Help Get The Word Out: CLINTON Caused the Recession that Cost America 3M Jobs! (click here)

"Unemployment" as calculated by the Gummint only includes those who are looking for work but cannot find it.

The number you are trying to find is a combination of two working groups which do not fit the "unemployed" definition: 1) the self-employed; and 2) the under-the-table-cash employed (mostly illegals.)

The self-employed pay LOTSA taxes.

3)the totally unpolled and (to date) under-reported social issues such as homosexual marriage, Pledge of Allegiance bans, Boy Scout bans and other by-products of Left-Wing ideology and the activist Liberal judges who promote them.

You could add "will-never-GET-reported"

Basically the entire group of unemployed and illegals pay only local sales taxes though. Unemployment costs and most illegal aliens contibute nothing for most of their social services. Self employed get it in the neck, they lose many of the benefits that the corporate employees get. There is still a large number being supported by a smaller number of taxpayers.

, so I would say that he is fixing a problem that was started in 1998.

The problem goes way back before 1998. It got it's start back during Nixon's administration. It can't really be blamed on any administration or party though. It's pretty much a bi-partisan sort of thing. Reagan was the only one I ever recall openly opposing it. He described a service economy as everybody making a living by taking in each others laundry, if I recall correctly.

Chimpanzees can be trained to do most of this work.

Not true, but if it were: Out of work chimpanzees do not require you to pay taxes to provide for their welfare benefits; And working chimpanzees do not pay taxes on $25.00 an hour incomes.

BTW, what to you do that couldn't be done just as well by cheaper foreign labor, foreign companies, or chimpanzees? And what is the real source of your employment (the consumers of your labor) Americans whom you want to put out of work, or lower their wages, or foreigners?

"Yeah, upon recollection, all the following were doomed:"

I was referring to the tech stock market bubble of recent years. An undeniable event, IMO.

Yes, those companies are still going concerns, and most are good companies with great futures, Amazon being a possible exception.

The stocks of at least 2 on your list, Nortel and Cisco, were bid up so far in excess of realistic value, that shareholders in these companies lost literally millions of dollars when the bubble burst. Most of that has not yet been recovered.

However, I agree with you that the tech revolution is here to stay, barring Muslim takeover of civilization. I find it exciting and fascinating too, and am sure that tech companies at some point, probably soon, will be where the money is.

ping

I was referring to the tech stock market bubble

EVERYbody wanted on that train - so much so, they were willing to pay richly in hopes that something, even something on the periphery (like a grocery.com) might turn out to be the 'winning' fad.

A few laters, after the dust has settled, we see a little more clearly. THOSE with good business plans, those that found a market for their products or services survived ... those were the days of a lot of new internet 'product' offerings; like on-line trading. I personnally enjoyed beta-testing some real-time stock-quote software from Datek - and support via e-mail was quick during that period (original developers still around/on staff)!

I am/was an accountant. But most of my money was created in real estate by buying, developing and then selling property. Any foreigner can do that too and it's not a zero-sum endeavor.

As accounting goes, I've seen some really high paid CPA's that couldn't balance their own checkbook if their life depended on it. So if some company fires them and hires a more competent accountant for less money, even without a CPA (about as useful having one as a third nipple in my opinion), that's their business regardless of where that worker comes from or lives. If they want to hire a cheapr firm overseas to do their books, so be it.

It's called freedom. I like it.

It sure is. But it was fun watching them for two summers when I worked at Whirlpool back in the 1970's during college. Especially the unionized chimps!

See post #70. It's not that Bush started it; manufacturing was clearly on the decline before 2000.

The question is: what has GWB done to STOP IT?

And the answer: well, he'll appoint a Commission to Study it soon. And by August/September this year, he'll appoint a Manufacturing liaison within Commerce.

Damn. That's real action.

Watch the spinners when that Commission meets--and when that Assistant to the Assistant of the Undersecretary (for Manufacturing affairs) gets appointed. The Spinmeisters will make it sound as though this were the Second Coming.

And by that time, an ADDITIONAL 80,000 people will be permanently out of manufacturing in the USA.

. . .and who took '$' out of Micro$oft?

Right Bill Clinton; and is suspect he went after them for preci$ely that. . .and then the damn broke.

I remember reading articles at the time Greenspan increased interest rates that acknowledged the risk the increases would create a recession. I am constantly bewildered by people who point out that the economy was slowing down during the Clinton administration when that was exactly Greenspan's expressed purpose for raising the interest rates.

Slowing it and stopping it are two different things and Greenspan should have known that the price of oil going from $10 a barrel to $40 a barrel would have slowed the economy down just fine without the interest rate hikes. Although they happened concurrently I couldn't believe it at the time that Greenspan couldn't see what we were headed for. I am no economist and I did.

The questions now are, have Bush's economic policies mitigated or exacerbated the recession?

Mitigated it without question

Are budget deficits of no concern or a growing danger for the economy?

Short term no problem, long term if we don't arrest them in time our economy will collapse as did the USSR's

Will more tax cuts improve or worsen our economic future?

