PDA

View Full Version : just say not to clinton


afr
01-23-2008, 05:49 PM
here is a little history reminder

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION

- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign.
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
- Median length of investigations that led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation: 69 months.
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
- Total cost to taxpayers of the Madison Guarantee failure: $73 million

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME

- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of unexplained deaths: 4
- Total suspicious deaths: 46
- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156

It is important in considering these fatal incidents to bear in mind the following:

The fact that anomalies need to be investigated further carries no presumption of how a death actually occurred, only that there remain serious questions that require answers.

The possibility of foul play must be taken seriously in a major criminal conspiracy in which over two score individuals and firms have been convicted and over 100 witnesses have pled the Fifth Amendment or fled the country.

If foul play did occur in any of these cases, that fact by itself does not carry the presumption that the the Clinton machine was involved. Given the footprints of organized crime, drug trade, foreign espionage, and intelligence agencies on the trail of the Clinton story, such a assumption would not be warranted. It is also well to keep in mind the classic prohibition era movie in which the corrupt poitician's job was not to engage in illegal acts but to avoid noticing them.
ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT

- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50 million
- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000
- Number of commercial banks: 570
- Number of bank regulators: 1
- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in the mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the Worthen Bank.
- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly up: 3
- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%
- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.
- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots who lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%

THE MEDIA

- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired, transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10

FRIENDS OF BILL

- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to questions during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000
- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160
- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White House in the two years before the 1996 election: 577
- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top positions in the Clinton administration. 18
- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37
- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks: 261
- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce Department: 500

UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA

- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): 6
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10

THE HIDDEN ELECTION

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. But there was an important national story here: evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton was for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of 1998 that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

THE CLINTON LEGACY: LONELY VOICES

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters were fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise got into trouble because of their work on the scandals.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. In addition, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told Newsmax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives had looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke was his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that was largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.

OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list was subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.

JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth. The Review provided extensive coverage of the topic.

:sport009:

Winger
01-23-2008, 07:16 PM
You have to realize that Bill Clinton had to turn elsewhere for sexual pleasure. He was married to a nun. He got nun in the morning, got nun in the afternoon, and got nun at night. So that must mean that Hillary is a saint. :) Still is no way I'll vote for her.

BTW, you must take all those statistics with a grain of salt. Facts and figures are easily manipulated to reflect the views of the person that compiled them. That's not to say they are false, just a little misleading. The Clinton administration may have been corrupt, but I don't believe they were as corrupt as the present administration. JMI, but the present administration hides everything under the cover of national security and fighting terrorism.

afr
01-23-2008, 07:25 PM
if one can do it so can another

i just wanted to point out how corrupt our government really is
no matter who's running as the string man

ovalracer44
01-23-2008, 07:39 PM
Anymore, all I have to say about politicians is same stink, different piles. They are all guilty of some of the most atrocious things we could ever imagine. That being said, even I have to admit, things sure were better when clinton was in office.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Anymore I think the republicans are worse about government growth and government spending than the democrats.

That being said I am going to have a hard time not voting for Obama if he is on the ticket, since my first choice Ron Paul doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell.

Winger
01-23-2008, 07:50 PM
I agree with you completely AFR. The system needs a major change and that is not even on the horizon. Let's start by doing away with the 2 party system. Heck we can all save time and money if the primaries actually elected the president and not just eliminate some potentially good candidates that couldn't raise enough money. So let people vote for who ever they want to in the primaries, regardless of party. 1 person, 1 vote for whoever they want. Candidate with most primary votes, regardless of party, wins presidency. No general election, reduced number of lying political ads, and you would actually have a choice without having to decide on the lesser of 2 evils. Why do I have to pick a candidate that is ultra-conservative on the right or a liberal wimp on the left when my views are more moderate down the middle. I consider myself the person with some common sense. Why do I have to pick a person that just tries to say the right thing with no intention of actually doing it. It would also be a neat idea if the person with the most votes actually won this election, so we could do away with the electoral college also.

