I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Read the data again. The recovery is in full bore.
Don't worry, after Bushco steals the election again there will be plenty of jobs once they reinstitute the draft and killing of the excess American labor supply.
TBogg (again): A jobless recovery is like waterless rain.
Oh, if burger-flipping gets reclassed as manufacturing, won't that mean that fast-fat joints will need to be relocated to industrial-zoned land?
Hey, everybody!
This poll of a german newsmag is getting freeped:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/
au...,282606,00.html
(see http://medienkritik.typepad.com/...eeds_your.html)
Vote '6'. Early and often.
Recent economic growth helps the Repubs say that recovery is on track, but the overall jobs picture remains bleak and Bush is very likely to end up losing jobs over his four years. The headline is misleading, and one more reason the NYTimes is so annoying.
Although the economy has had so much stimulus in the past couple of years, a strong recovery should have happened earlier. Part of the problem is the Bush tax cuts were targeted poorly and have been extremely inefficient at stimulating job growth. Of course the real reason for the tax cuts wasn't economic growth but rather to eventually cripple the US government and social security and medicare.
The headline doesn't fit the text of the article. The quotes from repukes admit that growth isn't what they wanted, but Kerry's path would be 'worse.' The headline implies that repukes were taking credit for the current jobs picture. I didn't find that in the text.
Either you didn't read the article or, like atrios, you did and don't understand it. Try to do both before opining on the matter.
but, but but! the jobs report is MISLEADING! We can't use the same old jobs payroll numbers! We must change mid-stream the use of the payroll number and use the HOUSEHOLD survey! I know, the jobs have always been measured by the payroll numbers but if we use the household survey we can GAIN jobs (just look at newsmax if you don't believe me! They speak the truth!)
It's only ammunition for people shooting blanks
Hmmm...Anyone at the NYTimes want to remind Bushco that the economy was creating around 200k jobs a month under Clinton?
We have a president who brags about a paltry 21k new jobs in a country where there are 8 million people unemployed, many long-term. Worse, we have a press corpse that lets him get away with it.
Hey, 'commuter' -- got proof? If so, show it. Explain it.
If you just keep saying "Atrios is wrong on this issue" but refuse to prove it, why should we listen to you?
We're waiting.
It's like Alice in Wonderalnd. "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today."
Here's a babelfish translation of the German newsmag poll (mentioned above) that is getting freeped:
"Balance For three years George W. Bush is the most powerful man of the United States - and the world. How do you judge its past term of office (in school notes)?"
School notes?
.
Don't need to listen to me. Read the article atrios references. There's grist for both sides in the article. If you come to the same conclusion that he does - only the democrats can utilize the data - nothing I could say would change your mind.
It's been reported that W will now occasionally glance at the headlines all on his own. Perhaps they're just trying to boost his morale.
Free beer - Tomorrow!
Not only a troll. An extremely lazy troll as well. And if you don't agree nothing I could say would change your mind.
notes = grades or marks
Go vote, and vote 6.
Commuter...
I am confused. Are you referring to the 21,000 jobs created? You do know that we have to create about 150,000 jobs a month just to break even with the amount of new entrants to the job market, right? Is there something aside from that 21,000 jobs figure that you are praising...if so, what? I don't see anything else that could lead someone to make the posts you have here.
Hey, everybody!
This poll of a german newsmag is getting freeped:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/
au...,282606,00.html
(see http://medienkritik.typepad.com/...eeds_your.html)
Vote '6'. Early and often.
Which part of "this is not a scientific poll" do you not understand?
Commuter...
I am confused. Are you referring to the 21,000 jobs created? You do know that we have to create about 150,000 jobs a month just to break even with the amount of new entrants to the job market, right? Is there something aside from that 21,000 jobs figure that you are praising...if so, what? I don't see anything else that could lead someone to make the posts you have here.
Atrios neglects to mention that his
esteemed Attorney General is in IC.
We can all pray for that 10-20% stat
to kick in on him, eh?
Nope. If you agree with atrios without reading the article, nothing I could say would change your mind. If you agree with atrios that there is nothing there for the republicans to use after reading the article, nothing I could say would change your mind. You don't need to agree with the facts in the article - a different discusssion - to see that there is grist for both sides.
Which part of "this is not a scientific poll" do you not understand?
That's why we need to vote so often! Duh!
Vote 6 and press "Abstimmen"!
Last time. Atrios contends that there is nothing in the article that the republicans can point to as helpful for their side. He is not making the argument that the data is right or wrong. Neither am I really. But the article does present data that can can be utiliized by both sides.
John Feehery, spokesman for the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, said: "No one should be happy about these numbers."
Commuter, if you can't cite one sentence in a very short article that provides grist for the Republicans (aside from "yeah, well, Kerry would be worse"), then why bother to keep posting the same "oh yes it does" comment again? The only way this is good news for two sides is if you count Nader as one of the sides.
So 'commuter' refuses to provide proof? I thought as much. If he had it, he'd gladly give it. Typical wingnut tactic.
Speaking of commuting:
Minnesota's current Governor, Tim Pawlenty, is a tool of a rabidly anti-tax-for-rich-people (and thus anti-mass-transit) outfit called The Taxpayers' League.
When Pawlenty was in the state legislature, he rammed through a series of tax cuts for the rich that gave Minnesota a huge deficit -- which Pawlenty wants to 'cure' by raping and pillaging the state's once-world-famous quality of life. This is why Pawlenty and his people forced the metro bus drivers to go on strike -- they refused to negotiate with the drivers, in the hope that they could bust the union.
Well, just as the first one-and-a-half days of the strike had passed without incident, Pawlenty was starting to breathe a sigh of relief, when David Strom -- head of the Taxpayers' League and Pawlenty's lead puppetmaster -- opened his big fat mouth, saying that the relative lack of trouble somehow proves that we don't need mass transit, anyway. (Never mind that the main reason there weren't more traffic jams than normal was because a lot of folks are burning off their available sick and vacation time because they can't get to work and are hoping that the strike ends soon.)
Now it has become obvious to everyone what this is all about.
And pretty soon, employers are going to be pissed as hell at Pawlenty for not making his buddy Peter Bell over at Metro Transit do some negotiating with the drivers. (Up to this point, Bell -- in a blatant effort to force the union into a strike -- flatly refused to negotiate.)
And now everyone knows what it looks like when the Taxpayers' League idiots take over a once-world-class state and run it into the ground.
commuter:
the observation is about the headline which claims that the job figures supply ammo for both sides, an absolutely ridiculous assertion.
whatever is in the article is certainly worthy of debate but not the point of the post
Astrios would be wrong of course if both sides meant kerry and nader though.
"Don't need to listen to me. Read the article atrios references. There's grist for both sides in the article."
You're damn right we don't need to listen to you, because you're a dumbshit. 21,000 jobs a month in an economy this size doesn't even touch anything resembling job growth.
The unemployment rate now is at the average for Clinton's first four years in office.
The unemployment rate now is at the average for Clinton's first four years in office.
the unemployment rate doesn't reflect the hundreds of thousands of folks who have simply given up looking for work, as well as the hundreds of thousands who have taken jobs at substantially less than they were previously making, and for which they are overqualified, simply to pay the bills.
For instance I know of a well-qualified MBA who is working retail sales just to pay the bills.
If things are so staggeringly great, why isn't Glorious Leader running on his wonderful record of economic accomplishment?
Smarter trolls please.
Either you didn't read the article or, like atrios, you did and don't understand it. Try to do both before opining on the matter.
I assume you mean the part about Bush's puppet, Denny Hastert's puppet, and the Repubate pollster saying that what we really need is more fiscal hemorrhage.
You know what? That's worked in the past under Democratic administrations. But in order to make it work, you have to pay careful attention to how you spend that money, with a design in mind for getting people back to work. Bush has totally failed to do this. His economic policy is the kind of voodoo that makes Ronald Reagan look like J.M. Keynes.
There are segments of the economy in which thousands of well-paying jobs are going unfilled, some (in defense and national security) where very simple remedies are available (like providing funding and personnel to process security clearances), and others (in health care and education) where a little imagination could go a long way. Has Bush lifted a finger to attempt to enable people to fill these positions? Fuck no.
Shorter commuter: Really. Honest. Such fine new clothes the emperor has....
does anyone want to highlight the fact that the only reason that the economy gained as many as 21,000 jobs was that the last month's numbers were revised down?
Unemployment rate is calculated the same way today as it was in Clinton's first four years.
Well, the headline is actually true. The republicans will use the data to say, "See, we're creating jobs." The fact that it is actually an bald-faced lie isn't going to stop them.
"The unemployment rate..." is being systemically underestimated by cynical partisans.
"Smarter trolls please."
Agreed. It would be nice if they actually understood what it is they're parroting from their daily dose of talk radio propaganda.
Okay, so has Bushco created enough jobs yet to a point where we were when he came into office, never mind actually create new jobs...NO!
He hasn't even broken even yet.
So Bushco states tax cut policies at the federal level stimulates the economy and creates job and economic growth. However the facts today have shown that 2.8 million people have lost jobs, and the deficit and debt have all grown under Bushco economic and tax cut policies.
