Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Novak: Clinton Cooked Government Books?]Can We Remove the "?" Now?
CNN/Inside Politics ^ | August 9, 2002 | Robert Novak

Posted on 11/10/2002 6:32:02 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

"Through all of President Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high -- a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year while in fact it was declining."


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 30; books; clinton; cooked; government; novak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 11/10/2002 6:32:02 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Related Links:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729856/posts
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/column.novak/
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/8/8/80549
2 posted on 11/10/2002 6:33:07 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Why not, he lied about everything else.
3 posted on 11/10/2002 6:33:48 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
Eight consecutive blunders in a row!


"Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.

"Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election).
...
"Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services)."

Why on earth would it take two years to access corporate tax returns?
4 posted on 11/10/2002 6:38:20 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Because current returns didn't show the proper Clinton image.
5 posted on 11/10/2002 6:46:51 AM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
**Bump**
6 posted on 11/10/2002 6:48:09 AM PST by TwoStep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The Clintons should be made to do the perp walk !
7 posted on 11/10/2002 6:49:50 AM PST by Newbomb Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Maybe I'm no visionary. Maybe I think small instead of thinking big. Maybe I'm no great risk-taker, and it's only the big risk-takers who make the really big money.

But the ONLY "economy" to whose "indicators" I ever pay attention, is my own personal financial status. (If I owned a company, I would include my company in that. If I worked for a company, I would at least try to find out its true status.)

"The economy" this, "the economy" that. The heck with it--one man's loss is another man's gain. One business may boom b/c of a trend for another type of business to fail. I say, forget the really big picture (not predictable), and watch your own wealth--if you're so concerned about not having money.

And imagine ANYONE thinking that ANYTHING that appeared good about the Clinton admin., was actually worth a crap. Puh--leeze! I was taught about a phrase in school--the phrase was "Coolidge prosperity." Seems to me that that's what they called the apparent wealth and growth of the Roaring 20's--they called it that after the bubble had burst.

Some of the '90's was a holdover from the prosperity of the 80's. Some of it no doubt had to do with new growing industries. Some of it probably had to do with the trend towards even less prosperous people buying stocks--money was being pumped into the whole game.

NOTICE that the prosperity of the EIGHTIES was called by democrats "the decade of greed." Remember that one? That's all they could come up with to attack the prosperity we enjoyed under Reagan. I remember well how their house media suddenly swamped us all with constant remarks about how "greedy" everyone had gotten during the '80's.

Then, when the prosperity (both real and fake) continued on into the '90's, suddenly they SHUT UP about "the decade of greed." Suddenly profit wasn't a bad word--because it was happening during the administration of their own "man", the Fat-Hipped Rapist. Amazing how we never heard another word about "the decade of greed."
8 posted on 11/10/2002 6:50:45 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Thanks- it's been added to the morning email.
9 posted on 11/10/2002 6:50:52 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
He didn't find this is the 'Zip' Clinton lie book? Found on page 76 item 4.
10 posted on 11/10/2002 6:52:32 AM PST by gulfcoast6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
one man's loss is another man's gain.

This may be correct in a figurative sense. Economic downturns are good for pawnbrokers for example. But it is literally false and an economic fallacy, and in its reverse form - 'one man's gain is another man's loss' - is often used by the Left to support one nonsensical redistributionist scheme or another.

11 posted on 11/10/2002 7:01:53 AM PST by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
"Why on earth would it take two years to access corporate tax returns?

The wrong set of books are being attacked here, we need for the Federal Bureaucracy’s books to be audited. During the Clinton/Gore years those departments were larded with anyone who was warm and had two eye-balls for DNC votes. The departments handed out credit cards like candy and 55% were misused for personal uses. We taxpayers should demand the government be audited like any other business concern; government is not supposed to be in business against the people. Billions of dollars are wasted and unaccounted for in these vast depositories called agencies for the federal government.

For those Freepers who no longer have the list, here it is. We need to write the GOA about this and demand an accounting.

