You might be a Liberal if:
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: I-95,I-78,I-81,I-83,I-695
as a schoolbus driver i can tell when there is a republican in the office.
when there is a rep. as president we have plenty of drivers because all of the people who lost there jobs all come to drive a bus.
when a dem. there is almost no drivers to take the kids home because everyone has a high paying job or is living of the big gains they made in investments.
we have had almost twenty-five more drivers than we have school runs, but three years ago we were short 86 drivers.
you can take that to the bank!!
when there is a rep. as president we have plenty of drivers because all of the people who lost there jobs all come to drive a bus.
when a dem. there is almost no drivers to take the kids home because everyone has a high paying job or is living of the big gains they made in investments.
we have had almost twenty-five more drivers than we have school runs, but three years ago we were short 86 drivers.
you can take that to the bank!!
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
To be honest you can never give credit of the economy to who the president is at the present time. Polices changes by who ever may be president takes a long time, generally speaking, to have an actual effect on the economy. It could take from years to decades.
For one example when you lower capital gains taxes to big business and they then take that money and buy capital equipment for new process in production to reduce cost it don't happen in just weeks or months it can be quit a long process till the business sees a return on their investment in the capital equipment to effect their overall profit margin. With a bigger profit margin they can afford to give better pay raises. People that get more money in their check tend to spend it on things like computers, cell phones etc. That in turn has a positive effect and thus the economy is doing great because the more people buy the more jobs are created to fill the demand. The more they go out to eat, the more they drive, the more they take vacations etc.
Now I will not completely blame the bad economy of Clinton, though it began in the last quarter while he was president. It began to slow and then 911 happen and that had a BIG effect on the economy and people feeling secure. When people don't feel secure they tend to hold their money where it is and NOT spend it. When people are not spending money everything slows down and the economy is hurt. If people are not buying products like computers, cell phones, shovels, rakes, whatever then there is no demand for it. No demand means if your job is producing shovels and nobody is buying them then no need to make more. If there is no need to make more then you don't need everybody standing around doing nothing so lay-offs occur. It kind of goes down from there. People out of work are not going out to eat, shop, vacation etc, so more people are not needed in a job there is no demand for.
So you see, the president does not have alot to do with how the economy is doing while he is president. I will say if the economy is not doing well 4 - 6 years from now then that would be Bush's responsibility and not who is president then.
I am no economy expert, but from my readings this is how I basically believe it works and when you think about it, truthfully, it does have logic sence behind it.
For one example when you lower capital gains taxes to big business and they then take that money and buy capital equipment for new process in production to reduce cost it don't happen in just weeks or months it can be quit a long process till the business sees a return on their investment in the capital equipment to effect their overall profit margin. With a bigger profit margin they can afford to give better pay raises. People that get more money in their check tend to spend it on things like computers, cell phones etc. That in turn has a positive effect and thus the economy is doing great because the more people buy the more jobs are created to fill the demand. The more they go out to eat, the more they drive, the more they take vacations etc.
Now I will not completely blame the bad economy of Clinton, though it began in the last quarter while he was president. It began to slow and then 911 happen and that had a BIG effect on the economy and people feeling secure. When people don't feel secure they tend to hold their money where it is and NOT spend it. When people are not spending money everything slows down and the economy is hurt. If people are not buying products like computers, cell phones, shovels, rakes, whatever then there is no demand for it. No demand means if your job is producing shovels and nobody is buying them then no need to make more. If there is no need to make more then you don't need everybody standing around doing nothing so lay-offs occur. It kind of goes down from there. People out of work are not going out to eat, shop, vacation etc, so more people are not needed in a job there is no demand for.
So you see, the president does not have alot to do with how the economy is doing while he is president. I will say if the economy is not doing well 4 - 6 years from now then that would be Bush's responsibility and not who is president then.
I am no economy expert, but from my readings this is how I basically believe it works and when you think about it, truthfully, it does have logic sence behind it.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 1
From: Blue Ridge Mountains, GA
01: Great posts and a very funny topic. 