So Clinton raises federal taxes and revenue stream when he comes into office, and the facts show that his economic policies succeeded in creating 22.8 million jobs as well as as cutting deficits and creating budget surpluses.
Maybe this is a little too simplistic and I know there is a lot more too it, but the tax cut facts Bushco is pointing to don't actually support the reality or history.
Tom gets it. I don't necessarily agree with his statement of fact, but he gets the point of the article. The republicans will use the data to say jobs are being created and project more over the coming years. The democrats will say that not enough are being created, and dispute the projections. Both can and will use the data since it supports both contentions.
That's why we need to vote so often! Duh!
Vote 6 and press "Abstimmen"!
I wouldn't have thought I needed to point this out, but here goes:
No German, especially not an editor at Der Spiegel, is going to believe that there is any validity whatsoever to a poll on a German website that turns out 60% pro-Bush.
If you have so little to do with your time that you find it rewarding to run up the score on such a poll, have fun. But if I were you, I'd do it with a script.
If Republicans can use the jobs data in their favor, then they can also claim up is down, black is white, war is peace, etc. Of course they will do that, but there's no need for the NYT to do it for them.
Fox News:
Jobs Report Doesn't Do Bush Any Favors.
send the useless public editor a message - public@nytimes.com
that headline is the most mendacious headline ever. SLCM...
http://dumbya.blogspot.com/
Household Survey for Feb:
Civilian Employed -256
Easy solution #01:
"During the Clinton years, Repulicans complained that taxes were too high, that they were strangling the economy. yet during this time the nation's economy experienced the greatest growth in it's history, the highest levels of employment, the highest increases in salary and wages. All of this was done under Clinton and his economic policies. When Reagan was in charge we had tax cuts and stagnent growth, plant closures, unemployment, crime, and distances growing between the rich and the poor. During Bush senior we had the same problems, but it was not long after Bush 41 raised taxes that the country rebounded ever so slightly. When this was continued under Clinton the country prospered. But then George W. Bush takes us back to the years of Reaganomics and everything goes back down. Taxes are cut but more jobs lost since the depression. Worst deficites in history, worst of almost everything."
It's just that simple. Bring out the facts. Bring out the facts they can't dispute.
MYOB'
.
What's even worse is that almost all the jobs created in February weren't even private sector, but government jobs.
The other thing the Times leaves out in presenting the Republican argument is that we cannot go on digging a fiscal hole for ourselves ($550 billion a year) in return for paltry results.
Commuter...
That was really a waste of everyone's time. You could have made an attempt at explaining that (quite meager) thought in your first post.And the only people who are going to buy into your premise that the 21,000 jobs figure is a credit to Bush are people who are either ill-read or don't care what the actual truth is. Save everybody a little time next post and be to the point...there are already enough riddles in the administration's policies without having to read yours.
No German, especially not an editor at Der Spiegel, is going to believe that there is any validity whatsoever to a poll on a German website that turns out 60% pro-Bush.
FWIW, I already emailed them.
However, the point of freeping/contrafreeping online polls is to show the stupidity of doing them at all.
Yup. And consider our record trade deficit, which completely blows holes in the theory that exporting jobs creates jobs here. We import more than we create, because we don't make anything here anymore. About the only American products left to export are candy bars and cigarettes.
BTW...
There are posts allover trying to claim Bush's job record is comparable to Clinton's. Just visit this chart and you can see for yourself that these assertions are ludicrous.
http://tinyurl.com/3blxf
Does anyone have a link to anything that measures the *true* unemployment rate? I recall seeing something about 6 months back that showed it as 8% - 9% when you dropped the cheap tricks like not counting part time employees and those who have given up looking for work after a year.
Now the 'experts' are predicting job growth in 3 or 4 months. They should be on the goddamn unemployment line.
Jennifer...
I think Brad DeLong posted something not long ago about the 'augmented' unemployment figures. Maybe Sawicky....you could search their sites. Shouldn't be hard to find.
just remember, in george's world, worker who have given up. don't matter.
Dee,
It may be closer than you think: Reuters wants to
outsource journalism to India.
How is the WH response to the jobs data any different than the Iraqi Minister of Information's briefings during the "war" ?
Great graph, whynot. Thanks
A picture IS worth a thousand words
ugh...let me explain something very simple to you...During Clinton's first four years the unemployment DROPPED from the level of his predecessor George H.W. Bush...and then dropped even more during his second term. Now the reason that the rates are now equal to Clinton's first four years is because it has RISEN back to that same level. In other words...unemployment going down...good/ unemployment going up...bad. YOU HAVE TO COMPARE THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES TO THE BASELINE...DUMBASS.
