PDA

View Full Version : Jobless Recovery?



PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 11:32 AM
Job growth rocks again

Employers added 248,000 jobs, making three-month gain best in 4 years; jobless rate steady at 5.6%.
June 4, 2004: 10:49 AM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Job growth is the hottest it's been in four years, a government report showed Friday, as the nation's employers added nearly a million jobs over the last three months.


The economy created 248,000 jobs outside the farm sector in May, the Labor Department reported, compared with a revised gain of 346,000 for April. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast the May report would show a 225,000-job gain.

The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent, in line with economists' forecasts.

And the strength in the job market is starting to be seen in workers' paycheck. For the second straight month average hourly wages rose 0.3 percent, last month to $15.64.

April job growth was revised up from a previous reading of 288,000 new jobs. The department also revised the number of jobs created in March, to 353,000 from a previous reading of 337,000.

That means the economy created 947,000 jobs the past three months, the best since 1.03 million jobs were added during the same three months of 2000.

"This is a pretty strong report," said Ethan Harris, chief economist with Lehman Brothers. "But the markets are ready for 200,000-plus jobs gains every month now. This is no big surprise."

The job increase was broad-based, with only government employment falling in the period. Manufacturing added 32,000 jobs and construction added 37,000. Retailers added 19,000 jobs.

The monthly jobs report is closely watched by investors for clues to the economy's strength, and as to when the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates.

The Fed, the nation's central bank, is widely expected to raise its target for a key short-term rate late this month, rather than waiting for its August meeting.

Friday's report did little to change that thinking.

ohall
06-04-2004, 11:35 AM
Damn from CNN as well. It must have really hurt them to write up such a positive story about anything dealing with America.

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 11:59 AM
Its the jobs coming back that were lost due to the events of 9/11, which plunged our economy faster than Dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 12:04 PM
Its the jobs coming back that were lost due to the events of 9/11, which plunged our economy faster than Dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy.

And? The dotcom bubble allowed a level of unemployment which economists said was impossible in a healthy economy. Turns out they were right. If the current unemployment rate gets even CLOSE to that figure in a real economy that will be pretty impressive. Bottom line, jobs are roaring back in and they are NOT minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. What more do you want? Seriously, how do you spin this as a bad thing? Quite honestly, I think people VASTLY overrate a Presidents impact on the economy. VASTLY. So no, I don't think Bush deserves more than minimal credit for these jobs coming back. But then again, I think he deserved only minimal blame for them leaving in the first place. But for those who DID lay the blame at his feet...step up like a man and give him the credit now that they are coming back.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 12:24 PM
And? The dotcom bubble allowed a level of unemployment which economists said was impossible in a healthy economy. Turns out they were right. If the current unemployment rate gets even CLOSE to that figure in a real economy that will be pretty impressive. Bottom line, jobs are roaring back in and they are NOT minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. What more do you want? Seriously, how do you spin this as a bad thing? Quite honestly, I think people VASTLY overrate a Presidents impact on the economy. VASTLY. So no, I don't think Bush deserves more than minimal credit for these jobs coming back. But then again, I think he deserved only minimal blame for them leaving in the first place. But for those who DID lay the blame at his feet...step up like a man and give him the credit now that they are coming back.

Im not saying this a bad thing, Im just saying what I believe this recovery really is. What has Bush done to create these jobs? If Bush can create at least one million jobs, Ill be impressed.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 12:40 PM
Im not saying this a bad thing, Im just saying what I believe this recovery really is. What has Bush done to create these jobs? If Bush can create at least one million jobs, Ill be impressed.

How does a President create jobs? Other than going to war, or expanding government, what direct impact on the economy and jobs does a President have? Name me one job that Bill Clinton "created".

BigFinFan
06-04-2004, 12:55 PM
We are always hiring.

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 12:57 PM
How does a President create jobs? Other than going to war, or expanding government, what direct impact on the economy and jobs does a President have? Name me one job that Bill Clinton "created".

I believe an economy can be affected in a good or bad way depending on a variety of factors. One of them is how money is distributed. Conservatives believe in the old Ronald Regan "Voodoo" or "Trickle-down" economic theory that in my opinion only works as a "quick fix" to stimulate an economy. Bill Clinton used a Kennedy economic theory that IMO works: "all boats liftup". You give tax cuts to the middle and lower class, who need the money, and no doubt will spend it instead of giving that money at the top where it will get saved. The middle and lower class will spend the money, which will help the big businesses no doubt, and will lead to them making profits, which will lead to more jobs created. This works too by cutting taxes for small businesses. Its about shifiting the burden on the right social economic class. Thats why liberal democrats are prone to taxing the wealthy and big business. Its smart economics IMO.

Of course I could be wrong but then again so could you.

But thats my theory on how to create jobs without expaning government or going to war, which Bush has done both.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 01:00 PM
We are always hiring.

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

So is my local movie theater. :D

Seriously though, Ive considered joining the navy.

BigFinFan
06-04-2004, 01:10 PM
So is my local movie theater. :D

Seriously though, Ive considered joining the navy.

What has stopped you?

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 01:54 PM
What has stopped you?

1.Im still in High School(one more year, I got held back in elementry school)

2.Im taking an internship at the Broward Public Defender's office and seeing where that's going to take me.

3.Waiting until I graduate H.S. to see where I want to go from there, but the Navy is certainly an option.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 02:04 PM
Hmm...tell me about the Clinton tax cuts to the middle and lower classes. When did these take place?




I believe an economy can be affected in a good or bad way depending on a variety of factors. One of them is how money is distributed. Conservatives believe in the old Ronald Regan "Voodoo" or "Trickle-down" economic theory that in my opinion only works as a "quick fix" to stimulate an economy. Bill Clinton used a Kennedy economic theory that IMO works: "all boats liftup". You give tax cuts to the middle and lower class, who need the money, and no doubt will spend it instead of giving that money at the top where it will get saved. The middle and lower class will spend the money, which will help the big businesses no doubt, and will lead to them making profits, which will lead to more jobs created. This works too by cutting taxes for small businesses. Its about shifiting the burden on the right social economic class. Thats why liberal democrats are prone to taxing the wealthy and big business. Its smart economics IMO.

Of course I could be wrong but then again so could you.

But thats my theory on how to create jobs without expaning government or going to war, which Bush has done both.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 02:14 PM
http://clinton4.nara.gov


Tax Cuts for Working Families. 15 million additional working families received additional tax relief because of the President’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1999, the EITC lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty – nearly double the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993. This year, the President proposed expanding the EITC to provide tax relief to an additional 6.8 million hard-pressed working families. [Good News for Low Income Families: Expansions in the EITC and Minimum Wage, CEA, 12/98; Census Bureau]

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 02:20 PM
http://clinton4.nara.gov


ROFL!!! Oh...you mean THESE tax cuts?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/01/tax.cuts/

The ones Clinton tried so hard to Veto?

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 02:39 PM
ROFL!!! Oh...you mean THESE tax cuts?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/01/tax.cuts/

The ones Clinton tried so hard to Veto?

Read your own article to understand why Clinton threatned to veto it.

1. He felt that the cuts exceeded $800 billion.

"..President Clinton's promise to veto any measure that approaches the nearly $800 billion in cuts approved by the House and Senate."

2. He wanted to pay down the National Debt first.

"It would be better to do nothing and pay down $100 billion of our national debt than to sign a large and irresponsible tax cut that would signal to the world that the era of fiscal discipline in the United States is over," Sperling said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

Thats what Ive been saying all along what we should have done, although this tax cut wasn't nearly as big as Bush's three that drained the surpluses away.

3. Republicans also didnt like the proposed cuts at the time because most of it didnt go to the wealthy which was Clinton's "all boats liftup" plan.

"Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) says Republican and the White House are "much further apart than the public understands" because Clinton's tax cut doesn't provide relief to those who pay the bulk of federal taxes(the wealthy) -- something he says the GOP plan does.

'The reality is (Clinton's) so-called tax cut is basically giving money to people who largely don't pay taxes, so that it's really spending rather than a tax cut,' Gramm said on "This Week."

