Wahooo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...

Things are getting better. We might hit 5% growth in Q4!

Everytime they release numbers, it always seems to be good news. It appears the economy is making a comeback after all, go figure.

Everytime they release numbers, it always seems to be good news

Yeah, that''s it....

I think he''s on to something...

"LeapingGnome" wrote:
Everytime they release numbers, it always seems to be good news

Yeah, that''s it....

except that they release numbers all the time and the government has no power over it...

Damn! I''m just too dumb to join the tin-foil hat club!

Maybe if you linked to an article with a little more substance to it...

The nation''s top retailer, Wal-Mart (WMT: up $0.82 to $58.92, Research, Estimates), said back-to-school sales may help it beat its earlier target of a 3 percent to 5 percent gain in August same-store sales. Shares of Wal-Mart bounced 1.4 percent.

As noted in this thread, sales spike in Q3 in anticipation of the holiday season in Q4. As illustrated by this article, GDP spiked in and around Q3 of 2002 before plunging. Unless economic growth numbers can continue to grow through Q3 and into the next year, I''m not buying the argument that the economy is healthy again.

I''m not buying the argument that the economy is healthy again.

Good for you. Keep peddling that line, along with the rest of the Democrats. Oh yeah, and enjoy your 4 more years of George Bush...

Honestly, I''m pleased to see the signs of recovery (though it seems like I''ve been hearing about signs of recovery for a year). But, the average voter doesn''t care about the theorhetical and academic indicators. Until wages are on the rise and unemployment cut into seriously, the issue is open.

Do we really think if the roles were reversed that Republicans wouldn''t be tearing into a Democratic administration when it looked weak on the economy? Hell, you guys did it even when the economy was strong.

Until wages are on the rise and unemployment cut into seriously, the issue is open.

Wages are on the rise and have been for the whole time Bush has been in office. That is one of the reasons most people do not think the economy has affected them. They just think it is bad since the news media keeps telling them that it is.

[/quote]

except that they release numbers all the time and the government has no power over it...

Damn! I''m just too dumb to join the tin-foil hat club![/quote]

No control over it? It wasn''t more than two months ago that the Administration suppressed a negative Treasury report on the latest round of tax cuts:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...

The problem - at least to me - is all too much control over information. Democracy is a farce when the people with the votes generally can''t get the right information, don''t remember it when they do get it, and always vote in favor of their narrow self interests anyway.

No control over it? It wasn''t more than two months ago that the Administration suppressed a negative Treasury report on the latest round of tax cuts

If you''re going to link to stories, you really should read them... The administration didn''t supress anything - they didn''t include a single study which extrapolated possible deficits in a blueprint for the budget.

Your own link indicates that, ""the paper has been circulating among academic and budget circles for some time"", so it is hardly fair to try and charge that the government is hiding this information. And the greatest irony of all is that the information is so readily available that we can argue about it on a website for computer games.

Try again.

"ralcydan" wrote:
I''m not buying the argument that the economy is healthy again.

Good for you. Keep peddling that line, along with the rest of the Democrats. Oh yeah, and enjoy your 4 more years of George Bush...

Okay, that was unnecessary. Please explain why he is just peddling a line. The 4 more years or George Bush thing was just out there. I don''t really even care about this argument, it''s just that comment was pretty low on substance.

You could''ve explained your side a little better. For instance, in the article Rat Boy linked to, there are more factor''s explained as the reason the Dow was up. Toys R Us was meeting expectations and Home Depot was exceeding them. The blackout was over, and some of it was relief of that. It wasn''t all attributable to the Holiday Season.

There was just no reason to make a random comment like that and not back it up, then drag George Bush into it for no reason. It''s like every argument ends up being ""Bush GOOD!"" ""No Bush BAD!"" on here. Can we just leave the President out of it and focus on the economy?

Oh well, I only clicked on the thread because I didn''t know what the hell it was about

There was just no reason to make a random comment like that and not back it up, then drag George Bush into it for no reason.

I didn''t know I had to clear my comments with you for content, Pyro...

Seriously though, Rat has an agenda and I was responding to it. I can''t leave the President out of the thread because (as Elysium alluded to in reverse) Rat only ignores good news because he wants the economy to be as bad as possible so the American people can suffer - all to keep George Bush from being reelected.

The economy is getting better for many reasons, little of it has to do with Bush.

The economy is getting better for many reasons, little of it has to do with Bush.

I agree largely with that statement, but by keeping interest rates low, strategically returning money to consumers through tax cuts, and taking a proactive stance in the war on terror, the administration has definitely kept a bad downturn from becoming worse, and deserves credit for doing so.

"Ulairi" wrote:

The economy is getting better for many reasons, little of it has to do with Bush. :)

That''s what I''m talking about. It wasn''t in your post, why was it brought up? If Rat Boy has an agenda let him bring up things that have nothing to do with the topic. If you are the one who brings it up it makes it look like you have the agenda.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Ulairi" wrote:

The economy is getting better for many reasons, little of it has to do with Bush. :)

That''s what I''m talking about. It wasn''t in your post, why was it brought up? If Rat Boy has an agenda let him bring up things that have nothing to do with the topic. If you are the one who brings it up it makes it look like you have the agenda.

Did you quote the wrong person?

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]
If Rat Boy has an agenda let him bring up things that have nothing to do with the topic. If you are the one who brings it up it makes it look like you have the agenda.

Don''t assume I don''t have an agenda...

And again, sorry. I''m send you PMs with all of my posts from approval next time...

"Ulairi" wrote:

Did you quote the wrong person?

Err, hmm, I think I was a little confusing there. I didn''t mean ""You are bringing up Bush randomly"" I meant ""You didn''t say anything about Bush in the first place, so why was it brought up?"" Sorry about that. I just meant that you don''t consider Bush to be a large part of what we are discussing, and neither does anyone else, so why are we even talking about him?