A Tale Of Two Economies

[red states rule]

Heres a report from the Washington Post on Monday

snip

The big news of the week should be Friday's employment report, which many analysts suspect will show that the labor market, while still quite bad, continues on a path toward stabilization. Economists are expecting the unemployment rate to rise to 9.5 percent, from 9.4 percent, and for employers to have cut 228,000 net jobs in August, compared with the 247,000 jobs lost in March. That job loss number -- or even better, a figure that starts with a "1," would be strong evidence that improvement in the economy is finally filtering through to the job market in a serious way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR2009083002692.html



No go back to the Post in Aug of 2004


snip

For President Bush, tax cuts have been an all-purpose elixir, a cure for budget surpluses and a bursting stock bubble, for terrorist attacks and boardroom scandals, for the march to war and a jobless recovery in peacetime.

Now, after three successive tax cuts, and after a record budget surplus has turned to a record deficit, the president faces an unenviable choice. He can either concede that his $1.7 trillion tonic has not worked as advertised, or he can insist that the economy is strong despite the slowdown in growth and job creation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54944-2004Aug10.html



So a decline in unemployment from 5.5% to 5.4% is a bad thing when its Bush but a rise in unemployment from 9.4% to 9.5% when its Obama is a positive?

[Noir]

But you have to look at everything in context, take troop deaths for example, look at the number of American troops lost in 1945, compared to 2005, while statistics would show 2005 to have been a much better year, 1945 more of a forgien policy success.
Using out of context data is meanigless, but I'm sure you know that, you just dot want to let it get in the way of your arguement.

[red states rule]

But you have to look at everything in context, take troop deaths for example, look at the number of American troops lost in 1945, compared to 2005, while statistics would show 2005 to have been a much better year, 1945 more of a forgien policy success.
Using out of context data is meanigless, but I'm sure you know that, you just dot want to let it get in the way of your arguement.

Who is talking about troop deaths? I am talking about how the liberal media "reports" on the Hope and Chnage Express Noir

The context is - the liberal meida continues to wave the pom poms for Obama, and regardless of the results they will paint a very rosey picture of the economy

No matter how many more people lose their jobs, no matter how much more Obama piles on our great great grandchildren, and no matter how badly his economic policies fail

Of course to the libs I know and talk to on a daily basis, they keep using the Blame Bush talking point

My liberal friends keep telling me that if Bush did not have crusader ambitions with invading Iraq and expanding his false war to the Taliban, we would not be in the financial mess that we are in and President Obama has so much debt that he inherited.

[Noir]

I brought the anallagy of troops deaths up to show context, which you have, deliberatly or not, missed to point of,


You said "So a decline in unemployment from 5.5% to 5.4% is a bad thing when its Bush but a rise in unemployment from 9.4% to 9.5% when its Obama is a positive?"

A 0.1% increase is obviously better than a 0.1% decrease, but once you apply the context of te ecomonic situation in 2005 and now, you get a much more ballanced answer.

[red states rule]

I brought the anallagy of troops deaths up to show context, which you have, deliberatly or not, missed to point of,


You said "So a decline in unemployment from 5.5% to 5.4% is a bad thing when its Bush but a rise in unemployment from 9.4% to 9.5% when its Obama is a positive?"

A 0.1% increase is obviously better than a 0.1% decrease, but once you apply the context of te ecomonic situation in 2005 and now, you get a much more ballanced answer.

Did not ignore it Noir - just explained how the liberal media will never point out Obama's continuing economic failures

Of course that is how the liberal is. They no longer report the news - they slant it to push the left wing agenda

But hey, things are great here in America. According to the liberal media the recession is over and great times lie ahead

If things do go south, the liberal media will try to blame the minoirity Republicans, and of course, Pres Bush