Economic Growth Down To 1.9% - 1st Quarter 2012 (generation, Canada, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That figure does not mean anything and analyzing the economy with "numbers" is as foolish as going to a witch doctor when you need to have a kidney removed. The study of human action which is the root of all economics is not something that can be tracked and/or controlled with a calculator.
The cancer needs to be removed. Government controls, regulations, the insane myriad of tax regulations as related to earned income which is nothing more than a tax on labor/human effort and is alot higher than capital gains taxes. As well as the increasing power of the federal government in every aspect of our lives and the utopian-like social engineering that involves redistribution of wealth through a tax code that is nothing short of absolute tyranny.
1.9% growth on a macroeconomic level means nothing to a family that is living in their car, a person making minimum wage, someone facing an IRS tax audit, about to lose their house and/or on their final week of unemployment unable to even get hired at McDonalds.
It beats a recession. Imagine if we gave the reins to a governor whose job creation record got beat out by 46 other governors.
When the unemployment rate was 4.6% for his state during his terms, considered full employment, what jobs are there to add? Good talking point, but BS and you know it.
When the unemployment rate was 4.6% for his state during his terms, considered full employment, what jobs are there to add? Good talking point, but BS and you know it.
How is 4.6% full employment when we have seen unemployment rate as low as 3.8% (April 2000)?
It's actually a lot higher than 7.4% and everybody knows it.
But it is only 0.8% higher. Isn't that insignificant? As you made it to be when defining full employment at 3.8% (in Apr 2000) and also at 4.6% (in May 2006)?
But it is only 0.8% higher. Isn't that insignificant? As you made it to be when defining full employment at 3.8% (in Apr 2000) and also at 4.6% (in May 2006)?
I didn't claim that. Some other poster did.
I didn't look back at all the posts .... so let's have it.
What is this 0.8% that you're talking about, and how does it make Obama's mess any better?
When the unemployment rate was 4.6% for his state during his terms, considered full employment, what jobs are there to add? Good talking point, but BS and you know it.
I'm sorry that Romney wasn't very good at creating jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
