Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Judged:

2

2

2

2008bill wrote:

<quoted text>
The current US economy status: Consumer spending
An issue in particular is a slowdown in consumer spending. From the start of 2004 through July, real consumer spending rose by $122.2 billion. That is $209.5 billion, or 2.8% at annual rate, and compares with an overall increase of $232.2 billion (3.3%) in 2003 and of $213 billion (3.1%) in 2002. For perspective, during the boom years 1999-2000, it had growth rates of 5.1% and 4.7%.
Though this deterioration is not dramatic, it also does not suggest an ongoing recovery. Yet the aggregates hide one rather dramatic change in the current year, namely, sharply lower growth in spending on consumer durables. At annual rate, it was down to $23.5 billion in the first seven months of 2004, after $71 billion in 2003 and $58 billion in 2002.
Still, there has been a dramatic change for the worse in the consumer's earning power. Since January 2004, the three-month annualized growth rate for real disposable personal income has literally collapsed: 5.7%, 4.6%, 4.5%, 3.7%, 2.5% and 0.8% for July. Over the seven months to July 2004, real disposable income was up a mere $77.4 billion, or $132.7 billion at annual rate. It grew by $174.3 billion in 2003 and by $226.2 billion in 2002.
http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/economic-fore...

Judged:

3

3

3

Clinging to my gun wrote:

<quoted text>
That was Bush silly.
Unless you work for GM but the bank bailout was Bush.
maybe you werent looking.
A whole 5 days a week huh? congrats.
I thought democrats dominated New York?

Judged:

3

3

3

Uncle Jesse wrote:

<quoted text>his bailouts and banking help has helped the construction trade which am a part of. I did'nt see the former doing anything to help us other than help himself and his own causes.

2008bill wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think if we deported all of them in 2010 that you would feel better and leave the Democrats in office? Or are you just making excuses for your "obstructionist" sore loser mentality?

Judged:

3

3

3

Devin wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the point which seems to escape you, with 36 State with Unemployment below 10% why would you subject yourself and your family to living and remainding in a state that is an economic waste land, and unemployment hovering or above 10%?
Sounds like a personal choice resulted in the job status of a citizens unemployed coupled wtih lack of sufficient professional skills and, the insuing consequences suffered are being blamed on Politicians, where's that attitude of Self Responsibility and taken credit for one's own actions.
Why would an individual allow the Government to do for them and their obligations what apparently those same individuals are willing to do for themselves? If there is ample employment in New Jersey, why would someone remain in California? More pointedly, how is a decision like this President's Obama's fault?

Judged:

3

3

3

2008bill wrote:

<quoted text>
"The current US economy status
Renewed weakness in the US economy has hardly come as a surprise to us. It is the inexorable outgrowth of an economic recovery that has been of highly dubious quality right from the start. The US economy is plagued by an extraordinary array of growth-impairing imbalances: a record-high trade deficit, a record-high budget deficit, record-high household indebtedness, record-low national saving and asset price bubbles supporting record-high consumer spending.
Any other country faced with these monstrous domestic and external imbalances would have endured panicky capital flight and a collapsing currency, forcing its central bank to drastic monetary tightening. But the US central bank and the dollar were spared this fate because the central banks of the Asian surplus countries stepped in, accumulating any amount of dollars needed to avoid an undesired rise of their currencies.
In 2003, such dollar purchases by foreign central banks amounted to a stunning $616.6 billion, after $351.9 billion the year before. The total reserves of emerging Asia rose by over $350 billion between the beginning of 2003 and March 2004. Over the same time, Japan's central bank purchased $316 billion worth of US assets. The biggest buyer in emerging Asia was the central bank of China.
The current US economy status: The Fed's monetary policy
These huge and soaring dollar purchases by foreign central banks were crucial in allowing the US Federal Reserve to pursue its ultra-loose monetary policy with ultra-low interest rates. As we have often stressed, this in combination with equally loose fiscal policy has prevented a deeper recession, but the question is whether or not these policies have laid the foundation for sustained economic growth in the longer run.
In our view, it is bad policy on both sides. The Asian central banks accommodate the credit excesses in the United States, and in doing so, fuel rampant credit excesses in their own countries. Japan's horrible aftermath over more than a decade after its credit excesses in the late 1980s does not seem to deter anybody. The United States, on the other hand, is losing jobs to Asia.
Both are courting extraordinary credit excess, but with a crucial difference: In the United States, the credit excess went and continues to go overwhelmingly into asset prices and personal consumption; in Asia, it goes overwhelmingly into capital investment and production, essentially creating a mass of overcapacity and malinvestments. The result is an unprecedented symbiosis between the two continents: The Americans borrow and consume, and the Asians produce.
The US economy has abruptly weakened. Is this weakness just a short-lived "soft patch" caused by higher oil prices, as emphasized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and readily believed by the eternally bullish consensus? Or does it represent the beginning of a more severe downshift to subpar corporate and economic performance, if not worse?

Judged:

3

3

3

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
How is it Bush's fault?
Did something change to make it possible for these folks to suddenly move?
Your remarks smack of hypocrisy Dev.

Judged:

3

3

3

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
How is it Bush's fault?
Did something change to make it possible for these folks to suddenly move?
Your remarks smack of hypocrisy Dev.

Judged:

3

3

3

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
ahh....another blame Busher...
I don't see the construction industry rebound. Please show some evidence.

Judged:

3

3

2

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
ahh....another blame Busher...
I don't see the construction industry rebound. Please show some evidence.

Judged:

3

3

2

Dean Martin wrote:

<quoted text>
Awww, the poor wittle chicken-assed troll is all wee-weed up again. Did you pee your panties yet again, wittle troll?
Awww. Time to go wee wee home crying to mama chicken all the way.
Lol, you were probably expecting to tell you that I'd stuff your wee-wee wetted panties down your gay little dick-breathed throat before I punched your lib gay boy panty-assed lights out.
But you'd be wrong, since I'm content watching your little chicken-shit ass run for cover with the presence of a mere few words.
Bawk, bawk bawk bawk....
Hehehe. ROFLMAO!

Judged:

3

3

3

Devin wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent Information Bill, thanks for the inclusion. I have tried to explain this information in remedial terms to on avail.
Seems Facts are of little value on these threads.
Further more, the consequences of the Bush Fiscal policies are that they have retarded the advantages of the Clinton Welfare Reforms of 1996, which reduced those American Citizens dependent on Aid to Needy Families to a low of 3.4 Million American Citizens in a population of more than 300 million.

Judged:

3

3

3

Dean Martin wrote:

<quoted text>
You really ought to take mommy's piss-wet panties out of your mouth before you post.
Seriously, because all you post is panty-wetted mush fish-encrusted crap. Not that you don't need nor deserve your nourishment. Mmmm, mmmm.
Suck it all up, pantied troll girl. Then lick the crotch dry.
Hehehe.