Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Absolutely. The only way those Iranian nutcases distract the public from the disasterous domestic policy and hang on to power is to get them worked up about an external enemy.

Posted by Adrasteia at June 18, 2007 12:24 AM

Adrasteia: The only way those Iranian nutcases distract the public from the disasterous domestic policy and hang on to power is to get them worked up about an external enemy.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 18, 2007 02:01 AM

Brian:

You wouldn't be referring to the Dow Jones Industrial Average breaking 13,000 or the 4.8% U.S. jobless rate? Or is it the record Federal government tax receipts and State budget surpluses?

Posted by John Kavanagh at June 18, 2007 06:43 AM

No John,

He is referring to whatever the voices in his head tell him to say which bears little resemblence to reality.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 18, 2007 07:02 AM

You wouldn't be referring to the Dow Jones Industrial Average breaking 13,000 or the 4.8% U.S. jobless rate?

No, John. I am not referring to how well the rich are doing, nor to fictional statistics.

Or is it the record Federal government tax receipts and State budget surpluses?

Would that "record" be the difference between spending and receipts? No, I was speaking mainly about the 2002 and 2004 elections, in which the abysmal economy would have been the main issue if not for Iraq. The terror alerts were almost like clockwork, coming out to counter bad economic news and scandals sometimes within hours of their being publicized. In 2002, I was amused to hear from Condi and Dick that Saddam was in on 9/11, and was days from nuking Chicago, but I (being unpatriotic) didn't believe them, and boy do I feel silly about that now. Let's see now, what was the terror alert they issued when it was revealed they tried to reclassify fast food work as "manufacturing"? It's so hard to remember all of the individual acts of treasonous bullshit. Orange Alert came to be the codeword for PR damage control; every time some dimwitted lackey said something stupid, every time a report came out criticizing their policies or disproving some other lie they told, America would be under attack by shadow forces that nobody outside Karl Rove's office had ever heard about.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 18, 2007 09:50 AM

In 2002, I was amused to hear from Condi and Dick that Saddam was in on 9/11, and was days from nuking Chicago,

No, that would have been the voices in your head, since neither of them ever said, or implied that.

(Here's just one hint for the Bush deranged and thought impaired: claims that Saddam coordinated with Al Qaeda != claims that Saddam was involved with 911.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 18, 2007 09:58 AM

No, I was speaking mainly about the 2002 and 2004 elections, in which the abysmal economy would have been the main issue if not for Iraq.

Maybe, but the economy is booming now. Stop living in the past to dig up gloom and doom. But, then again, you don't want to recognize a booming economy because that would be a positive for the administration, which you hate.

As for the reason for this thread, I offer this link:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html

This is interesting....

Posted by Mac at June 18, 2007 10:29 AM

Rand: Here's just one hint for the Bush deranged and thought impaired: claims that Saddam coordinated with Al Qaeda != claims that Saddam was involved with 911

Here's just one hint for delusional necrocons: They're both lies.

Mac: Maybe, but the economy is booming now.

No, it isn't. There are six million more people below the poverty line than there were under the constitution, and the only thing booming is the percentage of GDP occupied by corporate profit. The actual economy of the United States--the living standards of its people--is collapsing.

Stop living in the past to dig up gloom and doom.

Don't be a jerk. There's no statute of limitations on treason, and even if we did have one it certainly wouldn't be five minutes.

But, then again, you don't want to recognize a booming economy because that would be a positive for the administration, which you hate.

Of course I don't recognize something that isn't there. Americans are in worse shape than any point since the Great Depression, and you just want to refute that by talking about how the top 5% of the country is doing. John earlier brought up a purely fantastic 4.8% unemployment rate from a Labor department that's lied constantly, and used totally bizarre, arbitrary, and disreputable standards to compute it, and we're supposed to sing "Happy Days are Here Again"? They disqualified people who were unemployed beyond their compensation, and then invented all kinds of ridiculous gimmicks to magically count people as employed who didn't have jobs. Virtually every other key agency of the Executive branch has been turned into a political propaganda arm just like this, and they've been functioning as such ever since these maniacs seized power. Our economy is falling apart, and their financiers are looting the rubble.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 18, 2007 01:41 PM

Rand: Here's just one hint for the Bush deranged and thought impaired: claims that Saddam coordinated with Al Qaeda != claims that Saddam was involved with 911.

Here's just one hint for delusional necrocons: They're both lies.

Bull.