There reason why they dont pay the taxes is usually because they cant pay the taxes. But theres also lazy/dishonest people in all economic classes.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 03:04 PM
Oh, I'll fully agree that Clinton tried to give tax money to the lower classes. What I was trying to figure out was where he gave any tax breaks to the middle classes. I'm sorry, but if you don't PAY taxes...you shouldn't get any tax money "back". That's NOT a tax cut. How the HECK do you cut ZERO? It's been a while since my last math class, but I seem to remember that zero wasn't divisable. Giving MY tax money to those who never paid any of it in the first place isn't a tax break...it's redistribution of wealth. And THAT is what the GOP was up in arms about. If they want to give ME a tax break, FINE. But don't disguise welfare as a tax break and try to feed that to me. So again, kindly show me Clintons initiative to give tax breaks to the middle class. Because what he actually proposed was just another form of welfare. And as for Bush wiping out the defecits, the economy and a war did that. The tax cuts to the wealthy and middle classes may be part of what brings us out of those problems. One last thing...how about just a little fairness in the discussion of tax breaks...if you pay in the most money, why in the freaking world should you NOT recieve the most money back? Where did that logic come from? Oh, and have you seen John Kerry's wifes tax returns yet?

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:21 PM
Oh, I'll fully agree that Clinton tried to give tax money to the lower classes. What I was trying to figure out was where he gave any tax breaks to the middle classes. I'm sorry, but if you don't PAY taxes...you shouldn't get any tax money "back". That's NOT a tax cut. How the HECK do you cut ZERO? It's been a while since my last math class, but I seem to remember that zero wasn't divisable. Giving MY tax money to those who never paid any of it in the first place isn't a tax break...it's redistribution of wealth. And THAT is what the GOP was up in arms about. If they want to give ME a tax break, FINE. But don't disguise welfare as a tax break and try to feed that to me. So again, kindly show me Clintons initiative to give tax breaks to the middle class. Because what he actually proposed was just another form of welfare. And as for Bush wiping out the defecits, the economy and a war did that. The tax cuts to the wealthy and middle classes may be part of what brings us out of those problems. One last thing...how about just a little fairness in the discussion of tax breaks...if you pay in the most money, why in the freaking world should you NOT recieve the most money back? Where did that logic come from? Oh, and have you seen John Kerry's wifes tax returns yet?

If you're going to give a tax cut to rescue the economy and put a majority the money at the top, its not going to work. Its youre giving a tax cut to give money back, fine. But only do it in economically sound times, when all debts are paid off, and when unemployment is at its lowest.

No I havent seen Ms. Kerry's Tax Returns yet. Have you seen Ken Lay in a prison outfit yet?

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 03:26 PM
If you're going to give a tax cut to rescue the economy and put a majority the money at the top, its not going to work. Its youre giving a tax cut to give money back, fine. But only do it in economically sound times, when all debts are paid off, and when unemployment is at its lowest.

No I havent seen Ms. Kerry's Tax Returns yet. Have you seen Ken Lay in a prison outfit yet?


When Ken Lay is trying to be first lady, I'll worry about Ken Lay. As for the rest...I see tax cuts to the top as FAIR...I also see those indivduals putting MUCH more of their money back into the economy than a person who pays NO income tax. And on a purely personal level, I find it OFFENSIVE that MY tax dollars are being given to someone who DIDN'T PAY ANY TAXES, and it's being called a TAX BREAK!! I paid those freaking taxes, I should get the break. And it was the GOP that gave me that break, not Bill Clinton.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:32 PM
When Ken Lay is trying to be first lady, I'll worry about Ken Lay. As for the rest...I see tax cuts to the top as FAIR...I also see those indivduals putting MUCH more of their money back into the economy than a person who pays NO income tax. And on a purely personal level, I find it OFFENSIVE that MY tax dollars are being given to someone who DIDN'T PAY ANY TAXES, and it's being called a TAX BREAK!! I paid those freaking taxes, I should get the break. And it was the GOP that gave me that break, not Bill Clinton.

I understand, then maybe we should have a system where we know who paid the taxes and who didnt, and only give money back to those who did pay the taxes.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 04:11 PM
I understand, then maybe we should have a system where we know who paid the taxes and who didnt, and only give money back to those who did pay the taxes.


Lol...we DO have that system in place already. It's called the IRS, and W2's. Rather than sending a check to people who didn't pay taxes, just reduce the rates themselves. That's what the GOP was fighting for. Everyone got a similar PERCENTAGE back, but wealthier people got more back because they PAID more.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 07:59 PM
Lol...we DO have that system in place already. It's called the IRS, and W2's. Rather than sending a check to people who didn't pay taxes, just reduce the rates themselves. That's what the GOP was fighting for. Everyone got a similar PERCENTAGE back, but wealthier people got more back because they PAID more.

So what do you suggest we do about assisting the lower and middle class make ends meet? I mean the ones who pay taxes.

PhinPhan1227
06-05-2004, 12:20 PM
So what do you suggest we do about assisting the lower and middle class make ends meet? I mean the ones who pay taxes.

Reduce their tax burden. As it is right now I work for the government until what, May before any of the money I make belongs to me? And that's just income tax. Quite honestly, I'd guestimate that we could give even bigger tax breaks and actually reduce the debt in the process if we would just clean up the beaurocracy. Same for the funding problems in healthcare and education. Education is getting 45% more money under Bush than it was under Clinton...but what have the results been? That's part of the reason why I hate Socialism so much. It's been proven EVERY time that whenever the government is doing something it will find a way to have twice as much administration as is needed.

DolFan31
06-05-2004, 12:50 PM
Reduce their tax burden. As it is right now I work for the government until what, May before any of the money I make belongs to me? And that's just income tax. Quite honestly, I'd guestimate that we could give even bigger tax breaks and actually reduce the debt in the process if we would just clean up the beaurocracy. Same for the funding problems in healthcare and education. Education is getting 45% more money under Bush than it was under Clinton...but what have the results been? That's part of the reason why I hate Socialism so much. It's been proven EVERY time that whenever the government is doing something it will find a way to have twice as much administration as is needed.

Considering most goverment workers dont do their jobs(post office workers, school administrators, some hospital workers), I would definately agree to cutting the beaurocracy. We only need to higher a large number of workers during bad economic times(like the Depression) but when in times like the 90's and even with today's marginal economy, we really dont need all this beaurocracy. It actually hurts the economy during good/marginal times because it hurts the private sector.

finfan54
06-08-2004, 11:18 PM
Its the jobs coming back that were lost due to the events of 9/11, which plunged our economy faster than Dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy.


oh my god................ :roflmao: this is why you cant let a lib run the country.
Here is a Macro economics class for ya. Ronald REagan proved you can move the Supply curve out to the right (economic growth) and keep inflation and unemployment in check. Take another clue in reality here: If you have more taxpayers working and those taxpayers pay keeps going up, then you will eventually have more tax revenue for government as opposed to taxing the rich, which are the ones who invest. I hope you have learned something real today. :roflmao:

finfan54
06-08-2004, 11:26 PM
So what do you suggest we do about assisting the lower and middle class make ends meet? I mean the ones who pay taxes.

Anyone making less than about 15000 dont pay any taxes and in some circumstances, they actually get tax money back!
If you are low income and you have children, then, under Bush's plan, you get even more money back. If you have a family, and are middle class, as most of us are, then you get more of a tax break, which is exactly what it should be. Just get a damn education! you have more ways to get an education if your poor through government funds than ever before! i suggest people go get an education! Why? Because this economic expansion that is currently happening is one where the problem wont be jobs available, but people who dont have the skills to fill those jobs! GEt a friggin Education! you wont regret it! NO FREE LUNCH!

finfan54
06-08-2004, 11:27 PM
When Ken Lay is trying to be first lady, I'll worry about Ken Lay. As for the rest...I see tax cuts to the top as FAIR...I also see those indivduals putting MUCH more of their money back into the economy than a person who pays NO income tax. And on a purely personal level, I find it OFFENSIVE that MY tax dollars are being given to someone who DIDN'T PAY ANY TAXES, and it's being called a TAX BREAK!! I paid those freaking taxes, I should get the break. And it was the GOP that gave me that break, not Bill Clinton.

Amen.

Phinzone
06-09-2004, 12:20 AM
[QUOTE=DolFan31

"..President Clinton's promise to veto any measure that approaches the nearly $800 billion in cuts approved by the House and Senate."

2. He wanted to pay down the National Debt first.

"It would be better to do nothing and pay down $100 billion of our national debt than to sign a large and irresponsible tax cut that would signal to the world that the era of fiscal discipline in the United States is over," Sperling said on NBC's "Meet The Press."
.[/QUOTE]


MAN i love reading utter and TOTAL crap like that. Since WHEN was Clinton worried about balancing the budget? THE REPUBLICANS HAD A PLAN TO BALANCE THE BUDGET THAT CLINTON STOPPED!

Then a few years later it was his main concern. What an oaf, and the killer part is people believe his ****! This is EXACTLY like 1984! ONe day their at war with country B and allied with country C. The next day their proud to announce that country A and Country B have dealt a huge blow to their bitter enemy country C and their on the run. The mindless drone masses cheer in ignorant bliss. Love to see this kind of crap rolling around out there.

finfan54
06-09-2004, 09:29 AM
[QUOTE=DolFan31

"..President Clinton's promise to veto any measure that approaches the nearly $800 billion in cuts approved by the House and Senate."

2. He wanted to pay down the National Debt first.

"It would be better to do nothing and pay down $100 billion of our national debt than to sign a large and irresponsible tax cut that would signal to the world that the era of fiscal discipline in the United States is over," Sperling said on NBC's "Meet The Press."
.


MAN i love reading utter and TOTAL crap like that. Since WHEN was Clinton worried about balancing the budget? THE REPUBLICANS HAD A PLAN TO BALANCE THE BUDGET THAT CLINTON STOPPED!

Then a few years later it was his main concern. What an oaf, and the killer part is people believe his ****! This is EXACTLY like 1984! ONe day their at war with country B and allied with country C. The next day their proud to announce that country A and Country B have dealt a huge blow to their bitter enemy country C and their on the run. The mindless drone masses cheer in ignorant bliss. Love to see this kind of crap rolling around out there.[/QUOTE]


balancing the budget can also have its drawbacks. If your in a recession, you want a more keynesian philosophy of tax cuts to the people and spending more in government to invest to get the economy to expand so that you et full employment so that you end up with more tax revenue. If your temporarily in a defecit, it wont matter in the long haul cus that money will come back when the economy expands as it is now at a very strong rate.

The key is not neccesarily to balance the budget (becuase you need to spend to get people working and government can control a portion of that) but to cut unneccesary spending (pork) and spend on things such as education and technology and things that will get the country moving in the direction that technology improves our lives, makes things more efficient, and production so that businesses in turn will invest in its people and machines.
The 90's was not The Clinton Economy in reality as much as it was the Bill Gates economy. Technology made everything so much more effecient for businesses and products cheaper and better in a micro aspect in the long haul. Everyone can talk about the price of gas, but does anyone mention that our shoes, clothes, and many other products have become cheaper as manufacturing has moved to china and India and other countries? Many people view this as bad for us but what is really happening is that we are so advanced now that it makes more sense to get people trained in doing more productive tech driven stuff so we end up making more money than in some dead end downsized job at some "used to be" oligopoly. If you want to blame someone for sending jobs overseas, then you can start with bill clinton who signed NAFTA/GATT. It wasnt George W Bush. Even though almost all republicans were for it too, the dems lie about the truth and pretend that they have nothing to do with what is transpiring around the world.

DeDolfan
06-11-2004, 03:16 PM
Job growth rocks again

Employers added 248,000 jobs, making three-month gain best in 4 years; jobless rate steady at 5.6%.
June 4, 2004: 10:49 AM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Job growth is the hottest it's been in four years, a government report showed Friday, as the nation's employers added nearly a million jobs over the last three months.


The economy created 248,000 jobs outside the farm sector in May, the Labor Department reported, compared with a revised gain of 346,000 for April. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast the May report would show a 225,000-job gain.

The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent, in line with economists' forecasts.

And the strength in the job market is starting to be seen in workers' paycheck. For the second straight month average hourly wages rose 0.3 percent, last month to $15.64.

April job growth was revised up from a previous reading of 288,000 new jobs. The department also revised the number of jobs created in March, to 353,000 from a previous reading of 337,000.

That means the economy created 947,000 jobs the past three months, the best since 1.03 million jobs were added during the same three months of 2000.

"This is a pretty strong report," said Ethan Harris, chief economist with Lehman Brothers. "But the markets are ready for 200,000-plus jobs gains every month now. This is no big surprise."

The job increase was broad-based, with only government employment falling in the period. Manufacturing added 32,000 jobs and construction added 37,000. Retailers added 19,000 jobs.

The monthly jobs report is closely watched by investors for clues to the economy's strength, and as to when the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates.

The Fed, the nation's central bank, is widely expected to raise its target for a key short-term rate late this month, rather than waiting for its August meeting.

Friday's report did little to change that thinking.

That's all fine and dandy, 27, but these are mostly jobs that were lost during Bush's term so far that shouldn't have been. Plus the fact that if he didn't "out source" jobs overseas, there would've been more ppl worling here [albeit unpopular jobs perhaps] and adding to the tax base. The best way to have a surplus is by having more ppl working and not sending them overseas UNTIL these soon to be "unemployed" already have these "new jobs" to move right into thus keeping the surpluses rolling in and reducing the deficit. But no, what does Bush do? Sends the jobs elsewhere while we're already in a recession while running another deficit and THEN gives a healthy tax cut to his "rich cronies" FURTHER increasing our deficit. THAT, IMO, is not very smart of any prez.

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 03:52 PM
That's all fine and dandy, 27, but these are mostly jobs that were lost during Bush's term so far that shouldn't have been. Plus the fact that if he didn't "out source" jobs overseas, there would've been more ppl worling here [albeit unpopular jobs perhaps] and adding to the tax base. The best way to have a surplus is by having more ppl working and not sending them overseas UNTIL these soon to be "unemployed" already have these "new jobs" to move right into thus keeping the surpluses rolling in and reducing the deficit. But no, what does Bush do? Sends the jobs elsewhere while we're already in a recession while running another deficit and THEN gives a healthy tax cut to his "rich cronies" FURTHER increasing our deficit. THAT, IMO, is not very smart of any prez.

ROFL!! DD...kindly name me one job George Bush "sent" overseas. For that matter...kindly tell me who Geroge Bush employs that he COULD have the power to send their job overseas. While you're at it...explain what steps Bush has taken to help COMPANIES ship their jobs overseas. What bill did Bush propose? What new tax cut? Come on man...do tell?

DeDolfan
06-11-2004, 04:12 PM
ROFL!! DD...kindly name me one job George Bush "sent" overseas. For that matter...kindly tell me who Geroge Bush employs that he COULD have the power to send their job overseas. While you're at it...explain what steps Bush has taken to help COMPANIES ship their jobs overseas. What bill did Bush propose? What new tax cut? Come on man...do tell?

Oh, I guess no jobs went over seas during his term? Jobs that he didn't petition much to keep here. These are the kind of jobs that help support the tax base that he didn't attempt to preserve. That's how "he let them go".

No "new" tax cut..................... the same one of a yr ago that most midle income ppl saw about $6/ wk increase that was eaten up the very next week with higher gas prices. THAT's when gas was stil around 1,40 or so per gallon and to even speak of a tax cut now is rather laughable OR was that what you were referring to?? :roflmao:

paul13
06-11-2004, 09:27 PM
You would have to be blind not to see economic recovery that is taking place right now. Bush was unfortunate to be stuck with the 9,11 attacks during his presidency that’s why jobs and the economy where in a downward spiral I think he has accomplished a lot in his four year’s in office considering 9,11 attacks where only three year’s ago.

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 10:21 PM
Oh, I guess no jobs went over seas during his term? Jobs that he didn't petition much to keep here. These are the kind of jobs that help support the tax base that he didn't attempt to preserve. That's how "he let them go".

