PDA

View Full Version : Nore positive economic figures....



PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 01:25 PM
Factory jobs...not exactly the minimum wage jobs some here claim are all that are being created.


"Factories, Construction Are Booming




Tuesday June 1, 11:10 AM EDT

By Victoria Thieberger

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. factories cranked up output at a cracking pace in May and construction spending surged to a third straight record high in April, according to reports on Tuesday that showed the economy gathering speed.

A measure of factory employment jumped to the highest level in 31 years as the nation's factories marked a full year of recovery. Taken together, the data supported the case for a Federal Reserve rate rise later this month.

The Institute for Supply Management said its index of national factory activity rose to 62.8 in May from 62.4 the prior month, beating expectations of a small decline to 62.0. The index was not far off its two-decade high of 63.6 reached in January.



"It showed that manufacturing activity has gone from being the U.S. economy's laggard to one of the driving forces behind the current recovery," said John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Investors Service.

"That big jump by the employment index for the month of May favors another reading on payroll employment which exceeds expectations," he added. The job component rose to 61.9 in May -- the highest since April 1973 -- from 57.8 the prior month."

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 01:53 PM
Despite our political differences or whatever we think caused this good news, its still good news. The thing is Im happy no matter whos in office when we have good news, whether it hurts or helps whichever canidate.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 02:21 PM
Despite our political differences or whatever we think caused this good news, its still good news. The thing is Im happy no matter whos in office when we have good news, whether it hurts or helps whichever canidate.


Lol...than there's no WAY you're a democrat. I've actually seen Democrat politicians look sour when good economic news came out while a Republican was in office. You won't see a Republican do that only because they are too tied in to the business world to even fake it. :lol:

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:32 PM
Im a registered Democrat and a self-proclaimed liberal(mostly social issues but Im economically liberal about tax cuts but conservative fiscally) but I am a moderate when Im debating because thats how you get people to agree with you. There's no way I could get people to agree with me if I play politics when it comes to news like this or if I dont take a jab or two at my fellow Dems or liberals when theyre wrong, cuz I will. Im more about doing the right thing, but not the right thing politically. I dont mind Republicans doing good things, its just Ive noticed that a majority of progress economically happens when Democrats are in office. I think we need a Republican like Eisenhower who was moderate, too many far-rights now in days. The way it is right now is there's moderate and conservative Dems and far-right Republicans, few outgoing liberals now. Its not cuz conservative is the only right ideology, its because "liberal" is now a dirty word thanks to the far reaching right-wing propaganda. Do you think its wrong when your fellow conservatives like Seans Hannity, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter call us liberals "terrorists" or "terroist-appeasers?"

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 02:56 PM
Im a registered Democrat and a self-proclaimed liberal(mostly social issues but Im economically liberal about tax cuts but conservative fiscally) but I am a moderate when Im debating because thats how you get people to agree with you. There's no way I could get people to agree with me if I play politics when it comes to news like this or if I dont take a jab or two at my fellow Dems or liberals when theyre wrong, cuz I will. Im more about doing the right thing, but not the right thing politically. I dont mind Republicans doing good things, its just Ive noticed that a majority of progress economically happens when Democrats are in office. I think we need a Republican like Eisenhower who was moderate, too many far-rights now in days. The way it is right now is there's moderate and conservative Dems and far-right Republicans, few outgoing liberals now. Its not cuz conservative is the only right ideology, its because "liberal" is now a dirty word thanks to the far reaching right-wing propaganda. Do you think its wrong when your fellow conservatives like Seans Hannity, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter call us liberals "terrorists" or "terroist-appeasers?"

Lol...if I was a Conservative OR a Republican, I might. But since I'm neither, and don't listen to any of the NeoCons, I can't speak to their comments. I'm a TRUE moderate. On social issues I'm quite liberal. On economic and foreign affairs issues quite Conservative. Show me a right or left winger and depending on the topic they'll either want to kill me or kiss me.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:59 PM
Lol...if I was a Conservative OR a Republican, I might. But since I'm neither, and don't listen to any of the NeoCons, I can't speak to their comments. I'm a TRUE moderate. On social issues I'm quite liberal. On economic and foreign affairs issues quite Conservative. Show me a right or left winger and depending on the topic they'll either want to kill me or kiss me.

