The Clinton Recession Begins
Learning Center
Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
Holiday retail sales figures are in for thr first half of this month- and they are down 15% from
last year. New housing starts, which showed signs of weakness last summer, promise to be 8way* down
in the coming spring. Energy costs, including the hoarded petroluem from the Strategic Reserve- now
at its lowest stockpile level since it was established- are set to reach record levels in a month.
And, to top it all off, earnings reports from the "new economy" companies, the darlings of
Clinton's claims to be responsible for prosperity, have caused one of the worst single-day declines
in the history of the stock markets.
There can be no more denying it- especially by the Liberal Media, who no longer have a presidential
candidate to shill for, that the inevitable Clinton Recession has arrived. The truth, of course, is
that the signs of this crash have been evident since late August, but, of course, The Media
refrained from mantioning any of them, for fear of ruining Al Gort's chances in the election. Now,
of course, it is vitally important to The Left to have economic trouble as soon as possible, and as
serious as such troubles can be made out to be, now that a Republican is to inhabit the White
House.
But no one, outside of those already permanently fooled, will be fooled by Thre Media's already
transparent attempt to pin the Clinton Recession on George W. Bush. Unfortunate for the ultra-left,
this early onset of the recession: having touted Slick as the God Of Prosperity, any mention of His
policies being *responsible* for the "slowdown" (The Liberal Media has, so far, carefully avoidfed
the word 'recession' in the present context- but, without doubt, 'recession' will be the word on
every leftist Media Master in the days following Jan. 20).
But the unpleasant truth that no amount of Media torque can disguise- this is The Clinton
Recession. And so it will remain....
The Instructor
Partingshot
I wouldn't exactly call the estimated
2.5% growth a recession anyway.
SHRED
Right-Wingnut partisan hack wrote:
"Learning Center" <le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
news:01c06ae4$9563b040$c0140ccf@learn...
Sid9
markets thus causing the precipitous drops we've seen in the last fews days.
"Learning Center" <le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
news:01c06ae4$9563b040$c0140ccf@learn...
>
>
Pithy
>
>Foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush, are pulling out of our stock
>markets thus causing the precipitous drops we've seen in the last fews days.
Oh--so THAT explains:
Holiday retail sales figures are in for thr first half of this month--and
they are down 15% from last year.
New housing starts, which showed signs of weakness last summer, promise to
be *way* down in the coming spring.
Energy costs, including the hoarded petroluem from the Strategic
Reserve--now at its lowest stockpile level since it was established
--are set to reach record levels in a month.
Earnings reports from the "new economy" companies, the darlings of
Clinton's claims to be responsible for prosperity, have caused one of
the worst single-day declines in the history of the stock markets.
Hmmmm....All caused by foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush,
pulling out of our stock market.
You have a great future in writing fiction!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton is a liar's moon in full illuminated disk.
Finding the proverbial grain of truth in this White
House is a drilling operation that would daunt Exxon.
--Norman Liebmann
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dkb
made his presence known. It doesn't take a crystal ball
to know that as soon as the repugs gained the Whitehouse
everything would go to crap and they would begin blaming
the dems for the public's mistrust of the Repulsive Party.
Much the same as the eight ugly years under Pres. RayGun.
"Learning Center" <le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
news:01c06ae4$9563b040$c0140ccf@learn...
>
>
idleeric
--
* * * * * * * *
Evil is even, truth is an odd number, and death is a full stop
- Flann O'Brien, At Swim-Two-Birds
Pithy wrote in message ...
>In article <hDc06.1731$fJ1....@news2.atl>, si...@bellsouth.net says...
>>
>>Foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush, are pulling out of our
stock
>>markets thus causing the precipitous drops we've seen in the last fews
days.
>
>Oh--so THAT explains:
>
>Holiday retail sales figures are in for thr first half of this month--and
>they are down 15% from last year.
Domestic consumers, with no confidence in Bush, are voting again .... with
their wallets.
No recounts this time.
<snip usual rightwing loon screeching>
We3
now..after he gets in with all his liquored up dudes its going to get
worse..Americans are blaming it all on Jr..and his daddy//
"SHRED" <btw@#!$%@wtf.com> wrote in message
news:IDc06.75612$I5.19...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
Pithy
Hmmm....holiday shopping begins around mid-November, when Gore was
still denying his loss--and causing consumer uncertainty.
