If you cared at all to evaluate the strength of the US economy honestly, you would judge it against it's long term average and not against units of time determined by political elections.

Since you are blinded by your political views you only care to view the economy in terms of "Reagan's", "Bush's", "Clinton's", and "Bush's" economy.

It's an average economy, not one that is "in the toilet".

Sorry Colin I did miss read the article, I guess you got me good. In all of stats though you neglect to fix your error of saying the growth was 3% last year when actually it was 2.4%, which seems slight but in GDP it is huge. You also did not mention that during the Clinton years it averaged 3.7%, while I was getting the stats I also looked up Reagan - 3.3%, Bush Sr. - 1.95%, and of course Bush Jr. - 1.35% so far.:321GFY If you don't believe these stats check them yourself . I am not very good at spelling maybe I made a mistake and you can get me good again.

Colin you make some good points, however, leading economic indicators don't mean much to the average Joe.
The only economic indicator most people care about is the unemployment rate (i.e. whether or not they have a job)
That number has not fared well under the current administration. It may or may not be the president's fault, but when you're the leader you get the credit for the good and the blame for the bad.

Also, the average Joe's are also unhappy that they put money into their 401k's every week and have less money in them now than they did 2 years ago. Again, that may or may not be Dubya's fault, but the same principle applies.

dude are you serious? the economy wasn't even real back then,
damn dot com's going bust with their $300 per share which now if there still in business would be at .50,

all the damn coporate scandels now were done during the clinton admin with the cooked up books.

it was a virtual economy, that shit wasn't real and people like me are paying for it,, Thank god i ain't like some of my co-workers nearing retirement and loosing all their monies


Plus you can't blame Bush for Sept 11, don't tell me that didn't have a MAJOR impact on the economy,, still does

Bush doesnt seem to think there is anything wrong with the economy even though more than 2 million people have lost their job in the past two years:

"Look around you, You've all got jobs. I've got a job. Dick Cheney has a job. I don't see what all the fuss is about." GW - November 23, 2002

"Economies are about money, and I feel . . . I believe that money . . . I like money. And I like this country. Money is good and this country still has a lot of money." GW - November 23, 2002

"Concerns about the economy are nothing more than partisan politics," Fleischer announced. "To turn our attention away at this time from the threat posed by Iraq to focus on the U.S. economy would be un-American."

Clinton bombed Iraq's military and weapons producing infrastructure for failing to comply with the UN during his administration. He would have done the same again, but without the ground war.

that's exactly what i was wondering why Bush didn't do the same,,

Let me guess, you think Clinton caused the tech stocks to go huge and fuel the economy? Well I guess Al Gore did invent the internet

no way was this said..
surely...

?

dude.. there is no evidence of any links.. Osama wanted to kill Saddam. Sure Saddams probably got WMD.. I don't believe they've all been destroyed.. but the link with Al Qaida is so tenuous it's retarded - like those if you smoke dope you support terrorist ads.. silly propaganda. Everyone seems to forget that the terrorists are everywhere.. should we bomb England because they had a ricin making cell there? should we bomb Florida because they had a flight training cell there? terrorists blend in and use the local facilities like any normal people. I doubt there would be a country in the world that wouldn't take a terrorist into one of their hospitals.... it's not like they wear a frikkin' sign!

So I guess those satellite photos of Al Queda training camps in Iraq aren't real?
Or Sadam's offer of $25,000 in cash to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers wasn't real?
Bottom line is this guy unequivocally supports terrorists and has weapons of mass destruction, not a very good combo.

But remember my earlier point, 9/11 changed everything. It was only after that incident that our policy became "We will make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them"

Darkknight,

Let's discuss economics and not politics.

I didn't say the economy wasn't good under Clinton. In fact, I think it was great under Clinton. You're assuming I have a political view and am trying to convince you that the economy is as good now as it was 4 years ago in order to prove something about political parties. It's not. That's your goal and it is obvious you have an axe to grind with the Republican party. We had average (within 1 SD) GDP growth in the past year compared to the past 20 years.

I could care less which political party controls congress or has the president in the White House.

You are comparing the GDP under presidential leadership which doesn't make any sense in evaluating the economy NOW. If the economy was poor two years ago - or below average for the term of the current president - it has no bearing whatsoever on a conversation regarding the state of the economy now.

