or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This Economy sure sucks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This Economy sure sucks! - Page 4  

post #121 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You'd have less spendable income. I'm not twisting your statements at all. If you have to allocate more of your income to make any head way on your debt it's the same thing as not having as much income. Trust me some project or something somewhere will suffer.

This deficit is so huge even if there was a situation where a deficit could be a good thing that's not applicable here.

It also affects trade with other countries and you can't tell me that doesn't affect the economy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now we have a tremedous deficit and running with little expansion.




Are you really saying you are ok with leaving this bill to our kids?

Oh my God. You're just ridiculous.

1. I am not talking about spendable income. I am talking about income, period. My credit card debt does not affect my income level. Of course it affects my disposable income. No shit.

2. I used this analogy to differentiate between fiscal policy and the overall state of the economy. If you want to debate fiscal policy, then we can do that.

3. The relationship of deficits to the health of "the economy" is unclear at best. If you have data to refute this, then please post it.

4. No, Mr. Strawman, I do not "want to pass the bill to my kids". I agree that deficits are undesirable. I agree we are spending to much money. I also agree that Republicans have allowed this to happen. I disagree that the recent deficits have harmed the economy...at least in the short term.

5. The current deficit is not the largest we have run as a percentage of GDP.

6. We have a solid expansion happening, no matter what rhetorical bullshit you post to the contrary.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #122 of 215
It's pretty well accepted that deficits keep interest rates high: Gov't competes with the private sector to borrow money, which increases demand for money, and therefore keeps interest rates high. High interest rates makes it harder for people and businesses to borrow money to invest, which is bad for the economy.

For example:
Quote:
Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan took issue with the White House view that rising budget deficits pose little near-term threat to the climate of low interest rates that the US economy enjoys.

Rising red ink, he said, could potentially push up long-term interest rates in the near term, potentially slowing an economy now struggling to create jobs.
post #123 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh my God. You're just ridiculous.

1. I am not talking about spendable income. I am talking about income, period. My credit card debt does not affect my income level. Of course it affects my disposable income. No shit.

Yep. No shit is right.

Having more debt increases debt service payments (AKA "interest") and therefore reduces spendable income. So when we have a higher deficit, we have higher debt service, less of our tax income is available to spend, and the deficit balloons ever higher. Which is the point you've been arguing against.

And speaking of no shit, you just said you were talking about something different (income level vs. money available to spend, AKA "gross" vs. "net") than the statement you originally disagreed with:
Quote:
Just as with your credit debt there is less money to go around when you have a large debt so please don't don't tell me it doesn't effect how much money from your income you have to spend.

Of course, you will stay true to form and ignore this post, and not mention your point 1 above ever again, right?
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #124 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I think he's starting to get it!

I seriously doubt it. He's totally blinded by leader-love.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #125 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's pretty well accepted that deficits keep interest rates high: Gov't competes with the private sector to borrow money, which increases demand for money, and therefore keeps interest rates high. High interest rates makes it harder for people and businesses to borrow money to invest, which is bad for the economy.

For example:

Gov't always wins. They get the money they want.

We should look-up "loanable funds market" and "crowding out"

And some one in the past had poo-pood the idea of crowding out, I would like to hear that again while I have some time on my hands.
post #126 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's pretty well accepted that deficits keep interest rates high: Gov't competes with the private sector to borrow money, which increases demand for money, and therefore keeps interest rates high. High interest rates makes it harder for people and businesses to borrow money to invest, which is bad for the economy.

For example:

Well, keep in mind these are predictions. Certainly, the source is well-qualified. The again, it seems Greenspan bungled rates att he end of the last expansion, so who knows.

The question is: Do we see high interest rates? No. If anything, rates are far too low. Further, it depends on what you mean by "high". If the average mortage rate (just for example) is 7.5% in good economic times, then there is little reason for concern. There just isn't evidence to suggest that deficits truly harm the economy, at least in the short term. They most certainly affect fiscal policy...I agree completely with that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #127 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Yep. No shit is right.

Having more debt increases debt service payments (AKA "interest") and therefore reduces spendable income. So when we have a higher deficit, we have higher debt service, less of our tax income is available to spend, and the deficit balloons ever higher. Which is the point you've been arguing against.

And speaking of no shit, you just said you were talking about something different (income level vs. money available to spend, AKA "gross" vs. "net") than the statement you originally disagreed with:


Of course, you will stay true to form and ignore this post, and not mention your point 1 above ever again, right?

No, No NO! I am not attempting to flame you here, but PLEASE READ what I'm posting.

I fully and completely understand that incuring higher debt loads will affect the amount of money the government can spend on its programs. The debt/deficits are not without consequence. I am not arguing that point in any way.

