How about that economy... :)

[zephyrprime]

Total net worth includes false borrowed money...

Net worth includes borrowed money as both a positive and a negative so it doesn't contribute to net worth.

Now if you want to whine about population growth -that's another subject.

Bringing up population growth is a valid point. I do not consider it to be a separate subject.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Now if you want to whine about population growth -that's another subject.

Bringing up population growth is a valid point. I do not consider it to be a separate subject.

It was regarding the initial job numbers issue that was raised and data was provided for. I think it could be a valid discussion, but interjecting it to try to disprove a non-existant assertion would not be.

CkG

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Stunt
1)expectations were in the 300,000's
2)almost all temporary jobs
3)10% manufacturing after a massive slump in munufacturing jobs

off to get some data, saw it on robtv today
oh and i didnt realize that tech jobs=manufacturing...that's news to me!
oh wait not they arent!....silly.

dude, where have you been? manufacturing in the US is on the way out, so dont expect there to be phenominal job increases in the manufacturing sector. the face of our economy is changing, we dont manufacture as many goods as we once did.

Manufactuing jobs are glorified OVERPAID McJobs.

yep, we've got robots to do most of that union work; wouldn't have been such a good investment if the unions hadn't priced themselves right out of the market.

Bush took office, when the economy was in a recession and the dot com was imploding

it wasn't in a recession, but it was unstoppably in a down-turn well before Clinton left office;

s the left ready to admit that the recovery is on track and the economy and outlook is good yet?

No, because with out that... and Ross Perot entering the race once more... The American left is just a bunch of anger at bush?s social policies; policies that the people of America like.

Jobs on the back of the debt through the form of tax cuts for the rich and lower interest rates is no way to stimulate the economy.

it worked, we're just going to have to deal with crazy levels of inflation.

In effect this is no better than government created jobs with massive deficits.

except we aren?t socializing the country, which is always a good thing.

"Investors are very nervous."
For good reason!

they shouldn't be, in the long run stock-holders have the value of their stock normalized for any decrease in the buying power of the dollar.

But the thing I can't understand about this report and the last report is why the number of people not in the labor force can increase slightly if the net number of jobs is increasing.

people entering the 'not in thelabor force' by turning 18;

kill thousands for an unjust cause, screw over the economy, destroy US international relations, and create one job while in office = re-election

If thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved... how is that 'unjust'? The economy is on an up-swing, how is that 'screwed over'? US international relations are more about Europe no longer needing protection from the Russians than anything else, how is helping out a people without the help some of our allies 'destroying us international relations'? Crazy as it sounds it's not the job of the president to create jobs, with the most recent numbers it's evident that tax-cuts are working and keeping us away from the deflation that countries like Japan face now.


save a people from mass-murder, fix the failing economy, fight a to protect the nation from terrorism, and make sure that the US job market picks up after one of our most economically devastating attacks in history. = re-election.

 

[Stunt]

If you look at the pure numbers as you did, yes his estimation was a bit high.
but if you are going to favour any side with numbers, considering the population increase, i'd rather say that the economic situation is worse now by far than 4 years ago.
All this praise for job growth is magnified for no reason, as per the points mentioned above.

 

[UltraQuiet]

This number doesn't really surprise me. I was hired in April and start my new job Monday. All the recruiters that I have talked to (Bradley-Morris, Orion, Lucas Group and others) have said it has really picked up since the first of the year. They were telling me they hadn't had this many employers at hiring conferences since the mid 90's. I've had a couple dozen interviews since the middle of March and seven job offers. Let's hope this employment trend continues.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If you look at the pure numbers as you did, yes his estimation was a bit high.
but if you are going to favour any side with numbers, considering the population increase, i'd rather say that the economic situation is worse now by far than 4 years ago.
All this praise for job growth is magnified for no reason, as per the points mentioned above.

except that we've got an increasing in GDP that's on it's way up, instead of how Clinton left us four years ago with a steady fall in growth.

Population growth is important, but we're keeping up with today?s children in jobs; it's just that their isn't an even distribution of children year over year.

