🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
 charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:

 > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
That is getting harder and harder to do.
Wouldn't Warren Buffett be bailing out on him?
See Charlie Rose Show last week.

-- 
 C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334

Jean Smith wrote:
> In article 
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
> 
>  > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash


McCain: Well, thank you, Tom. And I think what I don't know is what all 
of us don't know, and that's what's going to happen both here at home 
and abroad.

The challenges that we face are unprecedented. Americans are hurting 
tonight in a way they have not in our generation.

There are challenges around the world that are new and different and 
there will be different -- we will be talking about countries sometime 
in the future that we hardly know where they are on the map, some Americans.

So what I don't know is what the unexpected will be. But I have spent my 
whole life serving this country. I grew up in a family where my father 
was gone most of the time because he was at sea and doing our country's 
business. My mother basically raised our family.

I know what it's like in dark times. I know what it's like to have to 
fight to keep one's hope going through difficult times. I know what it's 
like to rely on others for support and courage and love in tough times.

I know what it's like to have your comrades reach out to you and your 
neighbors and your fellow citizens and pick you up and put you back in 
the fight.

That's what America's all about. I believe in this country. I believe in 
its future. I believe in its greatness. It's been my great honor to 
serve it for many, many years.

And I'm asking the American people to give me another opportunity and 
I'll rest on my record, but I'll also tell you, when times are tough, we 
need a steady hand at the tiller and the great honor of my life was to 
always put my country first.


-- 
not too random uselessnet weirdness:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure

You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,"


Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:

"At my age, I don't need balls.  I'm done with the procreation stuff."


WhorresD gets politically bipolar:

"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.

I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."


Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:

"Capitalism has never worked."

In article 
<18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
 charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:

> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash

Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
will take a major dive?  By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
subsequent 3000 point recovery.

-john-

-- 
====================================================================== 
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �john@johnweeks.com 
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com 
======================================================================

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article 
><18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
>Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>will take a major dive?  

Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
Bush and his deregulation cronies.

>By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
>the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
>subsequent 3000 point recovery.

Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin 
Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place, 
right time.

.
.


- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

On Oct 8, 9:51 am, Scott <scott.sm...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
>
> <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>
> >> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
> >Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> >will take a major dive?  
>
> Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
> Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>
> >By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
> >the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
> >subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>
> Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin
> Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place,
> right time.

The economy, and heck the world, just lurches along at its own pace.
Specific government actions can trim off the peaks and thus fill in
the valleys a bit, or the reverse, but overall nothing they do will
stop the cyclical nature of these things.  Whoever is in power at the
time good things happen takes credit and blames the bad things on the
previous guys.  The guys out of power do the reverse.  Only partisans,
and idiots, actually believe them.  This is the 3rd or 4th stock
market "crash" I've been through (let's see, 73, 87, 00, now) and
nothing has changed.

The current administration definitely pushed to get the peak higher
and thus the resulting valley vastly lower.

On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash

Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 11:56�pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
>Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?


No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the 
next one elected to start fixing things.    

.
.


- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article 
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
> 
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> 
> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> will take a major dive?  

I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.

Try again when you've reviewed reality.

-- 
not too random uselessnet weirdness:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure

You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,"


Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:

"At my age, I don't need balls.  I'm done with the procreation stuff."


WhorresD gets politically bipolar:

"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.

I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."


Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:

"Capitalism has never worked."

Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 
>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> will take a major dive?  
> 
> Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
> Bush and his deregulation cronies.

Sorry, you missed the real causes:

Publication:IBD;  Date:Sep 29, 2008;  Section:Front Page;  Page Number:A1


UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE

Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It

Political full-court press by Dems kept reforms of errant banks at bay 
What Caused The Loan Crisis? FIFTH IN A SERIES

BY TERRY JONES INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Could the crisis at Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac and the subprime meltdown 
have been avoided?

     The answer is yes.

     As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie 
and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention 
at any point could have staved off today�s crisis. But Democrats in 
Congress stood in the way.

     As the president recently said, Democrats have been �resisting any 
efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some 
standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.�

     No, it wasn�t President Bush who said that; it was President 
Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.

     Interesting, because it was his administration�s relentless focus 
on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory 
pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.

     Freddie and Fannie, backed by an �implicit� taxpayer guarantee, 
bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.

     The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with 
former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall 
Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.

     As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan 
portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on � though it was 15 
years in the making.

Democrats Blocked Reform

     Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other 
early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton 
era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

     But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie 
and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. 
Barney Frank, who now run Congress� key banking panels.

     History is utterly clear on this.

