| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-Misc |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2004 05:49:34 PM |
| Object: |
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 10:36:53 PM |
|
|
1. What in the ***** would a Brit know about the US job market.
2. Sept. 11, 2001 is the cause of the majority of this country's
economic problems you stupid English *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "UnCo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 06:05:59 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:9f2ef0tad3p64680drg31e487g8k1n8l2v@4ax.com:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
A lot of companies went out of business since them.
Remember Webvan? Remember all the other dot-coms?
Yahoo stock price 01/03/2000: $116
Yahoo stock price 01/04/2001: $15
Hmmm, this company lost 87% of its value--lost it BEFORE Bush took
office, as you can clearly see.
Actually, Yahoo lost 87% of its value WHILE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE!
What did Yahoo close at today? $30.25
So, 4 1/2 years after the Clinton FRAUD bubble burst, Yahoo is STILL DOWN
75%
Some say that the president sets the moral tone for the nation. If true,
all the corporate fraud is no surprise considering what a lying fraud
Clinton was.
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fire" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 05:51:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy, just as he destroyed the
reputations of his fellow soldiers who bravely served against the
despicable Viet Cong.
And, yeah, they were despicable, and Vietnam afterwards became Hell on
Earth. It remains as such to this very day. Thanks to a White House that
would not bomb the North and end it quickly -- and to the baby boomer
generation that gave up their country for Marxism, pseudo-marxism, and
every other lie that told them it was "okay to err, not okay to do right".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 06:15:21 PM |
|
|
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better for the
economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush showed up. But then
you righties are terrified by peace and prosperity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Italian Stallion" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 06:48:14 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and prosperity.
That's not true at all.
It's amazing that you Democrats are such morons that you think that
raising taxes--taking money out of a consumer driven economy--is
beneficial!
Dow Jones Industrial Average:
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Jan 30 2004 10,488.07
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
Apr 28 2004 10,342.60
May 10 2004 9,990.02
Jul 15 2004 10,163.16
change....... -624.83 (-6%)
Dow Dec 30 1999: 11,452.99
Dow Jan 14 2000: 11,722.98
Change Dec 30 1999 - Dec 30 2000: (-6%)
LOOKS LIKE CLINTON LOST A BUNDLE!
http://tools.thestreet.com/tsc/quotes.html?pg=qcn&symb=djia&sid=1643
&time=
5yr&freq=1mo
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Jan 30 2004 2,066.15
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
Apr 28 2004 1,989.54
May 10 2004 1,087.12
Jul 15 2004 1,912.71
change...... -557.81 (-23%)
NASDAQ 100
Dec 29 1999: 4036.87
Dec 29 1999 - Dec 29 2000 change: (-39%)
Hmmm, CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT, wasn't he?
Employment figures--not the rising job losses during 2000.
http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp
You Democrats are such lying, slimy morons. You keep posting this data
claiming that it's bad, when in fact it is PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH THE
CLINTON YEARS.
You quoted inital jobless claims, below is data for initial jobless
claims
from the Clinton 1990s up to present. Above is the link where YOU CAN
VERIFY THIS INFO FOR YOURSELF. (Copy and past the data into an excel
spreadsheet where you can quickly compute high, low, and average weekly
jobless claims.)
High and Low weekly jobless claims by year:
Year High Low Average
1993 704,930 238,902 342,309
1994 676,076 237,526 342,730
1995 612,648 266,145 357,041
1996 639,910 238,893 351,361
1997 654,473 224,948 321,511
1998 682,016 217,454 317,074
1999 713,805 204,302 298,923
2000 606,897 222,219 303,726
2001 647,045 307,850 402,581
2002 799,246 309,183 402,791
2003 724,111 301,217 399,129
2004* 677,897 283,236 357,013
*2004 data covers period from 01/01/2004 - 06/19/2004, INCOMPLETE year.
Total Annual Jobless Claims As A Percentage Of Total Jobs In Economy
Year Total Claims Avg # Jobs Annual Claims As % Of Jobs
1993 17,800,046 105,107,739 16.935%
1994 18,164,699 107,020,516 16.973%
1995 18,566,146 110,136,036 16.858%
1996 18,270,786 113,154,511 16.147%
1997 16,718,587 115,771,205 14.441%
1998 16,487,857 118,900,389 13.667%
1999 15,543,986 122,032,370 12.738%
2000 16,097,459 124,987,416 12.879%
2001** 20,934,225 127,739,650 16.388%
2002 20,945,130 128,117,313 16.348%
2003 20,754,714 126,638,075 16.389%
2004 Complete Data Not Available
**Jobless claims jumped dramatically after 09/11/2001 terrorist attack.
Notice how jobless claims INCREASED from 1999 to 2000.
EVEN AN IDIOT LIBERAL CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE AVERAGE JOBLESS CLAIMS AS
A
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL JOBS IS LOWER UNDER BUSH THAN THE FIRST 3 YEARS OF
CLINTON!!!
But what happened during the Clinton administration??? Particularly
during
late 1995 and early 1996. Let me think...THE INTERNET!!!
That's right. The internet was the driving force behind the economy of
the
mid to late 1990s. From 1995 when the internet first began taking off
until the tech crash of March 2000, the internet and technology were the
driving forces behind job creation.
The internet created jobs. Jobs for programmers, web developers, tech
startups, investment bankers, traders, computer manufacturers, and much
more.
Much of that money in new technology produced efficiencies which resulted
in the LOSS OF JOBS! New technology ALWAYS results in job losses because
less employees are now required to do the same amount of work. (Look at
how robots replaced workers on the assembly line.)
Oh, by the way, what significant event occurred in 2001? CORPORATE FRAUD
that occurred during the late 1990s was revealed! And TERRORIST attacks!
Worldcom, Global Crossing, Qwest, Enron, and many other firms were
engaging
in fraudulent accounting and were actually losing money, not making
profits. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost that never should have
existed because there were no profits to support them.
Let's look at a brief trend analysis, shall we?
Because this is cyclical data, we need to compare similar periods in each
year. Also, we want to make the periods sufficiently small, quarterly.
Year Quarter Total Jobless Claims
1999 Q1 4,824,422
1999 Q2 3,491,472
1999 Q3 3,418,011
1999 Q4 3,810,081
2000 Q1 4,338,351
2000 Q2 3,245,983
2000 Q3 3,531,397
2000 Q4 4,931,728
2001 Q1 5,299,499
2001 Q2 4,635,489
2001 Q3 4,789,397
2001 Q4 6,209,840
Notice how jobless claims ROSE the 3rd quarter between 1999 & 2000.
Jobless claims rose 3% between these quarters.
Comparing Q4 1999 & Q4 2000, we see that jobless claims rose almost by a
MILLION!!! WELL BEFORE BUSH WAS INAUGURATED!
Jobless claims rose 29.4% in Q4 2000 over Q4 1999!!! THUS PROVING THE
RECESSION STARTED IN 2000!!!
The trend continues well into 2001. Q1 jobless claims from 2000 to 2001
ROSE 22%.
Surely, even an idiot Liberal can't blame Bush for jobs lost during his
first 2 months in office!
You can CLEARLY see from this that job losses, accelerated in 2000.
Thus,
we have evidence of when the recession began.
Notice the effect of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.
Liberals, your lies are clearly revealed once one begins to analyze the
truth. You people are disgusting liars. Which leaves me with only one
question:
DO YOU LIBERALS BELIEVE YOUR OWN LIES?
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 07:33:49 PM |
|
|
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the Standard &
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans. Over the past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of 12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500 performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the worst Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored dems by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when they looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting 13.4% dems to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this: "I don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment, disposable income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one of these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On average, dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits, lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big Lies" by Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 08:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the Standard &
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans. Over the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of 12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the worst Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored dems by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting 13.4% dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this: "I don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment, disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one of these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On average, dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits, lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big Lies" by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant?), but does
any of this take into account which party controlled the Senate &/or House?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 08:12:49 PM |
|
|
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the Standard &
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans. Over the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of 12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored dems by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting 13.4% dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this: "I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment, disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On average, dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big Lies" by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 08:20:21 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans. Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of 12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting 13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this: "I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment, disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they have nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party controls the
presidency...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
15 Jul 2004 09:49:08 PM |
|
|
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans. Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting 13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this: "I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment, disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party controls the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 12:28:50 AM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 03:35:28 AM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20, 2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P 500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000 when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in "Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 09:04:39 AM |
|
|
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:krMJc.1589$Iz2.732169@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20,
2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the
results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the
GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P
500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still
favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000
when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of
this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for
the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and
stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every
one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in
"Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party
controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
Of course not, silly! But they are a good general indicator of the health of
the economy, reflecting interest rates, inflation, employment, and GDP
growth.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 02:01:52 PM |
|
|
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:krMJc.1589$Iz2.732169@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20,
2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the
results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the
GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P
500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still
favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000
when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems, posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of
this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for
the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and
stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every
one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in
"Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal (redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party
controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
Are you saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to do with the economy?
On top of that my statistics demonstrate what clearly happens under a
republican or democratic presidential administration. I've heard it
constantly said [by Bush supporters] that it was time to get grownups into
the White House to handle the economy. The statistics clearly demonstrate
that presidential party is connected to the state of the economy and that
the American economy does better under a democratic presidential
administration.
Spin your way out of that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 05:40:48 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f825a1$0$28102$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:krMJc.1589$Iz2.732169@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in
message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20,
2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine
until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on
the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the
results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than
Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual returns
of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the
GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs. S&P
500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed
the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still
favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson,
Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in 2000
when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems,
posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of
this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good for
the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and
stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships
he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By every
one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in
"Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal
(redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they
have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party
controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
Are you saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to do with the economy?
On top of that my statistics demonstrate what clearly happens under a
republican or democratic presidential administration. I've heard it
constantly said [by Bush supporters] that it was time to get grownups into
the White House to handle the economy. The statistics clearly demonstrate
that presidential party is connected to the state of the economy and that
the American economy does better under a democratic presidential
administration.
Spin your way out of that.
Why are you asking me if I'm "saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to
do with the economy?" I wrote above "So are stock valuations the only
measure of the economy?" Do you have a reading comprehension problem? My
point is that it's simplistic to say that the economy goes one way or the
other solely based on the party of the president. As someone said, Congress
holds the purse strings & there are other things such as "the Fed",
recessions, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks. I'm pleased with the
direction of the current economy. If you're not, so be it. If you want a
change in the White House, make your statement on 11/2. I'm not a one issue
voter in any case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 05:49:10 PM |
|
|
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:QPYJc.11189$Iz2.2892470@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f825a1$0$28102$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:krMJc.1589$Iz2.732169@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in
message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20,
2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine
until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return on
the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the
results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than
Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual
returns
of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the
GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs.
S&P
500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers removed
the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still
favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson,
Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in
2000
when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems,
posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said of
this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good
for
the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party and
stock
appreciation was among the most significant relationships
he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By
every
one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record. On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages, lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug
regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found in
"Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal
(redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took
into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that they
have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party
controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
Are you saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to do with the
economy?
On top of that my statistics demonstrate what clearly happens under a
republican or democratic presidential administration. I've heard it
constantly said [by Bush supporters] that it was time to get grownups
into
the White House to handle the economy. The statistics clearly
demonstrate
that presidential party is connected to the state of the economy and
that
the American economy does better under a democratic presidential
administration.
Spin your way out of that.
Why are you asking me if I'm "saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to
do with the economy?" I wrote above "So are stock valuations the only
measure of the economy?"
So what the hell is the point of the question?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Do you?
My
point is that it's simplistic to say that the economy goes one way or the
other solely based on the party of the president.
Actually, it's the right wing that's constantly trumpeting that it's the
only fiscally responsible party in America. So if there's an argument, the
argument started on YOUR side of the aisle.
As someone said, Congress
holds the purse strings & there are other things such as "the Fed",
recessions, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks. I'm pleased with the
direction of the current economy.
Then you're an idiot. With 6 million jobs in the hole and record deficits,
and growth as slow as this, anyone who thinks that we're doing well is
looking up in the direction of their own butt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 07:13:17 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f85ae7$0$28593$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:QPYJc.11189$Iz2.2892470@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f825a1$0$28102$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:krMJc.1589$Iz2.732169@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in
message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January 20,
2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just fine
until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace
and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return
on
the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted the
results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than
Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual
returns
of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat
Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for
the
GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents vs.
S&P
500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers
removed
the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome still
favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson,
Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in
2000
when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems,
posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac said
of
this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are good
for
the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party
and
stock
appreciation was among the most significant
relationships
he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation,
unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By
every
one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record.
On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages,
lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug
regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be found
in
"Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal
(redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented took
into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that
they
have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which party
controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
Are you saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to do with the
economy?
On top of that my statistics demonstrate what clearly happens under a
republican or democratic presidential administration. I've heard it
constantly said [by Bush supporters] that it was time to get grownups
into
the White House to handle the economy. The statistics clearly
demonstrate
that presidential party is connected to the state of the economy and
that
the American economy does better under a democratic presidential
administration.
Spin your way out of that.
Why are you asking me if I'm "saying that stock valuations have NOTHING
to
do with the economy?" I wrote above "So are stock valuations the only
measure of the economy?"
So what the hell is the point of the question?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Do you?
My
point is that it's simplistic to say that the economy goes one way or
the
other solely based on the party of the president.
Actually, it's the right wing that's constantly trumpeting that it's the
only fiscally responsible party in America. So if there's an argument,
the
argument started on YOUR side of the aisle.
As someone said, Congress
holds the purse strings & there are other things such as "the Fed",
recessions, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks. I'm pleased with the
direction of the current economy.
Then you're an idiot. With 6 million jobs in the hole and record
deficits,
and growth as slow as this, anyone who thinks that we're doing well is
looking up in the direction of their own butt.
Then how do you explain this photo of you?
http://img10.exs.cx/img10/5602/hua1.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained |
16 Jul 2004 07:52:02 PM |
|
|
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:xa_Jc.1241$C22.228650@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f85ae7$0$28593$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:QPYJc.11189$Iz2.2892470@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f825a1$0$28102$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:krMJc.1589$Iz2.732169@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f76721$0$28132$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cd7f8c$fo6f$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3GJc.42569$_b.16088822@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
message
news:40f72b1d$0$28140$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Pookie" <pookie18323@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VRFJc.42423$_b.16042049@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
message
news:40f721fa$0$28113$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Italian Stallion" <gagliardos@foodshop.com> wrote in
message
news:2JEJc.36786$Jk2.7134@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
in
news:40f70f94$0$28112$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Fire" <sfdsdf@siouoiu.com> wrote in message
news:MVDJc.1028$ml.252@lakeread05...
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote:
Bush has lost more jobs than he has gained
______________________________________________________
The total number of jobs is down from January
20,
2001.
Not up.
______________________________________________________
You are getting really desperate here.
Kerry comes in, he will destroy the economy
Actually, the facts show that democrats are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay
better
for the economy than GOPs. We were doing just
fine
until
Bush
showed
up. But then you righties are terrified by peace
and
prosperity.
That's not true at all.
Yes it is. Slate magazine analyzed the average return
on
the
Standard
&
Poor's 500 in October 2002. The researchers posted
the
results
that
Democratic Presidents posted better numbers than
Republicans.
Over
the
past
100 years, Democratic administrations posted annual
returns
of
12.3%/
Repugnicans: only 8%.
Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat
Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for
the
GOPs.
Northwestern Mutual published a survey of presidents
vs.
S&P
500
performance
between 1929 and 1999. Even when the researchers
removed
the
worst
Repug
regimes, the Nixon and Hoover regimes, the outcome
still
favored
dems
by
16.9% to 14.2%. Largest gains: FDR, Truman, Johnson,
Clinton.
Stock and Trader's Almanac drew similar conclusions in
2000
when
they
looked
at Dow Jones stocks, but even more favorable to dems,
posting
13.4%
dems
to
8.1% repugs. Jeffrey Hirsch who edits the Almanac
said
of
this:
"I
don't
know why people are convinced that Republicans are
good
for
the
market"
noting that the correlation between presidential party
and
stock
appreciation was among the most significant
relationships
he's
found.
About gross domestic product, job creation,
unemployment,
disposable
income,
deficit reduction, federal spending and inflation? By
every
one
of
these
yardsticks, Dem presidents achieved a superior record.
On
average,
dem
administrations fostered more growth, higher wages,
lower
deficits,
lower
government spending and lower inflation than repug
regimes.
More information and citations and sources can be
found
in
"Big
Lies"
by
Joe
Conason, Page 86, 218, 219.
Yes, I realize that Conason is a Bush-hating liberal
(redundant
And that's pretty much all the ammo you had to shoot.
Actually I shot more, but you snipped it & didn't answer the
question...which still is whether the data you presented
took
into
account
who controlled the Senate &/or House...maybe you feel that
they
have
nothing
to do with with the economy or possibly less than which
party
controls
the
presidency...
Read the post - its in there.
He may have had a sudden attack of illiteracy when he hit this
paragraph...
"Stock valuations during dem control of Congress beat Repug
record
in
both
Senate and House: 10.7% return for the dems/ 8.7% for the GOPs."
So are stock valuations the only measure of the economy?
Are you saying that stock valuations have NOTHING to do with the
economy?
On top of that my statistics demonstrate what clearly happens under
a
republican or democratic presidential administration. I've heard it
constantly said [by Bush supporters] that it was time to get
grownups
into
the White House to handle the economy. The statistics clearly
demonstrate
that presidential party is connected to the state of the economy and
that
the American economy does better under a democratic presidential
administration.
Spin your way out of that.
Why are you asking me if I'm "saying that stock valuations have
NOTHING
to
do with the economy?" I wrote above "So are stock valuations the only
measure of the economy?"
So what the hell is the point of the question?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Do you?
My
point is that it's simplistic to say that the economy goes one way or
the
other solely based on the party of the president.
Actually, it's the right wing that's constantly trumpeting th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
