Back to business, or in the case of the Tygrrrr Express, politics.
Hillary Clinton may be more craven than the average politician, but she is no dummy. With her campaign on the verge of being nothing more than a spectacular collapse, she is determined to try everything and anything. Her latest act of desperation involves going on the O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly.
When she was trying to win the hearts and what passes for minds of the leftist lunatics that hate anything and everything that is decent and right, she bragged about standing up to Bill O’Reilly. She was basically Christopher Dodd with breasts (Then again, his years of drinking…never mind). Now that her campaign is on the verge of resembling that of Mr. Dodd, right down to the drinking shots, she has given up on the fringes and decided to triangulate back to the center. She will talk to the man she has previously denigrated.
First of all, democrats react to Bill O’Reilly the way republicans react to Al Queda. The left sees O’Reilly, who last time I checked was merely an individual asking tough questions, as evil. Reporters are supposed to ask tough questions.
Nevertheless, regardless of her motives, Hillary entered the No Spin Zone. I expected Mr. O’Reilly to be polite. He knows how to show respect without being too deferential. If anybody expected him to call her a pinhead, they were sorely disappointed. With that, below is my review and analysis of Hillary’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor.
The beginning was a discussion about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and Hillary mixed mock indignation with an unwillingness to pile on too much.
Then the conversation turned to energy policy. Hillary stated “We are not acting like Americans. We are not in charge. We need to be in charge.” I do not know what this means. She even said, “There is no basis for oil companies to have these windfall profits.” That is socialism.
O’Reilly was incredulous when Hillary stated that she would “take on OPEC.” She would sue them. She might honestly believe that they would listen to her.
She deflected when O’Reilly pointed out that Bill Clinton did nothing for 8 years on energy policy.
O’Reilly then really went aggressive, saying that Hillarycare would bankrupt the country. Hillary demurred like a sweet girl, shaking her head and saying, “no I’m not, I’m not.” Yet health care is her strong suit in terms of arguing. She insisted that she was not starting a new bureaucracy. She wants to regulate the companies. O’Reilly was surprisingly aggressive, and Hillary did not back down. The debate was tough but civilized.
O’Reilly does not want higher taxes, and Hillary was very smug in saying O’Reilly did well in the 1990s.
Hillary praised Ronald Reagan for forming a blue ribbon social security commission with Tip O’Neill.
O’Reilly pointed out that Hillary wants income redistribution, taking from the wealthy and giving to the less affluent. O’Reilly outright stated that her income redistribution plan is socialism. She claimed that she was the same as Teddy Roosevelt.
They continued to spar on taxes, with O’Reilly saying that his neighborhood on Long Island worked because tax rates were low. Hillary said that was untrue, and pointed to tax rates in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
They did not reach agreement, but this forum allowed Hillary to fight, which is her specialty. These are two diametrically opposed views, O’Reilly and Hillary, and they both offered their vision forcefully.
O’Reilly asked Hillary if she was more polarizing than Obama, and if he was nicer. Hillary was very tough on this question, announcing that she has been bipartisan, however toughness is required to take on oil and drug companies.
O’Reilly then pointed out that Upstate New York has suffered the last few years, and that Hillary blamed President Bush. He also pointed out that New Yorkers pay the highest taxes in the nation.
He then asked her about the report showing Fox News was more fair towards her than other networks. When asked if she was surprised, she demurred, and then reaffirmed that running for President is a tough job, and that she is tested.
I was surprised by the tone of the interview. O’Reilly was quite pushy.
I like O’Reilly. I dislike Hillary. Yet he was more combative than I expected, and she handled herself very well. While this was not a debate per se, Hillary did well in this forum.
O’Reilly should have been softer in his tone. It is one thing to ask tough questions, but it almost seemed as if he was shouting at her. A certain amount of dignity needs to be adhered to when interviewing a Presidential candidate. This does not mean a softball interview has to take place, but O’Reilly simply went too far.