     After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 
of the �systemic risk� posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held 
hearings the next year.

     But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions 
to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes 
would take place.

     �We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we 
manage our credit and interest rate risks,� Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, 
a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to 
investors in 1999.

     In November 2000, Clinton�s HUD hailed �new regulations to provide 
$2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million 
families.� It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal 
expansion of housing aid ever.

     Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton 
recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times 
called �the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance 
industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.�

     The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that 
could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

     Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and 
Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost 
bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

     �Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial 
crisis,� said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial 
Services Committee.

     North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of 
�weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to 
get affordable housing.�

     In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: �We are 
placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk.�

McCain Urged Changes

     That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a 
Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: �If Congress does not act, American 
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial 
system and the economy as a whole.�

     Sen. Harry Reid � now Majority Leader � accused the GOP of trying 
to �cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their 
mission of expanding homeownership.�

     The bill went nowhere.

     This year, the media have repeated Democrats� talking points about 
this being a �Republican� disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called 
for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned 
Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

     Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created 
by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and 
protected by Democrats.

     That�s why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

>> By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
>> the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
>> subsequent 3000 point recovery.
> 
> Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin 
> Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place, 
> right time.

Was his SDI program "right place right time" also?

Because that's what broke the Russian Bear's back.



-- 
not too random uselessnet weirdness:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure

You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,"


Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:

"At my age, I don't need balls.  I'm done with the procreation stuff."


WhorresD gets politically bipolar:

"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.

I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."


Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:

"Capitalism has never worked."

WDS wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:51 am, Scott <scott.sm...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
>>
>> <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>> charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>>> will take a major dive?  
>> Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
>> Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>>
>>> By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
>>> the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
>>> subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>> Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin
>> Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place,
>> right time.
> 
> The economy, and heck the world, just lurches along at its own pace.
> Specific government actions can trim off the peaks and thus fill in
> the valleys a bit, or the reverse, but overall nothing they do will
> stop the cyclical nature of these things.  Whoever is in power at the
> time good things happen takes credit and blames the bad things on the
> previous guys.  The guys out of power do the reverse.  Only partisans,
> and idiots, actually believe them.  This is the 3rd or 4th stock
> market "crash" I've been through (let's see, 73, 87, 00, now) and
> nothing has changed.
> 
> The current administration definitely pushed to get the peak higher
> and thus the resulting valley vastly lower.

And they must be responsible for all the GLOBAL markets that have 
faltered too...right?



-- 
not too random uselessnet weirdness:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure

You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,"


Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:

"At my age, I don't need balls.  I'm done with the procreation stuff."


WhorresD gets politically bipolar:

"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.

I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."


Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:

"Capitalism has never worked."

WDS wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> 
> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?

The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...

-- 
not too random uselessnet weirdness:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure

You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,"


Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:

"At my age, I don't need balls.  I'm done with the procreation stuff."


WhorresD gets politically bipolar:

"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.

I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."


Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:

"Capitalism has never worked."

Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
> 
> 
> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the 
> next one elected to start fixing things.    

Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned 
thing, you moron.

If you like economic pain Nobama and the Dems will give you four years 
of masochism.



-- 
not too random uselessnet weirdness:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure

You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,"


Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:

"At my age, I don't need balls.  I'm done with the procreation stuff."


WhorresD gets politically bipolar:

"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.

I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."


Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:

"Capitalism has never worked."

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>> 
>> 
>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the 
>> next one elected to start fixing things.    
>
>Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned 
>thing, you moron.

If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or 
lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.

>If you like economic pain Nobama and the Dems will give you four years 
>of masochism.

It's not going to hurt me, I'm not in the top 10% of the income 
bracket in this country. 

In fact, I may actually see a reduction in my taxes if Obama gets
elected.  That I can live with.


.
.


- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
wrote:

>WDS wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> 
>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>
>The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...


Only because it is looking more likely every day now.


.
.


- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
> wrote:
> 
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>
>>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the 
>>> next one elected to start fixing things.    
>> Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned 
>> thing, you moron.
> 
> If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or 
> lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.

You're so breathtakingly idiotic it just defies comprehension.

ANY tax hikes during a deep recession are economy killers, period.

Further:

http://online.wsj.com

MAY 20, 2008 You Can't Soak the Rich

Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago, 
published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His 
findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of 
tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery 
deserves to be called Hauser's Law, because it is as central to the 
economics of taxation as Boyle's Law is to the physics of gases. Yet 
economists and policy makers are barely aware of it.

Like science, economics advances as verifiable patterns are recognized 
and codified. But economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than 
physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful 
thinking, just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine. 
Taxation is an important example.

