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.
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
you used a chart from the national review that's trying to say... don't look at Job Creation numbers... but at unemployment percentage...
it's dropped what? .6 percent?
And the article is saying that the unemployment rate is MORE important than all other job statistics... and that's just wrong. You have to look at all the data.
The unemployment number can go down because people stop looking for work... that's why people ALSO look at the monthly jobs numbers.
PLUS! I posted a peice from UPI which is certainly not "libralcrat" as you so uneloquently put it... did you bother to read that?
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.
The projections are of course questionable, but I will let you have that point. I agree that "creating" jobs is not something that any president can be expected to do. They are not responsible for the way the economy shifts; the best they can do is change who benefits most from a growing economy and who benefits the least (while there is some argument that economic confidence can arise from the white house, this is more than voodoo-esque). All this leads to the conclusion that any claims coming from either side about how they fixed the economy or plan to fix the economy is entirely BS. It isn't in their control...
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.
Back patting party? What do you think that site dviant linked to was?
I felt like I'd bought a ticket to Conservoland while I was there.
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see where that number comes from. It is my understanding that the President has presided over the first net jobs loss since Hoover. Perhaps a certain number of jobs were created during the President's tenure, but enough to counteract the unemployment rate rise?
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
A little paranoid, are we? Is extremist islam the new communism?
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see where that number comes from. It is my understanding that the President has presided over the first net jobs loss since Hoover. Perhaps a certain number of jobs were created during the President's tenure, but enough to counteract the unemployment rate rise?
Even if you accept SDW's numbers there are still the problems I pointed out...
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
The 'war on terror' is pointless to begin with. you cannot declare war on an abstract like that. Rather, you CAN, but you cannot fight at a physical war based on it. That's like declaring war on the male sex drive.*
additionally, how much terror do you think has been caused by our interference in iraq? if not from iraqi soldiers who have to go and get killed, then by civilians who have to endure bombs destroying buildings all around them. On top of that, how many people lost everything in this operation, and are now pissed at the US, who better to become a suicide bomber? who better to hate the US and want to do everything in his power to hurt us.
Violence begets violence, when will people get that? you can't fight terror with bombs.
also Islam extremists aren't going to take over the world, if you think so, you might want to consider not watching spy movies anymore. seriously, for that to be your justification for destroying the environment? that's absurd. "we got no time to worry about the planet that supports ALL OF US, there are islam terrorists that could take over the world any minute!" now if you excuse me, while I get my tincan hat
*edit: was "the internet" , changed it to make it even more of an abstract, for emphasis.
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.
As far as the unemployment rate. I remember many debates that focused on that figure. It was a big factor of the Bush Sr. loss. Unemploymet rate has for as long as I can remember been the holy grail of economic numbers.
Do "Goofle search" on "unemployment rate" and tell me I'm wrong.
I know this is a link to the extreme far right NRO but at least consider the data in the article.
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.
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.
Well it was apparently good enough until Bush Jr.'s tax cuts could be shown to have possibly done some good. Did you even TRY to read that article I posted? Please do! I think it brings up some interesting points.
Quote:
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.
You're kidding me right?
Quote:
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.
So you don't believe that giving people extra money in their pockets and restoring national confidence after a major crisis will affect consumer spending? So what exactly DOES then? If you're backing the Dems (which I'm assuming you are) what exactly doe THEY propose to do to "get us through dark economic times" (well besides ride the current positive wave)?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
uh, duh...14 words of wisdom from jim.
He'll be here all week, try the veal.
Pass the " manufactered " hamburger.
Wow! You beat me! 16 words of wisdom.......
Originally posted by NaplesX
I know I am jumping into the piranha pool, but I have to insist on it.
And here I left my piranha repellant at home! Dammit!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
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.
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
it's dropped what? .6 percent?
And the article is saying that the unemployment rate is MORE important than all other job statistics... and that's just wrong. You have to look at all the data.
The unemployment number can go down because people stop looking for work... that's why people ALSO look at the monthly jobs numbers.
PLUS! I posted a peice from UPI which is certainly not "libralcrat" as you so uneloquently put it... did you bother to read that?
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
The projections are of course questionable, but I will let you have that point. I agree that "creating" jobs is not something that any president can be expected to do. They are not responsible for the way the economy shifts; the best they can do is change who benefits most from a growing economy and who benefits the least (while there is some argument that economic confidence can arise from the white house, this is more than voodoo-esque). All this leads to the conclusion that any claims coming from either side about how they fixed the economy or plan to fix the economy is entirely BS. It isn't in their control...
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.
Back patting party? What do you think that site dviant linked to was?
I felt like I'd bought a ticket to Conservoland while I was there.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see where that number comes from. It is my understanding that the President has presided over the first net jobs loss since Hoover. Perhaps a certain number of jobs were created during the President's tenure, but enough to counteract the unemployment rate rise?
Originally posted by NaplesX
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
A little paranoid, are we? Is extremist islam the new communism?
About 3 million more.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see where that number comes from. It is my understanding that the President has presided over the first net jobs loss since Hoover. Perhaps a certain number of jobs were created during the President's tenure, but enough to counteract the unemployment rate rise?
Even if you accept SDW's numbers there are still the problems I pointed out...
Originally posted by NaplesX
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
The 'war on terror' is pointless to begin with. you cannot declare war on an abstract like that. Rather, you CAN, but you cannot fight at a physical war based on it. That's like declaring war on the male sex drive.*
additionally, how much terror do you think has been caused by our interference in iraq? if not from iraqi soldiers who have to go and get killed, then by civilians who have to endure bombs destroying buildings all around them. On top of that, how many people lost everything in this operation, and are now pissed at the US, who better to become a suicide bomber? who better to hate the US and want to do everything in his power to hurt us.
Violence begets violence, when will people get that? you can't fight terror with bombs.
also Islam extremists aren't going to take over the world, if you think so, you might want to consider not watching spy movies anymore.
*edit: was "the internet" , changed it to make it even more of an abstract, for emphasis.
Originally posted by msantti
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.
I like the sound of that!
Originally posted by msantti
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.
At this point it isn't liberal, its rational.
Originally posted by billybobsky
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.
As far as the unemployment rate. I remember many debates that focused on that figure. It was a big factor of the Bush Sr. loss. Unemploymet rate has for as long as I can remember been the holy grail of economic numbers.
Do "Goofle search" on "unemployment rate" and tell me I'm wrong.
I know this is a link to the extreme far right NRO but at least consider the data in the article.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0311130856.asp
The unemployment rate right now is less than the Reagan years during the phenomenal economy of the 80's.
Originally posted by billybobsky
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.
Exactly.
See this article from USA Today:
More Job Seekers Just Quit Looking
Originally posted by msantti
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.
No Liberal Insider.
Originally posted by billybobsky
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.
Well it was apparently good enough until Bush Jr.'s tax cuts could be shown to have possibly done some good. Did you even TRY to read that article I posted? Please do! I think it brings up some interesting points.
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.
You're kidding me right?
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.
So you don't believe that giving people extra money in their pockets and restoring national confidence after a major crisis will affect consumer spending? So what exactly DOES then? If you're backing the Dems (which I'm assuming you are) what exactly doe THEY propose to do to "get us through dark economic times" (well besides ride the current positive wave)?
Originally posted by billybobsky
Even if you accept SDW's numbers there are still the problems I pointed out...
Here's a little something on this subject that SDW and the rest can chew on : http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news...jobs/index.htm
It doesn't exactly sound like the economy is just fine to me. It looks kind of grim if you're one of those people looking for work.
Also CNN doesn't have conservative ads plastered all over it.