News Flash...........when did clinton leave office and who has been there for nearly 8 years now

Clinton left in disgrace on January 20, 2000.

Bush has been cleaning up the mess in the oval Office ever since.


and apparently, democrats have trouble knowing what their partisan leaders do.

....excuse me, don't do.

the economy is fine, except for clintonomics unwinding right now.

unemployment ois soaring beccause the construction industry in this country is idle, which is the blowback for clintonomic disasters giving mortgages to unqualified homebuyers and interfering in real free market economic models that actually work beautifully when they are messed with by demoncrats pimping their wares and pandering for votes with free lunches in exchange for extorting votes.

it is called bribery.

That is a felony.

It is also a criminal act.

Or an act of war.

It depends on whose view of terrorism defines terrorism, and how it is combatted.

Man, your hatred of Clinton and the Democrats has got you all a twitter. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you'll try or lie, but weren't we running budget surpluses the last few years of the Clinton administration?

you asked me that in another thread.

at first, I tought it got deleted for some reason.

I have come to find you asking the same question in here, as it turns out.

so here's my answer from the other thread.



of course we were.

he raised taxes by taxing stock options on unexercised offers to employess from employers that were historically left alone until the contracts were exercised and the persoanl gain was realized.

nice move.

he raised the limit on taxable income subject to SSi withholding and stole more money from the middle class without the ones making less than 65k/yr ever knowing how he pulled that plum out of his bag of tricks.

nice move.

he interferred with free market forces and made easy loans for people that can't qualify to rent a house, actually buy one. That move made housing sales of new and existing homes increae like wildfire and generate capital gains revenues for the IRS.

nice move.

The subsequeny housing shortage that he manipulated into existence with his interference lead to demand outstripping supply and causing further inflation in house prices, forever altering normal cycles of supply and demand and secalating even further the capital gains tax revenues,

nice move.


and these little bon mots of clintonomics created two huge bubbles in the economy.

the dot.con bust and the housing collapse.

and the blowback was the foreclosure rate of resets in ARMs that got unqualified homeowners in the mess they are in the first place.

and the worst rise in unemployment by one singular industry, namely the construction industry.


and you credit Bush with that?????????

you are on crack.



all of which Bush is dealing wwith now.


not to mention chasing bin ladin around the world, which clinton could have easily made a non issue and there would be no 9/11 and there would be no war in Iraq either.



keep drinking that KOOL AID.

Bin Laden worked for the CIA...welcome to America.

and he turned.


so did sadaam.

do we let thsat stand?


NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

keep drinking that KOOL AID!!!!!!!!

Exactly. Once we start holding execs responsible, once they start serving time, maybe they'll act a little more responsibly

This is pure fantasy bush had 8 years and seven of them were with a republican house and senate to change it all, includeing NAFTA and did nothing.

it is not that easy.

corporate governance has evoved to keep the CEOs and top execs out of the line of fire of accountability.

they rule through others.

It took the Rico Statutes to get organized crime in their game.

Something apporpriate for CEOs is is not law.

unti;l then, their leadership is not accountable to any of the doings of subordinates beyond their direct control.

It is a slippery slope, to be sure.

Why does Wouldee keep saying "Drink the Kool-Aid"?

It pertains to the cult suicide in Jonestown. That was a sad event.

Here is the effect of the limitations imposed on the Mann Act, which constrains the Judiciary from using it as a precedent to going after white collar crime.



Please DO NOT reduce this to a discussion of white slavery, no matter how tempting.

The point is how the law works, not the specifics of this law.


Something like this application of law to federalist governance won't fly in international free trade.

The point is to show how complicatedf this can get when attempting to go after unscrupulous civil grievances like LOSING MONEY i.e. the consentual nature of business transactions and profit oriented investment between two parties for the good of both parties.



see if you can grasp this.

http://www.granneman.com/blog/2006/06/01/the-mann-act-as-problematic-law/



From Roderick M. Hills, Jr.’s “The Federalist Capers” (Legal Affairs: May/June 2005):

BY CONTRAST WITH THE COURT’S RECORD IN ECONOMIC MATTERS, the pre-New-Deal court was oddly reluctant to impose any limits on federally sponsored cultural conservatism. The Mann Act, which prohibited any person from aiding in the interstate transportation of a “woman or girl” for “prostitution, or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose,” provides a useful illustration of the limits that judicially enforced federalism will go to.

Congress enacted the Mann Act in 1910 by comfortable majorities, in the wake of a national furor over allegations that young women were being kidnapped by syndicates of brothels and forced to work as prostitutes. In retrospect, historians explain the panic over “white slavery” as largely attributable to anxieties over immigration (the syndicates were said to be run by foreigners, especially foreign Jews) and urbanization, which led to a rise in the numbers of unaccompanied single women visible in public places.

Although the act was inspired by fears of coerced prostitution, it was soon enforced by the federal government as part of a crusade against nonmarital sex in general. As David Langum has shown in Crossing Over the Line, a large majority of the FBI’s Mann Act investigations during the 1920s was for noncommercial offenses, typically prosecutions of unmarried but romantically involved couples who crossed state lines. Even the purpose of protecting women from coercion was soon dropped. The Department of Justice took the view that the female “victim” should generally be prosecuted as a co-conspirator if she consented to “immoral” travel. Charges were frequently foregone if the “victim” married the perpetrator, suggesting that the statute was really a federal effort to protect males’ control over their wives and daughters. Though the federal government abandoned the effort to enforce the Mann Act in the 1930s against noncommercial sex, J. Edgar Hoover later used it in raids on brothels to collect information about public persons, like Charlie Chaplin, whom he regarded as subversive.