Most retail sales were lost during the Gore contest period, dummy.
>No recounts this time.
Yep--Gore not only lost, but he tanked Christmas sales.
No way to recount that--or deny it.
><snip usual rightwing loon screeching>
Snip inconvenient facts, you mean. Housing starts, energy costs--no way
you can blame those two on Bush.
So its snip-snip!
New housing starts, which showed signs of weakness last summer, promise to
be *way* down in the coming spring. ^^^^ ^^^^^^
Energy costs, including the hoarded petroluem from the Strategic
Reserve--now at its lowest stockpile level since it was established
--are set to reach record levels in a month.
Liberals think that they can just snip away the Clinton recession.
Well Clinton will soon be gone, and Bush will place the blame squarely
on him.
Just like Reagan did with Jimmy Carter.
Only better!
William Martin
which is down 62% from its highs. And today's NASDAQ is at its lowest
price in 16 months. Greenspan raised interest rates too fast in the last
few months. The Federal Reserve does not know how to measure the
information economy. Monetarism and central banking must go.
Keynesian economic theory was disproven when both inflation and
high unemployment occurred at the same time. Keynes said it could
never happen. Now monetarism's life is on the line! In the information
age economy, we can greatly decentralize banking. We should be
able to bank in pure privacy with any foreign bank, as well as domestic
bank. We should decentralize the currency systems to finally free
us from the shackles of Loonycrats.
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
wrote:
>In article <hDc06.1731$fJ1....@news2.atl>, si...@bellsouth.net says...
>>
>>Foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush, are pulling out of our stock
>>markets thus causing the precipitous drops we've seen in the last fews days.
>
>Oh--so THAT explains:
>
>Holiday retail sales figures are in for thr first half of this month--and
>they are down 15% from last year.
Nobody's got any faith in the future economy any more. Everyone
figures Bush baby is going to push his nutball Reaganomics II and
trash the economy.
>
>New housing starts, which showed signs of weakness last summer, promise to
>be *way* down in the coming spring.
>
Did you get that message from one of your small kitchen appliances, or
did your dog tell you?
>Energy costs, including the hoarded petroluem from the Strategic
>Reserve--now at its lowest stockpile level since it was established
>--are set to reach record levels in a month.
>
Actually, petroleum is down 40 cents a gallon in our parts, and down
about 17 cents nationwide. Looks like that worked.
>Earnings reports from the "new economy" companies, the darlings of
>Clinton's claims to be responsible for prosperity, have caused one of
>the worst single-day declines in the history of the stock markets.
They were the darlings of really stupid venture capitalists who
finally wised up and pulled the plug. I don't mind: I like seeing
cold young libertarians getting eaten by market forces. Munch munch.
>
>Hmmmm....All caused by foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush,
>pulling out of our stock market.
>
>You have a great future in writing fiction!
Fortunately, there are no speculative forces in the market. Right,
Pissy?
**********************************
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia,
resign, you crooks!
28 USC Sec. 455 01/05/99
Faith is personal.
Religion is social.
Theology is idiocy.
For commentary on all things liberal/leftist: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Links to hundreds of left wing areas: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
****************************************
Chris Nelson
Recession has begun.
*Eight years* after he took office?
BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHA! That's kind of like blaming Johnson
for the urban poverty of the Reagan/Bush years! To
right-wingers, there's always a ridiculously long time lag,
conveniently timed to match the administrations of
presidents they don't like!
The economy is fine - it's just slowing down as Greenspan
wanted it to when he raised interest rates. It was the
rising interest rates and fuel costs that have slowed the
economy down in the last 6 months - nothing to do with
Clinton. Big stock selloffs are being caused by certain
companies not quite getting the profits that they had
projected - this is merely jittery investors overreacting to
insignificant fluctuations in the financial soituations of
companies, as well as the dot.com "new" economy settling
back to earth from artificial, undeserved highs. And the
prospect of an untested Bush presidency has caused a "wait
and see" attitude in investors and consumers used to
Clinton's skillful stewardship.
Of course, the constant talk of recession by TV pundits may
cause a self-fulfilling prophecy - scaring investors and
decreasing consumer confidence. Fortunately for us, if we do
have a recession, Dubya will be inheriting it, and he'll
shoulder the blame, even though neither Clinton nor Dubya
would have had anything to do with it. His proposed tax cuts
would exacerbate any recession we have in the long run -
even Republicans think it's a bad idea.
--
Chris Nelson
Over 400 failed doomsday prophecies!
http://www.chrisnelson.net
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
<soli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And part of the Clinton Recession is the big socialist attack on Microsoft,
>which is down 62% from its highs. And today's NASDAQ is at its lowest
>price in 16 months. Greenspan raised interest rates too fast in the last
>few months. The Federal Reserve does not know how to measure the
>information economy. Monetarism and central banking must go.
Libertarians are such morons. He says Microsoft is down 62%, for
being under "socialist attack", and hopes nobody notices the rest of
the tech sector, which isn't convicted of anti-trust practices, is
down even FURTHER.
**********************************
Juan Creighton
Poppa Bush. As the election went through its contest phase, stocks dipped slightly and republicans
claimed that the market was unsettled by Gore wanting the votes to be counted. But the stock nosedive
began after Gore conceded and His Fraudulance (HF) cleared the last hurdle. Then foreign investors (and
domestic investors) watched the "deer in the headlight" look of the anti-intellectual DWI Bush as he
planned to assume a job that is about 4 orders of magnitude above his intellectual capacity.
The investors, including this one, behaved logically, by taking money out of non-energy sector stocks
(HF will be good to the oil companies so keep the money there).
What is a foreign investor to think? We are going from Clinton, a masterful expert of policy with
superb diplomatic skills and intense understanding of both the politics and economics of international
commerce, to a ne'er do well fraud who thought nothing of stealing an election, even while bankrupting
the US's credibility as arbiter of democratic reform overseas. This is not a slight blip, a minor
correction that can be adjusted by a couple years of on-the-job training, but a difference of orders of
magnitude in intellectual capacity and credibility.
There is good news. HF will not be able, no matter how much his unethical minions try, to foist
responsibility for the economic collapse on Clinton. His chicken (election fraud) will come home to
roost. He is a doomed, intellectually and morally bankrupt lame duck from the getgo. I recommend that
congressional republicans drop this loser at their first opportunity, lest they lose even more
spectacularly in 2002.
JC
E Right
"On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:37:19 GMT, "Learning Center"
"<le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
"
">Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
"
"Proof that Unlearned Center doesn't even know the definition of a
"recession.
"
">Holiday retail sales figures are in for thr first half of this month-
and they are down 15% from
">last year. New housing starts, which showed signs of weakness last
summer, promise to be 8way* down
">in the coming spring. Energy costs, including the hoarded petroluem from
the Strategic Reserve- now
">at its lowest stockpile level since it was established- are set to reach
record levels in a month.
"
"One month does not a recession make, Unlearned Center.
Gee Jimbo, do you think we should wait until Bush is inaugurated so you
can blame him?
If Greenscam was sooo concerned about the economy, why didn't he lower
interest rates instead of complaining about how fast the economy was
slowing because of HIS interest rates HE slowed up the market? Makes me
think Greenscam has ANOTHER agenda, like propping up the Euro or helping
out his comrades in Asia, or putting a DemocRAT in office in 2004.
--
US CONSTITUTION:
Section 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin...
"Define recession for us and prove that we are in one.
"
"Or run and hide.
"
" Volt
CaptainKK
Chris Nelson wrote:
> "Learning Center" <le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
> news:01c06ae4$9563b040$c0140ccf@learn...
> >
> >
> > Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton
> Recession has begun.
>
> *Eight years* after he took office?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHA! That's kind of like blaming Johnson
> for the urban poverty of the Reagan/Bush years!
That would be a totally different scenario. Johnson's Great Society
programs may have actually had an impact on urban poverty, making it
better or worse since there were specific programs targeting urban
poverty. Clinton has had nothing to do with the current state of the
economy beyond reappointing Greenspan and mostly keeping his hands off
which I think has allowed the current expansion to continue for so long.
> To
> right-wingers, there's always a ridiculously long time lag,
> conveniently timed to match the administrations of
> presidents they don't like!
>
> The economy is fine - it's just slowing down as Greenspan
> wanted it to when he raised interest rates. It was the
> rising interest rates and fuel costs that have slowed the
> economy down in the last 6 months - nothing to do with
> Clinton. Big stock selloffs are being caused by certain
> companies not quite getting the profits that they had
> projected - this is merely jittery investors overreacting to
> insignificant fluctuations in the financial soituations of
> companies, as well as the dot.com "new" economy settling
> back to earth from artificial, undeserved highs. And the
> prospect of an untested Bush presidency has caused a "wait
> and see" attitude in investors and consumers used to
> Clinton's skillful stewardship.