I have come to believe that tax cuts will always help an ailing economy, it is social spending that always causes economic collapse where ever they have been abused. What we have to decide as Americans is do we want to cripple our economy by financing inefficient safety nets as has Canada, England and other increasingly socialist countries.

Many of these things I have written about on my Citizens For A Freer America website however in 1998 when I wrote much of it I wasn't a tax cut advocate but now the advantages have been demonstrated to me and I have been converted.

Citizens For A Freer America
&
The Upper Valley Free Press

Daryl L. Hunter - Editor

bookmark bump

Thank you for your effort Mr. Stein!

Bump!!

BUMP!

Gee, I remember my 401K took a dump back in 2000.

As I recall, the big hit in tech stocks took place early in the year, when everyone who had ridden the wave the previous year were doing their taxes and had to raise a lot of money in a hurry to pay all those short-term capital gain taxes.

The recession was caused by OPEC. That's the same situation that took place in 1973 (the '73 recession was a real recession; this one we have now is a pipsqueak). Beginning in 1998 or '99, the Saudis used their massive oil reserves to bring everyone into line and since that time OPEC has engineered an oil price bubble via an artificial shortage.

And if folks want to know who to blame for the exportation of jobs (something that I regard as a phony concern), they need to blame Clinton. He's the one who spearheaded the drive (early in his administration) to get GATT and NAFTA passed at last.

Saudis finally balance budget
thanks to oil price bonanza
Wednesday, December 20, 2000
After 15 years of deficits, Saudi Arabia has used its soaring oil revenues to balance the kingdom's budget. For its 2000 budget, based on an oil price of $19 a barrel, Riyad had forecast a $7.4 billion deficit. Instead, the price of oil hovered around $35 for much of the year.
Yamani predicts oil price of $10
Sunday 25 June 2000
by Sophie Barker
The former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani has predicted that oil prices will crash from current levels of around $30 a barrel to $10 by the end of 2001.

"I would be happy if I am wrong, but I know, as surely as ABC, that it is coming," Sheikh Yamani said in an interview in the forthcoming edition of Forbes Global magazine. His most recent comment comes almost two years after oil prices last plunged to $10. Since 1998, they have steadily risen, reaching $35 a barrel this year.

In related articles from the same period and available from the same online news source, Yamani said, "the stone age didn't end because people ran out of stones." He then cited increases in proven reserves (20 fold since 1973), and technological developments including fuel cells. Yamani is a commoner, and his title is an honorarium from the King.

Saudi Arabia Signs Gas Agreement
October 2001
The Associated Press
Saudi Arabia signed agreements with nine international oil companies Sunday . . . involves the development of three natural gas fields in the kingdom, and a number of related power plants, transmission pipelines and water desalinization projects. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said the companies are expected to profit on returns from the exploration and development of gas fields by more than 15 percent of the investment cost. Al-Faisal said in if the companies discover oil, they will be compensated and the fields will be repossessed by Saudi Arabia.
Inside OPEC's Surprise Cut
by Frederick P. Leuffer
September 29, 2003, 8:30 a.m.
OPEC surprised the market last week by announcing a 900,000 barrel a day reduction in quotas, effective November 1. The announcement quickly boosted spot oil prices, which jumped $0.89 a barrel to $28.02... OPEC's decision offsets the action taken at the April OPEC meeting, when quotas were raised by 900,000 barrels a day effective June 1 (although the organization announced a simultaneous 2 million barrel-a-day cut in production at that time). However, since June, production by the OPEC 10 -- those OPEC countries that have quotas -- has risen by 70,000 barrels a day, to 25.8 million barrels. Including Iraq, production has risen by 640,000 barrels a day, to an estimated 26.9 million barrels... Through August, only Venezuela (which is still suffering the effects of the oil workers’ strike) and Indonesia are in compliance with current quotas... [W]orld oil supply exceeds fourth-quarter 2003 demand by about 1.1 million barrels a day. OPEC production, meanwhile, is expected to rise further in September -- owing to increased Iraqi production, which has risen to approximately 1.5 million barrels a day... All this boils down to a lower barrel price, which could be $18 for the full-year 2004. Of course, a sharp fall in oil prices will be bad for oil stocks, but good for the broader market.

P.J. O'Rourke's commentary in the June 2002 Automobile (pp 56-57, "If We're At War, Why Is Gasoline So Cheap") wasn't online last I checked, but here's a quick quote:

[G]asoline, some recent price hikes notwithstanding... adjusted for inflation... was the lowest gasoline price, ever... [I]n 1970, we imported 22.7 per cent of our crude oil. Now we import 59 per cent, and almost a third comes from the Middle East... U.S. oil consumption went from more than 20 million barrels a day in August 2001 to about 18.8 million a day in January 2002... But the best thing we have going for us at the gas pump is the no-account, bone-idle, useless bums sitting on 65 per cent of the world's oil... [T]he total nonpetrochemical exports of the Arab world do not equal Finland's.

