How many INDIVIDUALS do you know that write $2000 checks to political campaigns? I'm talking regular folks. I've never met anyone short of a business owner (my boss, gave it to Bush) who's ever contributed that much money to anyone.
I love how you make it sound like $2000 is a drop in the bucket when, I suspect, you'd probably consider that a considerable sum of money if it were referenced in any other context.
Well of course you don't dumbass. However Bush obviously does know quite a few people as does Dean since 11% of his contributions come from these folks no one knows.
$2000 is the maximum from one individual and folks don't have to give it all at once. (As the Dean site makes it quite clear, it can be weekly, monthly, whatever as long as you get to $2000. $2000 isn't a drop in the bucket, but it isn't impossible either. I know plenty of folks who tithe more than that to church and I know plenty of people, including yours personally who give more than that each year in cash to charities.
I suppose if I considered the Republican party my charity, they would get $2000 from me, but as it is, they only get a few hundred.
I don't know what the most is I have ever given in a year to a political party, but I know it had to be about $1000 one year. (probably 96)
The thing is you're the only one saying it's in full blown recovery. I've backed my position with several points. You just have you're fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it! I can't do anything about that.
LOL! I'm the only one saying that!!!??? Are you shitting me?
I'm the only one saying that!!!??? Are you shitting me?
From your links...
Quote:
The Post..
The nation's economic expansion is gaining strength with no pickup in inflation...However, despite last month's jump in output, manufacturing payrolls nationwide fell by 17,000, the 40th consecutive monthly decline...factory payrolls could remain depressed even with strong production gains.
Quote:
The Star
The slew of reports suggested the economy was stronger than most analysts had thought. But with signs inflation was slowing, economists said the Federal Reserve Board could keep interest rates at basement levels.
Quote:
CNN Money
The drop suggests a moderating trend in the recovery.
So yeah, you are the only one saying that the economy is in full blown recovery. Everyone else is hopeful but cautious. You appear to be suffering from either a lack of comprehension or a level of partisanship that is so high as to prevent you from seeing anything in shades of gray.
So yeah, you are the only one saying that the economy is in full blown recovery. Everyone else is hopeful but cautious. You appear to be suffering from either a lack of comprehension or a level of partisanship that is so high as to prevent you from seeing anything in shades of gray.
Yes it seems like SDW is the one who doesn't read his own links!
So yeah, you are the only one saying that the economy is in full blown recovery.
This is nitpicking at new levels. What exactly, in economic terms, is "full blown recovery? The economy is either a) recovering b) stagnate c) declining.
It's pretty obvious that... BWAHAHAHA yes I just saw the scene where the driving instructor robs the bank in "Don't Be A Menace". Anway... the economy is in recovery. The extent to which it is recovering is a matter of personal opinion, but it is recovering nonetheless.
No, it's not letting SDW get away with inaccurate hyperbole born of obvious denominational prejudice.
As for the interpretation of economic indicators being a 'matter of opinion', I'm sure John Maynard Keynes, John Richard Hicks or Milton Friedman would be happy to hear that.
No, it's not letting SDW get away with inaccurate hyperbole born of obvious denominational prejudice.
As for the interpretation of economic indicators being a 'matter of opinion', I'm sure John Maynard Keynes, John Richard Hicks or Milton Friedman would be happy to hear that.
You misinterpreted me. By "matter of opinion" I mean that the people posting in this thread will draw different conclusions from the same economic data.
You misinterpreted me. By "matter of opinion" I mean that the people posting in this thread will draw different conclusions from the same economic data.
Sorry, just being nitpickey
You're right though, although it might be more accurate to say that people will try to spin economic indicators to reinforce political stances. I think that an informed, honest, non-partisan interpretation of the indicators shows that things have been improving but that we are not in the clear yet (and cannot necessarily say that things will continue to improve at the rate they have in the last quarter of '03).
Jesus christ, you guys are unbelieveable. The economy is recovering. You know it, I know it, and most other people know it. Look at GDP. Look a forecasts. Look at the drop in unemployment. Look at jobless claims being below 400,000. Look at the markets.
One would need some OxyClean to get out all of the intellectual dishonesty being thrown around this thread.
The economy is either a) recovering b) stagnate c) declining.