The rest of the interview will take place a day later, but the first part was Hillary at her best, and O’Reilly far from that. O’Reilly was unctious. Hillary usually is, but not on this day.
It was a good interview for her.
eric
Tygrr;
“Then the conversation turned to energy policy. Hillary stated “We are not acting like Americans. We are not in charge. We need to be in charge.” I do not know what this means. ”
It means that shes just a full of it as any administration that has previously said it will bring down the cost of oil.
We need to get a green collar job.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/01/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
He’s Baaa-aaack…
” I expected Mr. O’Reilly to be polite. He knows how to show resepct without being too deferential.”
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAB2GQUsQA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpOSgT-osHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EycLBZ3YJ0
Bill and the entire Fox “News” bunch are to the network news what the National Enquirer is to news magazines – only much, much ruder.
And who the heck does Clinton thinks she’s winning over piling on Obama’s pastor, or appearing on Fox pseudo-news shows? I am very, very dissappointed in her lately. She’s wrecking her base and her party’s chances in November. The Dems really do seem like they really want to lose this one. In a way, I can’t blame them. The next president will be inheriting the worst national situation since FDR was elected in ’32. And Lord knows there are no FDRs (maybe Obama, maybe…) out there now.
JMJ
Yea right.
I saw the most a$$inine commercial for MSNBC last night. and they were advertising that partisanship is killing our country and how they’re doing their part to end it. And then showed pics of Oberman, Matthews atc..
I spewed my steak out my nose
Well, NBC is not exaclty the king of all news media, but they’re still far more professional than Fox!
JMJ
I have taken the liberty of linking to this article on my website, http://www.marchreport.com/; it at the bottom of column 1 in the “Blogs” section (or, it is today [2008-05-01]; the sections move around). Hope this is ok; if not, e-mail me to delete
Yea, thats why their ratings are the worst.
Jersey.
Your disposition with FOX is really not to be taken seriously.
Rudeness prevails on all media. And so does incredible a$$ kissing.
It was an excellent interview and I quite frankly think Oreilly went to soft on her when she said she was going to sue the oil cartels.
I’m really, think about it. Why do libs single out FOX and no other network ?
While the right may criticize the predominance of liberal flavor on other networks we dont attack their credentials as qualified journalists.
You guys just don’t like what you hear any more than I liked watching Moyers practically get on his knees in front of Wright. But Moyers is an accomplished journalist and I will give him that much, as much I acknowledge Oreillys resume`.
As a matter of fact Hillary did not refute it when Oreilly asked her how she felt about FOX being so much nicer to her than the other networks in comparison to Obama.
What you may think in this case is irrelevant because you wear your bias on your forehead and because most of the country, left or right, tuned in for that one last night. And at the same time by appearing with Oreilly she managed to distance herself from the grips of Move on, Daily Kos and the lunatic fringe angry left.
And if I remember correctly she talked a lot of smack about Oreilly in front quite a few townhall meetings and rallys
Praise the Lord there are no FDRs except maybe Obama – FDR is the one who perpetuated the socialistic craze in this country. He did what needed to be done at the time, but rather than fixing an immediate problem with a short term solution, he stopped the bleeding then implemented longer term programs that promoted more blood-letting. WWII and the Industrial Revolution is what made FDR’s time so “great”, but if one peels the onion, he was quite self-serving and socialistic.
Ratings? Yes, I know, Fox has great ratings. Let’s take a look at some of the all-time top rated programs in American history,
In 1963 and 1964 it was the Beverly Hillbillies.
From 1977-1979 it was respectively Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, and Three’s Company.
In 81, 82, and 84 it was Dallas.
In 85, Dynasty.
In 2000 it was Who Wants to be a Millionaire, the next year, Survivor.
From the past three years, American Idol.
Micky, if ratings determines the quality of programming then it also determines the quality of the viewers, Enough said.
