http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-06-04-may-employment_x.htm

I am surprised this has not been posted here yet. Another strong month of job creation showing that the economy is alive, healthy and growing. It is really good to see this type of growth again.

Of course it is good news and it should be celebrated as an economic recovery orchestrated by the current administration. But alas some are so set on proving that Bush is a goof so that doesnt fit into the DU mantra.

I'm sure those almost half million people are pretty happy right now. Being out of work and getting a job is great.
The good part I have seen is the fact that hotel,restaurant(considered a temporary summer business increase) was not a major factor.

Actually according to the Journal there have been 1.1 mil new jobs since Jan 1 2004.

Let's see if this growth can be sustained. Unemployment is at 5.6% still and we have a bit to go before we get back to about where we were.

Of course, most of our recoveries have taken 4-7 years to reach max potential, we havent even been working this one for three years.

The fact that it got to this point, and now we have to work so hard to get it back to what it was, is a major issue President Bush has created.

Originally posted by Overdose
The fact that it got to this point, and now we have to work so hard to get it back to what it was, is a major issue President Bush has created.
We have to work hard to get back where we were because of 9/11, not Bush. Not an economic major huh?

:rolleyes:

Blaming 9/11 is just a sad excuse, for the job loss we have gotten. The fact is, it is getting better, but slowly and the jobless rate would not have been as low if President Bush had not given special bonuses in money for companies to send them over seas.

overdose, what do you know about economics? I will admit I dont know crap about economics, and I feel it is safe to say you dont either. do us a favor and stop parroting your party line for a minute.

Originally posted by Overdose
Blaming 9/11 is just a sad excuse, for the job loss we have gotten. The fact is, it is getting better, but slowly and the jobless rate would not have been as low if President Bush had not given special bonuses in money for companies to send them over seas.
Really? Then how do you explain the rather noticable drop in car sales after September 2001 at my dealership? Did he send everyone overseas in that particular month?

Now -- I agree with you that Bush was part of the problem. However, denying that 9/11 influenced the economy is just plain blind.

9/11 was directly responsible for the loss of 3.3 million jobs, that might have an impact on the economy. And we have gotten almost 2 mil back

The economy is booming - you have to go to China to find another country growing at a better rate, and when you have a 11 trillion $ economy the % game pushes you out farther. At 5% growth in GDP the US increases its GDP by 30% of the entire GDP of France or the UK in 1 year.

Presidents have a mininal effect on the economy - but they get blamed for downturns so it's only fair they should get the credit on upturns. Bush would be getting a lot of credit right now - his re-election would be assured but the news from Iraq prevents the economy news from gaining traction. In recent polls (for what they are worth) 55% polled said the economy sucked.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Of course, most of our recoveries have taken 4-7 years to reach max potential, we havent even been working this one for three years. but the country wasnt in this recession when he got it, so he should be commended for something he did wrong ? give me a break. a lot of things were right when he got in and he screwed them up, now he gets credit.....cmon bv....does this guy do anything wrong to you ? he gave everyone those tax checks only to be taken from your next income tax filing. i dont think anyone got that memo.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Of course, most of our recoveries have taken 4-7 years to reach max potential, we havent even been working this one for three years. but the country wasnt in this recession when he got it, so he should be commended for something he did wrong ? give me a break. a lot of things were right when he got in and he screwed them up, now he gets credit.....cmon bv....does this guy do anything wrong to you ? he gave everyone those tax checks only to be taken from your next income tax filing. i dont think anyone got that memo.

