Full Version: Jobless claims rise
MIB.. the question is really irrelevant.. President Bush obviously thinks it is important since he promised 2.6 million in job growth this year in his appearance on Meet the Press this past weekend..it is not whether the job loss is due to his policies or not..the perception is that it is and that is all that matters
QUOTE
ballplayer3:
MIB.. the question is really irrelevant.. President Bush obviously thinks it is important since he promised 2.6 million in job growth this year in his appearance on Meet the Press this past weekend..it is not whether the job loss is due to his policies or not..the perception is that it is and that is all that matters
He did not mention the 2.6 million job growth (probable 100,000 job loss) projection in the Meet the Press interview. Here is the transcript. MIB.. the question is really irrelevant.. President Bush obviously thinks it is important since he promised 2.6 million in job growth this year in his appearance on Meet the Press this past weekend..it is not whether the job loss is due to his policies or not..the perception is that it is and that is all that matters
This is the outlandish story claiming a boom in the job market. Yeah, right. Just more Bushitting.
More on Bush's disastrous policies. In his Oz-like projections on the economy, he actually promotes "outsourcing" and the shipping of jobs overseas. I was joking in my earlier post, but didn't realize that actually, the humor was based on fact--I'm not making this up: you can find information on it at:
Seattle Times: Shipping jobs overseas helps US
Pittsburgh Times-Gazette: Bush economic report praises outsourcing jobs
LA Times: Bush supports shipping of jobs overseas
They're even picked up on it in India:
Indian Express: Outsourcing a Win-Win, say Bush aides
I long ago thought hubris and venality would bring these people down, and now it's happening. That he could champion a policy that so blatantly harms American workers, ESPECIALLY many of the ones who voted for him (as opposed to wealthy knowledge-based workers on the coasts) is just astonishing, astonishing.
Or to quote John Edwards, ""These [Bush administration] people...what planet do they live on? They are so out of touch."
[ February 10, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Seattle Times: Shipping jobs overseas helps US
Pittsburgh Times-Gazette: Bush economic report praises outsourcing jobs
LA Times: Bush supports shipping of jobs overseas
They're even picked up on it in India:
Indian Express: Outsourcing a Win-Win, say Bush aides
I long ago thought hubris and venality would bring these people down, and now it's happening. That he could champion a policy that so blatantly harms American workers, ESPECIALLY many of the ones who voted for him (as opposed to wealthy knowledge-based workers on the coasts) is just astonishing, astonishing.
Or to quote John Edwards, ""These [Bush administration] people...what planet do they live on? They are so out of touch."
[ February 10, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Bobby..thanks for the correction..I got this link from a friend I hope it comes thru//homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
QUOTE
timber07:
Just my opinion; but I think John Kerry is almost as unelectable as Howard Dean; there is no way John Kerry will beat Bush in any southern state. I still think the best Democrat still running is John Edwards. If John Kerry wins the nomination he would be wise to snag him as his running mate. I don't think that will help him win; but it will certainly set John Edwards up for a run in 2008 (against Jeb Bush).
Dude, you're spinning. First, Kerry doesn't have to win ANY Southern state to become president, though it's likely he could win 1-2, especially if the real economy, versus the elite one W is talking about, keeps stuttering along. (Cf. the Electoral College thread.) Just my opinion; but I think John Kerry is almost as unelectable as Howard Dean; there is no way John Kerry will beat Bush in any southern state. I still think the best Democrat still running is John Edwards. If John Kerry wins the nomination he would be wise to snag him as his running mate. I don't think that will help him win; but it will certainly set John Edwards up for a run in 2008 (against Jeb Bush).
Second, the US people, after the mess this one has caused, wouldn't stand for another Bush, even a (seemingly) more moderate one. I mean, this one wasn't even ELECTED! Still, we've had two and the second is far worse than the first. No one speaks positively about HW, really, and I can assure you, in the pantheon of Republicans presidents, this current resident will go down as beloved only by the Far Right Wing. He's in serious trouble, and rose-colored glasses aren't going to change that.
