posted on June 15, 2004 05:53:43 PM new
bunni - Maybe you need to check out the site I provided also. It's around $15. [.25 or .35] something an hour.
It's no ones fault, but their own, if they have to work for this low of a wage. They have the same opportunity everyone else does to better themselves. I was uneducated and I made close to the about figure 10 years ago. If I can do it....anyone can do it. It just takes 'wanting' to do it.....not waiting for someone to make their lives better for them....like the government.
posted on June 15, 2004 06:59:42 PM new
Leftie? Moi? Oh, you mean because I don't
agree with you and YOUR opinions I must be a Leftie.
Like I said, I've never voted for a Dem Presidential candidate - so I guess I'm one of those COMMUNIST Republicans huh?
Let's talk about some of YOUR facts, the ones YOU posted-and the ones the Bush shills stated on the record- they must be
accurate right? Republicans would never distort the truth, never bend a fact to their political ends right? Only Dems do that.
Linda's post with COMMENTARY
Sorry but I will be commenting in caps- so you'll know who said what.
bob - It's a pretty damning list.....no it's not - it's a pretty inaccurate list.
THAT'S A MATTER OF OPINION - IT MAY HAVE SOME INACCURACIES, BUT THERE ARE SOME TRUTHS AS WELL.
The unemployment numbers were wrong....they weren't that high...that's a figure the dems have throwing out that has been proven to be incorrect. Check out factcheck.org and the US Department of Labor and verify them for yourself. And currently approx. 1/2 of those jobs have been replaced.
IF I ASSUME YOU ARE CORRECT - AND I WILL FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT, IN YOUR OWN POST
REGARDING DEMOCRATIC ADVERTISING PLANS YOU CITE AN 'ACCURATE' FIGURE OF 2.6 MILLION JOBS LOST AS OF LAST JULY - DOWN TO 2.3 MILLION AS OF THE DATE OF THE RESPONSE.
SITTING WHEREVER YOU SIT THAT MAY NOT SEEM BAD - BUT 2.3 MILLION JOBS LOST IS A CRAPLOAD FROM WHERE I SIT- AND 2.6 IS PRETTY CLOSE TO 3 MILLION.
Everyone mentions the 8M still without jobs....well there were 11M without jobs in clintons administration and it improved. It's improving now too.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN-CLINTON, BLAH , BLAH, -
BUSH IS THE TOPIC, THE FACT THAT HE'S BETTER OR WORSE THAN CLINTON, REAGAN OR LINCOLN HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER. BUSH IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION- CLINTON IS NOT.
And on your #2....again...why did they set their perameter for only those two years? The stock market started declining in mid 2000 BEFORE this President took office. It was the tech boom that caused it....not this President. Check the NYSE to verify
that fact.
AS I SAID, #2 IS INDISPUTABLE- SO INSTEAD YOU QUESTION THE CRITERIA USED. NOONE SAID HE CAUSED IT- I THINK THE OBJECTION IS THAT HE FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IF HE HAD PUSHED AS SOON AS HE TOOK OFFICE FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF WHY THE ENRON, GLOBAL CROSSINGS MESS WOULD HAVE ENDED SOONER- BUT HE COULDN'T DO THAT COULD HE? THOSE GUYS WERE ALL HIS BUDDIES. INTERESTING HOW YOUR HONORABLE MAN WAS BUDS WITH SO MANY CROOKS- AND WHEN THEY WERE CAUGHT HE DENIED HE KNEW THEM- INSTEAD OF CASTIGATING THEM.
I thought your post was from old information since the NYSE is just about where it was on 12-31-00 before Bush took office. It's had a great recovery too.
LINDA, TRY TO KEEP UP- #2 WAS ABOUT THE FIRST 2 YEARS OF BUSH'S TERM, YOU DONT GET TO CHANGE THE TOPIC BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.
As far as the economy read this url and learn what happened and how well our economy has been managed since the world wide tech boom sent many countries economies reeling.
THANK YOU BUT NO. WORLD ECONOMIES WENT REELING WORSE THAN OURS BECAUSE THEY WERE DEPENDENT ON OURS- OURS IS BIGGER AND HAS INTERNAL STRENGTH- THEIRS ARE
DEPENDENT TO A FAR LARGER EXTENT ON WORLD TRADE- INCLUDING WITH US. YOU KNOW THE RULES- THE GOOD OL USA WILL LET YOU SELL WHATEVER YOU WANT NO MATTER HOW MUCH
YOU RESTRICT AMERICAN PRODUCTS FROM YOUR MARKET. WHEN U.S. CONSUMER DEMAND FALLS AS IT TENDS TO WHEN MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS, THE DEMAND FOR INDONESIAN SNEAKERS TENDS TO GO TO HELL TOO.
And with more jobs being added we now have many states who are running surpluses again. And the Federal deficit is projected to be $100B lower than was expected because of the fact our economy IS improving.
I AM UNAWARE OF "MANY " STATES RUNNING SURPLUSES- I AM AWARE THAT 'MANY' RAISED TAXES AND CUT BUDGETS LIKE CRAZY TO STAVE
OFF DEFICITS - WHICH IN SOME CASES ARE PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW/CONSTITUTIONS.
OH JOY OF JOYS!!! AND YOU POINT OUT PROUDLY THAT THE FEDERAL DEFICIT MAY ONLY BE $400 BILLION! TERRIFIC! SO THE TAX CUTS
PUT BILLIONS IN THE POCKETS OF THE WEALTHY AND A FEW BUCKS IN THE POCKETS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS- BUT TAXPAYERS GET TO PAY FOR THOSE 'SAVINGS' BECAUSE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THOSE TAX CUTS HAS TO BE BORROWED. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS TO DEFICITS- YOU DO KNOW THAT DON'T YOU? YOU PASSED FRESHMAN ECONOMICS, DIDNT YOU?
