Bull-Market Cheers for Bush

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
More proof that we are living during very good economic times.
It is a shame that the great state of the economy does not get much news coverage and instead the media seems to focus on the pending collapse of the economy.

I especially love this part since we talk about it so much ?Comparing the first five years of the Bush economic expansion with the first five years of the Papa Bush/Clinton cycle, average hourly earnings are 44 percent higher today in nominal terms and 9 percent higher in inflation-adjusted terms.?
Wow you mean wage growth is BETTER under Bush than it was under Clinton!! Amazing with all the doom and gloom and everyone is working at McDonald?s type comments that we see on this board.
link
On a day when the gross domestic product report came in strong and the Federal Reserve proclaimed a balanced economy marked by healthy growth and contained prices, President George W. Bush became only the second sitting American president to visit the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. As he moved from trading post to trading post, floor brokers and assistants stopped their work and started to cheer.

Huge cheers. Loud applause.

This is the same guy the mainstream media loves to kick around -- the same guy who suffers sinking polls while standing resolute on the subject of Iraqi freedom, and who gets virtually no credit for the Goldilocks economy and unprecedented four-year stock market boom. He's also the same guy who continues to prove he has more character than most anyone serving in public office today.

The last time Bush was in downtown New York was just after Sept. 11, 2001. Back then, everything was devastated, including the NYSE and the U.S. economy. But this week, the president returned to a much different scene. Huge cheers. Loud applause. A stock market that continues to set record highs. An economic recovery that defies media pessimism and doomsday Democratic carping.

Prior to this triumphant return, Bush delivered a major economic speech that touted his plan for a balanced budget at the prevailing low tax rates -- a plan geared to extend the economic boom that began in 2003. He also pushed hard for free trade, a message he echoed in a visit to Caterpillar Inc., in Peoria, Ill. The tractor maker, an American icon, has seen sales and employment boom in recent years. And much like those floor brokers, Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens knew where to aim the praise. Bush, he said, is owed "much credit for the American and global economies enjoying the best three years of growth since World War II."

It's about time more people start giving Bush credit for today's strong economy. That's right -- it's the greatest story never told.

Just look at some of the latest numbers:

Real GDP for the fourth quarter of 2006 came in at 3.5 percent at an annual rate. Price inflation inside the report was very low, around 2 percent, with one major price gauge actually dropping its greatest amount in 52 years. For the whole of 2006, GDP advanced 3.4 percent. This followed increases of 3.2 percent in 2005, 3.4 percent in 2004 and 3.7 percent in 2003.

The latest jobs numbers tell the same story. The most accurate employment gauge, called "adjusted households" (which the Bureau of Labor Statistics created in order to combine the non-farm payroll survey with the civilian-employment household survey), shows nearly 3 million new jobs annually over the past three years -- all since Bush's supply-side tax cuts of 2003.

And the president (or anybody else) shouldn't fret about so-called wage stagnation, or inequality. Hourly earnings for non-supervisory wage earners averaged $16.76 in 2006, a near 20 percent gain from the last business-cycle peak in 2000 and a 64 percent increase from the $10.20 cycle peak in 1990.

Comparing the first five years of the Bush economic expansion with the first five years of the Papa Bush/Clinton cycle, average hourly earnings are 44 percent higher today in nominal terms and 9 percent higher in inflation-adjusted terms. Washington economist Alan Reynolds has written voluminously on the absence of wage inequality since the tax-reform bill of 1986. This is a faux issue.

There are two important economic principles at work here. First, low tax rates on capital investment have fostered a corporate-profits boom that is translating into a jobs and wage boom. Second, significant gains to economic growth -- principally from a pickup in the aggregate supply of investment, production and exports -- are helping keep inflation down.

Both the late Milton Friedman and supply-side guru Arthur Laffer have taught us that inflation occurs when too much money chases too few goods. However, as the Fed has throttled back money-supply growth, the continuing gain from the production of more goods and services has actually reduced inflation. More output chasing slower money growth is a prescription for contained inflation.

It's a classic Reaganesque supply-side formula. Once again, the so-called Phillips-curve tradeoff between unemployment and inflation has been trumped by reality.

The president deserves a better fate for his economic-policy achievements. But Goldilocks is defeating the doomsday forecasts. Just take your cue from Bush's visit to the stock exchange: huge cheers and loud applause.
Anyone who wants to dispute what this article says about our great economic condition please do so with facts and links instead of empty rhetoric.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Talk to us about it when this so called bull (sh8) market earns enough to cover the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives Bush has squanderd in Iraq. You remember... that useless war of lies your bullsh8 chickenhawk Idiot In Chief started and you still support.

Talk to us about it when the residents of New Orleans and other locations wiped out by Katrina see their infrastructure functioning.

Talk to us about it when the Bushwhackos' buddies, Hailliburton, etc. aren't scamming money hand over fist from American tax payers for their no bid contracts in Iraq.

Until those issues and more of their incompetence are resolved, all the empty rhetoric is on you.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
If the economy is doing so great, then why aren't the temporary tax cuts repealed so the deficit can be cut?

And don't even try and bring in the BS claim that your King George has cut the deficit in half. He just asked for an additional $245 billion for the next two fiscal years for his damn little wars. off-budget.

Bush's whitewashed economic report


What contributed to that 3.5% GDP?
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_gdppict_20070131
A large drag on growth in this quarter came again from the weak housing sector, with residential investment falling by over 19% and subtracting 1.2% off total GDP

...

The pronounced weakness in the housing sector was compensated for this quarter by very strong growth in personal consumption expenditures, which rose 4.4% in the quarter and contributed 3.1% to GDP. This strong consumption, however, also translated into a seventh consecutive quarter of negative personal savings (-1%).

National defense expenditures grew 12% and contributed 0.5% to overall growth; state and local government expenditures contributed another 0.4%.

The combination of strong export growth and import declines led to a large contribution to GDP (1.6%) from net exports. This strong growth in net exports contributed to one encouraging sign in this report: the substantial gap between growth in final sales (up 5.8%) and domestic demand (up 2.4%). The gap between the two essentially represents foreign demand for U.S. production, and an ongoing gap between these two is necessary for a benign unwinding of the large U.S. trade deficit (5% of GDP in this report, the lowest quarterly figure since 2003).

So, the "war on terruh" and gov't growth contributed about 30% of that GDP.

Consumer spending added a bit more but, guess what, it was more deficit spending. Americans are mortgaging their futures.

And, how is this GDP growth comparing to previous recoveries? Very poorly
http://www.epi.org/images/gdp20070131figb.gif
Figure B shows that the current recovery essentially mimics the 1990s experience, and both lag the historical average. It should, however, be noted that that productivity growth (GDP per hour worked) was rising at the similar point in the 1990s recovery, while it seems to be decelerating currently. In short, unless there is a turnaround in productivity growth, the current recovery will quickly begin lagging even the 1990s recovery in coming quarters.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: conjur
If the economy is doing so great, then why aren't the temporary tax cuts repealed so the deficit can be cut?

And don't even try and bring in the BS claim that your King George has cut the deficit in half. He just asked for an additional $245 billion for the next two fiscal years for his damn little wars. off-budget.

Bush's whitewashed economic report
The war and all other 'off budget' spending is included in deficit figures, educate yourself on this.

BTW your link is from a labor union run organization. Try using a source with less bias.
At least the GDP and salary growth figures in the story I linked are provable.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: conjur
If the economy is doing so great, then why aren't the temporary tax cuts repealed so the deficit can be cut?

And don't even try and bring in the BS claim that your King George has cut the deficit in half. He just asked for an additional $245 billion for the next two fiscal years for his damn little wars. off-budget.

Bush's whitewashed economic report
The war and all other 'off budget' spending is included in deficit figures, educate yourself on this.
Proof?

Here's what the CBO has projected already
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.pdf


Note that doesn't include Bush's add'l $245 billion
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: conjur
If the economy is doing so great, then why aren't the temporary tax cuts repealed so the deficit can be cut?

And don't even try and bring in the BS claim that your King George has cut the deficit in half. He just asked for an additional $245 billion for the next two fiscal years for his damn little wars. off-budget.

Bush's whitewashed economic report
The war and all other 'off budget' spending is included in deficit figures, educate yourself on this.
Proof?

consult the CBOs year end data.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: conjur
If the economy is doing so great, then why aren't the temporary tax cuts repealed so the deficit can be cut?

And don't even try and bring in the BS claim that your King George has cut the deficit in half. He just asked for an additional $245 billion for the next two fiscal years for his damn little wars. off-budget.

Bush's whitewashed economic report
The war and all other 'off budget' spending is included in deficit figures, educate yourself on this.

BTW your link is from a labor union run organization. Try using a source with less bias.
At least the GDP and salary growth figures in the story I linked are provable.

See my edited post. And, btw, the GDP breakdown done by EPI is based upon numbers provided by the gov't so nice try at shooting the messenger.

But, yeah, go ahead and tout your "news" from Larry Kudlow, writer for the neocon NRO.

