posted on November 2, 2003 09:14:47 PM new
Mega ditto's to you miscreant. Expanding on the quarterly theme, outsource all labor at a savings of 80%, apply the savings in labor cost to the net profits and what do you have?
A: A jobless recovery that does not benefit any workers. But a great bottom line. Great idea you can give those dollars to some CEO for his next toga party. Or is that PARTY!!
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 2, 2003 10:35:51 PM new
Prophet of dementia wants The right to bear lock-free Smith & Wesson?!?!?!?!?!
"I am not comfortable about Brits telling us how to deal with our Bill of Rights. I think we settled that in 1776, didn't we?"
- gunoholic and National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston, responding to British-owned Smith & Wesson's decision to include gun locks on the company's products, ABC's "This Week," 3/19/00
posted on November 3, 2003 01:17:47 AM new
Everyone who has watched the cycles before knows that employment almost always lags a few months behind an ecomonic upturn.
While next quarter may not show this large of an increase, there's no denying it's a VERY positive sign that things are looking better.
----
From the Associated Press Oct. 28, 2003
Clinton appeared to cut Bush some slack on the nation's economic troubles, even though they are a fat target for Democratic presidential candidates. "A lot of what happened the last two to three years would have happened no matter what," he said.
Democratic hopefuls have been piling blame on Bush and insisting they could carry forward the Clinton-era boom. But Clinton said "there is no real cause for pessimism" about the state of the nation and the world. "And I get tired of reading these articles about how voters are cynical. It's a cheap cop-out."
"On balance, the last 14 years, we're not doing that bad," Clinton said.
-----
-----
And as far as Bush's overall ratings go, this site takes more than just one media outlet's poll results.
Matter of fact, I just read last week that Bush's poll results are higher than most presidents during this same time frame in their presidency.
posted on November 3, 2003 03:09:20 AM new
The link given us by Linda shows a number of polls conducted by or for entities which seem to be dominated by sources which IMO lean toward political conservatism.
These survey show how a number of subjects ‘N’ (742 to 1515 depending on which survey) perceive bush’s job performance and do not in any way attempt to assess Bush’s actual job performance.
The question (slightly varied)
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
was put put the a number of subjects ‘N’
ABC News and Washington Post polls N=1,207
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll N=900
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know
Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today (N) or ‘Number of Subjects’ ..not quoted.
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know
Newsweek Poll N=1,007
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know
Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll N=742
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know….Mixed Feelings…..Not Sure
CBS News Poll. N=751
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey N=1,515
Approve….Disapprove…..Don’t Know
The Harris Poll N=1,017
Excellent/Pretty Good….Only Fair/Poor……..Not Sure/Refused
Intersting to note that The Harris Poll, at a glance, appears to have the most +ve approval toward Bush’s Job performance. @ 59% +ve & 40% -ve.
But the question is put differently.
The subjects are not asked to approve/disapprove of Bush’s job performance but rather to ‘rate’ his job performance.
Whereas the other surveys ask for a +ve response ONLY if you ‘approve’,
This survey asks for a +ve response if you feel Bush is doing an ‘excellent’ OR ‘pretty good’ job;
The survey question is posed in such a way as to require a +ve response even if the respondent feels that Bush’s job performance is less than excellent.
Now…
Lets look at some figures to assess Bush’s actual job performance in the American economy.
Poverty rises and middle-class incomes fall for second year running
“Poverty deepened and household income fell in 2002, according to the latest report by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. These data mark the second consecutive year in which poverty rose and real income fell for middle-class households, suggesting that both the recession and ensuing weak recovery have eroded Americans' living standards.“
“The poverty rate rose to 12.1% in 2002 from 11.7% in 2001, adding 1.7 million to the ranks of the poor. The number of poor grew to 34.6 million people last year, including 12.1 million children. Since 2000, poverty is up by just under one percentage point (11.3% to 12.1%).”
“The average income of households in the lowest fifth fell 3% in 2002, about the same as that of the top fifth. Within the top fifth, income of the wealthiest 5% of households fell by 5.1%, this group's largest one year loss since 1980. These broad-based losses mean that inequality did not increase in 2002, as the weak economy generated fairly egalitarian losses.”
Payrolls up 57,000, but unemployment unchanged
“The lack of available jobs prevented the unemployment rate from falling and led to a sharp jump in the number of long-term unemployed: those without jobs for at least six months accounted for 23.2% of the jobless, up from 21.8% in August. The last time the share of long-term unemployed surpassed this level was 20 years ago, in September 1983, when the overall unemployment rate was 9.2%. Another indicator of weak labor demand is last month's 526,000 jump in the number of part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs. These underemployed persons now account for 3.6% of the employed, up from 2.4% when the recession began (and up from 3.2% at the recession's end).”
“The increase in payrolls reflects a 29,000 decline in manufacturing that was more than offset by hires in services. The manufacturing loss was the smallest since July of last year, though it is not clear that this represents a reversal of trend. Thus far this year, factory jobs are down by 464,000 compared to 510,000 over the same period last year. Clearly, this remains a beleaguered sector.”
“Another important signal regarding the impact of policy on job growth is the decline of 44,000 in education employment at the local level. This is the largest one-month loss since July 1982, suggesting state fiscal difficulties are leading to significant education cuts.”
[url=http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib189]Retirement made riskier
House pension bill, Treasury proposal ignore the real problems[/url]
“The U.S. Congress adjourned last year after failing to address the faults in a pension system that has been laid bare by catastrophic 401(k) losses for thousands of workers, the tumbling stock market, and high-profile corporate abuse of retirement plans. Congress is now setting itself up to make the system even worse.”
And so you see, Linda’s polls may show that the 1000 or so ‘UNINFORMED’ voters surveyed, THINK that Bush is doing a dandy job; (of what they don’t seem to say) But the people in the know say otherwise.
posted on November 3, 2003 09:14:04 AM new
Linda, here are some more quotes from the AP article.
The United Nations should take responsibility for Iraq's security, with NATO forces front and center in keeping the peace, former President Clinton said Monday.
While acknowledging critics of President Bush who insisted the United States should not have invaded Iraq, his predecessor said: "We can't just walk away from this."
Glad to see you come around to Clinton's point of view
posted on November 3, 2003 09:40:44 AM new
Linda is correct. The unemployment rates of India and China should spike due to the upturn in US Corporate profits within the next few months. Those seeking employment should consider moving to where the work is. How's your Hindi?
Nee How Mah (Chinese for hello) can be shortened to Nee How if familiar (less polite form)
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 3, 2003 09:43:40 AM new
miscreant - That's right. He did also say those things. That's his opinion, and he's not the one in charge now. Bush is...so he gets to decide what he wants to do. The 2004 election will speak to how many voting American's agree with his decisions.
posted on November 3, 2003 09:47:38 AM new
Yes dave - And this all didn't just start under the Bush administration either.
And you appear to be forgetting how close clinton was with the chinese.....visits to the white house....illegal campagne contributions that had to be returned. NW secrets the chinese got under his administration.
How quick you are to overlook the 'friendship' that developed between clinton's white house and china.
posted on November 3, 2003 10:25:37 AM new
We are discussing Bush not his predecessor. Whenever someone turns up the heat the entire right starts wailing about some fantasy past as if that somehow justifies the current administrations lack of results and ability. It does not.
If you wish to discuss Clinton I can find more than adequate defense by pointing out the failures of the Nixon/Agnew White House or the GW Bush White House or the Reagan White House or the Eisenhower White House. To the point the current administration is the most corrupt lying immoral group I have ever seen ascend to power in this country bar none.
If you wish to point out the the above list have nothing to do with this administration that is my point. Bush fails on his own lack of merit.
Republican, the other white meat!
miscreant - That's right. He (Clinton) did also say those things. That's his opinion, and he's not the one in charge now. Bush is...so he gets to decide what he wants to do
posted on November 3, 2003 12:29:07 PM newmiscreant - That's right. He (Clinton) did also say those things. That's his opinion, and he's not the one in charge now. Bush is...so he gets to decide what he wants to do