This wasn't just an American recession we had...it was a world recession that happened and this President did nothing to start it. But he's had to deal with it and he's done a great job, imo.
IN THIS CASE YOUR OPINION ISNT VERY INFORMED- THE RECESSION COULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH- AT A COST- BUT HE CHOSE TO LINE
THE POCKETS OF THE RICH INSTEAD. BESIDES THAT, PAYING THE RICH, WHAT ARE/WERE HIS RECESSION FIGHTING MEASURES?
We've had the BEST recovery of all of them under this President. And they didn't have the expense of 9-11 and two wars, refunding our military that clinton cut financing for in 7 of his 8 years in office, HomeLand Security, etc. to deal with like we did.
BEST RECOVERY OF ALL OF WHICH THEM? EUROPE AND CHINA ARE DOING FINE, AT LEAST AS WELL AS WE ARE- AND THE 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES ARE ACTUALLY DOING OK TOO.
TRUE GW HAS HAD NEW EXPENSES TO COVER- BUT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM, IRAQ, HE HAD TO LIE TO GET IT GOING. BUT OF COURSE WITHOUT IT HOW COULD ALL HIS DEFENSE CONTRACTOR BUDDIES BE THANKED, ESPECIALLY HALLIBURTON? BTW, THE MILITARY BUDGET CUTS WERE DONE BY A GOP CONGRESS, CLINTON WAS PRES AT THE TIME BUT NEWT AND HIS BOYS WERE RIGHT THERE LINED UP AT THE TROUGH- THE MORE THEY CUT, THE MORE THEY COULD PORK BARREL- AND THEY DID, THEY ALL SPENT THAT SO CALLED PEACE DIVIDEND.
Besides that this President has given funding to many programs like education and [those on my previous url] all the while he was doing so, the dems have only complained he didn't give enough.
LINDA, TRY TO KEEP UP- HE PROVIDED FUNDING FOR A SMALL PORTION OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS HE PUSHED THRU- AND MANDATED THE STATES TO PAY FOR THE BIG ONES. AS A RESULT HIGHER ED IS IN TROUBLE ALL OVERE THE COUNTRY WITH MASSIVE BUDGET CUTS LEADING TO HIGHER TUITIONS AT STATE UNIVERSITIES NATIONWIDE.i THOUGHT THE IDEA WAS TO MAKE EDUCATION AFFORDABLE TO MORE STUDENTS, NOT FEWER. ADD IN HIS RECENT PROPOSED CHANGES (SPELLED CUTS)TO STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS AND YOU HAVE THE MOST ANTI EDUCATION PRESIDENT IN DECADES, REGARDLESS OF HIS RHETORIC.
So you want to vote for kerry because our deficit is so high? Fine - Hope you've been reading about all the new programs he's saying he's going to start....and the additional funding he's saying he's going to give to others. His health care program....estimated to cost close to $100Billion dollars - and that's just a start - it will only cover 1/2 of the already uninsured. More taxes or a higher deficit when we need to pay for the other 1/2. Lots of money for a small number of people. It will do nothing but INCREASE our deficit....or he'll raise our taxes to pay for that and all his other promises.
I DIDNT THINK YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DEFICITS- HOW COULD YOU BE AND SUPPORT BUSH?
OR ARE DEFICITS ONLY BAD WHEN DEMOCRATS HAVE THEM?
But of course, he's not saying how he plans to pay for all these programs......let alone cut our deficit in 1/2 in the four years he's promising.
LINDA, OT AGAIN- I NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT KERRY. WE WERE DISCUSSING BUSH'S RECORD.
Re-elect President Bush!!
Linda_K
posted on June 15, 2004 03:23:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your #1
George Bush As Herbert Hoover? Oh Come On!
Liberal ad pushes a Democratic theme: exaggerate the severity of the economic downturn
December 5, 2003
Modified: January 13, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version
Summary
In what it called the first salvo in a $10-million advertising campaign aimed at defeating President Bush, the liberal group Moveon.org released a TV ad it said would run in 16 cities in 10 states starting Thanksgiving week.
The ad states that ?George Bush is going to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to lead an economy that loses jobs. ?Didn?t George Bush say his tax cuts would create jobs??
The ad is misleading on several counts. It falsely implies that tax cuts failed to create jobs, falsely implies that the economy is still losing jobs, and exaggerates the severity of an historically mild economic downturn.
This has been a common theme among several Democratic candidates, who have not always gotten their facts straight (see 'related articles' below)
Analysis
The ad says Bush has lost 2 million jobs ?so far,? implying that more losses are coming. In fact, the economy has been gaining jobs since July,
WAIT FOR IT....
when the total decline in jobs since Bush took office hit nearly 2.6 million.
ONLY 2.6 MILLION? GEE HARDLY ANY PAIN THERE..
That figure has now declined to 2.3 million and is predicted to keep shrinking in months to come.
The ad?s central claim ? that Bush will finish his term with the economy employing fewer people than when he took office ? probably will turn out to be correct ? but barely. Private economists are projecting that the economy will continue to gain jobs over the next year, according to Blue Chip Economic Indicators, a survey of private economic forecasters. The average forecast is for a gain of 146,000 jobs per month, which would leave Bush at the end of his term with an economy employing nearly 400,000 fewer workers than when he took office. On the other hand, the most optimistic private economists see the economy gaining enough jobs between now and the end of Bush's term to leave him with a gain.
LINDA IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME WHOSE WORDS THESE ARE- BUT I ASSUME YOU LIKED THEM OR YOU WOULDNT HAVE PUT THEM UP- AND GEE, SOMEONE ELSE SAYS HE MAY LEAVE OFFICE WITH A JOB DEFICIT.
Ten of the 51 surveyed predicted an average gain of 213,000 jobs per month over the next year, which if continued through January 2004 would leave Bush more than half a million jobs to the good.
...WAIT FOR IT...
That remains a minority view, however.
