Jobs....just around the corner
Clinton = blow jobs
Bush = no jobs
QUOTE
Oh, this is a great slogan, Razorback!!! Herbert Hoover (1932): "Prosperity is just around the corner."
George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush (2004): "We're turning the corner."
This goes to prove that Bush really was telling the truth yesterday he said he was doing everything he could to harm America. Why does he hate our freedom?
[ August 06, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
[ August 06, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
PhillyFan was right when he said jobs were "constant". Where's all that historic growth we heard about for a week and a half? 
QUOTE
KeyWest Guy:
PhillyFan was right when he said jobs were \"constant\". Where's all that historic growth we heard about for a week and a half?
Havent you heard? Its "around the corner." PhillyFan was right when he said jobs were \"constant\". Where's all that historic growth we heard about for a week and a half?
Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but "only" 32,0000 jobs--"nonfarming" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 "total" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but "only" 32,0000 jobs--"nonfarming" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 "total" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
QUOTE
MIB:
Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but \"only\" 32,0000 jobs--\"nonfarming\" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 \"total\" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
MIB...will you EVER learn? The unemployment numbers don't reflect TRUE unemployment. The 5.5% are those still registered under unemployment. When people drop off of the unemployment roles, they are no longer collected as a statistic.
Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but \"only\" 32,0000 jobs--\"nonfarming\" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 \"total\" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
I guess the Labor Department, which is run by the W administration, is somehow doing Kerry's and the Democrats' bidding! WHAT A JOKE!
Wake up, people--W's economic policies are ineffective. They were in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, and now, in 2004. We've been through similar nonsense before with a far more capable Bush, --it's time to say enough is enough and send li'l 43, who failed in every business he ran until he got someone to bail him out, back to his Potemkin ranch in November.
From Yahoo! News (bolds courtesy of FT):
Job Growth Meager, Markets Stunned
By Tim Ahmann
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers added a paltry 32,000 workers to payrolls last month, the government said on Friday in a startlingly weak report that led Wall Street to forecast a slower pace of Federal Reserve (news - web sites) interest-rate rises.
The Labor Department (news - web sites) also cut its tally of job growth in May and June by a combined 61,000, adding to the weak tenor of a report that came as unwelcome news for an election-bound President Bush (news - web sites).
Bond markets surged and the dollar tumbled as the data, coming just days ahead of the central bank's next meeting, suggested the economy had yet to shake off June weakness and led traders to expect a slower pace of Fed interest rate hikes.
U.S. stock markets fell sharply in early trade, with the blue chip Dow Jones industrial average down more than 100 points, as investors fretted the economy had lost some steam.
\"I find this number stunning,\" said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. \"I think the Fed will raise rates on Aug. 10 but this puts everything else into play.\"
The department said the unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month from 5.6 percent in June, but it warned the figure was drawn from a survey of households, which is a less reliable barometer of month-to-month changes in employment than its larger survey of businesses.
The Bush administration seized on the drop in the jobless rate as a bright spot.
\"We're not satisfied,\" U.S. Treasury Secretary Snow told reporters in Pittsburgh. \"We're encouraged, though, by the fact that the unemployment rate came down.\"
ECONOMIC SHOCK
Wall Street economists polled last week had looked for a payroll gain of 228,000, although a weak employment reading from a service sector survey on Wednesday had some bracing for a weaker number.
Still, they were stunned by July's lackluster figure.
\"It's a huge disappointment, a big surprise,\" said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Fla. \"It implies a very sharp revision to the overall outlook for the economy.\"
Fed officials gather next Tuesday to plot interest rate strategy and had widely been expected to add to a quarter-point interest-rate increase made in June.
Many economists believe the Fed would still raise rates next week but said policy-makers may have second thoughts about a rise at their next meeting in September, unless it was clear by then that the economy had regained momentum.
Interest-rate futures still showed a 90 percent chance of a quarter-point rate hike in August but trimmed expectations of how high overnight borrowing costs will be by year end.
\"We still think that the Fed will raise rates next week, but the case for moving slowly and deliberately is strengthened by this report,\" said Patrick Fearon, an economist at A.G. Edwards and Sons in St. Louis.
The government said last week the economy advanced at just a 3 percent annual rate in the second quarter, a sharp slowdown from its heady 4.5 percent first-quarter clip, but fresher data had led many to think the pace of growth quickened last month.
BROAD-BASED WEAKNESS
Signs of economic weakness could prove troubling for Bush, who is locked in a close battle for the White House with Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) in which the economy -- particularly labor-market weakness -- is a primary voter concern.
While the Bush administration could point to the creation of 1.5 million jobs in 11 straight months of hiring gains, Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry could accurately claim the economy is still down 1.1 million jobs since the president took office.
Manufacturers added a meager 10,000 workers in July, after cutting a revised 1,000 from their payrolls in June. The department noted a loss of 21,000 jobs in the transport equipment industry, which it pinned on larger-than-usual retooling shutdowns at auto plants.
Construction firms added just 4,000 new workers.
The service side of the economy showed weakness as well, creating only 14,000 new jobs. Employment at financial firms plummeted, with big losses at mortgage brokers that some economists said could be tied to rising interest rates.
[ August 06, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Wake up, people--W's economic policies are ineffective. They were in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, and now, in 2004. We've been through similar nonsense before with a far more capable Bush, --it's time to say enough is enough and send li'l 43, who failed in every business he ran until he got someone to bail him out, back to his Potemkin ranch in November.
From Yahoo! News (bolds courtesy of FT):
QUOTE
Job Growth Meager, Markets Stunned
By Tim Ahmann
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers added a paltry 32,000 workers to payrolls last month, the government said on Friday in a startlingly weak report that led Wall Street to forecast a slower pace of Federal Reserve (news - web sites) interest-rate rises.
The Labor Department (news - web sites) also cut its tally of job growth in May and June by a combined 61,000, adding to the weak tenor of a report that came as unwelcome news for an election-bound President Bush (news - web sites).