I am simply saying this: The fiscal health of the government as it pertains to debt load does not necessarily correlate to the overall health of the economy (i.e GDP, manufacturing, employment, personal income, consumer confidance, retail sales, etc).

The only argument that could be made would be that as a result of the higher debt load, we'd have to raise taxes to keep up, which would in turn hurt the economy. That argument would be worth having...though its purely hypothetical.

As an aside, it should be pointed out that while the term $7.5 Trillion sounds sickening to all of us, our national debt is actually quite manageable from a "percentage of GDP" and debt service perspective. I'm just saying..the sky is not exactly falling. The United States economy is growing a three to four times the rate (and perhaps more) of other industrialized nations. Yet, we have Mr. Chirac (for example) running around screaming about the US deficit...all while his economy grows by 1.2% (2002 estimate).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #128 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, No NO! I am not attempting to flame you here, but PLEASE READ what I'm posting.

I fully and completely understand that incuring higher debt loads will affect the amount of money the government can spend on its programs. The debt/deficits are not without consequence. I am not arguing that point in any way.

I am simply saying this: The fiscal health of the government as it pertains to debt load does not necessarily correlate to the overall health of the economy (i.e GDP, manufacturing, employment, personal income, consumer confidance, retail sales, etc).

The only argument that could be made would be that as a result of the higher debt load, we'd have to raise taxes to keep up, which would in turn hurt the economy. That argument would be worth having...though its purely hypothetical.

As an aside, it should be pointed out that while the term $7.5 Trillion sounds sickening to all of us, our national debt is actually quite manageable from a "percentage of GDP" and debt service perspective. I'm just saying..the sky is not exactly falling. The United States economy is growing a three to four times the rate (and perhaps more) of other industrialized nations. Yet, we have Mr. Chirac (for example) running around screaming about the US deficit...all while his economy grows by 1.2% (2002 estimate).

So you're saying you won't have to deal with it? It'll be someone in the future right?


Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #129 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
So you're saying you won't have to deal with it? It'll be someone in the future right?



Excuse me, but I'd like you to stop the rather slimey tactic of "putting words in my mouth".

What do you mean "deal with it"? You mean pay it off? Or, do you mean "service it"?

I was simply making a secondary point for the purpose of perspective. I was not attempting to make any other incinuations about the national debt. I was imply saying that the current load is quite serviceable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #130 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Excuse me, but I'd like you to stop the rather slimey tactic of "putting words in my mouth".

What do you mean "deal with it"? You mean pay it off? Or, do you mean "service it"?

I was simply making a secondary point for the purpose of perspective. I was not attempting to make any other incinuations about the national debt. I was imply saying that the current load is quite serviceable.


Don't get hot under the collar! I was just asking a question. Deal with it means attempt to pay it off. Even your beloved Reagan campaigned on balancing the budget and getting rid of the deficit so he must have seen it's importance. As a matter of fact he campaigned on it more than once.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #131 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Don't get hot under the collar! I was just asking a question. Deal with it means attempt to pay it off. Even your beloved Reagan campained on balancing the budget and getting rid of the deficit so he must have seen it's importance. As a matter of fact he campained on it more than once.

I see. Thank you for clarifying. The debt is an important problem, as is the deficit. I'd like to see both of them solved. To do that, I think we need cuts and changes in the federal budget that can only be considered "catostrophic" and "revolutionary". We should eliminate entire agencies, drastically change the federal tax codes, etc. Not only do I think that this would help get spending under control, I think it would actually cause and improvement in some of the areas that government is no longer present in. Speaking of Reagan, "Government is not the solution to all problems, government IS the problem". That's where I stand.

I consider Bush's great fault to be his propensity to spend. I do not support the medicare bill, nor do I support things like faith-baed charities (for financial reasons only). Domestic non-defense spending has also increased two quickly, though I do support the vast increases in education spending we've seen. This being said, I still support the President from an economic standpoint. His tax cuts have had positive effects for both my family and our economy in general. Now it's time to control spending.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #132 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's pretty well accepted that deficits keep interest rates high: Gov't competes with the private sector to borrow money, which increases demand for money, and therefore keeps interest rates high. High interest rates makes it harder for people and businesses to borrow money to invest, which is bad for the economy.

For example:

BRussell

Let me say that long term I do believe what you are saying is true. However let me also say that we haven't witnessed any crowding out yet. I will say that theoretically it is true though.

However I also have to point out that theoretically we thought that 5% was full employment. Under Clinton we allowed ourselves to go below that without addressing it. It ended up doing us no harm. There were concerns that it would shoot interest rates through the roof but instead they only went up modestly.

So theoretical is nice, but the reality is who knows. But again, theoretically it is correct and I believe that as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #133 of 215
Thread Starter 
post #134 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
This suggests that we didn't know the recession was over until Dec. 22nd, 1992 - after the election. Not that I'd put it past Clinton to lie or anything, but I don't think that is one of them...

We DID know enough to know that the economy wasn't anything like the Great Depression. It wasn't even anything like the recession of 1981-82. Besides, Bush tried to tell people that the economy was in recovery. He was accused of being "out of touch" for saying this.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
post #135 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
We DID know enough to know that the economy wasn't anything like the Great Depression. It wasn't even anything like the recession of 1981-82. Besides, Bush tried to tell people that the economy was in recovery. He was accused of being "out of touch" for saying this.


No as a matter of fact this recession wasn't like any other. It went on abnormaly long and unemployement is still in recovery. The problem with Bush was he was saying it was in recovery a long time before it really was. I guess if you keep saying something eventually it'll be true.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #136 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No as a matter of fact this recession wasn't like any other. It went on abnormaly long and unemployement is still in recovery. The problem with Bush was he was saying it was in recovery a long time before it really was. I guess if you keep saying something eventually it'll be true.

First of all, I wasn't talking about this recession I was talking about the recession of 1990-91. Secondly, this recession was also relatively mild. What was the peak unemployment rate? Did it even break 7%? Thirdly, unemployment was still in recovery long after the recession of 1990-91 ended. That's one of the reasons the Democrats lost the House in 1994. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
post #137 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
First of all, I wasn't talking about this recession I was talking about the recession of 1990-91. Secondly, this recession was also relatively mild. What was the peak unemployment rate? Did it even break 7%? Thirdly, unemployment was still in recovery long after the recession of 1990-91 ended. That's one of the reasons the Democrats lost the House in 1994. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator.


Mild yet it was long and had the worst unemployment since WWII. Unemployment has always lagged but not like this. This is not speculation on my part. Economists have said this.


Here's a sample from the past incase you've forgotten.

http://money.cnn.com/best/magazine_a...03/01/FOR.html
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #138 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Mild yet it was long and had the worst unemployment since WWII. Unemployment has always lagged but not like this. This is not speculation on my part. Economists have said this.

Here's a sample from the past incase you've forgotten.

http://money.cnn.com/best/magazine_a...03/01/FOR.html

Your link contradicts your argument:
Quote:
RECESSIONS

Duration in months
Current 10
Post WWII average 11

Decline in industrial production
[Current] -4.4%
[Post WWII average] -8.1%

All it says about unemployment is that it didn't go much above 6%. Unemployment during the 1980-81 recession was much, much worse.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
post #139 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Your link contradicts your argument:All it says about unemployment is that it didn't go much above 6%. Unemployment during the 1980-81 recession was much, much worse.

Except that you have to consider the date of the artcle. That was from Jan. 2003. The problems with the economy went well beyond that.

And lets print everything......

RECESSIONS

Duration in months
Current 10
Post WWII average 11

Decline in industrial production
[Current] -4.4%
[Post WWII average] -8.1%

BEAR MARKETS

Duration in months
[Current] 33
[Post WWII average] 16

Decline in Dow
[Current] -38%
[Post WWII average] -31%

Sources: InvesTech Research, Federal Reserve, National Bureau of
Economic Research.

And of course this was the tone of the article.

From the title :

" THIS BEAR MARKET IS MUCH WORSE THAN THE ECONOMY WARRANTS, AND INVESTORS FACE A PUZZLING AND CHAOTIC OUTLOOK HERE'S HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL. "

Also :

" THIS BEAR MARKET HAS BEEN WORSE THAN THE RECESSION

The key question for this market cycle is why the downturn in
stock prices has been so much more severe than the downturn in
the economy. The recession, which began in March 2001, was over
before year-end, making it one month shorter than the average
since World War II. The decline in manufacturing during those
months was only 4.4% vs. a historical average of 8.1%. This
relatively mild slump nonetheless triggered a bear market that
was far worse than usual. From its peak in early 2000, the Dow
dropped as much as 38% (compared with a 31% historical average).
Worst of all, this bear market has dragged on for almost three
years. "
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #140 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Except that you have to consider the date of the artcle...

Yep. By the time of that article the unemployment situation was starting to flatten.
Quote:
... That was from Jan. 2003. The problems with the economy went well beyond that.

And lets print everything......

BEAR MARKETS

Duration in months
[Current] 33
[Post WWII average] 16

Decline in Dow
[Current] -38%
[Post WWII average] -31%

Sources: InvesTech Research, Federal Reserve, National Bureau of
Economic Research.

And of course this was the tone of the article.