Credit card list:
The number of active purchase, travel and fleet credit cards... By Associated Press, 8/14/2001 15:20
The number of active purchase, travel and fleet credit cards held by civilian and military employees of federal agencies as of June 30; the average number of cards per employee in the agency; and the total bad debt write-offs on travel cards billed to individual employees in each agency since the program began in 1998:
Agency or Department Cards Avg. Write-offs Agency for Int. Development 2,582 1.13 857
Dept of Agriculture 157,752 1.67 1,346,735
Dept of Commerce 36,601 0.93 1,106,907
Dept of Education 3,966 0.86 131,517
Dept of Energy 19,815 1.27 361,107
Dept of HHS 46.061 0.73 1,321,797
Dept of HUD 8,288 0.81 438,879
Dept of Interior 82,835 1.22 1,153,329
Dept of Justice 140,244 1.11 2,250,119
Dept of Labor 19,085 1.19 408,650
Dept of State 13,835 0.50 562,474
Air Force 609,778 1.21 10,844,789
Army 538,271 0.76 31,051,019
Navy 450,907 0.81 12,846,875
Dept of Transportation 119,465 1.87 2,711,110
Dept of Treasury 132,854 0.81 743,495
Dept of Veterans Affairs 109,284 0.49 838,150
Environ. Protection Agency 18,370 1.02 217,381
Federal Emerg. Manag. Agency 13,391 2.59 708,873
General Services Admin 24,190 1.73 219,953
NASA 24,949 1.32 125,025
Nuclear Regulatory Comm 3,163 1.11 19,301
Small Business Admin 5,124 1.26 234,916
Social Security Admin 4,262 0.07 694,395
Source: General Services Administration; Office of Personnel Management; Department of Defense

2 Posted on 08/14/2001 12:50:46 PDT by Native American Female Vet

12 posted on 11/10/2002 7:02:04 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Can't we ever get rid of this traitorous rapist? I am sickened every time I think of what he's done, and sickened more that he's never going to pay for it, or even have it acknowledged by his own party all of the damage he's done.
13 posted on 11/10/2002 7:11:50 AM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
He not only cooked the books for the economy, but it has been demonstrated here that he's also "reassigned" criteria for other bureaus to make unemployment and crime statistics look more favorable than they really were.
14 posted on 11/10/2002 7:14:42 AM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
And where is Ashcroft through all of this? He's not much worse than Reno.... This really stinks!
15 posted on 11/10/2002 7:15:43 AM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Remember the "budget surplus" of the Sinkmeister's economy? That was touted as one of his greatest accomplishments. Well, if he 'cooked the books' at the levels stated, there never was a balanced budget much less a 'surplus'. Even when this fictional surplus existed because someone said it did, the Rats were still calling for a tax/spending INCREASE.

So here Dubya inherits this bogus bubble economy that goes to hell in a handbasket just as the Rats knew it would. The problem was, he pushed through the tax cut package (even though it wasn't full strength) and it helped slow the recession, and now is fueling a slight recovery. That's why the Rats scream so loudly and try to demonize the tax cuts - it ruins their plans politically. They need the economy to tank. If that's not criminal, it sure should be.
16 posted on 11/10/2002 7:30:07 AM PST by 11B3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Did Clinton, in fact, lie ...

No, but if he did it's between him and those adults who were involved. It is none of the public's business what consenting adults do in private. Wouldn't you lie if you were confronted with the same problem? Hypocrit, bigot, fascist! F***ing scum sucking Nazi baby killer, warmongerer, sure Bush never cooked the books. Regan never lied, Bullshit! Fascist pig scumsucking Nazi, Hitler wannabe.

Egad, I was possessed by a demonrat. Someone call the Catholics quick I need to be exercised.

17 posted on 11/10/2002 7:44:23 AM PST by thedugal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
"Did Clinton...lie...?

Is the Pope Catholic?

