NationStates Jolt Archive

In what almost amounts to a death blow to the liberals, who claim that President George W. Bush is going to be the downfall of our and the world's economy, this is what was said at the economics meeting:

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who led the discussions along with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, said there was a feeling of shared optimism in the group, reflecting a belief that strong growth in the United States, powered by President Bush’s tax cuts, was helping to boost the global economy.

For those who will say, "oh this is just one little thing" consider where it came from first. The link to the article is below. There is some very good reading in it. Also note that this was not just a "praise whatever Bush does" article. There are negative points mentioned that should at least soften the blow to their, disproven, claims against the economic effect the US and the Bush Administration has on the world.

The entire story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/

Imagine the US Treasury Secretary and the head of the Federal Reserve being optimistic about the economy they're running. Greenspan is always optimistic.

Gosh... the people in charge of primary parts of US economy patting themselves on the back and saying that they are doing such a job that the whole world will thank them...

To bad the IMF thinks the US economy as it stands right now is a huge threat (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040415/deficit_impacts_1.html).


-Z-

I was actually having a good laugh with some friends a few days ago, at Greenspan's comments that the US banking industry is strong, in spite of its enormous exposure to foreign currency markets, for example, which have the capacity to really screw up the dollar in certain not particularly far-fetched circumstances.

The fact that those at the helm of the US economy are speaking in plain contradiction of the IMF is far from reassuring - indeed, it should cause alarm bells to ring about the true state of America's finances.

Kinda like North Korea:

"Accident? No accident. Everything's fine."

Just about exactly what I expected out of the "we know better" crowd.

They claim that all the praise came from G-7, when it is clearly stated that on Saturday G-7 and the IMF met together, and agreed that the economy is headed upwards. Without looking back at the article I do believe that the IMF actually forcasted 4.6 to 4.8% economic growth.

Oh no it can't possibly be true that the G-7 and the IMF agree that President George W. Bush's economy is good for the world. Silly liberals try reading the entire article before shouting rediculous claims. :lol:

Try to keep your responses on topic. I do not like it when Liberals try to fight a losing battle and end up highjacking the thread to keep people from finding out the truth.

Oh. I'm sorry. Here we were trying to discuss the economy. Forgive us, we didn't realise all you wanted to do was use an economic platform to bash the undefinable phantom force that you call "Liberals". Daaamn! And there I was thinking that you wanted to discuss the facts. Rather than take n00b cheap shots. Following in The Red Arrow's footsteps, are we?

Oh please, do not follow the Red Arrow! Turn away from the Dark Side of the Force!

G-7 accredits it to Bush.

The IMF simply released statistics.

This does not equate to the IMF accrediting it to Bush.
Get your facts straight before you try firing off cheap shots.

Strange that just today the IMF stated that the US economy was good for the world and the US. That is what you find when you look here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/

However the same IMF stated on April 15 that the US economy was terrible. That is what you find when you look here:

the IMF thinks the US economy as it stands right now is a huge threat.
Z's little renamed link.

THis can only mean one of two things:
1.) The US economy is in a lot better shape than it was thought to be.
2.) The IMF has just discovered intelligence that changed their mind about the economy.

Oh it couldn't possibly be number two. That would be like someone taking an action based on the intelligence they had at the time.

Straight from the horse's mouth (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2004/01/pdf/chapter2.pdf)

Just about exactly what I expected out of the "we know better" crowd.

They claim that all the praise came from G-7

Not to be part of the "we know better crowd" but it's the G-8 :P

Straight from the horse's mouth (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2004/01/pdf/chapter2.pdf)
Yep.

And Jay, if it looks like a monolithic institution such as the IMF has "just discovered intelligence that changed their mind about the economy" in a period of a few days, it means that you, and not they, have made an error somewhere. :wink:

Strange that just today the IMF stated that the US economy was good for the world and the US. That is what you find when you look here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/

However the same IMF stated on April 15 that the US economy was terrible. That is what you find when you look here:

the IMF thinks the US economy as it stands right now is a huge threat.
Z's little renamed link.

THis can only mean one of two things:
1.) The US economy is in a lot better shape than it was thought to be.
2.) The IMF has just discovered intelligence that changed their mind about the economy.

Oh it couldn't possibly be number two. That would be like someone taking an action based on the intelligence they had at the time.


You don't acutally read your links do you?

The IMF did not release a statement supporting your viewpoint that it was the US economy doing good things for the world. It didn't even comment at all on the little statement you are discussing. The whole text about the IMF in your article states:

A peaceful crowd of about 1,000 anti-globalization demonstrators marched through 15 blocks of downtown Washington on Saturday to protest the policies of the IMF and World Bank, which they say favor wealthy nations at the expense of the world’s poorest countries.

This year’s meetings were being held against the backdrop of a global economy that the IMF is forecasting will grow at a 4.6 percent clip this year and 4.4 percent next year, the fastest back-to-back growth years in a decade.

However, the IMF also cautioned that this bright prospect could be derailed if oil prices spike even higher or if the unstable security situation in the Middle East begins to weaken consumer and business confidence and rattle global financial markets.


And do you see oil prices dropping?

Me neither.

And I gave you the link that says that the IMF feels that if the US doesn;t get it's budget deficits in control that this will also have a negative impact on the future growth of the world economy.

So, it seems that the IMF already HAD intelligence, and has used it consistantly.

Something you might consider for yourself someday!

-Z-

But Zeppistan - we have Prince Bandar ibn Sultan's pledge that Saudi Arabia will increase production in time to ensure that oil prices will drop for the election in November. The House of Saud wants George W. Bush to stay in the White House! He's very good for the Saudi economy, you see.

Some might find fault with George W. Bush's dependence upon the world's largest supporter of terrorism for his reelection, but I'd say that those people simply can't see things in global terms. They're probably the same people who screamed when Bill Clinton knew someone whose brother's ex-girlfriend knew someone who raised funds from someone who had once visited the People's Republic of China, right?

(cue sound of crickets chirping)

Well, at any rate, if we don't see the price of oil dropping in time for the November election, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Oh. I'm sorry. Here we were trying to discuss the economy. Forgive us, we didn't realise all you wanted to do was use an economic platform to bash the undefinable phantom force that you call "Liberals". Daaamn! And there I was thinking that you wanted to discuss the facts. Rather than take n00b cheap shots. Following in The Red Arrow's footsteps, are we?I am truely sorry that you feel as if I am taking any "n00b cheap shots". All I see that I am doing is countering their comments through their own posted links. I think that is what is called debating and being able to back up what you say. Not one of The Red Arrow's traits by a long shot.

But Zeppistan - we have Prince Bandar ibn Sultan's pledge that Saudi Arabia will increase production in time to ensure that oil prices will drop for the election in November. The House of Saud wants George W. Bush to stay in the White House! He's very good for the Saudi economy, you see.

Some might find fault with George W. Bush's dependence upon the world's largest supporter of terrorism for his reelection, but I'd say that those people simply can't see things in global terms. They're probably the same people who screamed when Bill Clinton knew someone whose brother's ex-girlfriend knew someone who raised funds from someone who had once visited the People's Republic of China, right?

(cue sound of crickets chirping)

Well, at any rate, if we don't see the price of oil dropping in time for the November election, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Even if they were to drop it in Oct. as some have said, it wouldn't effect the market till months later, no, I suspect they will drop it much earlier so it can affect the average American at the pump by Novemeber.. ;)

Oh. I'm sorry. Here we were trying to discuss the economy. Forgive us, we didn't realise all you wanted to do was use an economic platform to bash the undefinable phantom force that you call "Liberals". Daaamn! And there I was thinking that you wanted to discuss the facts. Rather than take n00b cheap shots. Following in The Red Arrow's footsteps, are we?I am truely sorry that you feel as if I am taking any "n00b cheap shots". All I see that I am doing is countering their comments through their own posted links. I think that is what is called debating and being able to back up what you say. Not one of The Red Arrow's traits by a long shot.