From the title :

" THIS BEAR MARKET IS MUCH WORSE THAN THE ECONOMY WARRANTS, AND INVESTORS FACE A PUZZLING AND CHAOTIC OUTLOOK HERE'S HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL. "

Also :

" THIS BEAR MARKET HAS BEEN WORSE THAN THE RECESSION..."

The bear market was over by January of 2003 too. My 401K had a very nice run up last year.
Quote:
"... This relatively mild slump nonetheless triggered a bear market that was far worse than usual. From its peak in early 2000, the Dow dropped as much as 38% (compared with a 31% historical average). Worst of all, this bear market has dragged on for almost three years. "

And who was president in early 2000? Hello? The downturn in the economy was predicted by a downturn in the equities markets that began at least 6 months before Bush was even elected! With this massive loss in paper wealth (we're talking about trillions of dollars in paper wealth here) it's a wonder the recession wasn't deeper than it was. By the way, the bear market came first. The recession didn't trigger it. GDP was still positive but trending downward in 2000.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
post #141 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Yep. By the time of that article the unemployment situation was starting to flatten. The bear market was over by January of 2003 too. My 401K had a very nice run up last year. And who was president in early 2000? Hello? The downturn in the economy was predicted by a downturn in the equities markets that began at least 6 months before Bush was even elected! With this massive loss in paper wealth (we're talking about trillions of dollars in paper wealth here) it's a wonder the recession wasn't deeper than it was. By the way, the bear market came first. The recession didn't trigger it. GDP was still positive but trending downward in 2000.

It's not about who was in office when it started it's about the guy who handled it during. The economy is cyclic and we were over due for a downturn.

Here's another little thing from the past for you to chew on......

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/02/news/economy/jobs/


From that article......

------------------------------------------------------------
" Longest stretch of pain since WWII
Friday's report means the year-to-year net change in private payrolls has been negative for 22 straight months, extending the longest stretch of labor-market pain since 1944-46. Private, non-farm payrolls are now 2.6 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when a recession began.

Payrolls in goods-producing industries fell 73,000 in April, led by a 95,000 jobs cut from the manufacturing sector.

Service-producing payrolls grew by 25,000, led by a 32,000-job surge in government hiring. Retailers cut 10,000 jobs. Other service industries, such as tourism, data processing and personnel supply, added 21,000 jobs.

Average hourly wages rose 0.1 percent to $15.11 an hour from $15.09 in March. In a weak labor market, wage growth is a critical support to consumer spending, which makes up more than two-thirds of the nation's economy.

Along with the drop in the overall average work week, manufacturing hours fell 0.3 hour to 40.5, and overtime fell 0.1 hour to 3.9 hours.

The average length of unemployment rose to 19.6 weeks, the highest since January 1984. "

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm very happy your 401K did well. However I doubt the people out there struggling for work would see it in the same light.

My home state of Oregon exceeded 7% for a long while. It wasn't the only state like that.

I felt lucky to have the same job I've had for 16 years.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #142 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
It's not about who was in office when it started it's about the guy who handled it during...

And on that score Bush does very well. His tax cuts couldn't have been better timed if he'd had a crystal ball. They were almost perfectly counter-cyclical.
Quote:
Here's another little thing from the past for you to chew on......

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/02/news/economy/jobs/

From that article......

------------------------------------------------------------
" Longest stretch of pain since WWII..."

Nonsense.

In July of 1958 (the 1957-58 recession which ended in April 1958 ) unemployment peaked at 7.5 percent.

In May of 1961 (the 1960-61 recession that ended in February 1961) the rate peaked at 7.1 percent.

In May of 1975 (the 1973-75 recession which ended in March 1975) the rate peaked at 9.0 percent.

In December of 1982 (the 1981-82 recession which ended in November 1982) unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent.

In June of 1992 (the 1990-91 recession that ended in March 1991) the rate peaked at 7.8 percent.

Unemployment for this most recent recession (which ended in November 2001) peaked in June 2003 at 6.3 percent. MOST of the post WWII recessions had MUCH higher peak jobless rates.
Quote:
I'm very happy your 401K did well. However I doubt the people out there struggling for work would see it in the same light...

You were the one who kept harping about the bear market. Fact is, the bear market was over by January of 2003.
Quote:
My home state of Oregon exceeded 7% for a long while. It wasn't the only state like that.

And the recession of 1990-91 lasted a lot longer than that in Connecticut. It was painful to go through that extended downturn but sometimes states just have to do that. Sometimes there just aren't any shortcuts out of the downturn.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
post #143 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
And on that score Bush does very well. His tax cuts couldn't have been better timed if he'd had a crystal ball. They were almost perfectly counter-cyclical.Nonsense.

In July of 1958 (the 1957-58 recession which ended in April 1958 ) unemployment peaked at 7.5 percent.

