Depression Recovery

Question:

Because growth has been lacklustre since the US emerged from recession in 2001, the economy has failed to create jobs. On the contrary, under the so-called jobless recovery, more than two million jobs have disappeared since the president, George Bush, took office in January 2001. In fact, Mr Bush could be the first president since Herbert Hoover, who was in the White House from 1929 to 1933, the years of the Great Depression, to oversee a decline in total US jobs during his term. By contrast, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton years. The persistence of sluggishness has surprised economists, and some believe that the job market will not have recovered by the end of 2004, when Mr Bush will have to fight for re-election. With the presidential elections looming next year, Democrats have focused on the economy as Mr Bush’s weak spot. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, has described Mr. Bush’s economic record as "$3-trillion deeper in debt, three million fewer jobs." from the Guardian ANYONE BUT BUSH IN 2004

Response:

>Because growth has been lacklustre since the US emerged >from recession in 2001

The US entered a recession in March 2001 and hasn’t come out of it yet.

Response:

Right & the tax-cut plan he has is not going to stimulate the economy enough to create real, new jobs.  It’s that same old Regan strickle-down stuuff that never worked either. Plus, it’s going to bring those big, yearly deficits.  The whole thing is screwed. Nuke Bush. Mike

Response:

Can’t nuke him, he can’t even say the word.  He’s got teflon, too.  Maybe the dems will give us someone who’s electible.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Right & the tax-cut plan he has is not going to stimulate the economy > enough to create real, new jobs.  It’s that same old Regan > strickle-down stuuff that never worked either. > Plus, it’s going to bring those big, yearly deficits.  The whole thing > is screwed. > Nuke Bush. > Mike

Response:

> Right & the tax-cut plan he has is not going to stimulate the economy > enough to create real, new jobs.  It’s that same old Regan > strickle-down stuuff that never worked either.

Yep, I believe someone called it "Voodoo Economics". > Plus, it’s going to bring those big, yearly deficits.  The whole thing > is screwed. > Nuke Bush.

Flush the Bushit! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Mike

Response:

> Can’t nuke him, he can’t even say the word.

Notice how he pronounces the word "terrorist" and makes it sound like it’s only one syllable? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->He’s got teflon, too.  Maybe > the dems will give us someone who’s electible. > Right & the tax-cut plan he has is not going to stimulate the economy > enough to create real, new jobs.  It’s that same old Regan > strickle-down stuuff that never worked either. > Plus, it’s going to bring those big, yearly deficits.  The whole thing > is screwed. > Nuke Bush. > Mike

Response:

> >Because growth has been lacklustre since the US emerged >from recession in 2001 > The US entered a recession in March 2001 and hasn’t come out of it yet.

You misspelled 1999.  HTH.

Response:

Not a chance, unless there is a revolution.    Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Can’t nuke him, he can’t even say the word.  He’s got teflon, too.  Maybe > the dems will give us someone who’s electible. > Right & the tax-cut plan he has is not going to stimulate the economy > enough to create real, new jobs.  It’s that same old Regan > strickle-down stuuff that never worked either. > Plus, it’s going to bring those big, yearly deficits.  The whole thing > is screwed. > Nuke Bush. > Mike

Response:

>>> Because growth has been lacklustre since the US emerged >> from recession in 2001 > The US entered a recession in March 2001 and hasn’t come out of it yet. > You misspelled 1999.  HTH.

Seemed to me like confidence in the the stock market started diving right when it looked like Bush was going to be elected. Zoid —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

> Right & the tax-cut plan he has is not going to stimulate the economy > enough to create real, new jobs.  It’s that same old Regan > strickle-down stuuff that never worked either. > Plus, it’s going to bring those big, yearly deficits.  The whole thing > is screwed.

Yeah but a whole lot more people will be able to afford those $2,000 Bush-Burgers Sheesh for that price you’d expect some good Texas BBQ

Response:

>> The US entered a recession in March 2001 and hasn’t come out of it yet. > You misspelled 1999.

Nope. March 2001. Right after the market realized that Bush was going to fuck things up.

Response:

> >> The US entered a recession in March 2001 and hasn’t come out of it yet. > You misspelled 1999. > Nope. March 2001. Right after the market realized that Bush was going to fuck > things up.

It tanked in the fall before the election – when people finally realized it would be either Bush OR Gore and either one of them would seriously mess things up…

Response:

>It tanked in the fall before the election

Sorry. The recession started in March 2001. Unless you dispute the normal economist’s definition of "recession."

Response:

>It tanked in the fall before the election > Sorry. The recession started in March 2001. Unless you dispute the normal > economist’s definition of "recession."

Ok…  I’ll bite…  economist’s defintition of "recession"… But once we are "IN" a reccession… it’s merely the result of previous economic activity…  eh..?? Do economists say we were in a good growth period and then BANG three months later it is a "recession"…???  Which would really mean that the "downturn" happened in ONE month… and after three… they declared it a recession…?? When did the stock market "peak"… and BEGIN it’s plunge..??? The market saw the "future" (so to speak), mulled it over for a period, and then reacted…  so the "market" actually begin to suspect the worst even as it was spiking… I’ve often wondered how much of the ’spike’ at the end was due to short-sales by those in the know, who were trying to go short JUST before the plunge….  they kept getting hammered by the day-traders on the internet who were still in a feeding-frenzy… … gtski

Response:

>But once we are "IN" a reccession… it’s merely the result of previous >economic activity…  eh..??

Nope. It’s due in large oart to the confidence that the market has in the people in power NOW. As soon as Dubya got selected by the Supreme Court the market decided that the economy was fucked. It still is.

Response: