Let’s do the math, shall we.

WWII ended in 1945.

1945 + 65 years to retirement = 2010

The very first baby boomers won’t start retiring until two years from now.

Obviously that has nothing to do with the past seven years.

Better stick to writing those life-insurance policies, Econ.

I pity the fool that listens to your financial forecasts . . .

You’re not a life long Democrat — you’re a POS lying troll.

But thank you for playing . . .

*****

JustWondering looks at eight years of massive job growth, increasing wages for the middle class, falling percentage in poverty, and all-time stock highes and says Look at that Clinton recession.

Dear Lord,

Please send us another Clinton recession very soon.

Amen.

America

But it is not a wanted desire or open choice, they simply are clueless as to the out come and still see that the best hope it the current Republican party. This mean there are several possible futures for Kansas:
One could be that the Republican party continues its current course, this would end with Kansas moving more Democratic.

Two would be that the party does change and once again be the purse holders and more in line with the Lincoln Republicans. The three would be that Kansas is turned purple, where it is not the party but the people that matters. A balance of fiscal responsibility and social awareness.

Oil Behind Israel’s Iran Links
Richard Silverstein, The Guardian

If you’ve ever wondered about the definition of hypocrisy you’ll find the answer right here. Last month the Swiss foreign minister visited Iran and, together with President Ahmadinejad, attended the signing of a multibillion euro contract for Iran to supply Switzerland with large amounts of natural gas over the next 25 years.

The US State Department immediately condemned the deal. Israel complained too, describing the Swiss minister’s visit to Tehran as an “act unfriendly to Israel”. Various Jewish groups also joined in the protests.

This righteous indignation was entirely predictable but more than a little odd nevertheless. On March 30, the Swiss newspaper Sonntag retaliated with the revelation that Israel, supposedly observing an ironclad boycott of all things Iranian, has been buying Iranian oil for years.

The story is in German but Israeli journalist Shraga Elam has provided me with a translation which I’ll quote from here:

“Israel imports Iranian oil on a large scale even though contacts with Iran and purchasing of its products are officially boycotted by Israel. Israel gets around the boycott by having the oil delivered via Europe. A reliable Israeli energy newsletter, EnergiaNews, reported this last week (March 18) …

“EnergiaNews got the information about the Iran trade from sources with ties to the management of Israeli Oil Refineries Ltd … According to EnergiaNews the Iranian oil is liked in Israel because its quality is better than other crude oils.

“The report by EnergiaNews editor Moshe Shalev states that the Iranian oil reaches various European ports, mainly in Rotterdam. It is bought by Israelis and the necessary European bill of lading and insurance papers are supplied. Then it is transported to Haifa in Israel. The importer is the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co (EAPC), which keeps its oil sources secret.”

EAPC was established in 1968 as a joint Israeli-Iranian company to transport oil from Iran to Europe. After the fall of the Shah, Iran ceased to play an active role in its affairs and there are ongoing legal disputes between the two partners.

The Swiss report continued:

“It is not clear if the Iranian exporters know about Israeli purchases of their oil. At the other end, the Israeli buyers and governmental offices are well aware of where the high-grade oil comes from, although it is a blatant defiance of the boycott. The EnergiaNews article even made it through Israeli censorship, which asked only for some changes in the text. The fact that the report cleared the censors increases the credibility of the information. In the past, such reports were forbidden.

“When questioned by Sonntag, an energy expert of one of the leading Israeli papers confirmed the EnergiaNews report: Israel has been importing Iranian oil for many years. The expert stressed, however, that the purchases were made on the free market and not directly from Iran.”

Sonntag quoted a spokesman for Oil Refineries Ltd as denying that his company imports and processes Iranian oil. However, Sonntag pointed to a report in Haaretz newspaper last October which said that an Israeli energy company called Paz would be refining Iranian oil and supplying it to the Palestinian Authority from the start of this year.

This begs the question: If Iran is, as Bibi Netanyahu argues, an existential threat to Israel, why does the government allow such trade? Would Israel have the US attack Iran’s nuclear program and provoke a potential regionwide conflict while it cannot seem to wean itself from high quality Iranian crude? You’d think if Israelis are cowering in fear from an Iranian bomb and the arch anti-Semite Ahmadinejad, they wouldn’t want to trade with such an enemy. When is a boycott not a boycott? If Israel doesn’t honor its self-declared boycott of Iran, why should the rest of the world honor its boycott of Hamas and Gaza? If Israel doesn’t honor its own boycott, then why should members of Congress vote with AIPAC when it proposes a measure that even Israel honors only in the breach?

It’s interesting to note from a discussion (in Hebrew) on the Kedma website that Israel does not formally define Iran as an “enemy nation” and therefore in a strictly legal sense such trade is permissible. Ironically, Iran too has a boycott against Israel in place and is violating its own measures in that regard. Furthermore, the same commenter notes that Israel last week dismissed attempts to engage Syria in a diplomatic process as a failure because Syria refuses to renounce its ties with Iran. Do I hear the word “hypocrisy”?

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=108602&d=5&m=4&y=2008&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion

Except when you cut taxes and unbalance the budget, plus commence an unpaid for war, weakening the dollar and bringing about inflation. And don’t give me that crapola about “core” inflation. I mean the things people buy, like food, gas, and health care; all up about 75 percent since punko took over. Salaries haven’t kept up; everyone maxed out their cards and mortgage, and now the piper must be paid.

The only way out this time is austerity and about a generation of sweat.

That is not true, RD, and you know it.

This is the time they all get STUPIDER, and the really stupid ones morph into James Inhofe.

Dumb, dumber, Republican from Oklahoma.

What do you expect? It’s an ELECTION YEAR, defined as the time they all get STUPID, if they weren’t before.

