I was watching the news the other night(I forgot which one) and the newscaster was talking about how a Marine Unit was trying to install a new fresh water pump for the Iraqi civilians so they could get fresh water. However the Marines were noit able to recieve the pump because the beurocrats(spelling?) in washington would not let them spend the money. This made me think.

There are a lot of people that hold office that probably dont want Bush to win in '04. Could they be holding out senting the needed money to Iraq so the re-building of it would fail or just take very long, loosing the support of the Iraqi's? If re-building Iraq fails, I honestly believe Pres. Bush will not be re-elected. What do all you think?

Possible.  Personally (and I have been chastised for believing this) I also believe that the economy "tanked" right after GW took office due to faithfully liberal business owners and executives in the elite class shutting off spending to lay off employees, stop orders, and create the illusion of a bad economy.  Of course, the media sees the numbers and (knowingly or unknowingly) plays along.  WAM!  Illusion of a tanked economy, AND IT GETS LAID AT GW'S DOORSTEP!  But it's total bullshit.  Yeah, unemployment is up some, but every company has some fat they can trim and absorb the loss to an extent.  Interest rates are great, new construction is still going strong.  Here on the railroad, we beat last years record grain haul by 22% for first quarter and all other traffic including lumber (mainly new construction) is going gangbusters.

Here at Intel we cant keep up with the demand for our chips. But our stock still can barely get above 20 bucks. They are still talking about cutting more jobs. hmmmmm

I recently read a spot about how the current crop of big corporate CEO's run thier companies on the valul of thier stock instead of the bottom line dollar profit or loss... fullclip

Clinton busted the economy by his policy of strong dollar and overseas corporate tax credits. For those of you from Rio Linda, that means he super-charged consumer spending to improve the economy. At some point, the piper must be paid. It's just in this case, you come down hard after the amphetamines wear off.

My theory on the economy is that (sit down for this one, boys) it [i]cycles[/i].

The irony is which President gets the credit and which one doesn't all depends on the cycle.

Reagan is heralded as a genius and Clinton too for a great economy. Whereas Bush and Carter are vilified.

But when you chart it out you see that the ups and downs of the cycle had more to do with the economic reputation of the Presidents than anything they did.

FC you are correct I worked for one of them PSINET...and it tanked.  The Prez named Schrader went from having 300+ Mil to zero.  I guess he'll have to live on his skim or find a real job.