This should dispel the Bush AWOL myths

[FlaSoxxJim]

This admin has failed spectacularly in every respect.

What, screwing over the environment the way it hasn't been screwed over in 30 years isn't important enough to crack the list? For Shame.

 

This Administration senvironment record is a sick joke. That should be enough to get every American who takes stewardship of our natural resources seriously to vote the guy out of office. For Bush though, these failings are just the tip of a very, very large iceberg.

[IlliniBob72]

The low classes do not pay taxes. That is a fact. And that was what the dems were b****ing about. People who make so little money that they end up paying zero taxes were being left out and getting no money back. Well, no s***, they pay no taxes so they get no benefit from the tax cut.

 

I will write more later. Must get out the door to work. The job that is starting to pick up from the optimistic economy.

[cwsox]

optimisitc economy my ass

 

I am not going to let that s*** fly by

 

look up the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 3 years

 

look at the total number of jobs lost since Bush took office

 

this will be the first administration since Hoover where there are net jobs lost, fewer jobs at the end than when the administration began and most of our loss is in manufacturing

 

spin all you wish to illiniBob but there is no "optimistic economy" with no jobs and the numbers are out there

 

and so is the anger

 

check out the last two weeks of salon.com and search for "Greenville" and read some economic reality

[cwsox]

The low classes do not pay taxes. That is a fact. And that was what the dems were b****ing about. People who make so little money that they end up paying zero taxes were being left out and getting no money back. Well, no s***, they pay no taxes so they get no benefit from the tax cut.

 

I will write more later. Must get out the door to work. The job that is starting to pick up from the optimistic economy.

and your understanding of the tax code and the tax cuts is myopic

[southsider2k5]

and your understanding of the tax code and the tax cuts is myopic

I am not sure what I am missing, but within the income tax codes, what did he say wrong? The poorest brackets don't pay an income tax, and therefore don't get refunds...

[IlliniBob72]

optimisitc economy my ass

 

I am not going to let that s*** fly by

 

look up the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 3 years

 

look at the total number of jobs lost since Bush took office

 

this will be the first administration since Hoover where there are net jobs lost, fewer jobs at the end than when the administration began and most of our loss is in manufacturing

 

spin all you wish to illiniBob but there is no "optimistic economy" with no jobs and the numbers are out there

 

and so is the anger

 

check out the last two weeks of salon.com and search for "Greenville" and read some economic reality

I'm not an economist, so I listen to those that are.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/11/news/economy/greenspan/

 

Alan Greenspan is optimistic about the economy, so I hope you aren't offended when I put more stock in his opinion than I do yours. There's no spin about that, is there?

 

No s*** jobs were lost, Vince. There was a recession. A recession that many economists give a start date of before Bush took over. People don't blame Hoover for the Great Depression starting because the seeds were planted years before he took office. They blame him for letting it last so long. Well, the recession is ending, or at least so says people who know more about it than you or me. And people will get angry about anything, especially when politicians tell them they ought to be angry, ignoring facts. Hell, people got angry about an official calling someone "n****rdly". Dumb people are quick to anger.

 

And whether you feel my views on the tax cuts are myopic or not, I doubt you can state that what I said is untrue.

[Queen Prawn]

Alan Greenspan is optimistic about the economy, so I hope you aren't offended when I put more stock in his opinion than I do yours. There's no spin about that, is there?

I understand your view, but Greenspan's confuses me a bit.

 

I hear about more and more companies laying off/shutting their doors (another company near my house recently shut down) and people still not able to find steady work, but yet I hear the economy is getting better. I just haven't seen this 'better' yet, but I am certainly waiting for it.

[southsider2k5]

I understand your view, but Greenspan's confuses me a bit.

 

I hear about more and more companies laying off/shutting their doors (another company near my house recently shut down) and people still not able to find steady work, but yet I hear the economy is getting better.  I just haven't seen this 'better' yet, but I am certainly waiting for it.

There are two separate statements of economy there actually. In his last testimony he stated that about 1 million people get hired every week in the US. But there are also about 1 million people who leave a job (voluntary or not) every week, so turnover is to be expected. The unemployment rate has now dropped from 6.3% to 5.7% since the labor market bottomed out. He also stated that Bush's figure (which I think is high) of 2.6 million new jobs this year is "feasible".

