The US Economy Keeps Rolling

[red states rule]

The Economy Keeps Rolling


Well the bad news keeps coming for the doom and gloomers and if this is what a bad economy is - I hope it is here for a long time


Stocks Zoom After Fed Announcement
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

NEW YORK — Strong growth. Moderate inflation. And the Federal Reserve's apparent acknowledgement of a stellar economic picture. It all combined to send stocks soaring on Wednesday.

U.S. stocks climbed Wednesday, driving the Dow to a record close after the Federal Reserve left rates steady and flagged no new concerns about inflation that would have merited higher borrowing costs.

Based on the latest available data, the Dow Jones industrial average unofficially ended up 98.62 points, or 0.79 percent, at 12,621.93, while the Standard & Poor's 500 Index gained 9.66 points, or 0.68 percent, to finish unofficially at 1,438.48, and the Nasdaq Composite Index advanced 15.34 points, or 0.63 percent, to close unofficially at 2,463.98.

The Dow closed higher for the seventh month in a row in January, gaining 1.3 percent. The S&P 500 rose for the eighth straight month, adding 1.4 percent in January. The Nasdaq finished January with a 2 percent gain.

The Fed, which issued its economic assessment as it decided to leave short-term interest rates unchanged at 5.25 percent, said recent indicators "suggested somewhat firmer economic growth" and tentative signs of stabilization in the housing market. Investors also appeared pleased by the central bank's comments that readings on core inflation have "improved modestly" in recent months.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249059,00.html

[Gaffer]

But the libs say its the worst economy in decades. And we need more taxes to impove things. They wouldn't be telling us lies now would they? :dunno:

[red states rule]

Only when their lips move

Libs have never seen a tax increase they did not support

[Gaffer]

tHat's so true.

I have an idea lets raise taxes only on liberals. And anti-war protesters.

[red states rule]

tHat's so true.

I have an idea lets raise taxes only on liberals. And anti-war protesters.

Good point. Of course it will not work. Libs say we need to pay more in taxes for the "common good"

We - not them

[Gaffer]

Good point. Of course it will not work. Libs say we need to pay more in taxes for the "common good"

We - not them

Yep that's why I say it has to be them and not "we". Lets start with the hollywood types.

[stephanie]

Yep that's why I say it has to be them and not "we". Lets start with the Hollywood types.

I like that...

Wouldn't they be included in all that spiel.....tax cuts for the RICH...

I wonder if they all refused to take their tax cuts and gave it back to the government...:wink2:

[red states rule]

Libs said the tax cuts would destroy the economy, take funding away from "vital" government programs, drive up interest rates, and the deficit would be over $500 billion

As usual, the tax loving left is batting .000

[red states rule]

ABC Shows President Bush Hitting CEO Pay, But Not Defending Tax Cuts
Posted by Ken Shepherd on February 1, 2007 - 17:38.
Yesterday, President Bush became the second sitting president to ever take a stroll on the New York Stock Exchange floor (Ronald Reagan was the first to do so). Bush also gave a speech at Federal Hall in which he defended his tax cuts, as well as No Child Left Behind, and his policy initiatives in general. But his policy remarks got no attention last night on the evening newscasts, which instead hyped his talking points on CEO pay and income inequality, two liberal themes.


I wrote more about that here. Here's an excerpt:


...network reporters downplayed the good economic news – particularly ABC’s Betsy Stark, who highlighted liberal-sounding applause lines in the president’s Wall Street speech on the “state of the economy” while leaving out the president’s defense of his tax cuts.

CBS’s Katie Couric and NBC’s Brian Williams both briefly addressed the economy’s strong growth rate and the president’s speech, but ABC’s "World News" was the only program among the three New York-based newscasts to offer viewers a fully packaged story on Bush’s "state of the economy report."

"It’s hard to imagine a warmer reception" than how stock exchange traders greeted Bush on the floor of the NYSE, ABC’s Stark conceded. But, she added, "his message to the nation’s leading capitalists was laced with tough love" as he warned corporations to pay executives based on merit and performance.

Following Bush’s remarks on CEO pay, which sounded similar to the media’s usual shock and awe at corporate salaries, Stark said, "For the first time in a high profile way," Bush "acknowledged that not everyone has shared equally in the recent economic prosperity."


But while the clip Stark aired featured the president saying "income inequality is real," Bush immediately added that "the question is whether we respond to the income equality we see with policies that help lift people up or tear others down."

Yet rather than informing her audience of the policies the president favors related to income, Stark turned her attention to casting doubt on the economy’s overall health.

The new GDP number “bolstered the perception of economic success,” she said, but “for now, though, a majority of Americans have another view” as “most say they disapprove of his management of the economy, despite these good numbers.”


http://newsbusters.org/node/10556

[Hobbit]

I like that...

Wouldn't they be included in all that spiel.....tax cuts for the RICH...

I wonder if they all refused to take their tax cuts and gave it back to the government...:wink2:

Nope. Income tax doesn't tax assetts, only income, and congressional paychecks are tax exempt.

[red states rule]

Nope. Income tax doesn't tax assetts, only income, and congressional paychecks are tax exempt.

How much more do libs want the folks to pay?

Would libs be happy (if that is possible) if we went back to Pres Peanut where the top rate was 70%

[red states rule]

Comprehensive 'Annual Revision' to the Employment Numbers Goes Largely Underreported
Posted by Tom Blumer on February 3, 2007 - 09:47.
Yesterday's Employment Situation Summary from the Bureaus of Labor Statistics told us that reports 111,000 net new jobs were added in January. Additionally, significant upward revisions were made to the previously reported job-increase figures from November (up 42,000 to 196,000 from last month’s revised 154,000) and December (up 39,000 to 206,000 from last month’s originally reported 167,000). So with revisions, there were 192,000 more people working (111+42+39) at the end of January than were thought to be working as of the end of December, and 513,000 more (111+196+206) than three months ago.

It gets better.

In that same Employment Situation Summary released yesterday, the BLS reported on its "Annual Revisions to Establishment Survey Data." Doesn't sound like much, but read the fine print:

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data have been revised to reflect comprehensive universe counts of payroll jobs, or benchmarks. These counts are derived principally from unemployment insurance tax records for March 2006. As a result of the benchmark process, all not seasonally adjusted data series were subject to revision from April 2005 forward, the time period since the last benchmark was established.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2006 was revised upward by 752,000 (754,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis). The previously published level for December 2006 was revised upward by 981,000 (933,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis).

In other words, BLS "found" well over 900,000 more jobs, most of which (averaging about 63,000 per month) were added between April 2005 and March 2006. This was a time during which the "weak job growth" meme still had life in it. BLS's Annual Revision shows that the meme had no validity during that time.

So how does job growth during the Bush years look after incorporating the Annual Revision? Well, even more "Clintonian" than when I last looked at it a month ago:



As you might expect, the coverage of BLS's retroactively added 900,000-plus jobs has been relatively muted. Finding it requires knowing what you're looking for and getting past misleading headlines.

The LA Times (may require free registration) didn't not have the employment news in its home-page business headlines. Times reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske got the Annual Revision news into her second paragraph but only after this off-putting headline and sub-headline -- "Employment still strong despite disappointing month; Unemployment rises slightly to 4.6% from 4.5%. Sluggishness in the housing market could keep a lid on economic growth." If I didn't know better, I wouldn't want to read any further.

The New York Times also gave the employment news no home-page visibility. Jeremy Peters' and Eduardo Porter's headline (may require free registration) -- "Slower Job Growth, At Least for Now." The Times did cover the the Annual Revision and asked a question on a lot of minds, including yours truly's, beginning in the article's fifth paragraph (bold is mine):

But employers may be hiring at a faster clip than is immediately apparent. The Labor Department also acknowledged that employers added nearly one million more jobs from March 2005 through last December than it had previously estimated.

Last year, employment growth exceeded earlier estimates by more than 400,000 jobs. The magnitude of the change suggested that the Labor Department might be seriously underestimating the growth in employment.

“The size of the upward revisions was enormous,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist with MFR. “You put the pieces of the puzzle together, and it sort of tells you that the 111,000 number is not something to focus on.” January’s number will be revised in February and March, and will be subject to an annual adjustment next year.

But if the Times' "expert" said that the January number wasn't something to focus on, why did the article's headline do just that?

Also -- The reporters' stat that 400,000 jobs were retroactively added to 2006 ("last year") is probably technically correct, but I see it as a "clever" way to avoid mentioning the hundreds of thousands of additional jobs retroactively added to 2005, AND to avoid mentioning the 900,000-plus grand total of jobs retroactively added.

The Washington Post's Neil Henderson (may require registration) did not mention the Annual Revision or the 900,000-plus jobs retroactively added at all.

Once again, the Bush jobs machine isn't getting the credit it is due. The BLS needs to take a serious look at why it is taking so long to discover hundreds of thousands of workers.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10589

[red states rule]

now we fast forward to 2016

The national debt has more then doubled

Over 40 million people on food stamps

Most of the new jobs being added are low paying and/or part time (thanks to Obamacare)

Nearly 1/3 of the US population is not working

Millions have given up looking for a job

GDP of about 1.3%

Higher taxes for nearly everyone

Endless new regulations that are costing employers billions every year to comply with

The US got its only credit downgrade under Obama

So is this what you Hillary supporters want for 4 more years?