QUOTE
ballplayer3:
MIB.. the question is really irrelevant
I see. You can't honestly answer a legitimate question, so you just dismiss it as irrelevant. Typical.MIB.. the question is really irrelevant
And the "perception" is all that matters??? When you and others of the same ilk have been complaining about Bush's image and how he does things to make him look good?
Oh! The hypocrisy!
QUOTE
I TOLD people G.W. should never have signed NAFTA!!! Look how many jobs have been sent overseas because of that. Oh! The hypocrisy!
QUOTE
MIB:
I'm still waiting (for either you or Timber) for the policies that Clinton enacted that started the recession. That was also a legitimate question that's been dismissed. 'Cause, MIB, we all know how impatient you get when a question isn't answered to your satisfaction.
QUOTE
ballplayer3:
MIB.. the question is really irrelevant
I see. You can't honestly answer a legitimate question, so you just dismiss it as irrelevant. Typical. MIB.. the question is really irrelevant
[quote]FeverDog:
[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ballplayer3:
[qb] [/quote]I'm still waiting (for either you or Timber) for the policies that Clinton enacted that started the recession. That was also a legitimate question that's been dismissed. 'Cause, MIB, we all know how impatient you get when a question isn't answered to your satisfaction. [/quote]We have a wide range of opinions in this discussion group. I value those opinions and often form my own based on what I hear. Unfortunately, once in awhile it gets to a point where discussion just becomes pointless bickering. It's at that point I think we should just agree to disagree and move on. It's obvious (in my opinion) that you just don't like Mr. Bush and will argue any point brought up. Although I am a conservative Republican I am not bound to vote for a man, party or philosophy. I think President Bush has done a very good job overall, but there are aspects of his policies I do not agree with. For one, I am not happy with his spending policies. I think he is investing way too much in social programs. Although I agreed with his tax cuts in the beginning, I now think we should hold off on future tax cuts until the budget deficit is more manageable. I believe the economy is recovering, and an increase in tax revenue from businesses will also help reduce the budget deficit. In any case, spending must be more tightly controlled. And finally, President Bush's stand on gay marriage actually infuriates me. If the Democratic nominee would openly favor gay marriage they very well may earn my vote in November.
Bottom line, lets stop bickering and start exchanging ideas and opinions again.
[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ballplayer3:
[qb] [/quote]I'm still waiting (for either you or Timber) for the policies that Clinton enacted that started the recession. That was also a legitimate question that's been dismissed. 'Cause, MIB, we all know how impatient you get when a question isn't answered to your satisfaction. [/quote]We have a wide range of opinions in this discussion group. I value those opinions and often form my own based on what I hear. Unfortunately, once in awhile it gets to a point where discussion just becomes pointless bickering. It's at that point I think we should just agree to disagree and move on. It's obvious (in my opinion) that you just don't like Mr. Bush and will argue any point brought up. Although I am a conservative Republican I am not bound to vote for a man, party or philosophy. I think President Bush has done a very good job overall, but there are aspects of his policies I do not agree with. For one, I am not happy with his spending policies. I think he is investing way too much in social programs. Although I agreed with his tax cuts in the beginning, I now think we should hold off on future tax cuts until the budget deficit is more manageable. I believe the economy is recovering, and an increase in tax revenue from businesses will also help reduce the budget deficit. In any case, spending must be more tightly controlled. And finally, President Bush's stand on gay marriage actually infuriates me. If the Democratic nominee would openly favor gay marriage they very well may earn my vote in November.
Bottom line, lets stop bickering and start exchanging ideas and opinions again.
I wasn't arguing or bickering. I just wanted you to provide evidence backing up your assertion, something you apparently are incapable of doing.
I haven't even mentioned Bush in this thread, so where the hell does "It's obvious (in my opinion) that you just don't like Mr. Bush and will argue any point brought up" come from? Obvious how? I don't recall giving my opinions about Bush in any thread; I'd really appreciate you telling me why you think you know how I feel about our President.
