Andrew writes that state House Speaker Frank Chopp is “wavering” on the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, but really, I don’t see it. Chopp has been the sole legislative obstacle to this reasonable reform these past two years, and I don’t see him wavering one way or the other. And if Speaker Chopp once again refuses to let the bill to the floor for a vote — a vote it would win by overwhelming margins — then I think it is time for Frank to be frank.
Chopp told KOMO TV that “I’ve listened to quite a number of stakeholders on this who have not had the opportunity to participate in this particular bill,” but there’s only one “stakeholder” Chopp seems to be concerned with, and that is the BIAW. Now, I don’t know if Chopp is simply afraid of the BIAW, or if he’s worked out some kind of a deal with them in which he’s promised not to pass the bill, but that’s the only reasonable explanation for Chopp’s intransigence on a bill that merely gives buyers of single family homes the same rights condo owners have enjoyed since 1990. I can sue my doctor… I can sue my lawyer… I can sue my auto mechanic or even my barber… but I can’t sue a contractor for refusing to fix shoddy materials or workmanship in a brand new house. What’s up with that?
No doubt as Speaker, Chopp needs to think strategically, and the BIAW can be a powerful foe. Chopp deserves credit for building and maintaining a Democratic majority in the House, and I don’t doubt his personal values as a true progressive. But when he’s so clearly caving to the BIAW on such an uncontroversial scrap of necessary consumer protection, one has to wonder if Chopp’s focus on building a majority is getting in the way of his willingness to use it?
Chopp has until 5PM today to give SB 6385 a vote before it’s dead for the session, and he needs a reminder that there are more of us than there are of them. Call the legislative hotline at 800-562-6000 and urge your reps to tell Chopp to give the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights a vote, or link on over to Fuse and use their form to send Chopp an email. [UPDATE: You might also want to call Chopp’s office at 360-786-7920 and give him the mesage directly.]
Don’t let the right-wing militia funding orca killers at the BIAW win because we’re too lazy to speak out.
Frank Chopp needs to be replaced in the primary by a progressive Democrat. The 43rd LD is one of the most liberal and progressive districts in the entire state. It is truly a shame that the 43rd LD is represented by a BIAW Democrat. Let’s find a good primary challenger to Chopp, and kick his ass to the curb in August.
@2
Exactly!
Oops I’m #2 aren’t I.
I have had it with Frank posing as a liberal and screwing the interests of Washington consumers. He has been corrupted by power and has lost sight of his progressive roots. It’s time we had new leadership that knows what it means to be a Democrat. Frank needs to face a challenge in the Democratic primary from a real progressive who represents the values of the district.
You can never willingly lull your opponents to sleep for any great length of time.
The BIAW will simply bide their time regarding the state legislature and attack via other venues – they already have their claws into many suburban city and town councils, and want another shot at the state Supreme Court.
But as long as they have the cash and the influence, they will never be satisfied with a draw. Ever.
Frank should consider this pocket veto very carefully.
Chopp has been bad on this but Kessler and the whole crew of Eastside BIAW-ocrat DINOs are the ones who are really to blame. Chopp probably supports it personally but is being held up by BIAW-ocrats like Lynn Kessler and Judy Clibborn (whose husband is a builder himself).
This bill is good for builders because no one will buy new houses if they have no legal recourse for shoddy construction — it’s simply too much financial risk.
This is another example of why folks like me are NOT enthusiastic supporter of the party system. The parties keep obsolete people in power for the saje of party position rather than the needs of the people. Jim MCD and CGregoire are similar examples. Chopp also effed up in a big way on the viaduct. HIS district deserves better and if it were not for the party apparatus would replace him.
Same goes for Sunny Jim. Fun, good speaker but a very ineffective congressman in a safe district. Greeoire is effective as an administrator but I see little evidence thta she is building the party or leading the state .
Well, these are on Jew’s opinions. I just wish there were some way to have more comtpetition within ur own party.
Roger
The dilmmma is how to avoid the huge costs of litigation when something like this passes?
One thought, does the proposal include mandatory negotaition for differences under some amount?
@9: You have not one scintilla of evidence that the “costs of litigation” would be “huge”. Most builders are honest. Most are willing to fix problems if brought to their attention by the buyer. Most will also impose a seller friendly “arbitration agreement” on the buyer simply because they can. It limits their risk.