Whether Bush gains or loses jobs during his tenure, the fact is that unemployment has been compared to past downturns relatively mild. In fact, the economy lost a smaller percentage of jobs in the Bush downturn than in seven of the ten previous downturns going back to 1945 when the federal government began keeping the statistics on total nonfarm employment. (see table)
Job Slumps Since 1945
Date (m/y)
Percent of jobs lost
2/01-8/03
2.0%
6/90-5/91
1.5%
7/81-12/82*
3.1%
3/80-7/80
1.3%
7/74-4/75*
2.8%
3/70-11/70
1.5%
4/60-2/61*
2.3%
4/57-6/58*
4.4%
7/5-8/54*
3.4%
9/48-10/49*
5.2%
2/45-9/45*
8.1%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted
*Indicates job losses exceeding most recent
slump
I LIKE HOW THIS WRITER CAN SIMPLY DISMISS 2,000,000+ PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOBS AS INSIGNIFIGANT- "RELATIVELY MILD" - THOSE ARE PEOPLE OUT OF WORK. MILLIONS OF THEM.
And Bush?s unemployment rate, even at its worst level of 6.4% in June, was much lower than the previous four spikes in the jobless rate: 9% in the Ford administration (May, 1975), 7.8% in the Carter administration (July, 1980), 10.8% in Ronald Reagan?s first term (November and December of 1982) and 7.8% in the administration of Bush?s father (June, 1992).
GREAT! SO A HEART ATTACK'S NOT BAD AT ALL- COMPARED TO AIDS!WHY IS A MISERABLE PERFORMANCE BY YOUR CANDIDATE ALWAYS A REASON FOR YOU TO TROT OUT SOME PAST PRESIDENTS RECORD? WE WERE DISCUSSING BUSH, NOT FORD, REAGAN, BUSH SR. HMMM, DID YOU NOTICE CLINTON'S NOT ON THAT LIST?
Economists are virtually unanimous in saying that the tax cuts that have taken effect so far have created jobs. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, for example, said in a recent speech: ?Economic activity perked up in late spring and then accelerated further this summer as tax cuts provided a substantial boost to the disposable incomes of households.? And when the Blue Chip asked economists why they had failed to predict the size of 126,000-job gain in October, the reason they gave more than any other was underestimating that consumers would spend such a large proportion of ?additional after-tax income resulting from tax cuts.?
OH. SO THESE SMART GUYS THAT LINDA LIKES AREN'T ALL THAT SMART...
I THINK THESE WORDS ARE LINDAS OWN.....
Comparing the Bush economy to Hoover's Great Depression is just silly, and implying that tax cuts are not contributing to job growth deserves an "F" in Freshman economics.
LINDA- READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY-
YOU HAVE A HABIT
OF COMMENTING ON THINGS THAT WEREN'T SAID-
OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS THAT WEREN'T ASKED,
OF CHANGING WHAT WAS SAID OR ASKED TO SUIT AN ANSWER I SUSPECT YOU ALREADY HAVE.
NONE OF THE LISTED POINTS IMPLIED THAT POURING MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY DOESNT MAKE JOBS- OF COURSE IT DOES- AS DOES POURING MONEY IN VIA ANY OTHER METHOD- PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN HARD HIT AREAS, ETC.EVEN US FRESHMAN ECONOMICS STUDENTS KNOW THAT. IN YOUR COMMENT RE TAX CUTS MAKING JOBS YOU HAVE COMMENTED ON A POINT THAT WASN'T MADE.
NONE OF THE LISTED POINTS COMPARED " THE BUSH ECONOMY" TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION (IT WASN'T HOOVER'S, IT WAS EVERYONES)- WHAT WAS SAID WAS:
A. BUSH PRESIDED OVER AN ECONOMY IN WHICH THE STOCK MARKET SUFFERED ITS WORST DECLINE IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS OF ANY ADMINISTRATION SINCE HOOVER'S. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF BUSH'S TERM AS THE ' BUSH ECONOMY' OK, BUT I THINK OF IT AS THE ECONOMY DURING HIS ENTIRE TENURE.THIS WAS A SPECIFIC CRITICISM IN A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME.
IT IS ALSO TRUE. YOU CHANGED THE STATEMENT AND THE TERMS TO FIT YOUR ANSWER.
B.ITEM 1 STATED THAT HE PRESIDED OVER THE LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 3 MILLION AMERICAN JOBS IN HIS FIRST 2 AND A HALF YEARS IN OFFICE - AND I HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED YOUR EXPERTS' NUMBERS OF 2.6 MILLION JOBS LOST IN THAT TIME FRAME- THATS 2.6 MILLION OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN OUT OF WORK- AND AS OTHER NUMBERS HAVE SHOWN, SLOW TO GET REHIRED ELSEWHERE.
A + B ABOVE DO IN FACT MAKE COMPARISONS TO
HOOVERS ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER- BOTH MEN TALKED A LOT BUT NEITHER DID WHAT COULD/SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE- SO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS SUFFERED LONGER THAN NECESSARY AND MILLIONS MORE WATCHED THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY EVAPORATE IN THE STOCK MARKET.
I KNOW YOU LOVE THE MAN DESPERATELY LINDA BUT HE AINT UP TO THE JOB - IN ECONOMICS OR ANY OTHER AREA.
I used the DOL/BLS url you provided and checked on some figures- and it's MUCH worse than you/I thought.
BLS Most Requested Statistics - Civilian Unemployment.
Civilian Unemployed - Jan 2001 - 5,997,000
Civilian Unemployed - Jun 2003 - 9,245,000
------------------------------------------
difference + 3,248,000 additional unemployed compared to Jan 2001
This was the low point, the 2 1/2 year mark that the historian's comments referred to.
The picture has changed since then...
