4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:05 pm
Hey, Fox, interpret this graph for us.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/p_15.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:13 pm
Interpret this page/graphs for us, Fox.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/2004economy.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:19 pm
CI, this is 2007. Buy a new calendar, dear, and come up with something current. Three or more years ago is irrelevent to this discussion as previously explained.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Nor can liberals apparently distinguish between current news re the economy and something published two years before. Or acknowledge that we were still in the post 9/11 recession in 2002 plus the effect of the Bush tax cuts and other economic policy hadn't kicked in yet.

I think it also shows a great deal about liberals who seem to so desperately WANT there to be bad news, who NEED bad news I guess to justify their incredible pessimism about everything and don't care how miserable it is for the little people just so the rich don't benefit in any way.


Despite your horrible cariciature, it isn't that at all; it's the the economy is bad, and we recognize it instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and singing 'We have a good economy! Anyone who isn't crazy can see this! Lalalalala' as loud as we can, as many Republicans seem want to do.

We could get into a long discussion about it, but there's only one stat that's necessary to look at, and that's the national debt going up by half in just 6 years. There is no positive spin for the amount of debt that YOU personally have taken on during this time.

Cycloptichorn


I've posted credible sources showing that my point of view is reasonable. You have posted nothing from sources, credible or otherwise, showing that your point of view is reasonable. The National Debt has everything to do with spending versus revenues, however, and virtually nothing to do with the economy. Revenues are WAY up due to a booming economy, however, but unfortunately, so is spending. Didn't they teach you that in Economics 101?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Nor can liberals apparently distinguish between current news re the economy and something published two years before. Or acknowledge that we were still in the post 9/11 recession in 2002 plus the effect of the Bush tax cuts and other economic policy hadn't kicked in yet.

I think it also shows a great deal about liberals who seem to so desperately WANT there to be bad news, who NEED bad news I guess to justify their incredible pessimism about everything and don't care how miserable it is for the little people just so the rich don't benefit in any way.


Despite your horrible cariciature, it isn't that at all; it's the the economy is bad, and we recognize it instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and singing 'We have a good economy! Anyone who isn't crazy can see this! Lalalalala' as loud as we can, as many Republicans seem want to do.

We could get into a long discussion about it, but there's only one stat that's necessary to look at, and that's the national debt going up by half in just 6 years. There is no positive spin for the amount of debt that YOU personally have taken on during this time.

Cycloptichorn


I've posted credible sources showing that my point of view is reasonable. You have posted nothing from sources, credible or otherwise, showing that your point of view is reasonable. The National Debt has everything to do with spending versus revenues, however, and virtually nothing to do with the economy. Revenues are WAY up due to a booming economy, however, but unfortunately, so is spending. Didn't they teach you that in Economics 101?


Well, I guess not; since revenues are NOT 'way up.'

Revenues are always going to rise during an expansionary period; this expansionary period has seen anemic revenue growth compared to past periods, terrible job growth, and a gigantic rise in the federal debt.

There are other factors as well - personal debt is the highest since the depression. Personal savings rates, the lowest since the depression. Trade deficit is huge (that's why I said it's nice to see it shrinking).

I will post any graphs and stats that you like, straight from the US gov't themselves - not from a liberal site or magazine. I just didn't want to clutter up the thread, people get their heads bitten off for that around here Smile

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:58 pm
Well here's the US Dept. Treasury summary posted 3-9-07. Do you have anything more current than that?

The Economy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger. Since the President signed the Jobs & Growth Act in May 2003, providing much needed tax relief, the U.S. economy has made a remarkable recovery. This section of Treasury's Web site is designed to provide information on the current strength of the U.S. economy as well as the policies that will sustain economic growth for future generations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

economic strength indicators
Last Updated: March 9, 2007

"Labor markets are firm; unemployment is low; consumer confidence is rising; inflation is easing; exports are growing and they contributed about one percentage point to the fourth-quarter GDP number; and of particular importance to me, working families are now benefiting from this expansion, with real wages up 2.1% over the last year."
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, March 1, 2007

Job Creation Continues :

Job Growth: 97,000 new jobs created in February. In addition, employment estimates for December and January were revised up, adding 55,000 jobs. 2.0 million new jobs have been created over the past 12 months. Since August 2003, nearly 7.6 million jobs have been created - more jobs than all the other major industrialized countries combined. Our economy has added jobs for 42 straight months. Employment has increased in 46 states within the past year. (Last updated: March 1, 2007)

Low Unemployment: 4.5% unemployment rate - close to a 5-1/2 year low. Unemployment rates have decreased or held steady in 36 states over the past year. (Last Updated: March 9, 2007)

The U.S. Economy Remains Strong and Continues to Grow :

Economic Growth: 2.2% GDP growth in the 4th quarter. Our economy has grown a solid 3.1% over the past 4 quarters. (Last updated: February 28, 2007)

Business Investment: Capital investment increased a strong 6.2% over the 4 quarters of 2006. (Last updated: January 31, 2007)

Tax Revenues: Tax receipts up 11.8% in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) on top of FY05's 14.6% increase. Receipts have grown another nearly 10% percent so far in FY07. (Last updated: February 12, 2007)

Steady Productivity: Labor productivity has grown at an annual rate of 2.8% over the past five years. (Last updated: March 6, 2007)

Americans are Keeping More of Their Hard-Earned Money:

Real wages increased 2.2 percent over the past 12 months (ending in January). This translates into an additional $725 above inflation for the average full-time production worker.

Real After-Tax Income Per Person has Risen 10.0% - an extra $2,950 per person - since the President took office.

Pro-Growth Policies will Enhance Long-Term U.S. Economic Strength:

The Administration proposed a budget that reaches a small surplus in 2012. Economic growth has generated increased tax receipts and dramatically improved the budget outlook. The budget holds the line on spending. The budget reduces the deficit as a percentage of GDP-the most meaningful measure of its size-every year through 2012. The time has come for both political parties to work together on comprehensive earmark reform that produces greater transparency and accountability to the congressional budget process, including full disclosure for each earmark and cutting the number and cost of all earmarks by half.
http://www.ustreas.gov/economic-plan/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:02 pm
The economy is bad all right. It's bad for liberals and Democrats who want to make the President and the Republicans look really bad on that point. Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:14 pm
I think we can both agree that the Treasury dept's summary isn't exactly a 'fair and balanced' document. They only talk about good points, and that's it.

And some of the statistics are misleading as well. Let's look -

Quote:

Job Creation Continues :

Job Growth: 97,000 new jobs created in February. In addition, employment estimates for December and January were revised up, adding 55,000 jobs. 2.0 million new jobs have been created over the past 12 months. Since August 2003, nearly 7.6 million jobs have been created - more jobs than all the other major industrialized countries combined. Our economy has added jobs for 42 straight months. Employment has increased in 46 states within the past year. (Last updated: March 1, 2007)


Ever notice how they measure from 'August 2003' when they give numbers for the Bush presidency? That's because they don't like to discuss how many jobs were lost in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Every number looks better if you ignore that bad years, but they are still part of the same picture.

This expansionary period has seen the worst job growth of any expansionary period in the last 75 years -

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/jobs_jobs_jobs.jpg

The job creation numbers only look good if you are completely ignorant of the history of job creation in America.

Quote:

Real After-Tax Income Per Person has Risen 10.0% - an extra $2,950 per person - since the President took office.


Only if you count the huge increase in income for the wealthy. This number is hardly an average which takes into account the disparities of income amongst our classes.

Here's a chart showing actual wage growth since 2000 -

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/kashwages.gif

After adjusting for inflation, the average worker takes home about $10 more a week now than he did in 2000. Big f*cking whoop.

If you actually want to have a serious discussion of the economy, one centered around facts and figures more than your opinions, then come to the 'where is the US economy headed?' thread.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:18 pm
And your source? Remember I'm only accepting sources that aren't known as a liberalspeak Bush-bashing/conservative bashing/GOP bashing, ultra left wingnut hangout.

And it was YOU who suggested using government figures. If those aren't acceptable as an unbiased source, where is anybody else getting theirs?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:29 pm
The numbers come straight from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

If you like, I can post original graphs from them. Do you like?

What you posted was a PR piece, a fluff piece; it doesn't show any actual economic information, but presents statistics in false and meaningless ways to show that everything is still rosy, no need to take your fingers out of your ears.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:46 pm
Links to the sources would be nice. Otherwise the graphs speak for themselves. Most people don't mind posting their sources and most that don't are intentionally trying to deceive, so I'm sure the omission of the links was just an oversight. I just like to know who it is putting the graphs out. (P.S. you DO know the difference between payroll growth and wage growth don't you? They teach that in Economics 101 too.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:57 pm
You studied Economics 101? WOW! I'm impressed. But your reading skills are still lacking. The first graph I posted was developed by the US Census Bureau, and the 2d one was sourced from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey. Gee, such a tough one to know where they came from.

As for Cyclo's graph, any simpleton can read it; it shows jobs decreasing in the US.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:58 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
You studied Economics 101? WOW! I'm impressed. But your reading skills are still lacking. The first graph I posted was developed by the US Census Bureau, and the 2d one was sourced from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey. Gee, such a tough one to know where they came from.

As for Cyclo's graph, any simpleton can read it; it shows jobs decreasing in the US.


Yeah, but if she can show that there was a Liberal involved with it somehow, she feels free to ignore the information.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:58 pm
As for "Real Earnings," it simply shows that wages has not kept up with inflation. That's a toughie! DUH!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:00 pm
How can one source say jobs are increasing and another say it's decreasing? One of them is wrong or spinning the numbers.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:02 pm
McGentrix wrote:
How can one source say jobs are increasing and another say it's decreasing? One of them is wrong or spinning the numbers.


Which source said that jobs are decreasing?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:02 pm
McG, You just admitted you're a one dimension "scholar." It explains a lot about your posts.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How can one source say jobs are increasing and another say it's decreasing? One of them is wrong or spinning the numbers.


Which source said that jobs are decreasing?

Cycloptichorn


I dunno, c.i. said "As for Cyclo's graph, any simpleton can read it; it shows jobs decreasing in the US.".

Is he a simpleton?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:05 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How can one source say jobs are increasing and another say it's decreasing? One of them is wrong or spinning the numbers.


Which source said that jobs are decreasing?

Cycloptichorn


I dunno, c.i. said "As for Cyclo's graph, any simpleton can read it; it shows jobs decreasing in the US.".

Is he a simpleton?


I'm not calling him a simpleton, but I'm pretty sure that no graph I posted showed jobs decreasing; I do think that they have grown at a far, far slower rate than they have in the past, which is bad but not the same thing as decreasing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:08 pm
And yet by the current unemployment rate, we are at essential full employment using any previous standards. Apparently we're keeping up with the need just fine.

But Bush-bashers don't WANT to see anything good there. They have to believe that it's all cruddy or else their pitiful worlds fall apart completely. Tis a shame. There was a time when most Americans rejoiced in good economic news.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2024 at 07:38:25