BUSH ADDS 3,500,000 NEW JOBS SINCE TAKING OFFICE

.......and lost twice that amount.
--
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING LITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

tellie

2004-10-30 21:57:49 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Didn't think so!

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Tomaxo

2004-10-30 22:12:44 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Glad to embarrass you with your own source tellie (nice try at lying
with statistics though)

You made a statement based on employment figures that included farm
labor employment (the measure used by economists is "Non-farm
employment", but I'll get to that embarrassing statistic later).
Obviously, there will be alot more farm employment during September
than in January. Thus, you end up with the following stat's

January 2001 (in thousands)
Civilian labor force 141,955
Employment 135,999
Unemployment 5,956
Not in Labor Force 68,934
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

September 2004 (in thousands)
Civilian labor force 147,483
Employment 139,480
Unemployment 8,003
Not in Labor Force 76,458
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.10082004.news

Thus, of a total (farm labor included) labor force that grew by 5.5
million, Bush has provided 3.5 million new jobs (primarily farm labor
jobs), meaning he lost net jobs even when using your clever ploy to
boost the stat's in Bush's favor by including farm stat's of different
seasons.

Now for the stat's that matter. The ones economists measure true
employment success by (all from the same pages)

Non farm employment (in thousands)
January 2001 132,129
September 2004 131,567

Meaning, Bush lost 1.4 million jobs

Post by tellie
Didn't think so!

You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

tellie

2004-10-31 08:37:43 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Yea Buckwheat, It's called "total employment"

Post by Tomaxo
January 2001 (in thousands)
Civilian labor force 141,955
Employment 135,999
Unemployment 5,956
Not in Labor Force 68,934
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news
September 2004 (in thousands)
Civilian labor force 147,483
Employment 139,480
Unemployment 8,003
Not in Labor Force 76,458
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.10082004.news
Thus, of a total (farm labor included) labor force that grew by 5.5
million, Bush has provided 3.5 million new jobs (primarily farm labor
jobs), meaning he lost net jobs even when using your clever ploy to
boost the stat's in Bush's favor by including farm stat's of different
seasons.
Now for the stat's that matter. The ones economists measure true
employment success by (all from the same pages)
Non farm employment (in thousands)
January 2001 132,129
September 2004 131,567
Meaning, Bush lost 1.4 million jobs

What an embarrassment you must be to your inbred cult.... you have, in your
immature effort to discredit my numbers, actually confirmed exactly what I
said.... " President Bush has added 3,500,000 jobs to "total Employment"

What a fool you are but 'thanks" nevertheless......

It's not my goal to jump on a mental-midget, but you joined the fray of your
own free-will.... now live with it!

Try this site... you might like it
www.I.am.such.anidiot.com/somebody.slap.me

Post by tellie
Didn't think so!

You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Tomaxo

2004-10-31 15:37:09 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Yea Buckwheat, It's called "total employment"

Never made it out of Jr High did you Tellie? Otherwise you would
understand that any seasonally biased statistic, such as farm labor,
which is almost entirely seasonaly based, has to be factored into any
statements made using those statistics.

Let me quickly educate you:

JANUARY is in the dead of Winter. The fast majority of all farm
laborers are not working in the fields, because there are no crops for
them to work. SEPTEMBER, on the other hand, is a very high farm labor
month. Using your methodology, I could just as well declare that the
climate was changing by using statistics from January of 4 year ago
and September of this year, to "PROVE" the climate was warming up.

Economists never use total employment as a measure of job growth for
this very reason. You will find when you compare your "Total" number
to the more accurate "Non-Farm labor" numbers, that there has been a
loss of non-farm jobs, but "Miraculously" there has been a huge surge
in farm labor jobs. No Tellie, it doesn't mean farm job growth has
occured. It means more farm laborers work in September than do in
January.

Post by tellie
What a fool you are but 'thanks" nevertheless......

Education free of charge.

Post by tellie
It's not my goal to jump on a mental-midget, but you joined the fray of your
own free-will.... now live with it!
Try this site... you might like it
www.I.am.such.anidiot.com/somebody.slap.me

Post by tellie
Didn't think so!

You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

tellie

2004-11-02 01:39:25 UTC

The record speaks for itself......

According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;

January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000

September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000

The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in total
jobs.... that's a lie!

The liberals would have you believe that "real earnings" are down.... that's
a lie!

Check it out for yourself at: http://www.bls.gov/

Here's what BLS actually states; (don't take my word, check it at
http://www.bls.gov.)

Current Dollars, Real Earnings

January 2001: "Average weekly earnings total private" $477.65
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.02212001.news

August 2004: "Average weekly earnings total private" $536.94
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.09162004.news

An increase of 12.4% during Bush's term....

Find out for yourself.......

Kerry would have you believe that "real earnings" are down. He has made that
claim in many of his dishonest rants! It's a lie, "real earnings" are up
over 12% under Bush's leadership!

Check it out your self at the

U.S. Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/

(Real average weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings in
current dollars for changes in the CPI-W.)

Real Earnings = Net earnings after inflation.Real average
weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings in current dollars for
changes in the CPI-W.

Kerry Caught In Lies About Low Paying Jobs!

Kerry bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less
that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic
Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The
EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of
specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we
showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job
categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within
industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those
figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying
occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs
lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among
economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the
pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.

According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;

January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000

September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000

The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in total
jobs.... that's a lie!

Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

Kerry: Worst Economic Record Since Hoover

Challengers don't often win when the economy is good, and so Kerry has
systematically distorted, exaggerated and misstated facts about the economy
under Bush. For more than a year, as far back as his speech Sept. 2, 2003
formally announcing himself as a candidate for the nomination, Kerry has
been making bogus comparisons to the Great Depression, overstating the
number of payroll jobs lost during Bush's tenure, and (once jobs started
growing again last August) falsely claiming that the new jobs pay $9,000
less than those that were lost, a claim unsupported even by the evidence he
cites from a pro-labor think tank.

Actually, the economy in October 2004 is about average -- though certainly
not as good as it was in the four years before Bush took office.

a.. Unemployment: According to the most recent figures available, the US
unemployment rate stood at 5.4 percent in September. That's was slightly
better that the average rate of 5.63 percent for every month since 1948,
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping records. But it's not
quite as good as the 5.2 percent rate that prevailed at the same point in
Clinton's first term, and it is significantly worse than the remarkably low
4.2 percent rate in place when Bush took office in January, 2001.
b.. Job Growth: Kerry repeatedly claims that 1.6 million jobs have been
lost under Bush, which is false. The BLS currently puts total payroll
employment for September at just under 600,000 below where it was when Bush
took office, taking into account an annual "benchmarking" adjustment that
will be made next February. The economy has gained nearly 2 million jobs
since the worst of the slump 13 months ago, but it now appears Bush will
probably finish his term in January 2005 with a slight loss. Only in that
sense could his tenure be compared to Hoover's.
c.. Job Quality: Kerry's bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less
that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic
Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The
EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of
specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we
showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job
categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within
industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those
figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying
occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs
lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among
economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the
pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.

Post by tellie
in

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Yea Buckwheat, It's called "total employment"

Never made it out of Jr High did you Tellie? Otherwise you would
understand that any seasonally biased statistic, such as farm labor,
which is almost entirely seasonaly based, has to be factored into any
statements made using those statistics.
JANUARY is in the dead of Winter. The fast majority of all farm
laborers are not working in the fields, because there are no crops for
them to work. SEPTEMBER, on the other hand, is a very high farm labor
month. Using your methodology, I could just as well declare that the
climate was changing by using statistics from January of 4 year ago
and September of this year, to "PROVE" the climate was warming up.
Economists never use total employment as a measure of job growth for
this very reason. You will find when you compare your "Total" number
to the more accurate "Non-Farm labor" numbers, that there has been a
loss of non-farm jobs, but "Miraculously" there has been a huge surge
in farm labor jobs. No Tellie, it doesn't mean farm job growth has
occured. It means more farm laborers work in September than do in
January.

Post by tellie
What a fool you are but 'thanks" nevertheless......

Education free of charge.

Post by tellie
Didn't think so!

You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Tomaxo

2004-11-01 14:24:50 UTC

Post by tellie
The record speaks for itself......

It Sure Does:

From Bureau of Labor Satistics:
Total Nonfarm employment Seasonally Adjusted
JAN 2001 132388
SEP 2004 131567
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Total Private Employment Seasonally Adjusted
JAN 2001 111560
SEP 2004 109926
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Total Private Employment down 1,634,000

Total Nonfarm employment down 821,000

And these Gross figures, of course, don't factor in the over 5 million
people added to the employment pool during that time period.

No President since Herbert Hoover has lost gross jobs during his
Presidency, or net jobs for that matter. Add to Bush's record a $7+
trillion debt and record deficits, after being handed a surplus.
What a disaster this Presidency has been for this country's economy.

I must admit you have tenacity regarding your atempt at distorting the
truth though.