>
Two things, the economy didn't slow at all over the first five rate
hikes. Number six seems to have had the effect of slamming on the
brakes. I hope the large decrease in last quarter's growth isn't
repeated or we will miss our "soft landing" and go directly to
recession.
Also, the stock market has been in correction or a bear market since
last March. So we are nine months into the average of 16 months. Bear
markets sometimes coincide with recessions.
>
> Of course, the constant talk of recession by TV pundits may
> cause a self-fulfilling prophecy - scaring investors and
> decreasing consumer confidence. Fortunately for us, if we do
> have a recession, Dubya will be inheriting it, and he'll
> shoulder the blame, even though neither Clinton nor Dubya
> would have had anything to do with it. His proposed tax cuts
> would exacerbate any recession we have in the long run -
> even Republicans think it's a bad idea.
>
Tax cuts are a better idea now than they were during the campaign and IF
the economy DOES progress into recession, tax cuts would help stimulate
the 2/3 of the economy that is consumer spending.
Jeffrey Davis
>
>
> Two things, the economy didn't slow at all over the first five rate
> hikes. Number six seems to have had the effect of slamming on the
> brakes.
There are "crisis curves" that look like this. Nothing, nothing,
nothing, nothing...spike....
It mirrors all sorts of things that have multiple causes interacting.
Landslides, dog attacks, etc. As long as all the variables track below a
certain point, there's stability. Once all points "co-operate" you get
an enormous spike. [Applicable even if the dog in the dog attack example
is NOT named Spike.]
--
Jeffrey Davis <jeffk...@earthlink.net>
The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
Johann von Tebbes
Capiche?
Clinton denied yesterday there was a great danger of a recession. He
couldn't bear to claim blame for downturns even though it's obvious his 'tax
n spend' and 'wag the dog' administration is a profound failure.
The stock market is at lows (not the only harbinger) not seen since
Clinton/Gore claimed responsiblity on Jan 20 1992 and Jan 20 1996 for the
great work of Ronald Reagan. NOW...After eiight years of nothing but
crooked politics and sleazy personality flaws the Reagan generated boom is
finally being depleted.
I predicted this coming but I expected the left-wing media to cover it up
until Clinton/Gore were unemployed so the severe downturn could be blamed on
the next administration. But as justice would have it it's showing up at a
time when they can't blame it on the new Bush administration. They must
have known it was coming but they had a legacy to pretend.
So much for the 'socialist' philosophy being valid.
FYI, some of the left-wingers in the media are trying to call it the 'Bush'
economy even before he gets into the drivers seat. But then we've learned
to expect such from them now, haven't we?
jvt
"CaptainKK" <Capt...@Netscape.com> wrote in message
news:3A42310D...@Netscape.com...
Garrett
> Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
Point A) You obviously don't understand what constitutes a recession, because
what we have going is not one by any definition.
Point B) Greenspan did nothing of the sort. He didn't even agree to lower interest
rates in anticipation of a recession.
Point C) You are a troll.
Garrett
> Clinton has had nothing to do with the current state of the
> economy beyond reappointing Greenspan and mostly keeping his hands off
> which I think has allowed the current expansion to continue for so long.
And then Republicans are already trying to blame an economic downturn
on Clinton. You CAN'T have it both ways. Either Clinton had a hand in
the expansion or he didn't.
You have to chose.
R.U.R
economy on REAGAN...now, as Resident Bush is about to mis-lead the
country, the downturn is all CLINTON'S fault....when it really should
be all REAGAN'S Fault!
CaptainKK
Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> CaptainKK wrote:
> >
> >
> > Two things, the economy didn't slow at all over the first five rate
> > hikes. Number six seems to have had the effect of slamming on the
> > brakes.
>
> There are "crisis curves" that look like this. Nothing, nothing,
> nothing, nothing...spike....
>
> It mirrors all sorts of things that have multiple causes interacting.
> Landslides, dog attacks, etc. As long as all the variables track below a
> certain point, there's stability. Once all points "co-operate" you get
> an enormous spike. [Applicable even if the dog in the dog attack example
> is NOT named Spike.]