In May of 1961 (the 1960-61 recession that ended in February 1961) the rate peaked at 7.1 percent.

In May of 1975 (the 1973-75 recession which ended in March 1975) the rate peaked at 9.0 percent.

In December of 1982 (the 1981-82 recession which ended in November 1982) unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent.

In June of 1992 (the 1990-91 recession that ended in March 1991) the rate peaked at 7.8 percent.

Unemployment for this most recent recession (which ended in November 2001) peaked in June 2003 at 6.3 percent. MOST of the post WWII recessions had MUCH higher peak jobless rates. You were the one who kept harping about the bear market. Fact is, the bear market was over by January of 2003. And the recession of 1990-91 lasted a lot longer than that in Connecticut. It was painful to go through that extended downturn but sometimes states just have to do that. Sometimes there just aren't any shortcuts out of the downturn.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" You were the one who kept harping about the bear market. Fact is, the bear market was over by January of 2003. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Funny but the guy in the first article and the many people looking for work would disagree with you. And who am I going to believe you or some guy on CNN?

That's what I've been trying to get through to you. This recession didn't follow the norm. Allow me to quote again from the first article from Jan. of 03' :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" The key question for this market cycle is why the downturn in
stock prices has been so much more severe than the downturn in
the economy. The recession, which began in March 2001, was over
before year-end, making it one month shorter than the average
since World War II. The decline in manufacturing during those
months was only 4.4% vs. a historical average of 8.1%. This
relatively mild slump nonetheless triggered a bear market that
was far worse than usual. From its peak in early 2000, the Dow
dropped as much as 38% (compared with a 31% historical average).
Worst of all, this bear market has dragged on for almost three
years. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

The second article was from May of 03' and things still weren't doing well.


Oregon just recently went below 7% and it's not the only state like that. Albeit it was the worst for a long time.

I also happen to think Mr. Bush's actions ( or lack thereof ) didn't help things at all. We recovered because it was normal to do so in the cycle.

God! Two heads and you still can't figure that out!

Unemployment state by state
See where your state ranks.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Payrolls grew another 248,000 jobs in May, and March and April figures were revised higher, marking the strongest stretch of job growth in four years, a government report showed. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent as job seekers flooded the work force.

Things look better now but currently.....

The state figures below are for April and were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on May 21. Numbers for May are due June 18.

State Unemployment Rate
North Dakota 2.7%
South Dakota 2.8%
Virginia 3.4%
Wyoming 3.4%
Nebraska 3.5%
Hawaii 3.6%
Vermont 3.6%
Delaware 3.8%
Georgia 3.8%
Iowa 3.9%
New Hampshire 3.9%
Maryland 4.0%
Minnesota 4.1%
Maine 4.3%
Nevada 4.3%
Idaho 4.4%
Connecticut 4.5%
Utah 4.5%
Florida 4.6%
Kansas 4.6%
Montana 4.6%
Wisconsin 4.6%
Missouri 4.7%
Oklahoma 4.7%
Massachusetts 4.8%
Indiana 4.9%
Tennessee 4.9%
Mississippi 5.0%
Colorado 5.1%
West Virginia 5.2%
Kentucky 5.3%
New Jersey 5.3%
North Carolina 5.3%
Pennsylvania 5.3%
Arizona 5.4%
Arkansas 5.6%
New Mexico 5.6%
U.S. Average (as of May) 5.6%
Rhode Island 5.7%
Alabama 5.8%
Ohio 5.8%
Louisiana 5.9%
Texas 6.0%
Illinois 6.1%
Michigan 6.1%
California 6.2%
New York 6.2%
Washington 6.3%
Oregon 6.7%
South Carolina 6.8%
Alaska 7.1%
District of Columbia 7.3%

That's 10 states 6% and above.

I couldn't find the report from yesterday but I would assume it shows improvement.

I would presume that the Armpit Of Orion resides in one of those states that is now doing really well.....


So in essence things are doing better now so let's just forget the weird economic times we've just been through. Yup! Sweep it under the rug so Dubbya can get reelected.

Ps. Maybe they'll forget that useless war and the billions spent ( and counting ). Or maybe the lack of a reason for it ( No WOMD ).



Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #144 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
And on that score Bush does very well. His tax cuts couldn't have been better timed if he'd had a crystal ball. They were almost perfectly counter-cyclical.

Maybe they were initiated at the right time (and let's set aside his actual rationale for them at the time). The problem is that they continue to phase in for many years, and in fact they're pretty heavily loaded in the later years. Now that the economy is doing so great, we should go back to the status quo on taxes, so that we don't suffer long-term consequences.
post #145 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Funny but the guy in the first article and the many people looking for work would disagree with you. And who am I going to believe you or some guy on CNN?

Again, the CNN article didn't talk about unemployment. And in January of 2003 the equities markets WERE still down but by then about 90% of the bloodletting was over. 2003 was a very good year to be in stocks.
Quote:
That's what I've been trying to get through to you. This recession didn't follow the norm.

Right. It was much milder than most. It was NOTHING like the Great Depression. Remember, that's where I began this discussion.
Quote:
Allow me to quote again from the first article from Jan. of 03' :

" The key question for this market cycle is why the downturn in
stock prices has been so much more severe than the downturn in
the economy. The recession, which began in March 2001, was over
before year-end, making it one month shorter than the average
since World War II. The decline in manufacturing during those
months was only 4.4% vs. a historical average of 8.1%...
"

Now notice carefully what he says next. He already wrote that the recession began in March of 2001 but now he tries to argue that this mild slump triggered a bear market that began early in 2000.
Quote:
"... This relatively mild slump nonetheless triggered a bear market
that was far worse than usual. From its peak in early 2000, the Dow
dropped as much as 38% (compared with a 31% historical average).
Worst of all, this bear market has dragged on for almost three
years."

That simply doesn't make any sense. You need another argument.
Quote:
... The second article was from May of 03' and things still weren't doing well.

Oregon just recently went below 7% and it's not the only state like that. Albeit it was the worst for a long time...

<snip>

That's 10 states 6% and above.

And 40 states below 6%. It's hardly news that recessions impact the country unevenly.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
post #146 of 215
Bush colored glasses.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #147 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Hum... just because we don't like Bush doesn't mean we don't like jobs. I'm sure Bush will take ALL the credit, and I'm sure my fellow liberals will be all to happy to give him NO credit when in truth I think the credit is somewhere in between.

Umm what's this WE crap? From where I sit GWB will get credit from the libs for getting the US economy back on to the right track just about the same time that libs give WJC or as I like to say BJ-C credit for the real reason he did so well (or at least looked that way) when it came to the economy during his stint as president (and also the reason it went into the toilet) - the dot-com-boom/bust.

.com boom was a HUGE factor that caused just about everything else in the market to over inflate (hey it LOOKS like we're all doing GREAT! whaaa-hoo!!!! And in turn it caused many/most other stocks to rise simply due to the wake that the .com left behind. That little paradise party lasted for what? Six or so years?? Then everyone grew up and realized that .com wasn't the be all end all and the bust hit, taking EVERYTHING back down and down HARD... Finally everyone started to realize that 'hey not ALL stocks/companies are crap after all' and things are once again getting back to normal.

Fact is - Clinton had NOTHING to do with the boom (or the bust). He was just the sitting president at the time... As for GW - even as a 'small c' conservative - I still think he had little to do with the recovery (again just happened to be the sitting president at the time).

Most of the time people think the president has WAY more power then he really does. Much of the successes and failures attributed to a president (any president) is nothing more than bad or good timing.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
post #148 of 215
Yeah and I suppose the money Bush spent on useless enterprises had nothing to with it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #149 of 215
jimmac,

Once again you're either misinformed or intellectually dishonest. You've said constantly that the most recent recession was unusually long and deep. You've said that unemployment has been the worst since WWII.

Both of these statements are utterly false. No amount of semantics, interpretation or nit picking the stats will make them true. You will certainly find areas of the most recent recession that were bad, and perhaps "the worst since WWII". But, that doesn't make your statements true.

The fact is that most economists will tell you this recession was historically mild. It did not even approach the 1990-1991 recession is terms of unemployment. It certainly did not approach the near depression of 1980-1982 or even the economic duldrums of the mid 1970's.

You've said that you don't blame the recession on Bush. However, you've blamed his response. I'll again ask you: What has Bush done to harm the economy? What would you have done to help it? Bush cut taxes twice. The economy has unquestionably responded. If you want to attack Bush, go after him on real issues, like spending. Go after him on not putting the military on the borders to combat illegal immigration and drugs. Go after him on creating another bloated federal entitlement known as the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #150 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What has Bush done to harm the economy? What would you have done to help it? Bush cut taxes twice. The economy has unquestionably responded.

You're ignoring the fact that the economy hasn't finished its 'response' to Bush's tax cut. You have to ignore the whole response because if you don't, it will destroy your argument.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #151 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac,

Once again you're either misinformed or intellectually dishonest. You've said constantly that the most recent recession was unusually long and deep. You've said that unemployment has been the worst since WWII.

Both of these statements are utterly false. No amount of semantics, interpretation or nit picking the stats will make them true. You will certainly find areas of the most recent recession that were bad, and perhaps "the worst since WWII". But, that doesn't make your statements true.

The fact is that most economists will tell you this recession was historically mild. It did not even approach the 1990-1991 recession is terms of unemployment. It certainly did not approach the near depression of 1980-1982 or even the economic duldrums of the mid 1970's.

You've said that you don't blame the recession on Bush. However, you've blamed his response. I'll again ask you: What has Bush done to harm the economy? What would you have done to help it? Bush cut taxes twice. The economy has unquestionably responded. If you want to attack Bush, go after him on real issues, like spending. Go after him on not putting the military on the borders to combat illegal immigration and drugs. Go after him on creating another bloated federal entitlement known as the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.


From that article on CNN from may of last year.....

Again.....

-----------------------------------------------------------

" Longest stretch of pain since WWII
Friday's report means the year-to-year net change in private payrolls has been negative for 22 straight months, extending the longest stretch of labor-market pain since 1944-46. Private, non-farm payrolls are now 2.6 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when a recession began.

Payrolls in goods-producing industries fell 73,000 in April, led by a 95,000 jobs cut from the manufacturing sector.

Service-producing payrolls grew by 25,000, led by a 32,000-job surge in government hiring. Retailers cut 10,000 jobs. Other service industries, such as tourism, data processing and personnel supply, added 21,000 jobs.

Average hourly wages rose 0.1 percent to $15.11 an hour from $15.09 in March. In a weak labor market, wage growth is a critical support to consumer spending, which makes up more than two-thirds of the nation's economy.

Along with the drop in the overall average work week, manufacturing hours fell 0.3 hour to 40.5, and overtime fell 0.1 hour to 3.9 hours.

The average length of unemployment rose to 19.6 weeks, the highest since January 1984. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Also please stop taking different things I've said and putting them together out of context.


What Bush has done to the economy is doing the popular thing ( in the short term ) tax cuts ( by the way he did this for a very long time and nothing before the economy began to recover on it's own ). Not paying for things. But when you get that kick back in the mail it makes you feel good. For awhile......

Then there's his spending on crazy things like Billions on an unnecessary war.

If you put this together with :

Wanting to bring prayer back to the schools ( which was taken out for a good reason and before you start you can believe in god without this ), trying to undermine Row / Wade, remove the idea of paying overtime for hourly workers, claim that things in the world are different than the facts ( Al-Queda and Saddam together again / WOMD in Iraq ), think that flipping burgers classifies as a manufacturing job, and claims he's on a mission from god.....

Well he starts to sound like a bit of a crackpot.

No one I would want running the united states.

But you know we've been over this before....in triplicate!

There's more but I really don't feel like giving good aswers that I've already given just to have you ignore them.



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #152 of 215
This is going to make SDW's head explode, but that's what we're here for, after all.

From this article.

Quote:
These are ominous signs, suggesting a new march toward greater inequality in the American economy. Worse, the growth in profits combined with a drop in wage and salary incomes suggest that the recovery has a narrow base, with most American consumers only able to increase their purchasing power through debt. Wage growth is not just fair, it is also necessary for a more sustainable recovery.

post #153 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You're ignoring the fact that the economy hasn't finished its 'response' to Bush's tax cut. You have to ignore the whole response because if you don't, it will destroy your argument.

One word. Why?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #154 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
One word. Why?

Things are looking up and yet there's this.......

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news...reut/index.htm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #155 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
From that article on CNN from may of last year.....

Again.....

-----------------------------------------------------------

" Longest stretch of pain since WWII
Friday's report means the year-to-year net change in private payrolls has been negative for 22 straight months, extending the longest stretch of labor-market pain since 1944-46. Private, non-farm payrolls are now 2.6 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when a recession began.

Payrolls in goods-producing industries fell 73,000 in April, led by a 95,000 jobs cut from the manufacturing sector.

Service-producing payrolls grew by 25,000, led by a 32,000-job surge in government hiring. Retailers cut 10,000 jobs. Other service industries, such as tourism, data processing and personnel supply, added 21,000 jobs.

Average hourly wages rose 0.1 percent to $15.11 an hour from $15.09 in March. In a weak labor market, wage growth is a critical support to consumer spending, which makes up more than two-thirds of the nation's economy.

Along with the drop in the overall average work week, manufacturing hours fell 0.3 hour to 40.5, and overtime fell 0.1 hour to 3.9 hours.

The average length of unemployment rose to 19.6 weeks, the highest since January 1984. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Also please stop taking different things I've said and putting them together out of context.


What Bush has done to the economy is doing the popular thing ( in the short term ) tax cuts ( by the way he did this for a very long time and nothing before the economy began to recover on it's own ). Not paying for things. But when you get that kick back in the mail it makes you feel good. For awhile......

Then there's his spending on crazy things like Billions on an unnecessary war.

