http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...7-2004Jun4.html

 

Spin this....that is all. :lol

Spin this....that is all. :lol

That's easy - those jobs are quite obviously all people handing out food in the great depression era bread lines that are everywhere. You see, even massive unemployment has job "booms" in some sectors...

 

So, clearly this job "gain" is really just an indicator of how truly wretched things have become now that we require 250K more people to handout the handouts.

 

[i probably didn't get some of the stock phraseology correct, but I'm sure this will be the general approach...] oh the sarcasm!!! :lol

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

You're wrong.

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

:rofl :lol

 

Good one Flying Mollusk! :thumbup

 

I've seen many people here claiming in several instances that Bush or any president is not responsible for the economy. Of course this only applies when the economy is bad and the President is Republican or the economy is good and the President is Democrat... :blink:

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

You're wrong. Im neither wrong nor right. Economists dont agree as to what the best medicine for the economy is. Some say tax cuts work but only in doses for the entire nation and that Bush's cuts didnt spread enough. But they all agree its cyclical. Everyone knew this recession wasnt going to last forever. Its just a question of how well it recovers. This one sure did last a long time. Please find me a consensus of economists that all agree.

 

 

?

 

Good one Flying Mollusk!?

 

I've seen many people here claiming in several instances that Bush or any president is not responsible for the economy. Of course this only applies when the economy is bad and the President is Republican or the economy is good and the President is Democrat...?

 

Its interesting because Bush's poll numbers on the economy are still not too good. I heard on NPR yesterday that the reason might be the general public being educated on how much Presidents can effectuate recoverys and recessions. Seeing Clinton aided by the computer boost might be the reason for this. People are still concerned about the price of health care, the price of gasoline, education, and other meat and potatoes issues.

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

Anyone with commonsense can tell you that the President isn't to blame 100% for the economy, but the truth of the matter is that the actions the President takes regarding the economy are what decides the economic future of this nation. Yet, we must remember that a lot of our economic counsulting is done by the Federal Reserve Board, ( members don't follow party lines) so a bad economy can't be blamed entirely on a President.

 

The actions taken by Pres. Bush to cut taxes and lower interest rates have undoubtedly served as an incentive for private investment, which is helping the economy to recover.

 

 

Lower interest rates = more investment

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

Anyone with commonsense can tell you that the President isn't to blame 100% for the economy, but the truth of the matter is that the actions the President takes regarding the economy are what decides the economic future of this nation. Yet, we must remember that a lot of our economic counsulting is done by the Federal Reserve Board, ( members don't follow party lines) so a bad economy can't be blamed entirely on a President.

 

The actions taken by Pres. Bush to cut taxes and lower interest rates have undoubtedly served as an incentive for private investment, which is helping the economy to recover.

 

 

Lower interest rates = more investment The mere presence of a multiplier doesnt always mean it is enough. There are a lot of economists who say Bush's approach to tax cuts was improper and part of the reason for the delayed economy. And interest rates are almost all Greenspan.

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

Anyone with commonsense can tell you that the President isn't to blame 100% for the economy, but the truth of the matter is that the actions the President takes regarding the economy are what decides the economic future of this nation. Yet, we must remember that a lot of our economic counsulting is done by the Federal Reserve Board, ( members don't follow party lines) so a bad economy can't be blamed entirely on a President.

 

The actions taken by Pres. Bush to cut taxes and lower interest rates have undoubtedly served as an incentive for private investment, which is helping the economy to recover.

 

 

Lower interest rates = more investment The mere presence of a multiplier doesnt always mean it is enough. There are a lot of economists who say Bush's approach to tax cuts was improper and part of the reason for the delayed economy. And interest rates are almost all Greenspan. Obviously, there's a sector of economists who critic Bush's tax cuts, but there's an equitative sector who approves of it!!

 

The multiplier doesn't change anything, but any macro economics course will teach you that as interest rates go down, investment will increase as the opportunity cost of saving decreases. In other words, people spend their capital, as their money isn't getting a high yield in their bank accounts, they could get higher returns by investing.

 

 

that's economics right there....

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

Anyone with commonsense can tell you that the President isn't to blame 100% for the economy, but the truth of the matter is that the actions the President takes regarding the economy are what decides the economic future of this nation. Yet, we must remember that a lot of our economic counsulting is done by the Federal Reserve Board, ( members don't follow party lines) so a bad economy can't be blamed entirely on a President.

 

The actions taken by Pres. Bush to cut taxes and lower interest rates have undoubtedly served as an incentive for private investment, which is helping the economy to recover.

 

 

Lower interest rates = more investment The mere presence of a multiplier doesnt always mean it is enough. There are a lot of economists who say Bush's approach to tax cuts was improper and part of the reason for the delayed economy. And interest rates are almost all Greenspan. Obviously, there's a sector of economists who critic Bush's tax cuts, but there's an equitative sector who approves of it!!

 

The multiplier doesn't change anything, but any macro economics course will teach you that as interest rates go down, investment will increase as the opportunity cost of saving decreases. In other words, people spend their capital, as their money isn't getting a high yield in their bank accounts, they could get higher returns by investing.

 

 

that's economics right there.... Once again...Greenspan, not Bush.

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy?

FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that.

Anyone with commonsense can tell you that the President isn't to blame 100% for the economy, but the truth of the matter is that the actions the President takes regarding the economy are what decides the economic future of this nation. Yet, we must remember that a lot of our economic counsulting is done by the Federal Reserve Board, ( members don't follow party lines) so a bad economy can't be blamed entirely on a President.

 

The actions taken by Pres. Bush to cut taxes and lower interest rates have undoubtedly served as an incentive for private investment, which is helping the economy to recover.

 

 

Lower interest rates = more investment The mere presence of a multiplier doesnt always mean it is enough. There are a lot of economists who say Bush's approach to tax cuts was improper and part of the reason for the delayed economy. And interest rates are almost all Greenspan. Obviously, there's a sector of economists who critic Bush's tax cuts, but there's an equitative sector who approves of it!!

 

The multiplier doesn't change anything, but any macro economics course will teach you that as interest rates go down, investment will increase as the opportunity cost of saving decreases. In other words, people spend their capital, as their money isn't getting a high yield in their bank accounts, they could get higher returns by investing.

 

 

that's economics right there.... Once again...Greenspan, not Bush. I know...

 

interest rates: Greenspan

 

tax cuts: Bush

 

the combo of both is the reason behind the economic recovery. Tax cuts increase the disposable income for households, and if you combine that with lower interest rates, an increase in investment is a sure thing.

jobs=good

 

but come on guys, the economy never changes! dumb ass media.

 

the combo of both is the reason behind the economic recovery. Tax cuts increase the disposable income for households, and if you combine that with lower interest rates, an increase in investment is a sure thing.

If most of those tax cuts are over the range of a decade, how can you say that?

 

The economy went down, eventually it was going to go up. The saudis and OPEC are increasing production, and that certainly helps too.