The interactions among the myriad participants in a tax system are as 
impossible to unravel as are those of the molecules in a gas, and the 
effects of tax policies are speculative and highly contentious. Will 
increasing tax rates on the rich increase revenues, as Barack Obama 
hopes, or hold back the economy, as John McCain fears? Or both?

Mr. Hauser uncovered the means to answer these questions definitively. 
On this page in 1993, he stated that "No matter what the tax rates have 
been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of 
GDP." What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated.

  The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser's 
Law. The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained 
close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to 
the present 35%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem," 
and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.

The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax 
rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. 
So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all 
persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case 
Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly 
inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the 
face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be 
unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax 
rates on the rich � if they knew about it.

Although Hauser's Law sounds like a restatement of the Laffer Curve (and 
Mr. Hauser did cite Arthur Laffer in his original article), it has 
independent validity. Because Mr. Laffer's curve is a theoretical 
insight, theoreticians find it easy to quibble with. Test cases, where 
the economy responds to a tax change, always lend themselves to many 
alternative explanations. Conventional economists, despite immense 
publicity, have yet to swallow the Laffer Curve. When it is mentioned at 
all by critics, it is often as an object of scorn.

Because Mr. Hauser's horizontal straight line is a simple fact, it is 
ultimately far more compelling. It also presents a major opportunity. It 
seems likely that the tax system could maintain a 19.5% yield with a top 
bracket even lower than 35%.

What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As 
Mr. Hauser said: "Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and 
underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, 
produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity 
and job creation."

Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which 
it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be 
invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled 
by our richest citizens is especially tax-intolerant.

The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and 
explain Hauser's Law. For progress to be made, they will have to face up 
to it, reconcile it with other facts, and incorporate it within the body 
of accepted knowledge. And if this requires overturning existing 
doctrine, then so be it.



>> If you like economic pain Nobama and the Dems will give you four years 
>> of masochism.
> 
> It's not going to hurt me, I'm not in the top 10% of the income 
> bracket in this country. 

It is going to hurt EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN IN EVERY TAX BRACKET !

> In fact, I may actually see a reduction in my taxes if Obama gets
> elected.  That I can live with.

Any tax reduction you may receive will pale by comparison to the almost 
certain income penalty  and retirement account drop you will suffer as a 
result of upending the entire economy in a deep recession.

You are very, very stupid.

Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
> wrote:
> 
>> WDS wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>> The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
> 
> 
> Only because it is looking more likely 

No, only because THEY elevated him into contention, learn something, fool:

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp

Obama�s Margin of Victory: The Media
How Barack Obama Could Not Have Won the Democratic Nomination Without 
ABC, CBS and NBC

By Rich Noyes
MRC Research Director


On August 28, when the junior Senator from Illinois accepts his party�s 
nomination to be the next President of the United States, Barack Obama 
may wish to spend a few moments thanking network news reporters for 
making the whole night possible. Since the launch of Obama�s national 
political career at the Democratic convention four years ago, the Big 
Three broadcast networks have showered Obama with positive � even 
glowing � news coverage, protected the candidate from the attacks of his 
rivals, and shown little interest in investigating Obama�s past 
associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened 
his campaign.
These are the key findings of an exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC 
evening news coverage of Barack Obama � every story, every soundbite, 
every mention � through the end of the Democratic primaries in June. 
Media Research Center analysts examined every reference to Obama on the 
three evening broadcasts, and found a near-absence of the journalistic 
scrutiny and skepticism normally associated with coverage of national 
politicians. Indeed, much of the coverage � particularly prior to the 
formal start of Obama�s presidential campaign in early 2007 � bordered 
on giddy celebration of a rising political "rock star" rather than 
objective newsgathering.

That the national media have unfairly tipped the scales in Obama�s 
direction is a fact not lost on the public. The Pew Research Center 
surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May, and reported that "far more 
Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than 
think it has favored Hillary Clinton," with even 35 percent of Democrats 
seeing "a pro-Obama bias." A Rasmussen survey of 1,000 likely voters 
released July 21 discovered "49 percent of voters believe that in the 
general election, most reporters will try to help Obama with their 
coverage" while "just one voter in four (24%) believes that most 
reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage."

And a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 900 registered voters released 
July 24 discovered six times as many think "most members of the media" 
want Obama to win rather than McCain. According to an article posted on 
FoxNews.com, "Only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that 
the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of the 
United States....When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of 
the campaigns, Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a 
better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 
percent more positive toward McCain)."

The public believes the media are tilted towards Obama because of the 
biased performance they witnessed during this year�s primaries. NBC News 
correspondent Lee Cowan, the reporter assigned to cover the Obama 
campaign full time during the primaries, admitted in an interview in 
early January that he felt pulled in Obama�s direction: "From a 
reporter�s point of view, it�s almost hard to remain objective because 
it�s infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core 
to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, 
his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."

Weeks later, Cowan told the New York Times� Jacques Steinberg that it 
was "hard not to drink the Kool-Aid" surrounding Obama: "Even in the 
conversations we have as colleagues, there is a sense of trying 
especially hard not to drink the Kool-Aid. It�s so rapturous, everything 
around him. All these huge rallies."

On CNN�s Reliable Sources on January 13, Washington Post media writer 
Howard Kurtz asked a former Washington Post editor, The Politico�s John 
Harris, whether he thought "journalists are rooting for the Obama 
story." Harris referred back to his time at the Post: "A couple years 
ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they 
needed to go through detox when they came back � �Oh, he�s so 
impressive, he�s so charismatic,� and we�re kind of like, �Down, boy.�" 
Anchoring news coverage of Democratic primaries on February 12, MSNBC�s 
Chris Matthews famously confessed after listening to an Obama victory 
speech, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don�t have that 
too often."

To assess the degree to which journalists� infatuation with Obama 
contaminated daily news coverage, MRC analysts used our own News 
Tracking System (NTS) software and Nexis to locate every story 
mentioning Obama on ABC�s World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC 
Nightly News from the time Obama emerged on the national stage (the 
first evening news story mentioning Obama aired on May 17, 2000) through 
June 6, 2008, the last broadcast before Hillary Clinton formally exited 
the Democratic race, cementing Obama�s nomination.

The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high 
ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million 
combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more 
than their cable news competitors. And unlike the news junkies who flock 
to the 24/7 cable outlets, the typical broadcast evening news viewer 
spends less of their day devouring campaign news, which makes them 
consequently more likely to be influenced by the information and images 
they receive from these programs.

Analysts found a total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offering at 
least some discussion of Obama. About two-fifths of these (550) were 
full reports that focused exclusively, or nearly so, on Obama. Another 
170 items (about 12% of the total) were brief, anchor-read items that 
also focused on Obama. Just under half of the total (645, or 47%) were 
full reports or interviews that included either mentions of or 
soundbites from Obama, but did not focus on him. Examples of stories 
included in this group are: items about the congressional debate over 
Iraq in early 2007 which quoted Obama along with many other senators; 
stories about candidate debates where Obama was one talking head among 
many; or stories about any of his Democratic (or Republican) rivals 
which included some comments directed at Obama himself. These stories, 
about 30 percent of which conveyed a distinctly positive or negative 
spin about the candidate (more about how we determined a story�s spin 
shortly), were included in the sample to ensure a complete portrait of 
network news coverage of Obama.

NBC and ABC aired the most total stories (490 and 464 respectively), 
with the CBS Evening News a fairly distant third with 411 stories. As 
far as stories that focused mainly on Obama, ABC (194) and NBC (198) 
were practically tied, with CBS again lagging (158 stories). The NBC 
Nightly News aired the most stories with minor discussion of Obama 
(249), followed by ABC�s World News (222) and CBS (174). The remainder 
were brief items read by the news anchor; the CBS Evening News � which 
had a regular "Campaign Notebook" segment of short items � aired the 
most such stories (74), followed by ABC (48) and NBC (43).

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:09 -0600, junk bonds <ju@nk.moody> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>>
>>>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the 
>>>> next one elected to start fixing things.    
>>> Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned 
>>> thing, you moron.
>> 
>> If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or 
>> lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.
>
>You're so breathtakingly idiotic it just defies comprehension.
>
>ANY tax hikes during a deep recession are economy killers, period.

No, not true. 

There is no academic study in the world that suggests that tax 
cuts for the wealthy and powerful lead to greater economic 
prosperity. And there is no evidence in academic literature 
that lowering tax rates somehow will generate greater economic 
output and magically end up paying for itself without creating 
greater deficits. Bush's tax cuts resulted in turning a Clinton 
$250 billion annual surplus into a $500 billion-plus annual deficit.

Talk about an "economy killer"!

.
.


- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:26:32 -0600, junk bonds <ju@nk.moody> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> WDS wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>> The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
>> 
>> 
>> Only because it is looking more likely 
>
>No, only because THEY elevated him into contention, learn something, fool:
>
>http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp

It's impossible to learn anything from a biased source like 
the Media Research Center...a well known right wing 
organization. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

The Media Research Center has been discredited long ago as 
being nothing more than a right wing propaganda machine.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1972

I hope YOU learned something.....fool.   ;-)
.
.



- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:09 -0600, junk bonds <ju@nk.moody> wrote:
> 
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the 
>>>>> next one elected to start fixing things.    
>>>> Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned 
>>>> thing, you moron.
>>> If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or 
>>> lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.
>> You're so breathtakingly idiotic it just defies comprehension.
>>
>> ANY tax hikes during a deep recession are economy killers, period.
> 
> No, not true. 

Yes, completely true.

Google: Hoover + Depression.

> There is no academic study in the world that suggests that tax 
> cuts for the wealthy and powerful lead to greater economic 
> prosperity. 

Sure there is, I posted it and you deleted it, coward.

> And there is no evidence in academic literature 
> that lowering tax rates somehow will generate greater economic 
> output and magically end up paying for itself without creating 
> greater deficits. 

You're lying again.

http://online.wsj.com

OPINION MAY 20, 2008 You Can't Soak the Rich
By DAVID RANSONArticle
  more in Opinion �Email Printer Friendly Share:
  Yahoo Buzz  MySpace Digg  Text Size
Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago, 
published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His 
findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of 
tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery 
deserves to be called Hauser's Law, because it is as central to the 
economics of taxation as Boyle's Law is to the physics of gases. Yet 
economists and policy makers are barely aware of it.

Like science, economics advances as verifiable patterns are recognized 
and codified. But economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than 
physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful 
thinking, just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine. 
Taxation is an important example.

The interactions among the myriad participants in a tax system are as 
impossible to unravel as are those of the molecules in a gas, and the 
effects of tax policies are speculative and highly contentious. Will 
increasing tax rates on the rich increase revenues, as Barack Obama 
hopes, or hold back the economy, as John McCain fears? Or both?

Mr. Hauser uncovered the means to answer these questions definitively. 
On this page in 1993, he stated that "No matter what the tax rates have 
been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of 
GDP." What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated.

  The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser's 
Law. The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained 
close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to 
the present 35%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem," 
and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.

The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax 
rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. 
So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all 
persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case 
Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly 
inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the 
face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be 
unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax 
rates on the rich � if they knew about it.

Although Hauser's Law sounds like a restatement of the Laffer Curve (and 
Mr. Hauser did cite Arthur Laffer in his original article), it has 
independent validity. Because Mr. Laffer's curve is a theoretical 
insight, theoreticians find it easy to quibble with. Test cases, where 
the economy responds to a tax change, always lend themselves to many 
alternative explanations. Conventional economists, despite immense 
publicity, have yet to swallow the Laffer Curve. When it is mentioned at 
all by critics, it is often as an object of scorn.

Because Mr. Hauser's horizontal straight line is a simple fact, it is 
ultimately far more compelling. It also presents a major opportunity. It 
seems likely that the tax system could maintain a 19.5% yield with a top 
bracket even lower than 35%.

What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As 
Mr. Hauser said: "Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and 
underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, 
produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity 
and job creation."

Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which 
it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be 
invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled 
by our richest citizens is especially tax-intolerant.

The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and 
explain Hauser's Law. For progress to be made, they will have to face up 
to it, reconcile it with other facts, and incorporate it within the body 
of accepted knowledge. And if this requires overturning existing 
doctrine, then so be it.

Presidential candidates, instead of disputing how much more tax to 
impose on whom, would be better advised to come up with plans for 
increasing GDP while ridding the tax system of its wearying complexity. 
That would be a formula for success.

Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:26:32 -0600, junk bonds <ju@nk.moody> wrote:
> 
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <no@evil.escapes>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> WDS wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>> The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
>>>
>>> Only because it is looking more likely 
>> No, only because THEY elevated him into contention, learn something, fool:
>>
>> http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp
> 
> It's impossible to learn anything from a biased source like 
> the Media Research Center...a well known right wing 
> organization. 

Care to refute the numbers cited?

No?

You're done.

 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center
 >
 > The Media Research Center has been discredited

The data cited has not, you LOSE again.

Oh, btw, do you find the Washington Post to be a 'biased source" too?

LOLOL!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202476.html

There was also little pickup when the Politico reported that a decade 
ago Obama visited Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers, the 1960s radicals 
whose Weather Underground group was involved in two dozen bombings. And 
the issue of Obama's dealings with Rezko all but vanished after a brief 
flurry until the run-up to his trial, which begins today.