Anyone who blames GWB for the economy today is not educated in the hows or whys of why it is recessed. It was faltering in july and august of 2000, a full 3 months before GWB was even elected. Couple that with the terrorist attacks that instantly put over 250,000 people out of work. And then couple that with the weak-kneed Wal Streeters selling stocks like hotcakes and you have a deep recession. This country is down but not out.
If you want to blame someone, blame William Jefferson Clinton. He was the one that in the early '90's cut human intelligence to a level where we had very few people actually infiltrating these terrorist groups, thus relying on satellite intelligence. If not for 9/11, we would be out of this recession.
Anyone who blames GWB for the economy today is not educated in the hows or whys of why it is recessed. It was faltering in july and august of 2000, a full 3 months before GWB was even elected. Couple that with the terrorist attacks that instantly put over 250,000 people out of work. And then couple that with the weak-kneed Wal Streeters selling stocks like hotcakes and you have a deep recession. This country is down but not out. If you want to blame someone, blame William Jefferson Clinton. He was the one that in the early '90's cut human intelligence to a level where we had very few people actually infiltrating these terrorist groups, thus relying on satellite intelligence. If not for 9/11, we would be out of this recession.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Frank S:
Good to see you again. I haven't seen you around in a while. Great post, It is amazing how some people are ready to blame Clintons economy policies on Bush.
Clinton was very lucky to preside over an economy that was mostly riding high due to Reagan's policies, namly building up our countries defense.
Most of the boom in the economy in the past 10 years or so was due to the high tech industry, cell phones, computers, PDA's GPS technology, internet inferstructure etc. Those things in big part, not completely were brought on due to the military build up of Reagan because during his years there was alot more research and development for high tech things for the military which in time end up in the public doman. Some of you please don't mistake me or misquote me, I am not saying Reagan started or invented the internet, that was Algore.
Ask yourself now what is tanking the most? Yep high tech. I would say in large part because it completly saturated the market. Most people now have computers, cells phones etc. in the 90's (Clinton) they were saling like hotcakes. People finally got tired of getting a new computer every year, a new cell phone every year so they are not saling no where like they did during the 90's tack on to that Clinton rasing capital gains taxes and other business taxes and big business is not doing nearly as much research and development as they did in the 90's, nor are they upgrading and/or replacing their capital equipment as they had been in the 90's.
So you might be a liberal if:
You think big business is evil.
AND
You think building the military up is evil
Which = you love a econcomy that is tanking and improving at an extreamly low rate.
Good to see you again. I haven't seen you around in a while. Great post, It is amazing how some people are ready to blame Clintons economy policies on Bush.
Clinton was very lucky to preside over an economy that was mostly riding high due to Reagan's policies, namly building up our countries defense.
Most of the boom in the economy in the past 10 years or so was due to the high tech industry, cell phones, computers, PDA's GPS technology, internet inferstructure etc. Those things in big part, not completely were brought on due to the military build up of Reagan because during his years there was alot more research and development for high tech things for the military which in time end up in the public doman. Some of you please don't mistake me or misquote me, I am not saying Reagan started or invented the internet, that was Algore.
Ask yourself now what is tanking the most? Yep high tech. I would say in large part because it completly saturated the market. Most people now have computers, cells phones etc. in the 90's (Clinton) they were saling like hotcakes. People finally got tired of getting a new computer every year, a new cell phone every year so they are not saling no where like they did during the 90's tack on to that Clinton rasing capital gains taxes and other business taxes and big business is not doing nearly as much research and development as they did in the 90's, nor are they upgrading and/or replacing their capital equipment as they had been in the 90's.
So you might be a liberal if:
You think big business is evil.
AND
You think building the military up is evil
Which = you love a econcomy that is tanking and improving at an extreamly low rate.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
If an American on here has bashed your Political leaders
You are totally dependent on our economy. Although like the rest of the world, you secretly believe that YOU don't need those overbearing pompous Americans.