To debate Jay W you need to have some information that backs up your argument, you are at a deficit.. as pointed out, your own link didn't back up your argument, it actually went against it. That is why people get frustrated with people who try to debate things they know nothing about.

Straight from the horse's mouth (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2004/01/pdf/chapter2.pdf)Here we have examples of things stated two years ago. Let's see some data from as early as today. That is what I provided and I would not ask you to do something that I would not do myself.

Just about exactly what I expected out of the "we know better" crowd.

They claim that all the praise came from G-7

Not to be part of the "we know better crowd" but it's the G-8 :PTake a look at the article. I would not say anything that wasn't referred to in it. It was put out today and they were referred to as the G-7.

Straight from the horse's mouth (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2004/01/pdf/chapter2.pdf)
Yep.

And Jay, if it looks like a monolithic institution such as the IMF has "just discovered intelligence that changed their mind about the economy" in a period of a few days, it means that you, and not they, have made an error somewhere. :wink:How would the IMF making this report in a joint meeting between them and G-7 show an error on my part anywhere. This was a report from MSNBC. Taken straight off the msn home page. I thought this was supposed to be one of the most trusted places to get your news. I have not heard it even reported on Fox News that is supposed to be so bias. Seems like a very good source of information, I will be anxiously awaiting a retraction from them if this report has any errors in it. I will grant that there may be, if so, I will post the retraction as soon as I see it.
What I am seeking is any more recent documentation that this did not occur as reported.

Strange that just today the IMF stated that the US economy was good for the world and the US. That is what you find when you look here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/

However the same IMF stated on April 15 that the US economy was terrible. That is what you find when you look here:

the IMF thinks the US economy as it stands right now is a huge threat.
Z's little renamed link.

THis can only mean one of two things:
1.) The US economy is in a lot better shape than it was thought to be.
2.) The IMF has just discovered intelligence that changed their mind about the economy.

Oh it couldn't possibly be number two. That would be like someone taking an action based on the intelligence they had at the time.


You don't acutally read your links do you?

The IMF did not release a statement supporting your viewpoint that it was the US economy doing good things for the world. It didn't even comment at all on the little statement you are discussing. The whole text about the IMF in your article states:

A peaceful crowd of about 1,000 anti-globalization demonstrators marched through 15 blocks of downtown Washington on Saturday to protest the policies of the IMF and World Bank, which they say favor wealthy nations at the expense of the world’s poorest countries.

This year’s meetings were being held against the backdrop of a global economy that the IMF is forecasting will grow at a 4.6 percent clip this year and 4.4 percent next year, the fastest back-to-back growth years in a decade.

However, the IMF also cautioned that this bright prospect could be derailed if oil prices spike even higher or if the unstable security situation in the Middle East begins to weaken consumer and business confidence and rattle global financial markets.


And do you see oil prices dropping?

Me neither.

And I gave you the link that says that the IMF feels that if the US doesn;t get it's budget deficits in control that this will also have a negative impact on the future growth of the world economy.

So, it seems that the IMF already HAD intelligence, and has used it consistantly.

Something you might consider for yourself someday!

-Z-There is something to this idea that a person read the entire article.

The G-7 discussions were followed by a meeting Saturday of the steering committee of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and a special session between the G-7 and finance officials from the Mideast aimed at exploring ways to bolster economic growth in the troubled region.
This is the paragraph that immediately preceeded the ones that you quoted . Notice the use of the word and in describing who made up the steering commitee. From what that paragraph states there were three groups of people that formed the steering commitee and they were IMF, G-7, and finance officals from the Mideast.

But Zeppistan - we have Prince Bandar ibn Sultan's pledge that Saudi Arabia will increase production in time to ensure that oil prices will drop for the election in November. The House of Saud wants George W. Bush to stay in the White House! He's very good for the Saudi economy, you see.

Some might find fault with George W. Bush's dependence upon the world's largest supporter of terrorism for his reelection, but I'd say that those people simply can't see things in global terms. They're probably the same people who screamed when Bill Clinton knew someone whose brother's ex-girlfriend knew someone who raised funds from someone who had once visited the People's Republic of China, right?

(cue sound of crickets chirping)

Well, at any rate, if we don't see the price of oil dropping in time for the November election, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.Making a note of the Bush bashing that fails to provide even one little link to back up what they claim. Red Arrow anyone. *even the crickets fall silent*

But Zeppistan - we have Prince Bandar ibn Sultan's pledge that Saudi Arabia will increase production in time to ensure that oil prices will drop for the election in November. The House of Saud wants George W. Bush to stay in the White House! He's very good for the Saudi economy, you see.

Some might find fault with George W. Bush's dependence upon the world's largest supporter of terrorism for his reelection, but I'd say that those people simply can't see things in global terms. They're probably the same people who screamed when Bill Clinton knew someone whose brother's ex-girlfriend knew someone who raised funds from someone who had once visited the People's Republic of China, right?

(cue sound of crickets chirping)

Well, at any rate, if we don't see the price of oil dropping in time for the November election, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Even if they were to drop it in Oct. as some have said, it wouldn't effect the market till months later, no, I suspect they will drop it much earlier so it can affect the average American at the pump by Novemeber.. ;)Ah sensibility showing at last. All indicators are saying $2.50 to $3.00 per gallon through September. This would be a very poor indicator for the Bush team. But then it may just be an indicator that the war was not about oil after all.

Oh. I'm sorry. Here we were trying to discuss the economy. Forgive us, we didn't realise all you wanted to do was use an economic platform to bash the undefinable phantom force that you call "Liberals". Daaamn! And there I was thinking that you wanted to discuss the facts. Rather than take n00b cheap shots. Following in The Red Arrow's footsteps, are we?I am truely sorry that you feel as if I am taking any "n00b cheap shots". All I see that I am doing is countering their comments through their own posted links. I think that is what is called debating and being able to back up what you say. Not one of The Red Arrow's traits by a long shot.

To debate Jay W you need to have some information that backs up your argument, you are at a deficit.. as pointed out, your own link didn't back up your argument, it actually went against it. That is why people get frustrated with people who try to debate things they know nothing about.After looking through the rest of this, up to now I have been able to refute every counter claim, and to back it up either with the link I provided or through the one Z provided. Right from the start I admitted that my link was not all pro-Bush. There were negative comments made. I am simply making a statement about the overall message the report gave. The economy is going up. Not just by Bushes economics, that just happened to be the main indicator the groups mentioned. So strange that nobody can read the that only indicators that they associated risk to was spiking oil prices and interest rate increases, and they didn't even feel strong enough about those risks to not be optomistic.

Making a note of the Bush bashing that fails to provide even one little link to back up what they claim.
Well, why don't you actually try to prove me (and Bob Woodward (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml)) wrong, instead of complaining about Bush bashing?

Making a note of the Bush bashing that fails to provide even one little link to back up what they claim.
Well, why don't you actually try to prove me (and Bob Woodward (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml)) wrong, instead of complaining about Bush bashing?Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that this thread is about a report issued today by MSNBC, and has nothing to do with the fairy tales Bob Woodward tell and you seem to unquestionly believe? I think that might be it. :)

Woodward and ibn Sultan had a little tete a tete about this the other day on Larry King Live (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/lkl.00.html), and Bandar ibn Sultan admitted that it was in his government's best interests to lower the price of oil before the elections. You can see this for yourself without slinging accusations of "fairy tales" and the like.

Furthermore, as you yourself just acknowledged, the price of oil is an important indicator - so Prince Bandar's promise is quite relevant.

Strange that just today the IMF stated that the US economy was good for the world and the US. That is what you find when you look here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/

However the same IMF stated on April 15 that the US economy was terrible. That is what you find when you look here:

the IMF thinks the US economy as it stands right now is a huge threat.
Z's little renamed link.

