Re:American opinion is no measure of truth
on
Evoting in the News
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Saddam certainly had ties with Ansar al-Islam, which is associated with Al-Qaeda. Raids on Ansar facilities and arrests of Ansar militants have revealed Al-Qaeda documents and even video tapes of Osama Bin Laden. Bill Clinton has even claimed that there is an Iraq/Al-Qaeda tie.
However, even if there were no Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, Iraq was still on the top 5 list of countries that sponsor terrorism for over a decade prior to the US invasion.
I find it hard to believe that the CEO of Diebold was promissing to rig the machines for Bush's benefit.
That is because you are a reasonable, intelligent person. You must realize that rule #1 in the "how to rig an election" handbook must certainly be to not publically announce that you are going to rig the election.
The actual quote was that Diebold was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year". Apparently there are some people that do not know the difference between "to" and "for".
You could argue that it was an ill-advised statement. He had to know that there would be people out there that do not understand basic grammar and would blame him for their ignorance.
Man, if they were expecting a 50% bonus when IBM doesn't make money, how much do they want when IBM makes a handy profit?
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
I think you ment to say a $10 trillion dollar budget surplus, which most certainly did not translate into a real surplus. Why else would the national debt go up from $4.4 Trillion to $5.8 Trillion during the Clinton years, and never go down from year to year?
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Um, the Bosnia/Serbia conflict never had UN backing, and the war with Iraq had 17 UN resolutions authorizing it (in fact, requiring it from the UN Charter).
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Just like the fabled Clinton Budget Surplus, the so-called economic growth and expansion of the late '90s was FAKE. If you will recall, we had company after company finally admit that they actually had not been making money during the late '90s. Economic growth and expansion isn't measured by astronomically high PE ratios on stocks, you know.
Also, Here is the national employment summary for March 2004. Compare to the national emploment summary of Jan. 2001, when Bush took office. Current civilian employment is 138,298,000, which is 2,200,000 more than Jan 2001 (135,999,000). How is this the biggest job loss since the depression when we have 2.2 million more jobs now than we did when he took office?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Um, there are no chapter 7 resolutions against Israel, and those are the only resolutions that can be enforced by the UN.
Of the three similar responses, I guess I'll respond to yours. You basically proved my point. We don't each live in our own economic "bubbles". There is no such thing as a one-way outbound flow of dollars because the global economy is so intertwined that prosperity for one major player almost always equates to prosperity for all the major players (this is, of course, only when natural market forces drive the market, unlike the Oil or Diamond cartels). In other words, a rising tide will lift all boats. Generating prosperity in the second most populated country in the world opens up a huge new market for US companies to expand into. This is why history has shown us repeatedly that Outsourcing Jobs creates a net US job increase.
Because they don't contribute their hard-earned money back into our* economy. The money doesn't flow in a circular fashion. Its a one-way flow outbound.
What do they spend their money on then? If Apu in India gets a brand new outsourced job, he might go out and pick up a new Ford, a new Dell computer, a new Motorola Cell Phone, a pair of new Gap jeans, a Maytag washer, or any one of the hundreds of thousands of American products that are available in the Global market.
He most certainly contributes his hard-earned money back into our economy because his economy is our economy, and when he prospers, we also prosper.
believe that it can be shown with little doubt that it is corporate greed that has led to the current situation
"Corporate Greed" isn't a bad word, despite what some people on./ try to make you believe. Every company out there is in business for the sole purpose of making money. If they are not, they go out of business and benefit nobody.
The end of it, if there will be any, will start with legislation
How does our legislature telling our companies that they are not allowed to be competitive in the global market help anybody?
If companies refused to go off shore, then everyone would be able to survive and we wouldn't lose any jobs.
Lets see. If companies "refused to go off shore", then these companies would no longer be competitive in the global market. Economic growth and development would shift to low-wage countries, and the US would cease to be the global leader in technology and development. We would essentially take ourselves out of the competition.
History tells us that the when companies "go off shore", they prosper, and the US economy prospers. If that were not the case, we would all still be farmers, textile workers, or shoe makers.
The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that.
The BLS also tracks "Discouraged Workers" (defined as workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). In other words, people who are unemployed and have given up looking for a job. You can access the data here by checking the "Discouraged Workers" checkbox and generating the report (no hard linking available).
The actual numbers do not back up this oft-repeated claim. In both December 1996 and December 2003, there was an unemployment rate of 5.6%. The number of discouraged workers is only marginally different (334,000 in '96, 433,000 in '03), and produces a "real" unemployment rate that is still well under 6%.
I would also point out that wages and average weekly earnings have outpaced inflation at 9% higher since Bush took office ($524/week now compared to $480/wk in 2001), contradicting the theory that people are accepting low paying jobs because they can't find anything else (December 2001 Data, February 2004 Data).
It's also interesting to point out that the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001), contradicting John Kerry's claim that 3,000,000 jobs have been lost since Bush took office.
Job creation is running at a tenth of what it needs to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is dropping because they don't count people who have fallen off the unemployment insurance dole; they "are no longer looking for work" because they have given up and taken crap jobs. Hardly counts as a true decrease in unemployment.
Wrong. The BLS tracks unemployment as well as "Discouraged Workers" (workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). The left always claims that the dropping unemployment under Bush is only due to these discouraged workers, but there is no data to support that claim. Here is where you can access this info (check the "Discouraged Workers" report). You can see that the number of "Discouraged Workers" in Dec 1996 (unemployemnt rate of 5.6%) was about 334,000, and in Dec 2003 (unemployement rate of 5.6%) it was 433,000, or a difference of 99,000 (less than 2% of the official total unemployment tally). Based on these figures, the "Real" unemployment rate would still be well under 6%.
Its also interesting to examine the employment data in December 2001 compared to the latest data for Feb. 2004. Again, this data does not correlate to the Democrats claims. Kerry critizes Bush for 3,000,000 jobs lost on his watch, but the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001).
Also, wages and weekly earnings have gone up over 9% since Bush took office (average weekly pay of $524.58 now compared to $480.89 when Bush took office), which completely contradicts the claim that people are settling for crap jobs because they gave up their "real" job search.
Why are you so against somebody making money from the work they put into a web site? Web sites (especially well-known sites like THG) spend lots of money and effort putting together useful material for you, and you are not even willing to give them a few pixels on the side of the article so they have the chance of being compensated? You know, people don't spend all the time and effort that it takes to run a web site out of the kindness of their hearts.
Laws like the Patriot Act remove the checks and balances to make these abuses more difficult.
Wrong. The Patriot Act did not remove any checks or balances. Everything that used to require judicial branch approval still does. The Patriot Act just expands the range of things that the Executive branch can ask for, including:
Expanded wiretap abilities, with court approval
Roving surveilance in cases where the court finds that the target of the surveillance is likely to thwart identification (note that this still requires court approval)
Confiscation of property in terrorism investigations, with court approval
The Patriot Act did not give the executive branch a blank check to do whatever they want. They still have to go through the usual proceedures to ensure that checks and balances are still in effect.
I can see SPAM killing itself in the not-to-distant future. SPAM is a numbers game, and it used to be that they could get very small response rate and still make money if they sent out a large volume of mail.
Now, everybody is assaulted with countless email messages, mostly peddling the same products. As people get more and more SPAM, the response rate will inevitably drop lower and lower, and I believe it will eventually bring in too little money to justify the costs that spammers incur to send it out.
My public email address will have 100% junk email on some days. I read 0% of those emails beyond the subject line. 3 years ago, when it was only 10-20%, I at least had a chance of actually viewing the message as I was sorting my mail.
1) They would not have been effective if they were in place on September 10
While I understand the criticisms people have against the Patriot Act, I cannot understand how anybody can make this assertion. It is ridiculous for anybody to claim that they know what we would and would not know if this legislation was in place prior to 9/11.
There were 19 hijackers on 9/11, and as many as eight of them carried passports that "showed evidence of fraudulent manipulation," while as many as five of the passports had "suspicious indicators." None of the hijackers filled out Visa applications correclty, and three of them had clearly lied on the application. [source] If the proceedures and regulations in the Patriot Act were in place prior to 9/11, I find it unlikely that all 19 of these hijackers would have made it through given these circumstances.
You should also remember that if any one of these 19 people did not make it in to the US, lives would have likely been saved. 3 out of the 4 hijacked planes had 5 hijackers on board, the 4th only had 4 (thus leading to the theories of the "20th hijacker"). The flight with only 4 hijackers was the only plane that didn't hit a civilian target, but was forced down by the passengers aboard.
Are you blaming Clinton for "overstating the strength of the economy"... or for the greed of corporate executives and MBAs that caused the stock market to crash? What does one have to do with the other?
If you re-read my post, I was not blaming anybody for these things. You gave a bunch of fancy numbers trying to prove how good we all had it during the Clinton/Gore years, and my only point is that things were simply not as good as they seemed. The so-called economic strength of the late 1990's was built on a foundation of inflated stock prices and corporate fraud. That is why the market analyists called it a "market correction" when stock prices dropped to normal levels.
The company I work for had a stock price of about $20 and employed about 100,000 people in the mid 1990's. During the "boom" of the late '90s the stock was trading at $150 and we had 150,000 employees and everybody thought things were great. Guess what? Things took a dive and now its back down to $20 and we again employ only 100,000. (I should also point out that we announced our first layoffs and corporate restructuring in Q1 2000, a full year before Bush was sworn into office -- I guess the Democrats would argue that it was a pre-emptive strike, just in case Bush got elected).
Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with dubya's friend over at Enron, "kenny-boy" Lay.
Well, you asked for it. Buy I guess you think that including Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa in exchange for the largest single campaign contribution to the 1996 Clinton/Gore ticket doesn't mean a thing, right?
Mr. Lay also served as a trustee at the Heinz Center for Economics from 1995 - 2003 (thats 2 years after the demise of Enron), an organization which is ran by John F. Kerry's wife.
And using Robert Novak as a reference? Please. That's right up there with using Fox News. Try using a reference that actually has some merit.
Ah, the "liar liar, pants on fire" technique. Why don't you do some research to prove him wrong, rather than telling me he is wrong because you disagree with him.
You forgot to mention all the companies that fraudulently overstated earnings to the tune of billions of dollars during the Clinton/Gore years (I guess its a good economy even if you are just saying that your making money), the Clinton Administration overstating the strength of the economy and tax revenues by as much as 30%, stock market inflation causing companies that had not even made a penny in profit to trade at PE ratios in the several hundreds, massive spending by state governments that has caused a state budget crisis in many states after economic growth declined to a more reasonable (and sustainable) level, and finally the millions of jobs that were "created" on such an unstable foundation that they all went *POOF* when investors finally realized that the Internet and Tech stocks that they funneled trillions of dollars into were overvalued by as much as 300% so they yanked their money out.
The lack of job growth in the US, despite the looting of the Treasury for subsidies to these rich people, once again destroys the argument of "supply side" economics. After the debacle of Reagan's supply side, the last time these unemployment numbers were close to this high (excepting Bush Sr's next-closest nadir), you'd think this nonsense would be rejected
If you examine the Reagan Economic Record you'll see that Supply Side economics worked very well. During the Reagan years, real family incomes increased for all income quantiles, proving that a rising tide indeed does lift all boats.
I'm entitled to a living wage if my work earns my employer a [bunch] of money. Period.
No, you are entitled to quit your job at Starbucks if you don't like the wages you earn. Nobody is forcing you to work there, you know. You are entitled to open your own coffee shop right across the street and to pay your employees $40/hr. But you most certainly are not entitled to demand an above market wage for a job that has an almost endless line of college students and teens willing to take the same job for only $8 per hour.
They make $400 million a quarter, and they pay $8 an hour, part-time, shit benefits, shit hours, shit advancement, shit opportunity. But that's ok, right?
Of course its okay. If it were not okay, nobody would want to work for them any more, and they would be forced to raise their wages until people did want to work for htem. But the fact that they have no problem finding people who will work for their current wage shows that they apparently pay enough for some people to accept the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Saddam certainly had ties with Ansar al-Islam, which is associated with Al-Qaeda. Raids on Ansar facilities and arrests of Ansar militants have revealed Al-Qaeda documents and even video tapes of Osama Bin Laden. Bill Clinton has even claimed that there is an Iraq/Al-Qaeda tie.
However, even if there were no Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, Iraq was still on the top 5 list of countries that sponsor terrorism for over a decade prior to the US invasion.
I find it hard to believe that the CEO of Diebold was promissing to rig the machines for Bush's benefit.
That is because you are a reasonable, intelligent person. You must realize that rule #1 in the "how to rig an election" handbook must certainly be to not publically announce that you are going to rig the election.
The actual quote was that Diebold was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year". Apparently there are some people that do not know the difference between "to" and "for".
You could argue that it was an ill-advised statement. He had to know that there would be people out there that do not understand basic grammar and would blame him for their ignorance.
Man, if they were expecting a 50% bonus when IBM doesn't make money, how much do they want when IBM makes a handy profit?
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
I think you ment to say a $10 trillion dollar budget surplus, which most certainly did not translate into a real surplus. Why else would the national debt go up from $4.4 Trillion to $5.8 Trillion during the Clinton years, and never go down from year to year?
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Um, the Bosnia/Serbia conflict never had UN backing, and the war with Iraq had 17 UN resolutions authorizing it (in fact, requiring it from the UN Charter).
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Just like the fabled Clinton Budget Surplus, the so-called economic growth and expansion of the late '90s was FAKE. If you will recall, we had company after company finally admit that they actually had not been making money during the late '90s. Economic growth and expansion isn't measured by astronomically high PE ratios on stocks, you know.
Also, Here is the national employment summary for March 2004. Compare to the national emploment summary of Jan. 2001, when Bush took office. Current civilian employment is 138,298,000, which is 2,200,000 more than Jan 2001 (135,999,000). How is this the biggest job loss since the depression when we have 2.2 million more jobs now than we did when he took office?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
"He has
Um, there are no chapter 7 resolutions against Israel, and those are the only resolutions that can be enforced by the UN.
Of the three similar responses, I guess I'll respond to yours. You basically proved my point. We don't each live in our own economic "bubbles". There is no such thing as a one-way outbound flow of dollars because the global economy is so intertwined that prosperity for one major player almost always equates to prosperity for all the major players (this is, of course, only when natural market forces drive the market, unlike the Oil or Diamond cartels). In other words, a rising tide will lift all boats. Generating prosperity in the second most populated country in the world opens up a huge new market for US companies to expand into. This is why history has shown us repeatedly that Outsourcing Jobs creates a net US job increase.
Because they don't contribute their hard-earned money back into our* economy. The money doesn't flow in a circular fashion. Its a one-way flow outbound.
What do they spend their money on then? If Apu in India gets a brand new outsourced job, he might go out and pick up a new Ford, a new Dell computer, a new Motorola Cell Phone, a pair of new Gap jeans, a Maytag washer, or any one of the hundreds of thousands of American products that are available in the Global market.
He most certainly contributes his hard-earned money back into our economy because his economy is our economy, and when he prospers, we also prosper.
believe that it can be shown with little doubt that it is corporate greed that has led to the current situation
./ try to make you believe. Every company out there is in business for the sole purpose of making money. If they are not, they go out of business and benefit nobody.
"Corporate Greed" isn't a bad word, despite what some people on
The end of it, if there will be any, will start with legislation
How does our legislature telling our companies that they are not allowed to be competitive in the global market help anybody?
If companies refused to go off shore, then everyone would be able to survive and we wouldn't lose any jobs.
Lets see. If companies "refused to go off shore", then these companies would no longer be competitive in the global market. Economic growth and development would shift to low-wage countries, and the US would cease to be the global leader in technology and development. We would essentially take ourselves out of the competition.
History tells us that the when companies "go off shore", they prosper, and the US economy prospers. If that were not the case, we would all still be farmers, textile workers, or shoe makers.
The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that.
The BLS also tracks "Discouraged Workers" (defined as workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). In other words, people who are unemployed and have given up looking for a job. You can access the data here by checking the "Discouraged Workers" checkbox and generating the report (no hard linking available).
The actual numbers do not back up this oft-repeated claim. In both December 1996 and December 2003, there was an unemployment rate of 5.6%. The number of discouraged workers is only marginally different (334,000 in '96, 433,000 in '03), and produces a "real" unemployment rate that is still well under 6%.
I would also point out that wages and average weekly earnings have outpaced inflation at 9% higher since Bush took office ($524/week now compared to $480/wk in 2001), contradicting the theory that people are accepting low paying jobs because they can't find anything else (December 2001 Data, February 2004 Data).
It's also interesting to point out that the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001), contradicting John Kerry's claim that 3,000,000 jobs have been lost since Bush took office.
The tax cut to the rich.
2 questions:
1) Is your marginal Federal Income Tax rate lower now than it was on Jan 20th 2001?
2) Are you rich?
Job creation is running at a tenth of what it needs to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is dropping because they don't count people who have fallen off the unemployment insurance dole; they "are no longer looking for work" because they have given up and taken crap jobs. Hardly counts as a true decrease in unemployment.
Wrong. The BLS tracks unemployment as well as "Discouraged Workers" (workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). The left always claims that the dropping unemployment under Bush is only due to these discouraged workers, but there is no data to support that claim. Here is where you can access this info (check the "Discouraged Workers" report). You can see that the number of "Discouraged Workers" in Dec 1996 (unemployemnt rate of 5.6%) was about 334,000, and in Dec 2003 (unemployement rate of 5.6%) it was 433,000, or a difference of 99,000 (less than 2% of the official total unemployment tally). Based on these figures, the "Real" unemployment rate would still be well under 6%.
Its also interesting to examine the employment data in December 2001 compared to the latest data for Feb. 2004. Again, this data does not correlate to the Democrats claims. Kerry critizes Bush for 3,000,000 jobs lost on his watch, but the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001).
Also, wages and weekly earnings have gone up over 9% since Bush took office (average weekly pay of $524.58 now compared to $480.89 when Bush took office), which completely contradicts the claim that people are settling for crap jobs because they gave up their "real" job search.
Man, for $160,000 you would think they would have thrown in some basic grammar classes.
Why are you so against somebody making money from the work they put into a web site? Web sites (especially well-known sites like THG) spend lots of money and effort putting together useful material for you, and you are not even willing to give them a few pixels on the side of the article so they have the chance of being compensated? You know, people don't spend all the time and effort that it takes to run a web site out of the kindness of their hearts.
The only way to make money from your software is to make it effective. People won't pay you money for something that they don't want or can't use.
Wrong. The Patriot Act did not remove any checks or balances. Everything that used to require judicial branch approval still does. The Patriot Act just expands the range of things that the Executive branch can ask for, including:
Expanded wiretap abilities, with court approval
Roving surveilance in cases where the court finds that the target of the surveillance is likely to thwart identification (note that this still requires court approval)
Confiscation of property in terrorism investigations, with court approval
The Patriot Act did not give the executive branch a blank check to do whatever they want. They still have to go through the usual proceedures to ensure that checks and balances are still in effect.
I can see SPAM killing itself in the not-to-distant future. SPAM is a numbers game, and it used to be that they could get very small response rate and still make money if they sent out a large volume of mail.
Now, everybody is assaulted with countless email messages, mostly peddling the same products. As people get more and more SPAM, the response rate will inevitably drop lower and lower, and I believe it will eventually bring in too little money to justify the costs that spammers incur to send it out.
My public email address will have 100% junk email on some days. I read 0% of those emails beyond the subject line. 3 years ago, when it was only 10-20%, I at least had a chance of actually viewing the message as I was sorting my mail.
1) They would not have been effective if they were in place on September 10
While I understand the criticisms people have against the Patriot Act, I cannot understand how anybody can make this assertion. It is ridiculous for anybody to claim that they know what we would and would not know if this legislation was in place prior to 9/11.
There were 19 hijackers on 9/11, and as many as eight of them carried passports that "showed evidence of fraudulent manipulation," while as many as five of the passports had "suspicious indicators." None of the hijackers filled out Visa applications correclty, and three of them had clearly lied on the application. [source] If the proceedures and regulations in the Patriot Act were in place prior to 9/11, I find it unlikely that all 19 of these hijackers would have made it through given these circumstances.
You should also remember that if any one of these 19 people did not make it in to the US, lives would have likely been saved. 3 out of the 4 hijacked planes had 5 hijackers on board, the 4th only had 4 (thus leading to the theories of the "20th hijacker"). The flight with only 4 hijackers was the only plane that didn't hit a civilian target, but was forced down by the passengers aboard.
Are you blaming Clinton for "overstating the strength of the economy" ... or for the greed of corporate executives and MBAs that caused the stock market to crash? What does one have to do with the other?
If you re-read my post, I was not blaming anybody for these things. You gave a bunch of fancy numbers trying to prove how good we all had it during the Clinton/Gore years, and my only point is that things were simply not as good as they seemed. The so-called economic strength of the late 1990's was built on a foundation of inflated stock prices and corporate fraud. That is why the market analyists called it a "market correction" when stock prices dropped to normal levels.
The company I work for had a stock price of about $20 and employed about 100,000 people in the mid 1990's. During the "boom" of the late '90s the stock was trading at $150 and we had 150,000 employees and everybody thought things were great. Guess what? Things took a dive and now its back down to $20 and we again employ only 100,000. (I should also point out that we announced our first layoffs and corporate restructuring in Q1 2000, a full year before Bush was sworn into office -- I guess the Democrats would argue that it was a pre-emptive strike, just in case Bush got elected).
Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with dubya's friend over at Enron, "kenny-boy" Lay.
Well, you asked for it. Buy I guess you think that including Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa in exchange for the largest single campaign contribution to the 1996 Clinton/Gore ticket doesn't mean a thing, right?
Mr. Lay also served as a trustee at the Heinz Center for Economics from 1995 - 2003 (thats 2 years after the demise of Enron), an organization which is ran by John F. Kerry's wife.
And using Robert Novak as a reference? Please. That's right up there with using Fox News. Try using a reference that actually has some merit.
Ah, the "liar liar, pants on fire" technique. Why don't you do some research to prove him wrong, rather than telling me he is wrong because you disagree with him.
No, Libertarian is neither right or left winged. Its the opposite of Authoritarian, and includes both right wing and left wing economic philosophies.
You forgot to mention all the companies that fraudulently overstated earnings to the tune of billions of dollars during the Clinton/Gore years (I guess its a good economy even if you are just saying that your making money), the Clinton Administration overstating the strength of the economy and tax revenues by as much as 30%, stock market inflation causing companies that had not even made a penny in profit to trade at PE ratios in the several hundreds, massive spending by state governments that has caused a state budget crisis in many states after economic growth declined to a more reasonable (and sustainable) level, and finally the millions of jobs that were "created" on such an unstable foundation that they all went *POOF* when investors finally realized that the Internet and Tech stocks that they funneled trillions of dollars into were overvalued by as much as 300% so they yanked their money out.
Yeah. Times were really good.
The lack of job growth in the US, despite the looting of the Treasury for subsidies to these rich people, once again destroys the argument of "supply side" economics. After the debacle of Reagan's supply side, the last time these unemployment numbers were close to this high (excepting Bush Sr's next-closest nadir), you'd think this nonsense would be rejected
If you examine the Reagan Economic Record you'll see that Supply Side economics worked very well. During the Reagan years, real family incomes increased for all income quantiles, proving that a rising tide indeed does lift all boats.
I'm entitled to a living wage if my work earns my employer a [bunch] of money. Period.
No, you are entitled to quit your job at Starbucks if you don't like the wages you earn. Nobody is forcing you to work there, you know. You are entitled to open your own coffee shop right across the street and to pay your employees $40/hr. But you most certainly are not entitled to demand an above market wage for a job that has an almost endless line of college students and teens willing to take the same job for only $8 per hour.
They make $400 million a quarter, and they pay $8 an hour, part-time, shit benefits, shit hours, shit advancement, shit opportunity. But that's ok, right?
Of course its okay. If it were not okay, nobody would want to work for them any more, and they would be forced to raise their wages until people did want to work for htem. But the fact that they have no problem finding people who will work for their current wage shows that they apparently pay enough for some people to accept the work.
Of course, there is always the liberal way to protect "free speech", which is of course to body slam anybody who says stuff you don't agree with.