Cindy Sheehan arrested before SOTU

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Statistics indicate the economy is recovering I mean I do not want to give any undue accolades to W, whom I despise, but facts are facts. I do think, however, that the number of jobs created has been far less than the economic recovery figures suggest should have been created. Thus, it is a relatively jobless (or lower rate new jobs) economic recovery.

Here are some sites:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped...ard_122203.htm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature.../index_np.html

Again - I give no praise to W other than the facts indicate.

Well, I think its more of a mixed bag........
Manufacturing growth Slows
OIL CRUNCH Report

CNNMoney

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Well, I think its more of a mixed bag........
Manufacturing growth Slows
OIL CRUNCH Report

CNNMoney

That is my point. On average, businesses are doing better. However, they are not hiring at the point they "should" be and when they do hire, the jobs pay less - or current workers are being forced to take less to keep from being fired.

I personally think the economy is doing great when the high fuel costs are considered. High fuel costs effect every single segment of the economy.

[Rickypt]

I only saw a snippet at a bar, normally try to avoid it. All that standing and clapping over a bunch of lies like "I'm going to double funding for teaching physical sciences", something like that. George Bush doesn't double funding for anything except war.

Then he said a doozy like "we are a better nation now, violent crime is down, and welfare recipients are cut in half".....right, because he and Clinton cut them all from the rolls.

His call for getting more AIDS money to the states: another lie. He talks about AIDS in every SOTU and never backs up his words with meaningful action.

As for Cindy Sheehan, she rocks my world. I don't care who she is aligned with; she is an ordinary person who has a personal reason to be against this unjust war, and works her ass off to do her part to end it. TIME got it wrong, she was 2005 person of the year.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is my point. On average, businesses are doing better. However, they are not hiring at the point they "should" be and when they do hire, the jobs pay less - or current workers are being forced to take less to keep from being fired.

I personally think the economy is doing great when the high fuel costs are considered. High fuel costs effect every single segment of the economy.

I personally think the economy is doing great when the little guy on the street can feel it. Like in the Clinton years. If only the rich fat cats at the top are doing great, that isnt MY idea of a booming economy, its just BUSINESS AS USUAL.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I personally think the economy is doing great when the little guy on the street can feel it. Like in the Clinton years. If only the rich fat cats at the top are doing great, that isnt MY idea of a booming economy, its just BUSINESS AS USUAL.

Once again, and pay attention this time, the Clinton economy was built on trillions in false data and fraud. This is not a hard concept, esp. when how many Fortune 500 companies and how many in the Dow go belly up because of this. Yet, you always incorrectly assert everything was just fine and dandy during Clinton's term, when, though yes the effect was there, the underpinnings were faulty to say the least. So, according to you, you would rather have trillions in phantom wealth with no regard to the consequences just as long as the little guy has a job for a relatively fleeting moment. Whatever.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, and pay attention this time, the Clinton economy was built on trillions in false data and fraud. This is not a hard concept, esp. when how many Fortune 500 companies and how many in the Dow go belly up because of this. Yet, you always incorrectly assert everything was just fine and dandy during Clinton's term, when, though yes the effect was there, the underpinnings were faulty to say the least. So, according to you, you would rather have trillions in phantom wealth with no regard to the consequences just as long as the little guy has a job for a relatively fleeting moment. Whatever.

While this is true it is only part of the picture. The little guy was doing better then for other reasons besides the tech bubble and creative Enron-style accounting.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

While this is true it is only part of the picture. The little guy was doing better then for other reasons besides the tech bubble and creative Enron-style accounting.

Intertesting point, but I think it is untrue. The inflation of wealth created by the blind expectation of profiting off of IPO (I mean $150 a share in a day on the IPO when the company has never made a dime ) created the vast majority of those jobs either directly or indirectly. For example, GM was able to produce more middle level cars because the guy selling the copier paper to these companies was doing better and could afford one, etc. So, it had a huge effect on the economy. Same with Enron and MCI and the other fraud companies.

I will say this though, the lowering of the interest rates spawned a housing boom that allowed the economy in a relative manner to escape the carnage that could have resulted from the essentially overnight disintegration of the fraud wealth and the tech IPO boom wealth. In fact, though it has slowed, the housing market is still keeping the economy afloat and that is despite several rate hikes. The caveat there is creative financing (interest only loans, 125% loans, etc. ) could cause that market to burst, but they have not so far.

In the end, Clinton/Greenspan did some great things with the economy - but much of the often touted good times were due to the IPO and the fraud issues, which occured during that time period.

Will the Bush economy see a recovery in jobs? I tend to doubt it becuase one logical explanation for the realtive lack of hiring is that yes, the companies are making more money, but the fuel costs are double and that precludes taking on more employees. I think this is a true statement, though I am sure greed factors in there somewhere.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Intertesting point, but I think it is untrue. The inflation of wealth created by the blind expectation of profiting off of IPO (I mean $150 a share in a day on the IPO when the company has never made a dime ) created the vast majority of those jobs either directly or indirectly. For example, GM was able to produce more middle level cars because the guy selling the copier paper to these companies was doing better and could afford one, etc. So, it had a huge effect on the economy. Same with Enron and MCI and the other fraud companies.

I will say this though, the lowering of the interest rates spawned a housing boom that allowed the economy in a relative manner to escape the carnage that could have resulted from the essentially overnight disintegration of the fraud wealth and the tech IPO boom wealth. In fact, though it has slowed, the housing market is still keeping the economy afloat and that is despite several rate hikes. The caveat there is creative financing (interest only loans, 125% loans, etc. ) could cause that market to burst, but they have not so far.

In the end, Clinton/Greenspan did some great things with the economy - but much of the often touted good times were due to the IPO and the fraud issues, which occured during that time period.

Will the Bush economy see a recovery in jobs? I tend to doubt it becuase one logical explanation for the realtive lack of hiring is that yes, the companies are making more money, but the fuel costs are double and that precludes taking on more employees. I think this is a true statement, though I am sure greed factors in there somewhere.

Jason, as usual, your entire ENTIRE perspective is from the point of view of the HAVES. I can tell you, as one of the Have NOTS, that I was doing far better during the Clinton years, and I was not in the least affected by Enron or MCI debacles (unless you count the GOUGING California took for energy costs) To think that the little guy was only able to prosper because of the money manipulation engaged in by certain companies is myopic to say the least.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, and pay attention this time, the Clinton economy was built on trillions in false data and fraud. This is not a hard concept, esp. when how many Fortune 500 companies and how many in the Dow go belly up because of this. Yet, you always incorrectly assert everything was just fine and dandy during Clinton's term, when, though yes the effect was there, the underpinnings were faulty to say the least. So, according to you, you would rather have trillions in phantom wealth with no regard to the consequences just as long as the little guy has a job for a relatively fleeting moment. Whatever.

Jason, I am not stupid. I know that fraud happened. but I also know that whatever forces were fueling the economy at that time benefitted the MAN ON THE STREET. THAT is what I look at when I look at how the economy is doing. because when the little guy has $$$ in his pocket, he goes and spends it. he buys houses. he invests in the stock market. that is TRUE economic progress. No matter what you think, the dot com bubble and the rampant fraud in certain big companies do NOT comprise the entire economic landscape. That doesnt require much thought either.