1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
Full Version: Jobless claims rise
You still haven't answered my question, puck. Your response was a dance. Just how specifically did Bush cost all these jobs over the last 3 years (since he took office 1-20-01)?
Please, be specific. I am not trying to insult you. I just can't find anyone bitching about the job losses to give me concrete, specific answers. Responses like "controlling health care costs" and similar examples aren't specific or accurate. First of all, that problem has existed for the last 20 years or so. Secondly, that has not been the fault of Bush, in turn being the cause of 2 million jobs.
Please, be specific. I am not trying to insult you. I just can't find anyone bitching about the job losses to give me concrete, specific answers. Responses like "controlling health care costs" and similar examples aren't specific or accurate. First of all, that problem has existed for the last 20 years or so. Secondly, that has not been the fault of Bush, in turn being the cause of 2 million jobs.
Give 'em another tax cut and let them eat cake! Aaahhhrrr!
CNN Story
CNN Story
QUOTE
In a related story, unemployment in India is at an all time low.India to U.S. - "Take your jobs? sure, bring 'em on!"
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
In a related story, unemployment in India is at an all time low.
India to U.S. - \"Take your jobs? sure, bring 'em on!\"
No wonder why my calls to Dell tech. support all go to India.
In a related story, unemployment in India is at an all time low.
India to U.S. - \"Take your jobs? sure, bring 'em on!\"
QUOTE
Bobbie, please answer this question: Just how is Bush specifically responsible for the loss of these jobs?Why can't a frickin' person on this board answer this question honestly?!? One person mouthed some unintelligible BS about health care costs and how Bush is responsible for that, which is in turn responsible for job losses. Yeah right.
Fannie May goes under. Kodak lets go of thousands (due to digital technology replacing 35mm technology). Caterpillar lays off a few hundred. So how the hell is Bush specifically responsible for these losses?
I've hinted at this, BTW: Anyone know how to spell "NAFTA"? Now, I'm trying to remember just who signed that trade agreement into law. Hmmm...
[ January 29, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Bush and the republicans claimed that their policies would create new jobs. Suppose to have been 150,000 last month and we only had 1000. It is his policies that he claims will help the economy, hence meaning job growth. This is why he is responsible, because he made claims that are not coming true.
[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]I've hinted at this, BTW: Anyone know how to spell \"NAFTA\"? Now, I'm trying to remember just who signed that trade agreement into law. Hmmm... [/quote]Yeah Bush would've also, the wacko Perot shouldve been prez. I think he won Alaska. Dems and Republicans arent all that different, except Republicans are supported more by anti-gay, radical, right-wing, religous bigots. Except John McCain. When Dennis Miller becomes the top political commentator on CNBC, and the top story is whether or not John Kerry has got plastic surgery, I guess we are getting what we deserve.
[QUOTE]I've hinted at this, BTW: Anyone know how to spell \"NAFTA\"? Now, I'm trying to remember just who signed that trade agreement into law. Hmmm... [/quote]Yeah Bush would've also, the wacko Perot shouldve been prez. I think he won Alaska. Dems and Republicans arent all that different, except Republicans are supported more by anti-gay, radical, right-wing, religous bigots. Except John McCain. When Dennis Miller becomes the top political commentator on CNBC, and the top story is whether or not John Kerry has got plastic surgery, I guess we are getting what we deserve.
QUOTE
Seabaseballluvr:
Bush and the republicans claimed that their policies would create new jobs. Suppose to have been 150,000 last month and we only had 1000. It is his policies that he claims will help the economy, hence meaning job growth. This is why he is responsible, because he made claims that are not coming true.
WTF are you talking about? This is the most ass-backward post I have ever read here!Bush and the republicans claimed that their policies would create new jobs. Suppose to have been 150,000 last month and we only had 1000. It is his policies that he claims will help the economy, hence meaning job growth. This is why he is responsible, because he made claims that are not coming true.
So Bush says that his policies (which of course must be enacted by Congress, but I digress) will create jobs. No such policy was ever enacted. People lose jobs. And Bush is responsible for this? Jesus H. Christ on a moped running out of gas! This is simply wacked-out logic, completely flawed and with no basis on fact.
Meteorologists forecast a hurricane to hit the east coast of Florida. The hurricane turns north and hits North Carolina instead. Using your logic, it's the meteorologists' fault that the hurricane hit NC.