Loved Bill Maher's line last nite re the jobs / unemployment issue that this is actually a Bush initiative titled *Operation Weekday Freedom.*
What about Ugh's claim that BushCo is using the same formula to calculate the unemployment rate that the Clinton administration used? Somehow this sounds like a lie to me.
As Billmon so aptly calls the NYTimes:
The New Pravda
As Billmon so aptly calls the NYTimes:
The New Pravda
Oh, if burger-flipping gets reclassed as manufacturing, won't that mean that fast-fat joints will need to be relocated to industrial-zoned land?
Magnum
No, Bush II the sequel will erase those pesky zoning laws. They'll be able to put the toxic waste site right next to the greasy spoon just where it is now.
But, but isn't the Times just upholding that great liberal tradition of trying to give both sides equal treatment. That's what Nat would do.
The NYT is a corporate brothel in the form of a liberal newspaper. Those real liberals, they're just for show.
commuter is unusually dull, isn't he. I'm hearing more and more white collar Republicans saying they'll not be voting for Bush this year. They might not have the best morals but they can tell who's trying to screw them.
Commuter:There is NO data in that article that can possibly be used for the GOP. The only data that is given is the 21k number.
That's it.
Now, there is data that isn't mentioned that could be used. The fast increasing GDP and productivity rates..however in reality those things are very bad signs..it means that businesses don't and won't need to rehire those workers.
The recession, for the most part is over. However, because of a lack of demand, jobs are still going left and right. It's not even a jobless recovery. It's a jobless growth period.
That's VERY scary. Because if people don't have money to spend, then there won't be a demand for products and services. And without that demand, there is very few jobs that are safe.
Ugh:The difference between now and back then, is that you're having a good number of people each month who are giving up on looking for employment. Basically being crapped out the other side.
Again, yet another thing that I fully expect to come crashing down.
Jennifer...
Simply ask ugh (ugh, are you reading?) to come back when he has the 'augmented' figures we are referring to (from Clinton's admin.) and then we will compare.
The other thing is too obvious to mention...but it has to do with, hint hint, deficts and surplusses.
Yay! Job growth is right around the corner! Of course, this doesn't quite jibe with what my manager told me about our company (hiring freeze begins in the next fiscal quarter, with a mandatory 10% staffing cut across the board). But hey - higher profits for big business!
The 10 occupations with the largest job growth, 2002-12:
Registered nurses
Postsecondary teachers
Retail salespersons
Customer service representatives
Combined food preparation and serving
workers, including fast food
Cashiers, except gaming
Janitors and cleaners, except maids
and housekeeping cleaners
General and operations managers
Waiters and waitresses
Nursing aides, orderlies, and
attendants
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/.../
ecopro.t05.htm
This poll of a german newsmag is getting freeped:
By a Mr Slater and his friends, if I read his blog aright (his homepage from a snipe at an earlier thread). I guess if it's freeped from one side and anti-freeped (for want of a better term) from the other, the two sides may balance out and give a roughly equitable result, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Two Words:
New Pravda
Some basic math about these numbers:
"U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month" (+21,000)
"lower(ed) its count of jobs gains:
in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and (-15,000)
for December to just 8,000 from 16,000" (-8,000)
Therefore:
Feb 2004 - 21,000
Jan adjustment (15,000)
Dec adjustment (8,000)
NET (LOSS): (2,000)
It would seem to me that the bottom line is that the entire United States of America just LOST 2,000 jobs! This is even LESS impressive that gaining 21,000 jobs for the entire US of A!
For instance I know of a well-qualified MBA who is working retail sales just to pay the bills.
And today's International Herald Tribune had an article about how teenagers who are looking for vacation jobs for peanuts in sales, retail etc are finding they get rejected at every turn - because jobless adults are turning to precisely these jobs as a means of getting a living of sorts.
The statistic about the "average Clinton unemployment rate" is purely bullshit. Clinton inherited a 7.4 unemployment rate from Bush pere.
OPEC has limited the supply of oil to inflate the price, so the US economy can't grow and create jobs. This will cause voters to vote for Kerry. OPEC consisting of America's worst enemies, Arab tyrants and Islamic fundamentalists want Bush out, because he told them to stop opressing their populations or they'll meet Saddam's fate. Democrats are falling for this ploy. If Bush loses, America's enemies will win. it's as simple as that.
TheaLogie,
A previous poster had this to say:
"No German, especially not an editor at Der Spiegel, is going to believe that there is any validity whatsoever to
a poll on a German website that turns out 60% pro-Bush."
If I know my Germans correctly, they will analyse votes by referer site (to say that 95% of the 20,000 people who came to the site from a link on wingnut.com rated Bush 'excellent'), and by IP address (to say that 45% of people visiting from a US IP address rated Bush 'incompetent').
