Quote is from an article about lackluster job creation- but I thought this quote interesting.


"If the campaign is on the three Gs -- God, gays and guns -- Bush wins. If the focus is on the four Es -- economy, employment, education, environment -- he loses," he said.


Voters have no doubt where the focus should be said pollster John Zogby. Poll after poll says the number one issue is jobs, with health care in second place. "


Is it G or E for you?

For me its E. I agree with the quote, pretty darn closely.

should be about the "e's" obviously. But since the quote is pretty accurate, is it any surprise there's been so much fuss about gays and religion lately? He's pandering.

I dont know about everyone else, but I prefer T and A over G and or E. :D

What is wrong with Employment?

Its growing at a steady pace.

Whats wrong the economy?

Its chugging right along.


The environment is hardly the leading issue. Take it off the table.


Whoever said made that statement is wrong. THe Democrats are trying to paint a picture of a poor economy and poor unemployment but the numbers, or should I say, THE FACTS demonstrate that they are wrong and lying.

The economy is continuing its excellent growth. You guys are in denial and just refuse to accept how well the economy is doing.
Just because you say it, or Kerry says it, it does not make it so.
Look at the facts on your own.
By the numbers;
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51230



Bush wins on everything, G's and E's and I challenege anyone to take me on regarding employment or the economy.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign argument that "America is turning the corner" under his leadership suffered a setback on Friday with a report that the labor market mustered only 21,000 new jobs last month, far fewer than anticipated

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040305/pl_nm/campaign_bush_economy_dc_1



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With each successive disappointing monthly jobs report, George W. Bush's credibility comes under new scrutiny, but the president may be a victim of powerful economic forces far beyond his control.




News that the economy only produced 21,000 jobs last month was the latest strand of evidence that the new, global economy may be operating differently than in the past.


Economic growth remains healthy, corporate profitability is high, productivity is growing, inflation and interest rates are low. In the past, that combination of factors would have been enough to produce healthy job growth -- but not in 2004, at least not yet.


"Clearly we are facing a new economic paradigm and the longer this lasts, the more difficult life is going to be for Bush as he faces the Nov. 2 election," said David Birdsell, a political scientist at Baruch College in New York.


"He cannot keep making assertions that are contradicted by the facts. The voters will not listen," he said.


The economy's failure to produce new jobs -- it has generated fewer than 300,000 since Bush's latest massive tax cuts took effect last summer -- are clearly a surprise to the White House and many economists alike.


As recently as last month, a White House economic report predicted employment this year would average 2.6 million jobs above last year. The prediction now looks hopelessly optimistic but Bush continues to insist that a jobs recovery is just around the corner.


Signing the tax cut bill last May 28, Bush said: "Increased hiring happens gradually, but we're on the path to greater job creation across this country. We know that tax relief is going to help this economy because it has done so in the past."


It has, but that was before the Internet and other technological advances dramatically increased productivity and allowed work that could previously only be done at home to be exported to Mexico, China, India, Vietnam -- virtually anywhere with a high-speed telephone network.


'RECKLESS PLEDGES'


"The administration has been reckless with its pledges of job growth and Bush now has a serious credibility problem," said Greg Valliere, of Schwab Soundview Capital Markets.


Like his father, former President George Bush, who was turned out of office in 1992, the younger Bush is now at risk of seeming disconnected from reality if he continues arguing that things are getting better and the tax cuts are working, Valliere said.


"The story driving everything is that companies are doing more with fewer workers and that jobs are going overseas. Bush needs to at least acknowledge that and show some empathy for people caught up in that process," he said.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040305/pl_nm/bush_jobs_credibility_dc&e=4&ncid=

So, the point of the story is.

The economy is growing, employment is growing.

Thank you for confirming my assertions.

i guess you can spin it any way you want, JOBS are not recovering like Bush pledged.

Definetely E over G...

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
i guess you can spin it any way you want, JOBS are not recovering like Bush pledged.


OK. So now the argument has changed.
Fine.
Lets deal with this argument.

Indeed, jobs have not grown as fast as anticipated. Probably due to a combination of things like it being that we are already at a low unemployment level, its election year, national security worries, and a changing global economy.

You do understand also that our unemployment is low right now, don't you?
It is at a point right now that is lower than the average of the last 3 decades so adding jobs in almost a "fully employed" country as it is defined (4% unemployment) means that it is probably going to add jobs slower.

It would be interesting to find out what the job growth was when unemployment was at this level in the 90's to compare the rate of growth.

Not a change of subject EMPLOYMENT = JOBS

And that is what other people are worried about. Glad I don't have to be out there looking for a job.





"The unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent, the Labor Department said Friday. Read the full release.

Payrolls have risen for six months in a row, but job growth has been tepid, averaging 61,000 a month, about half of what's needed just to stay even with population growth. The White House estimated in early February that payrolls would grow by 3 percent this year, or about 300,000 a month.

...............
Economists had expected February payrolls to rise 130,000, according to a survey conducted by CBS MarketWatch. See Economic Calendar. Traders in the economic derivatives market run by Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and ICAP were looking for a gain of about 140,000. See full story.

"We see nothing redeeming in this report," said Drew Matus, an economist for Lehman Brothers. "This is another terribly dreary number," said Bill Cheney, chief economist for John Hancock Financial.

"Yuck," said Joshua Shapiro, chief economist for MFR.

..................

Private-sector payrolls were flat in February, with government agencies accounting for 21,000 new jobs.

Manufacturing lost 3,000 jobs, the 43rd straight month of declining employment, but the smallest loss since July 2000. Services added 46,000 jobs, including 13,000 in retail. Temporary help services added 32,000 jobs. Construction lost 24,000 jobs, perhaps because the weather was bad in many regions during the survey week.

Of 278 industries, 49.1 percent added to payrolls in February, down from 51.1 percent in January. Of 84 manufacturing industries, 45.8 percent added jobs in February.

Average hours worked in the economy fell 0.1 percent. The average workweek held steady at 33.8 hours. Hours worked in manufacturing rose a tenth of an hour to 41 hours.

Average hourly wages rose 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $15.52. Wages are up 1.6 percent in the past 12 months, the slowest growth since late 1986.

The Federal Reserve has signaled that it will not consider raising its interest rate target until idle resources, especially workers, are put back into productive use.

The unanswered question is just how strong payroll growth has to be to make the Fed feel comfortable.

"Clearly there are few intentions of big business to hire new workers," said Richard Yamarone, head of research for Argus Research. "New hiring and greater job creation isn't in the cards, and probably won¹t be for several months."

The household survey showed the labor force fell by 392,000 in February, with 265,000 fewer employed and 127,000 fewer unemployed. The labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent from 66 percent.

Of the 8.2 million people classified as unemployed, 1.87 million, or 22.9 percent, have been out of work longer than six months. The average duration of unemployment rose to 20.3 weeks, the highest in 20 years.

Long-term unemployment has been unusually harsh during this recovery. Older and more educated workers have seen the greatest increases in long-term unemployment.


I can't seem to get a link to the full article to work.. This story is on cbs.marketwatch.com in the economics and politics section


And on another front

Debt grows at fastest pace in 15 years

By Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 6:01 PM ET March 4, 2004



Borrowing by U.S. households, business and governments increased 8.1 percent in 2003, a percentage point faster than in 2002 and the largest increase since 1988, the Federal Reserve reported Thursday.



Borrowing slowed in the fourth quarter to a 6.6 percent annual rate, down from 7 percent in the third quarter and 11.3 percent in the second quarter.

About a quarter of the lending in 2003 was by foreigners, who increased their share of total outstanding loans from 9.9 percent to 10.9 percent. Foreigners bought a record 69 percent of net Treasury borrowing and 42 percent of corporate borrowing.

The federal government and households led the way in taking on debt. Household debt grew 10.4 percent in 2003, the biggest increase since 1987. Federal debt increased 10.9 percent, the most in 11 years.

By contrast, U.S. companies increased their debt by 3.9 percent. Corporate debt increased 3 percent.

Link (http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={2DE12828-11E9-4251-9296-A992C4AC4A03**&siteid=myyahoo&dist=myyahoomore&archive=true)


http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?siteid=myyahoo&dist=myyahoomore&guid=%7B33363445%2D979F%2D46FC%2D855C%2DF5115AC762 07%7D

Once again, unemployment is a historical low levels. This is largely a manufactured issue that some people buy into.

February 29, 2004
IT'S ALL RELATIVE

Is 5.6 percent a low figure, or a high one? Depends. If only 5.6 percent of hamburgers are discovered to contain meat, that’s way low. But if 5.6 percent of teachers are using their students as drug mules in elaborate Asian heroin importing schemes, that’s sort of high.