And, the wage growth only appears to be stronger in recent months due to the fall of energy prices. If wage growth was so strong, why is the savings rate yet again in the negative and at the lowest level in 75 years?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Here's what the CBO has projected already
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.pdf


Note that doesn't include Bush's add'l $245 billion
For the record the CBO projections are nearly worthless.
"In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus for the ten-year period 2002 through 2011 of $5.6 trillion."
"The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday estimated a U.S. budget deficit of $172 billion in the current fiscal year, down sharply from the $286 billion it forecast last summer, a U.S. official said." A $110 billion swing
From 2005 "The federal budget deficit will shrink this year to $331 billion from the record $412 billion last year, largely because of surging tax payments in a strong economy, the Congressional Budget Office forecast yesterday....The federal budget outlook "has improved noticeably for this year" compared with the CBO's March forecast of a $365 billion deficit," A $35 billion in change 5 months

BTW no one has addressed the following undisputable things from the article.
1. For the whole of 2006, GDP advanced 3.4 percent. This followed increases of 3.2 percent in 2005, 3.4 percent in 2004 and 3.7 percent in 2003. (average growth for the 1990's was 3.1% and that was hailed as the best economy since World War 2, growth under just Clinton was 3.5%)
2. The most accurate employment gauge, called "adjusted households" (which the Bureau of Labor Statistics created in order to combine the non-farm payroll survey with the civilian-employment household survey), shows nearly 3 million new jobs annually over the past three years
3. Hourly earnings for non-supervisory wage earners averaged $16.76 in 2006, a near 20 percent gain from the last business-cycle peak in 2000 and a 64 percent increase from the $10.20 cycle peak in 1990.
4. Comparing the first five years of the Bush economic expansion with the first five years of the Papa Bush/Clinton cycle, average hourly earnings are 44 percent higher today in nominal terms and 9 percent higher in inflation-adjusted terms.

Ignore all his talk about tax cuts and just look at the results I list above, our economy is doing very well. And Bush gets very little credit for it.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
I don't think anyone is really denying that the macro economics of the economy are doing very well. The issue has been, and for quite some time I might add, that when you look at the micro numbers, for most people, the economy is a swift kick in the nuts.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Strk
I don't think anyone is really denying that the macro economics of the economy are doing very well. The issue has been, and for quite some time I might add, that when you look at the micro numbers, for most people, the economy is a swift kick in the nuts.

Actually the polls show that people think the economy is far better for themselves than for others.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: conjur
Here's what the CBO has projected already
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.pdf


Note that doesn't include Bush's add'l $245 billion
For the record the CBO projections are nearly worthless.
:roll: Yeah, the CBO is worthless. You really are a cartoon, aren't you? Appears so:

"In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus for the ten-year period 2002 through 2011 of $5.6 trillion."
That was back when the gov't was producing a fiscal surplus which disappeared with the recession and worsened with the ill-advised Bush tax cuts.

"The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday estimated a U.S. budget deficit of $172 billion in the current fiscal year, down sharply from the $286 billion it forecast last summer, a U.S. official said." A $110 billion swing
You forgot this portion:

The estimates also understate the ongoing cost of the war in Iraq, but provide a basis for majority Democrats on Capitol Hill to work to match Bush's vow to balance the federal budget in five years.

From 2005 "The federal budget deficit will shrink this year to $331 billion from the record $412 billion last year, largely because of surging tax payments in a strong economy, the Congressional Budget Office forecast yesterday....The federal budget outlook "has improved noticeably for this year" compared with the CBO's March forecast of a $365 billion deficit," A $35 billion in change 5 months
You fail to mention this from just a few years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/08deficit.html
Tax revenues, by contrast, have plunged as a share of the total economy. Total tax revenues amounted to 16.3 percent of the total economy in 2004, the smallest share at any time in the last 40 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Not much else to do but go up from there, eh?

BTW no one has addressed the following undisputable things from the article.
1. For the whole of 2006, GDP advanced 3.4 percent. This followed increases of 3.2 percent in 2005, 3.4 percent in 2004 and 3.7 percent in 2003. (average growth for the 1990's was 3.1% and that was hailed as the best economy since World War 2, growth under just Clinton was 3.5%)
GDP growth average 3.7% under Clinton, just 2.6% under Bush:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

2. The most accurate employment gauge, called "adjusted households" (which the Bureau of Labor Statistics created in order to combine the non-farm payroll survey with the civilian-employment household survey), shows nearly 3 million new jobs annually over the past three years
Uh, 3 million new jobs per year for each of the last 3 years? I'd like to see your proof for that one.