A good builder’s price may be expected to rise slightly to offset anticipated “litigation costs” (responsible builders have something in their pricing to cover warranty issues. It’s a cost of doing business). Another approach would be to pass this risk to their subcontractors contractually, or increase their efforts to insure quality control.
Bad builders, on the other hand, could well see their costs skyrocket–making them uncompetitive in the marketplace.
The object of the bill is to ensure a fair and responsible market. Laws set the rules of the game, not woolly headed predjudices regarding the ‘cost’ of litigation.
Off topic, but I may not be back later…..
DJIA dropped another 146.70 points today, closing below 1200 (actually, 11893.76). This means the DJIA has risen only 12.34% during the 7 years and two months of the Bush presidency, an average of less than 1.71% per year.
In comparison, during the four years of his father’s presidency, the DJIA gained 45.57% when he lost re-election largly because of the direction the economy was heading. Republicans have long touted Reagan for his “economic miracle” of achieving 135.13% during his eight years. But it all pales in comparison to 225.37% the DJIA rose during the eight years of the Clinton presidency.
Of course, the DJIA is not the only indicator of economic performance. Another is the strength of the bond markets (municipalities are in danger of bankruptcy due to lowered ratings of bonds and their insurers). Then there’s the housing market – record delinqucies and foreclosures last month, and U.S. homeowner equity is at it’s lowest, as a percentage of total value, since 1945. The number of people collecting unemployment benefits dropped a fraction of a % last month, but only because some people are starting to exhaust their benefits. And the economy lost 65,000 jobs in February, the most in five years.
And there are those pesky record-setting budget deficits, rising inflation, etc.
Way to go, Republicans! Your policies have set new records for dismal economic results yet again!!!!
@11 Then why was the economy headed south during Clinton’s last year in office? For that matter, if dims are so good for the economy, how do you explain Carter? For that matter how do you explain that FDR couldn’t get the country out of the depression until the war came along?
It isn’t quite as simple as who sits in the White House. I know you know that. Whatever cyclical force is in operation, and I am not an economist, it seems to operate largely independently of politics.
@12
The fact that you’re reaching back 30 years (Carter) and over 60 years (FDR) just shows the depth of your desperation.
It would be difficult to remove Chopp because he has a strong name that connotes masculine activeness. These are the kinds of things rhat most voters consider as they look at a list of politicians whose funtions they neither understand or even recognize.
For instance, Richard Pope should find a way to use the name recognition of the honorific ‘Pope’— for God’s sake.
‘Vote for Pope — for God’s sake!!’
Clinton’s Dow was comparable to Coolidge’s, a rising tide that lifted many boats. Except that much of the apparent tide was a ballooning bubble that was about to pop.
Coolidge retired at ‘high tide’ in March 1929, and is reviled for what came afterward. Clinton retired to an active social life in January 2001 and is lauded by @11 for the bubble he left behind.
Reagan’s DJ was mostly built on solid ground, but he takes some blame for a bubble ‘thrift’ industry … Or maybe we can absolve Reagan thru Bush II and blame everything on Greenspan while blaming Coolidge on Mellon and Strong.
“…it (the economy) seems to operate largely independently of politics.”
Well yes, if you believe that ‘free markets’ should be ‘unimpeded’, which, by the way, they largely have been throughout our history….except for that little period known as WW2 when we pretty much had a command economy. You might check out the GNP figures during that brief time.
However, it is pretty much incontrovertable that the lows are a lot less ‘low’ since the 2nd world war and with an economy having a large component consisting of government demand.
Give it some thought.
@16: Mostly they blame Hoover (rightly or wrongly)
Reagan’s DJ was built mostly on the backs of workers as profits and public borrowing increased and real wages stagnated.
But, then again, the DJA is not a very good measure of economic “progress” or “growth”.
@15: Alas. Only bishops get to vote for the Pope.
@14: It would be difficult to remove Chopp because he has a strong name that connotes masculine activeness.
Unless his masculine-ly active ‘principles’ were to get ‘Chopped’!!!
re 16: Wow! That would be bold! Blaming Reagan for de-regulating the thrifts (and the resulting ruinous ‘bubble’, just because he did it and it is his fault.
That would almost be like Republicans actually taking some personal responsibility for their actions.
re 20: “Jennie, Jennie. Who can I turn to? 867-530 nieeeieeine!”
re 19: Not in America. I’ve voted for a Pope — in the name of sweet-bleeding Jesus! I kid you not.
