Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2008, 02:40 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,741,473 times
Reputation: 1344

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
52 consecutive months of job growth is "the worst job history since Hoover?"
Bush didn't take office in late 2003.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:02 PM
 
45 posts, read 36,530 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
Bush didn't take office in late 2003.
Not to mention the government consistently understates unemployment in its statistics.

Believing a statistic that operates on a moving target is just plain nuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:23 PM
 
711 posts, read 930,578 times
Reputation: 364
Smile Unemployment

IMO Saganista's posts are for the most part "right on the money".

I suppose we could swap more sites to attempt to solidify our statements or continue to agree to disagree. Stats. can be bounced till boredom sets in. We can also refer to personal common knowledge based on first hand insight. Most of us make purchases, confer with colleagues and family,and some of us with the public at large.

I am sure the outsourcing of US jobs, the demise of manufacturing base employment, the layoffs and the benefit elimination or reductions, and the continuing disloyalty of our large corporations have been heard and discussed by most of us. Hear about Hershey? Is our food purchases rapidly increasing in price--how about our fuel. Yes, and couple that with those who are now working at much lower wages with few or absolutely no benefits. Yes, the WAR on the middle class is easier when coordinated and smokescreened behind faux foreign issues.

Let us ask ourselves--were we better off before this adm. or since?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,262,341 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluskyz View Post
IMO Saganista's posts are for the most part "right on the money".

I suppose we could swap more sites to attempt to solidify our statements or continue to agree to disagree. Stats. can be bounced till boredom sets in. We can also refer to personal common knowledge based on first hand insight. Most of us make purchases, confer with colleagues and family,and some of us with the public at large.

I am sure the outsourcing of US jobs, the demise of manufacturing base employment, the layoffs and the benefit elimination or reductions, and the continuing disloyalty of our large corporations have been heard and discussed by most of us. Hear about Hershey? Is our food purchases rapidly increasing in price--how about our fuel. Yes, and couple that with those who are now working at much lower wages with few or absolutely no benefits. Yes, the WAR on the middle class is easier when coordinated and smokescreened behind faux foreign issues.

Let us ask ourselves--were we better off before this adm. or since?
Speaking for myself, definitely since. You may be in a different field than I.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:44 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Problem with that theory is, I have a degree in economics. we have had MANY bubbles, the first of which was in the late 90s by way of Mr. Alan Greenspan, then we have had two more subsequent bubbles.
No, no bubbles. We have had market fluctuations...fluctuating is what markets do. Sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down. No doubt this sort of zig-zag pattern that nearly all markets trace over time was something often seen in some of your economics studies. It shouldn't be too surprising to encounter the same thing in the real world. Bubbles are a different matter. They are outside the norm. Nothing of the recent past has been outside the norm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
As for the 2001 - 2003 recession, Bush inherited that mess. That started under Clinton, but the pied piper he is, people ran behind him like zombies without noticing the mess. 9/11 just exacerbated a situation which was already starting to get bad.
No, Clinton had nothing to do with it. Lack of confidence in Bush, however, was a significant factor in the onset of the recession, his election having only sealed the deal. Decision-makers were understandably in a cautious mood over potentially disruptive changes in the economy as Clinton's term began to wind down, and then along comes this guy Gov. Bush preaching his counter-intuitive mantra of economic gloom and doom being just around the corner and how massive tax cuts were the only thing that could possibly head it off. Reasonable people know that massive tax cuts lead to massive declines in revenue and hence to massive deficits, and that frittering away the hard-won surplus on tax give-aways would destabilize what had emerged as a successful public-private relationship in capital markets and elsewhere. Faced with worry and uncertainty over what would actually happen next, decisions were postponed to wait for the dust to settle. Gross private domestic investment went negative for six consecutive quarters starting in the Fall of 2000. Certainly, the sixth one was impacted by 9/11, but none of the first five was. The same effect hit purchases of consumer durables, as startled households decided to scale back or hold off until they were more sure of what all this sudden ruckus was about. And what it was about was reckless tax cuts, reckless spending, reckless foreign policy, and reckless everything else. The economy never quite managed two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but the slump was clear and certain. Over the sixteen quarters between mid-1996 and mid-2000, the average expansion in GDP was just under 4.4%. It has failed to reach even that average mark in 25 of the 29 quarters since.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:59 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by callahan12 View Post
Not to mention the government consistently understates unemployment in its statistics. Believing a statistic that operates on a moving target is just plain nuts.
I come across such suggestions from time to time, but often it turns out simply that one's idea of what unemployment ought to be differs from what unemployment as defined and reported actually is. Could you put a little meat on these tantalizingly provocative bones?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
two questions

1. who do you think I was refering to when I said "increasing spending", the govt?
As the old saying goes, "The President proposes and Congress disposes. The President increases spending, but only if it passes through Congress.

Quote:
2. where do you get your information from on these subjects, besides google I mean?
Mainly the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now a question for you:
1. Do you agree that there has not been a recession since the one Bush inherited?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
Bush didn't take office in late 2003.
? ? ?
Who said he did?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
The Bush economy doesn't compare to the Clinton economy at all. The recession was Bush's creation from the get-go.
Lol. We were under a Clinton economy until about 6 months after Bush was sworn in. Because it takes about that long for a new President's economic policy to take effect

Quote:
The internet boom continues to this day.
The bubble burst for a while in the late-'90s


Quote:
The simple facts are that no President prior to Bush had ever inherited an economy in better shape.
The simple fact is that Clinton inherited an economy coming out of recession and Bush inherited an economy going into one.

Quote:
No, laziness has nothing to do with it...see?
Job Growth Sags and Unemployment Jumps in December
If you weren't lazy, why didn't you post the link the first time?
And what about it... I already know about the December figures.

Quote:
I'm guessing it's because you think taxes will increase if Hillary is elected President. They will. Get used to the idea, because taxes will increase regardless of who is elected President.
Well, yes, I guess liberals think that taxes have to be increased. Fortunately, others (Bush, for instance) know different.

Quote:
Reagan's tax cuts were, as predicted, a disaster.
Yeah, some "disaster." An huge 9.7% GDP growth in one quarter in 1984.

Quote:
The Bushie tax cuts have done tremendous damage to the economy, but unlike Reagan, Bush has not been man enough to recognize his own mistakes.
Lol. Yeah, "tremendous" damage, like an unemployment rate lower than the average unemployment rate during the '70s, '80s and '90s. And a large 8.3% GDP growth in one quarter in 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Meanwhile, my job is to point out the deceptions being attempted by the Minister of Disinformation. Fortunately for me, it isn't such a difficult task, what with the facts all being on my side and all... :-)
In that case, you should correct the many errors you made in post #65.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top