Post by tellie
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in total
jobs.... that's a lie!
The liberals would have you believe that "real earnings" are down.... that's
a lie!
Check it out for yourself at: http://www.bls.gov/
Here's what BLS actually states; (don't take my word, check it at
http://www.bls.gov.)
Current Dollars, Real Earnings
January 2001: "Average weekly earnings total private" $477.65
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.02212001.news
August 2004: "Average weekly earnings total private" $536.94
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.09162004.news
An increase of 12.4% during Bush's term....
Find out for yourself.......
Kerry would have you believe that "real earnings" are down. He has made that
claim in many of his dishonest rants! It's a lie, "real earnings" are up
over 12% under Bush's leadership!
Check it out your self at the
U.S. Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/
(Real average weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings in
current dollars for changes in the CPI-W.)
Real Earnings = Net earnings after inflation.Real average
weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings in current dollars for
changes in the CPI-W.
Kerry Caught In Lies About Low Paying Jobs!
Kerry bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less
that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic
Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The
EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of
specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we
showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job
categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within
industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those
figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying
occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs
lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among
economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the
pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in total
jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/
Kerry: Worst Economic Record Since Hoover
Challengers don't often win when the economy is good, and so Kerry has
systematically distorted, exaggerated and misstated facts about the economy
under Bush. For more than a year, as far back as his speech Sept. 2, 2003
formally announcing himself as a candidate for the nomination, Kerry has
been making bogus comparisons to the Great Depression, overstating the
number of payroll jobs lost during Bush's tenure, and (once jobs started
growing again last August) falsely claiming that the new jobs pay $9,000
less than those that were lost, a claim unsupported even by the evidence he
cites from a pro-labor think tank.
Actually, the economy in October 2004 is about average -- though certainly
not as good as it was in the four years before Bush took office.
a.. Unemployment: According to the most recent figures available, the US
unemployment rate stood at 5.4 percent in September. That's was slightly
better that the average rate of 5.63 percent for every month since 1948,
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping records. But it's not
quite as good as the 5.2 percent rate that prevailed at the same point in
Clinton's first term, and it is significantly worse than the remarkably low
4.2 percent rate in place when Bush took office in January, 2001.
b.. Job Growth: Kerry repeatedly claims that 1.6 million jobs have been
lost under Bush, which is false. The BLS currently puts total payroll
employment for September at just under 600,000 below where it was when Bush
took office, taking into account an annual "benchmarking" adjustment that
will be made next February. The economy has gained nearly 2 million jobs
since the worst of the slump 13 months ago, but it now appears Bush will
probably finish his term in January 2005 with a slight loss. Only in that
sense could his tenure be compared to Hoover's.
c.. Job Quality: Kerry's bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less
that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic
Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The
EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of
specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we
showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job
categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within
industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those
figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying
occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs
lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among
economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the
pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.

Post by tellie
in

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Yea Buckwheat, It's called "total employment"

Never made it out of Jr High did you Tellie? Otherwise you would
understand that any seasonally biased statistic, such as farm labor,
which is almost entirely seasonaly based, has to be factored into any
statements made using those statistics.
JANUARY is in the dead of Winter. The fast majority of all farm
laborers are not working in the fields, because there are no crops for
them to work. SEPTEMBER, on the other hand, is a very high farm labor
month. Using your methodology, I could just as well declare that the
climate was changing by using statistics from January of 4 year ago
and September of this year, to "PROVE" the climate was warming up.
Economists never use total employment as a measure of job growth for
this very reason. You will find when you compare your "Total" number
to the more accurate "Non-Farm labor" numbers, that there has been a
loss of non-farm jobs, but "Miraculously" there has been a huge surge
in farm labor jobs. No Tellie, it doesn't mean farm job growth has
occured. It means more farm laborers work in September than do in
January.

Post by tellie
What a fool you are but 'thanks" nevertheless......

Education free of charge.

Post by tellie
Didn't think so!

You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

tellie

2004-12-02 13:05:32 UTC

Post by tellie
The record speaks for itself......

Total Nonfarm employment Seasonally Adjusted
JAN 2001 132388
SEP 2004 131567
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Total Private Employment Seasonally Adjusted
JAN 2001 111560
SEP 2004 109926
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Total Private Employment down 1,634,000
Total Nonfarm employment down 821,000
And these Gross figures, of course, don't factor in the over 5 million
people added to the employment pool during that time period.
No President since Herbert Hoover has lost gross jobs during his
Presidency, or net jobs for that matter. Add to Bush's record a $7+
trillion debt and record deficits, after being handed a surplus.
What a disaster this Presidency has been for this country's economy.
I must admit you have tenacity regarding your atempt at distorting the
truth though.

Post by tellie
in

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
.......and lost twice that amount.

Prove it......site/cite/source????

Yea Buckwheat, It's called "total employment"

Never made it out of Jr High did you Tellie? Otherwise you would
understand that any seasonally biased statistic, such as farm labor,
which is almost entirely seasonaly based, has to be factored into any
statements made using those statistics.
JANUARY is in the dead of Winter. The fast majority of all farm
laborers are not working in the fields, because there are no crops for
them to work. SEPTEMBER, on the other hand, is a very high farm labor
month. Using your methodology, I could just as well declare that the
climate was changing by using statistics from January of 4 year ago
and September of this year, to "PROVE" the climate was warming up.
Economists never use total employment as a measure of job growth for
this very reason. You will find when you compare your "Total" number
to the more accurate "Non-Farm labor" numbers, that there has been a
loss of non-farm jobs, but "Miraculously" there has been a huge surge
in farm labor jobs. No Tellie, it doesn't mean farm job growth has
occured. It means more farm laborers work in September than do in
January.

Post by tellie
What a fool you are but 'thanks" nevertheless......

Education free of charge.

Post by tellie
It's not my goal to jump on a mental-midget, but you joined the fray
of
your
own free-will.... now live with it!
Try this site... you might like it
www.I.am.such.anidiot.com/somebody.slap.me

Post by tellie
Didn't think so!

You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

GuitarMan

2004-10-30 14:58:42 UTC

They're counting jobs like McDonald's and Walmart and such which don't pay
much.
They also like to say things like unemployment is down and they go by how
many people are collecting unemployment. They forget to count things like
how many aren't collecting unemployment but are still unemployed... Quite
convienient of them to make it look good when in reality it's bad...

Goddamned Donks!

2004-10-30 15:07:21 UTC

They're counting jobs like McDonald's and Walmart and such which don't pay
much.

You mean as opposed to companies IPO'ing with no earnings and creating jobs
after that, and then finally laying those people off when the next best
"online dog grooming" outfit goes under?

Ok man...yes, a REAL economy was one with Enron et al cooking the books,
right Donks?

Post by GuitarMan
They also like to say things like unemployment is down and they go by how
many people are collecting unemployment. They forget to count things like
how many aren't collecting unemployment but are still unemployed... Quite
convienient of them to make it look good when in reality it's bad...

PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$

2004-10-30 15:18:59 UTC

--

========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING LITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by Goddamned Donks!

They're counting jobs like McDonald's and Walmart and such which don't pay
much.

You mean as opposed to companies IPO'ing with no earnings and creating jobs
after that, and then finally laying those people off when the next best
"online dog grooming" outfit goes under?
Ok man...yes, a REAL economy was one with Enron et al cooking the books,
right Donks?

Lots of repugs got rich from the Clinton years and none of them complained
then, right?

PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$

2004-10-30 15:13:22 UTC

I reminded an old timer and repub friend of mine last night when he gave me
the argument that jobs were increasing. I told him that several years ago,
when Clinton was building the economy, this same repub stood and said, "ya
but they're not good paying jobs." I told him that patience is a virtue and
if you remember well and live long enough, you enjoy the chance to turn it
around. Revenge is sweet.
--
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING LITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

tellie

2004-10-30 22:40:29 UTC

Another liberal 'getting off' in his fantasy world of make believe
friends.....
Some things never change....

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
I reminded an old timer and repub friend of mine last night when he gave me
the argument that jobs were increasing. I told him that several years ago,
when Clinton was building the economy, this same repub stood and said, "ya
but they're not good paying jobs." I told him that patience is a virtue and
if you remember well and live long enough, you enjoy the chance to turn it
around. Revenge is sweet.
--
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by tellie
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three
and

Post by tellie
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in

total

Post by tellie
jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

tellie

2004-10-30 22:14:47 UTC

"Total" means TOTAL..... think before you spew for once.

"Real" earnings are up 12% since Bush took office..... think for yourself,
don't just drink the 'Kerry Koolaide' like the rest of your moronic cult.
The facts are available to anyone who wants to know the truth.

Today, under George Bush, more people are actually working less hours and
making more money!

Don't take my word, check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

Acting Like Zepp

2004-10-30 15:25:45 UTC

Typical demolib talking points which you folks have been chanting for 25
years that I know about. It's like the baseball argument over who's the
best all time hitter. It's in the numbers, friend. The numbers are what you
have and what you use to judge.

tenjets

2004-10-30 16:08:37 UTC

Well, you should be using all the numbers available, then, to tell the whole
story. To keep up with population growth (the number you ignore) and the
number of people entering the job market every year, that job growth number
should be more like 5.5 million.

tellie

2004-10-31 03:41:19 UTC

Post by tenjets

Post by tellie
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three

and

Post by tellie
a half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in
total jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

They're counting jobs like McDonald's and Walmart and such which don't

pay

Post by GuitarMan
much.
They also like to say things like unemployment is down and they go by

how

Post by GuitarMan
many people are collecting unemployment. They forget to count things

Post by GuitarMan
how many aren't collecting unemployment but are still unemployed...

Quite

Post by GuitarMan
convienient of them to make it look good when in reality it's bad...

you

Post by Acting Like Zepp
have and what you use to judge.