As I see it, Canada's big contributions to the world are;
1. A nice safe haven for all of our draft dodgers. (just in case you aren't sure - bad thing)
2. Gretzky - Great one thing
3. Poor immigration & border control - bad thing
4. Gilles Villeneuve - Was a very special thing
5. Jacques Villeneuve - still a good thing
6. Fanatstic untouched areas in the west
7. Hockey aye - good thing
So it looks as if sports and outdoor activities are the Canadians contributions.
Flame away, :
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,511
Likes: 10
From: Under the flightpath of old ORD 22R
schoolbus,
Just to try to give you a little insight, try reading a few copies of The Economist
I started reading this years ago when I traveled to Europe alot, and found it quite informative, without the slanted views of the Domestic US papers, which all appear on the surface to be Liberal run.
Take a look at where the monatary policies come from. The Fed. Al Greenspan, the same person that Regan put in the white house to help correct the high prime rate that ran out of control in the late 70s.
This is the same person that Cllinton re-nominated druing his tenure. I do have one good thing to say about Clinton ( and no I did not vote for him, not a single time ) he did not mess with monitary policy, nor for the most part, economic items ( less his wife pissing off China, during MFN talks...that cost the US ).
I will say Mr Greenspan did violate his own rule ( it takes a min of 9 months for a rate increase to take full affect and hold ) by raisng rates too quickly, while trying to inflation at bay. This was during Clinton administration that he did this.
Guess what the economy did slow, then slow then slow ( oh guess those 5 rate drops in quick sucession did work..oopps too much that is ).
If you want to blame GWB for the economy then good for you, but if you have looked into what makes the economy run, then the olny part the president really plays in the day to day ( short from starting a war to boost it ) is in the nomination of the chairman of the federal reserve board.
Oddly enough during the Clinton administration, the Chicago fed director did note that the econony was slowing, which hinted at no more rate cuts, and what did Al do, raise the rates again...go figure.
When the rates increased, then it was more expensive to borrow money, which in turn means that compaines would not take short to medium notes to expand any further, which in turn means that they sell what they have, lowered revenues, and on down the line. Down the line is the ***** flows down hill senerio as it were. They don't buy stuff from a company so that company does not need as many widgets that they use to build a product, which in turn means their suppliers don't have as many sales...see where this is going.
I know this one first hand, being from a telcom equipment mfgr. Working in sales, I saw the slow down comming while Clinton was still in, and then the final blow was this summer..laid off.
I am helping out dad while I am trying to find a new job, who is an Electrican, which he is busier then ever this year ( low rates still have construction up mostly, in light commerical expansion, and residential..not much in the way of offices being built now a days...a 3 story office building he was to start on got axed...guess when it was axed... when Clinton was in office. )
If you do some unbiased research, and look at rate increases ( again not something the President does ) when they happened, and when the area purchasing managers numbers started to fall off, you would have seen the economy start down before GWB took office.
Then again...you are entitled to an opinion of who is at fault for the economy....if you want to blame it on the new President...then I guess you can be good with that, just don't be suprised by the replies you get for it.
As for the whole start of the thread...I found it quite amusing...then again I'm not a liberal either...so some may not find it so funy.
Just to try to give you a little insight, try reading a few copies of The Economist
I started reading this years ago when I traveled to Europe alot, and found it quite informative, without the slanted views of the Domestic US papers, which all appear on the surface to be Liberal run.
Take a look at where the monatary policies come from. The Fed. Al Greenspan, the same person that Regan put in the white house to help correct the high prime rate that ran out of control in the late 70s.
This is the same person that Cllinton re-nominated druing his tenure. I do have one good thing to say about Clinton ( and no I did not vote for him, not a single time ) he did not mess with monitary policy, nor for the most part, economic items ( less his wife pissing off China, during MFN talks...that cost the US ).
