Before I start, i would like to say.

THE NY TIMES? WOW, they're just as credible as CBS maybe?

If a IT person's job is outsource to another country (now follow me) and he get's a job at Wal-mart, technically the job market is going well. But does IT person living the same way as he did before.


The point is just that. People are now working at TEMP agencies which means absolutely no benefits. Therefore they can't even take care of themselves.

If I'm feeding my people Green beans and potted meat, technically THEY ARE EATING. But are they eating good? I think that is the problem that people have with the economy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL
 

Recap:

1) You couldn't read and had to ask where a chart was from even though it was clearly stated several times.

2) You tried to knock the chart but then found out it was from the New York Times.

3) You couldn't answer the question posed to AXEAM. It was posed to the both of you several times.

4) And now you claim a Dixiecrat=Republican. Here is the definition since you are ignant:

"Dix·ie·crat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dks-krt)
n.
A member of a dissenting group of Democrats in the South who formed the States' Rights Party in 1948. "

-Rudey
--Read real slow now, ya hear?

The NY Times as credible as CBS? What are you talking about? The sky is dark outside. Irrelevant.

And hey why don't you show us how wages have changed over time. You bring up IT. Please show us a stable measure of IT wages. How about you show us how outsourcing affects the economy? How about you show us what any of what you said has anything to do with the topic or question at hand?

Now go eat dirt.

-Rudey

Now before you wasted 2 post you could've just edited the first one and put all your points there. But that's neither her nor there.


Once again when you can defend your position you go to the smack talk. That's cool too, I can dig it.

How is it irrelevent? Because you say so?

Showing you IT wages, does it matter? Open up the NY Times and prove me wrong. You've yet to do it and I'm sure you can't do it again.

This talk of jobs being there is crazy because most people are working for less at Wal-mart or for less benefits with a temp agencies. So as you can see, my potted meat example actually sticks.

You made the accusation. You show the proof.

You can't answer the question on what economic policy Bush put into place that hurt people either.

-Rudey
--I basically put a bandaid under your eye, and made you my Nelly

Wow, more gay smack.:rolleyes:

YOu never showed me proof on our WMD arguement, and now people must show you proof. And you call Kerry a flip-flopper? Please

Your second question is easy, take a look at all the factories that are closing down. Just open your hears and listen to all the people who are being laid off. Nobody got laid off when Clinton was in office. But it's all good, the republicans choose a fool over McCain to sit in the white house.

Bush doesn't know what economic policy he put in place, but I do know this, it's not working and if you think it does, the sky there in Chicago must be purple or you're smoking that OOOOOHHHHWEEEEEE

Factories closing? The last figures I could find were from May when the manufacturing sector was actually GROWING. I could find some pretty good numbers for other 1st world countries and it would seem that most rich countries, the UK in particular, manufacturing seems to be on a sharp decline.

I challenge you to find any country similar in prosperity to the US in cost of living, wages, etc. that is experiencing better growth.

A) WMD. I did show you proof and even you showed us proof saying the US along with other countries supplied Iraq with WMD materials. Hence, at the end of the day Iraq had it. You keep bringing this us as if you don't understand a very simple point, they had it and nobody denies it!

B) You have absolutely no idea on anything to do with Economics. You haven't answered the question. It must be too damn difficult for you boy.

-Rudey
--So sad

What type of factories. I know for a fact that furniture industry in Lexington, NC(which is my example) is shutting down. At one time it drove the city but now only 1 full plant is operational.

I don't call this growth. It's a very SLOW growth if it is. kinda like a Oak Tree.

As far as you challenge, a broken arm is better than a broken neck, but I still don't want to experience it.







A) you know darn well what I was talking about. But let's not bring that back up. It wasn't one of your better moments.

B) look I didn't have to attend a economics class to know that people have less in their pockets in 2004 then what they have in 2000. People are complaining, but I'm not worried, ya boy will be leaving office in a few weeks. Maybe you can come to DC to help him move back to Texas, or you can sit there and help Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter spin the election and how Kerry cheated.:rolleyes:


Oh just in case you forgot, this is where you throw out a insult or something of that nature.


It's really no fun Rudey.

Um.... lets see... hmmm... Canada?


http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/nat...my_040831.html

Actually second quarter economic growth was 3.3% in the US with 4th quarter estimated over 4% and domestic demand up 5%. This is all despite of storms that battered and did great damage to parts of the US. Canada is in no way comparable to the US in terms of economics first of all. Second of all if you have lint in your pocket and find a dollar big, that would show major growth as opposed to having a dollar in your pocket and finding a penny.

From Bloomberg.com:

Only `Shock' Is 4 Percent U.S. Economic Growth: Caroline Baum
Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the second quarter's soft- patch has been revised up to show economic growth of 3.3 percent, economists are turning their attention to the post-soft- patch/regaining-traction period. And it looks pretty good.

