What $100 Billion Buys...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000 new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3 million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there was a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop, whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004

(source:http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOu...ool=latest_num
bers&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=all_years& periods_option=specific_pe
riods&periods=Annual+Data)

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000 new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3 million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop, whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.11a10c49ca3423911f02699cbc6b988a@107 8165397.nulluser.com...

Thanks to the Bush Administration fiddling while our jobs have burned,
we're down 2.5 million jobs since the idiot assumed office.

snip



Bull!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/171833.shtml
-------------------------------------------


Your bullship pickup from Not-the-newsmax has been discredited at least
50 times. Find something else.

Bull!

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

"plantsman" wrote in message
. com...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000 new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3 million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there was a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.

Regardless of which numbers you use, however, there have been five
straight
months of employment growth. By the election, they'll be 13 straight
months
of employment growth. It will be impossible for Democrats to say that
jobs
are being lost under Bush...when the numbers show a 13 month upward
trend
in
job growth.

Two graphs, if brought out in one of the debates (a-la-Perot), will
spell
the demise of the Democratic candidate:

1) a graph of the quarterly increases in GDP for the prior 18 months.

2) a graph of the number of new jobs added each month for the prior 13
months.

Both graphs will have sharp upward-sloping lines...showing that we're in
the
midst of a 1 to 1 1/2 year boom in our economy. Then Bush will look at
the
camera, tell the audience that Kerry/Edwards/etc. will repeal the tax
cut,
thus raising your taxes, and return us to a recession.

Then he'll tell the audience that we have bin Laden in captivity. ;-)

=======================
Tell me what those new jobs are and where have they been created?

These occupations have shown an *increase* in employment numbers:

Management, professional, and related occupations

Service occupations

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations

Construction and extraction occupations

Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations


These have shown a decrease in employment numbers:

Sales and office occupations

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations


(source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t10.htm)


Are they
former professionals now working two jobs at different fast food
restaurants
just to survive?

No.


If that's the case, and I suspect that most of it is,

You suspect wrong.


then that is no growth at all with their net income much lower than it was
before. Yes, two jobs may have been created but at what effect to a
family's standard of living?

Wrong again. According to the BLS, there was a 2% increase in "Usually
Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers" from 2002 to 2003. The consumer
price index went up only 1.9%...so wages outpaced inflation. That couldn't
happen if eveybody was leaving high-paying jobs to become burger flippers.

(source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm)

Quit believing all of the doom and gloom the Demon-crats are trying to sell
you. They run on a message of hate, fear, and negativity. Republicans run
on a message of optimism, hope, and prosperity.

Don't believe that? Go through google archives and try to find *one single*
"positive" post that Harry, jps, Jim, or basskisser has posted here.

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

"plantsman" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"plantsman" wrote in message
om...
Bull! to Newsmax. I don't care how they cook the books on this one,
jobs
are not being created in Tennessee and more are going way south or far
east
every day. In just my area of NE TN, in the past ten years, we've
lost
something to the tune of better than 6,000 manufacturing jobs and over
1,000
more engineering and support jobs for the area's industry. That's
almost
a
quarter of all industrial jobs here. Even Burger King has taken down
their
"Help Wanted" signs. I'm a Republican but if the Bush team succeeds
in
measuring burger flippin' as a manufacturing job, them I'm going to
reconsider my vote come November. Real estate here is a mini-mansion
buyers
market, as so many white collar folks have had to pull up and relocate
when
their $100K+ jobs evaporated due to cutbacks.

They're not selling to relocate to a new job. They're selling to
relocate
to a nicer climate. Our real estate market in Southwest Florida is
still
going gangbusters. I just sold my house today after about 60 days on
the
market. We sold it for 37% more than we paid in January 2001. Finally,
I
can pull the boat out of the marina (it's a friggin' hour and half drive
to
go 30 miles), and park it in the back yard of my new home.





It's still not over, more
layoffs are expected as the area's largest employer, Eastman Chemical,
sells
off one of their divisions and potentially 2,000+ people will be
impacted.
We've got Bechtel mechanical and chemical engineers delivering pizzas
and
working for the newspaper in an effort to keep from having to move
away
and
loose their butts on their homes. It is the pits! My former
employer
(industrial equipment/supply) (I retired in July due to illness) went
from
having over thirty people working to only about eleven, due to the
fallout
from Eastman basically stopping in their tracks. They're not
optimistic
about surviving as a company. Several competitors and related
companies
have already bellied-up. Everyone from car dealers, furniture stores,
and
everyone except Wal-Mart has been impacted.

