Author Topic: GW Bush (Read 1316 times)

JBA · « **Reply #60 on:** October 15, 2004, 12:12:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Yeah, Bush is one of the greatest economics I've ever seen

looks like it's right were clintons was when he got re-elected. Along with 5.4% un-employment.
Why to go Bush, did all that and fought a war, and sufferd the worst ecnomic hit in 50 years, and terroist attacks.
Thanks for pointing that out.

LANDSLIDE BUSH.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #61 on:** October 15, 2004, 12:38:12 PM »

Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.

Unemployment Rate 5.4% Sept 2004
Inflation 1.9% per Annum, ‘03
Industrial Production Growth 2.3% per Annum, ‘03
Manufacturing Growth 2.6% per Annum, ‘03
Retail Sales and Food Growth 6.4% per Annum, ‘03

Interesting thing about the unemployment number, it does not count a realtor as ‘employed’ as they are commission salesmen, not on a payroll. The self-employed are similarly dismissed if they are not on a payroll. If you are a profit taker instead of a clock puncher, you don’t count.

Unemployment in 1934 was on the order of 25%. Industrial production was shrinking. Banks failed. There have been several recessions since that have seen unemployment reaching 10%, and inflation near 10%. (Remember Carter’s misery index? Added inflation and unemployment rates hovered near 20% in ’75)

Worst economy in 70 years may be a fun thing to say, but it is wrong.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #62 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:32:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.

Unemployment Rate 5.4% Sept 2004
Inflation 1.9% per Annum, ‘03
Industrial Production Growth 2.3% per Annum, ‘03
Manufacturing Growth 2.6% per Annum, ‘03
Retail Sales and Food Growth 6.4% per Annum, ‘03

Interesting thing about the unemployment number, it does not count a realtor as ‘employed’ as they are commission salesmen, not on a payroll. The self-employed are similarly dismissed if they are not on a payroll. If you are a profit taker instead of a clock puncher, you don’t count.

Unemployment in 1934 was on the order of 25%. Industrial production was shrinking. Banks failed. There have been several recessions since that have seen unemployment reaching 10%, and inflation near 10%. (Remember Carter’s misery index? Added inflation and unemployment rates hovered near 20% in ’75)

Worst economy in 70 years may be a fun thing to say, but it is wrong.

thank you.
this whole the economyis bad is nothing more then the media controling our perception by the way they report the
news

Here is a study on the issue I posted in another thread .

Free market Project

Staga · « **Reply #63 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:52:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.

Unemployment Rate 5.4% Sept 2004
Inflation 1.9% per Annum, ‘03
Industrial Production Growth 2.3% per Annum, ‘03
Manufacturing Growth 2.6% per Annum, ‘03
Retail Sales and Food Growth 6.4% per Annum, ‘03

Nice numbers; Now compare those to the other countries and suddenly they won't look that nice

If you search from this UBB you can find a thread where the comparison is done

2stony · « **Reply #64 on:** October 15, 2004, 04:02:33 PM »

Quote

he has managed to significantly alienate the US

I totally agree. If Bush had just stayed the course in Afganistan, we would be a hell of a lot better off and Bush would probably be receiving my praise(did I say that?). In a way I hope you're right and democracy does take hold in Iraq and possibly spread to others in that region. Somehow, though, I don't think you're going to be right.

On another note, snce everyone is predicting the future, how about giving me the winning lottery numbers. I'll share the winnings with you, but you'll have to pay the taxes(lol).

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #65 on:** October 15, 2004, 04:14:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Nice numbers; Now compare those to the other countries and suddenly they won't look that nice

If you search from this UBB you can find a thread where the comparison is done

Cept our economic growth rates are higher then any of the major industirialised nations

Looks nice enough to me

Scootter · « **Reply #66 on:** October 15, 2004, 05:10:45 PM »

I see you guys are equating national debt with the economy again.

How many of you were adults trying to raise kids and trying to buy a house under Carter?

The economy was worse under Carter then anytime in my life, 19% interest rates and all.

You all must be to young to remember the "man in the street economy" under Carter.

Me, I have never made as much as I have under Bush, I build homes and home sales are an all time high, new home ownership is at an all time record.

With all things considered, I think some of you tech bubble losers are sore at the loss of high paying jobs for doing nothing.

I have a hard time getting workers for 20+ an hour and that is for high-school dropouts.

There is no unemployment IMO only folks who what high pay for doing nothing, and whining when they don't get it or people who are unemployable by just about anyone.

About 45% of the people who want a job with my company are unemployable, the drug test gets them or they don’t want to work unless its behind a computer in the AC.

mars01 · « **Reply #67 on:** October 15, 2004, 05:58:02 PM »

OK did any of you click on Torque's link?

nuff said for this argument anyway.

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.

I can't wait till Nov 3rd that is for sure.

Eagler · « **Reply #68 on:** October 15, 2004, 06:17:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scootter
I see you guys are equating national debt with the economy again.

How many of you were adults trying to raise kids and trying to buy a house under Carter?

The economy was worse under Carter then anytime in my life, 19% interest rates and all.

You all must be to young to remember the "man in the street economy" under Carter.

Me, I have never made as much as I have under Bush, I build homes and home sales are an all time high, new home ownership is at an all time record.

With all things considered, I think some of you tech bubble losers are sore at the loss of high paying jobs for doing nothing.

I have a hard time getting workers for 20+ an hour and that is for high-school dropouts.