This one came from AOL, so no URL:

Record Jump for Gas Prices
AP
8-25-03 0750EDT
The survey of 8,000 service stations on Friday showed an average of all grades of gasoline, including taxes, reached $1.7484 a gallon, just short of the survey's all-time high weighted average of $1.7608 set last March 21, analyst Trilby Lundberg said Sunday... Phoenix had the highest leap in the nation during the two-week period, with prices jumping 60.42 cents a gallon for self-serve regular. On Aug. 22, self-serve regular averaged $2.1425, the highest price in the nation for that grade. By comparison, the lowest price for that grade was in Charleston, S.C., where the average for self-serve regular was $1.4920. Temporary refinery shutdowns caused by the massive East Coast/Midwest blackout combined with a break in a major pipeline in Arizona to cause the supply disruptions, Lundberg said. However, the reopening of the pipeline and the end of the blackout means gas prices should fall thanks to the traditional decline in demand in September and an influx of imported gasoline attracted by the current high prices, she said.

As P.J. O'Rourke pointed out, gas prices are lower now (adjusted for inflation) than they have ever been. In 1973/74, "price gouging" led to $1.50 a gallon here and there. Price gouging was of course entirely imaginary. In 1963 my family bought a brand new Plymouth Belvidere (hey, it had a 318 ci V8, and would whip the ass of most production cars today) for less than $3000. That was just the second brand new car we ever had.

Anyway, a freakin' Kia is the cheapest new car available today, at more than twice that money, but a truly comparable auto (although no one has push button shifting nowadays ;') is in the area of $15000. Gas prices then hovered between 40 and 50 cents a gallon at that time, and for years thereafter, except during "price wars" (typically during this time of the year) when they dropped, occasionally below 30 cents.

Bananas cost 14 cents a pound. A pen was under 50 cents. Milk was under a buck a gallon, and breakfast cereal under a buck a box. And the cost for monthly internet service was zero. ;'D I mentioned this before, found it in a file:

Hydrogen's Dirty Secret
by Barry C. Lynn
May/June 2003 Issue
By launching an ambitious program to develop what he calls the "Freedom Car," Bush seemed determined to realize the kind of future that hydrogen-car supporters have envisioned for years. Using existing technology, hydrogen can be easily and cleanly extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an electric motor in a car.

You know how a lot of partisans continually bitch about GWB's oil buddies? I really do have to laugh... [thanks, ValerieUSA, for sending this a while back]

How Marc Rich made billions from Nigeria's Oil
Marc Rich is the most controversial businessman in the U.S. today. In a nutshell, he has been making waves here in the U.S. following insinuations by right wing activists and other Clinton critics that Rich, through some sleek ways, "bought" his January 2001 presidential pardon via his former wife, Denise Rich. Denise has made donations to the President Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas and more than $600,000 to Democratic Party causes in recent years. Clinton also attended numerous fundraisers hosted by Denise. Another issue which reflects the audacious resolve and strategic ways of the 66-years old Mr. Rich is that he hired, shall I simply say, "the best attorney for the job" of getting the Clinton pardon, Washington D.C.-based attorney Jack Quinn (who recently served as President Clinton's lawyer). Quinn delivered.

Mr. Rich's ignoble support for the apartheid regime in South Africa places his aggressive business legacy on the wrong side of history. Speaking of legacy, I really doubt that Rich really cares about more than making big bucks, here and there... [O]ur community and readers should know about the millions of unpaid royalties and misleading declarations he made in the Nigerian oil and gas business through his numerous deals with soldier-businessmen-politicans who ran Nigeria into an economic stupor.[I]n August of 1999, three months after taking office, President Obasanjo's government announced 16 crude oil contracts to replace the 41 approved under previous military governments. Remarkably, the controversial international businessman Marc Rich "survived" the overhaul of the established international crude oil trading houses who dominated Nigeria's exports. They were called the "magnificent seven."

My husband was laid off from his job in 1998. I remember the stock market developing cracks and falling apart by year 1999. Our 401K took a noise dive by the year 2000. We were paying through the nose with taxes. We made about $200 too much to qualify for reduce lunch programs at the public schools. We might had low unemployment rate during the late 90's but my husband did temp jobs before he got something more permanent. Clinton wanted to base employment rate by how many people have temp jobs? While Bush was campaigning back 2000, he mentioned the economy was falling apart and he was not responsible for that. I think Bush is doing an excellent job with our economy. It could been worst, especially after 911. Bush kept the economy afloat and we survived as a nation. I think under Bush leadership, the middle class folks received good tax breaks especially with children. That $800 rebate went into school registration, book fees and clothing for our kids. Some people bought a new washer and dryer. I wonder how many people who receive this tax break on our block pumped it right into the community. Reducing taxes helps to create jobs.

"Looks like more people working to me. What am I missing?"

You are missing that this statistic benefits Bush's re-election. So the statstic will be ignored, twisted and in other ways met with a countervailing flurry of lies/damned-lies/biased-statistics to bamboozle people in thinking the worst.

Thanks for sharing. I was wanting to know the real facts.

Let's keep sharing this in letters to the editor until it hits home.