NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4236911.stm
The margin was extremely narrow, but Bush was not the first president since Hoover to loose jobs. So he can sufficiently claim that he created jobs in his first term (even thouugh presidents have little to do with job creation).

Maybe he didn't hurt jobs, but from the look of your spelling, he really botched up education.

Maybe he didn't hurt jobs, but from the look of your spelling, he really botched up education.
How can he hurt an abstract noun? Gah! He really did busted the education system!

Maybe he didn't hurt jobs, but from the look of your spelling, he really botched up education.
That was a typo. I have a bad right hand that haves limited mobility, and if you notice, "u" is on the right side of the keyboard.

There's my proof!

Well, this changes everything! Had I known that, I would have voted for him! Not for President. But I would have voted for him...for...um...something. :D

Well, this changes everything! Had I known that, I would have voted for him! Not for President. But I would have voted for him...for...um...something. :D
Voted him for the Nobel Peace Prize?

And you spelled "lose" incorrectly. :confused:

Maybe he didn't hurt jobs, but from the look of your spelling, he really botched up education.
:D :D :D

Voted him for the Nobel Peace Prize?

*almost chokes on some shrimp fried rice*

Maybe when he leaves office. ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4236911.stm
The margin was extremely narrow, but Bush was not the first president since Hoover to loose jobs. So he can sufficiently claim that he created jobs in his first term (even thouugh presidents have little to do with job creation).


This net growth includes the month of January.

So when Kerry complained in October, that statement was still true.

And that's only officially. We all know he lost jobs and unofficially January counts as part of this term, not the last one.

This net growth includes the month of January.

So when Kerry complained in October, that statement was still true.

And that's only officially. We all know he lost jobs and unofficially January counts as part of this term, not the last one.
Officially is all that matters. Bush almost got the Nobel Peace prize, but officially he didn't.

That was a typo. I have a bad right hand that haves limited mobility, and if you notice, "u" is on the right side of the keyboard.

Where is the "u" in lose?

The president really doesn't have as much control over the economy as people believe he does, it just naturally goes up and down. I really don't think Bush was much of a factor in it going down first term, and I don't think its going up this term is necessarily his doing either.

I think the "u" was in the word "though", but that's really not the issue. Bush has been an ineffective leader although I still support him as the leader (legally elected) of our great nation.

There's a guy at work who always types 'loose' instead of 'lose', but he's not stupid. I got slated when I critized someones spelling(even after I admitted my spelling had gone down hill), but using the word 'spelt' instead of 'spelled', they suggested that 'spelt' is slang in American English, but I looked it up and it didn't say it was slang in either US or UK English???? Right? I'm English but I will tend to use American spelling on forums mostly frequented by Americans and I work for an American company(in England) so it's not even difficult.

I think the "u" was in the word "though", but that's really not the issue. Bush has been an ineffective leader although I still support him as the leader (legally elected) of our great nation.

On the contrary.. he's been an exceptional leader, because he actually leads instead of following opinion polls or approval ratings. He does what he feels is right for the country instead of letting lobbiest lead the way! Kerry should have taken notice.. maybe he would have won instead of voting for the war before he voted against the supplemental bill

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!







AND A PERSONAL OPINION:I hate ignorant conservatives.

If we're gonna talk, let's go back to job talk. I'm sick of the ad hominem attacks.

You do know of course the labor pool increases by like 150,000 per month. If the net job gain loss is near 0 but you have four million new workers thats still pretty bad.

You do know of course the labor pool increases by like 150,000 per month. If the net job gain loss is near 0 but you have four million new workers thats still pretty bad.
Look, I don't really care, because the unemployment rate is at a more sustainable level than in 1999. I just posted this because I remember how people said Bush was thhe first since Hoover to loose jobs. There are several ways to look at it, but at least we can now say that his "record" is debatable.

He presided over a net fall in jobs up to last November's Presidential election - the first President to do so since Herbert Hoover.

How much more clear can it be?

He presided over a net fall in jobs up to last November's Presidential election - the first President to do so since Herbert Hoover.

How much more clear can it be?

Do you imply that he is to blame, or simply that he was President during that time?

He presided over a net fall in jobs up to last November's Presidential election - the first President to do so since Herbert Hoover.

How much more clear can it be?
Like I said, presidents have little control over jobs. Herbert Hoover had no control, either. And quite frankly, I find it unfair how Hoover's rap has been. It was the American economy that was screwed up, not Hoover's. And of course, no president has had much of an influence on the economy, except maybe ultra interventionists like FDR.

Like I said, presidents have little control over jobs. Herbert Hoover had no control, either. And quite frankly, I find it unfair how Hoover's rap has been. It was the American economy that was screwed up, not Hoover's. And of course, no president has had much of an influence on the economy, except maybe ultra interventionists like FDR.
This is fairly true. Hoover was elected in 1928, and the crash was in 1929, it's certainly not Hoover's fault that the markets crashed. But some of his responses were insufficient.

This is fairly true. Hoover was elected in 1928, and the crash was in 1929, it's certainly not Hoover's fault that the markets crashed. But some of his responses were insufficient.
Well, this is off topic, but...
This is not exactly true. The Great Depression, I believe, was a major correction. If it weren't let alone, I think it would be corrected by the end of that decade, and better than FDR's socialist policies.

Well, this is off topic, but...
This is not exactly true. The Great Depression, I believe, was a major correction. If it weren't let alone, I think it would be corrected by the end of that decade, and better than FDR's socialist policies.
I'm obviously taking a different view of why FDR put those policies in place. I believe that he didn't put the policies in place for economic recovery, or social justice, but he saw the danger of what could happen if the government was seen as uncaring to the problem. He did what he did to protect the institution of a fluid market economy, not to install socialist beliefs in American.

After all, he did say "I'm that kind of liberal because I'm that kind of conservative."

I'm obviously taking a different view of why FDR put those policies in place. I believe that he didn't put the policies in place for economic recovery, or social justice, but he saw the danger of what could happen if the government was seen as uncaring to the problem. He did what he did to protect the institution of a fluid market economy, not to install socialist beliefs in American.

After all, he did say "I'm that kind of liberal because I'm that kind of conservative."
I know why he did it, but I believe that it didn't make economic sense. In any case, I don't think the communists, fascists, or any other group were strong enough to pose a serious threat to the US government.

I know why he did it, but I believe that it didn't make economic sense. In any case, I don't think the communists, fascists, or any other group were strong enough to pose a serious threat to the US government.
If Long hadn't been assassinated, he would have been dangerous though.

Anyways, it was a preventative measure, like getting a small pox vaccine. The odds are you won't get the diesease even if you don't get the vaccine, but it's something that's a good idea anyways.

GWB did NOT lose jobs. He is not RESPONSIBLE for losing jobs nor was HOOVER. The Economy is only indirectly influenced by the President. If the economy sucks, then jobs are going to be lost. It's not GWB's fault that the WTCs were destroyed. It's not his fault Bill Clinton signed a bill sending millions of jobs overseas.

Tell me this: What PROOF do you have saying that he lost jobs?

And yeah, teh reason why I like GWB is because he does what's best, not what is important to his popularity. And we're not 'ignorant conservatives' we're peopel who actually give a damn on what's happening, and not who looks good and who doesn't.

One more thing:
His spelling has absolutely nothing to do with his point.

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush
<snip>

That was funny though! It's been round and round, is Bush stupid? Is he fit to run the country? Then you hear he's got a huge IQ. He just pretends to be stupids. He's not very good with English. Blah blah. Stupid is as stupid does(and says). He opens his mouth, and unless he's reading from an auto-cue, nonsense tends to pour out. Actually I once heard him answer honestly and sensibly to a question. Can the war on terror be won? He answered no. Obviously since it's not a war in the usual sense. Of course then his spin doctors had to say it could be won, as did Kerry. Nonsense, you don't 'win' a war on an abstraction, plain and simple.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050126.shtml

Ok, this article is from a conservative website (not a conservative myself) but it does provide proof that most of the loss of jobs had nothing to do with Bush. Even the supposed outsourcing problem didn't have much of an effect, rather it was the technological advances made in the past few years. To protect American jobs, many want protectionist policies to be put into place. In theory these policies, when enacted, keep inefficient industries running. In turn this causes the economy to suffer, therefore creating a further loss in jobs over a wider range of industries.

Ehh, I think I had more to my point, but it's not worth it now, I'm too tired to finish. The article explains better than I do anyway.

I didn't support either candidate in the last election in any case, so don't bash on me for stupid reasons.