Reply With Quote
Yoni's still grasping. The election isn't about "the economy, dumb ".
The election is a referendum on the phony Iraq war and the dubya/ head assholes who started it.
Unemployment Rate = 4.4%
More good news on this terrible economy.
I'm sure this will make big news...yeah, right. I wouldn't expect this to lead the evening news broadcasts… especially this close to an election.
Not among Democrats. The only factor that dispels their worries is whether the President has an (R) or (D) after his name. They’ll keep focusing on hourly wages, etc…
Or maybe not…
Dammit! There has to be something bad about this economy that the Democrats can latch onto this close to an important election. Wait, we can always go back and tout the numbers under Clinton.
The average unemployment rate for Clinton’s first 6 years was 5.58%. Today’s numbers mean the average unemployment rate for Bush’s first 6 years is… 5.29%. Oops.
Nevermind, nothing to see here, move along.
Yoni's still grasping. The election isn't about "the economy, dumb ".
The election is a referendum on the phony Iraq war and the dubya/ head assholes who started it.
and it's faulty spin at that...
The fact of the matter is that the number of people employed rises with the natural rise in population. The most conservative measure of an average increase during the post-WW2 years is about 2.0%. Absolutely every month's change in employment since Bush/Cheney took office has been below average!
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT (i.e. bigger government) has not suffered the rape and decimation of private employment, and indeed has almost kept pace with the increasing population being served. After all, even if we turn our teachers into baby-sitters for the parents who can't survive unless they work for two incomes, that means the number of teachers and social workers, cops, policemen, etc... (government employees!) must keep pace with population.
The economy is doing OK.
That is pretty obvoius.
Apparently not to everyone.
Ok for whom? The 1000's of homeowners whos ARMs are pricing them out of their own homes? Or perhaps its the hourly wage earners, millions of them, who haven't seen a cost of living adjustment in 6 years running despite record corporate profits? Nah, the 'luckiest' have gotta be the millions of Americans who were fortunate enough to give up their careers as computer engineers so that they can become a partner at McD's.
It's not the governments fault that people got into home loans without being able to afford it once their rates adjusted..........why do people feel so sorry for others that chose to live outside of their means and for that matter didn't take the time to refinance sometime in the two years allotted to them in order to make sure the rate gets "fixed"?
Furthermore, make sure you specify which kinds of hourly wage earners you are talking about because the hourly people at the job I'm on right now earn anywhere from $18.00-$24.00 an hour, plus they are compensated for cost of living.
I remember a time when being a Republican meant being for smaller government. It's the government's fault that they keep running constant multi-billion dollar deficits. Imagine it this way, there is a finite amount of credit available in the world at any given time, it can either be invested on private ventures, like building homes or businesses around the world, or it can be sold to the government, namely the U.S. government, the largest consumer of credit in the world. Therefore, when the government sucks up available credit, it raises interest rates on private and business consumers, namely, those who were 'crazy' enough to over-invest in the Bush economy, home-owners and investors who gambled that over-priced homes on both coasts would keep rising forever, and families who had no choice but to over-pay since the only alternative would be living on the streets.
OH NOES!!! As John stated, those idiots (mostly Californians) who decided an ARM was the way to go. Stop living beyond your means people. I see this time and time again and I have to laugh at it.
Dan, why don't we just let all the poor people not work and the rest of us out here working are asses off can support them? It should be a crime for corporations to make record profits! What do they think they are in business for....to make money?? Preposterous!!
What makes you think a 'price adjustment' can't happen in SA? Take a look around, there are still a mul ude of new subdivisions going up despite a soft real estate market, while new home loans in SA are still such that investors can still lock in reasonable rates and try and ride the appreciation bubble for a couple of years, eventually someone is gonna have to over-pay for the home. Well, you get a situation where less and less people qualify for finanacing for these homes because real wages for the largest pool of Americans hasn't kept up with the rising costs of inflation.
It doesn't affect him Personally. so 'em.
Who cares what the economy is doing. I have mine,
you haven't got yours. Shame on you.
I love the low taxes!
Again, why is it the governments fault that people financed their homes outside of their means knowing that an adjustable rate mortgage is just that, adjustable.
Other posters have already addressed this but give that you responded to a post of mine, I feel compelled: What the does this have to do with the economy? Nothing? Ok, then stay on topic please.
Facts please.Or perhaps its the hourly wage earners, millions of them, who haven't seen a cost of living adjustment in 6 years running despite record corporate profits?
The economy has been growing steadily since 2002. That is a fact.
Damm, you have made it clear with your post you know about this subject. Plain 'ole .Nah, the 'luckiest' have gotta be the millions of Americans who were fortunate enough to give up their careers as computer engineers so that they can become a partner at McD's.
And this is related to the state of the economy in what way?
It's the government's fault that they keep running constant multi-billion dollar deficits.
An this affects today's economy how?
Are you an economist? Who the taught you this crap?Imagine it this way, there is a finite amount of credit available in the world at any given time, it can either be invested on private ventures, like building homes or businesses around the world, or it can be sold to the government, namely the U.S. government, the largest consumer of credit in the world. Therefore, when the government sucks up available credit, it raises interest rates on private and business consumers, namely, those who were 'crazy' enough to over-invest in the Bush economy, home-owners and investors who gambled that over-priced homes on both coasts would keep rising forever, and families who had no choice but to over-pay since the only alternative would be living on the streets.
