You need to go back to your talking points germ. AND btw, did you research the “market” and employment rates and income rates under Clinton before you launched your talking points?

Posted by: Pedant | July 23, 2007 at 06:08 PM

Saying someone wrong and proving they are wrong are two separate things.

Now prove it Pedant.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:egGMGXkd1PUJ:www.wrhambrecht.com/sinai/mkt_perspectives/pdf/20010410.pdf+economic+markers,+recession,+nasdaq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

This was written by Dr. Allen Sinai, President and Chief Global Economist.

He had no axe to grind nor any political position to postulate. He merely stated the facts and the economic indicators used for years to predict recessions. As you can see it started in the summer of 2000. You can track the NASDAQ and see what was happening. As the false economy of the tech market began to collapse the economy especially in CA turned sour.

Just the facts Pendant. Sorry you don’t like them but they are true. The Clinton economy was given a giant shot in the arm by the tech stocks which were built on sand. When they collapsed the economy started down with them. In my opinion the lower taxes of the Bush administration lessened this somewhat.

Yeah, it’s too bad you don’t know what those “specific economic markers” are, or choose to dissemble (lie) about it.

Because you’re just simply wrong.

It was a high risk zone, but the houses were very cheap. :D

After many years of overlooking this requirement the decision was made to no longer allow any house which had over 4′ of water in it to be rebuilt on the same site.

This should also be the case in New Orleans as well as the barrier islands on the east coast where homeowners are allowed to rebuild over and over again even though they are shown to be in an area not suitable for building.

My point on this was that Hillary made that ridiculous statement without even knowing the bare minimum of facts. This is not a person suitable for prez. A shoot from the hip and ask questions later type. Before you throw Bush in here – he isn’t running.

Insurance companies will determine by risk analysis which areas they will insure and which areas they won’t insure.

I owned a house that was in a flood plain and could not get flood insurance for it from a private insurer.

Huh? Can you give some more info on that? I was under the impression that insurance companies decided who could get flood insurance, not the Corps of Engineers. And what does that have to do with Hillary?

Unfortunately, you didn’t define it. You (or rather, the guy in his pajamas from whom you get your numbers – check out the “globalissues.org” site) imply that some spending is unchangable, and beyond the reach of Congress to change. Of course, that is not the case.

What you and he speak of, of course, are “entitlements,” moneys dedicated to funding programs where persons must simply meet predetermined qualifications and apply in order to receive the benefit. Those programs are “nondiscretionary” only because Congress chooses not to change the law authorizing the qualifications and disbursement. That’s not “nondiscretionary” at all, of course. It’s authorized spending, executing laws made at the discretion of Congress, and can be changed at the discretion of Congress.

Roping off that spending as if it was untouchable makes your stats, therefore, disingenuous. You know that, of course. Let’s just make sure that others here know that as well.

Nathan, you would not believe anything reported on Hillary anyway, unless it was said she was the anti-Christ. Why keep ranting?

We don’t have to argue the point. The history was written before the events culmenated. This happens alot in politics and the economy.

There have been many ‘facts’ thrown out here today which on retrospect aren’t facts at all. Farmgrl tried to say she was poor when she really has a bed to sleep in, a roof over her head and is able to eat three squares a day.

Few in America can really define the poverty that is prevalent in other countries. My original point about HIllary – if we want her to be our next prez we need to be very certain that she has the credentials and moral trepitude to do the job.

As to who spends the most money in office, it would be a toss up right now. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We don’t have a social security lockbox as Al Gore tried to imply when he ran and politicians for years have been raiding this fund. It is now time to pay the piper and we need a prez who will realize this and not try to saddle the country with a universal health care plan that will cripple us for years to come.

If 20% of someones income went to something they couldn’t easily change (say child support), the remaining 80% is “discretionary”. It’s reasonable to analyze how they budget their remaining 80%.

It’s not “disingenuous” when the meaning of “discretionary” is included, which my post did.

Posted by: GMC70 | July 23, 2007 at 02:44 PM

Yes, Congress can change “entitlement” funding — but it’s not done thru appropriations bills.

Give them jobs and decent pay where they can make it on their own.

Not really. There is no argument whatsoever on when the recession began. It’s a moot point. The recession occurred in the first term of GW Bush.

However, I understand that those who prefer revisionist history to what we in the reality-based community refer to, refreshingly, as history, I understand how much it costs such a person to admit when s/he’s wrong.

So be it.

ALL spending is discretionary spending.

Form the all left, all of the time, Wichita Eagle? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ya sure, you betcha.

have you commented on the fact that several Military bases have started using wind turbines to produce electicity..And also that Bush has a very enviromental friendly house..

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities“Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over HALF of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year.”