...

BK>> JB> The debt went up every single year under The Clinton:

BK>> I said the deficit and the debt load decreased under Clinton. I

 JB> That is doublespeak for cooking to books and moving debt
 JB> further out, not retiring it.

 When the deficit hits zero the debt starts retiring. The latest
 budget figures I got from the Bush administration say it went
 into surplus during Clinton's last few years.

BK>> find govt accounting interesting, in that Bush's budget figures
BK>> show the deficit wiped out under Clinton, yet the debt
BK>> increasing.

 JB> Those weren't Bush's budget figures but don't let that stop

 It was from Bush's 2007 budget, in the budget history files.

 JB> a good rant. Those figures were their during The CLinton's
 JB> time in office.  You just buried your head in the sand.

 They were there, but burying your head in the sand today won't
 help. Bush has had 6 years to correct them if they are wrong. If
 Bush is still publishing them then they can be accepted as
 correct.

 Or you could say Bush's budget people are incompetent, which I
 could accept also.

BK>> JB> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histd
BK>> JB> ebt_histo4.h tm

BK>> JB> 09/30/2006  8,506,973,899,215.23
BK>> ...
BK>> JB> 09/30/1991  3,665,303,351,697.03

BK>> JB> Under The Clinton the debt went up each year and by a total
BK>> JB> of

BK>> JB> Don't let this stop your rant.

BK>> My statement was correct, and on target. You shifted the
BK>> discussion. The debt went up under every president as far back

 JB> I changed nothing.  My statements have been consistent on
 JB> this topic. You specifically said above " BK>> The debt
 JB> went up during his early years, until it was turned around.
 JB> That is normal for reversing an economic trend."   That is
 JB> a lie and contradicts what you are now saying.

 No, it's from the Bush administration budget history files. How
 the accounting is done is not my interest or problem. When Bush
 changes the records let me know.

BK>> as I care to look. The debt load went down under every president
BK>> after WW2 except Reagan and Bush II.

BK>>BK>> JB> Home ownership is at an all time high under
Bush.  Bush has

BK>>BK>> So are foreclosures.

BK>> JB> But ownership is still higher.

BK>> Which means very little to the well being of the country when
BK>> people are losing their homes, and have little equity. With the
BK>> housing market bubble burst we may be in more trouble than if
BK>> they were renting. The great hope is the housing price increase
BK>> resumes.

 JB> Only a liberal would want houses to become less affordable
 JB> for the poor.

 Home ownership reached record level, according to your own
 statement, during the period when the US was in a housing
 market bubble. How does that turn into wanting houses less
 affordable for the poor?

 You didn't think it through. They truly poor cannot afford
 houses outside areas that don't much go up in value. However,
 for those who do buy a house in an area where the value goes up,
 the increasing value becomes a significant factor in their
 building up some personal wealth.

 In the markets today, things seldom stay perfectly in balance.
 The housing market is going to go up or down. Down is very bad.
 Buying a house with little down, not unusual for someone with
 little money, means any drop in the housing market not only
 means your investment is wiped out, but you can't sell the house
 if you want to. You can't refinance if the interest rates drop,
 because they have to pay off the loan above the refinance amount
 before they can refinance. That has happened to people with a
 lot more than poverty level wages. Happened back in the early
 '80s to people on the East Coast. Parts of Massachusettes I
 believe.

BK>>BK>> You do realize, I trust, that good economy or bad people need a
BK>>BK>> place to live. Owning a home is not that much more expensive
BK>>BK>> than renting. The historically low interest rates of the recent

BK>> JB> So ask people whether they would rather rent than own.
BK>> JB> Which builds more wealth ?

BK>> Which they would rather is not the question. Which builds more
BK>> wealth is relevant, but not determined when the rest of the
BK>> economy is so shaky.

 JB> Shaky ?  Amazing.  Again your idea of a good economy is
 JB> strange.  Almost all economic numbers are better than they
 JB> have ever been and yet because Bush is in office, the left
 JB> thinks it is the end of days.

 Where you go off the deep end is "better than they have ever
 been". They are not as good as they were under Clinton.
 Unemployment is one of the biggies. Job growth has stunk under
 Bush. Incomes are down. More uninsured, more poverty, more
 people needing jobs now. Funny they claim lower unemployment at
 the same time their own agency says there are more people
 looking for full time work. Add it up.

BK>> BK>> past were a great incentive to home ownership. That and
BK>> BK>> alternative financing methods, that made home ownership more
BK>> BK>> doable, yet also contributed to the high rate of foreclosures.

BK>> JB> Not by nearly as high of a percentage.  Interest rates are

BK>> I'd have given you a (sic) there but you haven't played that
BK>> game, yet, unlike so many on the right.

BK>> JB> lower longer under Bush than the Clinton and we are at war.

BK>> Interest rates have been lower because the Fed kept them lower,
BK>> because the economy was performing so miserably. Which is not a
BK>> great accomplishment by Bush. His failure more accurately.

 JB> Again, only a liberal would wish for high Fed interest
 JB> rates.

 Only a right winger would interpret stating the facts as wishing
 for the opposite.

 Not only do I support low interest rates, I supported lower
 interest rates when the Fed increased them in the last couple
 years. I supported lower interest rates when Bush I was
 president. He now recognizes that the Fed waited too long to
 lower interest rates, which contributed heavily to his defeat.

 I have said for years the Fed manipulates interest rates to keep
 people unemployed as a means of reducing inflation. For which
 they should be thrown out of office, every member of the board.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... A meg here, a meg there, soon it adds up to real memory.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a