Unemployment Down - Democrats are Crying
Nomen Nescio
http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
Unemployment Rate
Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
====
Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
+ 112,000.
====
Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
employment)
+ 483,000.
----------
BLS report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (PDF
file)
Clay
Nomen Nescio wrote:
>Unemployment Rate
>
>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>====
>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>
>+ 112,000.
Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
NYTimes is spinning it:
===================================
"Job Growth Is Well Below Wall Street Forecasts"
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: December 3, 2004
===================================
>Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
>employment)
>
>+ 483,000.
>----------
>BLS report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (PDF
>file)
The left will never, ever learn.
-C-
Sid9
> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> Unemployment Rate
>>>
>>> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>> ====
>>> Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>
>>> + 112,000.
>>
>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>
> also about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population
> growth, so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>
>
>>
>> ===================================
>> "Job Growth Is Well Below Wall Street Forecasts"
>> By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
>> Published: December 3, 2004
>> ===================================
>>
>>> Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
>>> employment)
>>>
>>> + 483,000.
>
>
>
>>> ----------
>>> BLS report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (PDF
>>> file)
>>
>> The left will never, ever learn.
>
> American people.
See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election October...
"...303,000 in October..."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Mass Market Radio
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:b7fc927ba27500ef...@dizum.com...
> Political Vice Squad
> http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
>
> Unemployment Rate
>
> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
Thank you Christmas Temp Jobs and the people falling off unemployment
checks.
ouroboros rex
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>>Unemployment Rate
>>
>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>====
>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>
>>+ 112,000.
>
> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
> NYTimes is spinning it:
There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's also
about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population growth, so it's
actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>
> ===================================
> "Job Growth Is Well Below Wall Street Forecasts"
> By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
> Published: December 3, 2004
> ===================================
>
>>Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
>>employment)
>>
>>+ 483,000.
Welcome to Amway! lol
>>----------
>>BLS report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (PDF
>>file)
>
> The left will never, ever learn.
The right will never, ever stop gaming the system to lie to the American
people.
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
news:Cz0sd.209$yr1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
> Bush's leadership.
Cite?
The Democrats have repeated their lie that there was a
> "net job loss" (there wasn't) for so long now that some of those drooling
> retard lefties have actually started to believe their own bullshit.
>
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> message news:b7fc927ba27500ef...@dizum.com...
Mindless Drooling Libruls
retard lefties have actually started to believe their own bullshit.
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:b7fc927ba27500ef...@dizum.com...
Mindless Drooling Libruls
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>>Unemployment Rate
>>
>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>====
>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>
>>+ 112,000.
>
> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
> NYTimes is spinning it:
>
> ===================================
> "Job Growth Is Well Below Wall Street Forecasts"
> By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
> Published: December 3, 2004
> ===================================
It's not for nothing that the New York Times circulation has been dropping,
while that of the far more even-handed New York Post has been rising.
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:coq7a1$jmn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>
>> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>> news:Cz0sd.209$yr1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
>>> Bush's leadership.
>>
>> Cite?
>
>
>
> "However, job gains appear stronger in a separate Labor Department survey
> of
> households rather than companies. The household survey found that
> employment
> has risen by nearly 2 million during the Bush presidency as more people
> work
> from home or for themselves."
Oh, I see - you're claiming that bush created Amway and Mary Kay, and
taking the lying Labor Department's word for it. roflmao
How about we discuss real jobs, o wacky one? Your tired republican fake
statistic is very old news.
>
> I presume you'll want the URL for that quote also, so here it is:
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9812553.htm?1c
Sorry, sign-up link.
Mindless Drooling Libruls
> news:Cz0sd.209$yr1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
>> Bush's leadership.
>
> Cite?
Sure, glad to. Here, read for yourself:
"However, job gains appear stronger in a separate Labor Department survey of
households rather than companies. The household survey found that employment
has risen by nearly 2 million during the Bush presidency as more people work
from home or for themselves."
I presume you'll want the URL for that quote also, so here it is:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9812553.htm?1c
Mindless Drooling Libruls
Not surprisingly, NONE of the mainstream media news reporters described it
as "dismal" back then.
So shove it up your ass, Sid.
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4Q0sd.21650$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> As usual this dismal employment report is twisted into a silk purse.
> Sorry, a sow's ear is a sow's ear.
>
> Suspicion cast on the October pre-election employment report
Sid9
>>
>> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unemployment Rate
>>>>
>>>> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>> ====
>>>> Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>>
>>>> + 112,000.
>>>
>>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>>
>> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's also
>> about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population
>> growth, so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>
>
> means that there were net job increases above and beyond the
> population growth.
> Stop your lies.
Things are really good! more people holding two jobs to survive,
"... Over the year, the number of persons who held more than one job
increased
by 346,000 to 7.6 million, not seasonally adjusted. These multiple
jobholders
represented 5.4 percent of total employment in November. (See table
A-13.)...:
Mindless Drooling Libruls
> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>
>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>====
>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>
>>>+ 112,000.
>>
>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>
> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's also
> about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population growth, so it's
> actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
Sid9
Sorry, a sow's ear is a sow's ear.
Suspicion cast on the October pre-election employment report
Sid9
Same crap.
New alias
Mindless Drooling Libruls
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ir1sd.21895$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Mindless Drooling Libruls
>
> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> news:gx1sd.155$0r....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:coq7a1$jmn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>
>>> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Cz0sd.209$yr1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
>>>> Bush's leadership.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>>
>> Sure, glad to. Here, read for yourself:
>>
>> "However, job gains appear stronger in a separate Labor Department survey
>> of
>> households rather than companies. The household survey found that
>> employment
>> has risen by nearly 2 million during the Bush presidency as more people
>> work
>> from home or for themselves."
>
> Oh, I see - you're claiming that bush created Amway and Mary Kay, and
> taking the lying Labor Department's word for it. roflmao
No, I'm claiming that employment has risen by nearly 2 million net
additional new jobs during the Bush Administration, and that the Labor
Department isn't lying.
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
No, the number of people on Unemployment insurance (your number) fell.
Which is what usually happens when you take a christmas temp job. lol
>
> Stop your lies.
Poor sad little republican coward. lol
Sid9
>>
>>
>> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election
>> October... "...303,000 in October..."
>>
>>
>
> About the same, or worse than now ?
>
> Thought so.
>
> At least we *unemployed * the dempols.
>
> Jim E
The SUBJECT is Bush,Jr's stewerdship of our economy.
(lousy)
Larry Hewitt
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:b7fc927ba27500ef...@dizum.com...
> http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
>
> Unemployment Rate
>
> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
> ====
> Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>
> + 112,000.
> ====
> Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
> employment)
>
Ah, yess. The infamous non-payroll and self employed. Yep. All of those
e-bay jobs, self employed laids, babysitters, and lawn care experts (lawn
mowers).
No benefits. No retirement. No job security. No future.
Larry
Jim E
Jim E
ouroboros rex
"Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:31bok0F...@individual.net...
As usual, Jimmy's just one more lying nazi rightard. By the way, what was
Clinton's unemployment best? 3 point something? lol
Jim E
>
> "...303,000 in October..."
>
>
What were you saying about the unemployment rate under Clintoon ??
Mindless Drooling Libruls
>
> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:6F1sd.163$0r...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:coq7f9$jmu$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>>>>>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>>>>>>>====
>>>>>>>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>+ 112,000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>>>>>>>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts.
>>>>>>> It's also about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population
>>>>>>> growth, so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's a lie, because the Unemployment RATE also FELL, which
>>>>>> means that there were net job increases above and beyond the
>>>>>> population growth.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the number of people on Unemployment insurance (your number)
>>>>> fell.
>>>>
>>>> the month before.
>>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>>> Which is what usually happens when you take a christmas temp job. lol
>>>>
>>>
>>> rofl
>>
>>
>> lol at you
>
>
> Cowards snip.
lol at you
Mindless Drooling Libruls
> unemployment
> rate, 5.4 percent, were about unchanged in November. The jobless rate has
> been
> either 5.4 or 5.5 percent in each month since July...."
>
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
As I said, the Unemployment RATE also FELL, by 0.1%. That's where the term
"about unchanged" came from. Emphasis on "about". In actuality, there
was a net job increase above and beyond the population growth, which is why
the Unemployment Rate FELL.
Mindless Drooling Libruls
That in itself is an indication that a heckuva lot of net additional jobs
were created during the Bush Administration, so I'm surprised you admitted
that, since the lie that the Democrats had been spouting for months and
months was that there was a "net job loss".
Thanks for making my argument for me!
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
OOPS - that means you need another cite. And one that's not just a
bunch of "Of course your little cosmetics sales hobby is a job, dear!" lol
Mindless Drooling Libruls
And what we have seen is that it's SUPERIOR to that of Clinton's stewardship
of our economy, because we have the SAME Unemployment Rate now as during
Clinton AND Clinton didn't have to deal with the negative economic impact of
the Muslim Terrorist kamikazi attack on America.
We also have have MORE people owning their own homes than during Clinton.
The Bush/GOP tax cuts are working.
Sid9
"... Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.0 million, and the
Don Swayser
Nazis and Bolsheviks, as it is now by the radiclibs in our society. They
just keep repeating that it is conservatives practicing it in the hope
people will believe it. You'd think you clowns would be catching on. The
communications capabilities of the modern world now prevent the leftist
paparazzi media from perpetrating their fraud. The scandalous Rather
fraud is a prime example of this. The second largest factor in the fall
of the Soviet Union was their failure to suppress what was happening in
Afghanistan. You're Marxist weltanschaung is practically finished.
Perdition Now wrote:
> ouroboros rex <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
>>>Bush's leadership.
>>
>>Cite?
>>
>
> Not "cite-able" because it's a bare faced lie. You know that old saying "The
> bigger the lie, the more likely the right wing retard is going to believe it."
--
The only good leftist is a dead leftist.
Phil Sheridan
Oh Yeah? Let's see you prove he never said it. :)
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>> news:6F1sd.163$0r...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:coq7f9$jmu$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>>
>>>> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>>>>====
>>>>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+ 112,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>>>>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>>>>
>>>> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's
>>>> also about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population growth,
>>>> so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's a lie, because the Unemployment RATE also FELL, which means
>>> that there were net job increases above and beyond the population
>>> growth.
>>
>> No, the number of people on Unemployment insurance (your number) fell.
>
> month before.
>
Cite?
>
>
rofl
"Over the year, the number of persons who held more than one job
increased
by 346,000 to 7.6 million, not seasonally adjusted. These multiple
jobholders
represented 5.4 percent of total employment in November. (See table A-13.)"
ouroboros rex
"Don Swayser" <swa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:41B0BA38...@optonline.net...
> The "big lie" was created by the leftists.
rofl
It was widely practiced by
> Nazis and Bolsheviks, as it is now by the radiclibs in our society.
lol
They
> just keep repeating that it is conservatives practicing it in the hope
> people will believe it.
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
Jim E
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> Sid was unable to answer the question, I see.
>
>
>
He's a demloser, they never have answers.
But if you give them a few $million, they will look for one.
And when they say they have found it, they will sell it to you for a few
$Billion.
Thank the gods at least *they* are unemployed.
Jim E
Mindless Drooling Libruls
lol at you
Sid9
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:BX1sd.22112$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> Jim E wrote:
>>> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kv1sd.21919$Dm2.8873@bignews1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election
>>>> October... "...303,000 in October..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What were you saying about the unemployment rate under Clintoon ??
>>> About the same, or worse than now ?
>>>
>>> Thought so.
>>>
>>> At least we *unemployed * the dempols.
>>>
>>> Jim E
>>
>> The SUBJECT is Bush,Jr's stewerdship of our economy.
>
>
> And what we have seen is that it's SUPERIOR to that of Clinton's
> stewardship of our economy, because we have the SAME Unemployment
> Rate now as during Clinton AND Clinton didn't have to deal with the
> negative economic impact of the Muslim Terrorist kamikazi attack on
> America.
> We also have have MORE people owning their own homes than during
> Clinton.
> The Bush/GOP tax cuts are working.
RRRR's attack where they are weakest.
Don Swayser
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
Cowards snip. Poor sad little republican coward, here's what you snipped:
Mindless Drooling Libruls
>
> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> news:6F1sd.163$0r...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:coq7f9$jmu$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>
>>> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>>>
>>>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>>>====
>>>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>>>
>>>>>+ 112,000.
>>>>
>>>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>>>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>>>
>>> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's
>>> also about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population growth,
>>> so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>>
>>
>> No, that's a lie, because the Unemployment RATE also FELL, which means
>> that there were net job increases above and beyond the population growth.
>
> No, the number of people on Unemployment insurance (your number) fell.
Which is a consequence of more people having more jobs than they did the
month before.
> Which is what usually happens when you take a christmas temp job. lol
It's also what usually happens when you take a permanent job. lol
ouroboros rex
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
Abject surrender noted, and thanks for playing. =)
Mindful Continent Liberal
> So when Unemployment was running 5.4% under Clinton, was it "dismal" also?
> Not surprisingly, NONE of the mainstream media news reporters described it
> as "dismal" back then.
Forgive Babs, folks; she has craniorectal insertion.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNU03327709
What did Clinton's policies do to the unemployment rate?
What did Bush's policies do to the unemployment rate?
> So shove it up your ass, Sid.
O, so eloquent, so melifluous, so Vice Presidential!
-MCL
Don Swayser
anyone so brainless can actually type. Are you in reality a well trained
simian? Oh, excuse me, a simian is an ape or monkey. I wouldn't want you
strain your brainless carcass with the chore of opening a dictionary.
LeftRight
every two days. That's if you can expect some children can come with the
money. ha ha ha
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:b7fc927ba27500ef...@dizum.com...
> Political Vice Squad
> http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
>
> Unemployment Rate
>
> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
> ====
> Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>
> + 112,000.
> ====
> Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
> employment)
>
> + 483,000.
> ----------
> BLS report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (PDF
> file)
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anti-communism is a prejudice like
any other; the evil acts of some taint all.
Slander is an act of the guilty and
lies of the cowardly. Humans are as reeds
in the wind; they are forcable
in any direction.
http://groups.msn.com/taxationjustice
http://www.columbiajournal.ca/04-04/index.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15344
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html>
ronin
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in
message
> >>>> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under
President
> >>>> Bush's leadership.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure, glad to. Here, read for yourself:
> >>
> >> "However, job gains appear stronger in a separate Labor Department
survey
> >> of
> >> households rather than companies. The household survey found that
> >> employment
> >> has risen by nearly 2 million during the Bush presidency as more people
> >> work
> >> from home or for themselves."
> >
> > Oh, I see - you're claiming that bush created Amway and Mary Kay, and
> > taking the lying Labor Department's word for it. roflmao
>
>
> No, I'm claiming that employment has risen by nearly 2 million net
> additional new jobs during the Bush Administration, and that the Labor
> Department isn't lying.
Once again 'Mindless' inserts the word 'net' which he has obtained from his
ass.
LeftRight
Another big lie. religion.
It was widely practiced by
> Nazis and Bolsheviks, as it is now by the radiclibs in our society.
Well learned from their oppressors they put in practise what they fought.
They were not true to science in ethics but science in fear.
The scandalous Rather
> fraud is a prime example of this. The second largest factor in the fall
> of the Soviet Union was their failure to suppress what was happening in
> Afghanistan.
And what was happening was a Muslim Nazi and US conspiriacy.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15344
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html
>You're Marxist weltanschaung is practically finished.
Whatever.
ouroboros rex
> What a stunning rebuttal! It's stunning because it's stunning that anyone
> so brainless can actually type. Are you in reality a well trained simian?
> Oh, excuse me, a simian is an ape or monkey. I wouldn't want you strain
> your brainless carcass with the chore of opening a dictionary.
A real book learner, are ya? lol
here ya go:
"The "big lie" was created by the leftists. It was widely practiced by
Nazis and Bolsheviks, as it is now by the radiclibs in our society. They
just keep repeating that it is conservatives practicing it in the hope
people will believe it. You'd think you clowns would be catching on. The
communications capabilities of the modern world now prevent the leftist
paparazzi media from perpetrating their fraud. The scandalous Rather
fraud is a prime example of this. The second largest factor in the fall
of the Soviet Union was their failure to suppress what was happening in
Afghanistan. You're Marxist weltanschaung is practically finished."
Now you can start citing sources for your crap, o well trained simian.
lol
ronin
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> So when Unemployment was running 5.4% under Clinton, was it "dismal" also?
> Not surprisingly, NONE of the mainstream media news reporters described it
> as "dismal" back then.
Speak for yourself, Clinton-lover.
> So shove it up your ass, Sid.
>
>
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4Q0sd.21650$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > As usual this dismal employment report is twisted into a silk purse.
> > Sorry, a sow's ear is a sow's ear.
> >
> > Suspicion cast on the October pre-election employment report
> >
> > Mindless Drooling Libruls wrote:
> >> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under
> >> President Bush's leadership. The Democrats have repeated their lie
> >> that there was a "net job loss" (there wasn't) for so long now that
> >> some of those drooling retard lefties have actually started to
> >> believe their own bullshit.
> >>
ronin
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:coq7a1$jmn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> >
> >> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
> >> Bush's leadership.
> >
>
>
> Sure, glad to. Here, read for yourself:
>
> "However, job gains appear stronger in a separate Labor Department survey
of
> households rather than companies. The household survey found that
employment
> has risen by nearly 2 million during the Bush presidency as more people
work
> from home or for themselves."
>
>
>
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9812553.htm?1c
I see no NET in there.
That part is your fantasy....
ronin
"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
news:Cz0sd.209$yr1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
a
> "net job loss" (there wasn't) for so long now that some of those drooling
> retard lefties have actually started to believe their own bullshit.
You're believing Baghdad Bushco.
The above statement is completely wrong.
The only place there was a net increase in jobs by Bushco was in India.
Sid9
By Rebecca Byrne
Senior Writer
12/3/2004 12:28 PM EST
The sluggish pace of job growth in November hasn't changed the odds for a
quarter-point interest rate hike later this month, but maybe it should.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by just 112,000 in November, and the months of
October and September were revised lower by a combined 54,000. Economists
had been expecting 200,000 jobs last month.
The employment report, which bodes ill for retailers in the all-important
holiday shopping season, had little impact on interest rate expectations for
the Dec. 14 meeting. Fed funds futures contracts are still pricing in a 96%
chance of a 25-basis-point hike, unchanged from Thursday night.
"Recall that the summer's 'soft patch,' which generated even weaker payroll
results, did not stop the Fed from raising rates at the time," said Sherry
Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns....."
Interest rates going up. Prices going up. Jobs stalled. War in Iraq a mess.
America got "taken"
Mindless Drooling RRRR wrote:
> Sid was unable to answer the question, I see.
>
>
>
>
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Ir1sd.21895$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> Mindless Drooling Libruls wrote:
>>
>>
>> Same crap.
>> New alias
Sid9
(not much of value)
Chew on this:
Don Swayser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Big Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/schi-j17.shtml
More of the big lie that "socialist realism" emerged from Soviet
revolutionary art Dream factory communism: the visual culture of the
Stalin era--an exhibition at the Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt
http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/000578.html
Free North Korea!: Pyongyang takes the Big Lie to new depths
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Opinion/FK18Df01.html
The Standard - Getting away with a big lie - Opinion Section
http://www.opednews.com/hartmann082804_big_lie.htm
What Would Machiavelli Do? The Big Lie Lives On
ouroboros rex
> Okay, you fucking brainless organism.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
> Big Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/schi-j17.shtml
> More of the big lie that "socialist realism" emerged from Soviet
> revolutionary art Dream factory communism: the visual culture of the
> Stalin era--an exhibition at the Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt
> http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/000578.html
> Free North Korea!: Pyongyang takes the Big Lie to new depths
> http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Opinion/FK18Df01.html
> The Standard - Getting away with a big lie - Opinion Section
> http://www.opednews.com/hartmann082804_big_lie.htm
> What Would Machiavelli Do? The Big Lie Lives On
Interesting, your analysis leaves out the creators of the Big Lie. Care
to try again, with a few less right wing cuckoo sites this time?
meanwhile, here's a few Big Lies for ya.
The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11
Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta
Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
The exact location of WMD facilities
WMDs moved to Syria.
Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.
Every one of these stories was false.
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=491&pageID=177&subSiteID=4
America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed
By Gar Smith / The-Edge
November 7, 2003
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods
Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories
created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus.
Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts
about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph
Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender.
When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with
some serious rebound.
After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing as
false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington
reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.
Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp.
In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an
embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US.
The-Edge has received copies of this document.
The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam
Gardiner.
"Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic
Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories
about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in
a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.
Gardiner has credentials.
He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the
Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish
Defense College.
According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the
quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before
the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world.
Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had
conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic
influence" that were known to be false.
The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a
"meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress,
and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam
Hussein."
The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House
and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment
"irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."
"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains.
Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty,
democracy receives collateral damage."
For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological
operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is
that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic
psychological operations pushed their way into the important process
of informing the peoples of our two democracies."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office
of Strategic Influence early in 2002.
At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy Director
Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in London.
As soon as Pvt. Jessica Lynch was airlifted from her hospital bed, the
first call from her "rescue team" went, not to military officials but
to Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top propaganda official stationed
in Iraq.
White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence"
was a euphemism for disinformation.
Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of
Propaganda.
The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the
plan.
But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down,
Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred.
"If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing
every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have."
Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that
passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill.
According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at
least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the
American and British people."
Those stories include:
The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11
Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta
Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
The exact location of WMD facilities
WMDs moved to Syria.
Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.
Every one of these stories was false.
"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these
conclusions lightly," Gardiner admits.
"I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't
understand even after all the research."
But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned
officials found how to control the process of governance in ways never
before possible."
A Battle between Good and Evil
Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a
very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and
marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."
The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a
conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil.
Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.
"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big
lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the
American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks."
The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with
stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle;
managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information
to attack and punish critics."
Audition in Afghanistan
The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom
were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for
the US attack on Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been
deeply involved in the first Gulf War.
Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior")
proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing thousands
of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras after their
"liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.
The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen
Hughes in November 2001.
(In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global
Communications.)
The CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on
Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan."
CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best
thing we've done."
Gardiner is quick with a correction.
The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story
they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding to
improve the conditions of women."
The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and
London even involved the respective First Wives.
On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement:
"Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's
fingernails for wearing nail polish."
Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media, "In
Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails torn
out."
Misleading via Innuendo
Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without
question.
Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the
"anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to
attack Iraq.
In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady
diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al
Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden
letters.
It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it
was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military
installation.
The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more
prominent White House "announcement."
As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax
plot continued to persist.
Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda
campaign.
"If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."
In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have
expected to see the creation [of] stories to sell the policy; we would
have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the
Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from
US and UK stories is long."
The US and Britain: The Axis of Disinformation
Before the coalition invasion began on March 20, 2003, Washington and
London agreed to call their illegal pre-emptive military aggression an
"armed conflict" and to always reference the Iraqi government as the
"regime."
Strategic communications managers in both capitols issued lists of
"guidance" terms to be used in all official statements.
London's 15 Psychological Operations Group paralleled Washington's
Office of Global Communications.
In a departure from long military tradition, the perception managers
even took over the naming of the war.
Military code names were originally chosen for reasons of security.
In modern US warfare, however, military code names have become "part
of the marketing."
There was Operation Nobel Eagle, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation
Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Uphold
Democracy and, finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch
The Pentagon's control over the news surrounding the capture and
rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch receives a good deal of attention in
Gardiner's report.
"From the very beginning it was called an 'ambush'," Gardiner noted.
But, he pointed out, "If you drive a convoy into enemy lines, turn
around and drive back, it's not an ambush. Military officers who are
very careful about how they talk about operations would normally not
be sloppy about describing this kind of event," Gardiner complained.
"This un-military kind of talk is one of the reasons I began doing
this research."
One of the things that struck Gardiner as revealing was the fact that,
as Newsweek reported:
"as soon as Lynch was in the air, [the Joint Operations Center] phoned
Jim Wilkinson, the top civilian communications aide to CENTCOM Gen.
Tommy Franks."
It struck Gardiner as inexplicable that the first call after Lynch's
rescue would go to the Director of Strategic Communications, the White
House's top representative on the ground.
On the morning of April 3, the Pentagon began leaking information on
Lynch's rescue that sought to establish Lynch as "America's new
Rambo."
The Washington Post repeated the story it received from the Pentagon:
that Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and fought fiercely and
shot several enemy soldier... firing her weapon until she ran out of
ammunition."
Lynch's family confused the issue by telling the press that their
daughter had not sustained any bullet wounds.
Lynch's parents subsequently refused to talk to the press, explaining
that they had been "told not to talk about it."
(Weeks later, the truth emerged. Lynch was neither stabbed nor shot.
She was apparently injured while falling from her vehicle.)
Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers let the story stand during an April 3 press
conference although both had been fully briefed on Lynch's true
condition.
"Again, we see the pattern," Gardiner observed.
"When the story on the street supports the message, it will be left
there by a non-answer. The message is more important than the truth.
Even Central Command kept the story alive by not giving out details."
Gardiner saw another break with procedure.
The information on the rescue that was released to the Post "would
have been very highly classified" and should have been closely
guarded. Instead, it was used as a tool to market the war.
"This was a major pattern from the beginning of the marketing campaign
throughout the war," Gardiner wrote.
"It was okay to release classified information if it supported the
message."
Scott Marquardt
> Weak Job Data Won't Deter Fed
>
> By Rebecca Byrne
>
> Senior Writer
>
> 12/3/2004 12:28 PM EST
>
> The sluggish pace of job growth in November hasn't changed the odds for a
> quarter-point interest rate hike later this month, but maybe it should.
>
> Nonfarm payrolls increased by just 112,000 in November, and the months of
> October and September were revised lower by a combined 54,000. Economists
> had been expecting 200,000 jobs last month.
>
> The employment report, which bodes ill for retailers in the all-important
> holiday shopping season, had little impact on interest rate expectations for
> the Dec. 14 meeting. Fed funds futures contracts are still pricing in a 96%
> chance of a 25-basis-point hike, unchanged from Thursday night.
>
> "Recall that the summer's 'soft patch,' which generated even weaker payroll
> results, did not stop the Fed from raising rates at the time," said Sherry
> Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns....."
>
> Interest rates going up. Prices going up. Jobs stalled. War in Iraq a mess.
>
> America got "taken"
Read the article to the end:
Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, said
declining auto sales, which account for 4% of the U.S. economy, are
weighing down job creation in the vehicle assembly and auto parts sector.
General Motors (GM:NYSE - news - research) and Ford (F:NYSE - news -
research) both announced production cuts this week.
The answer is clearly that American auto manufacturers are falling down on
the job; they're not building in obsolescence like they used to. Americans
are managing to squeak more years out of their current vehicles. For shame!
Shoddier manufacturing alone will save us!
;-)
--
Scott
Server 13
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:LR1sd.22065$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> As I said, the Unemployment
insurance
RATE also FELL, by 0.1%. That's where the term
> "about unchanged" came from. Emphasis on "about". In actuality, there
> was a net job increase above and beyond the population growth, which is why
> the Unemployment
insurance
Rate FELL.
>
>
Welcome to Amway! lol
Server 13
>
>>Mindless Drooling Libruls wrote:
>>
>>>"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:coq7f9$jmu$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>
>>>>"Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>>>>>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>>>>====
>>>>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+ 112,000.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>>>>>NYTimes is spinning it:
>>>>
>>>> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's
>>>>also about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population
>>>>growth, so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, that's a lie, because the Unemployment RATE also FELL, which
>>>means that there were net job increases above and beyond the
>>>population growth.
>>>Stop your lies.
>>
>>
>>"... Over the year, the number of persons who held more than one job
>>by 346,000 to 7.6 million, not seasonally adjusted. These multiple
>>jobholders
>>represented 5.4 percent of total employment in November. (See table
>>
>>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
>
>
>
> That in itself is an indication that a heckuva lot of net additional jobs
> were created during the Bush Administration,
Nope.
Server 13
> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>
>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>====
>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>
>>>+ 112,000.
>>
>>Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>>NYTimes is spinning it:
>>
>>===================================
>>"Job Growth Is Well Below Wall Street Forecasts"
>>By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
>>Published: December 3, 2004
>>===================================
>
>
>
> It's not for nothing that the New York Times circulation has been dropping,
> while that of the far more even-handed New York Post has been rising.
>
>
rofl
Where was the Post's 4-page apology for *their* reporter scandal?
The Times headline is, of course, the absulute truth. 200,000 new jobs were
expected.
T.Carr
> ouroboros rex wrote:
> > "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
> >> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unemployment Rate
> >>>
> >>> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
> >>> ====
> >>> Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
> >>>
> >>> + 112,000.
> >>
> >> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
> >> NYTimes is spinning it:
> >
> > also about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population
> > growth, so it's actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "Job Growth Is Well Below Wall Street Forecasts"
> >> By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
> >> Published: December 3, 2004
> >> ===================================
> >>
> >>> employment)
> >>>
> >>> + 483,000.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> ----------
> >>> BLS report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (PDF
> >>> file)
> >>
> >
> > The right will never, ever stop gaming the system to lie to the
> > American people.
>
>
Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net
> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election October...
>
> "...303,000 in October..."
The only lie is being told by you
The BLS still has that projection
1 Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: N/A
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec
2004,159,83,353,324,208,96,85,198,119,303(p),112(p),
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
btw.."Sid"..the October employment report was released AFTER the November 2 election
http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/05/news/economy/jobless_october/
Do you and your ilk ever tire of lying ?
Apparently not
T.Carr
Sid9
Americans work harder and longer than their "Old Europe" counterparts.
Americans get poorer healthcare,more expensive healthcare, less vacation,
less job security, more war.
Unfortunately our propaganda machine is so effective
that we think we're better off and vote in a dunce like Bush,jr
GodsTruth
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:aZ5sd.52470$fY.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Larry Hewitt
"T.Carr" <tcarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c7ddae2f.04120...@posting.google.com...
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10326862.htm
"The department lowered job growth estimates from the previous two months by
about 54,000, tempering October's blockbuster showing of 337,000 to 303,000.
Economists said the October job boom appeared artificially high, fueled by
hurricane cleanup activity in Florida and the Southeast."
The figure you quote is the _revised downward_ figure.
They overinflated teh September figures by 30,000. These _were_ released
before the election., and were widely hyped as a sign of an improving
economy. The corrected September figure of 119000 new jobs did not keep up
with the population growth - approximately 150,000 people join the
workforce each month.
Note also that " the October job boom appeared artificially high" _even_ at
the reduced figure.
So, the employment figures for the period of the election were overinflated
by 12%, and the biggest gain is "artificially high". Who's lying?
Larry
DemoCrap Loser
<c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>"Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>>Unemployment Rate
>>>
>>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
>>>====
>>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>>>
>>>+ 112,000.
>>
>> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
>> NYTimes is spinning it:
>
> There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's also
>about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population growth, so it's
>actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
>
This "glass half empty" bullshit is real old. So, if the weatherman
forecasts rain for the next day and it doesn't rain. Will you start
yelling DROUGHT?
If it is 30,000 less than what is needed to offset population growth,
can you explain why did the unemployment rate go down?
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
-
Hollywood is where they shoot too many pictures
and not enough actors.
-- Walter Winchell
DemoCrap Loser
>Jim E wrote:
>> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:kv1sd.21919$Dm2.8873@bignews1.
>>>
>>>
>>> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election
>>> October... "...303,000 in October..."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What were you saying about the unemployment rate under Clintoon ??
>> About the same, or worse than now ?
>>
>> Thought so.
>>
>> At least we *unemployed * the dempols.
>>
>> Jim E
>
>The SUBJECT is Bush,Jr's stewerdship of our economy.
>
>(lousy)
>
The economy is doing quite well, in fact rather remarkable, despite
the Klinton recession and Osama bin Laden's early Christmas present
to Libs called 9-11-01.
Jude Cooper
> The "big lie" was created by the leftists. It was widely practiced by
> Nazis and Bolsheviks, as it is now by the radiclibs in our society. They
> just keep repeating that it is conservatives practicing it in the hope
> people will believe it. You'd think you clowns would be catching on. The
> communications capabilities of the modern world now prevent the leftist
> paparazzi media from perpetrating their fraud. The scandalous Rather fraud
> is a prime example of this. The second largest factor in the fall of the
> Soviet Union was their failure to suppress what was happening in
> Afghanistan. You're Marxist weltanschaung is practically finished.
>
>> ouroboros rex <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
>>>>Bush's leadership.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not "cite-able" because it's a bare faced lie. You know that old saying
>> "The bigger the lie, the more likely the right wing retard is going to
>> believe it."
>
>
> --
> The only good leftist is a dead leftist.
> Phil Sheridan
> Oh Yeah? Let's see you prove he never said it. :)
Oh yeah the Bush administration is so transparent with information. Have you
read Republican John Dean's book "Worst the Watergate?" Fascinating stuff.
Might enlighten you how secretive the administration is.
So is it the "liberal media" to blame for our beliefs or is the "liberal
media" now a fraud so now people believe their lies? If the "liberal media:"
is so ineffective why do you mention it.? If the "liberal media" has been
marginalized, then why are you worried about. You can't have it both ways.
Now who are you going to blame if the "liberal media" is not around. Invent
some other phantom scapegoat?
And there is no Conservative media or propaganda spin machine? The
"Republican Noise Machine" is a brilliant is spreading Conservative
ideology. You have FOX NEWS and always had The Wall Street Journal and
National Review. Plus you got talk radio with Rush and Savage. This what I
say about them. Good for them. This is America and I believe in freedom of
speech and Ronald Reagan's view that there is a free market of ideas. (Oops!
I am not suppose to believe in free market--I forgot I am Marxists.)
Why do you throw out the old Communist rhetoric? It is really getting
tiresome. I guess to you anybody left of right-wing is Communist. Just like
my sister-in-law who thinks the Southern Baptists are liberal. According to
your definition, then you must be Fascist. Remember you are the antithesis
of every label you lodge.
I am happy that the unemployment rate is down if more people are able to
find decent job that they can afford housing, food and healthcare. But then
if I am rooting for the workers of America then I must be a socialist,
right?
Don Swayser
government job as a real one. That one should work for oneself and make
a living doing so is completely beyond your comprehension. After all
that's a demonstration of self sufficiency you don't possess and it
scares the hell out of you, but people do it. Most businesses started
with one employee fool.
ouroboros rex wrote:
> "Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
> news:gx1sd.155$0r....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:coq7a1$jmn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>
>>>"Mindless Drooling Libruls" <LibF...@DemWhackjobs.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Cz0sd.209$yr1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>Close to 2 million ADDITIONAL NET new jobs were created under President
>>>>Bush's leadership.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>>
>>Sure, glad to. Here, read for yourself:
>>
>>"However, job gains appear stronger in a separate Labor Department survey
>>of
>>households rather than companies. The household survey found that
>>employment
>>has risen by nearly 2 million during the Bush presidency as more people
>>work
>>from home or for themselves."
>
>
> Oh, I see - you're claiming that bush created Amway and Mary Kay, and
> taking the lying Labor Department's word for it. roflmao
>
> How about we discuss real jobs, o wacky one? Your tired republican fake
> statistic is very old news.
>
>
>
>>I presume you'll want the URL for that quote also, so here it is:
>>
>>http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9812553.htm?1c
>
>
> Sorry, sign-up link.
Jude Cooper
If they are simian, ape, or monkey then you are a Conservative that believes
in evolution. Wow.
Don Swayser
net profits. That's the profits after all expenses, or losses are
subtracted. It's a very simple concept. If I make a table and sell it
for $100 dollars and the total costs, to me, of making the table was $70
then I subtract the gross cost of making the table from the gross amount
I sold it for and that leaves me with a NET profit of $30. Understand?
T.Carr
Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net
> http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10326862.htm
>
> "The department lowered job growth estimates from the previous two months by
> about 54,000, tempering October's blockbuster showing of 337,000 to 303,000.
> Economists said the October job boom appeared artificially high, fueled by
> hurricane cleanup activity in Florida and the Southeast."
>
> The figure you quote is the _revised downward_ figure.
So?
"Sid" and I are using the same data
btw...your source has a problem with sinple math...337k - 303k = 34
k , not 54k
>
> They overinflated teh September figures by 30,000. These _were_ released
> before the election., and were widely hyped as a sign of an improving
> economy.
No..The BLS did NOT release the October employment data before the
election
"Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 04-2260
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in
this release
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ is embargoed until 8:30 A.M.
(EST),
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, November 5, 2004."
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.11052004.news
Note..FRIDAY NOV 5 2004 above
Perhaps you can provide a credible cite to back your above claim?
The corrected September figure of 119000 new jobs did not keep up
> with the population growth - approximately 150,000 people join the
> workforce each month.
The September data was released prior to the election..Not Octobers
>
> Note also that " the October job boom appeared artificially high" _even_ at
> the reduced figure.
They were off by 10% or so..so what?
>
> So, the employment figures for the period of the election were overinflated
> by 12%, and the biggest gain is "artificially high".
Since the data wasnt released prior to the election ..so what?
337k jobs vs 303k jobs is great news either way..and the electorate
was not made aware of it
> Who's lying?
Looking forward to your credible cite that the official data was
made public on or before 11/2/04.
T.Carr
>
> Larry
Jim E
>
> "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:31bok0F...@individual.net...>> news:BX1sd.22112$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...>>>> news:kv1sd.21919$Dm2.8873@bignews1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election
>>>>> October... "...303,000 in October..."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> About the same, or worse than now ?
>>>>
>>>> Thought so.
>>>>
>>>> At least we *unemployed * the dempols.
>>>>
>>>> Jim E
>>>
>>> The SUBJECT is Bush,Jr's stewerdship of our economy.
>>>
>>> (lousy)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Jim E
>
> As usual, Jimmy's just one more lying nazi rightard. By the way, what
> was Clinton's unemployment best? 3 point something? lol
>
No, his best was himself unemployed.
Jim E
Inch Nail@shitassbush.net 9 Inch Nail
2.4
Sid9
America peaked with Clinton and it's been
a long steep slide since Bush,Jr arroved.
Wexford
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:10:46 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Jim E wrote:
> >> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:kv1sd.21919$Dm2.8873@bignews1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election
> >>> October... "...303,000 in October..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> What were you saying about the unemployment rate under Clintoon ??
> >> About the same, or worse than now ?
> >>
> >> Thought so.
> >>
> >> At least we *unemployed * the dempols.
> >>
> >> Jim E
> >
> >The SUBJECT is Bush,Jr's stewerdship of our economy.
> >
> >(lousy)
> >
> The economy is doing quite well, in fact rather remarkable, despite
> the Klinton recession and Osama bin Laden's early Christmas present
> to Libs called 9-11-01.
It was the Bush recession. Wall Street has a aversion to Pug
presidents. Isn't it stretching things a bit to keep whining that 9-11
ruined the Pugs beautiful economic program? 9-11 was terrible but in
the scale of events that affect economic growth it was insignificant.
If anything, it actually stimulated the economy by forcing the
government to spend on infrastructure rebuilding. It didn't affect our
exports, didn't affect manufacturing, and didn't affect our service
industries. The worst affect it had was on NY city tourism and on
Chinatown restaurants, and that was offset by other spending and by
the huge influx of cash that was generated by the Charitable efforts
-- headed by Hollywood Liberals -- in which billions were collected
and given to New Yorkers.
Osama's "Christmas present" was aimed at the international banking and
brokerage houses that occupied the twin towers, by the way, not at
"Libs." He found theological justification in killing all those
innocent people because they worked in the trade of money, obnoxious
to Islamic true believers.
The economy is chugging along at the same mediocre levels it has had
since Bush took office. If you had invested in a market portfolio in
January 2000, you'd still be waiting for a capital gain. This has
occurred despite massive tax cuts in personal income taxes, dividend
taxes and estate taxes, and despite war spending and other deficit
spending, all of which should stimulate the economy. The problems is
that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich and put too little into
disposable income for average families. The economy is
consumption-driven, not supply driven, a fact that rightards simply
don't seem to get. The pther problem is that the "war" -- our
suppression of Shiites in Iraq -- isn't going very well, and we're in
grave danger of getting into another war with Iran, one that could
prove both difficult (if not impossible) and very expensive. Had Bush
not invaded Iraq, I think the economy would now be steaming. He chose
the stupid road (of course he did, he's a Pug) and we -- along with
many innocent Iraqi people -- are paying the price.
Wexford
Jedi
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:b7fc927ba27500ef...@dizum.com...
> Political Vice Squad
> http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
> ====
> Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
>
> + 112,000.
> Total Employment Growth (including non-payroll jobs and self-
> employment)
>
> + 483,000.
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: December 4, 2004
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - The economy added 112,000 payroll jobs in November, far
fewer than the month before and not enough to keep up with average increases
in the adult population, the Labor Department reported on Friday.
The gain was well below Wall Street forecasts, and employment in
manufacturing was flat for the third consecutive month.
The modest pace of job creation, along with a small decline in the number of
hours worked, reinforced the image of an economy that is expanding more
slowly and in which companies remain skittish about hiring more people.
Many analysts were stunned last month when the government reported a
spectacular jump of 337,000 jobs in October. But on Friday, many said that
the October jump was mostly an aberration in the more enduring trend of slow
growth in jobs and wages.
The report cast a shadow on expectations for holiday spending this year,
given that consumers face higher gasoline and heating prices without much
rise in real personal income.
Three years after the last recession officially ended in November 2001, the
rebound in jobs remains slower than in any previous economic recovery since
World War II.
Unemployment inched down by 0.1 percentage point last month, to 5.4 percent,
but the United States still has at least 200,000 fewer jobs than it did
before the recession began. At the same time, the adult population has grown
by about four million.
"The economy is adding jobs, but not at a feverish pace," said Richard
Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research, an economic research firm in
New York. "Economic growth is not expanding at a pace that can engender
stellar job growth, and I think you have to get used to these kinds of
numbers."
The biggest areas of hiring last month were at financial companies and in
health services like nursing and home health care. But retailers, who had
been a primary source of lower-paying jobs, actually shed 16,000 positions
in November and have essentially done no net hiring since July.
Manufacturers, who have shed over 2.5 million jobs over the last four years,
added no additional workers for the fourth consecutive month.
The biggest weakness among manufacturers was among computer and electronics
companies, which have been stymied by an unexpected sluggishness of
corporate spending on information technology. Computer companies dropped
3,800 jobs last month and total employment in that sector is exactly even
compared with one year ago.
Bond investors reacted to the disappointing report by pushing up the price
of Treasury securities, on the expectation that economic growth will be more
moderate and that the Federal Reserve will be under less pressure to raise
interest rates.
But the Fed is almost certain to raise short-term rates by another
quarter-point at its next policy meeting on Dec. 14.
The central bank has been raising rates since June at what officials call a
"measured pace," and officials have given no hint that they are ready to
pause in that process. Indeed, economic growth is likely to reach 4 percent
in 2004, well above the long-term growth rate, and "real" interest rates are
still about zero after subtracting the effects of inflation.
Most analysts said the economy was still poised for moderate employment
growth over the next year.
So far this year, the economy has added about 2 million jobs, an average of
about 185,000 jobs a month.
Economists estimate that the nation needs to generate about 150,000 jobs a
month to keep up with the increase in population, which means that
employment is keeping slightly ahead of job seekers.
"Available data suggest the recovery remains surprisingly resilient, despite
concerns about energy costs," wrote Robert V. DiClemente, a senior economist
at Citigroup. "Gains in employment of 185,000 per month suggest an expansion
proceeding at cruising speed."
Month-to-month changes in payroll employment are notoriously volatile and
defy consensus forecasts on Wall Street more often than not.
On Friday, the Labor Department revised down its October estimate to 303,000
jobs from 337,000. But analysts said even that number was exaggerated by
special events and statistical issues.
"October now clearly stands as an outlier, partly thanks to the hurricane
effect and partly, we think, to plain old sampling error," wrote Ian
Shepherdson, chief United States economist at High Frequency Economics in
Valhalla, N.Y.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, a
liberal research group in Washington, said the overall pace of hiring still
appeared steady.
But he said he was concerned about weak growth in wages. Average hourly
wages rose only 1 cent in November, and the October figure was revised down.
Over the last year, wages have climbed 2.6 percent slower than the inflation
rate.
"With limited job growth and falling real wages, heavily indebted consumers
will have difficulty maintaining a healthy pace of consumption growth," Mr.
Baker said.
David Kelly, chief economist at Putnam Investments, said consumers, who have
been the driving force of growth for the last four years, are pushing
themselves to the limit.
Mr. Kelly estimated that the personal savings rate this year would drop to
.8 percent, the lowest level since 1933.
"It's all pointing to an economy that is slumbering down to third gear," Mr.
Kelly said. "It's a mature expansion, but I think it's self-sustaining."
Rightard Whitey
unusual during the holiday season. In addition, the dollar has dropped
30 per cent in value for the last three years. The Euro is worth about
$1.33 and the Canadian dollar is worth 80 cents. The British pound is
worth more than twice the dollar and gold is at an all time high.
Secretary of Treasury Snow who is at odds with Bush's weak dollar policy
may be canned shortly. Snow has stated that no country can devalue
itself into prosperity.
My prediction is recession!
Ashland Henderson
>
> >Jim E wrote:
> >> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:kv1sd.21919$Dm2.8873@bignews1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> See the lie Bush,jr's adminstration put out in pre-election
> >>> October... "...303,000 in October..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> What were you saying about the unemployment rate under Clintoon ??
> >> About the same, or worse than now ?
> >>
> >> Thought so.
> >>
> >> At least we *unemployed * the dempols.
> >>
> >> Jim E
> >
> >The SUBJECT is Bush,Jr's stewerdship of our economy.
> >
> >(lousy)
> >
> The economy is doing quite well, in fact rather remarkable, despite
> the Klinton recession and Osama bin Laden's early Christmas present
> to Libs called 9-11-01.
Hmm. I hadn't heard of those. I assume you are talking about the Bush
recession and Osama bin Laden's strike at the US during Bush's watch.
Chris the Liberal
> Political Vice Squad
> http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
>
> Unemployment Rate
>
> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
> file)
YOU are SURELY smart enough to know this doesn't mean Spit.
Unemployment includes not only those applying for unemployment
insurance, leaving out those whose benefits have expired and
those who in this lousey Bush economy have GIVEN UP looking
for a job.
If everyone gave up, U Rate would be 0.
Note that the JOB GROWTH was less than the Bush administration
predicted.
But I don't blame you, when you're drowning, you'll grab
at any straw in the whirlpool.
Richard Hutnik
> the Klinton recession and Osama bin Laden's early Christmas present
> to Libs called 9-11-01.
So, how many more months of under 150,000 a month new job creation
would qualify as "continuing to do well" in your book?
- Richard Hutnik
Can you also blame Pearl Harbor for the current economic situation?
Bud Frawley
DNC_...@hotmail.com says...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:23:53 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
> <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >news:rb71r09t8rq7kvokl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:03 +0100,
> >> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>
> >>>Unemployment Rate
> >>>
> >>>Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
> >>>====
> >>>Payroll (W-2) Job Growth
> >>>
> >>>+ 112,000.
> >>
> >> Yes... this is true and definitely good news. But guess how the
> >> NYTimes is spinning it:
> >
> > There's no spinning, it *is* well below wall street forecasts. It's also
> >about 30,000 less than what's needed to offset population growth, so it's
> >actually a 30,000 worker net shortfall.
> >
> This "glass half empty" bullshit is real old. So, if the weatherman
> forecasts rain for the next day and it doesn't rain. Will you start
> yelling DROUGHT?
thank's for proving you think a drought mean's it's raining! I guess
that's wat moron republiCON"S think!
>
> If it is 30,000 less than what is needed to offset population growth,
> can you explain why did the unemployment rate go down?
>
do you know what poputation GROWTH? it mean's more people which need
more job's not less! if the rate goes down it's no good if the
population growth goe's up by the same amount even more! that mean's
less people working in my book! I hope your happy when the economy
goe's to hell in a handbasket because 4 more year's of shrub! maybe
when your unemployed you can vote democratic for a change!
George Grapman
How about a few months where job creation exceeds job losses?
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
William Graham
"Chris the Liberal" <Cogni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5d75753.04120...@posting.google.com...
I would sympathize with your point of view if you could give Bush some
advice that no one else has been able to give him to help the economy. After
all, if Alan Greenspan can't tell him what to do, then who can? - Also, the
economy started its tailspin under Clinton, so obviously, no one could tell
him what to do either. My toilet plugged up when Clinton was President, but
I knew better than to blame him for that. Why can't the Democrats use the
same logic with Bush? If the economy always did well under Democratic
presidents, then it would be a no-brainer. But, obviously, this is not the
case. The fact of the matter is, nobody knows just why the economy does/does
not do well. Stock market annalists have been trying to figure that out for
over 100 years now, and without much success.
Fred the Red Shirt
> Political Vice Squad
> http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/
>
> Unemployment Rate
>
> Down 0.1 percent, to 5.4 percent.
What would the unemployment rate be if the same method for estimating
it were is use today as in 1980?
--
FF
William Graham
"Dennis M" <den...@InfoAveObstacle.Net> wrote in message
news:dennmac-ya0240800...@NNTP.InfoAve.Net...
> In article <cywsd.442558$wV.335589@attbi_s54>, "William Graham"> This was lame Bush-apologist spin in Dec. 2001, let alone Dec. 2004.
Lame or not, it certainly is true. Why don't you guys cut to the chase and
just tell us (& Bush) exactly what you would do to improve the economy? -
Or, are you content to just complain about it as though your guy would be
able to perform some miraculous abra-cadabra and make it better?
George Grapman
> In article <cywsd.442558$wV.335589@attbi_s54>, "William Graham"
> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
Whenever anything bad happens their auto-responses are Clinton and 9/11.
DemoCrap Loser
Sounds like bullshit whine to me.
Your logic is like a Oreck. It sucks.
Why should I be unemployed. I am in a field that looks to the future,
not a field that flips burgers or manufacture buggy whips.
Population goes up, unemployment rate goes down. Go figure, Moron.
Damn, I'm in a blue state that has a lower unemployment rate way low
than the country's average.
Larry Hewitt
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cywsd.442558$wV.335589@attbi_s54...
Bush has had control of the economy for 4 years now. A typical
recession/recovery period lasts 2 years - half of the tmie Bush has had.
Thesolution to our economic problem is simple and straightforward- and
despite your assertions Greenspan _has_ outlined them in the past.
1. reduce the deficit. Greenspan is a deficit hawk and has spoken against
large deficits for years.
2. invest in infrastructure. not the massive prok projects this repuglicon
congress supports, like teaching mariachi music, the rock and roll hall of
fame, and similar, but repairing our falling down bridges, improving school
bujildings, mass transit, and other public works projects.
3. invest in the civilian economy. don;t cut finding for organizations like
the National Science Foundation, like this repuglicon congress has done, but
increase it so new innovations and technologies can move into consumer
markets.
4. invest in adult education. Don;t cut unemployment benefits and
retraining, likethis administration has done, but increase funding so laid
off workers can get new jobs.
5. work to keep financial markets stabel. Don;t let the dollar free fall.
6. establish an energy policy. simply trying to drill for more oil is not
enough.
Simple. Straightforward. Tried and true. But a political anathema to
reigtard repuglicons.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Uh, no it is not true. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
gives gdp quarterly change. There was no recession, whether or not it was
under CLinton or Bush.
Let me repeat. THERE WAS NO RECESSION. The BEA has revised it's stats,
moving the downturn futher back in time and lessening the depth of the
downturn. We had a year and a half of up and down, then back to growth -
albeit erratic growth. The worst quarter was the quarter of 9/11 - because
of the economic impact of the air travel shutdown and the loss of business
from the world trade towers. But the very next quarter gpd growth was back
up into moderate positive numbers - a full 3% gain!!.
Look further. The downturn at the end of 2002 was _worse_ than any in 2000
or 2001 - except for 9/11.
The problem with the Bush economy is twofold - it is fueled by borrowing and
it is jobless. The federal debt is staggering, as is consumer debt. The
bubble in increased income made possible from reqriting mortgages at lower
interest rates is over - in fact, rates are soon going to climb. Already
christmas retail reports are less than exciting because consumers are
unwilling to take on more debt. mAfter all, income adjusted for inflation is
_down_ since Bush took office, so there are no new wages to spend. As we are
seeing in the consumer market, when the borrowing ability of the feds is
lessened economic activity will fall.
