|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 1, 2008 11:24:57 GMT -5
Makes you wonder where our country would be if Gore had won the election 8 years ago.
Americans are getting what they voted for: Endless war, a recession, lack of jobs, etc.
Many of us could see it coming a mile away. Others don't bother to pay attention until it's staring them in the face and affecting their lives. Some, like the very wealthy, couldn't care less about politics. They vote Republican simply because it benefits their bottom line.
I don't know where this thread is going, just wanted to make a few "I told you so" points.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 1, 2008 12:36:18 GMT -5
Here we go, dreaming the dream again. Casting the "what might have been's". Let's tell you so a little bit. First off, here is the AP story that I believe you were referencing. In it we find... * The nation's unemployment rate climbed to a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July as employers cut 51,000 jobs, dashing the hopes of an influx of young people looking for summer work. BUT... * Payroll cuts weren't as deep as the 72,000 predicted by economists, however. And, job losses for both May and June were smaller than previously reported. The very next sentence and you apparently missed it in your cherry picking. No wonder you didn't provide a link. Farther down the article... * The increase in the unemployment rate to 5.7 percent, from 5.5 percent in June, in part came as many young people streamed into the labor market looking for summer jobs. So from that we can take that the annual swelling of the work force by young folks looking for summer jobs is somewhat responsible. Gee. Now while I freely admit that any number of manufacturing and construction jobs are going vacant due to the credit crunch (not Bush's fault no matter how you want to spin it) and oil prices (only marginally his fault), your one and two sentence broad brush attacks are, as usual in this particular respect, largely baseless. There was a recession coming when Bush took office, left for him by the Clinton administration. It was short and not deep, even with the cruch of 9/11 in the middle of it, and the economy has rebounded remarkably since then and has continued to grow, even though modestly, quarter after quarter since 2002. You might recall this little dilly from your friends at CNN.And what is a "recession"? It's defined as two or more consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Surprisingly enough, a surprise to you I'm sure anyway, we have not had even one quarter of negative economic growth since the economy exited from the Clinton "hand-off" recession I mentioned earlier. Not one. So how is it that we have gotten a recession? Saying it is so does not make it so, and this (among other things) are going to circle back and bite Democrats and Obama in the ass. The constant parade of negativity about all things American wears thin on people our in Flyover Country, especially when it can be so easily disproven as your assertions here can be. If the Democrats actually had ideas and an agenda, rather than simply trying to kick Bush in the nuts every waking second of their days and nights, the political discourse in this country might actually be worth something. But since it's easier to scapegoat and make crap up out of thin air while proposing more government as the "only solution", I guess we should expect little more from the left hand side of the aisle. |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Aug 1, 2008 12:41:06 GMT -5
Makes you wonder where our country would be if Gore had won the election 8 years ago. I shudder to think. Exactly. Just how it should be. Not what a few special interests want. Try: - A successful eventual ending to the "war" (saying it's endless is so much crap and you know it). - There is no recession, by definition. - I agree about the jobs though. I'm glad you noticed how much worse its gotten since the Democrats gained a majority in congress! |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 1, 2008 12:54:05 GMT -5
"There was a recession coming when Bush took office, left for him by the Clinton administration."
Ah, the great line used over and over by Bush apologists. So, let me get this straight. This recession was inevitable even though Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, Congress, and the Senate? They had 6 years to mitigate its effects and their approach was to spend like mad.
Now we should be seeing the result of their wise decisions but instead things are getting worse, much worse.
You can subscribe to crossride's "There is no recession, by definition" or McCain's "it's just a "mental recession"" philosophy but the denial will only take you so far. The truth is that our country is in very bad shape and is only getting worse, and you can't blame Clinton for this one!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 1, 2008 16:14:09 GMT -5
Ah, the great line used over and over by Bush apologists. So, let me get this straight. This recession was inevitable even though Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, Congress, and the Senate? They had 6 years to mitigate its effects and their approach was to spend like mad. Still practicing revisionist history I see. The effects of the economic downturn coming off the dot com bubble (Clinton's watch BTW) and corporate governance scandals (Bush, not Clinton signed Sarbanes-Oxley you'll recall) were largely over and done with by middle 2002, after the absorption of the economic and social shock of 9/11 (Bush's watch). The country and it's economy grew like crazy, and continues growing month over month to this day although not as fast now as in recent quarters. So what, exactly, was there to mitigate? Really? How, exactly? And please use as many words as you like and cite verifiable sources if you don't mind. The country is in bad shape because the Democrats tell us it is on the evening news, and on the stump. The numbers simply do not support much of what they, and you, are saying. This does not dissuade the Democrats, however, because they have hitched their star to a wagon full of negativity. They don't campaign on positives, they only try to attack with negatives that don't stand up to scrutiny. But because the average American voter is apparently (at least in the Democrat's minds) too stupid to understand anything more than a platitudinous sound bit from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi (now there's leadership for you), they will likely fall for the demagougery and deceit, vote Obama for "change" and plunge this nation's economy into free fall with new taxes and regulations. You think things are so bad now... you have no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 1, 2008 22:41:11 GMT -5
Makes you wonder where our country would be if Gore had won the election 8 years ago. Americans are getting what they voted for: Endless war, a recession, lack of jobs, etc. Many of us could see it coming a mile away. Others don't bother to pay attention until it's staring them in the face and affecting their lives. Some, like the very wealthy, couldn't care less about politics. They vote Republican simply because it benefits their bottom line. I don't know where this thread is going, just wanted to make a few "I told you so" points. Great post saunterelle! A lucky few can still enjoy the same lifestyles prior to 9/11, the majority cannot and that is nationwide. Too many jobs are gone, the economy is not good at all, people without healthcare, schools are suffering, sky high gas/food ....and the list goes on and on, yet some still will argue that we are fine, if not better than when Clinton left office. The jobs that were created by Bush are part time, no benefits or temporary postions. Not exactly profittable except to corporations which leaves people to work two, three jobs to make ends meet. What got me was when Bush insulted the country by making his stupid remark, telling the country that there are jobs out there for people who want to work "hard"........look at the pot calling the kettle "black"!!!! Excuse me, but Americans are responsible, hard working people who pay taxes and support their government. Anyway, great post!!! This deserves a karma point!! (give me 15 min.)  |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 1, 2008 23:21:39 GMT -5
"There was a recession coming when Bush took office, left for him by the Clinton administration." Ah, the great line used over and over by Bush apologists. So, let me get this straight. This recession was inevitable even though Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, Congress, and the Senate? They had 6 years to mitigate its effects and their approach was to spend like mad. Now we should be seeing the result of their wise decisions but instead things are getting worse, much worse. You can subscribe to crossride's "There is no recession, by definition" or McCain's "it's just a "mental recession"" philosophy but the denial will only take you so far. The truth is that our country is in very bad shape and is only getting worse, and you can't blame Clinton for this one! I had to smite you for calling people apologists for Bush and denying the decline in the Stock Market in November and December of 2000 along with the burst of the dot com bubble. That is a matter of history that can be proven. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 1, 2008 23:29:34 GMT -5
Makes you wonder where our country would be if Gore had won the election 8 years ago. Americans are getting what they voted for: Endless war, a recession, lack of jobs, etc. Many of us could see it coming a mile away. Others don't bother to pay attention until it's staring them in the face and affecting their lives. Some, like the very wealthy, couldn't care less about politics. They vote Republican simply because it benefits their bottom line. I don't know where this thread is going, just wanted to make a few "I told you so" points. Great post saunterelle! A lucky few can still enjoy the same lifestyles prior to 9/11, the majority cannot and that is nationwide. Too many jobs are gone, the economy is not good at all, people without healthcare, schools are suffering, sky high gas/food ....and the list goes on and on, yet some still will argue that we are fine, if not better than when Clinton left office. The jobs that were created by Bush are part time, no benefits or temporary postions. Not exactly profittable except to corporations which leaves people to work two, three jobs to make ends meet. What got me was when Bush insulted the country by making his stupid remark, telling the country that there are jobs out there for people who want to work "hard"........look at the pot calling the kettle "black"!!!! Excuse me, but Americans are responsible, hard working people who pay taxes and support their government. Anyway, great post!!! This deserves a karma point!! (give me 15 min.) It is true our country is suffering right now. And, like the good liberals you are, you fail to see that it is what economists call a political business cycle. The lack of an energy policy that allows us to extract oil from our own country, the lack of new refining facilities and the crash of the housing market brought on by people like Obama's campaign finance manager are what caused it. But, you will never admit that truth, will you. Keep blaming Bush, that is fine. Just remember, Obama does not want us to drill our own oil. Obama's campaign finance manager screwed the poor with her loan schemes that left them unable to pay with their sweet low interest rates at a time when they could be afforded. In fact, the entire liberal philosophy is going to hurt people in this country for some time to come. Get used to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 1, 2008 23:42:46 GMT -5
Bloverk: "Keep blaming Bush, that is fine. Just remember, Obama does not want us to drill our own oil. Obama's campaign finance manager screwed the poor with her loan schemes that left them unable to pay with their sweet low interest rates at a time when they could be afforded. In fact, the entire liberal philosophy is going to hurt people in this country for some time to come. Get used to it."
Bloverk, Obama is not in office yet......and if he does get in there, he too will have to answer, but first he will have to repair a failing economy. As for drilling in our own country, why don't they? From what I hear, they have land to drill, but, they want the coasts. Let them drill the land that is already designated to them......then they can worry about our coasts later. Now, how can the Liberal philosophy hurt the people in this country any worse than Bush has done for generations to come?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 2, 2008 0:21:22 GMT -5
typical liberal blather. you believe the economy is in a bad way only because obama, pelosi, reid, et al tell you it is and you are incapable of thinking on your own so you believe every word.
you could never imagine the reality of the economy; the bigger picture. all things considered our economy is doing pretty darn good. given the housing crunch and 9/11 the economy is actually doing quite well. sure oil prices are up thus other prices are up too. but did you know that after 8 years of clinton we experienced a slight recession? did you know that after 8 years of reagan we experienced a slight recession? did you know that during a mere 4 years of carter we experienced some of the worst economic times of the 20th century? yeah, oil was up then too but it absolutely devestated the economy. remember lining up to get gas and rationing?
when you look at the big picture we're doing okay. btw, recession is 2 quarters of negative growth. you can't have a recession is the economy continues to grow, which it has been doing. in case you have trouble understanding what this means, try this example: a parade with a band (economy) is marching along. if the band slows down or pauses = no recession. if the band starts walking backwards = recession. get it now? probably not.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 2, 2008 0:27:50 GMT -5
and as for the 5.7% unemployment, i'm sure the new minimum wage increase never crossed your mind as a reason for the bump, did it? of course not because you, like all good liberals believe that increasing the minimum wage can only be a good thing. wrong!!! imagine for a moment you are a small business owner who employs 25 people working at minimumb wage. suddenly, you must pay them .70 cents more per hour (let's say that's about a 12% increase) but unfortunately your business hasn't grown by 12%. if you raise prices on your products by 12% you surely will suffer a loss of sales. what will you do? what will you do? gotta let somebody go, right? and what's worse is if your employees are unionized and have one of those sweetheart deals where their pay is tied to minimum wage. example: union XYZ's members get paid 3 times minimum wage. this means that you as the employer now must immediately increase their wages by $2.10/hour!!! it is not right for the gov't to tell a business owner he must immediately give a pay raise to somone who did not earn it or deserve it.  obviously, people who are for minimum wage increases are people who have never had to meet a payroll. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 2, 2008 0:57:42 GMT -5
Bloverk: "Keep blaming Bush, that is fine. Just remember, Obama does not want us to drill our own oil. Obama's campaign finance manager screwed the poor with her loan schemes that left them unable to pay with their sweet low interest rates at a time when they could be afforded. In fact, the entire liberal philosophy is going to hurt people in this country for some time to come. Get used to it." Bloverk, Obama is not in office yet......and if he does get in there, he too will have to answer, but first he will have to repair a failing economy. As for drilling in our own country, why don't they? From what I hear, they have land to drill, but , they want the coasts. Let them drill the land that is already designated to them......then they can worry about our coasts later. Now, how can the Liberal philosophy hurt the people in this country any worse than Bush has done for generations to come? First and foremost, only 10 percent of all explored regions produce oil. Perhaps that is why they do not drill in the areas they have leases for. But none of that accounts for the fact that democrats have sided with the radical environmentalists that want zero drilling offshore or on. Which may account also for the fact that no new refining facilities have been built in this country. |
|
