Dow Jones nears 10,000 Bush to get the blame ...

[Mrburns2007]

what a miserable failure !

 

[NesuD]

LOL! Yea that damn Bush. Who does he think he is letting the Dow run up to 10k like that.

 

[Czar]

good that its nearing 10.000 agian, still I noticed that the dollar is very very low at the moment

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Czar
good that its nearing 10.000 agian, still I noticed that the dollar is very very low at the moment

currency value is a 2 edged sword low dollar right now increases the competitiveness of our goods in foreign markets. In that sense it isn't a negative although i am sure in other areas it would be a negative. If I remember correctly throughout most of the recently ended recession the value of the dollar stayed relatively high. Go figure.

 

[Ferocious]

Bush has said all along he wants a strong dollar policy. Which of course is needed to support a deficit budget policy....a policy modern Republicans are so famous for.

The dollar is now at a seven year low.

But he is close enough to re-election that he will not have to worry about this failure of his.

The next guy will have to clean up the mess.....as usual.

 

[AndrewR]

nm

 

[Fencer128]

The arguement that usually floats around posts like these is:

"The President does not have complete control over the economy. He has no magic wand".

Given this, the only real question is whether this pick up of the economy is any of his doing, in as much as the tanking of the economy was any of his doing?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[ManSnake]

If you want to ask a question like that, then I would say of course it's his fault! Do you still remember where was Dow at when he first got into the whitehouse?

 

[rchiu]

NASDAQ still less than 2000 compare to 5000
2 million+ job lost since he come on to the office....

Don't get too excited about Dow 10,000

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
The arguement that usually floats around posts like these is:

"The President does not have complete control over the economy. He has no magic wand".

Given this, the only real question is whether this pick up of the economy is any of his doing, in as much as the tanking of the economy was any of his doing?

Cheers,

Andy

Well the Democratic candidates seem to think Bush has 100% control of the economy when it's doing bad, so I'm assuming, based on that, that he's also 100% in control when it does well. Or maybe, just maybe, the economy runs in cycles that no President can do much about. If so, somebody let Dean and Kerry know before they make asses of themselves.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Fencer128
The arguement that usually floats around posts like these is:

"The President does not have complete control over the economy. He has no magic wand".

Given this, the only real question is whether this pick up of the economy is any of his doing, in as much as the tanking of the economy was any of his doing?

Cheers,

Andy

Well the Democratic candidates seem to think Bush has 100% control of the economy when it's doing bad, so I'm assuming, based on that, that he's also 100% in control when it does well. Or maybe, just maybe, the economy runs in cycles that no President can do much about. If so, somebody let Dean and Kerry know before they make asses of themselves.

which makes this all kind of funny, democrats have to say that that Bush is responsible for this upturn for the economy and the republicans just have to shutup about this because the president has no control over the economy

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rchiu
NASDAQ still less than 2000 compare to 5000
2 million+ job lost since he come on to the office....

Don't get too excited about Dow 10,000

"job lost" is defined as? Are you talking net loss?

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: rchiu
NASDAQ still less than 2000 compare to 5000
2 million+ job lost since he come on to the office....

Don't get too excited about Dow 10,000

read this before you make your job loss claims

now before any of you people get your panties in a knot and start balking because i likned to rush limbaughs site, all the data in his article was pulled from the bureau of labor statistics and his article provides the appropriate links to prove his claims.

edited for spelling and grammar

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If you want to ask a question like that, then I would say of course it's his fault! Do you still remember where was Dow at when he first got into the whitehouse?

Yes - but what the question eludes to is that the overwhelming reason for recovery may not be in the hands of the President - I might be more globalised. I'm not saying that good policy doesn't make a difference but the only test to be applied to the above is to analyse what *exactly* contributed to the recovery. As opposed to saying, "he cured the recession" or "he caused the recession".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If you want to ask a question like that, then I would say of course it's his fault! Do you still remember where was Dow at when he first got into the whitehouse?

Yes - but what the question eludes to is that the overwhelming reason for recovery may not be in the hands of the President - I might be more globalised. I'm not saying that good policy doesn't make a difference but the only test to be applied to the above is to analyse what *exactly* contributed to the recovery. As opposed to saying, "he cured the recession" or "he caused the recession".

Cheers,

Andy

Have you ever posted anything like that in response to somebody blaming the bad economy or loss of jobs on Bush? Just curious.

 

[Fencer128]

Have you ever posted anything like that in response to somebody blaming the bad economy or loss of jobs on Bush? Just curious.

If the question your trying to ask is:

"Am I posting this because I hate Bush?"

The answer is "no".

I haven't posted on the economy at all before. I have started positive threads about Bush/US as well as others.

I posted this reply because I get sick of the "it's your fault/it's our greatness that the economy is the way it is" threads. It's all meaningless unless you can back it up with some reasoning.

I'm hoping someone can show me how - say - the UK economy is recovering although the tax burden appears to be growing, whereas in the US it's recovering and as far as I can tell taxes have only been cut? Are the tax cuts leading to the recovery? If not, why is the UK recovering? (probably a bad example).

This is what I mean by "explaining".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Czar
good that its nearing 10.000 agian, still I noticed that the dollar is very very low at the moment

...removed sarcasm

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Czar
good that its nearing 10.000 agian, still I noticed that the dollar is very very low at the moment

...removed sarcasm

I liked it pre-edit. Change it back...wuss

CkG

 

[SwissArmyBilly]

I find the information on Rush's website to be very misleading.

"The employed civilian labor force had 135,999,000 workers during the early days of the recession in January 2001 when Bill Clinton left office. The employed civilian labor force at the end of last month, with the recession long over, was 138,603,000. Those raw numbers show 2.6 million MORE jobs now."


The raw number of jobs is irrelevant. We also had alot more people in the united states work force. The percentage of unemployed is much more important than the number of jobs.

From the Jan 2001 link provided on the site:
"The jobless rate had ranged from 3.9 to 4.1 percent since October 1999."

From the Nov 2003 link:
"Both the unemployment rate, 5.9 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, 8.7 million, were essentially unchanged in November"

"In November, 2.0 million unemployed persons had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, about the same level as in October. They represented 23.7 percent of the total unemployed."


I am not saying the President has control over the economy, or that the recession or the recovery is Bush's doing. I am only say that you should be very critical of anything you read on Rush's site, or any other site that has strong political motivations in any direction. The statistics are pretty clear that the unemployment situation is not very good, maybe it is getting better but there is still much more room for improvement.

Billy

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Have you ever posted anything like that in response to somebody blaming the bad economy or loss of jobs on Bush? Just curious.

I posted this reply because I get sick of the "it's your fault/it's our greatness that the economy is the way it is" threads. It's all meaningless unless you can back it up with some reasoning.


Cheers,

Andy

Just wondering why you weren't sick of these kinds of posts until one was positive of Bush is all. Afterall, there've been plenty that were negative.

As for "why" economies do what they do, it can't ever be fully explained or understood. It's always open to interpretation as to the causes and effects...otherwise there would be one understood best way to do things and everybody would be doing it...Democrats and Republicans would have identical economic policies.

 

[Fencer128]

Just wondering why you weren't sick of these kinds of posts until one was positive of Bush is all. Afterall, there've been plenty that were negative.

I don't spend all my life around here (although some disagree!). I assure you - it's luck - and an extremely sarcastic title that drew me in.

As for "why" economies do what they do, it can't ever be fully explained or understood. It's always open to interpretation as to the causes and effects...otherwise there would be one understood best way to do things and everybody would be doing it...Democrats and Republicans would have identical economic policies.

I agree. Now, if the thread had actually started with some facts and theories - however contraversial - then I wouldn't have bothered posting.

Cheers ,

Andy

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SwissArmyBilly
I find the information on Rush's website to be very misleading.

