NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty soon George W. Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss while in office.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20040903_753.html

Now for some fun. George Herbert Walker Bush is George W. Bush’s father. Since Bush Jr. is soon to have the same fate as Herbert Hoover, then perhaps George W. Bush should add a middle name like his father, and it should start with an H. Let’s say that name should be significant, say Hoover, partly because he sucks as a President and partly because he is matching Herbert Hoover’s inability to create jobs while in office. Now let’s line up father and son:

George Herbert Walker Bush
George Hoover Walker Bush

There, that should do it.

Nice.

That does assume that Bush will lose in November, which I think likely. Lots of Bush supporters are all excited about a new poll out post-convention by Time, which has Bush up significantly. Let me calm all Kerry supporters' fears.
http://pollingreport.com/images/SEPTgenl.GIF

The Time poll is what we call an outlier--in other words, it doesn't match up with the other polls done over the same period and is far outside their ranges, so it's more likely than not painfully inaccurate. This isn't a knock on Time's polling--it happens to every polling outfit. It just means that they probably got some bad data along the way.

So for anyone getting excited (either positively or negatively) about these numbers, cool your jets. We've got two months to go.

The economy has lost 913,000 jobs.
The creation for last month was 144,000. Take July revisions into account, and it becomes 185,000. June revisions were unspecified in the article, but they were said to be revised up. That makes the number closer to 200,000. At 200,000 new jobs in the next five months, the net job growth would be above zero.

The economy has lost 913,000 jobs.
The creation for last month was 144,000. Take July revisions into account, and it becomes 185,000. June revisions were unspecified in the article, but they were said to be revised up. That makes the number closer to 200,000. At 200,000 new jobs in the next five months, the net job growth would be above zero.
The biggest problem is that there are only 4 months left in this year?

Also, how do you explain 152,000 less employment jobs from July to August?

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Civilian labor force.....| 146,661| 146,998| 147,279| 147,856| 147,704| -152

Total employment held at 139.7 million in August, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs was essentially unchanged at 62.4 percent. The civilian labor force was about unchanged over the month at 147.7 million. After rising in July, the labor force participation rate edged down to its June level of 66.0 percent. (See table A-1.)

People are leaving the job market because there are no jobs to find?

That gain of 144,000 jobs was really no gain at all?

The economy has lost 913,000 jobs.
The creation for last month was 144,000. Take July revisions into account, and it becomes 185,000. June revisions were unspecified in the article, but they were said to be revised up. That makes the number closer to 200,000. At 200,000 new jobs in the next five months, the net job growth would be above zero.
Except that this economy hasn't averaged 200,000 a month at any time in the Bush presidency, and it's only topped it a couple of times as I recall. So why should there be any reason to assume that it will suddenly start producing jobs at a rate it hasn't come close to reaching yet?

Also--assuming it happens, it would only be enough to get Bush to the break-even point. That's hardly anything to be proud of, considering that the job market adds, on average, between 140,000-160,000 new people looking for work per month. We're still behind when you take them into account.

Except that this economy hasn't averaged 200,000 a month at any time in the Bush presidency, and it's only topped it a couple of times as I recall. So why should there be any reason to assume that it will suddenly start producing jobs at a rate it hasn't come close to reaching yet?

Also--assuming it happens, it would only be enough to get Bush to the break-even point. That's hardly anything to be proud of, considering that the job market adds, on average, between 140,000-160,000 new people looking for work per month. We're still behind when you take them into account.
That is correct. The economy would normally grow at about 140,000 jobs per month, without any tax incentives, just normal growth. That means, that the economy should have added 6,300,000 jobs, and yet there are 900,000 jobs less. If you take into account Bush's prediction of about 5,000,000 jobs created by the tax cuts, that means that the economy has underperformed to the tune of 12,200,000 jobs?

But lets not forget the trillion dollar deficit.

But lets not forget the trillion dollar deficit.
Actually, Bush has added $1.7 Trillion to the US Debt. The deficit for the current fiscal year is closer to $470 Billion.

Actually, Bush has added $1.7 Trillion to the US Debt. The deficit for the current fiscal year is closer to $470 Billion.Before you add in the supplemental for Iraq that will have to be passed before the election this year--that's expected to be between 50 and 75 billion dollars, so we'll have more than a half-trillion added this year.

Before you add in the supplemental for Iraq that will have to be passed before the election this year--that's expected to be between 50 and 75 billion dollars, so we'll have more than a half-trillion added this year.
YIKES!!! That is a staggering amount, especially when you consider that Bush inherited a US record SURPLUS from Clinton?

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

And estimates are that if something major isn't done between now and 2006, it's going to get even worse. That's when--if Bush is re-elected--you'll see the calls for major cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

And estimates are that if something major isn't done between now and 2006, it's going to get even worse. That's when--if Bush is re-elected--you'll see the calls for major cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
Well from what I understand, there are no funds in the Social Security Account, and that monies have been removed from the Medicare Account, and the Federal Employees' retirement system, which includes the Military?

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor07-16-03.htm

People better wakey wakey real soon?

The biggest problem is that there are only 4 months left in this year?

Also, how do you explain 152,000 less employment jobs from July to August?

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynam.../empsit.nr0.htm

Civilian labor force.....| 146,661| 146,998| 147,279| 147,856| 147,704| -152

Total employment held at 139.7 million in August, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs was essentially unchanged at 62.4 percent. The civilian labor force was about unchanged over the month at 147.7 million. After rising in July, the labor force participation rate edged down to its June level of 66.0 percent. (See table A-1.)

People are leaving the job market because there are no jobs to find?

That gain of 144,000 jobs was really no gain at all?
The President rules into January and has more time in that month than his opponent.

And the labor force going down simply means more people left the force than went into it, more people retired than reached working age. They were probably leaving the job market because its august so they have to go back to college & school as well as normal retirement. Both the number of people in the labor force and number of people employed are larger than they were in Feb 2000.

Except that this economy hasn't averaged 200,000 a month at any time in the Bush presidency, and it's only topped it a couple of times as I recall. So why should there be any reason to assume that it will suddenly start producing jobs at a rate it hasn't come close to reaching yet?

Also--assuming it happens, it would only be enough to get Bush to the break-even point. That's hardly anything to be proud of, considering that the job market adds, on average, between 140,000-160,000 new people looking for work per month. We're still behind when you take them into account.
Why would there be any reason to assume job hiring will be at the same amount as during the heart of the recession? Besides, since the beginning of the year, payroll employment has increased at an average of 180k per month, which is close to 200k, meaning the slightest nudge would push it up. Actually, 180k per month for the rest of his term would reach 900k, meaning even a slight revision in this month's numbers upwards, as usually happens, would mean a net positive job growth, ending the senseless Bush = Hoover comparisons.

The President rules into January and has more time in that month than his opponent.

And the labor force going down simply means more people left the force than went into it, more people retired than reached working age. They were probably leaving the job market because its august so they have to go back to college & school as well as normal retirement. Both the number of people in the labor force and number of people employed are larger than they were in Feb 2000.


Why would there be any reason to assume job hiring will be at the same amount as during the heart of the recession? Besides, since the beginning of the year, payroll employment has increased at an average of 180k per month, which is close to 200k, meaning the slightest nudge would push it up. Actually, 180k per month for the rest of his term would reach 900k, meaning even a slight revision in this month's numbers upwards, as usually happens, would mean a net positive job growth, ending the senseless Bush = Hoover comparisons.
All of this scrambling to get back the jobs that were already there when he took office. Bush has already failed, whether he gets plus 1 net jobs or not, especially considering that the Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars through "tax cuts" to create millions of jobs that never materialized.

All of this scrambling to get back the jobs that were already there when he took office. Bush has already failed, whether he gets plus 1 net jobs or not, especially considering that the Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars through "tax cuts" to create millions of jobs that never materialized.
I don't think Bush has failed.

I don't think Bush has failed.
Well I guess the voters will decide. Looking at his record, he has failed and miserably so. Not just on the economy, but on international relationships. Poverty is up, unemployment is up, people without health insurance is up, the dollar is down, the stock market is down, the US Debt has increased $1.5 Trillion, and the trade deficit is at a record high.

However, I think you would support Bush no matter what?

Well I guess the voters will decide. Looking at his record, he has failed and miserably so. Not just on the economy, but on international relationships. Poverty is up, unemployment is up, people without health insurance is up, the dollar is down, the stock market is down, and the trade deficit is at a record high.

However, I think you would support Bush no matter what?
And I think you would detract from him no matter what.

And I think you would detract from him no matter what.
That is not true. Until Bush invaded Iraq, I really had no issue with him or the US policies. Most of the world was solidly behind the US on September 11, 2001. A lot has changed since then, and not for the better.

However, since he did invade Iraq, I have seen even more that I dislike about him and his administration.

That is not true. Until Bush invaded Iraq, I really had no issue with him or the US policies. Most of the world was solidly behind the US on September 11, 2001. A lot has changed since then, and not for the better.

However, since he did invade Iraq, I have seen even more that I dislike about him and his administration.
Well since you only joined in Feb. 2004 I can't verify that, but given your policies (death penatly, taxes, healthcare, foreign policy) I can't see how you would have cared for him.

see, it's funny because you present arguments for why the economy ISN'T in the toilet based on speculation, and the pre-existing assumption that the economy isn't in the toilet. i.e.
"They were probably leaving the job market because its august so they have to go back to college & school as well as normal retirement."

that requires the job market being august in the first place, otherwise it makes no sense. even then, "the labor force is shrinking because the job market is strong so people are leaving"? what the fuck?

and then when people take apart your arguments into little congealed lumps, you just state that you don't think bush has failed, without any argument to back it up.

i have to admit, i can't argue with you there. because apparently your devotion to "cut taxes and spend wantonly" bush-o-nomics has little to do with rational arguments.

and please don't tell me that the market is strong, even if people are losing jobs. fuck the market. if the market is worth shit, then when it's doing well then so are the workers. if that isn't how it works out, then the market is meaningless as an indicator of social and economic welfare.

Well since you only joined in Feb. 2004 I can't verify that, but given your policies (death penatly, taxes, healthcare, foreign policy) I can't see how you would have cared for him.
Well are you calling me a liar? I am dead serious. I had no real issue with George Bush and Company until they decided to invade Iraq, and millions of people around the world, felt the same way.

The US attack on Iraq has caused many people to wake up and see what is happening in their world. The world is less safe thanks to George W. Bush, and that Iraqi "freedom" nonsense just doesn't wash.

The raw employment rates do tend to spike in December (retail spike) and in the summer (agricultural, outdoor, etc industries).

Generally speaking, I've found it interesting enough to cross compare the seasonally unadjusted figures directly with the corresponding figures of other years rather than rely on the BLS's seasonal adjustment algorithms, but anyone comparing different months should be made aware that different months <i>usually</i> have different employment levels.

That said, July and August figures thus far indicate a real increase in employment by (noninstitutionalized working age) population from the previous years - the first since Bush's election. These follow a May and June that held steady from 2003 levels (to within 0.1% of the population) - the first months since Bush's assumption of the presidency that this ratio did not actually decline measurably from the previous year, although it remains lower than 2002 levels, which were in turn lower than 2001 levels, which were in turn lower than 2000 levels - across the board - most of which were slightly higher than 1999 levels (in spite of the rise of the Y2K-panic industry in 1999 and its complete disappearance in 2000.)

This year will not ever be considered entirely better than 2003, as the first four months all showed a slight decline from 2003 levels.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the BLS has responded to pressure from the administration to give them something better to work with in an election year, but I'd prefer to neglect that possibility for the moment.

Well are you calling me a liar? I am dead serious. I had no real issue with George Bush and Company until they decided to invade Iraq, and millions of people around the world, felt the same way.

The US attack on Iraq has caused many people to wake up and see what is happening in their world. The world is less safe thanks to George W. Bush, and that Iraqi "freedom" nonsense just doesn't wash.
I'm not saying your lying, I'm just saying its hard to believe that, given your policies, I don't see how it could be. I say this because your only gripes against GWB aren't about the Iraq war, but you have constant harping on jobs, budget deficits, tax cuts for the rich... all of these things occured before May of 2003, as well as after.

I can't really dechiper Bandanna's post so I won't try.

see, it's funny because you present arguments for why the economy ISN'T in the toilet based on speculation, and the pre-existing assumption that the economy isn't in the toilet. i.e.
"They were probably leaving the job market because its august so they have to go back to college & school as well as normal retirement."

that requires the job market being august in the first place, otherwise it makes no sense. even then, "the labor force is shrinking because the job market is strong so people are leaving"? what the fuck?

and then when people take apart your arguments into little congealed lumps, you just state that you don't think bush has failed, without any argument to back it up.

i have to admit, i can't argue with you there. because apparently your devotion to "cut taxes and spend wantonly" bush-o-nomics has little to do with rational arguments.

and please don't tell me that the market is strong, even if people are losing jobs. fuck the market. if the market is worth shit, then when it's doing well then so are the workers. if that isn't how it works out, then the market is meaningless as an indicator of social and economic welfare.

Wow...such a piece of leftist bullshit.

So you want to neglect the fact that Kerry has proposed over a trillion in government spending for his first year in office? Oh, wait. Kerry served four months in Vietnam, scratched his arm, and forged forms to get Purple Hearts. That means whatever he does is God-like.


Also, you people seem to forget that we're fighting a fucking war. Technically two. When you have troops in foreign combat zones who require weapons, ammunition, and supplies, that's always going to jump government spending up.

Seems to me you forget the whole reason that this economy went down in the first place. September-fucking-11th. I dare anyone to tell me that the attacks didn't affect the economy. My father lost his job thanks to those bastards. Also, I dare anyone to tell me that the economy is not better on September 4th, 2004 than it was on September 12th, 2001. Then again, all leftists can do is spout rhetoric and lies, so I won't hold my breath.

Wow...such a piece of leftist bullshit.

So you want to neglect the fact that Kerry has proposed over a trillion in government spending for his first year in office? Oh, wait. Kerry served four months in Vietnam, scratched his arm, and forged forms to get Purple Hearts. That means whatever he does is God-like.


Also, you people seem to forget that we're fighting a fucking war. Technically two. When you have troops in foreign combat zones who require weapons, ammunition, and supplies, that's always going to jump government spending up.

Seems to me you forget the whole reason that this economy went down in the first place. September-fucking-11th. I dare anyone to tell me that the attacks didn't affect the economy. My father lost his job thanks to those bastards. Also, I dare anyone to tell me that the economy is not better on September 4th, 2004 than it was on September 12th, 2001. Then again, all leftists can do is spout rhetoric and lies, so I won't hold my breath.

He hurt his arm, his butt, his shoulder, and his leg too I think. Still has a few leg troubles. He didn't forge a thing for those purple hearts. You dishonor our vets by lowering value of them.

Pretty soon George W. Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss while in office.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20040903_753.html

Now for some fun. George Herbert Walker Bush is George W. Bush’s father. Since Bush Jr. is soon to have the same fate as Herbert Hoover, then perhaps George W. Bush should add a middle name like his father, and it should start with an H. Let’s say that name should be significant, say Hoover, partly because he sucks as a President and partly because he is matching Herbert Hoover’s inability to create jobs while in office. Now let’s line up father and son:

George Herbert Walker Bush
George Hoover Walker Bush

There, that should do it.
Herbert Hoover didn't suck. He just happened to be president at the wrong time. The only really bad things he did was sign that bill filled with protectionists shit. But hey, even FDR did that.

Also, I dare anyone to tell me that the economy is not better on September 4th, 2004 than it was on September 12th, 2001. Then again, all leftists can do is spout rhetoric and lies, so I won't hold my breath.

Actual Employment, September 2001: 63.4% (August 63.5%, October 63.5%)
Actual Employment, August 2004: 62.7%.

Peak Monthly Unemployment Rate, 2001 (December): 5.4 (highly derivative figure.)
Lowest Monthly Unemployment Rate, 2004 (May): 5.3 (as above, a highly derived figure; peak rate so far was in January, 6.3.)
Every other labor statistic indicates that labor on the whole - in terms of numbers, duration of employment, duration of unemployment, etc etc - is worse off now than they were in late 2001 - some more dramatically so than others. Immediately after or during September 2001 was little different from August 2001 for the majority of America.

How about... corporate profits? Corporate profits rose 11% in the fourth quarter of 2001 from the third - which is to say October, November, and December from July, August, and September. Since corporation owned everything in the WTC and marked it off as a loss off their bottom line, that and the difference between the fourth and second quarters can give us a good idea of the direct material loss of non-airline industries due to the second WTC bombing - i.e., around 0.7% of the annual GDP. A drop in the bucket, as continued rise in profits after the WTC bombing showed; also a drop in the bucket compared to the typical annual increase in GDP.
Net population effects? Negligible. The number who die in automobile accidents each year far outstrips the casualties of the WTC attack.

Corporate profit growth between the first and second quarters of this year? Less than 1%, curiously enough.

The US economy on September 4th, 2004 is measurably in worse condition than it was September 12th, 2001.

Herbert Hoover didn't suck. He just happened to be president at the wrong time. The only really bad things he did was sign that bill filled with protectionists shit. But hey, even FDR did that.
I was saying that George W. should have the middle name Hoover because he sucks as a President, and he is going to accomplish the same as President Hoover, in other words, a net job loss for his term in office.

It was a pun I think you missed (Hoover is the name of a vacuum cleaner). I wasn't saying Hoover sucked, although some people might make an argument for that?

I was saying that George W. should have the middle name Hoover because he sucks as a President, and he is going to accomplish the same as President Hoover, in other words, a net job loss for his term in office.

It was a pun I think you missed (Hoover is the name of a vacuum cleaner). I wasn't saying Hoover sucked, although some people might make an argument for that?
Oh, that Hoover. But really, Oreck works better.

everyone knows that it is the actualy unempolyment rate ( which is low) not the job loss statistic that counts. some People just don't like to admit it.

Job creation and unemployment this year is better than 1996 when clinton ran for reelection, better than 1992 when bush's dad ran for reelection, better than 1984 when reagan ran for reelection, better than 1980 when carter ran for reelection, better than 1976 when ford ran for reelection, and better than 1972 when Nixon ran for reelection. Why all the talk about losses then? Because people started counting Bush's "job losses" the day he took office when we were still under President Clinton's budget and policies until august of that year under federal law. The bulk of job losses happened in january - august 2001 under CLINTON'S budget and policy which Bush could not change under law. Way to unfairly hurt a guy who is actualy doing well!

George W. Bush should add a middle name like his father, and it should start with an H. Let’s say that name should be significant

Hitler starts with an H.

no really. You People dont like the real world of facts do you.....read above

al gore's middle name is arnold. as in benedict arnold.

Well I hate to break it to you, but Bush is going to win the elections and I'm quite confident in that. Most people have the common sense to realize that Kerry would not stick to his own policies, and would worry about the minorities more than the majority. I'd hate to see that man in office if a new war started.

Well I hate to break it to you, but Bush is going to win the elections and I'm quite confident in that. Most people have the common sense to realize that Kerry would not stick to his own policies, and would worry about the minorities more than the majority. I'd hate to see that man in office if a new war started.
please, please, PLEASE tell me you did not just try to use the word common sense to back up your inane opinion?

The unemployment figures were doctored by the simple stroke of a pen: make fewer people *qualify* as 'unemployed.'

If people go too long jobless, they aren't considered to be *seeking* employment, thus aren't counted. Convenient, isn't it?

If you look at the total picture: underemployment, size of workforce, job creation, layoffs, Bush isn't valiantly breaking even, he's actually doing *abysmally-bad.*

Oh, that Hoover. But really, Oreck works better.
Dirt Devil is #1.

Hitler starts with an H.
Well I really didn't want to go that far, that is why I picked Hoover. :rolleyes:

no really. You People dont like the real world of facts do you.....read above

Real world fact. Under Clinton 23 million jobs were created. Please don't take a snippet of a picture and try to paint it with such a broad brush..

Now Bush has created how many jobs? Oh right, he's still running at a net loss.

REAL WORLD FACTS!

Job creation and unemployment this year is better than 1996 when clinton ran for reelection, better than 1992 when bush's dad ran for reelection, better than 1984 when reagan ran for reelection, better than 1980 when carter ran for reelection, better than 1976 when ford ran for reelection, and better than 1972 when Nixon ran for reelection. Why all the talk about losses then? Because people started counting Bush's "job losses" the day he took office when we were still under President Clinton's budget and policies until august of that year under federal law. The bulk of job losses happened in january - august 2001 under CLINTON'S budget and policy which Bush could not change under law. Way to unfairly hurt a guy who is actualy doing well!
Yet there is a 900,000 job loss since Bush took office. Go figure that one out?

BTW, under Clinton 23 Million jobs were created.

Well I really didn't want to go that far, that is why I picked Hoover. :rolleyes:
I thought that was just your choice. And you were asking us to come up with a middlename for him. Hmm...him...Himmler. Another possible name for the Prez that starts with an H.

Wow...such a piece of leftist bullshit.

So you want to neglect the fact that Kerry has proposed over a trillion in government spending for his first year in office? Oh, wait. Kerry served four months in Vietnam, scratched his arm, and forged forms to get Purple Hearts. That means whatever he does is God-like.


Also, you people seem to forget that we're fighting a fucking war. Technically two. When you have troops in foreign combat zones who require weapons, ammunition, and supplies, that's always going to jump government spending up.

Seems to me you forget the whole reason that this economy went down in the first place. September-fucking-11th. I dare anyone to tell me that the attacks didn't affect the economy. My father lost his job thanks to those bastards. Also, I dare anyone to tell me that the economy is not better on September 4th, 2004 than it was on September 12th, 2001. Then again, all leftists can do is spout rhetoric and lies, so I won't hold my breath.


And you, friend, seem to forget that we are fighting those fucking wars at the same time the government is cutting taxes, something which has never happened in the history of the world.

It is also very nice to see that you buy the Administration's standard line about September 11th causing all of America's ills. All right, now who's fault would September 11th be?

How about the Bush Administration which ignored the reams of data the Clinton Administration had put together on al-Qaida indicating that there was something large in the making?

How about the Bush Administration which ignored the warning that al-Qaida would consume the most time of all foreign threats?

How about the Bush Administration which shelved the same experts on terrorism from the Clinton Administration who foiled the planned Janurary 1st 2000 attack on LAX?

How about the Bush Administration which did not one damn thing about terrorism at all until September 12th, essentially ruining the Clinton Administration's eight years of effort?

By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism then any president before him.

http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/27201.html
http://www.anewdeale-zine.com/bush_ignored_clinton_plan_to_des.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040404/news_mz1e4kondrac.html --Read the article, not the headline

I would also appreciate it if you could offer some sort of evidence that September 11th has caused such economic catastrophe that three years later it is still to blame for the nation's ills.

And, as always, Kerry was in Vietnam getting shot at. Bush was doing... no one is quite sure. So kindly drop that one, Mr. Holier-than-thou.

yeah, its much easier to institute trillion dollar health care plans when you cut out political tax cuts and pork barrel spending

Dear lord. The amount of misconstrued information in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, regarding the "net job loss" business. Sure. There's been a net job loss under Bush. Now, was this the fault of any of his policies? No. Everyone out there attacks the president for being too friendly to big business, yet they expect him to magically force big business to create jobs. How is he supposed to do that? How would a Kerry Administration do that? There's no answer to the question, because other than raising and lowering taxes or changing the tax code, the president (through the Congress) has little or no direct influence on the economy at all. He happens to be in charge, so he gets the credit or takes the blame.

Clinton was president for 8 years, and was president during the founding of an entire industry - the internet boom occurred under his watch. You also had the rampant cooking of the books, massive stock market booms, etc. that were a result of the dot.com revolution. Did Clinton do anything to promote this? No. Government is notoriously behind the curve when it comes to anything technologically advanced. It's a wonder NASA ever got funded (and if Kennedy hadn't been killed, it probably never would have).

There are good parts to this economy. Homeownership is at a record high, new home starts are at record highs, the Stock Market is back above 10,000, unemployment is at 5.4% (which is better than it was this time during Clinton's relection in 1996.)

But the economy isn't the only reason you vote for a president. There's the national security angle as well. The war on terrorism is completely justified, and anyone who disagrees is simply letting their hatred or jealousy of the US cloud over their judgement - anyone who had been attacked as we were on 9/11 would have responded similiarly if they were able to. If not, they'd have asked us to do it for them. As for the War in Iraq, the President (with the consent of the Congress and the United Nations) determined that Iraq was a threat to US national security. If you are an American, you can disagree with the president's opinion, but he's got the job and its his call. If you are not an American, then you really have no right to tell us that what we view as a threat really isn't a threat. Germany and France cowered at the threat of the Soviet Union for 50 years, and hid behind our forces and nuclear deterrent - we never told them "Bah...the Russians can't do anything to us...fight your own battles". A state that views itself as threatened has a right to self defence. Bush exercised it and I agree with him.

As for the poll mentioned at the top of this thread - all national polls, no matter how they are slanted, are absolutely useless. The popular vote doesn't elect a president in the US - the states do. You need to be looking at all of the invidual state polls, partciularly in the battleground states of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Nevada, Washington and Oregon - if those polls start moving, then you've got a trend indicator.

Oh, as for the "surplus" - it never existed. It was all on paper. Even without the tax cuts, 9/11 would have wiped it all away.

The President is responsible for a lot of things that I'm not particularly fond of - I don't like large deficits and I don't like increased social welfare programs. But he's been good on defense, good on taxes, and good on other social issues, so he's got my vote. Feel free to slam him where he deserves it, but the economy and national security aren't places he deserves it.

Yes, I'm a Republican. Yes, I'm voting for Bush. But I also worked for Clinton and I'm a lobbyist for a labor union. So go figure.

Dear lord. The amount of misconstrued information in this thread is absolutely ridiculous....Yes, I'm a Republican. Yes, I'm voting for Bush. But I also worked for Clinton and I'm a lobbyist for a labor union. So go figure.

God bless you for your post. Every once in a while hope for the American electorate resurfaces.

Well with the election close at hand and with August's "job creation" figures released, it is time to come back to the original point of this thread. It is becoming more and more apparent that Bush will indeed be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a NET LOSS of jobs during his term of office.

To further support this claim, consider the following:

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_economy.htm

In July, President Bush said:

We're witnessing steady growth, steady growth. And that's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type growth. Bush was responding to disappointing data about job growth, which dropped sharply in June to less than half the expected number. And numbers for April were revised downwards as well.

But what does that mean in the context of a four-year term of office? In February 2001 there were 111.6 million private sector jobs. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported only 109.8 million. That's a shortfall of 1.83 million private sector jobs.

According to Economy.com Chief Economist Mark M. Zandi, "There's no chance we'll regain those by Election Day. That will make him the first President since Hoover not to have added jobs on his watch."

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

The economy would need to produce a net of more than 400,000 new private sector jobs each month for the next four months for the President to break-even. And what was the disappointing June number? At 112,000, it was less than half the average monthly increase of the first five months of the year and below the 150,000 threshold needed to keep pace with the natural growth in the labor force.

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

The Economy in 2004 : Unemployment

Unemployment data have improved since hitting a high of 6.3 percent last June. June's number was 5.6 percent, virtually unchanged this year. However, economists say that if we added underemployed workers or those who have stopped looking for work out of disillusionment to the picture, then the unemployment rate would be closer to 10 percent.

The work force participation rate for June was 62.3 percent, almost unchanged from last August at 62.2 percent but still down from 64.4 percent four years ago. It is considerably below the 66.7 percent from June 1992.

For those who were bashing Clinton earlier, consider that 22 Million jobs were created under his watch, with a much higher interest rate, and no significant "tax cuts" such as the $700 Billion Bush used to try and create jobs. It appears that the tax cuts cannot even stimulate the economy up to the "natural growth in the labor force" level.

Toss in "record" trade deficits, higher health insurance costs, lower stock market, higher poverty rates, $1.5 Trillion more in Debt, millions more Americans without basic health care and you have a very bleak picture of the economy a la George Bush. BTW, Bush Sr. referred to trying to create jobs through tax cuts, as "voodoo economics". It appears the elder Bush knew what he was talking about in that regard?