Not so, the unemployment rate held at 5.4 percent, (September 2004)
seasonally adjusted. The jobless
rate is down from its most recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003; most of
this
decline occurred in the second half of last year. I believe you could
establish a case that we are some 500,000 behind the increased population
but you must consider 9/11 and the recession that we are now recovering
from. Kerry tries to make the 'dumb & dumber' group believe that Bush has
not had a single new job added during his term...... he's simply a liar! The
numbers prove him to be.

The Real Diddy Pop

2004-10-30 19:53:47 UTC

Oh boy, are you in over your head. Those formulas the government uses
are the same formulas that were used long before Bush took office. If
you want to get schooled scientific on economic indicators and the
like, please reply with some sort of snappy comeback.

PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$

2004-10-30 20:08:01 UTC

--

========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING LITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

You need to do likewise and of course, the formulas have changed over the
past 5 years. Check it out and then YOU might try that snappy shit stuff
too. You need to become more informed or updated and you won't embarrass
yourself so often.

tellie

2004-10-31 06:24:55 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
--
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING ILLITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by tellie
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three

and a

total

Post by tellie
jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

They're counting jobs like McDonald's and Walmart and such which don't

pay

Post by GuitarMan
much.
They also like to say things like unemployment is down and they go by

how

Post by GuitarMan
many people are collecting unemployment. They forget to count things

Post by GuitarMan
how many aren't collecting unemployment but are still unemployed...

Quite

Post by GuitarMan
convienient of them to make it look good when in reality it's bad...

There have been zero changes that favor the outcome toward more jobs. The
"payroll" calculation has been proven to favor the numbers toward "less"
jobs.... it's a matter of record! http://www.bls.gov/ check it out!

hol99

2004-10-30 21:01:42 UTC

...or lose them. Unless maybe some government jobs. But this president has
been about as fiscally irresponsible with managing the budget as could be
possible. You might as well elect me, I can mangle english just as well, and
I couldn't mismanage things any worse.

The alumnus of Harvard and Yale will never be able to show their faces
again. At least Texas law school had the integrity not to admit the stupid
bastard.

Dave

tellie

2004-10-31 08:19:54 UTC

"the President doesn't create jobs" ...I agree with you but unfortunately
your inbred cousins don't get it...... they insist on attempting to use this
measure as a tool to serve their corrupt purpose.... I'm not going let that
happen in this newsgroup!

Post by hol99
...or lose them. Unless maybe some government jobs. But this president has
been about as fiscally irresponsible with managing the budget as could be
possible.

I disagree...

Post by hol99
You might as well elect me, I can mangle english just as well, and I
couldn't mismanage things any worse.

That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

Post by hol99
The alumnus of Harvard and Yale will never be able to show their faces
again. At least Texas law school had the integrity not to admit the stupid
bastard.

You're somewhat confused, but you're a liberal, what's new?

blazinglaser

2004-10-30 23:40:15 UTC

Post by hol99
...or lose them.

Yes and no. Yes, the president doesn't directly create jobs (except
in the Administrative Branch of govt.).

But Bush told us his economic policies would create millions of new
jobs. That was his original justification for huge tax cuts, mostly
for the rich, and simultaneous huge spending increases--that you would
know they were successful because unemployment would go down and
middle-class wage earners would do better. So far Bush's policies
have only run up the debt, further concentrated wealth, and
transferred more ofthe tax burden off the rich and onto the shoulders
of the middle class. So it's fair to blame him for the abject failure
of these policies.

Post by hol99
But this president has
been about as fiscally irresponsible with managing the budget as could be
possible. You might as well elect me, I can mangle english just as well, and
I couldn't mismanage things any worse.

I tend to think we could have picked a better president by lottery.
As (I think it was) Ezra Pound once said: You could carve a better man
out of a banana. 8^)

VRWC Destruction Machine

2004-10-31 14:50:16 UTC

Dummycrat Supporter, blazinglaser

Post by blazinglaser

Post by hol99
...or lose them.

Yes and no. Yes, the president doesn't directly create jobs (except
in the Administrative Branch of govt.).
But Bush told us his economic policies would create millions of new
jobs. That was his original justification for huge tax cuts, mostly
for the rich, and simultaneous huge spending increases--that you would
know they were successful because unemployment would go down and
middle-class wage earners would do better. So far Bush's policies
have only run up the debt, further concentrated wealth, and
transferred more ofthe tax burden off the rich and onto the shoulders
of the middle class. So it's fair to blame him for the abject failure
of these policies.

Tax burden increased on the middle class is a lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html

According to the article on factcheck.org, everybody's tax rate has
gone down.

It's fair to say the Kerry Campaign skews reality of the situation.

-
John Kerry Accomplishments:

By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American
soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam,
thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an
anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
-Ann Coulter

Peedro Martynes

2004-10-31 16:09:33 UTC

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Dummycrat Supporter, blazinglaser

Post by blazinglaser

Post by hol99
...or lose them.

Yes and no. Yes, the president doesn't directly create jobs (except
in the Administrative Branch of govt.).
But Bush told us his economic policies would create millions of new
jobs. That was his original justification for huge tax cuts, mostly
for the rich, and simultaneous huge spending increases--that you would
know they were successful because unemployment would go down and
middle-class wage earners would do better. So far Bush's policies
have only run up the debt, further concentrated wealth, and
transferred more ofthe tax burden off the rich and onto the shoulders
of the middle class. So it's fair to blame him for the abject failure
of these policies.

Tax burden increased on the middle class is a lie.
http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html
According to the article on factcheck.org, everybody's tax rate has
gone down.

you started out by talking about the tax burden and then proved your point
by talking about the tax rate. try to understand the difference between
those two stats.

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
It's fair to say the Kerry Campaign skews reality of the situation.
-
By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American
soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam,
thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an
anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
-Ann Coulter

blazinglaser

2004-10-31 17:30:19 UTC

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:09:33 -0500, "Peedro Martynes"

Post by Peedro Martynes
you started out by talking about the tax burden and then proved your point
by talking about the tax rate. try to understand the difference between
those two stats.

I was going to say something like that. All GOP tax 'reform' plans
have the feature of cutting progressive taxes and replacing them with
regressive ones. Reagan, for instance, cut income taxes, but his tax
cuts were skewed disproportionately to the rich, and he made up for it
by raising FICA contributions, which are highly regressive. GW Bush
feels it's somehow just downright immoral to tax capital gains and
inheritance, taxes paid mostly by the rich.

VRWC Destruction Machine

2004-11-01 06:14:32 UTC

Dummycrat Supporter, blazinglaser

Post by blazinglaser
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:09:33 -0500, "Peedro Martynes"

Post by Peedro Martynes
you started out by talking about the tax burden and then proved your point
by talking about the tax rate. try to understand the difference between
those two stats.

Capital gains taxation is double taxation which is immoral.

-
John Kerry Accomplishments:

By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American
soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam,
thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an
anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
-Ann Coulter

blazinglaser

2004-11-01 16:11:06 UTC

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:14:32 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Capital gains taxation is double taxation which is immoral.

Sales tax is also immoral then because you're taxed when you earn the
money and again when you spend it.

The whole idea of not taxing capital gains is that somehow it's more
noble to make money from other people's work than your own. Not
taxing capital gains means that someone born rich enough to live off
his family's investments (like GW) doesn't have to pay taxes while
those of us who work for a wage have to make up his share. -That's-
immoral!

VRWC Destruction Machine

2004-11-01 18:36:40 UTC

Dummycrat Supporter, blazinglaser

Post by blazinglaser
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:14:32 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Capital gains taxation is double taxation which is immoral.

Sales tax is also immoral then because you're taxed when you earn the
money and again when you spend it.
The whole idea of not taxing capital gains is that somehow it's more
noble to make money from other people's work than your own. Not
taxing capital gains means that someone born rich enough to live off
his family's investments (like GW) doesn't have to pay taxes while
those of us who work for a wage have to make up his share. -That's-
immoral!

Capital gains taxes means taxing something that has already been
taxed. People work to earn a wage. That's a fair exchange. Nobody
works for free. If they do, they're idiots. People hire people to
provide a service or product. They do that to make a profit. Duh.
That's what going into business is all about. If a person accumulates
wealth from a business, that wealth has been taxed. Why should it be
taxed again if that person wants to give that wealth to his or her
heirs? You work for a wage. What your employer does with his money
after you have been paid is none of your business. What you do with
your money is not your employer's business nor the government's.

-
John Kerry Accomplishments:

By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American
soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam,
thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an
anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
-Ann Coulter

blazinglaser

2004-11-02 00:54:14 UTC

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:36:40 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Capital gains taxes means taxing something that has already been
taxed. People work to earn a wage. That's a fair exchange. Nobody
works for free. If they do, they're idiots.

Everything's about money to you pepole. 8^)

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
People hire people to
provide a service or product. They do that to make a profit. Duh.
That's what going into business is all about. If a person accumulates
wealth from a business, that wealth has been taxed. Why should it be
taxed again if that person wants to give that wealth to his or her
heirs?

Because -they- didn't work for it.

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
You work for a wage. What your employer does with his money
after you have been paid is none of your business. What you do with
your money is not your employer's business nor the government's.

You didn't explain how capital gains tax is a double tax.

VRWC Destruction Machine

2004-11-01 06:06:54 UTC

Post by Peedro Martynes

Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Dummycrat Supporter, blazinglaser

Post by blazinglaser

Post by hol99
...or lose them.

