White House Says "We Need A Little More Time"...

Surprised?
If he was clean as a button, then doc's could be handed over immediately. Clearly this is not the case.

0 Replies

Ah, just what we needed...more one sided whining. If The Bush Admin. just handed over everything you'd grab at that and then demand to know why they hadn't reviewed it all before submitting. Once more it's the you'll be dammed no matter how it gets done.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Ah, just what we needed...more one sided whining. If The Bush Admin. just handed over everything you'd grab at that and then demand to know why they hadn't reviewed it all before submitting. Once more it's the you'll be dammed no matter how it gets done.

look again sturgis.

since it came out that roberts did some pro bono work for his firm on a case supporting the rights of homosexuals, the right is starting to whine.

whiner in the lead being james dobson of focus on the family.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Ah, just what we needed...more one sided whining. If The Bush Admin. just handed over everything you'd grab at that and then demand to know why they hadn't reviewed it all before submitting. Once more it's the you'll be dammed no matter how it gets done.

edited because sturgis' claim to know how I would react to anything is so useless as to not be worth a real reply.

0 Replies

Incompetence should not be a partisan issue.

0 Replies

BBB
bm

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Incompetence should not be a partisan issue.

So that's how Clinton got elected and then re-elected.

0 Replies

This could be a real stumbling block for Roberts. If he was a past, pro bono advocate for certain sides, and , in cross says that, as an advocate he is bound to defend or make his case. Then hes gonna be nailed for holding nothing sacred( merely a hired gun). If he comes out and , in cross, rides the picket fence, hell be accused of playing politics. If he comes out and proclaims his core beliefs, on cross, he will be exposing himself to what theyre trying to hide.
Oughta be an interesting time after Labor DAy. These wont be televised I guess.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Incompetence should not be a partisan issue.

To which Sturgis answered

Sturgis wrote:

So that's how Clinton got elected and then re-elected.

Incompetence, Sturgis?

Try this-unemployment under Bush 41, clinton and Bush 43:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/BUnemploymentRateGreenspansTenure.gif

Note how unemployment improves when Clinton is in office, and gets worse when Bush, father or son, gets in office.

0 Replies

More evidence of Clinton competence over either Bush-the deficit.

See how Clinton turns Bush 41's deficit mess into a surplus. See how Junior Bush immediately reversed all that good work.

Startling, isn't it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/GreenspanDeficitB.jpg

From a surplus of over 100 billion dollars to a deficit of over 400 billion dollars-how does Bush 43 do it?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Incompetence should not be a partisan issue.

To which Sturgis answered

Sturgis wrote:
So that's how Clinton got elected and then re-elected.

Incompetence, Sturgis?

Try this-unemployment under Bush 41, clinton and Bush 43:

Note how unemployment improves when Clinton is in office, and gets worse when Bush, father or son, gets in office.

What's the current unemployment rate? I think it's at 5%. No news on that one though is there. When it was high before the election it was all the rage now nothing since things are improving.

0 Replies

I just gave you the news.

The graph was made some months ago, true, (I don't have time to make a new graph every month), but it does show a decline from the high Bush drove it to.

5.0% unemployment is not bad-if you inherit 6.0% from your predecessor. In fact, 5.0% isn't bad even if you inherit 5.0% from your predecessor.

Bush inherited 4.2%. So 5.0% really isn't doing a good job, is it?

Even if Bush gets the unemployment level down to 4.2%, he has still done a bad job. In the real world, when the boss hires you , he expects you to improve the rate of performance of the previous employee, (if he wasn't up to snuff), or at least maintain the performance level of the previous employee, (if he was good).

Bush drove the unemployment rate up, up, up and then brought it down gradually. That is hardly good performance. If the unemployment rate was good when you took over-and admittedly 4.2% can hardly be improved upon-then Bush should have kept it at 4.2%, 4.5%, or something like that-not drove it way the heck up over 6%.

I don't see where Bush gets any credit for that. In the real world, an employee certainly would not get credit from his employer for that performance.

0 Replies

nothing is permanent though baldi.

there's talk about real estate slowing up along with new building. and the price of oil is effecting everything.

i'm not gloating, not happy about it, just pointing it out.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

I just gave you the news.

The graph was made some months ago, true, (I don't have time to make a new graph every month), but it does show a decline from the high bush drove it to.

5.0% unemployment is not bad-if you inherit 6.0% from your predecessor. In fact, 5.0% isn't bad even if you inherit 5.0% from him.

Bush inherited 4.2%. So 5.0% really isn't doing a really good job, is it?

