, I'll really get the ball rolling! OBAMA in '08!!!!

Good choice, but a better one, BLOOMBERG '08. He has the track record of raising New York City from the financial mess ( city now has a projected surplus ) left by Rudy aka, "America's Mayor". Bloomberg currently enjoys highest favorable poll ratings among NYCers in history, ( exception LaGuardia ).

He has name recognition, BLOOMBERG, He knows WALL St. BLOOMBERG, and he doesn't need a dime from Icahn, Unions or anyone else's money he has BILLIONS. He's no one's Lackey.

He doesn't even need a political party, he can buy one. The Independence Party.

You know where he stands on Israel. So the Military communities will be happy.

Experienced,( no stupid gaffes,( Obama )) no flip-flops on Military voting issues ( Hillary ), no Hawkish( McCain ).

Mike is New York tested, and a real New Yorker ( not recent move-in ).

Let the field of fools fold, they're cutting each other nicely on CNN nightly .The bruised GOP and DEM leaders will face the unbruised ( Washington outsider ) IRON MIKE in the fall.

If Mayor Mike runs, he wins, END OF STORY.

 

[Bagbelt]

Military spending declined by how much during the 90's? Considering the enormous impact of the demise of the Soviet Union, it was minimal. Chairman Bernacke spoke yesterday and last week and basically confirmed that tax cuts do not pay for themselves as well as the widening income gap in the US. Bushs' biggest problem, in my opinion, has been to remain ideologically bound to cutting revenues in a time of war and expanding entitlement and discretionary spending at a pace not seen since LBJ. Although a democrat, I agree with a lot of Bush policies. However, you want lunch -you pay for it- or cut spending.