Arbonne is one of the prestigious companies in the world when it comes to skin and beauty care. Its skin care product line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne International skin care products are formulated in Swit…

shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…

…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…

Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as

One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger.It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools.

I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.

I think God approves of you.

Car Loans are usually purchasers that favor nimble coins and problemless method !

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Sweetie, where do you get your information.

GDP Growth
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7

Then we have bush
2001 .8

So you say that the economy was getting bad in 2000, but 2004 is the only year where the GDP growth under Bush was greater. Your idea of a ’slow down’ is interesting, because by your measure we’re already in another Bush Slowdown pumpkin.

Oh as for unemployment, as I understand it that only measures people who can receive benefits – and is not a full measure of joblessness. But all of those lost jobs, and mediocre job creation numbers certainly doesn’t make Bush shine.

But I’m guessing that you want to believe in your partisan leaders so much you’ll continue to ignore facts, reality and history in favor of rewriting it to meet your preconception.

It’s OK pumpkin, I forgive you for not being able to admit the truth – it must be really hard to do so, almost overwhelming at this point. Heck, Bush doesn’t seem to even be a good Conservative by traditional measurement. He’s in everyone’s bedroom and has swolen government beyond imagination – and not in a good way. Hopefully the coolaid will wear off, and you’ll enjoy some refreshing punch :)

and also this

Sooooo thennnnnn, the housing recovery is TOO good. I’ll agree that if such a housing bubble bursts, it could be a bad thing. The thing is, it hasn’t happened yet, but you’re blaming Bush for it anyway.

Even if it comes to pass, I can’t imagine a recession as bad as 2000 because of it. Okay, I’m not posting others’ analyses because I don’t have a hell of a lot of time to research, but consider the following. When the market bubble burst, millions of investors lost over a trillion dollars, hundreds maybe thousands of companies closed, and millions of workers became unemployed. Does a housing bubble burst really cause that kind of fallout? Has it ever before? I’m not saying it doesn’t, I just don’t know why it would.

Referencing my opinions: you’re not arguing that the market decline didn’t begin in 2000, are you? And unemployment is down from a local maximum, right?. These are commonly reported figures. Most of the rest of what I wrote comes from my philosophy, and I said so. What specifically do you need a reference to?

And the unemployment figures?

You are not producing any references for your opinions. I’m afraid we just won’t agree and not progress here. Good luck.

Seth, you’ll find this is the nicest of the liberal blogs in the entire universe, if you give us a chance.

That startles the hell out of me. I’ve been slogging through irrational attacks for over a week now. If this site is the nicest… I’ve met some nice people, though. A few.

On the economy, I just don’t see how anyone can even have metrics on todays economy since so much of our spending (Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina) is not even on the books.

Some of the economic metrics rely on government numbers (debt, deficit, etc.), but many of them are corporate/consumer metrics (productivity, confidence, stock market, housing, jobs, etc.). I’m of the philosophy that the economy belongs to the people, not the government. From that, clearly I’m of the philosophy that the government and the people are NOT the same entity.

The government metrics are not good, but that’s largely a function of the sheer SCALE of government today. You can’t cut taxes and raise spending. I’d far rather cut taxes and cut spending. Large governements have large impacts on the economy, and that is counter to my philosophy.

If you have to tell us the economy is doing well, that says a lot in itself. In 1999, no one had to tell anyone the economy was doing well.

The economic decline began in 2000, before Bush even took office. You may not believe this, but I don’t actually blame Clinton for it. I only point it out to show that it wasn’t CAUSED by Bush, as so many people here like to claim. I know I was bitching about my investments before Bush took office. Probably even before the November election. The stock charts bear that out.

Compared to how bad everything got after that, most of today’s corporate/consumer measures are much better. A lot of people here want to compare today to the peak under Clinton, but that’s just ludicrous. The peak declined steeply before he was even out of office.

I agree, this is a thread where we can find common ground. But I disagree in that we are spending just way too much.

To be fair, we should probably point out that the tax cuts to oil companies occurred BEFORE the record profits. I’m not saying they were a good thing, just that the time sequence is crucial to assigning malice or insanity as a motive.

Regarding your example: dump the bridge to nowhere. $5 million per person when the people chose to live where they have and have done okay so far is just ludicrous.

Generally speaking, I don’t like government spending programs that:

1. Hide the true cost of a service (i.e., subsidies),

2. provide services that local governments or the private sector can provide more efficiently,

3. artificially redistribute goods or wealth, or

4. attempt to promote or discourage behaviors that are perfectly legal personal choices.

There are probably others, but these are general categories of spending programs that I don’t think the government should be handling.

We, in this generation, at this time, will deserve to be pissed on.