Civilian unemployed - Jan 2001 - 5,997,000
Civilian unemployed - May 2004 - 8,203,000
------------------------------------------
difference + 2,206,000 additional unemployed compared to Jan 2001
So the Historians are right - 3.2 MILLION (they said "about" 3 million)lost their jobs in Bush's "program" to fight the recession - and he has managed to get those 3.2 million BUSH-unemployed down to only 2.2 million.
The stock market is booming - but working stiffs are still out looking for work- or holding down 3 part time jobs to feed their families.
Of course, it's noone's fault but their own-they should have "bettered themselves". Or married well.
posted on June 15, 2004 10:21:59 PM new
Bob - Again you are focusing on OLD numbers [2003]. Keep current please as that's all that matters....where we are now...not two years ago when your anonomous historians gave wrote their opinion article and gave their numbers. This is June 2004.
On 1-20-01 the day President Bush took office the NYSE closed at: 10,360. Today it closed at 10,786.
-----
The current unemployment rate was 1.3 million....down from 2.3 - which was it's highest point.
1.4 Million jobs have been created since 8-03.
3-04 = 353,000
4-04 = 346,000
5-04 = 248,000
IF you look at the DOL link I gave you or read any current news the unemployment rate is at 5.6. Compared to the past 10 years it is in an average/*normal* [not HIGH] rate. After many in manufacturing losing their jobs an IMPROVEMENT is the 91,000 jobs that have been created....reversing the 42 month trend. But face it....jobs going over seas aren't going to stop. That clinton for signing NAFTA if you oppose. Kerry's not going to reverse NAFTA type programs either....and Bush supports them. He believes they create more jobs here. From what I've read....the outsourcing is mostly in the very low wage catagory...calling centers that don't pay much anyway.
------------
No cuts to education. Pell grants have received more funding under the Bush administration and so has the NoChildLeftBehind program.
Want to know *one* of the reasons colleges cost more now? Pull up a google search the words 'colleges like country clubs'. College students demand nicer colleges than they did years ago or they'll go to the one's that provide what they want....the administrators have said they feel they're forced to make theirs equal or loose the business. And those country clubs colleges cost more money.
-----------------
Here is the link to show that some states are showing surpluses.
On Enron, Global Crossing, etc. - President Bush was not involved in any wrong doing and there was no way he could have know anything was going wrong...until the problems surfaced. Those companies accounts/books/manner of accounting methods had long been done in that fashion..it didn't start when Bush was in office. ------------------
The Halburton company was also used during the clinton administration. They're one of the FEW companies who do this type of work. Not hundreds out there to choose from.
------------
The top tax payers pay the most in taxes and, imo deserve to get back at the rate they were taxed. Low income people don't pay taxes and families benefited the most. Marriage penalty tax - gone. Standard deduction increased. Child credit doubled - inheritance tax lessened. AND ALL TAX RATES WERE LOWERED for everyone who pays taxes. This wasn't only a tax cut for the rich.
-------------------
And I didn't call you a leftie. I made my statement about the insults from the left....and then I said "like you". Not you as in you're a leftie....but rather your rudeness to both bear and I when we answered your question.
Oh...and NO, I don't plan on answering the other false statements on your two year old op-ed list.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 15, 2004 10:35 PM ]
posted on June 15, 2004 10:31:38 PM new
I forgot - the deficit.
No, I don't like our deficit being so high. It's unusual for a Republican administration - BUT - I understand WHY it's this high. And imo, the dems were NOT calling for any restraint....they were calling for more...on all the programs President Bush was starting. Always complaining about how they needed MORE funding.
And listen to them now. He's only 'looking' at the 2006 budget and they're screaming he's cutting all the programs. No pleasing them.
----------
taken from MSNBC
Federal deficit seen $100 billion lower
Tax receipts pare Treasury borrowing
By By Jonathan Weisman
Smaller-than-expected tax refunds and rising individual tax receipts will pare back federal borrowing significantly for the first half of this year and could reduce the $521 billion deficit projected for the fiscal year by as much as $100 billion, Treasury and congressional budget officials said yesterday.
The Treasury Department's borrowing estimates may prove to be more good news for President Bush on the economic front, as opponents attempt to make his fiscal stewardship a campaign issue. The $184 billion the government is now expected to borrow through June is a 27 percent improvement from Treasury's February projection of $252 billion, the department said.
G. William Hoagland, a senior economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said he dashed off a memo to GOP leadership predicting the 2004 deficit could be trimmed to $420 billion, a record in dollar terms but considerably lower than the White House's $521 billion projection.
"This is better than what everybody expected," Hoagland said.
posted on June 15, 2004 11:06:57 PM new1.4 Million jobs have been created since 8-03.
yes, and half of those are in the retail area which pays the minimum wage you sneer at. So 50% of those people, by your own reckoning, are lazy bums who should be doing better. But...if those are the jobs to be had, those are the jobs people take.
I know several people who did make a good living. They worked hard. Then, through no fault of their own, they were "downsized." They tried to get other jobs, but jobs in their field at their level weren't to be had no matter how hard they tried. When they tried for lesser positions in their field they were told they were "overqualified." They tried to go train for other careers in other fields and found that jobs weren't to be had at anywhere near the salaries they had once earned if. Unemployment benefits ran out. Bills piled up. They began getting food from local food drives. Welfare loomed. So the jobs they had to take were--you guessed it--minimum wage jobs. They are still trying to get better jobs, most of them without success. And now they have people like you sneering at them because "it's their own fault."
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 16, 2004 12:21:56 AM new
bunni - First of all most people have known for years that our job market was going to the 'service' industry.
There are many good jobs out there to be had if one either gets the education or training for them. The medical field is expanding tremendously and will most likely continue to do so - as will most of the job market that will be needed to service our aging population.
I never called anyone a lazy bum. And I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. Anyone who is working isn't a bum....but they'd better face reality. THEY need to get different training. Look and see which jobs are growing the most. That's on the DOL website too.
What I'm saying is people can't just sit back and do nothing. They need to do whatever it takes to get back into a better paying job....not expect the government to take care of them.
Even clinton stated he couldn't take credit for the good economy towards the end of his 2nd term. He didn't create the tech boom which accounted for most of the good times during his 2nd term. A President has very little control of recessions OR the job markets. It's a cycle we go through every few years.
posted on June 16, 2004 09:44:25 AM new
posted on June 15, 2004 10:21:59 PM by Linda K
LINDA, AGAIN I'LL BE USING CAPS TO COMMENT- NOT SHOUTING- JUST SAVING TIME AND BACK AND FORTH TO YOUR POST. I NOTICE THAT YOUR POST FOLLOWED MINE BY 2 HOURS- AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT I TOLD YOU WHERE YOU COULD CONFIRM THE NUMBERS I CITED- YOU CONTINUE TO USE NUMBERS THAT THE BLS DATA PROVES TO BE WRONG.
Bob - Again you are focusing on OLD numbers [2003].....
OH, YES, 2003 IS JUST ANCIENT HISTORY- DECADES AGO- LINDA IT'S NOT EVEN A YEAR AGO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT - AND IT IS THE PARAMETER OF THE POINT OF DISCUSSION- AGAIN, YOU ARE CHANGING THE TERMS OF DISCUSSION TO SUIT YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS. TRY TO STAY OT.
Keep current please as that's all that matters....where we are now..
WHICH WOULD BE TRUE IF THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT CURRENT UNEMPLOYMENT- CHANGING TERMS AGAIN LINDA.
...not two years ago when your anonomous historians gave wrote their opinion article and gave their numbers. This is June 2004.
ACTUALLY, IF YOU HAD READ THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION YOU WOULD SEE THAT IT WAS NEITHER ANONYMOUS NOR 2 YEARS AGO- IT WAS IN FACT DONE THIS PAST SPRING AND PUBLISHED IN MAY.
AGAIN, SINCE THE MESSAGE DOESN'T SUIT YOU- ATTACK THE MESSENGER..
On 1-20-01 the day President Bush took office the NYSE closed at: 10,360. Today it closed at 10,786.
THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY- FOR A SPECIFIC 2 1/2 YEAR PERIOD- AND THE LEVEL OF THE STOCK MARKET NOW IS IRRELEVANT TO THAT DISCUSSION.
-----
The current unemployment rate was 1.3 million....down from 2.3 - which was it's highest point.
YOU'RE SAYING "RATE" BUT I THINK YOU MEAN THE NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED IN MILLIONS, DON'T YOU? THE RATE IS AN EXPRESSION IN PERCENTAGES, THE "LEVEL" IS A HEAD COUNT.
IF YOU MEAN LEVEL THE NUMBER YOU CITE IS INCORRECT- LEVEL STATED FOR MAY 2004 IS 8.2 MILLION UNEMPLOYED, PER THE BLS SITE OR MY POST ABOVE - BUT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT 1/01 TO 6/03, NOT CURRENT DATA.
1.4 Million jobs have been created since 8-03.
3-04 = 353,000
4-04 = 346,000
5-04 = 248,000
AGAIN, YOU'RE CHANGING THE TIME FRAME - AND OT. USING BLS FIGURES, THERE ARTE 2.2 MILLION MORE UNEMPLOYED THAN WHEN BUSH TOOK OFFICE.
IF you look at the DOL link I gave you or read any current news the unemployment rate is at 5.6. Compared to the past 10 years it is in an average/*normal* [not HIGH] rate. After many in manufacturing losing their jobs an IMPROVEMENT is the 91,000 jobs that have been created....reversing the 42 month
trend.
THE RATE IS A SMOKESCREEN- 3 MILLION FEWER JOBS IN 30 MONTHS OF BUSH - 2 MILLION FEWER
NOW- BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING 01/01 THRU 06/03 -THAT WAS THE TOPIC AND A COMPARISON OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE HOOVER ADMINISTRATION.
But face it....jobs going over seas aren't going to stop. That ( I ASSUME YOU MEAN "THANK" )clinton for signing NAFTA if you oppose. Kerry's not going to reverse NAFTA type programs either....and Bush supports them. He believes they create more jobs here. From what I've read....the outsourcing is mostly in the very low wage catagory...calling centers that don't pay much anyway.
OT- THE DISCUSSION WASN'T ABOUT WHERE THE JOBS WENT- JUST THAT THEY WENT- AND YOUR CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE BAD JOBS (THE SAME JOBS YOU SAY ARE OK FOR UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS VIN YOUR POSTS TO BUNNICULA) IS HOGWASH- AMONG OTHERS AUTO SUBASSEMBLIES BY THE TRUCKLOAD ARE NOW BEING MADE OVERSEAS - THOSE WERE HIGH PAYING UAW JOBS- JOBS THAT A HS GRAD COULD RAISE A FAMILY ON- AND THEY'RE GONE FOREVER.
DITTO MACHINERY OF ALL KINDS- APPLIANCES LARGE AND SMALL- GOOD BLUE COLLAR JOBS GONE. PEROT WAS A NUT BUT HIS "GREAT WHOOSHING SOUND" COMMENT WAS CORRECT AS WE ALL NOW KNOW. AND AGAIN YOU BRING UP CLINTON- WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH HIM?
HE HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS DISCUSSION AND YOU KEEP BRINGING HIM UP. OT.
------------
No cuts to education. Pell grants have received more funding under the Bush administration and so has the NoChildLeftBehind program.
Want to know *one* of the reasons colleges cost more now? Pull up a google search the words 'colleges like country clubs'. College students demand nicer colleges than they did years ago or they'll go to the one's that provide what they want....the administrators have said they feel they're forced to make theirs equal or loose the business. And those country clubs colleges cost more money.