Monetary policy and the Fed have a huge influence on the month-to-month and year-to-year state of the economy and it's decisions are and were designed to be separate from the executive and legislative branches of government.

The attempt to slow the stock market, for example, was an intentional consequence of the policies of Alan Greenspan who wanted to slowly let the air out of a stock market who's prices were excessively high compared to earnings on an historical basis.

Lenny,

Good points.

The inevitable result of a very strong market and economy is that it will return to normal. Bubbles burst. Anyone that thought the market was going to stay evaluated so excessively ignored the lessons of history. Remember the "New Economy" talk? People really thought we could remain in a bubble forever. Wise investors were heading the warnings of Warren Buffet.

Regression towards the mean.

The leading economic indicators were designed specifically to measure the breadth of the economy. How is it performing across a wide range of it's features? Tha answer is "average" and improving.

Yeah. I wonder how those steel tariffs a few months ago or maybe a year ago affected US economy.

I think I saw somewhere that the price of steel was going sky high.

Maybe Bush doesn't listen to his economists too much, but only people specialized in some other fields of .. hmm... control

How about gasoline prices? ;-)

I guess they're rising too because of Bush's questinable actions?

we had an al-quaida training camp here.. on a big ass farm.. Indonesia has lots of them. Saddam does not control northern Iraq - terrorists there, or photographs implying so, aren't a link.
It's disingenuous and misleading the public.. It doesn't change the fact that Al quaida and saddam aren't buddies, the CIA laughed at the idea originally and until they started doing everything they can to start the war there had been absolutely no intelligence of anti-western terrorism linked to Saddam. Looking to history and the faked triggers to things like vietnam you just can't put it past the government not to lie or bend the truth vociferously when it really really wants to get something happening. Unlike Saddam's "alleged" WMD, The terrorism link isn't something that has any support fromt he experts. It's spin, and it's working. They should stick the WMD reason, at least it's highly likely.

Saddam needs and wants to be seen as the great defender of the palestinian people against Israel.. palestinian bombers are a very seperate beast to al-quaida. it's a local response to a very specific situation. Besides I don't think it's such a bad thing now the family homes are being destroyed in retaliation... kind of equalises it back down.

Colin I believe you were the one who brought up the GDP in an attempt to say Bush's economy was doing as well as average since 1991. I simply pointed out it was not and the average is actually brought down because of him and Bush Sr. And it is true that Greenspan has tried to slowly burst the bubble but here are some facts for Newsweek.

* When President Bush was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001, U.S. stocks were valued at $14.7 trillion, according to Wilshire Associates. Last week?s value: $9.9 trillion. Total decline: $4.8 trillion. The only fair way to compare the Bush Market with other presidents? markets is to use percentages rather than dollars. Here, too, he leads the pack. According to a study conducted for NEWSWEEK by Aronson+Johnson+Ortiz, a Philadelphia money-management firm, the Standard & Poor?s 500 Index has fallen more in Bush?s first two years than under any president since the modern stock market emerged. (AJO?s data go back only as far as Hoover, enough for our purposes.) During Hoover?s first two years, which included the Black Thursday crash in October 1929, the S&P fell 29 percent. Not as bad as Bush?s 33 percent. (Through last week, the decline was 36 percent.) *You can?t blame this all on Bush, of course. The market he inherited in 2001 had been inflated by the tech and telecom bubble that started popping in the spring of 2000. It was bound to fall. But he?s been in office long enough to bear at least some responsibility?you can bet he?d be taking the credit if the market were rising. He can?t blame the problem on 9-11. AJO says the S&P 500 declined at a 28 percent annual rate from Bush?s Inauguration through Sept. 10, 2001, but at less than half that rate since 9-11. However you count, the market isn?t buying his program. And in the long run, the market?s pretty savvy.

I also think giving a huge tax break to the rich and a $300 bribe to every one else is probably not the best idea heading into a war and will do nothing except make the gap between the rich and poor bigger, and increase the deficit.

Colin I believe you were the one who brought up the GDP in an attempt to say Bush's economy was doing as well as average since 1991. I simply pointed out it was not and the average is actually brought down because of him and Bush Sr. And it is true that Greenspan has tried to slowly burst the bubble but here are some facts for Newsweek.

