OT: Its Bill Clinton's fault

[still just me]

.... all these years later that guy is still screwing up the economy. I
can't believe it!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/04/news/economy/jobs_march/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 4, 11:56 pm, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:36:31 GMT, still just me is alleged to have typed and pressed Enter:

(SJM wrote):
> >Too bad the people in this country don't know anything about the
> >economy or politics - they might take notice.

(WHR replied):
> If History was a serious subject in the schools instead of a boring
> whitewash and mass coverup, people would trust politicians far less.

If you think the attack on public education is bad now, just wait for
the announcement that "economy" and "politics" will be mandatory
curriculum. One of the best courses I ever took, Texas Government,
where the liberal pinko homosexual-loving unqualified (even though he
was white) America-hating instructor showed a movie of the political
goings-on in Texas, "making sausage in the back room" as I've heard it
described. Whew.

Hey, I've got an idea: Let's get the government off our backs. No,
really. What say? --D-y

 

[SMS]

still just me wrote:

> Funny thing, Bush Sr got screwed out of re-election by Reagan's failed
> economic theories, massive deficit spending, and lassiz faire attitude
> and now Bush Jr has gone and done a deja vue and left another screwed
> up economy for the next president. Irony is so ironic.

That's very true. While I was no fan of Bush Sr., he inherited a huge
mess from Reagan's failed economic policy of "trickle down," as well as
the failed Reagan policies of deregulation of the banking industry. Bush
Sr.'s administration dealt with the S&L mess about as well as it could
have been dealt with. Yet these fake conservatives are running around
the country demanding memorials to Reagan. Reagan was a likable guy, but
he was no conservative. He really wasn't even a neo-con. He didn't have
the hate of the neo-cons.

> Too bad the people in this country don't know anything about the
> economy or politics - they might take notice.

What happened in Argentina is happening here. W is not running around
claiming that in 100 years people will see that what he did was right.
In reality, his administration will go down in history as one of the
worst presidencies in history. Unlike LBJ, W has no legacy to offset his
disastrous foreign, domestic, and economic policies, and W surrounded
himself with incapable and/or corrupt individuals. Usually you can find
something good that a president accomplished or at least helped
accomplish. Not so with W.

 

[Pat]

>
> What happened in Argentina is happening here. W is not running around
> claiming that in 100 years people will see that what he did was right.

Um, yes he is. He is going around claiming that he will be seen as the next
Harry Truman and that history will
"make it so."

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<ef8ef04c-a20e-4201-a1e5-ec89f67d1d41@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey, I've got an idea: Let's get the government off our backs. No,
> really. What say?

Thing is, I don't much notice the government being *on* my back. I
don't go around every day saying "gee, the guvment is f***ing up my
life." I am perfectly capable of f***ing up my own life without any
assistance, thanks very much, and my own decisions generally have a far
more deleterious effect on me than the government's.

There are a number of governmental annoyances, but I have more problems
directly from what the government fails to do rather than what they do.
Properly maintaining roads and bridges (I live about two miles from the
I-35W bridge), ensuring universal health coverage, etc.

There are things they do that negatively affect me directly, although
not so it's obvious on a daily basis. Pledging millions of taxpayer
dollars to a bunch of rich spoiled brats who stomped their feet and
threatened to take their ball and go home if they didn't get a new
stadium and preparing to do it again for a different sport (even though
as taxpayers we clearly said "no" to this multiple times), spending
$500+ billion on an incompetently conceived and ineptly executed war
that has reduced rather than enhanced national security, and failing to
deal with the looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security because
it's more important to protect the rich, etc.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> W surrounded himself with incapable and/or corrupt individuals.

Who were also mostly incapable and/or corrupt individuals who also
worked in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations. It's been
pretty much the same cadre of assholes in power for 28 of the past 40
years.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > What happened in Argentina is happening here. W is not running
> > around claiming that in 100 years people will see that what he did
> > was right.
>
> Um, yes he is. He is going around claiming that he will be seen as
> the next Harry Truman and that history will "make it so."

There are medications for this sort of thinking.

 

[SMS]

Pat wrote:
>> What happened in Argentina is happening here. W is not running around
>> claiming that in 100 years people will see that what he did was right.
>
> Um, yes he is. He is going around claiming that he will be seen as the next
> Harry Truman and that history will
> "make it so."

ARGH, I meant to type "now," not "not." You are of course correct!

