CTH Public Relations

• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• China by CO2HOG [August 23, 2011, 12:41:08 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Torture by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 12:40:39 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40600
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 27
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 33
Total: 33

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

The economy must create 150,000 jobs each month just to keep up with the adult populations growth.

If that was true, you would see the unemployment rate increasing. Not everyone in the population is in the labor force, remember many more people are retiring, and because Bush has been so good for the economy, simply choosing not to work. Unemployment has been falling, and I beleive the labor force participation rate has been as well, meaning that people are retiring or choosing to not work. It is ahrd to argue for discouraged workers because the unemployment rate is so low and fast food pays well above min wage.

What a great True-Believer Republican Answer.


The have been two long term Bush-era trends:

First -- a steady decline in the labor force participation rate -- i.e., a steady drop in the size, in proportion to the population, of the set of people either employed or seeking employment.

Secondly -- a 2% decline in the median wage since 2003.

Snowball thinks that people are opting out of the labor force because another earner in the family is doing well enough to support it.

I suspect that workers who have lost their jobs in the past couple of years have become discouraged and have withdrawn from the labor force.

The numbers tell us that the shrinking labor force is probably not due to retirement -- the proportion of people with jobs in the "working age" population has significantly fallen.

Look at her argument: "it is hard to argue for discouraged workers because the unemployment rate is so low"   --

The unemployment rate (by definition) = 1 minus  (The number of people Employed / Labor Force).

Obviously the employment rate can be raised either by increasing the numerator or decreasing the denominator.

If I tell you the unemployment rate is 4% you cannot validly infer, as Snowball does, that it is due to an increase in the numerator rather than a decrease in the denominator.

Further to suggest that since fast food workers earn more than minimum wage that the low end worker is doing well -- so well that he/she can support a family without the other family member working is absurd.



 

July incomes drop by largest amount in 3 years


By MARTIN CRUTSINGER –

WASHINGTON (AP) — Personal incomes plunged in July while consumer spending slowed significantly as the impact of billions of dollars in government rebate checks began to wane.

The Bush Economy keeps getting better and better.

Why if Gov Hickland was such a fine political catch is unemployment up a little over 1% which is higher than it ever was under the unpopular Buffalo Bob Taft?

Why is it that Gov Hickland has a 12% approval rating of what's considered doing a "good job"?

Why does his administration keep throwing money at companies to stay in Ohio when he as governor has done nothing more than pay back his union backers time and time again?

Unfortunately this isn't good economic news for Ohio.

Then again in the midst of an alleged down economy our exports are rocking, which pours a lot of money into union households.

July incomes drop by largest amount in 3 years


By MARTIN CRUTSINGER –

WASHINGTON (AP) — Personal incomes plunged in July while consumer spending slowed significantly as the impact of billions of dollars in government rebate checks began to wane.

The Bush Economy keeps getting better and better.

Name 1 single thing Presideent Bush did, name 1 single policy that has harmed the economy, just 1? Having either studied, practiced or taught economics over the past 20 years I am shocked that the economy isn't deep in a recession. Given the unforseen and unpreventable events, it is amazing that President Bush has been able to keep the economy going like it has. An energy crisis alone has destroyed past presidencies and economies. Facts are no president in my lifetime has faced the economic challenges that Presidnet Bush has, and the worst that has happened was a single down quarter based upon a revision. But have at it, name a single policy president Bush passed that weakened the economy. When you do, condider the likely action of a President Kerry or Gore.

Name 1 single thing Presideent Bush did, name 1 single policy that has harmed the economy, just 1?

Is this a question?

I'll assume it is a imperative sentence.

I'll name it 'Fred'.

I'd appreciate it if you were a bit more precise with your thinking and your writing. However, I'll give it the best interpretation I can.

I believe you want me to describe or point out a single factor that harmed the economy.

This is an amusing and silly gambit that I won't fall for.

I won't point out a single factor because your request tacitly assumes a premise that I believe is false--viz., that there is a single factor that is the cause of the failing economy or that, in itself, has harmed the economy.

It is an accumulation of factors --that has harmed the economy.

Bush has failed in three crucial ways: (1) he has failed to recognize any problems; (2) he has failed to acknowledge any problems and 9) he has failed to effectively deal with them.

