My fellow republican, even if you could debunk each one of your liberal opponent's economic assertions, he would just come up with another lie about how terrible the Bush administration's policies have been. You cannot get a Bush-hating liberal to look at and accept the facts, if the facts don't support their misguided ideology.
BTW, the Democrats mention this fictious 'recession' 10 times in these talking points. That is 10 lies right there.
Here's the offical GDP data. Show me the recession. The first number is in current dollars, the second number is in 2000 dallars (takes into account inflation)
2000q4 3.8 .. 2.1
2001q1 2.8 .. -0.5
2001q2 4.4 .. 1.2
2001q3 0.2 .. -1.4
2001q4 3.6 .. 1.6
2002q1 4.3 .. 2.7
2002q2 3.7 .. 2.2
2002q3 3.9 .. 2.4
2002q4 2.4 .. 0.2
2003q1 4.4 .. 1.2
2003q2 4.8 .. 3.5
2003q3 9.7 .. 7.5
2003q4 4.9 .. 2.7
2004q1 7.8 .. 3.9
2004q2 7.9 .. 4.0
2004q3 5.3 .. 3.1
2004q4 5.9 .. 2.6
2005q1 7.0 .. 3.4
2005q2 5.8 .. 3.3
2005q3 7.6 .. 4.2
2005q4 5.1 .. 1.8
2006q1 9.0 .. 5.6
2006q2 6.3 .. 2.9
Not even 1 Quarter of Negative Growth since 9-11
First, you should remember that statistics are easily twisted to reflect whatever position you want...however..
On wages: Real wages does not reflect real income...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200408270908.asp
In spite of that, real wages are up this year 4.2%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm
On employment growth:
Jobs are always the lagging indicator after a recession. High gains in productivity over the last four years depressed the labor market. When you factor in the availability of 12,000,000 illegals that are off the books, the points you mentioned are misleading.
The current unemployment rate is at 4.7 % That is full employment for all practical purposes. That reflects manufacturing and non farm jobs, but does not include the self employed.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Poverty: Poverty rates hinge on far more than just economics. The "graying" of America and the continuing rise of unwed mothers and lack of father's income are factors. However, the calculation of poverty is a strange subject anyway. Apparently there are 48 diffferent thresholds for poverty depending on the make up of the person being classifies. There is no parameter for the impoverished's locale. Here are some references:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/pov/toc.htm
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/overview.html
On personal savings: This is a total red herring. Personal savings have been on a downward trend since the 1980's. Personal savings does not reflect capital gains such as appreciation of housing. Lack of personal savings reflects more of a difference in modern finance than a bad trend. This is a good explanation here.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html
From experience, your lib friend won't listen anyway, so don't waste much time with him. We are enjoying probably the best economic conditions of my life (I'm 49). Labor unions are in retreat, the stock market is fairly (IMHO) valued, interest rates are in a "sweet spot", inflation is nonexistent except for energy costs, home ownership is at an all time high, and federal taxes are the lowest probably since they began them.
About our nations debt....our total debt is less than the value of farmland in the US. In other words, not enough to get upset about.
DOn't have the statistics with me, but when the unemployment rate is dropping, the "average" wages can go down even though the "average person's" wages can go up.
Wages are averaged either by mean or median. In either case they include only people working.
If you have an influx of people into lower-wage jobs, even though they used to make "zero" dollars and now make money, their "zero" dollar earnings were not part of the average.
So if you add 2 million jobs to the economy, but those jobs are below the average wage, you will actually PULL DOWN the average wages.
BTW, if you throw a couple of multi-millionares in jail for fraud, you will ALSO pull down the average wages.
What you WANT to compare is the average wage change for employed workers. That statistic would compare only the wages of people who did not have a substantive change in their employment on a year-to-year basis.
I can't find that number, unfortunately.
I agree with the poster above who said do not challenge "their" facts, as they are usually wrong. Provide your own. At the Heritage website, there is an excellent discussion of some false income numbers provided by Gannett.