Powered by strong consumer and business spending, third- quarter growth is expected to exceed 4 percent, according to economists. Final domestic demand should be up 5 percent.

That may look as if the economy is ``keeling over'' to billionaire financier George Soros, who is digging so deep into his pockets -- $12.6 million and counting -- to defeat President George W. Bush in November he may have lost touch with reality. But it's not how most folks would categorize 4 percent growth, especially when the Southeast was battered by multiple hurricanes last month.

For those who expected higher oil prices to kill the economy, there's no need to grab the oars and man the lifeboats just yet.

``The economic effect of high oil prices has to be different when it's driven by the users of oil and not the suppliers,'' said Joe Carson, director of global economic research at Alliance Capital Markets.

Demand Creates Supply

It is. Yet many economists watched the incessant rise in oil prices from $30 a barrel a year ago to $50 today, even as producers pumped up supply, and assumed the effect would be the same as if the price increase were the result of a cutback in supply, which is what happened in the 1970s.

``Record-high oil prices have shown no clear sign of denting demand,'' the Paris-based International Energy Agency said in its August Oil Market Report. Noting that the world market is ``well supplied with crude,'' the IEA ignored its own assessment of ``exceptionally robust'' demand to warn that ``sustained high oil prices may hit consumption with a lag.''

The absence of any reduction in global oil supplies isn't the only thing that differentiates today's ``oil shock'' from earlier ones. Interest rates, except the one directly controlled by the Federal Reserve, have been falling as well, Carson said. ``That tells us the economic outcome is likely to be more transitory in nature.''

Consumer spending bounced back in the third quarter after a 1.6 percent increase in the second. Spending was already rising at a 4 percent annualized rate going into September, according to Citigroup economist Steven Wieting. The 6 percent jump in unit auto sales and 1 percent increase in chain store sales in September will underpin consumer spending in the final month of the quarter, at least on goods purchases.

Still Not Dead

``The pickup in consumer spending changed people's thinking on the economy,'' said Jim Glassman, senior U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Soft second-quarter spending encouraged the view that ``the economy's natural tendency is to relapse,'' Glassman said. ``It's not. The economy's natural tendency is to grow.''

The income numbers are perking up as well. The wage and salary component of personal income, which was rising at a 3 percent rate a year ago, increased ``4.5 percent in the past year and 4.8 percent (annualized) in the last six months,'' Citigroup economists said in their weekly ``Comments on Credit.'' ``The inevitable cyclical handoff from record profits to wages, helped along by a gradually firming labor market, should buoy this trend.''

Supply-Side Benefits

Pretax consumer incomes rose 5 percent in the year ended August.

``Consumers have passed their stress test in much better shape than most would have imagined,'' given the sharp rise in energy and other consumer prices earlier in the year and a reduction in the cash-out benefits from mortgage refinancings, Wieting said.

The tax cuts boosted after-tax income at a time when wages and salaries were stagnant. ``Now you're getting the same after- tax income without all the `special benefits' or emergency-level interest rates,'' Wieting said.

The focus on what higher oil prices will do to demand ignores the fact that the U.S. is the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world.

What's more, ``the U.S. is also home to some of the world's largest energy-related equipment producers, from oilfield and mining equipment and services to more complex power generating equipment and alternative energy,'' Wieting said.

Capital expenditures and employment are responding as one would expect to price signals. Investment in the mining and oilfield equipment industry rose 45 percent in the last year, Wieting said. Employment in the oil and gas extraction industry jumped nearly 8 percent in the year through August after two decades of decline. The increase compares with a 1.3 percent increase in total non-farm jobs in the last 12 months.

``Profit-seeking behavior can drive up capital investment or inventories,'' Wieting said.

When the behavior produces profits, the benefit to the economy is even greater. "

-Rudey

1) It was one of your bad moments. Don't try and spin it.

2) You can't even mention a single fact. All you have is, ask people how they feel or see what's in their hearts.

3) You can't say what economic policy Bush put into place that hurt people. Simply put, Bush doesn't "control" the economy.

4) If you want to talk about economic cycles and who was president when the economy soured, take a look at the chart and see the declining economy Clinton provided Bush.

-Rudey
--Thanks, drive through, don't come again.

Okay I have to ask: How do you know what 4th Quarter growth is? Don't we have to wait a little while to find out?

Oh here's a link to the White House website that confirms the economic growth figure of 2.8% stated earlier-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/output.html

It was a simple mistake. Obviously I know when 4th quarter starts. It was supposed to say estimated.

-Rudey

Now you just said that Bush doesn't control the economy, then you turn around and attempt to put Clinton under the gun for a "declining economy" that he provided Bush.

Thats the problem with Bush people, they want to slam every other president but are QUICK to make sure that Bush shoulders no responsiblity.

So tell me, when will Bush accept responsiblity for being president of the United States?

It's still no fun Rudey