Hehe I cant say im a TRUE moderate because Im a left-leaner, but youll never find someone whos just one thing unless theyre an extremist like a NeoCon, a fascist, a Communist or a Socialist.

Section126
06-01-2004, 04:49 PM
Hehe I cant say im a TRUE moderate because Im a left-leaner, but youll never find someone whos just one thing unless theyre an extremist like a NeoCon, a fascist, a Communist or a Socialist.


This is a Target rich environment.

Sorry man, I am not trying to pick on you.

Do you know what a NeoCon is?


They are not extremist. It is quite insulting to group them with commies and Nazi's too.


Let me help you out.

Neo= NEW.

Con= Conservative.

A NEOCON is a term that was coined to classify this group of people that were Democrats in the 70's and then converted to Republicans after Reagan got elected.

They are not extremist. In fact they are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative but hold the liberal foreign policy principles of intervention of JOHN F. KENNEDY.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 04:57 PM
Hehe I cant say im a TRUE moderate because Im a left-leaner, but youll never find someone whos just one thing unless theyre an extremist like a NeoCon, a fascist, a Communist or a Socialist.

Oh I don't know...Teddy Kennedy is about as left as you can get without a little beret with a red star.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:15 PM
This is a Target rich environment.

Sorry man, I am not trying to pick on you.

Do you know what a NeoCon is?


They are not extremist. It is quite insulting to group them with commies and Nazi's too.


Let me help you out.

Neo= NEW.

Con= Conservative.

A NEOCON is a term that was coined to classify this group of people that were Democrats in the 70's and then converted to Republicans after Reagan got elected.

They are not extremist. In fact they are the opposite of what you said they are: they are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative but hold the liberal foreign policy principles of intervention of JOHN F. KENNEDY.

Actually, NeoCons are actually about a far-right as you can get. They are socially conservative and fiscally "liberal" if you look at what the NeoCons have done since George W. Bush has taken power(record deficits).

What you were talking about is the Republicrats, not NeoCons. Two totally different labels. Republicrats, or Regancrats, were the Democrats in the 70's who voted for Ronald Regan in the 80's for the sake of fiscal responsibility which they didnt get with budget deficits which DO matter in the long run. NeoCons are part of the religious right and are far right-wing, though not right-wing as in libertarian, more like Barry Goldwater-type of conservative. I wasnt grouping NeoCons as being evil or anything as say Communists or Nazis, just as being extremists, but on the right.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:18 PM
Oh I don't know...Teddy Kennedy is about as left as you can get without a little beret with a red star.

Ehh.. I think the whole commie thing is a thing of the past. Ted is quite liberal(duh) but he is the Democrat's version of Tom DeLay, is he not?(I hope you dont get all specific on me and say they work in different chambers :tongue: )

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 05:22 PM
Ehh.. I think the whole commie thing is a thing of the past. Ted is quite liberal(duh) but he is the Democrat's version of Tom DeLay, is he not?(I hope you dont get all specific on me and say they work in different chambers :tongue: )

Teddy is the Democrats version of Pat Robertson. Except I don't think Pat killed anybody(he might have attended a Klan rally or two, but nothing direct like Ted)... :D

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 05:24 PM
Actually, NeoCons are actually about a far-right as you can get. They are socially conservative and fiscally "liberal" if you look at what the NeoCons have done since George W. Bush has taken power(record deficits).

What you were talking about is the Republicrats, not NeoCons. Two totally different labels. Republicrats, or Regancrats, were the Democrats in the 70's who voted for Ronald Regan in the 80's for the sake of fiscal responsibility which they didnt get with budget deficits which DO matter in the long run. NeoCons are part of the religious right and are far right-wing, though not right-wing as in libertarian, more like Barry Goldwater-type of conservative. I wasnt grouping NeoCons as being evil or anything as say Communists or Nazis, just as being extremists, but on the right.

Again, debt in itself is NOT a bad thing. JFK racked up MASSIVE debt during his brief time in office. Reagan also racked up huge debts. Guess what? That debt led to the fall of the Soviet Union which alled Clinton to cut defense spending and produce a surplus to pay down that debt. Debt is only bad if it isn't used for productive means. Think of it as the difference between getting a loan to buy a house(equity), and getting a loan to buy a boat.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:27 PM
Teddy is the Democrats version of Pat Robertson. Except I don't think Pat killed anybody(he might have attended a Klan rally or two, but nothing direct like Ted)... :D

Thats the same way I think when I hear conservatives(not saying you) talk about Bill Clinton's :goof: when he didnt kill anyone but the Iraq war has resulted in 1000's of lives lost(including innocent Iraqis) with Bush or whoever is responcible lied about the reasons for going to war(i.e. Iraq's threat to us and implying Bin Laden-Hussein ties).

But there's a double-standard I guess. :rolleyes:

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:29 PM
Again, debt in itself is NOT a bad thing. JFK racked up MASSIVE debt during his brief time in office. Reagan also racked up huge debts. Guess what? That debt led to the fall of the Soviet Union which alled Clinton to cut defense spending and produce a surplus to pay down that debt. Debt is only bad if it isn't used for productive means. Think of it as the difference between getting a loan to buy a house(equity), and getting a loan to buy a boat.

Supply-side economics.. :rolleyes:

Ok really.. debt leads to higher taxes that Republicans complain about. You evnetualyl have to pay off those debts. How? Either cut spending or raise taxes. Either one hurt us somehow in someway. Surpluses lead to lower taxes and/or adequate funding for beneficial things. Conservatives preach fiscal responsibility but rarely do they actually pratice this! Look at Regan,Bush I, Bush II. Or maybe its a NeoCon thing? ;)

About the USSR downfall, Id say that Regan outspending them contributed at least somewhat to the downfall, but you cant say Gorbachev didnt contribute to it greatly because he virtually turned that country around with his reforms that it really wasnt much of a communist government anymore, and with that came their economic downfall(maybe because they tried to keep up with our spending at the same time, we'll never know for sure).

Section126
06-01-2004, 05:54 PM
You have no idea what a NeoCon is and know less about economics.

NeoCon is short for NEOCONSERVATIVE.

The Term NEOCONSERVATIVE MEANS "A person NEW to conservative policies."

NeoCons are not extremist, and are Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and liberally interventionist.

In a way, the NeoCons are basically JOHN F. KENNEDY disciples.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:09 PM
You have no idea what a NeoCon is and know less about economics.

NeoCon is short for NEOCONSERVATIVE.

The Term NEOCONSERVATIVE MEANS "A person NEW to conservative policies."

NeoCons are not extremist, and are Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and liberally interventionist.

In a way, the NeoCons are basically JOHN F. KENNEDY disciples.

So what do u call John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Bush II, Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay...?

NeoCon doesnt nessasarily mean "a person new to conservative policies" it means "new conservatives" which could mean anything really but they seem to persue more extreme conservative policies, like "NeoNazis", they pursue more extreme policies of Nazism. If they are socially liberal, then why are the NeoCons in power against gay marriage?


Economics are based on theories not exactly results because results vary. Im more of a "all-boats-lift-up" type of economist. Do you know what that means?

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:12 PM
Thats the same way I think when I hear conservatives(not saying you) talk about Bill Clinton's :goof: when he didnt kill anyone but the Iraq war has resulted in 1000's of lives lost(including innocent Iraqis) with Bush or whoever is responcible lied about the reasons for going to war(i.e. Iraq's threat to us and implying Bin Laden-Hussein ties).

But there's a double-standard I guess. :rolleyes:


If people are dumb enough to rely SOLELY on the WMD's for going into Iraq, than I could agree with you...but there are way to many other reasons for that to be a big issue. I do blame Bush for an idiotic PR move when he pushed WMD's over all the other reasons.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:16 PM
Supply-side economics.. :rolleyes:

Ok really.. debt leads to higher taxes that Republicans complain about. You evnetualyl have to pay off those debts. How? Either cut spending or raise taxes. Either one hurt us somehow in someway. Surpluses lead to lower taxes and/or adequate funding for beneficial things. Conservatives preach fiscal responsibility but rarely do they actually pratice this! Look at Regan,Bush I, Bush II. Or maybe its a NeoCon thing? ;)

About the USSR downfall, Id say that Regan outspending them contributed at least somewhat to the downfall, but you cant say Gorbachev didnt contribute to it greatly because he virtually turned that country around with his reforms that it really wasnt much of a communist government anymore, and with that came their economic downfall(maybe because they tried to keep up with our spending at the same time, we'll never know for sure).

Corporate taxes, and through them, income tax, go up NOT as a percentage, but as a result of increased revenue. Here's a quick question for you...when Clinton racked up that huge surpluss...how much did he decrease taxes?...Uh huh...Again, JFK invented defecit spending LONG before any of the GOP PResidents got involved. As for the USSR...the economy brought Gorby into power, and the MASSIVE defense spending to keep up with the US killed the economy. Reagan didn't do it single handedly, but he put the peices into place.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:18 PM
So what do u call John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Bush II, Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay...?

NeoCon doesnt nessasarily mean "a person new to conservative policies" it means "new conservatives" which could mean anything really but they seem to persue more extreme conservative policies, like "NeoNazis", they pursue more extreme policies of Nazism. If they are socially liberal, then why are the NeoCons in power against gay marriage?


Economics are based on theories not exactly results because results vary. Im more of a "all-boats-lift-up" type of economist. Do you know what that means?

I won't debate the other points, but NEo by defenition means "new". Neo-Nazi's aren't any worse than the old Nazi's(really...how do you get worse than the old Nazi's?)...they are just NEW NAzi's. Same with NeoCons...it doesn't nessesarily mean they are new TO Conservativism...just that they are THE new Conservatives. Radicalism/extremism has nothing to do with the term.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:20 PM
If people are dumb enough to rely SOLELY on the WMD's for going into Iraq, than I could agree with you...but there are way to many other reasons for that to be a big issue. I do blame Bush for an idiotic PR move when he pushed WMD's over all the other reasons.

See I like debating with conservatives like you Phin because you dont attack the poster you attack the post. You also seem to criticize the person whom you support when you feel they did something wrong. Some conservatives and liberals go way out of their way to defend their politician now matter how wrong that politician is, and I feel thats wrong. I will criticize Kerry for flip-flopping and for not attacking Bush stronger. I will criticize Clinton for lying under oath even though he was asked a quesiton he shouldnt have been asked. I will criticize anyone regardless of party or ideology whether or not they deserve it and regardless of whether or not we're at war. I praise those who do the same. :up:

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:25 PM
Corporate taxes, and through them, income tax, go up NOT as a percentage, but as a result of increased revenue. Here's a quick question for you...when Clinton racked up that huge surpluss...how much did he decrease taxes?...Uh huh...Again, JFK invented defecit spending LONG before any of the GOP PResidents got involved. As for the USSR...the economy brought Gorby into power, and the MASSIVE defense spending to keep up with the US killed the economy. Reagan didn't do it single handedly, but he put the peices into place.

Right, Im just saying its not really quite accurate when some claim that Regan won the Cold War for us when it was a variety of factors that led to the downfall of the USSR, just like it wasnt just Bill Clinton's 1993 Budget Reduction Act or whatever was really called that led to 90's economic boom. And yes, JFK did practically invent the defecit spending, but I still dont think its a way to run a country.

To answer your question, Bill Clinton's plan was to pay off the national debt before lowering taxes(which is what I hope he was planning on doing anyway). Bush lowered taxes before paying off the national debt, which is again the responsible thing to do. If we paid off the national debt, then we couldve lowered taxes. But surpluses are created to pay things and thats what we were on our way to doing, before Bush lowered taxes, although with 9/11 I dont think paying off the national debt is realistic now.

Back to the USSR issue, anyone notice that imperialism always leads to a certain downfall(USSR, Rome, Ottoman, British, French..)?

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:30 PM
See I like debating with conservatives like you Phin because you dont attack the poster you attack the post. You also seem to criticize the person whom you support when you feel they did something wrong. Some conservatives and liberals go way out of their way to defend their politician now matter how wrong that politician is, and I feel thats wrong. I will criticize Kerry for flip-flopping and for not attacking Bush stronger. I will criticize Clinton for lying under oath even though he was asked a quesiton he shouldnt have been asked. I will criticize anyone regardless of party or ideology whether or not they deserve it and regardless of whether or not we're at war. I praise those who do the same. :up:
Lol...if you think I'm a Conservative, you should start a thread on abortion, gay rights/marriage, or religion. I can promise you I'll have every Conservative on this board out for my blood.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:31 PM
I won't debate the other points, but NEo by defenition means "new". Neo-Nazi's aren't any worse than the old Nazi's(really...how do you get worse than the old Nazi's?)...they are just NEW NAzi's. Same with NeoCons...it doesn't nessesarily mean they are new TO Conservativism...just that they are THE new Conservatives. Radicalism/extremism has nothing to do with the term.