This is innacurate. When the economy 'booms' in November and December, it's actually a false boom spurred on by the Holiday Shopping Season. So the economy can be wavering, that is, moving either up or down but not recovering, declining or stagnate.
Jesus christ, you guys are unbelieveable. The economy is recovering. You know it, I know it, and most other people know it. Look at GDP. Look a forecasts. Look at the drop in unemployment. Look at jobless claims being below 400,000. Look at the markets.
One would need some OxyClean to get out all of the intellectual dishonesty being thrown around this thread.
I'll give you the GDP stat but sorry much of unemployment rate activity lately is a result of seasonal employment and people ceasing their job searches.
The problem is that you want Bush to win the next election sooooooo much that you're unwilling to look at something that might threaten that. Oh well.
The funny thing is with the economy in it's current state I think Bush could stand a chance to win. It's when you look at all the other things he's done ( lied about the war etc. ) and put that together with the economy that puts the next election in question.
Bush will almost definitely win the next election, but that may be partially due to new electronic election procedures as well as the fact that he has no liberal opposition. Two genuine liberals running (Kucinich and Sharpton) are unelectable (Kucinich is a pro-peace "new ager", and Sharpton is black). It also looks as if Ralph Nader is considering a run in 2004 which may erode the "democratic" vote by some 4%. Not only that but Bush has already raised some $250 million, with nearly a year to go, and will probably at least double that amount over the next year, allowing an unprecedented media blitz campaign that will convince most Americans into believing in him, ie people who haven't the time time or inclination to read beyond soundbites. Then there's the fact that conservatives are traditionally far ahead of liberals when it comes down to getting out on polling day and voting (they have more faith in the system than liberals)...and...the fact that Bush is the incumbent also gives him a big advantage. There also isn't any independent on the right competing with him, as there was against Bush Sr. in 1992. If Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992, Bush Sr. would have undoubtedly been a 2 term president.
Bush will almost definitely win the next election, but that may be partially due to new electronic election procedures as well as the fact that he has no liberal opposition. Two genuine liberals running (Kucinich and Sharpton) are unelectable (Kucinich is a pro-peace "new ager", and Sharpton is black). It also looks as if Ralph Nader is considering a run in 2004 which may erode the "democratic" vote by some 4%. Not only that but Bush has already raised some $250 million, with nearly a year to go, and will probably at least double that amount over the next year, allowing an unprecedented media blitz campaign that will convince most Americans into believing in him, ie people who haven't the time time or inclination to read beyond soundbites. Then there's the fact that conservatives are traditionally far ahead of liberals when it comes down to getting out on polling day and voting (they have more faith in the system than liberals)...and...the fact that Bush is the incumbent also gives him a big advantage. There also isn't any independent on the right competing with him, as there was against Bush Sr. in 1992. If Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992, Bush Sr. would have undoubtedly been a 2 term president.
I never though I'd say this, but I agree with all of that. Though I think Bush has raised about $115 Million, not $250M
It's not even about my support for Bush. I am making an honest effort to put that aside. You posted the same reasons verbatim that I have been posting for a year, yet of course I am called "insane". sammi, I know we have our disagreements, but thank you for your intellectual honesty on these points. It is one thing to support someone and another to try and predict what WILL happen as opposed to what one WANTS to happen.
For example, I was not at all confident about the 2000 election. The polling data, and Gorebot's last minute surge in the form of campaigning at 3 a.m. gave me great pause. I supported Bush, and for that I suppose people are free to disagree with me, but I was not saying the things I am now. Everything Sammi says here is true, Bush is incumbent, there is no Perot, he has a huge finanical advantage, is running unopposed, etc.
As far as the economy, it is recovering. Jimmac, you can go on calling me insane like you always do, saying "no one's buying" and what not, but the vast majority of economists would agree with me. Almost all current indicator point to recovery. I am not coming and saying things are "booming", but the recovery is in fact well under way. Perhaps you should go read the treasury secretary's comments from last week....
I'll give you the GDP stat but sorry much of unemployment rate activity lately is a result of seasonal employment and people ceasing their job searches.
Can you prove that claim regarding unemployment? It's a nice thought but unsubstantiated. Unemployment has been dropping steadily through the fall and late summer...so I'm not sure your claim holds water.
Can you prove that claim regarding unemployment? It's a nice thought but unsubstantiated. Unemployment has been dropping steadily through the fall and late summer...so I'm not sure your claim holds water.
Uh, SDW I used to work in retail. When do you think they hire for Xmas?
I never though I'd say this, but I agree with all of that. Though I think Bush has raised about $115 Million, not $250M
It's not even about my support for Bush. I am making an honest effort to put that aside. You posted the same reasons verbatim that I have been posting for a year, yet of course I am called "insane". sammi, I know we have our disagreements, but thank you for your intellectual honesty on these points. It is one thing to support someone and another to try and predict what WILL happen as opposed to what one WANTS to happen.
For example, I was not at all confident about the 2000 election. The polling data, and Gorebot's last minute surge in the form of campaigning at 3 a.m. gave me great pause. I supported Bush, and for that I suppose people are free to disagree with me, but I was not saying the things I am now. Everything Sammi says here is true, Bush is incumbent, there is no Perot, he has a huge finanical advantage, is running unopposed, etc.
As far as the economy, it is recovering. Jimmac, you can go on calling me insane like you always do, saying "no one's buying" and what not, but the vast majority of economists would agree with me. Almost all current indicator point to recovery. I am not coming and saying things are "booming", but the recovery is in fact well under way. Perhaps you should go read the treasury secretary's comments from last week....
What your not getting is that yes the economy is showing some signs of improvement but it's not surging as you put it. Job growth is still sluggish. Without that there is no recovery. Those people out there without jobs are voters.
What your not getting is that yes the economy is showing some signs of improvement but it's not surging as you put it. Job growth is still sluggish. Without that there is no recovery. Those people out there without jobs are voters.
So are there families and friends
It is more than showing some signs of improvement. It was doing that 4 months ago. Even 6 months. I agree with you job growth is sluggish and I've never said anything other than that. I said the economy is in a "full blown recovery", which it is. That doesn't mean it's surging (and I never said that either...though some economists and pundits have). I'm not saying it is booming...for that I agree we'd need better job growth. But anyone who's not just arguing semantics and academia knows that job growth is the last piece. It's a trailing indicator. This being said, there IS job growth...unlike before.
Again, I said the economy was in a full blown recovery (meaning in the process of recovering) and I challenge you to show otherwise.
Comments
Originally posted by Northgate
How many INDIVIDUALS do you know that write $2000 checks to political campaigns? I'm talking regular folks. I've never met anyone short of a business owner (my boss, gave it to Bush) who's ever contributed that much money to anyone.
I love how you make it sound like $2000 is a drop in the bucket when, I suspect, you'd probably consider that a considerable sum of money if it were referenced in any other context.
Well of course you don't dumbass. However Bush obviously does know quite a few people as does Dean since 11% of his contributions come from these folks no one knows.
$2000 is the maximum from one individual and folks don't have to give it all at once. (As the Dean site makes it quite clear, it can be weekly, monthly, whatever as long as you get to $2000. $2000 isn't a drop in the bucket, but it isn't impossible either. I know plenty of folks who tithe more than that to church and I know plenty of people, including yours personally who give more than that each year in cash to charities.
I suppose if I considered the Republican party my charity, they would get $2000 from me, but as it is, they only get a few hundred.
I don't know what the most is I have ever given in a year to a political party, but I know it had to be about $1000 one year. (probably 96)
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
The thing is you're the only one saying it's in full blown recovery. I've backed my position with several points. You just have you're fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it! I can't do anything about that.
LOL! I'm the only one saying that!!!??? Are you shitting me?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec16.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048863851
and oh look: CNN Money
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/19/news...reut/index.htm
Must....resist....name......call...ing
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm the only one saying that!!!??? Are you shitting me?
From your links...
The Post..
The nation's economic expansion is gaining strength with no pickup in inflation...However, despite last month's jump in output, manufacturing payrolls nationwide fell by 17,000, the 40th consecutive monthly decline...factory payrolls could remain depressed even with strong production gains.
The Star
The slew of reports suggested the economy was stronger than most analysts had thought. But with signs inflation was slowing, economists said the Federal Reserve Board could keep interest rates at basement levels.
CNN Money
The drop suggests a moderating trend in the recovery.
So yeah, you are the only one saying that the economy is in full blown recovery. Everyone else is hopeful but cautious. You appear to be suffering from either a lack of comprehension or a level of partisanship that is so high as to prevent you from seeing anything in shades of gray.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
From your links...
So yeah, you are the only one saying that the economy is in full blown recovery. Everyone else is hopeful but cautious. You appear to be suffering from either a lack of comprehension or a level of partisanship that is so high as to prevent you from seeing anything in shades of gray.
Yes it seems like SDW is the one who doesn't read his own links!
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
So yeah, you are the only one saying that the economy is in full blown recovery.
This is nitpicking at new levels. What exactly, in economic terms, is "full blown recovery? The economy is either a) recovering b) stagnate c) declining.
It's pretty obvious that... BWAHAHAHA yes I just saw the scene where the driving instructor robs the bank in "Don't Be A Menace". Anway... the economy is in recovery. The extent to which it is recovering is a matter of personal opinion, but it is recovering nonetheless.
Originally posted by rageous
This is nitpicking at new levels.
No, it's not letting SDW get away with inaccurate hyperbole born of obvious denominational prejudice.
As for the interpretation of economic indicators being a 'matter of opinion', I'm sure John Maynard Keynes, John Richard Hicks or Milton Friedman would be happy to hear that.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
No, it's not letting SDW get away with inaccurate hyperbole born of obvious denominational prejudice.
As for the interpretation of economic indicators being a 'matter of opinion', I'm sure John Maynard Keynes, John Richard Hicks or Milton Friedman would be happy to hear that.
You misinterpreted me. By "matter of opinion" I mean that the people posting in this thread will draw different conclusions from the same economic data.
Originally posted by rageous
You misinterpreted me. By "matter of opinion" I mean that the people posting in this thread will draw different conclusions from the same economic data.
Sorry, just being nitpickey
You're right though, although it might be more accurate to say that people will try to spin economic indicators to reinforce political stances. I think that an informed, honest, non-partisan interpretation of the indicators shows that things have been improving but that we are not in the clear yet (and cannot necessarily say that things will continue to improve at the rate they have in the last quarter of '03).
Edit: finishing a thought...
One would need some OxyClean to get out all of the intellectual dishonesty being thrown around this thread.
Originally posted by rageous
The economy is either a) recovering b) stagnate c) declining.
This is innacurate. When the economy 'booms' in November and December, it's actually a false boom spurred on by the Holiday Shopping Season. So the economy can be wavering, that is, moving either up or down but not recovering, declining or stagnate.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus christ, you guys are unbelieveable. The economy is recovering. You know it, I know it, and most other people know it. Look at GDP. Look a forecasts. Look at the drop in unemployment. Look at jobless claims being below 400,000. Look at the markets.
One would need some OxyClean to get out all of the intellectual dishonesty being thrown around this thread.
I'll give you the GDP stat but sorry much of unemployment rate activity lately is a result of seasonal employment and people ceasing their job searches.
The problem is that you want Bush to win the next election sooooooo much that you're unwilling to look at something that might threaten that. Oh well.
The funny thing is with the economy in it's current state I think Bush could stand a chance to win. It's when you look at all the other things he's done ( lied about the war etc. ) and put that together with the economy that puts the next election in question.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Bush will almost definitely win the next election, but that may be partially due to new electronic election procedures as well as the fact that he has no liberal opposition. Two genuine liberals running (Kucinich and Sharpton) are unelectable (Kucinich is a pro-peace "new ager", and Sharpton is black). It also looks as if Ralph Nader is considering a run in 2004 which may erode the "democratic" vote by some 4%. Not only that but Bush has already raised some $250 million, with nearly a year to go, and will probably at least double that amount over the next year, allowing an unprecedented media blitz campaign that will convince most Americans into believing in him, ie people who haven't the time time or inclination to read beyond soundbites. Then there's the fact that conservatives are traditionally far ahead of liberals when it comes down to getting out on polling day and voting (they have more faith in the system than liberals)...and...the fact that Bush is the incumbent also gives him a big advantage. There also isn't any independent on the right competing with him, as there was against Bush Sr. in 1992. If Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992, Bush Sr. would have undoubtedly been a 2 term president.
I never though I'd say this, but I agree with all of that. Though I think Bush has raised about $115 Million, not $250M
It's not even about my support for Bush. I am making an honest effort to put that aside. You posted the same reasons verbatim that I have been posting for a year, yet of course I am called "insane". sammi, I know we have our disagreements, but thank you for your intellectual honesty on these points. It is one thing to support someone and another to try and predict what WILL happen as opposed to what one WANTS to happen.
For example, I was not at all confident about the 2000 election. The polling data, and Gorebot's last minute surge in the form of campaigning at 3 a.m. gave me great pause. I supported Bush, and for that I suppose people are free to disagree with me, but I was not saying the things I am now. Everything Sammi says here is true, Bush is incumbent, there is no Perot, he has a huge finanical advantage, is running unopposed, etc.
As far as the economy, it is recovering. Jimmac, you can go on calling me insane like you always do, saying "no one's buying" and what not, but the vast majority of economists would agree with me. Almost all current indicator point to recovery. I am not coming and saying things are "booming", but the recovery is in fact well under way. Perhaps you should go read the treasury secretary's comments from last week....
Originally posted by BR
I'll give you the GDP stat but sorry much of unemployment rate activity lately is a result of seasonal employment and people ceasing their job searches.
Can you prove that claim regarding unemployment? It's a nice thought but unsubstantiated. Unemployment has been dropping steadily through the fall and late summer...so I'm not sure your claim holds water.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Can you prove that claim regarding unemployment? It's a nice thought but unsubstantiated. Unemployment has been dropping steadily through the fall and late summer...so I'm not sure your claim holds water.
Uh, SDW I used to work in retail. When do you think they hire for Xmas?
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, SDW I used to work in retail. When do you think they hire for Xmas?
Seasonal adjustment are usually built into these numbers. Btw, why did you get fired? Retail has been the strongest sector of the economy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I never though I'd say this, but I agree with all of that. Though I think Bush has raised about $115 Million, not $250M
It's not even about my support for Bush. I am making an honest effort to put that aside. You posted the same reasons verbatim that I have been posting for a year, yet of course I am called "insane". sammi, I know we have our disagreements, but thank you for your intellectual honesty on these points. It is one thing to support someone and another to try and predict what WILL happen as opposed to what one WANTS to happen.
For example, I was not at all confident about the 2000 election. The polling data, and Gorebot's last minute surge in the form of campaigning at 3 a.m. gave me great pause. I supported Bush, and for that I suppose people are free to disagree with me, but I was not saying the things I am now. Everything Sammi says here is true, Bush is incumbent, there is no Perot, he has a huge finanical advantage, is running unopposed, etc.
As far as the economy, it is recovering. Jimmac, you can go on calling me insane like you always do, saying "no one's buying" and what not, but the vast majority of economists would agree with me. Almost all current indicator point to recovery. I am not coming and saying things are "booming", but the recovery is in fact well under way. Perhaps you should go read the treasury secretary's comments from last week....
What your not getting is that yes the economy is showing some signs of improvement but it's not surging as you put it. Job growth is still sluggish. Without that there is no recovery. Those people out there without jobs are voters.
So are there families and friends
Originally posted by jimmac
What your not getting is that yes the economy is showing some signs of improvement but it's not surging as you put it. Job growth is still sluggish. Without that there is no recovery. Those people out there without jobs are voters.
So are there families and friends
It is more than showing some signs of improvement. It was doing that 4 months ago. Even 6 months. I agree with you job growth is sluggish and I've never said anything other than that. I said the economy is in a "full blown recovery", which it is. That doesn't mean it's surging (and I never said that either...though some economists and pundits have). I'm not saying it is booming...for that I agree we'd need better job growth. But anyone who's not just arguing semantics and academia knows that job growth is the last piece. It's a trailing indicator. This being said, there IS job growth...unlike before.
Again, I said the economy was in a full blown recovery (meaning in the process of recovering) and I challenge you to show otherwise.
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, SDW I used to work in retail. When do you think they hire for Xmas?
In July and August? September? Hmmmm.....