War: Meh, FDR was in a war, JBJ too. Republicans and Democrats each have their problems.cranston36 said:
-Source???Where are you people getting this high unempoyment rate? The rate is somewhere in the 4's...lowest in my lifetime; and yes, I avoided the abortion mill, whereas I'm in my mid-fifties now.
Also from the Department of Labor, Bush started with a 4% unemployment rate, one that Clinton got down from 7.3%. Bush increased the unemployment rate by .8%. Clinton decreased it by 3.3%. No brainer.ptsdkid said:Unemployment for Feb of 2006 was 4.8%. The unemployment rate for the entire year of 2005 was 5.1%. You may also notice that the rate was lower in 2001 for Bush...then it was for Clinton in 2000.
U.S. Department of Labor
My whole bitch here is with others claiming that we have this high unemployment rate as being one of the red light warning signs from the initial posting. Flame on, if you must.
ptsdkid said:And this economy is booming, and has so for a long time.
Does anyone disagree that hard-core Bush haters never bother to furnish stats -- only unfounded criticism?disneydude said:The economy is booming? What fantasy world are you living in? True, the economy has shown slight signs of growth but certainly not booming.
Every time Bush claims the economy is doing well, the stats come out and show very small increases.
True...unemployment rates have dropped since Bush drove the country into a recession in his early years, but most of the gains have been in lower paying service industry jobs.
Even with the increases there is still a net loss of jobs since Bush took office.
My biggest problem is that they never offer an alternative. You don't like the way things are going? What do you propose? You hate Bush, who would make a better president? You don't like this administration? Then what type of administration would you like to see? How do you think terrorism, Iraq, outsourcing, and the economy should be handled?Fantasea said:
Usually I don't respond to these "you post your stats, I'll post mine"....but this one is just ridiculous. Even most Bushlovers admit that his economic perfomance has not been good.Fantasea said:Does anyone disagree that hard-core Bush haters never bother to furnish stats -- only unfounded criticism?
You pick and choose sources which pick and choose the stats on which they wish to comment and then proceed to pick and choose the manner in which they wish to manipulate the material to arrive at conclusions which will bolster their contentions.disneydude said:Usually I don't respond to these "you post your stats, I'll post mine"....but this one is just ridiculous. Even most Bushlovers admit that his economic perfomance has not been good.
In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush said that more Americans are going back to work and that the economy is growing and healthy. The numbers don't necessarily support this assumption. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions by 1,703,000—more than one-third fewer jobs than the president's Council of Economic Advisers said would be created. Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor. Additionally, the most recent data from the Census Bureau show that the average income for middle-class households has dropped by $1,525 since its peak in 2000. The labor force participation rate—the percentage of people either working or looking for work—fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988.
Sources: USA Today, "Fewer Americans participating in labor force or seeking jobs," Barbara Hagenbaugh, Feb. 6, 2005; Department of Labor, "Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age," Feb. 2005; Center for American Progress, "American Progress Report: Talking Points," Feb. 2, 2005; Center for American Progress, "On the January Employment Situation," Scott Lily, Feb. 4, 2005; "State of the Union," President Bush, Feb. 2, 2005; Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 4, 2005.
As of May, 2005, there have been 893,000 jobs created over the first 52 months of the Bush presidency - a gain that is due solely to the 917,000 jobs created in the government sector that offset the 24,000 jobs lost in the private sector. Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise.
Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005
During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating "5.6% unemployment is a good national number." However, the New York Times recently uncovered a White House report indicating that the president is considering reclassifying low-paid fast-food jobs as higher-paid manufacturing jobs to make it appear like the unemployment rate is going down.
Sources: MSNBC Transcript, Feb. 8; The New York Times
When speaking with a group of women small business owners on Jan. 9, Bush said that "unemployment dropped today to 5.7 percent," claiming that this "is a positive sign that the economy is getting better." Unfortunately, according to the Baltimore Sun, that is not the case. The Sun reported that underlying that positive number was "grim economic news—only a handful of new jobs were created and hundreds of thousands of discouraged people dropped out of the workforce." Although unemployment fell from 5.9 percent to 5.7 percent in December, only 1,000 new jobs were created. Furthermore, the work force typically grows when the economy advances, but in this instance it shrank due to the 309,000 people who stopped looking for work. The withdrawal of these workers from the work force, not new jobs, pushed the unemployment rate down, as no significant number of jobs were created in December. The Sun went on to say that "the December numbers are a continuation of a long period of inadequate job creation." The economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since employment peaked in Feb. 2001, and gains in recent months have been "miniscule."
Sources: White House Office of the Press Secretary, "President Speaks with Women Small Business Owners on the Economy," Jan. 9, 2004; Baltimore Sun, "Falling Jobless Figure Deceptive," Jan. 9, 2004.
....and I could go on and on and on.....but it would just turn into one of those "you criticize my sites.....etc"
Maybe you should stop apologizing for your President's inadequacies and start living in the real world.
The view of life through rose colored glasses is eminently superior to the view of life when one's head is buried in the sand.disneydude said:^
Now you see what I mean. You can choose to see the world in rose colored glasses if you like. Maybe it makes your life a little better. Good for you.
http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:146586The GOP will soon be roasting in Hell, if not metaphorically or metaphysically, then historically.
How else can one explain the current state of the Republican Party and the agenda they´re pushing in the face of the lowest approval ratings in modern history than that they´re on Beelzebub´s payroll? The policies that this, the worst Congress ever, has embraced are simply Satanic. Not content with weakening our national security, under-equipping and shortchanging our military, outsourcing our jobs to India, antagonizing our oldest allies, bankrupting our Treasury, laying waste to our national treasures, ignoring global warming crises, violating our privacy, taking life-sustaining resources from our children, poor and elderly, and lowering standards for job safety, gun control and voting, now they want to kill us off via our food supply.
Chew on this: A piece of legislation winging its way through the devil´s own House would force states to remove information about potentially dangerous content from all food labels.