No "new" tax cut..................... the same one of a yr ago that most midle income ppl saw about $6/ wk increase that was eaten up the very next week with higher gas prices. THAT's when gas was stil around 1,40 or so per gallon and to even speak of a tax cut now is rather laughable OR was that what you were referring to?? :roflmao:

Jobs went overseas in Bush's term...and in Clintons term, and in Reagans term, and in Carters term, etc...There have been American jobs moving overseas since the 60's. But what jobs has BUSH sent overseas? More to the point, what was Bush supossed to DO about it? There are treaties with all of our major trade partners which prevent a President from discriminating against companies which want to employ people overseas. Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that Bush violate those treaties? Are you ACTUALLY going to have the cojones after all your ranting and raving about pissing off our allies that Bush should have violated our treaties and clamped down on companies that chose to outsource jobs? And while he was violating those treaties, he could go ahead and violate the free trade laws here which allow companies to hire whom they want, where they want and when they want? In a nutshell, you're suggesting that Bush should have pi$$ed on our allies, and taken a big step towards creating a socialist state. Nifty concept you've got there. Oh, and fill me in on how Bush is responsible for the EPA laws which have driven gas prices up. I guess you STILL haven't read Al Gores book.

paul13
06-11-2004, 10:49 PM
Point made Bush for 2004

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 11:41 AM
Jobs went overseas in Bush's term...and in Clintons term, and in Reagans term, and in Carters term, etc...There have been American jobs moving overseas since the 60's. But what jobs has BUSH sent overseas? More to the point, what was Bush supossed to DO about it? There are treaties with all of our major trade partners which prevent a President from discriminating against companies which want to employ people overseas. Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that Bush violate those treaties? Are you ACTUALLY going to have the cojones after all your ranting and raving about pissing off our allies that Bush should have violated our treaties and clamped down on companies that chose to outsource jobs? And while he was violating those treaties, he could go ahead and violate the free trade laws here which allow companies to hire whom they want, where they want and when they want? In a nutshell, you're suggesting that Bush should have pi$$ed on our allies, and taken a big step towards creating a socialist state. Nifty concept you've got there. Oh, and fill me in on how Bush is responsible for the EPA laws which have driven gas prices up. I guess you STILL haven't read Al Gores book.

But that's the point. Doesn't matter who's in office, nobody seems to even want to petition these companies to stay put in the US.

bush pissed on alot of our allies about iraq. But "I know", Bush is right and the whole rest of the world is wrong.

What EPA law did I mention that drove up gas prices anyway? I only mentioned how gas prices more than ate up the "$6 tax savings". What does the EPA have to do with that?

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 12:39 PM
But that's the point. Doesn't matter who's in office, nobody seems to even want to petition these companies to stay put in the US.

bush pissed on alot of our allies about iraq. But "I know", Bush is right and the whole rest of the world is wrong.

What EPA law did I mention that drove up gas prices anyway? I only mentioned how gas prices more than ate up the "$6 tax savings". What does the EPA have to do with that?


Economics 101-Gas consumption is at an all time high...gas stocks are static because no new refineries have been built in decades. No new refineries have been built because EPA laws have been passed due to the efforts of the environmental lobby have made it too expensive for companies to build new refineries. This is because the laws only take effect on new facilities built after the laws were passed. So...gas prices are up in large part because of EPA laws passed by the environmental lobby. If you want the game plan for the current gas prices, you only have to read Al Gores book. He details the whole process, and gives his rationale for driving those prices up. Oh, and if you recognize and accept that Bush has done nothing more or less than any other President to effect overseas job outsourcing, than how do you justify laying the blame on him? Do you know the definition of arbitrary?

DeDolfan
06-13-2004, 01:16 PM
Economics 101-Gas consumption is at an all time high...gas stocks are static because no new refineries have been built in decades. No new refineries have been built because EPA laws have been passed due to the efforts of the environmental lobby have made it too expensive for companies to build new refineries. This is because the laws only take effect on new facilities built after the laws were passed. So...gas prices are up in large part because of EPA laws passed by the environmental lobby. If you want the game plan for the current gas prices, you only have to read Al Gores book. He details the whole process, and gives his rationale for driving those prices up. Oh, and if you recognize and accept that Bush has done nothing more or less than any other President to effect overseas job outsourcing, than how do you justify laying the blame on him? Do you know the definition of arbitrary?

Simple question for you. What is more important for everyone, clean air/water that keeps ppl healthy and living or that ever so precious oil? How much do you really think that "supply and demand" truly affect prices anyway? it's pretty funny how we have a "shortage" of something to justify higher prices on things but yey, when the price is up the supply is there as long as folks are willing to pay the price. There is no oil shortage. Opec can turn the switch on/off at will to control the supply. our pompous-asssed nation has done nothing to curb the demand either. All the fed guidelines for fuel efficiency have been relaxed mainly because big oil runs the country for the most part. the only thing we as individuals can do is to curb our own personal comsumption. But instead, we buy gas guzzling SUVs [because we can], drive every where in creation [because we can], even 2 blocks to the corner store [because we're too fat and lazy to walk] buying junk food and such so our fat asssses can hang over the sides of our chairs even more. But the point is, that we as individuals can control this demand alot but we won't cuz we are so spoiled that we won't be inconvenienced by it. But you want to make it seem like it's the EPAs fault, WHICH is your typical "neo-con" POV. I know you've claimed to be "moderate" but mostly, i've seen you pretty far right on most things tho. That is fine, but don't try to put all the blame in one area. If it wasn't for the EPA, what condition do you think we'd be in today? But it hasn't affected gas supply that i'm aware of. When was the last time you found the gas pumps dry because there wasn't any gas [to be had]?

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 06:58 PM
Simple question for you. What is more important for everyone, clean air/water that keeps ppl healthy and living or that ever so precious oil? How much do you really think that "supply and demand" truly affect prices anyway? it's pretty funny how we have a "shortage" of something to justify higher prices on things but yey, when the price is up the supply is there as long as folks are willing to pay the price. There is no oil shortage. Opec can turn the switch on/off at will to control the supply. our pompous-asssed nation has done nothing to curb the demand either. All the fed guidelines for fuel efficiency have been relaxed mainly because big oil runs the country for the most part. the only thing we as individuals can do is to curb our own personal comsumption. But instead, we buy gas guzzling SUVs [because we can], drive every where in creation [because we can], even 2 blocks to the corner store [because we're too fat and lazy to walk] buying junk food and such so our fat asssses can hang over the sides of our chairs even more. But the point is, that we as individuals can control this demand alot but we won't cuz we are so spoiled that we won't be inconvenienced by it. But you want to make it seem like it's the EPAs fault, WHICH is your typical "neo-con" POV. I know you've claimed to be "moderate" but mostly, i've seen you pretty far right on most things tho. That is fine, but don't try to put all the blame in one area. If it wasn't for the EPA, what condition do you think we'd be in today? But it hasn't affected gas supply that i'm aware of. When was the last time you found the gas pumps dry because there wasn't any gas [to be had]?

Are you going to discuss facts, or are you going to just make things up as you go along? Supply and demand is the basis for ALL pricing. You can choose to doubt that, but that view would make as much sense as doubting that the sun will rise over Miami tomorrow. It's a fact whether you choose to accept it or not. And yes, the EPA and their protections are very important. But if the Enviro lobby wants higher gas prices(they do), than they should be willing to NOT TRY TO BLAME BUSH when it was their doing in the first place. And get it through your head...it's not OIL....it's GASOLINE. They could pump twice as much oil tomorrow and while the price of OIL would go down, the price of GAS would remain high. That's because the refineries are running at capacity..they CAN'T churn out more gas no matter how much oil they have available. And agin, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact CLOSELY monitored by the FERC(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). They know how much the existing plants can put out, and they know how much is being put out, and the two numbers are DARNED close right now. As for shortages...THAT'S WHY THE PRICES ARE SO HIGH. In point of fact, and as proof of my statements, prices have dropped a few cents in the last week because demand has fallen due to the high prices. People can't afford to drive as much. Now, all that aside, if the American people decide that they want higher gas prices to drive us to a leaner consumption of oil, FINE...NIFTY...it's a democracy after all. But it's bull$hit to impose that state on the American people #1, without asking them, and #2, while blaming it on the people who have been fighting against it. All I'm asking for is a TINY bit of honesty. Lastly, as for being moderate, start a thread on gay marriage, the decriminalization of drugs, or abortion and you'll see just how many Conservatives are calling me a screaming liberal in a heartbeat.

DeDolfan
06-14-2004, 01:48 PM
Are you going to discuss facts, or are you going to just make things up as you go along? Supply and demand is the basis for ALL pricing. You can choose to doubt that, but that view would make as much sense as doubting that the sun will rise over Miami tomorrow. It's a fact whether you choose to accept it or not. And yes, the EPA and their protections are very important. But if the Enviro lobby wants higher gas prices(they do), than they should be willing to NOT TRY TO BLAME BUSH when it was their doing in the first place. And get it through your head...it's not OIL....it's GASOLINE. They could pump twice as much oil tomorrow and while the price of OIL would go down, the price of GAS would remain high. That's because the refineries are running at capacity..they CAN'T churn out more gas no matter how much oil they have available. And agin, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact CLOSELY monitored by the FERC(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). They know how much the existing plants can put out, and they know how much is being put out, and the two numbers are DARNED close right now. As for shortages...THAT'S WHY THE PRICES ARE SO HIGH. In point of fact, and as proof of my statements, prices have dropped a few cents in the last week because demand has fallen due to the high prices. People can't afford to drive as much. Now, all that aside, if the American people decide that they want higher gas prices to drive us to a leaner consumption of oil, FINE...NIFTY...it's a democracy after all. But it's bull$hit to impose that state on the American people #1, without asking them, and #2, while blaming it on the people who have been fighting against it. All I'm asking for is a TINY bit of honesty. Lastly, as for being moderate, start a thread on gay marriage, the decriminalization of drugs, or abortion and you'll see just how many Conservatives are calling me a screaming liberal in a heartbeat.

i actually understand all this you're saying, believe it or not. However, it is not the sole cause for the high gas prices. The oil companies are as much to blame as OPEC even. Let's take a looksee at it for a moment. First, i'll not dispute that what the reasons you give do not contribute to higher costs because they most certainly do. second, the oil companies are simply using this opportunity to gouge the hell out of all of us in which the ePA has nothing to do with. When oil cost $20/barrel, gas at the pump was about a buck. That means that the crude itself cost $.48/gallon [42 gal per barrel]. That's a $.42+/- per gal in other costs. now with oil at $40/brl, that same gallon of crude costs $.95/gal. With gas now over $2 at the pump, the "other costs" have more than doubled and if the oil companies were content to make the same $$$ profit, then the price of gas should only be around $1.50. That includes a few extra cents/gal for the increase in diesel fuel which most of the tankers use anyway, WHICH btw, has not seen the same huge price increase. I realize alot of companies operate on a % margin in that they have their costs already calculated and they try to maintain a certain % of gross profit. But this is not normal circumstances and a huge "overnight" spike in a raw product shouldn't demand the same spike in the other costs. In other words, just because the price of a raw product doubles for whatever reasons, the other costs, such as labor to produce a finished product doesn't alweays follow suit. in this case, crude doubled to $40 but refinery costs didn't double as well, but the oil companies have surely taken advantage of all of us to pad their already deep pockets. And you can couple that to the fact that when crude prices start falling sharply, the consumer price doesn't fall accordingly. It takes a while to "clear" the more expensive gas out of the system so they won't "lose" any $$, not like when the price goes up, the price at the pump is up before that crude is even pumped on a ship to start to come over here. But still, we as individuals can control alot of that "demand" ourselves but most of us are just too selfish to even think of it. "You mean to get rid of my 12 mpg fancy SUV for a 40 mpg Yugo??" Personally, i don't see that happening because we have become too spoiled. but you know what? When the day comes that that big tank in the ground runs dry, then we'll all be scratching our assses and wondering just what in the hell happened. But for now the problem with all this is demand cuz i haven't seen a gas pump empty yet. But as you suggest, supply may be nearing it's [refinery] peak anyway. But let's not blame the ePA for all of that. if it costs more to build newer refineries, so be it. It cost more to build newer anythings. Sure, the EPA requirements would add to that cost, but what is the trade off? Is it better to have higher gas prices or should we disband the EPA, relax all standards and trash the environment in the name of cheap gas? Lord help us all if that happens cuz the oil companies will still control the price no matter what. we will just use more gas, increasing demand while prices inch back up in the process while breathing foul air. Talk about your ulitmate "WMD" !! They ain't IN Iraq cuz they're right here under our noses!! :lol: But until we take charge ourselves by curbing our own use of gas [dependence], then I doubt things will get much better.

PhinPhan1227
06-14-2004, 02:38 PM
Ok...yes, the companies that own the refineries are doing everything they can to turn a profit. That's kind of why they exist in the first place. But no, they can't just turn around and build new refineries. The new EPA laws make those refineries SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the existing ones. Here' sa scenario for you..

ABC company builds a new refinery. The gas that refinery produces cost 45% more than the gas at their old refineries.

XYZ company keeps their old refineries producing at their old levels.

For ABC to turn a profit they now have to sell ALL their gas at 10-15% higher prices to absorb the cost of the new refinery. XYZ can sell their gas at the same old prices.

Exactly who is going to buy from ABC company?

Again, I fully agree that the refinery companies are turning a huge profit from this...but that's called Capitalism. What the EPA has done is introduce an artificial Trust situation. The refinry companies aren't colluding to fix prices...the government is doing that for them. Nobody can afford to up production, so nobody can engage in a price war. It's a situation of our own creation, and it's entirely legal.

DeDolfan
06-16-2004, 11:34 AM
Ok...yes, the companies that own the refineries are doing everything they can to turn a profit. That's kind of why they exist in the first place. But no, they can't just turn around and build new refineries. The new EPA laws make those refineries SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the existing ones. Here' sa scenario for you..

ABC company builds a new refinery. The gas that refinery produces cost 45% more than the gas at their old refineries.

XYZ company keeps their old refineries producing at their old levels.

For ABC to turn a profit they now have to sell ALL their gas at 10-15% higher prices to absorb the cost of the new refinery. XYZ can sell their gas at the same old prices.

Exactly who is going to buy from ABC company?

Again, I fully agree that the refinery companies are turning a huge profit from this...but that's called Capitalism. What the EPA has done is introduce an artificial Trust situation. The refinry companies aren't colluding to fix prices...the government is doing that for them. Nobody can afford to up production, so nobody can engage in a price war. It's a situation of our own creation, and it's entirely legal.

That is the disgusting part about it.............it's legal. but that desn't necessarily make it right tho. I understand your scenario and about who'd buy the more expensive gas, but in an earlier post, you were talking about refinery capacity being almost maxed out. When that actually happens, the price will go up anyway since the "supply" will be effectively limited and to increase supply at at, new refineries will have to be built. But as you explained, that won't come until the price balances out, ie, the cost of old gas increasing to the point that it becomes equal to the price of gas from a new refinery. Or that's the way i would imagine it happening anyway.

PhinPhan1227
06-16-2004, 11:40 AM
That is the disgusting part about it.............it's legal. but that desn't necessarily make it right tho. I understand your scenario and about who'd buy the more expensive gas, but in an earlier post, you were talking about refinery capacity being almost maxed out. When that actually happens, the price will go up anyway since the "supply" will be effectively limited and to increase supply at at, new refineries will have to be built. But as you explained, that won't come until the price balances out, ie, the cost of old gas increasing to the point that it becomes equal to the price of gas from a new refinery. Or that's the way i would imagine it happening anyway.


Actually, we just had that situation. Gas prices started to fall because usage fell. Usage fell because people drove less, because gas prices were so high. Al Gore is probably having sponaneous orgasms he's so happy right now.

DeDolfan
06-16-2004, 12:00 PM
Actually, we just had that situation. Gas prices started to fall because usage fell. Usage fell because people drove less, because gas prices were so high. Al Gore is probably having sponaneous orgasms he's so happy right now.

Please stop bringing up Al Gore! About the only other Dem i hate to hear about at all is Teddy Boy !! :D :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
06-16-2004, 01:17 PM
Please stop bringing up Al Gore! About the only other Dem i hate to hear about at all is Teddy Boy !! :D :roflmao:

Geez man...between those two and Hitlary, they RUN the Democratic Party. Sheesh, you don't think Kerry actually makes any decisions do you?

DeDolfan
06-16-2004, 01:30 PM
Geez man...between those two and Hitlary, they RUN the Democratic Party. Sheesh, you don't think Kerry actually makes any decisions do you?


:D :D

PhinPhan1227
06-16-2004, 03:53 PM
Hiring Plans Near Boom Levels-Survey

Tue Jun 15,12:10 AM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Anupama Chandrasekaran

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. companies are gearing up to create jobs at rates not seen since the height of the 1990s boom, a survey released on Tuesday showed, adding to evidence that job growth will keep the U.S. economic recovery rolling.

Following two months of strong government payroll reports, the survey is a boon to President Bush (news - web sites) in the run-up to elections and will likely confirm expectations that the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) will raise U.S. interest rates at the end of June as it moves to beat off emerging inflation.


Thirty percent of polled U.S. employers plan to add to their payrolls in the July to September period, the survey by Manpower Inc. showed. That is up from 20 percent a year earlier and 28 percent in the April to June period.


The survey hit its highest level of 35 percent in 2000, powered by the Internet-fueled boom.


Far fewer companies now plan to lay off employees, the survey showed, making the net year-over-year increase in employers planning to create jobs the largest in the history of the Manpower survey, which was started in 1976.


The survey, by the world No. 2 staffing company, polls 16,000 U.S. employers and is adjusted for seasonal spikes and dips. It is monitored by many economists for indications on corporate hiring sentiment.


"It is at levels that were in place pre-recession," Manpower Chief Executive Jeffrey Joerres said in a telephone interview. "As more stability is occurring in demand, they (companies) look at their future saying, 'I am feeling good.' They have gotten off the fence to start hiring."


The survey comes as job-growth begins to catch up with U.S. economic expansion, scotching talk of a 'jobless recovery' and bolstering Bush's claims that his policies create jobs, a key election battleground.


U.S. employers added a larger-than-expected 248,000 jobs in May, according to the Labor Department (news - web sites), following 346,000 in April and 353,000 in March. The 947,000 jobs created in the March-May period make it the strongest three-month stretch in four years

DeDolfan
06-16-2004, 04:11 PM
Hiring Plans Near Boom Levels-Survey

Tue Jun 15,12:10 AM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Anupama Chandrasekaran

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. companies are gearing up to create jobs at rates not seen since the height of the 1990s boom, a survey released on Tuesday showed, adding to evidence that job growth will keep the U.S. economic recovery rolling.

Following two months of strong government payroll reports, the survey is a boon to President Bush (news - web sites) in the run-up to elections and will likely confirm expectations that the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) will raise U.S. interest rates at the end of June as it moves to beat off emerging inflation.


Thirty percent of polled U.S. employers plan to add to their payrolls in the July to September period, the survey by Manpower Inc. showed. That is up from 20 percent a year earlier and 28 percent in the April to June period.


The survey hit its highest level of 35 percent in 2000, powered by the Internet-fueled boom.


Far fewer companies now plan to lay off employees, the survey showed, making the net year-over-year increase in employers planning to create jobs the largest in the history of the Manpower survey, which was started in 1976.


The survey, by the world No. 2 staffing company, polls 16,000 U.S. employers and is adjusted for seasonal spikes and dips. It is monitored by many economists for indications on corporate hiring sentiment.


"It is at levels that were in place pre-recession," Manpower Chief Executive Jeffrey Joerres said in a telephone interview. "As more stability is occurring in demand, they (companies) look at their future saying, 'I am feeling good.' They have gotten off the fence to start hiring."


The survey comes as job-growth begins to catch up with U.S. economic expansion, scotching talk of a 'jobless recovery' and bolstering Bush's claims that his policies create jobs, a key election battleground.


U.S. employers added a larger-than-expected 248,000 jobs in May, according to the Labor Department (news - web sites), following 346,000 in April and 353,000 in March. The 947,000 jobs created in the March-May period make it the strongest three-month stretch in four years

This is good positive signs. Hope we have a better rising economy than the 90s dot com boom. Here's to everybody's 401Ks tripling in the next couple years!! Workds for me!! ;)

Mr.Murder
06-26-2004, 01:32 PM
By the way they corrected overstated numbers each of the last 2 months, and the high end numbers are estimates, not actual jobs created. The public sector has been the number one new job creator, and the private sector continues mass layoffs.

More McJobs !

Add 150,000 new workers and month and the 324,000 new unemployment applicants as well. And the Jobless rate actually marginally increased despite record number maxing out benefits each of the last 3 months...


Wait- John Kerry staff and people helping make/market Michael Moore movies are hiring in droves. Thanks to them the job rate is treading water at best.

PhinPhan1227
06-26-2004, 04:43 PM
By the way they corrected overstated numbers each of the last 2 months, and the high end numbers are estimates, not actual jobs created. The public sector has been the number one new job creator, and the private sector continues mass layoffs.

More McJobs !

Add 150,000 new workers and month and the 324,000 new unemployment applicants as well. And the Jobless rate actually marginally increased despite record number maxing out benefits each of the last 3 months...


Wait- John Kerry staff and people helping make/market Michael Moore movies are hiring in droves. Thanks to them the job rate is treading water at best.


The survey is a reflection of what companies are budgeting for. If they put it in their budget to increase hiring, than they will spend that money and increase hiring. BArring another incident to cause a downturn in the economy, you're going to see MORE heavy hiring in the summer and fall months. That's what the numbers say. I'm sorry that the imrpovement in the economy has you so distressed Murder. It must suck for you to see America healthy again.

Mr.Murder
06-27-2004, 03:58 PM
Companies always assume more, it is the nature of speculative markets.

Record foreclosures is a FACT. If private homes are being lost at record rates certainly private business is not ahead of this downward trend is it?

Stop trying to make the facts of a piss-poor Bush farce of an economy into the fault of critics , just because we have relevant facts to discuss does not prove harmful intent. Then of course your bruised ego and yearning attempts to play the victim only makes sense in your own narrow reasoning. Look at the sudnay help wanteds, record thin amounts.

Three ads in the help wanteds on a weekday last week. Two of them were in the public sector. This town used to run 2-3 pages of them in the Clinton heyday.

Major market MSA would run 8-16 pages of help wanted in the CLinton years, there was three quarters of a page for over a month running on Bushco's watch.

Mr.Murder
06-27-2004, 04:00 PM
And the recession started before 9-11. A recession is any two consecutive negative GDP quarters, Bush had THREE before 9-11, and only a 2% gain after that fueled by the largest homeland and defense budget increases ever...

PhinPhan1227
06-27-2004, 06:31 PM
And the recession started before 9-11. A recession is any two consecutive negative GDP quarters, Bush had THREE before 9-11, and only a 2% gain after that fueled by the largest homeland and defense budget increases ever...


Lol...You could write for Michael Moore. You point out that the Recession started prior to 9/11, and that it's somehow Bush's fault, but fail to mention that the Recession itse;f started before Bush had made a single decision which could possibly have impacted the economy. It's mind boggling how someone will allow their hatred to portray them as imbeciles.

ohall
06-27-2004, 06:58 PM
And the recession started before 9-11. A recession is any two consecutive negative GDP quarters, Bush had THREE before 9-11, and only a 2% gain after that fueled by the largest homeland and defense budget increases ever...

You do realize that economy was functioning with the TAX setup it was left with by Clinton? Bush #43's TAX breaks and concepts were not in place yet. If you think that was Bush #43's recession no wonder you are voting DEM.

Oliver...

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 05:07 PM
Clinton had the economy going full bore. He slowed it down to avoid a crash, letting Greenspan use interest to curve inflation just enough.