 

[Stunt]

Let me reiterate this previous post to display how weak the US economy is.

Originally posted by: Stunt
My original point was to compare the economic outlook between when bush took the helm and now.

Jobs
from this chart we see that unemployment is up from 3.8% to 5.x%.
the next chart is pretty useless but bring your attention to the negative change in job numbers ONLY with bush in the last 12 years.
i'd also like to address the last chart which shows the unemployment claims down while unemployment doesn't move. Now either the bush admin are more efficient in distributing welfare, or they are kicking more people off it.

Hours
from this chart you can see the huge decline in work hours done by workers per week.
also not only were manufacturing jobs axed during his term, but between clinton and now they are working less hours and less overtime

Imports
Ah the import chart, every stong economy imports all their goods...oh wait no they dont, jeez that can't be a good thing.

Loans
It's ok because the US consumer is spending money!...oh wait, not their money, they spend on credit and loans!...look at that graph go, at least the companies have some sense to not go on spending spees on borrowed money. Shoot interest rate hikes are not going to be fun for you guys

Confidence
well it's all good as long as confidence is high, looking at this graph it has declined a lot since bush took over, but it is going up, see how that is as people get more in debt with interest rates rising.

Spending
one last graph, spending way more than you earn is good fiscal sense right? :S

And that my friends is the US economy, haven't even touched deficits, and money pit called iraq and afganistan

Say when the handover occured, when clinton left, the economy was say a 0.
Bush takes over and sends the country into a downward spiral making it a -20
He spends over a trillion on the economy (surplus from clinton plus deficits since then) and manages to squeeze a +5 out of the matter.

The question is should he be praised for the +5 or the -15 status that we are at today?

ps.imo +5 for this minimal job growth is VERY generous and the only reason i ranked it so high relative to the stuff he has screwed up is because of all the unjust media hype surrounding "the recovery" *laugh*

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If you look at the pure numbers as you did, yes his estimation was a bit high.
but if you are going to favour any side with numbers, considering the population increase, i'd rather say that the economic situation is worse now by far than 4 years ago.
All this praise for job growth is magnified for no reason, as per the points mentioned above.

No one said it was better than 4 years ago. We did go through a recession, a dot-bomb, and 9/11. But I'd say we are doing pretty dang good despite those things.

His numbers were WAY high and were just some trash he got fed by politicians and nay-sayers on the left. And again atleast part of the reason the numbers are "magnified" is because people are trying to make a political statement regarding job loss and the current economic conditions.

One has to look at the whole picture and it has been getting brighter and more stable for months now. We've seen growth in key areas and many indexes - especially the ones people have been complaining about. I've resigned myself to the fact that some people just like to see the economy as half empty whereas I look at things in an optimistic and positive light - glass half full. I also know many people's perspective has to do with the current political situation - hence comments made by the likes of earthman and dave.

CkG

 

[Stunt]

If you do an economic analysis of the united states, the stability of the country from a fiscal standpoint is horrible.
I'm not an expert but i do read expert documentation and publications along with a bit of economics electives at my university.
It is not a matter of glass half full half empty but looking blindly at information which is easy to inflate, or actually doing the research to see the validity of the data.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Stunt

I'm not an expert .

agree

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bjc112
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs...

Hopefully you picked one up Dave..

Fox

CNN

Yahoo


Keep it up.

Make that 288,001

An IT Company (CMIT) called me this morning. Start on Monday.

WTG...

Looks like a vote for Bush now

Then Hell would truly freeze over. Bush had very little to do with the slow recovery. He could've and should've done a lot more. There is only one way to go when you hit bottom.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If you do an economic analysis of the united states, the stability of the country from a fiscal standpoint is horrible.
I'm not an expert but i do read expert documentation and publications along with a bit of economics electives at my university.
It is not a matter of glass half full half empty but looking blindly at information which is easy to inflate, or actually doing the research to see the validity of the data.

