Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

hahahahaha

What country are you thinking of?

We don't learn from mistakes from other countries 'round here....

For those of us who oppose privatization of SS, it is nice to know that this legistlation is dead as a doornail, and there really isn't any chance that it will be resurrected in the next few years....

Cycloptichorn

Okie, I am surprised. Conservatives don't favor oversight, including regulation.

I think they prefer mindlessly just forging ahead, such as with the recent energy legislation, the Medicare drug entitlement law, tax cuts for the super rich, massive pork laws, etc.

Whatever did Okie say to provoke this comment, however wrong it is?

And the good news just keeps on coming if you keep reading past the headlines--the MSM really REALLY doesn't seem to want to point that out:

Spending provides cheer on US economy
By Daniel Pimlott in New York

Published: August 31 2006 17:27 | Last updated: August 31 2006 17:27

US consumers delivered good news to the economy on Thursday, as data for July showed spending on goods and services was growing more quickly than at any time this year.

Meanwhile, tame inflation over the month made an interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve in September increasingly unlikely.

Personal spending rose by 0.8 per cent last month, twice the June rate, a report published by the Commerce Deparment said, boosted by incentives for car sales. Personal income grew by 0.5 per cent, with disposable income up 0.7 per cent. Inflation rose by a smaller-than-expected 0.1 per cent, or an annualised 2.4 per cent.

At its current rate, inflation exceeds the Fed's imposed limits of 1-2 per cent. However, the July rise, the smallest this year, combined with signs of weakness in residential housing, supports the view that the Fed is unlikely to raise rates in the immediate future.

"The chances of a September rate hike continue to recede - although that doesn't mean that we can yet declare that the Fed is done hiking for good," said Nigel Gault, US economist at Global Insight.

The data drove some analysts to bump up their economic growth and consumption expectations for the rest of the year, although most were still forecasting a slowing in the economy in the longer term. Recent data have shown consumers' confidence in the strength of the economy waning.

"Today's solid income and consumption figures through July ... continue to buck forecasts of a broad slowdown in the US economy, though a modest slowdown in growth remains a best guess," said Mike Englund, an analyst at Action Economics.

Retail sales for August showed some evidence of weakness, with discretionary spending down slightly, but were robust overall.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
SOURCE

U.S. Muslims Warn of Threat From Within
Aug 31 1:56 PM US/Eastern

By RACHEL ZOLL
AP Religion Writer

After the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, distraught U.S. Muslim leaders feared the next casualty would be their religion.

Islam teaches peace, they told anyone who would listen in news conferences, at interfaith services and, most famously, standing in a mosque with President Bush.

But five years later, the target audience for their pleas has shifted. Now the faith's American leaders are starting to warn fellow Muslims about a threat from within.

The 2005 subway attacks in London that investigators say were committed by British-born and -raised Muslims, and the relentless Muslim-engineered sectarian assaults on Iraqi civilians, are among the events that have convinced some U.S. Muslims to change focus.

"This sentiment of denial, that sort of came as a fever to the Muslim community after 9-11, is fading away," said Muqtedar Khan, a political scientist at the University of Delaware and author of "American Muslims." "They realize that there are Muslims who use terrorism, and the community is beginning to stand up to this."

Muslim leaders point to two stark examples of the new mind-set:

_A Canadian-born Muslim man worked with police for months investigating a group of Islamic men and youths accused in June of plotting terrorist attacks in Ontario. Mubin Shaikh said he feared any violence would ultimately hurt Islam and Canadian Muslims.

_In England, it's been widely reported that a tip from a British Muslim helped lead investigators to uncover what they said was a plan by homegrown extremists to use liquid explosives to destroy U.S.-bound planes.

Cooperation isn't emotionally easy, as Western governments enact security policies that critics say have criminalized Islam itself.

Safiyyah Ally, a graduate student in political science at the University of Toronto, wrote recently on altmuslim.com that Shaikh, the Canadian informer, went too far.

She said the North American Muslim community "is fragile enough as is" without members "spying" on each other. Leaders should counsel Muslims against violence and report suspicious activity to police _ but nothing more, she argued.

"We cannot have communities wherein individuals are paranoid of each other and turned against one another," Ally wrote.

Yet some leaders say keeping watch for extremists protects all Muslims and their civil rights.

Salam al-Marayati, executive director of Muslim Public Affairs Council, an advocacy group based in Los Angeles, says working closely with authorities underscores that Muslims are not outsiders to be feared. It also gives Muslims a way to directly air their concerns about how they're treated by the government.