Bond markets surged and the dollar tumbled as the data, coming just days ahead of the central bank's next meeting, suggested the economy had yet to shake off June weakness and led traders to expect a slower pace of Fed interest rate hikes.
U.S. stock markets fell sharply in early trade, with the blue chip Dow Jones industrial average down more than 100 points, as investors fretted the economy had lost some steam.
\"I find this number stunning,\" said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. \"I think the Fed will raise rates on Aug. 10 but this puts everything else into play.\"
The department said the unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month from 5.6 percent in June, but it warned the figure was drawn from a survey of households, which is a less reliable barometer of month-to-month changes in employment than its larger survey of businesses.
The Bush administration seized on the drop in the jobless rate as a bright spot.
\"We're not satisfied,\" U.S. Treasury Secretary Snow told reporters in Pittsburgh. \"We're encouraged, though, by the fact that the unemployment rate came down.\"
ECONOMIC SHOCK
Wall Street economists polled last week had looked for a payroll gain of 228,000, although a weak employment reading from a service sector survey on Wednesday had some bracing for a weaker number.
Still, they were stunned by July's lackluster figure.
\"It's a huge disappointment, a big surprise,\" said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Fla. \"It implies a very sharp revision to the overall outlook for the economy.\"
Fed officials gather next Tuesday to plot interest rate strategy and had widely been expected to add to a quarter-point interest-rate increase made in June.
Many economists believe the Fed would still raise rates next week but said policy-makers may have second thoughts about a rise at their next meeting in September, unless it was clear by then that the economy had regained momentum.
Interest-rate futures still showed a 90 percent chance of a quarter-point rate hike in August but trimmed expectations of how high overnight borrowing costs will be by year end.
\"We still think that the Fed will raise rates next week, but the case for moving slowly and deliberately is strengthened by this report,\" said Patrick Fearon, an economist at A.G. Edwards and Sons in St. Louis.
The government said last week the economy advanced at just a 3 percent annual rate in the second quarter, a sharp slowdown from its heady 4.5 percent first-quarter clip, but fresher data had led many to think the pace of growth quickened last month.
BROAD-BASED WEAKNESS
Signs of economic weakness could prove troubling for Bush, who is locked in a close battle for the White House with Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) in which the economy -- particularly labor-market weakness -- is a primary voter concern.
While the Bush administration could point to the creation of 1.5 million jobs in 11 straight months of hiring gains, Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry could accurately claim the economy is still down 1.1 million jobs since the president took office.
Manufacturers added a meager 10,000 workers in July, after cutting a revised 1,000 from their payrolls in June. The department noted a loss of 21,000 jobs in the transport equipment industry, which it pinned on larger-than-usual retooling shutdowns at auto plants.
Construction firms added just 4,000 new workers.
The service side of the economy showed weakness as well, creating only 14,000 new jobs. Employment at financial firms plummeted, with big losses at mortgage brokers that some economists said could be tied to rising interest rates.
[ August 06, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
MIB, you're probably referring to the unemployment rate dropping to 5.5%. That happens because once people are out of work for 6 months and their benefits run out, they are no longer included in that statistic. The true percentage of Americans out of work is probably much higher.
QUOTE
HotlantaTarheel:
MIB, you're probably referring to the unemployment rate dropping to 5.5%. That happens because once people are out of work for 6 months and their benefits run out, they are no longer included in that statistic. The true percentage of Americans out of work is probably much higher.
Unemployment numbers also don't count people not actively seeking work, people who work part time but may be seeking additional work (the underemployed), and the self-employed. Factor in all those people which will either increase or decrease the current rate, and the true unemployment figure is in the 8-9% range.
MIB, you're probably referring to the unemployment rate dropping to 5.5%. That happens because once people are out of work for 6 months and their benefits run out, they are no longer included in that statistic. The true percentage of Americans out of work is probably much higher.
Still you can't argue with the truth. Under Shrub, the economy has still lost 1.1 million jobs. So if you want to call the truth negative, so be it. 
I'm waiting to hear Phillyfan's spin on this.
Oh wait. It'll be the fault of the liberal media.
Or Clinton.
Or maybe it's still Carter's fault.
They used that excuse for every bit of bad news through almost 6 years of the Reagan Richfest
Oh wait. It'll be the fault of the liberal media.
Or Clinton.
Or maybe it's still Carter's fault.
They used that excuse for every bit of bad news through almost 6 years of the Reagan Richfest
QUOTE
MIB:
Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
That sounds like a federal offense, right judge?
Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
QUOTE
MIB:
Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but \"only\" 32,0000 jobs--\"nonfarming\" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 \"total\" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
actually, an anemic jobs report like this one coupled with a DROP in the unemployment rate is the worst possible outcome for any incumbent.Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but \"only\" 32,0000 jobs--\"nonfarming\" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 \"total\" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
the jobs report and unemployment figures come from two different sources. the jobs figure comes from polling businesses about their hiring. quite simply (over simply, actually): new hiring - layoffs = new jobs created. this month, that number is 32,000. this is generally regarded as the more accurate measure among economic geeks.
the unemployment figure comes from polling households with two simple questions: do you have a job? are you looking for a job? if a person answers no to the first question and yes to the second question, then and only then, they are counted as unemployed. as pointed out by others, the underemployed don't count because even though are looking for a job, the fact that they are manufacturing burgers in the interim means they are employed.
a drop in the unemployment rate becomes bad news when combined with low job growth because what is happening is that people are starting to answer the two questions with a no, and no. no, i don't have a job, and no, i'm not looking for one. this usually means they have STOPPED LOOKING. that means the mood on main street is that looking for a job is pointless because there aren't any. when people start giving up hope of finding a job, you know things are bad. and that is what these latest figures represent.
there was no good news in these jobs/unemployment numbers. the news was all bad.