The Crawford ranch is a JOKE. I have a friend who lives near there, and the people in Crawford are sick of their famous pResident. He’s already looking to move to Dallas, ASAP, but rest assured it won’t be until after he’s out of DC. Don’t want to lose that laughable cowboy image. The man is AFRAID OF HORSES. All hat and no cattle, that’s Dubya.

Unfortunately, the Democrats bought into the plan.

You are oh, so right.

Paul,

I call BS. Talk to the people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the surrounding states. Ask them about unemployment. We still haven’t seen an overall increase after the horrible drop in 2001. And then we need to look at UNDERemployemt. McDonalds can only hire so many. Bush has had 7 years and we haven’t GAINED jobs. We’re still trying to catch up.

You all need to stop gauging everything on how YOU’RE doing. This isn’t about YOU, but about OUR country and everyone in it. Kansas and especially Wichita aren’t seeing much of the recession…yet, if in fact we do, which depends on how long it lasts and how widespread it becomes. Leave it to Dubya to make it last just long enough to blame it on the next administration. (Yes, Linda, you said it first. I’m only repeating it. )

Or McCain saying, “The war’s fine. Don’t worry. No, it’s not affecting gas prices and driving up interest rates,” would help a lot as well.

Dig the poll. People already made their minds up about these issues. Denial will only make McCain seem even more sluggish and out of touch. I can only hope that he pursues such a course.

But when the recession that OFFICIALLY began in March of 2001 when all the indicators were finally in place and bush was president — they want that one to be Clinton’s fault.

And they don’t even recognize they are seeing it differently depending on who is president. They must have their eyes crossed for luck that all those indicators don’t come together until after their hero is out of office. Hard to see clearly with your eyes crossed.

And who cares what they think, what they have convinced themselves of? It isn’t reality!

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

There will be a new direction. 289 days, 8 hours, 14 minutes till the adults take over.

Now, added to the demographic issues, Clinton also benefited from the supply side tax cuts of Reagan. Rates were still much lower than they had been, under Jimmy Carter.

Add to this the technology boom, which was forcast in books like “Future Trends” and “Mega Trends” before Clinton was even in office.

The President represents one of the few variables, as far as economics goes, that any of us ever has any control over.

However, our control is minimal, and even if we get the President we want, that President is very limited as far as real economic power is concerned.

Clinton did not creat the hube “bubble” of Baby Boomers.

Clinton did not create the dot-com bubble, which was the primary driver of much of the stock market increase, under Clinton.

Clinton did not have anything to do with the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, but he did leave most of those policies in place.

(Clinton did reform welfare. Clinton did support Free Trade. I will give him credit for that.)

But, again, the presidential role in economics is vastly over stated.

And last and most importantly - it’s the media’s fault for not being a cheerleader for the Republicans!!!

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/02/11/looking-at-the-clinton-and-bush-presidencies-and-the-stock-market/

Paul, as usual you are incompetent and a liar.

As for the poor ratings for Congress, let’s not forget the it’s nearly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. If the Dems held 65-75% of the seats, THEN you could say it was all their fault. If the people vote their conscious, that percentage of Dems will rise in the next 4 years. The economy, war, questionable practices of this administration may have voters wanting new faces, instead of the same so-so candidates they’ve continued to vote for, even though they weren’t the best choice.

As Obama says, there is hope. But anyone with any sense at all can see that things can go badly quickly, yet it takes a long time to right those things. Try a little patience and stop expecting instant turnarounds. Ain’t gonna happen.

“Those who think Global Warming is a fraud think that the country is on the wrong track.”

Those people do not know how to think.

“LEADING INDICATORS. Four of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in February. The positive contributors — beginning with the largest positive contributor — were real money supply*, interest rate spread, manufacturers’ new orders for nondefense capital goods* and manufacturers’ new orders for consumer goods and materials*. The negative contributors — beginning with the largest negative contributor — were average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), building permits, vendor performance, index of consumer expectations, and stock prices. Average weekly manufacturing hours held steady in February.”

Of the 10 LEADING indicators, the Stock Market is INCLUDED!

http://www.conference-board.org/economics/bci/pressRelease_output.cfm?cid=1

Tell me again how the stock market has “nothing” to do with the economy or recessions?

The stock market TANKED in Bill Clinton’s last term in office. That recession started on the day that Bill Clinton sued Microsoft.

And again, this is comming from someone who thinks believes that the President plays only a very small role in the economy.

“Doug
Posted April 5, 2008 at 11:56 am | Permalink
The stock market has nothing to do with recession. It has to do with negative economic growth.”
—–

The stock market and economic growth are DIRECTLY linked.

This is why the stock market is considered a “leading economic indicator” — it is not always a perfect indicator, but a decline in stock values often predicts a recession.

Negative Economic Growth = RECESSION!

Doug, you do not know what you are talking about.

Not even a little bit.

Doug just in case you miss this part. This man was the main man for your hero.

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)

Congress’ Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. “By mid-year 2000 … signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A number of key economic and financial indicators provided evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements of this evidence, for example, would include the following:

* Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0 percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively, before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of 2001.

* Key components of GDP such as real consumption expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally corroborated these developments.

* Gross private investment also contributed significantly to this general slowdown with most key investment categories registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-year basis).

* The index of leading indicators trended down after January 2000.

* Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year. Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged about 256,000 per month for the 2 1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased after mid-year.

* The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.

* Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year 2000 as well.

In short, there can be little doubt that a significant economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000 in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration.” (“Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment,” United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)

Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860170/posts

Doug you seem intelligent enough. Bet you have seen this info before. Just hard to admit it when our heros have feet of clay.