The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree :evil4:

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.

When you say "record unemployment", what kind of numbers are talking about? Jimmy Cater-esque unemployment or the 2-3 point above "full employment" unemployment we have now?

the official percentage of 6.4 doesnt include discouraged workers. I was watching a segment on jim lehrer last night (I don't want to hear peep about the 'librul' media), and whilst the guy kinda grabbed at every straw he could to bloat the rate, when you factor in people who havent actually looked for a job in the past 4 weeks, it gets around 7-8%, which is getting vaguely closer to the 10.4 of carter. Trust me, theres no jobs out there.

And if you want to talk about WMD's I think the dem strategy is simple. All they really need to do is roll the footage from the numerous speeches from september through march by Condi, Cheney, the SOTU preaching hellfire, brimstone and mushroom clouds and them run clips of Rummy, Wolfie and the POTUS from the past 2 months backpedaling and talking about how 'we *might* find evidence of a weapons *program*'. Where's the ##,### liters of anthrax? Where's the ##,### shells ready to fire on innocents in 45 minutes? I've also heard those murmurings about the potential smoking gun in Iraq. If that was the case, wouldnt you think that the administration would have rolled it out by now to shut everyone up? And with these guys' track record, I don't trust anything they say. Remember the weekly proclamations of the found WMD, only the retracted the very next day? I think the dems should also mention the 9/11 report that says that theres no significant links between Iraq and AlQaeda and I think you have a sufficient case to show that we were totally railroaded into war.

I also think the repubs shameless convention in NYC is gonna blow up in their faces. I think when all those firemen and cops show up asking 'where is our goddamned money?' it wont look very good on tv. Assuming the liberal media wants to show any of the massive protests that are gonna be outside of that shindig.

GDP update:

HOW FAST IS THE ECONOMY GROWING?....The BEA announced today that GDP increased 2.4% in the second quarter. That's better than predicted and generally good news.

However, General Glut points out an interesting anomaly. First, here's how the increase was calculated:

First quarter GDP was $9,552 billion

Second quarter GDP was $56.1 billion higher.

That's an increase of .587%.

Multiply by 4 (actually a bit more than 4) to get the annualized rate and it's a 2.36% increase, which gets rounded off to 2.4%

But here's an interesting factoid: the war in Iraq provided a one-time spike in defense spending (and therefore GDP) of about $40 billion, all of it deficit spending. Without the war, GDP would have increased by only $16 billion, an annualized rate of .67%. That's not so hot.

So, um, are we going to have another war this quarter to keep the numbers up?

Also keep in mind the bond market isn't too hot. If you were a foreign country, would you invest in a country with massive debt as far as the eye can see with no end to spending or an increase in revenue in sight? And who's gonna finance the national debt? You? Also keep in mind the fact that we don't look too hot in the eyes of most anyone who lives outside of our borders...

Originally posted by we be scrubbins > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.>

When you say "record unemployment", what kind of numbers are talking about? Jimmy Cater-esque unemployment or the 2-3 point above "full employment" unemployment we have now?

the official percentage of 6.4 doesnt include discouraged workers. I was watching a segment on jim lehrer last night (I don't want to hear peep about the 'librul' media), and whilst the guy kinda grabbed at every straw he could to bloat the rate, when you factor in people who havent actually looked for a job in the past 4 weeks, it gets around 7-8%, which is getting vaguely closer to the 10.4 of carter. Trust me, theres no jobs out there.

And if you want to talk about WMD's I think the dem strategy is simple. All they really need to do is roll the footage from the numerous speeches from september through march by Condi, Cheney, the SOTU preaching hellfire, brimstone and mushroom clouds and them run clips of Rummy, Wolfie and the POTUS from the past 2 months backpedaling and talking about how 'we *might* find evidence of a weapons *program*'. Where's the ##,### liters of anthrax? Where's the ##,### shells ready to fire on innocents in 45 minutes? I've also heard those murmurings about the potential smoking gun in Iraq. If that was the case, wouldnt you think that the administration would have rolled it out by now to shut everyone up? And with these guys' track record, I don't trust anything they say. Remember the weekly proclamations of the found WMD, only the retracted the very next day? I think the dems should also mention the 9/11 report that says that theres no significant links between Iraq and AlQaeda and I think you have a sufficient case to show that we were totally railroaded into war.

I also think the repubs shameless convention in NYC is gonna blow up in their faces. I think when all those firemen and cops show up asking 'where is our goddamned money?' it wont look very good on tv. Assuming the liberal media wants to show any of the massive protests that are gonna be outside of that shindig.

So if Clinton INC. had persuaded the DNC to step on 'ol Uncle Teddy's toes and have THEIR convention in NYC, it would also have been shameless, right?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott So if Clinton INC. had persuaded the DNC to step on 'ol Uncle Teddy's toes and have THEIR convention in NYC, it would also have been shameless, right?

Of course. I think its disgusting to constantly pull at people's heart strings for any kind of political gain. I wouldn't be surprised that if a dem was in power right now they might try the same kind of stunt. I'll concede that point. But Bush is clearly not above it. He even evoked 9/11 during the press conference yesterday when he was answering some question about whether he would focus more on campaigning in the next couple months. (I think, don't hold me to that one.. he definately brought it up matter of factly during a completely irrelevant line of questioning)

back to the case on WMD: it's essentially irrelevant now, as the damage has already been done. the war in iraq has raised the potential of terrorism against the US (as was predicted), there are several different groups of iraqis hoping to gain power in the new government (as predicted), a gulf is developing between the shi'ite and sunni communities (again, predicted), and the US is now facing guerrilla warfare (no surprise there).

last summer i spoke with someone i know who is a diplomat who served in saudi arabia for several years and we discussed our common interest in the middle east for several hours. he told me that the majority of the state department and many high-ranking military officers were, at that time, cringing and holding their breath at the impending bush administration and (primarily) bipartisan congressional decision to go to war so soon, because they were aware of the consequences. as a person who has studied the middle east i agreed with him entirely, and while i felt vindicated in my position by someone with much more expertise than i i was horrified to find that an entire branch of the government, that very branch with the most knowledge of, and expertise in, the area of dealing with the middle east, was being ignored.

my point is, if the US finds weapons of mass destruction, don't be deluded into thinking that we've 'won' anything. there is no vindication, because our actions will have long-lasting repercussions. saddam hussein may have been removed but, in the long run, we have no idea who, or what, will take his place.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htmUH OH .. THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD Well ... if the rumors pan out let's just say it doesn't look good for Democrats.There's a bit of a buzz around Washington that our investigators in Iraq are meeting with more success than you have been lead to believe in the search for Saddam's weapons. One rumor has it that we can expect to learn a lot more in, say, about six months. I've been floating this idea for a few weeks not ... our D.C. pal Jamie Dupree has been pooh-poohing it. Some might say that if Bush has the goods on Saddam now he should make the information available now. No way, not after that ridiculous 16-word fiasco. Cross all the "Ts" and dot all the Is" and then when you're absolutely sure .. call the press conference.Now ... let's just say that we do discover incontrovertible proof that Saddam was building his ugly weapons. Somehow the left is going to have to make the case that it makes no difference, and that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We'll leave it to Howard Dean to make that case.What will the Dems do in '04? What message will they craft to combat news of economic growth and found eveidence of WMD's? They will find themselves if the awkward position of denouncing economic growth and military success. Maybe hillary will just go ahead and hang on to that Senate seat......All partisianship aside, I would really like to know what you think the Dem strategy should/will be.

Speaking of talk radio...

Talk Radio

And on and on and on it goes

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> What if this keeps happening......> > The US unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June. The unemployment tally for July is due Friday. >

I was talking about the numbers in the article you provided. Contrast those numbers with GHW Bush's numbers, and Clinton's numbers, whatever they were.

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment figures for: George Herbert Hoover Bush

1989: 5.3% 1990: 5.6% 1991: 6.8% 1992: 7.5%

Note: The high unemployment rates for 1991 and 1992 occurred AFTER recovery from the recession had been declared.

Unemployment figures for: Bill Clinton

1993: 6.9% 1994: 6.1% 1995: 5.6% 1996: 5.4%

1997: 4.9% 1998: 4.5% 1999: 4.2% 2000: 4.0%

Unemployment figures for: George W. Bush

2001: 4.7% 2002: 5.8%

2003: Jan: 5.7% Feb: 5.8% Mar: 5.8% Apr: 6.0% May: 6.1% Jun: 6.4% Jul: 6.2%

And, Michael, since you bring up Jimmy Carter, here are Carter's and Reagan's numbers (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics):

Unemployment figures for: Jimmy Carter

1977: 7.1% 1978: 6.1% 1979: 5.8% 1980: 7.1%

Unemplyment figures for: Ronald Raygun:

1981: 7.6% 1982: 9.7% 1983: 9.6% 1984: 7.5%

1985: 7.2% 1986: 7.0% 1987: 6.2% 1988: 5.5%

Honestly, Michael, if you wanted to reach back into the past to look for higher figures than GW's, you didn't have to go all the way back to Carter. Ronald Reagan had much higher unemployment figures than Carter ever did.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr And on and on and on it goes

this is one of my favorite cartoons at the moment. san diego is over-run with conservative media, and it seemed very bleek for a while. then, one of the newer, liberal publications began running "this mordern world." it was like a breath of fresh air on a smoggy L.A. day.

US jobless rate falls BBC World News

The US unemployment rate has fallen, but the drop was down to fewer workers searching for jobs rather than more jobs being created. Official figures showed the jobless rate fell to 6.2% last month, down from 6.4% in June when US unemployment reached its highest level for nine years.

The data suggests that sluggish economic growth is still leading the US economy to shed jobs, with July seeing a net loss of 44,000 jobs, following a revised loss of 72,000 jobs in June.

Meanwhile some 556,000 workers left the potential pool of workers, discouraged that no jobs were available.

They are no longer counted as unemployed because they are not actively searching for work.

Mixed manufacturing picture

Manufacturing suffered the biggest losses, with 71,000 job losses.

Despite the recent falls in the value of the dollar, which helps boost US exports, manufacturing jobs have been lost every month for the last three years.

"I think it's a little disappointing," said Jay Bryson, an economist at Wachovia Securities.

"We're not generating job growth in manufacturing, and that's where job losses were concentrated."

But a monthly poll of purchasing managers who buy goods for their companies has suggested grounds for cautious optimism.

The ISM survey showed that manufacturing was expanding for the first time in five months, with a July reading of 51.8, up from 49.8 in June.

An index figure above 50 indicates expansion.

"While the overall economy continues to improve, the manufacturing sector reversed its recent trend of contraction," said ISM's Norbert Ore.

Growth returns

There are other signs that the US economy is on the rebound.

Preliminary estimates on Thursday suggested that US GDP had increased at an annual rate of 2.4% in the second quarter of 2003, up from 1.4% in the first three months of the year.

And on Friday the government reported that consumer spending rose by 0.3% in June, after a revised increase of 0.4% in May.

Personal income also rose by 0.3%, in line with expectations.

Consumer spending makes up two-thirds of economic output, and so far it has been holding up despite the weak economy.

The Bush administration is hoping that its $350bn tax cut, which includes extra cash for households with children in July, will help boost economic growth, and ultimately lead to job creation.

Defence boost

Many economists believe that economy would have to grow at a rate closer to 3.5%-4% in the second half of the year to generate more jobs.

However, much of the growth in the second quarter was driven by a 44% increase in defence spending, the largest rise since the Korean War in l950.

"Without the voracious winds of government spending, the USS Economy might have been a rudderless dinghy," said Rich Yamarone, an economist at Argus Research.

The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, has cut interest rates to a 48 year low of 1% in June, in order to spur growth.

If economic weaknesses continues, it may be tempted to make a further cut at its next rate-setting meeting on 12 August.

First they downplayed weapons of mass destruction, now they're downplaying their own jobs predictions; What's next, downplaying Bush's "electability"?

Tick, tick, tick....

Three more weeks! :\party: Three more weeks! Three more weeks!

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Tick, tick, tick.... Three more weeks! :\party: Three more weeks! Three more weeks!

Three more weeks, three more weeks,... until our Lord and Savior gets the vote from the American people.

Oh, he'll get the vote all right. Unfortunately, it won't be the one he's hoping for. No, the vote he'll be getting is for what we on Planet Earth call a "pink slip."

Tick, tick, tick...

2 more days :\party: 2 more days 2 more days :sex:

Just finished my ballot, dropping it off tomorrow. Marked the slot that reads "George Bush, you're fired. Clean out your desk and get the fcuk out of Dodge."

Tick, tick, tick...

Won't happen...And thank christ is won't. I'd rather die than live with that limp dick liberal dweeb Kerry in the WH.

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS Won't happen...And thank christ is won't. I'd rather die than live with that limp dick liberal dweeb Kerry in the WH.

Rather have a limp dick than a dripping sodding ASSHOLE

Asshole are more fun.

The great Dennis Leary spoke: "I'm an asshole, and pround of it."

Good words Mr. Leary...because I am an Asshole too...and VERY proud of it!!!

Tick, tick, tick...

He fell farther away! Dubya in for a second term!