"We're not on opposite teams," al-Marayati said. "We're all trying to protect our country from another terrorist attack."

In 2004, his group started the "National Anti-Terrorism Campaign," urging Muslims to monitor their own communities, speak out more boldly against violence and work with law enforcement. Hundreds of U.S. mosques have signed on, al-Marayati said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group, ran a TV ad campaign and a petition-drive called "Not in the Name of Islam," which repudiates terrorism. Hundreds of thousands of people have endorsed it, according to Ibrahim Hooper, the group's spokesman.

After the London subway bombings, the Fiqh Council of North America, which advises Muslims on Islamic law, issued a fatwa _ or edict _ declaring that nothing in Islam justifies terrorism. The council said Muslims were obligated to help law enforcement protect civilians from attacks.

"I think everyone now agrees that silence isn't an option," Hooper said. "You have to speak out in defense of civil liberties, but you also have to speak out against any kind of extremism or violence that's carried out in the name of Islam."

But many Muslims say they're being asked to look out for something that even the U.S. government struggles to define: What constitutes an imminent threat?

Khan said he has heard of cases in American mosques where imams have expressed extreme views in sermons and worshippers have confronted the prayer leaders about it.

"But beyond that what else can we do?" Khan said. "Do we need to hire a private detective to put on this guy? If five guys came to me and said, `Muqtedar, let's get together. Let's blow up this and that,' then I would call the police. But the community does not understand surveillance."

Imam Muhammad Musri, head of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, said he has tried to address this problem in the eight mosques he oversees in the Orlando area.

He regularly invites law enforcement officials to speak with local Muslims and encourages mosque members to come to him with any suspicions, even if they overhear something said in jest. Musri says he also speaks regularly with local FBI and police to establish a relationship in case a real threat emerges.

"Here in Central Florida, talking to most people, they are literally upset by the actions of Muslims _ or so-called Muslims _ overseas in Europe and the Middle East, because they say, `We wish they would come and see how we're doing here,'" Musri said. "We know who the real enemy is _ someone who might come from the outside and try to infiltrate us. Everybody is on the lookout."

____

On the Net:

Muslim Public Affairs Council: http://www.mpac.org/

The interesting thing about these so-called 'generic polls' is that they usually skew Democratic. In that case, it could be that the GOP is actually ahead in this poll Shhhhhh. Let's not tell them.

Okay mum's the word.

I am not going to be surprised if the GOP loses the House and possibly even the Senate. Via their cowardice and inertia on various issues, and their abandonment of Conservative principles on some issues, they really do not deserve to be reelected.

But the GOP has done some good stuff too, and for all the GOP's shortcomings, the Democrats have been far far worse.

So if the GOP doesn't lose control in November it will be because the American people really do not want to go through a bogus impeachment process and they don't want to lose in Iraq and they don't want to put us at higher risk for terrorism and they don't want higher taxes and they don't want to give militant groups like the ACLU even more leverage and don't want more liberal judges who will give it to them.

So there's always hope if people are paying attention that they'll understand what it might very well mean if they vote the Democrats back into power. I refer to the article addressing this issue that I posted yesterday.

I'd only add two words to that:

Nancy Pelosi

Can you cite the comment I made that you are referring to?

Today's good news report since you probably won't find it on a front page or featured in many if any MSM sources:


Jobless Rate Dips in August
Sep 01 8:40 AM US/Eastern
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON

Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power.

The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out.

. . . MORE HERE

Fox gave us the following ridiculous statement:

"But the GOP has done some good stuff too, and for all the GOP's shortcomings, the Democrats have been far far worse."

Well, the GOP brought us some good techniques on torture. They did their best to further enrich the already super-rich. They built up a massive debt that just might send the country into the poor house. Etc.

How have the Dems been far worse? They control nothing and can't even get a bill voted on. Under Clinton, the country prospered and we had surpluses. Further, we were not lied into any wars, much less major ones.

Advocate. Eat my grits. Clinton didn't do squat the first two years when he had a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate. It took Newt Gingrich and the freshmen GOP class of 1994 to get things moving and make him look good. I do give him credit for signing off on some very good legislation during that time. I try to give credit when credit is due to anybody who deserves it.