Man, were the markets jittery on that news. I have GOT to get my meager savings out of mutual funds until after November, if (when) Kerry gets elected the markets are bound to stabilize. I wonder what the election would look like if Bush had his way and everyone had a bit of their Social Security money in the stock market now, would more people be paying attention to the economy and deficits and new employment figures, and more undecideds becoming decided?
Man, were the markets jittery on that news. I have GOT to get my meager savings out of mutual funds until after November, if (when) Kerry gets elected the markets are bound to stabilize. I wonder what the election would look like if Bush had his way and everyone had a bit of their Social Security money in the stock market now, would more people be paying attention to the economy and deficits and new employment figures, and more undecideds becoming decided?
How did that happen? A double post? I didn't do it, I promise! Probably the Kerry campaign, either that or the Montreal tourism board or the Federation of Gay Games or some federal judge or those conservative conspirators. Sorry about that!
QUOTE
fantomas:
Wake up, people--W's economic policies are ineffective. They were in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, and now, in 2004. We've been through similar nonsense before with a far more capable Bush, --it's time to say enough is enough and send li'l 43, who failed in every business he ran until he got someone to bail him out, back to his Potemkin ranch in November.
And Poppy Bush summed it up quite well in two words.... voodoo economics.
Wake up, people--W's economic policies are ineffective. They were in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, and now, in 2004. We've been through similar nonsense before with a far more capable Bush, --it's time to say enough is enough and send li'l 43, who failed in every business he ran until he got someone to bail him out, back to his Potemkin ranch in November.
Chimpy=Herbert Hoover.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Actually booobster, economist dont look at job creation and unemployment together. They are usually separate numbers... very hard to compare. QUOTE
MIB:
Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but \"only\" 32,0000 jobs--\"nonfarming\" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 \"total\" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
MIB...will you EVER learn? The unemployment numbers don't reflect TRUE unemployment. The 5.5% are those still registered under unemployment. When people drop off of the unemployment roles, they are no longer collected as a statistic. Only the libs here, with their usual negative outlook on life, look for something negative out of something positive. What sad, depressing lives they lead.
So how does the overall job rate go down to 5.5%, but \"only\" 32,0000 jobs--\"nonfarming\" jobs at that--be created? And how can almost 600,000 \"total\" jobs be created? Something seems fishy here. Kerry's minions must be messing with those who report the numbers. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault.
However, this is the first month in the last 8 that job growth really slowed down. I guess you forget to mention the other million job which were created over those months. But hey dont let that stop you from looking at one month.
I'll say this and i really mean this. You libs are pretty much idiots when it comes to anything relating to the economy. You babble on about somethign you read withouth knowing what the hell it is you are talking about. Then try and throw in some big pretty words to make you look smarter than you are.... Not you booby... others.
When it comes right down to it, concentrate on what you guys are good at... trying to save some tree or some stupid bird. Let the real men take care of looking at the economics. eek!
What real men Phillyfan??. The real men in the administration who are responsible for the $450 Billion in debt we are this year? Now, thats what I call real good economics.
Whats Kerry's plan to get out of debt? he said he was raising taxes to pay for some stupid health care plan... what's his plan to reduce the debt?
So, Philly Fan, since you are one of the few real men in this entire forum, why don't YOU tell US what should be done to get rid of the 450 billion debt that was created- and that isn't just the loss- because we were in a surplus before this all started.
So YOU tell US what W's plan is- how it will work- how it will get us out of debt- how it will create the equal paying jobs instead of the fall-backs that are occurring now.
You are the only one of intellect in this entire forum. We bow down to your knowledge and seek it out. Help us. Help the ignorant and less worthy.
Help us who want leaders who want equal rights for all. Help us who will not shun others because of their accents, appearance and lifestyles. (Remember that you said Theresa Heinz Kerry is supposed to learn to speak our language? I shun to know what you say of the men who work at the gas stations and convenience stores who may not speak perfect English). Forgive us for giving and caring about something other than our mirror images.
Forgive us for not following your almighty example. You have demonstrated a strong lack and complete inability to show compassion for anything other than yourself. Maybe when you show some vilnerability and make yourself something other than a complete and utter selfish jerk- maybe we can listen to your ideas.
But in the meantime, enlighten us with something, because all you do is say we are wrong. You have yet to make one single, solid evidentiary argument.
Fact: We had surplus prior to W being in office. Fact: Our economy is now in severe debt.
Fact: The jobs being created are not enough to compensate for the cost of living changes or increase costs in gas, food, etc.
What are your facts?
So YOU tell US what W's plan is- how it will work- how it will get us out of debt- how it will create the equal paying jobs instead of the fall-backs that are occurring now.
You are the only one of intellect in this entire forum. We bow down to your knowledge and seek it out. Help us. Help the ignorant and less worthy.
Help us who want leaders who want equal rights for all. Help us who will not shun others because of their accents, appearance and lifestyles. (Remember that you said Theresa Heinz Kerry is supposed to learn to speak our language? I shun to know what you say of the men who work at the gas stations and convenience stores who may not speak perfect English). Forgive us for giving and caring about something other than our mirror images.
Forgive us for not following your almighty example. You have demonstrated a strong lack and complete inability to show compassion for anything other than yourself. Maybe when you show some vilnerability and make yourself something other than a complete and utter selfish jerk- maybe we can listen to your ideas.
But in the meantime, enlighten us with something, because all you do is say we are wrong. You have yet to make one single, solid evidentiary argument.
Fact: We had surplus prior to W being in office. Fact: Our economy is now in severe debt.
Fact: The jobs being created are not enough to compensate for the cost of living changes or increase costs in gas, food, etc.
What are your facts?
QUOTE
Our economy has turned the corner and is on the road to recovery.
This was said by none other than President Clinton in 1996, only months before the election. And the unemployment rate at that time? It had fallen to 5.5%, where it is right now.I have repeatedly asked the Bush haters here to specifically tell me how, just how, these job losses (and apparently small increases) are the fault of Bush. So far this year, I have yet to hear any direct answer. I don't expect to.