If you want to see what the recently "found" 1 million jobs does to the over all recovery, look at this:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/10/perspective_on.html


3. Hourly earnings for non-supervisory wage earners averaged $16.76 in 2006, a near 20 percent gain from the last business-cycle peak in 2000 and a 64 percent increase from the $10.20 cycle peak in 1990.
4. Comparing the first five years of the Bush economic expansion with the first five years of the Papa Bush/Clinton cycle, average hourly earnings are 44 percent higher today in nominal terms and 9 percent higher in inflation-adjusted terms.
Seems great on paper but the truth is that for over a year, the savings rate has been negative and it is now at 75-year lows!

Ignore all his talk about tax cuts and just look at the results I list above, our economy is doing very well. And Bush gets very little credit for it.
I love it that when the economy is supposedly going great, you all fall over yourselves trying to assign credit to the President but find every excuse in the book to distance him from blame during a downturn. Hypocrites.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Strk
I don't think anyone is really denying that the macro economics of the economy are doing very well. The issue has been, and for quite some time I might add, that when you look at the micro numbers, for most people, the economy is a swift kick in the nuts.
Exactly.

Take the defense industry and the federal gov't out of the equation and you'll see quite recessionary numbers. No wonder this admin loves war.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,640
2,034
126
Why are you tools so against tax cuts? Maybe you should be promoting cuts in spending instead of raising taxes. I'm sick of you socialists thinking that you can do more good with my money than I can. If you are so worried about the tax cuts and the deficit, why don't you send some of your own money in to the government instead of trying to take mine.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Why are you tools so against tax cuts? Maybe you should be promoting cuts in spending instead of raising taxes. I'm sick of you socialists thinking that you can do more good with my money than I can. If you are so worried about the tax cuts and the deficit, why don't you send some of your own money in to the government instead of trying to take mine.

lol well, I am for cutting spending AND taxes. You're a tool if you think that cutting taxes while wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a BS war is a good idea. Cutting taxes while raising spending is just ridiculous.

As far as being fiscally responsible, we should keep taxes static for a period, while dwindling spending drastically (pull our troops out of all corners of the globe, shitcan the Iraq fuckup, and dock half the navy), slash social programs, cancel corporate welfare, and after our national debt is taken care of, THEN we can worry about cutting taxes and perhaps some needed programs.

Socialist : Raise taxes, spend on big social programs, debt stagnant
Neocon (who seem to have all the 'conservatives' licking their balls) : Cut taxes, spend huge on all kinds of asinine bullshit while using hundreds of billions of tax dollars as toilet paper in Iraq/etc to pork up those contractors they slut around with)

JD50, do you honestly think it's a good idea to engage in crap like the Iraq debacle while we are so deep in debt? Do you honestly think it's wise to CUT taxes while RAISING spending?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Why are you tools so against tax cuts? Maybe you should be promoting cuts in spending instead of raising taxes. I'm sick of you socialists thinking that you can do more good with my money than I can. If you are so worried about the tax cuts and the deficit, why don't you send some of your own money in to the government instead of trying to take mine.
Ah, the ol' fallback talking point, send in my own money to pay down the debt. :cookie:

As for the tax cuts, I think O'Neill and Greenspan said it best:
p. 162: May 22 [2001]... Greenspan arrived at the Treasury for breakfast with O'Neill. Their secret trigger pact had come up one vote short.... "We did what we could on conditionality," O'Neill said with momentary resignation.... "The first big battle is over, really. I think we fought well, we made our points vigorously." Greenspan said that wasn't enough. "Without the triggers, that tax cut is irreponsible fiscal policy," he said in his deepest funereal tone. "Eventually, I think that will be the consensus view."
*Ron Suskind (2003), The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (New York: Simon and Schuster: 0743255453).
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More proof that we are living during very good economic times.

It is a shame that the great state of the economy does not get much news coverage and instead the media seems to focus on the pending collapse of the economy.

I especially love this part since we talk about it so much ?Comparing the first five years of the Bush economic expansion with the first five years of the Papa Bush/Clinton cycle, average hourly earnings are 44 percent higher today in nominal terms and 9 percent higher in inflation-adjusted terms.?

Wow you mean wage growth is BETTER under Bush than it was under Clinton!! Amazing with all the doom and gloom and everyone is working at McDonald?s type comments that we see on this board.

Anyone who wants to dispute what this article says about our great economic condition please do so with facts and links instead of empty rhetoric.

Simply look at how the world see the U.S.

Here is Saudi Arabia for example:

2-4-2007 Americans? savings rate drops to Depression era-low

WASHINGTON - Americans spent more than they earned last year as the economy steamed ahead, pushing the personal savings rate to negative 1.0 percent, the deepest hole since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Over the past seven decades, the personal savings rate -- the difference between post-tax, or disposable, income and spending -- has been in negative territory only four times: 1932, 1933, 2005 and 2006.