Non-scientific my butt.
Some basic math about these numbers:
"U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month" (+21,000)
"lower(ed) its count of jobs gains:
in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and (-15,000)
for December to just 8,000 from 16,000" (-8,000)
Therefore:
Feb 2004 - 21,000
Jan adjustment (15,000)
Dec adjustment (8,000)
NET (LOSS): (2,000)
It would seem to me that the bottom line is that the entire United States of America just LOST 2,000 jobs! This is even LESS impressive that gaining 21,000 jobs for the entire US of A!
Some basic math about these numbers:
"U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month" (+21,000)
"lower(ed) its count of jobs gains:
in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and (-15,000)
for December to just 8,000 from 16,000" (-8,000)
Therefore:
Feb 2004 - 21,000
Jan adjustment (15,000)
Dec adjustment (8,000)
NET (LOSS): (2,000)
It would seem to me that the bottom line is that the entire United States of America just LOST 2,000 jobs! This is even LESS impressive that gaining 21,000 jobs for the entire US of A!
Sorry about the multiple postings. Apparently when I hit 'refresh' button, my comment reposted. Sorry.
Read the data again. The recovery is in full bore.
commuter
funny, the only bore I see is you
Holy schit ricky, you post that ridiculous crap everywhere but fail to actually understand that bushCo are now PART of OPEC as they control Iraq!
What PHUCKING IDIOTS YOU REPUGS ARE!
I constantly hear Democrats say Bush is in bed with oil companies. RUBBISH. Bush wants to get REELECTED. Oil companies want high oil prices. High oil prices mean the economic will not grow. If the economy doesn't grow, the unemployment stays high. This will be used against Bush in his reelection bid. In other words. Bush wants low oil prices. Another Democratic myth deflated.
Ahem. Ricky... which country does the US import most of it's oil from? I'll give you a clue. It's not an Arab nation. Now sod off.
And Bush and his cronies work SO hard against alternative fuels because... he likes working with OPEC? he stands to make gads of money off oil? it gives him excuses to invade other countries for Halliburton?
If Bush cared about DEFENSE, which seems to be your argument, he'd find a way to stop importing entirely from other countries and actually develop a program beside drilling half the country to get us off all foreign fuel.
But funny, this thread is about jobs. Ricky, is yours safe? Or are you about to be outsourced to India?
Hey, speaking of the ny times and how democracy works, I want to veer of topic just a smidge to address the the opinion I held until I read this article:
Who says Iraqis don't know anything about democracy? They seem to have American style democracy down pat. Replace "shi'ite" with "religious right" and kurds with any american minority group. sounds verrry familiar. Their leaders seem just as capable of handling democracy as US leaders are.
The headline (and people who agree with it) is correct as Krugman once explained a similar healdline - "Reports Claim Earth is Round, Some Disagree"
Is it possible to outsource trolls to India? Can someone get a committee working on this?
I constantly hear Democrats say Bush is in bed with oil companies. RUBBISH. Bush wants to get REELECTED. Oil companies want high oil prices. High oil prices mean the economic will not grow. If the economy doesn't grow, the unemployment stays high. This will be used against Bush in his reelection bid. In other words. Bush wants low oil prices. Another Democratic myth deflated.
Ricky Vandal
funny, I seem to remember aWol bragging about his close ties to the Saudi's during the 2000 campaign.
I think that the higher oil prices now are the acts of desperation since they can tell that their boy is going down come November, so they are looting the population while they still have a chance, like they did in the CA "energy crisis"
If I know my Germans correctly, they will analyse votes by referer site (to say that 95% of the 20,000 people who came to the site from a link on wingnut.com rated Bush 'excellent'), and by IP address (to say that 45% of people visiting from a US IP address rated Bush 'incompetent').
Ok, let's settle this once and for all.
While germans may be know to pay huge attention to such detail, the majority population is as stupid as everywhere else and the media does not give a shit about proper reporting (much less online polls; otherwise those details mentioned by you would be displayed) like the media elsewhere (SPIEGEL ONLINE is particularly known for copying and roughly translating copy from the NYT & WaPo and presenting it as their own).
Is it possible to outsource trolls to India? Can someone get a committee working on this?
TK |
wouldn't surprise me, they have RNC phone banks outsourced already
"when NPR said reported that 294,000 were created last month, they failed to mention that 306,000 had been promised."
- pickle puss, pickle puss, git off mah back
Commuter clearly has brain constipation and needs to get the idea out of his system that there is any "data" in the NYT article that supports the headline "Job Data Provides Ammunition for Two Sides in Presidential Race." A more appropriate headline would be something along the lines of "Job Data provides grist for Kerry attack on Bush" with subheading of "Republican [flacks] assert job numbers would be worse under Kerry."
As for the vandal, BushCo has numerous family and business ties with the Saudi royals and millionares and lets not all forget that some are from the bin laden family- some of which were allowed to vamoose from the country right after 9/11 while almost all other flights were grounded.
However, BushCo doesn't necessarily want high oil prices; rather, it wants more control over supply by American oil conglomerates.
Josh Marshall of TPM regarding this post:
[ed.note: this post originally began "Atrios is dead right when he says..." But a number of readers who use the RSS feed wrote in noting their brief moment of panic when they saw the RSS headline "Atrios is dead." Thus the change.]
Another article in the NYT today is headlined: Kerry: Nuancer or Flipflopper. Actually the headline is "Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?" but what is the difference. The meme is starting to roll, it is classic Gore 2000 redux.
It would seem to me that the bottom line is that the entire United States of America just LOST 2,000 jobs! This is even LESS impressive that gaining 21,000 jobs for the entire US of A!
Jack
----------------------------------
You are absolutely correct, Jack. The Bushites hope that nobody will check out the entire story and realize that job growth isn't just bad, its negative! And if you believe Fox News, the 21,000 jobs created in February were all in the government sector. And we know that Bush and Comrades want to shrink government. If they had their way, no February jobs would have been created. And how can their policies create jobs? They just pushed through new rules allowing firms to require many low-wage earners to work overtime without overtime pay. It costs them no more to work an employee 50 hours than 40 hours. So it gives them no incentive to add workers to the payroll! And then outsourcing? Bushites are in favor of it. Good for investors. Bad for people with families to support. How is Bush going to defend marriage with a constitutional amendment when his economic policies are assuring money worries for families that are the main cause of divorce and fathers deserting their families.
In November, let's outsource Bush. The question becomes, what country would be stupid enough to accept him?
they have RNC phone banks outsourced already
Not all of them. Here's the e-mail I just got from the VT GOP:
Dear Ntodd,
Grassroots activists will play a crucial role in ensuring a Bush-Cheney victory in November 2004. In this regard, voter registration efforts encourage involvement in the political process and foster support for the Republican cause. You can show your support for Bush-Cheney by volunteering your time at the RNC-hosted phone bank in your community. Below you will find all of the relevant logistical information pertaining to the RNC phone bank taking place in your community...
What about the NYT article on Kerry today?
Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?.
Its front page grafs make it look like a conduit for right wing spin and nothing else. Fairly shameless.
We're all just joshing, Felix
why don't we all sign up as RNC phone bankers and give the effort our "own special spin" !
wouldn't surprise me, they have RNC phone banks outsourced already
preznit giv me turkee
-----------------------------------
Why not? I finally received a phone call inquiring as to whom I planned to vote in the Democratic primary for senator in Illinois. The fellow talked with an obvious accent and misprounced half the candidate's names, and pronounced the state Ell-noise-eez. After I told him my preference, the pollster asked me where Illinois was, then said he couldn't find it on a map. At least somebody in India would be non-partican.
"...while Republicans countered that a tax-raising Democratic president would only make it worse."
Oh, Yeah. Now, there's a campaign slogan.
It could have been worse. We could have lost 4 million jobs.
Vote George W. Bush - he only lost us 2 million jobs.
Hey "commuter",
The only thing the Repugs can spin out of the article is the GPD growth, and that's a chimera much like Enron's fantastic 'growth' was. The GDP growth is largely attributed to the falling dollar (our exports make us more money) and is unsustainable. You're obviously a Fox News viewer and I bet you went all in on Enron stock, you're such a chump.
Outsource George W. Bush!
"Read the data again. The recovery is in full bore."
Sure. We are recovering in the same way that Bush earned the right to sit in the White House. "If we say it's so, then it must be so." Too bad that 21,000 new jobs doesn't even cover the young adults entering the job market for the first time.
"If Bush loses, America's enemies will win. it's as simple as that."
"In other words. Bush wants low oil prices. Another Democratic myth deflated."
Ladies and Gentlemen, Ricky Vandal! Give him a hand, he'll be here all week! Enjoy the buffet!
Atrios, is that you?
Ricky Vandal: OPEC has limited the supply of oil to inflate the price, so the US economy can't grow and create jobs. This will cause voters to vote for Kerry. OPEC consisting of America's worst enemies, Arab tyrants and Islamic fundamentalists want Bush out, because he told them to stop opressing their populations or they'll meet Saddam's fate.
Homer says, "Don't be silly, Lisa. We don't care about the oil -- we have to stop the oppression of brown people on the other side of the globe!"
.
"Tom gets it. I don't necessarily agree with his statement of fact, but he gets the point of the article. The republicans will use the data to say jobs are being created and project more over the coming years. The democrats will say that not enough are being created, and dispute the projections. Both can and will use the data since it supports both contentions."
BS. Total BS.
There were 21,000 new government jobs created last month. There was not a single new net private sector job created last month. Not one! You are wrong both factually and rhetorically commuter.
The Republicans say their tax cuts reduced job loss. That is a lie. If the tax cuts for corporations had at all been tied to hiring Americans or not outsourcing American jobs then they might be able to claim that. But of course what did that unAmerican, unpatriotic Bush do? He gave tax cuts to multinational corporations which sped up their plans for outsourcing. I call him unpatriotic and unAmerican because he is giving American jobs away when we need them badly here.
There were 21,000 new government jobs created last month. There was not a single new net private sector job created last month. Not one! You are wrong both factually and rhetorically commuter.
Oh great, I've already been taken to task for disagreeing with this interpretation over at CalPundit. At least you have the decency to use "net" in your statement. Still, I think this is a bit misleading--see the thread at Kevin's place if you care why...
jd -
I'm pointing out that the current unemployment rate is comparable to Clinton's first four years. Obviously it is higher than when Clinton left office.
The point is that GWB is in the position of being compared to an outlier, Clinton's unemployment rate at the end of his term, which coincided with the biggest stock market bubble since the great depression. No matter who took over in 2001, massive job loss was inevitable, and certainly the destruction of a great deal of downtown Manhattan didn't help.
NTodd...
hey. i keep bouncing from this site to Drum's also, and trying to come to terms with the figures...which i still am unclear on. Did you say that there were Gov't. and non-gov't sector jobs created, and that the total gross job creation number increased MORE than 21,000? Also, it would seem that an awful lot of other people are using the 21,000 figure. Can you break it down for us? Thanks
Ugh misses the point.
GWB has made repeated promises that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs, and this has just not happened. Indeed, our great misleader has made these promises (along with his tax cuts) before and after 9/11. Simply put, his tax cuts for the rich haven't resulted in any meaningful job creation.
Counting those who are so discouraged that they have stopped looking for work and those who are working only part-time but want full-time work, the Wall Street Journal reports, the unemployment rate would be 9.9%.
This is in definite contrast to Clinton's first four years, where the employment outlook was on the right track and optimism generally prevailed.
Anyone that tells you we are "on the verge" or that things will soon "turn around" is trying to sell you something.
Usually religion.
Did you say that there were Gov't. and non-gov't sector jobs created, and that the total gross job creation number increased MORE than 21,000?
Not really. Service-providing jobs did grow overall: there was an increase of 46k, with the only area losing jobs (-9k, IIRC) was in leisure/hospitality. Subtract 25k for losses in the goods-producing area (construction and manufacturing), and we arrive at Feb's +21k total (goods and services, private and public).
Uh, I don't know if that makes sense--I'm trying to drink some red wine, eat pasta, watch ST:TNG, and blog all at the same time...
He has created milliions of jobs, he just didn't tell us they were going to be in India and China.
NYT headline is is misleading and is somewhere to the right of the Fox News headline. Ugh.
But what bugs me most is that they take a substantive issue and write about it from the high-handed and cynical campaign-spin perspective instead of the actual story of the data and of peoples lives.
It’s just abysmal.
.....
Why does the NYT hate America.
.....
Anybody spinning it just looks silly.
.....
NTodd - It appears that the issue you have with the government vs nongovernment jobs is that you do not believe that it is valid to break the numbers down into those two big categories. I disagree. The point with breaking out the government jobs separately is that the gain or loss of those jobs is much less dependent on market forces than are private sector jobs. In fact, I think it would be more valid to not count government jobs at all when looking at job creation, or, job loss.
NYT headline is is misleading and is somewhere to the right of the Fox News headline. Ugh.
But what bugs me most is that they take a substantive issue and write about it from the high-handed and cynical campaign-spin perspective instead of the actual story of the data and of peoples lives.
Em | Email | Homepage | 03.06.04 - 5:46 pm | #
Anybody expecting the NYT to be anything other than Bush Campaign Central and Voice of Bushie and Deefending Bushie is watching too much of the Teletubbies.
They are wholesale coopted and devoted to the single-minded porpoise of electing Dear Leader.
Dear Leader is still gonna have his sorry tuchas bounced all the way back to Waco, despite them or maybe it is becoz of them, we suggest, you decide.
If they had been tougher on him and made him make the preferable choices, he mighta been in a different position.
It is all Dubya’s fault of course, but he has had plenty of help in the slip-slideroni downhill all the way .
The New York Times. Isn't that the newspaper whose reporter ask Kerry if "God was looking over America" or somthing like that. Well we all know he's not looking over the New York Times. First they have Blair who invented stories for how long? They have good old Judith Miller and her WMD's. The last week they fired a stinger because he was past member of ACT-up. They have long ceased as being the newpaper of record. And their statement "All the news that fit to print should be All the news that fits..as long as it's wrong or a White House press relase.
NTodd - It appears that the issue you have with the government vs nongovernment jobs is that you do not believe that it is valid to break the numbers down into those two big categories
That's not my hangup at all. I just think it's disingenuous and not effective to claim that "all the job creation was in government". You could just as easily argue that all the job creation was in private sector service-providing positions (up 25k).
I take issue with our selective use of the data--that's what BushCo does. Further, the vast majority of those government jobs were at the state level, not Federal. If anything, we should be using that to show not that the central gov't is growing, but that the burden of providing services is shifting to the states. All part of the Bush Tax.
But really, I'd rather just look at the raw numbers and leave it at "we fucking only created a measley 21,000 jobs, about 130,000 fewer than we need to break even, and a couple hundred thousand fewer than Bush promised." That sounds stronger to me.
GWB has cut taxes and increased spending, a Keynesian prescription for ecomonic growth if there ever was one. He has been rewarded with robust increases in GDP but no job growth.
Typically such a prescription has produced jobs, he should not be castigated by the left for following the left's econ icon when it does not produce one of the icon's prescribed results.
Hopefully the recovery is just around the corner, like, Dec. You watch, if Kerry wins, the economy will start to burn like wildfire, then what will the Repugs say? It is a perfect vote of no confidence in fearless leader.
What would happen if we all went on strike.
Nah. I guess they could fire us all.
What would happen if we all went on strike.
Nah. I guess they could fire us all.
Ugh once again is posting lamely.
Democrats very much argued for economic stimulus - in fact, they were the ones who pushed the income tax refunds. However, unlike the misleader, the dems wanted tax stimulus to be directed to the vast majority of Americans who aren't wealthy, thus putting a greater percentage of the tax cuts back into the economy much more quickly.
Orienting the tax cuts towards to the wealthy just doesn't create jobs as effectively.
Its like the "war on terror." Even a large majority of liberals were on board for toppling the Taliban and going after al Qaeda, but they also recognized that invading Iraq w/ Bush as our misleader would be very dangerous indeed.
Bush knows that giving tax cuts to the rich results in as many jobs as he knows that WMD are in Iraq.
jr -
And the spending increases?
Ugh
Again, it is a question of degree.
Keynes was pretty much all about relatively short term stimulus... deficit spending and/or tax cuts are o.k. to jolt the economy; but he was never in support of economic policy that endangered long-term, structural deficits that threaten long-term growth.
This is what Bush has been doing.
Sure the number of jobs added last month was low...duh...it was February. When the months get longer, presto, more jobs.
What are you talking about the NY times is a very good paper. You want to read lies go to fox or witnessreport.com
I don't want to burst Johnny's bubble too much, but take a look at this Prav..., er, I mean NY Times article:
In Sweeping Critique, Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide
Had he been sitting in the Oval Office last weekend as rebel forces were threatening to enter Port-au-Prince, Senator John Kerry says, he would have sent an international force to protect Haiti's widely disliked elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Wow. Just like that, I guess it has been "widely reported" that Aristide is widely disliked, so there's no reason to back that up with anything that resembles a fact, or even an explanation, now is there. I think it may be time to revoke the Time's SCLM membership, if that has not been done already.
yay! numbers-math. yay!
The numbers mean nothing - look if commuter can actually say that the 21k figure can be used as positive spin - the universe is doomed a long slow cold death!
Its people and their lack of understanding coupled with lack of compassion. The thugs will trumpet georgie's little playtime in the iraqi desert as making amurka safer.
I for one am sick of all the 'safety', I'm sick of giving up freedoms that i've valued my entire life (like taking a cooler into a ball game, like gestapo road-blocks) - simply so that some fukin soccer mom or some rich old white bastard can 'feel' safer - WTF! This nation is full of fearful morons - I hate them all!
Look my point is that rich people like only rich people regardless of who you are - rich begets and covets rich. Those of you who know white-collar rethugs who aint voting bush - they to me are the simpletons - who believed the lies in '00 that dubya was their saviour.
Also take a look at this commentary on a John Burns article about this week's troubles in Iraq - this analysis illustrates again the shabby prejudices and reflexive anti-Arab sentiment that parades as reporting in the Times lately...
http://worldonfire.typepad.com/w.../world_on_fire/
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