THis can only mean one of two things:
1.) The US economy is in a lot better shape than it was thought to be.
2.) The IMF has just discovered intelligence that changed their mind about the economy.

Oh it couldn't possibly be number two. That would be like someone taking an action based on the intelligence they had at the time.


You don't acutally read your links do you?

The IMF did not release a statement supporting your viewpoint that it was the US economy doing good things for the world. It didn't even comment at all on the little statement you are discussing. The whole text about the IMF in your article states:

A peaceful crowd of about 1,000 anti-globalization demonstrators marched through 15 blocks of downtown Washington on Saturday to protest the policies of the IMF and World Bank, which they say favor wealthy nations at the expense of the world’s poorest countries.

This year’s meetings were being held against the backdrop of a global economy that the IMF is forecasting will grow at a 4.6 percent clip this year and 4.4 percent next year, the fastest back-to-back growth years in a decade.

However, the IMF also cautioned that this bright prospect could be derailed if oil prices spike even higher or if the unstable security situation in the Middle East begins to weaken consumer and business confidence and rattle global financial markets.


And do you see oil prices dropping?

Me neither.

And I gave you the link that says that the IMF feels that if the US doesn;t get it's budget deficits in control that this will also have a negative impact on the future growth of the world economy.

So, it seems that the IMF already HAD intelligence, and has used it consistantly.

Something you might consider for yourself someday!

-Z-There is something to this idea that a person read the entire article.

The G-7 discussions were followed by a meeting Saturday of the steering committee of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and a special session between the G-7 and finance officials from the Mideast aimed at exploring ways to bolster economic growth in the troubled region.
This is the paragraph that immediately preceeded the ones that you quoted . Notice the use of the word and in describing who made up the steering commitee. From what that paragraph states there were three groups of people that formed the steering commitee and they were IMF, G-7, and finance officals from the Mideast.

Still not reading...

*sigh*

Here... let me bold the correct words for you:

The G-7 discussions were followed by a meeting Saturday of the steering committee of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and a special session between the G-7 and finance officials from the Mideast aimed at exploring ways to bolster economic growth in the troubled region.

The IMF Had nothing to do with that statement.

The fact that the G-7 had a chat with them afterwards is still not an indicator of agreement by the IMF with any statements made by that group.

-Z-

Woodward and ibn Sultan had a little tete a tete about this the other day on Larry King Live (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/lkl.00.html), and Bandar ibn Sultan admitted that it was in his government's best interests to lower the price of oil before the elections. You can see this for yourself without slinging accusations of "fairy tales" and the like.

Furthermore, as you yourself just acknowledged, the price of oil is an important indicator - so Prince Bandar's promise is quite relevant.You were the one that started in with the accusations. But that is behind us now. Of course, it is in the best interest of any administration to get the price of oil to drop just prior to an election. As Steph so eloquently stated to do that they would have to drop the prices months in advance to have this effect. There really isn't that many months to work with between now and the election. Most indicators show that the price of crude isn't coming down anytime soon. So this would be an indicator against the argument that gas prices will be used to sway the election.

In your other comment you mentioned was the price of oil being an indicator pointing to the world economy, and as I have stated before, it is. The thing is, the importance of that, was looked at as not enough of a risk, to world economy, to give a negative report.

Still not reading...

*sigh*

Here... let me bold the correct words for you:

The G-7 discussions were followed by a meeting Saturday of the steering committee of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and a special session between the G-7 and finance officials from the Mideast aimed at exploring ways to bolster economic growth in the troubled region.

The IMF Had nothing to do with that statement.

The fact that the G-7 had a chat with them afterwards is still not an indicator of agreement by the IMF with any statements made by that group.

-Z-Maybe I gave you too much credit by only making the word "and" bold. Given the form of the sentence and the noticable lack of punctuation, the words "steering commitee of" followed by the use of the word "and" with only the list of connected groups, described a meeting of three groups together.

The link you posted was all outdated material. The link I posted was current as of today. The term, I think of, to describe this is "superceeds". Just like when they make a law that superceeds all previous laws concerning the matter at hand.

The term, I think of, to describe this is "superceeds".

No, the term you think of to describe that is "supercedes".

The term, I think of, to describe this is "superceeds".

No, the term you think of to describe that is "supercedes".never was any good at spelling. Thanks. :D

Just about exactly what I expected out of the "we know better" crowd.

They claim that all the praise came from G-7, when it is clearly stated that on Saturday G-7 and the IMF met together, and agreed that the economy is headed upwards. Without looking back at the article I do believe that the IMF actually forcasted 4.6 to 4.8% economic growth.

Oh no it can't possibly be true that the G-7 and the IMF agree that President George W. Bush's economy is good for the world. Silly liberals try reading the entire article before shouting rediculous claims. :lol:

Try to keep your responses on topic. I do not like it when Liberals try to fight a losing battle and end up highjacking the thread to keep people from finding out the truth.

I'm seriously beginning to believe you have a fetish for slotting anyone left of the GOP into a wacky, fanatic liberal stereotype.

Just about exactly what I expected out of the "we know better" crowd.

They claim that all the praise came from G-7, when it is clearly stated that on Saturday G-7 and the IMF met together, and agreed that the economy is headed upwards. Without looking back at the article I do believe that the IMF actually forcasted 4.6 to 4.8% economic growth.

Oh no it can't possibly be true that the G-7 and the IMF agree that President George W. Bush's economy is good for the world. Silly liberals try reading the entire article before shouting rediculous claims. :lol:

Try to keep your responses on topic. I do not like it when Liberals try to fight a losing battle and end up highjacking the thread to keep people from finding out the truth.

I'm seriously beginning to believe you have a fetish for slotting anyone left of the GOP into a wacky, fanatic liberal stereotype.Nope you would be very wrong. There are liberals, democrats, independants, republicans, and conservative. These are the groups I look at. I know there are other political parties, with a wide variety of names, but I generally find that they can usually fit, pretty well, into one of these five groups. I don't believe (and I may be wrong on this) that I have used but one of those terms in this thread. That term being liberal. To me that is an extremist and is treated as such. If I was to given even a closer definition of myself I would put me into the republican group of thinkers. I do have strong right wing thoughts, but am able to see the good that can come out of being a democrat or even a liberal on a few issues.

Still not reading...

*sigh*

Here... let me bold the correct words for you:

The G-7 discussions were followed by a meeting Saturday of the steering committee of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and a special session between the G-7 and finance officials from the Mideast aimed at exploring ways to bolster economic growth in the troubled region.

The IMF Had nothing to do with that statement.

The fact that the G-7 had a chat with them afterwards is still not an indicator of agreement by the IMF with any statements made by that group.

-Z-Maybe I gave you too much credit by only making the word "and" bold. Given the form of the sentence and the noticable lack of punctuation, the words "steering commitee of" followed by the use of the word "and" with only the list of connected groups, described a meeting of three groups together.

The link you posted was all outdated material. The link I posted was current as of today. The term, I think of, to describe this is "superceeds". Just like when they make a law that superceeds all previous laws concerning the matter at hand.


*sigh*

OK.... clearly you need shorter sentances to grasp the temporal factor at play here indicated by the word "followed".

The G7 had a meeting.
From that meeting a nice rosy statement was made.
This meeting was followed by a special session meeting with the IMF and people from the mideast related only to issues of that region.

Nowhere does it state that the IMF concurred with the rosy statement put out by the G7.

Nowhere does it even imply that the IMF concurred with the rosy statement.

Ony YOU have drawn that connection from this article.

MEanwhile, the statements of the IMF relating to the current irresponsible deficit spending by this administration causing a drag on world economic growth is still their most recent opinion on US fiscal policy. It is in no way outdated as you claim unless you can point to a more recent statement attributable to them indicating otherwise.