 

There was also an interesting statement made about how historically the US has always outsourced work. It has been happening for generations. But the US economy has always replaced that work with higher paying work elsewhere, because US net income has been on a perpetual rise since the great depression.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Evidence on Bush adds up to AWOL

 

By Bill Press

 

TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES

 

 

The deluge of letters and e-mail prompted by a recent column demands another look: Did George Bush go AWOL?

 

Reacting to my recital of evidence that Lt. Bush didn't show up for a big chunk of his National Guard duty in Alabama and Texas, from May 1972 to May 1973, outraged readers pounced.

 

He received an honorable discharge, they argued. Plus, Alabama's Gen. William Turnipseed backed off his claim of never having seen Bush on base. And the White House finally released records that prove he served his time. Would I make a retraction? The answer is: No, no and no.

 

The honorable discharge proves nothing. Radio talk show host Don Imus told listeners about getting in trouble, including punching a sergeant, while in the Marines. His superiors told him they'd give him an honorable discharge on one condition - that he promise not to re-enlist. Sometimes, Imus points out, honorable discharges are given just to get rid of people.

 

In fact, according to Separation and Retirement Procedures for today's Air National Guard, those eligible for honorable discharge include people who fail to comply with requirements for a medical examination; who abuse drugs; who have unsatisfactory participation; or whom the service is unable to locate. Nobody knows under what rubric Lt. Bush was discharged.

 

Yes, Gen. Turnipseed, commander of the Alabama Air National Guard when Bush was assigned there - who originally said he never saw Bush report for duty - now adds that he was traveling and not around much at the time. But that doesn't mean anything. One man's absence doesn't prove another's presence.

 

Remember: To date, despite the offer of a reward, not one guardsman has come forward to say he served with George Bush in Alabama. And the White House can't name one, either. Perhaps because there aren't any.

 

On "Meet the Press," President Bush promised to release his entire military files. Last week, the White House reneged. Instead, they released only selected pay stubs and the record of a dental exam which, they say, prove Bush served his time in Alabama. Not on your life. Far from resolving the issue, they just add to the confusion.

 

Here's what the White House documents show. First, that Bush was not paid at all between April 1972 till October 1972. Which means even the White House admits he did not report for duty in Alabama, as required, for at least six months. Second, that Bush was paid for nine appearances, a total of 25 days, between October 1972 and April 1973, but they don't say where. Third, that Bush received a dental exam at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery on Jan. 6, 1973.

 

That's it. The sole piece of evidence that Bush ever showed up at a National Guard base in Alabama: He went to the dentist. Once. Whoop-de-do!

 

Documents released by the White House still shed no light on why Bush did not take his annual physical, as required, in August 1972. But they also raise a more serious question.

 

Pay stubs show Bush on duty the weekend of May 1-3, 1973, at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Yet that very same weekend, on May 2, his two superior officers at Ellington signed a report saying they could not complete his annual evaluation because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report."

 

Who's lying?

 

George Bush himself left no doubt why he joined the National Guard: to get out of Vietnam. In May 1984, he told the Houston Chronicle: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

 

So Bush, a son of privilege, used his congressman father's connections to get into the Guard. After learning to fly, he used his father's political connections to get assigned to a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama. Then he used his father's connections to get out of the Guard five months early, so he could attend Harvard Business School.

 

And now President Bush has the audacity to suggest that anyone who questions his military record is denigrating the National Guard. No, Mr. President, the person denigrating the National Guard is not the one asking the questions. It's the one who says he did his duty, but didn't.

 

 

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

Bill Press, a political analyst for MSNBC, is author of "Spin This!"

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, I also had a question for you:

 

How come you have not come out and openly condemned Ann Coulter for her slanderous comments about Max Cleland regarding his military service? Just wondering.

[BrandoFan]

Alan Greenspan is optimistic about the economy

 

Did you honestly expect him to be pessimistic or even ambivalent as to the direction of the economy?

 

Does he even know?

 

You seem to be confusing the old Chairman with the omniscient/omnipotent Being.

 

But hey, the interest rates are still extremely low, so that's good.

[southsider2k5]

Did you honestly expect him to be pessimistic or even ambivalent as to the direction of the economy? 

He has been before.

[Queen Prawn]

But hey, the interest rates are still extremely low, so that's good.