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

 

[earthman]

My numbers are not "way high". We would have to pick up about 3 million jobs to put us back to the same economic shape we were in before Bush took office. That's not the opinion of "left wing trash" either, that's the opinion of people who take a realistic view of the economy. What's the point of adding jobs that pay too little to make a living on? And what's the point of tax cuts that create huge deficits than endanger the future stability of the country's finances? I guess Bush figures he won't be around to take the heat later. It doesn't make sense to hand back trillions in tax cuts mainly to the wealthy when we are facing trillions in unfunded liabilities in the future, partly from a stupid Republican-supported prescription drug plan that is a huge windfall for the drug companies. By the way, where is the tax cut? I sure didn't see it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: earthman
My numbers are not "way high". We would have to pick up about 3 million jobs to put us back to the same economic shape we were in before Bush took office. That's not the opinion of "left wing trash" either, that's the opinion of people who take a realistic view of the economy. What's the point of adding jobs that pay too little to make a living on? And what's the point of tax cuts that create huge deficits than endanger the future stability of the country's finances? I guess Bush figures he won't be around to take the heat later. It doesn't make sense to hand back trillions in tax cuts mainly to the wealthy when we are facing trillions in unfunded liabilities in the future, partly from a stupid Republican-supported prescription drug plan that is a huge windfall for the drug companies. By the way, where is the tax cut? I sure didn't see it.

Yes your numbers were WAY high.

Bush will be the only president since the depression to leave office with less americans working than when he came in. Still 3,000,000 jobs to go just to get back where we were.

So what you stated was that there needed to be 3 million jobs just to get back to where we were - when he came into office. I showed the numbers - you didn't and can't. Nice try though, at trying to weasel out of your statement by saying you meant "economic shape" instead of specifically about jobs. Your post was about jobs - not about "economic shape".

Also - do you really think that the jobs added can't be lived on? :roll: - you must be another one of those McJobs excuse parrots. ....and you try to claim to have a "realistic view" Sure...whatever.

CkG

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Stunt

I'm not an expert .

agree

Thanks for quoting my whole post, i like how you are focusing on part of the information to help your opinion...very much like the people praising these job numbers as if they are the holy grail of proof that bush is on the right track...:S

 

[Stunt]

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

Yes and bad economic data, bad future economic prospects (huge deficits), unimpressive international relationships and mishandling of the US war situation is cause for a change of government.
I'm pretty sure that most governments that have been worse were voted out.
The "it could be worse" mindset is what we should all be striving for as a society, aim high!

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Stunt

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

Yes and bad economic data, bad future economic prospects (huge deficits), unimpressive international relationships and mishandling of the US war situation is cause for a change of government.
I'm pretty sure that most governments that have been worse were voted out.
The "it could be worse" mindset is what we should all be striving for as a society, aim high!

WTF? Your opinion is a cause for change of our government?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

Yes and bad economic data, bad future economic prospects (huge deficits), unimpressive international relationships and mishandling of the US war situation is cause for a change of government.
I'm pretty sure that most governments that have been worse were voted out.
The "it could be worse" mindset is what we should all be striving for as a society, aim high!

Well it has been worse. It will get better.

ANd like you said, if things are that bad, there will be a change in leadership....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

Yes and bad economic data, bad future economic prospects (huge deficits), unimpressive international relationships and mishandling of the US war situation is cause for a change of government.
I'm pretty sure that most governments that have been worse were voted out.
The "it could be worse" mindset is what we should all be striving for as a society, aim high!

Well it has been worse. It will get better.

ANd like you said, if things are that bad, there will be a change in leadership....

Yes and if things continue to get better as they are then the band will be able to strike up "Happy Days Are Here Again".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Yes and if things continue to get better as they are then the band will be able to strike up "Happy Days Are Here Again".

:Q MARK THIS DATE ON YOUR CALENDAR!!!! Dave says things are getting better!!!:Q

(could this new perspective be due to your recent employment?)

CkG

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Yes and if things continue to get better as they are then the band will be able to strike up "Happy Days Are Here Again".

:Q MARK THIS DATE ON YOUR CALENDAR!!!! Dave says things are getting better!!!:Q

(could this new perspective be due to your recent employment?)

CkG

hehehe...

I'm starting to feel that..

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Stunt

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

Yes and bad economic data, bad future economic prospects (huge deficits), unimpressive international relationships and mishandling of the US war situation is cause for a change of government.
I'm pretty sure that most governments that have been worse were voted out.
The "it could be worse" mindset is what we should all be striving for as a society, aim high!

WTF? Your opinion is a cause for change of our government?

Actually you are partially quoting me again to prove your point, when you focus on parts of sentances it does not address the true reasoning presented, you really gotta stop doing that.
If you notice the first two of four reasons, those statements were based on facts and data which you cannot argue, easy to see why you would leave that out.
Lying to the world about WMD, illegally putting tariffs on canadian goods in a FREE TRADE situation, going to war with very little support from international community, and the UN's unwillingness to help the US in iraq are all REAL situations that cause unimpressive international relations...and i have only scratched the surface. Those events are not my opinion...it is well understood by political analysts that the bush admin is horrid wrt to being a global partner.
I am interested to hear how you feel the iraqi war has been a success, i am sure that many people in these forums would beg to differ, and that is not just because of our opinions but based on pure numbers of dead, numbers tortured, money wasted on war, and lack of credible motives (wmd, right, gj cia).

Therefore the 2/4 reasons i gave for giving bush the boot were fact based. The others are widely accepted mindsets that are practically fact and yes contribute to the need of a change of government.
If you fail to see this you are either a trigger happy hick who refuses to research, or you believe evertything you are spoon fed by the bush administration, who are a source of credible information...right....

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: earthman
My numbers are not "way high". We would have to pick up about 3 million jobs to put us back to the same economic shape we were in before Bush took office. That's not the opinion of "left wing trash" either, that's the opinion of people who take a realistic view of the economy. What's the point of adding jobs that pay too little to make a living on? And what's the point of tax cuts that create huge deficits than endanger the future stability of the country's finances? I guess Bush figures he won't be around to take the heat later. It doesn't make sense to hand back trillions in tax cuts mainly to the wealthy when we are facing trillions in unfunded liabilities in the future, partly from a stupid Republican-supported prescription drug plan that is a huge windfall for the drug companies. By the way, where is the tax cut? I sure didn't see it.

Do the words "dot com bubble" and "irrational exuburance" mean anything to you?

The bubble was unsustainable.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Stunt

If you look at the numbers at all you will see that we have been in worse financial shape in the past.

Yes and bad economic data, bad future economic prospects (huge deficits), unimpressive international relationships and mishandling of the US war situation is cause for a change of government.
I'm pretty sure that most governments that have been worse were voted out.
The "it could be worse" mindset is what we should all be striving for as a society, aim high!

WTF? Your opinion is a cause for change of our government?

Actually you are partially quoting me again to prove your point, when you focus on parts of sentances it does not address the true reasoning presented, you really gotta stop doing that.....

Or what? :roll:

When has Us policy ever been shaped by Canadian public opinion ? Your view on any topic in Us politics
is irrelevant unless you decide to become a citizen of the Us.

Isn't there a Canadian Political forum you could participate in, where your views might get weighed.

Instead of posting with us about Us, you could post with fellow Canadians about Us..:laugh:

 

[Stunt]

Or what? :roll:

When has Us policy ever been shaped by Canadian public opinion ? Your view on any topic in Us politics
is irrelevant unless you decide to become a citizen of the Us.

Isn't there a Canadian Political forum you could participate in, where your views might get weighed.

Instead of posting with us about Us, you could post with fellow Canadians about Us..:laugh:

If i said i was from the US and not Canada does that make my presented information and conclusions more relevant, the answer is NO.

Am i contributing to the discussion at hand to observe points which if not expressed by me may be overlooked, YES.

And most important of all, does US agenda affect people in other nations....HELL YES!
US politics are important around the world and when you have a superpower with unfit leader in charge, YES it is a worldly discussion...accept it...