Yes and no. Yes, the president doesn't directly create jobs (except
in the Administrative Branch of govt.).
But Bush told us his economic policies would create millions of new
jobs. That was his original justification for huge tax cuts, mostly
for the rich, and simultaneous huge spending increases--that you would
know they were successful because unemployment would go down and
middle-class wage earners would do better. So far Bush's policies
have only run up the debt, further concentrated wealth, and
transferred more ofthe tax burden off the rich and onto the shoulders
of the middle class. So it's fair to blame him for the abject failure
of these policies.

Tax burden increased on the middle class is a lie.
http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html
According to the article on factcheck.org, everybody's tax rate has
gone down.

you started out by talking about the tax burden and then proved your point
by talking about the tax rate. try to understand the difference between
those two stats.

Did you see the chart on the link I gave?

Bush Tax Cuts:
The Burden Decreased for All Groups
(More for some than others)

The key phrase "Burden Decreased for All Groups"

You should pay special notice to "Decreased" and "All Groups"

Progressive taxes, which the Liberal Wingnuts promote, is Marxist.
A progressive tax system was called for in the communist manifesto,
where Marx recommended it as a key element for the existence of a
communist state.

Is it John Kerry and John Edwards or John Kerry and Frederick Engels?

In August of 2000, Kerry signed onto the Democratic Leadership
Councils "Hyde Park Declaration," a manifesto which states as one of
their beliefs that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to
pay for government.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not
immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed
against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the
proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of
existing relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy
inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines
(brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
- Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism

Engels addresses capital gains (double taxation) which contributed
lessening the tax burden on the "rich."

-
John Kerry Accomplishments:

By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American
soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam,
thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an
anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
-Ann Coulter

The Real Diddy Pop

2004-11-01 22:09:32 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$

"PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in

Post by The Real Diddy Pop
Oh boy, are you in over your head. Those formulas the government uses
are the same formulas that were used long before Bush took office. If
you want to get schooled scientific on economic indicators and the
like, please reply with some sort of snappy comeback.

Actually, no. The most recent change to how employment is figured was
expanding the population sample from 50,000 to 60,000 back in 2001.
Other than that, the current formula has been in place since 1994. You
can read it all at: http://stats.bls.gov/opub/hom/home.htm

All of the changes you might be referring to are merely adding more
categories, such as New industrial and occupational classification
systems, Population controls based on the 2000 census, New race and
ethnicity categories
etc, etc.

GuitarMan

2004-10-30 21:59:23 UTC

For real... they were'nt accurate then and they aren't today...

tellie

2004-10-31 08:39:04 UTC

For real... they were'nt accurate then and they aren't today...

sure they weren't.........

Hector

2004-10-30 23:49:13 UTC

Since when the deluded Republicans know how to COUNT?!

Even the so called "new jobs" were created, the timing is very
questionable as the "creation" of "new jobs" seemed to be more like
politically driven than any sincere effort by the Bush adminstration
to "care" about the ordinary Americans.

Only total morons would be blind to the truth: Bush only cares about
the big corporations and the rich, those who put him in power. The
reality is Bush supporters mainly consist of two kinds: the greedy
rich scum and the honestly stupid Christians. The world would be so
much better off if the former group is somehow "exterminated".

And for the rest of us who have eyes and are willing to use them,
consider the truth about the connection between Bush and the bin Laden
family and Bush's initial resistance to the 9-11 investigation. Bush
should reminded that "you can run but you can't hide!"

The sad thing about the US is the stupid people and evil people seem
to out number the good and intelligent folks. Then again, the world
will sit back and wait to see the outcome of this presidential
election to finalize its final verdict on this.

Could it be that Bush is the ill-fate of America?

tellie

2004-10-31 12:39:11 UTC

What scares me is that there are people here who really believe this silly
idiotic bullshit.

Post by Hector

Since when the deluded Republicans know how to COUNT?!
Even the so called "new jobs" were created, the timing is very
questionable as the "creation" of "new jobs" seemed to be more like
politically driven than any sincere effort by the Bush adminstration
to "care" about the ordinary Americans.
Only total morons would be blind to the truth: Bush only cares about
the big corporations and the rich, those who put him in power. The
reality is Bush supporters mainly consist of two kinds: the greedy
rich scum and the honestly stupid Christians. The world would be so
much better off if the former group is somehow "exterminated".
And for the rest of us who have eyes and are willing to use them,
consider the truth about the connection between Bush and the bin Laden
family and Bush's initial resistance to the 9-11 investigation. Bush
should reminded that "you can run but you can't hide!"
The sad thing about the US is the stupid people and evil people seem
to out number the good and intelligent folks. Then again, the world
will sit back and wait to see the outcome of this presidential
election to finalize its final verdict on this.
Could it be that Bush is the ill-fate of America?

Tomaxo

2004-10-31 01:19:55 UTC

Guitarman, you're missing the very obvious trick behind his statistic.
He's including total employment stat's (economists use non-farm labor
stat's for a reason). Total employment stat's include farm labor
jobs, which are seasonal. He is comparing a Winter month of January
2001 with an early Fall month of September. How many farm laborers do
you figure are out toiling in the fields in January? What's funny, is
even with this biased statistic, his figures still come up
substantially short of the over 5 million new people who have been
added to our labor force (meaning people wanting to work) during that
same time frame due to population growth. The true statistic of
"non-farm enployment" comes out as follows:

January 2001 132,129
September 2004 131,567

Meaning massive job loss, not even factoring in the growth in the
labor force.

You are right about the additional cost of Bush to our economy in
which quality jobs have been replaced by low paying service Mc-jobs.

tellie

2004-10-31 13:05:02 UTC

Guitarman, you're missing the very obvious trick behind his statistic.
He's including total employment stat's (economists use non-farm labor
stat's for a reason).

You are as dumb as dirt.....
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Includes "all" labor in "total labor"

Post by Tomaxo
Total employment stat's include farm labor
jobs, which are seasonal. He is comparing a Winter month of January
2001 with an early Fall month of September. How many farm laborers do
you figure are out toiling in the fields in January? What's funny, is

What's funny is your ignorance... January of '01 is the highest labor month
of any around it... Sep '00 was 135.2
and April '01 was 135.4 million. So using your way actually proves that Bush
added more than 4.0 million jobs....
Yea I like your way better. Keep up the good work.

Post by Tomaxo
even with this biased statistic, his figures still come up
substantially short of the over 5 million new people who have been
added to our labor force (meaning people wanting to work) during that
same time frame due to population growth. The true statistic of
January 2001 132,129
September 2004 131,567

You fool, here are total employment numbers ... just to prove how completely
ignorant you really are.

Sep '00 135.2 million
Oct '00 135.4 million
Nov '00 135.4 million
Dec '00 135.8 million
Jan '01 136.0 million (the month Bush took office)
Feb '01 135.8 million
Mar '01 135.8 million
Apr '01 135.4 million

You can verify these numbers at http://www.bls.gov

Total Employment means "total" employment.

No matter how you twist and squirm... Bush has added 3.5 million (4.0
million + your way) jobs since he began his term.
When some lying liberal rants about no added jobs.... look 'em in the eye
and tell 'em they are full of shit!

.

Tomaxo

2004-10-31 19:25:10 UTC

Guitarman, you're missing the very obvious trick behind his statistic.
He's including total employment stat's (economists use non-farm labor
stat's for a reason).

You are as dumb as dirt.....
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Includes "all" labor in "total labor"

Tellie: Ask any economist what measure they use for assessing job
growth and they will tell you "Non-farm jobs". Your appeal is only to
the most ignorant, who don't bother to research the distortions you
are posting. Unlike you, I have consistently come back with specific
links to my data (not a general link to rather complex BLS web site as
you have done to try to hide your lies).

Yes, Clinton was adding jobs in mass right up to the point Bush took
office. So many as to actually offset the Winter reduction in
non-Farm jobs. Try pulling some data from a non-recession year and
compare January data to the following July.

All your stat's demonstrate is that Clinton was still adding jobs to
the economy right up to the point Bush took office, a rate so high as
to off-set the reduction in farm jobs during the same period, and a
subsequent erosion of jobs as we went into recession that was so great
as to off-set the addition of Summer/Fall farm labor jobs.

If you don't believe the addition of farm labor jobs create a seasonal
bias, please explain the following to me:

In the peak farm labor month of July 2004, total employment was at
139,660
In September 2004, when that labor begins tapering downward, it was at
139,480

Are you now going to hold Bush accountable for a loss of 180,000 jobs
between those periods? If you believe in your own flawed methodology,
that would have to be your conclusion.

Post by tellie
You can verify these numbers at http://www.bls.gov

As I'm not trying to hide my data, the way you have, I use far more
specific links. All my data came from
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.10082004.news

Post by tellie
Total Employment means "total" employment.
No matter how you twist and squirm... Bush has added 3.5 million (4.0
million + your way) jobs since he began his term.
When some lying liberal rants about no added jobs.... look 'em in the eye
and tell 'em they are full of shit!
.

phil

2004-10-30 15:39:46 UTC

Overseas

PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$

2004-10-30 15:27:51 UTC

--

========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING LITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by phil
Overseas

Good one!

tellie

2004-10-30 22:42:13 UTC

Not really, this is a good one.

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by phil
Overseas

Good one!

A Dude

2004-10-30 15:41:37 UTC

He lost millions more. I want to work, am working part-time, but can't find
enough work to earn enough income for even necessities. I thought in
America anyone who wants to work will be able to find work. Not so anymore.

PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$

2004-10-30 15:45:09 UTC

--

========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING LITERACY BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by A Dude
He lost millions more. I want to work, am working part-time, but can't find
enough work to earn enough income for even necessities. I thought in
America anyone who wants to work will be able to find work. Not so anymore.

You'd have a better chance of working for America if you moved out of the
country. That's where the real bush/US jobs are.

tellie

2004-10-31 03:48:48 UTC

Post by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$
========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Post by A Dude
He lost millions more. I want to work, am working part-time, but can't

find

Post by A Dude
enough work to earn enough income for even necessities. I thought in
America anyone who wants to work will be able to find work. Not so

anymore.

Post by A Dude

Post by tellie
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three
and

Post by A Dude

total

Post by A Dude

Post by tellie
jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

You'd have a better chance of working for America if you moved out of the
country. That's where the real bush/US jobs are.

Another liberal lie!

Bush 281 - Kerry 236

2004-10-30 15:51:05 UTC

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies. So you might want to think about moving up to
Canada.

The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to manufacture
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

The Shadow

2004-10-30 16:00:56 UTC

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,

a lot....how many is that exactly?

and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
rather than from American companies.

They are the same companies

So you might want to think

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
about moving up to Canada.

I thought about it, but it's too cold

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to
manufacture the various Heinz products,

Which they sell overseas, the treacherous bastards.

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
rather than have Americans
manufacture those products, so you may want to think about moving to
those countries where Heinz has set up those factories.

Not only Heinz, but Ford and GM too...you are a loon

Vader

2004-10-30 16:06:12 UTC

Actually dumbfuck, most of those drugs are made in the USA, they are just
being re-imported for less money than the US drug companies FORCE Americans
to pay for them. Try growing a fucking brain.

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to manufacture
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

Unlike a lot of US companies that just outsource everything. The Heinz
company only builds factories where they are needed for their product. No
outsourcing is done. They never have. They haven't taken any jobs away from
American workers by moving their company overseas. They're a global
business.

GROW A BRAIN.

Peedro Martynes

2004-10-30 16:20:13 UTC

Post by Vader

Post by A Dude
He lost millions more. I want to work, am working part-time, but

can't

Post by Vader

Post by A Dude
find
enough work to earn enough income for even necessities. I thought in
America anyone who wants to work will be able to find work. Not so anymore.

Actually dumbfuck, most of those drugs are made in the USA, they are just
being re-imported for less money than the US drug companies FORCE Americans
to pay for them. Try growing a fucking brain.

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to

manufacture

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

i'd also like to know why you've brought up heinz when talking about Kerry.
he has no interest in Heinz, neither does his wife.

Maybe we should talk about those bushes on my lawn that need trimming...all
Bushes need trimming when you think about it.

3>n@L

2004-10-30 16:13:16 UTC

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies. So you might want to think about moving up to
Canada.
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to manufacture
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

John Fraud, cut the crap and go to your room.

phil

2004-10-30 16:55:45 UTC

not a bad idea.especially if bush is re-elected.but that would leave this
country to be run by the likes of bush and cheney,and americans who love
their country realise that they have to be defeated.

as far as the pharmaceutical companies go,he (bush) saw to it that they
basically have a captive market-oh,I forgot-he did panic about that whole
flu shot thing that he didn't plan for,didn't he?he isn't known for planning
ahead for things like war,peace or prosperity,except when it fits his own
agenda.he also saw to it that the drug companies can cover their
contributions to his campaign by making certain that they were guarenteed
increasing profit margins at the expense of the elderly.

--
Today 50 families will find out their child has autism.
1 in 150 children have an autism spectrum disorder.

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies. So you might want to think about moving up to
Canada.
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to manufacture
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

phil

2004-10-30 17:00:18 UTC

maybe the drug companies should stop spending all that money on advertising
the sexual performance drugs and concentrate on making affordable drugs
available here.
most people don't need a 4-hour hardon-and bush has been delivering one to
the american people for the last 3-1/2 years

--
Today 50 families will find out their child has autism.
1 in 150 children have an autism spectrum disorder.

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies. So you might want to think about moving up to
Canada.
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to manufacture
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

Jorge W Arbusto

2004-10-30 16:50:41 UTC

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies.

The cheaper drugs coming from Canada are the same drugs sold by the same
pharmaceutical companies at higher prices in the US. The drugs are even
manufactured in the same factories.

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
So you might want to think about moving up to Canada.
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories

Along with Texas Instruments, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Levi Strauss, HD Lee, and
the aforementioned pharmaceutical companies.

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
to manufacture the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans
manufacture those products, so you may want to think about moving to those
countries where Heinz has set up those factories.

Or you may want to think about taking a flying leap off a short pier...

jean f k

2004-10-30 16:56:27 UTC

Post by Jorge W Arbusto

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies.

The cheaper drugs coming from Canada are the same drugs sold by the same
pharmaceutical companies at higher prices in the US. The drugs are even
manufactured in the same factories.

Post by Bush 281 - Kerry 236
So you might want to think about moving up to Canada.
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories

Along with Texas Instruments, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Levi Strauss, HD Lee, and
the aforementioned pharmaceutical companies.

Or you may want to think about taking a flying leap off a short pier...

And pharmacies in Canada have already started to refuse sales to
non-citizens due to shortages. Yep, that is a great plan. Oh by the way, the
Canadian government who subsidizes the pharmacies has already said it will
not pay continue the subsidies if pharmacies violate the law by selling
drugs to non-citizens. yep, this is a great solution!

Richard Hutnik

2004-11-02 01:43:13 UTC

Well, John Kerry wants to ship a lot of pharmaceutical jobs up to Canada,
and wants Americans to buy their drugs from Canadian companies rather than
from American companies. So you might want to think about moving up to
Canada.
The Heinz family has also set up a lot of overseas factories to manufacture
the various Heinz products, rather than have Americans manufacture those
products, so you may want to think about moving to those countries where
Heinz has set up those factories.

What planet are you from? The drugs being imported from Canada were
MANUFACTURED in the United States for Canada.

By the way, did Bush ever find out where the timber company he has
part ownership in, is located?

- Richard Hutnik

Tom Betz

2004-10-30 17:19:07 UTC

You know, this guy's handle, "tell lie", makes it so obvious what he
is here to do.

--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who votes for George W. Bush.
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
The more you know, the less likely you are to vote for George Bush.
<http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>

tellie

2004-10-31 03:49:59 UTC

Post by Tom Betz
You know, this guy's handle, "tell lie", makes it so obvious what he
is here to do.

If it's so "obvious" then surely you can prove me wrong!

I'll wait right here..

tellie

2004-10-31 03:47:38 UTC

I'm sorry that you're experiencing some rough times.... that wouldn't be fun
for anyone. The statistics just do not support the claim that Bush has not
added jobs during his term. He has actually added 3,500,000 new jobs and the
average worker is making 12.4% more in "real" earnings!

Perhaps you are in a part of the country that is really experiencing a
downturn! Relocation may not be a first choice but if the jobs are not in
your area, you must go to where the jobs are.

Richard Hutnik

2004-11-02 01:56:14 UTC

Post by tellie
I'm sorry that you're experiencing some rough times.... that wouldn't be fun
for anyone. The statistics just do not support the claim that Bush has not
added jobs during his term. He has actually added 3,500,000 new jobs and the
average worker is making 12.4% more in "real" earnings!
Perhaps you are in a part of the country that is really experiencing a
downturn! Relocation may not be a first choice but if the jobs are not in
your area, you must go to where the jobs are.

When you return from Planet Disconnect, please let people know. As
has been stated before 3.5 million jobs doesn't keep up with the
number needed. It hasn't been called a "jobless recovery" for now
reason.

As for making 12.4% more, did you also pull that number off of Planet
Disconnect?

Under George W Bush, Median family incomes have DECLINED:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14283.shtml

- Richard Hutnik

Tom Betz

2004-10-30 17:18:04 UTC

tellie

2004-10-31 03:54:34 UTC

If you weren't lying your rant would be impressive.... your numbers don't
match the records.... did you just make them up?
What is your fantasy source?
I furnish a source to support the growth of 3,500,000 new jobs.....You
furnish nothing and Kerry claims that there have been no new jobs during
Bush's term.....

http://www.bls.gov/

jean f k

2004-10-30 18:02:06 UTC

Post by Tom Betz
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.

yes yes, we know already. the war wasn't necessary, there are no WMD's, and
there are no terrorists in Iraq. right. you just keep parroting that over
and over to yourself.

bobbyhaqq

2004-10-31 07:35:26 UTC

Post by jean f k

Post by Tom Betz
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.

yes yes, we know already. the war wasn't necessary, there are no WMD's, and
there are no terrorists in Iraq. right. you just keep parroting that over
and over to yourself.

It's called repeating the truth.

Considering the hell that is being inflicted by Bush upon our troops
in Iraq, and the far worse hell being inflicted upon the people of
Iraq, the fact the war will only end in a humiliating pull back over
time, and the fact that US position and power have been gravely
damaged, a number of people (not Bush supporters) are concerned with
trying to recovery the interests of the nation and world, to view
reality more clearly, and to see that justice is done and the this
race war in Iraq is ended as soon as possible.

