"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:

Now, *this* is a nice swerve. Let me clarify for you: What's dishonest
is
the suggestion that the current BLS numbers are counting burger flipping
as
a manufacturing job.


So, if you can stop calling me a "liar" for a moment, let's explore two
important questions.

1) In light of the statements made in late Feb that the definition of
manufacturing jobs should be expanded to include fast food workers, how
do you
*know* that there are no burger flipping jobs included in the report? Do
you
have a breakdown of the employees in the mfg category, by specific
occupation?

((Don't overlook the fact that it was Bush who raised the question about
adding
burger flippers to the manufacturing jobs numbers, in the Presidents
Economic
Report. This isn't some DNC generated rumor, it's in writing in an
official
presidential document))

2) If the current report does not include burger flippers in the
manufacturing
jobs section, what assurance do we have (again, in light of the
President's own
Economic Report) that they will not be included in the future? Has Bush
publicly renounced his idea to include fast food workers in the
manufacturing
category? If so, I'd be eager to see a published report of his policy
reversal.

Let's not lose sight of one important fact here. We both agree that it
would be
dishonest to pump up the "manufacturing jobs" numbers by including mini
wage
burger flippers.

Hypothetically; If you discovered Bush *had* pumped up the mfg jobs
numbers by
including fast food workers, would you defend his doing so?



A. It would be useful to know what kinds of jobs were added, and what
they pay, and what benefits they include.

It would be useful to know what kinds of jobs were lost in the preceding 3
years, and what they paid, and what benefits they included.


B. It is worthwhile to point out that at best, by election, Bush will be
less than even with the number of jobs added to the economy during the
Clinton years. In other words, we still are not back where we were in
the good old Clinton years.

Oh, how quick your tone changes. I notice you're no longer spouting off
about the "3 million jobs lost". Regardless, we'll have more jobs at the
end of Bush's term than at any point during the Clinton years.