And by the way, ARMs where very popular in the Cinton days. Oh, I know: those were the "good" ARMs as opposed to those int he Bush era, the "bad" ones.
The economy only "looks" good while big deficits are being racked up.
Doesn't it bother ANY Republicans that the government has racked up the highest deficits ever while you were in control of the entire government and have no one to blame but yourself. I think a bunch of new money people became Republicans but they have no clue what it is supposed to mean. At least before they actually stood for something and acted according to it.
A-freaking-men.
Your government debt levels are dangerously high, your CAD is 6% of GDP (highest level ever), you have unfunded superannuation and medical up the wazoo... anyone who thinks the US economy is healthy hasn't looked around the corner yet. You have some serious bugbears to deal with, and the Rs are not doing a damn thing about any of them.
Why am I worried about this? Because where the US economy goes, it takes the world. Your impending crash is going to take us all down a dark path.
Jesus loves a winner, especially a y winner.
The similarity between your at ude and a punk-ass rap star are eerily similar - both begin with an F and end with a U.
See you in .
The deficits don't matter to Republicans, and it has nothing to do with
getting elected. Ronald Regan proved that.
Ray, OLD MAN I can understand how you feel to a point, but noone
today want's to hear about three jobs, saving, living on beans and rice,
and still getting a degree, althought it took 12 years. , working at
McD is below a lot of people, even part-time. and please don't tell
them in your time there were no Pell Grants, a Draft,
and futhermore-don't jinx us on the Taxes bit. It aint gonna last.
P.S
I've interviewed a lot of folks with a BA or BS around 22 -24 yrs OLD and they don't want to start for $26, 000 - $28,000, with weekends involved.
They also need to learn what to wear to a interview!!!!
Last edited by BIG IRISH; 11-04-2006 at 02:18 AM.
THe same minus deficits could be said around the same time Clinton was in office.The deficits don't matter to Republicans, and it has nothing to do with
getting elected. Ronald Regan proved that.
Ray, OLD MAN I can understand how you feel to a point, but noone
today want's to hear about three jobs, saving, living on beans and rice,
and still getting a degree, althought it took 12 years. , working at
McD is below a lot of people, even part-time. and please don't tell
them in your time there were no Pell Grants, a Draft,
and futhermore-don't jinx us on the Taxes bit. It aint gonna last.
P.S
I've interviewed a lot of folks with a BA or BS around 22 -24 yrs OLD and they don't want to start for $26, 000 - $28,000, with weekends involved.
They also need to learn what to wear to a interview!!!!
So do you want GW out there implementing programs to help people how not to up life.
Sorry if life isn't fair.
Seriously show me a country minus the small luxemburgs and netherworlds where the average joe blow can just walk in anywhere and make 60 grand. None.
The point is that this president's policy has aided this economy. Nothing he could do will help those people making only beans. Heck, Clinton's economy did'nt make everyone else prosper.
I could not agree with you more.
But this thread is about today's economy, not tomorrow's. What the US is borrowing today is helping the economy look good the same way I would "look" better if I borrowed $1,000,000. With a million bucks I would buy a BMW, a nice house and would go on a trip round the World.
The only question would be, can I return the money down the road when I'm making more money? Same with the US. When the will they stop borrowing and start repaying what they owe? In the mid 90s, Clinton's government started running surpluses (a Democrat running surpluses, amazing!).
But then came Bush and 9/11 and the unjustified Iraq adventure. And the US is racking the highest ever deficits and is hypothecating it's citizen's future, but more importantly, it citizen's son's future.
But I don't think Yoni, Xray, clan or Gtown really care about this. They don't care about today's environment, why would they care about the state of the America's economy in 50 years?
Exactly. Anyone that goes to the polls with anything other than the Iraqi war in mind shouldn't go to the polls at all. Simply astounding!
Just when you think bouts couldn't possibly sink any lower into the abyss of narrowmindedness, he does.
This may seem like a petty debate, but it goes back to the grand theory that a rising economic tide raises all boats equally, well, that may be true, but the Republican favored trickle-down economics that favor the rich has proven to be the of tax-cuts that mainly benefit the middle and lower class as far as stimulating economic activity goes. Companies hire and private economic activity increases when there is an increased demand for goods and services (i.e. when as many people as possible have bread in their pockets).
What the rich have done is taken their Bush tax-cut money and invested it in venture real-estate deals, riden the increased appreciation of homes in attractive areas like SA while paying only intrest on the home loan for 2 to 5 years and then cashing out on the increased value of the home. Good for them, but bad for longtime area residents. Here's why - Expecting home prices to increase year in and year out becames a self full-filling cycle until you get what you had on both coasts where you reach a point that homes eventually become so expensive that a dwindling home buyers can or are willing to pay the asking price and many who do buy, are forced to use creative financing methods like ARMs and interest-only loans to afford the payments. Families become priced out of cities and are forced to move further and further into the burbs, like what is happening in Austin today.
Last edited by Nbadan; 11-05-2006 at 04:31 AM.
Again, why is it the governments fault that these people finance homes beyond their means?
nbadan hates and distrusts the government, BUT he thinks it should be responsible for everything... doesn't make sense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
