Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

More bad economic news
Quote | Reply
for the gloom and doomers. Good news for the majority of the country.

http://www.breitbart.com/...01/05/D8EUI2AO0.html
Quote Reply
Re: More bad economic news [armytriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That sounds like good news. Hopefully most of the jobs created aren't temporary rebuilding one's, but even one less person not able to work is great.

There were a few threads about good economic news the end of November and early December. We're about 3-6 weeks away from the #'s cited previously having impacts on the common everyday worker. They were numbers focussed on corporate restrengthening in the marketplace, ie more profit earned. Slowly that turns into more jobs for workers, which slowly turns into increases in real wages and earnings.

By mid-February we might hear news of salaries/income increasing, which would/will be nice.
Quote Reply
Re: More bad economic news [armytriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It took only 6 years to almost return to the employment levels witnessed during the previous administration. :-[

Is this why all of the charts out of the White House only go back 5 years?

iambigkahunatony.com
Quote Reply
Re: More bad economic news [wmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Seeing as how he's been in office for 5 years, charts that only go back 5 years seems a little intellectual dishonest, eh?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"
Quote Reply
Re: More bad economic news [wmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It took only 6 years to almost return to the employment levels witnessed during the previous administration. :-[

Is this why all of the charts out of the White House only go back 5 years?


You're kidding right?

Apparently you missed the recession which Bush inherited. Then there was this little event commonly referred to as 9/11, it had a serious negative impact on the economy. Then there was this little storm that wiped out an entire US city. Oil prices have skyrocketed due to increasing worldwide demand. Really if you look at the whole picture the fact that the economy is what it is today is amazing.


----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

Quote Reply
Re: More bad economic news [hasbeenswimmer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The President didn't inherit a recession.

What are the measures by which you determine a recession:
- booming economy
- record low unemployment
- no inflation
- diminishing deficit
- eliminating the need for the 20 yr treasury (which subsequently we brought back)

Your comment that he inherited a recession is absurd. In 2000, we were up to our ass in ice cream. The newspapers complained about sharks.

All we had to worry about was sharks!

Agreed, 9/11 didn't do us any favors (note to the President: pay attention to pdb's).

But the tax cuts were useless. The OMB just issued a paper on this. Don't debate me. Read the paper. Or talk out your bum.

Besides the tax cuts, what economic policy has the President proposed to which you attribute the booming economy?

iambigkahunatony.com
Quote Reply
Re: More bad economic news [wmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The President didn't inherit a recession.

What are the measures by which you determine a recession:
- booming economy
- record low unemployment
- no inflation
- diminishing deficit
- eliminating the need for the 20 yr treasury (which subsequently we brought back)

Your comment that he inherited a recession is absurd. In 2000, we were up to our ass in ice cream. The newspapers complained about sharks.


But the tax cuts were useless. The OMB just issued a paper on this. Don't debate me. Read the paper. Or talk out your bum.

Besides the tax cuts, what economic policy has the President proposed to which you attribute the booming economy?


Obviously you have a flawed memory as to the economics of the 99-2000. Secondly none of things you list have a single thing to with a recession. Yopu talk as if you are Mr economist "don't debate me on this" yet you don't even know the basic definition of a recession, talk about talking out your bum. The classic definition by any economist with half a brain is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real GPD which in fact was the case in 2000.

Also showing your ignorance for basic economics the tax cuts have had a huge effect on the economy. I would say they are easily the single best thing that has been done to stimulate growth. Beyond that there has been a loosening of many regulations which got the government out of business lives and allowed them to do what they do best create jobs. Please show me the OMB's report, I did a search could nothing of the sort, but I did find this http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/nta-spring.html Please show a link to the report you are talking about.

Since you were so in love the previous admin and their economic policies please inform me as to exactly what they did to stimulate the economy. I really have been waiting to hear this..... Also since you appear to think tax cuts do not help and economy please help me understand how the previous admins tax increases helped the economy.


----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

Quote Reply