@13 Desperation? Really? Goddamn you must be about the most perceptive individual on the planet to have picked up desperation from what little I wrote. Wow!*
You must be either ‘Bagdad Bush’ or ‘Bye Bye Gop’, given your tendency to jump to conclusions.
*That was sarcasm for the impaired among us.
Reagan should just be blamed for:
Lying about Iran-contra
Lying about drugs for hostages
Creating the largest budget deficits in history – until Bush 1 and Bush2.
Deregulation of the thrifts – causing a bubble
Having no memory cells
Telling stupid stories that had nothing to do with the question
Early onset Alzheimers
Screwing over the environemnt with James Watt
Having no energy policy and increasing our reliance on foreign oil
Other than that – what did he accomplish – the old Soviet Union collapsed on it’s own during his watch – big deal. Up to the time it collapsed we were lied to about how dangerous they were…turns out they were pathetically behind us…but we spent ourselves into huge debt and Reagan promoted star wars – for no return.
I-burn – there are some very simple economic facts:
1.Huge deficits eventually cause problems and Reagan and Bush caused huge deficits (money gets tight and so does credit).
2. Trade deficits cause problems – and GWB has led the charge on free trade and decreased regulation on imports.
Now we have a huge trade deficits AND shoddy imports.
3.Squeezing the middle class on wages and high gas prices causes problems – and Bush has not supported unions and wages but has increased, to record all-time levels, Exxon profits and inflation due to gas prices – while doing nothing on imported oil and preventing CAFE increases promoted by states (being against states rights).
@25 Hey cnr, pathetically behind us? I don’t know that I’d agree with that. Even if I did, does it really freakin’ matter how behind us they are if they have 10k goddamned nuk-u-lar warheads pointed our way? Or are disputing their nuclear capabilities as well? Tell you what… Having been in the military in the early ’80s, we were pretty goddamned worried about the Soviets at the time.
Tlazolteotl @ 20
So you are going to dis-member the Speaker of the House? Chopp! Chopp! What would Mr. Cynical have to say about that?
“During the Huastecan festivities dedicated to the phalic cult offered to Tlazolteotl, Goddess of sex, those men who were frequently naked or who sometimes covered their sex with the “maxtlatl”, a type of loincloth, were circumcidated or castrated; they braided their hair or scraped it.”
http://www.musica.uat.edu.mx/h.....yoeng.html
I-Burn said:
“It isn’t quite as simple as who sits in the White House. I know you know that”
Agreed. I’d love to discuss the economic forces which Carter had to deal with in his four years in office. I would argue that he inherited “stagflation” but had set in place policies which would have resulted in a vibrant economy, if he had been allowed to see them through another term. But that would take up not only a whole thread, but an entire forum, so I’ll leave that discussion to later. Let’s just say that you have to look beyond the mere numbers to see what forces are in play and what policies worked and which ones didn’t. Remember Nixon started wage and price controls, and Ford had his silly “WIN” buttons?
“Whatever cyclical force is in operation, and I am not an economist, it seems to operate largely independently of politics.”
Here is where it really gets to be a mixed bag. A U.S. President can’t do much about overseas economic problems (i.e., rescession caused by the OPEC oil embargo & price jumps of the 1970’s). As for cyclical upterms/downturns, short-term fixes usually don’t work (i.e., tax rebates) – they come too late, and too little, to fix the current problem, and often contribute to bigger problems down the road.
But a U.S. President can have some long-range impact on the U.S. economy if he works on the underlying fundamentals, and is able to have cooperation from the U.S. Congress and the Federal Reserve. Clinton, facing an opposition Congress, wasn’t able to do much about infrastructure, but the combined affect of Clinton threatening to veto Republican spending and Congress refusing to pass Democratic spending plans managed to eliminate the Federal Deficit by FY 2000. But in the meantime Clinton was able to unleash the power of the internet by eliminating the defense dept. & university restrictions/monopoly over it (no, Gore didn’t “invent” the internet, he just helped to make it available to all). This fueled the 1990’s technology boom. The downturn beginning in 2000 was entirely predictable, but it was in the nature of a correction of the “irrational exuberance”, not due to a flaw in fundamental economic policy.
In contrast, however, no President has been able (or willing) to reverse the loss of manufacturing capacity in the U.S. It’s one of those long-term issues which the U.S. political system seems unable to handle. The decline began in earnest during the Reagan administration, as heavy industry was hamstrung by the combined affects of high interest rates and foreign competition. That’s when we lost our world-wide lead in manufacturing steel, heavy equipment, etc. to foreign manufacturers. This continued under Bush I.
Clinton’s answer was NAFTA, which had some promise, but any beneficial effects by NAFTA was lost in this decade when China became the main supplier of goods to America (under Most Favored Nation trading status). Clinton’s NAFTA proposal was designed to have N. American countries mutually assist one another by Canada & Mexico providing raw materials and cheep manufacturing of small goods, and the U.S. providing high technology goods to those same nations. But instead, U.S. farm goods put a lot of Mexican farmers out of work sending them northward into the U.S. to look for work, and the promised manufacturing jobs along the border dried up as China took their place.
I could live with the fact that all the Presidents up to this point were well-meaning, if sometimes mistaken in their economic policies. But the current Bush administration, and his cohorts in Congress, are another matter entirely. I’ve never seen a more ideologically and patronage driven political agenda advanced to the detriment of America’s long-term interests. The tax cut primarily for the wealthy, especially in the face of war spending, eliminates years of hard work to resolve the budget deficit and passes ruinous debt upon our children and grandchildren in a most irresponsible manner. The way contracts were awarded by the Bush administration is nothing less than a looting of the federal treasury for the benefit of a small number of political favorites. The dismantelling of federal agencies, such as FEMA prior to 2005, has ultimate consequences. And the refusal to look at any of these long-range issues, such as highway infrastructure repair and replacement, mass transit improvements, space exploration, restoration of the U.S. manufacturing base, etc., for eight years has been nothing short of criminal negligence. And the occupation of the war in Iraq was amateur hour at it’s highest level – the U.S. military did what it was supposed to do (defeat the Iraqi military), but there was INTENTIONALLY no long range planning, nor had anyone even bothered to read a book on the history of Iraq, and professionals who HAD looked at it were told they weren’t to have anyting to do with it… (but that’s another round of posts, also).
And the intentional refusal to exercise oversight and regulation of critical financial markets has directly led to much of the current crisis.
Anyway, the Republicans have had power in Congress for quite a while now, except for the past year, and in that year they obstructed any Democratic initiatives of any consequence. Bush has been in office for seven years, and is the principle architect of the Republican economic plan during that period. So yes, it is fair to blame him for the current and entirely predictable economic mess we are currently experiencing.
@ 12
Whatever cyclical force is in operation, and I am not an economist, it seems to operate largely independently of politics.
That statement is even more idiotic than the one to which you were responding, and on several levels.
First of all, RHP was talking about the stock market, not the overall economy, and noted the difference. You tried to use the overall economy as a counter-factual example, which has already been noted as being different.
Secondly, there’s nothing wrong with noting a broad correlation, as a correlation provides a legitimate reason to investigate potential causation.
Lastly, to say that the economy operates independently of politics completely avoids the underlying issue. The economy sure as hell doesn’t operate independently of policies.
For example, Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker was a slightly more effective means of curbing inflation than Ford’s passing out a bunch of “Whip Inflation Now” buttons.
@31 Look dude, I already said economics isn’t my field. RHP was advocating classical Keynesian economics (at least as I understand it) and I expressed my disagreement with that. So sue me.
@ 32
RHP was advocating classical Keynesian economics (at least as I understand it) and I expressed my disagreement with that.
Actually, he wasn’t advocating classical Keynesian Economics, and, yes, you are quite ignorant about it.
So sue me.
There’s a cure for ignorance. That cure doesn’t consist of complaining about other people pointing out your ignorance when you put it on display.
@33 I’m well aware of the cure for ignorance. Are you? Why don’t you explain your expertise on matters economic. I’m quite willing to listen to anyone who actually knows of what they speak.
Ignorance is one thing.
Subborn ignorance is quite another.
Self-defeating denial is truly pathetic.
@34
Why don’t you explain your expertise on matters economic.
Actually, I’d rather just explain Economics rather than explain my expertise, and the issues are so broad as to be difficult to know where to begin. It takes years of study just to get to the point where you can grasp the basic concepts of the IS-LM model. Do you expect me to simply start from scratch?