Similarly, there was scant media mention of Louis Farrakhan's support 
for Obama until Tim Russert challenged the senator to repudiate that 
support at last week's MSNBC debate -- making Russert the target of some 
liberal bloggers who say he went overboard on the issue.

Would Clinton have skated as easily if she were found to have visited 
radicals tied to violence? Or bought land from an indicted businessman, 
as in the Rezko case? Or if the pastor of her church had talked about 
"this racist United States of America," as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who 
heads Obama's church, has?

That is hard to imagine. Clinton's complaints about media imbalance are 
buttressed by a new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs. 
 From Dec. 16 through Feb. 19, it says, the three network newscasts 
aired reports that were 84 percent positive for Obama and 53 percent 
positive for Clinton. She scored higher on evaluations of policy and 
public performance, but that amounted to only 10 percent of the coverage.

On Friday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters there was a 
"staggering" gap between the Rezko coverage and the volume of questions 
he fielded about her indicted fundraiser, Norman Hsu.

In article <6l4a3kFake2mU2@mid.individual.net>,
 green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:

> Scott wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> > <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article 
> >> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> >> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> >> will take a major dive?  
> > 
> > Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
> > Bush and his deregulation cronies.
> 
> Sorry, you missed the real causes:
> 
> Publication:IBD;  Date:Sep 29, 2008;  Section:Front Page;  Page Number:A1

I'm sorry that you committed a federal crime by reproducing a
copyrighted document in its whole without written permission
from the copyright holder.  So sad you go to jail.

-john-

-- 
====================================================================== 
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �john@johnweeks.com 
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com 
======================================================================

In article <6l4a3kFake2mU1@mid.individual.net>,
 green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:

> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > In article 
> > <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
> > 
> >> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> > 
> > Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> > will take a major dive?  
> 
> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.

Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?  Isn't Bush president this
very day?  Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
the Clinton Administration had to clean up?

> Try again when you've reviewed reality.

Try again when you get a ticket on the clue bus.

-john-

-- 
====================================================================== 
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �john@johnweeks.com 
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com 
======================================================================

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article <6l4a3kFake2mU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
> 
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>> In article 
>>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>>> will take a major dive?  
>> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
> 
> Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?  

Sure did!

> Isn't Bush president this
> very day?  

Dang, he surely is!

> Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
> the Clinton Administration had to clean up?

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Early 1990s recession 1990�1991 - 1 year Industrial production and 
manufacturing-trade sales decreased in early 1991.

But nice try.

>> Try again when you've reviewed reality.
> 
> Try again when you get a ticket on the clue bus.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/

The current Bush administration's claim that it inherited a recession 
from Clinton became somewhat more credible last week, when the Commerce 
Department revised its estimates of GDP, the broadest measure of 
economic growth, in the first, second and third quarters of 2001, 
showing that it shrank in all three quarters.

In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836cce5@newsrazor.net>,
 eponymous <re@m.or> wrote:

> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > In article <6l4a3kFake2mU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
> > 
> >> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> >>> In article 
> >>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> >>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> >>> will take a major dive?  
> >> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
> > 
> > Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?  
> 
> Sure did!
> 
> > Isn't Bush president this
> > very day?  
> 
> Dang, he surely is!
> 
> > Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
> > the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
> 
> Nope.

Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.

-john-

-- 
====================================================================== 
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �john@johnweeks.com 
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com 
======================================================================

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:01:57 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836cce5@newsrazor.net>,
> eponymous <re@m.or> wrote:
>
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> > In article <6l4a3kFake2mU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> >  green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> >>> In article 
>> >>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> >>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> >>> will take a major dive?  
>> >> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>> > 
>> > Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?  
>> 
>> Sure did!
>> 
>> > Isn't Bush president this
>> > very day?  
>> 
>> Dang, he surely is!
>> 
>> > Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
>> > the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>> 
>> Nope.
>
>Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.


The fact is that the Republican economic policies starting with 
Ronald Reagan and his "Reaganomics" (i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy,
reducing regulations on everything, etc.) were the beginning of the end 
for our economy.  Unless those Republican ways are changed, we are 
doomed to keep falling deeper and deeper into debt.  

And yes, Clinton was just a Republican "light" with his economic 
policies.  If it wasn't for the dot.com boom, we would have seen 
this disaster sooner, IMO.

.
.

