5 Reasons Bush Sucks (2697 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.45 on 109 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Glam Daddy (View user info) at 2004-04-09 11:38:47 EDT
For more info go to http://www.jordansplace.net/politics/politics.html
User Reviews
Submitted by Uberfuck (user info) at 2004-07-19 17:58:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bush sucks because he's not a Prism fan
Submitted by DemocratsSuck <adfadf.at.aol.com> at 2004-07-19 17:43:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The only reason your fake graphs are showing this is because of 9-11. And if you dont support this war than get the hell out of our country(i suggest france) and go get a mouthfull of my nuts.
Submitted by gimlirulz13 (user info) at 2004-07-17 16:37:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You people...I don't get it. Now, I am only a young American, but I do have my eyes open. I am neither registered Democrat (yet) nor Republican, but I do understand who's doing a better job. Fahrenheit 9/11 opened recently, and I did see it. Ya know, if some of you people would stop running your mouths and understand what is truly happening, maybe then you'll get it. Michael Moore gets bashed by everyone constantly (including many of my friends), but what is the man doing besides stating what is really happening? That movie is full of nothing but truth. Yes, a little biased truth, but it's basically how the observer takes it. I noticed a comment closer to the top that stated we didn't get a terrorist attack 2 years after 9/11. Now, this made me, needless to say, frustrated. Umm, WE NEVER HAD ONE LIKE THIS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY EVER. Do you people know that our president, in his inauguration speech (which was postponed due to a mob who wanted to kill him), in so many words called-out Osama bin Laden? You musn't. Or you are legally blind. Now, as I stated earlier, I don't bias myself and it's not like I'm trying to piss people off. But it's scary me that this man actually has another chance to return to persidency. Hey, I'm not overly amazed at Kerry's credentials myself, but there is no doubt in my mind that the man will try to stop terrorism with handshakes as apposed to firearms, like Clinton (who I guess was a bad president because he had an affair which was none of our business) Hey, if you all want to go after the WRONG enemies and kill innocent people for a ficticious war, keep running your mouth. Maybe he'll win our leadership again and then you'll see. I know what's going on; just don't get mad at me for knowing. Thank you.
Submitted by schwenckie (user info) at 2004-04-13 23:55:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the whole economy problem that you are presenting. However, I had this discussion with someone this evening about how it's not the President's job to create employment. All he can do is cut taxes, really, or so I learned from someone else this evening. Really, I don't know much about it, and I'm still learning more. I was so focused on the whole terrorism thing that I forgot we have an economy. I guess that's the point of his campaign. Anyway, interesting displays of data.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-04-12 15:23:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2004-04-11 23:57:14 (#)
Ranking: -2
You try presiding over a country, the most powerful country in the world. A country that has had the absolute worst attack on its citizens since its founding. A country with frightened citizens who instinctively stop spending money when they're scared.
Bush is doing a damn good job! You're just too shortsighted and spoiled to notice that we are a lot better off than if a pacifistic Democrat were in office! Think about it... In the two and a half years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on America, despite several threats. Eat that assmuncher! Better a slightly stumbling economy than me being scared out out of my fucking mind. BTW, check our economy compared to Europe's."
__________________
Well, 42 other presidents managed the job fairly well. Not many other record-breaking deficits in those 200 years despite many other disasters, attacks and wars.
Only neanderthals are pacified by the attitude of "It doesn't matter what he does as long as he does something."
What if Bush decided that his next major military campaign was to wage war on anyone who owns a blue car?
"Yeah, Clinton never had the balls to step up to those blue-car-owning bastards! Bush went right into their houses and took 'em out, what a kickass president!"
FUCKING IDIOTS.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-04-12 13:53:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2004-04-11 23:57:14 (#)
Ranking: -2
You try presiding over a country, the most powerful country in the world. A country that has had the absolute worst attack on its citizens since its founding. A country with frightened citizens who instinctively stop spending money when they're scared.
Bush is doing a damn good job! You're just too shortsighted and spoiled to notice that we are a lot better off than if a pacifistic Democrat were in office! Think about it... In the two and a half years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on America, despite several threats. Eat that assmuncher! Better a slightly stumbling economy than me being scared out out of my fucking mind. BTW, check our economy compared to Europe's."
And, a swing and a miss. I wub how I can buy so much dollars for just one euro.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-04-12 05:21:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Only five?
Submitted by crackergirl (user info) at 2004-04-12 04:33:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate Bush as much as the next girl, and I liked all your charts and everything, but I feel the need to point out the following, seeing as no one else has (or at least it didn't look like it when I skimmed, sorry if anyone mentioned this):
Four little words:
1. INTERNET BOOM: coincided with the Clinton years, thus the incredible job growth and the NYSE skyrocketing. A new industry always creates a huge surplus of new jobs before there's the inevitable end of all the hype and hoopla, everyone remembers that this is a business after all, and tons of start-ups close down and jobs are lost. Thus...