Look, Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall lived in a world very different from the one we live in today. In their world, total economic output wasn’t sufficient to meet everyone’s needs, and the fundamental economic problem was efficiency. In our world, we’ve long since surpassed the point where we can feed, clothe and house every human being on the planet. The fundamental economic problem is no longer one of efficiency.
That gradual change from maximizing met needs to maximizing met wants results in some rather interesting Economic conundrums when we start looking at the aggregate picture. It’s a little difficult to explain in a blog comment, but the most important difference between basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) and wants (entertainment) is elasticity of demand.
In the aggregate, this difference in the overall volatility of demand in a variety of markets leads to a less stable system. Quantity sold is much more price sensitive, and employment becomes far more susceptible to changes in tastes. Unfortunately, human beings are far quicker at changing their tastes than they are at changing jobs, or careers for more lasting changes in tastes (e.g. radio vs TV vs the internet).
All of this leads to a fascinating paradox. The more we push for efficiency in terms of maximizing met wants relative to resource constraints, the greater the probability that we have people whose needs are unmet.
I’ve mentioned Jamie Galbraith’s work at the University of Texas before. It can be a bit difficult to grok, but he has some fascinating stuff. Googling “Galbraith income disparity” should provide several interesting links.
“Don’t let the right-wing militia funding orca killers at the BIAW win because we’re too lazy to speak out.”
It doesn’t surprise me that freaks who run around in the woods dressed in cammies and packing AR-15s don’t want you to sue them for selling you junk.
@12 “Then why was the economy headed south during Clinton’s last year in office?”
The recession started in March 2002, not during Clinton’s terms as wingnut liars claim.
“For that matter, if dims are so good for the economy, how do you explain Carter?”
Carter merely inherited the economic mess created by Nixon and Ford. Remember Nixon’s price controls and toilet paper shortage? Remember Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” program?
“For that matter how do you explain that FDR couldn’t get the country out of the depression until the war came along?”
The Great Depression was the culminating collapse of laissez faire capitalism after decades of recurring panics and financial crises. Unregulated capitalism always destroys itself. FDR’s reforms saved the capitalist economic system, and by extension, our democracy. He deserves credit for no less. That’s why he’s considered by historians to be one of America’s 3 greatest presidents, after Lincoln and Washington.
@16 And now that Chimpface has been strutting his economic stuff for 7 1/2 years, everything is hunky-dory, right?
Roger Rabbit Quiz
Which president was in office during Gerald Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” program? Special note to wingnuts: There is only ONE correct answer!!!
[ ] 1. Jimmy Carter
[ ] 2. FDR
[ ] 3. Bill Clinton
[ ] 4. Gerald Ford
@36: Well said DJ. Everybody who claims to call themselves a progressive should read some actual progressive economists:
James Galbraith
Max Sawicky
Dean Baker
Doug Henwood
There are many others if you take the time to look.
Baker has an interesting daily blog skewering contemporary journalism’s economic ignorance. Max had a great blog, but has gone on to other things (still archived on the wwweb).
Again….well said.
@23: I am aghast! You a bishop on the east side? Which parish? So tell me more about this ring kissing thing. Why do both the Holy See and the mafia share this peculiar custom?
@41: What about Paul Krugman, you dolt?
Got me there. Add him to the list.
@ 41 & 43
I appreciate the praise, but I fear that I can only scratch the surface here.
I should point out that this issue of needs vs wants is precisely where I part company with folks like Krugman. As well-meaning as he is, he’s still functioning within a paradigm where income distribution is related to the relative marginal productivities of production factors (capital and labor). Krugman remains, at a fundamental level, an orthodox Economist.
More than 40 years ago, Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson exposed the basic flaw in the neoclassical/orthodox paradigm by pointing out that the concept of an aggregate physical capital stock isn’t coherent. Logically, the neoclassical model says that in order to know the aggregate rate of interest we need to know the aggregate rate of interest.
I’d start with this paper by Jamie Galbraith. It’s a good summary of the issues.
Also, let’s not confuse Jamie Galbraith with his father, John Kenneth Galbraith. While The Affluent Society and The New Industrial State aren’t horribly bad places to start, they are a bit outdated. In all likelihood, the elder Galbraith never witnessed his TV set asking, “Got Milk?” If he had, he’d have never used Wisconsin dairy farmers as his best example of participants in an unplanned market :-).
As I think about it, probably the best place to start would be Robert Heilbroner’s The Worldly Philosophers. It’s a pleasantly readable book that covers the main themes and ideas of the world’s great Economists, and I believe the 7th edition is still in print.
@25
You forgot about the couple 100,000 (more?) deaths from HIV that didn’t have to happen. Had Regan not ignored it.
APparently Chopp cares more about the BIAW donations than about good people in Washington State. Time to vote him out of power.
47 – and apparently it’s not JUST the reps that are ruled and persuaded by BIAW…Chopp is showing his true colors!!!
Also along with all our other lawmakers who are ignoring the screaming Sonics fans!
@42 Rabbits aren’t into kissing rings, but wingnuts can kiss my furry ass!
@47 And replace him with whom? Mark Griswold? This guy???
“Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need. It’s obvious people don’t remember what happened 5 years ago. Posted by FullContactPolitics at November 8, 2006 10:52 AM”
http://blog.usefulwork.com/cgi.....ry_id=7430
(Note: HA’s peripatetic online sleuth, Richard Pope, id’d “Full Contact Politics” as Griswold by finding another Griswold post on Sound Politics in which Griswold used both names.)
(Postscript: In the 2004 election, Chopp whupped Griswold’s ass, 85% – 15%.)
@48 You volunteering to pay $150 million in taxes for Key Arena?
@ 48
Also along with all our other lawmakers who are ignoring the screaming Sonics fans!
As much of a sports fan as I am, I’m very tired of team owners expecting the public to finance their income through taxes. If you want to renovate a facility in order to increase your income, then you should be able to finance that renovation based on those future profits and not have to come hat-in-hand to the public looking for some welfare.
If the fine folks in Oklahoma City are willing to finance an arena for a basketball team, then, I say, good on ya. Take the Sonics. It’s not like we’re at a loss for entertainment around here. Anyone up for a T-Birds game?
@51 – the taxes are already in place and we have already been paying them. It’s restaurant, hotel and rental car (luxury tax) taxes. We all know, even though those taxes are scheduled to expire soon, they will never go away, as with any tax on the books. So why not get to keep our Seattle SuperSonics? They have been an integral part of Seattle since the late 70’s and just the amount of money the city, county and state will lose by lost revenue is well worth it.
Note everyone, I say only help the Sonics IF Bennett lets them go…..ABSOLUTELY nothing for Bennett. He wants a BRAND NEW $500 million dollar arena paid for 100% by tax payers. The new investor group is willing to buy the team with their OWN money AND pitch in 1/2 of $300 million for Key Arena renovations. The loss of revenue locally, restaurants, bars, parking, ticket sales, team merchandise, etc would be a huge loss is sales tax dollars to the state.
If we want to keep the Sonics in town, we should use the power of eminent domain, and simply expropriate the team. The fair market value of the team is less than what it would cost to build a fancy new arena. Since the value would be determined by a jury, odds are that twelve random citizens will place an even lower value than what the current ownership group paid for the team. And the government can always resell the Sonics to private owners at some point in the future, and recover its investment — unlike simply throw away money for a half-billion dollar arena that is leased to a team for 20 years for practically nothing.
@55 – GREAT idea! But we as tax payers would have to front the money to buy the team, and for the court process….
Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert
Roger Rabbit says: “The recession started in March 2002, not during Clinton’s terms as wingnut liars claim.”
Even the NY Times changed their tuned. Of course Pelletizer keeps the dead party line alive
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....iscal.html
Continuing the Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert with PuddyFacts:
Real economic statistics not Pelletizer words confirm the US economy was shrinking while Clinton was POTUS and still in office.
“America went into recession long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. … The new figures suggest … that the economy grew more slowly in … 2000 than was previously thought: GDP rose by 3.8% (compared with last year’s estimate of 4.1% and an initial figure of 5%).” Find it in the article “Unwelcome Numbers,” The Economist, 8/3/02
Continuing the Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert with PuddyFacts:
Milton Friedman passed away on Nov. 16, 2006. He was recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution from 1977 to 2006. He was also the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946 to 1976, and a member of the research staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1937 to 1981.
Peter Robinson: There is evidence that the economy was heading into a recession even before the terrorist attacks.
Milton Friedman: In my opinion, it was in a recession.
http://vodwins.stanford.edu/Ho.....nomics.asx
Terrorist @ 57
The Rabbit might have gotten the year wrong, it was March of 2001, but he’s entirely correct on the issue of revisionist Economic history (unless, of course, you want to disagree with Business Week).
As for the New York Times article, I quote the opening graph:
There is a significant semantic difference between “on the verge of” and “in the midst of”.
This also leaves open the entire question of whether or not the Bush tax cuts actually accomplished anything. And, please, don’t resort to your fallback of selectively choosing someone else’s opinion solely because that person’s opinion happens to correspond with what you want to believe. Learn something, sport. Google the phrase “liquidity preference.” Then, take a look at what the Federal Reserve did in early 2001.
Continuing the Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert with PuddyFacts:
Standard market indicators used by friends of Don Joe resident economist confirmed the US recession began while Clinton was still POTUS.
The Council of Economic Advisors wrote, “it was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001.”
* Mfg employment started falling during August 2000
* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000
* Industrial production started falling during July 2000
* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000
* Mfg trade and sales started falling during April 2000
* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000
Pelletizer, being the oxygen starved man he is will not look up the real figgers when PuddyFacts presents the Readers Digest condensed version.
Terrorist @ 58
“Grew more slowly” is not a recession. Look it up. A recession is a decline in GDP, not a slowdown in the growth of GDP. Again, we return back to the semantic difference between “on the verge of” and “in the midst of”.
Terrorist @ 59
Milton Friedman: In my opinion, it was in a recession.
But, it’s not an issue open to anyone’s opinion, even Uncle Milty’s. Whether or not the Economy was in a recession is a matter of data. And, we can look up the data.
When are you going to learn the difference between facts and opinions?
Continuing the Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert with PuddyFacts:
From the “Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment,” United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, July 2001, this joint economic committee wrote about the real 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:
* 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.
Those ain’t my words but from Congress, Pelletizer.
Delusional Don Joe: You throw up Jamie from Texas whom you hero worship and his comments a few times here. I used Milton and you dismiss it?
Sorry non sequitur.
Delusional Don Joe, continuing the Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert with PuddyFacts:
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)
Ouch Don Joe. Business Week? Hmmm… When Puddy gets some time I’ll look up the reporters and see if they follow the liberal MSM 85% giving rule to Donkey candidates.
Terrorist @ 64
You throw up Jamie from Texas whom you hero worship and his comments a few times here.
Ah, no. I don’t “hero worship” Jamie Galbraith. I pointed you to his research. Did you never learn the difference between the words “who” and “what”?
I used Milton and you dismiss it?
You quoted someone’s opinion on a question of fact. When it’s a question of fact, it doesn’t matter who’s giving the opinion.
Delusional Don Joe, continuing the Pelletizer@38 BULLSHITTIUM Alert with PuddyFacts:
Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz also noted that during the Clinton Administration “the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Golly when I wrote and proved so many of the 22 Million Clinton jobs were of the $7 variety because Clinton pandered to Wall Street you and Pelletizer went apoplectic. Puddy remembers.
Terrorist @ 65
Dude, you don’t even understand the stuff you’re quoting. And, again, I did point out that you ought not fall back into your habit of finding other people’s opinions and choosing those simply because they happen to agree with the conclusion you want to reach.
This is not a question of opinion. It’s a question of data. Go find the data.
Delusional Don Joe, when Jamie Galbraith wins the Nobel prize I’ll listen to him.
Delusional Don Joe: Pelletizer made a silly claim. I used Clinton’s own advisor to refute it along with Congress.
You on the other hand can’t stand the truth of PuddyFacts.
Have a great day. Sun is shining here.
Terrorist @ 69
[W]hen Jamie Galbraith wins the Nobel prize I’ll listen to him.
Is that because you lack the intellectual tools required to evaluate his research on its own merits?
@ 70
I used Clinton’s own advisor to refute it along with Congress.
Once again, this is a question of fact, not opinion. Go find the data, sport, and stop quoting people’s opinions. The phrase you want to google is “GDP data united states.” Find a data set that shows US gross domestic product and the date when real GDP went down (i.e. not when the slope of the graph starts falling, but when the slope of the graph actually turns negative).
Delusional Don Joe: Who’s budget was Bush inaugurated under in 2001?
Nuff Said.
Ronnie Sims? Sen. Lisa Brown? Now Speaker Chopp? Who’s next in the long line of gutless Democrats?