No one has yet answered my simple question.
[ January 29, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Because we like to blame the guy in charge when things go wrong.
And your meteorologist analogy is way off. Bush did not say that the natural economic patterns would grow new jobs, he said his policies (read: his direct involvement in the economy) would. So, to clarify your analogy, if a scientist were to create a machine he claimed could divert a hurricane and, as it turns out, its influence over weather patterns actually attracted hurricanes inland, then could we blame him? Yes.
Aaaanywho, MIB, you might want to turn down the vitriol a notch or two.
And your meteorologist analogy is way off. Bush did not say that the natural economic patterns would grow new jobs, he said his policies (read: his direct involvement in the economy) would. So, to clarify your analogy, if a scientist were to create a machine he claimed could divert a hurricane and, as it turns out, its influence over weather patterns actually attracted hurricanes inland, then could we blame him? Yes.
Aaaanywho, MIB, you might want to turn down the vitriol a notch or two.
QUOTE
MIB:
I am NOT saying he is blameless about this but if look at the big picture, he sure as hell isn't doing anything to create jobs. He lies and says his tax cuts will stimulate the economy and create jobs...and they have failed. He can't seem to fix the problem.QUOTE
Bobbie, please answer this question: Just how is Bush specifically responsible for the loss of these jobs?[ January 30, 2004, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
QUOTE
araanib:
Aaaanywho, MIB, you might want to turn down the vitriol a notch or two.
Yo! Hypocrisy alert! Give that same advice to some of your name-calling comrades on the left of this board and you'll add inches to your credibility overnight!
Aaaanywho, MIB, you might want to turn down the vitriol a notch or two.
Hey MIB, or is it foaming at the mouth idiot, but I digress. Congress DID pass his tax cuts which WERE suppose to be the end all be all that fix this economy hence creating jobs that are needed to build an economy. And thanks for the insult about my post. Coming from you its a compliment!
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
... you'll add inches to your credibility overnight!
I don't need any more inches, thank you very much.
... you'll add inches to your credibility overnight!
QUOTE
araanib:
Hmm, that's not what I heard..... wink
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
... you'll add inches to your credibility overnight!
I don't need any more inches, thank you very much. ... you'll add inches to your credibility overnight!
QUOTE
Seabaseballluvr:
Hey MIB, or is it foaming at the mouth idiot, but I digress. Congress DID pass his tax cuts which WERE suppose to be the end all be all that fix this economy hence creating jobs that are needed to build an economy. And thanks for the insult about my post. Coming from you its a compliment!
You might want to read gmg's post immediately above yours. Real mature post, BTW. What grade are you in? Isn't it past your bedtime? Hey MIB, or is it foaming at the mouth idiot, but I digress. Congress DID pass his tax cuts which WERE suppose to be the end all be all that fix this economy hence creating jobs that are needed to build an economy. And thanks for the insult about my post. Coming from you its a compliment!
Whatever! How about the point that your question has been answered.
QUOTE
Seabaseballluvr:
Whatever! How about the point that your question has been answered.
Hardly. My question has still gone unanswered. Nothing but veiled attempts at excuses and other nonsequitors and the like.Whatever! How about the point that your question has been answered.
Specifics is what I simply requested, and all I get are whiney complaints. Oh well.
Interesting...
QUOTE
Reuters News Article
Self-Employment May Mask U.S. Job Growth
Sunday February 1, 8:53 AM EST
By Andrea Hopkins
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - According to the most widely accepted measure of U.S. employment, public-speaking coach and consultant LeeAundra Temescu was not among the 130 million Americans who had a job in 2003.
But don't try telling her that.
\"Was I working?\" the Los Angeles resident said. \"In terms of speaking and writing and marketing and doing all that sort of stuff -- yeah, I was working.\"
Because she is one of more than 15 million self-employed workers in the United States, Temescu is on nobody's payroll -- and thus does not show up on the Labor Department's employer survey used each month to assess the strength of the job market.
The failure of the survey to count independent contractors has come under fire by President Bush's economic team and some analysts, who argue it underestimates job growth by ignoring one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy.
\"There is a big error factor in those numbers,\" Treasury Secretary John Snow said after Labor reported a scant 1,000 rise in December payrolls. \"I think they may well have understated (job growth), and we will see a restatement in the future.\"
A rise in self-employed and other nonpayroll workers would bolster the argument of Bush supporters that the \"jobless\" nature of America's recovery has been exaggerated.
LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS
While outsourcing is not new, a rise in self-employed contractors could explain the slow rebound in employment as counted by the payrolls survey, which shows 2.3 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office in January 2001.
For the same period, a smaller study of households, based on the Current Population Survey, shows a 700,000 rise in employment -- a seemingly contradictory sign that has fueled Republican skepticism about the accuracy of the bleaker payrolls data.
According to the Current Population Survey, the number of self-employed Americans surged 3.9 percent in the last three years, far outstripping a 0.6 percent rise in overall employment.
But experts also take issue with the household survey, saying it is too small, too volatile and possibly overstates population growth. Moreover, it registers a worker as employed even if he or she works only one hour in the survey week.
Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke said the household survey's accuracy could also suffer if individuals misunderstand the questions \"or for one reason or another misreport their own labor market status or that of other members of the household.\"
Self-employed consultant Temescu agrees. For much of 2003, she was one of 60,000 surveyed for the household report. Trying to categorize herself as \"employed\" or \"unemployed\" was tough in a week when she had no paying clients but was busy marketing. And she said the Census Bureau questioners were just as confused about her employment status.
\"There were a lot of times when I'd give an answer and they'd go 'Oh, I don't have a code for that',\" she recalled. \"It was kind disconcerting to ... have to give answers that I know weren't accurate because I was constrained by the nature of the questionnaire.\"
WAVE OF THE FUTURE
As president of SurePayroll, the fifth-largest U.S. payroll services provider, Michael Alter has seen a definite shift away from the traditional employer-employee relationships captured by the payroll survey.
Last year, payments by his small business clients to independent contractors surged 12 percent -- and Alter himself says he is using more contract workers.
\"I personally believe there has been a structural change,\" he said. \"You can get people who have very specialized skills for a very reasonable price, and you don't have to put them on staff full-time.\"
Economist Joel Naroff believes the outsourcing trend, which took off in the 1990s, is here to stay.
\"Businesses have been looking to temporary help or outsourcing to lower their employment -- and therefore their health care and pension and other responsibilities,\" he said.
Government data show employment costs rose 3.8 percent in 2003. Outsourcing work to a self-employed contractor cuts those costs by up to a third -- because health care, pensions and other benefits make up 30 percent of total compensation.
\"Clearly these kind of huge increases in health care costs encourage businesses to move toward temporary help, outsourcing, or setting people up as consultants,\" Naroff said. \"It's clearly getting stronger.\"
Meanwhile, Temescu shrugs off the government's inability to accurately count her employment and says the benefits of her situation are worth the risks involved.
\"The alternative of working as a salaried worker in an organization is even more unpalatable,\" Temescu said. \"There is just something about working for myself -- I really, truly do love what I do.\"
###
Self-Employment May Mask U.S. Job Growth
Sunday February 1, 8:53 AM EST
By Andrea Hopkins
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - According to the most widely accepted measure of U.S. employment, public-speaking coach and consultant LeeAundra Temescu was not among the 130 million Americans who had a job in 2003.
But don't try telling her that.
\"Was I working?\" the Los Angeles resident said. \"In terms of speaking and writing and marketing and doing all that sort of stuff -- yeah, I was working.\"
Because she is one of more than 15 million self-employed workers in the United States, Temescu is on nobody's payroll -- and thus does not show up on the Labor Department's employer survey used each month to assess the strength of the job market.
The failure of the survey to count independent contractors has come under fire by President Bush's economic team and some analysts, who argue it underestimates job growth by ignoring one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy.
\"There is a big error factor in those numbers,\" Treasury Secretary John Snow said after Labor reported a scant 1,000 rise in December payrolls. \"I think they may well have understated (job growth), and we will see a restatement in the future.\"
A rise in self-employed and other nonpayroll workers would bolster the argument of Bush supporters that the \"jobless\" nature of America's recovery has been exaggerated.
LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS
While outsourcing is not new, a rise in self-employed contractors could explain the slow rebound in employment as counted by the payrolls survey, which shows 2.3 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office in January 2001.
For the same period, a smaller study of households, based on the Current Population Survey, shows a 700,000 rise in employment -- a seemingly contradictory sign that has fueled Republican skepticism about the accuracy of the bleaker payrolls data.
According to the Current Population Survey, the number of self-employed Americans surged 3.9 percent in the last three years, far outstripping a 0.6 percent rise in overall employment.
But experts also take issue with the household survey, saying it is too small, too volatile and possibly overstates population growth. Moreover, it registers a worker as employed even if he or she works only one hour in the survey week.
Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke said the household survey's accuracy could also suffer if individuals misunderstand the questions \"or for one reason or another misreport their own labor market status or that of other members of the household.\"
Self-employed consultant Temescu agrees. For much of 2003, she was one of 60,000 surveyed for the household report. Trying to categorize herself as \"employed\" or \"unemployed\" was tough in a week when she had no paying clients but was busy marketing. And she said the Census Bureau questioners were just as confused about her employment status.
\"There were a lot of times when I'd give an answer and they'd go 'Oh, I don't have a code for that',\" she recalled. \"It was kind disconcerting to ... have to give answers that I know weren't accurate because I was constrained by the nature of the questionnaire.\"
WAVE OF THE FUTURE
As president of SurePayroll, the fifth-largest U.S. payroll services provider, Michael Alter has seen a definite shift away from the traditional employer-employee relationships captured by the payroll survey.
Last year, payments by his small business clients to independent contractors surged 12 percent -- and Alter himself says he is using more contract workers.
\"I personally believe there has been a structural change,\" he said. \"You can get people who have very specialized skills for a very reasonable price, and you don't have to put them on staff full-time.\"
Economist Joel Naroff believes the outsourcing trend, which took off in the 1990s, is here to stay.
\"Businesses have been looking to temporary help or outsourcing to lower their employment -- and therefore their health care and pension and other responsibilities,\" he said.
Government data show employment costs rose 3.8 percent in 2003. Outsourcing work to a self-employed contractor cuts those costs by up to a third -- because health care, pensions and other benefits make up 30 percent of total compensation.
\"Clearly these kind of huge increases in health care costs encourage businesses to move toward temporary help, outsourcing, or setting people up as consultants,\" Naroff said. \"It's clearly getting stronger.\"
Meanwhile, Temescu shrugs off the government's inability to accurately count her employment and says the benefits of her situation are worth the risks involved.
\"The alternative of working as a salaried worker in an organization is even more unpalatable,\" Temescu said. \"There is just something about working for myself -- I really, truly do love what I do.\"
###
Elderly turning to Drug dealing, and single mothers selling themelve on the streets are also self employed too.
So there are 2 million of those kind of people, MIB? Let's not forget that's how many jobs have been lost under Bush.
You'd think there would be a stat somewhere of 2 million new businesses. Methinks this is bullshit. 
Of course you think this is BS, bobbie, because it discredits your argument that there aren't jobs out there. Furthermore, being self-employed does not mean there are 2 million new businesses for each of the referenced 2 million self-employees.
I know several relatives who over the last couple years either got laid off or quit, and every one of them decided to get into working for themselves or with some friends in their own business, company, whatever. None of these are part of the labor force per se.
I know several relatives who over the last couple years either got laid off or quit, and every one of them decided to get into working for themselves or with some friends in their own business, company, whatever. None of these are part of the labor force per se.
But again, that only matters if it's somewhere close to 2 million people who re-enter the work force in ways that aren't being counted. That's highly unlikely.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
Was wondering when you were going to come back and correct your inaccurate statement above, since 1000 is not correct. The actual number is 16,000 for December (anemic though it still is).1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
112,000 for January, the best in 3 years. I suppose we ought to look at the glass as half empty, however.
QUOTE
MIB:
112,000 for January, the best in 3 years. I suppose we ought to look at the glass as half empty, however.
Yes, 112,000 is the best in the past 3 years, BUTQUOTE
RazorbackTX:
1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
Was wondering when you were going to come back and correct your inaccurate statement above, since 1000 is not correct. The actual number is 16,000 for December (anemic though it still is).1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
112,000 for January, the best in 3 years. I suppose we ought to look at the glass as half empty, however.
What kind of jobs are they? Are they mainly retail, such as Wal-Mart etc.
Are they full time permanent jobs.
Remember, most of the 2.4 million jobs lost were good paying manufacturing jobs. What are they being replaced with.
It's all well and good for the economy to pick up steam, and create jobs, but if those jobs do not provide the ability for people to feed their familys, pay their mortgage etc, whoch their old jobs did, then to me, it's a very one sided recovery.
