Another Democrat Non-issue

[turbo87limited]

Originally posted by Randy Greenoe
That is interesting ! When the democrats were in office the country was in good shape 4 years of Bush and it is sinking,now if the democrats get in office" we are going to be in trouble." I think we are in trouble now. Do you think this country is in better shape now than it was four years ago? Me neither and that was with just four years of Bush,whats going to happen if he is elected to another term? I shudder to think about that one.

Randy, funny thing is that my situation is a heck of a lot better. I know some are suffering, but the only reason for that is, we are all having too clean up Clinton's mess he left.

 

[Mac in SD]

Originally posted by chevyII
We are in the worst deppression since hoover was in office. I cant remember the other president but only one and Bush were the only president to not have job growth during there term. I could go on and on for days about his imigration plans

BWAH-HAAH-HAH! You gots to be kidding me! 5.6% unemployment, and the GDP continues to grow at a 4+ percent rate since November 2001 in spite of the 9/11 attacks, defeat of the Taliban, and conquest of Iraq. By definition, you can't have GDP growth and have a "depression." You are killing me!

If you wanted to see a bad economy, you should have been around during Jimmah Carter's 4-year abortion! (I'm guessing you weren't following such things during the 70's.)

...Sorry. I just checked your Xanga page, and I see that you're not even 20 (even 19?) years old, so your perspective is...well... limited. Did you learn all those DNC talking points from your high school teachers? Just kidding...

 

[striker_29]

Originally posted by smokin'6
Wont even get into the highest gas prices in history, unemployment (you think its at a good rate ), health care, etc, etc, etc

The U.S. Department of labor reports unemployment for January is at 5.6%, down from 5.9%. 'Total' employment is considered 4.5% as there are always people changing jobs or getting fired, etc. We're doing pretty good as we come out of a mild recession and unemployment should continue to drop, probably to around 5% by summer. That would be fantastic.

While the federal unemployment figures do not count those dropping out of the workforce (how could they?) few folks 'drop out' for long as no one can live on nothing and eventually, except for the diabled or those with an independent income, everybody has to work at something to make a living.

For the high gas price problem you need look no further than Opec. Thats who controls the production of oil, not our president, and you surely comprehend supply/demand economics.

I suppose you want federal health care too, thats a great idea. You think its bad now, let that happen then come back and tell me about it. If Kerry manages to get in and make this a socialist country, I will unfortunately get to say "I told you so" at the expense of the country's demise.

 

[Silver 6]

Where is Senator Kerry better?

Does he have a record of supporting a strong military? What programs for the soldiers and families has he presented? What equipment upgrades has he supported to improve our place on the battle field?

Does he have a record of supporting controls on spending to balance the budget? As the senior Democrat on the Senate budget commitee has he even been there at all for the last year and a half? And he is very concerned about the deficit...how?

Does he have a record of supporting business growth? We need business to supply the jobs he says we don't have.

What is his record on fighting terror? As a senior Senator in a powerful position he is in a great place to make things happen. What has he done?

What has he put in front of the senate to help families?

Do I think there could be a better candidate for President than George Bush? Yes I do. The problem is there isn't one running.

 

[Buick From Hell]

This morning on FOX news, they brought up this subject. They said it was the FIREFIGHTERS who were pissed off about the twin towers in the Bush ad. Last I remember, we don't got no firefighters running for president!

 

[Silver 6]

Some of the Firefighters are Democrats and some are Republican. One thing for sure is the union is on the Democratic side. So how hard is it to find someone to complain?

You need to work a bit harder than that.

 

[Blown&Injected]

Originally posted by Red Regal T
It's a shame that, for the democratic leaders, the only thing that is important is to be in power. The country be damned. It's downright treasonous.

Yep. With Clinton it was all about his legacy. He would do what ever was popular, not what was best for the country.

When one considers that the economy went to hell just two months after President Bush took office, even the most serious Clinton supporter cannot blame Bush for that - hell, I submit that it was the Bush administration that uncovered a lot of the foul business practices that made the economy look good under Clinton.

Although smokin'6 makes some valid points about the behavior of the AG, if there was really a good thing to bash President Bush about, the Dems would not be crying about things like a turkey in the food service line and coaching a few people about how to act shocked about a 9/11 reference.

 

[GNandGS]

When Clinton was in office his unemployment rate when at 5.6% was termed as "already low". HAHAAHAHA Wow, now with Bush at the SAME rate its mission critical crisis time.

Our current unemployment is lower (and has been a little while) than what the 90's averaged out to. Look it up! Lets get this straight, the Dems best chances are if the economy is bad? If they even came close to presenting the unemployment rate like they did under Clinton... oooh boy.

Kerry is not afraid to use Vietnam, and did so in states like Ohio, in his campaign so far. Pictures of him in the jungle blahblahblah. Thats fine with ME but speaks to a double standard with the complainers given more died there than at the towers. NO, I am not comparing those awful outcomes!