Name 1 single thing Presideent Bush did, name 1 single policy that has harmed the economy, just 1?

Even my 14 year old daughter can figure that one out, hang on she'd like a swift kick at your worthless a**. Then again she's been warned about weird liberals.

Bush has failed in three crucial ways: (1) he has failed to recognize any problems; (2) he has failed to acknowledge any problems and 9) he has failed to effectively deal with them.

Holy cow boy give specific examples to prove your point instead of running from the fight. 

"An energy crisis alone has destroyed past presidencies and economies."

Recent past presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

Which of these presidents or presidencies were destroyed while in office by economic and/or other problems---



Nixon -- War in Vietnam and Watergate

Ford? -- battled inflation but was his presidency destroyed?

Carter  --  inflation, hostage crisis in Iran, slow economic growth

Bush -- War in Iraq, Downturn in wages and jobs, slow economic growth, inflation, housing crisis, rise in personal bankruptcies, trade deficit, Banking crisis, Bank failures, Budget deficits, rising national debt rise in number of people in poverty, rising health costs.


I don't think the any of these alone would have harmed Bush or significantly harmed the economy. Collectively they have destroyed his presidency and significantly harmed the economy.

Bush has failed in three crucial ways: (1) he has failed to recognize any problems; (2) he has failed to acknowledge any problems and 9) he has failed to effectively deal with them.

1) What problems did he not foresee that is the President's responsibility? Remember the responsibility of the Fed before you answer.
2) What problem, once identified, did he not deal effectively with to the best of his ability/power?
3) If you can't name one, name all the factors/actions that President Bush did to harm the economy? Go ahead and name them all.

"An energy crisis alone has destroyed past presidencies and economies."

Recent past presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

1) Nixon, he claimed that it was over when the economy turned
2) Carter had only 1 term due to the hostages and inflation
3) President Bush I had a recession triggered by higher taxes and the price spike of oil due to PG War I.

Which of these presidents or presidencies were destroyed while in office by economic and/or other problems---

Nixon -- War in Vietnam and Watergate

The Economy was the final nail, Nixon ended Vietnam

Ford? -- battled inflation but was his presidency destroyed?

That didn't count as a President

Carter  --  inflation, hostage crisis in Iran, slow economic growth

Cost Push Stagflation due to inflation due to oil.

Bush -- War in Iraq, Downturn in wages and jobs, slow economic growth, inflation, housing crisis, rise in personal bankruptcies, trade deficit, Banking crisis, Bank failures, Budget deficits, rising national debt rise in number of people in poverty, rising health costs.

1) How could war spending harm an economy?
2) Unemployment is way below the average, and he had a record setting chain of job growth months. 5.5% Unemployment is below the average for Clinton.
3) The question is what policy lead to slower growth?
4) How did he cause the housing crisis? Did Clinton cause the dot com bust and corp malfesence? Name a single mortgage bill Bush passed that caused it?
5) How did Bush cause the Bankrupcies?
6) The higher oil prices caused the trade deficits and how in the hell can a weaker dollar lead to a trade deficit? (In the longer run)
7) How did Bush cause the banking crisis? Did he buy the Sub-Prime Mortgages?
How does deficit spending weaken an economy?
9) How did Bush cause healthcare prices to increase?

You described the economy but failed to explain any cause and effects. You are like a Witch Doctor, Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I don't think the any of these alone would have harmed Bush or significantly harmed the economy. Collectively they have destroyed his presidency and significantly harmed the economy.

Explain how President Bush is responsible for ANY of those observations. Coincidence is not causation. Bottom line, President Bush was handed all that and still no downturn.

Economy at 60-year low, says Darling. And it will get worseChancellor says Labour failing to communicate with voters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/30/economy.alistairdarling

IS or Shadow, is President Bush responsible for the recession in the EU as well?

Explain how President Bush is responsible for ANY of those observations. Coincidence is not causation. Bottom line, President Bush was handed all that and still no downturn.

Snowball

Thank you for confirming that you are playing the silly Humean game -- causation cannot be demonstrated between empirical events.

You want me to point out Bush's policies that (collectively) caused the economic down turn.

