OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.

Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000 increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Economists had said the return of those workers would boost payrolls, but
that the impact was hard to gauge because it was unclear how many temporary
replacement workers were being let go.

The report showed job gains were widespread across industries.

While a long-hoped for rise in manufacturing employment did not appear, the
department said factory payrolls were unchanged in March, finally breaking a
string of 43 consecutive monthly declines.

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

The Labor Departmentreport released Friday showed widespread hiring in
industries across the economy at a time when President Bush re-election
campaign, counting heavily on a pickup in hiring, jumped into high gear.


For the first time in 44 months, the nation's factories did not shed jobs.
But they weren't hiring either. March's figures show zero gains and losses
for industries hammered by the economic downturn that began three years ago.
The only sector losing jobs last month was information services, where
companies cut about 1,000 jobs.


Revisions to payrolls showed a stronger jobs market than previously thought.
Companies added 205,000 jobs in January and February, instead of the 118,000
reported last month.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January and February numbers revised upwards to 205,000.

That's 7 straight months of increases in the non-farm payroll employment
numbers...even if you're using the less-than-perfect Payroll Survey data
rather than the Household Survey data.

The economy has now added 513,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2004!

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

AND now for the REST of the story


"Companies add 308,000 jobs, but unemployment up"

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/...bs2/index.html


NOYB wrote:
The Labor Departmentreport released Friday showed widespread hiring in
industries across the economy at a time when President Bush re-election
campaign, counting heavily on a pickup in hiring, jumped into high gear.


For the first time in 44 months, the nation's factories did not shed jobs.
But they weren't hiring either. March's figures show zero gains and losses
for industries hammered by the economic downturn that began three years ago.
The only sector losing jobs last month was information services, where
companies cut about 1,000 jobs.


Revisions to payrolls showed a stronger jobs market than previously thought.
Companies added 205,000 jobs in January and February, instead of the 118,000
reported last month.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January and February numbers revised upwards to 205,000.

That's 7 straight months of increases in the non-farm payroll employment
numbers...even if you're using the less-than-perfect Payroll Survey data
rather than the Household Survey data.

The economy has now added 513,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2004!

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e3173c7804238f91ecc7925a91375559@108 0916509.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.


Do you even read what gets you excited before you post it?



"The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute, which
had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The
impact was muted because many of the returning employees displaced temporary
hires."

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/63342|top|04-02-2004::10:05|reuters.html

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e3173c7804238f91ecc7925a91375559@108 0916509.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.


Do you even read what gets you excited before you post it?






The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in
the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the
upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said,
the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected
on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low
of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.


Unemployment rate is up - again.

BLS calls it "no change".





Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to
the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the
Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their
current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute
at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000
increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.



The rise in payrolls is due mostly to the return of 72,000 strikers?
And you think that is a gain in jobs?

308k-72k=236,000

The rise in payrolls of 236,000 jobs is a pretty significant gain in jobs.
Regardless, when those guys went on strike, it counted *against* employment
numbers...and the Dems had no problem counting them among the "unemployed"
at that time. Now that they're back to work, you guys say that they
shouldn't count!?!?

The economy has been expanding for over a year...and jobs have been
increasing for 7 straight months. Half a million jobs have been gained this
year. Spin all you want, but that's terricific economic news.

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
AND now for the REST of the story


"Companies add 308,000 jobs, but unemployment up"



Salon, eh? If you want the *REAL* story, go to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics site:
http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 308,000 in March, and the
unemployment rate was about unchanged at 5.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll job
growth
was fairly widespread, as construction employment rose sharply and several
major service-providing industries also added jobs.

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e3173c7804238f91ecc7925a91375559@108 0916509.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned
after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.


Do you even read what gets you excited before you post it?



"The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute,
which
had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The
impact was muted because many of the returning employees displaced
temporary
hires."

Harry won't reply to that post Joe. It screws up his "spin".

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e3173c7804238f91ecc7925a91375559@108 0916509.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned
after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.


Do you even read what gets you excited before you post it?






The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to
President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in
the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the
upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said,
the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected
on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low
of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.