If anyone repeating the complaints of the Bush ads closes their eyes and listens, or just reads the subtext in the ad, you will get the context and see its not what you think. Given that there were complaints about how "offensive" the ads are before their release speaks volumes (takes time for the population to be "offended" by something unless you are selective!).

S

 

[JToups386]

Originally posted by smokin'6
Bush is going to go. People will not stand for this religious zealot and his nazi like government. These are the people regulating the airwaves, TV, taking Stern off the air. Ashcroft is spending hundreds of thousands of YOUR tax dollars trying to shut down the adult entertainment industry. Everyone in here complains about the moderaters in here imposing their control yet you don't worry about your rights to listen, read and watch what you want?
WAKE UP! Wont even get into the highest gas prices in history, unemployment (you think its at a good rate ), health care, etc, etc, etc

But with Bush in, soon you won't even be able to express your views in here, so enjoy it while it last.

You poor sap...! I'm surprised you had the time to respond to this thread, since it appears that your main concern in life is being able to watch porn... And if I could dedicate more of MY tax dollars to Ashcroft's attempts to clean things up, I would gladly give them to him! But hey, I don't want to take up too much of your time, and interrupt your "quality time". Maybe you should head back over to one of the Mustang or F-body websites, where they're more concerned about putting pictures of naked chicks they'll never have in their postings, as opposed to worthwhile tech talk.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to also consider that "our sport" of drag racing and driving old hotrods on the street is greatly threatened every time we have a tree-hugging liberal democrat in office! But why would you care, you're too busy getting your jollies looking at internet porn..?

 

[JToups386]

Originally posted by smokin'6
Fact of the matter is this, government is taking away our rights one by one. I won't go through explaining this, READ THE NEWS.
If you don't think so, you've been exhaling too much hi octane vapors!
Im out.......

Your sig line shows this ---
87 GN - 3" pipe (didn't there used to be a Cat there?

I wonder what will happen to you, if we gain another 8 years of a democrat in office? If Al Gore would've made it, your little "missing cat" violation would've warranted the death penalty under his ideology of environmental protection. But, since Gore "invented the internet", I guess you'd still be better off to download porn... Sorry to harp on you so bitterly, but your banter is exactly the type of non-educated sewage that most democrats try to push, w/o even thinking about how it will affect themselves, much less the country as a whole.

 

[Silver 6]

Al Gore is too much fun. He has turned into a ranting raving cartoon. He is a millionare from tobacco and oil. Just how does that fit into his ranting for the "little people" he represents? He is really funny. Just hearing him on the radio these days can make me laugh. Oh, how close we came.

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by Buick From Hell
This morning on FOX news, they brought up this subject. They said it was the FIREFIGHTERS who were pissed off about the twin towers in the Bush ad. Last I remember, we don't got no firefighters running for president!

Actually, it's the "firefighter's Union" that's pissed off.

The Democrat plan to wage war on terror is hire more police and firefighters to help put out the fires and evacuate the cities.

Good Plan

As for the use of objectionable footage in campaign advertisements:

Kerry is using "footage" of him in Viet Nam in some of his ads. The "Footage" is him re-enacting his medal winning "RPG wielding gook" execution for the camera's, a few days after it happened, while pretending like it WAS happening.

Democrat's need to watch Kerry a little closer. He is acting. And he is one of the worst actors I have seen.

And they used to complain Reagan was an actor

 

[Red Regal T]

Thanks Steve for reminding me of the "turkey contoversy". Another democrat talking point from "left" field. It's incredible how desperate these people are to portray the President as underhanded and sneaky. Sneaky and underhanded is how THEY are and they see everyone from their perspective.

Let's see, you have the COMMANDER IN CHIEF having the audacity to land on a Carrier in a flight suit..........simply outrageous, and then, on Thanksgiving, was it a real turkey or not, mystery , the media driven, vicious attack, with not a thread of evidence, that Bush is a deserter, and now ya' got the ad baloney. Quite an arsenal of non-issues that makes anyone with common sense just roll their eyes and say, "huh"? I'm sure there must be more of these tidbits that I have forgotten. Can someone remind me?

Let's have a moment of silence. Howard Stern is not going to be on the air? You have to be a religious zealot to not want that pervert around? Give me a break!

 

[GN SBS]

Originally posted by Silver 6

(1) Jobs.......the highest number of people employed in history.


(2) Education.....the highest level of federal spending in history.

I challenge you to provide a reference for your claims.

(1) Is simply wrong: Employment was 132.5 million in March of 2001 and 130.2 million in November 2003 (2 million fewer). Source: US Department of Labor Payroll Survey (www.bls.gov).

As a somewhat related note, when comparing unemployment rates, remember that the rate is a fraction-- the unemployment rate can decrease even when the labor market is not getting better. If folks become discouraged from a long stint of unemployment and leave the labor force (stop looking for work), the rate can decrease without new employment. I do not have the information to argue that this is or is not happening, but it takes more than just looking at changes in the overall rate to assess the health of the labor market.

(2) I don't have the time to dig up the stats for education, but I bet you're comparing dollar amounts that are not adjusted for inflation or population. A better (but still very crude) measure of quality across would be real dollars spent per pupil.

You can still debate the points, but should do so using good information. No flame intended, but did you really look at any data before making your claims, or take someone's word for it? Many seemingly reputable sources just don't take the time to do the research, both democratic and republican. We, as Americans, have a responsibility to make our voting decisions using good information.

I'm looking forward to the debates, which will hopefully focus in detail on real policy issues: labor market, deficit, national security. I'm not a party-line voter so voting really requires some very serious thought!

-Scott

 

[GN SBS]

Originally posted by GNandGS
When Clinton was in office his unemployment rate when at 5.6% was termed as "already low". HAHAAHAHA Wow, now with Bush at the SAME rate its mission critical crisis time.

Our current unemployment is lower (and has been a little while) than what the 90's averaged out to. Look it up!

Okay, and here are the statistics (Source: US Department of Labor):

1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0

Not that I think this is a good analysis, but if your point is that the unemployment rates are low (or decrease) when Republicans are in office, the data don't look good. Our current rate is certainly lower than it was in the early 1990s, but I'm not sure what that proves for either side.

I think folks are concerned about employment now because the recent recovery has been atypical in that the labor market has not grown as it has in past expansions. Understanding why seems like an important issue for either side to understand. I have a feeling that reason has little to do with who is or is not in office, but we should still attempt to understand, no?

Scott

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by GN SBS
Okay, and here are the statistics (Source: US Department of Labor):

1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0

Not that I think this is a good analysis, but if your point is that the unemployment rates are low (or decrease) when Republicans are in office

No, my point is that 5.X% is only low when its a democrat in office for some reason.

I also said our CURRENT rate is lower than the AVERAGE of the 90s.

The stats would be better served IMO to poll the households.

 

[GN SBS]

Originally posted by GNandGS
No, my point is that 5.X% is only low when its a democrat in office for some reason.

Yep, and it was an interesting point-- again I think folks are concerned not because of the unemployment rate itself, but because of the jobless recovery. The employment rate can decrease, after all, if unemployed folks get tired of looking for work and leave the labor force, but that's not a good sign.

Originally posted by GNandGS
I also said our CURRENT rate is lower than the AVERAGE of the 90s.

It's not proper to average the averages, but it looks like the current rate would be about the same as the average in the 90s or perhaps a couple of 10ths lower. That does still make your point about people focusing on the rate as being low now, though.

Labor economists don't seem to understand why this recovery hasn't lead to good expansion in the labor market and it would be most interesting to hear the candidates explore these reasons and how to recover rather than trying to place blame. The real reasons are probably more far-reaching than any one (or two) presidential cycle(s).

Fun topic!
Scott

 

[GNandGS]

Very good! I dont even REALLY want to compare the numbers, but use them to illustrate a point. Ive done that.

The thing thats missing here, but its difficult to prove, relates to how jobs are assessed. What I mean is sometimes the type of economy we have shifts. Its generally slow but I could see that being part of it.

How?

When you actually get data of who is employed or working by going to the HOMES, you get a better number. Contract labor for example doesnt play into the numbers in the previous post. The reason that it might be "OK" for jobs to shift sectors is if they are actually working at OTHER things. Considering a new business starts every so many hours, minutes, or seconds(?) - polling what Boeing lists for unemployment may not mean as much now.

I dunno, when it comes to economics nothing can really be "dumbed down". So just lower my taxes so I dont have to think about it.

 

[sixgun86gn]

Originally posted by smokin'6
Bush is going to go. People will not stand for this religious zealot and his nazi like government. These are the people regulating the airwaves, TV, taking Stern off the air. Ashcroft is spending hundreds of thousands of YOUR tax dollars trying to shut down the adult entertainment industry. Everyone in here complains about the moderaters in here imposing their control yet you don't worry about your rights to listen, read and watch what you want?
WAKE UP! Wont even get into the highest gas prices in history, unemployment (you think its at a good rate ), health care, etc, etc, etc

But with Bush in, soon you won't even be able to express your views in here, so enjoy it while it last.

Bush and the republicans Nazi like?Maybe you need to be reminded of Tipper Gore and the PMRC and other such groups started by democrats.Just in case you don't know who they are Tipper is the wife of your beloved Al Gore.The PMRC was an organization that promoted censorship in music and movies.Stop beleiving all the hypocrit hype you spit out.

 

[Silver 6]

I can start using references....

Some firefighters families for President Bush so we can put that one to rest:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040306/D8153KEO0.html