Unlike some of you who say the absolutely stupid things you say about George Bush and the GOP. The Democrats could be patriots and put the interest of the country first and get behind some good legislation they could have supported. Instead they have thrown up everything they could find to use for roadblocks and some of the stuff they say is absolutely terrifying to those of us who do value national security, civil liberties, and support our armed forces who are in harms way.

What good legislation? Hmm?

What piece of legislation that has come out of the Republican-controlled Congress over the last 6 years would you call 'good?'

Cycloptichorn

Cyclopitchorn is IGNORANT about Legislation:

Let us review the legislation of the past--


What did Bill Clinton do? Not much, as foxfyre stated.

He backed the following:

l. NAFTA 2. China as a Most Favored Nation 3. Welfare Reform

These three are all Republican initiatives.

What has President Bush signed?

l. The Patriot Act ( Cyclopitchorn does not know that he may indeed be still alive because of this bill

2. Tax-Cuts-Now Cyclopitchorn has swallowed the garbage that the tax cuts have favored the rich.

He is sadly mistaken.

Tax C U T S mean exactly that. If you pay taxes, your taxes were cut.
If you pay no Federal Income Taxes, you cannot get a tax cut.

(Note-

quote-



Liberal myth
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean that middle class Americans pay more than their share of taxes, while the richest Americans pay less.

The facts
President Bush's tax cuts benefited all Americans who pay income taxes. Critiquing the distribution of tax payments is a fundamentally misguided way to discuss tax policy, not least because these tax cuts did little to alter the tax burden on each income group.

Almost no shift in burden
While the share of taxes paid by the very wealthiest Americans declined by a few percentage points after the tax cuts, the top quarter of all taxpayers is paying almost exactly the same share as in 2000 and two percentage points more than in 1997. Meanwhile, the share paid by the bottom half of all income earners is declining.

In 2003, the latest year for which complete data is available, the top one percent of taxpayers paid just over 34 percent of all income taxes, compared to over 37 percent in 2000 and 33 percent in 1997
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid almost 66 percent of income taxes in 2003, compared to 67 percent in 2000 and 63 percent in 1997
Middle 50 percent of taxpayers paid a roughly even share of the taxes in 2003, 2000 and 1997: 12.6 percent, 12 percent and 14 percent, respectively
The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers bore less of the burden in 2003 compared to 2000, paying almost 3.5 percent of taxes compared to over 4 percent three years earlier. The bottom half of taxpayers has paid a decreasing share of taxes since 1980.
A misguided critique
Overall, the intense focus on "income distribution" is misguided, because:

It assumes that the economy is a fixed pie and that one group's wealth causes another group's poverty. In reality, the economy is expanding, and all income classes are getting wealthier. Some incomes will grow faster than others, yet the vast majority of Americans enjoy rising incomes throughout their lifetimes. Even America's "poor" would be considered middle-class in Europe and upper-class almost anywhere else. By contrast, socialist countries (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union) have achieved relative income equality--everyone is equally poor.
People often move across income ranges. Much of the bottom half consists of younger, unmarried workers who move into the top quarter as they marry and enter their peak earning years before dropping back down after retirement. Accordingly, lifetime incomes (and taxes paid) are much more equal than one-time "income distribution" snapshots would show.
The term "income distribution" implies that the nation's wealth simply falls from the sky and that Washington has a duty to distribute this bounty fairly. But wealth and income are not "distributed," they are created. When Microsoft turns sand into computer chips, it is creating wealth where none existed. A farmer who grows a field of corn is creating wealth. These workers and businesses should have the right to keep much of the wealth they create.

What utter and complete garbage. Clinton got the stagnant economy moving within a short time after he took office. We know it wasn't Bush I-he didn't get things moving for FOUR YEARS after he took office. So it had to be from Clinton.

Take a good look at this deficit graph. The Democrats were in charge of Congress Clinton's first two years-and that is wherethe deficit reduction clearly started. The Republicans are to be commended for following in the path which Clinton had already embarked on. But in the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the deficit dropped precipitously where it had soraed during Bush I's presidency..

Foxfyre, Bernard-ever hear of the Economic Stimulus Package? How about the Deficit Reduction Billl? Both were from Clinton, and both were responsible for the reductiojn in the deficit.

Fox and Bernard continue to spout nonsense.

Gingrich deserves some credit regarding the surpluses, but Clinton had to drag him kicking and screaming to join in the the pay-as-you-go. For instance, the former wanted a large cut implemented (which ultimately didn't happen), but Clinton insisted that concordant expenditures be cut to pay for it. Clinton reformed welfare for the poor, while Bush increased welfare for rich corporations and individuals.