Unemployment rate is up - again.

BLS calls it "no change".





Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to
the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the
Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their
current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute
at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers.
The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000
increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.



The rise in payrolls is due mostly to the return of 72,000 strikers?
And you think that is a gain in jobs?

308k-72k=236,000

The rise in payrolls of 236,000 jobs is a pretty significant gain in jobs.
Regardless, when those guys went on strike, it counted *against*
employment
numbers...and the Dems had no problem counting them among the "unemployed"
at that time. Now that they're back to work, you guys say that they
shouldn't count!?!?

The economy has been expanding for over a year...and jobs have been
increasing for 7 straight months. Half a million jobs have been gained
this
year. Spin all you want, but that's terricific economic news.




Kerry downplayed the unemployment rate when it was 5.6% saying that the
number of jobs created was more important.

I will guarantee that we can expect Mr. Waffle to change his tune now and
concentrate on the unemployment rate. Flip-flop.

Even at 5.7% it is still lower than the average rates in the '70's, '80's
and 90's. An most economists don't put much faith in the numbers as they
are now calculated.

from http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

"While it would seem odd that the unemployment rate rose despite a jump in
payrolls, the two numbers are generated by separate surveys. The
unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which found that
179,000 people entered the labor force in March, resulting in a higher
unemployment rate.

Still, most economists believe the survey of businesses, which is much
broader, is a more accurate measure of the health of the labor market."

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute,
which
had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The
impact was muted because many of the returning employees displaced
temporary
hires."

Harry won't reply to that post Joe. It screws up his "spin".


Allow me to cut 'n paste a thread from a golf forum (yes, golfers can get off
topic on a variety of topics too).... Read what they say on this matter:

Butch Ammon

--------------------cut 'n paste---------------------------

Reuters is reporting that the great American job-creating machine is revving
into high gear:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President Bush
as the jobs market---a hot political issue in the U.S. presidential
campaign--finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall
Street.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/busin...y-jobs.html?hp

This is great news for the United States.

=================================

Yes, as I said on the other, related thread, now that the lagging indicator
(jobs) of the reviving economy is beginning to show itself, this can only mean
unmitigated disaster for John Kerry and his campaign. It shows that George W.
Bush's tax cuts are working, that he has taken the right steps to help the
economy recover.
I can only imagine how wonderful the economy will be with FOUR MORE YEARS of
George W. Bush's outstanding leadership! And I'm looking forward to finding
out, as we WILL find out. :o)

==================================

This is great news for patriotic Americans in general and for the golf industry
in particular!

-------------------end of cut 'n paste--------------------

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

Butch Ammon wrote in message
...

Harry won't reply to that post Joe. It screws up his "spin".


Allow me to cut 'n paste a thread from a golf forum (yes, golfers can get
off
topic on a variety of topics too).... Read what they say on this matter:

Butch Ammon


Back already? Seems like you just left!
How are things over at iboat or whatever?

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

Butch Ammon wrote:

"The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute,

which

had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The
impact was muted because many of the returning employees displaced

temporary

hires."

Harry won't reply to that post Joe. It screws up his "spin".



Allow me to cut 'n paste a thread from a golf forum (yes, golfers can get off
topic on a variety of topics too).... Read what they say on this matter:

Butch Ammon

--------------------cut 'n paste---------------------------

Reuters is reporting that the great American job-creating machine is revving
into high gear:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President Bush
as the jobs market---a hot political issue in the U.S. presidential
campaign--finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall
Street.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/busin...y-jobs.html?hp

This is great news for the United States.

=================================

Yes, as I said on the other, related thread, now that the lagging indicator
(jobs) of the reviving economy is beginning to show itself, this can only mean
unmitigated disaster for John Kerry and his campaign. It shows that George W.
Bush's tax cuts are working, that he has taken the right steps to help the
economy recover.
I can only imagine how wonderful the economy will be with FOUR MORE YEARS of
George W. Bush's outstanding leadership! And I'm looking forward to finding
out, as we WILL find out. :o)

==================================

This


For someone who keeps announcing he's gone, you're sure here a lot.

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000

G Bush = H Hoover

bb

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"While it would seem odd that the unemployment rate rose despite a jump in
payrolls, the two numbers are generated by separate surveys. The
unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which found that
179,000 people entered the labor force in March, resulting in a higher
unemployment rate.

But Harry told us this on March 7th:

"The fact is that virtually no one of consequence takes the "home survey" as
a measure of employment or unemployment seriously, and that includes the BLS
and Alan Greenspan."

What's he saying now?

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000


Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



You're working really hard to rationalize this...it's fun to watch you
shovel the bull****.

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

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

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to
average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



You're working really hard to rationalize this...it's fun to watch you
shovel the bull****.


Hey! I already used that argument against *you*. Try to be a little more
original next time.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.

NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.

Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000 increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Economists had said the return of those workers would boost payrolls, but
that the impact was hard to gauge because it was unclear how many temporary
replacement workers were being let go.

The report showed job gains were widespread across industries.

While a long-hoped for rise in manufacturing employment did not appear, the
department said factory payrolls were unchanged in March, finally breaking a
string of 43 consecutive monthly declines.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...
Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.

NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in
the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the
upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said,
the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected
on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low of
5.6
percent seen in January and February.

Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to
the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the
Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their
current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute
at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000
increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Economists had said the return of those workers would boost payrolls,
but
that the impact was hard to gauge because it was unclear how many
temporary
replacement workers were being let go.

The report showed job gains were widespread across industries.

While a long-hoped for rise in manufacturing employment did not appear,
the
department said factory payrolls were unchanged in March, finally
breaking a
string of 43 consecutive monthly declines.





Maybe in your mind, but in the minds of most Americans he is ahead in the
polls. LOL!!

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

NOYB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



Seehttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

Extract
The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months
has been about 95,000 — far below the 150,000 to 200,000
jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force,
Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise
in coming months as workers decide to resume their job
searches.

OT--Holy smokes! 308,000 new jobs in March!
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to
average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?




Seehttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_bi_go_ec
_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

Extract
The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months
has been about 95,000 — far below the 150,000 to 200,000
jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force,
Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise
in coming months as workers decide to resume their job
searches.

You Dem's are pretty confused. Last month, you guys were telling me that
the Unemployment Rate (since it is based off of the Household Survey Data)
is meaningless and unreliable. Now, you're telling me that the net gain of
308,000 in the employment numbers (based on the Payroll Survey Data) is
meaningless.

Maybe you guys should all get your heads together, get your stories
straight, and actually come up with some issues that don't require massive
spin and lies to resonate positively with the American people.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...
Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.

A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two wars,
etc.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

NOYB wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two wars,
etc.



As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our
economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two
wars,
etc.



As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

And they are! Jobs are a lagging indicator. The tax cut was passed, and
rates were reduced effective July 1, 2001...which means American's didn't
start seeing *some* of their returned money until after the April 2002
returns were submitted. Of course, the recession from 2001 and early 2002
hurt people's income and the job market. Therefore, the tax money refunded
in 2003 constitutes the bulk of the tax cut...which means Americans have
only had about 11 months to spend the tax cut refunded money. Since *every
single* economist will tell you there's a lag between a jump in GDP and a
jump in employment, it stands to reason that the past 7 months of increases
in employment figures is just following on the heels of 9 quarters of GDP
increases.

After 3 straight quarters of a *decreasing GDP*, the 4th quarter GDP in 2001
had increased...and GDP has been increasing for 9 consecutive quarters.
What happened in 2001 to stop the recession? The tax cut and interest rate
cuts by the Fed.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:07:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our
economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two
wars,
etc.



As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

And they are! Jobs are a lagging indicator. The tax cut was passed, and
rates were reduced effective July 1, 2001...which means American's didn't
start seeing *some* of their returned money until after the April 2002
returns were submitted. Of course, the recession from 2001 and early 2002
hurt people's income and the job market. Therefore, the tax money refunded
in 2003 constitutes the bulk of the tax cut...which means Americans have
only had about 11 months to spend the tax cut refunded money. Since *every
single* economist will tell you there's a lag between a jump in GDP and a
jump in employment, it stands to reason that the past 7 months of increases
in employment figures is just following on the heels of 9 quarters of GDP
increases.

After 3 straight quarters of a *decreasing GDP*, the 4th quarter GDP in 2001
had increased...and GDP has been increasing for 9 consecutive quarters.
What happened in 2001 to stop the recession? The tax cut and interest rate
cuts by the Fed.


Kerry is going to remove the tax cuts, penalize corporations that hire overseas
(I suppose he'll penalize foreign corporations that hire in the US), and
implement about $800,000,000,000 in new program giveaways, AND bring about
10,000,000 new jobs. And only the top 1% of taxpayers are going to pay for all
this.

You gotta like someone like that!

Now, given that there are lots of folks who *believe* that crap, do you think a
logical argument makes a bit of difference?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:07:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that
the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our
economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two
wars,
etc.



As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

And they are! Jobs are a lagging indicator. The tax cut was passed, and
rates were reduced effective July 1, 2001...which means American's didn't
start seeing *some* of their returned money until after the April 2002
returns were submitted. Of course, the recession from 2001 and early
2002
hurt people's income and the job market. Therefore, the tax money
refunded
in 2003 constitutes the bulk of the tax cut...which means Americans have
only had about 11 months to spend the tax cut refunded money. Since
*every
single* economist will tell you there's a lag between a jump in GDP and a
jump in employment, it stands to reason that the past 7 months of
increases
in employment figures is just following on the heels of 9 quarters of GDP
increases.

After 3 straight quarters of a *decreasing GDP*, the 4th quarter GDP in
2001
had increased...and GDP has been increasing for 9 consecutive quarters.
What happened in 2001 to stop the recession? The tax cut and interest
rate
cuts by the Fed.


Kerry is going to remove the tax cuts, penalize corporations that hire
overseas
(I suppose he'll penalize foreign corporations that hire in the US), and
implement about $800,000,000,000 in new program giveaways, AND bring about
10,000,000 new jobs. And only the top 1% of taxpayers are going to pay for
all
this.

Only the top 1% you say? Hmmmmm. Maybe I'll vote for the guy...since I'm
in the other 99%. LOL.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:07:03 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:07:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that
the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our
economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two
wars,
etc.



As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

And they are! Jobs are a lagging indicator. The tax cut was passed, and
rates were reduced effective July 1, 2001...which means American's didn't
start seeing *some* of their returned money until after the April 2002
returns were submitted. Of course, the recession from 2001 and early
2002
hurt people's income and the job market. Therefore, the tax money
refunded
in 2003 constitutes the bulk of the tax cut...which means Americans have
only had about 11 months to spend the tax cut refunded money. Since
*every
single* economist will tell you there's a lag between a jump in GDP and a
jump in employment, it stands to reason that the past 7 months of
increases
in employment figures is just following on the heels of 9 quarters of GDP
increases.

After 3 straight quarters of a *decreasing GDP*, the 4th quarter GDP in
2001
had increased...and GDP has been increasing for 9 consecutive quarters.
What happened in 2001 to stop the recession? The tax cut and interest
rate
cuts by the Fed.


Kerry is going to remove the tax cuts, penalize corporations that hire
overseas
(I suppose he'll penalize foreign corporations that hire in the US), and
implement about $800,000,000,000 in new program giveaways, AND bring about
10,000,000 new jobs. And only the top 1% of taxpayers are going to pay for
all
this.

Only the top 1% you say? Hmmmmm. Maybe I'll vote for the guy...since I'm
in the other 99%. LOL.




Maybe it's the top 2%, which would for sure include any dentist I know.

A question - the guy who put in my implants, and said they were guaranteed for
20 years, just had a heart attack. What do I do if he doesn't recover?
Lose weight?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

John H wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:07:03 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:07:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...


Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that

the

recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our

economy

was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through: 9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading, two

wars,

etc.




