SoftVote's Presidential Blog: IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID

« Swiftboat Veterans for Truth is doing for John Kerry what Farenheit 911 did for Bush | Main | Bush Administration Puts Our National Security at Risk »

August 06, 2004

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID

Bush states, "I say we have a strong economy, and it's getting stronger."

But recent job reports show that US employers hired only 32,000 extra workers; a shocker from the expected gain of 243,000. Even in June, the Labour Department said that net jobs are up just 78,000, far lower than the 112,000 initially estimated.

Rival candidate Kerry finds these results as evidence that Bush has mismanaged the economy. Bush, on the other hand, is optomistic and brushes aside the startling low job creation by saying, "We're moving America forward and we're not turning back."

Posted by Wild Bill at August 6, 2004 09:54 PM

Comments

The Bureau of labor statistics says total jobs went UP more than 600,000.

Total employment is what counts and not just one sector used in the past.

Posted by: Steve at August 6, 2004 10:12 PM

GW JR has never been in touch with reality or anything going on in America. This is not at all suprising to me.

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 7, 2004 01:48 PM

Unemployment is at 5.5% same as it was when Slick Willy was running for re-election.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 7, 2004 02:44 PM

I suggest that you visit the Dept of Labor website for yourself and see how high the unemployment numbers were from 1992 -1996. Today's numbers are lower.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 7, 2004 08:30 PM

The numbers cited in the above blog are from the anachronistic payroll survey. They do not reflect jobs that are being created by private entrepreneurs who are using their tax cuts to create new opportunities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also released a new Household survey (the one on which the actual unemployment rate is based) which shows a total job gain for July of 629,000! It also shows a net gain for the past 12 months of 2.5 million new jobs. Even the payroll survey shows that the Bush Administration has gained 1.5 million jobs in the past 12 months. The payroll survey numbers will eventually catch up to the more responsive household number. There is more good news. After a continuous decline of nearly three decades, the manufacturing sector has posted eight straight months of gains and added nearly 100,000 jobs this year. Consumer confidence is soaring with the index now up to 106.1 from its low of 77 in the aftermath of the war. Real income is up 10% since the end of the Clinton recession. Never in a recovery has income grown faster than inflation, debunking Kerry's claims that Americans are losing high paying jobs and making $9,000 per year less in their replacement jobs.

President Bush is right. We have turned the corner and we're not turning back.

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 8, 2004 06:17 AM

No matter how bad the news is for Bush, they will always make lemonade out of the lemon. eg., When job creation figures for last three months were re evaluated to total of 112,000, Bush announced, "the economy is strong and getting stronger"! Bush will win all of the states he won in 2000...except New Hampshire and Nevada and will lose by 274-263.

Posted by: hamilton brosious at August 8, 2004 06:24 AM

It should be harder to ignore the TOTAL job statistics for July 2004.

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment rose by 629,000 to 139.7 million in July, and the employment population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--increased to 62.5 percent.

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Posted by: CavalierX at August 8, 2004 08:48 AM

Sluggish? The unemployment rates drops from 5.6% to 5.5%, and they call that sluggish? You've got to be kidding me!

Posted by: Ryan at August 8, 2004 12:03 PM

Kerry's past shows that he has the tendency to be a Traitor. That's about all anyone needs to know.

Posted by: James E. at August 8, 2004 12:36 PM

How can a reasonable person say that Kerry has a tendency to be a "traitor?" That is a very strong word, "traitor." Most of what bears on that is well known. To list:
- he served in VietNam
- he served honorably and even with distinction. (Even if it is true that he exagerates his contribution, you cannot argue that he did not step forward to make a contribution.)
It makes more sense to argue that he was a traitor to the cause of the VietNam war, and perhaps that is what people mean when they call him a traitor. But please remember that, in the end, most people who ever thought the VietNam War was a good idea changed positions. The War was ended by Nixon with the support of the vast majority of people in the government. Nixon was elected in part because he promised to end the war. Remember the "secret plan"?
Kerry was, at worst, a little early in turning against the war. Or, many would say, he was at his best when he turned against the war.
It's time to put our differences over VietNam behind us. It is too late to claim that people who opposed the war showed poor character by doing so.

Posted by: Ronald Hietala at August 8, 2004 07:32 PM

Ah, Mr. James E...the old red herring fallacy. While everyone else talks about job statistics, you call Mr. Kerry a traitor. Very mature of you I must say. Why don't we call him a communist and a nazi too, while we're making claims without any support. Next time, why don't you stay on topic? It might help to acually take your ADD meds.

Posted by: Jirai at August 8, 2004 09:49 PM

Hey Hamilton:

Your estimate of a Kerry 274-263 victory leaves out one important fact. You are taking away eight votes from Bush's total, but Nevada actually gained a vote in the 2000 census. Also the states Bush won four years ago now would represent 278 votes instead of 271. So if you are right and Bush loses Nevada (5) and New Hampshire (4) that would forge a 269-269 tie forcing the House of Representatives to choose when the new Congress sits and the votes are read. Assuming the House does not change much state by state (each state gets one vote)Bush would be elected 27-23 (it is generally accepted that the Republicans will take control of the Texas delegation). And you thought 2000 was controversial?

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 8, 2004 10:39 PM

Not withstanding Jirai's vile comment about James' ADD medication (this hatred is a big part of why Kerry got no bounce out of his convention), I must agree that it is not appropriate to call Kerry a traitor. He was acting out of conscience, no matter how misguided it was. Though his recorded comments before the Fulbright committee were later used to torment many American POWs, it was not his intention to harm his country. But there is no mistaking the fact that action represents a horrific lapse of judgment that youth cannot explain away because now 33 years later, he did the same thing by voting against the supplemental appropriation for our soldiers. Kerry's bad judgment has now led him to stab two generations of American soldiers in the back. I submit that no matter what his intentions, his lack of judgment and leadership ability disqualify him to be President

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 9, 2004 02:49 PM

Let's get something straight about the unemployment rate. It can very easily drop when jobs go south due to the fact thast persons who have been unemployed for more than six months are dropped from the unemployment count. Therefore, if only 30,000 jobs are created, and 50,000 are dropped from the unemployment count who have been out of work since Feb, then the unemployment rate goes down.

The practice of dropping people after 6 months was started in 1981 by R. Reagan. Within a year, the uemployment rate fell amazingly fast, due to to the change in how unemployment figures were counted.

The real unemployment rate, with those who were discounted included, is probably closer to 7-8 percent than 5.5.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 9, 2004 03:11 PM

Despite what he says,John Kerry will raise taxes across the board.

Raised taxes means less money in the hands of consumers (you and me)

Less money in the hands of consumers means they aren't able to spend their money on consumer goods.

If they aren't able to spend their money on consumber goods, then the company(your employment, or someone elses employment) who produces those goods profits go down.

When the company's profits go down, they start cutting jobs. Which means you lose your job or someone else loses theirs.

Dont Elect John Kerry if You want to keep your Job

President Bush is right. We have turned the corner and we're not turning back.

Posted by: Kris at August 9, 2004 04:14 PM

Nice try Paul....it just does not hold water. Your argument convieniently forgets two things. First, unemployment did not fall precipitously during that first year under Reagan. In fact it shot up to over 10% before recovering. Secondly, you cannot ignore the fact that over 629,000 more Americans are working now than were working a month ago. Period. Many are working as independent contractors, many are self-employed in other ways and do not show in the payroll figure. Many hundreds of thousands of people have taken advantage of the same technology that allows us to have this discussion to fashion new careers for themselves in a time of dramatic change not seen since the industrial revolution. But they are working and no one can deny that fact nor deny the fact that President Bush's historic tax cuts are what freed up the necessary capital to allow all those jobs to be created.

President Bush is right. We have turned the corner and we're not turning back.

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 9, 2004 08:14 PM

If you want to lose you job. Vote George Bush Jr. People please don't be in denial.

Washington Mutual cutting jobs, offices

August 9, 2004 04:10 PM EDT

DAYTON, Ohio _ Washington Mutual Inc. will shut down lending and loan processing offices in Ohio and 15 other states, resulting in about 1,840 lost jobs, company officials announced Thursday

Nationwide, about 100 retail lending and loan processing offices will close by the end of the third quarter, the company said. On Wednesday, Washington Mutual said it will close the mortgage loan processing facility in San Antonio, Texas, a move that will result in 660 job cuts. That brings the total number of jobs cut to an estimated 2,500 by year-end.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards Take America Back!

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 9, 2004 09:41 PM

Take a good look at America today.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8316

The unemployment rate in July 2004 is about the same as it was in November 2001, when the recovery began (5.6 percent then versus 5.5 percent last month).
There are 1.2 million fewer jobs now than there were 28 months ago, when the last recession began. In every other post-war recovery, we had surpassed the prior jobs peak by this point.
While employment grew relatively quickly earlier this year -- 225,000 average monthly growth, January through May -- it slowed sharply in the last two months, growing 55,000 jobs per month, well below what�s needed to tighten up the job market.
A broad measure of average wages in the economy -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index -- rose at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in both of the previous quarters. This is the slowest wage growth on record for this series, going back to the early 1980s. Since inflation was 2.8 percent in the second quarter, real wages were down slightly.
Another important wage series, one for blue-collar and non-managerial workers, is down in real terms in six out of the past seven months;
Between 2001 and 2003, 6.3 percent of the �tenured workforce� -- those who had had their jobs for at least three years -- lost those jobs due to layoffs, plant closings, or other reasons not for cause (i.e., they didn�t get fired). That�s the highest level on record going back to the early 1980s, when this survey began. That�s barely above the 1981-83 displacement rate of 6.2 percent but unemployment was 9 percent back then.
Of those displaced workers who were rehired in full-time jobs, 57 percent earned less in their new job, the highest share going back ten years. The difference in median earnings between new and old jobs was 16 percent, tied with 1991-93 for the biggest negative pay gap on record.
GDP rose 3 percent in the second quarter, well below expectations. It was held back largely by slow consumption growth, which likely relates to these negative wage trends. In fact, in June aggregate wages -- the grand total of everybody�s wages throughout the economy -- fell slightly, as did consumer spending.
Over the course of this business cycle, 85 percent of the growth of corporate income has gone into profits, and 15 percent to compensation; on average, these values in past recoveries were 23 percent (profits) and 77 percent (compensation).

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 9, 2004 10:07 PM

You have to ask yourself, are we better off with Bush or Kerry.

The economy is improving. Kerry can't change that.

I came from humble beginnings and now I am able to support my family through self employment. I did not get to where I am today because of some government social program. I did it the old fashion way, I worked hard, set priorities and prayed.

On the international front, we have flushed out our so-called allies, ie: Germany, France and the ingrates to the north. Those we do not support us are against us and always have been. They resent Americans because of what we have achieved. Do not be fooled, we are the most prosperous nation in the world, we are also the most generous nation in the world.

I believe we shined a beacon on the world stage. Libya, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, France, Germany, Pakistan have all showed there true colors since Bush has been in office. America needs to lead and stop letting the liberals to our north and across the pond dictate how we will protect our national interests. We let the Iraqi thugs take pop shots at our brave pilots for how long before we even set them straight. Like it or not Libs we are the biggest kid on the block and we have a responsibity to lead. They will come kicking and screaming but in the end we will all be better off for it. Now we may never even get a thanks, but they will be grateful, just like the French were because they aren't speaking German today.

Keep up the good work GW. Those of us who still believe that the American dream is possible, are grateful for your leadership. Accontability is not a four letter word.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 9, 2004 11:39 PM

Even in the best of times, some people lose jobs and some companies go south. If a company like Washington Mutual can go down in an economy this good, then you might as well blame President Bush for any bad weather while you are at it.

Over 629,000 new jobs last month prove we've turned the corner...and we're not turning back.

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 9, 2004 11:41 PM

That was accountablity is not a four letter word. I should not do these things so close to midnight.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 9, 2004 11:42 PM

I believe that Bush has failed miserable with the economy. He has his spin doctors trying to convince the people that what we really see does not exist and we must believe what he says is true. I have come to the conclusion that the Average American people watch too much TV, do not do any research, do not take advantage of the internet to find things out. I greatly appreciate the books being written today that provide the source of their information. I read the first 40 pages (the book on Bush) (finishing rest in next few days) and I am thoroughly convinced that we are being misled and misled by this hypocrite George Bush, Alas, I even heard one person say he is probably the anti-Christ. LOL but he is not articulate enough to be that. ROFL. Put him in a position with no teleprompter and something to read by and he will fall on his face.

Posted by: Jackie Wilson at August 10, 2004 11:13 AM

Wow I wonder if anyone ever considered that some of the companies that closed down or are going to close down could have been mis-managed? No, that could never happen, let's blame the President.

I for one am much better off now under President Bush than I was under President Clinton.

I have never been out of work a day in my life, there are jobs to be had out there. The problem is that the majority of unemployed feel it beneath them to work menial jobs, and would rather collect the check from the government. I know, I have seen it. I had a friend whose wife was out of work and where my wife worked a job opened up for $8.50 an hour. When my wife told her she said I'm not going to work for that, I make more with my unemployment check. Why work when you can sponge off the Government?

Posted by: Wayne at August 10, 2004 11:29 AM

"Put him in a position with no telepromter and something to read by and he will fall on his face."

How then do you explain how he scored three knockout victories over Al Gore in the debates four years ago? No teleprompters there! George W. Bush is the only U.S. President to hold a master's degree!

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 10, 2004 12:36 PM

It is little wonder that the free world has lost respect for this country. When our (never elected) president (who always looks so bewildered and stammers over every word) uses words like "exemplarary" and "nukular" is it any wonder?

I watch the network news every night. I keep hearing how "there is more bad news for the Bush administration today" and can't help but wonder where all the (pro-Bush) "optimism" regarding the economy and employment that abounds on this page comes from?

And whatever the true facts are about how long Kerry was in Viet Nam or how many times or how seriously he was wounded, there seems to be no dispute about where George Dubbayah was during the Viet Nam period. Here in the states, dodging his military obligation !!!!!

I am voting for John Kerry in November, and I hope he does a better job than the oil baron is doing.

By the way. My company just downsized and my job is now gone. My boss (a republican) said he is voting for Kerry also.

GOOD LUCK AMERICA !!!!!

Posted by: John Hilfirty at August 10, 2004 03:45 PM

Funny, although I am going to vote for Bush in the Fall, I didn't think the president could actually create jobs in the private sector. The Democrates will beat themselves into the ground on this one, and I will enjoy seeing it. To reitterate what has been stated before, please go the dept of labor and look up the statics for yourself before quoting an unnamed source to make your argument, it makes you look less intelligent if you follow blindly.

Posted by: James K at August 10, 2004 07:59 PM

John, sorry to hear about your job. I bet you boss blamed Bush for having to downsize. I'm sure it had nothing to do with mis-managing the company.

I have to take you to task on President Bush not being elected. I'm sick and tired of Democrats using throwing that up at us every time they feel like.

There were 19 count them 19 independt counting of the votes in Florida and you know what, President Bush won every time. The Miami Herald counted the votes using the Palm Beach method counting dimpled and hanging chads, and President Bush won that count by 576 votes. But you know what they counted all the votes in Florida, not just the votes in Palm Beach and Dade county. That's exactly what President Bush wanted them to do and the Gore camp refused to allow to happen and used the Florida Supreme court to block the counts of all the votes.

So he did win and you can get on with your life if you just accept it.

My predictions on this election. Bush in a landslide. It won't even be close, because when the chips are down the majority of people want President Bush leading us while we are at war.

I'm glad Gore didn't win the election, because we would still be scratching our heads wondering what happened on 9/11/01

Posted by: Wayne at August 10, 2004 10:12 PM

I will not vote for a sell out of vets like Kerry did.Now he gets all buddy buddy with us.Not to mention his wifes overseas labor force her family has made money off of for years. Yes Kerry was in the war for 4 months! And look at all the gifts the military gave him. What a joke the real hard nose didn't get anything. But that was not the end for Kerry he has to come home and through his gifts over the fence. Now he shure has changed his tune and the lies are on his heels.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2004 10:52 PM

Why do people insist on blaming everyone from Bush to the Chinese for their own personal misfortune? Is it possible that some of America's companies are vulnerable because we are resisting a changing economy? Most employees don't appreciate their employers and let's face it the feelings are mutual. More and more people are starting small businesses for that reason.

We need to accept that we can alter our personal situation. I can say this because I was laid of in 1994 and I did not blame Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman". Every week I open the paper and see plenty of decent jobs for qualified individuals. With some education and a new way of thinking some of those positions could be filled. I see people re-engineering their businesses to succeed in an ever chaging economy.

Still I hear about the lack of jobs. There are jobs and business opportunities for people who want to work and don't want to cherry pick. I sympathize with those who are out of work. I have been there and I know people who are there now. I also know that some of those people are resistant to change and don't want to change careers. America will be here long after we are gone, hopefully. The question is what will we do with the precious time we've been given? Will we sit on the sidelines and blame those who have little or nothing to do with our personal success, or will we "carpe diem"?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 10, 2004 11:45 PM

Here an excellent analysis of Bush's economy record from Paul Krugman. Also, Krugman is right about Greenspan. In today's Wall Street Journal, it looks like Greenspan is being criticized -- read "Greenspan Underestimated Bubble and Now Overestimates Expansion" 8/11/04

Krugman writes:
hen Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.

First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.

But job growth, by itself, says nothing about prosperity: growth can be higher in a bad year than a good year, if the bad year follows a terrible year while the good year follows another good year. I've drawn a chart of job growth for the 1930's; there was rapid nonfarm job growth (8.1 percent) in 1934, a year of mass unemployment and widespread misery - but that year was slightly less terrible than 1933.

So have we returned to prosperity? No: jobs are harder to find, by any measure, than they were at any point during Bill Clinton's second term. The job situation might have improved somewhat in the past year, but it's still not good.

Second, the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.

Third, they cherry-pick any good numbers they can find.

The shocking news that the economy added only 32,000 jobs in July comes from payroll data. Experts say what Alan Greenspan said in February: "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow." Another measure of employment, from the household survey, fluctuates erratically; for example, it fell by 265,000 in February, a result nobody believes. Yet because July's household number was good, suddenly administration officials were telling reporters to look at that number, not the more reliable payroll data.

By the way, over the longer term all the available data tell the same story: the job situation deteriorated drastically between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has, at best, improved modestly since then.

Fourth, apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.

Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number.

Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.

What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?

Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all.

Posted by: harriet at August 11, 2004 09:14 AM

I don't care what John Kerry did in Vietnam 36 years ago, because it has no bearing on whether he is qualified to be the president of the United States. What does matter is what he has done for the people during his twenty year service in the US Senate. Judged by this record I do not think he's qualified to be our next president.

Posted by: Andrew at August 11, 2004 10:15 AM

What never elected President is Mr. Hilfirty referring to? George W. Bush is the constitutionally elected president of our nation. If liberals have a problem with the fact that the Supreme Court stepped in to prevent them from stealing the election in Florida after four attempts failed, that is too bad.

George W. Bush served his country honorably in the guard. If he dodged his service as Mr. Hilfirty suggests, why did he not get himself a nice cushy desk job in a PR office? Instead he strapped on one of the most unstable jet fighters ever built by man...and he excelled at it.

I frankly do not care if he mangles a word or two or mispronounces "nuclear". And for every Republican you can cite who is voting for Kerry, I can find two Democrats who will support Bush and who are deeply ashamed of both their candidate and their party.

And where does all the optimism about the economy come from. It comes from the record number of Americans, now 94.5% of the work force and growing who do have jobs.

629,000 new jobs in July! President Bush is right. We have turned the corner and we're not turning back!

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 11, 2004 12:17 PM

I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW YOU DON'T READ THE NEWSPAPERS, LISTEN TO THE NEWS -- JULY OFFERED ONLY 32,000 JOBS (not 629,000 -- where in the world did that number come from -- Bush????)

Posted by: harriet at August 11, 2004 03:03 PM

George Bush got into Yale on a point system. Its ridiculous to keep on stressing his degrees when he has frequent problems with basic speech patterns.

Yale and Harvard proffessors have come foward and said that by today's merit-based admissions, George Dubbayah Bush would not have gotten into either school.

To Michael P. Borgia:
We have to thank the French for being in existance today. Without them, we almost certainly would have lost the war for Independance. We owe the French as much, if not more than they owe us.

So, please, calm down, remember Laffayette, and give Jacques Chirac a break, as he does what he was put in office to do- preserve the interests of his own country.

Posted by: Anna, IL at August 11, 2004 04:09 PM

Job growth has stalled in the last two months. Payroll jobs increased by only 78,000 in June and a meager 32,000 in July, after rising 295,000 a month the previous three months. The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004�306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 3,978,000 jobs would be created over the last 13 months. In reality, since the tax cuts took effect, there are 2,565,000 fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts. As can be seen in the chart below, job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 11 of the past 13 months.

The latest survey on worker displacement confirms just how bleak the labor market has been in the last three years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released the results from the biennial survey conducted in January 2004. The survey asks adult workers permanently displaced from their jobs in the last three years about their subsequent labor market experience. The latest survey, concerning job displacements in 2001-03 among those with at least three years of tenure at their previous job, found that a higher share of such workers (6.3%) had been displaced in those three years than in any previous survey. Although the rate of displacement was almost as high in the early 1980s and early 1990s, those periods were marked by much higher unemployment rates. The latest survey also found that almost two-thirds of displaced workers had taken another job at lower pay (30%) or remained jobless (35%).

Perhaps most striking is the contrast between pay in the lost jobs versus pay in the new jobs. For those lucky enough to land a new full-time job, the median pay rate fell from $681 per week in their old job to $572 per week in their new job. As shown in the figure above, that 16% difference in weekly pay far exceeds the gap of recent years and matches the gap during the "jobless recovery" of the early 1990s.

Greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression
Since the recession began 40 months ago in March 2001, 1.2 million jobs have disappeared, representing a 0.9% contraction. To put this performance in historical perspective, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression). In every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs had fully recovered to above the pre-recession peak within 31 months of the start of the recession. Today's labor market would have 6.2 million more jobs if employment had grown by the same 3.7% average that characterized the last three recession cycles. As for who has been hurt most, private-sector jobs have fared worse than public-sector jobs. Jobs in the private sector have dropped by 1.8 million since March 2001, representing a 1.6% contraction.

Notwithstanding a month in which a majority of states saw job growth, most states still have fewer jobs than when the recession started in March 2001. In fact, most states still have weak job markets. This weakness has been reflected nationally in declining real wages in six of the last seven months for non-supervisory workers. Wages now are actually lower than when the recession ended in November 2001. (See June 16 Snapshot.)

Over three years after the start of the recession, and 31 months into the official economic recovery, most states still have not recovered the jobs they lost. Thirty-one states have fewer jobs than when the recession started, and the shortfall is widespread, from Iowa (-27,300 jobs) to Washington (-13,000), and from Texas (-103,300) to Michigan (-213,300).

Simply looking at the number of jobs, however, understates the severity of the shortfall. In 49 states jobs have failed to keep up with growth in the working-age population since the recession started. Even since the recession ended � during what is supposed to be a recovery � 46 states have lost ground relative to working-age population growth. Unemployment rates, which are higher in 47 states than when the recession began, offer another glimpse into state-level labor market pain.

Although the continuing job gains are encouraging, they are not significantly strengthening the weak labor markets in most states. Even in a state such as Arizona, which has seen an increase in jobs of 2.8% since the beginning of the recession, the working-age population has grown by 7.2%. Unemployment in Arizona is up by 0.6 percentage points. If, by the end of 2004, Arizona is to have the number of jobs it had at the beginning of the recession, as well as enough additional jobs to keep up with working-age population growth, then the state needs 21,200 new jobs per month, not the 2,000 jobs created in June. Even if last month's widespread growth turned into a trend, only four states would, by the end of the year, achieve the goal of getting back to their pre-recession jobs levels and gained sufficient jobs to meet population growth needs.

Unlike Arizona, but like most other states, Colorado has fewer jobs than when the recession started. Gaining 5,800 jobs, June was Colorado's best month for job growth since the end of the recession 31 months ago. Yet this growth still left Colorado 81,100 jobs below the number it had when the recession started, and 29,100 jobs less than when the recovery officially began. Colorado is an example of the situation in many states � a mixture of good months and bad months but no sustained, sufficient growth, and a weak job market that significantly lags where it was in better times.

Job growth lagging projections for Bush Administration tax cuts in 49 states
The Bush Administration's economic policies are not generating the jobs that the administration claimed would be created. When President Bush argued for his "Jobs and Growth" tax cut plan last year, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted the creation of millions of jobs. So far, the national economy has fallen over two million jobs short of what was projected, with only one state ahead of projections.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 11, 2004 04:16 PM

In reference to the article posted by Michael P. Borgia at August 9, 2004 08:14 PM about Washington Mutual cutting jobs:

Michael, what you don't realize is that these were all temp jobs to begin with. During the rush to refinance homes to take advantage of the LOW INTEREST RATES (Thank you, Mr. Bush), Washington Mutual, like many other mortgage loan institutions, was overloaded with loan applications.

They hired a vast number of field processors (usually the only requirement was that you be a Notary) WITH THE UNDERSTANDING that once the interest rates went back up (and you KNEW they WOULD, didn't you?), then their jobs would be eliminated.

These "employees" were considered independent contractors, and were never even given benefits. In fact, many of these "employees" were already in business for themselves as CPA's anyway. They just sub-contracted themselves out to WAMU.

So, how can you criticize Bush for a policy that put 2500 people to work full time for over two years? Sure, I would've liked to have seen the low interest rates last forever, but realistically, that wouldn't be healthy for our economy. It's time for them to start back up.

Posted by: Randy Lyons at August 11, 2004 04:48 PM

I posted that about Washington Mutual GW JR. errr Randy. DUH, I read my teleprompter wrong again.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: D. jones at August 11, 2004 07:14 PM

Those who are focusing on the 32,000 figure, the economy is much more than that. You are being narrow minded.

Kerry cannot do better on national security. We are better off now than we were 4 years ago. France and Germany are not our allies.

Harriett: Paul Krugman is biased. Unemployment is at 5.5%, period. We have been through a Clinton induced recession, a terrorist attack, and unprecedented scandals that Bush confronted. We are doing very well. This is a changing economy. That is not Bush's fault. This is a more stable economy than the bubble of the 90's. The jobs are out there and they will get better. Self employment is the way to go.

Anna, check your spelling before you criticize the President. Have some respect.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 11, 2004 07:21 PM

Now the Bush supporters on chat want to teach everyone how to spell! Isn't that special!! Especially when GW JR. will never get any respect from me, I only respect those who respect themselves. Now, let's talk about dumb!

3rd-Generation Yalie Bush Opposes Legacies

A member of a politically influential family, Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 and didn't try to hide that he had enjoyed the party life in college and had taken - as he put it - the "academic road less traveled." Returning to Yale four months after moving into the White House, Bush said with a grin, "To the 'C' students, I say you, too, can be president of the United States."

Posted by: D. jones at August 11, 2004 07:52 PM

Let's stay on message. We have all had our fair share of typos and mis-steps. Our current president has managed to accomplish more than any of us on this web-site. The man is smart enough to be president of the most powerful nation in the world. I sense that this offends some elitists.

President Bush is doing fine. I for one am encouraged that a humble C student can become president.

This election is about our national security and our sovereignty as a nation.

We do not need a permission slip to defend our nation. REMEMBER 9/11!!!!!!

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 11, 2004 08:59 PM

Edwards and Kerry say that they will not stand by while people making min wage "just get by". "this just in off of the wire" When you are making min wage you are at entry level and/or are supposed to "just get by". Why should folks making min wage get a break? I worked min wage jobs through college (not bragging here) and never expected a break.
Confused in fl. I did not work the poles so please hold the stale re-count jokes, they are not funny any more.

Posted by: ken FL (vote re-counters) at August 11, 2004 09:16 PM

It's funny how democrats and Kerry supporters tell you half the facts and think its a valid point. The jobs created last month were lower than expected but overall the creation of jobs in the past year has grown and continues to grow. And for the unemployment rate, it's declining, and is at its lowest point in years. Do what someone posted earlier, read the Labor statistics and see for yourself. Is America safer with George Bush? Hell yeah it is, we are taking the terrorists fight to them, not waiting for them to attack us, which is what Kerry wants to do. As for Healthcare, Bush's plan is set to cost 91 billion over 10 years, Kerrys = 895 billion, That money is coming out of my pocket, and what the hell does he need to do that is going to cost 804 billion dollars more??? Kerry will raise our taxes and Gas prices (yes, he did vote to raise gas prices 50 cents a gallon) When Bush got elected he said he'd give me money back, and I got my $300 check, did you?? what other President has given you money back?? Anyway you look at it Kerry is bad for America.

Posted by: Chris at August 12, 2004 09:22 AM

In Response to Ken:

I agree the FL Recount Jokes were never funny to me. In fact, it saddens me deeply. The Kerry/Edwards decision to raise the minimum wage is based on a couple of factors. Here is a great link.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0618.html

An increase in the federal minimum wage is well overdue. It has fallen further and further behind the cost of living, and the impact of the last increase has been entirely eroded by inflation. Today, the minimum wage is worth only 33 percent of the average American wage, its lowest level since 1949. In very real terms, this only serves to keep many hardworking Americans from getting ahead and saving for the future.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 They are leading the polls in FL by the way!

Posted by: d. jones at August 12, 2004 11:37 AM

So jobs went up by 32,000 and you liberals are still whining about what bad shape the country is in? Let me tell you something, jobs are not the top priority during war.

Stop the crying and pity-party because your drip Gore lost the election. Kerry will say anything to get a vote, even if he has to flip-flop faster than the waffle maker at Pancake Hut. That kind of candidate is not what our country needs -- now or ever.

Posted by: Larry at August 12, 2004 03:33 PM

d. Jones
You have point. I also believe that raising the min wage could potentially pump some rev into the economy. (Typically people who make low wages spend what they make/earn). I just wonder what the threshold is for business owners to increase payroll or to counteract increasing payroll by cutting staff..?? I guess it is all about the net result.
I would not like to see lay offs either though. If there is a raise to min wage I want it to stick to the ribs of the economy.
But what I was meaning in my previous note was that when one makes "min wage" he or she should still "just get by". Min wage is not designed to get one ahead, it is a starting point and one should strive get above min wage, after all this is America. I wish everyone would remember that most of the time it is the individual himself that is the limitation to success. All things are possible and democrats and republicans have nothing to do with it. It basically comes down to how much you want something.
Anyway thanks for the reply, and link.

Posted by: ken FL (vote re-counters) at August 12, 2004 06:51 PM

Posted by: Larry at August 12, 2004 03:33 PM

Larry, Please don't try and distort the facts. This site is entitled IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID. Please take heed. It's not about Gore, it's about GW JR. and his attempt to lie once again to the American people for his own personal gains and battle for the White House.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at August 12, 2004 08:31 PM

I'm totally amazed that people would think that jobs kerry is talking about would be created in the private sector, as much as you think the pres doesn't create corp jobs wake up he is calling for bigger government at the expense of the tax payers, also people are calling for higher wages all this would do is raise prices on everything so we would be back at square 1

Posted by: D. Walker at August 12, 2004 08:33 PM

It's to late, we are already back at square one! We are a progressive America, not one to live in the past. We all know what happened in the past and are force to live through it all over again under the current GW JR. Admin. Most Americans would like to know what the future holds for America. What will be the outcome of out economy, how many creative opportunities will be provided, how we deal with many hate challenges, how we provide health care for Americans and what leadership we choose! We want to set a good example to other nations of how our culture works to the benefit of all our citizens. What we do to preserve the rights of the American people after citizenship! This alone will create world wide democracy. This cannot be done by force, it takes a combined effort of the American people. It's our Country as decided by the founding Fathers.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d.jones at August 12, 2004 09:41 PM

I just hired three new employees and purchased over 300,000 dollars worth of new and used equipment this month. President Bush has helped these last few years. Hard work and clean living and respecting the people around you, that is what America is loosing. President Bush is helping us get that back. A good leader morally. He has led us through some tough times. I am responsible for thousands of peoples lunches and I take that serious. Bush is responsible for millions and he takes that seriously. I am thankful for the integrity coming out of the White-House. My children did not need to know what a blow job was at such a young age. Show me a moral democrat and I'll show you a man getting ready to be a republican. Birds of a feather flock together.

Posted by: gpg at August 12, 2004 11:39 PM

D. Jones,

Sounds like you are going to break out into a John Lennon song. I suspect you are an idealist. That is great. The world needs idealists.

However, GW is not taking us into past. He is however responding to a post 9/11 world. I am willing to give up a few personal liberties to protect our country from attack. It is for the greater good, in my opinion.

I am not sure what you mean by hate challenges. If you mean that people should have equal opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I am all for that. If you mean that some citizens and non-citizens should be granted special privileges. I oppose. One of the great things about our nation, it attempts to correct injustices of the past.

None of us know what the future holds. There are people who want to kill us because we are the #1 superpower. Like it or not we are resented for that and we have been for a long time.

Our culture will give opportunities to all, but not all will accept the challenge of making their own opportunities. Our culture will never work to the benefit of ALL citizens. That is unrealistic.

Democracy cannot be accomplished by force??? Our founding fathers would surely disagree. Many people have died to start and preserve this republic.

You and I are obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum. Please, don't lose sight that conservatives also want what is best for this country, including GW. The idea of moving forward is only good if you are moving in the right direction.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 13, 2004 08:45 AM

Ok, someone mentioned the difference between the payroll of jobs lost compared to jobs gained. Saying that the jobs gained amounted to less than the jobs lost. Well I have never worked at a job where you start out at the top of the payroll. You start out with a set wage and at the end of 90 days of probation you usually get a raise. Why would a company be so dumb as to pay Joe Shmo off the street high wages when they don't know how that person is going to preform in the position they were hired for. That was simple to figure out, but most don't want to take the time to think, they would rather be led by the ring in their nose and told what to say.

I find it funny that with the economy the best it's been in 20 years that people would ride a unknown mule, one that has yet to explain just how his econimic policies will benefit this country, to the White House.

People lose jobs, that's the nature of the beast. The thing to do is to get back out into the workforce and find a job, stop being picky about what you are willing to accept. I'd flip burgers if it would help to put food on my families plates. As Judge Smells from Caddy Shack said. "The world needs ditch diggers too"

If I were to quit my job of get fired today there is no way I would expect to get another job that would start me out at my current salary. That's just wishfull thinking. It took me 4 years at this job to get where I am today. Start out low and move up. As for the econmy being bad under President Bush, well looking at how I have increased my income by 29k over the last 4 years doing the same job, you couldn't prove it by me. The previous 10 years I only increased my income by 7k total, and with President Clintons "I'm going to give the middle class tax cuts" (that never happend by the way, my taxes went up) My take home actually went down, by 1999 I was making more but taking home less than I was in 1990.

I know which CHAD I'm going to punch this year.

Posted by: Wayne at August 13, 2004 09:01 AM

I think John Lennon is great! Can someone tell me what the heck GW JR. is up to? Is he drinking again? As if I really don't know. :-) Lying to the American People Again and Again and Again!

Official: No Evidence Attack Is Imminent
August 13, 2004 07:05 AM EDT

WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of possible al-Qaida attacks, the "where" was very specific: financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J. The "when," however, was a mystery. And since Ridge's announcement, the Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings, a White House official acknowledged Thursday.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 13, 2004 11:21 AM

Why do you libs always put our President down? Is it because you have no facts to back up what you are saying? I have seen plenty of facts about how good the economy is, but you guy's have not stated one fact about the economy, good or bad. State facts, as these good Rebublicans (and maybe a few Democrates for Bush) have done. You might just win some votes for your guy Kerry. Not.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 13, 2004 01:20 PM

YOU WANT FACTS DAVID LOWERY?

Posted by: David Lowery at August 13, 2004 01:20 PM

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 13, 2004 02:20 PM

and the other facts are that Kerry is now ahead in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, and it is a dead heat in many other states right now. Fact is that Kerry does not need those central ultra conservative states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North & South Dakota to win.

The you will do and believe what and as we say or we will make you do it by law anyway Republican Party is going down this year!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 13, 2004 02:27 PM

Hmm, great depression type growth huh? Job growth is always a lagging indicator of a recovering economy. The statistics from the BLS just don't agree with Mr Lowery's post. I suspect it was copy/paste from another site.

Here are the facts from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The numbers for July have employment at 131.272 million jobs. Compare that to July 1996 there were 119.875 million jobs when Clinton was reelected. We still have significantly more jobs that we did in 1996. Depite a recession, terrorist attacks, and corporate scandals: unemployment is still only at 5.5 %. Compared to unemployment in the summer of 96, it's following the same trend... downward. And by the way 5.5% is miniscule.

Furthermore, in 29 months (from March 01 to August 03) the economy lost 2.718 million jobs. In the last 12 months we've gained more than half of those jobs back. (1.48 million jobs) That's 54% of the loss in 41% of the time. That is outstanding.

Let's put it in perspective folks: it's estimated that unemployment was between 25-30% in the 30's. It was at it's peak during the Reagan administration at 10.2 % in 1982. We've not seen numbers that bad since. 5.5% unemployment is a good place to be, comparatively speaking.

I have to strongly disagree with Mr. Lowry just based on the above information, and other research I've done. The 'facts' he stated don't stand up to scrutiny.
Consider this: (The following is a copy/paste)

The economy has posted job gains for each of the last eleven months - creating 1.5 million jobs since August 2003, including 32,000 (preliminary) new jobs in July according to payroll survey statistics released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS also released new household survey data showing a much larger gain of 629,000 new jobs in July, with a total of 2.3 million jobs added since August 2003.

The national unemployment rate declined to 5.5% in July - down 0.8 percentage point from a peak of 6.3% in June 2003 and the lowest rate since October 2001. At 5.5%, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
Employment over the last year was up in 46 of the 50 states and the unemployment rate was down in all regions and in 47 of the 50 states.

The manufacturing sector, which started to decline in mid-2000, has added 91,000 jobs since its low in January.
America's standard of living is on the rise. Real after-tax incomes are up by 10% since December 2000 - substantially better than the gains following the last recession. Since the President's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, personal consumption levels have risen substantially.

Consumer confidence is at its highest level in 2 years. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence increased nearly 30 index points in the past 12 months, from 77 last July to 106.1 this July. � The national homeownership rate, in the second quarter of 2004, was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51% in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago.

Core inflation remains low by historical standards. � Mortgage rates remain near historic lows, making home buying easier and more affordable.

And Louis from Canton, don't count your chickens before they are hatched, son. Other polls have Bush either leading or in a dead heat in those states. Michael Dukakis Lead Bush 41 by 17 points in July of 1988, and they lost; big time. Currently, trends show Bush's apporval rate increasing, and gaining if not leading Kerry, and they haven't had their convention yet. Plus Kerry's inconsistencies are starting to wear thin with undecided voters.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 13, 2004 04:16 PM

It is no surprise that the economy is the way it is. We have a Republican back in office. Any time you give massive tax cuts (the wealthiest one percent benifiting the most from) and increase spending you are going to end up with huge deficits. Did we not learn anything from the "Trickle Down" economics of the Reagan administration? If you give all of the money to the rich and wait for it to trickle down then you are just asking for economic problems. I am sure that anyone that has ever had to work for someone else would agree that bosses "corporate CEOs" are only interested in two things 1. cutting costs and 2. increasing profit. Increase spending is no where in that mind set, so why would we give them more money not to invest back into the economy? Kerry has my vote on the issue of the economy because I believe that he will reverse the large tax cut that mainly benifits the rich, continue to give tax relief to the middle class, and reduce wasteful spending. We need to get back to talking about budget surplus like we were during the Clinton years.

Posted by: Ronald Saunchegrow at August 13, 2004 11:54 PM

Hey Louis, cite your sorces so we can look them up to confirm where the came from and if they are real.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 14, 2004 12:50 PM

Secondly, you cannot ignore the fact that over 629,000 more Americans are working now than were working a month ago. Period. Many are working as independent contractors, many are self-employed in other ways and do not show in the payroll figure.

Sure good one. And I have a bridge to sell you.

I have looked far and wide for your elusive statistics and unless 600,000 people just decided to start working under the table over and above what was around before, your argument collapses.

Once again, you are wrong.

Posted by: Rush at August 14, 2004 07:11 PM

Numbers of jobs lost or gained? Let me give you a number:

Three thousand people dead.

Unemployment percentage? Who cares.

Millions of terrorists are intent on the deaths of your family members.

Wake up economy grumblers. It's not about your pocketbooks.

Vote for the best leader against terrorism.

Vote for Bush.

Posted by: Gary at August 16, 2004 07:33 AM

Ronald, et al... According to the IRS and CBO, the top 20% percent of wage earners pay 80% of the taxes already! Prior to the cuts they paid around 93%. You cited the deficits increased under Reagan, and you blame it on tax cuts... Not so! Federal Revenues actually increased during that time. The deficits experienced then and now have nothing to do with tax cuts. An out of control Congress in the 80's and 911/ war on terror were the causes.

Bush's tax cuts were implemented in July 2003. Go to the BLS website and see when the unemployment rate started dropping. August 2003. Furthermore, Federal revenues are projected to be higher and early indicators show good gains; deficits are lower than expected. How do we account for that? Tax cuts put more funds into everybody?s pocket, thus creating more jobs, more spending, and hence more taxes paid. This is not theory, it?s a proven fact.

Unfortunately, we are going to have deficits as long as we are at war, and quite frankly I?m fine with that. We?ve had higher. We can cope, we are strong enough.

And regarding the 600,000 more people working as of last month, that statistic comes from the BLS, and there is an article written by the Economic Policy Institute on 8/6 that backs it up. It says, "Especially given the political season underway, the fact that employment grew by over 600,000 in the household survey will surely be touted by those seeking to quell concerns about the weak job market. Today's statement by the BLS commissioner cautions against this approach. She notes that the "household survey is not designed to optimize the measurement of month-to-month employment change" and stresses the advantages of the payroll survey for such estimates."" Still, it is an increase no matter how you want to spin it. So who?s buying what bridge here?

So, it wasn't as good of a month as expected, but still, 54% of the jobs lost in the recession gained back in the last 12 months is a bad thing? Things certainly are not going the other way folks. Come on. I've never seen so much SPIN on the facts!

You know what I think the issue really is? The fact that economy is going strong scares the c*** out of the "anybody but Bush crowd" because people vote on the economy.

But again... I must emphasize... the economy is not weak. When has 5.5 % unemployment ever been considered bad? It's lower than when Bush 41 left office, and it's the same when Clinton was reelected. In fact, all economic indicators are actually better that when Clinton was re-elected.

Go to http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1 and see for youself

But I really don?t think Bush needs much to win. Kerry should be ahead by a huge margin, and he?s just not. Polls are favoring either candidate right now. But, it?s still too early to tell. Lets talk about this in October.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 16, 2004 10:25 AM

Once again GW JR. lies to the American People!

Breaking Promises.

During the 2000 campaign, George Bush promised the American people that, if elected president, he would never revert to deficit spending and elevate the nation�s $5 trillion debt.

Bush�s record deficit spending and a $7 trillion debt.

Bush inherited a $335 billion surplus from President Clinton. Within three years, he went to a record deficit of $542 billion. That was a swing of $877 billion. Bush increased the national debt to a record $7.4 trillion.

Children�s hospitals. On March 3, 2001, Bush spoke at Egleston Children�s Hospital in Atlanta.

Bush�s first budget proposed cutting grants to children�s hospitals like the one he visited by 15 percent ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30 percent ($86 million) out of grants to children�s hospitals.

This current debt will be passed on to our children!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 Take America Back!

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 01:38 PM

D. Jones... You're still living on 9/10/01.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 16, 2004 03:00 PM

Rick... So is the rest of America.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 03:27 PM

We haven't turned the corner as GW JR. would like us to believe. We in fact, have made a complete "U" turn back to "01" we he was first elected. Now, he wants 4 more years! How far back will we go then! You know he can't drive. He drinks too much!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 03:36 PM

Well d. jones I'm pretty sure that the President did not know that we would be attacked on 9/11/01 when he said that during the 2000 campaign. We are at war! Did you actually think spending would go down during a war? Show me one time in our history that Government spending went down during a war.

Ronald commented on the Regan years, about Government spending. Check the facts, the Congress was controlled by the....are you ready for this? the Democrats.

I bet no one knew that the jobless numbers for Clinton were not really as good as they let on. During the Clinton Administration the US Marines were cut from 165,000 to 70,000, the Army was cut from 1 mil to less than 450,000, the Airforce was cut from 900,000 to less than 400,000, over 20 Military bases were closed down and an untold number of civilians were put out of jobs because of those bases closing. Local economies were in shambles because they rely soley on the Military for their income. Places like furniture stores, car lots, gas stations, laundry mats, convience stores, food stores, and department stores to name a few were put out of business. Those numbers were never accounted for in the job numbers. Clinton's 100,000 new police officers program was a real success. They made the local communities take the brunt for that one, the Clinton Administration required local police forces to hire new officers without providing one cent for it. In my city alone 3 people were laid off to hire one police officer. I know, my wife was one of them. WoW he created 100,000 jobs and probably cost 150,000-200,000 others to lose their jobs.

Son, that ain't cream rising to the top. It's time to flush the Johns!!

Bush gets my vote.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 16, 2004 04:14 PM

Hey, d jones. Why are you making accusations you have no way to prove? Why do you resort to character assanation? Just because someone admits to having a driking problem in the past does not mean they still do. I was an alcholic 21 years ago but I don't drink to get drunk now. I might have 2 beers a month at most. Does that mean I drink too much? I can't remember the last time I was drunk and unless you have proof that the President is drunk again why don't you just shut up.

I've noticed that it's mainly the DEMOCRATS or at least Kerry supports who stoop to calling names.

Maybe electing Kerry wouldn't be such a bad thing...what? I must have started drinking again to come up with that.

If John Kerry would actually answer questions that are asked of him and not dance around the issue I would consider listening to him. Or you for that matter.

You have no proof that President Bush knowingly lied to the American people yet you accuse him of such. You don't have access to highly classified documents to make your decisions. Maybe you should go take a course on politics and then you would realize that the President does not wield as much power as you think.

How come John Kerry can outright change his opinion on the war and not be questioned? On no less thatn 30 occasions he said Sadam Hussen had weapons of Mass destruction and that we would do what ever it takes to stop him to include using military force and when he runs for President he is all of a sudden against it. Where is his accountability to the American people? You demand it of President Bush and not Kerry. Why?

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 16, 2004 04:29 PM

Re: Devil "why don't you just shut up."

Look Devil, getting a little edgy aren't we.

You really don�t want to mess with me! I am suffering from post �War on Terrorism Syndrome�. I have constant flashbacks of Florida Secretary of State Republican Kathryn Harris on national TV throwing away Florida re-count votes because they didn�t meet her (The Republican Party�s) deadline. G.W. Jr. has given me enough information as Texas Governor and Supreme Court appointed President of the U.S. to tear your OPINIONS to shreds. I don�t vote Republican or Democratic. I look at the candidates and what they have done or want to do to America. Our Country! Do us all a favor and stick with the kittens. If you can�t hang with the big cats, stay in you kitty litter box.

Watch The Up Coming Debates! If you even knew about them!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 05:37 PM

d. jones, so you're of the ilk that says Bush stole the election. I find that interesting because every major recount that was done comes up with the same result: Bush wins.

I followed that affair very closely. Gore and his attorneys were only concerned with 3 counties: Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward; all Democrat strongholds.

Then there was the way they wanted to re-count the votes. They wanted to implement new standards of counting to try to determine the intention of the voter. You see, there are three kinds of votes:

Clear votes - Where there is a clear decision between the candidates
Undervotes - where neither candidate was voted for
Overvotes - where both candidates were voted for

Gore wanted the under and over votes to be considered to where if on an undervote there were a 'dimpled chad' that would show voter intention for a particular candidate, and if on an overvote there were a 'hanging chad' that would show intention for the opposite candidate.

The Election Commision rules throw out both the under and over votes for obvious reasons. Gore wanted these considered and only in the above mentioned 3 counties, and the Florida State Supreme Court was going to let him do it.

Now do you honestly think that was fair to the rest of the voters outside of those three counties?

It was on that basis that the US Supreme court overturned the Fla. Court; because justice was not being served to the rest of the state.

And you are seriously mistaken on something: Kathryn Harris did not certify the election on the basis of the "Republician Party Deadline". She was legally obligated to do so by the Constitution of the State of Florida! They followed the recount rules, and got the same result everytime it was done. The US Supreme court acted correctly, and in the best interest of all the people.

But still, Gore only wanted those 3 counties recounted considering the under and over votes. It makes me wonder who was really trying to steal the election.

On another note, every major poll taken on issues that concern citizens 9-11 and the threat of terrorism weighs heavily. Your living in a pre-911 world is certainly a minority position. You came out and cited things that Bush said he would do in his campaign. My point very simply was that 9-11 significantly changed his agenda, as it should have.

You said, "During the 2000 campaign, George Bush promised the American people that, if elected president, he would never revert to deficit spending and elevate the nation�s $5 trillion debt. Bush's record deficit spending and a $7 trillion debt." Now you're figures are inaccurate, it's not quite that high at all, but you're acting as if nothing had to change at all because of 911. The largest business and financial district in the WORLD was destroyed in just under 2 hours. Do you realize how much of our money Bush had to put into it to keep our economy from tanking worse than it did? Do you understand that plus bailing out the airlines is where most of the current deficit comes from?

No offense, but nothing you have written in this forum has any substance at all. Nothing is rooted in the context of history at all. All you do is cite rhetoric and talking points, and no fact at all.

I'm embarrassed for you.
And I will be watching the debates.

Vote: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 17, 2004 10:27 AM

Chris,

Where are any of your sources. It seems to me that you are simply blowing hot air. I SAW REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE KATHERYN HARRIS ON NATIONAL TV DISMISS VOTES FROM CERTAIN COUNTIES DUE TO THEM NOT MEETING THE TIME FRAME THAT SHE OUTLINED. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE SAID THEY DIDN'T COUNT BECAUSE THEY WERE SUBMITTED LATE. I can't be more clear than that. Read this link. It appears that everyone but you know the 2000 election was rigged. Don't post if you don't what you are talking about. It only confuses the issue. Did you even watch the 2000 recount election on TV. They are discussing the voting machines all over the country. Why do you think this is even an issue? Gosh!

http://www.votewatch.us/why/the_problem

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 11:17 AM

David,

Again, Read and Research.

The big news today is in Colorado. The Colorado secretary of state, Donetta Davidson, has certified that the petition to change the way Colorado allocates its electors has gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot. On Nov. 2, Colorado voters will be asked if they approve a change to the state constitution that divides its nine votes in the electoral college in direct proportion to the popular vote. If it fails, George Bush will most likely get all nine electoral votes. If it passes, probably Bush will get five electoral votes, Kerry will get four, and the Supreme Court will get a world-class headache. Badly polarized as it is, the Court probably does not want to decide another election.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 11:20 AM

My apologies, The links and Colorado information was for Rick. It angers me to do so much research and have some GW JR supporter tell me I have no facts. You are the one that has been mislead since 2000. I watched GW JR. since the beginning of his term as Texas Governor when he won against Democratic Ann Richards. I have got to have another cup of coffee, and I will post more links. I feel very sad that the GW JR. supporters continue to be misled.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 11:27 AM

Just a little different info to throw at you.

I started working at my current place of employment betwen Bush's election and his inaugration. For a lack of a better term we process junk mail or in other words the advertising for companies. The volume of advertising has increased dramatically. When I started I was 1 of 5 employees in my section now we have 11 and are interviewing for 2 more. Also When I started we had we had 8 various machines to run our trade, now we have 15 machines only three of which are not new but are sparinly used. The new machines are far more efficient and can do much more than the old ones.

I'll vote Bush
President Kerry is a scary thought a president can't change his opion every time a different crowd faces him, he must have a back bone and stand up for what he beleives. oh by the way 7 of us or for Bush one for Kerry, one is undecide the other two don't plan to vote.

Posted by: Keith price at August 17, 2004 11:48 AM

The job want ad section of my local paper is getting larger and larger every week.

Regardless of who was President or the state of the economy, I've been working steady for over 25 years.

In the last 10 years my income has MORE THAN DOUBLED.

I've never been late on a payment.

Nobody in my family has been UNable to buy medicine or see a physician.

And...I'm STILL proud to be living in America. I respect the office of the President of the United States and I support the priciples and policies of President George W. Bush.

Posted by: Jeff W at August 17, 2004 12:10 PM

D. Jones,

You are as clear as mud. First of all you were arguing with Rick. Now you drew me into battle and you are going to lose.

The 2000 election is over!!!!! Get over it!!!!

Bush won. Military votes were not counted. Who knows how it would have turned out. I do. Independent sources have said Bush won. I will not waste my time going back to find those sources nor should Rick, because it is over!!!!!!

Bush is in office. Arguing with you is fruitless because you only hear what you want to hear. My sources ie: Rush...yes Rush Limbaugh, Foxnews, Tommy Franks etc., say we are winning the war on terror, going to Iraq was the right thing to do and the economy is getting better.

I do watch CNN and the other networks but I keep hearing the sky is falling and my personal situation tells me differently. If 46% of the population wants to believe Bush is stupid, he is dishonest, we are losing the war, we never should have went, the economy is getting worse, well by all means you all can bank on John the "I forgot what I said yesterday" Kerry. How does it feel to bank on a guy who says he is strong on intelligence but only shows up for 24% of the meetings on intelligence? That is comforting. I can't convince you of this and frankly it does not matter. I believe that Bush is giving us back our national pride and the American dream. Notice, I did not say international pride. We did not earn the respect of the rest of the world by being the master negotiators. We earned it by crushing the Japanese, the Germans, and the British etc. How soon they forget. We did not negotiate with those thugs. We beat them fair and square. What have we done since? We have given more to other nations than the rest of MATO combined. So don't tell me we need to fight a sensitive war. We tried that and it didn't work. Our enemies only understand intimidation. Now, you will ask me again for my sources and I will say. My source is 230 years of a successful formula.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 12:23 PM

Hey D,

Don't cry for Bush supporters. We know what we are doing.

Now , I am not trying to be anatgonistic, I need help to understand this.

You have made some references to God in your posts. Please answer this how does one believe in God and reconcile in their own minds the support to slaughter innocent life. I am not questioning your faith, I am simply asking. I have yet to figure that one out. I have liberal friends and they say that as Christians we should not get involved in politics and they support their candidates right there in the church. For the life of me I can't figure that one out. Now, I was told by a well respected pastor, the Commandment "thou shalt not kill", actually is interpreted as ;thou shalt not kill innocent life". If this is true, then I suggest Christians go back to Isaiah and see what can happen to a nation that falls away from God.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 12:55 PM

Umm, I'm Rick, not Chris.

Your broad brush strokes are very close to a demonstration of some potential na�vet� on these matters. Especially since you accuse me of blowing hot air.

But I'm glad you wish for me to state my sources. Typically I've learned that people like you don't like the facts when they work contrary to what you believe to be the truth, and therefore it's a waste of my time. I hope you take the time to investigate. Experience teaches me you won't.

Your link does not address the specific issue I was talking about. Your link discusses a more macro issue i.e. the accuracy of poll counts on a national scale. I'm not disputing that. I've believed the system is in need of upgrading for a long time. If you want to use that as a backing for Bush stealing the election, I could also use it as a basis for claiming that Bush could possibly gotten the popular vote!

Everything Ms. Harris did was legal, and was within the bounds of Florida State Law. An article written By Bill Sammon of The Washington Times said, "Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris last night certified the official returns from all 67 Florida counties, rejecting pleas from three predominantly Democratic counties requesting more time for hand counts. Mrs. Harris said the only remaining task is to add the absentee ballots from overseas, which are due at midnight tomorrow. Gov. George W. Bush now has a 300-vote lead. "I've decided it is my duty under Florida law to exercise my discretion in denying these requested amendments," Mrs. Harris announced. "The reasons given in their requests are insufficient to warrant waiver of the unambiguous filing deadline imposed by the Florida legislature.""

Let me reiterate: "The reasons given in their requests are insufficient to warrant waiver of the unambiguous filing deadline imposed by the Florida legislature"

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE IMPOSED THE DEADLINE, NOT MS. HARRIS. She legal obligation to do a her job. Furthermore, if you check my sources, you will find that even when it was don the way those three counties wanted it done BUSH STILL WON!!! Ashbrook.org (link below) says, "Enter the Miami Herald, which yesterday said that if the recounts had been allowed to continue, then "under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won." The particulars are as follows: Bush officially won by 537 votes. If Gore�s more liberal counting standard prevailed and all dimpled and hanging chads had been counted, then the Bush lead jumps to 1,665. If dimples only count where other races are dimpled (which would suggest a uniform error by the voter or by the machine, rather than a voter changing his or her mind before perforating the chad), then the Bush lead is 884. If two corners of the chad must be perforated, this being the predominant standard for recounts throughout the country, then the lead is 363. Finally, if only clean punches count, then Gore wins by 3 votes."

Here are my other sources.

US Supreme Court Decision
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfaq.htm#December10

Fla. Supreme Court Decision
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfaq.htm#rule

Legality of Election Certification by Fla. Law
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfaq.htm#Governor

Bush Still Winning
ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/wire_ballotcount010510.html

Ashbrook
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/01/recount.html

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/

The Text of The US Supreme Court Decision
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.pdf

Have a nice day.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 17, 2004 01:03 PM

Rick in OH,
Thank you for stating what I was going to, 19 recounts of the entire state done by independent media groups including the Miami Herald which used the Gore/Palm Beach method of counting votes and President Bush won.

Katheryn Harris was doing her job, following the Florida Constitution, even at the risk of being arrested by going against the Florida Supreme Court that somehow felt they had the right to over rule law. They are there to uphold and interpert the law not over rule it.

I find it funny that the whole voting fiasco in Florida was started because a Democrat made the ballot and a Democratic commity approved the ballot, and the old folks in Palm Beach County couldn't figure it out.

They claimed that Pat Bucannan couldn't have possibly gotten as many votes as he did in the election, yet in the Primary he got more.

D. Jones,
All I have to say is "BRING IT ON" You have nothing, nothing at all. You post facts from liberal sites and expect everyone to be as blind as you. I was taught to read something and forme my own opinion, not read it and believe it. I'm just wondering how much hatred is in you to spend sooooo much of your time and energy researching ways to bash President Bush. I truely pitty you and hope you some day realize that this election is not worth one gray hair.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 01:43 PM

Hey Chris,

I don't mind, really. I do this a lot. What I really expect to come next is some kind of diversion, change of subject, or some other conspiracy theory about W. Possibly even silence.

But something that bothers me greatly is where some people will base their opinions on the rhetoric of those of like-minded-thinking without looking at things in the context of history, and within the arena of ideas.

This applies to all: conservative, liberal, and independant. In all my years I've learned that you have to back yourself up with sound evidence, DOnt put much stock in the opinion pages or the blogs of others, but look at all the facts surrounding the issue and the context of history behind it. I ask myself questions like, Why did 'such person' act 'such a way' at that particular time?

I find that all people from all political backgrounds whose political acumen is based in rhetoric and talking points tend to be generally close-minded. It's like talking to Cleveland Browns or Pittsburgh Steeler's Fans on game day.

BTW, one of the above is my team ;)

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 17, 2004 02:09 PM

What a bunch of GW JR backing loosers!

Your sources like you ideals are old and outdated. With this, I found interesting information on your source site. Dated 2000 and 2001 before the Cal-Tech, MIT Studies on my source dated 8-16-2004 were completed. I can guarantee you this. It wont happen again.

For Democrats, the results confirmed their suspicions.

"These numbers certainly back up our feeling that more people turned out to vote for Gore than for Bush," said Doug Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. "It's hard not to cringe when you think about the possibilities."

But if Florida's new election law had existed last November, Gore would have been entitled to a statewide review � automatically

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 02:51 PM

As soon as I complete reading the MIT/CAL Tech PDF. I will get back to you. Your efforts are hopeless. Kerry will win the election, I have no doubt in my mind. The corrupt GW JR Administration is finally over and done. My source is a non-profit organization. No GW JR money there!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 02:59 PM

Chris, Devil Dawg, see what I mean?

D... You're embarassing yourself.

You offered nothing! The age of these sources does not invalidate the truth of what happened. Everything I cited is documented fact! For crying out loud, I linked the US Supreme court ruling on the matter. Is that not good enough.

I looked at the CAL-Tech MIT report.

Did you?

Because unless I'm looking at the wrong report, it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THE FLORIDA ELECTION!!!It was a research project that did analysis on the country's voting methods, and make recommendations for change. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION! It does say that there were millions of votes lost. But what makes you think for a minute that somehow all of those votes were for Gore??? You have no way of knowing how they would have went.

Is it just me, or is this 'D' person not making any sense at all?

Heh.. chances are he/she is so close minded that they are not even reading what I write. It's a useless exercise.

One last thing. I browsed through http://www.votewatch.us and I found it to be a good site with reliable information. BUT... it does not state anywhere that Bush or Gore won the election.

D... hello... Earth calling D... Ground control to Major Tom... anyone in there? Is this thing on?

Posted by: Rick OH at August 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Lord, you didn't even read it???? ARG!

Posted by: Rick OH at August 17, 2004 03:56 PM

D. Jones,
It's nice that you can dream. I like that in a person.
How can you make such a bold guarantee? You have inside inforation? Can you and you alone change the outcome of an election?

It's funny how the Gore camp were saying during the run up to the 2000 election that it's highly possible that Bush will win the popular vote, but Gore will win the electoral college, and when it's exactly the opposite the Democrats want the EC to be done away with. That will never happen, the EC was put in place so that ALL states will have a say so in electing a President. Not just the ones with the highst population.

RE:What a bunch of GW JR backing loosers! At least he does what he says no matter what the Democrats say. He doesn't change his mind to please the whiners, he sticks to his guns. That I can respect.

I find it hard to respect someone who will change their mind according to how the polls are going. Kerry was the War candidate until he found himself loosing to Dean in the Primary polls, then all of a sudden he was against it.

Please if you can, explain to me how Kerry can outright say that Sadam Hussen has WMD's countless times during the Clinton Administraton and also during the build up to War with Iraq and now he has changed his mind.
Tell me why he said we must remove Sadam from power with force if necessary, even if the UN does not approve, and now he says he would have waited until UN approval.

Is that really the type of person you want to lead this Nation? I know you read the same stuff I do, I find it hard to believe that you don't believe he said those things.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 04:08 PM

Rick,
If you want to use all of the percentages and figures that your candidate would call fuzzy math, because he is to stupid to get math, that is fine. But the facts are that Bush's tax cuts attribute to 1/3 of the deficit. Bush's personal vendetta against a leader of a nation that had no weapons of mass destruction has attributed to another 1/3 I guess the other 1/3 can be attributed to over spending by this administration. If there was anytime that the republican party's famous speaches came back to bite them in the butt it is now, except we can add a little to it. Are you better off today then you were 4 years ago, do you feel the country is better off today then it was 4 years ago? I believe that people are more concerned about jobs in the sence of quality as well as quantity. You can not honestly call a job at McDon's a manufacturing job just because you are putting bergers together, and expect that to fly as just as good of a manufacturing job as Ford or Chrysler, which in my area have been laying people off steadily at a higher rate then ever in their company history since Bush the lesser stole office.

Posted by: Ronald Saunchegrow at August 17, 2004 04:42 PM

Ronald,

I find your broad, undocumented statements a bit fuzzier. Please provide your source.

Nevertheless, my math many agree with. Between 911, the Clinton recession, ENRON, and Global Crossing our economy took a huge hit long before W could even implement any policy. Yes, there is a defict. But I'm not worried about because I understand why it's there. We can deal with it. It would be far worse if we hadn't spent the money.

Besides, as I've said before tax cuts do not create deficits; they historically increase federal revenues. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm

Your claim that the only jobs people are getting are burger flipping jobs is nothing more than election year rhetoric from the DNC and MoveOn.org

Research proves otherewise:

Factcheck.org says that the economy is creating more jobs in High-Paying Industries. �Now that the economy is growing and creating new jobs, John Kerry has been saying that the quality of those jobs is �much lower� than the quality of jobs that have been lost. A recent ad by some Kerry allies even shows a middle-aged man reporting for his new job wearing a paper hat at a seedy-looking burger joint. Well, hold on -there�s strong new evidence to the contrary. A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It�s the most detailed breakdown yet - looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive - supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published.� (�Economy Producing Mostly Bad Jobs? Not So Fast,� Annenberg Public Policy Center�s Factcheck.org, 7/9/04)

You Mention Ford. My family has been working for Ford for years. My father in law and mother in law both work there still, one in St Louis; the other in Louisville, and they are busier than ever. Chrysler has internal problems with the way they are running their company because the Germans running it are having a hard time adapting to American culture. That at least according to people I know who work at the plant here in Dayton, but as you'll see below, that seems to be changing.

You need to face some facts about the auto industry from last month:

General Motors Corp. posted its best month of the year with sales edging up 0.3 percent, Chrysler's sales were up 6.3%, Toyota up 18%, Honda 1.1%, and Nissan up 36%. Ford was the only one that posted a loss. -3.9%

"The industry is reaping the benefits of the highest consumer confidence ratings in two years," said Jim Press, executive vice president of Toyota�s U.S. sales arm. "Fuel prices are holding steady, the job market continues to improve and 2005 models are hitting showrooms. Those factors bode well for a strong third quarter."

oh, and here's the source:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0408/04/a01-232386.htm

So, my son works at McDonalds. It's far from a manufacturing job, and I don't of anyone who is calling it that. He's happy there, but he's 17. I doubt he'll make a career of it. But outside of that I know of no one who has lost their job, and has had to resort to a minimum wage job.

Am I better off than I was 4 years ago? Indeed I am. My pay has increased by 25% since 2000. God's honest truth. I have a great healthcare plan. I made more last year than I have ever made in my life.

Is the country better off than it was 4 years ago? That's a hard question to answer in light of 911. That's a curve ball that changed our lives forever. For that reason I think the question is irrelevant. A better question would be, "Are we better of today than we were on 911?" My answer is Yes, we are. And we are continually getting better.

Well folks I'm outta here. I'll read responses in the morning.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 17, 2004 06:06 PM

What do jobs have to do with whether we are better off?
We are better off if we are alive. Better off if we are free.
Do you think the families of the 9/11 victims would care whether their lost ones were making more money today?
You are all arguing money and jobs when you should be talking about American lives.
If Kerry will protect us better vote for him.
If Bush will protect us better vote for him.

But let's get our priorities out of our wallets.

Gary

Posted by: Gary at August 17, 2004 07:10 PM

Ronald,
I would like to comment on your post to Rick.

The coalition forces found 20 artillary shells with Sarin and Mustard gas. Sarin is a nerve agent and 1 drop will kill you in less than a minute, and it's not a pretty death. It attacks your nervous system, your muscles start to convulse, your body starts to have seizures, you lose controle of your bowels, your lungs stop working and you suffocate, all the while you are totally aware of what is happening. Mustard is a blister agent and if exposed to enough (which is not very much) you will die a horrible death slowly. Your skin will blister and sloff off your lungs will blister and you will drown in your own fluids. If that is not a WMD I don't know what is. Those shells had 2 liters of Sarin in each of them. One shell is enough to wipe out NY NY. They had them, we found them. So your WMD comment bears no credibility.

The tax cuts didn't help the debt any, but it stimulated the economy, an economy that was in recession before Clinton left office, so what he did might have to be paid for in the long run with a higher debt, but our economy is growing at unprecedented rates. By the way the debt burden would not have been near as much from the tax cuts if the Democrats didn't demand that the Government send the same check that tax paying citizens got to citizens who had kids and did not even pay taxes. Most of whom have 3 or more kids. So they got the same check I got without paying a single dime to taxes. Now I ask you is that fair? I don't want to hear about them being poor, they need our help. The only help they need is to stop relying on the Government social programs and get out and find a job. Maybe if they got jobs they would not have time to make so many babies. Before you judge me know this. I was raised in the inner city slums and when I graduated High School I left and never looked back. I worked my butt off and made something of myself. I remember many times raiding the local food markets trash bins to get food to eat for the night. I remember a 2 year period where I ate eggs and grits for breakfast and dinner every single day. To this day I will not let grits be brought into my house. It only takes the desire to get out to be able to get out. The tax cut benifited everyone including the ones who didn't pay taxes.

Yes I feel this country is better off today than 4 years ago, the economy is better, inflation is down, and I feel safer than I would if Gore was President.

I am much better than I was 4 years ago. Working the same job my income has increased by $28,000 since that time. You bet your sweet bippie I am doing better. Way better than the previous 8 years. I say my pay go up $7,000 and my take home go down because of Clintons taxes on the middle class so he could pay for his social programs.

Maybe if the American Auto Makers would make a car that was worth a crap and under $25,000 they could compete with the imports, but that won't happen because Unions demand that the workers get paid way more than needed for the jobs that they do.

Shortly after 9/11/01 most automakers had 0% financing for new automobiles. Why, because they needed to sell cars, people were afraid to spend their money. My wife worked for Chrysler and you know what? They didn't offer 0% or even incentives. As a result my wife was laid off her job, because they could not afford to pay her due to the lack of sales. Who's fault is that? The Presidents? I think not, it's terrible management. Chrysler thought their cars were the cats meow and that people would still come in droves. Well it cost them dearly. Not to mention my family, her lost income hurt us but you know what. She found a job within a month, oh she was not making the $10.00 an hour she made at Chrysler but she had a job with money coming in and that helped. Now she is a manager at that store and getting paid well for her efforts.

Jobs are out there, you just have to be willing to settle for something less than you were making for a while then it will build back up.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 07:18 PM

M Borgia:

Your first problem is that you watch the network news every night. This says something about the way you view the world. You may not like President Bush for any number of reasons, but you cannot turn a blind eye to the facts. This country was attacked and thousands of our citizens were murdered. The President first went to Afghanistan and then took the war to Iraq (off of our soil). He has severely weakened the terrorist machine. In the process, he took out an evil dictator. He did all of this in less time than it takes most families to plan a wedding or buy a new home. In addition, through wise and carefully thought out economic policy, the President has overcome the hit taken by our hospitality and airline industries. Say what you want . . . President Bush is a good leader and a smart man with solid convictions. And, John Kerry is a man that our enemies would rather see elected. It truly takes a liberal to ignore the reality of the times and to argue on behalf of those who would murder us if given half a chance. Wise up before it's too late . . .

Posted by: MD Austin at August 17, 2004 07:25 PM

I can honestly say, I have never heard of any type of scandle since Nixon like the ones surrounding GW JR. Even the Clinton Scandal didn't involve any crimes!! Man, I know you will have fun with than one! "LOL"

We waited for more than a year for 175,000 uncounted votes to be counted. Now the results are in, and the facts show that Al Gore won Florida.

But Republicans and the corporate media cannot allow the public to see the truth - that Gore won and Bush lost - because that would expose the Presidency of George W. Bush as illegitimate.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
This page is dedicated to exposing the monumental efforts by the media to distort the truth: that Al Gore won Florida, and George Bush stole the Presidency with the help of Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the TV networks. In other words, the 2000 election was decided by criminal fraud, not by a democratic election. We have documented nearly 60 crimes by these officials on our Floridagate page

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 07:38 PM

TO: Posted by: Ronald Saunchegrow at August 17, 2004 04:42 PM

GREAT JOB RONALD! HA! HA!

HE SURE TOLD YOU GW JR. FANS A THING OR TWO!

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?, SIC YOUR DOGS ON HIM TOO!

I SOMETIMES WONDER IF OLE' GW JR. HIMSELF IS ON THIS CHAT!

VOTE: KERRY/EDWARDS

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 07:45 PM

Just the facts d., just the facts. Facts are Michael Moore and the rest of your sources are biased, as are mine. Fact is we are fighting on their soil, not ours. Being a former New Yorker, I am grateful. Fact is the Dow is up. I am self employed since January of last year and I am grateful that I was able to start a business during a recession and feed my family.
I am better off than I was 4 years ago.

We know who our TRUE allies are. Truth be told, we are the toughest kids on the block and very few countries liked us anyway. This is just an excuse to vent. However, we are also the most generous nation in the world and I for one am sick of the constant criticism from the benefactors.

Ron, those are not the facts, however your sources are pretty biased. The layoffs are not because of Bush. The tax cut helped me, I am not wealthy and the deficit is necessary. A) We are at war B) Bush felt the need to give you libs some entitlements and you still aren't happy. If anything he should have used the veto.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 10:40 PM

Devil Dawg: Read your own words!

At least he does what he says no matter what the Democrats say.

You posted that the Dems told him that Saddam had WMD's and acted on that information. Please get your story straight. GW JR. is so Stubborn that he can't even admit his is wrong on any given day. Give me a President that can live up to the fact that he is not perfect and be willing to correct past mistakes, not one like GW JR. that keeps moving on with those same mistakes regardless of what it might be doing to the people he is responsible for. The American People!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 11:46 PM

Questions for Ronald Saunchegrow. How does incresed revenue contribute to 1/3 of the deficit? What personal vendetta? If Bush had a personal vendetta agaist this cold blooded killer of Iraq, then why did he bend over backwards for 14 months try to get the aid of the UN? And yes wmb's and other illegal weapons have been found. No, their not as glorous as the media would like you to think they should be and they do not have neon lights and beacans anouncing their presence. Yes more are to be found and many probably were moved to other countries or other terroists. Yes this war, and this is a war agaist evil, don't deneign it, and it has contributed to the deficit just like all wars have. Yes some overspending has contributed. Most importantly I am far better off than I was 4 years ago as is the country. Better job, better quality, better quantity. Four years ago I would have killed for a job at McDonalds, now I don't have to worry about such a measly job. Their is great economic news out their, the best since Reagan, but you will have to look past the media bias to get the whole true story. And remember just because one area or section is having problems, that is if they truly are, that doesn't mean the whole country is.

Posted by: Keith price at August 18, 2004 10:40 AM

Don't know where some of the nutty numbers above are coming from. Only 78,000 jobs created in June, and 32,000 in July. This administration failed to meet PROJECTED numbers in 11 of last 13 months! 1.2 million jobs have disappeared.
New ones created are lower-paying. It is the Greatest Sustained Job loss since the Great Depression. For unbiased review of the situation, go to : www.jobwatch.org.

Bush has been a miserable failure with this economy. The majority of the deficit is a result of the Tax cuts than of Iraqi War, even. VOTE JOHN KERRY - Take America Back.
(If you are not totally appalled, you have not been paying attention)

Posted by: Pam of CT at August 18, 2004 04:43 PM

Re: Chris, OH's claim that, "Unemployment is at 5.5% same as it was when Slick Willy was running for re-election."

"Slick Willy" inherited a 7.3% unemployment rate and a massive deficit from George H.W. Bush. Everyone was talking about the recession. The rate had dropped to 5.3% by the end of his first term and 4.2% when George W. took office, to go along with a m