Bush supporters minds are full of 3 words and three words only; 4 more
year! Chanted over and over again. The fact that Saddam was not a
terrorist threat, did not have WMD, did not pose any threat to the US
and in fact was a wall against Jihadist, was more able to kill leading
Jihadist and crush Islamic Fundementalism which he saw as a threat to
his Baathist dictatorship, the fact that Bush Snr and Clinton had
defeated Saddam and he no longer possed any threat until Bush invaded
and turned Iraq in to the world's largest terrorist threat through his
action is certainly unpleasant to the right, but it is still the
truth.

The fascists have invaded Iraq only because it was Muslim and Arab.
It was a race war revenge, and like a true Bully Bush assumed it would
be easy. I remember him in that idiotic outfit, declaring victory, it
seems so long ago. 10,000s of people have died in this war since
then. 10,000s more will die in a race war which will only turn the US
in to the most hated nation in the developing world.

I hate to break it to you fascists but much of the developing world,
those countries that unlike America are having job growth and
excellent economic growth, are muslim. As they develop they must
decide how their economies and socities will develop and which
alliance they will form. Bush has pushed them in to the hands of
China, which Bush has assured will become a super power as respected
as the US.

We will point to Tibet and Tienamen Square, but China will point to
Iraq. They will say that they have, like all nation, dealt with
internal revolts but they never invaded a sovergien nation because of
their religion and race (if you don't include Tibet which few Muslims
really care much about).

In the 21st Century the US will be blackened by its undeclared war in
Iraq for utterly false reasons leading to the deaths of 10,000s of
Iraqs and almost certain civil war and and very likely Islamic
republic. The people of the Muslim nations of Malaysia, Pakistan,
India (the IT boom there is heavily Muslim) Egypt (perhaps the first
Arab economic tiger), Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia, and other non-muslim
ememrging nations will objectively see the US as a far greater threat
to themselves than China, and China as a far more stable society than
the US.

This after Clinton had turned the 3rd World so pro-US. This after
9-11 made Ameirca and Americans the most beloved people in the world.
The fact is that Bush is a stupid evil bully surronded by evil
bullies, and he has shamed and disgraced our entire society.

T.Carr

2004-10-31 20:33:15 UTC

Post by bobbyhaqq

Post by jean f k

Post by Tom Betz
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.

yes yes, we know already. the war wasn't necessary, there are no WMD's, and
there are no terrorists in Iraq. right. you just keep parroting that over
and over to yourself.

Amazing how the 'dems supported Clinton taking out Milosovic (which
I thought was a good thing to do) when (1) Milosovic was not a threat
to the US or its national interests (2) did not have WMD's (3) No UN
resolution authorizing force of "serious consequences" existed, or (4)
Milosovic was not a terrorist threat

But let Bush enforce previous UN resolutions, with the support of
the US Congress and watch the partisan dems change their postions

T.Carr

Post by bobbyhaqq
and in fact was a wall against Jihadist, was more able to kill leading
Jihadist and crush Islamic Fundementalism which he saw as a threat to
his Baathist dictatorship, the fact that Bush Snr and Clinton had
defeated Saddam and he no longer possed any threat until Bush invaded
and turned Iraq in to the world's largest terrorist threat through his
action is certainly unpleasant to the right, but it is still the
truth.
The fascists have invaded Iraq only because it was Muslim and Arab.
It was a race war revenge, and like a true Bully Bush assumed it would
be easy. I remember him in that idiotic outfit, declaring victory, it
seems so long ago. 10,000s of people have died in this war since
then. 10,000s more will die in a race war which will only turn the US
in to the most hated nation in the developing world.
I hate to break it to you fascists but much of the developing world,
those countries that unlike America are having job growth and
excellent economic growth, are muslim. As they develop they must
decide how their economies and socities will develop and which
alliance they will form. Bush has pushed them in to the hands of
China, which Bush has assured will become a super power as respected
as the US.
We will point to Tibet and Tienamen Square, but China will point to
Iraq. They will say that they have, like all nation, dealt with
internal revolts but they never invaded a sovergien nation because of
their religion and race (if you don't include Tibet which few Muslims
really care much about).
In the 21st Century the US will be blackened by its undeclared war in
Iraq for utterly false reasons leading to the deaths of 10,000s of
Iraqs and almost certain civil war and and very likely Islamic
republic. The people of the Muslim nations of Malaysia, Pakistan,
India (the IT boom there is heavily Muslim) Egypt (perhaps the first
Arab economic tiger), Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia, and other non-muslim
ememrging nations will objectively see the US as a far greater threat
to themselves than China, and China as a far more stable society than
the US.
This after Clinton had turned the 3rd World so pro-US. This after
9-11 made Ameirca and Americans the most beloved people in the world.
The fact is that Bush is a stupid evil bully surronded by evil
bullies, and he has shamed and disgraced our entire society.

Tom Betz

2004-10-31 14:51:30 UTC

Post by jean f k

Post by Tom Betz
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.

yes yes, we know already. the war wasn't necessary, there are no
WMD's, and there are no terrorists in Iraq. right. you just keep
parroting that over and over to yourself.

When Bush has finally been ejected from the White House, I'll be
able to go back to more enjoyable pursuits.

But in a world where a Republican lie can go twice around the
world before the truth can get its boots on, the truth deserves to
be repeated.

hank

2004-10-31 22:48:57 UTC

Say Tommy Shitzs..

Please explain to all of us how...

the President of the United states creates or loses

jobs in America?

Does the president have a hiring agency somewhere?

You are a DNC puppet...mouthing words you dont understand.

love
hank
.......................

It's only a lie if you pretend that the pool of available workers
has remained stable. But that pool has never remained stable -- it
grows at the average rate of 150,000 per month, as the population
grows.
What was the monthly rate of job growth over that period?
3,500,000 divided by 44 months = 79,545 per month.
So what was the real average rate of job loss over that period?
150,000 - 79,545 = 70,455 per month
And what was the net loss of jobs during that period?
70,455 * 44 months = 3,100,020 jobs lost
Bush lost a net 3,100,000 jove between January 2001 and September
2004. The facts are indisputable.
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who votes for George W. Bush.
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
The more you know, the less likely you are to vote for George Bush.
<http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>

Tom Betz

2004-10-30 18:39:06 UTC

It's only a lie if you pretend that the pool of available workers
has remained stable. But that pool has never remained stable --
it grows at the average rate of 150,000 per month, as the
population grows.

What was the monthly rate of job growth over that period?

3,500,000 divided by 44 months = 79,545 per month.

So what was the real average rate of job loss over that period?

150,000 - 79,545 = 70,455 per month

And what was the net loss of jobs during that period?

70,455 * 44 months = 3,100,020 jobs lost

Americans suffered a net loss of 3,100,000 jobs between January
2001 and September 2004, under the mismanagement of the Bush
administration. The last president with such a bad record was
Herbert Hoover.

The facts are indisputable.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with the declining quality of
the jobs that REMAIN available...

tellie

2004-10-31 06:22:21 UTC

You can't support your lie.... or you would!

There are more people working today (3.5 million)
They are making more money today (+12.4%)
They are working less hours (2.3%)

You can check this data for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

Now Betz, where can we check your lie?

It's only a lie if you pretend that the pool of available workers
has remained stable. But that pool has never remained stable --
it grows at the average rate of 150,000 per month, as the
population grows.
What was the monthly rate of job growth over that period?
3,500,000 divided by 44 months = 79,545 per month.
So what was the real average rate of job loss over that period?
150,000 - 79,545 = 70,455 per month
And what was the net loss of jobs during that period?
70,455 * 44 months = 3,100,020 jobs lost
Americans suffered a net loss of 3,100,000 jobs between January
2001 and September 2004, under the mismanagement of the Bush
administration. The last president with such a bad record was
Herbert Hoover.
The facts are indisputable.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the declining quality of
the jobs that REMAIN available...

TwistedFang

2004-10-30 20:53:47 UTC

Why won't he sign form 180 and release his Military records? What is he
hiding?

Tom Betz

2004-10-30 21:38:19 UTC

Post by TwistedFang
Why won't he sign form 180 and release his Military records?

Why should Kerry do something that Bush has refused to do?

tellie

2004-10-31 08:42:10 UTC

Betz, you're a liar and you're running..... but you can't hide....
Where's your support for your silly rants?
You can't support your lie.... or you would!

There are more people working today (3.5 million)
They are making more money today (+12.4%)
They are working less hours (2.3%)

You can check this data for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

Now Betz, where can we check your lie?

Post by TwistedFang
Why won't he sign form 180 and release his Military records?

Why should Kerry do something that Bush has refused to do?
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who votes for George W. Bush.
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
The more you know, the less likely you are to vote for George Bush.
<http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>

monday

2004-10-31 00:36:13 UTC

Post by TwistedFang
Why won't he sign form 180 and release his Military records?

Why should Kerry do something that Bush has refused to do?

Bush did

Post by Tom Betz
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who votes for George W. Bush.
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
The more you know, the less likely you are to vote for George Bush.
<http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>

hol99

2004-10-31 02:27:30 UTC

Post by monday

Post by TwistedFang
Why won't he sign form 180 and release his Military records?

Why should Kerry do something that Bush has refused to do?

Bush did

Haha. Bush's records are harder to find than Hillary's Whitewater documents.

Dave

robw

2004-11-01 03:05:29 UTC

Bummer that Swift Boat thing became a non-issue so quick, eh?

