Send Bush to Mars!

"Job growth is expected to be an important issue leading up to November's
presidential election and Bush could be vulnerable. The economy has lost
about 2.3 million jobs since he took office in 2001, giving him the worst
job-creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

And your point is???????

Any economist, liberal or otherwise will tell you that it takes about 6-8yrs
for ANY economic "program" to take effect in the actual economy. I'll break
that down for you.

Example: President "A" introduces the highest tax increase ever (in the
history of the world BTW) on it's people. To see the economic impact of that
tax increase, one must look 6-8 years down the road before you actualy see
any results of that tax increase in the economy.

So, If President "A" comes into office in 1992, and by 1994 has put a
stranglehold on the economy via the largest tax increase in the history of
the world..........then you would need to look at the years 2000-2002 for
the effects of that tax increase in the economy.

President "B" who comes into office in the year 2000, has absolutely ZERO to
do with the 2000-2002 economy. Hence, President A's tax increases would have
been the cause of the job losses in the years 2000-2002

President "B" might get passed a very large tax cut, accross the board in
his first 2 years in office. As a result, one must wait until the years
2008-2010 to see the results. This assumes of course that President C
doesn't come into office and roll back the tax cuts.

To think that ANY president, liberal or conservative can just come into
office, wave a magic economy wand and overnight have a great economy is
silly. If that COULD be done..............don't you think EVERY president
would do that? Hence we would never have a bad economy.

Can you guess who President A and B is?

Have a great day!

According to the article "Which Party in the White House Means Good Times
for Investors" by Hal R. Varian in the Nov. 20, 2003 New York Times, a study
was done by two professors at the University of California, Pedro
Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov in an article titled "Political Cycles and
the Stock Market," published in the October issue of The Journal of Finance.

Their findings, based on a broad index of stocks (not the S&P 500, the
article didn't say which one, though) and the three month t-bill rate
(considered a safe investment), between 1927 and 1998, showed that under
Democratic presidents, the stock market returned an average of 11% more than
t-bills under democratic presidents but only 2% more during Republican
presidents.

They also found that the stock market tends to be less volatile under
democratic presidents than republic presidents.

Anyway, it's an interesting read.

Pete

wrote in message
. com...
And your point is???????

Any economist, liberal or otherwise will tell you that it takes about
6-8yrs
for ANY economic "program" to take effect in the actual economy. I'll
break
that down for you.

Example: President "A" introduces the highest tax increase ever (in the
history of the world BTW) on it's people. To see the economic impact of
that
tax increase, one must look 6-8 years down the road before you actualy see
any results of that tax increase in the economy.

So, If President "A" comes into office in 1992, and by 1994 has put a
stranglehold on the economy via the largest tax increase in the history of
the world..........then you would need to look at the years 2000-2002 for
the effects of that tax increase in the economy.

President "B" who comes into office in the year 2000, has absolutely ZERO
to
do with the 2000-2002 economy. Hence, President A's tax increases would
have
been the cause of the job losses in the years 2000-2002

President "B" might get passed a very large tax cut, accross the board in
his first 2 years in office. As a result, one must wait until the years
2008-2010 to see the results. This assumes of course that President C
doesn't come into office and roll back the tax cuts.

To think that ANY president, liberal or conservative can just come into
office, wave a magic economy wand and overnight have a great economy is
silly. If that COULD be done..............don't you think EVERY president
would do that? Hence we would never have a bad economy.

Can you guess who President A and B is?

Have a great day!

Pete The stock market today is run and controlled by "big money" Its a
fact that some could buy and sell after the trading time ended. That is
like betting on a horse after the race is over. They gave the head of
the NY stock exchange 180 million dollars when he left office. Did he
work hard for this kind of money? He looked the other way to deserve
such a gift. We have reached a spacetime only the small time thieves go
to jail. Big time corporate crooks retire 60 miles south of me here in
Florida. Build in Boca Grande,and if you have a few bucks in Florida
every government law inforce, agency will see you get the right type of
protection. Jeb Bush will see to it personally with his state police.
Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Pete The stock market today is run and controlled by "big money" Its a
fact that some could buy and sell after the trading time ended.

Yeah, I do it all the time. It's called after hours trading. What is the big
deal?

That is
like betting on a horse after the race is over. They gave the head of
the NY stock exchange 180 million dollars when he left office. Did he
work hard for this kind of money?

Some would argue that yes he did. The NYSE is one of, if not THE most
respected exchange in the world. It moves trillions of dollars every year.
Fairly impressive.

snip

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

On 21-Jan-2004, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Pete The stock market today is run and controlled by "big money" Its a
fact that some could buy and sell after the trading time ended. That is
like betting on a horse after the race is over.

"Controlled?" Controlled is a word that implies a fixed outcome. I'm pretty
sure *IF* the "big money" people "controlled" the stock market you would NOT
have seen a huge collapse of the stock market in 2000-2002. (thanks to Bill
Clinton and the largest tax increase in the history of the world) No, they
would have "controlled" it so that market would always go UP, hence they
would always make more and more money. Don't you think?

So argument #1 is shot to hell.


They gave the head of the NY stock exchange 180 million dollars when he
left office. Did he
work hard for this kind of money?

Probably so! But who's to say how much money the head of the Stock market
"deserves" to make. OHHHHHHH THAT'S right, Forgive me, I forgot......only
LIBERALS should be able to dictate what others "deserve" to make income
wise. Or material wise as well come to think of it.
One person does not "deserve" more money than any one else. It kinda goes
against the whole socialistic utopia liberals really want.
Liberals always forget a little fact though...........THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!!!!!!!! And if you don't like it, I'm
pretty sure you are free to leave.

Argument #2, shot to hell

He looked the other way to deserve such a gift.

Actualy he was pretty much forced to resign. IE fired.

Argument #3, ........well you get the picture.

We have reached a spacetime only the small time thieves go
to jail. Big time corporate crooks retire 60 miles south of me here in
Florida.

There are quite a few BIG TIME corporate crooks going to jail or being
charged and will be sent to jail as we speak. Ever heard of Enron?

Argument #4, this is getting tiresome.

Build in Boca Grande,and if you have a few bucks in Florida
every government law inforce, agency will see you get the right type of
protection. Jeb Bush will see to it personally with his state police.
Bert

If Jeb had that kind of control over his state police..........don't you
think he would have executed every idiotic liberal in Florida by now? I know
I would have. I mean hell.......Republicans (including Jeb no doubt) put
arsenic in the water, starve the elderly, and don't feed school children
lunch.
It's not that far of a stretch to call them murderers and executioners as
well.

Argument #5.......shot to hell as well.


Come on back when you want to be put in place again with old fashioned
common sense.

wrote in message m...
There are quite a few BIG TIME corporate crooks going to jail or being
charged and will be sent to jail as we speak. Ever heard of Enron?

Excuse me, but exactly how much jail time has Ken Lay served?

I suppose you forgot the images of Mr. Bush tooling around the
country during his campaign, spouting off about "restoring integrity
to the White House" while standing in front of a jet provided to him
by Enron! Amazing. Surreal.

That aside, the Bush/Republican record since 2001 speaks for itself.
Record budget deficits. Record trade deficits. 2.3 million jobs lost
(worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover). Overtime pay
eliminated for 8 million Americans. Personal bankruptcies at an
all-time high. Etc etc etc.

Bush's presidency has been an unqualified disaster.

Rick

You point to economic #'s for Bush that quite frankly are not Bush's fault.
Those job losses etc..etc..you talk about are a direct result of the Highest
tax increase on any nation in the history of the world. Brought on by Slick
Willy Himself, and Then democratic controlled house and Senate.

If you don't believe that..............then you MUST believe that any
president (especialy a democrat) can come into office, wave a magic wand and
create a strong economy litteraly overnight.

And I would argue that *IF* that could be done,............DON'T YOU THINK
EVERY PRESIDENT WOULD DO THAT?

In the liberal world, I'm sure it all works that way. In the real world, it
doesn't work at all.

Any economist worth a flip will tell you that any presidents economic policy
takes 6-8 years to actualy "show up" in the real world economy/stock
market/etc..etc... call it whatever you want.

Now let's see.......when did slick willy take office? 92'? And when did he
force the largest tax increase in the history of the world on the American
people? Between 92-94? Remember? 6-8 years later would be
98-2002ish.........and when did the economy START to tank? Before Old GW was
even sworn in, that's when. Look it up for yourself big boy. The facts don't
lie. Liberals do!

You want to talk about job losses, bad economy etc..etc...fine........let's
talk about it, but get your facts straight before you come back, other wise
I will be forced to burst your bubble again.

The only thing Americans have to thank Slick Willy for, was in fact the
Largest tax increase in the history of the world, and trying to force
Universal Health Care down our throats. Why should we thank him for that?
Because It led to one of the most dramatic political power shifts this
country has ever seen.

1992, House, Senate, White house controlled by Liberals. Those same liberals
forced the largest tax increase in the history of the world upon us. They
also tried to Force Universal Health Care down our throats. (great idea,
give me a government doctor over a private doctor any day........NOT)

THESE RESULTS *DO* SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES: g

1994, Mid term elections.........The American People said to hell with that
BS, and promptly gave control of the House and Senate to Republicans.

2000----a mere 10 years later now the Republicans control it all. (thank
god) And it will stay that way a VERY LONG TIME, as long as the liberal left
continues to LIE to the American people about what is going on, and try to
SPIN stuff their way for their own political gain.

We've wised up to the libs, finally, and it's showing in the elections.
We're mopping the floor with the left, and that trend will continue in 04'
No, Bush's presidency has not been an "unqualified disaster"...........but
one could argue that what the Previous Administration did to the Democratic
party WAS an "unqualified disaster" g

Thanks Again Slick Willy.

wrote in message ...
You point to economic #'s for Bush that quite frankly are not Bush's fault.
Those job losses etc..etc..you talk about are a direct result of the Highest
tax increase on any nation in the history of the world. Brought on by Slick
Willy Himself, and Then democratic controlled house and Senate.

You really should stop listening to all that right-wing propaganda.
Fact is, federal tax burden under Clinton increased only for those
making $100,000 a year. Meanwhile, the average American
family saw their federal tax burden drop to the lowest level since
the 1960's.

And BTW, Bush and the Republican Congress have been spending
like drunken sailors ever since they gained control. But don't take
my word for it:

"It's a bit like trying to bail out the "Titanic" with a thimble because
we are in the midst of one of the greatest spending in our history.
George Bush's administration - George W. Bush's administration is
spending domestic money faster than Clinton, faster than Bush, Sr.,
Bush, the elder, faster than Reagan.

"You have to go back to the Ford administration to find a time when
domestic spending has risen so fast, that's not including defense
spending; that's not including the prescription drugs plan that's about
to be passed. It's not just Bush; it's the Congress. Fiscal discipline
has just disappeared in the past year or two..."
-- David Brooks, conservative commentator
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...2/sb_8-16.html

Rick

BV You are very nieve. Its been said over and over again."if the NY
stock exchange was run as it is today no one would buy stock " It now
comes under corporate fraud. Martha is not going to jail Bert