In the 1930s, the Great Depression explains why Americans had to dip into their savings at a time when a fourth of the workforce was out of a job.

But in 2006 and in 2005, when the personal savings rate slipped to negative 0.4 percent, the economic situation was far different, which bothers economists.


?It?s surprising, especially in a period with the economy growing so strongly,? said Martha Starr, an economics professor specialized in savings and consumption issues at American University in Washington.
==========================================
First of all to the OP. The wage part is an out right lie. Wages are in fact higher for the rich but for the average American sheeple wages have dropped and dropped like a rock.

It's simple really, the majority of Economists and people like the OP of this thread are blind supporters of a house of mirrors.

The numbers have been faked for a long time. They were fudged a bit by the Clinton Administration but the Bush Administration has made them 110% fraudalent.

It's all coming back to bite every American in the ass except the rich of course that set it all in motion.

This depression will make the 1930's look like a camp out.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW your link is from a labor union run organization. Try using a source with less bias.

Are you serious? Lets look at a quote from the author of the link in the OP

This is the same guy the mainstream media loves to kick around -- the same guy who suffers sinking polls while standing resolute on the subject of Iraqi freedom, and who gets virtually no credit for the Goldilocks economy and unprecedented four-year stock market boom. He's also the same guy who continues to prove he has more character than most anyone serving in public office today.

And you tell others to use a less biased sources?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW your link is from a labor union run organization. Try using a source with less bias.

Are you serious? Lets look at a quote from the author of the link in the OP

This is the same guy the mainstream media loves to kick around -- the same guy who suffers sinking polls while standing resolute on the subject of Iraqi freedom, and who gets virtually no credit for the Goldilocks economy and unprecedented four-year stock market boom. He's also the same guy who continues to prove he has more character than most anyone serving in public office today.

And you tell others to use a less biased sources?

He is as disengenouis as anyone I have ever seen on here.

It's vile, disgusting and in my opinion outright traitorish to the U.S.

One can only hope he is not actually an American at all and posting from another Country.

IMO
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
I don't think anyone is really denying that the macro economics of the economy are doing very well. The issue has been, and for quite some time I might add, that when you look at the micro numbers, for most people, the economy is a swift kick in the nuts.

Actually the polls show that people think the economy is far better for themselves than for others.

Link?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW your link is from a labor union run organization. Try using a source with less bias.
Are you serious? Lets look at a quote from the author of the link in the OP
This is the same guy the mainstream media loves to kick around -- the same guy who suffers sinking polls while standing resolute on the subject of Iraqi freedom, and who gets virtually no credit for the Goldilocks economy and unprecedented four-year stock market boom. He's also the same guy who continues to prove he has more character than most anyone serving in public office today.
And you tell others to use a less biased sources?
For what it is worth, which is virtually nothing with this crowd, Bush does have more character than most politicians.
Just look at the manner in which nearly every Democrat running for President acts when it comes to Iraq. They were all for it four years ago when the majority of Americans supported it. But now that is has grown unpopular they are tripping over themselves to prove how anti-war they are. And as Hillary is now proving, it is no longer enough to say that you are unhappy with how the war is being waged, a very valid complaint, but now you must make statements about how you would have never led the country to war yourself. It does not take character to stand up in front of a crowd of anti-war people and say ?I would have never started this war if I was President? however it does take character to tell them that you in fact did support the war, but like her husband she lacks that trait.

Whether you disagree with Bush or not you should at least understand that it take a lot more character to continuously back an unpopular decision than it does to change your standing based on every whim of the American people.
Contrast Bush?s leadership to that of Clinton. Clinton had no moral character at all, his string of affairs proved that beyond any reasonable doubt. And when it came to leadership Clinton was like a weather vane turning in which ever way the wind (public) turned.
Dick Morris, who worked for Clinton at the time and was instrumental at getting him reelected, mentions the way Clinton ruled by polling many times. They took polls on seemingly every major decision. They came up with phrases and ran them by focus groups. About the only tough moral decision (character) Clinton took during his 8 years was in not resigning after the Monica affair broke.
Look at the list of attributes that are general considered part of moral character and see how many of them Clinton actually possessed and then look at the same list and Bush and see how many he has.
Moral character or character is an evaluation of a person's moral and mental qualities. Such an evaluation is subjective ? one person may evaluate someone's character on the basis of their virtue, another may consider their fortitude, courage, loyalty, honesty, or piety.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
One of the few things I like about Bush & Co, good performance for my stock portfolio under this administration. :thumbsup: