John Kerry: Nice wheels

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] (JP) writes:

> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
>> > Furthermore, I have never seen anything good come from high
>> >energy prices.
>>
>> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
>> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
>
> In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.

And the Bush family benefits, as do their friends.

>> > I am not an economist, but my impression is that high energy
>> >prices choke the economy about as well as raising interest rates
>> >(there is some research to support this). High prices have a broad
>> >inflationary impact- first are the direct costs of fuel, but then
>> >the the secondary costs start to permeate the entire economy,
>> >raising prices and suppressing demand.
>>
>> I agree that high energy costs don't help the recovery at all.
>> Hopefully it will stabilize soon.
>
> Stabilization is not enough. Prices have to go down or we are
> screwed.

Hello? Prices for oil will continue to trend upwards inexorably as
the resouce becomes harder to produce, harder to transport (the next
round of terrorism may well be aimed at disrupting oil supplies from
the Mideast to the U.S.- like shooting ducks in a barrel).

The only long term solution is to reduce the dependence on oil from
all sources. This would be a huge boost to national security overall
on many fronts. However, getting Americans to give up their frigging
SUVs, get off their fat asses and walk or ride a bike to a destination
more than 50 feet away is a hopeless cause.

 

[JP]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) writes:
>
> > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >> > Furthermore, I have never seen anything good come from high
> >> >energy prices.
> >>
> >> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
> >> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
> >
> > In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.
>
> And the Bush family benefits, as do their friends.
>
> >> > I am not an economist, but my impression is that high energy
> >> >prices choke the economy about as well as raising interest rates
> >> >(there is some research to support this). High prices have a broad
> >> >inflationary impact- first are the direct costs of fuel, but then
> >> >the the secondary costs start to permeate the entire economy,
> >> >raising prices and suppressing demand.
> >>
> >> I agree that high energy costs don't help the recovery at all.
> >> Hopefully it will stabilize soon.
> >
> > Stabilization is not enough. Prices have to go down or we are
> > screwed.
>
> Hello? Prices for oil will continue to trend upwards inexorably as
> the resouce becomes harder to produce, harder to transport (the next
> round of terrorism may well be aimed at disrupting oil supplies from
> the Mideast to the U.S.- like shooting ducks in a barrel).
>
> The only long term solution is to reduce the dependence on oil from
> all sources. This would be a huge boost to national security overall
> on many fronts. However, getting Americans to give up their frigging
> SUVs, get off their fat asses and walk or ride a bike to a destination
> more than 50 feet away is a hopeless cause.

My point was simply that price stabilization at its current level will
not be enough to prevent choking of this "recovery".

I agree completely with everything you say, except that I do not think
that oil is anywhere close to becoming a scarce commodity. Most of the
price fluctuations are artificial- OPEC is a cartel, after all, with
the objective of controlling prices. And Bob Woodward in his new book
says that Bush made a secret deal with the Saudis to jack up prices so
that they could cut prices a few months before the election to help
Bush's chances. Hmmm... I did think that there was something weird
about the last OPEC meeting where Kuwait wanted to increase production
but the Saudis wanted to cut it. Historically, Saudi Arabia has not
been known to be so hard line on raising prices unless the world
economic situation is a lot more positive than it is right now. I
think there is something fishy going on here, but I don't know if
Woodward has his finger on it exactly. It could be some kind of
win-win situation: OPEC rakes in the profits for a few months and then
lowers prices in time to get Bush re-elected. Then prices can go back
up again, and the Saudis and the big oil companies that back
Bush/Cheney get their *big* payoff. All the while the average American
is too dumb to see what's going on, except to condemn Kerry for
favoring a $.50/gal gas tax ten years ago (that probably would have
lowered demand enough over the last decade to avoid the situation
we're in now). We are *so* f***ed.

JP

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote

>> The unemployment rate is 5.7%, which is better than the average for
>> any of the last three (or is it four?) decades. It's also the same
>> number that Clinton (rightfully) bragged about during his reelection
>> campaign. There have been approximately 800,000 jobs added since
>> August - still not as fast as anyone would like, but job growth is a
>> lagging indicator. Jobs go away after the economy starts down, and
>> come back after it's heading back up.
>
>When you consider the long-term unemployed, those who have given up
>looking for work, the rate is more like 7.1%. But go to some place
>like Ohio; they don't need you or me quoting a bunch of statistics-
>they know what the reality is.