We’re comparing apples and oranges here. Or junkies and burgers. What if we compare similar or identical figures on the same subject, and from the same source?


Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached:

"Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990. "


So 5.6 percent is “already-low”. Now here’s CNN in December 2001:

"The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy. "


Can you “jump” to a figure 0.1 percent above that already defined as “low”? More from CNN, this time in March 2002:

"The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent in February and businesses added jobs for the first time since last summer, the government said Friday, as the labor market began to recover from a downturn that led to more than a million job cuts in 2001.


The jobless rate fell from 5.6 percent in January as employers added 66,000 jobs to payrolls ..."




That should read “fell from an already-low 5.6 percent in January”, surely. In January, CNN’s Mark Gongloff decided that an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent was bad news for Bush:

"Though the unemployment rate posted a surprising decline, and many economists believe the job market will improve in 2004, Friday's report probably will keep Fed policy-makers on hold and may put some political pressure on President Bush.


A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches."




Gongloff repeated his line about Bush’s election chances earlier this month when a familiar number appeared:

"The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since January 2002, from 5.7 percent in December.


A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches."

Why? It didn’t for Clinton.
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006086.php


Payrolls have risen for six months in a row, but job growth has been tepid, averaging 61,000 a month, about half of what's needed just to stay even with population growth. The White House estimated in early February that payrolls would grow by 3 percent this year, or about 300,000 a month.


I wonder if this type of nonsense was written about in 1995 when unemployment didn't change more than 1 tenth of a percent. Was the press clammoring about high unemployment rates? No. Were they clammoring because it hadn't moved? No.
What were they doing? They were hailing the LOW unemployment rates. The press is now playing a willing part with the Democrats in manufacturing an issue right now.

In Jan 95 it was 5.6, in Dec 95 it was 5.6. In fact it hovered around 5.6 for about 18 months!

Go here, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls check Unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted


In fact, the facts are that a lot of jobs have been created under Bush that don't even show up on the unemployment numbers.

Go here, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls check Civilian Employment, seasonally adjusted.



Seems we have competing views of optimism or doom and gloom.
America will side with the optimism if they know the facts.

In fact, forget the E's vs G's, make it O's vs D&G's.

DOOM AND GLOOM

Of course, you are a Democrat. Things suddenly become perfect when a Democrat is in office.

Whats wrong the economy?

500+ Billion trade deficit
500+ Billion Federal Budget deficit ( not to mention the state deficits)

7 trillion + federal debt

3 million Jobs lost

Manufacturing sector loses jobs for the 43rd month in a row ( oh but the bush whitehouse wonders if McDonalds isnt a manufacturing job)

Social Security system about to implode

Outsourcing rampant

5-17% tariff on American goods in Europe due to US failure to comply with WTO ruling 2 year running.

A collective federal and State balance sheet that would place a private company into bankrupcy.

Thats just a few of the problems you could add increased growth in size of Govenment.

Yes. You usually will get deficits when there is a recession and war going on.

Fortunately the best way to get out of that is to grow the economy and make that debt a small portion of our GDP.

I am not going to make excuses though, I find Bush's level of spending appalling and misguided in most areas.
Although we must not kid ourselves, we all know that a Democrat would've spent at least the same, if not more.
Listen to them complain about education for example. Bush has increased education funding more than any President, yet its still not enough.

3 million Jobs lost

That is absolute BS. Prove that figure.

In the process please take a look here from my above post;
Go here, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls check Unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted


In fact, the facts are that a lot of jobs have been created under Bush that don't even show up on the unemployment numbers.

Go here, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls check Civilian Employment, seasonally adjusted.

Social Security system about to implode

When?

Outsourcing rampant

So? look at how low unemployment is.

A collective federal and State balance sheet that would place a private company into bankrupcy.


Yes. How do we fix that?

Bill your understanding of economics and how unemployment is figured is fundamentally flawed.

Population Survey – monthly survey of 60,000 people for job information
Not Working Age
Working-Age Population – people 16 and over who are not institutionalized
Labor Force
Unemployed – available for work and
1. effort to find job in previous 4 weeks
2. waiting to be called back to a laid off job
3. Waiting to start a new job within 30 days
Employed – have a fulltime or part time job
Not Labor Force – working age population who meet none of the above


1. Many peolpe who are leaving college, expecting to enter the job market, have elected not to, instead, they are taking time off or continuing education. This is not their FIRST option (for many of them) but rather a response to the horrible job climate. They are not included in the unemployment rate, even if they'd like a fulltime job. I have a few friends who have graduated nearly a year ago, in this boat.

