Ron 10 #1 May 7, 2004 http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/07/news/economy/jobless/index.htm QuoteJob growth strong Strong April report cuts unemployment rate to 5.6%; March report revised higher May 7, 2004: 8:33 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. employers added 288,000 jobs in April, a much anticipated government report said Friday, as the growth was well above Wall Street expectations. The job growth was below the revised 337,000 jobs added in the March report. A survey of economists by Reuters put the consensus forecast at 173,000 jobs added, with a range of estimates from 60,000 to 250,000. The Labor Department report also put the unemployment rate at 5.6 percent. Economists had been looking for unemployment to hold steady at a 5.7 percent rate seen in March. http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/06/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm QuoteJobless claims lowest since 2000 Americans filing for unemployment insurance fall by 25,000 to 315,000, lowest since Oct., 2000. May 6, 2004: 3:26 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans seeking unemployment assistance tumbled last week to the lowest level in three-and-a-half years, the government reported, coming in well below economists' expectations. Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped by 25,000 to 315,000 in the week ended May 1, the U.S. Labor Department reported. That's down from the previous week's revised figure of 340,000, and below estimates for 335,000, according to Briefing.com. The figure is the lowest since October, 28, 2000. The four-week average of initial claims, which irons out weekly fluctuations, slipped to 343,250 last week from a revised 347,000 the prior week. The Labor Department said the overall number of people on the benefit rolls who had already received an initial week of aid fell to 2,935,000 from a revised 3,004,000 the previous week. Following the report, stocks turned lower in early trading and bond prices fell, sending the yield on the 10-year note up to 4.60 percent. The initial jobless report leads up to Friday's highly anticipated unemployment and payroll report for April. Economists expect that non-farm payrolls will rise by 165,000, a strong figure, but below the initial reading of 308,000 in March. A payroll report similar to March's will emphasize the broad recovery for the economy and the notion that inflation is returning. Underscoring the return of inflation was Thursday's productivity report, showing an unexpected rise in the cost of employing workers. The Federal Reserve kept its key overnight borrowing rate at 1 percent Tuesday, but altered its accompanying statement, saying it could take a measured approach to lifting its accommodative monetary policy. A series of strong reports from the job market may force the central bank's hand to raise rates sooner than previously anticipated. I would blame the problems of the past on the 9/11 attacks...But it now seems things are turning up. Partly due to a normal cycle, but..so much for the Dems claims that Bush's plan does not work huh?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 May 7, 2004 None of this matters anymore, Ron They have found other things to whine about now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #3 May 7, 2004 Just on a completely unrelated note, how many of these jobs are temp positions that are filling positions that our National Guard had to temporarly leave when they were called into service? I don't know if any are but I've always wondered if a large call up would reduce the unemployment or if it would raise it since there is less money being spent in the local economy now. I am happy to see the numbers lower then in the past and I have noticed employers hiring more recently then only 6 months ago.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #4 May 7, 2004 Aren't you the guy who's always harping about how too much power is attributed to the president regarding the economy? Or is that only when things are bad, it's not his fault, but if things get better, he gets the credit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #5 May 7, 2004 QuoteAren't you the guy who's always harping about how too much power is attributed to the president regarding the economy? Or is that only when things are bad, it's not his fault, but if things get better, he gets the credit? ______________________________________ Well I fiqure if he is responsable, and must answer for the actions of a PFC putting a "Kick me" sign on the back of a kid in Iraq....I would have to venture that he has some resposability and should get some praise for the good stuff that he actually tried to do. (And seemed to have done)"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #6 May 7, 2004 QuoteWell I fiqure if he is responsable, and must answer for the actions of a PFC putting a "Kick me" sign on the back of a kid in Iraq.... I don't know what you're talking about. On subject as always I see. Quote would have to venture that he has some resposability and should get some praise for the good stuff that he actually tried to do. But no responsibility when anything bad happens, right? Such an unbiased view of King George is refreshing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #7 May 7, 2004 Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I fiqure if he is responsible, and must answer for the actions of a PFC putting a "Kick me" sign on the back of a kid in Iraq.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know what you're talking about. On subject as always I see. Its an exageration of how some of you Kerry lovers (maybe not you, but others) are saying that its Bush's fault that some soldiers in Iraq are treating prisoners bad. If you can say he is responsable for some small event, he sure can be responsable for a turn for the best in the economy. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- would have to venture that he has some resposability and should get some praise for the good stuff that he actually tried to do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But no responsibility when anything bad happens, right? Such an unbiased view of King George is refreshing Thats BS I have said several times on here if you can PROVE he knew about flase reasons to go into Iraq, or worse made them up...I'd ask for his head on a plate. All Im saying s if Bush haters can blame him for every bad thing under the sun, even when he tries to stop it....Then they should also give him credit for good things he tried to do. But you would never admit that he did any good."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #8 May 7, 2004 QuoteAll Im saying s if Bush haters can blame him for every bad thing under the sun, even when he tries to stop it....Then they should also give him credit for good things he tried to do. But you would never admit that he did any good. Bzzzzttt....wrong. First, I don't blame him for the torture in Iraq. I stated that in another thread. Second, I do blame his administration for a lot of things. For example Powell, Jr. selectively applying arbitrary FCC regulations, Ashcroft using the Patriot Act to jail pornographers and putting Tommy Chong in jail for licensing his name to a head shop, Rumsfeld for commiting 1/3 the troops that most of the generals in command said would be needed for success in Iraq. Is Bush drectly responsible for those things? No, but he is responsible in the fact that these are his appointees and report to him. And if he weren't in office, niether would they be. Let's see, what has Bush done that is good? I really really do have a hard time with this question. Not because I'm biased against republicans though. I can list lots that Bush Sr. did that was good, and Reagan, and Arlen Specter who I will be voting for. But Bush seems to do the exact opposite of my wishes in every category. THAT is why I hate him as president. Not for some partisan reason, but becasue of his policies, actions and decisions. You're the one who is trying to play both sides of the fence. You said many times not that Bush's economic policies would eventually work out. Or that they were on the right track. But rather that his policies have little to nothing to do with the economy. But as soon as one report of improvement comes out in one area of the economy, you give him the credit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #9 May 7, 2004 And by the way, the stock market tumbled yesterday based on this news and is down 400 points over the past 3 months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #10 May 7, 2004 QuoteYou're the one who is trying to play both sides of the fence. You said many times not that Bush's economic policies would eventually work out. Or that they were on the right track. But rather that his policies have little to nothing to do with the economy. But as soon as one report of improvement comes out in one area of the economy, you give him the credit. Ah, no. Yes I have said that the economy is effected by many things..Such as war. And I have said that policies need time to take effect. Do I think the Bush plan had something to do with this recovery? Some yes, all no. In fact if you had READ the first post you will see. QuoteI would blame the problems of the past on the 9/11 attacks...But it now seems things are turning up. Partly due to a normal cycle, but..so much for the Dems claims that Bush's plan does not work huh? Where in there did I say it was all Bush's plans? I reread it, and I still can't find it. In fact I say Partly due to a normal cycle. Which I really do believe. Do I think that Bush's ADMINISTRATION has had some positive influance in the economy...Yes, but the real test will be next year or even the next two years, not right after a program is put into place. I think we are just begining to see a recovery based off of the plans, and like I said the normal cycle. But if you Bush haters want to blame him for everything, then you need to give him credit for the good stuff..Some thing they and you just can't seem to do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #11 May 7, 2004 QuoteDo I think that Bush's ADMINISTRATION has had some positive influance in the economy...Yes, but the real test will be next year or even the next two years, not right after a program is put into place. I think we are just begining to see a recovery based off of the plans, and like I said the normal cycle. Fair enough. And for the record, I've never said Bush was to blame for the bad economy either. Although I don't believe his policies have or will help in that regard. I would give him credit where credit is due, but I don't see his policies of promoting outsourcing and extending free trade