The economy booms!

[American]

Unemployment Rate Falls to 5.6%, companies add 112,000 new jobs

It's time to play my favorite song:


We're in the money, we're in the money;
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
We're in the money, that sky is sunny,
Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong.
We never see a headline about breadlines today.
And when we see the landlord we can look that guy right in the eye
We're in the money, come on, my honey,
Let's lend it, spend it, send it rolling along!

Oh, yes we're in the money, you bet we're in the money,
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
Let's go we're in the money, Look up the skies are sunny,
Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong.
We never see a headline about breadlines today.
And when we see the landlord we can look that guy right in the eye
We're in the money, come on, my honey,
Let's lend it, spend it, send it rolling along!



Singing a third refrain is optional.

 

[BTox]

I've been posting similar items for 2 months. The recovering economy will be the downfall of any dem contender to the whitehouse this fall.

 

[clk]

I've been posting similar items for 2 months. The recovering economy will be the downfall of any dem contender to the whitehouse this fall.

Really? How? Because Bush should be credited? I think Bush himself would disagree. Not too long ago, Bush was asked why the economy was still faltering, even though he had given round after round of tax cuts and the Fed had cut the rates. Bush responded:

We had the steady drumbeat to war. As I mentioned in my press conference the other day, on our TV screens there was a -- on some TV screens -- there was a constant reminder for the American people, "march to war." War is not a very pleasant subject in people's minds, it's not conducive for the investment of capital.

He also added:

That's not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they hear, ‘March to War' all the time.

Obviously, if CNN was responsible for the continued recession because they kept playing 'March to War' (I wonder which @sshole was marching us to war, btw?), then CNN is also responsible for the recovery, since they always broadcast any favorable economic news on their programs. People must have seen the news, gotten happy, and started investing in the stock market. If it's "not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they hear, ‘March to War' all the time", then surely a conducive environment to take risk would involve hearing favorable economic news all the time, right?

Also, I find it highly amusing when the right blames anything that goes wrong on Clinton, or CNN, or 9/11, or the CIA, etc. But anytime something good actually happens (fairly rare under Bush), then it happened because Bush made it happen. This coming from an administration that promised to be responsible. Why isn't Clinton responsible for the recovery? He was responsible for the recession and 9/11, right? Right? Surely a man with such power could easily turn the economy around. But I doubt Bush would agree to that. He already knows that CNN is responsible for the recovery.


Source: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/08/02/national/a02080203_03.txt

 

[Ed]

Really? How? Because Bush should be credited? I think Bush himself would disagree. Not too long ago, Bush was asked why the economy was still faltering, even though he had given recession and 9/11, right? Right? Surely a man with such power could easily turn the economy around. But I doubt Bush would agree to that. He already knows that CNN is responsible for the recovery.


Source: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/08/02/national/a02080203_03.txt

You do know that this post is silly, right?

Politics is the blame game, period. Both sides do it. So?

 

[Otther]

Really? How? Because Bush should be credited?

Oh gosh no. Everyone knows that the president really doesn't have a great deal of control over the economy. But the fact that the economy is doing better may shifty some of the population's interest back to worrying about terrorists and all the evil non-americans, which probably will help bush out.

 

[clk]

You do know that this post is silly, right?

Politics is the blame game, period. Both sides do it. So?

If Clinton would have tried the same tactic, then the Republicans would have tried to hang him. I have rarely seen that kind of spin from the Democrats. Again, if CNN is responsible for the recession, why aren't they responsible for the recovery? If you admit that Bush's March to War stalled the economic recovery, then I would be willing to concede some ground. Otherwise, if you think that CNN was responsible for the recession, but Bush is somehow responsible for the recovery, then, well, I can't help you.

 

[BTox]

Really? How? Because Bush should be credited? I think Bush himself would disagree. Not too long ago, Bush was asked why the economy was still faltering, even though he had given round after round of tax cuts and the Fed had cut the rates. Bush responded:

You seem to be missing the point. Whether Bush deserves credit for a booming economy is irrelevant. The fact is, when the economy is doing well, voters give credit to the current administration and stick with the status quo.

 

[Zero]

The issue isn't so much about the economy as it is about individual people. In fact, if average Americans aren'tdoing better, and keep hearing how corporate profits are up, there is laible to be a backlash.

 

[BTox]

The issue isn't so much about the economy as it is about individual people.

Which is why lower unemployment/more jobs is a big deal.

 

[American]

Again!


We're in the money, we're in the money;
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
We're in the money, that sky is sunny,
Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong.
We never see a headline about breadlines today.
And when we see the landlord we can look that guy right in the eye
We're in the money, come on, my honey,
Let's lend it, spend it, send it rolling along!

Oh, yes we're in the money, you bet we're in the money,
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
Let's go we're in the money, Look up the skies are sunny,
Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong.
We never see a headline about breadlines today.
And when we see the landlord we can look that guy right in the eye
We're in the money, come on, my honey,
Let's lend it, spend it, send it rolling along!

 

[Zero]

Which is why lower unemployment/more jobs is a big deal.

Not if the enemployment rate is partially a function on more people giving up on finding jobs, and if the new jobs are paying significantly less than the old jobs.

 

[clk]

The fact is, when the economy is doing well, voters give credit to the current administration and stick with the status quo.

You may be right on that. However, when Bush Sr. was in office, wasn't he faced with a similar situation? The economy was turning around just as the election season was nearing, but he was voted out anyways.

 

[shanek]

Really? How?

Because the voters pretty much always credit the President with a booming or recovering economy and blame the President if the economy goes south. There is absolutely no reason for this, mind you, as the President can do very little if anything about the business cycle, but the effect is still there.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I take a different tack................

If the economy is recovering, it is doing so to rectify the nosedive George II put it in. When he was appointed president there was a balanced buget and a surplus and thru huge tax cuts and increased spending on the war snacthed defeat from the jaws of victory.. Kinda like saying " Ya he robbed the bank , but he started a savings account. The fact is also that we will hit a half trillion debt in the next few years. Makes me wanna party like it's 1999...........

edit Sp

 

[BTox]

You may be right on that. However, when Bush Sr. was in office, wasn't he faced with a similar situation? The economy was turning around just as the election season was nearing, but he was voted out anyways.

Bush I's re-election came up only 1.5 years after the recession was officially over, but lingering effects such as personal income and employment were still bottoming out less than a year before 11/92. Bush II's re-election will be 3 years after the recession was officially over.

 

[BTox]

I take a different tack................

If the economy is recovering, it is doing so to rectify the nosedive George II put it in.

Explain how George II put the economy in a nosedive that started 3rdQ 2000?? That's some trick...

 

[jj]

I've been posting similar items for 2 months. The recovering economy will be the downfall of any dem contender to the whitehouse this fall.

While I realize that it is essential for your attack on basic civil liberties that the present president stay in office, I think you're being a bit optimistic in suggesting that the economy is getting better.

Let's look at overall per-capita income, shall we?

Let's look at the investment in basic research, shall we?

We're still gobbling up our seed corn as fast as we can chow down. I hope you're ready for the "success" that this anti-science president brings, with us being reduced to a second-class "former power" because we haven't anything new and are vulnerable to all sorts of new weapons that we didn't invent because we didn't do any research.

 

[shanek]

While I realize that it is essential for your attack on basic civil liberties that the present president stay in office, I think you're being a bit optimistic in suggesting that the economy is getting better.

Let's look at overall per-capita income, shall we?

Let's look at the investment in basic research, shall we?

Those are indicators that just simply take longer. First, you have an increase in consumer spending; that started months ago. Then, you have job creation; that's just beginning. Later on, you have more savings, more investments, greater donations, increase in income, etc. Those things don't come until later. Give it time.

I think this is the start of a recovery...a long, long overdue recovery.

 

[BTox]

While I realize that it is essential for your attack on basic civil liberties that the present president stay in office, I think you're being a bit optimistic in suggesting that the economy is getting better.

My attack on civil liberties? I guess you mean my indifference to moving protesters out of camera view. How horrible!

I hope you're ready for the "success" that this anti-science president brings, with us being reduced to a second-class "former power" because we haven't anything new and are vulnerable to all sorts of new weapons that we didn't invent because we didn't do any research.

You're the second person here to make this "anti-science" and "not doing any research" claim. I posted in the other thread government spending increases over the last few years in health sciences, agricultural sciences, national science foundation, national institutes of health, FDA, CDC, etc. For an "anti-science" President, he sure is throwing alot of money into it. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your story...

 

[Girl 6]

There is no economy booming, as far as I can tell.

The jobs that are supposedly being created are on the low-end service side. In other words, I doubt that anyone taking those jobs can support themselves without a second job.

G6