2. People working part time, are considered fully employed. I know at least 2 people, who are still looking for full time jobs, but are instead working part time, to make ends meet. They are not counted as unemployed, even though they do not have a sustainable fulltime job.

3. Peolpe in jobs that they do not want. People who may take a fulltime retail job or a job which pays far less than their 'expected market value' are not considered against the unemployment numbers, even if they are actively seeking another job.

Further, your usage of full employment is fataly flawed. 4% is a theoretical number, set in the 60s by economists. It depends on the status of the economy it is not a 'set number.'

Types of Unemployment
Frictional – arises from normal labor turnover – standard movement of labor
Structural – changes in technology or international competition – longer
Cyclical – Fluctuating over the business cycle – increases during recession
Full Employment – no cyclical unemployment – natural rate of unemployment

At this stage of our business cycle, frictional and structural unemployment is fairly low, because we are before 'new' grads are entering the market, and we've adapted to the market conditions. Cyclical employment is very high, right now, however, due to layoffs, jobs moving overseas, and a slow creation of new jobs.

Bill your understanding of economics and how unemployment is figured is fundamentally flawed.

LOL. Please.

Population Survey – monthly survey of 60,000 people for job information
Not Working Age
Working-Age Population – people 16 and over who are not institutionalized
Labor Force
Unemployed – available for work and
1. effort to find job in previous 4 weeks
2. waiting to be called back to a laid off job
3. Waiting to start a new job within 30 days
Employed – have a fulltime or part time job
Not Labor Force – working age population who meet none of the above


1. Many peolpe who are leaving college, expecting to enter the job market, have elected not to, instead, they are taking time off or continuing education. This is not their FIRST option (for many of them) but rather a response to the horrible job climate. They are not included in the unemployment rate, even if they'd like a fulltime job. I have a few friends who have graduated nearly a year ago, in this boat.

2. People working part time, are considered fully employed. I know at least 2 people, who are still looking for full time jobs, but are instead working part time, to make ends meet. They are not counted as unemployed, even though they do not have a sustainable fulltime job.

3. Peolpe in jobs that they do not want. People who may take a fulltime retail job or a job which pays far less than their 'expected market value' are not considered against the unemployment numbers, even if they are actively seeking another job.

Further, your usage of full employment is fataly flawed. 4% is a theoretical number, set in the 60s by economists. It depends on the status of the economy it is not a 'set number.'

Types of Unemployment
Frictional – arises from normal labor turnover – standard movement of labor
Structural – changes in technology or international competition – longer
Cyclical – Fluctuating over the business cycle – increases during recession
Full Employment – no cyclical unemployment – natural rate of unemployment

At this stage of our business cycle, frictional and structural unemployment is fairly low, because we are before 'new' grads are entering the market, and we've adapted to the market conditions. Cyclical employment is very high, right now, however, due to layoffs, jobs moving overseas, and a slow creation of new jobs.

I fully understand all of this.
None of it really matters in the end though, unemployment is low, which is the important factor.
Unemployment is right now at historical low levels and is dropping continually.
You can attempt to parse and separate but its strange how this was never done during the glory years, was it? Nobody was questioning the "types" of jobs being created, nodoby was questioning the "outsourcing". Suddenly its all an issue. Why suddenly now?

Some people are looking for bad news and will go to any lengths to find it or find ways to try to diminish good news.

Total employment was down in February to 138.3 million, and the employment-
population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and older with jobs--
declined to 62.2 percent. The ratio was at or near that level for most of
2003. Over the month, the civilian labor force decreased by 392,000 to 146.5
million, and the labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent. (See
table A-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

From the horses mouth.

If you look, last month, the labor force had a significant decrease and a significant decrease in the number of people who were working.

These people who voluntarily (not neccessarily happy with it) leaving the labor force are NOT counted in unemployment statistics. Unemployment is UNDERSTATED right now.

Looking at all the data, however, it seems to be little change/improvement over a year ago, in the labor marekt.

How can it be significant when it is well within the averages of the past year? In fact, it is somewhere between Nov 03 and Dec 03.

I don't think there is any dispute that this is a slow process. Again, I point to the fact that the unemployment numbers hovered at 5.6 for 18 months around 1995.
We cannot expect huge jumps when the overally number is already low.


CPI:
+0.5% in Jan 2004

Unemployment Rate:
5.6% in Feb 2004

Payroll Employment:
+21,000(p) in Feb 2004

Average Hourly Earnings:
+$0.03(p) in Feb 2004

PPI:
+0.3%(p) in Dec 2003

ECI:
+0.7% in 4th Qtr of 2003

Productivity:
+2.6% in 4th Qtr of 2003

U.S. Import Price Index:
+1.3% in Jan 2004

So you're saying we're making good headway, because we're 'on par' with the last year, which is a historically horrible year for employment?

How do you figure 6% unemployment is horrible?

Go look at the numbers, year by year. Its low. You keep using words like significant and horrible but they are without any merit.

Your lack of perspective is troubling.

Horrible would be hovering around 8-10% and considering we had a recession and a terrorist attack it is frankly amazing that we are not around 8%.

The fact is that all the economic numbers are and have been heading in the right direction.
Employment, which is always the lagging number, is sputtering along, slower than expected, as it did when it was at the same rate from late 94 through the 3rd quarter of 96 when it hovered at the same percentage for 18 months.

PB,

I think you may be overlooking one significant point. Yes unemployment maybe 'low' by some standards. But if you look at what the percentages really mean in terms of PEOPLE

consider this

civilians unemployed = UE rate * Employed / (1-UE rate) roughly


Jan 2000 UE rate 4% Civilians employed 136,651,000 Civilians unemployed 5,690,000 ( roughly)

Jan 2001 UE rate 4.2 Civilains employed 137,790,000 Civilains unemployed 5,753,000 ( roughly))

Jan 2002 UE rate 5.6 Civilians employed 135,715,000 Civilians unemployed 8,050,000 ( roughly))

Jan 2003 UE rate 5.8 Civilians employed 137,447,000 Civilians unemployed 8,462,000 ( roughly)

Jan 2004 UE rate 5.6 Civilains employed 138,566,000 Civilians unemployed 8,220,000 (roughly)

The approximately 2.5 million people that lost and/or were unable to obtain jobs between 2000 and 2004 is what the issue is.


Now anyone with an ounce of sense knows this is not all Bush's fault and maybe not much of it is his fault.

Maybe in the past tax cuts have done the trick for producing job growth. Its not working very well right now.

In the meantime his spouting that the economy is strong does not show a very 'compassionate' conservative to people who are out of work. Hip-hooraying over 2 jobs like he did in California SEEMS insensitive to those struggling.

I am no economic wizard so I don't know what the solution might be but a tad more empathetic talk rather than boasting about what he has done might make a difference in how he is perceived.

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
Quote is from an article about lackluster job creation- but I thought this quote interesting.


"If the campaign is on the three Gs -- God, gays and guns -- Bush wins. If the focus is on the four Es -- economy, employment, education, environment -- he loses," he said.


Voters have no doubt where the focus should be said pollster John Zogby. Poll after poll says the number one issue is jobs, with health care in second place. "


Is it G or E for you?

I don't understand this. Under Bush spending on education is WAY up. The economy is also doing great. The fearmongering over exporting jobs is just that. I just read an article in the economist that says the amount of high-tech jobs going over seas is tiny, a fraction of a percent, and alot less than those being created. Employment is a lagging indicator, and the unemplyment rate now isn't even high, its average. Under Carter it was 7.5%. The economy is NOT losing jobs- they are being created at a pace of about 100,000 per month. The recession Clinton started is OVER because of Bush's policies, and most of the tech jobs that were lost under Bush's watch were because of the bubble bursting under clinton.

The only reason people have this idea that the economy is in such bad shape is because of the propaganda spread by the Kerry Campaign and the Leftist media. All my friends got jobs right out of college. No problems at all. In fact, they have all been getting regular raises.

Its the unions that are pushing for Kerry, and they're just going to end up getting screwed anyway because, well, thats the future. Manufacturing just cannot compete in the US- that is intensive labor manufacturing. No country can be good at everything. Comparative advantage, eh? Society must move on and adapt.

Whats really sad is that if Kerry gets in, he'll raise taxes and destroy the economy just when its about to make a full recovery.