There is no unemployment IMO only folks who what high pay for doing nothing, and whining when they don't get it or people who are unemployable by just about anyone.

About 45% of the people who want a job with my company are unemployable, the drug test gets them or they don’t want to work unless its behind a computer in the AC.

ding! ding! ding!

Winner!!!!

there is only unemployment for those who want to stay unemployed and that is because the penalty for being unemployed in America is not near as bad as it could be, maybe should be in many cases or is in most other countries

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #69 on:** October 15, 2004, 08:02:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Nice numbers; Now compare those to the other countries and suddenly they won't look that nice

If you search from this UBB you can find a thread where the comparison is done

I prefer to get my information first hand.

From Eurostat, the EU statistical agency:

Quote

Euro-zone1 GDP grew by 0.5% and EU25 GDP by 0.6% in the second quarter of 2004 according to revised estimates out today from Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities. In the first quarter of 2004, growth rates were +0.7% for both zones.

In comparison with the same quarter of the previous year, GDP grew by 2.0% in the euro-zone and by 2.4% in the EU25, after +1.4% and +1.7% respectively in the previous quarter.

In the second quarter of 2004 and among the Member States for which data are available, Lithuania recorded the highest growth rate (+2.1%), followed by Poland (+1.5%), the Czech Republic and Portugal (+1.2% each). The lowest growth rates were recorded in Greece (-0.6%) and the Netherlands (-0.1%).

Quote

Euro-zone1 seasonally -adjusted unemployment stood at 9.0% in August 2004, unchanged compared to July3, Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities, reports today. It was 8.9% in August 2003. The EU25 unemployment rate was also 9.0% in August 2004, unchanged compared to July. It was 9.1% in August 2003.

Fourteen Member States recorded an increase in their unemployment rate over a year and eleven a decrease. The Netherlands (3.8% in July 2003 to 4.8% in July 2004), Luxembourg (3.8% to 4.3%), Sweden (5.7% to 6.2%) and the Czech Republic (8.0% to 8.5%) registered the most important relative increases, while the largest relative decreases were observed in Estonia (10.1% to 8.7%), Lithuania (12.5% to 11.0%) and Slovenia (6.7% to 6.2%).

Nash · « **Reply #70 on:** October 15, 2004, 08:08:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.

Actually, I wanted you in the debates 2004 thread.

Wasn't it with you and Liz that we had a pretty good discussion one night about Bush and his, erhm, hidden but soon to be unshrouded ability to walk into the debates and blow everyone away?

Not a big deal... I'm pretty certain about things, but I'm so often wrong. Doesn't mean much. It'd just be interesting to hear, after the debates finally took place, your perspective on why what happened, happened.

J_A_B · « **Reply #71 on:** October 16, 2004, 01:27:58 AM »

"Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst. "

I dunno about that. Given his achievments, I'd put him on par with McKinley--pretty average, and not especially memorable. McKinley was known for being extremely friendly to big corporations. McKinley also involved the US in a war of aggression against a lesser power under questionable circumstances, which resulted in the US gaining territory in strategic locations. Sound familiar? McKinley is best remebered not for his achievements, but for being assassinated by a man with a strange name.

J_A_B

Nash · « **Reply #72 on:** October 16, 2004, 01:52:00 AM »

I don't know if anyone remembers Bush's first 8 month's... but, they were notable for their unremarkableness.

Front page news was Bush making a big stink about trying to give money to "faith based" something... And Time Magazine had Powell on its cover saying something along the lines of "The Incredible Shrinking Secretary of State."

I seriously don't think anyone remembers it.

When you come off of an election win, yer supposed to have a mandate. watermelon is supposed to happen.

Bush et al were flailing like fish caught in a net and dumped on the deck of the boat called 'Now what?'

Drifting.... Then, BOOM! Overnight, Bush became a "War President."

But he was the same loser. Only now in the midst of a crisis. Transformed overnight into a loser in the midst of a crisis.

Thrust into something bigger than his brain could comprehend.

And he got used, much like a two-bit dimestore slut... by the members of his own staff.

The staff Bush built with the reasoning that "I don't have to be smart. I can be a dumb shreck. I just have to surround myself with smart people."

Jeeze.... Geedub... if only you could tell the difference.

J_A_B · « **Reply #73 on:** October 16, 2004, 02:09:37 AM »

When it comes to the worst president, I think of president Buchanan as the absolute worst. Why?

When confronted with the worst disaster ever to confront the US--then or now--what did he do? He did nothing at all and instead let his successor deal with it. This disaster is, of course, the fracturing of the Union when southern states seceded. The nation literally fell apart under his watch and he just stood idly by. Indeed, in some ways, his actions in the previous years made the problem worse.

What a Loser. Yes, with a capital L.

J_A_B

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #74 on:** October 16, 2004, 10:12:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I don't know if anyone remembers Bush's first 8 month's... but, they were notable for their unremarkableness.

I think the larger question would be how do those first 8 months compare to other presidents.

I may be wrong on this one but I seem to remember at the time just after 9/11 a discussion on one of the networks examining that exact issue and them coming to the conclusion that despite the way the media was reporting it. Other then the economy which really isnt a fair comparison inasmuch as Clinton enherited an economy that was already on the rise and Bush inherited an economy that was already on the decline.(something neiither has any control over)
It really wasn't a whole lot different then the previous administration.

Other then the way the media reported it