Corporate profits will increase. Dividend payments will increase.
And Joe Shmo down the street will still have to go the food bank.
There's something patently unfair about it.
It's too bad folks here constantly look for something bad out of something good. There's always a negative "but" to be said here. Sometimes this place is really depressing.
MIB, you're just even worse at always looking for something positive. Atrios points out that last June, Bush claimed we would gain 305,000 jobs a MONTH starting in July. Since then, we have gained 296,000 jobs TOTAL. Hello? What's going on? What this administraiton does is tell us "improving" means "good," and that's just not the case...gaining a few thousand jobs a month just doesn't cut it.
You can estimate the numbers from the article. If there are 15 million self-employed people, and their numbers have surged 3.9% in the past three years, that's about 600,000 jobs. Still WAY short of the 2,000,000+ jobs lost.
I hate to say this, but stop whining about job growth. WE HAVE JOB GROWTH PEOPLE! Jobs are NOT being lost! Yes, we are losing some job growth to an increase in productivity, but that has been going on since the Industrial Revolution!! LONG before Mr. Bush INHERITED the recession from Mr. Clinton!
I keep reading the recession started in February 2001, so how can it be attributed to Clinton? I never took an economics course, so enlighten me please.
QUOTE
timber07:
I hate to say this, but stop whining about job growth. WE HAVE JOB GROWTH PEOPLE! Jobs are NOT being lost! Yes, we are losing some job growth to an increase in productivity, but that has been going on since the Industrial Revolution!! LONG before Mr. Bush INHERITED the recession from Mr. Clinton!
actually, jobs are being lost, to the tune of 2,000,000 (as previously cited) since bush took office. in fact, bush is almost certain to be the first president since herbert hoover (not a name to be too closely associated with, presidentially speaking!) to have a NET JOB LOSS during his term.
I hate to say this, but stop whining about job growth. WE HAVE JOB GROWTH PEOPLE! Jobs are NOT being lost! Yes, we are losing some job growth to an increase in productivity, but that has been going on since the Industrial Revolution!! LONG before Mr. Bush INHERITED the recession from Mr. Clinton!
QUOTE
MIB:
112,000 for January, the best in 3 years. I suppose we ought to look at the glass as half empty, however.
or, put another way, 112,000 jobs for january is the best this administration has achieved! in their best month, they missed economists' expectations by only 50,00 jobs or so! woo hoo!QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
Was wondering when you were going to come back and correct your inaccurate statement above, since 1000 is not correct. The actual number is 16,000 for December (anemic though it still is).1,000 jobs created in the U.S.
I think the other 129,000 must have been created in India.
112,000 for January, the best in 3 years. I suppose we ought to look at the glass as half empty, however.
i wonder if they will build the reelection campaign around this good news!
<i>i wonder if they will build the reelection campaign around this good news!</i>
They probably will, which is sad.
They probably will, which is sad.
QUOTE
FeverDog:
I keep reading the recession started in February 2001, so how can it be attributed to Clinton? I never took an economics course, so enlighten me please.
A president's policies have to be passed by Congress then signed into law by the president himself. Bush was inaugurated 1-20-01. He didn't even get anything passed for quite some time afterward, meaning the previous president's policies would still be in effect.
I keep reading the recession started in February 2001, so how can it be attributed to Clinton? I never took an economics course, so enlighten me please.
So what Clinton policies instigated the recession then? And he didn't introduce them at the end of his term to screw his successor, did he?
So, by your explanation, we'd be in a recession no matter who the current president is, is that right?
So, by your explanation, we'd be in a recession no matter who the current president is, is that right?
QUOTE
FeverDog:
I keep reading the recession started in February 2001, so how can it be attributed to Clinton? I never took an economics course, so enlighten me please.
Since George Bush took office in January 2001 I think its slightly enrealistic to try and blame him for a recesiion that started one month later, don't you think?
I keep reading the recession started in February 2001, so how can it be attributed to Clinton? I never took an economics course, so enlighten me please.
QUOTE
FeverDog:
So what Clinton policies instigated the recession then? And he didn't introduce them at the end of his term to screw his successor, did he?
So, by your explanation, we'd be in a recession no matter who the current president is, is that right?