2. INTERNET BUST: this was in 2000, at the very beginning of Bush's term, before 9/11. This isn't to say Bush is responsible, the bust had to come. It's simple economics. Remember all those slick new Internet companies that were coming on the scene in the mid-to-late 90's, how much money they had, how exciting it was, how many commercials you saw for dot-coms that are now defunct? Pets.com is one of the memorable ones. All of a sudden everyone ran to get rid of their Internet stock. Prices plummeted. Combine this with the screeching halt of travel and tourism after 9/11 and well, we all know what happened.
In conclusion, Bush is responsible for a lot of fucked-up shit, but the recession isn't really his fault. The Fed lowered the interest rate, which usually will kick-start a lagging economy, but this time it didn't work as well as expected. Combine this impotent monetary (I think it's monetary) policy with the new problem of outsourcing (sending jobs overseas) and it's no wonder it's taken to damn long to pull out of the recession.
Submitted by reaganslovechild (user info) at 2004-04-12 00:45:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
fuck you you liberal pussy why dont you go smoke some weed at boy georges wedding you faggot
Submitted by Lucifer_Industries (user info) at 2004-04-12 00:08:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This subject needs a longer list.
Malone
Lucifer Industries LLC
http://www.luciferindustries.com
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-04-12 00:06:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because Bush will still win.
Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2004-04-11 23:57:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You try presiding over a country, the most powerful country in the world. A country that has had the absolute worst attack on its citizens since its founding. A country with frightened citizens who instinctively stop spending money when they're scared.
Bush is doing a damn good job! You're just too shortsighted and spoiled to notice that we are a lot better off than if a pacifistic Democrat were in office! Think about it... In the two and a half years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on America, despite several threats. Eat that assmuncher! Better a slightly stumbling economy than me being scared out out of my fucking mind. BTW, check our economy compared to Europe's.
Submitted by youarsoghey (user info) at 2004-04-11 00:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
At least you're not a bitching pussy.
Submitted by DarthFaded (user info) at 2004-04-10 16:14:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
These are all typical econiomic and statistical changes when in times of national crisis. You re a douche bag.
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2004-04-10 06:07:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by socialdropout (user info) at 2004-04-10 04:20:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Your all bitching about nothing. i have to put up with ass-licking John Howard.
Now which would you rather?
loved the post, though.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 17:57:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh shit this is priceless:
it turns out, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was printed and hung on the carrier by aliens
great post... I will dig deeper into your past works... well done!
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-04-09 17:05:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Glam... read my post from yesterday about Bush... I think you'll get a laugh:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/29801
And I told myself I'd never spam.
Submitted by antluvdog (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:58:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate Bush.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:41:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
anytime buddy
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:41:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
thanks for sharing slowlyrotting...
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:34:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
here we go again.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:29:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
oops.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:22:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
shit... dont know why it fucked up... copy paste, whatever
*inspired by RB by the way
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:21:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
didn't really enjoy that... but here's a link to a picture of a girl who i fucked in the ass for 2 years... enjoy...
http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/587d0f48/bc/Yahoo!+Photo+Album/3440.jpg?pfIZwdABNF7PmNFq
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 16:13:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thats a link to about 400 pages talking about the McDonalds manufacturing jobs scam. enjoy.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Bush,+Mcdonalds,+manufacturing+jobs&spell=1
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:58:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I really think that job outsourcing and importing foreign goods has led to the decline of the American manufacturing sector. Labor is cheaper overseas... meaning products will be cheaper. I've read lots of things about the benefits of outsourcing (not just in manufacturing, but in other industries as well), but I still can't understand why it is going to help our economy. But I have read arguements from both liberals and conservatives that say that outsourcing will eventually aid our economy.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:56:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:41:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
"I paid $5.95 for my Ubersite subscription and everyone else gets it for free"
---------------
I dont care.
------------------
how can you not care??? you're a liberal aren't you???? you mean you don't care when the little people get ripped off????
you, sir, are no better than mr. w
for those who DO care, i will be demanding a refund for my $5.95. (I can't figure out why it was billed as "blacks on blondes" though...) thank you, and good day.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:47:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I didn't know that (about the recharacterization of manufacturing jobs). If true, and you know I doubt everything at first, that really is pretty shitty. But I'm wondering . . . and this is sort of a tangent. . . if manufacturing jobs are down to toilet, what is the sales data like? Are we buying things, but not making them any more? If so, is that because the jobs have been outsourced? If so, why have they been outsourced? Is it because of GWB's policies, or is it because trade unions have collectively bargained themselves out of practical use? Naturally that leads to cries of "exploitation" of third-world countries (while concurrently raising their standard of living), as if we didn't have similar conditions in this country once upon a time. It might even be called an "industrial revolution" if one were so inclined.
But you know. I just wrote three deeds and my brain is fried. I need to go bye-bye now.
Submitted by bubut (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:41:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/25566
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:41:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I paid $5.95 for my Ubersite subscription and everyone else gets it for free"
---------------
I dont care.
Ps are you being serious?
Submitted by tito <bigguy9297.at.aol.com> at 2004-04-09 15:38:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Even if you don't blame Bush for the general state of the economy, you can't dispute the horrible way he's spending money and cutting taxes. Ok, we're fighting a war on two fronts (iraq and afghanistan) and the mother fucker cuts taxes! You don't fucking cut taxes in the time of war! Here's what happens...... He cuts social security and then underfunds his "no child left behind" by like $9 billion. Its called starving the beast economics.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:38:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I paid $5.95 for my Ubersite subscription and everyone else gets it for free
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:31:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First explain how you are getting ripped off.
then I will tell you if I care.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:30:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
geeze, doesnt anyone care that I'M getting ripped off?
oh well, i'll go crawl back into my hole now
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:27:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
agree XtremeMooCow that sucks. debate with facts backed up is really the best chance to get people to listen to you.
even so a few who saw this post were trying to tell me i made the numbers up. for them i pray.
Submitted by XtremeMooCow (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:17:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It's nice to see someone who has a little reason behinds their opinion. Nearly all people I talk to hate Bush and think he sucks. Why, I ask them. Usually I'm told to fuck off after a period of thinking, or they will state "just cuz damnit!' or something along those lines. Blithering idiots...
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
More from the Dingell letter:
My favorite line:
"Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment Assistance grants be applied to tuition costs at Burger College?"
I think he should also address the training in geothermal physics necessary to ensure that the molten filling in the apple pie reaches the correct heat. We don't want apple-pie cooker Retarded Rich to burn himself.
And now I can also use the line I've been waiting to use at McDonalds for as long as I can remember: "Why don't you get off your fatass and manufacture me up 10 cheeseburgers"
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:12:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thats was pretty funny the McJobs thing. They do some pretty stupid shit to make the numbers look good. Thanks for posting that, I had forgotten that one....
---
P.S. below the word 'cort' should obviously be 'court'
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:09:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Figures don't lie but liers do figures."
---------------------
hey nucklefart if you can prove i made the numbers up I will give you 20 bucks.
balls in your cort.
All those graphs are made from public information. Nor did I myself make any of them. They are all public.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-04-09 15:07:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This is a bit off the subject, but I thought it was funny (and don't hold it against me if it's already been posted here... in fact I may've posted it at some point):
Back in Feb., when the Bush administration was in full spin mode to cover their failure to combat unemployment, especially in the manufacturing sector, Bush and others decided that they would re-classify fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs. They're rational.... that putting together a Big Mac is the same as assembling an automobile. Sure, you'll only be making six bucks per hour, but now, instead of telling your friends that you are a burger flipper, you can tell them you work in manufacturing.
But this was the best part. The letter below was written by Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan (a place that knows a thing or two about lost manufacturing jobs)... although the entire letter has disappeared from his government website, here is an excerpt:
First, the White House says outsourcing is good. Then, the Administration considers re-classifying burger flipping and milk shake mixing as manufacturing jobs. Now, the President's first choice to lead America's efforts to hold onto manufacturing jobs turns out to have already sent jobs to China," Dingell said. "This nomination is a Whopper! No question that Mr. Raimondo would get a frosty reception from lawmakers in conformation hearings. After six months of searching, I guess it is tough to find a Republican who cares about protecting American jobs. I think Mayor McCheese could be moving up on the President's short list of candidates."
Now that's satire.
By the way... I took that quote from here: http://www.house.gov/dingell/documents/press_releases/03-11-04.htm
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-04-09 15:06:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Figures don't lie but liers do figures.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:58:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The numbers don't lie.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:55:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good points... Tell us something we didn't already know.
------------------------
OK how about this:
on August 6, 2001, President Bush received a daily briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." The president spent the rest of August on vacation at his ranch in Texas.
The president has pent 233 days in office. Almost 8 months. More than any other president in history.
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:48:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Good points... Tell us something we didn't already know.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:36:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Loren I am more than willing to discuss the benefits of sucking bush with you...
Submitted by Loren1 (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm a little disappointed. I thought the title was "5 Reasons to Suck Bush"
Oh well.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:26:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Want to play more, but have to work. Why did you have to post on a day that I'm busy?!"
-------------
just to spite you ;-)
to even it out i also posted it 3 hours before Loki leaves on vacation.
that evens the score a bit :-D
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:24:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There are so many sad parallels in this, I don't know where to begin.
About 70% of the democrats who are opposing the war would have supported the exact action under Clinton. The same people bitching now were telling us to go into Iraq four years ago.
"In my opinion [the attack on the Cole] is part of a military strategy designed to defeat the United States as we attempt to accomplish a serious and vital mission. I hope we will direct the anger and desire for vengeance we feel away from Yemen and towards Saddam Hussein ... I can think of no more fitting tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy."
-Bob Kerry, 9/11 Commissioner
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:22:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh and Sifi, what do you suppose is in those 10,000 documents from the Clinton administration that Bush does not want to make available to the 9/11 commission? Hmmm, now what could he possibly be trying to hide?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:21:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oops sorry, didn't see that response by dohnuts who did a better job of explaining it than I did anyway.