18 posted on 11/10/2002 7:46:09 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
I am not sure through the chain of command if this is an Ashcroft problem, yet. It surely is the GOA's though. I periodically send this list to my elected with a terse letter about the waste etc. It is a huge problem and so is the growing government. Think twice about an entitlement for prescription drugs, it will be another burdensome bureaucratic mess, rife with corruption. Most seniors have monetary help with their prescriptions now, the list of those drugs insurance companies and Medi Care will pay for is just too short; many more drugs need to be added to it and that is simple and costs no one. Any-hoo send the list to everyone in your state and to your senators asking them to demand the GAO move NOW to rectify this theft of money from the taxpayers.
19 posted on 11/10/2002 8:06:28 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Properity in the 90's was largely driven by technology, and the tremendous productivity it delivered. The biggest player in technology was, of course, Microsoft. Users of early computer technology had been clammering for applications that would run under a single Operating System, which was delivered as Microsoft "Windows", so they could fully utilize their all data more transparently, usefully, easily and dynamically. Business could make better decisions faster. bubba sued the engine of the economy that was giving the United States buiness tremendous advantages, and then cooked the books when his legal maneuvering began to slow the economy. Therein lies bubba's one and only economic policy that people have tried to identify.
20 posted on 11/10/2002 8:22:25 AM PST by stickywillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
I believe that you are correct here. Throughout the Clinton era I heard businessmen talk about the government numbers being more dishonest than ususal just to make Clinton look good but of course the media would never expose such things about their boy. I didn't save them but I think I read one or two reports, in the era, buried in the business section stating something to that effect also.
21 posted on 11/10/2002 8:26:20 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Maybe the President ought to set up a cabinet-level position just dedicated to uncovering all of the Clinton crimes and bringing him and all his collaborators to justice. Either way, if Dubya doesn't do it, the Good Lord will.
22 posted on 11/10/2002 8:47:07 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie
I am not an economist nor do I play one on the internet but it seems that our socialist style government, heavy taxes and regulations caught up with us about 10 -12 years ago. I mean here that people were being strangled by government and the economy was suffering from it. Credit cards used to be a hard thing to get, suddenly everybody had credit cards and the companies couldn't give out more and upgrade the existing accounts fast enough. The Fed kept lowering interest rates and America went on a spending spree. On top of this there was a genuine tech revolution with new inventions and applications which helped the economy tremendously.

Much of the stock growth in the last years did not reflect business earnings nor potential. It was all speculation chasing price movement - everyone wanting to jump onto any company whose stocks moved upward thus a rush begat a greater rush and stock value inflated far and above reality.

Speaking of Slick Willie going after Microsoft and starting the downturn I heard - can't back this up but heard that the government intentionally caused the stockcrash because too many people were dropping out of the workforce or retiring early because they were making so much in the market. This starved Social Security tax revenue to such a degree that the government decided it had to sink a lot of this fortune and force people back into the work force just so they could tax them again. I would like to hear some people around here, more informed economically that I say what they think about that.

23 posted on 11/10/2002 8:50:03 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
And what do you think?
24 posted on 11/10/2002 8:50:04 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thedugal
"I need to be exercised"
Do you mean circumcised or exOrcised?
25 posted on 11/10/2002 8:54:30 AM PST by americanbychoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
"Clinton Has A Pathological Inability To Distinguish Fact From Fiction".This was written by the outgoing burea-chief of The Sunday Times of London in September of 1993.After 15-years in Washington D.C.,he was being rotated back to The Uk.This was in his closing column.The British REALLY DO KNOW THE LANGUAGE!!
26 posted on 11/10/2002 8:59:41 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
What was it that he said to Juanita Broaddrick as he left her in shock and bleeding?Wasn't it something like"You'd Better Put Some Ice On That"??My blood BOILS when I think of all The SHEEPLE who continue to support this PIG!!!!!!!!!!!
27 posted on 11/10/2002 9:03:35 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Clinton is a natural born liar.

It was "the economy stupid" that kept his miserable naked butt with Monica in the oval office.

That was his only saving factor, and of course he would do all he could do to protect it by simply cookin' the books.

It's too darn bad though that the American people were innocents caught up in his perfidious scheme. We are indeed paying a very heavy price for the pleasure, no, the displeasure of his disgraceful 8 year occupancy in the White House.

28 posted on 11/10/2002 9:03:36 AM PST by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie
You are right when you assert that prosperity in the 90's was driven by technology.You failed to mention what made that technology explosion possible!It took a great deal of investment and capital-formation and this was made possible by Ronald Reagan's slashing of marginal tax-rates in the 1980's!!
29 posted on 11/10/2002 9:08:14 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thedugal
You mean "Exorcised"!!!A Catholic Priest Can Handle It!!!!
30 posted on 11/10/2002 9:22:14 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
It doesn't. The Bureau of Economic Analysis releases corporate profit information with a lag of one quarter, sometimes a quarter and a half. Projections based on productivity data are consistently off, high. Projections by Wall Street analysts are consistently off even more, higher, and are continually revised downward as a date approaches. Thus, 3 years out Wall Street regularly forecasts 10-15% profit growth for the whole market. The actual results haven't been anywhere near those projections for 5 years now.

According to BEA figures, after tax corporate profits peaked in 1997. That is right Virginia, back before the Asia crisis - remember that one? When the Dow briefly broke down to around 7700, before snapping back over 9000 after the Fed rate cuts following the blow-up of Capital Management? That was the time real underlying business performance peaked. That is when the smart money got out.

The rate of after tax corporate profits in 1997 was $555 billion. Today is it $444 billion. In nominal terms, corporate profits have fallen by 1/5th since the Asia crisis. Meanwhile, the economy has continued to expand, up one quarter in nominal terms. The percent of GDP going to after tax corporate profits has consequently fallen from 6.7% to 4.3%.

The fall in profits after 1997 was not "monotonic". 2000 was better than the other years, with $523 billion turned in then, almost regaining the 1997 profits peak but not quite. The rebound from the 1998 low of $482 billion was presented as "renewed growth" by Wall Street analysts cheering on the last speculative blow off in the market. In 2001, profits fell to $471 billion, below the 1998 level. The bottom was in the last quarter of 2001, at an annual rate of $429 billion. We are up only marginally above that floor right now.

Corporate profits now are running at about the same rate as in Clinton's first term, if you average the rising trend back then. The stock market is twice as high. Back then, price to earnings was half what it is now with profits rising strongly, now it is much higher with profits down to flat.

More broadly viewed, a steady string of strong profit growth stretches from 1982 to 1997, with a slowdown in 1986. Corporate profits increased fourfold over that 15 year period, or a 10% annual rate (nominal). An additional tailwind came from falling interest rates and expansion of the initially low market multiple, established during the double digit inflation period of the late 70s.

From 1997 to 2000, the stock market climbed on hype, not underlying real performance. People came to expect double digit profit growth and 15% stock price growth. But profits cannot in the long run rise significantly faster than the overall economy, which rises only around 6% per year. And stock prices cannot in the long run outrun corporate profits. The period of disconnect was about 2 years, and allowed the market to rise 1/3 to 1/2, even while profits fell 1/5. That mismatch then resulted in the bursting bubble of late 2000 and 2001.

There have certainly been government numbers coming out during that period that made it easier to believe the rosy projections coming out of Wall Street. Productivity numbers in particular were probably fudged. That mattered because it convinced some bulls that long term economic growth might shift to a higher gear permanently. Which, combined with low long term interest rates, suggested that extreme valuations for stocks might be sustainable.

But this was frankly a straw grasped at by bulls looking for any kind of spin. Government figures showing that profits had peaked were readily available. Wall Street took to following "let's pretend" numbers instead, with numerous costs stripped out by accounting games or ignored even though reported, as supposedly "non-recurring". They were thus able to continue predicting double digit growth in their make believe numbers, even as the real ones flattened.

When profits actually fell, however, and clearly were not coming back immediately, companies that had relied on rising earnings defaulted on tens of billions in debts. Real earnings to service those debts had not appeared. Unable to throw more borrowed money at the problem, investment rates fell, and sent the initial credit shock up the line to suppliers to the most egregious overinvesting borrowers (notably telecoms and internet). As tech spending fell, the darlings of the bubble boosters were smashed, with 90-95% falls common.

Certainly some misleading government figures contributed to the whole debacle. But there was and is head-in-sand bullishness to share. Investors believed every sort of too good to be true hype and did not do their homework. Wall Street lied outright sometimes, and more often simply shoveled out the BS being fed to them by corporate insiders. Corporate insiders played every sort of accounting game to boost their stocks, and investors cheered, calling it "maximizing shareholder value". Everybody was going to get rich piling into the same 20 tech stocks, which no one would ever sell.

The fallacy of composition was out in full force as a result. In the long run, investors as a group can only receive money that companies actually earn. Everything else they just pay to one another. And in the long run, what companies actually earn is regulated by the pace of expansion of the overall economy, because the share of GDP going to corporate profits cannot expand forever. The overall economy, in turn, grows around 6% nominal, 1/2 to 1/3 of that being mere inflation.

One can therefore predict with considerable reliability that very long run returns from owning stocks will be about the level of the dividend yield on stocks, plus 6%. In the past, stocks have returned 10% because dividend yields were around 4%. Now dividend yields are 1.5% to 2%, and consequently there is no way stocks can return double digit amounts consistently, from present levels, in the medium term future. It is extremely doubtful that any of this has yet sunk for the mutual fund bulls of the late 1990s.

The primary support for the market at present is the very low level of long term interest rates. That is somewhat misleading, however, because rates are only low for the highest credit quality loans. Corporate spreads are extremely high, due in large part to high rates of default on the easy credit spewed out during the late 90s bull period.

As the economy recovers, corporate profits are likely to resume moderate growth, and to reach the 1997 level once again perhaps 3-5 years from now. The same recovery is likely to increase credit quality and gradually reduce the present wide spread on medium quality corporates. Medium quality corporates are at least as attractive at present prices as stocks are.

Over the past five years, bonds, real estate, and cash have been the places to be. A balanced portfolio would be perfectly sensible with present prices and risks. It may be a bit early, as dividend yields are still low and corporate profits have not recovered much from the late 2001 bottom. A gradual shift from the defensive posture of the past five years to 50-50 (stock vs. defensive) would be a perfectly sensible way to play the present situation.

Above all, the lesson is to do your own homework and not to believe interested hype peddled by almost everybody, not just the democrats or just the government.

31 posted on 11/10/2002 10:07:18 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
As far as cooking the books is concerned, every administration for decades has done the same.

1. There have been no federal budget "surpluses;" every one spent more than came in. The difference is made up of the excess of FICA tax over benefits.

2. "Social Security" is the biggest Ponzi scheme that ever existed.

3. There are unrecorded liabilities in the trillions on FNMA and FMAC books that are not included in gov't figures.
32 posted on 11/10/2002 11:59:00 AM PST by jedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
"the government intentionally caused the stockcrash because too many people were dropping out of the workforce or retiring early because they were making so much in the market. This starved Social Security tax revenue to such a degree that the government decided it had to sink a lot of this fortune and force people back into the work force just so they could tax them again."

OMG! I never thought of this before, but it certainly makes sense. I would like to believe that it is just the free economy balancing itself, but the powers that be certainly would benefit from such a scenario.
33 posted on 11/10/2002 12:03:52 PM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Thanks for your post. I tried to understand it, and think I got most of it.

One thing you point out is that people sometimes invest in stocks with an unrealistic attitude. I'm talking about middle-class people. A person might be a very good doctor, say, and unfortunately he might think he can therefore study up a lot and end up making some really savvy investments. (The smart doctor will pay someone to do this for him--someone who truly knows economics.) Suppose a university professor, or a doctor, or someone who simply makes a lot as a sales rep, decides they can be a success at "playing the market" b/c they were a success at their original profession. They will never have enough time (what with their "day" job) to do a really good job of learning how to invest.

Then there are people who have acquired a nice nest egg through, perhaps, a combination of saving and inheritance. These people might be even more naive.

What these people all need to do is to think of buying and selling stocks the way they would think of buying and selling anything else, IMO. Too few people do this. Any of the above people could probably figure out the approximate value of a car, and compare that to what they have "in" the car. If only they would do the same for their stocks.

If it has no real value, then unless it has some unique talismanic value to someone, you're probably not going to get someone to pay really good money for it--ever. This rule also goes for "collectibles." Remember Beanie Babies? While I am sure some people made some nice pocket change collecting and selling Beanie Babies, I have yet to see any Beanie Baby multi-millionaires.

I've heard over and over, various people saying (for example), "those McDonald's toys will be worth money someday." Sometimes they have looked a particular toy or other collectible up in one of those price guides. The fact is, regardless of what the price guides say, the thing is only worth as much as the top price you can ACTUALLY get another person to pay you for it.