"The employed civilian labor force had 135,999,000 workers during the early days of the recession in January 2001 when Bill Clinton left office. The employed civilian labor force at the end of last month, with the recession long over, was 138,603,000. Those raw numbers show 2.6 million MORE jobs now."


The raw number of jobs is irrelevant. We also had alot more people in the united states work force. The percentage of unemployed is much more important than the number of jobs.

From the Jan 2001 link provided on the site:
"The jobless rate had ranged from 3.9 to 4.1 percent since October 1999."

From the Nov 2003 link:
"Both the unemployment rate, 5.9 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, 8.7 million, were essentially unchanged in November"

"In November, 2.0 million unemployed persons had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, about the same level as in October. They represented 23.7 percent of the total unemployed."


I am not saying the President has control over the economy, or that the recession or the recovery is Bush's doing. I am only say that you should be very critical of anything you read on Rush's site, or any other site that has strong political motivations in any direction. The statistics are pretty clear that the unemployment situation is not very good, maybe it is getting better but there is still much more room for improvement.

Billy

the site is irrelevant. You can pluck the raw data from here - http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
What he was stating is that there were actually job gains in contrast to assertations that there were jobs lost. Job growth is still growth even if the rate isn't what you say it should be and it isn't a "cut" either.

Yes unemployment figures could use some more work - and no one will fight that, but with a rate under 6% I find it laughable that people think the sky is falling.

CkG

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SwissArmyBilly
I find the information on Rush's website to be very misleading.

"The employed civilian labor force had 135,999,000 workers during the early days of the recession in January 2001 when Bill Clinton left office. The employed civilian labor force at the end of last month, with the recession long over, was 138,603,000. Those raw numbers show 2.6 million MORE jobs now."


The raw number of jobs is irrelevant. We also had alot more people in the united states work force. The percentage of unemployed is much more important than the number of jobs.

From the Jan 2001 link provided on the site:
"The jobless rate had ranged from 3.9 to 4.1 percent since October 1999."

From the Nov 2003 link:
"Both the unemployment rate, 5.9 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, 8.7 million, were essentially unchanged in November"

"In November, 2.0 million unemployed persons had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, about the same level as in October. They represented 23.7 percent of the total unemployed."


I am not saying the President has control over the economy, or that the recession or the recovery is Bush's doing. I am only say that you should be very critical of anything you read on Rush's site, or any other site that has strong political motivations in any direction. The statistics are pretty clear that the unemployment situation is not very good, maybe it is getting better but there is still much more room for improvement.

Billy

the site is irrelevant. You can pluck the raw data from here - http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
What he was stating is that there were actually job gains in contrast to assertations that there were jobs lost. Job growth is still growth even if the rate isn't what you say it should be and it isn't a "cut" either.

Yes unemployment figures could use some more work - and no one will fight that, but with a rate under 6% I find it laughable that people think the sky is falling.

CkG

Especially as compared to some of the EU.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Just wondering why you weren't sick of these kinds of posts until one was positive of Bush is all. Afterall, there've been plenty that were negative.

I don't spend all my life around here (although some disagree!). I assure you - it's luck - and an extremely sarcastic title that drew me in.

As for "why" economies do what they do, it can't ever be fully explained or understood. It's always open to interpretation as to the causes and effects...otherwise there would be one understood best way to do things and everybody would be doing it...Democrats and Republicans would have identical economic policies.

I agree. Now, if the thread had actually started with some facts and theories - however contraversial - then I wouldn't have bothered posting.

Cheers ,

Andy

It was started to make all the libbies who've posted negativly about Bush and the economy stew in their own juices. The point is that Democrats from the insignificant losers on this board to leaders of the Senate have proclaimed that Bush caused all the bad with the economy. Now they have to either give him credit or look like pathetic partisan hypocrites. Either way, more undecideds and independents will see Bush in a better light comparitivly. Either way, the Democrats hung themselves.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Czar
good that its nearing 10.000 agian, still I noticed that the dollar is very very low at the moment

...removed sarcasm

I liked it pre-edit. Change it back...wuss

CkG

nahhh, fencer managed to put it much more tactfully