>
I would never have guessed from reading usenet that there is anything more
to this than either Bush or Clinton being president. Now you go and say
there may be multiple factors involved ;)
Garrett
> MSNBC liberals say it's the 'Bush' recession now! He's NOT IN OFFICE YET!
It's not a recession either.
What a coincidence.
idleeric
--
* * * * * * * *
Evil is even, truth is an odd number, and death is a full stop
- Flann O'Brien, At Swim-Two-Birds
Garrett wrote in message <3A424CBA...@deja.com>...
Ah ... a *patient* economy: it awaits Otterboy's Playstation2 Policies!
Ken
don't have a cite) that gave the statistical results of market
performance in presidential election years. The article said performance
was better when the new president was from the same party as the prior
president, and that the best transition for market performance was
Dem->Dem, the worst Dem->Rep, a statistic that seems to be reinforced by
current events. I guess there's no longer such as big a need to reform
estate taxes.
CaptainKK
Garrett wrote:
Clinton also can't have it both ways, If he caused the expansion, he caused
the recession. My choice is reflected in my statement above.
Eric da Red
Learning Center <le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
>Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
For the past seven years, right-wingers have been telling us that Bill
Clinton had no more to do with the good economy than George Clinton.
What changed?
--
Quote Of The Week: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of
our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to
a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson.
Jeffrey Davis
>
> In article <01c06ae4$9563b040$c0140ccf@learn>,
> Learning Center <le...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> >
> >Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
>
> For the past seven years, right-wingers have been telling us that Bill
> Clinton had no more to do with the good economy than George Clinton.
>
> What changed?
Bush Rules got applied.
[
Bush Rules itemized:
1) Good things happen to W.
2) Bad things happen to U.
CaptainKK
Garrett wrote:
> Learning Center wrote:
>
> > Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
>
> Point A) You obviously don't understand what constitutes a recession, because
> what we have going is not one by any definition.
Not yet one. By the end of the second quarter, who knows?
Johann von Tebbes
"CaptainKK" <Capt...@Netscape.com> wrote in message
Johann von Tebbes
Johann von Tebbes
"R.U.R" <rur...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3a424868...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> As I predeicted. For years, rethuglicans credit the fantastic Clinton
> economy on REAGAN...now, as Resident Bush is about to mis-lead the
> country, the downturn is all CLINTON'S fault....when it really should
Johann von Tebbes
Jeffrey Davis
>
> "CaptainKK" <Capt...@Netscape.com> wrote in message
> news:3A424A11...@Netscape.com...
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >
> > > CaptainKK wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Two things, the economy didn't slow at all over the first five rate
> > > > hikes. Number six seems to have had the effect of slamming on the
> > > > brakes.
> > >
> > > There are "crisis curves" that look like this. Nothing, nothing,
> > > nothing, nothing...spike....
> > >
> > > It mirrors all sorts of things that have multiple causes interacting.
> > > Landslides, dog attacks, etc. As long as all the variables track below a
> > > certain point, there's stability. Once all points "co-operate" you get
> > > an enormous spike. [Applicable even if the dog in the dog attack example
> > > is NOT named Spike.]
> > >
> >
> > I would never have guessed from reading usenet that there is anything more
> > to this than either Bush or Clinton being president. Now you go and say
> > there may be multiple factors involved ;)
> Clinton denied yesterday there was a great danger of a recession. He
> couldn't bear to claim blame for downturns even though it's obvious his 'tax
> n spend' and 'wag the dog' administration is a profound failure.
>
> The stock market is at lows (not the only harbinger) not seen since
> Clinton/Gore claimed responsiblity on Jan 20 1992 and Jan 20 1996 for the
> great work of Ronald Reagan.
The stock market is at lows not seen since March of 1999.
Johann von Tebbes
couldn't bear to claim blame for downturns even though it's obvious his 'tax
n spend' and 'wag the dog' administration is a profound failure.
The stock market is at lows (not the only harbinger) not seen since
Clinton/Gore claimed responsiblity on Jan 20 1992 and Jan 20 1996 for the
Zepp: Weasel While You Work!
I wonder if any of these conservative children know what the listings
for the Dow and the NASDAQ were for the day Clinton assumed office?
**********************************************************
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the
identity of the winner of this year's presidential
election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear.
It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Justice John Paul Stevens.
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental gestures which seek
to resemble ideas" -Lionel Trilling
For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Jeffrey Davis
>
>
> Hmmmm....All caused by foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush,
> pulling out of our stock market.
I thought people were investing in high yield instruments like SUVs.
Garrett
> "Garrett" <midt...@deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3A423AF3...@deja.com...
> > And then Republicans are already trying to blame an economic downturn
> > on Clinton. You CAN'T have it both ways. Either Clinton had a hand in
> > the expansion or he didn't.
> > You have to chose.
This is very Thomas Odell of you Johann. He cuts and pastes illogical
posts too. I'm going to answer it just one more time.
> Clinton denied yesterday there was a great danger of a recession.
So did Greenspan.
> He
> couldn't bear to claim blame for downturns even though it's obvious his 'tax
> n spend' and 'wag the dog' administration is a profound failure.
Fact: FEDERAL taxes are lower now than when Clinton took over.
> The stock market is at lows (not the only harbinger) not seen since
> Clinton/Gore claimed responsiblity on Jan 20 1992 and Jan 20 1996 for the
Nasdaq is at the same level as it was in fall 1998, not 1992.
S&P is at the same level it was in fall 1999, not 1992.
Dow is at the same level is was in fall 1999, not 1992.
> great work of Ronald Reagan.
Does Reagan also claim credit for the 1990-91 recession?
> I predicted this coming but I expected the left-wing media to cover it up
> until Clinton/Gore were unemployed so the severe downturn could be blamed on
> the next administration.
Unemployment is a full percentage point lower right now than any time
under Reagan or Bush Sr.
> So much for the 'socialist' philosophy being valid.
Yet you can't name a single socialist policy of Clinton's.
> FYI, some of the left-wingers in the media are trying to call it the 'Bush'
> economy even before he gets into the drivers seat.
And you are trying to call it a recession before you have a single
fact to support the claim.
Garrett
I'll buy that. And since we don't have a recession that speaks very well
of Clinton.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Garrett
> Garrett wrote:
> > Learning Center wrote:
> > > Greenspan made it as good as official today: the Clinton Recession has begun.
> >
> > Point A) You obviously don't understand what constitutes a recession, because
> > what we have going is not one by any definition.
>
> Not yet one. By the end of the second quarter, who knows?
That may be true, but you are predicting two quarters in a row of
something different than economists are predicting.
.
.
.
..
Garrett
> >>>>> Garrett writes:
> Garrett> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >> MSNBC liberals say it's the 'Bush' recession now! He's NOT IN OFFICE YET!
>
> Garrett> It's not a recession either.
>
> Don't count on it. We may well be in one already. There
> is a big lag in the data analysis.
I'd bet big time against that.
The economy is certainly slowing and a recession in the coming year
is more likely, but right now?!? Not by any respectable economist's
standards.
Brian Carey
> Nobody's got any faith in the future economy any more. Everyone
> figures Bush baby is going to push his nutball Reaganomics II and
> trash the economy.
Reagan screwed up the economy so bad he barely won re-election by a carrying a bare
minimum of 49 states.
They must have really hated that guy.
Ranetek
ready to blame Clinton who despite his problems instilled confidence in the
economy. It's your man's recession, like it or not because it's going to
happen on his watch. The American public will turn on him like hungry
Jackals and we will clean your clock midterm....Eat shit mf.......
begun.
>
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
He was never as popular as Clinton was.
>
**********************************
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia,
resign, you crooks!
28 USC Sec. 455 01/05/99
Faith is personal.
Religion is social.
Theology is idiocy.
For commentary on all things liberal/leftist: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Links to hundreds of left wing areas: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
****************************************
Brian Carey
> >Reagan screwed up the economy so bad he barely won re-election by a carrying a bare
> >minimum of 49 states.
> >
> >They must have really hated that guy.
>
> He was never as popular as Clinton was.
They why couldn't Clinton get re-elected in 49 states.
The fact is, Reagan was the most popular President in our lifetime. But I think that Bush
has a good chance to beat that.
Johann von Tebbes
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A43C6D7...@mindspring.com...
Boy! Would that make the libs squeal? He's already got them crying so much
the left-wing media has sent 'count Gore votes only' types into Florida!
>
Eric da Red
Brian Carey <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Zepp revises history:
>
>> >Reagan screwed up the economy so bad he barely won re-election by a carrying a bare
>> >minimum of 49 states.
