Your reading comprehension skillz are not all that good, are they? I don't think anyone here has stated that GWB's tax cuts were directly responsible for the 2+ miilion jobs lost. You may have been secretly thinking this yourself, but that is another matter. Are we to believe that without GWB's tax cuts the USA economy would have lost even more jobs? Is this the positive message the conservatives want to be broadcasting? BTW, I think the argument made wrt the tax cuts is that they were meant to be a stimulus. After three years we are still waiting for that stimulated econonmy to roar back. I eagarly await your response which is bound to include how the stock market has bounced back.
I love Dean's passion. He's pissed at how Bush has handled this country, and he wants to change it. He's not the only person who's outraged at the direction this country has taken in the last three years. As a liberal who's fed up with spineless Democrats who cower in front of *any* Republican opposition, I welcome a candidate who's not afraid to fight back.
Last quarter, GDP grew at a faster rate than any quarter in the last 20 years. Over 8% !!! Is that not good enough for you? OUCH
And if a substantial number of jobs aren't created by November, 2.3 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the last 3 years will help usher President Bait -n- Switch into retirement. TRUTH BE TOLD
Hilarious, RMTex. We have one of the biggest stock market bubbles in the history of organized finance burst, and you only cite the President's actions as being responsible for job loss. Silly. Again, you look to lagging economic indicators. Again you look at the only indicator that is negative. Keep up the good spinning.
That third quarter growth must have feed an incredible four quarter/ XMas retail sales. But wait that did not happen!!!
What an amateur. You're right -- the tax cuts aren't providing economic stimulus because the preliminary Christmas season spending figures weren't a home run. Why don't we wait until the major retailers report earnings, or wait until we have a reliable 4th quarter GDP figure in? You goofed up by thinking there was no evidence of an economic rebound. I provided you evidence of this rebound. You lose. You are just a little too eager to see poor economic performance.
I haven't paid a whole lot of attention, especially since the first of the year. I've been busy with other stuff. I agree that Dean has an agenda that's positive to go along with the anger, etc., but my point is that he doesn't come across that way. He has the plans, etc., but his core strength has not been with putting forth that agenda and convincing people that there's hope if he's elected. His core strength is in being angry. Despite having a plan, he's not yet done a good job in putting that positive notion in people's heads. It's meaningless to have such an agenda if you can't get it across to people. I think that's where Dean has been failing (and why he did as poorly as he did in Iowa, while Edwards did better than expected. Once Edwards gets people to listen to them, I think he comes across to his audience as someone who gives them hope that it's going to be better, not just different, in an Edwards Administration). As for Kerry, a week in Iowa does not change a man's spots. He's traditionally not been very dynamic. Even his victory speech was not all that dynamic. That's something he can overcome, and perhaps he's on that road to overcoming it. But it's traditionally been something that hurts candidates on a national scale. You can get by just fine in Massachusetts being like that, but in other parts of the country where New Englanders often come across as snooty, he'll have to be different. Obviously, on the ground in Iowa, he did something right, as Iowa isn't exactly a bastion of New England lovers. But the question is whether he can keep that up for an entire campaign (especially up against someone who is, in general, liked). Likability is important, even if it seems like a stupid standard. One of the reasons Bush is President and has a good chance at re-election is because a whole lot of people like him. If Kerry comes across as an East Coast snob, he's not going to win. All things being equal, I think Edwards is the best candidate overall (not necessarily the best Democrat). However, everything is not equal in a political campaign. It takes money and organization and a whole mess of luck, among other things. Because of that, Edwards has an uphill battle getting the nomination in the first place.
Re-read my post, Mr. Treasures Sofa-Sniffer. If there is no substantial job creation by November, the Dem nominee will use it as a sledgehammer on Junior's noggin, and he will be shovelling sh*t in Crawford faster than you can say "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Perception is 9/10 of reality, especially in an election. Given your posts, I'm surprised you do not know this. Exactly which part of the truth do you not understand?????
Finally -- I found a link to the Dean "yarrrrh" speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/012004-2v.htm Two things: 1. I honestly don't think it's that bad (of course, I am watching it on a two inch window on a computer). I mean, if he had cleared his throat before giving the speech, it wouldn't have been all that scary. 2. Check out Tom Harkin while Dean goes off on the riff. He's wearing the "what did I get myself into" face ...
the weekly standard cites W as one of the "losers" from last night: Loser: George W. Bush. The president would love to run against Dean. That's still possible, but less likely now. Instead, Bush probably will face a Democrat, Kerry or Edwards, who voted for the war resolution and would raise taxes on the wealthiest few million taxpayers but not on the middle class--making him less politically vulnerable. Bush has delayed starting his campaign, but he may have to jump in soon now.
Wait. I thought presidents had no sway over the economy? That's all I heard from the right for eight years during the booming Clinton years. And the "recovery" we keep hearing about -- Where is it? More than three million Americans have lost their job since Bush walked into the White House. Three million. That's three million people who are living off social services and credit card debt. Oh, you use the GDP to evaluate economic "recoveries." Interesting, because the GDP counts job losses and government debt as POSITIVES for the overall number. The "recovery" is a fake -- rock-bottom interest rates, deeply discounted goods and soaring consumer debt masks the true nature of the economy. But, OK: let's say the GDP is a good way to measure an economy's strength. GDP growth under Bush has averaged 2.37% per year for his first three years in office. Any economist can tell you that it must grow 3 percent to create jobs. Of the last 5 presidents this 2.37% is the 4th worst. The best was under Clinton with 3.58% a year, then Reagan with 3.52%, Carter with 3.33%, and last is Bush, Sr., with 2.02%.
LOL, TJ it's common knowledge that most retailers, including the Nation's largest retailer, have reported average to disappointing Christmas' thus far, with the exception of Luxury retailers...further evidence that the Republican's Party's strategy of enriching the upper classes at the expense of the middle has paid dividends. If you're the kind of person who shops at Wal-Mart, you didn't have that much to spend this Christmas; Shop at Saks Fifth Avenue, and Santa Bush subsidized your christmas at the expense of the budget deficit...It's a wonderful life, I guess. Guess who's winning the class warfare! See also: http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,103685,00.html
Seriously, why do people use his background against him? His background is very similar to GWB's, but George's is not played up as elitist New Englander stuff. Funnier still that Dean grew up in a very Republican household...just like Bush Jr. So, damn those elitist, uber-wealthy Republicans! Oh yeah, I don't like Dean as a politician/presidential candidate, so save any partisan attacks.
You know you have this fixation on losing and winning. Maybe after all of those losing quarters, you finally got to have a winning quarter (3Q03) and now get to go great guns. Woo Hoo!!! Good for you. The question on whether this "recovery" has legs is in the balance. I don't know the answer. We wil see. I sincerely hope that the economy does bounce back strongly and jobs get added to the economy ASAP. This will help GWB in his re-election campaign, but the Democrats have more than enough issues (GWB fu-s) to resonate with swing voters.