agreements as being responsible for an increase in job growth. Can you point to a policy or policies of his that would promote job creation? QuoteBut if you Bush haters want to blame him for everything, then you need to give him credit for the good stuff..Some thing they and you just can't seem to do. Again, I don't blame him for everything. I blame him for a lot of things, that are directly related to his policies and actions. And when he does something good, I'll give him credit for that. But I honestly can't come up with anything. Some reasons I considered voting for him: - Partial privatization of social security, but he hasn't accomplished that. - Protecting existing SS reserves....he raided that fund but quick - Leave no child behind, a miserable failure - Holding back government spending, yeah, right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #12 May 7, 2004 >Partly due to a normal cycle, but..so much for the Dems claims that > Bush's plan does not work huh? You just contradicted yourself there. It seems like that whenever the economy is doing poorly, the explanation is always that it's either a normal adjustment cycle or it's the previous guy's fault. As soon as it turns around, it's always the doing of the current president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #13 May 7, 2004 QuoteYou just contradicted yourself there. It seems like that whenever the economy is doing poorly, the explanation is always that it's either a normal adjustment cycle or it's the previous guy's fault. As soon as it turns around, it's always the doing of the current president. No, I think that it is MOSTY cycle..Both up and down. (Of course Im not Greenspan so what the hell do I know?) I DO think that policies can limit the effects of the drop or rise. I also think that it takes time for any policy to have an impact. The only really quick way to adjust the ecomony is something like a terror attack..And it did. However some people think that we were starting into a dip even in the last days of Clintons Addm. Again, While I can grasp ideas and have opinions I'm not all that when it comes to economics. This post was just to see you guys jump through hoops saying it means nothing, and that Bush had nothing to do with it...And I find it funny that you particulary blame Bush for everything that happens, but will not give him any positive credit. Its his fault that the prison in Iraq had some soldiers doing stupid things, but the better economy is not his doing? That is a giant double standard you have."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #14 May 7, 2004 >And I find it funny that you particulary blame Bush for everything >that happens, but will not give him any positive credit. Bush was not at fault for the sagging economy, nor was he responsible for its turnaround. If the deficit comes back to bite us in the butt, then I will hold him responsible for that, but that hasn't happened yet. >Its his fault that the prison in Iraq had some soldiers doing stupid > things, but the better economy is not his doing? Bush was not directly at fault for what happened in Iraq. If he just goes through the motions and doesn't make any serious changes to prevent it from happening again, it WILL be his responsibility the next time it happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimmytavino 16 #15 May 7, 2004 ...getting BACK to unemployment #'s..... gimme a break..... These numbers are based on people filing claims for unemployment benefits.... ..In truth the unemployment rate in this country is much much higher...... Please,,, I live in a moderate sized City's metropolitan area..... My work has me traveling all over this County and I pay attention.... The City is full of people whose main activity seems to be loitering.....They never HAD a job,, and some of them, simply Gave Up finding one a long time ago...they went through school,,, and then felt that they were DONE..... Factor in ALL the people,,, of ALL Races and Ethnic backgrounds...and AGES,, who do not WORK... (and by that I mean a Regular job of 30 hours a week to 50 hours a week)..... and i'll guess that More people are NOT employed,,,, than ARE......the spouses of prosperous businessmen or businesswomen who never HAD to work...or people who stopped working years ago to live off the prosperity of the generations before them....( can you say "inheritance"?? ) Politicians LOVE to give us 'statistics' but in this country either you are a "producer" ( you accomplish something at work each day AND you pay Taxes ) or you are a " utilizer " ( you take All you can get,,, be it from a government program, or from some insurance settlement or from a disability coverage..).( don't even get me started on the use Of Social Security Funds for such purposes).... We have too few people contributing and too many taking...... The land of the FREE ??..... well far too many people want to know.... "what can I get for Free???"........ So do an informal survey sometime..... ask EVERY one between ages 18 and say 55,,,,, "Do you have a permanent and regular JOB ???? and i bet more than half would say no.... hell there are many people in this countrry who have NEVER had to work...for a variety of reasons,,, most of them unacceptable to me........ anyway NOW I'm LATE for MY work....gotta go... signed..... "a guy who Never collected a Nickel,,, from Unemployment, Workers' Comp, Disability, Welfare, Insurance 'settlement', or any other entitlement program,,,,,in 35 years of working fulltime....." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #16 May 7, 2004 Quote...getting BACK to unemployment #'s..... gimme a break..... These numbers are based on people filing claims for unemployment benefits While I agree with your rant....Comparing the same indicies over different periods will give you a basic idea of if they are getting better or worse. These numbers show that the unemployment rate is going down. As long as they use the same data to record both numbers then it is good data even if it does not give the whole picture."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #17 May 7, 2004 QuoteComparing the same indicies over different periods will give you a basic idea of if they are getting better or worse. Except the indeces you're looking at represent newly unemployed people. Just because less people are losing their jobs, doesn't mean any more are getting them. And again, employment is hardly the main indicator of a strong economy. In fact, the strong employment numbers, coupled with the high deficit is causing rate hike and inflationary fears which is why the market tumbled yesterday and is down another 125 points so far just today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RoadRash 0 #18 May 7, 2004 Quoteanother 125 points so far just today. The stock market, particularly the Dow, tends to lose the most points on Friday. That is a trend...basing any economic progress or loss on a Friday can be very decieving. I'll bet that Monday closing, it will have gained all those points lost and then some. Just a guess... ~R+R...~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,153 #19 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou just contradicted yourself there. It seems like that whenever the economy is doing poorly, the explanation is always that it's either a normal adjustment cycle or it's the previous guy's fault. As soon as it turns around, it's always the doing of the current president. No, I think that it is MOSTY cycle..Both up and down. (Of course Im not Greenspan so what the hell do I know?) I DO think that policies can limit the effects of the drop or rise. I also think that it takes time for any policy to have an impact. The only really quick way to adjust the ecomony is something like a terror attack..And it did. However some people think that we were starting into a dip even in the last days of Clintons Addm. Again, While I can grasp ideas and have opinions I'm not all that when it comes to economics. This post was just to see you guys jump through hoops saying it means nothing, and that Bush had nothing to do with it...And I find it funny that you particulary blame Bush for everything that happens, but will not give him any positive credit. Its his fault that the prison in Iraq had some soldiers doing stupid things, but the better economy is not his doing? That is a giant double standard you have. I give him credit. He's nearly got unemployment down to the level it was under Clinton. Pity our children and grandchildren have to pay off his record "small and short lived" deficit. It's easy to feel rich when you're spending borrowed money.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #20 May 7, 2004 I believe I read somewhere that while there has been job growth, the level of pay is down across the board. Also, last I heard consumer spending has not increased due to lower paying jobs and the high cost of fuel. Also, those unemployment numbers are just new claims. It doesn't cover those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer get benefits, or those that do not qualify for them_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #21 May 7, 2004 QuoteThe stock market, particularly the Dow, tends to lose the most points on Friday. That is a trend... See above where as of yesterday it was down 400 over the past 3 months. Also, I agree with what you said. And the same thing applies to new jobless claims from month to month. It's a small statistic in the broad overall economic outlook that can't be used to tout the positive effects of economic policy. Still waiting to find out what policies of Bush's were responsible for this radical and amazing change in the unemployment figures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhreeZone 20 #3 May 7, 2004 Just on a completely unrelated note, how many of these jobs are temp positions that are filling positions that our National Guard had to temporarly leave when they were called into service? I don't know if any are but I've always wondered if a large call up would reduce the unemployment or if it would raise it since there is less money being spent in the local economy now. I am happy to see the numbers lower then in the past and I have noticed employers hiring more recently then only 6 months ago.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 May 7, 2004 Aren't you the guy who's always harping about how too much power is attributed to the president regarding the economy? Or is that only when things are bad, it's not his fault, but if things get better, he gets the credit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #5 May 7, 2004 QuoteAren't you the guy who's always harping about how too much power is attributed to the president regarding the economy? Or is that only when things are bad, it's not his fault, but if things get better, he gets the credit? ______________________________________ Well I fiqure if he is responsable, and must answer for the actions of a PFC putting a "Kick me" sign on the back of a kid in Iraq....I would have to venture that he has some resposability and should get some praise for the good stuff that he actually tried to do. (And seemed to have done)"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 May 7, 2004 QuoteWell I fiqure if he is responsable, and must answer for the actions of a PFC putting a "Kick me" sign on the back of a kid in Iraq.... I don't know what you're talking about. On subject as always I see. Quote would have to venture that he has some resposability and should get some praise for the good stuff that he actually tried to do. But no responsibility when anything bad happens, right? Such an unbiased view of King George is refreshing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #7 May 7, 2004 Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I fiqure if he is responsible, and must answer for the actions of a PFC putting a "Kick me" sign on the back of a kid in Iraq.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know what you're talking about. On subject as always I see. Its an exageration of how some of you Kerry lovers (maybe not you, but others) are saying that its Bush's fault that some soldiers in Iraq are treating prisoners bad. If you can say he is responsable for some small event, he sure can be responsable for a turn for the best in the economy. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- would have to venture that he has some resposability and should get some praise for the good stuff that he actually tried to do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But no responsibility when anything bad happens, right? Such an unbiased view of King George is refreshing Thats BS I have said several times on here if you can PROVE he knew about flase reasons to go into Iraq, or worse made them up...I'd ask for his head on a plate. All Im saying s if Bush haters can blame him for every bad thing under the sun, even when he tries to stop it....Then they should also give him credit for good things he tried to do. But you would never admit that he did any good."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 May 7, 2004 QuoteAll Im saying s if Bush haters can blame him for every bad thing under the sun, even when he tries to stop it....Then they should also give him credit for good things he tried to do. But you would never admit that he did any good. Bzzzzttt....wrong. First, I don't blame him for the torture in Iraq. I stated that in another thread. Second, I do blame his administration for a lot of things. For example Powell, Jr. selectively applying arbitrary FCC regulations, Ashcroft using the Patriot Act to jail pornographers and putting Tommy Chong in jail for licensing his name to a head shop, Rumsfeld for commiting 1/3 the troops that most of the generals in command said would be needed for success in Iraq. Is Bush drectly responsible for those things? No, but he is responsible in the fact that these are his appointees and report to him. And if he weren't in office, niether would they be. Let's see, what has Bush done that is good? I really really do have a hard time with this question. Not because I'm biased against republicans though. I can list lots that Bush Sr. did that was good, and Reagan, and Arlen Specter who I will be voting for. But Bush seems to do the exact opposite of my wishes in every category. THAT is why I hate him as president. Not for some partisan reason, but becasue of his policies, actions and decisions. You're the one who is trying to play both sides of the fence. You said many times not that Bush's economic policies would eventually work out. Or that they were on the right track. But rather that his policies have little to nothing to do with the economy. But as soon as one report of improvement comes out in one area of the economy, you give him the credit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 May 7, 2004 And by the way, the stock market tumbled yesterday based on this news and is down 400 points over the past 3 months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #10 May 7, 2004 QuoteYou're the one who is trying to play both sides of the fence. You said many times not that Bush's economic policies would eventually work out. Or that they were on the right track. But rather that his policies have little to nothing to do with the economy. But as soon as one report of improvement comes out in one area of the economy, you give him the credit. Ah, no. Yes I have said that the economy is effected by many things..Such as war. And I have said that policies need time to take effect. Do I think the Bush plan had something to do with this recovery? Some yes, all no. In fact if you had READ the first post you will see. QuoteI would blame the problems of the past on the 9/11 attacks...But it now seems things are turning up. Partly due to a normal cycle, but..so much for the Dems claims that Bush's plan does not work huh? Where in there did I say it was all Bush's plans? I reread it, and I still can't find it. In fact I say Partly due to a normal cycle. Which I really do believe. Do I think that Bush's ADMINISTRATION has had some positive influance in the economy...Yes, but the real test will be next year or even the next two years, not right after a program is put into place. I think we are just begining to see a recovery based off of the plans, and like I said the normal cycle. But if you Bush haters want to blame him for everything, then you need to give him credit for the good stuff..Some thing they and you just can't seem to do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 May 7, 2004 QuoteDo I think that Bush's ADMINISTRATION has had some positive influance in the economy...Yes, but the real test will be next year or even the next two years, not right after a program is put into place. I think we are just begining to see a recovery based off of the plans, and like I said the normal cycle. Fair enough. And for the record, I've never said Bush was to blame for the bad economy either. Although I don't believe his policies have or will help in that regard. I would give him credit where credit is due, but I don't see his policies of promoting outsourcing and extending free trade agreements as being responsible for an increase in job growth. Can you point to a policy or policies of his that would promote job creation? QuoteBut if you Bush haters want to blame him for everything, then you need to give him credit for the good stuff..Some thing they and you just can't seem to do. Again, I don't blame him for everything. I blame him for a lot of things, that are directly related to his policies and actions. And when he does something good, I'll give him credit for that. But I honestly can't come up with anything. Some reasons I considered voting for him: - Partial privatization of social security, but he hasn't accomplished that. - Protecting existing SS reserves....he raided that fund but quick - Leave no child behind, a miserable failure - Holding back government spending, yeah, right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #12 May 7, 2004 >Partly due to a normal cycle, but..so much for the Dems claims that > Bush's plan does not work huh? You just contradicted yourself there. It seems like that whenever the economy is doing poorly, the explanation is always that it's either a normal adjustment cycle or it's the previous guy's fault. As soon as it turns around, it's always the doing of the current president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #13 May 7, 2004 QuoteYou just contradicted yourself there. It seems like that whenever the economy is doing poorly, the explanation is always that it's either a normal adjustment cycle or it's the previous guy's fault. As soon as it turns around, it's always the doing of the current president. No, I think that it is MOSTY cycle..Both up and down. (Of course Im not Greenspan so what the hell do I know?) I DO think that policies can limit the effects of the drop or rise. I also think that it takes time for any policy to have an impact. The only really quick way to adjust the ecomony is something like a terror attack..And it did. However some people think that we were starting into a dip even in the last days of Clintons Addm. Again, While I can grasp ideas and have opinions I'm not all that when it comes to economics. This post was just to see you guys jump through hoops saying it means nothing, and that Bush had nothing to do with it...And I find it funny that you particulary blame Bush for everything that happens, but will not give him any positive credit. Its his fault that the prison in Iraq had some soldiers doing stupid things, but the better economy is not his doing? That is a giant double standard you have."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #14 May 7, 2004 >And I find it funny that you particulary blame Bush for everything >that happens, but will not give him any positive credit. Bush was not at fault for the sagging economy, nor was he responsible for its turnaround. If the deficit comes back to bite us in the butt, then I will hold him responsible for that, but that hasn't happened yet. >Its his fault that the prison in Iraq had some soldiers doing stupid > things, but the better economy is not his doing? Bush was not directly at fault for what happened in Iraq. If he just goes through the motions and doesn't make any serious changes to prevent it from happening again, it WILL be his responsibility the next time it happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #15 May 7, 2004 ...getting BACK to unemployment #'s..... gimme a break..... These numbers are based on people filing claims for unemployment benefits.... ..In truth the unemployment rate in this country is much much higher...... Please,,, I live in a moderate sized City's metropolitan area..... My work has me traveling all over this County and I pay attention.... The City is full of people whose main activity seems to be loitering.....They never HAD a job,, and some of them, simply Gave Up finding one a long time ago...they went through school,,, and then felt that they were DONE..... Factor in ALL the people,,, of ALL Races and Ethnic backgrounds...and AGES,, who do not WORK... (and by that I mean a Regular job of 30 hours a week to 50 hours a week)..... and i'll guess that More people are NOT employed,,,, than ARE......the spouses of prosperous businessmen or businesswomen who never HAD to work...or people who stopped working years ago to live off the prosperity of the generations before them....