Imagine if Kerry had been president. The economic news would be much more horrible, for he was/is against tax cuts, tax cuts that, according to the Left's sometimes hero Alan Greenspan, "were largely responsible for the economic recovery we are experiencing." (Now if we can only get Bush to stop trying to outdo Congress in the spending department!)
Bush inherited an economy in recession, and no, I am NOT faulting Clinton for this. The recession that occurred was light, and brief (there are several economists who truly believe that we were never officially in such a recession, but that's an argument for another time). What really set our economy back was 9/11. The terrorist attacks severely affected the economic engine that is America. They also seriously weakened other world economies.
Of course, 9/11 was Bush's fault; other countries' poor economies were Bush's fault; therefore, "only" 32,000 jobs created in July--a number that WILL be revised upward, you watch--well, all this is Bush's fault.
I guess I answered my own question from the above second paragraph.
MIB-
The specific #s are great for your argument.
But what is the quality of the jobs being created?
What is the actual effect the tax cuts have had on the average American? (I admit I am a complete economic moron- but I don't understand how these tax cuts worked if we are further in debt? Are you saying that without these cuts that the 9-11 influence would have been more damaging?)
What is the overall quality of life for the average American? How are they dealing with the increase costs in gas/food/etc?
I don't have a personal issue with you as I do with PhillyFan (who makes racist, sexist comments), so I have some respect for your ability to come up with something behind your statements.
The only question I have- and I may be assuming that you are gay- on a personal level (outside of general politicking) do you support George W Bush and his feelings on adding the constitutional amendment? Also, how do you feel that he once labeled homosexuals "sinners"?
I can understand why looking at the big picture (money, feelings of war) that GLBT community members could support W, but as individuals looking at human rights and equality- it should really be a no-brainer. I guess it just depends on your individual outlook on life.
The specific #s are great for your argument.
But what is the quality of the jobs being created?
What is the actual effect the tax cuts have had on the average American? (I admit I am a complete economic moron- but I don't understand how these tax cuts worked if we are further in debt? Are you saying that without these cuts that the 9-11 influence would have been more damaging?)
What is the overall quality of life for the average American? How are they dealing with the increase costs in gas/food/etc?
I don't have a personal issue with you as I do with PhillyFan (who makes racist, sexist comments), so I have some respect for your ability to come up with something behind your statements.
The only question I have- and I may be assuming that you are gay- on a personal level (outside of general politicking) do you support George W Bush and his feelings on adding the constitutional amendment? Also, how do you feel that he once labeled homosexuals "sinners"?
I can understand why looking at the big picture (money, feelings of war) that GLBT community members could support W, but as individuals looking at human rights and equality- it should really be a no-brainer. I guess it just depends on your individual outlook on life.
Kicks problem with W is that he supports a marriage ammendment? I've said for a year now that he ZERO chance of going through. It never had a chance to go through. It did not go through. On the other hand, Kerry does not support your right to marry. He sees you as a second class citizen not worthy of that right. He will throw you a little bone here or there, but he does not think you are 100% citizen. How do you give him the free pass?
9/11 really hurt the economy. However, the fallout from the dotcom boom REALLY hurt the economy also. All of the companies who raked in millions of dollars from the public.. finally went belly up because they never made a dime and finally ran out of money. That made up a huge portion of Clinton's job growth. In reality, how many QUALITY jobs did he put out there? A quality job is working for a company that doesnt make money and relied on the bank roll of the public offering? I'd say that the McDonalds jobs ya'all bitch about are more stable in the end.
By the way, Clinton only began to operate in Surpluses during his second term, not the first term. Infact, when you look at the total number of surplus/deficit in his entire 8 years, he pretty much broke even.
One of you guys mentioned the fact that the housing market consisted of people who lost their jobs selling their houses and blah blah blah. That is a joke. The housing market has kept the economy going the last 3 years here folks. That has been the strongest portion of the economy. To even imply something else is just plain wrong.
This entire year (and the end of last year) when all of the job numbers come out, they beat expectations. To the tune of around 1 million new jobs. Then one month they dont beat expectations and here come the little libs trying to squack about something.
All i do is look at yahoo finance which addressed this and the article said that as this was a bad month, it was expected to just be for this one month as the numbers looked strong going forward.
Now if we see poor number for a few months or a quarter, yes that is a concern. This one month, is not. Anyone with 1/2 a brain or who actually read anythign about it would know this.
One more thing, when looking at the deficit, it's not proper to look at it as a whole number. A comparison of the GDP is a better way to look at it. Also, you'd have to look at past deficits and adjust for inflation. Something none of you ever seem to do. Basically, the same way that you distort numbers when telling the poor about tax cuts. Whole numbers not percentages.
9/11 really hurt the economy. However, the fallout from the dotcom boom REALLY hurt the economy also. All of the companies who raked in millions of dollars from the public.. finally went belly up because they never made a dime and finally ran out of money. That made up a huge portion of Clinton's job growth. In reality, how many QUALITY jobs did he put out there? A quality job is working for a company that doesnt make money and relied on the bank roll of the public offering? I'd say that the McDonalds jobs ya'all bitch about are more stable in the end.
By the way, Clinton only began to operate in Surpluses during his second term, not the first term. Infact, when you look at the total number of surplus/deficit in his entire 8 years, he pretty much broke even.
One of you guys mentioned the fact that the housing market consisted of people who lost their jobs selling their houses and blah blah blah. That is a joke. The housing market has kept the economy going the last 3 years here folks. That has been the strongest portion of the economy. To even imply something else is just plain wrong.
This entire year (and the end of last year) when all of the job numbers come out, they beat expectations. To the tune of around 1 million new jobs. Then one month they dont beat expectations and here come the little libs trying to squack about something.
All i do is look at yahoo finance which addressed this and the article said that as this was a bad month, it was expected to just be for this one month as the numbers looked strong going forward.