Actually it was in a recession already...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer

Originally posted by The Republican
Actually it was in a recession already...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer
The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration. it says 2000 sir, and it says MAY have started in the last months. but it hit with bush....you are putting a spin on words, your saying it WAS , they said MAY HAVE. why is it that bush can do no wrong, if he was wrong, let him be wrong. and he is..everything clinton did was blown up, but you cant say a word about bush to you guys.....im gonna stay connected to this site. if kerry gets in, i wanna hear what you guys will make the differences of his mistakes compared to bush......dont be a hypocrite....im watching....lol

Originally posted by korg
The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration. it says 2000 sir, and it says MAY have started in the last months. but it hit with bush....you are putting a spin on words, your saying it WAS , they said MAY HAVE. why is it that bush can do no wrong, if he was wrong, let him be wrong. and he is..everything clinton did was blown up, but you cant say a word about bush to you guys.....im gonna stay connected to this site. if kerry gets in, i wanna hear what you guys will make the differences of his mistakes compared to bush......dont be a hypocrite....im watching....lol

Huh:confused:

Originally posted by korg
The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration. it says 2000 sir, and it says MAY have started in the last months. but it hit with bush....you are putting a spin on words, your saying it WAS , they said MAY HAVE. why is it that bush can do no wrong, if he was wrong, let him be wrong. and he is..everything clinton did was blown up, but you cant say a word about bush to you guys.....im gonna stay connected to this site. if kerry gets in, i wanna hear what you guys will make the differences of his mistakes compared to bush......dont be a hypocrite....im watching....lol

What difference does it make if it was last few months of Clinton or first few months of Bush. Neither one has any impact on the economy besides their actions impacting confidence.

The president has zero control over the FED - it's the FED and congress that impacts the economy. The president can propose budgets and tax cuts but he hasn't a single ounce of power to actually make those things happen. He is at the mercy of his party having a majority and public opinion.

In the US system the President has few real powers and the position is designed to be weak for good reason.

What does Bush know about economics anyway? He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, so he's hardly qualified to be an economist. Whatever he thinks just comes from his dad, his handlers and the experience of growing up as a rich boy.

9/11 broke the economy not Bush

9/11 broke the economy, but you can't blame all of it on 9/11, Bush has to take some accountability.

for what? He didnt attack the finacial district of New York, he wasnt the reason air travle was stopped for 3 days in some areas. These are the only things that brought about the loss of 3.3 milion jobs and that brought the economy down.,
Show me where Bush hurt the economy, dont say excessive military spending, because that has an opposite effect on the economy.
Tell me OD what did he do?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
9/11 broke the economy not Bush man what are you saying........9-11 was a blessing to bush, i know it sounds callous, but i dont know a better way to put it. before 9-11 he was headed for the worst presidential year in a long time. hell , even republicans were saying that his ideas were heading down the wrong direction......9-11 killed the economy....my ass. c'mon, defend the man but dont sound naive. people were saying bush wagged the dog, because his presidency was doing so badly, he needed something to take the eye off of the fact that he had fucked everything up , especially social security......give me a break here ! now for those ready to jump on me, i dont think he wagged the dog, thats just what was going around......and , bv, even if o.d. shows you proof, your just gonna say its liberal propaganda, that seems to be your answer to everything od brings to the table........sorry man, just my opinion

Originally posted by DrewM
What difference does it make if it was last few months of Clinton or first few months of Bush. Neither one has any impact on the economy besides their actions impacting confidence.

The president has zero control over the FED - it's the FED and congress that impacts the economy. The president can propose budgets and tax cuts but he hasn't a single ounce of power to actually make those things happen. He is at the mercy of his party having a majority and public opinion.

In the US system the President has few real powers and the position is designed to be weak for good reason.

What does Bush know about economics anyway? He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, so he's hardly qualified to be an economist. Whatever he thinks just comes from his dad, his handlers and the experience of growing up as a rich boy. lets put it like this, if bush dont have the power, then the people in his office or the positions he filled have it........whats the difference. even if the house had a democratic majority, he still passes the republican idea of trickle down, and vice versa. you guys saying that the prez dont have that power, havent been watching. if he doesnt, his buddies do....case in point, those stupid refund checks.......dumb idea, but his idea

