JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:57:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
"Jeff Gannon's" incredible access
There's evidence he got into White House briefings before he was a
"reporter."
And the only reporter with a decent question!
Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture
of the
U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking
about soup
lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the
economy being
on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social
Security
is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to
work -- you've
said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going
to work
with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
Good one, no?
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes
NO! the US economy and the SS system are 2 different entities. The
market has yet to reach the level it was when Bush assumed/stole/was
anointed to/ somehow got office. UN employment (in real numbers) -- is
about the same; Millions of jobs have moved offshore, bankruptcies are
up
Tell me John -- what IS good about the economy?????
I can answer that:
1. A larger than expected rise in retail sales (.06%)
2. Average hourly earnings up
3. A decrease to 5.2% in the unemployment rate
4. 1% increase in productivity during the 4th quarter 2004
5. Durable goods orders up.
6. 146,0000 new jobs in January 2005
7. 2.7% inflation rate
8. 4.4% growth in the economy
"Overall, reports indicate that the economic recovery is well
established and proceeding at a good pace. "
http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/...501update.html, amongst
others.
For you Jim,
http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/
Up from what point? Where is your baseline? Decrease in Un employment
since when?
How about numbers based on 2000 when Bush took office!
You made the ridiculous statement "What is *good* about the economy?" I
told you what is good. The list was certainly not all encompassing.
Yet you still cannot accept it.
Conclusion: No amount of information is going to change your mind. You
have a hard on for George W Bush and cannot get over the fact that he
won.
Get a grip guy and move on.
The comparison might be from 2001 (the first year of Bush when everything
went to hell). I'd like to see things compared to the last year of
Clinton when we were doing pretty good. As I pointed out yesterday, the
DOW hasn't reached it's high point in 5 years. yesterday it closed at
10.754; almost exactly 1000 points below what it hit under Clinton.
"Proceding at a good pace", might indicate that in 8 years we'll be even.
I don't consider that good at all.
As requested before -- where is your baseline? Shouldn't be all that hard
to tell me.
A link was provided in my original post.
You know very well that the economy started on a downward slide during the
last year of the Clinton years. No need to relive that.
But the main point is that I provided facts and figures that shows the
economy is indeed healthy and robust vs your statement asking what is good
about it.
HA! -- you make me laugh -- from the link YOU provided
"It is important to note that employment has tended to lag production
slightly. Other reports suggest that the economy’s forward momentum may
be rebounding from a temporary pause in fall 2004, particularly as
energy and political uncertainties unwind. For example, the index of
leading economic indicators rose for a second consecutive month in
December after having declined in the five preceding months (Chart 2).
The recent rebound led the Conference Board to conclude that earlier
declines marked “only a pause in the rising trend that has been under
way since March 2003.”
To some extent, swings in manufacturing orders appear to have reflected
developments in oil prices, which dominated the financial news in much
of 2004 and affected the sales outlooks and expansion plans of many
firms. For example, the slide in the ISM index of new orders from very
high levels in early 2004 to lower (but still positive) levels by
October coincided with a sizable rise in oil prices through that month
(Chart 4). The index then rebounded in the following two months as oil
prices partly retreated from their October monthly peak, before sliding
back some in January as oil prices reversed course and rose slightly.
Uncertainty about future tax policies associated with a close election
may have also affected the recent pattern of orders. It is plausible
that some producers temporarily postponed investment decisions until
after October, which would have curtailed orders in the months before
November. Afterwards, any postponements would have likely unwound,
temporarily boosting orders in November and December, as is suggested by
the data.
Fourth Quarter GDP Growth Slower Than Expected, but Likely to Be Revised
The first estimate of GDP growth in fourth quarter 2004 was 3.1
percent—below market expectations of 3.5 percent. The deceleration in
GDP growth from 4 percent in the third quarter to 3.1 percent in the
fourth was more than accounted for by a big decline in net exports. In
the third quarter, net exports trimmed about 0.1 percent off GDP growth,
but cut about 1.7 percentage points off GDP growth in the fourth.
However, soon after the GDP release, a large error in Canadian trade
statistics for November was reported. Because Canada is our largest
trading partner, correcting this error is likely to boost U.S. GDP
growth notably in the fourth quarter, with private economists’ estimates
ranging from an increase of 0.1 to 0.5 percentage points. (The Bureau of
Economic Analysis plans to incorporate this correction and other more
up-to-date data when it releases its revised estimates in February.)
The numbers compare to earlier Bush years, and indicate that his
mismanagement is not as bad as previous years.
I am not impressed!