BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

NOYB wrote:
Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last
November & December. That would be very impressive.

"After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry
supporters were quick to declare that Bush was the first American
president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his
term. However, since Bush officially took office in January 2001, he
still had the November and December numbers to add to his total. By the
time of his second inauguration in January 2005, Bush ended up with a
net gain of jobs for his first term."

No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW! Pretty soon the Chinese
will be griping about all the factories being moved over here!

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1
trillion or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

NOYB wrote:
Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last November
& December.

The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months. The
economy lost a little over 2 million in the first 20 months. That's a net
gain of around 900,000 new jobs.

At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even. However,
in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added approximately
900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of 900,000 new jobs
since Bush took office in 2001.


That would be very impressive.

"After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry
supporters were quick to declare that Bush was the first American
president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his term.
However, since Bush officially took office in January 2001, he still had
the November and December numbers to add to his total. By the time of his
second inauguration in January 2005, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs
for his first term."

No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!

You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last November
& December.


NOYB wrote:
The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months.

But they said (and the BLS agrees) that as of Aug 2004, the Bush
Presidency had a net loss of jobs.

Hmm, who to believe, NOBBY or the econ pros? What a tough call.


At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even. However,
in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added approximately
900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of 900,000 new jobs
since Bush took office in 2001.

Shucks, that's barely 100,000 jobs per month. The Clinton economy added
well over 200,000 per month. What gives, NOBBY, is the economy booming
or isn't it?




No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!


You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

You obviously don't understand any concept at all. All you do is parrot
the yay-Bush propaganda, and then look for facts later. Let's see, how
many times has NOBBY contradicted himself in this thread? Is it a new
record?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last
November & December.


NOYB wrote:
The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months.

But they said (and the BLS agrees) that as of Aug 2004, the Bush
Presidency had a net loss of jobs.

That was 9 months ago. Today, we have a net gain of jobs.




Hmm, who to believe, NOBBY or the econ pros? What a tough call.

Believe the *CURRENT* BLS statistics.




At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even.
However, in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added
approximately 900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of
900,000 new jobs since Bush took office in 2001.

Shucks, that's barely 100,000 jobs per month. The Clinton economy added
well over 200,000 per month. What gives, NOBBY, is the economy booming or
isn't it?

3.466 million jobs gained in 23 months is an average of 150,000+ jobs each
month.







No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!


You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

You obviously don't understand any concept at all. All you do is parrot
the yay-Bush propaganda, and then look for facts later. Let's see, how
many times has NOBBY contradicted himself in this thread?


None.

Is it a new record?

No. I never contradict myself. It's par for the course.

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK


Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent. To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of sense.

DSK


To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1
trillion or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all
been spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of
sense.

DSK



What real money does government generate?

Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1
trillion or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all
been spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of
sense.

DSK



What real money does government generate?

Tariffs. Port fees. To name a couple.

wrote in message
ups.com...


Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful)
at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas,
partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1
trillion or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all
been spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of
sense.

DSK



What real money does government generate?

Tariffs. Port fees. To name a couple.


I guess you figure income taxes are real money generated by the government.

Bill McKee wrote:
What real money does government generate?


I take it that your endorsing the theory that US Treasury note, bills,
bonds, etc etc are just "worthless IOUs" and "empty promises"?

The government "generates" all money, in the sense that the US Mint
prints it. The Federal Reserve tells them how much, the US Treasury
keeps Uncle Sam's checking & savings account(s).

'But but but,' you protest, 'Uncle Sam doesn't have a savings account,
the U.S. is running a deficit and is carrying a huge national debt.'
True, but the Treasury debt instruments are the US savings account in
the same way that an individual may have savings even if he's carrying a
huge credit card debt. Cash flow & cash balance are two different things.

Does the government generate *wealth*? No. Other than the way they hand
out favors to certain corporate interests, which is a whole 'nother topic.

What makes a US Treasury debt instrument not worhtless? It's just a
printed piece of paper. Well so is a twenty dollar bill. If the U.S.
gov't does not default on it's debts, then a Treasury bond or bill is
the most secure interest-bearing investment in the world, bar none. OTOH
if the gov't does default, then both the Treasury and the twenty are
worthless pieces of paper.

DSK