--
robw

"sing while you may"
edward kaspel

Post by TwistedFang
Why won't he sign form 180 and release his Military records? What is he
hiding?

hol99

2004-10-30 21:03:44 UTC

Post by tellie
You can't support your lie.... or you would!
There are more people working today (3.5 million)
They are making more money today (+12.4%)
They are working less hours (2.3%)

So, we have more workers, making more money, and we have the largest debt in
history. Somebody needs to massage the numbers. Where's Arthur Anderson when
you need them?

Dave

A***@getit.com

2004-10-30 22:10:48 UTC

Post by tellie
You can't support your lie.... or you would!
There are more people working today (3.5 million)
They are making more money today (+12.4%)
They are working less hours (2.3%)

a) there are more people today
b) the effective "value" of their wages is less
c) "less hours" is because the jobs are low-pay, part-time, no-benefit
jobs.

tellie

2004-10-31 08:45:07 UTC

Post by A***@getit.com

Post by tellie
You can't support your lie.... or you would!
There are more people working today (3.5 million)
They are making more money today (+12.4%)
They are working less hours (2.3%)

a) there are more people today
b) the effective "value" of their wages is less

That's pure bullshit..... only a moron doesn't understand what "real
earnings" means..... "real earnings are up 12.4%

Post by A***@getit.com
c) "less hours" is because the jobs are low-pay, part-time, no-benefit
jobs.

You are such an ignorant twit..... go to http://www.bls.gov/ and check it
out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Tom Betz

2004-10-30 22:11:45 UTC

Post by tellie
You can't support your lie.... or you would!

I used YOUR BLS EMPLOYMENT FIGURES, "tell lie".

As to the 150,000 jobs needed every month to keep up with inflation:

<http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/middleclass/middleclass9.html>
<http://www.jobwatch.org/>
<http://cbcfinc.org/Recession_Job%20Recovery.html>
<http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041009/NEWS0203/410090307/1029/NEWS01>
<http://www.civilrights.org/library/detail.cfm?id=18517>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44892-2004Aug6.html>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/business/05CND-ECON.html?hp>
<http://www.theallineed.com/news/0409/036557.htm>
<http://www.myleftbrain.com/archives/000378.html>

All report the need for 150,000 new jobs every month to keep up
with population growth. It is the standard number economists use
as a guide for the monthly employment figures, as anyone who actually
pays attention to the subject (as opposed to cutting and pasting
isolated statistics from Republican talking points memos without
any contextual understanding of their meaning) knows.

The math below is transparent to anyone capable of adding,
subtracting, multiplying and dividing -- most people learn how to
do these things by the time they leave fourth grade -- and the
conclusion drawn from the math is irrefutable.

It's only a lie if you pretend that the pool of available workers
has remained stable. But that pool has never remained stable --
it grows at the average rate of 150,000 per month, as the
population grows.
What was the monthly rate of job growth over that period?
3,500,000 divided by 44 months = 79,545 per month.
So what was the real average rate of job loss over that period?
150,000 - 79,545 = 70,455 per month
And what was the net loss of jobs during that period?
70,455 * 44 months = 3,100,020 jobs lost
Americans suffered a net loss of 3,100,000 jobs between January
2001 and September 2004, under the mismanagement of the Bush
administration. The last president with such a bad record was
Herbert Hoover.
The facts are indisputable.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the declining quality of
the jobs that REMAIN available...

tellie

2004-10-31 13:19:31 UTC

Post by tellie
You can't support your lie.... or you would!

I used YOUR BLS EMPLOYMENT FIGURES, "tell lie".

Another lie... if you had used BLS you'd know that the monthly number with
which you struggle is not 150,000 but according to the record 122,000......
no big deal, only a difference of 1.3 million......

But even with the correct number, you're not addressing my statement that
since Bush took office the total employment number has grown by 3.5
million... all of this wasted work of yours only supports my statement.....
Bush has added 3.5 million new jobs since taking office..... now, can you
disprove that or not!

Post by Tom Betz
<http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/middleclass/middleclass9.html>
<http://www.jobwatch.org/>
<http://cbcfinc.org/Recession_Job%20Recovery.html>
<http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041009/NEWS0203/410090307/1029/NEWS01>
<http://www.civilrights.org/library/detail.cfm?id=18517>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44892-2004Aug6.html>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/business/05CND-ECON.html?hp>
<http://www.theallineed.com/news/0409/036557.htm>
<http://www.myleftbrain.com/archives/000378.html>
All report the need for 150,000 (actual number only 122,000) new jobs
every month to keep up
with population growth. It is the standard number economists use
as a guide for the monthly employment figures, as anyone who actually
pays attention to the subject (as opposed to cutting and pasting
isolated statistics from Republican talking points memos without
any contextual understanding of their meaning) knows.
The math below is transparent to anyone capable of adding,
subtracting, multiplying and dividing -- most people learn how to
do these things by the time they leave fourth grade -- and the
conclusion drawn from the math is irrefutable.

The numbers are wrong and that's irrefutable.... you moron, don't you stop
and think before you jump off the deep end...
Don't you check any facts and figures before you start spewing incorrect
numbers.....?

But I digress, my statement remains intact....... Bush has added 3.5million
jobs at a 12.4% gain in real earnings.....

It's only a lie if you pretend that the pool of available workers
has remained stable. But that pool has never remained stable --
it grows at the average rate of 150,000 per month, as the
population grows.
What was the monthly rate of job growth over that period?
3,500,000 divided by 44 months = 79,545 per month.
So what was the real average rate of job loss over that period?
150,000 - 79,545 = 70,455 per month
And what was the net loss of jobs during that period?
70,455 * 44 months = 3,100,020 jobs lost
Americans suffered a net loss of 3,100,000 jobs between January
2001 and September 2004, under the mismanagement of the Bush
administration. The last president with such a bad record was
Herbert Hoover.
The facts are indisputable.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the declining quality of
the jobs that REMAIN available...

Tomaxo

2004-10-31 18:10:10 UTC

Post by tellie
You can't support your lie.... or you would!

I used YOUR BLS EMPLOYMENT FIGURES, "tell lie".

Tom: Don't waste your time arguing with this idiot. He's actually
stupid enough to believe that using farm labor inclusive stat's from a
January timeframe are comparable to farm labor inclusive stat's from
September, (economists use non-farm labor stat's for a reason). Using
this fools logic, one could just as easily argue that Bush has
improved the weather judging by tempurature data from January 2001 and
September 2004.

Argue all you want with him if you wish but se is impervious to common
sense.

Post by tellie
Another lie... if you had used BLS you'd know that the monthly number with
which you struggle is not 150,000 but according to the record 122,000......
no big deal, only a difference of 1.3 million......
But even with the correct number, you're not addressing my statement that
since Bush took office the total employment number has grown by 3.5
million... all of this wasted work of yours only supports my statement.....
Bush has added 3.5 million new jobs since taking office..... now, can you
disprove that or not!

The numbers are wrong and that's irrefutable.... you moron, don't you stop
and think before you jump off the deep end...
Don't you check any facts and figures before you start spewing incorrect
numbers.....?
But I digress, my statement remains intact....... Bush has added 3.5million
jobs at a 12.4% gain in real earnings.....

It's only a lie if you pretend that the pool of available workers
has remained stable. But that pool has never remained stable --
it grows at the average rate of 150,000 per month, as the
population grows.
What was the monthly rate of job growth over that period?
3,500,000 divided by 44 months = 79,545 per month.
So what was the real average rate of job loss over that period?
150,000 - 79,545 = 70,455 per month
And what was the net loss of jobs during that period?
70,455 * 44 months = 3,100,020 jobs lost
Americans suffered a net loss of 3,100,000 jobs between January
2001 and September 2004, under the mismanagement of the Bush
administration. The last president with such a bad record was
Herbert Hoover.
The facts are indisputable.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the declining quality of
the jobs that REMAIN available...

Tom Betz

2004-10-31 23:36:38 UTC

Post by Tomaxo
Argue all you want with him if you wish but se is impervious to
common sense.

Oh, I had killfiled "tell lie" quite a while back.

But I saw someone reply to his original post inadequately, and felt
that it was worthwhile to set the record straight on this one
point. I wouldn't even have seen this one if you hadn't replied to
it.

The funniest bit is that even using his 122,000/month jobs-required
number (admittedly, the lowest number one could rationally use for
such an estimate) works out to a net loss of 1,868,000 jobs,
thereby disproving his claim as well, but the fool is too stupid to
recognize it.

Tomaxo

2004-10-30 21:21:22 UTC

I checked it myself. Here's the stat's I found, by Presidential term
for average monthly job Growth (in thousands):

Bush -19,000
Clinton II +233,000
Clinton I +240,000
Bush Sr +54,000
Reagan II +255,000
Reagan I +111,000
Carter +215,000

You have to go all the way back to Hoover to find stat's matching
Bush's

It would seem those Liberals would have you believe right.

The stat you left out of your argument was the amount of Jobs lost
under Bush, which, of course, is substantially under the amount of
jobs created during his Presidency.

tellie

2004-10-31 08:49:58 UTC

According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001

Somebody slap this ignorant moron.........

Hey slug, can you dispute the fact that Bush has added 3.5 million jobs?

Your lies can't be supported...... or you would have done so>

I checked it myself. Here's the stat's I found, by Presidential term
Bush -19,000

This is of course a lie.....
No support as usual..

