fuel economy in car commercials

On Thu, 31 Mar 05 15:06:54 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article >,
> Big Bill > wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>he caused
>>>>the greatest expansion in US economic history, he prevented communism
>>>>from gaining a larger foothold in our hemisphere.
>>>
>>>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>>
>>Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>>
>Then you can't credit Reagan for his either.

I'm not.

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

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
.. .
>> 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.

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

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
. ..
>>> 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.

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
. ..
>>
>>>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

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
...
>>>> 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?
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?

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

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
...
>>>
>>>>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.

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

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?

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.

> 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. 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.

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.

josh halpern

josh halpern

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
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.
>>>
>>
>>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.

josh halpern
>

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
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>>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?
>
>> 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.
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

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

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
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"