As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

And they are! Jobs are a lagging indicator. The tax cut was passed, and
rates were reduced effective July 1, 2001...which means American's didn't
start seeing *some* of their returned money until after the April 2002
returns were submitted. Of course, the recession from 2001 and early

2002

hurt people's income and the job market. Therefore, the tax money

refunded

in 2003 constitutes the bulk of the tax cut...which means Americans have
only had about 11 months to spend the tax cut refunded money. Since

*every

single* economist will tell you there's a lag between a jump in GDP and a
jump in employment, it stands to reason that the past 7 months of

increases

in employment figures is just following on the heels of 9 quarters of GDP
increases.

After 3 straight quarters of a *decreasing GDP*, the 4th quarter GDP in

2001

had increased...and GDP has been increasing for 9 consecutive quarters.
What happened in 2001 to stop the recession? The tax cut and interest

rate

cuts by the Fed.



Kerry is going to remove the tax cuts, penalize corporations that hire

overseas

(I suppose he'll penalize foreign corporations that hire in the US), and
implement about $800,000,000,000 in new program giveaways, AND bring about
10,000,000 new jobs. And only the top 1% of taxpayers are going to pay for

all

this.

Only the top 1% you say? Hmmmmm. Maybe I'll vote for the guy...since I'm
in the other 99%. LOL.





Maybe it's the top 2%, which would for sure include any dentist I know.

A question - the guy who put in my implants, and said they were guaranteed for
20 years, just had a heart attack. What do I do if he doesn't recover?
Lose weight?

John H

Ummmm Those implants are TEETH I hope! Or do you now sport DDs.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:07:03 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:07:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.


A recession started just 60 days into his term. If you think that
the
recession was the result of Bush's policies (that hadn't even been
implemented yet!), then you're either stupid or a liar.

Then, 9/11 came about. It's nothing short of miraculous that our
economy
was able to rebound so strongly after what it'd gone through:
9/11,
corporate scandals, union pension fund scandals, insider trading,
two
wars,
etc.



As I recall, One of Bushes campaign promises was JOBS, and
the tax cuts were to provide them

And they are! Jobs are a lagging indicator. The tax cut was passed,
and
rates were reduced effective July 1, 2001...which means American's
didn't
start seeing *some* of their returned money until after the April 2002
returns were submitted. Of course, the recession from 2001 and early
2002
hurt people's income and the job market. Therefore, the tax money
refunded
in 2003 constitutes the bulk of the tax cut...which means Americans
have
only had about 11 months to spend the tax cut refunded money. Since
*every
single* economist will tell you there's a lag between a jump in GDP
and a
jump in employment, it stands to reason that the past 7 months of
increases
in employment figures is just following on the heels of 9 quarters of
GDP
increases.

After 3 straight quarters of a *decreasing GDP*, the 4th quarter GDP
in
2001
had increased...and GDP has been increasing for 9 consecutive
quarters.
What happened in 2001 to stop the recession? The tax cut and interest
rate
cuts by the Fed.


Kerry is going to remove the tax cuts, penalize corporations that hire
overseas
(I suppose he'll penalize foreign corporations that hire in the US),
and
implement about $800,000,000,000 in new program giveaways, AND bring
about
10,000,000 new jobs. And only the top 1% of taxpayers are going to pay
for
all
this.

Only the top 1% you say? Hmmmmm. Maybe I'll vote for the guy...since
I'm
in the other 99%. LOL.




Maybe it's the top 2%, which would for sure include any dentist I know.

A question - the guy who put in my implants, and said they were guaranteed
for
20 years

You can't put a guarantee on anything to do with the human body. It's not
ethical, because the body sometimes does its own thing no matter how well
the work was done.

just had a heart attack.

You think his heart surgeon will guarantee his bypass?

What do I do if he doesn't recover?

The same thing you'd do if he were healthy. Hope that your body doesn't
reject the implants one day.

Lose weight?

There are better ways.

OT--Holy smokes! 240,000 new jobs EVERY month under Clinton
 

John H wrote in message
...

A question - the guy who put in my implants, and said they were guaranteed
for
20 years, just had a heart attack. What do I do if he doesn't recover?
Lose weight?


Shop for a new bra????