They have been on the rise for about a month now and according to my loan officer/cousin he said they look to be going up, slowly, but upwards none the less. (refinancing my mortgage, that's the only reason I know, lol)

[southsider2k5]

They have been on the rise for about a month now and according to my loan officer/cousin he said they look to be going up, slowly, but upwards none the less.  (refinancing my mortgage, that's the only reason I know, lol)

That is mortgage rates- those are all based on the demand for mortgages, which has been higher because of the perception that interest rates will probably go up late this year, early next year.

[BrandoFan]

He has been before.

He is always very prudent as to the effect his words can have when it comes to forecasting. As he should be.

 

After the fact, sure- when the market took a huge dive around 9/2000, primary (manufacturing, producers, consumer, banks borrowing, etc) indicators rapidly fell, then yeah he issued unfavorable opinion and soon thereafter the rate-cutting commenced.

 

There is no question that the recession has long bottomed out. There is no consecutive quarter GDP decline or other textbook boogyman signs. But do you honestly see a true recovery or even a bull market on the horizon?

 

Nevermind the overall economy, what particular INDUSTRIES are robust in your opinion?

 

And then there is terrorism. A couple more planes slamming into a skyscrapper....there goes the market.

[southsider2k5]

He is always very prudent as to the effect his words can have when it comes to forecasting.  As he should be.

 

After the fact, sure-  when the market took a huge dive around 9/2000, primary (manufacturing, producers, consumer, banks borrowing, etc) indicators rapidly fell, then yeah he issued unfavorable opinion and soon thereafter the rate-cutting commenced.

 

There is no question that the recession has long bottomed out.  There is no consecutive quarter GDP decline or other textbook boogyman signs. But do you honestly see a true recovery or even a bull market on the horizon? 

 

Nevermind the overall economy, what particular INDUSTRIES are robust in your opinion?

 

And then there is terrorism. A couple more planes slamming into a skyscapper....there goes the market.

Greenspan was predicting the fall of the economy in 1999. Equity prices were too far out of line and he kept stating and stating it.

 

Remember "irrational exuberance"? That was back in the mid 90's.

 

The Bull market isn't on the horizion, it has been here for months. Look at the markets. They are way up. The Nasdaq is back to borderline stupid levels again.

 

The Manufacuring index announced today was up again. They also revised up the January numbers. Industry is producing. The next step is hiring. And it always takes a lag for that to happen.

 

And as for terrorism, that is the X-factor. You can't predict that. And you can't factor that into your economic forcasts.

[southsider2k5]

Greenspan was predicting the fall of the economy in 1999. Equity prices were too far out of line and he kept stating and stating it. 

 

Remember "irrational exuberance"?  That was back in the mid 90's.

 

The Bull market isn't on the horizion, it has been here for months.  Look at the markets.  They are way up.  The Nasdaq is back to borderline stupid levels again.

 

The Manufacuring index announced today was up again.  They also revised up the January numbers.  Industry is producing.  The next step is hiring.  And it always takes a lag for that to happen.

 

And as for terrorism, that is the X-factor.  You can't predict that.  And you can't factor that into your economic forcasts.

BTW I went back and looked it up and the irrational exuberance speech was made on December 5, 1996. WAAAAY before the stupidity of the tulip bulb tech rally.

[IlliniBob72]

And then there is terrorism. A couple more planes slamming into a skyscrapper....there goes the market.

Yet Bush is never cut any slack on the economy even though that is exactly what happened. I've been told over and over again by libs that 9/11 has nothing to do with the poor economy. So, which is it?

[cwsox]

And whether you feel my views on the tax cuts are myopic or not, I doubt you can state that what I said is untrue.

I will and I do.

[IlliniBob72]

I will and I do.

Genius.

[BrandoFan]

Remember "irrational exuberance"? That was back in the mid 90's.

 

Nope, too far back for me. But now that you've mentioned "irrational exuberance", I do vaguely remember him making similar statements in 2000. Perhaps Mr. Fed Chairman is not quite the cheerleader I portray him as.

 

The Bull market isn't on the horizion, it has been here for months. Look at the markets. They are way up. The Nasdaq is back to borderline stupid levels again.

 

Nasdaq peaked at 5000 back in March 2000. Now it's at 2200 levels, no? You think thre is some major overvaluation going on again? I do agree that historically, Bull markets have began when the majority LEAST expected it.

