http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289584,00.html

Obviously another sign of how horrible the economy is.


BTW the unemployment rate of 4.5% sucks too.

http://www.dol.gov/





Lefties must be choking on their Comrade Cakes.

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

And increased jobs last month over expectations to boot. Things are really, really good. And you're correct: the Dem leadership is really hurting on this....considering MOST people vote their pocketbooks.

ALL they can do is hope the economy falls in the next 18 months. Just like all they can do is hope for an unsuccessful Iraq. They've been basically betting AGAINST their own country in so many ways.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Keep up that eternal optimism, JP, but don't you find it just a little odd that last month only 29% of Americans approved of the way Bush is "handling the economy" and that 55% of Americans feel "the economy is getting worse?"

You're certainly correct that many Americans frequently "vote their pocketbooks." And it's the fact that household median income has yet to reach the level it was in 1998 that Americans know about.

It has definitely been a good economiy as far as most Republicans are concerned. Sixty-four percent approve of Bush's performance. Unfortunately for your side, that's ONLY 64%, while 70% of independents, and 87% of Democrats disapprove.

Bottom line, although you (and I suspect your neighbors) think it's going very well out there and will support a Republican in 2008, the majority of Americans are on the other side of this (and almost every other) issue.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Yes many Americans vote with their pocketbooks instead of logics. While Clinton reigned then many nouveau-rich came about and got wealthy. Once they got wealthy then they wanted to keep as much as their wealth as they could and voted for a idiot who made promise they would save more on taxes by voting for him despite the fact he was mentally-incompetent. As a result then we are facing the consequences for that and desperately trying to keep America from falling on it's face.

As someone who is old enough to hold a substantial and growing number of shares, the Dow's performance is certainly good news to me.

But outside the stock market, the reason people think the economy is doing poorly is pretty simple:

1. Job growth lags growth in the labor force. Just look at the numbers for June:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

We added 197,000 jobs in June, but the labor force grew by 310,000. So we also added 114,000 unemployed people. It's been the same for most months. The only way that continuing monthly fact squares with a low unemployment rate is if people have quit looking.

Another bit of evidence: Even as the unemployment rate has remained low, the labor force participation rate has fallen pretty steadily from its 2000 peak.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...id=LNS11300000

2. Income growth lags inflation.

3. The housing slump. Rising home prices create a "wealth effect", where people feel wealthier and so spend more -- sometimes directly, by taking out home equity loans. The housing slump has harmed a lot of homeowners in that regard, not just the ones facing foreclosure and bankruptcy because they're caught with a home they either cannot sell quickly enough, or cannot sell for as much as they owe on their loan.

__________________
Man up.

No---I dont' find that odd at all. Considering the liberal, mainstream press tries to convince them otherwise....what else?

Not so. Household Wealth Is At An All-Time High Of More Than $54 Trillion. According to the Federal Reserve Board, real median household net worth increased 12 percent from 1998 to 2004. And even more since then.

Incomes Have Been Rising. According to the Census Bureau, real median family income increased over $500 (or 1.1 percent) between 2004 and 2005.

The Poverty Rate Is Declining. The poverty rate decreased from 12.7 percent in 2004 to 12.6 percent in 2005. The poverty rate is now lower than in all but one year in the 1980s and 1990s, and is far below its most recent peak of 15.1 percent in 1993.

Nearly Half Of All Families Holding Financial Assets Hold Stocks. In 2004, 93.8 percent of all families held some type of financial assets and 48.6 percent of them held stocks. (Federal Reserve Board)


Household Wealth Is At An All-Time High Of More Than $54 Trillion. According to the Federal Reserve Board, real median household net worth increased 12 percent from 1998 to 2004. And even more in the last 3 years.

That's to be expected from Democrats. They hate Bush and ignore anything good he's done and refuse to give him credit for anything. And they'd never vote for him no matter what. Just like those Republicans would never vote for a Democrat no matter what. As far as that Independent number---I don't believe it. Anybody with 1/2 a brain KNOWS the economy is doing great......low inflation, low unemployment, highest home ownership EVER...the deficit decreasing at a faster rate than even expected....businesses---small and large are booming. And what's more, it's not inflated, bogus numbers with no base like in the late 90's. That kind of economy is sure to burst. The economy now that we all enjoy has a strong base.

Not so. I have plenty of relatives that are secretaries, firemen, and constuction workers. They are ALL doing very well right now---in their wages AND in their 401k's and savings.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/[/quote]

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

This thread proves our point: Dems downplay the good economic news and try real hard to find something....anything....negative.

Hate to say....I told you so....BUT, I told you so.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

So now reality is considered "negative"?

__________________
Man up.

JPS==anyone with half of a brain know that things aren't as rosey as you think or especially as you stated. I am not on the financial part when it come to judging the country and know that when war is on that money is running all over the place but it is blood money and created from an unnecessary war to make it this way. I was for the war when it was to go to Afghanistan to get who hurt America but I saw it turn crooked before my eyes as the crooks in Washington took our military we sent to get Osama and go for who the leader of crooks wanted out of his oil-field instead of who we wanted. We got who Bush wanted in just weeks but come September it has been 6 years since Osama badly wound America and still going unpunished or as punished as he should be.

We hear the "the people have quit looking" argument a lot on this forum.

The BLS actually provides figures for "people who quit looking" and if you look at the number for June you'll see it's fairly low -- 401,000. Thus, even including the people who give up, the unemployment rate is still just 4.8%.

How does that square historically? Well, back in the so-called glory days of the Clinton administration, discouraged workers represented about 5.3% of the unemployment rate. Today, in June, it sits at about 5.5%. So much for the "the unemployment rate is so low only because people have quit looking" myth.

Finally, I don't understand your argument that "the only way that continuing monthly fact [of labor force growing faster than jobs]" is that people have quit looking -- please clarify. "People who have quit looking" are by definition not in the labor force and not "unemployed" as per the BLS definition. If people quit looking, the labor force decreases. As I understand it, any discrepancy between job creation and the size of the labor force would be picked up in the unemployment rate.