* When President Bush was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001, U.S. stocks were valued at $14.7 trillion, according to Wilshire Associates. Last week?s value: $9.9 trillion. Total decline: $4.8 trillion. The only fair way to compare the Bush Market with other presidents? markets is to use percentages rather than dollars. Here, too, he leads the pack. According to a study conducted for NEWSWEEK by Aronson+Johnson+Ortiz, a Philadelphia money-management firm, the Standard & Poor?s 500 Index has fallen more in Bush?s first two years than under any president since the modern stock market emerged. (AJO?s data go back only as far as Hoover, enough for our purposes.) During Hoover?s first two years, which included the Black Thursday crash in October 1929, the S&P fell 29 percent. Not as bad as Bush?s 33 percent. (Through last week, the decline was 36 percent.) *You can?t blame this all on Bush, of course. The market he inherited in 2001 had been inflated by the tech and telecom bubble that started popping in the spring of 2000. It was bound to fall. But he?s been in office long enough to bear at least some responsibility?you can bet he?d be taking the credit if the market were rising. He can?t blame the problem on 9-11. AJO says the S&P 500 declined at a 28 percent annual rate from Bush?s Inauguration through Sept. 10, 2001, but at less than half that rate since 9-11. However you count, the market isn?t buying his program. And in the long run, the market?s pretty savvy.

I also think giving a huge tax break to the rich and a $300 bribe to every one else is probably not the best idea heading into a war and will do nothing except make the gap between the rich and poor bigger, and increase the deficit.

i would be very interested to hear a clear explaination of "the gap" between the rich and poor and why it will get "bigger".

how can an economy can grow with unparalled success in the history of the planet and have more "have nots" in the end?

why is a tax credit/cut a "bribe"?

(DISCLAIMER: my post is not in any way intended to be an insult to Chairman Mao, Marx, Lenin, or their failed economic models, ideas or philosophies regarding the attainable Workers Utopia, wealth redistribution, or any other similarly disproven faith, belief or teachings regarding general fairness and anti-imperialism)

Yeah jackass, that's what I said we should all be communist. Why don't you try and read if you want to know what the gap is. Unfortunatly unlike oil the world will never run out of ignorant republicans.

The American economy has fallen into its worst hiring slump in almost 20 years, and many business executives say they remain unsure when it will end. With economic growth having slowed to less than 1 percent in recent months, about one million people appear to have dropped out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for a job, according to government figures. The surge in discouraged workers is the most significant since the months immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and it suggests that the pain of joblessness is worsening
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...cat=US_Economy

plenty more stats there indicating overwhelmingly that the economy is completely in the shitter.

and Bush is a moron who stole the presidency

maybe if they keep us in a high state of terrorist alert nobody will notice :glugglug

he supports Palestinians, and like any other politician he'll support ANYONE now who will in turn support him against the US. IF you had bothered to read the post you were replying to you would have read that, as a secular dictator in the Muslim world, Osama would have liked to kill Saddam about as much as he wants to kill Americans, if not more. You won't hear that from this President though, doesn't fit with the program. You'll get 12 yr old outdated AND plagiarized reports instead that DO fit the program.

Bush proved that he would do ANYTHING to win the presidency, and now he'll do ANYTHING to get his oil buddies hooked up again in the Middle East.

and if you want to bitch about anything you better do it now, because pretty soon being anti-Bush is going to mean you're pro-terrorist:

(WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) -- The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information.

Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, reviewed the draft legislation at the request of the Center, and said that the legislation ?raises a lot of serious concerns. It?s troubling that they have gotten this far along and they?ve been telling people there is nothing in the works.? This proposed law, he added, ?would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ?suspicion,? create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.?
http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/repor...L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

Orwell was right, he was just 20 years too late. Wonder if all the 'Libertarians' will keep voting Republican.

If George Bush is Winston Churchill, you are Ethyl Murman.

Yes, I did bring it up and I am correct in what I said. I said that the 2002 GDP growth rate was average within one SD of the mean.

For the period, the average GDP growth rate has been 3.02. The standard deviation is 1.5. This means the range of 1.57 to 4.52 defines the width of one standard deviation. The GDP growth rate in 2002 was 2.76 - WELL within that range and entire 1 percent higher than the bottom of that range.

