<p>Barrons, I like your link. I have bookmarked it. Thanks.</p>
<p>mini-you hit the nail on the head. We end up with military bases there and control of the oil. This is what the administration really always wanted. They rest is a sideshow. This is why there has never been an exit strategy-they’ve never planned to (fully) exit.</p>
<p>Economy strong? Unemployment improving? Bah. I’m no economist, but I don’t believe it. In most reports, you can make “the trend” appear any way you wish, depending upon which factors you choose to consider. No increase in the number of people filing for unemployment? That’s because most have either given up or are severely “under-employed” (My h, for one. He lost his very good telecom job in the big bust a few years ago - now working for a hardware store, because he’s considered too old or “over-qualified” for every job he’s tried to snag.) Technically not unemployed, but might as well be. And, out of 8 women in my department at work, 6 have unemployed spouses who all had professional positions, so these woman are supporting their families on their own. A lot of tension now-a-days. If you’ve been untouched, of course you might believe all is rosey.</p>
<p>In regard to Our President’s strong support of the war, I won’t believe his platitudes until I see Barbara and Jenna over there driving trucks side-by-side with our brave military folk, with roadside bombs threatening.</p>
<p>Well, I can’t really debate someone who takes anecdotes over facts. So for my anecdotes:
In our area there is a labor shortage with signs up all over town. 5 people in my firm have just been recruited to another at a hefty increase. Boeing is hiring back as fast as they can and Microsoft always has openings in the 1000’s but they are ultra picky. Google is adding 100’s of jobs and shopping for a huge new office. They are hiring away from Microsoft.
As for the facts, here are the qtrly GDP growth numbers since 2001. I call the last three years solid to strong.</p>
<p>2001q1 2.8
2001q2 4.4
2001q3 0.2
2001q4 3.6
2002q1 4.3
2002q2 3.7
2002q3 3.9
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.8
2003q2 4.8
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 5.5
2004q1 8.1
2004q2 7.5
2004q3 5.3
2004q4 6.1
2005q1 7.0
2005q2 6.0
2005q3 7.0</p>
<p>Yes, Browninfall, fun that the GOP gutted and re-wrote Murtha’s resolution to make it look pointlessly stupid. That’s okay, Bush and his Iraq policy are going to be like anvils tied to the feet of the GOP over the next few years.</p>
<p>Barrons, you remind me of one of my brothers in-law, who assumes that because he as a CEO benefits nicely from the GDP, everyone else does too. In terms of employment numbers and wages, the economy sucks dead fish with a straw. But I guess those affected should all eat cake.</p>
<p>Barrons, those numbers aren’t inflation adjusted, are they?</p>
<p>It’s amazing with those growth numbers that the fed funds rate had to be cut to 1%.</p>
<p>“Break out the popcorn…the House of Representatives is voting early this evening on whether or not we should pull our troops out of Iraq. This ought to be fun.”</p>
<p>I think it’s great! It will show up those Democrats as the pro-big oil, pro-expansionist spineless wonders that they truly are.</p>
<p>Correct, unadjusted. Real growth of over 3% is very good IMHO. Here are both sets:</p>
<pre><code> Nom. Infl adjusted
</code></pre>
<p>2001q1 2.8 -0.5
2001q2 4.4 1.2
2001q3 0.2 -1.4
2001q4 3.6 1.6
2002q1 4.3 2.7
2002q2 3.7 2.2
2002q3 3.9 2.4
2002q4 2.4 0.2
2003q1 4.8 1.7
2003q2 4.8 3.7
2003q3 9.3 7.2
2003q4 5.5 3.6
2004q1 8.1 4.3
2004q2 7.5 3.5
2004q3 5.3 4.0
2004q4 6.1 3.3
2005q1 7.0 3.8
2005q2 6.0 3.3
2005q3 7.0 3.8</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. However, there’s something else at an all time low. Its Bush’s approval ratings at a mere 36%.</p>
<p>There have been gains in total compensation but increases in benefit costs have held down wage gains. It’s still $$$ to you and the employer.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.epf.org/pubs/factsheets/2005/fs20050331.pdf[/url]”>http://www.epf.org/pubs/factsheets/2005/fs20050331.pdf</a></p>
<p>My, my…some are a little touchy here. I hope that others are watching CSPAN as I am. I’ve forgotten how much fun food fights are.</p>
<p>Yes. The House session tonight was as good as it gets.</p>
<p>I can’t believe that the Republicans pulled that stunt. How stupid. </p>
<p>“Swift Boating” Murtha wasn’t too smart, either. He’s too well connected at the Pentagon to have come forward like he did without long consultations with the generals. </p>
<p>You’d think that dumb rookie congresswoman from Ohio would know better than to cal Murtha a coward on the House floor. She came within 3000 votes of losing a seat that has been Republican for a hundred years to an Iraq-veteran Marine in his first election try, running on an anti-War platform. Rove and his boys had Limbaugh “swift-boat” that guy, too. But, he came back swinging, talking about how he loved people who ducked military service questioning his patriotism.</p>
<p>I think that today is a great day for America. Lots of folks here hate our President. That’s fine. In fact that’s what we’re all about. You can do that here, but when it came time to take a position against George Bush you Democrats stood with him. Thank you Democrats for doing that. 403 to 3. Wow!</p>
<p>I don’t think the Republicans helped themselves today at all by submitting a Republican resolution for an immediate pull-out of troops from Iraq. My sense is that, lacking any leadership or effectively communicated plan, the American public is in no mood for cheap political stunts.</p>
<p>The Republicans have nowhere to hide. They control the White House, the Senate, and Congress. It is going to be very difficult to shift blame to the Democrats.</p>
<p>403 - 3. Hail to the Chief.</p>
<p>Sham parliamentary maneuvers. Go with it while you can. One of the biggest benefits of the Dems taking one house of Congress would be subpoena powers beginning in January of 2007.</p>
<p>Browninfall, I think that even Americans who aren’t paying attention will understand the GOP maneuver. Tonight’s vote wasn’t testimony to the sock-puppet’s Iraq policy, it was testimony to a gutless cynical parliamentary maneuver. You folks seem to think you’ll hold power forever. Just keep upping the ante…because payback is a *****.</p>
<p>The odd thing about the Republican’s stunt today was that Murtha’s resolution would have put many Dems in a bind politically. For the Republicans to swift-boat a guy like Murtha and let the Dems off the hook, I can only draw one conclusion: they must have calculated that they might not be able to hold the votes on their own side of the aisle had they let Murtha’s resolution build a head of steam for a few months.</p>
<p>With midterm elections just 12 months away, the heat is on Bush from his own party. “Just stay the course” worked in 2004, but I think it’s going to take a little more than that in '06.</p>
<p>BTW, who do you think Woodward sent scurrying to the special prosecutor to say, “oops, I think I forgot to mention that I outed V. Plame to Bob Woodward back in '03?” </p>
<p>It must be a poo-bah for Fitzgerald to call for a new grand jury. If it’s not Rove, I’m thinking Cheney may be the guy. Woodward doesn’t hobnob with the underlings.</p>
<p>Is it true that the Democratic temperament expresses itself in a marriage of courage with conviction?</p>
<p>403-to-3 eh…?</p>
<p> hmm, maybe not the best to have around in a tight spot.</p>
<p>What happened did the three slackers just forget to check their email?</p>
<p>Murtha’s resolution might have led to a real debate and more than a few Dems would have voted for it - but we won’t know will we? Stunt indeed.</p>
<p>If you want to understand what happened instead of believing browninfall’s summary, read this article with an excerpt below:</p>
<p>Murtha’s resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as “the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress” toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn “at the earliest practicable date,” although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.</p>
<ul>
<li>Link didn’t work - it’s on the front page of the Washington Post</li>
</ul>