 

Terrorism, domestic and otherwise, has to do with odds and the stabilitity of the potential recovery-- such is the post-9/11 reality. And if you haven't noticed, there is a war going on, with military sector spending providing a tremendeous if temporary boost. We shall see how it's going to play out over the next couple of years.

[BrandoFan]

. I've been told over and over again by libs that 9/11 has nothing to do with the poor economy. So, which is it?

The market and the economy were in s***TY state on 9/10

 

Nasdaq was at 1700 in early 9/01.

 

A week after 9/11 it dropped to 1275.

 

Now it's almost twice that.

 

But still not even HALF of what it was on 03/00.

 

And the "economy" is much more than the technology-loaded stock market index, mind you.

 

Your liberal friends are correct.

 

But they're wrong re: 9/11 -- it was a horribe blow not only to the airline, tourist and downtown real-estate industries, but also to the nation's very psyche and precipitated numerous wars and foreign relation disasters. It will haunt the economy and our society for many years, one way or another. IMO.

[southsider2k5]

Nope, too far back for me.  But now that you've mentioned "irrational exuberance",  I do vaguely remember him making similar statements in 2000. Perhaps is not quite the cheerleader I portray him as. 

 

 

 

Nasdaq peaked at 5000 back in March 2000. Now it's at 2200 levels, no? You think thre is some major overvaluation going on again? I do agree that historically, Bull markets have began when the majority LEAST expected it.

 

Terrorism, domestic and otherwise,  has to do with odds and the stabilitity of the potential recovery-- such is the post-9/11 reality.  And if you haven't noticed, there is a war going on, with military sector spending providing a tremendeous if temporary boost.  We shall see how it's going to play out over the next couple of years.

The legendary irrational exuberance speech, really came out of no where. Greenspan was giving a speech at the American Enterprize institute when he uttered those words and sent the Dow into a 500 point heart attack, which at that time was about 10% of the market value of the Dow Jones. He connected the equity levels to a situation like Japans where everything was a house of mirrors, inside of a house of cards.

 

This is the full speech if you are interested

 

Irrational Exuberence

 

Yes the NASDAQ peaked at 5000+, but for a recovery you have to look at where it bottomed out. It bottomed out at about 1140, in the middle of 2002. Currently we are at about 2100 again, after getting as high as about 2200 or so. In other words the techs have doubled after bottoming out. That is way past the definition of a bull market. And yes I personally feel that it is overvalued. These are still companies with rediculous PE ratioes.

 

Military spending directly related to post terrorism is directly responisible for about 40% to half of the deficit right now. But realize the military spending has been a huge benefit to this economy right now. Think about the jobs that the military complex creates. All of those million dollar missles, and billion dollar planes have to come from somewhere. I would tend to argue that with out the increase in military spending this economy would still be flat to in recession.

[BrandoFan]

These are still companies with rediculous PE ratioes.

 

Hehe....I remember the much-anticipated laptop chip wonder Transmeta IPO'ing (I think ML or JPM division underwrote it) at something like 40 bucks per on the very first day back when the market was already in a free fall and even solid companies like Nvidia were dropping like stones.

 

Anyway, Transmeta's PE was incalculable. It was literally all hype.

 

It was hilarous on some level and very, very sad on another.

 

 

So are you saying investors are back to being greedy little lemmings? I guess whatever Jesse Livermore and Bernard Baruch and Warren Buffet had to say about human nature and the essence of markets flew over their heads.

[southsider2k5]

Hehe....I remember the much-anticipated laptop chip wonder Transmeta IPO'ing (I think ML or JPM division underwrote it) at something like 40 bucks per on the very first day back when the market was already in a free fall and even solid companies like Nvidia were dropping like stones.

 

Anyway, Transmeta's PE was incalculable.  It was literally all hype.

 

It was hilarous on some level and very, very sad on another.

 

 

So are you saying investors are back to being greedy little lemmings? I guess whatever Jesse Livermore and Benard Baruch and Wareen Buffet had to say about human nature and the essence of  markets flew over their heads.

I learned a lot of respect for Mr Buffett during the internet-tulip craze. He was one of a very VERY VERY few people who outwardly spurned the irrationalness of it all, and stayed the course of his investing style. And of course guess who was at the top of rate of returns for 2002-2003? Berkshire Hathaway anyone?