- Scott Smith:         scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith

  

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836cce5@newsrazor.net>,
>  eponymous <re@m.or> wrote:
> 
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>> In article <6l4a3kFake2mU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>  green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>>>> In article 
>>>>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>>>>> will take a major dive?  
>>>> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>>> Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?  
>> Sure did!
>>
>>> Isn't Bush president this
>>> very day?  
>> Dang, he surely is!
>>
>>> Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
>>> the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>> Nope.
> 
> Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.
> 
> -john-
> 
Try not deleting the facts and then bend over and get your due, scumbag.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Early 1990s recession 1990�1991 - 1 year Industrial production and 
manufacturing-trade sales decreased in early 1991.

But nice try.

Scott Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:01:57 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836cce5@newsrazor.net>,
>> eponymous <re@m.or> wrote:
>>
>>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>>> In article <6l4a3kFake2mU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>  green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>>>>> In article 
>>>>>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>  charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>>>>>> will take a major dive?  
>>>>> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>>>> Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?  
>>> Sure did!
>>>
>>>> Isn't Bush president this
>>>> very day?  
>>> Dang, he surely is!
>>>
>>>> Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
>>>> the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>>> Nope.
>> Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.
> 
> 
> The fact is that 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Early 1990s recession 1990�1991 - 1 year Industrial production and 
manufacturing-trade sales decreased in early 1991.

But nice try.

charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> 

If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!

Yeah... that's the ticket.

Gladys wrote:
> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>
> 
> If McCain get elected ... 

We at least have a fighting chance.

Nobama will ruin this country.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:51 -0600, Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:

>Gladys wrote:
>> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>
>> 
>> If McCain get elected ... 
>
>We at least have a fighting chance.

Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same failed policies 
from the last eight years. 

I agree that he does offer the chance for the U.S. to keep fighting 
in Iraq, and with our NATO allies, but that's not a chance I want to 
see us take anymore, since it's all futile and it gets us nowhere (but
down).

>Nobama will ruin this country.

He's too late for that, Bush Jr. has already done it.

.
.


- Scott Smith:          scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
  

Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:51 -0600, Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:
> 
>> Gladys wrote:
>>> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>
>>> If McCain get elected ... 
>> We at least have a fighting chance.
> 
> Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same 

Do you morons all read from the same script?

In article <48EE11AB.6010007@say.it.anymore>,
 Gladys <just.cant@say.it.anymore> wrote:

 > charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
 > > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
 > > 
 > 
 > If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
 > 
 > Yeah... that's the ticket.

We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:
 There is the World Anticommunist League of Super-heroes.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93M2FQO0

-- 
 C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334

Jean Smith wrote:
> In article <48EE11AB.6010007@say.it.anymore>,
>  Gladys <just.cant@say.it.anymore> wrote:
> 
>  > charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>  > > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>  > > 
>  > 
>  > If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
>  > 
>  > Yeah... that's the ticket.
> 
> We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:


You've reaped some fruit all right...

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:51:15 -0600, Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:51 -0600, Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Gladys wrote:
>>>> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>>
>>>> If McCain get elected ... 
>>> We at least have a fighting chance.
>> 
>> Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same 
>
>Do you morons all read from the same script?

No, we pay attention to the issues and the debates to get a 
better understanding of where the candidates stand.

McCain is offering more of the same old Republican ways that 
Bush Jr. has given us for the last eight years...and it has been a
complete disaster. No more, please.

.
.

- Scott Smith:         scott.smith@iphouse.com
  MySpace:              http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith

  

Scott Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:51:15 -0600, Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:
> 
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:51 -0600, Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gladys wrote:
>>>>> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>>>
>>>>> If McCain get elected ... 
>>>> We at least have a fighting chance.
>>> Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same 
>> Do you morons all read from the same script?
> 
> No, 

Yes, you do.

Fuck off and die.

In article <48ee88c1$0$30625$7836cce5@newsrazor.net>,
 Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:

 > Jean Smith wrote:
 > > In article <48EE11AB.6010007@say.it.anymore>,
 > >  Gladys <just.cant@say.it.anymore> wrote:
 > > 
 > >  > charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
 > >  > > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
 > >  > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
 > >  > 
 > >  > Yeah... that's the ticket.
 > > 
 > > We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:
 > 
 > 
 > You've reaped some fruit all right...

 There is the World Anticommunist League of Super-heroes.
 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93M2FQO0

-- 
 C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334

Jean Smith wrote:
> In article <48ee88c1$0$30625$7836cce5@newsrazor.net>,
>  Mars State <275or@bit.udu> wrote:
> 
>  > Jean Smith wrote:
>  > > In article <48EE11AB.6010007@say.it.anymore>,
>  > >  Gladys <just.cant@say.it.anymore> wrote:
>  > > 
>  > >  > charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>  > >  > > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>  > >  > > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Yeah... that's the ticket.
>  > > 
>  > > We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:
>  > 
>  > 
>  > You've reaped some fruit all right...
> 
>  There is the World 

Eat my shit and like it.