I will say Mr Greenspan did violate his own rule ( it takes a min of 9 months for a rate increase to take full affect and hold ) by raisng rates too quickly, while trying to inflation at bay. This was during Clinton administration that he did this.
Guess what the economy did slow, then slow then slow ( oh guess those 5 rate drops in quick sucession did work..oopps too much that is ).
If you want to blame GWB for the economy then good for you, but if you have looked into what makes the economy run, then the olny part the president really plays in the day to day ( short from starting a war to boost it ) is in the nomination of the chairman of the federal reserve board.
Oddly enough during the Clinton administration, the Chicago fed director did note that the econony was slowing, which hinted at no more rate cuts, and what did Al do, raise the rates again...go figure.
When the rates increased, then it was more expensive to borrow money, which in turn means that compaines would not take short to medium notes to expand any further, which in turn means that they sell what they have, lowered revenues, and on down the line. Down the line is the ***** flows down hill senerio as it were. They don't buy stuff from a company so that company does not need as many widgets that they use to build a product, which in turn means their suppliers don't have as many sales...see where this is going.
I know this one first hand, being from a telcom equipment mfgr. Working in sales, I saw the slow down comming while Clinton was still in, and then the final blow was this summer..laid off.
I am helping out dad while I am trying to find a new job, who is an Electrican, which he is busier then ever this year ( low rates still have construction up mostly, in light commerical expansion, and residential..not much in the way of offices being built now a days...a 3 story office building he was to start on got axed...guess when it was axed... when Clinton was in office. )
If you do some unbiased research, and look at rate increases ( again not something the President does ) when they happened, and when the area purchasing managers numbers started to fall off, you would have seen the economy start down before GWB took office.
Then again...you are entitled to an opinion of who is at fault for the economy....if you want to blame it on the new President...then I guess you can be good with that, just don't be suprised by the replies you get for it.
As for the whole start of the thread...I found it quite amusing...then again I'm not a liberal either...so some may not find it so funy.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
SSCULLY:
That was a great post. I forgot about Greenspan. You are right as far as someone having ALOT of control over the economy and Greenspan would be just that.
I had stated I was no expert on the economy and it sounds like my theory, with the exception of not mentioning Greenspan, is somewhat in line with yours. I have only done a little reading about how the economy actual works. It is quit a complex thing to understand and most my theory comes not just from experience with working with my Dad when I was a kid but where I currently work now, so basically just common sence.
As you mentioned rate cuts or hikes have a big effect on the economy just as tax increases on business itself.
They, the liberals, talk about giving tax breaks to the poor and that I can not understand the theory behind. Just makes no sence to me to give someone a tax "break" unless they are paying taxes to begin with (i.e. tax credits) So someone can get all the taxes they actually paid plus a bonus.
That does NOTHING for the economy long term, not really much for short term either. Reagan had it right, at least in my opinion, supply side economics. I may not understand it correctly, but I understand it to be if there are more jobs created, due to tax cuts to business, then there are more people working and paying taxes, business is making more profit and thus paying more taxes themselfs so in turn you have more money pouring into the goverenment for them to waste 50% on BS programs, and just losing the money itself since they have no idea where most of it is to begin with.
I could be wrong on the supply side economics, and if so I apoligize.
It's like this "so-called" lock box on Social Security money. It is amazing how many people actually think "their" money is being put away until they retire. There is NO S.S. savings account that is just a myth. The money I and everyone else pays go stright to the people receiving S.S. to begin with. The other fact is people who paid into S.S. and are receiving S.S. checks now are receiving ALOT more money then they ever put in themselfs and that is including interest. No wonder we are going bankrupt with S.S.
I would love to put $100.00 in the bank and return in a month and get $200.00 that is how S.S. operates at this time.
Like you said if schoolbus wants to blame the current economy on Bush thats thier choice, just know it is unfounded with absolutely no facts to back it up. It's only a myth, like wishing upon a star...