JMJ
FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century, Eagle. He brought America up to it’s maturity and modernity. If left to the cons, we’d be a Third World cess poool right now. Just look at the damage you cons did since 2001. At what point to you man up and admit you were wrong?
JMJ
Jersey is being sexist again.
Then again, he is a feminist
JMJ:
“Micky, if ratings determines the quality of programming then it also determines the quality of the viewers, Enough said. ”
Yea, so theres only a few idiots that watch MSNBC
Sexist?
Well, MSNBC is really just a part of NBC, which has really never been the best of the network news outlets. Among the commercial networks, at least in my circles, it was long considered that CBS was the best, then NBC, then ABC, and then later came Fox, which is the worst by far in a long ways. Look, I watch Fox. I like to get my blood up and see what their up to. And they can be very entertaining. But it’s not serious news by any stretch of the imagination.
JMJ
Actually you are a feminist mysogynist.
First because you said you were a feminist at one time.
Second because you think you discount all the intelligent women who feel the same way Eagle does.
Now, those two attributes of yours really go against the grain of the two beliefs.
And now we know why libs are so confused.
Oh, I almost forgot.
You’re actually an incredible pessimist because you figure the majority isnt wise enough to make their own choices. ( Unless they vote for a moonbat)
Micky,
“It means that shes just a full of it as any administration that has previously said it will bring down the cost of oil.
We need to get a green collar job.”
Could you explain this please? It went right over my head.
FOX touts its fairness and impartiality but I still think it leans liberal. The main difference between FOX and NBC is that the opinion shows label themselves as such and don’t pretend they are doing straight news.
O’Reilly is beginning to suffer from an overblown ego. He talks a good game about being respectful, but can be quite rude, and does his own name-calling when it suits him. “Pinheads” being one example. Does he even realize that pinhead is a derogatory term referring to microcephalic retardation? If he is too goody-goody to use the word “idiot” why is “pinhead” any better.
[…] Clinton vs. Bill O’Reilly Wendy wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptO’Reilly was incredulous when […]
Charley.
The green job thing is just a platitude to appeal to the younger environmentalist and a way to make people think she will create more jobs that are relative to preventing climate change. Or that the job market in environmentalism is untapped.
There is no such thing as a green job, and any of the positions in this field that she say she will create are already filled.
And really, no administration or one politician has ever been able to bring down the cost of oil.
The only ones who can change that is us or OPEC and Chavez. I have way more faith in the latter.
Well actually if the whole world protested by using as little as possible they would have little choice but to bring down the cost of a barrel.
Sorry Charly, I got distracted.
Economically speaking , green jobs are a pipe dream. We’re driving people out of jobs faster than we can make them. The high tech jobs that are supposedly going to be created won’t be dipping into the pool of new jobless workers because the people who have the skills for those jobs are already employed.
Are we going to have to pay even more taxes to make sure that everybody who gets cut gets a full “green” re-education so that they can hopefully qualify for the new jobs? No matter how you do the math on it yer screwed
I agree that pollution is a threat – and it always has been. However, there are right ways to address it and wrong ways… And right now we are doing everything wrong. We also need to define pollution and approach this thing from an intelligent perspective; because tagging carbon as “pollution” is asinine and is going to result in severe economic and social repercussions thanks to our overzealousness in wanting to appear “progressive.”
Jersey, If I seriously thought “I” were wrong, I would man up and admit it. In fact, I sent Eric a link to a “Bubba Beer Babblefest” that showed some PA bubbas bashing Obama and other Dems – and prior to that, I conceded that there is a segment of the Republican party who may not have the broadest perspective of political doings.
I don’t understand the finger-pointing re “damage done by cons since 2001”. Looking at the entire spectrum, the world and its corresponding values has changed drastically, and there is little accountability for anything. The cons, albeit clumsily at times, have tried to maintain some semblance of accountability – whether it’s being responsible for your own kids, paying your mortgage, or having the wherewithal to get a license to vote. Soup lines during the Great Depression may have saved this country, but their governmental permanence via welfare, food stamps, et al and Social insecurity, rather than going to churches, families, or other philanthropic organizations – is kicking our butt today. If anything, the cons have conceded too much since 2001… too much big government, porous borders, concessions to PC madness of groups vs individual rights…but I’m still a half full guy…market is climbing again, and Chicken Little learned what an umbrella is…
Eagle, man, there are food riots starting in the Third World. Food prices are skyrocketing everywhere, and even though speculators are usually the cause of all evil, oil is expensive everywhere too. Foreign investors are losing fortunes. british home prices are down ten percent. Britian, unless the times have past me by, is still our most heavily invested foreign state. Name a sector that is better off for Bush & Co. Please. I’d love to know one. Is the military better off? The economy? Our security? Our health and welfare? It just seems to me that the best Bush & Co can claim is that some sectors are relatively flat. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
You can decry any particular program from the Depression era, but FDR had the brilliance to try everything and let the best things survive. Even you conservatives have never been able to undo the successful and necessary programs of the New Deal with us still today. The fact of the matter is that FDR was successful and progressively successful – he efficiently created progress. The next GOP president, Ike, invested in the infrastructure just as FDR. He saw the success of the highways, bridges, wires, pipes, power plants, ports, schools, libraries, etc. Even Reagan pursued heavy infrastructural investment, both phyiscal and institutional, in California when he was governor. Look at California today! It’s the world’s 5th largest economy!
So sure, many of the New Deal programs were temporary or useless, and those mostly died out. The main programs – retirement benefits, education, healthcare, mortgage insurance – remain and we need them and only the government can provide them efficiently and securely. And here again, in the case of mortgage insurance, the Bush administration has failed once again. Just how much failure can you guys tolerate?
I’m a half-full guy myself, personally. If anything, most people wonder how I just floated through life without destroying a small nation with my happy oblivion. But I do see problems and would prefer not to ignore them, slap a happy face on them, or just endlessly rationalize them away. I warned all my conservative friends about the Iraq mistake back in 2001. You can probably find my arguments out there on the web dating back to at least 2002. I predicted almost everything that’s happened in general. When I see something wrong I do not just say to myself, “Oh well, my nation, love it or leave it.” I say, “Oh no, I love my nation, I sure would hate to see it do something really, really, really stupid.”
By the way, Food Stamps is really just another name for Agro Subsidy. Just as Medicare Part D is really just another name for Pharmaceutial subsidy. Just as E85 is an Agro Subsidy. Just as Section 8 is a Real Estate subsidy. Etc, etc. Let alone your Keynesian excuses for the Military Industrial Complex. You Conservatives are just as much a part of the Welfare State as any Liberal.
JMJ
Thanks God you that finish Hillary’s int. when you did because if had lasted fifhteen
more mins. you would have been voting for her. When a person is running for the
presidency of our nation ALL CANDIDATES SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME.
DO YOU THINK THE GOVS. FROM COUNTRIES THAT WOMEN ARE NOT TAKEN
SERIOUSLY ARE GOING TO USE YOU AS AN INTERMEDIARY SO SHE CAN MAKE
IT?
Our standard of living is the highest it’s ever been. People are living longer, more people own homes today (percentage-wise) than ever before – in spite of the mortgage crisis – the stock market is at 13K and rising, mortgage rates are extremely low, and almost everyone has a cell phone, internet access, automobile, CD player, IPOD (I don’t), and any other gadget imaginable. To think only the government can provide ANYTHING efficiently is a little over the top – and I know you know that. Even my beloved military is one of the most inefficient organizations anywhere. Everything from city, to county, to state to federal government is layered with so much bureacracy, it’s a wonder we get anything done. I do agree there are a number of things that may need some form of regulation – roads, airlines, whatever – but not governmental control. Heck, even our wonderful road networking system was designed so we could mobilize Soldiers in a hurry – so our fascination with war and military strength is not a passing fancy! And I also agree that we have gone way overboard on our subsidies – Dems and Reps alike – no argument there.
JMJ;
“Name a sector that is better off for Bush & Co. Please. I’d love to know one. Is the military better off? The economy? Our security? Our health and welfare? It just seems to me that the best Bush & Co can claim is that some sectors are relatively flat. Yeah. That’s the ticket.”
Our economy has been doing just fine Jersey. Like Eagle said the exchange is up. Also we are not technically in a recession untill the market has dropped for two quarters in a row. Its hardly Bushs fault that Americans over extended their credit, bought houses they couldnt afford. And no president has ever been able to control oil prices.
Our security is just fine. What are you refering to on that ?
Health and welfare ? I dont see any epidemics that threaten anything.
How is any of the Bushs fault?
As far as food prices go. You can thank Carter for that one.
And this time here are the historical facts to back up what a loser Carter was/is
http://www.thepresidency.org/pubs/fellows2007/Mitchell.pdf
Elman Mitchell, a supporter of Carter wrote this review. In it she unknowingly makes my point
“As a result of the energy crisis, Carter sought to create a new energy industry.
One of the new industries was the production of Ethanol. Ethanol is the production of
ethyl alcohol from starch or sugar-based feedstock’s (RFA 1). Throughout the last
century ethanol has been a viable energy option manufactured by countries seeking
energy independence. In order to process Ethanol manufacturers use either wet milling
and dry milling. These two processes used to cultivate ethanol differ in their processing
of grain. According to Bovard, an associate policy analyst with CATO Institute, there are at least four reasons for the development of alcohol fuel tax incentives.
President Carter endorsed research of alternative energy sources through the Department of Energy. He facilitated the growth of this industry by providing government funding that would adequately access
their efficiencies.
Unlike some of Jimmy Carter’s predecessors,
he was able to subsidies the Ethanol Industry. Although, President Jimmy Carter endured
some trying times where the American approval rate was low, he has been able to regain
confidence with the American community by providing humanitarian work with The
Carter Center.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/06/ADM/
In his seminal 1995 study of ADM for the Cato Institute, “A Case Study in Corporate Welfare,” James Bovard claims that in 1978, as oil prices soared in response to a Middle East crisis, Dwayne Andreas approached President Carter with a plan for energy independence: jumpstart ethanol production with a tax break. Andreas had been a major donor to Carter’s campaign, and the Georgia politician had already demonstrated his allegiance by appointing an Andreas crony to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, a decision that sparked controversy.
Declaring energy independence the “moral equivalent of war,” Carter pushed through Congress the Energy Tax Act of 1978, which exempted gasohol (gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol) from the 4 cent per gallon federal excise tax, amounting to a 40 cent per gallon subsidy to ethanol.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
“When OPEC restricted oil production again in 1978–and the Carter administration tightened oil and gasoline rationing, creating artificial panic–Andreas arrived at the White House with a salvation scheme. Why not increase subsidies for ethanol? According to Frank Greven, who is working on a book on Andreas and ADM, “During the 1978 Persian Gulf oil crisis, he convinced Carter that using ADM’s ethanol as a lead-free octane booster in gasoline would promote energy independence and cleaner air.”(39) As part of its grandiose solution to the energy crisis–which the president proclaimed to be the moral equivalent of war–the Carter administration drove through Congress a plan to exempt gasoline with 10 percent ethanol from the 4-cents-a-gallon federal fuel excise tax.
On the eve of the 1980 election, the Carter administration announced a deluge of loans to companies to build processing plants to make ethanol. On October 9, 1980, Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland announced $341 million in new loans to finance construction of gasohol plants.(41) On January 27, 1981, the new Reagan administration rescinded all the loans after its inspector general discovered that the Carter administration had violated official procedures and federal law in awarding many of the grants.”
Under President Bush the economy has grown for 26 straight quarters. The record is 28 consecutive quarters during the Reagan years.
The FDR years …… disaster . Those are the facts. They can’t be spun. From 1933 until 1939 was the worst economic performance in the history of the country. In fact by 1939 GDP hadn’t even come back to 1929 levels. That is a disaster.
FDR (and Hoover ) policies are a model of not what to do. 1) don’t raise taxes 2) don’t increase government spending 3) don’t raise tariffs 4) don’t price fix (1933 IRA act) 5) don’t strengthen Unions ( Warner Act) 5) Don’t allow the money supply to contract quickly.
Now the Clinton polcies were the opposite of FDR policies 1) NAFTA 2) cut cap gains taxes 3) cut government spending 4) cut welfare spending 5) weaken Unions 6) Increase price competition.
Micky,
Thanx for the explanation. I looked up “green jobs” and found that it’s stuff like installation of solar panels and wind turbines. Whoopee! How many of those can we use. I guess the plumbers and electricians who have been displaced by illegals can retrain for them, until the illegals get their feet in that door too. As for hi tech, that pipe dream has already been outsourced to India and China. What we are going to do with all the surplus programmers is another question. All I’m seeing is what can’t be outsourced overseas, we are having outsourced on our own shores via “guest” worker programs. It’s beginning to look like the American dream is becoming a pipe dream.
Eagle,
You’re right about our standard of living, but our standard of debt is appalling. Not just the national debt, but the average Joe’s personal debt. And our all-wise government is busy larding on the regulations to drive manufacturing offshore, printing worthless paper for money, and doing everything it can to bring the average Americans wages down to compete with the third world’s pay scale. That’s supposed to make us more competittive. Hah!
Let me get off my pessimistic dark horse and take this chance to say something to you that’s waited too long. THANK YOU for standing on the wall so we can sleep safe tonight. We all enjoy the freedom that has made our standard of living possible ONLY because of you and people like you.
Yea Eagle.
Thanks a bunch dude.
Charly, You are absolutely right about our debt – both individual and as a nation. There’s an answer, but I’m not convinced it comes in the guise of government control – and that’s not what you are advocating. I wish I were smarter!
Charly and Micky: I thank YOU – I was serving during the Vietnam era, and being a young guy with a chip on his shoulder, I was too ignorant to understand that my fellow citizens didn’t appreciate our service. That was a lifetime ago, and I have been in and out of the Army three times since then, and I have never been prouder to serve. I have literally shed tears at the outpouring support from strangers when returning from overseas – and if a crusty old Infantryman like me gets choked up, imagine what you are doing for the young guys… thanks.
I don’t buy the standard of living argument. Yeah, sure, we have more ‘things’, but we work more, earn less, and our families are broken and small. Only the top ten percent is really living noticably bettter than they did some years ago. As for “growth,” it is a worthless and inane measurement.
JMJ
O’Reilly fancies himsefl far cleverer than he is but presents a lively interesting show apart from the farcical ‘Body Language’ where Bill + a guru read into people’s postures and gestures what common sense would lead anyone to deduce from their words alone.
Contrary to being aggressive, he’s made a fetish of ‘being fair’ even to the extent of suspending judgement on Obama vis a vis the whole Wright issue.
Kiki Freedman once told him he’s got barbed wire rash on his butt from sitting on the fence. How true.
O’Reilly’s people originally came from County Cavan. Cavan folk are regarded as real stingy, a trait illustrated by the story of a neighbor calling into his friend’s house and seeing his friend stripping off the wallpaper.
“Oh”, says he, “I see you’re decorating.”
“No, indeed,” replies the man of the house. “We’re moving!”
BTW visit my Blog “Chris Matthews Other Leg” for oabservations on American politics and related insanities froma centre right perspective. Just click on my name above.
If growth is such a worthless measure then why do you use it to promote your negative claims?
I guess no growth would be a good sign? I fail to see how growth can be useless. Please explain.
The family situation is a societal problem. And I hardly see how it relates.
If your gonna keep blaming Bush I would only find it fair that you cast that blame evenly amongst all administrations since Carter. As I pointed out above
The two things that are really screwing us right now is oil and food prices.
NO administration has ever been able to control oil.
Carter was on a passive agenda in the middle east and it went up on a percentage way past the one we see know.
Bush’s agenda in the middle east is an agressive one and we see the same thing.
Its all how the market acts and the speculators perceive and react to occurances in the world.
Clintons administration enjoyed a good economy untill his last year in office.
The Bush administration has given us a decent economy up untill his last year.
If you were to be in charge of doing something about our economy I feel you would be one of the least effective people to approach this problem because your solution would be a tunnel vision approach. “If only Bush were out of the picture everything would work out fine”
If you approach problems that actually exist instead of ones made up out of hatred you would actually be a lot more effective. ( and believable)
But your emotional BDS impact on your logic would make your ability to make decisions in these matters disasterous.
So far in all your diatribes you have made it clear that you would reverse “every single” one of Bush’s policies, or that you dont favor them.
If that doesnt point to bias instead of praticality I dont know what does
Micky, “growth” doesn’t tell you very much. I have a little story I always tell regarding “growth.”
There are two guys in a room, one has $500K and the other has 50 cents. There are two people looking into the room. One’s an economist and the other is just a regular guy. The economist says, “The average wealth of the room is $250,000.25.” The regular guys says, “Hey, look at the rich guy and the poor guy in that room!” One year goes by. The man with $500K invests his money in a foreign market and makes another 250K. The guy with the 50 cents has made nothing and remains with his 50 cents. The economist says, “The average wealth in the room has increased aproximately 50% on the year.” The regular guy says, “Hey, I wonder when that poor guy is going to kick that rich guy in the nads and take off with his money.”
The point here is simple: “growth” tells you very little about the overall health and welfare of the economic state. Yes, of course, positive growth is better than “negative growth” (yes, in economics there is such a term). but growth, in and off itself, tells you very little. You could have the top 5% of earners increase their wealth so much in any given year and show overall growth even if the bottom 95% doesn’t grow at all, or even recedes. “Growth” is a simple term for simple minds.
As for speculators, I would suggest reading Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). The man is our premier expert on all things oil in the US House – and he’s no liberal loony.
http://bartlett.house.gov/News/DocumentQuery.aspx?CatagoryID=2057
JMJ
You can spin this anyway you want.
But even 5th grade math and logic wiil determine that growth is good.
You said growth was a worthless and inane measurement.
I understand the basic principle that if one activity runs parallel to another they will offset each other.
But they are still a result of growth
Goodbye.
“” The regular guy says, “Hey, I wonder when that poor guy is going to kick that rich guy in the nads and take off with his money.”
When he starts voting democratic. :-)
Micky, beyond the grammar school level arithmetic, you are not followinng my point. The point is simple – you can have “growth” even if most of the people are experiencing recession. Get it?
JMJ
Yea Jersey.
I get it from your perspective.
Do you honestly think that with as much BDS as you contain anyone would use you as a financial consultant?
It seem you cant keep your partisan hatred for Bush out of any decision or outlook.
If you take this to collegiate level and try to spin it , it can be done with a smoke screen of numbers and variables.
But the bottom lines is that our economy has growth.
It aint a lot to brag about but its not going south like you say it is.
This is the most conservative piece of trash I’ve ever read. Are you kidding me? Hillary’s healthcare will BANKRUPT us, but the Iraq War won’t? She’s talking about raising taxes on the ENORMOUSLY wealthy to lower taxes in the middle class. No wonder Republicans are losing elections left and right. I can’t WAIT till November.