Post by Tomaxo
Clinton II +233,000
Clinton I +240,000
Bush Sr +54,000
Reagan II +255,000
Reagan I +111,000
Carter +215,000
You have to go all the way back to Hoover to find stat's matching
Bush's
It would seem those Liberals would have you believe right.
The stat you left out of your argument was the amount of Jobs lost
under Bush, which, of course, is substantially under the amount of
jobs created during his Presidency.

Tomaxo

2004-10-31 15:28:38 UTC

Post by tellie
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001
Somebody slap this ignorant moron.........
Hey slug, can you dispute the fact that Bush has added 3.5 million jobs?
Your lies can't be supported...... or you would have done so>

I checked it myself. Here's the stat's I found, by Presidential term
Bush -19,000

This is of course a lie.....
No support as usual..

Oh but there is (watch world, as Tellie's embarrassment continues),
it's all from the exact site that you listed. Bush lost jobs
according to all of the standards economists use.

Nonfarm employment 131,567 SEP 2004
Nonfarm employment 132,129 JAN 2001

Factor in growth in the work force due to population growth and divide
out the months. Sorry buddy, but no one with any economic sense is
going to let you get away with comparing farm labor stat's from
January of one year with September of another, unless you're ready to
start factoring in seasonality.

Tomaxo

2004-10-30 21:23:47 UTC

Exuse my prior mis-type. The amount of jobs CREATED under Bush were
substantially UNDER the number of those lost during his Presidency.
It's all there in the sight you listed.

tellie

2004-10-31 13:22:08 UTC

Exuse my prior mis-type. The amount of jobs CREATED under Bush were
substantially UNDER the number of those lost during his Presidency.
It's all there in the sight you listed.

Bush has added 3,500,000 jobs to total employment since taking office. Do
you even understand the statement?
You make less sense with every post...

Tomaxo

2004-10-31 18:20:22 UTC

Exuse my prior mis-type. The amount of jobs CREATED under Bush were
substantially UNDER the number of those lost during his Presidency.
It's all there in the sight you listed.

Bush has added 3,500,000 jobs to total employment since taking office. Do
you even understand the statement?
You make less sense with every post...

And the humiliation of Tellie continues: Tellie, (I like your "Tell
Lie" moniker by the way) the 3,500,000 jobs you are seeing are ALL
farm labor jobs, which will shortly dissappear for another winter as
they do every year. Actually, the total addition of farm labor jobs
is around 4,000,000 this year, which is where your 3.5 million total
comes from because more than half a million non-farm labor jobs were
lost during that timeframe. If you go back to every year recorded you
will see a large surge in farm labor between Winter moths like January
and the Summer/Fall period that includes September of each year.

Class Dismissed

ausstu

2004-10-31 00:30:57 UTC

Problem is this is not an accurate measure, as is the bls payroll
statistics.

And according to the payroll survey, since Bush took office the U.S.
has suffered a net job loss of about 600,000 to 800,000 jobs.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the payroll survey is a more
accurate measure of job loss than the household survey, but both
surveys have limitations.

A narrator in a recent Kerry campaign ad responded by saying, "How out
of touch is George Bush with Ohio? Over the last four years, we've
lost over 230,000 jobs in our state. Now George Bush sends his
treasury secretary to Ohio to tell us these job losses are a 'myth.'
Do you think it's a myth that we've lost jobs?
CNN fact checkers say Kerry accurately calculates the number of jobs
lost based on payroll figures, which is actually about 237,000

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/14/news/economy/election_jobfacts/

tellie

2004-10-31 13:25:19 UTC

Bush Added 3.5 million jobs to total employment.
Anyone who says different is lying.....
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

Post by ausstu

This is a lie...... many believe it more accurate....

Chickenlips

2004-10-31 05:30:19 UTC

Post by tellie
Bush Added 3.5 million jobs to total employment.
Anyone who says different is lying.....
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/

Post by ausstu

This is a lie...... many believe it more accurate....

Matt Telles

2004-11-01 00:29:46 UTC

You went to a Bush public school, didn't you? End of discussion, you
haven't the IQ to debate.

Matt

Spammeister

2004-11-01 12:41:50 UTC

This is why stupid people vote for Bush. They are economic illiterates
like tellie.

It takes something like 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with
population growth, junior. Do the math and you'll quickly see Bush is
way behind without even counting all the jobs lost on his watch. I don't
even have to go into the huge numbers of discouraged workers not counted
in the unemployment figures because they've given up looking for work.
Finally, there's the millions of underemployed who can't find suitable
employment based upon their skills and experience.

That's why Bush is in the cellar when polls are taken on handling the
economy. He's as clueless as you on the subject.

--
"Stupidity's the deliberate cultivation of ignorance."
-- William Gladdis

Tired of junk email??? Fight back! Visit http://www.craigbanks.us.

tellie

2004-12-02 13:18:30 UTC

Post by Spammeister
This is why stupid people vote for Bush. They are economic illiterates
like tellie.
It takes something like 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with
population growth,

Another liberal lie without factual support.... the actual number is far
less than this according to the Bureau of Labor Stastics.

Post by Spammeister
Do the math and you'll quickly see Bush is way behind without even
counting all the jobs lost on his watch. I don't even have to go into the
huge numbers of discouraged workers not counted in the unemployment
figures because they've given up looking for work. Finally, there's the
millions of underemployed who can't find suitable employment based upon
their skills and experience.

I couldn't help but notice that you're not challenging the fact that since
Bush took office "total employment" has grown by 3.5 million jobs and that
average "real earnings" are up 12.4%.

Post by Spammeister
That's why Bush is in the cellar when polls are taken on handling the
economy. He's as clueless as you on the subject.

You talk and talk but you have nothing of substance to add, you don't
dispute the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers because you can't so you just
throw out silliness that you simply can't support.

Can you prove that BLS data is incorrect or not?
Do you deny that the total workforce has grown by 3.5 million since 1/01 or
not?
Do you deny that real earnings are up by 12.4% since 1/01?

I didn't think so......

Post by Spammeister

--
"Stupidity's the deliberate cultivation of ignorance."
-- William Gladdis
Tired of junk email??? Fight back! Visit http://www.craigbanks.us.

ELC

2004-11-01 23:56:06 UTC

You know Bush was trying to count McDonald's-type jobs as
manufacturing jobs. I command you to stop being a dumbass.

Richard Hutnik

2004-11-02 01:37:59 UTC

To maintain employment, there needs to be added 150000 jobs a month on
average to the economy. Jan 01 through Sept 04 is 35 months. 35
times 150000 equals 6,7500,000. That is 3.25 million short of the
number of jobs needed to keep up with population growth.

So, does this sound like a good thing to you? Please refute the
150000 a month needed number if you disagree with me.

- Richard Hutnik

Tomaxo

2004-11-02 07:01:21 UTC

Here's how you have fun exposing a poster of Lies (Like Tellie). You
Post the facts.
BUSH LOSES 5.7 MILLION NET JOBS SINCE TAKING OFFICE!
January 2001 (in thousands)
Nonfarm employment 132,129
Civilian labor force 141,955
Nonfarm as % of Civilian Labor Force 93%

September 2004 (in thousands)
Nonfarm employment 131,567
Civilian labor force 147,483
Nonfarm as % of Civilian Labor Force 89%
(in thousands)
Break-even point non-farm/CLF for 2004 at 93% 137,274.23
Shortfall 5,707.23
all stat's available at Bureau of Labor Statistics:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.02212001.news
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.09162004.news

Tellie would have us believe you can compare stat's that include farm
labor from January of one year with those of September for another.
By this same methodology one could easily "Prove" Bush improved the
weather by comparing tempurature stat's for the same period.

tellie

2004-12-01 12:43:45 UTC

Kerry lies and claims 1.6 million jobs lost, this moron pumps it to 5.7
million...
The truth is that Total Employment has grown by 3.5 million jobs since Bush
took office... That's the truth, That's what the records reflect at
http://www.bls.gov/ and these Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers just can't accept it
so they make their lies even bigger in hopes that their inbred butt-hole
buddies will swallow another turd..... and unfortunately because of their
ignorance,they usually do..... funny if not so pathetic.

Post by Tomaxo
Here's how you have fun exposing a poster of Lies (Like Tellie). You
Post the facts.
BUSH LOSES 5.7 MILLION NET JOBS SINCE TAKING OFFICE!
January 2001 (in thousands)
Nonfarm employment 132,129
Civilian labor force 141,955
Nonfarm as % of Civilian Labor Force 93%
September 2004 (in thousands)
Nonfarm employment 131,567
Civilian labor force 147,483
Nonfarm as % of Civilian Labor Force 89%
(in thousands)
Break-even point non-farm/CLF for 2004 at 93% 137,274.23
Shortfall 5,707.23
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.02212001.news
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.09162004.news
Tellie would have us believe you can compare stat's that include farm
labor from January of one year with those of September for another.
By this same methodology one could easily "Prove" Bush improved the
weather by comparing tempurature stat's for the same period.

Tomaxo

2004-11-02 07:04:28 UTC

Exposing Tellie's lies is oh so easy....

Total Nonfarm employment Seasonally Adjusted
JAN 2001 132388
SEP 2004 131567
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Total Private Employment Seasonally Adjusted
JAN 2001 111560
SEP 2004 109926
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Total Private Employment down 1,634,000

Total Nonfarm employment down 821,000

Tomaxo

2004-11-02 07:13:37 UTC