The dot.com boom is a lie, it is a valid market sector that was expanding. Clinton pushing the 401k to help add new money is what caused the boom. Bush has pinched people so dry they are ending the plans now. This is rolling back a lot of money that is not being accounted for and in reality is deepening the recession.

Enron caused the recession. Look at their billing overcharges, laughing about making business and grandmas go broke. FACT. World's fifth larget economy is no more. China probably has at least 2 provinces ahead of Cali now. But Enron gouged them and started a terrible recession for a huge segment of our economy.


You have tried to rewrite history with faux news, but a lot of folks know better and we will not be silenced by your kiss-tail excuse of apologists. Send you off like Hitchens to hell's kitchens to deal with the man on the street. People are not better off than 4 years ago for the majority.

By the way the mega rich who really know money do not like deficits, what good is a tax break when your maney drops a third in value? When they are worth more than a return in income tax it only robs them of big money and purchase power in the big markets they leverage.

Do you realize the Clinton economy worked for 8 years? Bush comes in and it goes bad- Clinton's fault?

Fact Bush/Enron started the recession, the numbers don't lie. They are joined at the hip-hop and you singing that same old "tech bubble boo hoo" rap is not going to cut the Colonel mustard in the undisclosed location with the knife to cut taxes and energy task force documents.

Get a clue republiclowns...

ltfinfan
06-28-2004, 05:22 PM
Clinton had the economy going full bore. He slowed it down to avoid a crash, letting Greenspan use interest to curve inflation just enough.

The dot.com boom is a lie, it is a valid market sector that was expanding. Clinton pushing the 401k to help add new money is what caused the boom. Bush has pinched people so dry they are ending the plans now. This is rolling back a lot of money that is not being accounted for and in reality is deepening the recession.

Enron caused the recession. Look at their billing overcharges, laughing about making business and grandmas go broke. FACT. World's fifth larget economy is no more. China probably has at least 2 provinces ahead of Cali now. But Enron gouged them and started a terrible recession for a huge segment of our economy.


You have tried to rewrite history with faux news, but a lot of folks know better and we will not be silenced by your kiss-tail excuse of apologists. Send you off like Hitchens to hell's kitchens to deal with the man on the street. People are not better off than 4 years ago for the majority.

By the way the mega rich who really know money do not like deficits, what good is a tax break when your maney drops a third in value? When they are worth more than a return in income tax it only robs them of big money and purchase power in the big markets they leverage.

Do you realize the Clinton economy worked for 8 years? Bush comes in and it goes bad- Clinton's fault?

Fact Bush/Enron started the recession, the numbers don't lie. They are joined at the hip-hop and you singing that same old "tech bubble boo hoo" rap is not going to cut the Colonel mustard in the undisclosed location with the knife to cut taxes and energy task force documents.

Get a clue republiclowns...

its a good thing for clinton that regan fixed the economy and clinton rode it till he ran it in the ground right before bush took office

PhinPhan1227
06-28-2004, 05:56 PM
Clinton had the economy going full bore. He slowed it down to avoid a crash, letting Greenspan use interest to curve inflation just enough.

The dot.com boom is a lie, it is a valid market sector that was expanding. Clinton pushing the 401k to help add new money is what caused the boom. Bush has pinched people so dry they are ending the plans now. This is rolling back a lot of money that is not being accounted for and in reality is deepening the recession.

Enron caused the recession. Look at their billing overcharges, laughing about making business and grandmas go broke. FACT. World's fifth larget economy is no more. China probably has at least 2 provinces ahead of Cali now. But Enron gouged them and started a terrible recession for a huge segment of our economy.


You have tried to rewrite history with faux news, but a lot of folks know better and we will not be silenced by your kiss-tail excuse of apologists. Send you off like Hitchens to hell's kitchens to deal with the man on the street. People are not better off than 4 years ago for the majority.

By the way the mega rich who really know money do not like deficits, what good is a tax break when your maney drops a third in value? When they are worth more than a return in income tax it only robs them of big money and purchase power in the big markets they leverage.

Do you realize the Clinton economy worked for 8 years? Bush comes in and it goes bad- Clinton's fault?

Fact Bush/Enron started the recession, the numbers don't lie. They are joined at the hip-hop and you singing that same old "tech bubble boo hoo" rap is not going to cut the Colonel mustard in the undisclosed location with the knife to cut taxes and energy task force documents.

Get a clue republiclowns...


Oh my GOD!!! Does ANY blood actually make it to your brain? ONE company brought about a recession. ONE. Not an industry...not a sector...ONE company. Jesus Murder, at least make it worthwhile to have a conversation with you. My 11 month old son wouldn't say something THAT stupid. An economy that runs into the tens and hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars was brought down by one company. Jesus man, how do you manage to type a coherent sentence most of the time?

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 06:19 PM
Actually it was several companies. Enron, Entergy, Reliant, and a handful of subcontractors who transferred power on paper and profited from it exhorbitantly...

And yes Enron is Bush's number one lifetime contributor...

ohall
06-28-2004, 07:37 PM
Clinton had the economy going full bore. He slowed it down to avoid a crash, letting Greenspan use interest to curve inflation just enough.

The dot.com boom is a lie, it is a valid market sector that was expanding. Clinton pushing the 401k to help add new money is what caused the boom. Bush has pinched people so dry they are ending the plans now. This is rolling back a lot of money that is not being accounted for and in reality is deepening the recession.

Enron caused the recession. Look at their billing overcharges, laughing about making business and grandmas go broke. FACT. World's fifth larget economy is no more. China probably has at least 2 provinces ahead of Cali now. But Enron gouged them and started a terrible recession for a huge segment of our economy.


You have tried to rewrite history with faux news, but a lot of folks know better and we will not be silenced by your kiss-tail excuse of apologists. Send you off like Hitchens to hell's kitchens to deal with the man on the street. People are not better off than 4 years ago for the majority.

By the way the mega rich who really know money do not like deficits, what good is a tax break when your maney drops a third in value? When they are worth more than a return in income tax it only robs them of big money and purchase power in the big markets they leverage.

Do you realize the Clinton economy worked for 8 years? Bush comes in and it goes bad- Clinton's fault?

Fact Bush/Enron started the recession, the numbers don't lie. They are joined at the hip-hop and you singing that same old "tech bubble boo hoo" rap is not going to cut the Colonel mustard in the undisclosed location with the knife to cut taxes and energy task force documents.

Get a clue republiclowns...

... Bush did all that in 6 months? Damn I had no idea Clinton was such a God. It's like he didn't have to get the REP led Congress and Senate to go along with his wishes or anything. I learn something new from you daily.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-28-2004, 08:04 PM
Actually it was several companies. Enron, Entergy, Reliant, and a handful of subcontractors who transferred power on paper and profited from it exhorbitantly...

And yes Enron is Bush's number one lifetime contributor...

This is like talking to a challenged child. Lets step back a bit Murder...kindly explain to us why every economist in the country is perpetrating a conspiracy to try to convince America that the DotCom bubble was just that...a bubble, rather than a good, healthy boost to the economy somehow caused by Bill Clinton. What do all these economists have against St Bill? Oh, and while you're at it, perhaps you could explain further how all the companies you mentioned, that combined make up perhaps 1/10,000th the total GNP of the United States, managed to drive us into a recession. I can't wait to hear this.

Mr.Murder
06-30-2004, 02:34 PM
Clinton didn't cause the dot.com bubble, he asked it be tempered and they adjusted the interest rate to do so.

Let's hear how the dot.com sector is not a valid market segment.That is where your line leads.


ohell you see how things have gone with the repub congress now and the Bush economy. The market is in a place that it needs to move rates considerably up and that loan bubble is the only thing fuelding the economy.


The latest information shows over a 12 point drop in the market's key measure of purchase power in terms of activity in the short term for the manufacture segment.

Oh it looks like the quarter percent predicted up in interest today. Far under what is necesssary but an obvious measure to discourage a selloff.

Clinton had a Dem senate... the House was what shut the gov't down to the point hospitals in the VA were losing lives at accelerated paces. That is just how Republicans treat the legacy of our armed forces...