Even if Bush gets the unemployment level down to 4.2%, he has still done a bad job. In the real world, when the boss hires you , he expects you to improve the rate of performance of the previous employee is he wasn't up t snuff, or at least maintain the performance level of the previous employee if he was good.

Bush drove the unemployment rate up, up, up and then brought it down gradually. That is hardly good performance. If the unemployment rate was good when you took over-and admittedly 4.2% can hardly be improved upon-then Bush should have kept it at 4.2%, 4.5%, or something like that-not drove it way the heck up over 6%.

I don't see where Bush gets any credit for that. In the real world, an employee certainly would not get credit from his employer for that performance.

Please explain how Bush drove up unemployment? This should be interesting.

The only reason Clinton had such good #'s was because of the dot com boom. It took him 5 years to bring the unemployment rate from 7.3 to 5.0. It wasn't until the dot com boom that his #'s were looking as good as they did.

When Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4.2 in Jan of 01. A year later the unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 by Dec of 01. Do you know what events took place during the year? I'll leave you to guess.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Please explain how Bush drove up unemployment? This should be interesting.

You know, I heard this line from conservatives before when Clinton's superior record is compared to Bush 41's and Bush 43's. They want a step-by-step explanation as to how Clinton did it. Or else they fully expect the results to be nufflied, somehow.

I don't have the Council of Economic Advisors reporting to me. Bush does. I don't have the Office of Management and the Budget reporting to me. Bush does. I don't have statisticians, economic theorists,and all the rest reporting to me. Bush does.

Instead of asking me why Clinton did so well, why don't you Email Bush-father or son-and ask either why he bollixes things up as soon as he gets into office. Then print the reply here. It should make for light reading.

Allow me to give an analogy. You have two surgeons who perform liver transplants. With Surgeon Jones, over the course of 5 years, 80 percent of his patients live for at least 6 years after the operation. For Surgeon Smith, over the same period of time, only 40% of his patients are alive 6 years after the operation. Ages of the patients averaged about the same. Now, you tell me-how much surgical procedure do you really have to know to come to the conclusion that Surgeon Jones is a better liver transplant surgeon than Surgeon Smith? Who would you want operating on you or your family?

Get the picture? You don't need to know step-by-step procedure to loook at results and see what the story is.

0 Replies

farmerperson

One of the cspan channels is going to cover it.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Please explain how Bush drove up unemployment? This should be interesting.

You know, I heard this line from conservatives before when Clinton's superior record is compared to Bush 41's and Bush 43's. They want a step-by-step explanation as to how Clinton did it. Or else they fully expect the results to be nufflied, somehow.

I don't have the Council of Economic Advisors reporting to me. Bush does. I don't have the Office of Management and the Budget reporting to me. Bush does. I don't have statisticians, economic theorists,and all the rest reporting to me. Bush does.

Instead of asking me why Clinton did so well, why don't you Email Bush-father or son-and ask either why he bollixes things up as soon as he gets into office. Then print the reply here. It should make for light reading.

Allow me to give an analogy. You have two surgeons who perform liver transplants. With Surgeon Jones, over the course of 5 years, 80 percent of his patients live for at least 6 years after the operation. For Surgeon Smith, over the same period of time, only 40% of his patients are alive 6 years after the operation. Ages of the patients averaged about the same. Now, you tell me-how much surgical procedure do you really have to know to come to the conclusion that Surgeon Jones is a better liver transplant surgeon than Surgeon Smith? Who would you want operating on you or your family?

Get the picture? You don't need to know step-by-step procedure to loook at results and see what the story is.

You made the claim that Bush drove it up. I want to know how you claim this. If you don't know then it mustn't be true. I showed you some #'s did you ignore them? Clintons #'s only got good after the dot com boom. I can account for that. Times were good that can't be denied. Clinton didn't really have much to do with it, just happen to be in the right job at the right time.

Before you start screaming I would like to know what Clinton did to push the dot com boom? While you're at it also explain how the same years also saw the worst cooking of the books in US history. Same time frame but I figure you'll blame that on Bush as well.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

You made the claim that Bush drove it up. I want to know how you claim this.

Simple. The president sets economic policy. He does not set the interest rate, but he can get his economic policies through Congress, usually. In addition, he can get passed various economic packages to stimulate or slow down the economy.

Baldimo wrote:

If you don't know then it mustn't be true.

Baldimo, will you please pay attention. I just gave you a beautiful analogy and you ignored it. Is it necessary to state the step by step procedures of anything to see if one practitioner is superior to another? No. Just as we see that Surgeon Jones is superior Surgeon Smith, because Surgeon Smith's liver transplant patients die at twice the rate of Surgeon Jones'. Do we have to know the ins and outs of liver transplant surgery to able to judge these two? No. We just look at the record, and make sure we get Surgeon Jones if we need a liver transplant.