If you put this together with :

Wanting to bring prayer back to the schools ( which was taken out for a good reason and before you start you can believe in god without this ), trying to undermine Row / Wade, remove the idea of paying overtime for hourly workers, claim that things in the world are different than the facts ( Al-Queda and Saddam together again / WOMD in Iraq ), think that flipping burgers classifies as a manufacturing job, and claims he's on a mission from god.....

Well he starts to sound like a bit of a crackpot.

No one I would want running the united states.

But you know we've been over this before....in triplicate!

There's more but I really don't feel like giving good aswers that I've already given just to have you ignore them.



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

1. The recession was not the worst since WWII. There is no simpler way to put it.

2. The war may have an effect on the government's purse strings, but there's no evidence it hurts the economy.

3. A kick back? Of my own money? OK...I understand now.

4. We all know you don't support Bush. That's not wha the thread is about. Well, actually...it is about that for you because EVERY thread is about that for you. But, to endulge you:

a) When has Bush stated his support for public school prayer? Secondly, what is your specific objection to it?

b) We can disagree on abortion, but let's not be disingenuous here jimmac. What you call "undermining" Roe V. Wade some would say is saving lives. To you it's a civil right...to me it's not. If you disagree with Bush on this, that's fine...but don't present it as some kind of goddamned rigth guaranteed by the Constitution.

c) Overtime? Now hold on...that's quite the claim you just made. Care to provide some backing. You're saying Bush is opposed to overtime...period?

d) There were ties between AQ and Iraq. Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11. I know that's complicated, but try and understand...mmmkay?

e) So again...Bush personally ordered that burger flipping jobs are classified as manufacturing? Blaming that one on him (and I agree its ridiculous) is a stretch.

f) Bush has never said he's on a mission from God. He's said nothing close. What he's said is that he prays for guidance and believes he was put in office for a purpose. I happen to agree. What's the problem?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #156 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The recession was not the worst since WWII. There is no simpler way to put it.

2. The war may have an effect on the government's purse strings, but there's no evidence it hurts the economy.

3. A kick back? Of my own money? OK...I understand now.

4. We all know you don't support Bush. That's not wha the thread is about. Well, actually...it is about that for you because EVERY thread is about that for you. But, to endulge you:

a) When has Bush stated his support for public school prayer? Secondly, what is your specific objection to it?

b) We can disagree on abortion, but let's not be disingenuous here jimmac. What you call "undermining" Roe V. Wade some would say is saving lives. To you it's a civil right...to me it's not. If you disagree with Bush on this, that's fine...but don't present it as some kind of goddamned rigth guaranteed by the Constitution.

c) Overtime? Now hold on...that's quite the claim you just made. Care to provide some backing. You're saying Bush is opposed to overtime...period?

d) There were ties between AQ and Iraq. Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11. I know that's complicated, but try and understand...mmmkay?

e) So again...Bush personally ordered that burger flipping jobs are classified as manufacturing? Blaming that one on him (and I agree its ridiculous) is a stretch.

f) Bush has never said he's on a mission from God. He's said nothing close. What he's said is that he prays for guidance and believes he was put in office for a purpose. I happen to agree. What's the problem?

Gosh I'm just wrong and all the facts I read are wrong.
National news organizations are wrong.

And SDW is right because Bush told him so.......


Oh by the way :

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy...nderattack.cfm

http://www.blackcommentator.com/81/8...urger_mfg.html


http://www.allhatnocattle.net/4-24-0...n_from_god.htm


------------------------------------------------------------

" believes he was put in office for a purpose. "

------------------------------------------------------------

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #157 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
This is going to make SDW's head explode, but that's what we're here for, after all.

From this article.




I don't think those numbers are accurate. Personal income has risen.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #158 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
One word. Why?

Because growth from debt isn't growth at all. The recovery is debt, not growth. That's a negative not a positive. A cash advance at the ATM doesn't necessarily help my financial well being in the long run.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #159 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think those numbers are accurate. Personal income has risen.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #160 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Gosh I'm just wrong and all the facts I read are wrong.
National news organizations are wrong.

And SDW is right because Bush told him so.......


Oh by the way :

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy...nderattack.cfm

http://www.blackcommentator.com/81/8...urger_mfg.html


http://www.allhatnocattle.net/4-24-0...n_from_god.htm


------------------------------------------------------------

" believes he was put in office for a purpose. "

------------------------------------------------------------


I have to tell you that those are some of the absolute worst and most ridiculous links I've ever seen posted. You link to a the AFL-CIO concerning a labor issue? Are you kidding me? The black commentator? What is that last one? How in the hell can we have an honest debate when you link to utter shit like that?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This Economy sure sucks!