Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Chicago1871, Nov 5, 2004.
US Job Growth Up: Analysts Still Wary
Mostly decent numbers...
Hah, it's probably all campaign jobs!
It appears to be in part due to hurricane-related construction jobs, but not all. They're good numbers, unless you have a variable-rate mortgage or credit card.
So could we actually break even in the payroll survey over Bush's four years? (The household survey already shows gains, I believe.) What's the current number? I know it's not the "1.6 million jobs lost" the Kerry campaign was still touting many months after that figure was accurate.
As of last month, the number of total jobs lost during the Bush Administration was between 600 and 800 thousand, depending upon the source.
Given these numbers (an additional 450,000 jobs added), the net loss is between 150 and 350,000, with three more months left (Nov, Dec, and Jan).
It seems pretty certain, that unlike Hoover, President Bush will actually have a net gain by the end of his 1st term.
So Mr. Hoover can now rest quietly as the last President to lose jobs during his term....
P.S. In light of the things, Bush inheriting a recession, stock market bubble, 9/11, two wars....the fact that this economy is this good is A-m-a-z-i-n-g and a testament to his tax policy!
Which he didn't.
Which has little to nothing to do with job creation / loss except possibly on Wall Street itself, and even that's debatable.
Which by all econometric accounts had zero effect outside of downtown Manhattan and the bloated government-subsidized airline industry.
One of which was totally elective, the other of which was partially botched, and neither of which required any sacrifice whatsoever from the people left at home.
Man, way to lower the bar. We broke even! U! S! A! U! S! A!
Way to prove cause and effect here. Reagan cut taxes --> economy improves. Clinton raised taxes --> economy improves more, longer, faster. Bush's tax cuts were a redistribution of tax policy; their economic stimulus powers are highly specious to anyone who doesn't write for the WSJ editorials page.
Aren't wars supposed to stimulate an economy, not deter it?
Well that's another one of my wild-eyed theories that's been debunked...
Wars increase spending, and in the right economic conditions spending will help to stimulate the economy. Not the case this time.
You liberals will never...ever...ever GET IT! Simply proving that it IS possible to be wrong about everything in one post!
You guys would figure that after losing ANOTHER election, you would stop with trying to re-write history with fiction for political purposes....
Unlucky for you that a majority of us do GET IT!
Square miles of
Bush 2.51 million
Population (2003) of
Bush 150,9 million
Kerry 103.6 million
What is the point in posting this?
Unintentional humor is the best kind.
Say, why did we go into Iraq again?
When you have a war, energy and effort goes into making things that get blown up. You also have a bunch of young, strong men that are normally part of the economy sent far away to blow things up. Neither of these things are good for an economy.
The myth is that World War II ended the Great Depression. It wasn't the war that did it, but certain side effects, such as curtailing the limits on oil mining ("proration"). Usually wars are disasterous, even if you don't get your territory blown up. Look at what happened to England after the two world wars. Vietnam wasn't too great for us either.
Don't you know? We were always at war with Oceania.
True, but they're unarmed like the Swedes.
Which is actually the theory I agree with. If you want another example, have a look at Iraq War I.
Dammit I was trying to get the other guy to answer--that would have been more fun.
It makes him more correct than the rest of us. If BigSoccer allowed it, that post would actually be an ideal sig. It means you couldn't really argue anything he posted, ever.
I'll file this under "may as well lay back and enjoy it."
WTF? Is this one acre, one vote?
We're talking about economic policy. You're just about the only person who would argue that Bush won on economics. He won because people like you get a worked up about gays.
p.s. We won the last election
p.s.s. we won the election before that
p.s.s.s. we won the election before that.
I'm surpised this isn't self-evident, but it appears many people, contrary to any logic, believe that war is economically beneficial.