Already did, on my way home from work.
actually, unemployment has decreased somewhat. That is if you don't want to count the father of four trying to make ends meet by working 3 shifts at the local McDonald's for minimum wage. GWB's not responsible for the extra jobs, either...the food/grocery/retail chains are.
I don't care who runs against him -- I just want him out of the White House before he decides to use the Constitution as toilet paper...oh, wait...he's already done that, hasn't he?
He's decided to. It's up to us to keep him from carrying out that plan.
agreed. He needs to be removed from power and someone with half a brain put in.
Dude. Assembling a burger is not equivalent to manufacturing a durable good. Of course, I'm still pissed at economists counting in terms of the numbers of jobs and claiming progress because people who were making $45k/yr as professionals before the crash can now get service jobs for $6/hr. Quality counts, people. (Also, even the Labor Dept admits that the unemployment numbers are lower than the people out of work, simply because so many people have either stopped looking or dropped off the figures when their unemployment checks ran out. Assuming they ever qualified for them, which a lot of people didn't.)
I voted! I have a sticker and everything. ^_^ I'm terribly proud of myself.
Exactly. But you can make it LOOK better by playing thes games.
Good for you!
I love how the arguement changes, first it's look how many jobs we've lost, then it turns out that we've actually gained jobs since Bush got in office, now it's look at the status of jobs that we have.
Fact is that our unemployment rate is lower than it was in the 80s and lower than, or equal to what it was in the 90s. Yes, some of the jobs we have make less money, but then again, isn't that what all of you socialists wanted when people were getting rich off of Enron, Worldcom, and the tech stock bubble? First it was oh my god, the corporate whores are getting rich, now it's oh my god, the corporate whores have to work at McDonalds.
Say it how it is. You hate George W. Bush. Fine, but admit it's because of your own personal issues and not with his policies which are making this a better country as each day goes by.
I said it before, I'll say it again.
Bush has turned the economy around from the recession that Clinton left us in. Through 2 wars and a terrorist attack, we are still doing better than we were when Clinton left.
Viva la Bush.
So who's vote am I cancelling out in November?
Oh, please. The Republicans are just as bad, if not worse. If the economy goes up during a dem's time in office, it's only because the presidency doesn't really effect the economy, but if it goes up during a republican's term it's all his masterful handling of the economy. Likewise, a downturn during a Republican term is blamed on the democrats who came before him but an upturn is all his own doing.
The truth is that the economy goes in cycles that can be affected by the presidency, but are not wholly dependent upon it. I didn't blame Bush for the economic downturn - it was a necessary correction and would have happened no matter who was president. Likewise, I don't think it is due to his genius that the economy is making a recovery.
I do object to the ugly disingenuity of playing "hide the ball" in the way suggested - that's a bald lie, and I would be howling no matter who did it (I didn't have a journal back during the Clinton years, but believe me when I tell you that I had some harsh things to say about some of his stances, too).
If you are willing to ignore George senior's arrogant "read my hips" and the political chicanery being suggested now, then you political integrity may need some re-examination. I'm just looking for honesty. I'll freely admit the places where Reagan did good things - the fall of communism, for example. Can you even consider doing likewise?
Market corrections do happen, it's always been that way and it always will be. Believe it or not, I don't blame the recession on Clinton, it just happened to fall on his watch. I blame it on the tech bubble. Companies merged, people lost jobs, industries moved. It wasn't anymore Clintons fault than the ending of the gold rush was for whomever was president at that time.
Yes, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, such as Clinton helping to pass welfare reform in his second term when he figured out that without giving in a little bit he wasn't going to be able to get anything done. It's the same way that Bush has given in, in order to get perscription drug and medicare reform through.
Bush Sr. was duped into the no new taxes pledge, it was a bad idea and I cringed when it happened. The democrats in California tried to get Arnold to make the same pledge in our latest election, but he learned from Sr. mistake and refused to bite the bait.
I was just looking on the NYT website for the article and was unable to find it, but I'm sure, just like 99% of everything else in the NYT, it's all partisan dribble and pretty much has no basis in reality.
Here's the link to the article
I think in many ways we aren't as far apart from each other in what we want for our end goals as would initially be assumed. I am peachy with Bill Gates and others making oddles of money, and have no desire whatsoever to prevent that - short of allowing a wholesale shipping of decent jobs to cheap labor overseas. I believe that everyone should be given an opportunity to strive to do his or her best without prejudice or governmental roadblocks, but I don't believe that the government is personally responsibile for making sure that every person chooses wisely.
"even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing."
Ok, I'm not sure if we're looking at a loophole, or hide the ball or what, but if a bakery or a candy store is a manufacturing job, I'm not sure how Assembling a burger isn't.
This kind of brings me back to Mr. Pinks tipping speech at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs... why do you tip waitresses, but not the people at McDonalds who bring you your food? They're doing the same thing, so who decides who gets tipped and who gets screwed?
As for your last comment about not letting the government be responsible for making everyone choose wisely, now you're looking at it from the same side as me, but I'm looking at it in respect to taxes and such. They don't need to take my money and give it to others that don't know how to get a better job and get off welfare. It doesn't matter how much money you make, there should be a flat tax and leave it at that. If you make a billion dollars a year, you should pay 10% taxes, if youo make 13 thousand a year, you should pay 10% taxes. It's as easy as that.
In the end, I think you're right, we seem to have similar goals, but very different ways that we think the country needs to take to get there.
Of course if you did the flat 10% you would have to take out all the loop holes the rich people flee through to pay less taxes.
And you also have to account for all the people working a two jobs at wal mart and live below the poverty line anyway let alone with a flat 10%.
And if we were talking about a real flat tax rate it would have to be closer to 25 or 30%.
The flat real number of jobs is not the issue. Hell I can't even find any unbiased information on it. The question is how many middle class jobs have left and been filled with McJobs. A job isn't worth a damn if you can't live off of it. Also how many of those "employed" took a huge pay cut, or are now working part time instead of full time.
I'm looking around at everyone I know and I'm not seeing the job market improving. Maybe I just know a bunch of unlucky people, but I don't think so.
Food service in general and traditionally has not been considered "manufacturing," so even if one could make this rather spurious argument, the fact is that it would cause an artificial boost to the number of manufacturing jobs.
The problem with a flat tax is that the ratio of what 10% means to the billionaire and what 10% means to the guy making $13,000 a year are dramatically different. I'm not one of those who wants a 50% rate on the rich in any way, but I do think that a simple two- or three-tier rate system that takes into account those dramatic differences and takes out a lot of the other compications would be great.
The other problem is that not everyone starts from a level playing field in terms of intelligence, education, family background, etc. True Darwinian economics wouldn't take that fact into consideration, but the fact that we do is what separates us from a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog existence - great if you're the guy on top, not so hot if you're the child of parents who aren't.
I know that people can crawl up from poverty - my sibilings, with one exception, have all done it pretty successfully. We have an average I.Q., however, of about 130, so even though we were disadvantaged in one way we have other advantages that a lot of people lack. Pretending that such things don't make a difference is just refusing to actually deal with the problem.
Bush has turned the economy around from the recession that Clinton left us in.
But you're also missing the mark in ignoring the budget surplus that Clinton left us in is now an extreme deficit.
One of the other things about the "lower unemployment" figure is that most of the statistics that are being called up are flawed because of three things:
1. The length of unemployment payments so people can stay on unemployment longer.
2. Low income and minimum wage jobs are booming. Sure, people are working, but the net income per capita has fallen drastically. It's unrealistic to think that even with both parents working at a minimum wage position they can raise a family of four with all of the luxuries that we take for granted.
3. The figures that I personally have seen are based on new
claims filed, not currently active ones. Because of #1
, these figures are extremely skewed.
[shrug] Looks like you'll be "canceling" my vote out. For the record I don't "hate" him personally. I hate the fact that he is a puppet president who is forcing religion into government practices...including the war in Iraq. So, I do hate his policies and not the man behind them.
okay, let me preface this by saying that I haven't had time to research the accuracy personally on the following website. Be that as it may check out this link regarding the unemployment/budget/stock market/equities/etc
Again, I have not personally verified that the information is 100% accurate -- if you can disprove the results, please feel free.