Don’t look now, but “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover” just gained over 300,000 jobs last month, three times what Wall Street was anticipating, and it looks like the trend is going to continue through at least the second quarter. Every sector of the economy hired. :)

Man, I’m having enough trouble seeing the goalposts as it is……. :)

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 3, 2004 09:53 AM

Does that detailed plan to create 10 million jons have any details other than “trust me”?

Should I by brand X with no proof, or should I stick with what works?

Of course that sneaky Bush did sign NAFTA and send all those jobs overseas.

Posted by: jones at April 3, 2004 09:58 AM

Kerry also has an ad on the Daily Kos blog. I applaud the other 3 Democratic congressmen who did pull their ad from the shameful Daily Kos blog. You are true Americans. Of the 4 candidates only JANE MITAKIDES of OHIO still has an ad on Daily Kos. I sent her an e-mail, like many of you. I think we can now safely say she knows about Kos despicable remarks about how the 4 American contractors who died in Falluja deserved to die and she supports his views. I think we should try to make sure this deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavored, America hating, blood thirsty piece of shit does not get elected. We must all help to defeat this sadistic woman. If you are in this surrender monkey’s constituency, please give us the website and e-mail of her opponent and of the local Republican party chapter. It is obvious this woman thinks that sticking with Daily Kos will get her elected. We must prove her and like minded people wrong. This is not a Republican partisan action. It is about being human and being loyal to fellow Americans who were gruesomely murdered and mutilated while they were guarding food transports to feed the good people of Iraq. We must honor their memory and do our duty in this War of Terror against America. Our duty is to make sure JANE MITAKIDES does not get elected and that the DAILY KOS blog disappears from the blogosphere. We must not falter or fail, because these two people have chosen to align themselves with the terrorists who killed our 4 fellow Americans.
http://michael-friedman.com/archives/000311.html

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at April 3, 2004 10:15 AM

I see mental institutions are now allowing inmates to have Internet access. How sweet. Yo, Ricky, remember to take your medication, ok?

Posted by: James Six at April 3, 2004 10:40 AM

James -

What are you…?

In the third grade?

Posted by: eric at April 3, 2004 10:58 AM

If I was in the third grade, that would still make me a grown-up compared with most of the intellectual toddlers who post on this site.

Anyway, children, I’m off to do some grown-up things — like work, play outdoor sports, have a life.

Bye-bye.

Posted by: James Six at April 3, 2004 11:29 AM

Ehhh..wrong. There were no manfacturing jobs created.

Posted by: mathiaslink at April 3, 2004 12:07 PM

//Ehhh..wrong. There were no manfacturing jobs created.//

True, but none were lost either. And you could have just as easily made both those statements.

NYT:
The economy added jobs strongly across the service sector. Employment in health care and social assistance rose 36,000. A rise in mortgage refinancing helped add 11,000 financial-sector jobs.

Of the broad economic categories, only manufacturing experienced no job growth. Yet after 43 consecutive months of manufacturing job losses, the zero jobs added in March represented a hard-won victory.

“The manufacturing recovery is so strong that it is beginning to cause hiring in durable goods,” said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. “This should spread broadly through all manufacturing” in the months ahead, he predicted.

Posted by: TexasGal at April 3, 2004 12:31 PM

“Of course that sneaky Bush did sign NAFTA and send all those jobs overseas.”
Posted by: jones at April 3, 2004 09:58 AM

You know, I here that often by Democrats. Funny thing is, there isn’t any proof of it. In fact, ever since nafta, there has been job growth.

Is there an way to find out of a “job” to have ran away from America?
Has anyone ever found an “job” and asked it why it left the USA?
Of course not. It’s just plain silly, isn’t it. “jobs” aren’t human beings, or any other sort of creature. So we have to ask, Since NAFTA was signed, how many people came to the USA looking for Jobs? How many people left the USA, looking for jobs overseas?
I think the national census offers our best look and answer. there are millions of more jobs in the USA since NAFTA, and people are still flocking in to the USA to hunt for these job creatures.

Seal the borders Kerry! batten down the hatches, through up trade tarriffs!

Kerry knows nothing about jobs. He’s never had one. just rich women, who also never had a “job”

As if anyone would elect a liar, a coward, a communist, a criminal who said he killed babies, and other horrible crimes, on no ones orders but his own, since he was the commander of his boat…

Posted by: Fat Guy at April 3, 2004 02:32 PM

300,000 jobs created, and yet employment goes up to 5.7 percent! Hurray for Bush’s great economy!

Posted by: x at April 3, 2004 03:43 PM

//300,000 jobs created, and yet employment goes up to 5.7 percent! Hurray for Bush’s great economy!//

NYT:
Unemployment — which is measured through a separate household survey rather than by tracking company payrolls — inched up to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent in February. But changes in the unemployment rate tend to lag other economic indicators.
…

Every month for the last five months, they forecast a big jump in jobs — only to be disappointed when the data was released. As employment consistently failed to respond, some analysts ventured that the economy must be growing more slowly than was generally believed while others argued that the traditional connection between economic advancement and job growth had broken down.

The new job report suggests that the labor market is returning to a more normal pattern. “It realigns the employment conditions with all the other economic data,” Mr. Levy of Banc of America Securities said. “Every other piece of economic data has implied solid economic growth.

Y’know x,

Shortly you are going to run out of things to bash Bush about and you’ll have to do like a few others here and change your NIC just to get someone to respond to you.

Posted by: TexasGal at April 3, 2004 04:38 PM

Ok lefties, what numbers doo you want. Trends are all in the right direction, but you have to complain (because you have nothing better.

So,

What numbers do you want?

Posted by: jones at April 3, 2004 05:26 PM

jones “Rickie, don’t lose that number”. It’s somewhere here in my empty stash. I just know it is… It ain’t a FatBoy, though.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 3, 2004 07:53 PM

X has no fricken idea about the economy; similar to that John ‘F’ Kerry guy. The unemployment rate still continues to be below the average of Bill ‘I never got sucked’ Clinton….8 yrs living off the expansion of Reagan, while he got his rocks off. The Democrats are having a more and more difficult time talking down the economy to the 95% of Americans who have jobs and are living their lives with hopeful futures…. Its tough for the pessimistic socialists to get traction when all they peddle is the hope of a bad economy or a new death so that they can celebrate….Man, when did this country go to hell with so many of these bastards?

Posted by: DickD at April 4, 2004 12:12 AM

DickD,

Yeah right in your little fantasy world that maybe the case. As long as everyone is living on credit including the U.S. government things don’t look that bad. Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, local taxes are higher than ever and the nations debt has gone to new record highs. The only one to get a decent pay raise lately has been the traitorous CEOs who ship jobs overseas so their corporations can afford even higher “benefits” for them.

But I’m sure when the kids come back from liberating Iraq they’ll be able to pay off the debt by working harder for less, with no social security or medicare benefits. But by the time the shit hits the fan we’ll be gone, so no need to worry. Just continue creating a false recovery by increased borrowing, tax cuts, and shipping our best jobs for the future overseas to prop up communist regimes whose population is happy to work for bread crumbs inorder to keep the rich getting richer.

Posted by: Dream at April 4, 2004 01:38 PM

Promising 10 million new jobs is like promising the sun will come up tomorrow. The way our economy is structured, eventually 10 million new jobs WILL BE created. The Federal government itself does not create the jobs and anyone who’s President or plans to be is blowing smoke up your ass if he says it can.

Now, can the government create the ATMOSPHERE to create 10 million new jobs? Sure, but that involves lessening the burdens the government places on businesses, lowering the costs and allowing access to free markets.

I have seen none of that in Kerry’s voting record. He’s for higher taxes and his current plan (a tax “cut” for corporations) is nothing more than a thinly veiled hike with a small sweetener on the front end. He’s just hoping no one reads the fine print and all the happy, smiling leftists that run national media keep their yaps shut about the real truths of his intended policy.

But here’s a big hint for you all: the Feds right now lessen any corporation’s tax burden by the amount they pay in foreign taxes. If the Gap makes $100 million in the US and $100 million in England, the amount of tax the Gap owes the US is their total tax on sales MINUS the amount they had to pay England for selling over there. Kerry plans to DO AWAY with this exemption. In other words, the Gap would have to pay England its share, then pay the US on total sales REGARDLESS of what it has already paid to England.

This is double taxation. Taxing the same sales twice should make American companies about as non-competitive as killing a quarter of our workforce. My guess is the natural reaction to such BS would be for companies to move off-shore, at least legally, and do business from the Caymans or Switzerland. Don’t think they won’t do it.

Every time the left tries to shoot the rich between the eyes, they usually end up shooting the middle class between the legs. Don’t give this leftist the chance to cripple our economy, we can’t afford to see such ill-thought out policies to become law. Send him back to Taxachusetts.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at April 4, 2004 01:58 PM

Dream, I know you and the rest of your cranky little group sincerely believe the government controls everything, but it’s time to wake up from your nap. Local taxes are in no way connected to a federal tax cut - they are a function of localities who have tax & spend fever. I would suggest to you to get involved in local politics and SOLVE THAT PROBLEM YOURSELF.

I know, wild concept, but the entire world is not keyed on the federal government’s actions.

Corporations are independent as well. They can seek their highest returns where ever they see fit. They are not slaves to the federal government any more than you or I. To that end, they can pay their CEOs anything they want. If you want to fix that, buy some stock and go to the next stockholders meeting YOURSELF and raise holy hell.

Tell me, if the ‘best’ jobs were going overseas, how could we maintain 5.6% unemployment? Within 300 miles of my house, there’s a Honda plant (Japan), a Suburu plant (Japan), Thompson Consumer Electronics headquarters (France) and a Rolls Royce (England) engine factory. Think it might go both ways?

Do you think?

At all?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at April 4, 2004 02:09 PM

Dream,

Over 70% of ALL GOVERNMENT DEBT was created from 1932 to 1994 when Democrats maintained TOTAL Control of the U.S. House (and except for
a few years)… the U.S. Senate!

No DEMOCRAT EVER HAS or or EVER WILL have the interest of the American consumer, or American business at heart. They are BLOOD-SUCKING leeches who are MOSTLY INCPMPETENT lawyers,
NOT Honest business people!!!

Unfortunately, Republicans are beginning to copy THEIR WORST HABITS.

Posted by: leaddog2 at April 4, 2004 04:25 PM

so, 30% of all government debt was created in the span of 10 years, as opposed to 70% of all government debt created in the span of 62 years? what the hell are you bragging about? it sounds like the republican-controlled house and senate is ten times worse.

Posted by: x at April 4, 2004 05:47 PM

leaddog2,

If you look at debt over the years, it increased dramatically during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. It started to slow and decrease during the Clinton years. And now during the Bush Jr. years it has once again begun to dramatically increase.

At this point the interest on the debt is at about 300 billion yearly and the total debt is at 7.1 trillion. If interest rates go up and they may since they are now at historic lows the yearly interest payments will go from 300 billion to 500 billion a year.

Note that before the Reagan years the debt was relatively low and stable even during WWII, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the Space race.

Posted by: Dream at April 4, 2004 06:16 PM

Bush’s administration is worse than Nixon’s

Posted by: x at April 4, 2004 07:13 PM

Tax hikes and protectionism. Theres a recipe for growth.

Oh, somebody wanna tell me how Kerry plans to balance the budget with all the new spending he wants btw?

Posted by: Mark buehner at April 4, 2004 08:41 PM

It is my firm opinion, as a viewer of the political scene, that the Democrats make a terrible mistake by constantly repeating “worst economy since Herbert Hoover.” Americans know viscerally that this is an absurd statement even if they have various concerns about the future so it destroys credibility. It is what we call excessive hyperbole. Kerry would do better to explain how much better he could make things. Kennedy talked about “Getting the country moving again.” He tapped into a futurist spirit of that generation which is probably what put him over the top. Today’s Democrats seem to think swing voters will believe anything if they say it often and loudly enough. I really hope it’s not true. One thing is true, if things are really that awful, the candidate won’t need to repeat it constantly. In 1980 Reagan made one simple statement “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The answer was so obviously negative that nothing further was really necessary.

Posted by: Doug at April 4, 2004 10:29 PM

I don’t think the economy is all that bad right now, but it was better under Clinton, plus the deficit was moving in the right direction under Clinton. All that Bush Jr. has done to improve the economy was borrow from the future of America to finance a temporary improvement. The economy is cyclical—there is no reason to believe that the tax cuts are playing any roll in the current upturn but they are definitely responsible for the increasing debt.

As far as foreign policy is concerned according to R. Clarke, Clinton was doing a better job at trying to get obl before 9/11. Clinton was also more engaged in trying to resolve the Israeli Palistinian disputes. When Bush Jr. came to the office he was too distracted with his own agenda to pay attention to obl or the middle east.

Posted by: Dream at April 4, 2004 10:58 PM

just wait a few weeks until they revise these job numbers downward

it’s been a trend with this adminstration — bully the people in charge of the BLS job numbers into annoucing one thing, then 1 month later they revise the numbers dowards

not to mention about a third of these jobs were safeway and ralph’s workers in CA returning to work post strike

Posted by: wtf at April 4, 2004 11:45 PM

Doug — how droll. The anwer is clearly “no.” Our AGI went down in the last four years, twice, for the first time ever in my 44 year life, before seeing a modest rebound in 03 (not yet back to ‘01). Worse — much, much worse — I know very well that George and his congress are selling our children’s future down the river with a totally reckless abandon: financially, environmentally, and politically. Some of this I can forgive — he’s an obviously average person in a difficult job — but some of it is so obviously deliberate that it’s hard for me not to wish him ill. You might want to be careful with that “better off” pitch — people might actually think about it.

Posted by: j at April 4, 2004 11:46 PM

Dream — The Clinton economy appeared to be better because he was living it up by shrinking the military. Furthermore, do you really expect us to believe that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy and ultimately increase tax revenues? I guess then that you think that raising taxes would not slow the economy!

On terrorism, Clinton had eight years to get Osama and dismantle al Quada, but because he took a legalistic approach he regarded the first WTC bombing as a crime rather than as an act of war. What did he do in response to the USS Cole? Or the African embassy bombings? If he had actually done what W has done then your point would be valid. But he didn’t.

And as for Israel, all Clinton did was entertain Arafat and bolster a horrible terrorist, creating the illusion that the Palestinians wanted peace rather than the truth — that they want the destruction of Israel itself. They even say so in their own Arabic speeches, “All of Palestine, from Jerusalem to the sea.” Meanwhile Israel was a sitting duck mired in the self-delusion of the so-called “Peace Process” that has cost them so many lives.

But some people prefer dreams to reality.

Posted by: Doc at April 5, 2004 12:44 AM

wtf,

actually they have been revising numbers up as a follow up. And the safeway jobs were only a small fraction of the 300,000.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200404021510.asp

“More, for the first quarter of this year, 513,000 new jobs were created, with the Labor Department acknowledging significant upward revisions for the prior two months”

It is funny to see libs desperate for an issue. Dream, your spin is just sad.

Posted by: jones at April 5, 2004 07:23 AM

X and wtf, go long, the goalposts are farther back now.

But you’re right, even if we gained only 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs that’s still actually bad news.

Silly me.

I recall Gabe Hanna saying about two months ago that all the people screaming about jobless recovery are going to look stupid when all the jobs come back. And now you see that starting to happen. All the economic indicators continue to be high, some of them as high as they’ve been in 20 years. Jobs will continue to follow this trend.

So get used to it.

What’s the capital of Northern Ireland again, x?

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 5, 2004 09:56 AM

Doc,

Tax cuts do stimulate the economy, but you can’t just cut taxes and increase spending, that’s just stupid—it will lead to higher deficits and public debt. Higher deficits and debt will lead to a lower dollar, higher interest rates, higher inflation and energy costs, eventually. It will also lead to higher future interest rates which will cause the deficit to balloon even more. This will force a future administration to cut spending and increase taxes, which may lead to an economic collapse.

Clinton did not have 9/11 happen on his watch, but if it had I’m sure that he would have sent the military in to get obl and destroy the Taliban. He probably would not have even considered invading Iraq though until AQ was destroyed. And even when AQ was destroyed he would not have invaded Iraq unless it was a grave threat to U.S. or its allies interests.

On the point of negotiating with Israel and the Palestinians at least there was some hope of a breakthrough. Currently, there is none. And the situation is getting worse day by day. BTW, Bush Sr. negotiated with both sides, as well.

Both sides are responsible for the current state. Its stupid to blame the Palestinians for everything. Why do the Israelis build settlements in the occupied territories, when they know that they may have to be returned to the Palestinians? Israel should either annex the territories and grant the Palestinians citizenship or expel the them and hope for the best, if they don’t want an independent Palestinian state. They should not build settlements until the state of the occupied territories is resolved.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 11:47 AM

“Clinton did not have 9/11 happen on his watch, but if it had I’m sure that he would have sent the military in to get obl and destroy the Taliban.”

What basis do you have for this? When did he get tough on Terrorism? When?

Posted by: jones at April 5, 2004 12:28 PM

jones,

When did Bush get tough on Terrorism? Clinton was taking action against AQ and obl before Sept. 11th, Bush only took action after. Read Richard Clarke’s book for more info.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 12:47 PM

Kerry has proudly proclaimed that he will create 10,000,000 new jobs. I’m happy. That is a lot of jobs!!!! Economic locomotive coming!!!

Ut-oh! Problem!! Seems we only have 8,770,000 unemployed people. Bummer.

Well, let’s see. We can bring in more folks from overseas. I just read Kerry’s immigration policy on his official site. Sorry, no help there. I honestly don’t know what his position is; the words are so vague as to be meaningless.

Oh my, we can’t forget macroeconomics!! A primer on full employment is helpful. There always has been and always will be a portion of the available work force that is unemployed - between jobs, commitment problems, whatever the basis. Since we are talking about macroeconomics, the trends move glacially - so a 1999 statement that 4.5% unemployment represents “full employment” can’t be far off. Let’s cut the number to 4.0% to help Kerry’s cause. From the current unemployment rate of 5.6%, that would mean that 2,500,000 persons of the present unemployed lot are “employable” ((8.77MM/5.6)*1.6).

Oh. 10,000,000 new jobs. 2,500,000 available American workers. Increase the work force 4-fold through immigration, newly available American workers (over age 16 - but don’t forget to net out those leaving through age and death) … I don’t see it. Who does this clown’s math? Well, anyway, it sure felt good to hear the speech!!

Yet another installment of John Kerry’s Mystery Theater …

Posted by: Clyde at April 5, 2004 01:25 PM

When Mogidishu, Haiti, Sudan. Name a major attack in Clinton’s 8 years.

Still waiting on the economic numbers you want.

Clarke is not credible, sorry.

Posted by: jones at April 5, 2004 01:29 PM

Its pointless to argue with you since your mind is closed. To you Bush is god and can never be wrong even when he is, and Clinton was/is the devil and even if he was right he is wrong to you.

Deficits and a 7.1 trillion dollar debt is good ofcourse. No end in sight to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is good. A mess in Iraq is just fine. Obl and AQ carrying out ongoing attacks is no problem for you. Yep things are super. Dollar at a low and energy prices at a high is acceptible to you.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 01:43 PM

Ha ha . Run away, run away.

Actually the only people who say debt is good is NPR when Gingrich was trying to cut the debt back in ‘95.

Did you support Graham Rudman?

What % of the GDP is the debt anyway, that is more important.

Was AQ going to go away had Gore been elected. Ha.

Before you scupper, give me the good economy numbers.

Posted by: jones at April 5, 2004 01:50 PM

What are you talking about the good economy numbers? The trends are not all in the right direction. Manufacturing jobs are still in the tank. The only jobs picking up are retail low pay service sector jobs. There is also some pickup tech service jobs and thats about it. And revenue coming into the Federal goverernment has not been surging as you’d suggest should happen if taxes are cut.

Also terrorist attacks are on the increase, under Bush. But of course if we invade just one or two more nations things may finally improve.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 02:04 PM

I want to know what numbers you will say are good.

Now you say the jobs are not good enough.

As for terrorism, Bush didn’t invent it, he didn’t start that. Put blame where blame is do.

Admit that no matter what Bush does, you will say it is wrong.

Posted by: jones at April 5, 2004 02:10 PM

Tax cuts do stimulate the economy, but you can’t just cut taxes and increase spending, that’s just stupid—it will lead to higher deficits and public debt. Higher deficits and debt will lead to a lower dollar, higher interest rates, higher inflation and energy costs, eventually. It will also lead to higher future interest rates which will cause the deficit to balloon even more. This will force a future administration to cut spending and increase taxes, which may lead to an economic collapse.

All of this is true except for the part about future admins needing to raise taxes. There is no reason for anyone to ever suggest raising taxes again in the United States…ever! We already pay far more taxes than we should or the Framers ever dreamed. The issue is cutting spending. Cutting, cutting, cutting. In addition, we have an unfair tax plan. Its progressive. We have “Das Kapital’s” tax plan and the Soviet Union has Steve Forbes..a flat tax. The end of democracy is when those who put nothing into the treasury start realizing that they can vote themselves large gifts out of it through political or judicial means. That’s the path to socialism, and other than the fact that its failed every time its been tried, or is failing now everywhere its being used, its a great idea.

The issue here at both the local and federal levels is insisting that we control spending. Ronald Reagan is the only person in 35 years whom has actually decreased spending, by 1.8% in 1985. Every other President, R or D, has merely decreased the increase, if they decreased it all. Why are two-bit ignorant pests like Robert C. Byrd famous? Because he brought a lot of unnecessary tax money to his state, instead of doing something that might attract industry. You remember our old friends the free market and capitalism, right? So as a result, we now have more people dependent on Government for their livelihood. That’s a bad trend. The Founding Fathers wanted to instill in us a fear that government get too large. We’ve lost that, I’m afraid.

Dream, you say we’re spending too much, but it seems to me anytime anything gets cut, there is one party that screams loudest. I seem to recall accusations from you recently about Bush not caring about the military because he decreased the increase. And another about decreasing the education increase even though he increased the damn budget by 38%, which, I might add, even accounting for inflation, was more than Clinton did. 100+billion for Iraq is a pittance compared with the ever increasing toilet of waste that happens in our federal government. At least something good is likely to result from Iraq for that much money. How much do we benefit from peach research in Ga? Or a federally funded study on fellatio in preteens?

Look, I’m not defending his spending habits, and if you look at the news, most other conservatives aren’t either. But it seems to me he has an idea of what stimulates the economy. One thing is certain, however; if we increase taxes, the economic recovery will stop. That has been proven over and over and over and over. Same thing will happen eventually if we don’t stop spending or reduce the trade deficit.

But more jobs and high econ indicators are good news, no matter how you look at it. And as I’ve said before, it is extremely disingenuous for the people ready to crucify Bush over the economy a year ago to be failing to give him the credit now that’s its on fire. Either its his fault or its not. You guys make up your mind.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 5, 2004 02:11 PM

johnnymozart,

I’d agree with you that all was great now, if the defict wasn’t at record highs. It’s not a big deal to boost the economy by borrowing. So far the only policy that the republicans have had over the past 25 years has been to borrow. Now thanks to Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. the debt is at 7.1 trillion and climbing rapidly by about 500 billion yearly with 300 billion in interest payments. To me that doesn’t seem like much of an economic policy.

I know you’ll say that deficits are needed now since we’re fighting the “War on Terrorism.” But if you look at past deficits, in dollars adjusted for inflation, the deficit has never been this high even through WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 02:33 PM

Dream,

Please don’t embarrass me by saying things like:
///Also terrorist attacks are on the increase, under Bush. But of course if we invade just one or two more nations things may finally improve.///

or

///Manufacturing jobs are still in the tank///

after I’ve referred to you as one of the smart liberals here whose posts i enjoy, and whom I’m glad posts here.

First of all, your first comments betray a lack of understanding of the conflict we’re involved in. It sound suspiciously like “We caused the problems that we face” This is false. There is a struggle here, and it is one of Islamic fundamentalism vs. modernity. It is an ideological struggle and some people will be recruited for those who want Islamic law for the whole world based on our actions. So what? What else is new? But don’t kid yourself by thinking that those terrorist attacks you’re referring to would just go away if we ignored them. That is criminally foolish after 9/11. And a backhanded stab at Bush by insinuating that he is somehow the cause for increased terrorist attacks is equally as ridiculous. These attacks will continue, no matter who is President, until the ideology is reformed and the soil of medievalism and despotism that nourishes that hateful ideology is destroyed.

Secondly, the manufacturing jobs are not in the toilet. They are not increasing…yet… and many, in overtly inefficient industries like steel, have been lost. Remember, though, that manufacturing indexes are the highest they’ve been in 20 years for 3 months running. Jobs don’t stay lost for long after that. And as for blaming Bush for it, how can you? He levied huge foreign steel tariffs and nearly got us into a trade war with the bloody Europeans. How many jobs would that have lost, Dream? In addition, I disagree with your low-paying service jobs assessment. The report I read said these hirings were across all sectors; technology, service, marketing, some professional (but remember, professionals aren’t really standing in the unemployment line)

The indicators remain high. Expect all sectors, including manufacturing to pick up.

///I know you’ll say that deficits are needed now since we’re fighting the “War on Terrorism.” ///

Actually no, I won’t say that at all. I think the government spends too much money. Period. There is something to be said for deficit spending in times of crises, and I think that’s reasonable. And jones has a point that stating that debt as a share of GNP is important. It is possible for the GNP to outgrow the debt. That’s why Clinton was able to project (on paper) balancing the budget and all those surpluses. Not because he raised taxes, but because Reagan’s policies, in spite of the spending, quadrupled the GNP of the US in a span of eight years. And as for spending during the last twenty years, lets forget who held the pursestrings for the last 50 prior to 1998. I’ll give Repubs in control hell, like now, when its due, like now, but don’t give me the song and dance that Reagan and Bush Sr. are to blame for the debt with a Democratic Congress that never met an expenditure it didn’t like, excepting military, of course.

The trade deficit is still the biggest issue, economically, for this nation. But let me ask you, Dream, fixing it is going to cost jobs in the short run. It may involve strongarming the unions. It may involve trade wars, to begin with, with other friendly nations. It is likely, from all accounts, to be a singularly painful process initially. Are you ready to pay that price? Or will Bush be blamed unfairly for making a good decision when it appears it is politically expedient to do so? More crap like “Bush presided over the biggest job loss….. blah blah blah?” Never mind, I already know the answer.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 5, 2004 03:20 PM

And at the risk of repeating myself….

Despite the fact that he is routinely and erroneously reviled, Reagan is the only President in the last 35 years (and possibly longer) that actually cut spending. By 1.8%. That’s decreased, not increased less. Sure, it was only one year. But he is constantly blamed for the increase in debt because of “military spending.” Military spending, I might add, which bankrupted the Soviet Union trying to keep up with us. What made Democrats at that time mad was not that he was spending money, but that his budget included money for things like defense, which most of them cared less about, instead of what they wanted. The fact that Reagan could get such a cut passed at all with both the R’s and D’s at the time is remarkable in and of itself.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 5, 2004 03:39 PM

johnnymozart,

I don’t advocate we ignore the terrorists, but I think the U.S. should be careful about picking its fights. I don’t think Bush created the terrorists, but I do think his policies are actually making them stronger.

His initial attack on the Taliban and obl was a great success and united the world in the struggle against terror. But then with the job not finished in Afghanistan he decided that Iraq was the next target. He justified it by implying that Iraq was a great threat with chemical and biological weapons, which so far have not been found.

This go it against many allies (Germany, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) attack on Iraq caused the world to divide again in the struggle against terror. It also divided the force of the U.S. military whose resources should have been focused on the Taliban and obl until the job was done.

On the economic front, I don’t think the Bush tax cuts were well timed or needed by the economy. It would have been much better to use that money to lower the deficit and at least attempt to fund social security and medicare. Spending could also have been cut, following 9/11 Bush had a mandate from the American people to do just about anything the he saw fit including cuts in spending.

The economy is cyclic. The government doesn’t need to automatically stimulate the economy every time a down cycle occurs. The economy was already being stimulated by ultra low interest rates which are much more effective than small tax cuts.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 06:25 PM

If you use the ratio of Debt/GDP then the current ratio is the highest since 1955. Debt is at about 70% of GDP and climbing. Under Clinton it came down to about 57% from 66% under Bush Sr. Under the hated Carter it was at a low of about 33% GDP. I apologize if this information offends anyone.

Posted by: Dream at April 5, 2004 07:08 PM

Dream,

I was not implying that you think we should ignore the terrorists, but rather you are ignoring what actually lies at the root of Islamic fundamentalism. That is what I’m concerned that you do not understand. Because if you did, you would not be able to attribute what Bush does to whether they are strong.

I’m still not sure on what basis you say the terrorists are stronger; because there are more attacks? Please. There is group of people in the world who have for a thousand years wanted to see Islam as the dominant world power, the ulitimate authority on everything; and they will use any means to do so. Besides, with two despotic regimes gone, and 60-70% of the known terrorist leadership in custody, on what basis do you think that? We know ten times more about Al Qaeda than we did. They are no longer as organized, they’re on the run, their faces on every wanted list in the civilized world. Even Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admits they did not expect the response from the US after 9/11 and as a result really disrupted future plans, like attacking the west Coast and Britain. Yet somehow, in your mind, because of Bush, they’re stronger. How?

As for taxes, we can agree to disagree on this. No tax cut, this day and age, is a bad tax cut. We pay too much in taxes. And a significant portion of it is wasted anyway. And I agree totally with the last paragraph of your first post, it was more likely to be interest rates rather than tax cuts, but if you truly believe that the economy is cyclical, how could Bush possibly be blamed for the economic recession, Dream? The President, R or D, can only create a positive climate for the economy, and sorry, no matter how altruistic, the way to do that is not to increase money for people no longer contributing to the overall economy and make them dependent on government.

But hey, disagreement is what this site is all about. :)

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 6, 2004 09:59 AM

By the way, I must admit that my partisan self finds your last post difficult to believe. Not offended, you understand, just skeptical. From what source are you deriving these numbers?

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 6, 2004 10:01 AM

Wow, after four years in office we now have one quarter with job growth. I’m really glad this is my president! Bush and administration = liars

Posted by: axebush at April 6, 2004 01:09 PM

Wow, after four years in office we now have one quarter with job growth. I’m really glad this is my president!

Perhaps that growth is based on the anticipation that the loser Bush will be out of office soon. One can only hope.

Posted by: axebush at April 6, 2004 01:11 PM

Wow, after four years in office we now have one quarter with job growth. I’m really glad this is my president!

Perhaps that growth is based on the anticipation that the loser Bush will be out of office soon. One can only hope.

Posted by: axebush at April 6, 2004 01:11 PM

Posted by axebush at April 6, 2004 01:11 PM
Wow, after four years in office we now have one quarter with job growth. I’m really glad this is my president!

Perhaps that growth is based on the anticipation that the loser Bush will be out of office soon. One can only hope.

Wow, I think this makes the Top 100 most moronic statements made on TCP…TWO TIMES!

Posted by: TrollPatrol at April 6, 2004 02:52 PM

That’s ok, TrollPatrol, axebush was just finishing telling us how this growth in the first quarter (not the only quarter in four years with job growth either, but nevermind) is actually bad news.

By all means do go on.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 6, 2004 03:21 PM

Kerry is going to have fun explainig why a FRAUD like him should be elected to anything:

B.G. Burkett: Navy Commanders to Cast Doubt on Kerry’s War Record

Several Navy officers who supervised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry when he commanded a swift boat in Vietnam are preparing to publicly question his war record - including the circumstances under which he was awarded three Purple Hearts - a noted Vietnam War historian revealed on Sunday.

Kerry’s former commanders will allege that the top Democrat’s Purple Hearts were awarded for “self-reported injuries that were virtually nonexistent.”

“He never got a day of treatment, he never spent a day in a medical facility,” Burkett said. “These were all self-reported wounds, which you’re going to hear from some swift boat guys in the future as to the nature of those wounds.”

Burkett said he had personally spoken to the Navy commanders who were preparing to go public about Kerry’s decorations.

“You’re going to get quite a showing [of those speaking out],” Burkett told Malzberg. “I don’t know [the number] yet. They’re trying to get it to be unanimous of every swift boat guy who ever served.”

As to the timetable for the upcoming revelations, Burkett said that Kerry’s superior officers “were still discussing that.”

“You’ve got some major rallys being planned against John Kerry by Vietnam veterans on the mall, at the convention - this type of thing,” he said. “And we’re going to make America aware of John Kerry’s military record.”

Posted by: Fat Guy at April 6, 2004 05:17 PM

johnnymozart,

The source is www.whitehouse.gov. Link is Budget FY2005. Go and look at the Historical Tables.

Posted by: Dream at April 7, 2004 06:40 PM