Originally posted by korg
lets put it like this, if bush dont have the power, then the people in his office or the positions he filled have it........whats the difference. even if the house had a democratic majority, he still passes the republican idea of trickle down, and vice versa. you guys saying that the prez dont have that power, havent been watching. if he doesnt, his buddies do....case in point, those stupid refund checks.......dumb idea, but his idea
Bush didnt appoint Greenspan nor did he appoint congress.
But once again let me say this, 9/11 was not good for Bush or anyone else. The month after 9/11 we had lost over 2 million jobs and FEMA was working to bail out businesses who had been impacted. But before we were in a down turn that even the most liberal economist were saying was a minor correction in the markets.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Bush didnt appoint Greenspan nor did he appoint congress.
But once again let me say this, 9/11 was not good for Bush or anyone else. The month after 9/11 we had lost over 2 million jobs and FEMA was working to bail out businesses who had been impacted. But before we were in a down turn that even the most liberal economist were saying was a minor correction in the markets. listen man, i know it wasnt good, but people were talking about pratically hanging bush for what his IDEAS were doing to the economy. when 9-11 hit, everything was forgotten....im not saying it was good for anyone ,really, but as for bush's presidency, it was on the rocks , even for republicans....everyone was tired of what he was doing......go back, look it up.

Originally posted by korg
listen man, i know it wasnt good, but people were talking about pratically hanging bush for what his IDEAS were doing to the economy. when 9-11 hit, everything was forgotten....im not saying it was good for anyone ,really, but as for bush's presidency, it was on the rocks , even for republicans....everyone was tired of what he was doing......go back, look it up.
I dont have to look it up, I know that prices were ok before 9/11 and that tourism in Florida( I lived in Orlando) was very good the day before and I know that after 9/11 hotels in Orlando were closing and people had lost their jobs.
If you go back and see what was said by the Economist, not politicians, it was only gooing through a minor correction. I had money in the market before and lost 1-2 % in August 2001 but in September I lost 34 % before I pulled it out.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8861

You may not agree, but it's a good read, BV. I'm not so sure I agree, but still, check it out.

Sept. 11 depressed leisure travel for several months longer and caused some shift away from some destinations (such as New York) and toward others. By today, leisure travel has largely overcome the effects of 9/11, with some locations gaining at the expense of others.

This Paragraph alone makes no sense.
If you depress leisure travel near the begining of the winter travel season it will hurt big businesses and destroy smalled ones. The destruction of these businesses hurts all aspects of the economy. Call it a Butterfly Effect if you want.
But take a town of 45000 and lets say it is a ski resort take away 60% of their annual business and that will put at least 25% of the town out of business. Now take into account the supermarkets, clothing stores, utility companies, builders and etc. now they are taking a big hit and that is passed on. SO if 25% of the country was hard hit by 9/11 that can become 45-50% in a very short period of time.
In Sault Ste Marie there are businesses and industries that still have not recovered, and around here you wouldnt even know that the economy had even changed since 9/11.

Also being that the article was written by the Tom Paine website also makes it campiagn propoganda.
Liberal economist will tell you that the near disaster we went through was caused by 9/11 and the shutting down of the air traffic.

Blaiming that on Bush is just another way to attack him, there are plenty of real reasons but I have yet to see much mention of those.

Korg BTW the refund checks makes very good sense to stimulate an economy. If people have disposable income they will spend it, the same effect I described above but in reverse.
Say what you will but on this I will defend Bush because he was right. No I didnt get one.

9-11 did not create a recession or cause any major harm to the economy. It impacted certain sectors of the economy for different periods of time.

The so called Y2K "bug" had a far more significant impact on the economy than 9-11. Companies were so freaked out that inventories were stockpiled, capital was spent at a fast pace and tech workers were hired. Y2K - nothing happened, except companies worked off inventories, spent no capital and fired thousands of tech workers.

Hate to differ with you but I was in an area that was hit very hard by 9/11 and is still recovering. The day after the attacks it was a ghost town and when I left there it wasnt back to even half of what it had been. I left in june 2002.