Now if we see poor number for a few months or a quarter, yes that is a concern. This one month, is not. Anyone with 1/2 a brain or who actually read anythign about it would know this.
One more thing, when looking at the deficit, it's not proper to look at it as a whole number. A comparison of the GDP is a better way to look at it. Also, you'd have to look at past deficits and adjust for inflation. Something none of you ever seem to do. Basically, the same way that you distort numbers when telling the poor about tax cuts. Whole numbers not percentages.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
By the way, Clinton only began to operate in Surpluses during his second term, not the first term.
Well, DUH! He inherited the deficits from Reagan and the first Bush.
By the way, Clinton only began to operate in Surpluses during his second term, not the first term.
Philly Fan- I did not even make a single comment regarding Kerry and his views of homosexuality.
George W Bush made an outright statement that we are "sinners" and that we are directly less than worthy of marriage. He is directly supporting and promoting that feeling, regardless of whether or not the amendment was going to pass/not pass. The current President is openly a bigot. I will not support him.
I honestly believe that Kerry does a better job separating his religion and his political decisions. He may not support gay marriage ouright- but at least he is not in support of the Federal Amendment.
So, Kerry may be a bigot- but he is the lesser of the two bigots.
To be quite honest- the only politicians who should have the Gay Equal Rights votes would be Al Sharpton and Mosely-Braun who run on this issue straight forward- it is a civil right to equal treatment.
So on this issue- I would vote for neither Bush nor Kerry- but when I hear someone outright on national television call gays sinners- and indirectly myslf a sinner (Yet I do not have a history of using any drugs or drunk driving- like George W), Philly Fan- I would be stupid to even look to him as a potential leader. But this is only a choice for me.
Maybe it makes me unpatriotic not to support him- but I have a hell of a lot more self-respect to know that I am a good person deserving a lot more than listening to him call me a sinner.
George W Bush made an outright statement that we are "sinners" and that we are directly less than worthy of marriage. He is directly supporting and promoting that feeling, regardless of whether or not the amendment was going to pass/not pass. The current President is openly a bigot. I will not support him.
I honestly believe that Kerry does a better job separating his religion and his political decisions. He may not support gay marriage ouright- but at least he is not in support of the Federal Amendment.
So, Kerry may be a bigot- but he is the lesser of the two bigots.
To be quite honest- the only politicians who should have the Gay Equal Rights votes would be Al Sharpton and Mosely-Braun who run on this issue straight forward- it is a civil right to equal treatment.
So on this issue- I would vote for neither Bush nor Kerry- but when I hear someone outright on national television call gays sinners- and indirectly myslf a sinner (Yet I do not have a history of using any drugs or drunk driving- like George W), Philly Fan- I would be stupid to even look to him as a potential leader. But this is only a choice for me.
Maybe it makes me unpatriotic not to support him- but I have a hell of a lot more self-respect to know that I am a good person deserving a lot more than listening to him call me a sinner.
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Under this same thinking, W got the reccession from Clinton and his "bubble" from the dotcom boom. A short term make me look good type of economy, which he failed to care about in his last years of office.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
By the way, Clinton only began to operate in Surpluses during his second term, not the first term.
Well, DUH! He inherited the deficits from Reagan and the first Bush. By the way, Clinton only began to operate in Surpluses during his second term, not the first term.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
This entire year (and the end of last year) when all of the job numbers come out, they beat expectations. To the tune of around 1 million new jobs. Then one month they dont beat expectations and here come the little libs trying to squack about something.
All i do is look at yahoo finance which addressed this and the article said that as this was a bad month, it was expected to just be for this one month as the numbers looked strong going forward.
Now if we see poor number for a few months or a quarter, yes that is a concern. This one month, is not. Anyone with 1/2 a brain or who actually read anythign about it would know this.
To examine the latest numbers... "Let's go inside the numbers":This entire year (and the end of last year) when all of the job numbers come out, they beat expectations. To the tune of around 1 million new jobs. Then one month they dont beat expectations and here come the little libs trying to squack about something.
All i do is look at yahoo finance which addressed this and the article said that as this was a bad month, it was expected to just be for this one month as the numbers looked strong going forward.
Now if we see poor number for a few months or a quarter, yes that is a concern. This one month, is not. Anyone with 1/2 a brain or who actually read anythign about it would know this.
Weekly first-time filings for unemployment claims, two-and one-half years into a “recovery”, went up again last week unexpectedly.
The job growth numbers for June were far below those expected by experts, and the results from April and May have been revised downward .
A majority of the jobs created in this recovery are lower-wage jobs, and they are being created at a higher rate than a similar time in the 1993/1994 recovery. A large number of these jobs are temp help, and service sector jobs in health and foodservice industries. The economy continues to under perform in creating manufacturing jobs, again nearly three years into recovery.
QUOTE
MIB
Imagine if Kerry had been president. The economic news would be much more horrible, for he was/is against tax cuts, tax cuts that, according to the Left's sometimes hero Alan Greenspan, \"were largely responsible for the economic recovery we are experiencing.\" (Now if we can only get Bush to stop trying to outdo Congress in the spending department!)
You know this is UNTRUE, yet you say it nevertheless. Kerry has stated repeatedly that he will provide tax cuts and relief for people earning under $200,000, which constitutes the VAST MAJORITY of wage earners in this country, and roll back the tax cuts on the top 1%. So you're totally wrong that Kerry \"is against tax cuts.\" He's against them skewing upwards to the richest Americans who are not reinvesting the money directly into the economy through consumption. In fact, if Kerry (or Gore, who won the election) had been in office, either one would have 1) not gone on a tax-cutting spree for the rich and a borrowing binge to cover the mess up, thereby harming our short-term and long-term financial picture; 2) provided repeated stimuluses for the middle-class to ensure purchasing power; 3) not gotten us into this disastrous war in Iraq, which is devouring money far beyond the rate predicted and shows no sign of ending anytime soon; 4) provided more direct and immediate relief to the states, which would have given homeowners local tax relief; 5) tightened the loopholes on corporate tax policy that has furthered and fostered outsourcing and job loss. Gore, in fact, probably would have been better on these issues than Kerry. Of course, we'll never know, since SCOTUS appointed W after the GOP thuggery in Florida. Imagine if Kerry had been president. The economic news would be much more horrible, for he was/is against tax cuts, tax cuts that, according to the Left's sometimes hero Alan Greenspan, \"were largely responsible for the economic recovery we are experiencing.\" (Now if we can only get Bush to stop trying to outdo Congress in the spending department!)
At any rate, let's also not forget that W's first tax cut for the rich had little effect. He also ONLY provided that tax cut for the middle-class (or some middle-class voters) AFTER the Democrats in Congress forced his hand, and yet he quickly took credit for the give-back. His second tax cut still did not provide either the jobs or boost to the economy that he claimed it would WHEN he claimed it would. He has repeatedly made outlandish predictions about the economy, about job creation, etc., and he's always BEEN WRONG. In fact, he is set, as you well know, to leave office as the only presidence since Herbert Hoover--and that includes every president from FDR through Clinton--to leave office with a NET LOSS of jobs. Deny it all you will, but W's economic policies, coupled with his international policies, have harmed the US economy more than helped. And the short and long-term effects of the burgeoning deficit, which this year is running at about $450 billion, will only mean trouble down the road.
QUOTE
Bush inherited an economy in recession, and no, I am NOT faulting Clinton for this.
QUOTE
therefore, \"only\" 32,000 jobs created in July--a number that WILL be revised upward, you watch
QUOTE
--well, all this is Bush's fault.
Hell, if he's going to take the credit for some things, he also ought to have the courage and be responsible enough to take credit for his failures. His economic stewardship is basically a failure. We need to be creating over 200,000 PER MONTH just to keep up with the increase in population of people who want and need jobs. We need to be creating more than 1 million jobs per year just to MEET the level W inherited when Clinton took office. It's not that hard to understand. When economists, businesspeople and W cheerleaders predict over 240,000 jobs and only 13% are created, isn't that a...problem? Oh, if it's W, I guess not.Didn't we have a clue about him based on his lackluster business career?
[ August 08, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
fantomas:
You know this is UNTRUE, yet you say it nevertheless. Kerry has stated repeatedly that he will provide tax cuts and relief for people earning under $200,000, which constitutes the VAST MAJORITY of wage earners in this country, and roll back the tax cuts on the top 1%. So you're totally wrong that Kerry \"is against tax cuts.\"
Boy! You truly are naive, aren't you? Kerry's a liberal Democrat. He will raise taxes, and not just on the \"rich.\" I can't believe you can write such a ridiculous post with a straight face. No liberal Democrat like Kerry will ever support such tax cuts. Every one of them will raise taxes. They always have.You know this is UNTRUE, yet you say it nevertheless. Kerry has stated repeatedly that he will provide tax cuts and relief for people earning under $200,000, which constitutes the VAST MAJORITY of wage earners in this country, and roll back the tax cuts on the top 1%. So you're totally wrong that Kerry \"is against tax cuts.\"
The Democratic Party has YOU duped, that's for sure!
QUOTE
Posted by MIB
Bush inherited an economy in recession, and no, I am NOT faulting Clinton for this.
Bush inherited an economy in recession, and no, I am NOT faulting Clinton for this.
QUOTE
Posted by fantomas
He did not. The recession began AFTER he took office.
OK, let's say you're correct. Then it IS Clinton's fault (you finally admit it!), because we both know that Bush's policies were not enacted into law until quite a while afterward. A president can't send an economy into recession only a couple months following his inauguration.He did not. The recession began AFTER he took office.
[ August 08, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
QUOTE
kick:
MIB-
The specific #s are great for your argument.
But what is the quality of the jobs being created?
Here's a serious question regardless of who is president: How is a president supposed to guarantee that such jobs are of a certain quality? With labor costs in many other countries being so much lower than here, how can U.S. companies retain many of their employees? Is Kerry, for example, going to \"force\" companies to come up with high-qualified jobs that pay a certain amount? That is contrary to our form of economics.MIB-
The specific #s are great for your argument.
But what is the quality of the jobs being created?
QUOTE
Are you saying that without these cuts that the 9-11 influence would have been more damaging?
QUOTE
What is the overall quality of life for the average American? How are they dealing with the increase costs in gas/food/etc?
QUOTE
The only question I have- and I may be assuming that you are gay- on a personal level (outside of general politicking) do you support George W Bush and his feelings on adding the constitutional amendment?
PhillyFan-
Where does your candidate stand on the jobs issue?
We all know you're not voting for Kerry or Bush, cant you stop the bitching and bashing and say something positive about the person you're supporting?
Where does your candidate stand on the jobs issue?
We all know you're not voting for Kerry or Bush, cant you stop the bitching and bashing and say something positive about the person you're supporting?
QUOTE
MIB:
Kerry's a liberal Democrat. He will raise taxes, and not just on the \"rich.\" I can't believe you can write such a ridiculous post with a straight face. No liberal Democrat like Kerry will ever support such tax cuts. Every one of them will raise taxes. They always have.
Generalize much? Not to mention distort the truth, but then your record in that area is well established.
Kerry's a liberal Democrat. He will raise taxes, and not just on the \"rich.\" I can't believe you can write such a ridiculous post with a straight face. No liberal Democrat like Kerry will ever support such tax cuts. Every one of them will raise taxes. They always have.
