In what way is showing Unemployment Rates declining changing a standard exactly? Clever quip though.
you made a generalization about dems changing standards to suit their needs. I pointed out that reps are equally guilty. It wouldn't be politics otherwise
actually, that's kind of sad that such attitudes are so prevalent in modern politics
Hmmm, an article in the National Review ("slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun" in the words of one of my conservative friends who reads it), written by someone who has a book for sale titled The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
You said nothing to the content of the article, in fact, you seem to dismiss it based on the periodical itself. Apparently you cannot refute the info in the article.
you made a generalization about dems changing standards to suit their needs. I pointed out that reps are equally guilty. It wouldn't be politics otherwise
actually, that's kind of sad that such attitudes are so prevalent in modern politics
Everyone with a brain can see what the dems are doing now. They see it when the reps do it too. Why do you deny the truth that is tapping on your shoulder?
If we gained 1M jobs in 4 years, do you think we are doing ok? It is decisive to ask how many people are actually known to be entering the job market?
If unemployment rates are declining how exactly is that not doing OK? "Fastest decline in decades" (sure that could be spin too I don't know) not fast enough for you? This is especially good considering the effects of the recession and 9/11. Oh wait, its not a Democrat in office, that'd make it OK right? Liberals are practically frothing at the mouth to bash Bush here and in the media, it's pitiful and frankly seems like (unfounded) desparation.
So tell me what exactly is Kerry planning on doing to create all these jobs should he twirl his way into office? I always see a lot of finger pointing from you guys but not nearly as many solutions.
Everyone with a brain can see what the dems are doing now. They see it when the reps do it too. Why do you deny the truth that is tapping on your shoulder?
I did what?
for criticizing people's reading comprehension so often in this thread, you would be well-off to practice yourself.
I didn't intentionally slant either way, I never tried to defend dems or defame reps, merely pointed out that to say "how the Dems change their standards when it suits them" and not acknowledge that Reps are equally guilty of that(note the use of equally guilty, establishing that I make no claim that dems are not guilty) is one of the many things that makes these discussions so...pointless.
If you want to read into my statements as 'denying the truth' that's your prerogative, but doing so is not endorsed by me.
Hmmm, an article in the National Review ("slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun" in the words of one of my conservative friends who reads it), written by someone who has a book for sale titled The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
Oh please and how many articles do I get thrown in my face from the NYT, Salon and other left-handshaking sites? Give me a break. All the liberalcrats here bitch about the conservative folks dismissing their sites without reading them. Well I read them, and I make my judgement on the article content. I would hope you guys practice what you preach (though not surprised you don't).
It seemed to me that the NR article was pretty fair minded. But thats ok, go ahead and stay on your side of the fence, I don't want you in my yard trampling my grass anyway.
for criticizing people's reading comprehension so often in this thread, you would be well-off to practice yourself.
I didn't intentionally slant either way, I never tried to defend dems or defame reps, merely pointed out that to say "how the Dems change their standards when it suits them" and not acknowledge that Reps are equally guilty of that(note the use of equally guilty, establishing that I make no claim that dems are not guilty) is one of the many things that makes these discussions so...pointless.
If you want to read into my statements as 'denying the truth' that's your prerogative, but doing so is not endorsed by me.
Defending bad behavior with other bad behavior is intellectually lazy and wrong. You are merely arguing to argue.
The dems ARE and have been looking for whatever tidbit of info to hurt GWB regardless of context, truth or what is just. Spin (which is a nice way of saying lies) is the rule not the exception. It is a mindless feeding frenzy. Step back from it a bit and you could see that.
"The optimism before Friday's report was truly startling -- many commentators explained carefully to their readers that actually the consensus estimate for job gains (128,000, according to Thomson FirstCall) was far too conservative, and the real figure would be well over 200,000, signaling the reality of an economy roaring back to life. As Larry Kudlow, chief economist of Bear Stearns wrote in National Review on Thursday: "Before the December and January jobs reports, I took the 'over' in the pre-announcement betting. ... Fearlessly, I'll take the "over" again."
Gee, Larry, let me know where I can get some of this action. For the 40 months that I have been writing this column, Kudlow has consistently taken the "over" on every economic statistic. On employment, he's been right maybe 3 times.
