Ah....talking with repubs about the "Bush economy"...

[vi5]

"So let me get this straight......when the economy (INCLUDING jobs and employment) was booming for almost the entirety of Clinton's presidency we had to hear that the president has little to no effect on the economy....blah blah blah......and Clinton could take no credit for any of it

....and for 3 years of horrific job loss and horrible growth we had to hear how you can't blame bush because a president has very little direct impact on the economy....

.....But now there's finally after 3 years some growth even if unemployment continues unabated, and even as jobs are being shipped overseas, and we're suppossed to give Bush credit for the 7% GDP but not blame him for the still going strong job-loss record?

Please explain this to me"

blank stares

[Kamika]

1. The ecoomy dropped more then 7% didnt it?

Isnt this 7% just recovery?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. The Freepers

just stare at you and tell you how immoral Clinton was. Sorry, but I think lying to the world, starting an unjust and illegal war that has resulted in thousands of unneccessary deaths is slightly more immoral than engaging in oral sex with a woman who is not your wife.

[lostnfound]

3. You've found it. The basic difference between the left & right! n/t

[Catshrink]

5. Yep...

Clinton's penis.

[dofus]

4. I find all the supposed good news

about how the economy is suddenly booming to be completely uncredible. What I do know is that people continue to lose good jobs in this economy, and either can't find work at all, or are forced to take a low wage grunt job just to keep from starving. About three weeks ago a friend who'd worked as a mechanical engineer for 16 years at one firm was laid off, and has taken a job at Target. Here in the Kansas City area Sprint continues to lay off local workers while "outsourcing" jobs to India. This is a recovery?

[jonoboy]

6. and when it's the Repubs

outscourcing their fundraising to India what message is that sending to every other business?

[rfranklin]

7. Pentagon spending is the only reason that GDP jumped...

and only when you compare it to the anemic growth of the past three years of the Bush reign, it generates a big percentage figure==but you're still in a big, big hole.

[sam sarrha]

8. 7% BEFORE 5 to 7% trade deficit loss...dirty tricks with math!!! jobs are

part time minimum wage wallmart jobs,..it takes 6 or 8 to pay rent for that flop house apartment in crack town...

[kcwayne]

9. GDP is meaningless

I am not an economist, but common sense suggests that the GDP numbers are manufactured for political purposes. It is an estimate based on economic models, not a number based on accounting principles. So the real question on this GDP number is "what changes were made in the assumptions for the model".

Throughout the 3 year decline in the economy since Bush took over, the GDP has grown. It grew less than during the Clinton years, but it grew nevertheless.

How can this possibly balance with millions of jobs lost, and a net reduction in the number of operating companies in the US? The stock answer is productivity gains offset the job losses. Productivity gains include US companies claiming higher output with less cost, because they are using slave labor in China and near slave labor elsewhere. The products produced by these companies should be accounted for in Chinese and Indian GDP, not US.

It simply doesn't wash, it is Arthur Anderson/Enron accounting at its worst.

Here is a quote from the following article:

"Further, it reveals the truth behind the recent surge in productivity numbers: output boosted by hedonic accounting and divided by a shrinking labour input would naturally result in a higher productivity rate. It is just a statistical artefact"

Interesting Article on bogus GDP growth numbers

[JHB]

10. Remember: the 7% is the "annualized rate" (READ: "spin")

i.e., if all four quarters had the same GDP gain it would amount to 7% growth. The GDP did not grow by 7% in just this one quarter.

For comparison, the annualized growth in Quarters 1 and 2 was 1.4% and 2.4%, respectively, so actual overall growth will not be close to 7%.

[Loonman]

11. More proof, check this out

Bad economy = Clinton

Good economy = Reagan/Bush




Freepers and delusional neo-cons are fucked in the head. Their pervasive cognitive dissonance has twisted their brains.



They all got the Kool-Aid, here's hoping they'll drink it.