In short, the Mann Act was everything that you would expect from centralized enforcement of sexual morality - oppressive, gratuitous, and subject to all the abuses of prosecutorial discretion. The regulation of interstate transportation was a thin pretext for federal intervention, given that the act’s authors surely were not concerned that the states were somehow incompetent to regulate sexual morality within their boundaries.

In light of all of these concerns, you might expect that the Supreme Court would have found the Mann Act to be an easy case for invalidation under principles of federalism. But the court unanimously upheld the act in 1913 in Hoke v. United States, and then also upheld its application to noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons four years later in Caminetti v. United States.

YOU WISH!!!!!!!!


Kool-Aid
Sponsored LinksKool Aid
Huge selection of Kool Aid items.
Yahoo.com


[from a kid's sugar-enriched drink in fruity flavors] When someone who should know better succumbs to marketing influences and actually begins to believe the propaganda being dished out by a vendor, they are said to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Usually the decortication process is slow and almost unnoticeable until one day the victim emerges as a True Believer and begins spreading the faith himself. The term originates in the suicide of 914 followers of Jim Jones's People's Temple cult in Guyana in 1978 (there are also resonances with Ken Kesey's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests from the 1960s) . What the Jonestown victims actually drank was cyanide-laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap knockoff, rather than Kool-Aid itself. There is a FAQ on this topic.

This has live variants. When a suit is blithering on about their latest technology and how it will save the world, that's ‘pouring Kool-Aid’. When the suit does not violate the laws of physics, doesn't make impossible claims, and in fact says something reasonable and believable, that's pouring good Kool-Aid, usually used in the sentence “He pours good Kool-Aid, doesn't he?” This connotes that the speaker might be about to drink same.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kool-aid

You think that you're always right even when you're wrong.

so does nobama when he is pouring the KOOL AID.

His slogan of "yes we can" has a ring to it, huh?

somewhere in here I shared the obama site offering to give you your neighbors phone numbers so you can proselytize his message for him.

He has wonderful tracts for you to download and print.

He teaches you what to say and how to approach them and coerce them into registering to vote and vote for him.

That is drinking the KOOL AID.

sounds like a religious mission to me....he loves presching to the choir and working them up to sing his song.



Funny how I am getting blamed for nobama's tactics.

Yes you notice how he ignored my comment about the 7 year republican rule of the house and senate and white house and they still " couldnt fix the clinton mess"

...And if we didn't buy things the shops would close, unemployment would soar, poverty would mushroom, social upheaval would follow, the breakdown of society, riots, chaos, the collapse of the banking system, martial law, revolution, dead and dying in the streets, the monarchy run out of town or killed in their beds, religious leaders strung up, the government hunted down and beaten to death with rolled up copies of the Anti-Terrorist Act, the end of industry, a return to subsistence and living off the land, the survivors thrown together in huddled communities. Anyway, don't let it happen. Shop for your lives...spend for victory...and die in debt.

...Thanks, and now the weather; the future lives of millions of American taxpayers will be spent bailing out the failures and excesses of a few greedy banking families. Nationalism and fear will keep many of them from noticing; others will simply live in the debt and misery until an unnecessary war kills them all. Have a nice weekend."
http://www.rense.com/general83/fromdeek.htm

If you step back and look at the situation from a macro rather than micro perspective, several things become clear.

1.Working people of all strata were making less money.

With the onslaught of ‘downsizing’ and layoffs, people were being forced into a financial corner not of their own making. Those that were fotunate enough to keep their jobs either had to accept rather drastic pay cuts, or assume the laid-off workers’ jobs without extra pay. Raises to keep up with the cost of living were out of the question. Those that lost their jobs had a difficult time finding another at a comparable salary; many had to take jobs that paid much less, with little or no benefits. And most families needed two working partners just to make ends meet, so there was no ‘safety net’ where a stay-at-home partner could get a job to take up the slack.

2. While income from wages dropped, prices rose.

Prices of essentials, such as housing, energy, food, and transportation, continue to rise as usual, but the money to pay for them did not increase proportionally, but either stayed the same (which is a de-facto decline in real income) or actually declined.

3. Meanwhile, corporate profits soared to record levels.

This would seem to be a good thing for the economy. But much of that profit could be attributed to money saved by laying off workers, and freezing or reducing the salaries of those who still had jobs. Wall Street rewarded the corporations who cut jobs, stole pensions, reduced benefits. And the profits that ensued were often moved off-shore so as to not pay taxes on it, thereby depriving Americans of the tax revenue due to them by creating an environment in which the corporations could make those profits - providing both physical and legal structure for the corporations to utilize, such as roads, communications, power and water, and also a legal system that allowed them to be able to make contracts and conduct business with the assumption that there were laws in place to enforce contracts, and a justice system to make sure that the contracts are enforced.

The corporations did not create these physical and legal infrastructures - they were paid for by taxpayers and were the property of the American people. Yet they considered the profits they reaped theirs alone, and to pay taxes on these profits were regarded as stealing their property.

This is theft, pure and simple.

Theft of our labor - if you ask me to work for you for 12 hours and you pay me $10, you have stolen my labor. There’s no other way to put it. Saying that ‘you can’t afford to pay more’ is not an excuse - you either can afford to hire an employee or not. And paying ten guys $1 an hour instead of one guy $10 an hour is not creating ten jobs!

The Myth of the Free Market is exactly that - a myth. It’s a Utopian model that does not work in real life, because it only works if all things are equal - if the worker, the employer, and the consumer all have equal power and influence. And we know that is not true at all.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/taxonomy/term/3

Whoever wrote that the free market is a myth needs to study Rothbard and Mises.

I wonder where they'll get the money from?

Another loan from China?

Hey, how about repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy?

There's an idea!

Wouldee, you gotta stop. I keep laughing hysterically at your posts. Do you really believe what you write or are you being the jester?