You still do not understand me. You said I attempting to say something about "Bush's economy". I am not. You're still grinding your axe sharpening it for party politics. I'm sorry but you are oversimplifying everything to the point of absurdity in a lame attempt to bash the Republican in office and it is very obvious. Can you step back and see things for how they are? It's simple. Really.

Yes, the market is lower. Much lower. It's a horrible market. Market prices were overvalued by more than a factor of three compared to earnings. This would mean the market would have to lose 1/3 of it's value to reach an historically normal price to earnings ratio for a basket of stocks.

We just witnessed one of the one of the larger stock market bubbles in market history. The S&P 500 index hit 60 in early 2002. This is more than three times it's historical average. Think about that. That means the stock market was more overvalued relative to historical price to earnings ratios than it was in 1929.

Not even interest rate cuts could force the market higher. 2001-2002 was only the second time in history the market did not rise after two consecutive rate cuts. The other was 1929. Supposed lack of investor confidence in Bush has nothing to do with the fact that the market was overvalued by a factor of three. All bubbles burst. Famous examples are 15th century tulip prices in Holland during the tulip mania, The 1920s US stock market, South Florida real estate in the 1920s, gold in 1978, and Japanese real estate in the early 1980s. There are many more.

Comrade Dig -- you're the MOST politically biased person I have ever met in your life and your opinion on such matters can only be the most slanted drivel and a direct result of wearing your specially manufactured democratic glasses - forged with a hammer and cut with a sickle, of course ;-)

Listen to what you are saying. Your rational self is explaining and understanding why the market is falling. It makes perfect sense. It's easily understandable. All the evidence is point blank right in front of you. It's so clearly not Bush's fault that the market was in a bubble and you know it.

It's no ones fault. You can't blame an individual for the actions of the millions of people that continued to buy stocks even as they rose through dizzying heights. You can't blame Bush for all the people that bought billions of dollars of stock that were based on nothing more than castles in the air.


hen after you admit the reasons for the fall and the market's severe overvaluation, you turn around in the end and say "but it's at least part Bush's fault". You want to bring party politics into it and that doesn't make any sense.

nope. I hate Joe Leibermann and Tipper Gore as much as I hate any republican.

what I hate are hypocrites who want to parade their moral virtue in my face while they're busy stealing with both hands and sucking off the religious right.

every possible point of determination you can use points to the fact that Bush is a moron who is not only making us look like provincial fools to the rest of the world, he's leading us into WWIII. I, for one, don't intend to give up my civil liberties or my life just because the majority of the American populace is easily propagandized.

Aren't you one of those people that call themselves Libertarians, while you vote every single personal right that our forefathers fought for out of existence?

SHAME!!

I don't have to beat you in a debate. The Republicans will do it for me when they get the Patriot Bill passed and toss you in jail, along with every other pornographer, pot smoker and 'subversive' in existence.

I'll be in France or Antigua. Smoking dope and laughing.

you ask would Bill Clinton be going to war. My answer is no, he was too smart to get in a battle that doesn't have a winning scenario under any circumstances. He was also smart enough to infiltrate Al-Qaeda and keep them down until your boy Bush got in office and decided that whatever Clinton did, he would do the opposite.

Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson point the finger at gays, lesbians and long haired hippies for 9-11. I point the finger at George Bush, too stupid to realize that his fellow religious (muslim) fanatics were more dangerous than the helpless targets of the republican Drug War and Culture War.

They dropped the ball on international politics because it makes better copy in the NY Times to put pornographers and 'drug lords' in jail, and to be 'tough on crime'. Too fucking hard dealing with other countries who have their own ideas on how the world should be ordered, they gotta go for the sound bites and the headlines.

Colin, I think it is becoming clear we are not ever going to agree on this issue. You continue to accuse me of being blinded by my politics, which I might be, but you are so blinded that you can't admit Bush bears some responsibility. You seem intelligent and I have enjoyed the debate but at this point the subject is getting redundant, so I will agree to disagree and move on. I'm sure we will be at it again on another topic. :thumbsup

You are a better man than I, Colin ... I'd rather be called a "lilly livered commie pinko faggot that doesn't make enough money to piss with me and is probably a cheater to boot" by 12clucks all day than be called Pat Buchannan.

You are correct ... blaming the economy on Bush is like crediting the economy to Clinton when he was in office.

HOWEVER ... economic policies that involve cutting governmental revenues while increasing spending for the military, for civil defense (there is something annoyingly Teutonic about Homeland Security), and adding in welfare to churches (oh, I'm sorry - "faith based initiatives") is Voodoo Economics II - With a Vengence. Maybe - just maybe - the first tax cut was necessary to stimulate the economy. The second tax cut reeks of following a predetermined agenda without regard to common sense or reality.

let's not forget he's SIMULTANEOUSLY cutting taxes and increasing spending. A real brainiac.

it's a gamble

not sure what the odds on it are

i see. i am stupid because i cant read, so therefore you dont need to explain a simple inflamatory remark that dates back to pre-history that though is less true than any point in the history of the world while contining to become less true everyday... it is somehow still a springboard for over-dramatic, half socialist, mathematically/economically challenged individuals who prefer to think that the economy is a zero sum system and that wealth is not attainable unless someone is willing to steal it directly from the pocket of someone who is "less fortuneate"?

I'm not in favor of Bush's tax cuts, PD. I think you know that from other boards. ?? I think you know by now not to assume I am categorically defending any politician because of what party they are in.

The question at hand is the state of the current economy of which I would say it is average and improving at present. Will it continue? Don't know. Maybe. That is where it is now. GDP growing faster this year, unemployment lower this quarter, the majority of economic indicators are positive.

Will the debt get larger? Yes, I agree with you there. Do I like it? No.

I'm leaving for Orlando in a few hours for some meetings. Back in a few days to play with y'all .. keep the fire burning.

yeah for sure!

I knew this day would come. The first time Jammy and I have ever agreed.

The way he talked on Cnn the other day made it sound like he would be going to war now too, but Clinton is a known liar so that doesn't really mean anything.

This is my British point of view, Clinton was the best President the USA has had for a long time its a pity the American people focused on what he did with his dick more that what he achieved for the country.

No one is perfect but Clinton has a presents when he talks that seems to exude authority
He doesn't stutter or fuck up his speech and he really seemed to know what he was talking about. My feeling is that had he still been in power America would be in a much better position than it is now.

We had the Iron lady Maggie Thatcher who was again in my opinion the best British Priminister the UK has ever seen. But she got fucked, metaphorically speaking by her own party and the country suffered because of it.
Just my :2 cents:

US Unemployment levels are at record highs. Not because of structural or seasonal unemployment reasons, but because of cyclical ones. Real GDP is reported on a quarterly level, and expanded into a hypothetical yearly report. Posting on the forum that real GDP went up for a quarter doesnt signify jack shit. The recessionary board decided we were in a recession, and I am sure they know a shitload more than you.

And tax cuts do NOT stimulate the economy as much as government expenditure neither in the SHORT run or the LONG run. Before try and flaunt your superficial knowledge, ill explain why. The average american's propensity to consume is about .9, so for every dollar they get, they will spend 90 cents. If the government gives a tax cut of x amount of dollars, it will only stimulate the economy by a value proportional to .9x in the short run as opposed to a value proportional to x if the government spent that money. In the long run, it simply crowds out consumption spending and investment spending.

this day will go down in infamy

How can I take you seriously? You can't even get the simplest of facts straight.

Real GDP has gone up for FIVE STRAIGHT quarters. NOT one. The STANDARD DEFINITION of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. We are clearly not in a recession as we have had 5 consecutive quarterly increases in GDP. There was a two quarter recession that ended over a year ago and it was one of the mildest recessions in US history.

Unemployment rates are NOWHERE NEAR record highs.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Good point about the mild recession, it was also a planned one.
Remember the last 18 months or so of Clinton's presidency? Greenspan raised rates every time the fed had a meeting, he said the economy was growing too fast, it was going to cause inflation, and he wanted to slow the growth down.
He was going for a "soft landing" where growth would slow to almost nothing without actually putting us in a recession. He barely missed the mark, and that coupled with the accounting scandals and the record bankruptcy filings that caused the stock market to do a massive correction gave us a couple of bad quarters.

I disagree with Bush on about 80-90% of his policies, but the recession we had wasn't his fault (nor was it the fault of his predecessor)