Way to dodge the question there, timber. Jeez, all I wanted to know is what CLINTON policies were responsible for the recession, and you can't give me an answer. If you don't know, then why do you feel that way? And did you tell MIB to stop bickering when he repeatedly asked for proof that Bush is responsible for all the job losses during his term?
I didn't realize it was too much to ask for people to support their views.
I haven't even mentioned Bush in this thread, so where the hell does "It's obvious (in my opinion) that you just don't like Mr. Bush and will argue any point brought up" come from? Obvious how? I don't recall giving my opinions about Bush in any thread; I'd really appreciate you telling me why you think you know how I feel about our President.
Way to dodge the question there, timber. Jeez, all I wanted to know is what CLINTON policies were responsible for the recession, and you can't give me an answer. If you don't know, then why do you feel that way? And did you tell MIB to stop bickering when he repeatedly asked for proof that Bush is responsible for all the job losses during his term?
I didn't realize it was too much to ask for people to support their views.
For the record, you never asked us to specify Clinton's responsibility for a recession.
Anyway, I never said Clinton's policies started the recession. I stated that the recession began when Bush could not possibly have done anything to cause its beginning. I simply mentioned that Clinton's policies would still have been in effect when the recession was understood to have begun. It's your fault if mistakenly inferred what you wanted to hear.
For the heck of it, though, what about NAFTA? I wonder who lobbied for its passage and signed that big bill into law. Just look at how many jobs have left the U.S. since NAFTA. Now, who's at fault for that? wink
[ February 10, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Anyway, I never said Clinton's policies started the recession. I stated that the recession began when Bush could not possibly have done anything to cause its beginning. I simply mentioned that Clinton's policies would still have been in effect when the recession was understood to have begun. It's your fault if mistakenly inferred what you wanted to hear.
For the heck of it, though, what about NAFTA? I wonder who lobbied for its passage and signed that big bill into law. Just look at how many jobs have left the U.S. since NAFTA. Now, who's at fault for that? wink
[ February 10, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Clinton pushed for NAFTA. Yet during Clinton's presidency over 20 million new jobs were created. That cannot be denied. We have lost MORE JOBS UNDER W THAN ANY PRESIDENT SINCE HERBERT HOOVER! This includes recessions under Nixon, under Carter, under Reagan, under HW, and the one that Clinton inherited. Okay? Remember that, the economic situation when Clinton took office? W's policies have been disastrous for the economy.
Since you want to equivocate, I'll post to this thread the truth-based challenges to W's assertion on the Russert show concerning the economy. It's not that hard to understand; his policies are not only not creating jobs and improving the overall economy, but they are going to saddle us with a debt that any future president (Democrat or Republican) will be forced to resolve at the expense of prudent, even visionary economic policies and programs that could more rapidly grow the economy, create jobs, and return us to prosperity.
Finally, if W really cared about jobs, he wouldn't be touting the exporting of jobs under NAFTA or any other program. India is NOT part of NAFTA, which is obvious even to a 3rd grader, so the export of jobs to India, Vietnam, China, etc., is not part of the NAFTA disaster. His support of this "outsourcing" (more hifalutin' language for sending American jobs overseas) shows how little he gives a damn about American workers. What, other than his cronies we should all be working at anti-union, immigrant-abusing, lock-employees-in-at-night-like-slaves Wal-Mart? As Edwards said, the man is totally out of touch, and actually contemptuous of the very people who support him--not just the gay queers, but working-class and poor white Southerners too.
But back to W's economic gaffes:
Center for American Progress: W's Claims vs. the Truth
[ February 10, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Since you want to equivocate, I'll post to this thread the truth-based challenges to W's assertion on the Russert show concerning the economy. It's not that hard to understand; his policies are not only not creating jobs and improving the overall economy, but they are going to saddle us with a debt that any future president (Democrat or Republican) will be forced to resolve at the expense of prudent, even visionary economic policies and programs that could more rapidly grow the economy, create jobs, and return us to prosperity.
Finally, if W really cared about jobs, he wouldn't be touting the exporting of jobs under NAFTA or any other program. India is NOT part of NAFTA, which is obvious even to a 3rd grader, so the export of jobs to India, Vietnam, China, etc., is not part of the NAFTA disaster. His support of this "outsourcing" (more hifalutin' language for sending American jobs overseas) shows how little he gives a damn about American workers. What, other than his cronies we should all be working at anti-union, immigrant-abusing, lock-employees-in-at-night-like-slaves Wal-Mart? As Edwards said, the man is totally out of touch, and actually contemptuous of the very people who support him--not just the gay queers, but working-class and poor white Southerners too.
But back to W's economic gaffes:
Center for American Progress: W's Claims vs. the Truth
QUOTE
UNEMPLOYMENT
CLAIM: \"How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction.\"
FACT – THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's \"jobs and growth\" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]
JOB CREATION
CLAIM: \"There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.\"
FACT – STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.
TAXES
CLAIM: \"But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.\"
FACT – BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners \"would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit\" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates \"nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount\" while \"52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less.\" [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]
DEFICIT
CLAIM: \"The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years.\"
FACT – WHITE HOUSE ESTIMATES OMIT INEVITABLE COSTS: The President's proposal to cut the deficit in half deliberately \"omits a number of likely costs\" such as the continued cost of Iraq and its own defense spending plans. All told, he is proposing roughly $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, including $1 trillion to make his tax cuts permanent, $70 billion for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and $50 billion more for war in Iraq. The result is that the deficit is predicted to be \"in the range of $500 billion in 2009\" – not even near half of what it currently is. [Source: CBPP, 1/16/04; Washington Times, 1/20/04; Reuters, 2/2/04]
STIMULUS
CLAIM: \"The economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference.\"
FACT – STUDY SHOWS TAX CUTS BARELY MADE A DENT: A study by Economy.com attributes only 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent annualized growth in the third quarter to the 2003 tax cut. In other words, the Economy.com analysis suggests that the strength of the economy in the third quarter was not due primarily to the tax cut: Without the tax cut, growth would have still been an impressive 6.3 percent. [Peter Orszag in the New Republic, 11/6/03]
CLAIM: \"How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction.\"
FACT – THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's \"jobs and growth\" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]
JOB CREATION
CLAIM: \"There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.\"
FACT – STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.
TAXES
CLAIM: \"But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.\"
FACT – BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners \"would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit\" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates \"nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount\" while \"52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less.\" [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]
DEFICIT
CLAIM: \"The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years.\"
FACT – WHITE HOUSE ESTIMATES OMIT INEVITABLE COSTS: The President's proposal to cut the deficit in half deliberately \"omits a number of likely costs\" such as the continued cost of Iraq and its own defense spending plans. All told, he is proposing roughly $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, including $1 trillion to make his tax cuts permanent, $70 billion for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and $50 billion more for war in Iraq. The result is that the deficit is predicted to be \"in the range of $500 billion in 2009\" – not even near half of what it currently is. [Source: CBPP, 1/16/04; Washington Times, 1/20/04; Reuters, 2/2/04]
STIMULUS
CLAIM: \"The economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference.\"
FACT – STUDY SHOWS TAX CUTS BARELY MADE A DENT: A study by Economy.com attributes only 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent annualized growth in the third quarter to the 2003 tax cut. In other words, the Economy.com analysis suggests that the strength of the economy in the third quarter was not due primarily to the tax cut: Without the tax cut, growth would have still been an impressive 6.3 percent. [Peter Orszag in the New Republic, 11/6/03]
[ February 10, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
MIB
For the record, you never asked us to specify Clinton's responsibility for a recession.
For the record, I did:For the record, you never asked us to specify Clinton's responsibility for a recession.
QUOTE
FeverDog on February 7 @ 815 PM
So what Clinton policies instigated the recession then?
How could have I made the question clearer?So what Clinton policies instigated the recession then?
QUOTE
Anyway, I never said Clinton's policies started the recession.
Again, how were you not blaming Clinton on the previous page? Jeez, MIB, you talk just like a politician.
QUOTE
For the heck of it, though, what about NAFTA? I wonder who lobbied for its passage and signed that big bill into law. Just look at how many jobs have left the U.S. since NAFTA. Now, who's at fault for that?
How many jobs left because of NAFTA under Clinton as opposed to under Bush? This isn't a rhetorical question; does anyone have the numbers?[ February 11, 2004, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: FeverDog ]
QUOTE
FeverDog:
Jeez, MIB, you talk just like a politician.
Now that's low! Jeez, MIB, you talk just like a politician.
Maybe things are better than the left would like us to know: Greenspan Speaks!
Oh, yes, so rosy...hey, Greenspan is even slamming W on the deficit...but I guess you gotta leave that out.
Here's why W is really in trouble, even in the red states: Christian Science Monitor: Wages up for the well-off, but not for others
Here's why W is really in trouble, even in the red states: Christian Science Monitor: Wages up for the well-off, but not for others
QUOTE
Most US workers saw their earnings fall or stagnate last year, with those at the bottom of the income scale hit hardest.
The trend, coming alongside a slack job market, explains why many Americans feel left out of the economic recovery - and why President Bush faces a tough sell with his campaign-trail message that there is \"good strong growth.\" Democratic rivals point to \"two Americas,\" one for the rich, one for the poor.
Whether concerns over widening wage inequality will damage Mr. Bush remains to be seen. But the gap between workers in the 90th earning percentile and the 10th has never been wider. That opens the door for a populist message by a Democratic challenger to resonate, if job creation doesn't pick up.
Beyond the election, the stalling progress for the bottom half of American workers represents a challenge to the health of an economy traditionally driven by a growing consumer class.
The trend, coming alongside a slack job market, explains why many Americans feel left out of the economic recovery - and why President Bush faces a tough sell with his campaign-trail message that there is \"good strong growth.\" Democratic rivals point to \"two Americas,\" one for the rich, one for the poor.
Whether concerns over widening wage inequality will damage Mr. Bush remains to be seen. But the gap between workers in the 90th earning percentile and the 10th has never been wider. That opens the door for a populist message by a Democratic challenger to resonate, if job creation doesn't pick up.
Beyond the election, the stalling progress for the bottom half of American workers represents a challenge to the health of an economy traditionally driven by a growing consumer class.
As long as we're trading articles, a relatively distant, but civilized, form of debate, crunch on these numbers: Market Knows Best
Nevertheless, I do agree with you, FT: the income gap is troubling and needs to be aggressively addressed. I'm just not comfortable with the way the Dems would do it, i.e. raising taxes. I'm no millionaire - my income is a matter of public record, come to think of it - but I don't like paying even more while at both ends of the spectrum folks are getting over at my expense!
Nevertheless, I do agree with you, FT: the income gap is troubling and needs to be aggressively addressed. I'm just not comfortable with the way the Dems would do it, i.e. raising taxes. I'm no millionaire - my income is a matter of public record, come to think of it - but I don't like paying even more while at both ends of the spectrum folks are getting over at my expense!
For anyone who WANTS to know, President John Kerry will remove the tax cut only on the wealthiest people. Look it up on his website under the ECONOMY thread. Middle and lower income people will NOT have their taxes increased at all!
How's he going to do this with a repub senate and house kiddo? Is that on the website?
that you just don't like Mr. Bush and will argue any point brought up.
[quote][b][/b][/quote]How many jobs left because of NAFTA under Clinton as opposed to under Bush? [/QB][/QUOTE]
I rest my case.
[quote][b][/b][/quote]How many jobs left because of NAFTA under Clinton as opposed to under Bush? [/QB][/QUOTE]
I rest my case.
Yeah, even though I specifically said I would like my questions answered, I didn't mean it. I just want to argue. How ever did you figure me out, Timber? Your powers of deduction are truly mind-blowing; you somehow just knew a) my feelings about Bush, and 
I ask questions to argue rather than to learn. Way to go, Timb.
Thanks for blowing off all my questions. You've surely demonstrated what type of person you are.
