Sorry for the "bump", but I thought with today's economic data (unemployment going down and jobs being created three months in a row) this would be a valid topic again.
Forecasts for 2004 now expect not just growth, but robust growth. Can the Dems really expect to beat Bush on the hope that Iraq doesn't go well?
Pissed off because they didn't make you "Santa's Special Helper" again this year bunge?
I toldya you wouldn't be hired back when you held up that special cut out sack and asking the kids to grab a candy cane...
I've heard of people needing operations from jerking that knee as hard as you do.
Nick
It's not my knee that's jerking. Um, I mean....
Anyway, seasonal jobs at Wal-Mart aren't very vaulable. I'm not pissed off at all, but some people get caught up in their own hopes and ignore not only the obvious, but the facts as well. When things were deteriorating things weren't 'that bad,' but now after about 30 seconds of growth Bush is going to get reelected SIX times! because he's the second coming of Alfred E. Neuman or whoever.
The truth is that SDW is so hopeful that Bush will get reelected he'll latch on to anything regardless of logical thought. I've mostly stayed out of the economic discussions because they don't factor into my political decisions, but some of this stuff is just over the top silliness.
To pretend this 0.1% means something is a waste of time. Come back February 1, 2004 and then we can see if there's any sustained growth. Until then, right or wrong, it's just someone grasping at straws.
I really have to take issue here. Yes, I support Bush. Yes, I would like him to be reelected. But why, given what I just said, must everything I post be looked at as though it was the product of intellecutal dishonesty?
Let me tell you, if the economic numbers were not good, I'd be pretty worried as a Republican. Buyt the thing is, the numbers have gone from "not so good" in 2001-2002, to "slow growth" in late 2002 and early 2003, to "modest growth" in mid 2003 to "robust growth" in late 2003.
All relevant economic indicators point towards a robust recovery. Please allow me to summarize:
1. GDP growth is exceptionally healthy. Forecasts from reputable economists with good track records say that it will continue.
2. Unemployment, the lagging indicator, has begun to drop. Even without dropping, unemployment is now 2.5% below the historical 40 year average of 8.5%
3. The economy has added jobs for the last three months in a row.
4. Jobless claims are well below 400,000, the "magic number" for healthy growth.
5. Personal incomes continue to rise.
6. There is unquestionable strength in the housing market.
7. The markets are up BIG time on the year.
8. Manufacturing is now experiencing a recovery, with better than expected growth last quarter as well.
9. Business investment is also up
And so on....but what does it all mean?
The economy is recovering. Two things tend to drive elections: Peace and Prosperity. If Iraq goes badly, if the WOT goes badly, then the Dems can use that. Though I'd suggest they'd need to lay out a plan as to what they would differently.
What would they use economically? The only thing I can see, is if by November 2004 The overall job growth is negative, the Dems will use that as follows: "We've lost (say, 200,000 by then) jobs under George Bush....this is reprehensible". They won't be able to use the term "jobless recovery", because frankly, Bush's job record will probably be about even by the election.
The economy is in recovery. What can the Dems do about it? On election day people care about Peace and Prosperity.
You may think I'm just gloating or being blindly partisan, but I know I'm not. The Dems have a serious situation and I'd be interested to hear what people would do about it. Or, will some here do exactly what the leadership of the Demcoratic party has been doing for three years: Fail to identify and correct the problem?
I really have to take issue here. Yes, I support Bush. Yes, I would like him to be reelected. But why, given what I just said, must everything I post be looked at as though it was the product of intellecutal dishonesty?
The title of the thread says enough to me. That's blindly partisan regardless of what the economy does.
The title of the thread says enough to me. That's blindly partisan regardless of what the economy does.
Through your myriad of posts on this board, you have given up the right to call people out on being blindly partisan you blindly partisan blind partisan.
Through your myriad of posts on this board, you have given up the right to call people out on being blindly partisan you blindly partisan blind partisan.
"Partisan"
"PC"
When did people start becoming anything but wrong?
Through your myriad of posts on this board, you have given up the right to call people out on being blindly partisan you blindly partisan blind partisan.
I really have to take issue here. Yes, I support Bush. Yes, I would like him to be reelected. But why, given what I just said, must everything I post be looked at as though it was the product of intellecutal dishonesty?
Let me tell you, if the economic numbers were not good, I'd be pretty worried as a Republican. Buyt the thing is, the numbers have gone from "not so good" in 2001-2002, to "slow growth" in late 2002 and early 2003, to "modest growth" in mid 2003 to "robust growth" in late 2003.
All relevant economic indicators point towards a robust recovery. Please allow me to summarize:
1. GDP growth is exceptionally healthy. Forecasts from reputable economists with good track records say that it will continue.
2. Unemployment, the lagging indicator, has begun to drop. Even without dropping, unemployment is now 2.5% below the historical 40 year average of 8.5%
3. The economy has added jobs for the last three months in a row.
4. Jobless claims are well below 400,000, the "magic number" for healthy growth.
5. Personal incomes continue to rise.
6. There is unquestionable strength in the housing market.
7. The markets are up BIG time on the year.
8. Manufacturing is now experiencing a recovery, with better than expected growth last quarter as well.
9. Business investment is also up
And so on....but what does it all mean?
The economy is recovering. Two things tend to drive elections: Peace and Prosperity. If Iraq goes badly, if the WOT goes badly, then the Dems can use that. Though I'd suggest they'd need to lay out a plan as to what they would differently.
What would they use economically? The only thing I can see, is if by November 2004 The overall job growth is negative, the Dems will use that as follows: "We've lost (say, 200,000 by then) jobs under George Bush....this is reprehensible". They won't be able to use the term "jobless recovery", because frankly, Bush's job record will probably be about even by the election.
The economy is in recovery. What can the Dems do about it? On election day people care about Peace and Prosperity.
You may think I'm just gloating or being blindly partisan, but I know I'm not. The Dems have a serious situation and I'd be interested to hear what people would do about it. Or, will some here do exactly what the leadership of the Demcoratic party has been doing for three years: Fail to identify and correct the problem?
You really need to understand there are more issues than the economy so even if it gets better doesn't mean an automatic win for Bush. All I have to say is : Where's those WOMD?
There isn't enough laughter in the history of the world to adequately respond to your post.
My advice to you: get a dictionary. There's even a free one on the internet!
You're too blind to understand reason BR, that's all. You're self-righteousness undermines your sometimes intelligent points. But that's OK, you'll probably grow up one day. Maybe.
My advice to you: get a dictionary. There's even a free one on the internet!
You're too blind to understand reason BR, that's all. You're self-righteousness undermines your sometimes intelligent points. But that's OK, you'll probably grow up one day. Maybe.
The title of the thread says enough to me. That's blindly partisan regardless of what the economy does.
I suppose that's a matter of interpretation. Is the premise wrong? Right now, they are focusing on the econoym and Iraq....but less so on the economy in the last two months because they know it's improving. Perhaps the thread should have been named to be lmited to the Presidential race, which is what I intended it to be about.
How can you tell me the thread title's premise is wrong? I notice you have no answers. What else is there other than attacking Bush on Iraq?
You really need to understand there are more issues than the economy so even if it gets better doesn't mean an automatic win for Bush. All I have to say is : Where's those WOMD?
I DO understand that. But you need to understand that in a Presidential election people vote on the two issues I mentioned.
What other issues will be a driving force (in reality...not just your laundry list of things you hate Bush for)?
Healthcare?
Immigration?
The Environment?
Drugs?
Which ones Jimmac? Denying that things are bad for your party in the Presidential race if the economy is strong by the election is blatant intellectual dishonesty. As I've said before, people who think like you are exactly the problem in the party. It refuses to realize and accept the problem. It is weak on national security and has been pushed to the far left to get it's base going.
I'd love to see a strong, relevant Democatic party. That's not what we have now, though.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Ah well just so long as we all understand it is a unsupported, baseless assertion then. Move along...
Kraig's? I agree. Because we all know Republican pork has gone up in the past couple of years as I asserted.
Forecasts for 2004 now expect not just growth, but robust growth. Can the Dems really expect to beat Bush on the hope that Iraq doesn't go well?
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
Originally posted by bunge
Jobs for Christmas don't help.
Pissed off because they didn't make you "Santa's Special Helper" again this year bunge?
I toldya you wouldn't be hired back when you held up that special cut out sack and asking the kids to grab a candy cane...
I've heard of people needing operations from jerking that knee as hard as you do.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Pissed off because they didn't make you "Santa's Special Helper" again this year bunge?
I toldya you wouldn't be hired back when you held up that special cut out sack and asking the kids to grab a candy cane...
I've heard of people needing operations from jerking that knee as hard as you do.
Nick
It's not my knee that's jerking. Um, I mean....
Anyway, seasonal jobs at Wal-Mart aren't very vaulable. I'm not pissed off at all, but some people get caught up in their own hopes and ignore not only the obvious, but the facts as well. When things were deteriorating things weren't 'that bad,' but now after about 30 seconds of growth Bush is going to get reelected SIX times! because he's the second coming of Alfred E. Neuman or whoever.
The truth is that SDW is so hopeful that Bush will get reelected he'll latch on to anything regardless of logical thought. I've mostly stayed out of the economic discussions because they don't factor into my political decisions, but some of this stuff is just over the top silliness.
To pretend this 0.1% means something is a waste of time. Come back February 1, 2004 and then we can see if there's any sustained growth. Until then, right or wrong, it's just someone grasping at straws.
I really have to take issue here. Yes, I support Bush. Yes, I would like him to be reelected. But why, given what I just said, must everything I post be looked at as though it was the product of intellecutal dishonesty?
Let me tell you, if the economic numbers were not good, I'd be pretty worried as a Republican. Buyt the thing is, the numbers have gone from "not so good" in 2001-2002, to "slow growth" in late 2002 and early 2003, to "modest growth" in mid 2003 to "robust growth" in late 2003.
All relevant economic indicators point towards a robust recovery. Please allow me to summarize:
1. GDP growth is exceptionally healthy. Forecasts from reputable economists with good track records say that it will continue.
2. Unemployment, the lagging indicator, has begun to drop. Even without dropping, unemployment is now 2.5% below the historical 40 year average of 8.5%
3. The economy has added jobs for the last three months in a row.
4. Jobless claims are well below 400,000, the "magic number" for healthy growth.
5. Personal incomes continue to rise.
6. There is unquestionable strength in the housing market.
7. The markets are up BIG time on the year.
8. Manufacturing is now experiencing a recovery, with better than expected growth last quarter as well.
9. Business investment is also up
And so on....but what does it all mean?
The economy is recovering. Two things tend to drive elections: Peace and Prosperity. If Iraq goes badly, if the WOT goes badly, then the Dems can use that. Though I'd suggest they'd need to lay out a plan as to what they would differently.
What would they use economically? The only thing I can see, is if by November 2004 The overall job growth is negative, the Dems will use that as follows: "We've lost (say, 200,000 by then) jobs under George Bush....this is reprehensible". They won't be able to use the term "jobless recovery", because frankly, Bush's job record will probably be about even by the election.
The economy is in recovery. What can the Dems do about it? On election day people care about Peace and Prosperity.
You may think I'm just gloating or being blindly partisan, but I know I'm not. The Dems have a serious situation and I'd be interested to hear what people would do about it. Or, will some here do exactly what the leadership of the Demcoratic party has been doing for three years: Fail to identify and correct the problem?
maybe you could start 6 months before the election and start hammering on the economy. it probably wouldn't shift that much in 6 months.
but to start almost two years before the election?
now anything that goes right bush will just say "see, it's my economic policy that fixed things" regardless of whether or not it's true.
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge,
I really have to take issue here. Yes, I support Bush. Yes, I would like him to be reelected. But why, given what I just said, must everything I post be looked at as though it was the product of intellecutal dishonesty?
The title of the thread says enough to me. That's blindly partisan regardless of what the economy does.
Originally posted by bunge
The title of the thread says enough to me. That's blindly partisan regardless of what the economy does.
Through your myriad of posts on this board, you have given up the right to call people out on being blindly partisan you blindly partisan blind partisan.
Originally posted by BR
Through your myriad of posts on this board, you have given up the right to call people out on being blindly partisan you blindly partisan blind partisan.
"Partisan"
"PC"
When did people start becoming anything but wrong?
Originally posted by BR
Through your myriad of posts on this board, you have given up the right to call people out on being blindly partisan you blindly partisan blind partisan.
I may be liberal, but I'm not partisan.
Originally posted by bunge
I may be liberal, but I'm not partisan.
There isn't enough laughter in the history of the world to adequately respond to your post.
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge,
I really have to take issue here. Yes, I support Bush. Yes, I would like him to be reelected. But why, given what I just said, must everything I post be looked at as though it was the product of intellecutal dishonesty?
Let me tell you, if the economic numbers were not good, I'd be pretty worried as a Republican. Buyt the thing is, the numbers have gone from "not so good" in 2001-2002, to "slow growth" in late 2002 and early 2003, to "modest growth" in mid 2003 to "robust growth" in late 2003.
All relevant economic indicators point towards a robust recovery. Please allow me to summarize:
1. GDP growth is exceptionally healthy. Forecasts from reputable economists with good track records say that it will continue.
2. Unemployment, the lagging indicator, has begun to drop. Even without dropping, unemployment is now 2.5% below the historical 40 year average of 8.5%
3. The economy has added jobs for the last three months in a row.
4. Jobless claims are well below 400,000, the "magic number" for healthy growth.
5. Personal incomes continue to rise.
6. There is unquestionable strength in the housing market.
7. The markets are up BIG time on the year.
8. Manufacturing is now experiencing a recovery, with better than expected growth last quarter as well.
9. Business investment is also up
And so on....but what does it all mean?
The economy is recovering. Two things tend to drive elections: Peace and Prosperity. If Iraq goes badly, if the WOT goes badly, then the Dems can use that. Though I'd suggest they'd need to lay out a plan as to what they would differently.
What would they use economically? The only thing I can see, is if by November 2004 The overall job growth is negative, the Dems will use that as follows: "We've lost (say, 200,000 by then) jobs under George Bush....this is reprehensible". They won't be able to use the term "jobless recovery", because frankly, Bush's job record will probably be about even by the election.
The economy is in recovery. What can the Dems do about it? On election day people care about Peace and Prosperity.
You may think I'm just gloating or being blindly partisan, but I know I'm not. The Dems have a serious situation and I'd be interested to hear what people would do about it. Or, will some here do exactly what the leadership of the Demcoratic party has been doing for three years: Fail to identify and correct the problem?
You really need to understand there are more issues than the economy so even if it gets better doesn't mean an automatic win for Bush. All I have to say is : Where's those WOMD?
Originally posted by BR
There isn't enough laughter in the history of the world to adequately respond to your post.
My advice to you: get a dictionary. There's even a free one on the internet!
You're too blind to understand reason BR, that's all. You're self-righteousness undermines your sometimes intelligent points. But that's OK, you'll probably grow up one day. Maybe.
So, what party do I like?
Originally posted by bunge
My advice to you: get a dictionary. There's even a free one on the internet!
You're too blind to understand reason BR, that's all. You're self-righteousness undermines your sometimes intelligent points. But that's OK, you'll probably grow up one day. Maybe.
So, what party do I like?
My advice to you: herpes medication.
BR is right and it is as simple as that
Bunge I love you and all but cross over and join in the enlightenment movement.
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
The title of the thread says enough to me. That's blindly partisan regardless of what the economy does.
I suppose that's a matter of interpretation. Is the premise wrong? Right now, they are focusing on the econoym and Iraq....but less so on the economy in the last two months because they know it's improving. Perhaps the thread should have been named to be lmited to the Presidential race, which is what I intended it to be about.
How can you tell me the thread title's premise is wrong? I notice you have no answers. What else is there other than attacking Bush on Iraq?
Originally posted by jimmac
You really need to understand there are more issues than the economy so even if it gets better doesn't mean an automatic win for Bush. All I have to say is : Where's those WOMD?
I DO understand that. But you need to understand that in a Presidential election people vote on the two issues I mentioned.
What other issues will be a driving force (in reality...not just your laundry list of things you hate Bush for)?
Healthcare?
Immigration?
The Environment?
Drugs?
Which ones Jimmac? Denying that things are bad for your party in the Presidential race if the economy is strong by the election is blatant intellectual dishonesty. As I've said before, people who think like you are exactly the problem in the party. It refuses to realize and accept the problem. It is weak on national security and has been pushed to the far left to get it's base going.
I'd love to see a strong, relevant Democatic party. That's not what we have now, though.
Originally posted by BR
My advice to you: herpes medication.
I hope it helps your confidence.