And nice (well, actually a pretty transparent) way of avoiding the issue. You're full of excrement. As usual.

I see that you can't even provide a citation to support your delusion that either Condi or Cheney said that Saddam was involved with 911.

Why should we take anything else you write seriously?

Oh. Right. We don't.

We just recognize it as what it is: the wanking of a pathetic leftist with nothing else to do except troll my site.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 18, 2007 01:56 PM

There are six million more people below the poverty line than there were under the constitution, and the only thing booming is the percentage of GDP occupied by corporate profit.

Horse hockey. The standard indicator used by both sides of the aisle to determine growth and stability of the economy at a glance is the DOW or the NASDAQ. The reason we're soaring to new records is because the companies are offering 401k plans and individual investors are flooding the market with money. That's not corporate money, its individual investor money piggybacked by corporate matched funds. Then there are the hundreds of Mutual funds which allow people to invest as well. This economy is robust and surging forward, as it has since the major downturn in 2000-2001. Every economy will have those that are below the poverty line, even the hand-out driven governments of the left. Opportunity drives the economy as much as anything else and there's a boatload of opportunity out there right now.

Posted by Mac at June 18, 2007 02:47 PM

There are six million more people below the poverty line than there were under the constitution.

What the hell moronic stat is that? "under the constitution"? There were less than 3 million people in the US in 1787-88. If he means 6 million more than a strict following of the US constitution today, then I'd love to see that math model.

Posted by Leland at June 18, 2007 04:00 PM

Rand: Bull.

To call them bull would be a gross understatement. Both claims are 180-degree Orwellian doublespeak.

And nice (well, actually a pretty transparent) way of avoiding the issue.

No, it is the issue. Cheney and Rice told these lies in order to tie 9/11 to Saddam in the minds of the public leading up to the invasion, and the Press Office was given instructions to always talk about both when either was brought up--instructions that were followed verbatim in conservative publications and newsrooms across America.

More directly about Iran, you might be interested in this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19296324/site/newsweek/

I see that you can't even provide a citation to support your delusion that either Condi or Cheney said that Saddam was involved with 911.

Read something other than Der National Review one of these days.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
(requires free registration)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

We just recognize it as what it is: the wanking of a pathetic leftist with nothing else to do except troll my site.

Maybe you think talking to you is the mark of the truly pathetic, but I have faith in humanity and the value of every individual. Really, it's no bother for me to contribute my time here.

Mac: The standard indicator used by both sides of the aisle to determine growth and stability of the economy at a glance is the DOW or the NASDAQ.

No, it is not. The Clinton administration cited the stock market boom defensively, to justify earlier tax increases to upper incomes who were now benefiting from a "raging bull" market. To everyone else, they cited gains in housing, near-full employment, reductions in poverty, massive improvements in minority income, huge budget surpluses, etc etc. I get misty just thinking about what they could have accomplished with a rational Congress.

The reason we're soaring to new records is because the companies are offering 401k plans and individual investors are flooding the market with money.

Unfortunately, they're eliminating health insurance, dental coverage, weekends, and outsourcing entire industries. That's why the stocks are soaring, and the people who paid for it certainly aren't making up their income or insurance in dividends.

This economy is robust and surging forward

No, it isn't. You can't claim that with a straight face when poverty is high, lower-end incomes are declining, cost of living increases even for the middle-class outstrip income growth, and people are losing benefits left and right. If you took half the income held by the lower 95% and gave it to the top 5%, you would see the most explosive stock market growth in the history of mankind, but one of the worst economies ever. Right now the economy is simply bad, but its decline is accelerating.

Every economy will have those that are below the poverty line

Yes, but there are six million more in poverty today than before the current slate of fascist policies, and it's increased on average by a million more every year.

Opportunity drives the economy as much as anything else and there's a boatload of opportunity out there right now.

Ah, so now you're blaming the American people for not seizing all this abundant but invisible "opportunity."

Leland: What the hell moronic stat is that? "under the constitution"?

Before the coup, Leland. Hopefully you're old enough to remember six years ago.

There were less than 3 million people in the US in 1787-88.

I obviously wasn't referring to all years under the constitution, just the most recent.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 19, 2007 06:50 AM

> Before the coup, Leland. Hopefully you're old enough to remember six years ago.

That was a coup? The US govt was overthrown/taken by force?

It didn't take much to defeat BS.

Let me guess - BS lives in fear of a "killing frost" too.