Delusional Don Joe: More wonderful news of Clinton’s last budget and the US economy. Something forgotten by Pelletizer but remembered by Puddy.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/2.....evised.gif
Delusional Don Joe:
Facts
* Mfg employment started falling during August 2000
* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000
* Industrial production started falling during July 2000
* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000
* Mfg trade and sales started falling during April 2000
* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000
End of Pelletizer BULLSHITTIUM Alert.
Terrorist @ 72
Who’s budget was Bush inaugurated under in 2001?
You mean the spending bills passed by a Republican-controlled congress? And, what, pray tell, did the budget in effect at that time have to do with any recession that started in March of 2001?
@ 74
At last! Some actual, and almost relevant data. Curious, though, how the graph doesn’t cover the Clinton years. Wonder why. It is, however, worth noting that the graph pretty much proves that the recession began in March of 2001. By the way, the graph doesn’t say whether the data represents nominal GDP or real GDP. You might want to try to find a data set that makes it clear which one is represented.
@ 75
Not one of those facts mentions gross domestic product. Why do you insist on showing your ignorance of these issues?
I gotta run, now. My daughter’s spring break begins today, and I need to get out of town in the next hour to make sure I catch the 1:00 ferry out of Tsawwassen. Someone else will have to take up the unenviable task of educating your on Economic matters.
Puddy: Question for you…does our economic outlook have any thing to do with Clinton’s NAFTA thing? I don’t know hardly anything about NAFTA but from my understanding the NAFTA took a lot of jobs out of the US?
NAFTA went into effect in 1994. A seven year lag between cause and effect is not particularly plausible.
I do have to run, but I’d like to point out the irony of the exchange above. By claiming that Clinton’s budget was responsible for the 2001 recession and, by implication, that the Bush’s tax cuts got us out of that recession, our friend is, essentially, vindicating Keynesian policy tools. Imagine that.
In parting, I’ll point out that the most significant Economic event leading up to the 2001 recession was the bursting of the dot com bubble. This strongly suggests that the 2001 recession was a monetary issue, not an issue related to federal fiscal policies. I believe I’ve mentioned the term “liquidity preference” earlier in this thread. Interested folks should use the google.
Delusional Don Joe:
Whoa. You mean the same spending bills system passed by a Democrat-controlled congress under Reagan in 1981 & 1982 doesn’t count when I asked about the Omnibus Tax Bill of 1982 when Congress was to cut spending by $3 for every $1 taxed?
Golly Don Joe, you can’t have it both ways here.
The graph is used because even CNN was discussing the recession starting in 2000 not 2001.
Hannah, I don’t know because NAFTA is being used as a political football between Clinton and Obama right now.
Instead of the MSM looking at the NAFTA facts, they are taking sides in the issue. Rhp6033 and correctnotright will blather on about who’s fault regarding what NAFTA did or didn’t do. I still remember Perot’s comment of the great sucking sound. Job losses would be a good start. Look up job losses from 1995 until now based on NAFTA alone. These 16%ers would like you to view it as a Bush issue but Bush was Texas guvnur when NAFTA was passed.
I’m not going to go off and say Republicans are purposely idiots when it comes to economic principle. There are a lot of sound ideas in there, if they could actually stick to them (balanced budgets, tax only what’s required, etc.).
However, the actual actions of the Republican Congress and Presidency (starting in the late 1990s actually) has created economic policies that are now cascading on each other. And the effect has only been amplified under Bush Jr.
Again, I’m not saying it’s intentional, but each well meaning piece of legislation is now creating negative amplification with decisions from the past.
Examples would be: the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 with the reform in bankruptcy law in 2005. Tax cuts (and refunds!) in the midst of falling revenue seems so stupid I can’t even begin to describe it.
Lacking the available space here, I’ve posted more detailed thoughts at http://the-foghorn.blogspot.com, and if Google were actually working right now I could give a direct link. Just look for “Republican Economic Policy”…
re 81: So, what you are saying is that these are not ‘real’ conservatives? I’m in the market for a bridge, and I hear you have one for sale in Minneapolis.
wahomeowners@googlegroups.com
Terrorist @ 79
Golly Don Joe, you can’t have it both ways here.
Sorry, sport, but the only folks who want anything both ways are those who want to credit Reagan for economic growth in the 80’s while blaming Congress for the budget deficits that led to the growth in the first place.
You didn’t answer my second question: what, pray tell, did the budget in effect during March of 2001 have to do with the recession that began at that time?
I can give the correct answer if you fell yourself either unable or not inclined to do so.