Right again, but I feel the new conservatives are quite extreme/radical with their policies is all Im saying. Just like how the Democrats under Clinton were the "New Democrats" that they were moderate. As the Dems pulled center the Repugs seemed to pull more right.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:32 PM
Lol...if you think I'm a Conservative, you should start a thread on abortion, gay rights/marriage, or religion. I can promise you I'll have every Conservative on this board out for my blood.

:lol: ok how about Bush supporter?

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:34 PM
:lol: ok how about Bush supporter?


Technically correct, but a more accurate label would be "Supporting Bush because the other guy sucks"....LIEBERMAN/McCAIN 2008!!! :D

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:35 PM
Right again, but I feel the new conservatives are quite extreme/radical with their policies is all Im saying. Just like how the Democrats under Clinton were the "New Democrats" that they were moderate. As the Dems pulled center the Repugs seemed to pull more right.


Honestly, none of them changed, they just "repackaged". The Clinton Democrats weren't any more moderate...they just hid it better. Same with the NeoCons...still the same old Cross Burners(who were actually all Democrats)...just with new packaging.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:42 PM
Honestly, none of them changed, they just "repackaged". The Clinton Democrats weren't any more moderate...they just hid it better. Same with the NeoCons...still the same old Cross Burners(who were actually all Democrats)...just with new packaging.

Ya you noticed how the parties flip-flopped ideologically sometime last century. Strom Thurmond was one of the rasict southern Democrats who turned Dixiecrat then REPUBLICAN! But Id say he and Trent Lott and some others like them really give the party a bad name.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:46 PM
Technically correct, but a more accurate label would be "Supporting Bush because the other guy sucks"....LIEBERMAN/McCAIN 2008!!! :D

Lieberman? You gotta be kidding me. No problem with McCain though.

Id support a bi-partisian ticket anyday, depending on who the canidates are. For more on Lieberman check this out: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/lie.htm

But Id love to see the day when we actually have a White House thats split between two political parties. That will never happen though.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 07:38 PM
Lieberman? You gotta be kidding me. No problem with McCain though.

Id support a bi-partisian ticket anyday, depending on who the canidates are. For more on Lieberman check this out: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/lie.htm

But Id love to see the day when we actually have a White House thats split between two political parties. That will never happen though.

I tend to ignore everything Lieberman did during the Gore campaign since a VP is nothing but a mouthpiece. I like Lieberman because he's a Conservative Democrat who actually knows what he wants.

Section126
06-01-2004, 10:31 PM
Ya you noticed how the parties flip-flopped ideologically sometime last century. Strom Thurmond was one of the rasict southern Democrats who turned Dixiecrat then REPUBLICAN! But Id say he and Trent Lott and some others like them really give the party a bad name.

No mention of the CURRENT democrats in the senate like:

Fritz Hollings: a raging anti-semite, who is credited with adopting the confederate flag as the flag of South Carolina as Governor. He is currently a leading voice for the Democrats in the senate.

Robert "KKK" Byrd: A longtime Democrat who has as much clout as anybody today in Democrat politics....needless to say...he was a Grand Kleagel in the Klu Klux Klan.



As for the NeoCon crap......Ashcroft is a PaleoCon.......so are the others you mentioned except for Bush II.....Bush's policies have shown him to be all over the political map. Just look at what he has spent on Education, his trade policy, etc...etc....

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 03:26 PM
Lol...than there's no WAY you're a democrat. I've actually seen Democrat politicians look sour when good economic news came out while a Republican was in office. You won't see a Republican do that only because they are too tied in to the business world to even fake it. :lol:


Now THERE you go again, talkin' about Teddy Kennedy again!!!! :lol:
Come to think of it, I can't remeber the last time I saw a smile on his face about anything. he always looks like he's pissed about som'n!! :roflmao: