963,000 jobs lost since George Bush got into power
 

Only president since Herbert fucking Hoover in the great depression to lose jobs. :2 cents:

Watch out juicy, the republicans will be here to argue that he supports god so he must be the best in a minute

:Graucho

you may want to include in the list the number of lives and amount of money lost in the War in Iraq

http://www.adultoutsourcing.com/gfy/...lintonhelp.jpg

You do realize that the dot-com bomb and recession started before the 2000 elections, don't you?

REALLY ??

cant say this here.

Thats Bush's fault also

:sleep

The dot-com explosion started to fizzle my junior year in high school. Elections were senior year.

Yahoo! and a plethora of other technology related stocks were tanking in the spring and summer of 2000. I had a class project where we invested fake money into stocks. Started with $100k, within 3 months around November-December of 2000 I was stuck with about $50k. Most of my stocks consisted of the "promising" technology stocks.

I got censored!

I guess its not funny talking about assasinating george bush

People feared Bush winning so they started firing employees and closing up "promising" tech sector jobs, right? Silicon Valley all but shut down because they knew what was bound to happen.

Or maybe, just maybe, people started realizing that spending huge amounts of money on parties and signing bonuses wasn't such a smart idea. Business plans were bad, not thought out, didn't figure in an actual income and relied on investments by money hungry idiots that were after the quick buck.

And actually now that I think of it, within an hour of my hometown there were 2 meat packing factories that laid off about half their employees. We're talking thousands of low end workers here.

This all happened between October 2000 and February 2001.

Those bastards in the unemployment line trying to feed their families should really just shut the fuck up! So what if 1.3 million Americans slipped into poverty this year, that doesn't mean people should complain about it.

Don't be an economic girlie man!

On another thread I read that unemployment decreased during Bush's administration.

exactly

"suck it up faggots" - john stewart



:1orglaugh

"The president wants you to re-elect him. For what?" Kerry said. "Losing jobs? Building the biggest deficit in American history? Getting us into a war that you spent $200 billion on when he told you it would cost you $1 billion?"


"They did everything except talk about that. We've had insults, we've had anger from Republicans. And I'll tell you why," Kerry said. "Because they can't come to you and talk to you about having created jobs since they've lost them. They can't come to you and talk to you about creating health care since 5 million Americans have lost it.


"Their own labor secretary talks about exporting jobs overseas," he said. "They can't talk about their record because it is a record of failure. And so all they do is attack."

Kerry also defended his vote against $87 billion for the military and reconstruction effort in Iraq (news - web sites) that Republicans criticized as a vote against deployed troops.


"This president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace," Kerry said. "And I believe that because he didn't have a plan to win the peace, it was irresponsible to give him a blank check that gave $20 billion that was going to go be spent to Halliburton and all these other companies, that we needed accountability for this president."


:thumbsup

Right, a lot of companies realized that there were a ton of dot com biz's that were nowhere valued at, stopped funding them and thus there were many layoffs.

also, i think there was a date, what was it????? think sept 11, 2001? think a lot of jobs were lost there.

hurricane frances is coming to the US this weekend, must be Bush's fault too.

Stats can be bent to show whatever result you so desire, as a webmaster you witness this first hand on a daily basis.

Someone shouts "hey I'm doing 1:77 with ABC Cash." But did they tell you what page those 77 clicks are from? Are they unique or raw? What was the traffic source? Was it a free join or was CC required? Was there any trickery involved?

unemployment rate is lower now than it wass 10 years ago.

well put! stats mean nothing without knowing exactly what went into getting the stats.

here's some obviously biased, but FUN numbers about Bush


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=557746

Does that include the 140,000 gained last month?

The way you guys count 'unemployed' is unusual. While not unique to the US, the methods of calculating this near-mythical figure are byzantine and not used by most countries (I believe South Korea uses a similar system.)

In many countries, the "unemployed" are defined as people of working age in society who are capable of working but cannot or will not. This basically entails every man and woman out of school, not in jail and not disabled that doesn't have a job. (This is a simplification of course as there are actually many types of unemployment... agricultural workers who have nothing to do in the winter, for example, but who will have jobs for the rest of the year.)

In the US, the unemployed are only people who are actively seeking work. You can be, for instance, on employment insurance and not be considered 'unemployed' if you're not actively seeking work in that time period.

This is the reason why more people can be out of work, yet the 'unemployment rate' can go down. A great many people out there become 'discouraged workers', people who have given up on looking for work believing no jobs are available for them... If you happen to be out of work and decide to strike off as an independant contractor in an attempt to find work, that also removes you from being considered unemployed... and so forth.

This doesn't even touch on long term unemployed, the underemployed (people with part time jobs that provide no meaningful financial support), et al.

Keep in mind that unemployment is actually a GOOD thing for an economy as a whole. Moderate levels of unemployment work to keep wages under control. The existance of social fallback programs (unemployment insurance) and certain types of low-paying jobs (McJobs) work symbiotically to ensure sufficient workforce availability to those lowest-echelons while giving workers a fallback when turnover happens.

In the end, people who follow economic policy realise that the advertised unemployment rate is little more than a bit of political hocus-pocus to be used as a talking point on networks greedy for easy-to-digest fiscal news. It's unfortunate in that it misleads the ignorant into thinking one thing when, objectively, the opposite is true.

The cognative dissonance can be summed up in one simple Q + A:

Question: "How can the rate of people out of a job go down when there's only 150,000 jobs created, and 300,000 new jobs are needed every month just to keep up with kids entering the work force?"

Answer: "It can't."

HTH.

This is true.... But, as liberals so elegantly put it people gave up looking for work so they dont file for unemployment... Liberals like to think that everyone is weak and they need to provide them with everything... From welfare, to health care to jobs..... Republicans tend to believe its better if you do it yourself... Thats not to say that they dont work hard to make an economy that did ad 140,000 jobs last month...(Figures from today) and do have the GDP growing at the largest rate in 20 years... and more then any other country right now.. Also, republicans want to reform the health care litigation system.. Because they realize thats the biggest problem of today... Liability insurance is rediculus because of the litigation system... Which makes your healthcare rediculus as well... Plus they want to have a retirement like system where you save for health care.... Since after all anyone smart knows insurance is a bad investment... Just think of your car insurance for one... I bet you paid more then you've got out...

But this is all information liberals dont want mainstream people to know... They rather the mainstream be stupid and depend on them so they get to make themselves rich pretending to be your saviors...

BTW, this is directed at the morons on this board that think since they make a few bucks in the adult industry they should vote democratic.. I mean after all... democrats love porn and will make the industry so much better right?

So are the number of manufacturing jobs that are available.

If I remember correctly, in the last election, Clinton said there's a recession coming and if Bush follows his policy it won't be stopped. Bush said his policy would prevent/correct the recession. He obviously lied.

:thumbsup

A million jobs where lost in the immediate wake of 911.

lol nice pic...those hairs look electrified a little :1orglaugh

No he corrected the recession we are coming out of it now...

And as right wingers love to play with numbers but never give the actual source and purpose of those numbers..

140,000 jobs last month were only about 60% in the manufacturing sector..THE most important sector of our economy.
We are still DOWN 1.8 mil in that category from when Bush took office.

EVEN if he raises 1.8 million jobs in the next 4 months by years end..it will still mean ZERO job growth from 2000-2004!

And the recession, according to the Fed Reserve Board started in 3/01.

CORRECTED IT? :1orglaugh

1)We went from the largest SURPLUS in our history to the largest DEFICIT in our history! (Mostly thanks to his tax cuts to the wealthy).

2)Even if Bush somehow raises a million jobs between now and the end of the year, during his administration, there will have been ZERO job growth! THat is because the # of jobs we would THEN have at the end of the year EQUALS the # there were in the year 2000!

Contribute that to the Clinton adminstration... and the artificially inflated dollar...

Just think about this for a second... How long do you think it takes to get a manufactoring plant going in say asia or mexico even? Maybe a year or so to plan the operation and make the decision to move... maybe another 1-2 years to build the new plant.... maybe anotehr 1-2 years to get it running.. So by my calculation its 3-5 years to move a plant over seas... Which seems reasonable corporate america doesnt do anything to quickly... so by those calculation those decisions where made in the late 90's under the Clinton Adminstration a time where it was beneficial to move overseas... you had problems getting employees because everyone was going to the tech industry... plus its expensive... I know coming from a GM town alot of guy that make 20+/hr doing basically nothing all day... Not to mention the Japs and whoever can import stuff and the way the dollar was overvalued and free trade was passed they were making a killing....

No, its mostly thanks to the recession... and the increased spending on the war on terror....

Yes, recessions and the attack on the world towers will do that to jobs...

i wish you could vote none of the above then make the goverment get us new poloticians to run for president cause i dont like kerry or bush. :2 cents:

Thank Clinton? George Bush has turned a totally blind eye to the outsourcing of jobs from America. And he has not said one WORD on doing anything about it.

Get over Clinton dude..this is *2004* when we need to concentrate on what is happening NOW!

I don't blame Clinton, he didnt expect the dot com burst to happen... If he did he wouldnt of let the manufactoring jobs go...

But, what could Bush do? Stop Free Trade? What would of happened then? Youd be bitching and crying about that...

The recession was made WORSE by Bush's tax cuts. WHO gives money back to the richest 10% of the country when we can't finance even some of the most basic programs in our country?

And the attack on NYC was 3 years ago! You are still going to argue that the loss in jobs that numbers a million are so are STILL due to 9/11???