The US Economy

As I've been saying all along, it seems others have the same opinion as me on jobs. Quote, ""Job growth is the key to a sustained economic expansion," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock. "If people are worried about their jobs, or worse, if they are getting laid off, then consumer spending is at risk."

The nation's payrolls grew by 57,000 in September - the first increase in eight months. But analysts have said the economy needs to add a lot more jobs than that each month to drive down the 6.1 percent unemployment rate.""

0 Replies

Think everyone was shocked by the 7.2 figure for the quarter which they say was due in large part to the tax refunds which were immediately spent. They expect the next quarter to be significantly more realistic however it does indicate strong consumer spending and the holidays should show strong spending. Look out though for the 1st quarter of next year----it is historically weak due to the seasonal cycle.

They say that job growth is the last indicator to show up and I'd be willing to bet that by the 3rd quarter of next year job growth will be up to a reasonable level.

There is no doubt however that manufacturing is fleeing the country thanks to the weak Jap, China and Mexican currency. The jobs flee out of country and the Mexicans flee to the US. I'd like to ask the politicians of Mexico why they can't provide for the citizens of their country.

0 Replies

'Cause we stole some of their richest territory, some of the best resources? That was a good start...

0 Replies

I'd be a little reluctant to give Arizona or New Mexico back, but I wouldn't object too strenuously about Texas or California Twisted Evil

0 Replies

perception wrote:

The Dems are already crossing out "It's the economy Stupid" and writing in " It's the war in Iraq stupid". After that problem is brought under control will they promise to jump off the tallest building and give us time to draw a crowd?

I suspect that they will attempt--with complicity from folks in the media--to continue to deny progress in Iraq no matter what the reality of the situation is. They realize now that they can't deny an economic recovery that people are starting to feel for themselves, but it may be far easier to mislead people regarding Iraq, which makes it a far better horse for them to bet on. I just hope that enough media outlets get the real story out.

0 Replies

Some of that "real story" include some soldiers going AWOL. The majority of reserve troops in Iraq are very unhappy with their situation of their prolonged service with no end in sight.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some of that "real story" include some soldiers going AWOL. The majority of reserve troops in Iraq are very unhappy with their situation of their prolonged service with no end in sight.

Can you cite for me the last US engagement anywhere where no troops went awol? How about the one where all the troops were happy to be away from their homes and families? Where are the stories about how happy the troops are that are still in Bosnia? How many have gone awol from Clinton's little experiment in regime change?

You try to pretend that if we can show negatives the positives don't matter. That's garbage. As with the economy, you focus on the negatives because you don't like Bush and seem to hope for the worst so that you can justify your dislike for him and his policies.

AND PLEASE (everyone) don't give me that tired crap that I'm pounding the "GO BUSH" drum. There are a lot of reasons I am not happy with his performance as president, they just happen to be different than your reasons. (For starters, my reasons are rooted in fact and reality, not feelings and Internet rumors.) :wink:

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

'Cause we stole some of their richest territory, some of the best resources? That was a good start...

I don't buy it Tart----look what Israel has done with desert that the palestinians couldn't even grow cactus with.

I've met many Mexicans and they are intelligent, very hard working people----it seems the root cause might be their corrupt and inefficient gov't.

0 Replies

Israel didn't make anything out of sand, they made it out of money which is the differentiating factor.

The notion that Israel made much more out of the same materials than the Palestinians is absurd.

Isreal didn't do it with 'desert' they did it with very strong support from many quarters.

0 Replies

Scrat, Yes, it's true that most wars had their defectors/detractors, but we are talking about Iraq. Yes, the majority of Iraqi's are happy with the fact that Saddam is gone, but enough of the 'minority' that are unhappy are killing our troops, the UN, and the Red Cross workers. It's only balance. You can tell us all the good stuff going on, and some of us will present some balance to all that good stuff.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Scrat, Yes, it's true that most wars had their defectors/detractors, but we are talking about Iraq. Yes, the majority of Iraqi's are happy with the fact that Saddam is gone, but enough of the 'minority' that are unhappy are killing our troops, the UN, and the Red Cross workers. It's only balance. You can tell us all the good stuff going on, and some of us will present some balance to all that good stuff.

Now you'd like to pretend that I've offered a view as equally unbalanced as the one you offer, but opposed to it. I doubt you can prove that by citing my posts. I do not go about pretending their are no negatives. I do suspect that I reach different conclusions than you as often as I do because I do not ignore the positives either.

0 Replies

You can present 'unbalanced' information as often as you like on the side of all the good stuff, because I love to hear them.

0 Replies

it appears that many iraquis are unhappy with the u.s. occupation because they remember that 1,000's of iraquis were killed by saddam when he was still considered somewhat of an ally by the u.s.(e. g. when the u.s. supported saddam against iran). from interviews i've seen on t.v. and newspaper articles i've read it seems clear that the iraquis have not forgotten that they were sold out more than once. indeed, most iraquis seem to be very happy to be rid of saddam, but they do not seem to trust the u.s. yet; and i don't think we can blame the iraquis for feeling at least somewhat uncomfortable about the u.s. occupation. another factor making many iraquis mad was the fact that the u.s. invited the turkish government to come to iraq and help in the occupation. the turks, of course, were the occupiers and oppresors of the iraqi people for a long time; and iraquis have not forgotten that dreadful time. as thomas friedman said recently in the n.y. times, the u.s. must be NUTS(his word, not mine!) to invite the turkish army as occupiers. they are as welcome as the british army in the catholic districts of northern ireland(i'm sure someone knowledgable about that subject can make a contribution). hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

it appears that many iraquis are unhappy with the u.s. occupation because they remember that 1,000's of iraquis were killed by saddam when he was still considered somewhat of an ally by the u.s....

It appears this way where, precisely? Did you read this somewhere? Hear it on the street? Voice in your head? Where?

0 Replies

A blurb from an article CNN ran yesterday carries a couple points that are largely being glossed over:

Quote:

... Secretary John Snow said, "Today's report on real GDP (gross domestic product) in the third quarter shows that the president's economic policies are having a positive impact on the economy. The Jobs and Growth Act has put more money in the pockets of American families and helped businesses to make new investments."

Snow said, "We are seeing signs of economic recovery: the value of U.S. stock markets has increased $2 trillion since the beginning of this year, disposable personal income is up 3.8 percent at an annual rate in 2003, and the U.S. home ownership rate was 68.4 percent in the third quarter -- its highest level ever" ...

Now, a couple trillion bucks of stock value recovery ain't peanuts, but of more significance, IMO, is that personal disposable income has increased significantly Year-to-Date, and that home ownership is at an all-time historic high. Given that post-recession job creation typically trails market recovery by six to eight months, things are beginning to look very rosy for Q1 and Q2 of '04. This train has left the station.

0 Replies

Here's an interesting Washington Post article on how taxes will affect the poor, middle class and the rich through 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10323-2003Jun3?language=printer

0 Replies

Quote:

Number of hungry, poor Americans on rise, report says

By Emily Gersema
ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 1, 2003
link

WASHINGTON – About 12 million American families last year were worried that they couldn't afford to buy food, and [3.8 million families] actually experienced someone going hungry at one time or another, the Agriculture Department said yesterday.

It was the third straight year the department has seen an increase in the number of households experiencing hunger and those worried about having enough money to pay for food.

[..] the department estimated that 3.8 million families were hungry last year to the point where someone in the household skipped meals because they couldn't afford them.

That is an 8.6 percent increase from 2001, when 3.5 million families were hungry and a 13 percent increase from 2000.

[..] one or more children in an estimated 265,000 families nationwide on occasion missed meals last year because the families either couldn't afford to eat or didn't have enough food at home.

[..] About 34.6 million Americans were living in poverty last year. That is 1.7 million more than in 2001, according to the Census Bureau.

0 Replies

nimh, That's the reason why many of us are not that thrilled about the government statistics that show our GDP has grown by 7.2 percent last quarter. Too many families are going without food and health care, and we don't see any improvement for those folks soon enough. When we see a steady improvment in the job market, I'll begin to feel better about our economy. Until then, most of those government statistics about our improving economy is (almost) meaningless. Many repubs think I'm complaining, but they're wrong. I'm just trying to show that feel good statistics does nothing for those struggling to feed their families in the richest country on this planet.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's an interesting Washington Post article on how taxes will affect the poor, middle class and the rich through 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10323-2003Jun3?language=printer

It should be no surprise to anyone that when Bush reduced the tax burden of many of the "poorest" Americans (lowest income would be a better term), that burden had to be shouldered elsewhere; it didn't simply disappear. (And this is news? To whom???)

Quote:

The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax burden after the laws passed in the past three years are fully implemented.

NOTE: the impact on the poor was that their burden was REDUCED.

0 Replies

Scrat -- Go back and check the numbers on how poor the poor are. Then take a look at how rich the rich are. Then tell us -- seriously -- whether you think the tax cuts have been fair. Let us know your rationale for the existence of such discrepancies in the economic welfare of Americans. Why are our poor so poor? Either this is a basically poor country or it's basically an unfair country economically. If the latter, how can that be justified? C'mon now -- no arsenic-laden, kiln-dried timber in the construction of your response. Just explain in human terms, please.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know