It is interesting, the Dems get no credit for what they have done, but get all the blame for what has gone wrong. Things that go wrong 15 years from now will be blamed on Clinton.

On Labor Day weekend, it is quite clear that labor has no friends in the White House.


NO FRIEND IN THE WHITE HOUSE: The Bush administration has consistently sent signals to the labor movement and the general workforce that they do not have an ally in the White House. In the wake of the Sago mine disaster that called attention to the administration's lack of safety enforcement, President Bush nominated Richard Stickler, a coal industry executive who managed coal mines with injuries that were double the national average, to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). When the Senate blocked the nomination, Stickler was hired by MSHA as a "consultant" to advise the agency on mine safety issues. Just yesterday, Bush announced he would recess-appoint Paul DeCamp, a former lawyer for Wal-Mart "with a long paper trail outlining his opposition to the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA's) overtime pay and other provisions, to run the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD)." Also, labor leaders are concerned that the National Labor Relations Board -- composed of five Bush appointees -- is weighing a series of cases that "could make it easier for companies to declare certain workers supervisors and thus ineligible for union membership." Union activists fear that employees who could possibly be reclassified as "supervisors" -- such as nurses and teachers -- would be forced to do so by employers trying to prevent the formation of unions. Business groups are pushing for such authority, arguing as Elizabeth Gaudio with the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation did, that the "bottom line" is to be profitable.

--AmericanProgressAction

Keltic Wizened doesn't know a thing about the economy in the 1990's.

Bob Woodward does.

In his book, Maestro( subtitled GREENSPAN'S FED AND THE AMERICAN BOOM)

QUOTES: p. 117-160

"For that matter, it was difficult to determine exactly which side Clinton was on. The President's economic policies were difficult to label...Greenspan was certain that if they did not raise rates history and experience both dictated that at some point in 1995-96 there would be a recession...At the White House, the president wqas increasingly restless. Was this necessary? Was Greenspan going too far? did he know what he was doing?....Clinton grew angrier and angrier...The president was skeptical and even outraged. So the problems were too much economic growth and too many people working! It was ridiculous, he seethed...Once, when Greenspan had an appointment to see the president, Clinton and his economic team were assembled in the Oval Office. As they waited for the chairman to arrive, the president had launched into a comedic imitation of the chairman. Speaking in a gloomy deep voice, he mimicked Greenspan drumming on inflation. Inflation" Inflation was all important...On Thursday, July 6, 1995, Greenspan proposed a cut of 1/4 percent. It woudl be the first rate decrease in nearly three years and the first rate cut during the Clinton Administration...On news of the cut, the Dow jumped 48 points to a new record high of 4664...The FOMC met December 19, 1995, for the last time of tghe year. Greenspan proposed another 1/4 percent cut...WHAT A YEAR FOR GREENSPAN...HE HAD THE ECONOMY RIGHT WHERE HE WANTED IT. INFLATION WAS LOW, AT LESS THAN 3 PER CENT FOR THE YEAR...Bond prices were up substantially and the stock market was up about 35 percent with the Dow at 5117...Greenspan knew HE HAD HELPED HAND CLINTON WHAT HE CALLED A PRO-INCUMBENT TYPE ECONOMY.
end of quotes

Because Keltic Wizard is an economic moron, he does not know that the ECONOMY OF THE NINETIES WAS CREATED BY ALAN GREENSPAN AND

NOT BILL CLINTON, WHO, IT IS CLEAR, HAD SUBSTANTIAL RESERVATIONS AT FIRST AS TO GREENSPAN'S IDEAS AND POLICIES.

What did Bill Clinton do? Not much, as foxfyre stated.

He backed the following:

l. NAFTA 2. China as a Most Favored Nation 3. Welfare Reform

These three are all Republican initiatives.

Oh, yes-He was also impeached by the House of Representatives and presided over the loss of both Houses in 1994!!!!

What did Bill Clinton do? Not much, as foxfyre stated.

He backed the following:

l. NAFTA 2. China as a Most Favored Nation 3. Welfare Reform

These three are all Republican initiatives.

Oh, yes-He was also impeached by the House of Representatives and presided over the loss of both Houses in 1994!!!!

And, it is clear from the information given by Bob Woodward that Greenspan and NOT Clinton, was the architect of the economic boom of the nineties. But economic morons like Keltic Wizard don't know that since they do not read economic history!!!