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily


civilians unemployed = UE rate * Employed / (1-UE rate) roughly


Jan 2000 UE rate 4% Civilians employed 136,651,000 Civilians unemployed 5,690,000 ( roughly)

Jan 2001 UE rate 4.2 Civilains employed 137,790,000 Civilains unemployed 5,753,000 ( roughly))

Jan 2002 UE rate 5.6 Civilians employed 135,715,000 Civilians unemployed 8,050,000 ( roughly))

Jan 2003 UE rate 5.8 Civilians employed 137,447,000 Civilians unemployed 8,462,000 ( roughly)

Jan 2004 UE rate 5.6 Civilains employed 138,566,000 Civilians unemployed 8,220,000 (roughly)
.

Look at the years there. The #1 reason for the increase is the dot com bust under Clinton, which released an enormous amount of jobs, as well as the 9/11 attacks which hurt the economy. The economy is getting back on track. Jobs are not being exported. You will see that rate drop in the next few months.

SimoneAsLily;

Well the internet demons got me. I had a response all typed out and whoosh, away it went. LOL. I'll just do a short version.


Anyways. I understand what you are saying about the "people" part of it. Frankly I don't know how you can misconstrue the President saying that he will not be satisfied until every person that wants a job has a job.

Sometimes we tend to overlook the personal side of things when we get into the numbers and such but it does not mean it is forgotten. I don't want to see anyone suffer and I believe that our economy is the best, most resiliant, and always getting better in terms of inventing new jobs while exporting the old ones. What can I tell you, I am an optimist in this regard.


Now anyone with an ounce of sense knows this is not all Bush's fault and maybe not much of it is his fault.

Honesty is refreshing to see.

The lawsuit against Microsoft started it all, then dot con bust and 9/11 all had big effects on the economy. I am actually surprised taht unemployment is so low considering all this. I do give credit to Bush and his tax policy for allowing entreprenours and companies to turn things around. You don't have to agree with me, Im just giving my opinion.

Maybe in the past tax cuts have done the trick for producing job growth. Its not working very well right now.


The jobs are always the last thing to fall into place. I grant you that it has been slow but the trend is in the right direction and coupled with all the other positive economic numbers, coupled with the stockmarket which is essentially predicting the economy in 4-6 months we are on the right track.

In the meantime his spouting that the economy is strong does not show a very 'compassionate' conservative to people who are out of work. Hip-hooraying over 2 jobs like he did in California SEEMS insensitive to those struggling.


Well, I differ in opinion. He needs to tell the story that the economy is growing at a good clip. His father did not, the media did not, and even though the economy was growing for 3 quarters before the election nobody knew because the opposition had done a masterful job of painting a picture that was simply untrue which is exactly what we have again today.
He can't sit back and let the Democrats define the economy, they're lying about it. The press will not bother to report the facts in the glowing way that they did when Clinton was in office.
Somebody has to state the facts. If that is cold hearted, Im sorry.

I am no economic wizard so I don't know what the solution might be but a tad more empathetic talk rather than boasting about what he has done might make a difference in how he is perceived.

Perhaps he has not hit the right balance yet but I can assure you that I've heard that statement about not being satisfied until every person who wants a job has a job, quite a number of times.


Its the unions that are pushing for Kerry, and they're just going to end up getting screwed anyway because, well, thats the future. Manufacturing just cannot compete in the US- that is intensive labor manufacturing. No country can be good at everything. Comparative advantage, eh? Society must move on and adapt.


I find the issue with the unions astounding. What have the Democrats done for them? Not a bloody thing. The Democrats keep kicking them in the teeth and the union bosses come back for more.

I frankly don't FEEL safer, I DEPLORE war, I am worried about my children losing their jobs( actually my son-in-law did get laid off), the economy does not SEEM all that strong to me( in upper lower/lower middle class), gas prices are skyrocketing, heating prices are rolling ever upward, prescription drugs are consuming WAY too much of my very fixed income.

Since this thread is about G's vs E's I reposted this

The following is by Powerboss from another thread

You also know that most liberals do not believe in the concept of good and evil so it makes it very difficult to make any kind of moral judgement on our enemies, further hampering their ability to do what needed to be done.

Lastly, our Democrats want to sign over more of our soveirngty over to the UN.

We cannot afford that.

While I would argue that your statement that most liberals do not believe in good and evil is incorrect , I will totally agree that we do not want the UN involved in running our country.





I understand. Believe me, I am frustrated to no end with Bush on most levels. His domestic agenda has smoke pouring out of my ears. In truth, Im with him on Tax cuts, and terrorism. Do you want to pay higher taxes? Do you want the US to cede more of its soveirgnty over to the UN?
You should also consider the issue of judges, something I believe is vital and hangs in the balance right now.
Do you want judges that will remove "under god", sanction law breaking like in California right now, will continue to remove any and all historical tributes to our christian heritage and legislate from the bench, or do you want judges that will simply do their job and decide on teh legality of the issues before them?

Our future hangs in the balance right now. We can't afford a Democrat in office right now. My vote for Bush will be with one hand, the other holding my nose, but considering the ramifications of a Democrat in office it is necessary.

Yeah tax cuts, yeah fight terrorism.



I guess why I started this thread originally was becasue of the G vs E issues.

'under god' yes 'under GOD' no. Christian heritage does not have a big sway for me. Religious freedom does.

Can't figure out what to make of the judge issue. The Mass judges - 3 out of 4 ruling for the 'gay marrriage' were appointed by Republicans (with presumeably( I don;t know this for sure) credentials to make the appointer believe that the appointee would endorse similar beliefs) - Guess that means you can't call Republican appointed judges conservative anymore.

I have not posted much on the issue of gay marriages other then to try to find out why people feel so threatened by it. I personally am NOT feeling threatened by it but I hope that the traditional definition of marriage is upheld. But it won't affect 'me or mine' or many others all whole heck of a lot IMO.

But I AM feeling threatened by the economy. Everyone's reports on increasing GDP or PPI or whatever do not translate into my pocketbook. I was and have always been economically better when Democrats have been in controll. You would think that would make me be a Democrat but it does not. Many of their 'social programs' just go against all I believe in.


Personal accountability and responsibility are big in my books.

The Welfare reform started was a good thing. I don't know if this has really translated into progress yet.

In theory No Child Left Behind is a good thing. I see our local school systems struggling to adopt, enforce, etc. Despite all the naysayers I have read on this board teachers for the most part WANT to educate our children appropriately. The NCLB has tied their hands in some aspects when the unstated goal is now to get the children to PASS the tests.

Face it Bush's record on the environment smells too. Gosh am I sounding like a democrat or what.


Editted to add - NO I AM NOT VOTING FOR KERRY


Donald Duck is looking better and better.

While I would argue that your statement that most liberals do not believe in good and evil is incorrect .

Lets ask. I'll start a thread in the Big Debates. Hopefully they won't adjust their answers because of this discussion on it.

'under god' yes 'under GOD' no. Christian heritage does not have a big sway for me. Religious freedom does.


You should recognize though that it is our christian heritage that gave us our system and our laws.

Can't figure out what to make of the judge issue. The Mass judges - 3 out of 4 ruling for the 'gay marrriage' were appointed by Republicans (with presumeably( I don;t know this for sure) credentials to make the appointer believe that the appointee would endorse similar beliefs) - Guess that means you can't call Republican appointed judges conservative anymore.


I was not aware that 3 were R's. I find that hard to believe but there is a possibility. NorthEastern Republicans are not very conservative in the sense of tradtional conservativism. The judges that Bush has appointed appear to be fairly conservative which is why the Democrats have gone to unprecedented measures to try to stop them.


I have not posted much on the issue of gay marriages other then to try to find out why people feel so threatened by it. I personally am NOT feeling threatened by it but I hope that the traditional definition of marriage is upheld. But it won't affect 'me or mine' or many others all whole heck of a lot IMO.

You are free to make up your mind on this issue. I don't believe that marriage applies to same sex couples. My reasons are lengthy and plentiful and you can find them in those threads.

But I AM feeling threatened by the economy. Everyone's reports on increasing GDP or PPI or whatever do not translate into my pocketbook. I was and have always been economically better when Democrats have been in controll. You would think that would make me be a Democrat but it does not. Many of their 'social programs' just go against all I believe in.

Well, as someone who has a small business, I am much better off under Bush than under Clinton or Democrats. The more the economy expands, the better.

The Welfare reform started was a good thing. I don't know if this has really translated into progress yet.

Yes it was a good thing. Thank Newt Gingrich.

In theory No Child Left Behind is a good thing. I see our local school systems struggling to adopt, enforce, etc. Despite all the naysayers I have read on this board teachers for the most part WANT to educate our children appropriately. The NCLB has tied their hands in some aspects when the unstated goal is now to get the children to PASS the tests.

I believe the teachers Union is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful educational reform.

Face it Bush's record on the environment smells too. Gosh am I sounding like a democrat or what.

I cannot confirm or deny this. From what I understand he's carried on most of Clintons stuff, after reviewing it. and repealed what does not make any sense.


Editted to add - NO I AM NOT VOTING FOR KERRY

That is good. I guess I have my work cut out for me to get you on board the Bush train!

Originally posted by Powerboss


Lets ask. I'll start a thread in the Big Debates. Hopefully they won't adjust their answers because of this discussion on it.

Should be interesting

You should recognize though that it is our christian heritage that gave us our system and our laws.

I have no problem with that. Religious freedom is important.


I was not aware that 3 were R's. I find that hard to believe but there is a possibility. NorthEastern Republicans are not very conservative in the sense of tradtional conservativism. The judges that Bush has appointed appear to be fairly conservative which is why the Democrats have gone to unprecedented measures to try to stop them.

Judges voting for this

Margaret Marshall - appointed by Paul Celluci (R)
Judith Cowin - appointed by Paul Celluci (R)
Roderick Ireland - appointed by William Weld (R)
John Greaney - apponted by Michael Dukakis (D)

I resent your statement regarding NE Republicans :D



You are free to make up your mind on this issue. I don't believe that marriage applies to same sex couples. My reasons are lengthy and plentiful and you can find them in those threads.

I do hope there is not a drastic change to the traditional definiton of marriage but since both Bush and Kerry are against gay marriages there is nothing hugely defining in this issue for me. I do think Bush was a bit premature in proposing the amendment tho.



Well, as someone who has a small business, I am much better off under Bush than under Clinton or Democrats. The more the economy expands, the better.

I'm glad for you.
I've been doing a bit of research on WHY the job growth has been so slow. More than one of the so-called experts has cited pension worries and rising health care benefit costs as possible reasons for lack of significant job growth. Maybe your firm is small enough to not have to worry about these issues.



I believe the teachers Union is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful educational reform.

Would you care to explain why?



I cannot confirm or deny this. From what I understand he's carried on most of Clintons stuff, after reviewing it. and repealed what does not make any sense.

Lets leave that discussion for later :)




That is good. I guess I have my work cut out for me to get you on board the Bush train!

I was there in 2000.
But my perceptions have changed.
And could change again

Thanks for posting reasonably with me.

Should be interesting

Done. Big debates.


Judges voting for this

Margaret Marshall - appointed by Paul Celluci (R)
Judith Cowin - appointed by Paul Celluci (R)
Roderick Ireland - appointed by William Weld (R)
John Greaney - apponted by Michael Dukakis (D)

I resent your statement regarding NE Republicans

Don't know about Celluci but Weld was/is one of those Checkpants Republicans that I don't like.
I don't consider him much of a conservative.
But, you make a valid point. many R nominees are soft to moderate. What I like about Bush's nominees is that they are conservatives which is why we are getting the unprecedented, illegal, blocking of them.

I do hope there is not a drastic change to the traditional definiton of marriage but since both Bush and Kerry are against gay marriages there is nothing hugely defining in this issue for me. I do think Bush was a bit premature in proposing the amendment tho.

Kerry is all over the map. He was against the DOMA calling it gay bashing but now is against gay marriage.
I don't believe him.
He stands for what will get him votes, nothing more.


I've been doing a bit of research on WHY the job growth has been so slow. More than one of the so-called experts has cited pension worries and rising health care benefit costs as possible reasons for lack of significant job growth. Maybe your firm is small enough to not have to worry about these issues.


Good point. You are right about the healthcare costs, that is probably a contributing factor.
I would like someone to go back and exlain why unemployment remained at the same percentage it is now, for 18 months starting in late 94. Some expert who can do the proper lexis nexis searches could dig up the articles.

Would you care to explain why?

They resist change.
They do not want to compete.
They do not want to be held accountable.
They do not want choice.

Please know, I am not blaming the avg teacher, most of them do the best they can given the circumstances. It is the union and its leaders that are getting in the way of meaninful reform.

Thanks for posting reasonably with me.

Anytime. I enjoyed it.
:)