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......
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.
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.
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 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 ).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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?
Yeah of course my links are bad.
Not up to the standard of some of those rags you link to eh?
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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.
... 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.
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
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.
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.
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!
From this article.
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.
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?
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
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?
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. "
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think those numbers are accurate. Personal income has risen.
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?
Originally posted by SDW2001
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?
Yeah of course my links are bad.
Not up to the standard of some of those rags you link to eh?
Well here's a couple more.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3073408/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2921345.stm
The black commentator is a congressman.
If you type in Bush Burger Manufacturing you get quite a few hits on yahoo.....