And this ain't it.

Now, I'm not sure I can dumb this down any more for you. But if you need me too I'll try and figure out a way to explain it via sock puppets or something better suited to your grasp of the material.

-Z-

How on earth can the economy be improving?

Ive been out of work for months now, and there isnt much of anything out there.
The national unemployment rate is at an all time high....

the price of gas is at an all time high....

The cost of living is the same....

I see no improvements anywhere.....

How on earth can the economy be improving?

Ive been out of work for months now, and there isnt much of anything out there.
The national unemployment rate is at an all time high....

the price of gas is at an all time high....

The cost of living is the same....

I see no improvements anywhere.....

An all time high for the unemployment rate? I guess we're living in the Depression again. Maybe you should move out west where I hear they're starting some sharecropping jobs.

In real dollars, the all time gas high was $2.81 for regular unleaded in 1981.

How on earth can the economy be improving?

Ive been out of work for months now, and there isnt much of anything out there.
The national unemployment rate is at an all time high....

the price of gas is at an all time high....

The cost of living is the same....

I see no improvements anywhere.....

An all time high for the unemployment rate? I guess we're living in the Depression again. Maybe you should move out west where I hear they're starting some sharecropping jobs.

In real dollars, the all time gas high was $2.81 for regular unleaded in 1981.

Correction...

An all time high since the great Depression....

Nevertheless.....the statement is true.

*sigh*

OK.... clearly you need shorter sentances to grasp the temporal factor at play here indicated by the word "followed". Lets see if you have the mental capacity to grasp this idea (the intelligence statement is in direct response to the one you made).
The G-7 had a meeting that started on Friday and ended on Saturday. Then a special session was called to meet with IMF.
The IMF made the statement that global economy is looking to raise at a rate of 4.6% this year and 4.4% next year.
The term global economy does not mean the entire world except for the United States of America. Thus America benifits right along with the rest of the world.
G-7 attributes this global upswing in economy directly to the Bush Administration. Thus America benifits right along with the rest of the world.
The only two things that were mentioned as being possible stumbling blocks to this upswing is a spike in oil prices or the raising of interest rates.
The article states that the Bush administrations ecnomic plan is good for the entire world's economy.
There is an agreement by both the G-7 and IMF that the world economy is looking very good, only stating what is minor concerns.
The minor concerns were looked at as only possibly slowing down the growth, or the article would have stated the worlds economy is on the way down the toliet.
One more time in clear terms:
G-7 praises George W. Bush's economic plan as being the main reason for the bright outlook on the world's economy.
IMF agrees that the outlook on the world's economy is bright. This group even gives statisic that show more growth predicted than in over a decade.
Summary, I have shown an article dated April 24, 2004, that states the world economy is on a major upswing. Better economic improvement than in any time in the past decade. At least, one group has accredited the economic plan of George W. Bush for this upswing. This is good news for the entire world.
Rebuking testamony will only be accepted if quotes from the participating parties are shown that counter these claims and is more current than example given.
Thank you fully for dumbing up your response. The very practice of attacking the person is banned on this site by the way. You were not attacking the idea when that comment was made. So if you knock it off so will I.

arent you a "man of God"?

You should know better.

Turn the other cheek and all that.....

I'm not stating in this case but asking since a few folk here purport to know a bit about the stability of the economy at this point ...
Maybe it was Paul Harvey as of Friday, but i heard something about the tax cut having been effectively negated by our current status economically. Very recent. As well, how many times did the yen's value drop in order to sustain the integrity of the dollar this year?
Just asking, i suppose i can look it up m'self like i have everything else .... but this being a forum, it'd be cool if someone else knew 'round here.

They claim that all the praise came from G-7, when it is clearly stated that on Saturday G-7 and the IMF met together, and agreed that the economy is headed upwards. Without looking back at the article I do believe that the IMF actually forcasted 4.6 to 4.8% economic growth.
"While there had been criticism of the threat that America’s huge budget and trade deficits pose to the global economy by pushing interest rates higher, Snow said that these imbalances did not come up in the G-7 discussions, which began Friday night and concluded Saturday."

The fact that they were not discussed, doesn't mean that they don't pose a huge problem.


Oh no it can't possibly be true that the G-7 and the IMF agree that President George W. Bush's economy is good for the world. Silly liberals try reading the entire article before shouting rediculous claims. :lol:
Ummm the G 7 and the IMF did not agree "that President George W. Bush's economy is good for the world." That is NOT stated anywhere in that article. Perhaps you should re-read it?

Try to keep your responses on topic. I do not like it when Liberals try to fight a losing battle and end up highjacking the thread to keep people from finding out the truth.
Well you see now, most liberals are seeking the "truth" and are only finding lies and it is a major cause for concern.

I hate to disillusion you Jay, but the Bush economy is not even good for the US to date according to this site:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Did you know that the Bush administration is the first in over 70 years with a decline in private sector jobs?

Who was the last President (also a Republican) that had that dubious honour? None other than Herbert Hoover and we know what happened while he was in office. The stock market crashed.

The 5 most successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Democrats.

F.D. Roosevelt (annual growth rate 4.8%)
Lyndon Johnson (annual growth rate 3.6%)
Jimmy Carter (annual growth rate 3.3%)
Harry Truman (annual growth rate 2.7%)
Bill Clinton (annual growth rate 2.6%)

The 4 least successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Republicans:

George W. Bush (annual growth rate -0.7%)
George H. W. Bush (annual growth rate 0.4%)

Hmmm 2 Bushes in a row.

Dwight Eisenhower (annual growth rate 0.5%)
Gerald Ford (annual growth rate 0.9%)

Why would Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush, and/or the Republican party?

whee! a new neo-con to inform! gee, seems like he's desperately filbustering to hold any ground in this discussion. too bad it's painfully obvious he's way out of his league.

if only he had quality sources and facts behind him... :lol:

Still not reading...

*sigh*

Here... let me bold the correct words for you:

The G-7 discussions were followed by a meeting Saturday of the steering committee of the 184-nation International Monetary Fund and a special session between the G-7 and finance officials from the Mideast aimed at exploring ways to bolster economic growth in the troubled region.

The IMF Had nothing to do with that statement.

The fact that the G-7 had a chat with them afterwards is still not an indicator of agreement by the IMF with any statements made by that group.

-Z-Maybe I gave you too much credit by only making the word "and" bold. Given the form of the sentence and the noticable lack of punctuation, the words "steering commitee of" followed by the use of the word "and" with only the list of connected groups, described a meeting of three groups together.

The link you posted was all outdated material. The link I posted was current as of today. The term, I think of, to describe this is "superceeds". Just like when they make a law that superceeds all previous laws concerning the matter at hand.
Ummm the date of the link provided by Zep was Thursday April 15, and although your link is a week later, the US's economic problems with the deficit spending didn't just vanish. This is a long term problem, and no your link doesn't supersede squat. Here is a quote:

"The IMF released a new analysis that predicted if nothing is done to get control of the soaring U.S. deficits, it would shave global economic output by 4.2 percent by 2020 and reduce U.S. economic growth by 3.7 percent during the same period.

IMF economists said much of the adverse impact would occur because of increased borrowing demands in the United States to finance the budget deficit. This would drive up U.S. interest rates and interest rates in other countries as the global supply of available capital is reduced, they said.

"The rest of the world is affected seriously by the U.S. fiscal deficit," IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan told reporters in a briefing on the new report.

The article is talking about the impacts that US deficit spending will have 14 years from now. Do the math?

False statements by Jay in relation to the following article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/


"G-7 attributes this global upswing in economy directly to the Bush Administration."
FALSE


"The article states that the Bush administrations ecnomic plan is good for the entire world's economy."
FALSE


"G-7 praises George W. Bush's economic plan as being the main reason for the bright outlook on the world's economy."
FALSE


"At least, one group has accredited the economic plan of George W. Bush for this upswing."
FALSE

Now from the article:

"Despite worries about high oil prices and Middle East unrest, the world’s major industrial countries expressed optimism about the global economy on Saturday, contending the world was poised for strong growth this year and next."