I couldn't imagine a worse hardship than working for the only major
employer in a certain area, and then that employer picking up and
moving.
Unfortunately, your area isn't experiencing anything different from what
those living in the mining towns of PA experienced decades ago. People
complained about the same thing back then.


It's a fact of life that every year, technology changes, mines dry up,
or
jobs get sent overseas. It sucks that manufacturing jobs are being sent
overseas, but that's the reality in a World economy with the WTO and
NAFTA.
Any candidate that will tell you he/she can do something to slow the
exodus
of jobs going overseas is full of ****. Completely full of ****! Ask
'em
for details. Kerry says "he'll close the loopholes". What
loopholes!?!?
Demand they be specific! The bottom line is...Perot and Buchanan were
right. However, the loss of manufacturing jobs was inevitable. NAFTA
and
the WTO just expedited things.

===================
The situation at Eastman Chemical Co. may be sort of unique among large
companies. This huge plant, one of the largest chemical plant sites in
the
world, was originally a division of Eastman Kodak.


Does Eastman Chemical make the chemicals that are used for film
processing...like developing x-rays, etc? If that's the case, then they're
just a victim of new technology. The world is going digital. I see it
first hand in the health fields. We haven't developed a radiograph in our
office in over 4 years.

Recently, Kodak made the decision not to spend any more R&D money on film
technology. In the dental field, they just acquired Practiceworks, Inc. and
Trophy Radiologie...two companies that played a large role in the
obsolescence of dental film. They've accepted the fact that digital has
taken over. I suspect the Eastman plant is just a victim of that
technology.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pres...30721-01.shtml

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000
new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3
million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there
was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop,
whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not
check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.'

You're right. My mistake.

Bush: 6.3% (January 2004)
Clinton: 6.3% (January 1996)

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

NOYB wrote:

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000
new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3
million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there
was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop,
whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not
check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.'

You're right. My mistake.

Bush: 6.3% (January 2004)
Clinton: 6.3% (January 1996)



Bush isn't playing well in Ohio. You realize that if Bush carries all
the states he carried in 2000 but one, and Kerry carries all the states
Gore carried in 2000, and Kerry carries Ohio, Bush is...gone.

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

In article , "Keith & Laura Koether" wrote:

You and Me

You repeat all of that super long post just to say three words?

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

[SUPER LONG IRRELEVANT REPOST SNIPPED]

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

The same can be said of New Mexico, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa,
Pennsylvania...and your own state of Maryland. All of those went to Gore in
2000, and any one of those could swing towards Bush this time.

Kerry didn't have a particularly strong showing several of those states.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000
new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3
million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey,
there
was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop,
whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in
office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not
check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.'

You're right. My mistake.

Bush: 6.3% (January 2004)
Clinton: 6.3% (January 1996)



Bush isn't playing well in Ohio. You realize that if Bush carries all
the states he carried in 2000 but one, and Kerry carries all the states
Gore carried in 2000, and Kerry carries Ohio, Bush is...gone.

What $100 Billion Buys...
 

NOYB wrote:

The same can be said of New Mexico, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa,
Pennsylvania...and your own state of Maryland. All of those went to Gore in
2000, and any one of those could swing towards Bush this time.

Kerry didn't have a particularly strong showing several of those states.


Hehehe. Your boy Bush is in deep doo-doo. Kerry will carry every state
Gore carried, and he's going to pick up Ohio and a couple of other
states that went for Bush but have suffered massive job losses.

Bush can try to b.s. about jobs, about health care, about education,
about Social Security and Medicare, about the environment, but he has
feet of clay in those areas, and he has been an absolute disaster in the
international area. All your dumb boy Bush has are wedge issues (gay
marriage, for example), and fear. Perhaps he should start a new website
called FearBush.COM, as fear and divisiveness are the Republican
stocks-in-trade.

And then there is Cheney, a real anchor around Bush's dirty neck. Bush
would be better served if Cheney had a fatal heart attack before the GOP
convention, or decided to step down so someone less slimey could fill in
for him.

I expect the dirtiest campaign ever from the Repubicans. Bush cannot run
on his record, because his record as president is horrible. He has to go
on the the attack.