Yes, let's not pay any attention to the actual statistics. Rather,
let's find a pocket that has been affected most and try to extrapolate
that to the national level. Heh.

>> The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who are
>> so partisan that they HOPE the economic recovery stalls. Boggles the
>> mind.
>
>The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that Americans don't fall
>for ******** story that one month of job creation represents any kind
>of significant recovery.

800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some statistical
indicators showing the economy is "stalled"? C'mon, I know you can do
it.

>> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
>> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
>
>In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.

Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys are unbelievable.
If the prices go up, it's GWB's fault. If they go down, it's a
conspiracy to help GWB win the election.

>> > I am not an
>> >economist, but my impression is that high energy prices choke the
>> >economy about as well as raising interest rates (there is some
>> >research to support this). High prices have a broad inflationary
>> >impact- first are the direct costs of fuel, but then the the secondary
>> >costs start to permeate the entire economy, raising prices and
>> >suppressing demand.
>>
>> I agree that high energy costs don't help the recovery at all.
>> Hopefully it will stabilize soon.
>
>Stabilization is not enough. Prices have to go down or we are screwed.

The prices are a problem, but aren't as high (when adjusted for
inflation) as in the '70's.

>> >This economy is going nowhere.
>>
>> I think you've got to be living in an alternate universe to actually
>> believe that though - that much cognitive dissonance in the face of
>> the actual statistics must hurt.
>
>What hurts is if you are an unemployed tech worker looking for a job.

Again, let's focus on one sub-sub-subsegment and try to convince the
rest of the voters that they're representative of the entire country.

>It's a prediction. I gave a brief analysis of current conditions- high
>energy prices, huge federal deficit, no wage growth, no job growth-
>that I think present an environment very unfavorable to sustained
>economic growth. Those are facts. You rattle off one supposedly good
>month of crummy (meaning the jobs are crummy) job growth and you claim
>everything's peachy. The US economic conditions are *bad*.

You are ignoring SO much evidence to the contrary, and the opinion of
just about every financial expert to support your assertion. Heck,
even Kerry isn't trying to claim the economy is bad any more.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who
>> are so partisan that they HOPE the economic recovery stalls.
>> Boggles the mind.
>
>It does indeed. And they live on both side of the aisle,
>unfortunately.

I agree with you (and am just as dead-set against it in either case).

>>> Furthermore, I have never seen anything good come from high energy
>>>prices.
>>
>> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
>> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
>
>No. Why would it? High energy prices benefit the Bush family very
>directly, as well as all their friends at the country club. At the
>expense of guys like me who work in two locations a day, five days a
>week.

I think it's pretty clear that high energy prices are hurting GWB
directly right now.

>>>This economy is going nowhere.
>>
>> I think you've got to be living in an alternate universe to actually
>> believe that though - that much cognitive dissonance in the face of
>> the actual statistics must hurt.
>
>There are ied, damned lies and statistics. The Bush Administration
>is thoroughly devoted to all of them, especially lies of the second
>kind (in which you tell the truth in such a way as to be misleading).

Are you claiming that there is NOT a recovery underway? C'mon Tim,
you're not that gullible.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>
>>The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that Americans don't fall
>>for ******** story that one month of job creation represents any kind
>>of significant recovery.
>
> 800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some statistical
> indicators showing the economy is "stalled"? C'mon, I know you can do
> it.

800,000 is awful. It's not even keeping up with the increasing size of
the labour market. It's *way* below the gains predicted by the Bush
administration.

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040402differenceactproj650.gif

>>> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
>>> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
>>
>>In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.
>
> Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys are unbelievable.
> If the prices go up, it's GWB's fault. If they go down, it's a
> conspiracy to help GWB win the election.

It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward is one
of "you guys".

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Nid wy'n gofyn bywyd moethus

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

....

> >>> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
> >>> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
> >>
> >>In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.
> >
> > Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys are unbelievable.
> > If the prices go up, it's GWB's fault. If they go down, it's a
> > conspiracy to help GWB win the election.
>
> It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward is one
> of "you guys".

Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a "gotcha" to
sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as part of "anything").


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[Dietrich Wiegmann]

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
> ...
>
> > >>> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
> > >>> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?
> > >>
> > >>In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.
> > >
> > > Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys are unbelievable.
> > > If the prices go up, it's GWB's fault. If they go down, it's a
> > > conspiracy to help GWB win the election.
> >
> > It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward is one
> > of "you guys".
>
> Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a "gotcha" to
> sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as part of "anything").

If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected journalists
are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet members that served previous
GOP administrations are disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

....

> > > It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward is one
> > > of "you guys".
> >
> > Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a "gotcha" to
> > sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as part of "anything").
>
> If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected journalists
> are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet members that served previous
> GOP administrations are disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.

I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also trying to
sell a book), but I have never believed a word Woodward has had to say,
and if he says the same thing as someone else, then in my eyes it
_reduces_ the original speaker's credibility.

How come these stories only come out from people who are trying to sell
books?

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[Keith Willoughby]

David Kerber wrote:

> How come these stories only come out from people who are trying to sell
> books?

I don't think Paul O'Neill had a financial interest in Ron Suskind's
book, did he?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
M. Khan Is Bent

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> > How come these stories only come out from people who are trying to sell
> > books?
>
> I don't think Paul O'Neill had a financial interest in Ron Suskind's
> book, did he?

Good poing; I forgot about Paul O'Neill.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[[email protected]]

David Kerber writes:

>>>> It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward
>>>> is one of "you guys".

>>> Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a "gotcha"
>>> to sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as part of
>>> "anything").

>> If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
>> journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet members that
>> served previous GOP administrations are disgruntled Democratic
>> attack dogs.

> I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also trying to
> sell a book), but I have never believed a word Woodward has had to
> say, and if he says the same thing as someone else, then in my eyes
> it _reduces_ the original speaker's credibility.

> How come these stories only come out from people who are trying to
> sell books?

I think a different assessment than the utterly negative aspect given
would be more appropriate. These books are written to document the
subject in a way that cannot effectively be done in a press release,
an interview, or panel discussion. That is true in world affairs as
well as in this newsgroup on bicycles where an FAQ is written to
document concepts accurately (in most cases) and for careful perusal.

Why these books are brought to the public by a publisher should be
obvious and that these publishers enlist the author to meet the public
on book tours to answer questions and make a case for the books should
also be apparent. Those who have attended such a book tour probably
know that hard questions are asked and that the press reports on them.
Writing and researching these works costs time and effort and deserves
remuneration if they have any merit at all. That this is not the case
has not been shown of any of the books in question. To say out of
hand they are worthless lies, just because they are in print makes
libraries into dens of iniquity from the outset. It's another thing
to show where the author was wrong, but we haven't seen that here,
only that the author is a liar.

This reminds me of the readers of this newsgroup who think engineers
are mindless nerds who have no practical experience or understanding of
bicycles or they wouldn't be wasting time designing components instead
of working at a bicycle shop where one is led to believe the real
advances in technology take place.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[Richard Ney]

David Kerber writes:

>>>> It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward
>>>> is one of "you guys".
>>>
>>> Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a "gotcha"
>>> to sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as part of
>>> "anything").
>>
>> If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
>> journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet members that
>> served previous GOP administrations are disgruntled Democratic
>> attack dogs.
>
> I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also trying to
> sell a book), but I have never believed a word Woodward has had to
> say, and if he says the same thing as someone else, then in my eyes it
> _reduces_ the original speaker's credibility.

What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's journalism? Did he
misprepresent material facts in his reporting?

