Sounds like job growth is being misunderestimated.

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush
Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004
The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim.
One little problem: It's not true.

Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses.

While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America’s economy has been steadily creating jobs.

At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. And though the eight-month recession “officially” ended in November, economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery.

The signs:


The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop.

The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000. Even better, the number of so-called discouraged workers declined in December.

Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years.

Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third.

The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history.

Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.

Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.

Productivity growth is extremely high.

Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story.


Faulty Counting


The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.


Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.

But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.

People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.

As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey."

Credit Where Credit Is Due

That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing.

Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels.

"I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said.

"I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year."

Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office.

Ne
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
142
Tokens
Patriot....do you really believe that??


Show me one job that's been created in construction anywhere in the city of Boston since Bush took over. Just one, that's all I'm asking
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Patriot - That's awesome. Bush get saddled with 9/11, he inherited a recession, and corporate scandals, and he is still able to turn the economy around in less than 3 years. That's pretty impressive especially for an "idiot" like George Bush.
icon_rolleyes.gif
(obviously that was sarcasm)

Unfortunately you will probably get no responses by the liberals on this. If you do get a response it will be something like this "Who cares!!!!!! Bush is a nazi, facist, piece of shit."
icon_rolleyes.gif
icon_rolleyes.gif
icon_rolleyes.gif
icon_rolleyes.gif



That's GREAT news about the job growth.!
 

Andersen celebrates his 39-yard NFC Championship w
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,789
Tokens
When Bush loses in 2004 than he can wipe his azz with this spin. Keep spending and cutting social security medicare and VA benifits that will get him in !
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
codeworks - Let me explain how Social Security works.......People who are not retired support people who are retired. That said, year after year, more people are retiring than the number of people entering the work force. That means in order to keep social security we will be giving a higher percentage of our paycheck until eventually 100% of our paycheck will go to support retirees.

I know liberals like to give their money to the government but I like to keep my money.

That's one thing I can't figure out......Liberals want less government involvement when it comes to personal liberties yet they want to totally depend on the government financially. I just don't understand, why do you want the government to tell you how to spend your money when you could choose how to spend it yourself?????


What is John Kerry's plan to fix the social security, medicare and VA benifits problems?

Thanks.
 

Andersen celebrates his 39-yard NFC Championship w
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,789
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
codeworks - Let me explain how Social Security works.......People who are not retired support people who are retired. That said, year after year, more people are retiring than the number of people entering the work force. That means in order to keep social security we will be giving a higher percentage of our paycheck until eventually 100% of our paycheck will go to support retirees.

I know liberals like to give their money to the government but I like to keep my money.

That's one thing I can't figure out......Liberals want less government involvement when it comes to personal liberties yet they want to totally depend on the government financially. I just don't understand, why do you want the government to tell you how to spend your money when you could choose how to spend it yourself?????


What is John Kerry's plan to fix the social security, medicare and VA benifits problems?

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well than quit spending money on the ridiculous defense budget which is so abused its a joke. How many times over can we blow up this world.

Then its only going to get worse as we let this tax revenue go offshore we will eventually hit rock bottom and then maybe some people will react. Just wait til all the jobs are gutted out of this country ... you aint seen nothing yet.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Assuming you are an Ameican, you do understand it is our military that has given you the rights that you have today, right?

You get rid of the military and our defense then we all die.......
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
"Misunderstimated"?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
KMAN: Assuming you are an Ameican, you do understand it is our military that has given you the rights that you have today, right?

You get rid of the military and our defense then we all die.......

B: I'm betting that Codeworks actually meant we should give careful review to the very bloated and excessive military budget, rather than how you interpreted it, which was "Get rid of the military".

We don't need to get rid of our military Defense. We need to get rid of our military Offense.

We need to protect our shores, not invade sovereign nations and kill tens of thousands of innocent people.

Oh and you would likely agree with me after some review that it is not the military that gives us our rights, it is the Constitution of the U.S.A.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Barman - Where did we kill 10's of thousands of people?

The reason we are here today and not speaking German or Japanese is because of our military not because we told Germany or Japan "You can't take over the US because the Constitution is protecting me and my rights".

Oh yeah, me Dad is in the military and he is going to Iraq next week and he is going to be losing a lot of money this next year because of the cheap pay that the military gets. Try telling anyone in the military that they need to take a pay cut.

Come on, we all know that the military is the reason we are here today.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,595
Tokens
Where did we kill 10,000's of people?


Are you serious?

America has killed more people in the last century than most other countries combined.

How about over 100,000 in Dresden?

How about The a-bombs?

How about the last decade in Kosovo,Iraq, Afganistan et all...

THhs is how America deals with problems. We kill people.

Both liberals and conseratives have led way too many fruitless, and needless battles, killing tens of thousands of people.

As far as what the members of our military get while at war: I agree...we should not give them a pay cut. What we should do, is stop sending them to places they dont need to be. I would be more han happy to take some of the 200 billion dollars that this latest war is costing us, and contribute that to an increase in pay for soldiers, and service men and women.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>THhs is how America deals with problems. We kill people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, this is how America performs in a War. No doubt, you would try to capture and rehabilitate the enemy.

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
316
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chonce:
Where did we kill 10,000's of people?


Are you serious?

America has killed more people in the last century than most other countries combined.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa there, thats a pretty outrageous statement.

Stalin, just on internal purges in Russia.
Nazi Germany with the Jews AND the Gypsies.
Saddam Hussein, between Kurds and religious minorities and political dissenters within Iraq.
Milosevic in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Note that NONE of those were situations involving "war" on other countries, they were situations where people were clearing out populations within their own territories.

Now, if you throw in wars, of course the US has a fair amount of casualties inflicted.

And quite a bit of casualties lost.

Had we stayed out of Europe's business in WW1, we probably could have stayed out of WW2 also.

Net gain to the world, if the USA was isolationist in those two wars? I doubt most of Europe and Asia would think so, I doubt the total casualty lists would be any lower...but they would not have been American caused, or Americans dying.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
chonce - I would be embarrassed to not have a backbone. I swear a terrorist could kill your parents and you would say " Oh well, that's ok".

What a joke!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,595
Tokens
You may not think I have a backbone, but I have respect for human life, unlike you.

Go tell the mother of a soldier that her son died so bush could push the value of his oil stocks up.

Go tell a recently orphaned iraqi child, that his country has been "liberated" by Bush.

secondly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: Iraq was not involved in 9-11. Bombing those harboring Al Quada is one thing that can be more than justified. Iraq had nothing to do with it. SO you analogy is not fair. I was in favor of milatary action against al Quada, because they attacked us.

You guys love to link Iraq to 9-11. There were 11 guys from Suadi Arabia involved..why dont we go bomb the hell out of them?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
316
Tokens
Iraq was a problem before 9-11. The Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, these ring any bells?

Saddam's refusal to BE accountable meant someone would have to do it sooner or later. As usual, someone means the USA.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
316
Tokens
By the way, if respect for human life is the sole measure of the situation, you should be praising the US.

Saddam's regime killed tens of thousands of Kurds and other Iraqis. Are the tears of their orphaned children less important to you than the ones shed by orphans of Saddam backers?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Sigh.

In WWII, we responded to an attack on a U.S. territory (Hawaii) and went directly at the country responsible for the attack.

Whether we went over to Europe or not, the Third Reich would have collapsed within less than a decade since 20th century history shows that one country is not capable of conquering another and also maintaining control for more than a short period. Hitler tried biting off Poland, Czechaslovakia, France, Hungary, and was hoping to add the UK and Russia.

We've killed well over 10,000 Iraqis and Afghans just in the past 30 months.

It's clear now that the furthest Iraq could have launched a missile was under 500 miles. It's a bit further than that to the east coast of the U.S.A.

I'm 44 years old, so I've watched the both the rise of Saddam Hussein via the money of the U.S. government, and also the fall of Saddam. Forgive me if I've never been for even one second afraid of Iraq invading our domestic soil.

However, if YOU were scared of such an event, your position makes more sense. A scared person will often respond with violence towards the perceived threat.

I invite consideration of saying no to your fear of things that aren't going to hurt you.

Oh and if you want 'revenge' versus those who conducted the attacks of 9/11/01, then stop griping at us and contact your President. Tell him he needs to move the troops OUT of Iraq and INTO Saudi Arabia.

Til then, you're fighting paper tigers and at the expense of my friends and neighbors.

Current U.S. body count is well over 500 and injuries/wounded is nearing 20,000.

Feel any safer yet?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
323
Tokens
Back to the original topic, does it bother anyone that the Bush administration is getting these number by reclassifying job categories?
A fast food worker is now considered to have a "manufacturing" job.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5355.shtml

Instead of Admitting Economic Truth, Bush Resorts to Statistical Manipulation
By Report on Economy
Feb 26, 2004, 12:37

February 24, 2004-President Bush, attempting to obscure his record as the worst economic steward since Herbert Hoover, has become so desperate that he is exploring ways to manipulate statistics.1 Just days after Bush reneged on his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs2 and said with a straight face that "5.6% unemployment is a good national number,"3 the New York Times uncovered a White House report showing that the president is considering re-classifying low-paid fast food jobs as "manufacturing jobs"4 as a way to hide the massive manufacturing job losses that have occurred during his term.

As CBS News reports, "Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs."5 But if the president enacts the statistical change he is considering, this number would be purposely obscured because lower-paying fast food jobs would be added to make the real manufacturing losses look smaller. Of course, fast food jobs typically pay much less and have fewer benefits than real manufacturing jobs, meaning the statistical change would also obscure the fact that, under Bush, "in 48 of the 50 states, jobs in higher-paying industries have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries."6 All told, jobs in growing industries like lower-paid service sector/fast food jobs are paying 21% less than contracting industries like real manufacturing.

The president's efforts to manipulate statistics and mislead Americans are also getting a boost from his allies on Capitol Hill. Earlier this month, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) pointed to an optimistic "household" jobs survey as proof that "we're at an all-time high in employment" and that "the employment situation has improved rather substantially."7 The problem is that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said definitively that "payroll data" - not the household survey - "is the series which you have to follow" in order to be accurate. The payroll data shows "a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001."
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
It sounds like you guys are just having one big huge fuxxing party!
Man, wish I was there.

party.gif
party.gif
party.gif

blueguy.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
applaudit.gif
blueguy.gif


we love bushy boy he's made the US one huge party zone.

Four more years of parties!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,192
Messages
13,565,205
Members
100,761
Latest member
jhavock123
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com