Don't fret, yet. The NY Times is a known liberal rag more concerned with political swaying of the minds. Those economic future graphs are as reliable as my trick knee for predicting weather, and they are controlled by the numbers mix you put in.

Just wait and see what happens. I predict that business will react to the common sense measures as they always have in the past. If the Prez is wrong, then it isn't his fault. He is doing that which traditional economic logic says to do. Well, other than the Jumbo spending!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Don't fret, yet. The NY Times is a known liberal rag more concerned with political swaying of the minds. Those economic future graphs are as reliable as my trick knee for predicting weather, and they are controlled by the numbers mix you put in.

Just wait and see what happens. I predict that business will react to the common sense measures as they always have in the past. If the Prez is wrong, then it isn't his fault. He is doing that which traditional economic logic says to do. Well, other than the Jumbo spending!

I have to reply on this. No # the NY Times is left leaning, Fox News is a conservative news source, so then why do they declare themselves "fair and balanced"?
Wait and see??? The General Election is November 2nd, that only leaves Bush eight months to fix the economy and turn it around completely! The way it is now that is highly unlikely.
Why isn't it Bush's fault if he is wrong. He's the one that declared in the latest State of the Union that the tax cuts are a source of motivation to an economy that lacks it (I'm paraphrasing from memory). The graph in the article was no prediction, these were live statistics (as I mentioned in the post, I said notice the date) dating to today. Just look at were the graph derives from; Bureau of Labor Statistics. Is that good enough for you??

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by TheCatalyst]

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by TheCatalyst]

Who mentioned Fox news? The NY Times was around long before Fox, and was a KNOWN liberal mouthpiece back then. Don't be in denial. Sheesh.
Believe what you like to believe. Personally, we in my area are seeing recovery firsthand, regardless of charts and graphs.

Things don't get broken in a matter of weeks, and they don't get fixed that quickly, either. Why must it be fixed COMPLETELY? Gee, let's not ask for the world, huh? After all, we were already headed for the recession before he took office, and then the WTC got knocked down, and the attacks kicked the economy square in the pants. You expect him to produce miracles? Besides, no matter what, there is only a limited number of things a prez can do for the economy. The main thing is to create an environment in which it can grow. He's done that. He cannot hurry the process up. If the public is too limited in knowledge to understand that, well, they can let their ignorance determine their vote. It usually does, anyway!

As far as Fox goes, it has Colmes on with Hannity, what else could you want?!? Seriously, they need to replace him with a better liberal. He is a pushover!

What does the fact that the NY Times was around longer than Fox have to do with anything? Fox news is a KNOWN conservative mouthpiece as well.

About the tax cuts, Bush is giving everyone free money (which is always good:lol but in a time when our country is in a $7 billion debt, I don't think that that was the wisest move he could have made.

Greenspan dropped an employment bombshell tonight by stating that new hires are about to explode.

Plus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

According to the government, the unemployment rate in America is 5.6%. That means that damn near everybody has a damn job. And the employment survey that was conducted which shows less jobs are being created is according to the employers. The household survey showed that the number of employed people is actually up by around 700,000. A lot of people work from home now and/or own small businesses that go undetected by employer surveys.