That was a great post. I forgot about Greenspan. You are right as far as someone having ALOT of control over the economy and Greenspan would be just that.
I had stated I was no expert on the economy and it sounds like my theory, with the exception of not mentioning Greenspan, is somewhat in line with yours. I have only done a little reading about how the economy actual works. It is quit a complex thing to understand and most my theory comes not just from experience with working with my Dad when I was a kid but where I currently work now, so basically just common sence.
As you mentioned rate cuts or hikes have a big effect on the economy just as tax increases on business itself.
They, the liberals, talk about giving tax breaks to the poor and that I can not understand the theory behind. Just makes no sence to me to give someone a tax "break" unless they are paying taxes to begin with (i.e. tax credits) So someone can get all the taxes they actually paid plus a bonus.
That does NOTHING for the economy long term, not really much for short term either. Reagan had it right, at least in my opinion, supply side economics. I may not understand it correctly, but I understand it to be if there are more jobs created, due to tax cuts to business, then there are more people working and paying taxes, business is making more profit and thus paying more taxes themselfs so in turn you have more money pouring into the goverenment for them to waste 50% on BS programs, and just losing the money itself since they have no idea where most of it is to begin with.
I could be wrong on the supply side economics, and if so I apoligize.
It's like this "so-called" lock box on Social Security money. It is amazing how many people actually think "their" money is being put away until they retire. There is NO S.S. savings account that is just a myth. The money I and everyone else pays go stright to the people receiving S.S. to begin with. The other fact is people who paid into S.S. and are receiving S.S. checks now are receiving ALOT more money then they ever put in themselfs and that is including interest. No wonder we are going bankrupt with S.S.
I would love to put $100.00 in the bank and return in a month and get $200.00 that is how S.S. operates at this time.
Like you said if schoolbus wants to blame the current economy on Bush thats thier choice, just know it is unfounded with absolutely no facts to back it up. It's only a myth, like wishing upon a star...
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Toronto Ont. Canada
Gentlemen
There are a couple threads goin on here that have a distinct anti-Canadian tone to them. When some disagrees with you , the fact that they are Canadian has nothing to do with it.
If someone makes generalizations about americans do not stoop to there level and do the same
Myself having dual citizenship, born in the US but call Canada home am a little upset by this. There is more and more antiCanadian/American sentiments being expressed today than ever in the history of our two great nations.
My job requires me to travel around the world a great deal at times and I can tell you that anti american sentiments are growing elsewhere also. The fact that I have a Canadian flag on MY passport has saved me alot of humiliation and delays passing through many an international airport, where my american colleages were hassled.
There are a couple threads goin on here that have a distinct anti-Canadian tone to them. When some disagrees with you , the fact that they are Canadian has nothing to do with it.
If someone makes generalizations about americans do not stoop to there level and do the same
Myself having dual citizenship, born in the US but call Canada home am a little upset by this. There is more and more antiCanadian/American sentiments being expressed today than ever in the history of our two great nations.
My job requires me to travel around the world a great deal at times and I can tell you that anti american sentiments are growing elsewhere also. The fact that I have a Canadian flag on MY passport has saved me alot of humiliation and delays passing through many an international airport, where my american colleages were hassled.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
The anti-America thing is something us Americans will just have to put up with. It comes with being the SUPER power, the badas* of the neighborhood.
The fact is most anti-America comes for those, be it where ever, from just being jelious of our great nation and not being an equal with us.
Nothing in life is equal thats just the facts in reality. We the USA are the top dog have been for a long long time and will continue to be for an even much longer time. Some would like to believe in it (being equal to the USA) but they are wasting their time. Once people around the world relize there is NOTHING they can do about it then the sooner things will be much better for all, us and mostly them. Because I believe the time has come for this great nation the USA to hand out a few examples (like WWII) to places like Iraq, North Korea to name a few of just how bad it can be when they decide to even "think" about going up against the USA. They are in for a real as* kicking.
These other places you talk about only use the USA for an excuse of how they don't have a damn clue how to properly run a country and come any where near the standards in the USA. Kind of like the poor using a rich guy as an excuse of why they can't make it. All these other countries of couse leave out that they get assistance from the USA, without it they would go hungry and have basically nothing. Sometimes the facts hurt, but I don't deal in feelings just facts and logic.
As far as the anti-Canda things being said that is in regard to something somebody started who is himself from Canda. If he can't take it then he should just shut his mouth. I believe it had something to do with calling our president a retard. That is his right, as it is my right, as well as others to point out to this uninformed individual that it is this "retard" he refers to that will be the one that saves his and his country's as* if need be.
I have nothing against Canda, I think it is a great place with wonderful people. However the fact remains that without the USA and our power Canda would NOT be able to defend itself from aggression from almost any other country. That being said it is fair game to counter someones stupid comment that has nothing to back it up with, as far as facts go and the truth.
There is an old saying that some should pay heed to "Never bite that hand that feeds you". In this case instead of feed it would be PROTECT.
I must also bring to light that with only a few post I wonder if you are not the same guy as posted the first comment to bring this anti-Canda thing up. If that is the case then your post is mute.
The fact is most anti-America comes for those, be it where ever, from just being jelious of our great nation and not being an equal with us.
Nothing in life is equal thats just the facts in reality. We the USA are the top dog have been for a long long time and will continue to be for an even much longer time. Some would like to believe in it (being equal to the USA) but they are wasting their time. Once people around the world relize there is NOTHING they can do about it then the sooner things will be much better for all, us and mostly them. Because I believe the time has come for this great nation the USA to hand out a few examples (like WWII) to places like Iraq, North Korea to name a few of just how bad it can be when they decide to even "think" about going up against the USA. They are in for a real as* kicking.
These other places you talk about only use the USA for an excuse of how they don't have a damn clue how to properly run a country and come any where near the standards in the USA. Kind of like the poor using a rich guy as an excuse of why they can't make it. All these other countries of couse leave out that they get assistance from the USA, without it they would go hungry and have basically nothing. Sometimes the facts hurt, but I don't deal in feelings just facts and logic.
As far as the anti-Canda things being said that is in regard to something somebody started who is himself from Canda. If he can't take it then he should just shut his mouth. I believe it had something to do with calling our president a retard. That is his right, as it is my right, as well as others to point out to this uninformed individual that it is this "retard" he refers to that will be the one that saves his and his country's as* if need be.
I have nothing against Canda, I think it is a great place with wonderful people. However the fact remains that without the USA and our power Canda would NOT be able to defend itself from aggression from almost any other country. That being said it is fair game to counter someones stupid comment that has nothing to back it up with, as far as facts go and the truth.
There is an old saying that some should pay heed to "Never bite that hand that feeds you". In this case instead of feed it would be PROTECT.
I must also bring to light that with only a few post I wonder if you are not the same guy as posted the first comment to bring this anti-Canda thing up. If that is the case then your post is mute.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
From: DeLand, FL
SSCULLY
Excellent post. Schoolbus is stuck in the micro-economic picture, and can't see the macro forest for the trees. I don't think anyone can draw a distinct macroeconomic theory from one individual's perceptions of schoolbus driver supply.
The one thing I would add to your comment about the President's control over the economy is that he is also charged with the administration of all laws (as he is the head of the administrative branch, the Executive). These companies that are floundering today, Adelphia, Worldcom, Enron, all were born into their madness during Clinton's presidency where a very loose control factor existed under the SEC and the Department of Treasury. In short, the administration was willing to look the other way in order to keep the economy rolling like it was. That economy, of course, was built off of the investments made during the Reagan and Bush era.
I find people's lack of not only economics, but sheer common sense laughable. Who in their right mind thinks that if some guy gets in office and the economy turns around 6 months after and goes well after that, that it was something that guy "did"? In the same sense, who in their right mind thinks that because the economy started going south 6 months after GWB went into office, that he is at fault?