And every economist did not say it was the reason the economy was good. Valid 401k money helped the serge. You use a computer but say tech stocks were not a valid part of the market...

Great call there.

Those companies damaged other companies that were a large part of the GNP in the Cali market and other western states(and some in the central US that were parts of the 'power transfer' that occurred on paper in many cases.

The FERC rules fixed the power problem, despite Bush trying to gut them and stalling their use for months.

Mr.Murder
06-30-2004, 02:35 PM
And yes Enron is Bush's number one lifetime contributor...

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 02:51 PM
What I love about you Murder is that you're more than happy to tout the economists and indexes that show the Clinton years in a good economic light...but those EXACT same economists and indexes that now show a healthy economy are full of crap. You really SHOULD work for Michael Moore.

Mr.Murder
06-30-2004, 03:00 PM
Actually they show the economy has a stretch of underperformance and Greenspan is trying to temper a selloff with measured increase. He could have arguably gone 3.25 today and went .25 it was expected , look for some raises per month now of a percent and then a big jump followed by a quarter point shave session again.

And yes Enron is still Bush's number one lifetime contributor.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 03:27 PM
Actually they show the economy has a stretch of underperformance and Greenspan is trying to temper a selloff with measured increase. He could have arguably gone 3.25 today and went .25 it was expected , look for some raises per month now of a percent and then a big jump followed by a quarter point shave session again.

And yes Enron is still Bush's number one lifetime contributor.

WHAT?!?! All the figures that have come out, even those adjusted DOWN still exceeded expectations. Christ Murder, find me ONE decent economist who will say the economy isn't on a healthy swing right now. See, this is what makes your posts a joke. You show not even a HINT of objectivity. Bush can do no right in your eyes. Until you get the blinders off nobody can take you seriously.

Mr.Murder
06-30-2004, 04:15 PM
What I saw there was enough concern to go the commodity route today... unless the last half hour broke an incredible rally...

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 04:29 PM
What I saw there was enough concern to go the commodity route today... unless the last half hour broke an incredible rally...


The rate "jump" is to stem infaltion, nothing more. Wages have been going up for a while, but prices on just started to follow. With rates this low massive inflation is a serious risk, so he needs to keep a close eye on things.

Mr.Murder
06-30-2004, 04:33 PM
Wages up? They are down $1700.oo per household. Less total workers, but more wages for the ones still employed equals progress? And the raises are disproportionally for the top. The disparity is more pronounced than ever.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 04:38 PM
Wages up? They are down $1700.oo per household. Less total workers, but more wages for the ones still employed equals progress? And the raises are disproportionally for the top. The disparity is more pronounced than ever.


Per hour wages are up Murder. The report on those figures is less than a month old and I already reprinted it on this forum. Again...kindly find me an economist or index which doesn't show healthy growth in the US economy right now. What's more, take a look at the consumer outlook index. If it keeps growing at that pace "economy" will be Bush's hot topic, not Kerrys before the end of the summer.

Mr.Murder
06-30-2004, 04:56 PM
Kindly reprint...

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 05:05 PM
Kindly reprint...


I'll do so in a couple of hours...right now I'm off to the gym

ohall
06-30-2004, 06:41 PM
Wages up? They are down $1700.oo per household. Less total workers, but more wages for the ones still employed equals progress? And the raises are disproportionally for the top. The disparity is more pronounced than ever.

You make it seem like even if that's true you don't want those jobs to be had. I just don't get the rational of some of you guys.

Oliver...

Mr.Murder
07-01-2004, 12:03 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer
Well Warren Buffet is superrich. See how he is describing the current fiscal plan from the aspect of revenue generation and fairness...

What the middle class pays is unfair in proportion to the upper bracket's percentage comparison. Didn't think you had that link...

PhinPhan1227
07-01-2004, 10:40 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer
Well Warren Buffet is superrich. See how he is describing the current fiscal plan from the aspect of revenue generation and fairness...

What the middle class pays is unfair in proportion to the upper bracket's percentage comparison. Didn't think you had that link...


Murder, you're starting to give wankers a bad name.


Employers added 248,000 jobs, making three-month gain best in 4 years; jobless rate steady at 5.6%.
June 4, 2004: 10:49 AM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Job growth is the hottest it's been in four years, a government report showed Friday, as the nation's employers added nearly a million jobs over the last three months.


The economy created 248,000 jobs outside the farm sector in May, the Labor Department reported, compared with a revised gain of 346,000 for April. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast the May report would show a 225,000-job gain.

The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent, in line with economists' forecasts.

And the strength in the job market is starting to be seen in workers' paycheck. For the second straight month average hourly wages rose 0.3 percent, last month to $15.64.

April job growth was revised up from a previous reading of 288,000 new jobs. The department also revised the number of jobs created in March, to 353,000 from a previous reading of 337,000.

That means the economy created 947,000 jobs the past three months, the best since 1.03 million jobs were added during the same three months of 2000.

"This is a pretty strong report," said Ethan Harris, chief economist with Lehman Brothers. "But the markets are ready for 200,000-plus jobs gains every month now. This is no big surprise."

The job increase was broad-based, with only government employment falling in the period. Manufacturing added 32,000 jobs and construction added 37,000. Retailers added 19,000 jobs.

The monthly jobs report is closely watched by investors for clues to the economy's strength, and as to when the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates.

The Fed, the nation's central bank, is widely expected to raise its target for a key short-term rate late this month, rather than waiting for its August meeting.

Friday's report did little to change that thinking.

Mr.Murder
07-01-2004, 08:37 PM
Really ? Don't take Warren Buffet's word for it then... multibillionaires know nothing about sound fiscal policy:http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm


351K new jobless... not counting those not eligible for UI due to state restrictions, those who have maxed out, those who were part time and now jobless, and the agribusiness field with its highly volatile employment numbers.
Rule of thumb is 350-400K "new jobless claims" is reflective of a basically flat labor market - not improving or getting worse. Always there are corrective unaccounted on each end of this and it is more a floating or targeted areas than a fixed static number.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=2&u=/nm/bs_nm/markets_stocks_dc
A report showing the number of Americans seeking jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week weighed on the market. The weekly report may be a harbinger of the closely watched June nonfarm payrolls report set for Friday.


"The jobless claims were disappointing," said Phil Flynn, vice president and senior market analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "Considering the Fed's acknowledgment yesterday of the improving labor market, this number could raise concerns in the market that the economy may not be as strong as thought. The numbers increase the importance of tomorrow's jobs report."


The only thing to stave the selloff spree past the intital big overprojected underachievers and bad employment news was a Kerry story late which stated he may name a VP choice this week... actually he just responded to requests to address the topic on his terms and start a dialogue to boost confidence which carried over to the market.


He're to hoping tommorrow's planned light trading includes an upsurge.


Each of the last three month's jobs numbers were corrected after being given overly optimistic initial numbers. This latest news for jobless claims tempers the "new jobs" as a percentage of these are new hires for the same posts. Hopefully it is a vertical transfer that sees those needs met in the employer-worker diagram. Perhaps a dose of realism in the numbers would temper losses and prevent panic.

Until then there is a good eggshell feeling from the notion not all is as claimed for the numbers, hope it is just feeling and not fact...

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2004, 01:55 AM
Bottom line...the economy is growing, and so are salaries and employment. And they are growing at a healthy pace with sustainable industries, unlike the dotcom bubble.

Mr.Murder
07-02-2004, 02:07 AM
The current bubble is on low interest loans. Bottom line you showed nothing to change the balance of evidence that the market is hedging its losses and the jobs are elss than being made out to be.

So let's do the math, 351 k layoffs, 250k new jobs equals????

.3 percent income increase is success? .3 percent? Three cents on the dollar increase times about nine an hour tops per capita equals .27 of a dollar damned break out the two dollar plates at the Franklin mint to cover the rush to get those raises cashed. Don't spend it all in one place because you're paying more at the gas pump!

Hey every extra cent helps those workers. Toss a coin and see what your luck be.

Heads Bush wins, tails- you won't get fooled again! Either way it's win-win for Bush until November.