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 8:56 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <ef8ef04c-a20e-4201-a1e5-ec89f67d1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hey, I've got an idea: Let's get the government off our backs. No,
> > really. What say?
>
> Thing is, I don't much notice the government being *on* my back. I
> don't go around every day saying "gee, the guvment is f***ing up my
> life." I am perfectly capable of f***ing up my own life without any
> assistance, thanks very much, and my own decisions generally have a far
> more deleterious effect on me than the government's.
>
> There are a number of governmental annoyances, but I have more problems
> directly from what the government fails to do rather than what they do.
> Properly maintaining roads and bridges (I live about two miles from the
> I-35W bridge), ensuring universal health coverage, etc.
>
> There are things they do that negatively affect me directly, although
> not so it's obvious on a daily basis. Pledging millions of taxpayer
> dollars to a bunch of rich spoiled brats who stomped their feet and
> threatened to take their ball and go home if they didn't get a new
> stadium and preparing to do it again for a different sport (even though
> as taxpayers we clearly said "no" to this multiple times), spending
> $500+ billion on an incompetently conceived and ineptly executed war
> that has reduced rather than enhanced national security, and failing to
> deal with the looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security because
> it's more important to protect the rich, etc.

I don't think that government directly affect the lifestyles of many
that participate in this group that much. sure, I pay taxes once a
year and I have seen slight changes in taxation that slightly affect
choices. However, my lifestyle doesn't change and like you Tim, I
don't think that the government is on my back.

However, government policies directly affect the lives of millions.
Health care policy can have an impact on being healthy or sick for
many and living or dying. SS can screw the lives of the elderly who
don't have other form of retirement or investment. A failed economy
has left millions in poverty forcing many children to join the
military to escape poverty with a few thousand dying for KBR, Texaco,
Raytheon, etc and many thousand being crippled for life and having a
devastating impact on their families. Also, the militarization of Iraq
has left this country unprotected from natural disasters causing the
death of thousands and the loss of homes of several other thousands.

So, while, like you, Tim, I don't feel the government on my back many
millions feel the weight of government policies on their backs.

Andres

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Apr 5, 8:56 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ef8ef04c-a20e-4201-a1e5-ec89f67d1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hey, I've got an idea: Let's get the government off our backs.
> > > No, really. What say?
> >
> > Thing is, I don't much notice the government being *on* my back. I
> > don't go around every day saying "gee, the guvment is f***ing up my
> > life." I am perfectly capable of f***ing up my own life without
> > any assistance, thanks very much, and my own decisions generally
> > have a far more deleterious effect on me than the government's.
> >
> > There are a number of governmental annoyances, but I have more
> > problems directly from what the government fails to do rather than
> > what they do. Properly maintaining roads and bridges (I live about
> > two miles from the I-35W bridge), ensuring universal health
> > coverage, etc.
> >
> > There are things they do that negatively affect me directly,
> > although not so it's obvious on a daily basis. Pledging millions
> > of taxpayer dollars to a bunch of rich spoiled brats who stomped
> > their feet and threatened to take their ball and go home if they
> > didn't get a new stadium and preparing to do it again for a
> > different sport (even though as taxpayers we clearly said "no" to
> > this multiple times), spending $500+ billion on an incompetently
> > conceived and ineptly executed war that has reduced rather than
> > enhanced national security, and failing to deal with the looming
> > insolvency of Medicare and Social Security because it's more
> > important to protect the rich, etc.
>
> I don't think that government directly affect the lifestyles of many
> that participate in this group that much. sure, I pay taxes once a
> year and I have seen slight changes in taxation that slightly affect
> choices. However, my lifestyle doesn't change and like you Tim, I
> don't think that the government is on my back.
>
> However, government policies directly affect the lives of millions.
> Health care policy can have an impact on being healthy or sick for
> many and living or dying. SS can screw the lives of the elderly who
> don't have other form of retirement or investment. A failed economy
> has left millions in poverty forcing many children to join the
> military to escape poverty with a few thousand dying for KBR, Texaco,
> Raytheon, etc and many thousand being crippled for life and having a
> devastating impact on their families. Also, the militarization of
> Iraq has left this country unprotected from natural disasters causing
> the death of thousands and the loss of homes of several other
> thousands.
>
> So, while, like you, Tim, I don't feel the government on my back many
> millions feel the weight of government policies on their backs.