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
Thank you, Since I pointed out five substantive differences between Kerry's (or Gore's) approach and W's, he found a way not to address any of them. They could all have been the wrong way to go. Moreover, before 9/11, the economy was on a downward slope, and this is borne out by data from the Labor Department and other organizations issuing numbers on economic indicators. 9/11 only made things much worse. But W's policies were already bad, and in fact hindered what could have been a more robust recovery. QUOTE
MIB:
Kerry's a liberal Democrat. He will raise taxes, and not just on the \"rich.\" I can't believe you can write such a ridiculous post with a straight face. No liberal Democrat like Kerry will ever support such tax cuts. Every one of them will raise taxes. They always have.
Generalize much? Not to mention distort the truth, but then your record in that area is well established. Kerry's a liberal Democrat. He will raise taxes, and not just on the \"rich.\" I can't believe you can write such a ridiculous post with a straight face. No liberal Democrat like Kerry will ever support such tax cuts. Every one of them will raise taxes. They always have.
But instead of addressing my points, Man-Into-Bush throws up this "liberal" nonsense. In fact, both Reagan and Bush 41 raised taxes. Reagan raised taxes more than once, including signing into law one of the largest tax increases in the last 25 years to address the effects of his first tax cut. Was HE a "liberal" Democrat? Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford also presided over tax increases. It's exceedingly rare to slash taxes, particularly on the wealthiest Americans, DURING A WAR.
As a result, middle-class and working-class Americans suffer, because the government has less money to spend on subsidizing programs these Americans use; the government has less money to distribute to the states, so the poorer states must make up the difference in budget cuts and higher taxes; we ALL have to pay for the borrowing to cover the deficits the GOP creates; and so on. When Clinton was president, he raised SOME taxes (but not all) on the wealthiest Americans (while providing repeated relief for everyone else), and we were told we'd suffer an economic slowdown, it'd be a disaster, etc.
Instead, the economy grew and expanded more than during any previous administration in American history. 20+ million jobs were created, more Americans became not only millionaires, but BILLIONAIRES than ever in American history (i.e., the rich actually became FAR RICHER under Clinton's economic policies, and MORE people became rich), the economic instruments employed to create wealth expanded tremendously, and more people who previously had been jobless--including hardcore welfare recipients, former prisoners, new immigrants, etc.--were able to find jobs. I'm not just talking about of my backside, look at the figures. Purchasing power increased under Clinton; home ownership increased under Clinton; wage growth increased under Clinton; economic diversification in many parts of the country increased under Clinton; etc. Under W...well, the record speaks for itself. George Herbert Hoover W Bush....
But hey, you know, facts are no barrier for the right-winging "judge"!
In case there's any question:
Hey MIB-
I know that you get a lot of flack about being a right winger.
But I appreciate the way you answered my questions. I hope that I posed them in a way that was fair and impartial.
Although I disagree with some of your sentiments, I respect the way that you responded to my specific questions.
I hope that you can find a way to listen similarly to some of our opinions regarding Bush as well.
It sucks that everything has to be so cut and dry in this day and age in our country. I liked when politics were a lot more fluid and that there wasn't such a splitscreen of this versus that.
But I really believe that Mr Bush has gone out of his way to create that separation of America. He has alienating the majority of minorities minus the Hispanic/Latino culture which he directly has family from that culture... his direct opinion against Affirmative Action, no matter how you feel about it- was a direct blow to African-Americans specifically. His statements calling homosexuals sinners and his continuous, adamant nature in forcing the FMA to come to fruition should alienate a good portion of the GLBT vote.
Its unfortunate that Mr Bush has made these things so straight forward. I did like his performance after 9-11, but I think any President would have had the same effect on our country after such a tragedy. We would have rallied behind whoever...
I was upset when Mr Bush won the Presidency- and I had hoped that he would take the fact that he did not win the general majority of votes in our nation, that he would have made attempts to be more open and reaching out to those that did not initially support him.
The truth is... he really hasn't- and he has somewhat separated us from the rest of the world and it is going to take a while for the general citizens in other countries not to cast us an evil eye when we travel to their countries....
I know that you get a lot of flack about being a right winger.
But I appreciate the way you answered my questions. I hope that I posed them in a way that was fair and impartial.
Although I disagree with some of your sentiments, I respect the way that you responded to my specific questions.
I hope that you can find a way to listen similarly to some of our opinions regarding Bush as well.
It sucks that everything has to be so cut and dry in this day and age in our country. I liked when politics were a lot more fluid and that there wasn't such a splitscreen of this versus that.
But I really believe that Mr Bush has gone out of his way to create that separation of America. He has alienating the majority of minorities minus the Hispanic/Latino culture which he directly has family from that culture... his direct opinion against Affirmative Action, no matter how you feel about it- was a direct blow to African-Americans specifically. His statements calling homosexuals sinners and his continuous, adamant nature in forcing the FMA to come to fruition should alienate a good portion of the GLBT vote.
Its unfortunate that Mr Bush has made these things so straight forward. I did like his performance after 9-11, but I think any President would have had the same effect on our country after such a tragedy. We would have rallied behind whoever...
I was upset when Mr Bush won the Presidency- and I had hoped that he would take the fact that he did not win the general majority of votes in our nation, that he would have made attempts to be more open and reaching out to those that did not initially support him.
The truth is... he really hasn't- and he has somewhat separated us from the rest of the world and it is going to take a while for the general citizens in other countries not to cast us an evil eye when we travel to their countries....
Since many people aren't registered for the NY TIMES site, here is an excellent piece by its op-ed economics writer, Paul Krugman, that addresses many of the questions and points that we've broached here:
Krugman: Spinning the payrolls
August 10, 2004
Spin the Payrolls
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, \"Kerry, Kerry.\" But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.
First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.
But job growth, by itself, says nothing about prosperity: growth can be higher in a bad year than a good year, if the bad year follows a terrible year while the good year follows another good year. I've drawn a chart of job growth for the 1930's; there was rapid nonfarm job growth (8.1 percent) in 1934, a year of mass unemployment and widespread misery - but that year was slightly less terrible than 1933.
So have we returned to prosperity? No: jobs are harder to find, by any measure, than they were at any point during Bill Clinton's second term. The job situation might have improved somewhat in the past year, but it's still not good.
Second, the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.
Third, they cherry-pick any good numbers they can find.
The shocking news that the economy added only 32,000 jobs in July comes from payroll data. Experts say what Alan Greenspan said in February: \"Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.\" Another measure of employment, from the household survey, fluctuates erratically; for example, it fell by 265,000 in February, a result nobody believes. Yet because July's household number was good, suddenly administration officials were telling reporters to look at that number, not the more reliable payroll data.
By the way, over the longer term all the available data tell the same story: the job situation deteriorated drastically between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has, at best, improved modestly since then.
Fourth, apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.
Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number.
Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.
What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?
Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Krugman: Spinning the payrolls
QUOTE
August 10, 2004
Spin the Payrolls
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, \"Kerry, Kerry.\" But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.
First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.
But job growth, by itself, says nothing about prosperity: growth can be higher in a bad year than a good year, if the bad year follows a terrible year while the good year follows another good year. I've drawn a chart of job growth for the 1930's; there was rapid nonfarm job growth (8.1 percent) in 1934, a year of mass unemployment and widespread misery - but that year was slightly less terrible than 1933.
So have we returned to prosperity? No: jobs are harder to find, by any measure, than they were at any point during Bill Clinton's second term. The job situation might have improved somewhat in the past year, but it's still not good.
Second, the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.
Third, they cherry-pick any good numbers they can find.
The shocking news that the economy added only 32,000 jobs in July comes from payroll data. Experts say what Alan Greenspan said in February: \"Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.\" Another measure of employment, from the household survey, fluctuates erratically; for example, it fell by 265,000 in February, a result nobody believes. Yet because July's household number was good, suddenly administration officials were telling reporters to look at that number, not the more reliable payroll data.
By the way, over the longer term all the available data tell the same story: the job situation deteriorated drastically between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has, at best, improved modestly since then.
Fourth, apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.
Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number.
Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.
What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?
Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Yep, from the Krugman column, this says it all:
...the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.
...apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.
[ August 10, 2004, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
...the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.
...apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.
[ August 10, 2004, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
General Motors to cut 25,000 jobs by 2008. Here we go around another corner!
CNN Link
CNN Link
QUOTE
In the Bush bizarro world this is actually good news because, uh, well, we'll think of something....
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
I know, I know...these 25,000 people will move on to better opportunities and happier lives away from car manufacturing! Lame duck Bush doesn't care...he's not running for election again, anyway...even though he probably could since he has been elected only once.
QUOTE
In the Bush bizarro world this is actually good news because, uh, well, we'll think of something....
Perhaps if GM would make better cars, invest in hybrids, and stop being the nation's #1 welfare company state, they wouldn't have to cut so many jobs. And this is Bush's fault how, bobbie?
I wonder...couldn't a person...let's say for the sake of bitching...couldn't a U.S. President (or a group appointed by him) work with a big-industry AMERICAN automaker and offer the company incentives to create cars that advance earth-friendly technology and create jobs? But then again, why would President Gasman do such a thing? After all, his hands are tied up from all that hand-holdin' with the Saudis.
Are you saying corp welfare bobster?
Thought you were against handing money to the TERRIBLE corporations.
Considering GM makes bigger cars (their own free will). I'd say they are lucky to be only shaving 25k in jobs.
But hey, dont let economics stop you...
Thought you were against handing money to the TERRIBLE corporations.
Considering GM makes bigger cars (their own free will). I'd say they are lucky to be only shaving 25k in jobs.
But hey, dont let economics stop you...
Maybe those 25,000 unemployed will head over to Iraq to fight for our freedom, keep us safe from all those WMD's like PF is sure to do.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Are you saying corp welfare bobster?
Thought you were against handing money to the TERRIBLE corporations.
If "terrible corporations" in this country can put people to work to make products beneficial to the planet, then I think subsidies are worth it. It would be better than throwing away $300 billion on a useless war.Are you saying corp welfare bobster?
Thought you were against handing money to the TERRIBLE corporations.
[ June 07, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
Assuming the Fed hands over 300 mil to GM and say go-for-it...
How do these jobs stay around? Wouldnt that money just go to the high paid R&D type of guys?
Education of some understanding of the economy wont make you look so dumb Bobster.
How do these jobs stay around? Wouldnt that money just go to the high paid R&D type of guys?
Education of some understanding of the economy wont make you look so dumb Bobster.
Quite often when a company like GM does things like this, it is for the better down the road. Over the last few years GM has been doing really well having offered all of the special financing.. etc.
So for them to roll things up a bit, it's a good thing.
And actually Bobster, since you already complain that American companies never pay taxes, losing market share to Honda, Toyota and Nissan should not matter much because most of those vehicles are produced right smack dab here in America kiddo. I'd suspect if they have gained market share, they also added jobs (havent researched this).
Anyway, i'll wait for an answer of how giving GM 300 million for R&D is going to save these jobs. What is it you think they are going to do? Sit around in the break room?
So for them to roll things up a bit, it's a good thing.
And actually Bobster, since you already complain that American companies never pay taxes, losing market share to Honda, Toyota and Nissan should not matter much because most of those vehicles are produced right smack dab here in America kiddo. I'd suspect if they have gained market share, they also added jobs (havent researched this).
Anyway, i'll wait for an answer of how giving GM 300 million for R&D is going to save these jobs. What is it you think they are going to do? Sit around in the break room?
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Anyway, i'll wait for an answer of how giving GM 300 million for R&D is going to save these jobs. What is it you think they are going to do? Sit around in the break room?
Investing in Merikun jobs saves Merikun jobs, Little Filly. Wouldn't that make a fine political slogan? But I guess you'd rather the money go for the war you want but refuse to fight.
Anyway, i'll wait for an answer of how giving GM 300 million for R&D is going to save these jobs. What is it you think they are going to do? Sit around in the break room?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.