Posted on 01/03/2006 8:29:33 AM PST by intruder alert
Just got an email from a friend in OK. They were spared the fires.
Bro in law in CA is without power and surrounded by sand bags.
Sometimes corrupt ole NJ doesn't seem so bad!
FINALLY!!! IBTZ
In Before The Zot!
Signing up and posting inflamatory material on the same day works very well.
.....That began 30 days after the first Bush budget took effect?
How come the Press doesn't know this?
IBZ?
He must be a "lifelong Republican"!
I wanna see the Kitties!!!!
Nice chart....too bad liberals never let facts in the way of the garbage they spew!
1. The resession in 2001 was a weak recession, without a lot of job loss. There was less to make up.
2. Bush's quick action made the 2001 recession one of the shortest on record, but in fact it just softened it. In truth the recession-like conditions lasted through 2003, so we are really only in the 2nd year of the recovery.
3. 9/11 was a major blow to the economy, but it happened after the official recession ended, and therefore in what they are calling the recovery period. No other recovery had any major negative events during their first 4 years.
4. Most recessions followed periods of slow growth where the employment already lagged, setting up room for expansion. The policies of the Clinton administration, which masked the downturn of the economy, encouraged job growth right up to the recession, so the number of jobs in the recovery didn't have a lot of room for growth.
5. The economy is changing, with a LOT of people using the internet to run their own businesses. It has never been easier to be self-employed. E-bay estimated at one point over 400,000 people's primary jobs were selling things on E-bay. The household employment survey shows a LOT MORE jobs, with a larger spread between it and the producer survey than is usual in post-recovery periods. During recessions more people DO go work for themselves, but usually during recovery they go back. In this recession people found they COULD work easily on their own, so they didn't go back.
6. Companies, mostly pushed by bizarre government regulations, are making more of their employees contractors, which takes them off the producer employment, and puts them on the household survey. That's why unemployment is at near-historic lows but we don't see producer job growth. As more REAL opportunities for self-employment erupt, the bias against the household survey is less rational. There is a change in the economy, toward self-employment, and the adjustments to the employment picture haven't yet been made to account for it.
I hope this has been helpful to you in refuting the arguments in the post.
For example, Virginia has a 3.3% unemployment, we virtually beg people to come to work. We couldn't grow more jobs if we wanted to, there are no people to work them,
See #108! ;-D
This is silly, you can cherry pick your statistics to support just about any point of view. These years and data are indeed cherry picked. Fact is, most economists of the non-partisan type, agree that the economy and job numbers are doing just fine. Add in the fact that this presidency has to deal with a war and unprecedented natural disasters here and abroad, then the recovery we have been experiencing has been nothing short of fantastic!
look at me, look at me
Thank you for helping me try to refute this bozo. Calling him names does nothing for our cause.
I sure do:
What you are engaged is a logical fallacy call "Anecdotal Evidence". At any time there are going to be bits and pieces of the economy struggling. For example the existing "News Media" is on the verge of bankruptcy despite the best US Economic performance since the 1980s. Citing the bits and pieces as proof of a the whole economic picture is an psuedo-intellectual tactic resorted to be child level IQS who are too arrogant to admit the complete failure of their emotion based Hysteric Leftist political partisanship.
Because it's like reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln that starts out by claiming that he was born on July 4, 1776. If the author bungles something straightforward like that, then none of his/her other supposedly factual statements can be taken at face value. If the facts can't be trusted, why even bother addressing the analysis of those mistaken facts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.