8 Comments

Wow, you’re really blogging up a storm this morning. Remember, any news that can benefit Bush is not news worth covering.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to see anyone out of work. Realistically, 5.4% unemployment ain’t no harbinger of doom, as those who happily re-elected Boy Clinton in ‘96 with a 5.6% rate should have the guts to admit.

I seem to recall Dubya’s message in ‘00 wasn’t to talk down the economy, but to stress how much better it would be with more tax cuts. Since he inherited a recession, and we’re now out of it, I’d like to think that Kerry & Co. could have the guts to admit that, too.

“Private Joker may be silly and he’s ignorant, but he’s got guts, and guts is enough.”

The Dems increasingly seem to have more gall than the required internal organs to contain it; maybe that why they’re so bitter?

No choice necessary.

The two views are not at all incompatable. One has only to realize that they are addressing different time frames.

G-span and McTeer refer to a soft patch in recent quarters.

Kerry and the CBO are addressing events of recent years.

Pretty straightforward once you take that fundamental difference into account.

We can’t have a straight-forward debate in this country on economics between people of different classes. Class-hatred is still alive and well when it comes to these discussions. Hell, even people in the same class have wildly divergent opinions on whether we should be capitalist or socialist.

It all depends on who and where you are.

Now if I had stayed in school and not married my exhusband who decided to quit law school and become a farmer, well I would be better off today.

But that is not Bush’s fault.

So both views can be compatable, depending on your circumstances.

But over all the economy is not bad, I remember far worse times than this.

Why is it so difficult for many writers–even supposedly-knowledgeable ones–to provide useful context. For example, in the linked article”

“same-store sales rose just 1.1% last month, below an already reduced forecast of 1.5%”

If same-store sales rose 1.1% *every month,* that would be incredible performance, something like 14% a year–but, of course, retail is seasonal. So how does the 1.1% compare with *typical* numbers for the same month? Last year? The year before? Without this data, no one has the context for evaluating what “1.1%” means, unless they are themselves a retailer or a retail securities analyst.

photoncourier.blogspot.com:

It’s because they prefer demogougery to a nice, quiet discussion of the facts. It’s suprising how few people will want to discuss ANYTHING in a rational way these days.

Often true, but…this particular item was from a publication which is intended for stock market investors and doesn’t appear to have a political axe to grind. c