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:

>David Kerber writes:
>
>>>>> It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob Woodward
>>>>> is one of "you guys".
>>>>
>>>> Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a "gotcha"
>>>> to sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as part of
>>>> "anything").
>>>
>>> If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
>>> journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet members that
>>> served previous GOP administrations are disgruntled Democratic
>>> attack dogs.
>>
>> I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also trying to
>> sell a book), but I have never believed a word Woodward has had to
>> say, and if he says the same thing as someone else, then in my eyes it
>> _reduces_ the original speaker's credibility.
>
>What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's journalism? Did he
>misprepresent material facts in his reporting?

No, the media and DNC did.

After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it seems that
Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating that they took two
sentences from the book way out of context, and that they were
reaching a false conclusion when they want to use Woodward's book to
accuse Bush of oil price fixing.

That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in the book
(like Colin Powell not being privvy to war plans before Prince Bandar
of Egypt, when in fact he was a major contributor to them and was
briefed nearly daily on them). Woodward does have a history of
letting drama overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
different.

Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the prices of
oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was necessarily the wrong
thing to do, but just to show that the effect of oil prices are
far-reaching).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey writes:

> After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it seems that
> Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating that they took two
> sentences from the book way out of context, and that they were
> reaching a false conclusion when they want to use Woodward's book to
> accuse Bush of oil price fixing.

You must have glossed over the factual information cited from
Woodwards book in preference for campaign rhetoric. What Woodward said
is clearly cited in print, radio and TV media.

> That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in the book
> (like Colin Powell not being privy to war plans before Prince Bandar
> of Egypt, when in fact he was a major contributor to them and was
> briefed nearly daily on them). Woodward does have a history of
> letting drama overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
> different.

I see you missed the "Fresh Air" interview of Bob Woodward in which
the "drama" you assume was evident neither in the cited passages
discussed not in his responses to questions about the book. I found
his demeanor to be more like that of Richard Clarke, understatement.
It was certainly not that of the members of the Bush cabinet who did
not respond to questions under oath and replied dramatically about
issues unrelated to the questions of the committee. Anyone not
sleeping should have the first reaction, what were they hiding.

> Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the prices of
> oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was necessarily the wrong
> thing to do, but just to show that the effect of oil prices are
> far-reaching).

Are you saying that if Bill Clinton in fact manipulated gasoline
prices that it must be OK for George Bush to do likewise. In so many
words you seem to acknowledge that George Bush did intercede to
influence fuel prices.

Make up our mind on which side of the fence you stand.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey writes:

> After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it seems that
> Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating that they took two
> sentences from the book way out of context, and that they were
> reaching a false conclusion when they want to use Woodward's book to
> accuse Bush of oil price fixing.

You must have glossed over the factual information cited from
Woodwards book in preference for campaign rhetoric. What Woodward said
is clearly cited in print, radio and TV media.

> That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in the book
> (like Colin Powell not being privy to war plans before Prince Bandar
> of Egypt, when in fact he was a major contributor to them and was
> briefed nearly daily on them). Woodward does have a history of
> letting drama overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
> different.

I see you missed the "Fresh Air" interview of Bob Woodward in which
the "drama" you assume was evident neither in the cited passages
discussed nor in his responses to questions about them. I found his
demeanor to be more like that of Richard Clarke, understatement. It
was certainly not that of the members of the Bush cabinet who did not
answer questions under oath but replied dramatically about issues
unrelated to committee questions. The first reaction of anyone not
sleeping should have been, what were they hiding.

> Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the prices of
> oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was necessarily the wrong
> thing to do, but just to show that the effect of oil prices are
> far-reaching).

Are you saying that if Bill Clinton in fact manipulated gasoline
prices, that it is OK for George Bush to do likewise. In so many
words you seem to acknowledge that George Bush interceded to influence
fuel prices.

Make up our mind on which side of the fence you stand.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey writes:
>
>> After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it seems that
>> Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating that they took two
>> sentences from the book way out of context, and that they were
>> reaching a false conclusion when they want to use Woodward's book to
>> accuse Bush of oil price fixing.
>
>You must have glossed over the factual information cited from
>Woodwards book in preference for campaign rhetoric. What Woodward said
>is clearly cited in print, radio and TV media.

And driven to a false conclusion even more clearly denied by the man
himself. What's your point?