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message 
news:john-E0C314.06363308102008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> will take a major dive?

Which goes to show how CLUELESS the Obama camp actually is
    GWB is NOT running



> By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
> the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
> subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>

LOL
If Obama gets elected, we're facing another Carter era, but worse
    The odds of ANY recovery will be NIL

If Obama gets elected, I will be shorting the market indices the next 
morning

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message 
news:john-0E5203.18103808102008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <6l4a3kFake2mU2@mid.individual.net>,
> green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
>> > <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> >> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> >> will take a major dive?
>> >
>> > Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
>> > Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>>
>> Sorry, you missed the real causes:
>>
>> Publication:IBD;  Date:Sep 29, 2008;  Section:Front Page;  Page Number:A1
>
> I'm sorry that you committed a federal crime by reproducing a
> copyrighted document in its whole without written permission
> from the copyright holder.  So sad you go to jail.
>
> -john-
>

What a weasel to avoid facing the truth.
    But so typical of the ignorant left.

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
> 
> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message 
> news:john-E0C314.06363308102008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article
>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>
>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> will take a major dive?
> 
> Which goes to show how CLUELESS the Obama camp actually is
>    GWB is NOT running
> 
> 
> 
>> By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
>> the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
>> subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>>
> 
> LOL
> If Obama gets elected, we're facing another Carter era, but worse
>    The odds of ANY recovery will be NIL
> 
> If Obama gets elected, I will be shorting the market indices the next 
> morning
> 
You'd best hope there's anything left to short by then...

In article <0MSdnRFwQ4se53LVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.cpinternet>,
 "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@Tsenuf.com> wrote:

 > "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message 
 > news:john-0E5203.18103808102008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
 > > In article <6l4a3kFake2mU2@mid.individual.net>,
 > > green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
 > >
 > >> Scott wrote:
 > >> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
 > >> > <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
 > >> >
 > >> >> In article
 > >> >> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
 > >> >> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
 > >> >>
 > >> >>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
 > >> >> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
 > >> >> will take a major dive?
 > >> >
 > >> > Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
 > >> > Bush and his deregulation cronies.
 > >>
 > >> Sorry, you missed the real causes:
 > >>
 > >> Publication:IBD;  Date:Sep 29, 2008;  Section:Front Page;  Page Number:A1
 > >
 > > I'm sorry that you committed a federal crime by reproducing a
 > > copyrighted document in its whole without written permission
 > > from the copyright holder.  So sad you go to jail.
 > >
 > > -john-
 > >
 > 
 > What a weasel to avoid facing the truth.
 >     But so typical of the ignorant left.

McCain is apologizing for his hate mongering. He has a conscience and is 
correcting his fellow prisoners.

-- 
 C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334

Jean Smith wrote:
> In article <0MSdnRFwQ4se53LVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.cpinternet>,
>  "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
> 
>  > "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message 
>  > news:john-0E5203.18103808102008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>  > > In article <6l4a3kFake2mU2@mid.individual.net>,
>  > > green lantern <no@evil.escapes> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >> Scott wrote:
>  > >> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
>  > >> > <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>  > >> >
>  > >> >> In article
>  > >> >> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62df3@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>  > >> >> charlenecofer@excite.com wrote:
>  > >> >>
>  > >> >>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>  > >> >> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>  > >> >> will take a major dive?
>  > >> >
>  > >> > Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
>  > >> > Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>  > >>
>  > >> Sorry, you missed the real causes:
>  > >>
>  > >> Publication:IBD;  Date:Sep 29, 2008;  Section:Front Page;  Page Number:A1
>  > >
>  > > I'm sorry that you committed a federal crime by reproducing a
>  > > copyrighted document in its whole without written permission
>  > > from the copyright holder.  So sad you go to jail.
>  > >
>  > > -john-
>  > >
>  > 
>  > What a weasel to avoid facing the truth.
>  >     But so typical of the ignorant left.
> 
> McCain is apologizing for his hate 

McCain has no hate.

You are a lying scumfucker.

On Oct 7, 11:44 pm, Jean Smith <goterm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>
>  > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> That is getting harder and harder to do.
> Wouldn't Warren Buffett be bailing out on him?
> See Charlie Rose Show last week.
>
> --
>  C-SPAN3?http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.htmlhttp://www.sciencefriday.com/http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
> Oops:http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334

Most likely, not immediately.