Bush numbers at a low. Time to start up the ******** machinFollow

Lol. Hell. Why not? Kerry's people have been pulling out the BS "wheel of scary things" for 6 months now...


Satement: "OMG! Under Bush, unemployment is skyrocketing".

Fact: Unemployment is at 5.7%, which is well within the healthy range for a nation.

Statement: "OMG! Under Bush, all our jobs are being outsourced!".

Fact: In the markets experiencing the most outsourcing, domestic growth has outstripped outsourcing rates. In other words, we've got more jobs in those sectors then we had before, we're just also expanding into foreign markets (a good thing).

Statement: "OMG! Bush has gotten us involved in another Vietnam!"

Fact: In 2.5 years since 9/11 Bush has formed and instituted the only really "new" policy change towards international terrorism in 40 years. Under this policy, we've cut the leadership of Al-queda to ribbons, siezed millions in funds to terrorist groups, removed Saddam from power in Iraq, removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and gotten leaders in nations like Jordan, Syria, and Libya to publically denouce support for terrorist groups within their borders. Additionally, we've gotten Libya to give up their WMD program. We've done this so far at a cost of fewer military personnel over those 2.5 years then we lost in civilians in a couple hours on 9/11.



Exactly how much BS does the incumbent have to come up with just to come close to what the left has been hurling around for the past couple years now? Probably quite a lot...

You have to keep in mind the amount of deployed military that possibly weren't involved in that poll.

I think that would sway the numbers a bit in his favor.

Ain't nothing more military this this *****!

Clicky

And like I said, I was just assuming. Not everyone has hours to scan through countless Yahoo.com articles for something interesting to talk about.

I use MSN.

Edit: Felt like I need to explain that this was the last day our our mustache contest, and I won. A victory dance followed.

Edited, Tue May 11 20:32:18 2004 by Tape

http://jovan.ru/pics3/pirate.jpg

Look, I'm a pirate.


Whatever, kid. If that's you, shave that ridiculous moustache off, it's embarassing.

Yeah, why let the facts get in the way.

Hey, its okay, I mean if I looked like you I would be a suspicious guy too.

Group HUG!!!

Sounds like how I'm going to vote. The demicans and repulicrats have been in power way too long. They've become two sides of the same coin.

All polititions are cheats and liars IMHO. When they are not kissing babies, they are stealing their lolipops.

Ok explain to me exactly how is this Clintons Fault?

And how long are you going to blame Clinton for the current situation. Thing is the historical evidence allways seems to show that republicans are always in office during downturns in the economy. Exactly why is this? Bet youll blame the previous guy.

Now seriously i dont think alot of this is Bushes fault because i dont think that crazy idiot is the brains behind any of it, my evidence the fact he "needed" Cheiny to speak to the 9/11 counsel and the fact that his own words in his speech the following day said "Vice president Cheiny gave alot of good testmony"

Sorry about my spelling and the lack of accurate quotations but you know i dont care i just want to see the flames im going to get to laugh my *** off.

Oh yeah one more thing all the military officers ive spoke to said they dont agree with Bushs plan to send them to Iraq and dont plan on voting for him this year funny thing is most of them well at least the ones that could vote, voted for him in 2000.

Huh no i just know alot of soilders that returned from the war last week.

Joint Cheif of staff what the hell are you talkin about? i think you need to use the whole sentence before commenting.

Nevermind...

carry on!! carry on.

Here. Do us both a favor and take a first year college econ course. You'll understand just how silly your statement is.



No. 5.7 while not "really small" is very much in the normal range you want to have for your economy.



Ok. I'll give you a quick primer on what you'd learn if you took that econ class. You'd learn that a 5% unemployment rate is considered "ideal" for a market based economy like the US has. Lower is not better. If unemployment is too low, businesses aren't able to expand because there's no labor to hire. Seasonal businesses go out of business because there aren't enough people to hire when their season comes along. The economy stagnates and dies.

Lower is not better. The goal is to be right about 5%. 5.7% is well within the "safe" range for unemployment. Yes, that .7% is a "lot" of people. But there's always going to be some people out of a job at any given time when you have a large population like the US. It's not like the president just passes an executive order setting the employment rate. It's a rate that constantly fluctuates in response to a dozen different market factors. No one has direct control over it, so being "close" to 5% is good.


While I'm sure it sounds great to admonish the "evil" republicans for being callous about jobs, it's really about market forces. We had one of the worst market crashes in 30+ years 3 years ago. Record numbers of businesses went belly up as a result of that crash. The fact that we're not sitting at a 10% unemployment rate right now is the indicator you should be looking at. Bush did the right things with the economy. He did the necessary things. He reduced taxes on businesses across the board, giving them the breathing room they needed to recover and saving millions of jobs. Yes. He ran up a deficit. Um... But if he hadn't, odds are we would be sitting at a 10% unemployment rate. You can't argue about both issues as though they are unconnected.

His spending increses were not that huge. It was the cut in taxes from ~21% in 2000 to ~16% in 2003 that reduced federal revenue and caused the deficit. What is the left always saying? Oh yeah. He cut taxes on big business. Um... Who do you think hires people? How many jobs were not lost because of that "corporate wellfare"?

Stop and think before you blindly start spouting off about Bush's economic plan. He did pretty well everything considered.

Edited, Wed May 12 04:22:22 2004 by gbaji

Just a quick question: If 5% is ideal, then 5.7% is .7% from ideal, right? (if its not, then stupid ole me is gunta have to do sum more book learning) Now, you've already given that that .7% is indeed a lot of people (I'd drag quotes in, but I'm a bit tired). So, since we have 'alot of people' who are unemployed and would like to be employed, why on earth would the administration want to make it legal for aleins to come across the border and work legally? I guess if I took that econ class, that I would have learned that adding manpower to an economy with a slightly greater than ideal unemployment rate is a good thing.





Just wondering if you have any notions as to what may have caused the crash? Could it have anything to do with all of the pre 9/11 intelligence that the Bush administration completly ignored, causing the most deadly attack on US soil? Maybe not the whole story to the economy, but it didn't help matters any.

Another contributing factor was your golden calf: Big Business. Bush's hands are totally clean on this one, I will give you that, but why are we rewarding them with tax cuts? And, yes, it is a reward, if you really think it was just a great fix for a slumping economy, then we most certainly should raise them right back up again once the economy levels off, right?

And for the record, I don't hate rebublicans/conservitaves, but Bush has demonstrated himself as a lier over and over again, and it just seems that no one in the party is willing to call him on it.

I'm not takin sides here... just wanted to let yaz know I quit my job to ensure the unemployment rate remained 'ideal' and to have enough time to keep up with these boards :)