>> That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in the book
>> (like Colin Powell not being privy to war plans before Prince Bandar
>> of Egypt, when in fact he was a major contributor to them and was
>> briefed nearly daily on them). Woodward does have a history of
>> letting drama overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
>> different.
>
>I see you missed the "Fresh Air" interview of Bob Woodward in which
>the "drama" you assume was evident neither in the cited passages
>discussed not in his responses to questions about the book. I found
>his demeanor to be more like that of Richard Clarke, understatement.
>It was certainly not that of the members of the Bush cabinet who did
>not respond to questions under oath and replied dramatically about
>issues unrelated to the questions of the committee. Anyone not
>sleeping should have the first reaction, what were they hiding.

I guess we watched different hearings.

>> Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the prices of
>> oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was necessarily the wrong
>> thing to do, but just to show that the effect of oil prices are
>> far-reaching).
>
>Are you saying that if Bill Clinton in fact manipulated gasoline
>prices that it must be OK for George Bush to do likewise. In so many
>words you seem to acknowledge that George Bush did intercede to
>influence fuel prices.

Of course not - just that there are constant discussions about the
price of crude going on... whether or not it's the political silly
season. The assertion from those trying to extrapolate the two
sentences from Woodward's book was that there was a major price-fixing
scam underway - an allegation categorically denied by Prince Bandar,
Bob Woodward and President Bush.

>Make up our mind on which side of the fence you stand.

That would be the "right one" (double entendre' intended). ;-) My
point was that just because it's an election year doesn't mean we stop
talking to the Saudis about keeping oil prices in line.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Richard Ney]

Mark Hickey writes:

>> What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's journalism? Did
>> he misprepresent material facts in his reporting?
>
> No, the media and DNC did.

Politicians and their ilk lie.

> After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it seems that
> Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating that they took two
> sentences from the book way out of context, and that they were
> reaching a false conclusion when they want to use Woodward's book to
> accuse Bush of oil price fixing.

See Supra.

> That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in the book
> (like Colin Powell not being privvy to war plans before Prince Bandar
> of Egypt, when in fact he was a major contributor to them and was
> briefed nearly daily on them). Woodward does have a history of
> letting drama overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
> different.

Woodward appeared on tonight's NewHour with Jim Lehrer. He repeated the
sequence (Rice/Bandar/Powell) of who knew what when. If Woodward's
claim was "false", the WH would state that in unequivocal terms. I have
not heard such a statement. Powell's admissions of knowing about the
warplans, being involved, and of supporting the plan do not refute
Woodward's claim.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey writes:
>
>>> What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's journalism? Did
>>> he misprepresent material facts in his reporting?
>>
>> No, the media and DNC did.
>
>Politicians and their ilk lie.

Say it ain't so.... ;-)

>> After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it seems that
>> Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating that they took two
>> sentences from the book way out of context, and that they were
>> reaching a false conclusion when they want to use Woodward's book to
>> accuse Bush of oil price fixing.
>
>See Supra.

I never liked Toyotas.

>> That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in the book
>> (like Colin Powell not being privvy to war plans before Prince Bandar
>> of Egypt, when in fact he was a major contributor to them and was
>> briefed nearly daily on them). Woodward does have a history of
>> letting drama overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
>> different.
>
>Woodward appeared on tonight's NewHour with Jim Lehrer. He repeated the
>sequence (Rice/Bandar/Powell) of who knew what when. If Woodward's
>claim was "false", the WH would state that in unequivocal terms. I have
>not heard such a statement. Powell's admissions of knowing about the
>warplans, being involved, and of supporting the plan do not refute
>Woodward's claim.

I guess you missed Colin Powell's (several) rebuttals. He was
actually laughing about it - the thought that he "didn't know" about
the plan he helped create must have struck him as kind of funny. In
fact, even Woodward's book makes mention of the fact Powell was
working on the plan regularly. The sequence of events was well laid
out by Bush and Powell - the decision to go to war was well after the
discussion with Bandar (January vs. March I believe). Bandar said the
same thing.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Peter Van Buren]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> The unemployment rate is 5.7%, which is better than the average for
> >> any of the last three (or is it four?) decades. It's also the same
> >> number that Clinton (rightfully) bragged about during his reelection
> >> campaign. There have been approximately 800,000 jobs added since
> >> August - still not as fast as anyone would like, but job growth is a
> >> lagging indicator. Jobs go away after the economy starts down, and
> >> come back after it's heading back up.
> >
> >When you consider the long-term unemployed, those who have given up
> >looking for work, the rate is more like 7.1%. But go to some place
> >like Ohio; they don't need you or me quoting a bunch of statistics-
> >they know what the reality is.
>
> Yes, let's not pay any attention to the actual statistics. Rather,
> let's find a pocket that has been affected most and try to extrapolate
> that to the national level. Heh.
>
> >> The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who are
> >> so partisan that they HOPE the economic recovery stalls. Boggles the
> >> mind.
> >
> >The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that Americans don't fall
> >for ******** story that one month of job creation represents any kind
> >of significant recovery.
>
> 800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some statistical
> indicators showing the economy is "stalled"? C'mon, I know you can do
> it.
>

I wonder how many of those jobs added are low wage, no benefits jobs
that are filled by workers who used to work in better paying, skilled
positions. If someone who worked in an IT call center for 20$/hr with
benefits ends up working at Wal-Mart, is that really a bonus for the
economy? For several reasons, that person's new job probably
contributes a lot less to the U.S. economy than the previous one.

I'm not trying to make a political statement, but stating that x
amount of new jobs were added to the economy may not be the best
indicator of it's current trend. Size isn't everything, right?

Peter.

 

[JP]

[email protected] (Peter Van Buren) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that Americans don't fall
> > >for ******** story that one month of job creation represents any kind
> > >of significant recovery.
> >
> > 800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some statistical
> > indicators showing the economy is "stalled"? C'mon, I know you can do
> > it.

The recession ended in 2001. Up until August (assuming you're right)
there were no jobs created. Since then, only 800k, an average of about
100k/jobs per month. The same data that shows 300k jobs created last
month also shows that there was now wage growth. I don't know about
you, but when there is no wage growth for American workers, and when
jobs are being created at a paltry average of 100k/month, I will call
that a stalled economy. You, OTOH, may wish to call an economy stalled
when GDP is not growing. You are welcome to that definition if you
like, but with around 2 *million* jobs lost since the economy started
"growing" again, I'll stick with my definition.

For comparison, as I stated before, Clinton had 23 months over eight
years with 300k+ jobs; Bush has had one (1). Job creation lags behind
recovery, but not to the degree we have seen under Bush. So I would
say that this "recovery" is stalled at the part where jobs are
created, because 100k jobs/month does not constitute recovery. If over
the next year, the economy begins to create *good* jobs at the rate of
300k/month, then maybe we got something, but again, ONE MONTH OF JOBS
DATA IS NOT A TREND OR A "RECOVERY"! And there is nothing about the
economic conditions as I enumerated them previously that would cause
me to put money on the economy continuing to grow over the next year
enough to keep that rate up. But, if you're lucky (or unlucky, if you
run a small business making relatively high-end low production
titanium bicycle frames) the trend may last just long enough to get
Bush re-elected before everything goes into the crapper again.

> I wonder how many of those jobs added are low wage, no benefits jobs
> that are filled by workers who used to work in better paying, skilled
> positions.

The jobs that were created were pretty lousy, mostly.

> If someone who worked in an IT call center for 20$/hr with
> benefits ends up working at Wal-Mart, is that really a bonus for the
> economy?

No.

> For several reasons, that person's new job probably
> contributes a lot less to the U.S. economy than the previous one.

Yep.

> I'm not trying to make a political statement, but stating that x
> amount of new jobs were added to the economy may not be the best
> indicator of it's current trend. Size isn't everything, right?

Bush/Rove will feed the public whatever they think they can get away
with, which is just about anything, it appears. But there is an
underlying truth: there is nothing about Bush economic planning that
is designed to help people who net less than about $200k/year.
Nothing.

If you lose your current job, how long will you be unemployed and what
are the chances that your next job will pay as much as the one you
have now? For most people, their prospects are ****-poor.

Hickey may call it a recovery; I call it ****.

JP