Here is something new to consider, the economy is rebounding slowly but how much quicker would it be rebounding without those tax cuts that plunged the government back into a deficit?
besides, WTF I leave for vacation in 3 hours, I'm not reading all of these replies. I yield the rest of my time on the floor to Gent and dohnuts.
Also I feel that now would be an appropriate time to mention to Glam that I will be on vacation smoking the finest of the green that I have been squirreling away all winter while he once again, will be scraping resin out of my pipe just dreaming of catching the slightest whiff of my weed.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:19:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Want to play more, but have to work. Why did you have to post on a day that I'm busy?!
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:19:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
SiFi -
fake numbers? what an idiot.
see how you are the only one here making that claim? see how if you look for the numbers yourself you will get the same results? go to google. type in 'job growth, bush' and see what happens.
SiFi obviously isnt paying attention. Read some papers, do some research and come back and play. I will be here waiting for you to catch up with the rest of us.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-04-09 14:15:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You did a good job makeing fake numbers i must say. And i think its about time we have a prez thats willing to get off his butt(unlike Clinton) and do something about issues with the terrorist since the past 4 or so administrations did nothing to stop terrorest or suposed terrrorest when THEY WERE IN OUR OWN FRICKEN COUNTRY!
I guess you can tell im a Bush suporter.
Find real numbers and i will look at anything people post agents Bush.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:13:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Cats, rising employee insurance costs are a big part of the problem, however I work in benefits so I know for a fact that the companies are passing along most of that cost to the employees. I also see the behind the scenes numbers for compensation that I cannot reveal because I work for a private company and if I start giving out financial information and they find out about it, it could cost me my job and license. Let's just put it this way, things are very very top heavy.
On a more general scale and to leave the realm of the confidential, what I commonly see are workers not replaced when the economy rebounds. What happens is when times are tough, there are layoffs and the remaining workers are just expected to step up and do more. Then when times are good, the extra money goes to the bottom line. They do not rehire the workers and ease the pressure on existing employees, it is completely forgotten that 6 people used to do the job that 4 are now doing. It gets chalked up to increases in productivity even though what is really driving it is that those 4 employees are working their asses off out of fear of losing their jobs.
As for the unemployment figures, they do and do not mean anything. There are large numbers of people who have had their benefits cut and are off the unemployment rolls even though they do not have a job or worse, are working for fucking Walmart for half of what they used to make. There is a whole hidden class of workers who are under employed.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 14:08:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
thanks for that itchy. props to you and anyone who has paid attention to this commission thing. no matter what side you are on it is important.
I think it a bit odd to say they had no idea of an attack in the united states after addmitting the title of the memo was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"... seems the 2 claims contradict eachother but that is just me. And since the whitehouse has not yet released the memo, a memo that they claim would back up theyre side of the story (what logic is that?) we can only guess...
time will tell. I think they will have to release this memo.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:55:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
here is a fun tid bit:
Consumer confidence plunges.
WASHINGTON - Consumer confidence sank during the past month, weighed down by worries about job security and concerns about local economic conditions in the months ahead. The AP-Ipsos consumer confidence index dropped to 84.8 this week, from a reading of 97.7 in early March, when Americans' feelings about the economy had shown an improvement from the previous month.
The decline in consumer confidence comes as other recent economic indicators suggest the overall national economy is gaining ground and that the jobs market may be finally turning an important corner.
-------------------------
The AP-Ipsos index isn't the "standard" one. That honor goes to the Conference Board, which comes out near the end of the month. But, for all the trolls who like to try and impress us by informing us that unemployment is a lagging indicator... consumer confidence is a leading one.
http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2004/04/09/ap/Headlines/d81rc1p80.txt
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:53:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This should go first.
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
Now, the...
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.
RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
. . . . . . . . . .
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:51:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Whoa. . . that took longer than I expected. Sorry for the delay, but I kept looking for that line of questioning from Senator Kerrey . . . which was wrong, to wit:
BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.
(APPLAUSE)
RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...
BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.
RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.
BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.
RICE: May I address the question, sir?
The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by Al Qaida inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.
This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do -- speculative, much of it -- in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.
RICE: It had a number of discussions of -- it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States -- Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.
And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.
Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew aISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.
Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.
There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?
RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.
But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.
BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.
RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.
I realize it isn't as much fun as a one line slam-dunk quote taken out of its greater context, but, you know.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:50:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
in a related story John Kerry i on air america radio right now.
listen if you hate him. listen if you love him.
http://airamericaradio.com/
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:47:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The tax cut for the wealthiest 2% benefits the economy more in the long run and less in the short run"
if that is true then wouldnt logic call for a tax cut for the 98% to give a quick boost? Were in need of a wuick boost arent we? Why would we want to think 'long term' when things are as they currently are....
When the economy is back up and booming THEN you can start the long term plans.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:44:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure aren't.. arguing whether government aid to big business or government aid to the worker is more beneficial.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:43:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wait... are we still arguing the validity of trickle down economics... There is no validity.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:37:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The tax cut for the wealthiest 2% benefits the economy more in the long run and less in the short run, and the opposite would be true of a proposed taxcut for the poorer 98% percent. If the tax cut encourages wealthy business owners to invest more in their businesses, than the end result is more jobs = more wages spent on more goods = increased production on goods to meet the growing demand = more jobs. It doesn't always work that way, but that is the desired result.
The cut for the 98% does the opposite - giving people more money which hopefully they will put back into the economy. The money goes back into the economy either way - although assuming the appearance of Robin Hood can be politically expedient at times and may be the case in the upcoming election.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:35:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Domeand has it right. people who were polled (insert discussion on the validity of polls here) all say economy is the number 1 issue.
in my opinion bush has failed us on the economy and bush has faled us on the war on terrorism as well. 2 for 2.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:33:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
cats -
how about if we agree on this:
for 1 out of 36 months bush has had a 'growing economy'
is that acurate? Yes this last month is strong.... still way below what it should be but looking much better. But overal bush has had horrible luck with the economy.... just terrible. And yes a lot of that is tied up in 9/11.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:31:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually Gent, polling data has indicated that people are slightly more concerned with the economy. Plus, democrats have a somewhat better reputation for handling the domestic economy than republicans. It's only a the massive lead that republicans hold in foreign policy/defense that keeps them in the running. There's a reason why Democrats controlled the House and the presidency for nearly 40 years - they used to kick a lot of ass abroad. Not anymore.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:30:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Valid point about the bush policies and how my post hasnt spoken of that.
Lets talk about tax cuts.
Bush's tax cuts are enjoyed by a whopping 2% of the population. Thats 2%. The wealthyest people in america. People who dont even need this damn tax cut. People who make enough money in interest just picking their nose to make such a tax cut of little meaning to them.
Kerry and proposes a tax cut to 98% of all people living in the united states.
good times.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:30:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, no, glam, I'm saying that the economy isn't GROWING as much according to you, but even that doesn't mean that it isn't still strong.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:28:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"So if we have yet to go below the point where Clinton's started - how is it not 'strong' now?"
----------------------------
whoooa there tex slow down. Back that ass up for a sec. Please clarify this. Are you saying the economy is as good as when clinton took office? Because I disagree. Bush jr's economy is WORSE than bush seniors economy. Bush senior, Bush junior, and Hoover enjoy the honor of having some of the worst economies in american history.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:23:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This kind of information means nothing to anyone that is planning to vote for Bush. They have already indicated that national security is their biggest concern in this election cycle, and domestic issues are a distant secondary concern. In their opinion, Bush is keeping America safe... whether that is true or not is a seperate issue.
That's why I stopped trying to point out the facts and have switched to humor... as in my Bush post yesterday.
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:21:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"gosh, how could we have so few new jobless claims. I guess people just gave up looking for work. Just like they gave up needing to eat. Or, how are all these unemployed people managing to survive?"
------------------------------
I had to spend two damn years studying the sociology of the labor force, and that is EXACTLY what happens...people give up looking for work. They sink into depression and despair, and/or they eek out an existence as long as they can on unemployment checks. The lucky few find employment comparable to what they had before, but most give up, or take on one, two, or three jobs that pay minimum wage in order to survive. So great, they're not unemployed anymore, now they're just working themselves to death...but hey, at least Bush can say the unemployment rate isn't low.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:21:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Of course it was. It was very strong.
So if we have yet to go below the point where Clinton's started - how is it not 'strong' now? Why are factories suddenly so busy? Despite our initial fall, we have yet to go below where the economy was while it was growing during the Clinton administration. Since you described the economy at that time as 'strong' then therefore it follows that it now is strong.
Again Glam, you have not shown any Bush policies that caused the recession. You have only shown a recession and blamed the figurehead of the economy. As far as the, "The "one in charge" is sure as shit ready to take credit when things are going well, so he sure as shit better be ready to accept the blame when things are tanking. " statement goes, it would have merit if we were discussing the tendency of human beings to dole out blame when things are bad and take credit when they are good, however we are not, as much as you'd like to. We are discussing where the true blame lies and you have placed the blame solely on Bush aided by your rather worthless (although aesthetically pleasing) charts. You have not even given a policy implemented by Bush that has caused it - a bill he supported, a raising or lowering of interest rates, you have given nothing.
And nothing is the summation of your argument.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:19:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"HOW do you think 9/11 effected the economy? I'm going to go out on a limb and answer that one for you: "Negatively.""
--------------------------------------
I would go so far as to say 9/11 effected the economy in an extreeeemly negative fashion. I have already stated this in this discussion.
Shall we talk about 9/11 then and how Bush failed us in that respect?
Condi Rice: we had no idea we were going to be attacked on american soil. If we had known we would have done something to stop it.
Senetor Kerrey: what was the name of the the memo discuused on the 6th of august before the 9/11 attacks.
Condi Rice: The memo was entitled "Osama Bin Laden Seeks Targets in the United States"
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:14:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Was the economy strong during Clinton's administration? Yes or no.
-----------------------------------
Yes...
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:11:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No. No you didn't. You didn't exactly say they were the case either, did you?
Nor did you mention that the new jobless claim is at a what, 5 year low?
Or the fact that the measurement for traditional "unemployment rates" doesn't account for private businesses, mom and pop shops, etc.
I mean, with the unemployment rate we have . . . gosh, how could we have so few new jobless claims. I guess people just gave up looking for work. Just like they gave up needing to eat. Or, how are all these unemployed people managing to survive? Maybe they are starting their own businesses? Could be. No? That isn't exactly "unemployed" and yet it wouldn't show up on the standard "unemployment rate" would it?
But to continue with my earlier question . . .
HOW do you think 9/11 effected the economy? I'm going to go out on a limb and answer that one for you: "Negatively."
Okay then what would be some possible ramifications of such a big "negative" effect on the economy?
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:10:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The "one in charge" is sure as shit ready to take credit when things are going well, so he sure as shit better be ready to accept the blame when things are tanking."
-------------------------
My god is this ever true
I love it when they say the president inherits the economy created from the term before them. because if that were true then, in clintons second term, where he is in fact inheriting his OWN economy, did things drop (like they did as bush took office) no. The economy stayed strong.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:09:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Was the economy strong during Clinton's administration? Yes or no.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:08:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
your assertion that the economy 'is strong' is a joke. no offense.
better ways of putting it:
not as bad as it was last month
making a comeback
closer to reaching level
-------------------------------
the fact is bush has had over 36 months of job loss and 1 month of growth
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:07:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
To the folks saying we have a low unemployment rate: That's because the unemployment rate is based on the number of people actively seeking, but not finding, employment. It doesn't take into account the people that have given up looking for work out of despair, or the people who have taken $5 an hour jobs just to survive. So, the unemployment rate is a woeful underestimation of the true state of things
And as far as blaming "the one in charge", well... The "one in charge" is sure as shit ready to take credit when things are going well, so he sure as shit better be ready to accept the blame when things are tanking.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:04:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
<How much time does he need for his super-econo-plan to kick in for chrissakes? >
<1) the recession started in 2000 >
When did Bush take office? Don't worry Glam, dodge the issue by saying Bush shouldn't be in office to begin with. It's a tried and true tactic.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:00:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1) the recession started in 2000
2) of course 9/11 effected the economy
I never said either of those were not the case
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 13:00:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're wrong - I don't blame Clinton for the economic boom or give him credit. If this was a Communist nation I would, but it isn't, so I do not.
My opinion on the economy? It's still strong and coming back. My take on the fall? Not so surprising - no one takes into account how ridiculously strong the economy was - some experts were saying we had reached a plateau. Then markets became saturated, investors lost confidence, and down we went. But it's more like falling from the tip of Mount Everest to a cliff 100 yards below - sure it's a drop, but it's still very strong. It wasn't too long ago that single digit unemployment was thought of as impossible but now it's reality.
If it were up to me, I'd deregulate the economy to a degree and privatize as much of what government does as possible. Private industries are more efficient and don't require forms to filed in triplicate and three month delays on everything. I'd do away with laws that have instituted protection of government workers to the ridiculous degree that they receive. I'd change the legal system to where the loser pays the winner's court cost, discouraging fradulent law suits that hurt the economy. Hundreds of tobacco lawsuits were filed before one person finally won - the same with asbestos, but it only takes ONE case to set a landmark and allow hordes of people to get in and strike it rich.
But that's just me - and I know most of that will never happen because people who benefit from the current state have the power to vote and lobby and use that power to maintain the status quo. Thus is the vice and virtue of democracy.
But that isn't the issue here - the issue here is that your graphs are worthless as far as judging what the President has done with the economy goes and they do not point to any specific policies that have caused the downward spiral. Your chain is strong Glam, but you're missing a few links.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:58:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you are a worthless fucking cunt
------------------------------------------
That is the best debunking of these facts I have seen yet! Oh the intelect!
except not....
swing : miss
truth hurts sometimes......
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:55:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Rassum frassum . . . mumble . . . sonuva. . grumble . . grumble, why, I outgha . . .
<pause>
<Cleansing breath><inhale><10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1>< . . .and exhale>
Hi Glam.
Hey, just real quick could you answer two questions for me?
1) When are economists saying the recession started now?
and
2) Do you believe that that little thing called September 11th [was designed to or] had any effect on the economy?
and a little something I almost ordered for you:
http://www.mercuryradioarts.com/site/product?pid=10026#
Submitted by Freight_Train (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:52:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you are a worthless fucking cunt
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:49:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
SPE -
thanks for pointing the unemplyment rate and how high it is compared to the clinton days....
heres another pretty picture to shut you up:
http://www.economagic.com/chartg/feddal/ru.gif
As you can see the chart shows unemployment at an all time low for clinton and then back up again for bush.
thanks for pointing that out.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:46:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
let me guess cats,...
its clintons fault right?
because when things are good bush gets credit. when things are bad its clintons fault.
am i right or am i right?
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:44:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Much of the job loss isn't Bush's fault - much as you'd like to believe it is Glam, the economy isn't one solid mass that moves unilaterally in one direction or the other. It is possible for one sector to recover while another ails. The dotcom boom - a few years ago there was a dotcom company popping up every other day and the Nasdaq was skyhigh - where are all those jobs now? What triggered that? Did Bush cause it? Do your charts reflect that? Do your charts give any REASONS for the fall? Or do they just show the fall itself? Your graphs reflect the economy as a whole, which is an erroneous depiction at best. They in no way represent the thousands of adjustments that have been made over the course of this conversation which will alter the economy more than anything the President could ever do.
But go ahead, blame it all on the one in charge. It is much easier to take appearances for the truth than it is to delve deeper and realize what is actually going on.
Submitted by SPE (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:42:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
unemployment is at or below 5%
the economy is on the rebound, business confidence at a 30 year high.
the results
you suck
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:33:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"But everything Bush or Congress or Alan Greenspan does NOW will only fully come into effect 6 months from now or probably longer."
------------------------------
*** This is where I remind you that bush is in his 4th year. that is a total of 6, 6month time periods. So far his policies havent done much have they? How much time does he need for his super-econo-plan to kick in for chrissakes?
I submit to the court that on the economy: Bush has failed us. All the facts support this conclusion your honor and I rest my case.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:25:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But everything Bush or Congress or Alan Greenspan does NOW will only fully come into effect 6 months from now or probably longer. Spending bills have an immediate short lived effect, the President's fiscal policies take much longer - so your saying Bush caused the current 'funk' ( which won't last long from the look of things, coming from someone with a hand in the cookie jar of the economy, as opposed to just a picture of the jar) is a bit shortsighted.
It's not surprising however, the President (Bush, Clinton, whoever) is the figurehead and thus takes the blame as well as the credit in most situations.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, raw material prices are high due to the government overbidding on contracts (timber in our case) and thus raising prices, this takes a bite out of the worker's check as well.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:21:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Your charts can be as accurate as you like, but that still doesn't mean it reflects what the economy will be like 6 months from now."
-----------------------------------------
Thats why I didnt name the post : Bush sucks & what the economy will look like in 6 month!
All those graphics are up to date as graphic of this kind can be. The fact is Bush is horrible with the conomy.
Submitted by walkerku (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:20:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:19:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
this is all i know about the economy-
my temp agency makes $21.75 an hour on me
I only see $11.50
granted I have no college degree and i'm only doing this crap until i can afford to go back to school full time, but the fact remains.
the poor (me) stay poorer
i dont think any president will help me out though
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:19:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki, I honestly don't know much about that. I DO know that in Texas, we get time and a half and double overtime depending on how many hours we work in a week (comes out a lot if you work 7-12s in the chemical plants), and just a year ago we were barely getting 40 hours a week and often getting Fridays off. This to me is a positive comeback for the workers in and of itself. I'm not aware of the situation in other states - I DO know however that Bush was trying to pass a bill limiting the amount of overtime employers can pay, or something like that.
Aside from CEO compensation, part of the reason workers aren't getting so much is because in this age of rampant workers comp abuse and rising insurance, employees are becoming more of a liability and less of an asset.
But I have no fancy charts, only first hand obersvation. Take that as you will.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:18:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki...
thought you might like this.
"The USA is coming to pieces rapidly. This once proud nation of hoodlums and whores and the American Way has finally run amok and is effectively Out of Control, and will not recover. The infrastructure is too far gone. The looting, cheating, stealing and failure have stripped this country of its assets, its pride, its success and its security. The National Treasury is empty, the Stock Market will never recover, our troops in Iraq will never come home. You will not find a job, ever again. Your children will drink dirty water for the rest of their lives. You will lose your home and all your personal savings. You will never be able to retire or even stop working, and you will be a serf, a terminally indentured servant to one of the vast anonymous and eternally war-like global corporations that will rule the world for their own reasons and profit."
- Hunter S. thompson, on America today
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:13:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your charts can be as accurate as you like, but that still doesn't mean it reflects what the economy will be like 6 months from now. Your charts hinge on NOW, and are already outdated. The capitalist economy adjusts and alters itself hundreds of thousands of times every day, based on the decisions of independent consumers and customers. To buy, to sell, what to buy, your charts are already 5 minutes old, and that's 5 minutes too late.
Nice work on the graphics though.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:12:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Give credit to whomever you want, but the economy is coming back. "
--------------------------------------------------------------
The economy is doing better than it was and for that believe me I am glad. But Bush is still at an overall job loss of severall million. That is just the facts. And this recent job growth that bush is so proud of, although good, is still poor when you look at the whole picture. We are still with millions LESS jobs than we were when bush stepped in. He has a lot of work to do just to break even...
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:11:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yea, but Cats if you read that article I posted you'll see that although the economy is coming back, it depends on who you are whether you see it or not. The bottom line is that worker wages are not keeping step with increases in productivity.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:09:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I find it hard to believe that the economy is in worse shape than it was during the early 90s recession"
-----------------------------------------
Unfortunatly the fact that you find it hard to believe does not make it true. All these charts are public information. Try doing a google search for "job growth, Bush". You will come up with versions of that same information.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:06:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I find it hard to believe that the economy is in worse shape than it was during the early 90s recession that forced Bush I from office. Furthermore, the effects caused by fiscal policies and spending bills implemented NOW cannot fully be realized until much further down the line.
I am in an industry that is HEAVILY dependent on the economy - I work in manufacturing shipping products - and at this time last year we weren't doing anything. Nothing at all. Teetering on the verge of unemployment. Now, we are so busy it is ridiculous, have rehired everyone that got laid off in addition to hiring more people. We have not only returned to the rate we were manufacturing pre-Bush II, but have tripled it. And we only make money when our customers make money - the economy is definitely coming back strong, you're just not in a position to see it yet. Give credit to whomever you want, but the economy is coming back.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:02:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and another thing:
" Posted on Wed, Apr. 07, 2004
Who benefits from increases in productivity?
Workers stay on the treadmill as employers take the money and run
BOB HERBERT
New York Times
It's like running on a treadmill that keeps increasing its speed. You have to go faster and faster just to stay in place. Or, as a factory worker said many years ago, "You can work 'til you drop dead, but you won't get ahead."
American workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, but they are getting fewer and fewer of the benefits of this increased productivity. While the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, has been strong for some time now, ordinary workers have gotten little more than the back of the hand from employers who have pocketed an unprecedented share of the cash from this burst of economic growth.
What is happening is nothing short of historic. The American workers' share of the increase in national income since November 2001, the end of the last recession, is the lowest on record. Employers took the money and ran. This is extraordinary, but very few people are talking about it, which tells you something about the hold that corporate interests have on the national conversation.
The situation is summed up in the long, unwieldy but very revealing title of a new study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University: "The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits and the Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation -- Gainers and Losers from the National Economic Recovery in 2002 and 2003."
Andrew Sum, the center's director and lead author of the study, said: "This is the first time we've ever had a case where two years into a recovery, corporate profits got a larger share of the growth of national income than labor did. Normally labor gets about 65 percent and corporate profits about 15 to 18 percent. This time profits got 41 percent and labor (meaning all forms of employee compensation, including wages, benefits, salaries and the percentage of payroll taxes paid by employers) got 38 percent."
The study said: "In no other recovery from a post-World War II recession did corporate profits ever account for as much as 20 percent of the growth in national income. And at no time did corporate profits ever increase by a greater amount than labor compensation."
In other words, an awful lot of American workers have been had. Fleeced. Taken to the cleaners.
The recent productivity gains have been widely acknowledged. But workers are not being compensated for this. During the past two years, increases in wages and benefits have been very weak, or nonexistent. And despite the growth of jobs in March that had the Bush crowd dancing in the White House halls last Friday, there has been no net increase in formal payroll employment since the end of the recession. We have lost jobs. There are fewer payroll jobs now than there were when the recession ended in November 2001.
So if employers were not hiring workers, and if they were miserly when it came to increases in wages and benefits for existing employees, what happened to all the money from the strong economic growth?
The study is very clear on this point. The bulk of the gains did not go to workers, "but instead were used to boost profits, lower prices, or increase CEO compensation."
This is a radical transformation of the way the bounty of this country has been distributed since World War II. Workers are being treated more and more like patrons in a rigged casino. They can't win.
Corporate profits go up. The stock market goes up. Executive compensation skyrockets. But workers, for the most part, remain on the treadmill.
When you look at corporate profits versus employee compensation in this recovery, and then compare that, as Sum and his colleagues did, with the eight previous recoveries since World War II, it's like turning a chart upside down.
The study found that the amount of income growth devoured by corporate profits in this recovery is "historically unprecedented," as is the "low share ... accruing to the nation's workers in the form of labor compensation."
I have to laugh when I hear conservatives complaining about class warfare. They know this terrain better than anyone. They launched the war. They're waging it.
And they're winning it.
Bob
Herbert"
Submitted by WillZone (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Vote Kerry in 2004!
Choose or Lose...I'm not just a spokesperson, I'm a voter.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 12:02:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
another reason bush sucks:
This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2004-04-09 11:55:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said that page was the be end all of anything. that was you that made that idiotic remark.
and I dont rate my own posts so your vote cancels nothing
swing : miss
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-04-09 11:45:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow. I never knew that jordansplace.net was the be all and end all of all politics.
My vote will cancel out yours.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-04-09 11:43:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
the comparison of job growth to other president is...scary