I guess this is where we'll have to disagree. Al Qaeda predates Bush. Clinton also tried and failed to do anything significant about them. And I don't think Bush made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda.
I don't think that even in 2 YEARS a democratic Iraq could bring some sort of Middle East wave of democracy and love.
But it was this adminstration that overstated the welcome US forces would receive... over stated the ease of rebuilding Iraq... overstated the regional good it would do.
I'm just hoping we can get a stable democracy in place before the Iraqi public gets fed up.
I don't think middle east peace is very important to the american public.
But we were not IN the middle east before March of this year.
I guess this is where we'll have to disagree. Al Qaeda predates Bush. Clinton also tried and failed to do anything significant about them. And I don't think Bush made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda.
September 11th did.
Of course Al predates Bush. The difference is now Bush had been proactive in his response and any further attacks can be considered reactive to Bush's aggression. We're talking about how the voters will view the situation, not necessarily reality. If Al Qaeda increases it's potency in the next 12 months the voters very likely will hold Bush accountable, right or wrong.
Sorry for the "bump", but I thought with today's economic data (unemployment going down and jobs being created three months in a row) this would be a valid topic again.
Forecasts for 2004 now expect not just growth, but robust growth. Can the Dems really expect to beat Bush on the hope that Iraq doesn't go well?
Payrolls are still 2.4 million jobs smaller than in March 2001, when the 2001 recession began. Though job growth has come in spurts since then, payrolls are still about 800,000 jobs lower than in November 2001, when the recession officially ended.
Quote:
monthly job growth hasn't yet come close to the rate the White House promised when pushing for tax cuts earlier this year, and it hasn't yet come close to the slower rate of 200,000 per month Treasury Secretary John Snow promised recently.
Quote:
"To put this in perspective, a couple of years into recovery, we should be seeing 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs per month," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "We're not there yet."
We all want to see things start to boom again, particularly those of us who have been in a holding pattern since 2001, but there's no point in being optimistic until real sustainable growth and employment is evident.
We all want to see things start to boom again, particularly those of us who have been in a holding pattern since 2001, but there's no point in being optimistic until real sustainable growth and employment is evident.
Oh please. Job growth and unemployment are always last to change. I'd argue that they are the only indicators (and not so much so unemployment since it's 2.5% below historical averages) that cast any doubt whatsoever on the recovery. In fact, I don't know even know about that since job growth is now quite positive trend-wise. The point is at this rate, Bush's job record could be near even, which while not terrific, will prevent the Democrats from using it as a campaign issue of any significance.
It's almost amazing to me that some of you have such utter hatred of Bush that you will search to the ends of the earth for negative data...just to try and paint a picture. If you are going to criticize Bush, then do it for not being more stringent on spending caps. Do it for not being more aggressive in the Israel-Palesinian conflict. Hell, go ahead and even criticize the deficit. I don't care, but this argument that the economy is not doing well or getting one hell of a lot better is just totally and completely disingenuous.
It's almost amazing to me that some of you have such utter hatred of Bush that you will search to the ends of the earth for negative data...
Actually, I didn't search anywhere. Everything I quoted came from the article you linked to.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
this argument that the economy is not doing well or getting one hell of a lot better is just totally and completely disingenuous
Where is the evidence of things getting 'one hell of a lot better'? You keep posting links to articles that you either don't read or don't understand, then claiming that they say something that they don't.
Things are improving...and that's great, but no one but you is claiming that they are back to normal or will be in the immediate future.
CHICAGO, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Economists and politicians giddy about prospects for U.S. economic growth got a dousing of cold water on Thursday from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.(nyse: WMT - news - people), the world's largest company.
The retailer -- which taps directly into the psyche of the U.S. consumer -- gave a downbeat economic outlook that contrasted with reams of recent data, and bluntly suggested that many of its shoppers are barely making ends meet.
Customers continue to buy the cheapest items in any given category -- a sign that household budgets remain tight, Lee Scott, Wal-Mart chief executive officer, said on a recorded message.
Buyers are "timing their expenditures around the receipt of their paychecks, indicating liquidity issues," Scott said.
"I don't think consumer spending is slowing, but I also don't see the strength that many of you in the investment community appear to see," Scott said.
Wal-Mart's sober outlook came after the U.S. economy enjoyed its fastest gross domestic product growth in almost 20 years in the third quarter and is seeing job growth after a years-long slump
Comments
Originally posted by Frank777
I guess this is where we'll have to disagree. Al Qaeda predates Bush. Clinton also tried and failed to do anything significant about them. And I don't think Bush made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda.
September 11th did.
Nice to hear a man say something with integrity.
Fellowship
But it was this adminstration that overstated the welcome US forces would receive... over stated the ease of rebuilding Iraq... overstated the regional good it would do.
I'm just hoping we can get a stable democracy in place before the Iraqi public gets fed up.
I don't think middle east peace is very important to the american public.
But we were not IN the middle east before March of this year.
We are now... and for several years to come.
Originally posted by Frank777
I guess this is where we'll have to disagree. Al Qaeda predates Bush. Clinton also tried and failed to do anything significant about them. And I don't think Bush made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda.
September 11th did.
Of course Al predates Bush. The difference is now Bush had been proactive in his response and any further attacks can be considered reactive to Bush's aggression. We're talking about how the voters will view the situation, not necessarily reality. If Al Qaeda increases it's potency in the next 12 months the voters very likely will hold Bush accountable, right or wrong.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Nice to hear a man say something with integrity.
Fellowship
What I said is more truthful and what he/she said isn't even a lie.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Sorry for the "bump", but I thought with today's economic data (unemployment going down and jobs being created three months in a row) this would be a valid topic again.
Forecasts for 2004 now expect not just growth, but robust growth. Can the Dems really expect to beat Bush on the hope that Iraq doesn't go well?
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
Do you even read these articles?
Payrolls are still 2.4 million jobs smaller than in March 2001, when the 2001 recession began. Though job growth has come in spurts since then, payrolls are still about 800,000 jobs lower than in November 2001, when the recession officially ended.
monthly job growth hasn't yet come close to the rate the White House promised when pushing for tax cuts earlier this year, and it hasn't yet come close to the slower rate of 200,000 per month Treasury Secretary John Snow promised recently.
"To put this in perspective, a couple of years into recovery, we should be seeing 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs per month," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "We're not there yet."
We all want to see things start to boom again, particularly those of us who have been in a holding pattern since 2001, but there's no point in being optimistic until real sustainable growth and employment is evident.
There's been plenty of blips over the last 9 months. But nothing sustained.
And some are fearing a wave of pinkslips before Christmas.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Do you even read these articles?
We all want to see things start to boom again, particularly those of us who have been in a holding pattern since 2001, but there's no point in being optimistic until real sustainable growth and employment is evident.
Oh please. Job growth and unemployment are always last to change. I'd argue that they are the only indicators (and not so much so unemployment since it's 2.5% below historical averages) that cast any doubt whatsoever on the recovery. In fact, I don't know even know about that since job growth is now quite positive trend-wise. The point is at this rate, Bush's job record could be near even, which while not terrific, will prevent the Democrats from using it as a campaign issue of any significance.
It's almost amazing to me that some of you have such utter hatred of Bush that you will search to the ends of the earth for negative data...just to try and paint a picture. If you are going to criticize Bush, then do it for not being more stringent on spending caps. Do it for not being more aggressive in the Israel-Palesinian conflict. Hell, go ahead and even criticize the deficit. I don't care, but this argument that the economy is not doing well or getting one hell of a lot better is just totally and completely disingenuous.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It's almost amazing to me that some of you have such utter hatred of Bush that you will search to the ends of the earth for negative data...
Actually, I didn't search anywhere. Everything I quoted came from the article you linked to.
Originally posted by SDW2001
this argument that the economy is not doing well or getting one hell of a lot better is just totally and completely disingenuous
Where is the evidence of things getting 'one hell of a lot better'? You keep posting links to articles that you either don't read or don't understand, then claiming that they say something that they don't.
Things are improving...and that's great, but no one but you is claiming that they are back to normal or will be in the immediate future.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/econom...tr1147178.html
Wal-Mart dumps cold water on U.S. economic bulls
By Ros Krasny
CHICAGO, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Economists and politicians giddy about prospects for U.S. economic growth got a dousing of cold water on Thursday from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.(nyse: WMT - news - people), the world's largest company.
The retailer -- which taps directly into the psyche of the U.S. consumer -- gave a downbeat economic outlook that contrasted with reams of recent data, and bluntly suggested that many of its shoppers are barely making ends meet.
Customers continue to buy the cheapest items in any given category -- a sign that household budgets remain tight, Lee Scott, Wal-Mart chief executive officer, said on a recorded message.
Buyers are "timing their expenditures around the receipt of their paychecks, indicating liquidity issues," Scott said.
"I don't think consumer spending is slowing, but I also don't see the strength that many of you in the investment community appear to see," Scott said.
Wal-Mart's sober outlook came after the U.S. economy enjoyed its fastest gross domestic product growth in almost 20 years in the third quarter and is seeing job growth after a years-long slump
More via link.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Interesting....It seems like Wal-Mart is becoming their own economic indicator....
That in and of itself is pretty crazy.