Actually you are correct! Upturns and downturns are the normal cycle for our economic system. Perhaps the latest downturn seemed more severe because we had a unusually long upturn during the 90's.
So what Clinton policies instigated the recession then? And he didn't introduce them at the end of his term to screw his successor, did he?
So, by your explanation, we'd be in a recession no matter who the current president is, is that right?
So if up and downturns are cyclical, what policies did Clinton enact to instigate the recession?
I'm not going to blame Clinton for the recession, but what about all the corporate scandals that shattered investors' confidence? Enron, MCI, and the like did NOT start under Bush. The corruption and greed that went on there had been going on for quite some time, starting in the 90's. I wonder who was president then. Hmmm...
It's laughable when I hear people blame Bush for such problems. If anything, such scandals are fewer in number now than they were a few years ago. I also think it's asinine for people like John Kerry and John Edwards to campaign and tell people, "If I was president today, I'd throw the Enrons into jail." Oh yeah? How? By creating a police state where the president can unilaterally have someone imprisoned who is not involved in terrorism? That's frightening to think Kerry or Edwards are going to toss people into the hoosegow on their own whims.
It's laughable when I hear people blame Bush for such problems. If anything, such scandals are fewer in number now than they were a few years ago. I also think it's asinine for people like John Kerry and John Edwards to campaign and tell people, "If I was president today, I'd throw the Enrons into jail." Oh yeah? How? By creating a police state where the president can unilaterally have someone imprisoned who is not involved in terrorism? That's frightening to think Kerry or Edwards are going to toss people into the hoosegow on their own whims.
QUOTE
MIB:
I'm not going to blame Clinton for the recession...
But you did, Blanche:I'm not going to blame Clinton for the recession...
QUOTE
A president's policies have to be passed by Congress then signed into law by the president himself. Bush was inaugurated 1-20-01. He didn't even get anything passed for quite some time afterward, meaning the previous president's policies would still be in effect.
I'm sorry, how is this not blaming Clinton?
Look, say what you will, but this preisdent will preside over the worst economic record in terms of job losses since Herbert Hoover. And that includes the inept Jimmy Carter and W's daddy. His policies of ballooning the deficit like there are no consequences and continually understating the amounts; of using the Iraq War as a pretext for excessive defense spending while not devoting necessary dollars to either the troops or Homeland Defense; of gutting SEC enforcement when he took office until it exploded in his face, then trying to renege as soon as no one was looking; of weakening IRS enforcement against the rich and corporations; of subsidizing the continued movement of jobs and businesses offshore; of emphasizing the dinosaur industries of oil and gas while deemphasizing funding for high tech, telecommunications, and newer industries; of not assisting the states and pushing middle-class tax cuts while giving most of the benefits to the superrich; of allowing the dollar to spiral downwards; and on and on are testimony to his disastrous economic policies. Sure Donald Trump is better off today than yesterday (and he made off like a bandit under Clinton), but what about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in South Carolina, or New York State, or Michigan, or Ohio, or Tennessee, or Washington State, or Oregon, or Missouri? What about the increasing bankruptcies and foreclosures in ultraconservative Utah? What about the high energy prices and the gouging that he permitted Enron to do in California? He actually makes Herbert Hoover's record look like Reagan's or Clinton's on the economic front.
Fantomas, well put my friend, you said it all exactly as it needs to be said. I want to know exactly in what states and what cities large and small this so called "recovery" is occuring in. It sure as hell isn't occuring out here in the Pacific Northwest!!!
QUOTE
2.6 million new jobs in India in 2004 , or is that 2.6 million troops drafted to fight in W's wars?
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).
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).
A.) I don't think America will go for another Bush in 2008 (some other Republican would be more palatable).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).
B.) Hillary ain't going to let Edwards get in her way in 2008.
I think either Edwards or Clark would be the ticket, since both are from the south. Clark of course from Arkansas. Either one would make the Kerry team a formidable foe.
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).
Jeb Bush as president...hummm...well, at least his drug-abusing daughter will make good copy in the tabloids. And, also, how about that nutty wife of his trying to avoid paying fees on items she bought on a trip outside the country. Hopefully, someone will push the red button before we (and the rest of the world) have to endure another Bush.
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).
As I recall a couple months back when Barbara Bush was on Larry King Live, he asked her is she thought Jeb had any intentions of running for President some day, and I as recall, she said he did not, thank GOD!!! wink
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.