HOGWASH- I HAVE 2 RELATIVES WORKING AT THE
FLAGSHIP STATE UNIVERSITY NOT A MILE FROM HERE AND (ALL THE STATE) THE UNIVERSITIES BUDGET GOT CHOPPED TO PIECES- BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY AND BECAUSE THE STATE HAD TO PAY FOR FEDERALLY MANDATED BUT UNFUNDED (OR INADEQUATELY FUNDED)PROGRAMS.
-----------------
Here is the link to show that some states are showing surpluses.
LAST NIGHT IT WAS "MANY STATES"...NOW IT'S SOME...
AND IN FACT 'SOME' ARE SHOWING A SMALL SURPLUS- NONE CLAIM MORE THAN 5%, MANY ARE IN THE 1% RANGE- AND VIRTUALLY ALL DID IT WITH BUDGET CUTS AND TAX HIKES, SOME EXTREME. MANY ARE "PROJECTING" SURPLUSES FOR FISCAL 04 OR 05- BUT THE SERVICES CUT ARE PROBABLY GONE FOREVER.AND AGAIN, OT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.
On Enron, Global Crossing, etc. - President Bush was not involved in any wrong doing
NO? YES HE WAS - HARKEN ENERGY, SHAM TRANSACTIONS & INSIDER TRADING, BUT HE WON'T TALK ABOUT IT. SAYS THAT'S "OLD STYLE POLITICS". HAH!! BUT I DIGRESS..
There was no way he could have know anything was going wrong...until the problems surfaced.
I AGREE- BUT HIS RESPONSE WAS ANEMIC AND LATE - DESPITE NUMEROUS CALLS TO BEEF UP SEC ENFORCEMENT EARLY IN HIS TERM - BUT HE WASN'T ISN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE CORPORATE WISHES - THEY BOIUGHT HIM A BETTER JOB THAN HIS DADDY EVER DID- AND HE KNOWS IT.
HE WAS PERSONALLY ACQUAINTED WITH MANY OF THE CULPRITS AND DID NOTHING TO CASTIGATE THEM - AFTER ALL, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT PUT HIM IN OFFICE, THEM AND THE SUPREME COURT. BUT WE'RE OT AGAIN..
Those companies accounts/books/manner of accounting methods had long been done in that fashion..it didn't start when Bush was in office.
FOR THE MOST PART TRUE BUT- SOME OF THE BIGGEST 'COOKINGS' WERE STARTED AFTER HE TOOK OFFICE, IN 2001 OR 2002 AS A RESPONSE TO THE SAGGING ECONOMY AND WE'RE OT AGAIN.
The Halburton company was also used during the clinton administration. They're one of the FEW companies who do this type of work. Not hundreds out there to choose from.
THERE'S CLINTON AGAIN! HALLIBUTRON HAS DONE GOVERNMENT FOR DECADES-BUT THEY USUALLY BID TO GET A CONTRACT- BIG STORIES TODAY ABOUT WASTE AT HALLIBURTON IN THE PAPERS TODAY.$100 BILL TO GOVERNMENT FOR 15 POUNDS OF LAUNDRY. FINE COMPANY.
The top tax payers pay the most in taxes and, imo deserve to get back at the rate they were taxed.
OT AGAIN- AND I'LL SAVE MY COMMENTS FOR A TAXATION THREAD.
Low income people don't pay taxes...
YOU'RE DREAMING- THE DESTITUTE DON'T PAY TAXES - LOW INCOME PEOPLE MOST CERTAINLY DO PAY TAXES!
and families benefited the most.
NO,THE RICH BENEFITTED THE MOST, OT AGAIN.
Marriage penalty tax - gone. Standard deduction increased. Child credit doubled -
YUP- THE MIDDLE CLASS ACTUALLY GOT SOMETHING, OT AGAIN.
inheritance tax lessened....
LINDA!!INHERITANCE TAX DIDNT TOUCH ANY ESTATE UNDER $800,000 - AND YOU'RE CLIAMING THIS AS A BENEFIT TO ALL? ANOTHER GIMME TO THE RICH....EVEN WARREN BUFFET AND BILL GATES (SR) WERE AGAINST THIS- OT AGAIN
and all tax rates were lowered for everyone who pays taxes. This wasn't only a tax cut for the rich.
NO, BUT THE RICH GOT THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT..AT THE COST OF HUGE DEFICITS, OT AGAIN.
And I didn't call you a leftie. I made my statement about the insults from the left....and then I said "like you". Not you as in you're a leftie....but rather your rudeness to both bear and I when we answered your question.
I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID- BEAR REFERRED TO
LEFTISTS, I MODIFIED IT TO LEFTIES- NOT BTW A MORTAL INSULT- BUT I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.
AS TO RUDENESS, YOU AND BEAR ARE BOTH RUDE ON A REGULAR BASIS, YOU'RE JUST SMOOTHER THAN HE ABOUT IT- SNIDE WHEREAS HE IS JUST STRAIGHT OUT ABOUT IT.
Oh...and NO, I don't plan on answering the other false statements on your two year old op-ed list.
AS STATED ABOVE (AND YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD READ IT) ITS A MONTH SINCE PUBLICATION AND THE DATA ENDS LESS THAN A YEAR AGO.
FALSE? ALL OF THEM? OR MAYBE YOU'RE JUST TIRED OF BEING HOISTED ON YOUR OWN PETARD.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 15, 2004 10:35 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2004 06:18:43 PM new
The Bush track record is similar to that of any professional athlete that has a four year contract - does nothing for the 1st three years and then the fourth year is a career year. Why? Because he needs to renegotiate his contract.
Let's hope the American people are not fooled by Bush. What did he do during his first three years in office ----- NOTHING.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 17, 2004 09:05:09 PM new
Well bob...I don't know what to say except that everyone can pull up the facts for themselves on the US Department of Labor website.
I guess according to you, all the news organizations/financial websites/etc. that are reporting that the economy IS improving beyond expectations - and that more and more are getting jobs are just not to be believed - along with the DOL spokeswoman and website....they're all lying to us.
I don't believe they are and I see a President who has done a great job of keeping our economy stable during a recession that started before he took office. A recession that other countries are still trying to dig their way out of, while we speed ahead. A President who had to deal with the terrible events of 9-11 and it's financial aftermath, two wars, etc. and how that's affected our economy.
If you think by putting kerry in office, who is proposing all the new programs, national health care, giving even more funding to the existing programs than we already do, etc. without raising our taxes or increasing the decifit more, then go for it.
edited to add - not that anyone's going to believe him either.....but just in case
June 15, 2004 Alan Greenspan statement:
The performance of the U.S. economy has been most impressive in recent years in the face of staggering shocks that in years past would almost surely have been destabilizing.
Economic policies directed at increasing market flexibility have played a major role in that solid performance. Those policies, aided by major technological advances, fostered a globalization, which unleashed powerful new forces of competition, and an acceleration of productivity, which at least for a time has held down cost pressures.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 17, 2004 09:34 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2004 11:38:20 PM new
posted on June 17, 2004 09:05:09 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL RIGHT< BACK TO IT....
Well bob...I don't know what to say except that everyone can pull up the facts for themselves on the US Department of Labor website.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID IN MY POST ON THE 15th 8:22pm, A FEW POSTS UP FROM HERE -
THOSE NUMBERS ARE DIRECTLY OFF THE DOL/BLS SITE - I TAKE THAT AS IMPLYING THAT I HAVE MADE THOSE NUMBERS UP...BUT I HAVEN'T AND I HOPE OTHERS READING THIS THREAD DO GO CHECK THEMSELVES, THEN THEY WILL KNOW WHO'S BLOWING SMOKE HERE.
I guess according to you, all the news organizations/financial websites/etc. that are reporting that the economy IS improving beyond expectations - and that more and more are getting jobs are just not to be believed - along with the DOL spokeswoman and website....they're all lying to us.
NO, BUT OUR DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT JAN 2001 THRU JUNE 2003, NOT THE TIME SINCE THEN. YOU CAN'T GET TRACTION TO REFUTE ITEM 1 ON THE ORIGINAL LIST BECAUSE THERE IS NO REFUTING IT - IT IS TRUE ACCORDING TO THE VERY SOURCE OF ACCURATE DATA THAT YOU PROVIDED -SO YOU KEEP DISCUSSING OTHER ISSUES/TIME PERIODS.THE GOOD NEWS YOU REFER TO ABOVE IS GOOD NEWS _ BUT NOT SALIENT TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION.
I don't believe they are and I see a President who has done a great job of keeping our economy stable during a recession that started before he took office. A recession that other countries are still trying to dig their way out of, while we speed ahead....................
NOT SALIENT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, BUT AS I ALREADY SAID, EUROPE AND CHINA ARE DOING JUST FINE, PROBABLY BETTER THAN WE ARE, THE LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES STILL HAVE TO CATCH UP ....
A President who had to deal with the terrible events of 9-11 and it's financial aftermath, two wars, etc. and how that's affected our economy.
TRUE, BUT AGAIN, NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND.
If you think by putting kerry in office.....
WHO SAID I WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR KERRY? THATS AS UNLIKELY AS MY VOTING FOR BUSH..
BUT I WONT KNOW FOR SURE UNTIL NOV...
, who is proposing all the new programs, national health care, giving even more funding to the existing programs than we already do, etc. without raising our taxes or increasing the decifit more, then go for it.
AND AGAIN, OT, TURNING THIS INTO A DISCUSSION OF SOMETHING ELSE, CAMPAIGN 2004...
edited to add - not that anyone's going to believe him either.....but just in case
June 15, 2004 Alan Greenspan statement:
The performance of the U.S. economy has been most impressive in recent years in the face of staggering shocks that in years past would almost surely have been destabilizing.
TRUE, BUT OT AGAIN...
Economic policies directed at increasing market flexibility have played a major role in that solid performance. Those policies, aided by major technological advances, fostered a globalization, which unleashed powerful new forces of competition, and an acceleration of productivity, which at least for a time has held down cost pressures.
TRUE AGAIN, BUT OT AGAIN AS WELL...
LINDA, ITS A SIMPLE PREMISE, BUSH PRESIDED OVER THE LOSS OF ABOUT 3 MILLION JOBS IN HIS FIRST 2 1/2 YEARS IN OFFICE -THE WORST RECORD SINCE HERBERT HOOVER. YOU CONTESTED THAT AND BROUGHT IN NUMBERS CONSIDERABLY LOWER- BUT THE DOL/BLS SITE REFUTES YOUR NUMBERS AND CONFIRMS THE 3 MILLION AS LOW BY A SHADE IN THE TIME PERIOD MENTIONED. DO YOU CONCEDE THAT? WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO,ITS TRUE AND THE #1 ITEM OF THE HISTORIANS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLLECTIVE BIASES, IS CORRECT.
AS I SAID EARLIER- #2 & #8 ARE IRREFUTABLE AS WELL....
THERE ARE A FEW THAT COULD BE ATTACKED AND PROBABLY PROVEN TO BE WRONG, BUT YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T GONNA DO THAT....I THINK 5. 7. AND 11 ARE VERY QUESTIONABLE....OR AT LEAST, HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS....
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 17, 2004 09:34 PM ]
posted on June 18, 2004 12:58:41 AM new
Bob, give up on the Righties....their facts are facts and everyone else's facts are lies.... according to them. Anything she disagrees with is a lie.
Just because a group of Nobel Prize winners in Economics said that the Bush tax "relief" would mostly benefit the rich (and it did) , Righties just say they're liars. Even though extremely wealthy people like Ted Turner and Bill Gates have said that it benefitted them the righties probably think they're liars, too.
They want to elect a man who likes to see people tortured, gives it the thumbs up! The world knows about it now but they will think it's a lie (or maybe torture doesn't bother them, after all it doesn't affect them directly so it's not important, a common stance of the Right).
They defend, gives their loyalty to, and their opinions about, a man who has said he doesn't read the newspapers because he dosen't care about people's opinions (even though these people are his bosses...taxpayers).
I do admire their determination not to be swayed under any circumstances and their willingness to fight for what they believes to be true.
But I have enjoyed your posts! Very informative, and jibes with my wide and varied sources. And I learned some new things!
Thank you so much!
posted on June 18, 2004 07:51:45 AM new
bob says: NO, BUT OUR DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT JAN 2001 THRU JUNE 2003, NOT THE TIME SINCE THEN.
No, MY discussion with you wasn't limiting the conversation to only that period of time. Although your attempt to do some was very clear.
Mine was using the LATEST data available from the DOL site and an unsuccessful attempt to bring you current with the facts. Something you're obviously not interest in doing.
The data on the DOL doesn't stop in 2003. It's current right up until May 2004.
Again, one more time, this time I'll put your posts portions in quotes so it's clear what I am saying NOW and what you have pulled out of my earlier posts..
"bob says: NO, BUT OUR DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT JAN 2001 THRU JUNE 2003, NOT THE TIME SINCE THEN. "
" No, MY discussion with you wasn't limiting the conversation to only that period of time. Although your attempt to do some was very clear. "
BOB: Again you are changing the terms. The discussion HAD been, since the first posts, about BUSH compared to Hoover in their respective first 2 1/2 years of tenure. YOU pooh-poohed such a comparison and that is where the dialogue between you and I began. You substantiated your view with data that was PROVABLY wrong-at the site you linked to- and then continued in
subsequent posts to either change the
time period under discussion or use INACCURATE numbers, numbers differing from the site that YOU first cited as being the place to get ACCURATE numbers from.>>>
" Mine was using the LATEST data available from the DOL site and an unsuccessful attempt to bring you current with the facts. Something you're obviously not interest in doing. "
BOB: Because that is not what this dialogue was about. FROM THE BEGINNING, it has been about a SPECIFIC allegation by a history Professor based on a survey he took- and that is the FIRST POST in this thread- and the one you contested. None of your posts up till this one denied that- but you've lost on that question so now you want to change the topic!>>
The data on the DOL doesn't stop in 2003. It's current right up until May 2004.
BOB:Correct. Wanna talk about the CURRENT situation? OK, go up to my post of 6/15 @ 8:22 and see the second subtraction in it- and if you think I'm a liar, making those numbers up- go to the DOL/BLS site and look at them yourself. The May 2004 unemployment numbers show 2.2 MILLION MORE UNEMPLOYED NOW, that's AS OF MAY 2004, as close as we can get to this minute, than when Bush took office. Wanna toot that horn for a while?>>
2,200,000 MORE OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN OUT OF WORK THEN WHEN GEORGE BUSH TOOK OFFICE*
2,200,000 MORE OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN OUT OF WORK THEN WHEN GEORGE BUSH TOOK OFFICE*
2,200,000 MORE OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN OUT OF WORK THEN WHEN GEORGE BUSH TOOK OFFICE*
2,200,000 MORE OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN OUT OF WORK THEN WHEN GEORGE BUSH TOOK OFFICE*
*LATEST DOL/BLS Statistics, Jan 2001 compared to MAY 2004
Re-elect President Bush!!
bob edits because my post was 6/15 not 6/16
[ edited by bob9585 on Jun 18, 2004 11:51 AM ]
posted on June 18, 2004 10:48:28 AM new
Good job, Bob!
And the repetition is a good idea....the Righties always believe something if it's repeated often enough.
posted on June 18, 2004 11:13:08 AM new
Twelvepole,
Since you either haven't read or failed to comprehend what was written, let me cover it for you again.
I am a registered Republican, have been for years. I voted for Bush last time around -but won't be again. While my political views are probably less conservative than yours, (you appear to me a kneejerk neocon) they are at very most middle of the road. In the same way that Ronald Reagan (voted for him twice)said he didn't leave the Democratic Party, that the Democratic Party left him, I never left the Republican Party - but it is leaving me as the neocon troglodytes take it over. It's unfortunate as it leaves me and millions like me no place to go. I sure can't join the Democrats, I'm not part of any of their special interest groups, the only people THEY seem to care about. Instead, I have to chart my own middle course, picking and choosing my issues and candidates.
It would be easier to be a Republican like you- a reflexive one, then I could just walk into that voting booth and pull that party lever, let the GOP biggies make the choices and affirm their omniscient knowledge by blindly following them.
I can't do that though- God gave me a brain and I developed it - and I have used it for so long I feel compelled to continue doing so.
Calling me a lefty, while not mortally wounding, does annoy me a bit- especially since I have not posted near enough political comments on this board for you to make a judgement. That is especially true
since earlier in this SAME THREAD I posted an abbreviated version of this personal political history.
Let me suggest that in the future you read a thread before you comment on it or the parties involved.
-------------------------------------------
Spanked? Linda is wrong, Bush's record on job loss in the first 2 1/2 years of his tenure IS the worst since Herbert Hoover's.
Show me ONE place where she contested that and proved it to be wrong using ACTUAL DOL/BLS figures, the figures she used as the CORRECT ones. She either misread the tables or intentionally misquoted them but the numbers are there for anyone to see-even you.
Facts vs.opinion? Every employment/jobs figure I have cited is straight from DOL/BLS - and this somehow qualifies in your
mind as OPINION? An OPINION says Bush has done a swell job under difficult circumstances - a FACT is saying there are 2.2 MILLION MORE UNEMPLOYED than when he took office, substantiated by the above sources. My OPINION is that it's nowhere near good enough and the man doesn't deserve to be President any longer.
edited to add "near" to the last line.
[ edited by bob9585 on Jun 18, 2004 12:04 PM ]