34 posted on 11/10/2002 1:47:14 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: redbaiter
Yes, I guess we can count on leftists to take a "half-full" viewpoint (One man's loss is another man's gain) and turn it around into a pessimistic "half-empty" viewpoint (One man's gain is another man's loss.)

Their ways are so counter-intuitive, I can't figure out how so many leftists still survive generation after generation, to continue to plague us all.
35 posted on 11/10/2002 1:50:14 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie
Yes, it seemed obvious to me that the Rapist and/or his minions simply looked at Gates & Co. and said, "There's a rich guy. Let's shake him down."

We have had presidents, I believe, who became corrupt after they'd become president. We've had presidents who were none too honest b/f they became president, and who just continued their dishonesty when they hit the big-time (presidency.) I think the Rapist is in a class by himself, though--he appears to be the very first person who actually went after the presidency solely b/c it looked to him like a really good device to use to make that "big score" that every con man dreams of.
36 posted on 11/10/2002 1:53:41 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Thanks for your Post #12.
37 posted on 11/10/2002 4:18:03 PM PST by Travelgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Travelgirl
Thank you! Use it!
38 posted on 11/10/2002 5:31:17 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
The sickest thing is that, no matter everything we know he has done, 33% of the voters in this nation will glorify him to their dying day.

They will obstruct the truth and position the opinions of future undecided's of their mindset that he was the second coming of FDR, who we all know was the greatest SOCIALIST who ever lived, thus keeping the great lie of the '90's alive long after SLICK'S dying day.

39 posted on 11/10/2002 6:26:31 PM PST by Wondervixen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wondervixen
"33% of the voters in this nation will glorify him to their dying day."

They say 33% of the folks opposed the American Revolution. It is sad, but seems to be a consistent slice of the population.

40 posted on 11/10/2002 7:22:57 PM PST by There's millions of'em
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Not too surprised bump
41 posted on 11/10/2002 9:25:58 PM PST by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: u-89
I predicted back in 99 that the economy was going down, and that Clinton was doctoring the reports. I sensed it. At the same time, I heard a report that there was an epidemic of cavities. That made absolutely no sense to me. Why would teeth be rotting out of peoples' mouths when there was new tarter-control toothpaste, better dental hygene information available, and affordable dental plans? Something was wrong with that picture. People love having perfect teeth. So I wondered then why the dental epidemic was so bad. Conclusion: economic reasons. It was the only thing that made sense.
42 posted on 11/11/2002 3:28:25 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
BUMP
43 posted on 11/11/2002 8:30:27 AM PST by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RippleFire
bump
44 posted on 11/11/2002 9:05:22 AM PST by CPT Clay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Wondervixen
The good thing is, history books are now based on the largest data bases. Look at the best selling books about Clinton. They are the ones most heavilly footnoted.
45 posted on 11/11/2002 9:18:02 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Well, it isn't anything new, but it's getting a lot of attention. The simple question: Should Novak's question mark be removed now?
46 posted on 11/11/2002 9:20:28 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Hmm? I've often wondered if Alan Greenspan made a deal with the Devil.....that's clintoon, of course. :O0
47 posted on 11/11/2002 12:49:23 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
one man's loss is another man's gain

Only in Socialist countries and economies. In free countries it's win/win or no game.

48 posted on 11/11/2002 1:09:11 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thedugal
Someone call the Catholics quick I need to be exercised.

For that you don't call a priest you call a trainer. ... Oh you mean exorcised..never mind. :)

49 posted on 11/11/2002 1:11:52 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I'm no socialist. How about, MY loss can be turned into MY gain?

Or how about, if the price of potatoes hits the bottom, I get a great deal on those potatoes I like to cook?

What I was trying to say is, there is opportunity in many places where pessimists won't look. People need to quit worrying about "the economy," and see if they can find something out there that will make them some money or at least make them able to get by. Almost always, it can be done.

Worrying about "the economy" is too large a picture. A problem can be tackled in stages. This idea that the huge, varying, multi-faceted "economy" can be controlled by any one person or entity, is for the birds.
50 posted on 11/11/2002 5:36:05 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson