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.

"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.

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!

"Jim," wrote in message
...
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!




What a surprise.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:36:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


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.

It was prosperity based on a lie.

During the last year of Clinton's administration, the bubble started
to burst. Clinton had no interest in regulating, or allowing the SEC
to regulate, the accounting practices which were being used to inflate
stock and bond prices. I present EBITDA - a useful tool to determine
the profitability of companies during the '80s. It morphed into an
accounting gimmick under the lax rule of the Clinton administration.

To wit: As part of EBITDA, companies were allowed to set a "value" on
brands and/or naming trade rights. Thus, something that was totally
ephemeral, was added to the bottom line instead of how much money was
taken in, how much product was sold. It inflated the value the
companies involved in the Tech Rally while influencing few of the Big
Board companies which were a little more circumspect in how they used
this new concept.

By mid-2000, this inflation was becoming highly apparent to money
managers who started pulling back slowly. By the Fall, the whole
thing was starting to fall apart and by the time the election rolled
around, the cracks in the bubble were becoming major fault lines.

As we all witnessed, the bubble burst leaving a lot of ruined
portfolios in it's wake. Add in the aberration of 911 and you have
all the influences available for Depression or worse.

It didn't happen because the economy is basically sound and working.

The economic "failure" of the Bush administration, viewed in
retrospect, can be directly laid at the feet of the Clinton
Administration. That is the way historians 50 years from now will
view it and that is the way it is.

I'm not a big Bush fan, but to blame him for something that wasn't his
fault isn't fair.

Later,

Tom

The economic "failure" of the Bush administration, viewed in
retrospect, can be directly laid at the feet of the Clinton
Administration. That is the way historians 50 years from now will
view it and that is the way it is.

Baloney. Clinton inherited a nation in debt, he paid off the debt and
the nation flourished. Now Dubya is digging the nation back into debt
because of a silly, unpopular and unproductive war, the dollar is
dropping like a rock against other currencies due to that debt and due
to our inbalance of trade, and the economy is teetering. Whoever is in
office after Dubya will have to clean up his mess.

"Juan" wrote in message
oups.com...
The economic "failure" of the Bush administration, viewed in
retrospect, can be directly laid at the feet of the Clinton
Administration. That is the way historians 50 years from now will
view it and that is the way it is.

Baloney. Clinton inherited a nation in debt, he paid off the debt and
the nation flourished.

If you really believe Clinton paid off the national debt.......you are
smoking better stuff than asslicker is growing at home.


Now Dubya is digging the nation back into debt
because of a silly, unpopular and unproductive war, the dollar is
dropping like a rock against other currencies due to that debt and due
to our inbalance of trade, and the economy is teetering. Whoever is in
office after Dubya will have to clean up his mess.

On 18 Feb 2005 10:05:15 -0800, "Juan" wrote:

Baloney. Clinton inherited a nation in debt, he paid off the debt and
the nation flourished.

No he did not. And the nation was hardly "flourshing" during his last
two years in office.

Clinton used a different accounting trick to say, during his second
term, that debt was being paid down because it was stretched over TEN
years - the surplus that Clinton and his economic team said existed,
never existed in real time - in the future, yes - at the time no. It
was the same as EBITDA - it never existed in reality. And he knew it,
economists knew it and Larry Summers Clinton's last Secretary of the
Treasury admitted it.

Here are some facts for you Jimmy Neutrons on the right and left.
This covers the Bush the Elder and Clinton economic policies.

Tax hikes failed to produce expected revenues. Income tax receipts
rose 18 percent slower rate with the taxes of the late '80s and '90s
than they did during the Regan era.

A 30 percent build-up in real federal nondefense spending. Federal
spending for civilian programs accounted for a larger share of GDP
than at any previous time in American history.

Runaway spending on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare. In constant
dollars Medicare spending grew by $75 billion or 73 percent, Medicaid
spending grew by $47 billion or 112 percent, and welfare spending
climbed by $93 billion or 72 percent.

A one-third decline in the military budget in the post-Cold War era.
Defense spending had a smaller share of the federal budget than at any
time in American history. Defense cutbacks of roughly $100 billion
helped camouflage the large nondefense spending increases in the
1990s.

Record high budget deficits in the 1990s.The nation's economy under
performed in the 1990s under Bush and Clinton relative to the 1980s.
Inflation was low, 3.6 percent, and unemployment was held in check at
6.4 percent. Other measures of economic health are far more
discouraging such as sluggish economic growth (1.8% vs 3.2% during the
Regan Era), slow job growth from 1989 to 1995 was 1.3% and the net was
a loss of 200,000 jobs and by 1995, real family income fell 5%.

And those are just the factual highlights. If you consider the other
aspects of Clinton's disregard for the economic facts of life in the
last part of his Presidency, he was just a continuation of the first
Bush's disastrous economic shepherding.

Flourished indeed.

~~ sheesh ~~

Later,

Tom

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:36:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

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.

Aren't your own words, to which you chose not to comment, a good enough
baseline?

Think about it - millions of jobs have moved offshore (your words), yet
employment is about the same (your words). Bush must be doing something pretty
well.

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

John H wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:36:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


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.


Aren't your own words, to which you chose not to comment, a good enough
baseline?

Think about it - millions of jobs have moved offshore (your words), yet
employment is about the same (your words). Bush must be doing something pretty
well.

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


ANd you think "millions of jobs moving offshore" is a good thing?

Just a few headlines from Cnn financial news today http://money.cnn.com/

Bigger-than-expected jump in PPI is worrisome, but will it force the
central bank to get more aggressive?

Major gauges churn in tight range after biggest jump in wholesale prices
in 6 years; bonds tumble

Bonds mixed, dollar slips

From MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072/?ta=y

Stocks waver amid inflation worries

Wholesale prices moved up in January