59millionmorons
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:22 PM
Original message |
Is Bush setting himself up for a big fall on the economy |
|
He of course is now claiming his tax cuts are working, saying this is the reason the unemployment numbers are down the GDP up, although we know that many are running out of unemployment benefits and are not counted and 126,000 jobs is a drop in the bucket. This was considered and bad month during the Clinton years who averaged 220,000 a month. Anyway what happens say in February we start seeing unemployment rise and the low GDP, what will he say then?
|
ScreamingMeemie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:25 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The reason unemployment numbers are down is because they |
|
count new claims. My mother in law doesn't qualify anymore, many self employed friends never did. Here in Michigan, the numbers are rising...and that, I hope, is what they will think of come election day. They can cook it however they like, but the old saying goes...you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
|
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. the jobs recovery is already about 18 months late |
|
if in fact is really is ocurring now, it's still a Bush failure because it was supposed to have happened in 2002.
|
Don_G
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:25 PM
Response to Original message |
3. How Can He Spin Ken Lay Now? |
Skip Intro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:26 PM
Response to Original message |
|
but we might all be very much preoccupied with other drastic events by then. Events that will sour, of course, the "bush recovery."
|
livinontheedge
(232 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Alas, I'm afraid the economy is going to strengthen further. |
|
I think we are just witnessing the upside half of the business cycle. Time will tell.
|
trotsky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I've got my Republican coworker in a corner now. |
|
He's convinced that the 3rd quarter numbers were the result of * and his tax cuts. So I got him to accept that ANY downturn now is also to be laid at *'s doorstep. Woohoo! This'll be fun.
|
Benhurst
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |
7. "...what will he say then?" |
|
It's all Clinton's fault. And his goose-stepping followers will believe him.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:29 PM
Response to Original message |
8. The Uptick in Labor is EXPECTED At This Time Of Year |
|
This is when business start their seasonal hiring for the holidays. It would be real news only if there was NO uptick in the labor market.
The propoganda and excitement about the SEASONAL uptick in labor is a despicable display of dishonesty by the media...
|
59millionmorons
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I dont mind the excitement |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-07-03 01:31 PM by demdem
As long as they give the same amount of attention when the numbers go back up.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. The excitement is dishonest |
|
This uptick happens every year and the "experts" know it. To paint it as something DIFFERENT this year is essentially lying...I guess I shouldn't be surprised but it still bothers me.
Don't expect the media to pay more than passing attention to these numbers when they fall flat in Q1 next year...
|
livinontheedge
(232 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. I thought these numbers were already seasonally adjusted. |
|
Otherwise, they are meaningless.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-07-03 01:41 PM by Beetwasher
I don't trust any of their numbers...:shrug:
The articles I read didn't mention whether they were seasonally adjusted or not and I have no idea where to get a hold of the methodology used to determine the numbers.
|
livinontheedge
(232 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Actually, they are seasonally adjusted. |
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
I'd actually like to see an article w/ more detail than the one's I've been able to get. Thanks!
|
ewagner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
in the commentary that the Dept of Labor has changed the manner in which they account for "seasonal adjustments". Does anybody know what effect that has in these numbers?
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
18. That's what I'm wondering |
LiberalTradition
(47 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:42 PM
Response to Original message |
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
16. unless Greenspan raises interest rates?? |
|
Then he can blame it on him if the economy tanks. They will not mention the many times that he increased the rates under Clinton to cool off the inflation fears...
|
Snellius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-03 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Voters blame when bad, but not applaud when good |
|
Usually the economy is only an election issue when things are bad. This may help not hurt Bush but it won't help him either.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:08 PM
Response to Original message |