>> >
>> >They must have really hated that guy.
>>
>> He was never as popular as Clinton was.
>They why couldn't Clinton get re-elected in 49 states.
Incessant propaganda by well-heeled opposition throughout the media, and
an effective self-financed third-party opposition.
>The fact is, Reagan was the most popular President in our lifetime.
If you are looking at polls, that would be Clinton.
If you are looking at election results, that would be Lyndon Johnson.
> But I think that Bush
>has a good chance to beat that.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how the public reacts to President
Without Plurality Shrub.
Zepp: Weasel While You Work!
<car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Zepp revises history:
>
>> >Reagan screwed up the economy so bad he barely won re-election by a carrying a bare
>> >minimum of 49 states.
>> >
>> >They must have really hated that guy.
>>
>> He was never as popular as Clinton was.
>
>They why couldn't Clinton get re-elected in 49 states.
Clinton couldn't hopelessly outspend Dole and Perot the way Reagan
outspent Dukakis?
>
>The fact is, Reagan was the most popular President in our lifetime. But I think that Bush
>has a good chance to beat that.
Interesting definition of "popular" you must have. Most people don't
associate it with "ending up in jail".
**********************************************************
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the
identity of the winner of this year's presidential
election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear.
It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Justice John Paul Stevens.
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental gestures which seek
to resemble ideas" -Lionel Trilling
For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Garrett
> Boy! Would that make the libs squeal? He's already got them crying so much
> the left-wing media has sent 'count Gore votes only' types into Florida!
yet another example of Johann making up facts as he goes along.
Mimi Weasel
Yes, like calling one's self "Johann von Tebbes when one's name is
really John Tibbs!
--
Mimi Weasel
So you don't forget:
Albert Gore/Joseph Lieberman -- 50,968,732
George Bush Jr./Dick Cheney -- 50,432,140
Johann von Tebbes
"Mimi Weasel" <MimiW...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:3A43F254...@Home.com...
> Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >
> > > Boy! Would that make the libs squeal? He's already got them crying
so much
> > > the left-wing media has sent 'count Gore votes only' types into
Florida!
> >
> > yet another example of Johann making up facts as he goes along.
>
> Yes, like calling one's self "Johann von Tebbes when one's name is
> really John Tibbs!
> --
> Mimi Weasel
> So you don't forget:
> Albert Gore/Joseph Lieberman -- 50
DrNybble
>Foreign investors, with no confidence in Bush, are pulling out of our stock
>markets thus causing the precipitous drops we've seen in the last fews days.
That makes just about as much sense as claiming that foreign investors
flocked to the market in late 1991 and all of 1992 when Clinton was
running for the Presidency and not even elected yet.
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
wrote:
I do remember in the last days of the '92 campaign, we were warned
that if we voted for Clinton, we could expect a Dow below 1,000 by
1994, 15% unemployment, and $500b deficits.
As late as 1996, Republicans were declaring that Clinton was
destroying the economy. Dole even campaigned aginst Clinton's tax
increase, which he called "the biggest tax increase in all of American
history", and implied that this was somehow a Bad Thing.
It's normal to predict economic catastrophe when the other guy gets
in.
It's a bit weird to keep predicting it four years later, when the
economy is booming.
If the economy is healthy in 2004, I won't insist that Bush is ruining
it.
But for now, he's fair game, especially since his still pushing for
that idiotic $1.3 trillion tax cut for his rich buddies.
>
>
>
**********************************
"I believe the death penalty saves lives"
-- President Alleged GW Bush, leaving everyone to wonder if he
understands that the death penalty kills people.
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia,
resign, you crooks!
28 USC Sec. 455 01/05/99
Faith is personal.
Religion is social.
Theology is idiocy.
For commentary on all things liberal/leftist: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Links to hundreds of left wing areas: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
****************************************
CaptainKK
Garrett wrote:
That is correct. Economists have been predicting a slowdown for quite awhile now, too.
Now that a slowdown has finally actually started, they are betting the Fed tapped the
brakes just enough, that the winter is just cold enough and energy prices are just high
enough, taxes and Govt. spending are at exactly the right levels,and that just enough
people are working and have just the right amount of confidence for growth to suddenly
stabilize in the 2-3% range after it's quick drop and give us the mythical "soft
landing"
I don't think things are that perfect.