Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Joe wrote:
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate
in the third quarter, faster than the government initially estimated as
companies boosted inventories in September to meet the surge in demand.

You be sure and let us know when the buttwipe in the White House
replaces the three million jobs lost on his watch.


Spin, spin, spin away, spin right up and down. Add some crud, and rake
the mud. You sure look like a clown.......


All that at 7:30 in the morning.... It's gonna be a good day!


Dave



Spin? Tell that to those 3 million Americans who had decent factory jobs
before the dumfoch in the White House bought his way in.


It's certainly spin if you believe that Bush (or any other single
person) was somehow responsible for the downturn in jobs. Economic
trends occur independently of politics. The recession was already well
underway before Bush was even elected, so tell me again how your
interpretation is anything other than plotical spinmeistering.

Dave



1. Of course Bush is responsible. He's running the ship of state. The
buck stops on his desk.

2. Sometimes.

3. No, the recession was nothing more than a little blip when Bush
presumed office.

4. This country is in desperate need of massive spending on its
infrastructure. Bush could have gone to Congress with enormous public
works proposals that would have rebuild much of what needed rebuilding,
and would have put millions of Americans back to work at good-paying
jobs. Instead, Bush blew the surplus on tax cuts for the rich and is
spending the future on his political war against Iraq.

Bush is a disaster.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry Krause wrote:

It's certainly spin if you believe that Bush (or any other single
person) was somehow responsible for the downturn in jobs. Economic
trends occur independently of politics. The recession was already well
underway before Bush was even elected, so tell me again how your
interpretation is anything other than plotical spinmeistering.

Dave



1. Of course Bush is responsible. He's running the ship of state. The
buck stops on his desk.

How can someone be responsibe for something he has no control over?
Since when does (or should) the government interfere in the natural ebbs
and flows of the free market?



2. Sometimes.

Sometimes what?



3. No, the recession was nothing more than a little blip when Bush
presumed office.

The rescession was UNDERWAY when Bush took office. It hadn't reached
bottom yet, but there is little that a sitting president can do,
especially in the short term, to stem economic problems which manifest
from global shifts in the economy and free market trade.



4. This country is in desperate need of massive spending on its
infrastructure. Bush could have gone to Congress with enormous public
works proposals that would have rebuild much of what needed rebuilding,
and would have put millions of Americans back to work at good-paying
jobs.

And bankrupt our tax coffers in the process. And you think the debt is
bad now....

And how would government spending create jobs in the private sector,
which were previously cut due to market pressure? How would government
spending undo increased efficiency due to automation? How would
government spending reverse the trend toward outsourcing? Throwing money
at a problem only covers it up, and drives up our taxes as well.


Instead, Bush blew the surplus on tax cuts for the rich

Every taxpayer received a refund. I am hardly rich and I pocketed over
$1000 thanks to Mr. Bush, and I'm saving over $800 a year from further
cuts. Better in my pocket than the government's. What I got back was in
proportion to what I put in, as it should be. Of course richer people
got more back, because they put more in to begin with. That's how
percentages work.


and is spending the future on his political war against Iraq.

And you'd rather we ignore the significance of 9/11 and of the growing
anti-west sentiment in the middle east?


Bush is a disaster.

Bush is driven by a set of principles and character that I haven't seen
since Reagan. He sticks by those principles even when many people who
don't understand those principles oppose them. It's refreshing to be led
by a person of character, rather than a "vote according to the political
wind" type of leader.

Dave