PhillyKev 0 #1 October 8, 2004 Job Growth Weaker Than Expected QuoteAs a result after including the projected change [in Bush's favor], it appears that about 585,000 jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in January 2001. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #2 October 8, 2004 QuoteJob Growth Weaker Than Expected QuoteAs a result after including the projected change [in Bush's favor], it appears that about 585,000 jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in January 2001. First president since the Depression to have presided over a net loss of jobs in the USA. I suppose it's good to be first in something.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #3 October 8, 2004 No problem. The Bush/Cheney team will describe it as a victory for their side. "We're adding jobs and putting people back to work, as shown by this report!" See how easy that was? If you can claim that a report that says Iraq had no WMD's supports your case for war, you can claim anything about anything. Report on increasing terrorism? We're winning the war on terror by increasing the number of targets to go after! Massive deficit? We're providing a reason for our well-educated children to work hard! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #4 October 8, 2004 even more bad news for Mr Bush.. QuoteThursday, conservative activist Joel Rosenberg -- citing a new Zogby poll that shows strong hostility to Bush among uncommitted voters -- warned that "Republicans could be in for a horrific surprise on November 2." Source I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 October 8, 2004 Yes, it will be very interesting to see how Bush handles questions from Kerry supporters since we know how he reacts to even his closest allies and party members when they question his actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #6 October 8, 2004 Here is a link for the generally-liberal St Pete Times. Neither candidate has an answer to offshoring of jobs. That is the source of the job losses. As the better-paying manufacturing jobs leave, those former employees will not purchase other products, resulting in further unemployement. I saw this happen in Tampa. QuoteThat's the kind of desperate feeling Ohio is experiencing with an ongoing loss of 237,000 jobs - especially more than 137,000 of its prized manufacturing jobs that have fallen to foreign competition - in the past four years. QuoteTruth is, experts wrestling with the drain of Ohio's manufacturing base are not sure any president can do a whole lot to stem the tide. But they certainly know the past four years of trade agreements and foreign competition have been devastating. They doubt four more years of the Bush administration will bring any new relief. And they are not sure if a Kerry administration, while willing to review trade agreements for fairness and perhaps provide more financial support for manufacturing, can do anything but slow the powerful pull of jobs migrating overseas to cheaper labor. Quote Not that global competition got the slightest attention from Cheney or Edwards on Tuesday or, for that matter, from Bush or Kerry when the presidential candidates debated foreign matters last week. QuoteJohn Colm, director of a regional business assistance group called WireNet, gave examples of small area companies that made components for vacuum cleaners, steel wire mesh and paper tubes used in painting that had been knocked out by Chinese competition. In a chilling comparison, Colm said China could sell a final product for less than the U.S. manufacturer could buy the raw materials needed just to make that product. QuoteFlorida also faces similar outsourcing pressures on service jobs, and the Tampa Bay area has seen a steady flow of similar jobs lost to foreign countries in recent times with offshore relocations by Capitol One and Sykes Enterprises. This didn't start with Bush: QuoteOhio's problems were not caused by the Bush administration, WireNet's Colm said. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as well as China joining the World Trade Organization - two major global trading events - happened during the Clinton administration. But, Colm added, the Bush administration has offered little to counter the loss of jobs overseas, and on trade matters often sides with foreign importers. QuoteOhio - and the United States - is in danger of losing what he called its innovation infrastructure. The idea that we will have a spirit of innovative engineering when the economy returns is misleading, he warned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 October 8, 2004 Yep, Clinton sold out economically. Still can't understand why everyone brands him as a liberal when he was pretty much moderate and down right republican in some regards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #8 October 8, 2004 QuoteYep, Clinton sold out economically. Still can't understand why everyone brands him as a liberal when he was pretty much moderate and down right republican in some regards. Your title "Bad news for Bush" is based on the fact that most voters don't understand that Bush (or Clinton or Kerry) cannot control the economic downturn. It wasn't started by this president or the last. It is caused by market forces. The US is losing in the global economy. Presidential (Bush or Kerry) policies will have no effect. Not to redirect the discussion, but my worry is that Kerry is like Clinton in his foreign policies and attitudes towards the UN. There are enough similarities to make it worrisome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #9 October 8, 2004 QuoteYep, Clinton sold out economically. Still can't understand why everyone brands him as a liberal when he was pretty much moderate and down right republican in some regards. You mean, the boss gets BJs from the help?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 October 8, 2004 QuoteYour title "Bad news for Bush" is based on the fact that most voters don't understand that Bush (or Clinton or Kerry) cannot control the economic downturn. It wasn't started by this president or the last. It is caused by market forces. The US is losing in the global economy. Presidential (Bush or Kerry) policies will have no effect. Still bad new for Bush. Considering his campaign manager said yesterday, "We're looking forward to a favorable jobs report tomorrow to bolster the President's position prior to the debate." Whoops, jobs report not favorable. Bad news for Bush. not to mention the half a million plus extra people out of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #11 October 8, 2004 QuoteYou mean, the boss gets BJs from the help? I need to vote more. I believe that the jobs lost are lost because of offshoring. That is the primary economic problem. Does anyone believe that Kerry or Bush can stop it? If so, then that candidate has an economic plan. If not, then they should both shut up and go home. Neither is better than the other. Oh, and saying that you have a "secret plan" doesn't make it so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #12 October 8, 2004 I sure wouldn't want to win this election. You'd become known as the president during the 2nd Great Depression. Do you believe that Kerry can improve the economy? Restore jobs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #13 October 8, 2004 Quote Oh, and saying that you have a "secret plan" doesn't make it so. Oh, memories of Nixon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 October 8, 2004 QuoteDo you believe that Kerry can improve the economy? Restore jobs? Yes, I do. He can pressure the Chinese to stop artificually devaluing their currency. He can start enforcing existing trade agreements. He can stop giving corporations tax incentives to outsource. All things that Bush has failed to do because they provide short term benefits to corporations. That's why the stock market has risen as wages have fallen and debt has increased. Here's a free stock tip for everyone from my boss the chair of the board for the International Certified Financial Analysts who manages the number 4 performing mutual fund in the country (per WSJ two days ago) and his partner, a PhD from Harvard Business School (who got A's, not C's and her profs aren't writing her letters telling her to change her ways.).... ...The US stock market is currently artifically overvalued and a correction is in the near future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 October 8, 2004 I think this is pretty accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #16 October 8, 2004 QuoteFirst president since the Depression to have presided over a net loss of jobs in the USA. Click Here At the end there's a great line that reads, "Comparing the Bush economy to Hoover's Great Depression is just silly, and implying that tax cuts are not contributing to job growth deserves an "F" in Freshman economics. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #17 October 8, 2004 Quoteimplying that tax cuts are not contributing to job growth deserves an "F" in Freshman economics. So 50 professors from Harvard School of Business deserve F's in Freshman economics? What does that say about Bush since he got C's in their classes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
