On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gary Warner wrote:
"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.



You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid
soiling them in Bush-****.

As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's.

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.

Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer
jobs now than there were during the Clinton years.

And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television
and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states
right after the Democratic convention.

Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush
misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared
to the Clinton years.


Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. Most politicians know little about the intricacies of world
business. The only thing they can do it to try to fool the gullible
among us into believing that they (or their opponents) actually were
responsible for any gains (or losses) in the economy. Certain policies
may influence the economy in some small ways. But things like the dot
com rise and bust, the temporary success of day trading, and the
subsequent recession when real profits didn't come from the inflated
overvaluation of those dot com stocks.

Clinton was lucky. His presidency coincided with a period of run away
economic growth. Bush wasn't so lucky. He was left with picking up the
pieces after the bubble burst. Neither one had any personal stake in
either economic state.

Dave