Author Topic: Hmmm (Read 673 times)

easymo · « **on:** August 11, 2002, 03:50:03 PM »

Jay Littman
Executive Producer

Registered: May 1999
Location: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Posts: 606
Blame for creating the bubble
A 4 % unemployment and a budget surplus so huge it could have paid the national debt down to zero in short order and at the same time funded any alleged shortfall in either Social Security or Medicare, was not a "bubble," it was the Clinton legacy.

Bush intentionally destroyed that legacy because none of it was of interest to the top 1% whose lackey he is. They wanted the surplus taken away from the government and paid to them in tax cuts, which would also reduce the ability of government to fund the agencies policing them. Also, high unemployment is to their liking---it's one of the ways they believe you "discipline" a work force and destroy unionism. It was Bush's willful and intentional destruction of the budget surplus, the Republican Congress' opposition to Clinton's and Levitt's proposals to control corporate accounting, his signaling to his corporate buddies by his own dishonest actions and his gross abuse of campaign fund raising, his proven neglect of national security (see Time magazine this week), and his refusal to intervene in the California power crisis and his getting in bed with the energy companies (which he is still trying to conceal), which has damaged the economy.

A 1% GNP growth last quarter is no Bill or Hillary's fault or even Monica's,
it's Bush.' His role model is Herbert Hoover.

Re-elect Al Gore in 2004!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there such a thing as being financially suicidal? I guess WB dont need the business. Lets set politics aside for a moment. Read any thread, any where, that includes the clintons in the subject matter. The emotional level of the negative posts is legendary. Now, one of the highest profile people in that company, tosses a match into this waiting, powder keg. Those people are just plain stupid.

Boroda · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2002, 04:28:46 PM »

Unbelievable.

But I have to admit that I am the first person to expect any kind of stupidity from the team of Albanians running WB now.

AFAIK Mr. Littman isn't an American citizen, or am I wrong? Or at least I bet he's not a native English speaker. I have always thought he's a French-Canadian, as their "chief engineer" mr. Neault... Why should he say anything about US internal politics?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2002, 04:41:42 PM »

That's a good one. Of course, having a price to earning ratio of 70 was cool during the Clinton era too (for those that actually showed a proffit). And those who were in the buisness at the time know when the stock started to slide.

I shook my head for 5 years as people made money off of completely worthless stock in completely worthless companies.

I watched execs make hundreds of millions of dollars off their stock in a company that never showed a proffit and would not last long enough to even give it a run.

Yes... its the Bush administration's fault. They must of had a hand in this somehow.

AKDejaVu

10Bears · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2002, 04:58:28 PM »

Yes... its the Bush administration's fault. They must of had a hand in this somehow.

Yep, by being selected by the surpreme court. Anybody with any forsight got their money out of the market Dec 12th. 2000

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2002, 05:00:24 PM »

LOL! Okay.

AKDejaVu

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2002, 05:13:27 PM »

"A 1% GNP growth last quarter is no Bill or Hillary's fault or even Monica's,
it's Bush.' His role model is Herbert Hoover"

and who was slick willie's ... Calvin Coolidge?

10Bears · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2002, 05:27:41 PM »

First of all who’s Jay Littman?

A 4 % unemployment and a budget surplus so huge it could have paid the national debt down to zero in short order and at the same time funded any alleged shortfall in either Social Security or Medicare, was not a "bubble," it was the Clinton legacy.

So far, this statement is true. They could’ve paid off the national debt, shored up Social Security had a prescription drug benefit for seniors AND a modest tax cut.

Bush intentionally destroyed that legacy because none of it was of interest to the top 1% whose lackey he is. They wanted the surplus taken away from the government and paid to them in tax cuts, which would also reduce the ability of government to fund the agencies policing them. Also, high unemployment is to their liking---it's one of the ways they believe you "discipline" a work force and destroy unionism

Here he’s trying to speculate on what motives the corporationists might have had. Its true GWB is only the front man Cheney runs the show. Also destroying the surplus reduces the ability of government to fund all kinds of stuff not just agencies policing them like the SEC. I have heard from other places about keeping unemployment high in order to keep workers from getting “uppity”.

and his refusal to intervene in the California power crisis and his getting in bed with the energy companies (which he is still trying to conceal), which has damaged the economy.

Now this is a biggie here. Not really Bush doing this it was Cheney. 30 billion dollar rip off of California Cheney knew about it. This is one of the big turns for the economy and it happened in the first weeks of this administration. Couple that with Cheney manipulating OPEC in April ’99 to decrease oil production all had an effect.

A 1% GNP growth last quarter is no Bill or Hillary's fault or even Monica's,
it's Bush.' His role model is Herbert Hoover

LOL this administration is actually three times worse than Hoover’s first 18 months.

easymo · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2002, 06:11:11 PM »

You guys are going to ware you fingers out, pointing at each other.

Am I the only one that finds it astonishing that the "spokesman" for WB would jump into this?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2002, 06:26:40 PM »

Why wouldn't he have an oppinion too easymo?

As for pointing fingers... not everyone is doing it. I think its just as funny as you do.

I think the 90's were an incredible era of blind investing and ignorance. New buyers (the internet) and new areas of investment (the internet) layed the groundwork for a spending spree that should have made everyone "in the know" blush. Greenspan really tried to warn people as early as 97 that things were just getting out of hand, but we were enjoying the "booming" economy.

Gotta love it when the bubble bursts. You also have to love it when people think the bubble didn't burst until Bush took office.

AKDejaVu

Ozark · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2002, 06:39:49 PM »

The tulip bulb mania in 17th-century Holland is a particularly colorful example of a speculative bubble. Replace the tulip with .Com’s.

Kieran · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2002, 06:43:38 PM »

Quote

I have heard from other places about keeping unemployment high in order to keep workers from getting “uppity”.

This is ignorant. Being unemployed tends to make people "uppity".

Quote

Now this is a biggie here. Not really Bush doing this it was Cheney. 30 billion dollar rip off of California Cheney knew about it. This is one of the big turns for the economy and it happened in the first weeks of this administration.

Again, this is ignorant. California made some bad choices all by themselves. Had they made good choices, no "bail outs" would have been necessary.

ra · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2002, 08:58:26 PM »

The budget 'surplus' was based on ridiculous projections of capital gains from the stock market. It is no coincidence that the budget deficit disappeared at the same time the market bubble was at it biggest, then reappeared as soon as the bubble burst.

The idea that a lousy $40 billion dollar tax rebate caused $300 billion dollar drop in federal inflows is leftist math. I'll never understand why some people think high taxes are good. Just throw your money into a bonfire, leave the rest of us alone.

ra

Cobra · « **Reply #12 on:** August 11, 2002, 10:31:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
I have heard from other places

Errrr...that would be the other voices in your head.

Cobra

10Bears · « **Reply #13 on:** August 11, 2002, 11:17:10 PM »

Again, this is ignorant. California made some bad choices all by themselves. Had they made good choices, no "bail outs" would have been necessary

Kieran, you haven’t been following the news.. the California energy crisis was a complete fraud.. Put on by Duke, Reliant, and Enron. Dick Cheney knew all this. He knew it when he came on TV to tell Californians it was all their fault. This went on for six months from Jan to June when price caps were finally put back in place. This must be what you mean by “bail out”. Later, we find out all these guys were all gaming the system, Cheney was in cahoots with them. There was never a need for new power plants. Because of this massive fraud, California is in court right now to have some of those billions forgiven due to fact that they were victims of crime.
All this had a very real effect on the economy, this and Dick Cheney as head of Halliburton convincing the heads of OPEC in April 1999 to decrease production of oil. The rise in fuel prices didn’t hit until the summer of 2000 coincidently during the campaign. Of course the rise in fuel prices were blamed on Clinton/Gore.

Kieran, rather than call others ignorant, you might educate yourself by doing some research.

Cobra, don’t skin turtles in the room here boy... take em’ outside

Kieran · « **Reply #14 on:** August 11, 2002, 11:56:36 PM »

Assuming you are right about California (and I will confess, I have not listened to news much this summer), what about your worker comment? Explain how making people unemployed keeps them from getting uppity? What are these sources?

You have to admit, that is pretty... foolish. Working people with money in their pockets spend it. They are happy when they have money to spend. Big corporations like it, too, because those workers spend money on the products they produce. They ask for fewer entitlements from the government, which by the way would otherwise be funded on the backs of the fewer people working AND the corporations. It is just a silly comment upon any examination at all. I suppose you must be assuming those workers will be grateful for any work at all, but once again, that just doesn't cut it.

You'll also pardon me for not taking your word on the Cheney deal- I would rather look it up myself. You've somewhat of a biased opinion on the topic to say the least. You've pretty much painted the Bush administration as the boogeyman quite often.