Those are good points. The weight of the government is, for most
people, distributed across 300 million people. But some folks are more
vulnerable to that weight than others, as you justly point out. Seems
like the people who carp about it most, however, are people on whom the
yoke of government is actually pretty light.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

| What happened in Argentina is happening here. W is not running around
| claiming that in 100 years people will see that what he did was right.
| In reality, his administration will go down in history as one of the
| worst presidencies in history. Unlike LBJ, W has no legacy to offset his
| disastrous foreign, domestic, and economic policies, and W surrounded
| himself with incapable and/or corrupt individuals. Usually you can find
| something good that a president accomplished or at least helped
| accomplish. Not so with W.

The interesting thing is that there's an opportunity (for a legacy) right in
our back yard.

Cuba.

As "Only Nixon could go to China" and secured something, not quite sure
what, for Nixon, Bush could open up Cuba for American invasion (capitalism).
The country is ripe for the taking. What in incredible humanitarian gesture
it would appear to be, saving all those people (and in fact they could use
some real help, in terms of their living conditions). I guess it's
impossible to do as long as Florida remains a state.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| still just me wrote:
|
| > Funny thing, Bush Sr got screwed out of re-election by Reagan's failed
| > economic theories, massive deficit spending, and lassiz faire attitude
| > and now Bush Jr has gone and done a deja vue and left another screwed
| > up economy for the next president. Irony is so ironic.
|
| That's very true. While I was no fan of Bush Sr., he inherited a huge
| mess from Reagan's failed economic policy of "trickle down," as well as
| the failed Reagan policies of deregulation of the banking industry. Bush
| Sr.'s administration dealt with the S&L mess about as well as it could
| have been dealt with. Yet these fake conservatives are running around
| the country demanding memorials to Reagan. Reagan was a likable guy, but
| he was no conservative. He really wasn't even a neo-con. He didn't have
| the hate of the neo-cons.
|
| > Too bad the people in this country don't know anything about the
| > economy or politics - they might take notice.
|
| What happened in Argentina is happening here. W is not running around
| claiming that in 100 years people will see that what he did was right.
| In reality, his administration will go down in history as one of the
| worst presidencies in history. Unlike LBJ, W has no legacy to offset his
| disastrous foreign, domestic, and economic policies, and W surrounded
| himself with incapable and/or corrupt individuals. Usually you can find
| something good that a president accomplished or at least helped
| accomplish. Not so with W.

 

[SMS]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> The interesting thing is that there's an opportunity (for a legacy) right in
> our back yard.
>
> Cuba.
>
> As "Only Nixon could go to China" and secured something, not quite sure
> what, for Nixon, Bush could open up Cuba for American invasion (capitalism).
> The country is ripe for the taking. What in incredible humanitarian gesture
> it would appear to be, saving all those people (and in fact they could use
> some real help, in terms of their living conditions). I guess it's
> impossible to do as long as Florida remains a state.

This is true. It would take a president with a very high approval rating
going into the election for his (or her) second term, or in the second
term it would take one that didn't care about his (or her) party's
chances in Florida in the next election.

Also, remember that while we feign disapproval of Castro, the real
reasons for our Cuba policy has much more to do with the political power
of Archers Daniel Midland, and that of the sugar corporations. ADM wants
to preserve the market for HFCS, and the sugar corporations don't want
an influx of cheap sugar, since in the U.S. sugar price supports ensure
that sugar sells for an order of magnitude more than it would otherwise
cost. Screaming "commies" is just more convenient.

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:59:32 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> W surrounded himself with incapable and/or corrupt individuals.
>
>Who were also mostly incapable and/or corrupt individuals who also
>worked in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations. It's been
>pretty much the same cadre of assholes in power for 28 of the past 40
>years.

Yeah, I'd disagree and say they were "very capable". At least the ones
who were not puppets. Unfortunately their capabilities had to do with
bending the government to fill the pockets of them and their friends,
whilst simultaneously manipulating the American public into believing
they were/are working in our interest, not theirs.

Again, it's too bad the people are so ignorant and gullible. If the
Democrats weren't so lame, they'd be able to battle it and cause it to
moderate - but they still don't have a clue about marketing or sales.

