Bush's economy is strong and getting stronger

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by a529612, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. How come he never has anything new to say about the economy except using this same old line everytime?



    U.S. President George Bush Wednesday took his state of the economy tour to New York, proclaiming "the state of our economy is strong" and will get stronger.

    "The state of our economy is strong," Bush proclaimed to applause. "And with the hard work of the American people and the right policies in Washington, we're going to make it even stronger."

    http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_11633-Bush-Economy-Is-Strong-Getting-Stronger.html
     
  2. Same reason he was "stay'in the course".

    He's retarded.

    And his handlers can't get him to say the right word's, in sequence.
     
  3. Good question. Republicans of course face the problem that the mainstream media doesn't want to say anything good about naything during a Republican administration. You can bet if Hillary were President we would be hearing about how great the economy is and what a masterful job she was doing running it.

    But ultimately Bush and his team are not good communicators. Iraq and Bush's terrible poll numbers obscure everything.
     
  4. Well, Bush's economy is strong and getting stronger for WHO?

    Today, Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit ever by a U.S. company, $39.5 billion for 2006. The previous record profit was set by – ta dah – Exxon Mobil in 2005, when it made $36.13 billion in profits.

    The second week of January, the U.S. Department of Labor quietly announced that from 2000 to 2006, the real earnings of 93 million non-farm production and nonsupervisory workers in the U.S. rose by $15.4 billion.
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/10221/42184

    I am afraid 93 million american workers and their families whose real earnings rose by less than $30 during each of the previous six years may not find Bush's economy all that strong while I am sure 20 major Exxon's shareholders will tend to agree with your point of view.

    PS sorry for the dailykos link but I had to give credit to the author of the diary who posted the numbers.
     
  5. I'm not sure why a corporation's earnings are comparable to individual income statistics. Apples to oranges,etc.

    As for the 93 million you think got shafted, you quote statistics to make it appear that the income of every one of those 93 mill was carefully tracked and that was teh result. In fact, there is considerable mobility between income classes. In this country, people do not remain in the bottom rung for long typically. Your figures no doubt are skewed by the enormous influx of low skill, low wage immigrants. If you want the income figures to look better, keep them out and stop obsessing over XOM.
     
  6. Now matter how you slice it and dice it the real wages of american workers (both blue and white collar) have been stagnant for the last six years, it's a well known and hardly disputed fact. Given that, american working people (90% of the country) have very little reason to celebrate Bush's economy.
     
  7. He argues if the economy is not strong, the stock market wouldn't be trading at all time high. :D
     
  8. fhl

    fhl

    I don't know how the labor dept releases numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they simply give a number for each year as they come out. Making it sound like the labor dept released the numbers specifically from 2000 to 2006 is a bit suspicious. I would almost bet that this guy who wrote the article simply pulled the numbers from 2000 to 2006 and then tabulated the results himself. Wanna bet? The results of doing so would of course make his story look better, although misleading as h*ll. Did you ever stop to think that the election didn't put Bush in office until 2001, and what happened in 2001 to depress the economy. Do you remember anything happening then? A fair tabulation would include numbers from 2001 to 2006, with 2001 being the base year, but of course we weren't given those because it wouldn't follow the shenanigan school of economic reporting. Par for the course.
     
  9. You're comparing apples to oranges. The Labor Dept figures are for "real" earnings (i.e. inflation adjusted) while Exxon's numbers are the unsanitized version of 2006 dollars.

    What Exxon makes is of no more concern to me than what A-Rod earns. Your pal Barbara Streisand was in SoFla a few months back with tickets priced at $300 and up. How socialist of her.

    Let's see. SPX at 1450, Bonds under 5%, dollar on multi year highs in Asia, virtually full employment, Miami filled with construction cranes..... Wow life sux. Anyone who's a loser in this economic environment is either stupid, lazy or worthless. I guess that describes the Democrat's base.

     
  10. Personal savings drop in 2006 to the lowest level in 74 years


    WASHINGTON — People once again spent everything they made and then some last year, pushing the personal savings rate to the lowest level since the Great Depression more than seven decades ago.

    The Commerce Department reported today that the savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, meaning that not only did people spend all the money they earned but they also dipped into savings or increased borrowing to finance purchases. The 2006 figure was lower than a negative 0.4 percent in 2005 and was the poorest showing since a negative 1.5 percent savings rate in 1933 during the Great Depression.
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4517548.html
     
    #10     Feb 1, 2007