I don't care how you try and spin it. We have not lost jobs. It's completely false.
Fine if you think it is "spin" that is your own bias against actual hard data. People have lost their jobs, about the same number were created, but over the same time period many more people entered the work force than were employed. My proof:
This is a graph of participation rate of the total workforce over the last ten years. You will note that it is not seasonally adjusted and these are the actual numbers from BLS. The participation rate is on a downward trend, meaning more and more people are without jobs.
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.
What an appropriate screen name you have, Wrong Robot. Why? Because the above thinking just plainly wrong-headed
We CAN and MUST fight a "war" on terrorism. We do so by using the military to hunt and kill terrorists, punish nations that support terror, and remove governments who may provide terrorists with WMD. The other parts of the war are non-military. We increase domestic security, better our intelligence capibilities at home and abroad, etc, etc. That's how we have a "war".
Terror: The notion that invading Iraq has CAUSED terrorism is flawed and unsupportable. It may have attracted groups such as Al-Qaeda TO Iraq, but I argue that's not really a bad thing. I'd rather have the US military fight the battle than the banker in Manhattan, wouldn't you?
One absolutely CAN fight terror with bombs. "Violence begets violence" is a statement that makes the intelligenisa feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it's not true in reality. One of the ways we win the WOT is to be a lot better at violence than "them". Had we not invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be providing a haven for Al-Qaeda. We hit them with overwhelming force. It is said that Al-Qaeda was "shocked" that we came after them on the ground. It was a complete departure from previous US policy.
What would you do about terrorism? I'd like to know. John Kerry's approach....that of a law enforcement and a legal operation, simply doesn't work. We tried that after 1993 WTC bombing. Look where it got us. We must hunt and kill terrorists across the globe and punish states that support terror. End of story.
Fine if you think it is "spin" that is your own bias against actual hard data. People have lost their jobs, about the same number were created, but over the same time period many more people entered the work force than were employed. My proof:
This is a graph of participation rate of the total workforce over the last ten years. You will note that it is not seasonally adjusted and these are the actual numbers from BLS. The participation rate is on a downward trend, meaning more and more people are without jobs.
That proves absolutely nothing! What are you even arguing? You cannot change the fact that there are 2,000,000 MORE JOBS than in 2001, not 2,000,000 less.
Let's put it this way: If we start with 10 jobs, layoff 4 people, then hire 6 more later....that's a net gain of 2 jobs, bringing to total to 12. We're not talking about the possibility of there being 5 more people looking for work at the moment (for example), because that's a separate issue.
There are more jobs today than there were in 2001...MANY more. Show me, someone, how that's untrue.
However, the 2.4 M is less than the needed 5.4 M to keep the percentage of people participating in the work force the same. This is why participation is going down (one reason perhaps)...
Not to think fairly, but does not John Kerry have a role in the laws and goings on during this administration. Did any of his votes help or hurt this economy.
he has a track record we can look at and scrutinize. Let's dig into some of that....
Not to think fairly, but does not John Kerry have a role in the laws and goings on during this administration. Did any of his votes help or hurt this economy.
he has a track record we can look at and scrutinize. Let's dig into some of that....
That wouldn't be any fun, would it
Go right ahead. let's see what you come up with.
What ever it is it can't be as damning as Bush's record.
What ever it is it can't be as damning as Bush's record.
Oh, I beg to differ. Kerry is THE most liberal senator is the nation. That's #1, jimmac. On top of this, he's been on both sides of nearly every single issue. Focusing on Kerry's record is the absolute smartest thing Bush can do.
either he is the most liberal and votes randomly or he is a centrist and votes on both sides of complex issues...
You see that is the beauty of Kerry now isn't it. He can warp time and always come out on top.
Kerry, I like to call him Dr. Who, can just start up the phone booth and point it to some time period when he supported or detract from whatever issue that suits the moment.
Comments
Don't let the simple math complicate things.
Even BUSH is saying he needs to create more jobs.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
hehehehehehehe
Don't let the simple math complicate things.
Even BUSH is saying he needs to create more jobs.
Well I agree. But, I'm just saying the old stump speech of "2,000,000 lost jobs" is a total lie.
Unemployment in Ohio is 6.2%
that's just one state.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't care how you try and spin it. We have not lost jobs. It's completely false.
Fine if you think it is "spin" that is your own bias against actual hard data. People have lost their jobs, about the same number were created, but over the same time period many more people entered the work force than were employed. My proof:
This is a graph of participation rate of the total workforce over the last ten years. You will note that it is not seasonally adjusted and these are the actual numbers from BLS. The participation rate is on a downward trend, meaning more and more people are without jobs.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
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.
What an appropriate screen name you have, Wrong Robot. Why? Because the above thinking just plainly wrong-headed
We CAN and MUST fight a "war" on terrorism. We do so by using the military to hunt and kill terrorists, punish nations that support terror, and remove governments who may provide terrorists with WMD. The other parts of the war are non-military. We increase domestic security, better our intelligence capibilities at home and abroad, etc, etc. That's how we have a "war".
Terror: The notion that invading Iraq has CAUSED terrorism is flawed and unsupportable. It may have attracted groups such as Al-Qaeda TO Iraq, but I argue that's not really a bad thing. I'd rather have the US military fight the battle than the banker in Manhattan, wouldn't you?
One absolutely CAN fight terror with bombs. "Violence begets violence" is a statement that makes the intelligenisa feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it's not true in reality. One of the ways we win the WOT is to be a lot better at violence than "them". Had we not invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be providing a haven for Al-Qaeda. We hit them with overwhelming force. It is said that Al-Qaeda was "shocked" that we came after them on the ground. It was a complete departure from previous US policy.
What would you do about terrorism? I'd like to know. John Kerry's approach....that of a law enforcement and a legal operation, simply doesn't work. We tried that after 1993 WTC bombing. Look where it got us. We must hunt and kill terrorists across the globe and punish states that support terror. End of story.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Bush was in Ohio today... where they've lost over 140,000 jobs...
Unemployment in Ohio is 6.2%
that's just one state.
I understand that, but now you're bringing up a different issue. This may very well impact Bush, but it doesn't refute my BLS numbers.
Jobs created minus layoffs and new workers entering the work force.
2,000,000
-5,000,000
????????????
-3,000,000
It's simple.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Fine if you think it is "spin" that is your own bias against actual hard data. People have lost their jobs, about the same number were created, but over the same time period many more people entered the work force than were employed. My proof:
This is a graph of participation rate of the total workforce over the last ten years. You will note that it is not seasonally adjusted and these are the actual numbers from BLS. The participation rate is on a downward trend, meaning more and more people are without jobs.
That proves absolutely nothing! What are you even arguing? You cannot change the fact that there are 2,000,000 MORE JOBS than in 2001, not 2,000,000 less.
Let's put it this way: If we start with 10 jobs, layoff 4 people, then hire 6 more later....that's a net gain of 2 jobs, bringing to total to 12. We're not talking about the possibility of there being 5 more people looking for work at the moment (for example), because that's a separate issue.
There are more jobs today than there were in 2001...MANY more. Show me, someone, how that's untrue.
However, the 2.4 M is less than the needed 5.4 M to keep the percentage of people participating in the work force the same. This is why participation is going down (one reason perhaps)...
Originally posted by SDW2001
oh look, another jimmac CNNMoney link. Imagine that. The overall economy is very strong. Job growth could be better. It's one indicator.
No matter how much you gloss over the jobs situation the fact of the matter is no jobs = no recovery.
If this situation doesn't improve we will not be well off at all.
As far as CNN goes it just shows you don't have to go very far ( or to some conservative rag ) to find the truth.
As of Jan. this year :
Unemployment Rates for States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rates for States
Monthly Rankings
Seasonally Adjusted
Jan. 2004p
Rank State Rate
1 SOUTH DAKOTA 2.9
2 NORTH DAKOTA 3.0
3 DELAWARE 3.4
4 VIRGINIA 3.6
5 VERMONT 3.8
6 HAWAII 3.9
6 NEBRASKA 3.9
6 WYOMING 3.9
9 IOWA 4.1
9 NEW HAMPSHIRE 4.1
11 FLORIDA 4.3
11 GEORGIA 4.3
11 MARYLAND 4.3
14 NEVADA 4.5
15 MINNESOTA 4.6
15 MONTANA 4.6
17 CONNECTICUT 4.7
17 KANSAS 4.7
17 MISSOURI 4.7
20 IDAHO 4.8
21 MAINE 4.9
21 TENNESSEE 4.9
23 INDIANA 5.0
23 OKLAHOMA 5.0
23 UTAH 5.0
23 WISCONSIN 5.0
27 ARIZONA 5.2
27 ARKANSAS 5.2
27 KENTUCKY 5.2
27 RHODE ISLAND 5.2
27 WEST VIRGINIA 5.2
32 PENNSYLVANIA 5.3
33 NEW JERSEY 5.5
34 COLORADO 5.6
34 MASSACHUSETTS 5.6
36 NEW MEXICO 5.7
37 MISSISSIPPI 5.8
37 NORTH CAROLINA 5.8
39 ALABAMA 6.0
40 CALIFORNIA 6.1
40 LOUISIANA 6.1
42 ILLINOIS 6.2
42 OHIO 6.2
44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 6.3
44 SOUTH CAROLINA 6.3
44 TEXAS 6.3
47 NEW YORK 6.5
47 WASHINGTON 6.5
49 MICHIGAN 6.6
50 ALASKA 7.3
51 OREGON 7.7
If you look at Oregon you can understand why I don't feel so good about this.
he has a track record we can look at and scrutinize. Let's dig into some of that....
That wouldn't be any fun, would it
Originally posted by NaplesX
Not to think fairly, but does not John Kerry have a role in the laws and goings on during this administration. Did any of his votes help or hurt this economy.
he has a track record we can look at and scrutinize. Let's dig into some of that....
That wouldn't be any fun, would it
Go right ahead. let's see what you come up with.
What ever it is it can't be as damning as Bush's record.
Originally posted by jimmac
Go right ahead. let's see what you come up with.
What ever it is it can't be as damning as Bush's record.
Oh, I beg to differ. Kerry is THE most liberal senator is the nation. That's #1, jimmac. On top of this, he's been on both sides of nearly every single issue. Focusing on Kerry's record is the absolute smartest thing Bush can do.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
According to you if that number was say just 1,000... Bush could say he created jobs.., and you would still be screaming we have not lost any jobs?
Yes.
both sides.
something doesn't work out in the logic.
either he is the most liberal and votes randomly or he is a centrist and votes on both sides of complex issues...
Originally posted by billybobsky
most liberal.
both sides.
something doesn't work out in the logic.
either he is the most liberal and votes randomly or he is a centrist and votes on both sides of complex issues...
You see that is the beauty of Kerry now isn't it. He can warp time and always come out on top.
Kerry, I like to call him Dr. Who, can just start up the phone booth and point it to some time period when he supported or detract from whatever issue that suits the moment.