 

[Tom Sherman]

still just me wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:59:32 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> W surrounded himself with incapable and/or corrupt individuals.
>> Who were also mostly incapable and/or corrupt individuals who also
>> worked in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations. It's been
>> pretty much the same cadre of assholes in power for 28 of the past 40
>> years.
>
> Yeah, I'd disagree and say they were "very capable". At least the ones
> who were not puppets. Unfortunately their capabilities had to do with
> bending the government to fill the pockets of them and their friends,
> whilst simultaneously manipulating the American public into believing
> they were/are working in our interest, not theirs.
>
> Again, it's too bad the people are so ignorant and gullible. If the
> Democrats weren't so lame, they'd be able to battle it and cause it to
> moderate - but they still don't have a clue about marketing or sales.
>
The Dimocrats (sic) problem is that most of them feed from the same
trough as the Repugnicans (sic). The Repugs represent the economic top
1% of the US population, while the Dims' base includes the 95-99
percentile group.

Without removing the legalized bribery of private campaign funding
and/or making third parties viable through instant run-off voting, the
government will not represent the majority.

But the people still believe they live in a democracy, since the talking
heads on the tee-vee tells them so.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:44:59 -0500, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Without removing the legalized bribery of private campaign funding
>and/or making third parties viable through instant run-off voting, the
>government will not represent the majority.
>
>But the people still believe they live in a democracy, since the talking
>heads on the tee-vee tells them so.

Yep. Sad but true. The idea of the people voting for the President was
nice in theory. Too bad it never happened.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 8:56 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ef8ef04c-a20e-4201-a1e5-ec89f67d1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Hey, I've got an idea: Let's get the government off our backs.
> > > > No, really. What say?
>
> > > Thing is, I don't much notice the government being *on* my back. I
> > > don't go around every day saying "gee, the guvment is f***ing up my
> > > life." I am perfectly capable of f***ing up my own life without
> > > any assistance, thanks very much, and my own decisions generally
> > > have a far more deleterious effect on me than the government's.
>
> > > There are a number of governmental annoyances, but I have more
> > > problems directly from what the government fails to do rather than
> > > what they do. Properly maintaining roads and bridges (I live about
> > > two miles from the I-35W bridge), ensuring universal health
> > > coverage, etc.
>
> > > There are things they do that negatively affect me directly,
> > > although not so it's obvious on a daily basis. Pledging millions
> > > of taxpayer dollars to a bunch of rich spoiled brats who stomped
> > > their feet and threatened to take their ball and go home if they
> > > didn't get a new stadium and preparing to do it again for a
> > > different sport (even though as taxpayers we clearly said "no" to
> > > this multiple times), spending $500+ billion on an incompetently
> > > conceived and ineptly executed war that has reduced rather than
> > > enhanced national security, and failing to deal with the looming
> > > insolvency of Medicare and Social Security because it's more
> > > important to protect the rich, etc.
>
> > I don't think that government directly affect the lifestyles of many
> > that participate in this group that much. sure, I pay taxes once a
> > year and I have seen slight changes in taxation that slightly affect
> > choices. However, my lifestyle doesn't change and like you Tim, I
> > don't think that the government is on my back.
>
> > However, government policies directly affect the lives of millions.
> > Health care policy can have an impact on being healthy or sick for
> > many and living or dying. SS can screw the lives of the elderly who
> > don't have other form of retirement or investment. A failed economy
> > has left millions in poverty forcing many children to join the
> > military to escape poverty with a few thousand dying for KBR, Texaco,
> > Raytheon, etc and many thousand being crippled for life and having a
> > devastating impact on their families. Also, the militarization of
> > Iraq has left this country unprotected from natural disasters causing
> > the death of thousands and the loss of homes of several other
> > thousands.
>
> > So, while, like you, Tim, I don't feel the government on my back many
> > millions feel the weight of government policies on their backs.
>
> Those are good points. The weight of the government is, for most
> people, distributed across 300 million people. But some folks are more
> vulnerable to that weight than others, as you justly point out. Seems
> like the people who carp about it most, however, are people on whom the
> yoke of government is actually pretty light.

I think that you are right about this. I think that the more power
people have, the more resources they have to voice their
dissatisfaction. So, If I am very poor, dying from cancer and lack
health insurance, most likely nobody will hear me cry because I will
not have the resources to complain, or the knowledge of how to do
this.Also, if I do complain someone will tell me to shut up and get a
job and the reason I don't have health insurance is because I am lazy
and cannot get a job, or because the immigrants are destroying the
economy. On the other hand, if I am rich and have to pay more taxes my
lobbyists will make sure that my taxes go down and that the lazy
people on welfare get blamed or those with government health insurance
or the immigrants, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Russians or the
Panamanians. But, if I am wealthy and the government touches a few
cents, then I will feel like a martyr of the most oppressive
dictatorship.