I ask questions to argue rather than to learn. Way to go, Timb.Thanks for blowing off all my questions. You've surely demonstrated what type of person you are.
QUOTE
Dude, you're spinning. First, Kerry doesn't have to win ANY Southern state to become president, though it's likely he could win 1-2, especially if the real economy, versus the elite one W is talking about, keeps stuttering along. (Cf. the Electoral College thread.)
Second, the US people, after the mess this one has caused, wouldn't stand for another Bush, even a (seemingly) more moderate one. I mean, this one wasn't even ELECTED! Still, we've had two and the second is far worse than the first. No one speaks positively about HW, really, and I can assure you, in the pantheon of Republicans presidents, this current resident will go down as beloved only by the Far Right Wing. He's in serious trouble, and rose-colored glasses aren't going to change that. [/QB]
You could be right; we will only know in November for sure. The funny thing about politics is that there are no guarantees. I'm sure Howard Dean now realizes this. But come on, our Founding Fathers established the Electoral College for a reason. Our President is not elected by popular vote, thats just the way it is. Maybe if they call a Constitutional Convention to stop gays from getting married they can address the Electoral College as well. Until then, in this country you don't need to win the popular vote to be ELECTED President. Second, the US people, after the mess this one has caused, wouldn't stand for another Bush, even a (seemingly) more moderate one. I mean, this one wasn't even ELECTED! Still, we've had two and the second is far worse than the first. No one speaks positively about HW, really, and I can assure you, in the pantheon of Republicans presidents, this current resident will go down as beloved only by the Far Right Wing. He's in serious trouble, and rose-colored glasses aren't going to change that. [/QB]
You never can tell how history will look back upon a President either. I think it goes without saying that Nixon was not very popular after he resigned; but looking back on it now a lot of people would say he did a pretty good job establishing relations with China. How about Ronald Reagan? The Democrats never fell in love with him either. But everytime you talk about the collapse of the Soviet Block you are reminded of Ronny's famous "Tear Down This Wall" speech in Berlin. I think Jimmy Carter has been much better since he left office. I can't think of a better humanitarian. The jury is still out on Clinton. I know he is still remembered now for his impeachment; but as time goes by that may fade.
Bush backtracks on jobs estimate
So Shrub lied, was misled or had faulty intelligence on this one?
" . . . um, I never did say 2.6 millions jobs . . .ok, I said it, but I didn't mean it . . .ok, I meant it at the time, but, um . . . 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Al-Qaeda, terrorism"
So Shrub lied, was misled or had faulty intelligence on this one?
" . . . um, I never did say 2.6 millions jobs . . .ok, I said it, but I didn't mean it . . .ok, I meant it at the time, but, um . . . 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Al-Qaeda, terrorism"
QUOTE
KeyWest Guy:
Bush backtracks on jobs estimate
So Shrub lied, was misled or had faulty intelligence on this one?
\" . . . um, I never did say 2.6 millions jobs . . .ok, I said it, but I didn't mean it . . .ok, I meant it at the time, but, um . . . 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Al-Qaeda, terrorism\"
Bush backtracks on jobs estimate
So Shrub lied, was misled or had faulty intelligence on this one?
\" . . . um, I never did say 2.6 millions jobs . . .ok, I said it, but I didn't mean it . . .ok, I meant it at the time, but, um . . . 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Al-Qaeda, terrorism\"
QUOTE
\"the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.\"
Well, slap me silly, I thought he was the mostest brilliantest man God ever made. 
I liked Shrub's backtrack talk, "I am not a statistician, I am not a predictor". Not only that, you are not good with math, numbers, forecasting or money!
QUOTE
puckman1:
I liked Shrub's backtrack talk, \"I am not a statistician, I am not a predictor\". Not only that, you are not good with math, numbers, forecasting or money!
...or the English language, or raising sober children, or living in reality, or economics, or common sense...but you sure do make a damn good punk ass chimp. I liked Shrub's backtrack talk, \"I am not a statistician, I am not a predictor\". Not only that, you are not good with math, numbers, forecasting or money!
Interesting article, especially the penultimate paragraph.
21,000 jobs...that's well on the way to the 2.6 million goal Punk Ass Chimp said we will have this year....we'll get there in about 10 years at this rate. YEEEE-HAW!
And well below the prediction of 125,000 jobs economists predicted. Probably most of the new jobs were in manufacturing, ooops, I mean burger flippin. wink
Any Shrub disciples care to comment? The economy is robust and chugging along at record pace, right?
Awfully quiet in here. . .
Awfully quiet in here. . .
No doubt. Remember Shrub said the economy is on track to produce 2.6 million jobs this year alone! Time for another tax cut for the millionaires!!!!!
A chart is worth 1,000 words--thank you, Paul Krugman and NY TIMES!
Those tax cuts sure are working for 12,500 people at megamoney Bank of America.
CNN Story
CNN Story
Big story on the state of the economy on ABC News-Friday, they talked to quite a few people who were not able to find the good jobs that pay well in this so called "recovery" economy, and had to settle for jobs as cashiers and taxi drivers just to make ends meet, because they had to give up holding out for the better jobs. Lots of trouble finding the good jobs with the good companies, but hey everything is rosy and wonderful right Shrub?
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Those tax cuts sure are working for 12,500 people at megamoney Bank of America.
CNN Story
And just HOW is this Bush's fault, bobbie? Please elaborate. I've asked this same question for months, but NO ONE has yet been able to specifically indicate how this is Bush's fault.Those tax cuts sure are working for 12,500 people at megamoney Bank of America.
CNN Story
I'm still waiting...
Just like I'm still waiting for Clinton's policies that started the recession, MIB.
Waiting for something that has already occurred is a physical impossibility, so don't hold your breath that long. Nevertheless, who was president when the big dot com collapse occurred? Who did nothing to stop this massive loss of investment and jobs? Who caused NASDAQ to plunge over a couple thousand points in only a few short years? Answer: Clinton.
However, I'm not going to directly blame him for this; instead, I'm just stating a bit of history.
However, I'm not going to directly blame him for this; instead, I'm just stating a bit of history.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Those tax cuts sure are working for 12,500 people at megamoney Bank of America.
CNN Story
What a difference a day - or two - makes: Latest News on Jobs Those tax cuts sure are working for 12,500 people at megamoney Bank of America.
CNN Story
Much as I regret the loss of jobs in CA, BofA did the right thing business-wise, as did so many other companies, by downsizing its ops in the Golden State. With runaway workers' comp claims and rates, high taxes and micromanaging by local governments - that's YOU, City & County of SF! - business have found it just doesn' make economic sense to stay here. That's as legitimate a cause for concern as it is to relocate. Hopefully Gov. Schwartzenegger will be able to bring his fix to fruition on this issue as he already has on others. :cool:
Interesting article. No mention of the MAYORS or the GOVERNORS of these cities and states? Funny, I thought they were more responsible for job growth in their local municipalities than some guy in Washington. I wonder how much those useless unions have to do with this, too.
I'm SO glad we've rounded that corner. I guess our economy can also be considered a catastrophic success.
CNN Story
CNN Story
Bobby, have you seen the new Democratic commercial? It takes place in an empty hulk of a building that used to house a company probably before they got outsourced and relocated overseas. Bush's voice talks over several times, saying things like "we've turned the corner on the economy" and other nonsensical phrases over and over. Then there is a closeup of an old phonograph record player playing an album, and its skipping over repeatedly with things like "the economy is bright....we've turned the corner...and keeps skipping. Its great!
As Dumbya might say, it "we just turned the corner an' it's another catastrophic success!"
Yahoo! news: Productivity growth slows in the second quarter
Yahoo! news: Hurricane boosts jobless claims
Yahoo! news: Pace of new factory growth slows
Yahoo! news: Sharp drop in consumer confidence seen as cooling sign
Yahoo! news: Productivity growth slows in the second quarter
Yahoo! news: Hurricane boosts jobless claims
Yahoo! news: Pace of new factory growth slows
Yahoo! news: Sharp drop in consumer confidence seen as cooling sign
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.