fuel economy in car commercials

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:48:35 GMT, Joshua Halpern
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:23:01 GMT, Joshua Halpern
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:05:34 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:d4io41pf35qinkcva6ip7sdoq7gr0mejd7@4ax. com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see, it's just a remarkable coincidence that the economy has done better
>>>>>>under virtually every Democrat president than any Republican one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stupid... Stupid, Billieboy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read a little, and you'll find that the economy, during Clinton's
>>>>>administration, had what is known as the DOT.COM bubble. Maybe you've
>>>>>heard about it.
>>>>>Clinton had nothing to do with that at all. His policies simply can
>>>>>not account for the amazingly overheatred growth, nor the recession
>>>>>that followed the bubble's bursating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ah, yes, turning the INTERNET from a government/university system to an
>>>>open one had nothing to do with anything.
>>>>
>>>>josh halpern
>>>
>>>
>>>CLINTON did this? And the DOT.COM bubble was thus his doing?
>>>Yeah, right.
>>
>>No, Gore did. You really should read.
>
> <SIGH>
> You should read.
> The claim was that Clinton did this.

Gore was the lead in the Clinton administration on the Internet, having
introduced the key legislation when he was senator and having great
foresight on the issue. For which, I might add, he was trashed by your
ilk. You should read. maybe even think

josh halpern

There is one thing that Clinton did that Reagan & Bush couldn't do.
Balance the budget. He kept vetoing spending bills until congress got
it right. Shut down the government in the process, but this had more
to do with Wall Street's confidence or over-confidence.

DYM

Even the Camry and the Accord get better fuel economy than American
midsize cars, at least when the Japanese ones use VTEC/variable-valve
engines.

American automakers aren't interested in variable valve timing, it would
seem; they aren't interested in fuel economy in general. Too many $$$ that
can't be syphoned off into profits. They are still stuck with late 70's,
early 80's technology. They are going to be squashed by the Japanese when
gas prices continue to climb.

The Focus is a good car, too bad we don't have half the engine options the
Europeans do (lean burn gasoline engines, diesel engines, etc.).

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Apr 05 16:56:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Big Bill > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:05:34 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>>>>
>>>>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>>>>
>>>>I see, it's just a remarkable coincidence that the economy has done
>>better
>>>>under virtually every Democrat president than any Republican one.
>>>>
>>>>Stupid... Stupid, Billieboy.
>>>>
>>>Read a little, and you'll find that the economy, during Clinton's
>>>administration, had what is known as the DOT.COM bubble. Maybe you've
>>>heard about it.
>>>Clinton had nothing to do with that at all. His policies simply can
>>>not account for the amazingly overheatred growth, nor the recession
>>>that followed the bubble's bursating.
>>>
>>No, if you look at the entire 20th century, the stock market gained
>>significantly more under Democrat presidents than under Republican ones.
>
>Look at the entire 20th century? What on earth does that have to do
>with Clinton?

Goes to influence. If presidents have no effect on the economy, what
accounts for this trend?

>Clinton (no matter how much you lionize him) simply can't be described
>as making the economy grow as it did. Just not possible.
>His only claim to an economy-altering act was the largest tax increase
>in US history. You're not going to actually claim that *helped* the
>economy, are you?
>
Yes. It increased investor confidence that the US deficit would be under
control, and it removed some of the pressure for capital by the US not
having to borrow so much.

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:47:57 GMT, Joshua Halpern
> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 05 16:56:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Big Bill > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:05:34 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:d4io41pf35qinkcva6ip7sdoq7gr0mejd7@4ax. com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see, it's just a remarkable coincidence that the economy has done
>>>>
>>>>better
>>>>
>>>>>>under virtually every Democrat president than any Republican one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stupid... Stupid, Billieboy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read a little, and you'll find that the economy, during Clinton's
>>>>>administration, had what is known as the DOT.COM bubble. Maybe you've
>>>>>heard about it.
>>>>>Clinton had nothing to do with that at all. His policies simply can
>>>>>not account for the amazingly overheatred growth, nor the recession
>>>>>that followed the bubble's bursating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, if you look at the entire 20th century, the stock market gained
>>>>significantly more under Democrat presidents than under Republican
ones.
>>>
>>> Look at the entire 20th century? What on earth does that have to do
>>> with Clinton?
>>
>>Democratic presidents held office for 48 of the 100 years in the 20th
>>century. Clinton held office for 8, that's about 16%, which is
>>significant. In his time economic gains were very large.
>
>But not becauise of anything he did.
>Are you trying to say that the very fact that a Dem is President makes
>the economy take off?

Then why has the economy fared better under Dems?

>>
>>> Clinton (no matter how much you lionize him) simply can't be described
>>> as making the economy grow as it did. Just not possible.
>>> His only claim to an economy-altering act was the largest tax increase
>>> in US history. You're not going to actually claim that *helped* the
>>> economy, are you?
>>>
>>Well, the evidence points that way.
>
>Anmd I suppose that because murderers eat mashed potatos, the evidence
>points to mashed potatos causing murders?
>>The tax increase decreased (and at
>>the end of the century actually allowed repayment of significant parts
>>of the public debt) the amount of money the US government had to borrow
>>each year. Money that would otherwise have been invested in Treasury
>>bonds became available for investment in industry, housing, etc.
>
>That does not have any way to increase the economy. it didn't put any
>money into circulation, not dod it encourage production.
>>
>>The tax increase in 1992 fell almost completely on the upper end of the
>>income distribution and for a majority of people taxes actually fell.
>>As soon as it was clear that this was going to be reversed in 2001 the
>>economy headed south.
>
>A $300 tax break for some people.
>Bush's break was more than that, and it was called worthless.

It wasn't more for the middle class.

>Which is it? Clinton good, Bush bad? Or tax breaks good? Or bad?
>And, no, the "majority" didn't have a drop in their taxes. Couples
>having a taxable income of $60K/year or less did, under certain
>circumstances. That's a lot, but that also includes millions who pay
>*no* taxes at all.
>>
>>josh halpern
>>
>>josh halpern
>

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Apr 05 11:21:47 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Big Bill > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 05 16:56:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Big Bill > wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:05:34 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:d4io41pf35qinkcva6ip7sdoq7gr0mejd7@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see, it's just a remarkable coincidence that the economy has done
>>>>better
>>>>>>under virtually every Democrat president than any Republican one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stupid... Stupid, Billieboy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Read a little, and you'll find that the economy, during Clinton's
>>>>>administration, had what is known as the DOT.COM bubble. Maybe you've
>>>>>heard about it.
>>>>>Clinton had nothing to do with that at all. His policies simply can
>>>>>not account for the amazingly overheatred growth, nor the recession
>>>>>that followed the bubble's bursating.
>>>>>
>>>>No, if you look at the entire 20th century, the stock market gained
>>>>significantly more under Democrat presidents than under Republican
ones.
>>>
>>>Look at the entire 20th century? What on earth does that have to do
>>>with Clinton?
>>
>>Goes to influence. If presidents have no effect on the economy, what
>>accounts for this trend?
>
>Even you know better.
>Do mashed potatos cause crime?
>>
>>>Clinton (no matter how much you lionize him) simply can't be described
>>>as making the economy grow as it did. Just not possible.
>>>His only claim to an economy-altering act was the largest tax increase
>>>in US history. You're not going to actually claim that *helped* the
>>>economy, are you?
>>>
>>Yes. It increased investor confidence that the US deficit would be under
>>control, and it removed some of the pressure for capital by the US not
>>having to borrow so much.
>
>Under control?
>What's you definition of under control?
>
Well, a surplus for 2 years comes to mind.

In article <Vtm3e.6169$Fh2.6053@trnddc04>,
Joshua Halpern > wrote:
>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>> Read a little, and you'll find that the economy, during Clinton's
>> administration, had what is known as the DOT.COM bubble. Maybe you've
>> heard about it.
>> Clinton had nothing to do with that at all. His policies simply can
>> not account for the amazingly overheatred growth, nor the recession
>> that followed the bubble's bursating.
>>
>Ah, yes, turning the INTERNET from a government/university system to an
>open one had nothing to do with anything.

So you're giving G.H.W.Bush the credit?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> Let's see - Reagan corrected the poor economy

The Gipper's Economy

Posted June 10, 2004
The Gipper's Economy
by William Greider


The Gipper had a certain goofiness about him that was impossible not
to like. He told "war stories" borrowed from old movies with such
sincerity you were sure he must have been there. He was a famous
football hero ("win this one for the Gipper") and also a handsome
cowboy depicted on horseback in his 1980 campaign posters (but
without his six-shooters). He taught wacky science lessons (trees
are a leading source of air pollution) and delivered many dewy-eyed
tributes to American heroes, some plucked from yesterday's
headlines, some recycled from his rheumy memories of World War I.
Whether you came to canonize the man or ridicule him, he was always
great material. Historians, I think, will someday rank him right up
there with Warren Harding.

Reagan was a fabulist. He told stories--often charming, sometimes
loony--in which sentimental images triumphed over facts, warmth over
light. So it is entirely appropriate today that the major media,
draped in mourning, are solemnly fictionalizing his presidency.
Reagan spun them around brilliantly, used the White House reporters
and cameras as hapless props in his melodrama, ignored the tough
questions and stuck unyieldingly to his scripted version of reality.
This was partly conviction, partly the discipline of an "old pro"
movie actor. It appears to have worked with the press. Their
memorials to the "Ronald Reagan story" sound more like his fables
than the events I witnessed.

What's left out? For one thing, a chilling meanness
lurked at the core of Reagan's political agenda (always effectively
concealed by the affability), and he used this meanness like a razor
blade to advance his main purpose--delegitimizing the federal
government. Race was one cutting edge, poverty was another. His
famous metaphor--the "welfare queen" who rode around in her Cadillac
collecting food stamps--was perfectly pitched to the smoldering
social resentments but also a clever fit with his broader economic
objectives. Stop wasting our money on those lazy, shiftless (and,
always unspoken, black) people. Get government off our backs,
encourage the strong, forget the weak. In case any white guys missed
the point, Reagan opened his 1980 campaign in Neshoba County,
Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered in
the 1960s. His speech extolled states' rights. The tone was sunny
optimism.

The chemistry worked partly because it coincided with a historical
shift already under way. Beyond movie scripts, Reagan was authentic
in his convictions--he brought the flint-hearted libertarian
doctrines of Hayek and Friedman to Washington and put a smiling face
on the market orthodoxy of "every man for himself." Democrats had
lost their energy and inventiveness, they were associated with
twenty years of contentious reforms, turmoil and conflict (and
sought relief, not by rebuilding their popular base with new ideas
but by cozying up to the business lobbies). In the end, the only
folks who got truly liberated by Reaganomics were the same people
who had financed his rise in politics, the Daddy Warbucks moguls
from California and corporate behemoths like General Electric.
Reagan's theory was really "trickle down" economics borrowed from
the Republican 1920s (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover) and renamed "supply
side." Cut tax rates for the wealthy; everyone else will benefit. As
Reagan's budget director David Stockman confided to me at the time,
the supply-side rhetoric "was always a Trojan horse to bring down
the top rate." Many middle-class and poor citizens figured it out,
even if reporters did not.

Reagan's great accomplishment was ideological--propelling the
ascendancy of the right--but the actual governing results always
looked more like hoary old interest-group politics. Wealthy
individuals, corporate and financial interests got extraordinary
benefits (tax reductions and deregulation) while the bottom half got
whacked whenever an opportunity arose. His original proposition--cut
taxes regressively, double military spending, shrink government and
balance the federal budget--looked cockeyed from the start. Yet when
the logic self-destructed in practice, conservatives were remarkably
content, since they had delivered the boodle to the right clients.
After my notorious account of Reagan's economic failure, based on my
conversations with Stockman, was published in the December 1981
Atlantic Monthly, the Gipper likened me to John Hinckley, the
would-be assassin who shot him. So much for Mr. Nice Guy.
Both parties would spend the next twenty years cleaning up after the
Gipper's big mistake. They collaborated in an ongoing politics of
bait and switch--raising taxes massively on working people through
the Social Security payroll tax while continuing to cut taxes for
the more affluent and to whittle down government aid for anyone
else. The Gipper had taught Washington an important new technique
for governing--how to fog regressive tax cuts past the general
public without arousing voter retribution (the media can be counted
on to assist). The trickery continues to succeed. Pre-Reagan
politics used to address various economic inequities. The great
injustice confronted by George W. Bush was the estate tax on
millionaires.

Reagan's stubborn optimism did refresh the national spirit, no
question, and it certainly powered his political successes. He gave
us a television-era remake of Warren Harding's "return to normalcy."
But in hindsight, I have come to think that the illusions fostered
by his sunny messages perhaps did the gravest economic damage.
Things were not normal, they were deteriorating and leading toward a
chasm of growing inequalities. The rending of the American middle
class, the stagnation of industrial wages, the relentless loss of US
manufacturing--these great wounds to general prosperity were all
visible during the Reagan era, but instead of addressing them
honestly, his policies further aggravated the consequences. The
Gipper insisted, no doubt sincerely, that it was "morning again in
America." People wanted to believe this, and politicians of both
parties learned from his cue--wave the flag and avoid bad news.
Ronald Reagan launched the great era of false triumphalism that
continues to this day among American leaders. The current generation
lacks his charm and is therefore less successful at hiding the
truth.

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>No, if you look at the entire 20th century, the stock market gained
>>>significantly more under Democrat presidents than under Republican ones.

>>Look at the entire 20th century? What on earth does that have to do
>>with Clinton?
>
> Goes to influence. If presidents have no effect on the economy, what
> accounts for this trend?

Could be that the economy effects presidental elections.

On Mon, 04 Apr 05 11:30:16 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>But not becauise of anything he did.
>>Are you trying to say that the very fact that a Dem is President makes
>>the economy take off?
>
>Then why has the economy fared better under Dems?

Are you trying to say that the very fact that a Dem is President makes
the economy take off?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"