February's employment report was truly dreadful. Instead of the 128,000 job gains predicted by the Wall Street consensus, according to Thomson FirstCall, there were only 21,000 job gains, fewer than the downward 23,000 revision to January's gains. It's clear that we're not going to get the 3.8 million new jobs in 2004 absurdly promised by Bush in January's Economic Report of the President, far from it. But the interesting question (intellectually, if you're not hoping to be one of the 3.8 million) is: why not?
Employment patterns are not following those of a normal economic recovery (even the "jobless recovery" of 1991-93 had created millions of jobs two years after the low point) for one very simple reason: this is far from a normal recovery."
Defending bad behavior with other bad behavior is intellectually lazy and wrong. You are merely arguing to argue.
The dems ARE and have been looking for whatever tidbit of info to hurt GWB regardless of context, truth or what is just. Spin (which is a nice way of saying lies) is the rule not the exception. It is a mindless feeding frenzy. Step back from it a bit and you could see that.
the problem here is that you think I was defending dems. I wasn't.
The trick for me is trying to decide which party/candidate sucks LESS. :P I don't have any illusions that "my" side doesn't spin as well, just seems that the Dems have really taken it to a new level lately and it's really starting to get annoying. Especially with the Reps seemingly standing by quietly taking it. Reminds me too much of how Bush Sr. responded to the Clinton campaign... and lost.
What is 3*1.8 M (the number of jobs a normally growing economy should produce given the growth in the job pool)?
5.4 M
How many jobs were created in this three year time span?
2.486 M
So if our economy was really doing ok we would have somewhere close to 5.4 M new jobs over those three years, but we don't in fact we are down 2.9 M from that. If you think this is good news for GW, that is fine, but honestly the numbers just don't look that way... Sorry SDW, this is a very weak point for Bush...
That's a valid point, but a different one. When John Kerry gets on the stump and talks about 2,000,000 "lost" jobs, it's TOTAL LIE. It's patently false garbage, and people believe it. My numbers cannot, I repeat CANNOT be refuted. That number is rock solid. But, whenever this pointed out, the Left comes out and says "yeah, but you can't feed your family on a job from Mcdonald's". Hello? That's a totally different issue.
To continue, Kerry (or any other Democrat) has STILL not said what he'll do to "create" jobs. Balancing the budget will not do it. Fixing the defict will not do it. The only thing that will do it is ECONOMIC GROWTH....which is projected to be an extremely healthy 4.7% this year.
Keep towing the line and pointing fingers Chewy. Don't bother reading/responding to my article or anything. Thats OK, I know you like your side of the fence its pretty darn apparent. And the big Democratic solution to your huge problem (despite declining unemployment rates) is what?
The trick for me is trying to decide which party/candidate sucks LESS. :P I don't have any illusions that "my" side doesn't spin as well, just seems that the Dems have really taken it to a new level lately and it's really starting to get annoying. Especially with the Reps seemingly standing by quietly taking it. Reminds me too much of how Bush Sr. responded to the Clinton campaign... and lost.
Yeah, I agree, I don't like the ABB attitude, or the seemingly desperate nature of those who don't like bush, to do anything to defame him.
Personally, my mind is set against the man simply for his stance on the environment, He is not helping the earth barely at all, whatever support or funds he has partitioned have been meager at best, and will likely be ill distributed, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, so I am inclined to think this, and for me, that issue is far more important than employment, or the war on terror, or the economy.
Oh please and how many articles do I get thrown in my face from the NYT, Salon and other left-handshaking sites? Give me a break. All the liberalcrats here bitch about the conservative folks dismissing their sites without reading them. Well I read them, and I make my judgement on the article content. I would hope you guys practice what you preach (though not surprised you don't).
It seemed to me that the NR article was pretty fair minded. But thats ok, go ahead and stay on your side of the fence, I don't want you in my yard trampling my grass anyway.
It's pretty clear from your comments here what side of the fence you like.........
Well I read your article and took a tour of the site while I was there.
Pretty conservative leaning.
I suppose you want us to believe that was a neutral unbiased source and their conclusions aren't conservative leaning at all?
Keep towing the line and pointing fingers Chewy. Don't bother reading/responding to my article or anything. Thats OK, I know you like your side of the fence its pretty darn apparent. And the big Democratic solution to your huge problem (despite declining unemployment rates) is what?
It is very difficult to make any headway in these type of discussions, as they seem to be a democratic back-patting party.
I have told these people many time that I don't really care that they hate bush, or disagree with his policies, I just want to see intellectually honest discussion.
I know I am jumping into the piranha pool, but I have to insist on it.
If unemployment rates are declining how exactly is that not doing OK? "Fastest decline in decades" (sure that could be spin too I don't know) not fast enough for you? This is especially good considering the effects of the recession and 9/11. Oh wait, its not a Democrat in office, that'd make it OK right? Liberals are practically frothing at the mouth to bash Bush here and in the media, it's pitiful and frankly seems like (unfounded) desparation.
So tell me what exactly is Kerry planning on doing to create all these jobs should he twirl his way into office? I always see a lot of finger pointing from you guys but not nearly as many solutions.
Unemployment is based upon people actually taking the time to wait in line and declare it.... it is a bad measure and it always has been, and I believe most people will agree with that. The better measure is actual job creation. You will note explicitly I did not blame anyone for the way the economy is going. I simply stated that it is clear that the tax cuts haven't helped, and it is clear that they haven't. As far as I am concerned 9/11 didn't even show up as a blip on the economic radar screen, shopping was down, yes, but no more so than the usual recession associated decrease in shopping... The event had profound political ramifications but didn't affect the economy one bit it seems.
The president isn't responsible for making jobs. He is responsible for making sure the business cycle doesn't take too many people out with it. All I want to hear is some sort of acceptance that Bush hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy. Pass it off to normal business cycle movements, but any claims that the pres has led us through dark economic times is BS.
Comments
Originally posted by dviant
In what way is showing Unemployment Rates declining changing a standard exactly? Clever quip though.
you made a generalization about dems changing standards to suit their needs. I pointed out that reps are equally guilty. It wouldn't be politics otherwise
actually, that's kind of sad that such attitudes are so prevalent in modern politics
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmm, an article in the National Review ("slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun" in the words of one of my conservative friends who reads it), written by someone who has a book for sale titled The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
You said nothing to the content of the article, in fact, you seem to dismiss it based on the periodical itself. Apparently you cannot refute the info in the article.
It does make a point.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
you made a generalization about dems changing standards to suit their needs. I pointed out that reps are equally guilty. It wouldn't be politics otherwise
actually, that's kind of sad that such attitudes are so prevalent in modern politics
Everyone with a brain can see what the dems are doing now. They see it when the reps do it too. Why do you deny the truth that is tapping on your shoulder?
Originally posted by billybobsky
If we gained 1M jobs in 4 years, do you think we are doing ok? It is decisive to ask how many people are actually known to be entering the job market?
If unemployment rates are declining how exactly is that not doing OK? "Fastest decline in decades" (sure that could be spin too I don't know) not fast enough for you? This is especially good considering the effects of the recession and 9/11. Oh wait, its not a Democrat in office, that'd make it OK right? Liberals are practically frothing at the mouth to bash Bush here and in the media, it's pitiful and frankly seems like (unfounded) desparation.
So tell me what exactly is Kerry planning on doing to create all these jobs should he twirl his way into office? I always see a lot of finger pointing from you guys but not nearly as many solutions.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
actually, that's kind of sad that such attitudes are so prevalent in modern politics
There's something I agree with you on. ALL POLITICIANS SUCK!!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Everyone with a brain can see what the dems are doing now. They see it when the reps do it too. Why do you deny the truth that is tapping on your shoulder?
I did what?
for criticizing people's reading comprehension so often in this thread, you would be well-off to practice yourself.
I didn't intentionally slant either way, I never tried to defend dems or defame reps, merely pointed out that to say "how the Dems change their standards when it suits them" and not acknowledge that Reps are equally guilty of that(note the use of equally guilty, establishing that I make no claim that dems are not guilty) is one of the many things that makes these discussions so...pointless.
If you want to read into my statements as 'denying the truth' that's your prerogative, but doing so is not endorsed by me.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmm, an article in the National Review ("slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun" in the words of one of my conservative friends who reads it), written by someone who has a book for sale titled The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
Oh please and how many articles do I get thrown in my face from the NYT, Salon and other left-handshaking sites? Give me a break. All the liberalcrats here bitch about the conservative folks dismissing their sites without reading them. Well I read them, and I make my judgement on the article content. I would hope you guys practice what you preach (though not surprised you don't).
It seemed to me that the NR article was pretty fair minded. But thats ok, go ahead and stay on your side of the fence, I don't want you in my yard trampling my grass anyway.
Originally posted by dviant
There's something I agree with you on. ALL POLITICIANS SUCK!!
and how.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I did what?
for criticizing people's reading comprehension so often in this thread, you would be well-off to practice yourself.
I didn't intentionally slant either way, I never tried to defend dems or defame reps, merely pointed out that to say "how the Dems change their standards when it suits them" and not acknowledge that Reps are equally guilty of that(note the use of equally guilty, establishing that I make no claim that dems are not guilty) is one of the many things that makes these discussions so...pointless.
If you want to read into my statements as 'denying the truth' that's your prerogative, but doing so is not endorsed by me.
Defending bad behavior with other bad behavior is intellectually lazy and wrong. You are merely arguing to argue.
The dems ARE and have been looking for whatever tidbit of info to hurt GWB regardless of context, truth or what is just. Spin (which is a nice way of saying lies) is the rule not the exception. It is a mindless feeding frenzy. Step back from it a bit and you could see that.
Keep talking about the great economy...
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...5-050436-1180r
"The optimism before Friday's report was truly startling -- many commentators explained carefully to their readers that actually the consensus estimate for job gains (128,000, according to Thomson FirstCall) was far too conservative, and the real figure would be well over 200,000, signaling the reality of an economy roaring back to life. As Larry Kudlow, chief economist of Bear Stearns wrote in National Review on Thursday: "Before the December and January jobs reports, I took the 'over' in the pre-announcement betting. ... Fearlessly, I'll take the "over" again."
Gee, Larry, let me know where I can get some of this action. For the 40 months that I have been writing this column, Kudlow has consistently taken the "over" on every economic statistic. On employment, he's been right maybe 3 times.
February's employment report was truly dreadful. Instead of the 128,000 job gains predicted by the Wall Street consensus, according to Thomson FirstCall, there were only 21,000 job gains, fewer than the downward 23,000 revision to January's gains. It's clear that we're not going to get the 3.8 million new jobs in 2004 absurdly promised by Bush in January's Economic Report of the President, far from it. But the interesting question (intellectually, if you're not hoping to be one of the 3.8 million) is: why not?
Employment patterns are not following those of a normal economic recovery (even the "jobless recovery" of 1991-93 had created millions of jobs two years after the low point) for one very simple reason: this is far from a normal recovery."
Originally posted by NaplesX
Defending bad behavior with other bad behavior is intellectually lazy and wrong. You are merely arguing to argue.
The dems ARE and have been looking for whatever tidbit of info to hurt GWB regardless of context, truth or what is just. Spin (which is a nice way of saying lies) is the rule not the exception. It is a mindless feeding frenzy. Step back from it a bit and you could see that.
the problem here is that you think I was defending dems. I wasn't.
(at least I didn't intend to)
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
and how.
The trick for me is trying to decide which party/candidate sucks LESS. :P I don't have any illusions that "my" side doesn't spin as well, just seems that the Dems have really taken it to a new level lately and it's really starting to get annoying. Especially with the Reps seemingly standing by quietly taking it. Reminds me too much of how Bush Sr. responded to the Clinton campaign... and lost.
Originally posted by billybobsky
What is 3*1.8 M (the number of jobs a normally growing economy should produce given the growth in the job pool)?
5.4 M
How many jobs were created in this three year time span?
2.486 M
So if our economy was really doing ok we would have somewhere close to 5.4 M new jobs over those three years, but we don't in fact we are down 2.9 M from that. If you think this is good news for GW, that is fine, but honestly the numbers just don't look that way... Sorry SDW, this is a very weak point for Bush...
That's a valid point, but a different one. When John Kerry gets on the stump and talks about 2,000,000 "lost" jobs, it's TOTAL LIE. It's patently false garbage, and people believe it. My numbers cannot, I repeat CANNOT be refuted. That number is rock solid. But, whenever this pointed out, the Left comes out and says "yeah, but you can't feed your family on a job from Mcdonald's". Hello? That's a totally different issue.
To continue, Kerry (or any other Democrat) has STILL not said what he'll do to "create" jobs. Balancing the budget will not do it. Fixing the defict will not do it. The only thing that will do it is ECONOMIC GROWTH....which is projected to be an extremely healthy 4.7% this year.
originally posted by dviant
The trick for me is trying to decide which party/candidate sucks LESS. :P I don't have any illusions that "my" side doesn't spin as well, just seems that the Dems have really taken it to a new level lately and it's really starting to get annoying. Especially with the Reps seemingly standing by quietly taking it. Reminds me too much of how Bush Sr. responded to the Clinton campaign... and lost.
Yeah, I agree, I don't like the ABB attitude, or the seemingly desperate nature of those who don't like bush, to do anything to defame him.
Personally, my mind is set against the man simply for his stance on the environment, He is not helping the earth barely at all, whatever support or funds he has partitioned have been meager at best, and will likely be ill distributed, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, so I am inclined to think this, and for me, that issue is far more important than employment, or the war on terror, or the economy.
Originally posted by dviant
Oh please and how many articles do I get thrown in my face from the NYT, Salon and other left-handshaking sites? Give me a break. All the liberalcrats here bitch about the conservative folks dismissing their sites without reading them. Well I read them, and I make my judgement on the article content. I would hope you guys practice what you preach (though not surprised you don't).
It seemed to me that the NR article was pretty fair minded. But thats ok, go ahead and stay on your side of the fence, I don't want you in my yard trampling my grass anyway.
It's pretty clear from your comments here what side of the fence you like.........
Well I read your article and took a tour of the site while I was there.
Pretty conservative leaning.
I suppose you want us to believe that was a neutral unbiased source and their conclusions aren't conservative leaning at all?
Originally posted by dviant
Keep towing the line and pointing fingers Chewy. Don't bother reading/responding to my article or anything. Thats OK, I know you like your side of the fence its pretty darn apparent. And the big Democratic solution to your huge problem (despite declining unemployment rates) is what?
It is very difficult to make any headway in these type of discussions, as they seem to be a democratic back-patting party.
I have told these people many time that I don't really care that they hate bush, or disagree with his policies, I just want to see intellectually honest discussion.
I know I am jumping into the piranha pool, but I have to insist on it.
Originally posted by jimmac
It's pretty clear from your comments here what side of the fence you like.........
uh, duh...14 words of wisdom from jim.
He'll be here all week, try the veal.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I just want to see intellectually honest discussion.
uh, duh...14 words of wisdom from jim.
He'll be here all week, try the veal.
Spin, spin, spin... spin, spin, spin... shake your booty.
you're not helping
Originally posted by dviant
If unemployment rates are declining how exactly is that not doing OK? "Fastest decline in decades" (sure that could be spin too I don't know) not fast enough for you? This is especially good considering the effects of the recession and 9/11. Oh wait, its not a Democrat in office, that'd make it OK right? Liberals are practically frothing at the mouth to bash Bush here and in the media, it's pitiful and frankly seems like (unfounded) desparation.
So tell me what exactly is Kerry planning on doing to create all these jobs should he twirl his way into office? I always see a lot of finger pointing from you guys but not nearly as many solutions.
Unemployment is based upon people actually taking the time to wait in line and declare it.... it is a bad measure and it always has been, and I believe most people will agree with that. The better measure is actual job creation. You will note explicitly I did not blame anyone for the way the economy is going. I simply stated that it is clear that the tax cuts haven't helped, and it is clear that they haven't. As far as I am concerned 9/11 didn't even show up as a blip on the economic radar screen, shopping was down, yes, but no more so than the usual recession associated decrease in shopping... The event had profound political ramifications but didn't affect the economy one bit it seems.
The president isn't responsible for making jobs. He is responsible for making sure the business cycle doesn't take too many people out with it. All I want to hear is some sort of acceptance that Bush hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy. Pass it off to normal business cycle movements, but any claims that the pres has led us through dark economic times is BS.