Sport Bikes banner

1 - 20 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Unemployment is at 4.7%, the lowest it's been in a while and job numbers are steadily growing. Is this Bush's fault? - or is he only at fault for the bad things that happen in America? Just curious as to your opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
The low unemployment rate is nice to hear. I'm a little more worried about the low GDP numbers from the fourth quarter though (in relation to the unemployment rate). Somewhere around 1.3% growth I think. While you'll have cycles, you generally wouldn't think people would be hiring in a state of slowing growth. Either that's the case (simply more hiring), or the numbers have been skewed by people exiting the workforce and not looking for work.

I'll be curious to see how the numbers pan out over the next few weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
jim schmidt said:
Lower unemployment is good. Perhaps someday we'll catch up for the first five years.
True, I mean when you inherit such a bad situation things are bound to require a lot of work and time. Kinda the opposite of when most rich people seemingly inherit their wealth. Much work isn't really required there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Geowitz said:
True, I mean when you inherit such a bad situation things are bound to require a lot of work and time. Kinda the opposite of when most rich people seemingly inherit their wealth. Much work isn't really required there.
You're a hoot dude. Do you have a Bush excuse for every occasion?
 

·
retired from here
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
jim schmidt said:
No, just the many occasions where we discuss his many fuck ups. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what he's well done. :lao
didn't you really want to say this?
 

·
~ Master Technician ~
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Bush's plans have finally started to work to get the economy going up and the unemployment going down. Billy "IMPEACHED" Clinton f#cked up so bad that it took years to over come.

Yes, thats right you dummcrats. Clinton was in office when stock market started to crash. So you can't blame Bush for everything.

The NASDAQ was trading at 4234.33 on September 1, 2000. From September of 2000 the NASDAQ dropped 45.9% to 2291.86 by Jan 02, 2001. In Oct. of 2002, the NASDAQ dropped as low as 1,108.49 which is a 78.4% drop from its all-time high of 5,132.52 in Mar. of 2000. A total of 8 trillion dollars of wealth was lost in the market decline. http://www.stockpickssystem.com/pf/stock_market_history.htm BTW, in case you forgot, Bush didn't come into office until Jan '01

Recovering from a 8 trillion dollars loss takes a while........but I guess we should blame Bush for not recovering sooner.
 

·
Shitbike
Joined
·
9,822 Posts
2001FZ1 said:
Yes, thats right you dummcrats.
Namecalling isn't going to make you appear any smarter. In fact, it's already working out quite the opposite.

The NASDAQ was trading at 4234.33 on September 1, 2000. From September of 2000 the NASDAQ dropped 45.9% to 2291.86 by Jan 02, 2001. In Oct. of 2002, the NASDAQ dropped as low as 1,108.49 which is a 78.4% drop from its all-time high of 5,132.52 in Mar. of 2000. A total of 8 trillion dollars of wealth was lost in the market decline. http://www.stockpickssystem.com/pf/stock_market_history.htm BTW, in case you forgot, Bush didn't come into office until Jan '01

Recovering from a 8 trillion dollars loss takes a while........but I guess we should blame Bush for not recovering sooner.
Bush doesn't control the stock market, the volume traded and total value is determined by stock holders.

So, yeah, I guess we can't blame GW for it. But we can blame him for racking up a previously unimaginable national debt.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 05 Feb 2006 at 04:50:33 AM GMT is:
$ 8,205,958,725,699.45

The estimated population of the United States is 298,439,716
so each citizen's share of this debt is $27,496.20.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.14 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
^ Taken from http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Try blaming Clinton for that. Think before you post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,622 Posts
2001FZ1 said:
Bush's plans have finally started to work to get the economy going up and the unemployment going down. Billy "IMPEACHED" Clinton f#cked up so bad that it took years to over come.

Yes, thats right you dummcrats. Clinton was in office when stock market started to crash. So you can't blame Bush for everything.

The NASDAQ was trading at 4234.33 on September 1, 2000. From September of 2000 the NASDAQ dropped 45.9% to 2291.86 by Jan 02, 2001. In Oct. of 2002, the NASDAQ dropped as low as 1,108.49 which is a 78.4% drop from its all-time high of 5,132.52 in Mar. of 2000. A total of 8 trillion dollars of wealth was lost in the market decline. http://www.stockpickssystem.com/pf/stock_market_history.htm BTW, in case you forgot, Bush didn't come into office until Jan '01

Recovering from a 8 trillion dollars loss takes a while........but I guess we should blame Bush for not recovering sooner.
Bush doesn't control the stock market.

Greenspan had FAR more influence on that.

The deficit is the highest it's been in history and getting worse.

One more thing, Who is buying our debt?

China. I guess we're losing the cold war to communism after all.
 

·
retired from here
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
Fargin_Bastige said:
These numbers don't take into account people falling off of public assistance due to length, or people not claiming unemployment.

In reality, it could just be people who've exceeded their benefit term dropping off, for all we know.
Thats right as I am one of those that you posted about that is not able to collect any benes.
 

·
retired from here
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
jim schmidt said:
I like my facists medium rare. :lao
But they get really tough :eek:nfloor :eek:nfloor if you cook them much so I guess medium rare would be best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Fargin_Bastige said:
These numbers don't take into account people falling off of public assistance due to length, or people not claiming unemployment.

In reality, it could just be people who've exceeded their benefit term dropping off, for all we know.
True, but they have never shown these factors so relative to past unemployment numbers it still shows a decrease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,622 Posts
Geowitz said:
True, but they have never shown these factors so relative to past unemployment numbers it still shows a decrease.
It has a larger effect on the lower number than the higher one though.

In other words, it would have more of an effect on the decrease than the increase, correct?
 
1 - 20 of 125 Posts
Top