Posted by Andy Freeman at June 19, 2007 10:09 AM

The Clinton administration cited the stock market boom defensively, to justify earlier tax increases to upper incomes who were now benefiting from a "raging bull" market.

And they were dead wrong, as the crash after Bush took office proves. Clinton rode the tide that Reagan installed and when Clinton's tax increases hit after Bush 41's, the market slowed, grew unstable, and collapsed.

Unfortunately, they're eliminating health insurance, dental coverage, weekends, and outsourcing entire industries.

Some are, most aren't. Why not outsource if it reduces costs? If Americans want those jobs, reduce what they demand for pay. Besides, if you're getting paid for a job, why should a company also pay for your health? Shouldn't you be responsible for your own insurance? Government can't do everything for you, you have to do some things yourself.

If you took half the income held by the lower 95% and gave it to the top 5%, you would see the most explosive stock market growth in the history of mankind, but one of the worst economies ever.

That's about the dumbest thing you've ever typed here. We've had the most explosive stock market growth since the inception of mutual funds. They allow ordinary people to invest and all that money in the market caused the surge.

Right now the economy is simply bad, but its decline is accelerating.

No, and no. The economy is fine and getting stronger by these two indicators which have been used for quite some time. DOW and S&P keep going up, the economy continues to move forward. Tax cuts give me more of MY money back so I can invest it. I'm right at the poverty line, but I'm investing for my family's future. I'm helping drive the economy.

Ah, so now you're blaming the American people for not seizing all this abundant but invisible "opportunity."

Some, for knowing and not taking advantage of the opportunity, then complaining about it. I blame lack of information the most. Mutual funds and investing for the ordinary folks is relatively new and experienced a surge during Reagan's administration, due to education and corporate pushes to get the investment dollars rolling. They could see what that meant. Then through the Clinton years, the administration let the market run wild, despite accurate warnings of a correction to the market, especially in the tech sector. The knowledge and education was withheld and the bubble burst. Thanks Clinton, thanks a lot.

The opportunity to grow your money through smart investing is not "invisible" Brian. Its a fact what compound growth can do for you. A little education and a lot of homework can make princes out of paupers. Oh, it also helps if you reduce the bellyaching about lack of opportunity that's staring you in the face.

Give a man a fish versus teach him to fish.
Liberal vs Conservative

Posted by Mac at June 19, 2007 10:58 AM

Before the coup, Leland. Hopefully you're old enough to remember six years ago.

All you have proven is that you are unreasonable and lack even the basic cognative skills. I hope, even in your Liberal Arts college, your professor would flunk you for believe their was a coup d'tat in the US 6 years ago.

I obviously wasn't referring to all years under the constitution, just the most recent.

It's not obvious at all. The only thing obvious is your lack of a good education. We are still under the US constitution.

You know what I find amazing about BS. He's a college kid, getting an education presumably so he can get a good job. Is there anyone here, who has the power to hire somebody, interested in hiring BS with his beliefs and his ability to reason?

Posted by Leland at June 19, 2007 03:58 PM

Andy: That was a coup? The US govt was overthrown/taken by force?

They certainly didn't ask permission.

It didn't take much to defeat BS.

Then what's the holdup?

Let me guess - BS lives in fear of a "killing frost" too.

What are you babbling about?

Mac: And they were dead wrong, as the crash after Bush took office proves.

There was a significant but not catastrophic market correction in summer of 2000, not even coming close to reversing the progress that had been made, and stocks were already recovering. Then, when it became clear after the Supreme Court decision that Dick Cheney would be in control of the United States government, stocks began a massive tumble before hitting a nadir around March of 2001. Things were relatively stable from that point until 9/11, after which the stock markets entered a four-year period of decline followed by stagnation. Negative economic news was usually delivered in close conjunction with sensational terror alerts.

Clinton rode the tide that Reagan installed and when Clinton's tax increases hit after Bush 41's, the market slowed, grew unstable, and collapsed.

Ah, ninja economics. So Ronald Reagan magically fixed the economy as soon as he took office, but his responsibility for it suddenly ended with the 1987 crash due to some abstruse law of quantum economics, and then it reappeared again in 1998. Why not just drop the pretense and admit you're defining all economic growth throughout history and all future time as Ronald Reagan's doing.

Sorry Mac, reality calls. The tax increases and spending priorities of the Clinton administration spurred and facilitated the economic explosion that followed, and it was only through the earlier interest rate hikes of Alan Greenspan that the eventual market correction in Summer of 2000 avoided becoming a crash. Only when people got a taste of what to expect from the incoming regime did stocks begin the long march to perdition, and their tax policies hammered the nails in the coffin of the previous growth.

Why not outsource if it reduces costs?

Because the income of American workers is the foundation of the economy, not an expense to be eliminated. Undermining that foundation results in a Hoover spiral, hence the million more in poverty every single year for the past six.

If Americans want those jobs, reduce what they demand for pay.

You really want to see America become a third world country, don't you?

Besides, if you're getting paid for a job, why should a company also pay for your health?

Because they're profiting from your health.

Shouldn't you be responsible for your own insurance?

Sure, if you're self-employed.

Government can't do everything for you

It does everything for corporations but sell off the Statue of Liberty for scrap copper and I don't hear you complaining.

That's about the dumbest thing you've ever typed here.

Then deny it instead of spouting this vacuous evasion.

We've had the most explosive stock market growth since the inception of mutual funds. They allow ordinary people to invest and all that money in the market caused the surge.

Mutual funds usually have a four-figure minimum investment, and although you ignored it the first time I'll say this again: How do you expect people to invest when they can't even afford health care for their children? You just shrugged off outsourcing by saying ordinary people should accept even less pay than they're already getting, and yet you cling to this ridiculous notion that the stock market is wide open for anyone to participate.

People are up to their ears in debt because of medical expenses that "moneytarians" like yourself don't think they should be allowed to fund through their own government, and have such contempt for working people you don't even think they're owed it on moral grounds by hugely profitable companies they've invested a huge chunk of their lives in. But somehow those people are supposed to come up with enough money to invest and have a significant impact on their lives? Try as you might, you can't rationalize fascism--your stock market boom is only happening because most people's fortunes are declining. It doesn't have to be that way, but conservatives in this country want their money to come with power, and that means making everyone else as poor as possible.

The economy is fine and getting stronger by these two indicators which have been used for quite some time.

See? You can't even talk about the real economic indicators I mentioned, just repeat this mantra. I refer to lower income, rapidly growing poverty, higher costs of living, decreasing access to health insurance, and you just cling to this crap about the stock market with the desperation of a True Believer faced with reality. If shantytowns started springing up all across America, you'd still be slinging the same bullshit.

Tax cuts give me more of MY money back so I can invest it. I'm right at the poverty line, but I'm investing for my family's future.

If you were at the poverty line, you wouldn't be paying anything but payroll taxes, and those have not been cut. In fact, if you have dependent children, the child tax credit would give you a net subsidy at that level. But that doesn't matter, because frankly I don't believe you. My own experiences living substantially above the poverty line make your claims a vulgar insult.

Then through the Clinton years, the administration let the market run wild, despite accurate warnings of a correction to the market, especially in the tech sector.

Now that's just a flat-out lie, Mac. Alan Greenspan repeatedly raised interest rates to keep the market in check, bemoaning the "irrational exuberance" that was occurring, and did it so often that political cartoons showed him beating a wild-eyed NASDAQ chart over the head with a club. The eventual correction that did occur, while substantial, was not a crash by any means, and the prosperity would have continued if raving psychotics hadn't taken over the US government a few months later. That kind of thing tends to put a damper on investment.

A little education and a lot of homework can make princes out of paupers.

Then why are you claiming to still be a pauper?

Give a man a fish versus teach him to fish.

Liberals give the man a fish so he's alert and healthy, then teach him how to fish. Conservatives don't give a damn how or if he gets his fish, so long as they're not asked to contribute in any way to make it happen, and so long as his own attempts to make it happen don't inconvenience them in any way. Liberal vs. Conservative = conscious human being vs. idiot.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 19, 2007 04:22 PM

There was a significant but not catastrophic market correction in summer of 2000

Yes there was, followed directly after by the tech bubble burst. All those people invested heavily in only one sector took a major hit.

Then, when it became clear after the Supreme Court decision that Dick Cheney would be in control of the United States government, stocks began a massive tumble before hitting a nadir around March of 2001.

Incorrect. After the people elected George W Bush to office, investments in mutual funds spiked upward, despite the poor performance of the tech sector and the correction that had occurred. The massive tumble was the tech bubble bursting and the reactionary sell off that followed, taking into account security issues introduced in 9/11.