( can you say "inheritance"?? ) Politicians LOVE to give us 'statistics' but in this country either you are a "producer" ( you accomplish something at work each day AND you pay Taxes ) or you are a " utilizer " ( you take All you can get,,, be it from a government program, or from some insurance settlement or from a disability coverage..).( don't even get me started on the use Of Social Security Funds for such purposes).... We have too few people contributing and too many taking...... The land of the FREE ??..... well far too many people want to know.... "what can I get for Free???"........ So do an informal survey sometime..... ask EVERY one between ages 18 and say 55,,,,, "Do you have a permanent and regular JOB ???? and i bet more than half would say no.... hell there are many people in this countrry who have NEVER had to work...for a variety of reasons,,, most of them unacceptable to me........ anyway NOW I'm LATE for MY work....gotta go... signed..... "a guy who Never collected a Nickel,,, from Unemployment, Workers' Comp, Disability, Welfare, Insurance 'settlement', or any other entitlement program,,,,,in 35 years of working fulltime....." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #16 May 7, 2004 Quote...getting BACK to unemployment #'s..... gimme a break..... These numbers are based on people filing claims for unemployment benefits While I agree with your rant....Comparing the same indicies over different periods will give you a basic idea of if they are getting better or worse. These numbers show that the unemployment rate is going down. As long as they use the same data to record both numbers then it is good data even if it does not give the whole picture."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #17 May 7, 2004 QuoteComparing the same indicies over different periods will give you a basic idea of if they are getting better or worse. Except the indeces you're looking at represent newly unemployed people. Just because less people are losing their jobs, doesn't mean any more are getting them. And again, employment is hardly the main indicator of a strong economy. In fact, the strong employment numbers, coupled with the high deficit is causing rate hike and inflationary fears which is why the market tumbled yesterday and is down another 125 points so far just today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #18 May 7, 2004 Quoteanother 125 points so far just today. The stock market, particularly the Dow, tends to lose the most points on Friday. That is a trend...basing any economic progress or loss on a Friday can be very decieving. I'll bet that Monday closing, it will have gained all those points lost and then some. Just a guess... ~R+R...~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,153 #19 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou just contradicted yourself there. It seems like that whenever the economy is doing poorly, the explanation is always that it's either a normal adjustment cycle or it's the previous guy's fault. As soon as it turns around, it's always the doing of the current president. No, I think that it is MOSTY cycle..Both up and down. (Of course Im not Greenspan so what the hell do I know?) I DO think that policies can limit the effects of the drop or rise. I also think that it takes time for any policy to have an impact. The only really quick way to adjust the ecomony is something like a terror attack..And it did. However some people think that we were starting into a dip even in the last days of Clintons Addm. Again, While I can grasp ideas and have opinions I'm not all that when it comes to economics. This post was just to see you guys jump through hoops saying it means nothing, and that Bush had nothing to do with it...And I find it funny that you particulary blame Bush for everything that happens, but will not give him any positive credit. Its his fault that the prison in Iraq had some soldiers doing stupid things, but the better economy is not his doing? That is a giant double standard you have. I give him credit. He's nearly got unemployment down to the level it was under Clinton. Pity our children and grandchildren have to pay off his record "small and short lived" deficit. It's easy to feel rich when you're spending borrowed money.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #20 May 7, 2004 I believe I read somewhere that while there has been job growth, the level of pay is down across the board. Also, last I heard consumer spending has not increased due to lower paying jobs and the high cost of fuel. Also, those unemployment numbers are just new claims. It doesn't cover those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer get benefits, or those that do not qualify for them_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 May 7, 2004 QuoteThe stock market, particularly the Dow, tends to lose the most points on Friday. That is a trend... See above where as of yesterday it was down 400 over the past 3 months. Also, I agree with what you said. And the same thing applies to new jobless claims from month to month. It's a small statistic in the broad overall economic outlook that can't be used to tout the positive effects of economic policy. Still waiting to find out what policies of Bush's were responsible for this radical and amazing change in the unemployment figures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
