"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:tUMqb.137111$Tr4.352835@attbi_s03...

"Keith Browne" <klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:QkFqb.208899$0v4.16453118@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:4eFqb.134864$e01.457887@attbi_s02...

"Keith Browne" <klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:F3Fqb.208809$0v4.16453686@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:yREqb.131984$HS4.1050719@attbi_s01...

"Keith Browne" <klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:9zEqb.208624$0v4.16450717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"JAC" <techguy71-at-mchsi-dot-com@remove.com> wrote in message
news:6e1mqvs2cs1ossr5bktpl8i0hafc2q2ga9@4ax.com...

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:09:08 GMT, "Keith Browne"
<klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

"JAC" <techguy71-at-mchsi-dot-com@remove.com> wrote in

message

news:mnrlqv07t27dla9iplu0sl1t1iv514p8oi@4ax.com...

Nancy Pelosi, knowing the answer but just had to ask it

anyway,

asked

"Where are the jobs Mr. President."

Down the crapper apparently.

There's nearly 3 million out of work.

And you point is?

Just stating the facts. This president has presided over
more net job losses than any president since Hoover.

Why do you purposely skew your 'analysis' to raw numbers like

that?

The

percentage of unemployed is the proper gauge for a reason.

Okay. The unemployment rate is up nearly 50% since
Bush took office.

How's that for impressive?

Play games and make negative comments in denial all you want. The

fact

is

the unemployment rate is most likely going to be closer to 5% than

6%

come election time.

You hope so, but we'll see. I'm dealing with the reality of the here
and now.

The here and now is improvement. Jobless claims are declining.

And full-time hiring isn't increasing. Care to admit that?

How do you like Bush's approval numbers?

Irrelevent.

Because they don't sit well with you.

That's not going to be much of a detriment to Bush in
November 2004.

Why do you hinge your political hopes on things going bad for the

country?

I don't. Just pointing out the obvious. The underlying trends
are bad for the unemployed, as are many economic factors.

Sure you do. The proof is in how you only point out negatives in

anti-Bush

fashion. If you were about pointing out the obvious you would also

out positives. There are many out there. Which brings to mind, care to

be

a little more specific on those 'underlying trends?'

Temp hiring, underemployment, the tendency towards long-term
unemployment. Care to address those realities?

Subject: Re: New Jobless Claims Drop Sharply
From: "Keith Browne"

"Keith Browne" <

"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:4eFqb.134864$e01.457887@attbi_s02...

"Keith Browne" <

"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:yREqb.131984$HS4.1050719@attbi_s01...

"Keith Browne" <

news:9zEqb.208624$0v4.16450717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"JAC" <techguy71-at-mchsi-dot-com@remove.com> wrote in message
news:6e1mqvs2cs1ossr5bktpl8i0hafc2q2ga9@4ax.com...

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:09:08 GMT, "Keith Browne"
<

"JAC" <techguy71-at-mchsi-dot-com@remove.com> wrote in

message

news:mnrlqv07t27dla9iplu0sl1t1iv514p8oi@4ax.com...

Nancy Pelosi, knowing the answer but just had to ask it

anyway,

asked

"Where are the jobs Mr. President."

Down the crapper apparently.

There's nearly 3 million out of work.

And you point is?

Just stating the facts. This president has presided over
more net job losses than any president since Hoover.

Why do you purposely skew your 'analysis' to raw numbers like

that?

The

percentage of unemployed is the proper gauge for a reason.

Okay. The unemployment rate is up nearly 50% since
Bush took office.

How's that for impressive?

Play games and make negative comments in denial all you want. The

fact

is

the unemployment rate is most likely going to be closer to 5% than to

6%

come election time.

You hope so, but we'll see. I'm dealing with the reality of the here
and now.

The here and now is improvement. Jobless claims are declining.

And full-time hiring isn't increasing. Care to admit that?

How do you like Bush's approval numbers?

Irrelevent.

Because they don't sit well with you.

That's not going to be much of a detriment to Bush in
November 2004.

Why do you hinge your political hopes on things going bad for the

country?

I don't. Just pointing out the obvious. The underlying trends
are bad for the unemployed, as are many economic factors.

Sure you do. The proof is in how you only point out negatives in

anti-Bush

fashion. If you were about pointing out the obvious you would also point
out positives. There are many out there. Which brings to mind, care to

be

a little more specific on those 'underlying trends?'

Temp hiring, underemployment, the tendency towards long-term
unemployment. Care to address those realities?

keith

"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:6Rarb.145432$HS4.1174661@attbi_s01...

"Keith Browne" <klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Vl6rb.217363$0v4.16609920@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Patriot" <patriot@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:D5Yqb.142508$e01.487595@attbi_s02...

"Keith Browne" <klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sMXqb.33407$Ec1.2862299@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"JAC" <techguy71-at-mchsi-dot-com@remove.com> wrote in message
news:qlcnqvk9921qab21673m1icn7r4qqesk6d@4ax.com...

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 03:45:09 GMT, "Keith Browne"
<klbrowne@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

There's nearly 3 million out of work.

And you point is?

Just stating the facts. This president has presided over
more net job losses than any president since Hoover.

Interesting what you call a fact.

Source: http://data.bls.gov

1954: 1.7 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.04% of the
population)

1958: 1.7 million added to the unemployment rolls (.97% of the
population)

1970-1971: 2.2 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.05% of

the

population)

1974-1975: 3.6 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.67% of

the

population)

1981-1982: 2.4 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.02% of

the

population)

1991-1992: 2.6 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.02% of

the

population)

The problem is that you are comparing the NUMBER of unemployed

over

different decades. That means next to nothing.

Tell that to the 3 million out of work and the 5 million

underemployed.

Is that all the better you can do - throw some emotionally based

*****

out there?

I've merely pointed out a level of economic suffering. Something your
compassionate conservatism doesn't appreciate.

*****. You don't understand the basic concept of individual
responsibility. The basics of economic cycles.

The unemployment rate is headed down, and quite frankly is not much

above

the historical average.

Historical average yes. But it's still considerably above what we no

know

to be full employment.

A fucking Utopian mindset. There is no such thing as Utopia. >Striving

for

excellence is one thing, striving for perfection is foolish.

Moron.

Look assholio, we had 3 million more quality jobs when Bush
took office than we have today. Chew on it, lick it, and kiss it.
( the truth )