Besides which, you righties spent eight long years telling us how great Reagan was compared to Carter. You showed employment charts, you showed all sorts of things. I didn't hear any gobbledygook about how step by step explanations were necessary back then. No sir. All you people said was "The record speaks for itself".

Well, guess what? The shoe is on the other foot now. Now Clinton is the one who can say, "The record speaks for itself". And all of a sudden, the righties want involved explanations. They want details. They want step by step analyses. But all that wasn't necessary under Reagan. Oh no.

Baldimo wrote:

I showed you some #'s did you ignore them?

You showed some numbers and I'm about to blow them out of the water in the next post.

Baldimo wrote:

Clintons #'s only got good after the dot com boom.

Correction. Clinton's numbers got good as soon as he took office, as I have just illustrated in two charts, and more charts if you need them. Since you have difficulty actually reading or interpreting the two charts I posted, though, it looks like it's going to be slow going with you before I can post anything else.

Baldimo wrote:

I can account for that. Times were good that can't be denied. Clinton didn't really have much to do with it, just happen to be in the right job at the right time.

Excuse me, you call that an explanation? "Times were good"? Times were lousy until Clinton showed up, and times went lousy again after he left. And the deficit chart proves that Clinton had everything in the world to do with it. If that deficit was allowed to mount-and there was NOTHING Bush was going to do to stop it-the interest on the national debt would have financially crippled this country so it couldn't do a damn thing.

News flash-the national debt is the total of budget deficits plus interest. Let the deficits mount, and the more interest you must pay in your next budget before you even begin to pay for defense, social services, etc.

Did you realize that? Because by your postings, it seems likely you did not.

Baldimo wrote:

While you're at it also explain how the same years also saw the worst cooking of the books in US history.

The companies that were "cooking the books" were a small percentage of the GDP. Despite some real personal tragedies, (Enron employees losing their pensions), the national figures were not much affected.

As for the "dot com boom"-what can I say? The bust was supposed to have happened back in 1999, but Clinton delivered more full time employees in both information processing and publishing, (including software) to Bush than ever before . The fact that Bush decided to follow his father, (doesn't he always?) into deficit spending is hardly Clinton's fault. Clinton's problem was saying no to chicks, not dealing with father conflicts.

Re the "dot com boom": Here's the number of full time employees in information technologies-the number goes up under Clinton, down under Bush.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/FulltimeemployeesComputerSystemsDesign.jpg

Also re the "dot com boom": Here is the number of full time employees in publishing, including software-there was no separate category for software publishing. Once again, even though the "bust" was supposed to have happened in 1999, Clinton delivered more employees in the area than ever before to Bush, who proceeded to lessen the numbers. Again.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/FulltimeEmployeespublishing.jpg

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

The only reason Clinton had such good #'s was because of the dot com boom. It took him 5 years to bring the unemployment rate from 7.3 to 5.0. It wasn't until the dot com boom that his #'s were looking as good as they did.

See, here is the problem. You want all these involved explanations, yet you make simple arithmetic errors in your posts. After inheriting a 7.3% unemployment rate, Clinton got the rate down to 4.9% after his 52nd month in office-four years and four months. That is far short of five years. That is much closer to four years.

Moreover, Clinton got the rate down to 5.1 % after only 43 months in office-less than four years. He bounced around that 5.0% level for quite some time before breaking it.

Now honestly, what is the point of going into involved economic analyses if simple arithmetical errors are being made? Sure, anyone can make a mistake in math, I can as well, but my point is that I do not think that you, myself or the rest of the general population is ready to digest a an involved economic analysis about why something happened. However, we all are capable of looking at the record-and the record repeatedly shows Clinton performing either Bush by a wide margin.

And by the way, even if it was five years, which it wasn't, what would be so bad about that? Bush Sr inherited a 5.5% unemployment rate from Reagan and delivered a 7.3% unemployment rate to Clinton. That's 33% higher. Clinton delivered an unemployment rate much, much lower than what he inerited-and your are trying to complain that he didn't do it fast enough?

Fact is, if you look at the chart, you can see the decline in umemployment is pretty steady throughout Clinton's term-there was no point where it accelerated visibly.

Before you can sensibly criticize Clinton's performance, you first must realize that unemployment is best kept down. Trying to crack on Clinton's performance, which lowered unemployment, is quite absurd when the people you praise raise unemployment when they are in office!!!

0 Replies

White House Says "We Need A Little More Time"...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know