I don't know the technical details of why or how it is that Republican's can't figure out economic issues -- its a simple and undeniable fact that Republican policies don't work.

This assumes that there is some deep and significance difference between Democratic economic policies and Republican policies. There might not be any such deep differences and it could be that legislation and governmental policy have absolutely no effect on the economy.

But there is an interesting correlation between the party controlling the White House and economic growth.

"Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=economic%20growth%20republicans%20democrats&st=cse&oref=slogin

Republican administrations result in a 40% reduction in economic growth.

Obviously presidents have limited leverage in governing the economy -- the fed has powers the executive doesn't have and outside factors such as oil prices have a tremendous effect as well.

But Congress could have followed Clinton lead and legislated higher CAFE standards. When Bush came into office he should have pushed strongly for this. He failed. The economy will pay for this failure many times over.

Again, I could be wrong -- it could be that government policy and legislation have no effects on the economy. There is no difference between Republicans and Democratic policy because policy differences don't make any difference to the economy.

But assuming that policy differences do make a difference, which of Bush's policies have led, this time, to slow growth?

How about these:

1. Billions -- no trillions of dollars wasted on a stupid war in Iraq. You ask how spending on wars effect the economy. I'm not making the general claim that defense spending or fighting a war harms the economy. I'm simply claiming that overspending or wasting money harms the economy. Do you disagree?

2. Tax cuts for the rich causing a ballooning public debt -- 70% increase in the National debt.

3. Ballooning and unsustainable trade deficits --  $850 billion trade deficit

3. The top 10% have seen their income soar.
The bottom 20% now earn 12% less (in real dollars) than 30 years ago.

The 2001 Tax Cut benefited the richest Americans but did not lift the economy out of the recession that followed the collapse of the Internet bubble.

The economy grew but only because American families were persuaded (by low interest rates and implicit promises that borrowing would not cause them harm) to take on more debt, refinancing their mortgages and spending that money on imported goods. As long as housing prices rose as a result of lower interest rates, Americans could ignore their growing indebtedness.

Bush pretends that the housing-market crash was a surprise that no one could have anticipated. Ignoring the growth of the housing bubble and the madness in the mortgage market may be one of the most disastrous economic mistakes in the country's history.

Job Losses -- no president since the Depression has seen more private sector job loses. Without the rapid growth in government jobs the data would look even much worse.

My own guess is that Republicans, and Bush has done this with a vengeance, focus on the wealthiest of Americans driving down (the rate of increase of) wages for average people and increasing the gap between rich and poor. I suspect that this is part of the root cause of Republican economic stagnation.

[IS or Shadow, is President Bush responsible for the recession in the EU as well?]

Don't you love that the IS still shows how the liberals/progressives/dimocrats/socialists/marxists/communists are still despite no matter how Mobama's speech are written aren't the party of change and are still living in the land of business as usual.

Don't you also love the fact that only conservatives/republicans can or have made mistakes while the dims are without reproach?

IS or Shadow, is President Bush responsible for the recession in the EU as well?

Did anyone else also notice the IS still didn't answer the sexy Snowball's last question?

IS or Shadow, is President Bush responsible for the recession in the EU as well?

Did anyone else also notice the IS still didn't answer the sexy Snowball's last question?

You probably didn't notice: I am not perfect and I do not know everything.

I don't know if American economic problems have effected the European economies.

I suspect that everyone participating on this forum is as perceptive as you  and they can observe my inadequacies without your help.

It probably will save you enough time to contribute something positive that all of us, even I, would find edifying.

You might start my saying something about why the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans.

Does economic policy play any role in effecting the economy?

If so, what Republican policies are causing these economic declines and what Democratic policies causes economic up-turns?

Would you mind answering that question?

The only upturn I recall under a Democrat administration is when Bill Clinton and his spouse scared the hell out of everyone so much that the electorate dumped 40 years of Democrat control of the Senate and the Congress and made way for Republican reforms.

Is this just a coincidence that the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans? Is all of it just a delayed reaction to Eisenhower's policies?

What is it that Republicans do or don't do to slow down growth?

What is that Democrats do or don't do to speed up growth?.

Is it just bad luck?



Source of images http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/08/comparing-presidents-rankings-of.html