Optimism doesn't always translate to fact.

"U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who led the discussions along with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, said there was a feeling of shared optimism in the group, reflecting a belief that strong growth in the United States, powered by President Bush’s tax cuts, was helping to boost the global economy."
John Snow SAID "there was a feeling of shared optimism" (there is that word again).........."reflecting a belief" (again not based on facts, more a fuzzy feel good phrase)-------"powered by President Bush’s tax cuts, was helping to boost the global economy." (now how can this be, since the US doesn't even have any growth since the implimentation of the tax cuts?)

The kicker that tends to refute the rosey picture painted above:

"While there had been criticism of the threat that America’s huge budget and trade deficits pose to the global economy by pushing interest rates higher, Snow said that these imbalances did not come up in the G-7 discussions, which began Friday night and concluded Saturday.

The fact that the issue was not discussed, does not make the problem go away.

The whole basis for "optimism" is directly related to "forecasts", which would be impacted by energy prices and continued Middle East unrest.

Gee CH, I dropped by to see how Jay responded... discovered a whole lot more incorrect statements from him... and you had to cut in and ruin my fun regarding pointing out his clear lack of basic reading and comprehension skills....

Ahhh, that's OK. As long as somebody tries to educate the little rascal!

:lol:

'tis amazing the leaps in logical association that some people can make isn't it?

If this doesn't work, I think we WILL have to resort to sock puppets...

http://www.edthesock.com/pix/fromage_more.gif

Perhaps he'll listen to Ed since he clearly won't listen to reason.... or facts!

You were the one that started in with the accusations. But that is behind us now. Of course, it is in the best interest of any administration to get the price of oil to drop just prior to an election.
Let's not play at word games here. Stating a fact (that George Bush was relying upon his Saudi friends to lower the price of oil on a global scale to ensure that the US economy would be strong in time for the election) that is not only a part of the public record (Woodward's book) but has been confirmed by the Saudi government's agent here in the US is not an accusation. It only happens that this action, which is amply documented now, is damaging to Bush's reputation. Only someone who is afraid of the truth would resort to labeling the it "bush-bashing," "a fairy tale," and now finally "an accusation." That's really quite low.

You're the one who has twisted your interpretation of this MSNBC article until it screams out in pain, in the dim hope of finding a "death blow" to Bush's detractors, and now that you've seen the truth isn't exactly what you had been hoping for, you're back to the old, tired slurs of "unsubstantiated accusations and fairy tales" from the "liberal media elite." If I were you, I'd give up on trying to marshall facts and logic in support of George W. Bush, as it can't be done. His career as president defies both.

How on earth can the economy be improving?

Ive been out of work for months now, and there isnt much of anything out there.
The national unemployment rate is at an all time high....

the price of gas is at an all time high....

The cost of living is the same....

I see no improvements anywhere.....

An all time high for the unemployment rate? I guess we're living in the Depression again. Maybe you should move out west where I hear they're starting some sharecropping jobs.

In real dollars, the all time gas high was $2.81 for regular unleaded in 1981.

Correction...

An all time high since the great Depression....

Nevertheless.....the statement is true.

It's still not true. Unemployment from 1958-59, 1960-1962, 1971-1972, 1974-1988, and 1990-1994 was at a higher level than it is today.

How on earth can the economy be improving?

Ive been out of work for months now, and there isnt much of anything out there.
The national unemployment rate is at an all time high....

the price of gas is at an all time high....

The cost of living is the same....

I see no improvements anywhere.....

An all time high for the unemployment rate? I guess we're living in the Depression again. Maybe you should move out west where I hear they're starting some sharecropping jobs.

In real dollars, the all time gas high was $2.81 for regular unleaded in 1981.

Correction...

An all time high since the great Depression....

Nevertheless.....the statement is true.

It's still not true. Unemployment from 1958-59, 1960-1962, 1971-1972, 1974-1988, and 1990-1994 was at a higher level than it is today.
While the unemployment numbers are not too great, I found the following to represent a better picture:

Bush's prediction that his tax cuts would create 1 million new jobs hasn't panned out. The slow economy resulted in a net loss of 2.3 million jobs under his administration.

Sunday, Apr 25, 2004

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/8043110.htm?1c

arent you a "man of God"?

You should know better.

Turn the other cheek and all that.....Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

I hate to disillusion you Jay, but the Bush economy is not even good for the US to date according to this site:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Did you know that the Bush administration is the first in over 70 years with a decline in private sector jobs?

Who was the last President (also a Republican) that had that dubious honour? None other than Herbert Hoover and we know what happened while he was in office. The stock market crashed.

The 5 most successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Democrats.

F.D. Roosevelt (annual growth rate 4.8%)
Lyndon Johnson (annual growth rate 3.6%)
Jimmy Carter (annual growth rate 3.3%)
Harry Truman (annual growth rate 2.7%)
Bill Clinton (annual growth rate 2.6%)

The 4 least successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Republicans:

George W. Bush (annual growth rate -0.7%)
George H. W. Bush (annual growth rate 0.4%)

Hmmm 2 Bushes in a row.

Dwight Eisenhower (annual growth rate 0.5%)
Gerald Ford (annual growth rate 0.9%)

Why would Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush, and/or the Republican party?Notice, if you will, the name of the party associated with this website. Notice also that I asked to more current links to show a retraction or error within the current site that I gave the link to. Any president in history can have a chart made up to make him look bad. When you limit a chart to one or two topics it becomes very easy. You did ask one good question in your post. Why would the Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush and/or the Republican party? The very simple answer is because of the upward swing of economic growth that is reported in the article that I posted. The outlook for the US is very good. The outlook for the world is very good. While George W. Bush is given the credit for this in at least one part of the article, I fail to see any indicator that the US or world economy would be better if Bush lost the election, nope just checked again that isn't mentioned anywhere in that article.

False statements by Jay in relation to the following article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4823791/


"G-7 attributes this global upswing in economy directly to the Bush Administration." Stated by Snow, in the first direct quote given in the article. Not quoted by me but paraphrased.
FALSE


"The article states that the Bush administrations ecnomic plan is good for the entire world's economy."See again the first thing the article quotes Snow as saying
FALSE


"G-7 praises George W. Bush's economic plan as being the main reason for the bright outlook on the world's economy."See again the first thing the article quotes Snow as saying.
FALSE


"At least, one group has accredited the economic plan of George W. Bush for this upswing."G-7 Shared optomism. Another thing Snow was quoted as saying.
FALSE

Now from the article:

"Despite worries about high oil prices and Middle East unrest, the world’s major industrial countries expressed optimism about the global economy on Saturday, contending the world was poised for strong growth this year and next."

Optimism doesn't always translate to fact.

"U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who led the discussions along with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, said there was a feeling of shared optimism in the group, reflecting a belief that strong growth in the United States, powered by President Bush’s tax cuts, was helping to boost the global economy."
John Snow SAID "there was a feeling of shared optimism" (there is that word again).........."reflecting a belief" (again not based on facts, more a fuzzy feel good phrase)-------"powered by President Bush’s tax cuts, was helping to boost the global economy." (now how can this be, since the US doesn't even have any growth since the implimentation of the tax cuts?)

The kicker that tends to refute the rosey picture painted above:

"While there had been criticism of the threat that America’s huge budget and trade deficits pose to the global economy by pushing interest rates higher, Snow said that these imbalances did not come up in the G-7 discussions, which began Friday night and concluded Saturday.

The fact that the issue was not discussed, does not make the problem go away.