 

[Dan O]

On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... all these years later that guy is still screwing up the economy. I
> can't believe it!
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/04/news/economy/jobs_march/index.htm?cnn...

I talked to Bill face-to-face last Monday... well, I handed him a book
("Our President: Bill Clinton" by Shelly Bedick, ISBN 0-590-47126-0)
and a pen... but he talked to me! He did! He said to me, "Keep the
pen", took the book, and then wandered off with it. A little while
later some other guy brought it back to me with an autograph on the
cover!

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> >
> >
> >
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Apr 5, 8:56 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <[email protected]
> > > > om>,
> >
> > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Hey, I've got an idea: Let's get the government off our
> > > > > backs. No, really. What say?
> >
> > > > Thing is, I don't much notice the government being *on* my
> > > > back. I don't go around every day saying "gee, the guvment is
> > > > f***ing up my life." I am perfectly capable of f***ing up my
> > > > own life without any assistance, thanks very much, and my own
> > > > decisions generally have a far more deleterious effect on me
> > > > than the government's.
> >
> > > > There are a number of governmental annoyances, but I have more
> > > > problems directly from what the government fails to do rather
> > > > than what they do. Properly maintaining roads and bridges (I
> > > > live about two miles from the I-35W bridge), ensuring universal
> > > > health coverage, etc.
> >
> > > > There are things they do that negatively affect me directly,
> > > > although not so it's obvious on a daily basis. Pledging
> > > > millions of taxpayer dollars to a bunch of rich spoiled brats
> > > > who stomped their feet and threatened to take their ball and go
> > > > home if they didn't get a new stadium and preparing to do it
> > > > again for a different sport (even though as taxpayers we
> > > > clearly said "no" to this multiple times), spending $500+
> > > > billion on an incompetently conceived and ineptly executed war
> > > > that has reduced rather than enhanced national security, and
> > > > failing to deal with the looming insolvency of Medicare and
> > > > Social Security because it's more important to protect the
> > > > rich, etc.
> >
> > > I don't think that government directly affect the lifestyles of
> > > many that participate in this group that much. sure, I pay taxes
> > > once a year and I have seen slight changes in taxation that
> > > slightly affect choices. However, my lifestyle doesn't change and
> > > like you Tim, I don't think that the government is on my back.
> >
> > > However, government policies directly affect the lives of
> > > millions. Health care policy can have an impact on being healthy
> > > or sick for many and living or dying. SS can screw the lives of
> > > the elderly who don't have other form of retirement or
> > > investment. A failed economy has left millions in poverty forcing
> > > many children to join the military to escape poverty with a few
> > > thousand dying for KBR, Texaco, Raytheon, etc and many thousand
> > > being crippled for life and having a devastating impact on their
> > > families. Also, the militarization of Iraq has left this country
> > > unprotected from natural disasters causing the death of thousands
> > > and the loss of homes of several other thousands.
> >
> > > So, while, like you, Tim, I don't feel the government on my back
> > > many millions feel the weight of government policies on their
> > > backs.
> >
> > Those are good points. The weight of the government is, for most
> > people, distributed across 300 million people. But some folks are
> > more vulnerable to that weight than others, as you justly point
> > out. Seems like the people who carp about it most, however, are
> > people on whom the yoke of government is actually pretty light.
>
> I think that you are right about this. I think that the more power
> people have, the more resources they have to voice their
> dissatisfaction. So, If I am very poor, dying from cancer and lack
> health insurance, most likely nobody will hear me cry because I will
> not have the resources to complain, or the knowledge of how to do
> this.Also, if I do complain someone will tell me to shut up and get a
> job and the reason I don't have health insurance is because I am lazy
> and cannot get a job, or because the immigrants are destroying the
> economy. On the other hand, if I am rich and have to pay more taxes
> my lobbyists will make sure that my taxes go down and that the lazy
> people on welfare get blamed or those with government health
> insurance or the immigrants, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Russians
> or the Panamanians. But, if I am wealthy and the government touches
> a few cents, then I will feel like a martyr of the most oppressive
> dictatorship.

Sadly that sounds about right.