The most telling figure, though, is the percentage of americans with a job.
This is down 1.1% over when Bush took office - despite the reported large
growth in ewmployment - not new jobs - last month.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Nah, this is all Bush. Despite the attempts to blame Clinton, the rightards
have only themselves to blame - four years is twice the average time to
recover from a recession - leta lone a slump. Aain, THERE WAS NO RECESSION.
larry
Richard Hutnik
Egads. We still aren't to that point yet? I am going with this,
because it is the base MINIMUM bar that needs to be reached.
- Richard Hutnik
T.Carr
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PIxsd.137101$V41.66861@attbi_s52...
> >
> > "Dennis M" <den...@InfoAveObstacle.Net> wrote in message
> > news:dennmac-ya0240800...@NNTP.InfoAve.Net...
> > > In article <cywsd.442558$wV.335589@attbi_s54>, "William Graham"
> > > <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Also, the economy started its tailspin under Clinton,
> > >
> > > This was lame Bush-apologist spin in Dec. 2001, let alone Dec. 2004.
> > Lame or not, it certainly is true. Why don't you guys cut to the chase and
> > just tell us (& Bush) exactly what you would do to improve the economy? -
> > Or, are you content to just complain about it as though your guy would be
> > able to perform some miraculous abra-cadabra and make it better?
> >
> >
>
> Uh, no it is not true. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
> gives gdp quarterly change. There was no recession, whether or not it was
> under CLinton or Bush.
>
> Let me repeat. THERE WAS NO RECESSION. The BEA has revised it's stats,
> moving the downturn futher back in time and lessening the depth of the
> downturn.
I dont know where you get your information from, but the people who
are responsible for determining when (and if) a recession occur
disagree with you
"The National Bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a
chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the
dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion.
The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from
a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the
most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long
expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in
November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.
A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread
across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible
in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and
wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy
reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough.
Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is
the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they
have been rare in recent decades.
On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of
economic activity had occurred in March of that year. For a discussion
of the committee's reasoning and the underlying evidence, see
http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001. The March 2001 peak marked
the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an expansion that
lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the NBER's chronology.
On July 16, 2003, the committee determined that a trough in economic
activity occurred in November 2001. The committee's announcement of
the trough is at http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003. The trough marks
the end of the recession that began in March 2001. The 2001 recession
thus lasted eight months, which is somewhat less than the average
duration of recessions since World War II. The postwar average,
excluding the 2001 recession, is eleven months.
http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
Perhaps you should contact the NBER and explain your theory
T.Carr
Larry Hewitt
Larry Hewitt
At the BEA site listed above.
A recesssion is defined as two consecutive quarters of economc contraction -
decrease in gdp. At the time - as your link says - the BEA reported a
recession. But the BEA has revised their numbers. The new figures do not
have 2 consecutive quarters of economic contraction. The new numbers shifted
the economic downturn backward into CLinton's last year, trading lower
numbers in 2000 for higher numbers in 2001.
from the BEA web site above:
2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002
2002 2002 2003 year
i II III IV I II
III IV I II III IV
I quarter
1.0 6.4 -0.5 2.1 -0.5 1.2 -1.4 1.6
3.4 2.4 1.6 0.7 1.9 % change
Notice that the economic losses were shifted backward in time from mid 2001
to 2000, and - if you can find the old figures - the negative numbers are
smaller than the original figures.
Again, note that the BEA puts most of the economic downturn in the quarter
in which the trade center was attacked, and that the economy _surged_ back
the following quarter - a 3% gain is huge.
Notice also that there was a significant drop in economic activity at the
end of 2002 and into 2003. This is well past the effects of anything Clinton
had done, and were in fact the first years that Bush's budgets started
showing a deficit.
I have been unable to find any official justifiaction for the changes, and
the changes were put in place in the last year or so. Ther were no major
announcement s that I saw. Doesn;t mean much -- if anyone reading htis sess
a linkk for the reasons for the change I'd love to see it.
In any event, Bush cannot have it both ways. In shifting the "blame" for the
weak economy backweards in time AND in changing things so there was no
recession, Bush has to take _more_ responsibility for what has happened
since.
And as the BLS says, this is a weak recovery. Thwe unemplyoment rate is
_still_ hihg for four years after a downturn. A smaller percentage of
Americans are working today than were working 4 years ago. Long term
uneployment is way up. The number of people working a part time job for
economic reasons (second job_ is way up. Segments of the workforce that used
to be safe, such as college graduates, have unemeployment rates of about
twice what they were 4 years ago. Family income adjusted for inflation is
down from 4 years ago. Most telling, Bush's job growth promises have not
been met. I cannot understand why rightards are ignoring this.
Add the significant rise in the number of people living in poverty, and the
huge increase in people with n health insurance - medical bills a re the #1
cause of personal bankruptcy - and it is pellucidly clear that this is a
hollow expansion.
Larry
George Grapman
> On 5 Dec 2004 15:10:07 -0800, richar...@hotmail.com (Richard
> or losses: If, say, 400,000 people lost their jobs last month a jobs
> number of 110,000 means 510,000 people found work. 510,000 - 400,000
> = 110,000.
> --
> Some factoids:
>
>
> 2000 2004 % Increase
> Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
> Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>
> Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>
> Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
> population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
You "forgot" to provide a cite for your numbers but I will happily
offer some:
112,000 jobs created last month
http://www.freep.com/money/business/jobs4e_20041204.htm
349,000 new jobless claims in one week:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a4TRHB4ns2TM&refer=home
William Graham
Recessions last longer than that in my experience....I am 69 years old.
>
> Thesolution to our economic problem is simple and straightforward- and
> despite your assertions Greenspan _has_ outlined them in the past.
>
> 1. reduce the deficit. Greenspan is a deficit hawk and has spoken against
> large deficits for years.
Deficits come about with presidents who do something. Bush has done
something. Clinton did nothing. You don't have to spend any money when you
don't do anything. All the Democrats want to do is steal money from me and
give it to the, "poor".
>
> 2. invest in infrastructure. not the massive prok projects this repuglicon
> congress supports, like teaching mariachi music, the rock and roll hall of
> fame, and similar, but repairing our falling down bridges, improving
> school
> bujildings, mass transit, and other public works projects.
Democrats invest in welfare. They take from the ants and give it to the
grasshoppers. They enguage in robinhoodism. I am sick of supporting the
welfare puppies. Kerry wanted a national health plan. That means he wanted
to steal money from me and give it to those who were too stupid to save for
their own health.
>
> 3. invest in the civilian economy. don;t cut finding for organizations
> like
> the National Science Foundation, like this repuglicon congress has done,
> but
> increase it so new innovations and technologies can move into consumer
> markets.
>
> 4. invest in adult education. Don;t cut unemployment benefits and
> retraining, likethis administration has done, but increase funding so laid
> off workers can get new jobs.
>
> 5. work to keep financial markets stabel. Don;t let the dollar free fall.
If double taxing my dividends is "working to keep financial markets
stabel".........
>
> 6. establish an energy policy. simply trying to drill for more oil is not
> enough.
Yes.....Like nuclear power? - Come on! - Who do you think has been opposed
to that for the last 50 years?
William Graham
second world war. It is still necessary whenever there is some large expense
to cover. Iraq and the war on terror is such an expense. But at least Bush
is doing something, and not just talking about it, as every other president
has done for the last thirty years......
William Graham
When you figure out how to recover from a recession, please tell Bush, and
me about it. I'm sure we would like to know.......
William Graham
15th and giving it to the welfare puppies. That's the traditional Democratic
way out. Buy votes with my money, by promising two chickens in every pot.
Thank God they didn't buy Kerry's promise of free government health
care.....Maybe the voting population is getting a little smarter........