So Ronald Reagan magically fixed the economy as soon as he took office

Nope, it took a little longer, but he did do good things for the economy. His tax cuts alone proved that the economy was becoming more tied to individual investors. As corporations grew, so did those investing in them.

Sorry Mac, reality calls. The tax increases and spending priorities of the Clinton administration spurred and facilitated the economic explosion that followed

It calls for thee. Those increases in taxation flattened the wealth curve and subsequently flattened the surge the economy was experiencing. Granted, the flattening started with GHWB's "I will not raise taxes" tax raise, but the Clinton administration piled on more and further flattening growth. At the same time, the tech sector began to explode and no government controls existed to curb the massive overbalancing of the market went unchecked. When the bubble burst, the market slid and lost nearly half its value, under a newly elected president.

Only when people got a taste of what to expect from the incoming regime did stocks begin the long march to perdition, and their tax policies hammered the nails in the coffin of the previous growth.

There was no regime in place. The stock market spiraled downward because of a complete lack of confidence and issues of security. Greenspan's subsequent rate slashing helped correct that, but the massive tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration caused a noticable stabilization. After about a year, things began the upward trend that we still see today. Tax cuts work.

Because the income of American workers is the foundation of the economy, not an expense to be eliminated.

So, we pay what the American worker thinks they deserve, put all our small businesses out of business to prove the principle. Smart way to run a business.

You really want to see America become a third world country, don't you?

Not in the least. I want America and her people to be at the forefront of all economic activity. I want American workers to be paid enormous amounts of money because the companies they wrok for can afford to pay for their expertise. Outsource the jobs no one wants to do and outsource the jobs that don't pay enough for what Americans demand.

Because they're profiting from your health.

Companies profit from your production. Companies profit from ideas and innovation.

It does everything for corporations but sell off the Statue of Liberty for scrap copper and I don't hear you complaining.

So Enron and Martha Stewart was the government helping corporations. Whatever. Through the stock plunge and recovery, the government cut taxes and the economy bounced.

Mutual funds usually have a four-figure minimum investment

No they don't. A 401k is a mutual fund and they don't require a four figure entry. Several mutual funds exist that do not charge exorbitant entry fees, but they are usually safer, non-risk funds.

and yet you cling to this ridiculous notion that the stock market is wide open for anyone to participate.

It is wide open. Get a job, invest. Use government programs to gain knowledge and enter the work force. Invest as much as you can, even if its only five bucks. The sooner you start, the more the return.

It doesn't have to be that way, but conservatives in this country want their money to come with power, and that means making everyone else as poor as possible.

And liberals want everybody to be equally poor while they hold the hoard's purse strings for themselves. You can't rationalize socialism either.

You can't even talk about the real economic indicators I mentioned

I talked about the one's that most accurately paint the nation's economy.

The child tax credit did not come into effect for me until I managed to land a job that got me above the first tax bracket. Then I got the money for my kids. Then that contract ended and I was unemployed for five months. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but I've lived it.

Now that's just a flat-out lie, Mac. Alan Greenspan repeatedly raised interest rates to keep the market in check, bemoaning the "irrational exuberance" that was occurring

Yes he did, because the fear of inflation was very real. However, while he "bemoaned" the irrational exuberence, what did the Clinton administration due to regulate the dot com growth? Nothing, they rode the high and let it blow up on another president's watch.

and the prosperity would have continued if raving psychotics hadn't taken over the US government a few months later. That kind of thing tends to put a damper on investment.

Good thing no raving psychotics took over. It was a good thing the economic intelligence was in place to correct the coming disaster from the previous administration's inaction.

Then why are you claiming to still be a pauper?

Because I am at the moment. But, thanks to school I attended on the goverment's dime, I landed a job that will pull me out of poverty and well on my way to prosperity.

Liberals give the man a fish so he's alert and healthy

And then they make sure the man is dependant on the government for the rest of their natural life.

Posted by Mac at June 19, 2007 05:11 PM

>>That was a coup? The US govt was overthrown/taken by force?

>They certainly didn't ask permission.

What did BS do about it?

>> It didn't take much to defeat BS.

> Then what's the holdup?

There's no holdup - the "coup" happened, at least as far as BS is concerned. He lost.

His post-coup resistance is matched only by his resistance during the coup.

>> Let me guess - BS lives in fear of a "killing frost" too.

> What are you babbling about?

Pop culture reference to someone else who was defeated by a feather.

Posted by Andy Freeman at June 20, 2007 09:24 PM

Post a comment