Utterly amazing...Also ,there is speculation, which I particularly don't subscribe to because I haven't researched it enough, that Greenspan was under intense pressure (mostly from himself) to keep the economy going for Clinton's re-election and for Gore's run...
Excellent post. Schoolbus is stuck in the micro-economic picture, and can't see the macro forest for the trees. I don't think anyone can draw a distinct macroeconomic theory from one individual's perceptions of schoolbus driver supply.
The one thing I would add to your comment about the President's control over the economy is that he is also charged with the administration of all laws (as he is the head of the administrative branch, the Executive). These companies that are floundering today, Adelphia, Worldcom, Enron, all were born into their madness during Clinton's presidency where a very loose control factor existed under the SEC and the Department of Treasury. In short, the administration was willing to look the other way in order to keep the economy rolling like it was. That economy, of course, was built off of the investments made during the Reagan and Bush era.
I find people's lack of not only economics, but sheer common sense laughable. Who in their right mind thinks that if some guy gets in office and the economy turns around 6 months after and goes well after that, that it was something that guy "did"? In the same sense, who in their right mind thinks that because the economy started going south 6 months after GWB went into office, that he is at fault?
Utterly amazing...Also ,there is speculation, which I particularly don't subscribe to because I haven't researched it enough, that Greenspan was under intense pressure (mostly from himself) to keep the economy going for Clinton's re-election and for Gore's run...
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
From: DeLand, FL
Sam N
Blame your Canadian friends...Check out the attacks that they have made first, calling names and whatnot. It's only when we strike back here that they get all boo-boo'd and start to whine like you are doing.....
SO! If you don't want anti-Canadian tones here, tell your Canadian brew-has that we don't want anti-American tones here....
Blame your Canadian friends...Check out the attacks that they have made first, calling names and whatnot. It's only when we strike back here that they get all boo-boo'd and start to whine like you are doing.....
SO! If you don't want anti-Canadian tones here, tell your Canadian brew-has that we don't want anti-American tones here....
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: I-95,I-78,I-81,I-83,I-695
listen,
i wasnt ******* anybody! all i was saying is that there are more people driving a schoolbus @10-15 dollars an hour,when a republican in office, than when there is a democrat...ANY...democrat!.
now that GWB is in office who i thout handeled 9-11 great (even though i lost a ton of money because everyone was afraid to travel) we have more drivers than school runs and the bosses are getting real cochy, by firing allot of drivers.
now i have no feelings towards any president because he is just a figure head and the congess has more to do with everything!!
there was no reason for a senator to be in office at damn near 100 yo
have a good day lambasting anyone that does not share your opinion!
moose
i wasnt ******* anybody! all i was saying is that there are more people driving a schoolbus @10-15 dollars an hour,when a republican in office, than when there is a democrat...ANY...democrat!.
now that GWB is in office who i thout handeled 9-11 great (even though i lost a ton of money because everyone was afraid to travel) we have more drivers than school runs and the bosses are getting real cochy, by firing allot of drivers.
now i have no feelings towards any president because he is just a figure head and the congess has more to do with everything!!
there was no reason for a senator to be in office at damn near 100 yo
have a good day lambasting anyone that does not share your opinion!
moose
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
cpadpl:
Good to see you. I know your quit well informed when it comes to econimics. Sounds like Green_98 is as well. I gave a stab at it from my limited knowledge on the subject, but as I stated I an no expert, but have enough knowledge to know that who ever is in office at the moment does not reflect the current economic conditions we may have. Unless of course they have already been there for 6 - 7 years.
Good to see you. I know your quit well informed when it comes to econimics. Sounds like Green_98 is as well. I gave a stab at it from my limited knowledge on the subject, but as I stated I an no expert, but have enough knowledge to know that who ever is in office at the moment does not reflect the current economic conditions we may have. Unless of course they have already been there for 6 - 7 years.