BTW, I'm glad you didn't take offense to my earlier post. After re-reading it, I realize it could have misled someone into thinking I was sticking up for the Clintons. I actually voted for Bush Sr. and Dole when he ran. Guess my record isn't so good. I've only picked a winner once in the last four elections. :)

Jim Fenton
01-24-2008, 05:12 AM
http://www.computerbroke.com/2easy/HillaryBS.jpg

dave41
01-24-2008, 08:23 AM
most have been in senate long enough to have pull among others, still can't pull together. how can they make change as president. ( not ).

afr
01-24-2008, 02:59 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3286459385978771924

just check this out it like 40 minutes long

Winger
01-24-2008, 03:49 PM
I didn't take the time to watch this but I think I know what it is. I just read a book explaining the history of the Federal Reserve and how it works. I can't think of the name right now but it was enlightening. It told me things I didn't know. I always thought the Federal Reserve was part of the government but it isn't. It was established secretly by a small group of very rich men. And to think this small group of people probably wield more power than almost anyone in the world. Are we really a "democratic" society?

Rick Williamson
01-24-2008, 04:09 PM
Niether one of them have done anything good for us. We don't need another in the White house.

afr
01-24-2008, 07:02 PM
say no to government intervention
its 350 years in 50 min

good stuff

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2271098743281162943

Todd McCreary
01-24-2008, 08:03 PM
I just read a book explaining the history of the Federal Reserve and how it works. I can't think of the name right now but it was enlightening.

Secrets of the Temple by William Greider (http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201226688&sr=1-1) was pretty good from a historical and mechanistic standpoint but you need to ignore the hippy-dippy Marxist ideology and Freudian pschology. that's not light, overnight reading though.

afr
01-25-2008, 05:04 AM
all the good economist say
what ever the government get's into it has the reverse effect
and it has been like that for 350 years and well documented as i posted

this crap bush is doing is going to wipe out the housing market completely
if you are not upside down in your home now ,you will be if they implement this free money crap

the government is out of control
other paper money countries have already lost there butt,s
looks like we are next

afr
01-25-2008, 09:16 PM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hrcTz5XRtN8


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=rIsDGCSjI60&feature=related

Boneman
01-25-2008, 10:58 PM
Hey Scott, would you please explain how Bush is going to wipe out the housing market? Think hard, but remember that home ownership rates are still at the highest point in history.

Are you blaming the sub-prime mortgage melt-down on him? I hope not, anyone can see that is caused by SUCKERS who signed up for a house deal that was too good to be true, and now they have to pay for their stupidity. Same goes for the lenders. They ripped off suckers to make bucks in the short term with no vision about what would come in a few years. That is the free-market, not government.

How will Bush's free money give-away cause you to be upside down on your home?

BTW: Rush said the "stimulus plan" was short-sighted, irresponsible and foolish, which make it PERFECT ELECTION YEAR POLITICS! Give away money! Woo hoo!

afr
01-26-2008, 05:45 AM
well maybe I'm wrong
but if the dollar keeps dropping everything will be worthless
isn't it true the more cash you put in to print the less the dollar is worth
the less our dollar is worth the less goods and services

ain't like they have the money laying around to give anyways
so it has to come from somewhere
how far do you think that 20 billion will go from the sautes

Todd McCreary
01-27-2008, 08:08 PM
Are you blaming the sub-prime mortgage melt-down on him? I hope not, anyone can see that is caused by SUCKERS who signed up for a house deal that was too good to be true, and now they have to pay for their stupidity.

the bigger problem is that mortgage lenders were forced by Congress to make loans to "minorities" ... because the lack of loans to "minorities" was prima facie evidence of "discrimination". ignore the fact that "minorities" also tend to have lower incomes and a well documented tendency to default on loans they do get. ah well.





but if the dollar keeps dropping everything will be worthless

the dollar keeps dropping we refuse to drill for our own oil/utilize our oil sands

we price our own legal labor out of global competitiveness with minimum wage laws

the illegals that we bring in to "do the work we won't do" send 75% of their paychecks back home

etc, etc




isn't it true the more cash you put in to print the less the dollar is worth

physical numbers of dollar bills in existence is almost meaningless as something over 75% of all US dollars "in circulation" exist only on bank statements all over the planet. that is to say, not only is there no gold backing each US dollar anymore, there isn't even a greenback backing each US dollar.

the total quantity of US dollars in existence ( normally economists talk about M1 or M2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States) ) is primarily controlled by government tax policy and the Interbank lending rate set by the Federal Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve#Federal_funds_rate_and_discount_ra te). paper dollars printed by the Treasury have an effect but it's fairly minimal.

ovalracer44
01-27-2008, 09:38 PM
Todd, I have to respectfully disagree with one of your points. We have not priced ourselves out of the global labor market. We are trying to compete in a game we cant win. We currently have free trade agreements with many communist countries that control the value of their dollar versus our own dollar. Therefor what seems like cheap labor to us really is not. They can live on 50 dollars a week, because of the cost of living. How can we expect people to work jobs here if the cost of living is what it is. We need industry back in this country. So what if a the price of a hamburger goes up. If everyone is making more money it should.

Here is some numbers to put in your ear.

Median income in 1960 was $20,337

Median income in 2006 was $48,201

What has the cost of housing done in that time frame?

Houses in the 60s sold for 20,000 here.

same house now here will set you back 225,000

See the disparity?

Winger
01-27-2008, 11:05 PM
Ovalracer,
Where did you get your figures? I have a feeling you're comparing apples to oranges here. Let's use figures using current dollars, meaning in 1960 we'll use 1960 dollars, and 1998 we'll use 1998 dollars. I'm using these figures from the US Census from 1998. I don't have the most recent figures at hand.

Median Family Income in 1960 was $5620.
Median Family Income in 1998 was $46,737.

I have a feeling the figures you used were for "constant" dollars, which is adjusted for inflation, etc.

Median Family income in 1960 was $28,449 in 1998 dollars.
Median Family income in 1998 was $46,737 in 1998 dollars.

Your housing figures are probably off a little also but the only figures I have are from 1970 when the median sales price of a house in the south was $20,300. I think you'll find the price for 1960 in the $15,000 range. The housing figures support your argument. Consider the price of housing is 12 to 15 times higher now than in 1960. Income is 9-10 times higher. Your argument is still valid, just not as outrageous as you first implied.

I hate it when people start using "adjusted" figures to start comparing costs. I hear the media telling me all the time that gas prices are still cheap compared to "pick a date" prices. Well I can tell you that I paid less than 40 cents a gallon for gas in high school. For $2 I could ride my snowmobile all night long. I just can't afford to have this amount of fun now. :( But if I use the argument I made above, I guess we're paying a fair price. It just doesn't feel like it.

I had to check your figures because I lived in 1960 and a family making $20,000 in a year was very well off back then. I was better off in 1960 than I am now also. :) Course I was a kid living with my parents in Florida.

The problems with our economy are much more complex than any of us can put into a few posts. One of the main problems is greed by the people that stood to make money in our housing market. This includes investors, realtors, banks, mortgage companies, investment companies, and everyone else involved in housing. Yes, people were not very smart to take these loans but they were under extreme pressure to do so. I bought a house a few years ago and insisted on a fixed rate mortgage. I almost got into a shouting match with the bank and realtor because they were pushing for a variable rate mortgage. What seems to be common sense to me isn't to a lot of people, particularly when the "experts" are telling them to do something stupid.

ovalracer44
01-27-2008, 11:18 PM
Winger, you are right. I copied and pasted a number without so much as thinking the relevance. housing is still askew to the income in this country. One thing i did read somewhere once, is our median income is propped up by extremely wealthy types that did not exist as prevalant back then. Think about how many people it takes to offset bill gates income. I would venture to say real world median income is somewhere in the 38,000 range.

flvideo
01-27-2008, 11:35 PM
In 1960 I made $1.10 an hour. Paid $.19 to $.24 a gallon for gas. I wrenched at a gas station so boss took my gas out of my pay. I rode a Harley 165 that got 100 mpg. Thought I was rich. In 1965 after the Air force I started with FPL making $1.90 an hour. In 1968 I bought my 1st house for $14.999. 2 bedroom 2 bath. I worryed about paying my $107 mortgage payment. I think I had less to worry about then. Bob....

john tenney
01-28-2008, 06:41 AM
Kevin don't confuse average with median. The "average" income is affected more by Bill Gates than the "median" - he's still just one person.

The 2003 median income in Florida for a family of 4 (this is from census figures adjusted for 2006 dollars) was somewhere around $65,000 - which puts me well below median in declared income.

(Data taken from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html)

I am no economics expert, but the problem I see in the US is that with our political system the way it is, all politicians end up making promises to everyone, saying that "we can all be above average" .....


HUH?


By definition, half of us have to be below average, no?

afr
01-28-2008, 05:36 PM
here john this goes with what you are saying not one of the politicians ever due one thing they say there going to do
WARNING VERY STRONG LANGUAGE
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CDnxIfjcSIc

modracer22
01-28-2008, 07:20 PM
My opinion of the way things are is because we have gave big business alot of breaks to move out of the country which for you clinton fans it was he who pushed it with the nafta bill or however you say it. What the USA needs is quit giving are money away and our jobs. After standing on the steet for 5 mounths on strike I swore I would never vote for a Republican President again but to tell you the truth we got more support from the Rep then the Dem. So that being said anybody that thinks that Hilery Clinton will do anything for the working guy you need to get back under that rock.

Todd McCreary
01-29-2008, 12:34 PM
We currently have free trade agreements with many communist countries that control the value of their dollar versus our own dollar.

while philosophically for 'Free Trade', i have made the point myself in off-line debates that 'Free Trade' with a slave economy ( communist dictatorship ) is a contradiction in terms and physically impossible.

in my opinion, normalization of relations with China was by far the most destructive thing Nixon / Kissinger ever did to this country. you'll notice that that is the only thing the news media ever speaks positively about him though. they still drool over Kissinger.



Todd, I have to respectfully disagree with one of your points. We have not priced ourselves out of the global labor market. We are trying to compete in a game we cant win.

not true. we aren't 'competing' successfully with Mexico, Ireland, India, Malaysia, etc. non of these countries are Communist dictatorships.

China is a symptom, not the problem. they're just the best at exploiting our problem.

we gave every other country on the planet a knife and then hog-tied ourselves. now we wonder why they're cutting slices off. duh. because we're fat and they're not.






They can live on 50 dollars a week, because of the cost of living ... So what if a the price of a hamburger goes up.

you contradict yourself here. either the COL matters or it does not. given the ease with which 3rd world countries sell products to us i would suggest that it matters a great deal.

you're also ignoring the impact that minimum wage laws have on artificially inflating the price of our own labor. which is why the US is so irresistable to illegal aliens. they can work 'off the books' for half of the legal minimum and still make 10x as much as they would at home.

don't even get started on the whole 'free health care from the hospital emergency room' thing.




The "average" income is affected more by Bill Gates than the "median" - he's still just one person.

the only problem is, at his height Gates was equivalent to 2 million households earning $50,000. he's still worth 1 million $50,000 households today.

wait, i said that wrong. i don't have a problem with Gates making that much money. i had a problem when Greenspan said that he would exclude executive compensation when calculating wage inflation. that was patently absurd and a large part of the reason why we've been having these speculation bubbles rolling around to various parts of the economy for the last 20 years. when you've got a spare $10 billion sitting in your pocket it's hard to restrain your spending on cars/art/real estate/etc. and why should you?





for you clinton fans it was he who pushed it with the nafta bill or however you say it.

1. while i have no fondness for Clinton it must be admitted that the result would have been no different with a Republican. but then, i don't have a problem with free trade between nominally free economies.

2. NAFTA had no effect on our trade deficit with China. being the "North American Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement)" and all.

afr
01-29-2008, 06:12 PM
anybody watch the state of the union address last night

Winger
01-29-2008, 08:08 PM
Nope, I quit watching it a couple years ago pretty much. Might have watched it a little last year, just don't remember. It's a joke, with a "president" manipulating words trying to say things people want to hear. And it's interupted every few seconds by applause and standing ovations. If last night was different, tell me so.

afr
01-29-2008, 09:08 PM
no same old same old
he was blaming congress and the house for not passing bills etc
begging the works
same same
the lady speaker of the house did more eye rolling and stare downs to some one
half the room stood the other half didn't

Todd McCreary
01-29-2008, 11:28 PM
he was blaming congress and the house for not passing bills etc


but, er, they didn't pass any bills to speak of. well, at least not much beyond extending funding for the Iraq war. so much for majority Dem control of both houses, eh? :aetsch013:

if Congress doesn't pass laws, there's nothing on the Presidents desk for him to sign. or veto, as the case may be. it's kind of the way our government is designed to work.

Winger
01-30-2008, 12:02 AM
if Congress doesn't pass laws, there's nothing on the Presidents desk for him to sign. or veto, as the case may be. it's kind of the way our government is designed to work.

Todd makes a great point. We tend to blame the president for most of our problems because he is in the spotlight. (He's also quick to take credit, regardless of party.) However, it is actually the fault of the congress, representatives, and executive branch not working together. It seems like it been this way for the majority of my adult life. Politics have gotten so partisan that nothing beneficial gets done. Deals are made, pork barrel projects are put into every bill, and the only winners are the politicians, lobbyists, and large corporations. This is another reason I think the 2 party system is the wrong system to have. It is better than the one party system but why can't our representatives actually do what we want, not what the party leaders tell them to do. People say we can vote them out if we don't like what they do. That's true but the replacement will do, and has done, the same thing. (vote with their party) It doesn't matter what party it is. And if the president and majority of congress are on opposite sides of the aisle, nothing tends to get done. Take this last 1+ year as an example.

afr
01-30-2008, 05:08 AM
yep
todd the president has to pass bills around the loop to get back to his desk to sign as well

and nothing ever gets done
anything they get there hands on or noses in does the opposite it is designed to do
there pass history shows that

larrytg
01-30-2008, 10:19 PM
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" a second look at the federal reserve by G. Edward Griffin (no relation to pee wee)
Interesting stuff only 600 pages.

2 part quiz (advanced)
You run 5 laps at osw with the following times. (Boneman driving)
Lap 1 20 sec
2 21
3 22
4 23
5 44

What is your average time and what is the median?

What is the significance (or lack thereof) of the number 71?

Have the dems found a way to blow a 100 lap lead???????

This is fun

Winger
01-30-2008, 11:15 PM
That's the name of the book I read. I couldn't think of it. It is enlightening.

Quiz:
Average is 26 seconds. Median is 22 I believe.
Or the median may be what Boneman ran over on lap 4 to blow his tire, giving him a 44 lap time on his last lap.

No idea what 71 is unless it's the number Dave Marcis ran for years and he's not running it now.

If the dems nominate Hilary I think they will give up any advantage. I may be wrong though. I have some very good democratic friends from Massachusetts that I harass from time to time. Quite influential in the democratic party actually. I tell them they need to nominate someone that can win. It seems like they haven't been able to do that since Clinton was president. I can't see Hilary being any different but I can imagine Obama doing it. Time will tell.

Todd McCreary
01-30-2008, 11:32 PM
todd the president has to pass bills around the loop to get back to his desk to sign as well

no.

the President has nothing to do with writing or initiating laws. the only thing he can 'officially' do is veto something he doesn't like. then the prospective law goes back to Congress and they try to override his veto with a 2/3rds majority vote.

the President can influence the bill writing process somewhat by saying "I'd like such and such to be put into law" or "I'ma veto that if you put it on my desk" but he has no other official lawmaking powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

AB195
01-30-2008, 11:44 PM
Winger, you sound alright, through and through.
But wouldn't it be kind-of weird, if another Clinton would be Prez.

I mean:
Old Bush---4 years---
B. Clinton--8 years---
G.W. Bush-8 years---
H. Clinton--4 years---

Almost a 1/4 Century with only 2 families that could lead this Country.
Two (2) Families, for the past 1/4 Century: is that all the better that there is to lead the Nation?
C'mon, there has to more out there, that the general public will elect.

Two Families for the past 1/4 Century?

This Nation is only a tad-bit over 200 years old.
Youngsters we are.

Boneman
01-31-2008, 06:17 AM
Well I am sorry, but 5 laps gets me a little fatiqued.

Here is a guess on the number series. Including the 71, it would make a curve that looks like the taxes paid by Americans. 39% of all taxes are paid by 1% of the population, while a huge percentage pays nothing, gets the benefits and does the complaining.

afr
01-31-2008, 05:28 PM
todd the president has to pass bills around the loop to get back to his desk to sign as well

no.

the President has nothing to do with writing or initiating laws. the only thing he can 'officially' do is veto something he doesn't like. then the prospective law goes back to Congress and they try to override his veto with a 2/3rds majority vote.

the President can influence the bill writing process somewhat by saying "I'd like such and such to be put into law" or "I'ma veto that if you put it on my desk" but he has no other official lawmaking powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

opps ok my bad
i thought he could make up bills and budget plans
so back to what i really thought he is just a puppet hu
wo

M_Seay10
01-31-2008, 09:42 PM
679
--------------------------------------------------------------

Todd McCreary
02-01-2008, 02:26 PM
i thought he could make up bills and budget plans

he can use the "bully pulpit" to campaign for specific policies with Congressmen.

IF his party controls Congress AND he presents them with a list of specific budgeting items he has a better than even chance of getting what he asked for.

plus a whole bunch of pork that he didn't but that happens with everything.

in the current situation, he's kind of along for the ride on bill and budget writing except for his veto power. this is hardly negligible. maybe if the Dhimmicrats had bothered passing anything you'd have gotten a chance to see him use it.

there are plenty of valid reasons to complain about Bush, you don't need to tar him with the Dems f-ups.

larrytg
02-01-2008, 04:52 PM
I've always loved bush but it's way harder to find these days.
Forgive me if I wax nostolgic.
Larry