The whole basis for "optimism" is directly related to "forecasts", which would be impacted by energy prices and continued Middle East unrest.How can a person have optimism that is not related to a forecast? Optimism is only related to the outlook for future events. The real problem here seems to be the relating of the Bush Administration to an optimistic outlook for the economy. Wonder why so many are threatened by that? Could it possibly have anything to do with a report that is not bashing Bush and even going so far as to give him some praise? Such a scary thought for the liberal thinkers to have to grasp.

arent you a "man of God"?

You should know better.

Turn the other cheek and all that.....Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

So its perfectly alright for you to engae in mudslinging as well...becuase all will be forgiven?

I think not.

You should know better.

Gee CH, I dropped by to see how Jay responded... discovered a whole lot more incorrect statements from him... and you had to cut in and ruin my fun regarding pointing out his clear lack of basic reading and comprehension skills....

Ahhh, that's OK. As long as somebody tries to educate the little rascal!

:lol:

'tis amazing the leaps in logical association that some people can make isn't it?

If this doesn't work, I think we WILL have to resort to sock puppets...

http://www.edthesock.com/pix/fromage_more.gif

Perhaps he'll listen to Ed since he clearly won't listen to reason.... or facts!See previous comment dealing with attacking the person as opposed to attacking the idea. That advice has been given often, by the people in power, in this game. Something I would think you should know well.

who cares about the world? The US needs to think about itself and only itself, screw the world.

who cares about the world? The US needs to think about itself and only itself, screw the world.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of the world does affect the US. If the rest of the world is in a major depression, then we have no one to sell our stuff to and make money.

who cares about the world? The US needs to think about itself and only itself, screw the world.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of the world does affect the US. If the rest of the world is in a major depression, then we have no one to sell our stuff to and make money.it was called sarcasm...

who cares about the world? The US needs to think about itself and only itself, screw the world.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of the world does affect the US. If the rest of the world is in a major depression, then we have no one to sell our stuff to and make money.it was called sarcasm...

Ah, so that's what that swooshing sound over my head was....

You were the one that started in with the accusations. But that is behind us now. Of course, it is in the best interest of any administration to get the price of oil to drop just prior to an election.
Let's not play at word games here. Stating a fact (that George Bush was relying upon his Saudi friends to lower the price of oil on a global scale to ensure that the US economy would be strong in time for the election) that is not only a part of the public record (Woodward's book) but has been confirmed by the Saudi government's agent here in the US is not an accusation. It only happens that this action, which is amply documented now, is damaging to Bush's reputation. Only someone who is afraid of the truth would resort to labeling the it "bush-bashing," "a fairy tale," and now finally "an accusation." That's really quite low.

You're the one who has twisted your interpretation of this MSNBC article until it screams out in pain, in the dim hope of finding a "death blow" to Bush's detractors, and now that you've seen the truth isn't exactly what you had been hoping for, you're back to the old, tired slurs of "unsubstantiated accusations and fairy tales" from the "liberal media elite." If I were you, I'd give up on trying to marshall facts and logic in support of George W. Bush, as it can't be done. His career as president defies both.Where is the documentation to back up Woodward claims? Where is the documentation to back up this, unnamed, Saudi agent? Now we have truely seen unprovable "facts" being given. If the so called "facts that Woodward has stated were true, the liberals in Washington would have already been yelling for an investigation. But they couldn't very well claim that Woodward story is suddenly true after all the claims they made of lies by the same man in his previous books.

whee! a new neo-con to inform! gee, seems like he's desperately filbustering to hold any ground in this discussion. too bad it's painfully obvious he's way out of his league.

if only he had quality sources and facts behind him... :lol:Not new by a long shot. And if this is what you call informing someone, I will gladly stay uninformed. Out of league? I am an equal to any, superior to none.

How on earth can the economy be improving?

Ive been out of work for months now, and there isnt much of anything out there.
The national unemployment rate is at an all time high....

the price of gas is at an all time high....

The cost of living is the same....

I see no improvements anywhere.....

An all time high for the unemployment rate? I guess we're living in the Depression again. Maybe you should move out west where I hear they're starting some sharecropping jobs.

In real dollars, the all time gas high was $2.81 for regular unleaded in 1981.

Correction...

An all time high since the great Depression....

Nevertheless.....the statement is true.

It's still not true. Unemployment from 1958-59, 1960-1962, 1971-1972, 1974-1988, and 1990-1994 was at a higher level than it is today.Careful there. You wouldn't want to be accused of something as terrible as stating the truth now would you? :lol:

It's still not true. Unemployment from 1958-59, 1960-1962, 1971-1972, 1974-1988, and 1990-1994 was at a higher level than it is today.

You got any info to back that statement up?

arent you a "man of God"?

You should know better.

Turn the other cheek and all that.....Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

So its perfectly alright for you to engae in mudslinging as well...becuase all will be forgiven?

I think not.

You should know better.You are perfectly correct on this point. I thank you for the admonishment where it was clearly deserved. My statement was an error, on my part. And it is my belief that since I have acknowledged my sin, and I will put the asking for forgiveness from God in writing here, that my sin will be forgiven. That is the way my faith works.

who cares about the world? The US needs to think about itself and only itself, screw the world.Hey Ray, I know you meant this sarcastically but it is the next level of argument I am expecting. :lol:

arent you a "man of God"?

You should know better.

Turn the other cheek and all that.....Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

So its perfectly alright for you to engae in mudslinging as well...becuase all will be forgiven?

I think not.

You should know better.You are perfectly correct on this point. I thank you for the admonishment where it was clearly deserved. My statement was an error, on my part. And it is my belief that since I have acknowledged my sin, and I will put the asking for forgiveness from God in writing here, that my sin will be forgiven. That is the way my faith works.

...and even heathens may teach the enlightened.

arent you a "man of God"?

You should know better.

Turn the other cheek and all that.....Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

So its perfectly alright for you to engae in mudslinging as well...becuase all will be forgiven?

I think not.

You should know better.You are perfectly correct on this point. I thank you for the admonishment where it was clearly deserved. My statement was an error, on my part. And it is my belief that since I have acknowledged my sin, and I will put the asking for forgiveness from God in writing here, that my sin will be forgiven. That is the way my faith works.

...and even heathens may teach the enlightened.Shows how mysteriously He works.
include by edit: I am also no more enlightended than anyone else.

I hate to disillusion you Jay, but the Bush economy is not even good for the US to date according to this site:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Did you know that the Bush administration is the first in over 70 years with a decline in private sector jobs?

Who was the last President (also a Republican) that had that dubious honour? None other than Herbert Hoover and we know what happened while he was in office. The stock market crashed.

The 5 most successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Democrats.

F.D. Roosevelt (annual growth rate 4.8%)
Lyndon Johnson (annual growth rate 3.6%)
Jimmy Carter (annual growth rate 3.3%)
Harry Truman (annual growth rate 2.7%)
Bill Clinton (annual growth rate 2.6%)

The 4 least successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Republicans:

George W. Bush (annual growth rate -0.7%)
George H. W. Bush (annual growth rate 0.4%)

Hmmm 2 Bushes in a row.

Dwight Eisenhower (annual growth rate 0.5%)
Gerald Ford (annual growth rate 0.9%)

Why would Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush, and/or the Republican party?

Notice, if you will, the name of the party associated with this website. Notice also that I asked to more current links to show a retraction or error within the current site that I gave the link to.
Two important things to note here Jay. While the link might have the word "democrat" in it, the chart is based on statistics from the US Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So it is based on FACT.

Any president in history can have a chart made up to make him look bad.
The FACT remains that George W. Bush is only the 2nd President in the last 70 years to have a NET job loss during his term in office, the other was Herbert Hoover (another Republican) back in the early 1930's.

When you limit a chart to one or two topics it becomes very easy.
The topics were related to Bush's record on job creation, which is a NET loss of 2.6 Million jobs LOST since coming to office.

Also, the unemployment rate has gone up from 4.2 (January 2001) to 5.7 (April 2004). Equally as bleak is the FACT that the number of people unemployed more than 26 weeks has risen from 680,000 (Jan. 2001) to 1,990,000 (April 2004).

There is much, much more data there than just a couple of topics. The FACT is that despite expensive tax cuts, the Bush administration has lost 2.6 Million jobs even though they had predicted that they would create millions more new jobs.

You did ask one good question in your post.
Why would the Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush and/or the Republican party?
Yes I do believe it is a very good question too.

And you can read that article over and over and nowhere does it suggest that the Bush administration is doing a good job with the US economy. Why? The simple FACT that the forecast for the US economy throughout Bush's term in office predicted GROWTH, and it has resulted in DECLINE.

Two important things to note here Jay. While the link might have the word "democrat" in it, the chart is based on statistics from the US Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So it is based on FACT.The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not a reliable enough source. I should know, I was attempting to use their stats to back up a claim I made about gay marriage, a few months back, and Steph herself wouldn't take them. Deleted my nation. So I would say that is not a usuable form of proof here.

Any president in history can have a chart made up to make him look bad.
The FACT remains that George W. Bush is only the 2nd President in the last 70 years to have a NET job loss during his term in office, the other was Herbert Hoover (another Republican) back in the early 1930's.You may want to make a note that President George W. Bush's term in office is not finished. Just how many two term presidents have been able to turn, what at first seemed to be a bad economy into what is now seen as one of the best?

The topics were related to Bush's record on job creation, which is a NET loss of 2.6 Million jobs LOST since coming to office. Note also that his term is still not over. These little things you post have nothing to do with the outlook on world economy that this whole thread is about. The most current reported outlook is optimistic. That speaks volumns

Also, the unemployment rate has gone up from 4.2 (January 2001) to 5.7 (April 2004). Equally as bleak is the FACT that the number of people unemployed more than 26 weeks has risen from 680,000 (Jan. 2001) to 1,990,000 (April 2004). You want to look at the unemployment rate, fine which way was it headed at the end of Clinton's term in office. If George W. Bush has any failure, it is his lack of being able to overcome an unemployment trend started by the previous Administration.

There is much, much more data there than just a couple of topics. The FACT is that despite expensive tax cuts, the Bush administration has lost 2.6 Million jobs even though they had predicted that they would create millions more new jobs. I guess you missed the part that this is not the Bush Administration making these predictions. This is the trusted IMF.


You did ask one good question in your post.
Why would the Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush and/or the Republican party?
Yes I do believe it is a very good question too.

And you can read that article over and over and nowhere does it suggest that the Bush administration is doing a good job with the US economy. Why? The simple FACT that the forecast for the US economy throughout Bush's term in office predicted GROWTH, and it has resulted in DECLINE.Missed the part where they quoted Mr. Snow then. This is a prediction of the World economy. Last time I checked the US was still a part of the entire world.

It's still not true. Unemployment from 1958-59, 1960-1962, 1971-1972, 1974-1988, and 1990-1994 was at a higher level than it is today.

You got any info to back that statement up?

Of course I do. (http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/UNRATE.htm)

Two important things to note here Jay. While the link might have the word "democrat" in it, the chart is based on statistics from the US Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So it is based on FACT.The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not a reliable enough source. I should know, I was attempting to use their stats to back up a claim I made about gay marriage, a few months back, and Steph herself wouldn't take them. Deleted my nation. So I would say that is not a usuable form of proof here.

Any president in history can have a chart made up to make him look bad.
The FACT remains that George W. Bush is only the 2nd President in the last 70 years to have a NET job loss during his term in office, the other was Herbert Hoover (another Republican) back in the early 1930's.You may want to make a note that President George W. Bush's term in office is not finished. Just how many two term presidents have been able to turn, what at first seemed to be a bad economy into what is now seen as one of the best?

The topics were related to Bush's record on job creation, which is a NET loss of 2.6 Million jobs LOST since coming to office. Note also that his term is still not over. These little things you post have nothing to do with the outlook on world economy that this whole thread is about. The most current reported outlook is optimistic. That speaks volumns

Also, the unemployment rate has gone up from 4.2 (January 2001) to 5.7 (April 2004). Equally as bleak is the FACT that the number of people unemployed more than 26 weeks has risen from 680,000 (Jan. 2001) to 1,990,000 (April 2004). You want to look at the unemployment rate, fine which way was it headed at the end of Clinton's term in office. If George W. Bush has any failure, it is his lack of being able to overcome an unemployment trend started by the previous Administration.

There is much, much more data there than just a couple of topics. The FACT is that despite expensive tax cuts, the Bush administration has lost 2.6 Million jobs even though they had predicted that they would create millions more new jobs. I guess you missed the part that this is not the Bush Administration making these predictions. This is the trusted IMF.


You did ask one good question in your post.
Why would the Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush and/or the Republican party?
Yes I do believe it is a very good question too.

And you can read that article over and over and nowhere does it suggest that the Bush administration is doing a good job with the US economy. Why? The simple FACT that the forecast for the US economy throughout Bush's term in office predicted GROWTH, and it has resulted in DECLINE.Missed the part where they quoted Mr. Snow then. This is a prediction of the World economy. Last time I checked the US was still a part of the entire world.

Oh, look what I found, a report from this (Monday) morning. Actually there are two links to look at. The first is looking at the validity of Bob Woodwards claim that the Saudis had an agreement, of some kind, with President George W. Bush, to lower oil prices in time for the US economy to be strong by the November elections. You may want to notice a comment in there that says to do this it would have already had to start. Oil prices are up today, so it would seem that the Saudi government is actually working on not taking any measures of this nature. The Saudi government is even asking for a reduction of oil production to keep the prices at this high level. This you will find at this link:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4778355/

Now this next one I found quite amusing. It states that John Kerry is saying that this is an outrage if it is true. I do believe Mr. Kerry might want to hire someone to read the news for him.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/

The Saudi government releases their statement that there is no such deal and that they intentionally stay out of the election process of other nations. Kerry seems to chose to make statements based on the words of a fiction writer over the statement of the government involved. I do believe this amounts to propagating false information. Nice platform for the Democratic presidential contender to take.

You want to look at the unemployment rate, fine which way was it headed at the end of Clinton's term in office. If George W. Bush has any failure, it is his lack of being able to overcome an unemployment trend started by the previous Administration.

Well, the unemployment rates were actually holding stable at around 3.9% the last few months of Clinton's second term. In fact, the unemployment rate was going down his whole last year in office.

Bush is going to have to do a lot of work to have actually created jobs during his presidency.

Two important things to note here Jay. While the link might have the word "democrat" in it, the chart is based on statistics from the US Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So it is based on FACT.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf



The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not a reliable enough source. I should know, I was attempting to use their stats to back up a claim I made about gay marriage, a few months back, and Steph herself wouldn't take them. Deleted my nation. So I would say that is not a usuable form of proof here.
Say what? Firstly what has the Bureau of Labor Statistics got to do with gay marriages and secondly the Bureau IS the official place to get stats about unemployment???

Any president in history can have a chart made up to make him look bad.
The FACT remains that George W. Bush is only the 2nd President in the last 70 years to have a NET job loss during his term in office, the other was Herbert Hoover (another Republican) back in the early 1930's.

You may want to make a note that President George W. Bush's term in office is not finished. Just how many two term presidents have been able to turn, what at first seemed to be a bad economy into what is now seen as one of the best?
Sounds like a fair enough question. Why don't you research your assumption and get back to me with facts rather than speculation?

The facts I have right now that so far his administration is Minus 2.6 Million jobs since he started, never mind the fact that they predicted that tax cuts were going to create millions of new jobs. Even if Bush did get another 4 more years, it would be very difficult to gain back those lost jobs AND keep up with the number of new jobs required per month (125,000) to keep pace with the natural labor force growth.

The topics were related to Bush's record on job creation, which is a NET loss of 2.6 Million jobs LOST since coming to office.

Note also that his term is still not over.

These little things you post have nothing to do with the outlook on world economy that this whole thread is about.
WOW I can't believe that you would make this statement. If the US economy remains weak, that will affect the world economy.

The US has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into tax cuts and the expected jobs that was supposed to create has NOT materialized. That lost revenue plus the US lost jobs = disaster, especially considering that the cost of borrowing is about as low as it can go. How many jobs will be lost when the interest rates start to go up again in the near future?

The most current reported outlook is optimistic. That speaks volumns
It is great to have optimism. Unfortunately it has not panned out too well in the past 3.5 years of Bushanomics.

Also, the unemployment rate has gone up from 4.2 (January 2001) to 5.7 (April 2004). Equally as bleak is the FACT that the number of people unemployed more than 26 weeks has risen from 680,000 (Jan. 2001) to 1,990,000 (April 2004).

You want to look at the unemployment rate, fine which way was it headed at the end of Clinton's term in office. If George W. Bush has any failure, it is his lack of being able to overcome an unemployment trend started by the previous Administration.
Sorry Jay, you can't blame that on Clinton. Nice try though. When Clinton took over from Poppa Bush Sr., the unemployment rate was 7.3% (1993-01-01). After 4 years of Clinton, the unemployment rate was 5.3% (1997-01-01), and when Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 3.9%.

BTW when Poppa Bush took over from Reagan, the unemployment rate was 5.4% (1989-01-01)

You really should do more research before blindly blaming Democrats.

It appears that any government led by Bush, whether it be George H. W. or George W., are prone to very little job creation (George H.W.) or zero job creation (George W.) and higher levels of unemployment. I guess there is something to that old addage, "like father, like son"?

There is much, much more data there than just a couple of topics. The FACT is that despite expensive tax cuts, the Bush administration has lost 2.6 Million jobs even though they had predicted that they would create millions more new jobs.

I guess you missed the part that this is not the Bush Administration making these predictions. This is the trusted IMF.
It is very difficult to base a 2 year forecast on a one month turnaround on the US economy. The word they use is "optimistic". What would change this "optimism" into pessimism? Increased oil prices, unrest in the Middle East, increased interest rates, and if the US economy continues to falter.

That's not, in fact, what the article says, Jay W.

When confronted about the deal with the Bushes, to which Prince Bandar ibn Sultan admitted on Larry King Live, the Saudis said that they would not interfere in the elections (that's big of them) and that they would continue to be reliable suppliers of oil (as opposed to... maple syrup)? This was on Monday, in response to the Woodward's book and Prince Bandar's admission. This is what we call a "non-denial" - a favored tactic of people who have something to hide but don't want to be caught in a lie.

Furthermore, the Saudis are not "asking" for a production cut now. They agitated for it at the last meeting of OPEC, which happened a month ago. The article also helpfully points out that, as a result of low levels of production worldwide, the Saudis now have more control over the price of oil than ever.

In the same article, Scott McClellan confirmed that Prince Bandar (the mysterious "unnamed" agent to whom you referred before) committed to keeping oil prices low, in the same range quoted by Woodward, and boosting the American economy.

Clearly there's a deal. Woodward fingered it, Prince Bandar admitted to it, and the WH Press Sec'y confirmed it. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Jay, the point isn't the forecasts per se.

The point is your attempts to

a) credit these forecasts unduly to the Bush Administration fiscal policies

and

b) state that this is a commonly held belief amongst the major financial steering organizations of the world.


You have provided no basis to make either of those claims, and a number of us have pointed that out to you. We have provided documentation supporting our opinion regarding the viewpoint of the groups that you dismiss out of hand without backing your side up.

With luck, the world will meet the forecasts. But while you (correctly) point out that world economic growth is not exclusionary to the US, also bear in mind that the flipside is true too. US fiscal policy does not exist in a vacuum that dictates the wealth of the world.



Indeed, the world bank made special note of the soaring economies of China and India more than anything Bush has been up to. (http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=565&fArticleId=415108)

And other analysts noted some issues clearly missing from the communique (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040426/bs_afp/g7_040426082428)

Now if you read a news source other than the Yankee rah-rah club, you will note that this optimism was also predicated on items like countries balancing their budgets (http://www.canada.com/windsor/story.asp?id=E79C9A5A-F543-499E-9270-55D78B0790D6) which the Bush administration cannot be said to be doing all that well. If that is to be one of the causes, then frankly the Canadian government is the only one of the group that can be said to be doing the things needed to meet this rosy prediction. So far, where are the budget cuts going through congress that will meet that criteria? All I've seen is spend, spend, spend... Indeed, it seems that the US fiscal disorder regarding balooning deficits WAS on the menu as all of the finance ministers wanted to discuss this matter (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/24/world/g7_finance040424)

Does that speak to it being a declaration of support for Bushonomics?

I think not....

I could equally argue that what they are saying is the the world has been good to Bush's economy!

Now, you point to the comments of Mr. Snow and go :"See - he said that! Ergo his optimistic prediction must be true, and he would not possibly have spun the reasons for a domestic audience!" Really? clearly his comments skipped over some details on the discussed subjects and he put the political spin on it to imply "We as a group are optimistic, therefore Bushonomics = good"

And you swallow that line and we nod our heads at you and go.. "Okkkkaaayyyyyyyyyyy".

He is part of the financial steering team of the current Administration. One of those people who helps develop predictions for changes in policy. One of those people GW used before he stated unequivocally that his tax cuts etc. would NOT lead to a return to deficits even if the economy softened. So feel free to consider the track record of the Bush Finance team's predictions when you read current missives by one of it's members.... Greenspan, at least, spoke far more cautiously about tax cut implications at the time.


Oh, and just because it is a release from a noted group such as the G-7 does not mean that they have no personal stake in the statements released you know. These are, after all, politicians or persons appointed by thier country's ruling parties. Because you seem to assume that this bunch of political appointees will only put out a critically considered opinion.

Bear in mind that accentuating the positives and downplaying negatives is in their best interest as a) they all want to keep their jobs, which requires b) their governments being re-elected to power and then note that c) five of the seven are in run-ups to their next elections.

A little mutual back-scratching and cheerleading might just be the order of the day.

The members:
Canada - election within the next year, date still not set,
France - Elections this september,
Germany - not until '07,
Japan - elections this july,
Italy - not until '06,
the United Kingdom - Elections within the next year or so.
the United States - Election this November.

You think that group is going to put out a gloomy prediction to it's citizens?

Not a chance!

And just because those few of Europe's finance ministers included in this group that want to sell a picture of a rosy future to their electorates doesn't mean that the rest of Europe is buying it (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=avJ.sEamtxW0&refer=uk)


So, in case you missed the point we've being trying to tell you:

The statement is a nice prediction with lots of caveats given by people who want to be re-elected by their constituents who are worried about economic growth. The spin you put on it is, however, not very well supported outside the group beyond some agreement on statistical predictions for world growth. It certainly is not well supported by other notable bodies regarding any causative basis for future world economic growth being primarily led by the Bush tax cuts.

So your trying to turn it into a partisan win and a "nail in the coffin nail" of liberals is simply unsupported.

Incidentally, part of what gets you in trouble right off the top was your rather presumptuous statement that all liberals "claim that President George W. Bush is going to be the downfall of our and the world's economy".

There is a difference between claiming such a doom and gloom scenario as "the downfall of the world economy", and saying that anyone (including my pet hamster) could do a better job than he has.

Which is to say that there is a large set of grades between an 'F' and an 'A+'.

So far, I'd give GW about a C-.

Or, to use your title "Maybe Bushes economy is good for the world if everything pans out perfectly, but my hamster's economy would probably have been better"


-Z-