It's not you white, it's one of texxx's best tacts. Divert the conversation away from the main point of the thread. He's good at it.
Dude you are totally out of touch just like bush there are 10,000 more jobs about to be lost with the AT&T merger .And those numbers are like that becuase so many people just don't go down to the unemployment office there tired of hear we can't help you right now there no jobs for you.TAX cuts indeed they only helped the rich not the average person.
Ah, more amateurish analysis based on liberal talking points. Yawn. It takes time for stimuli to work their way through the economy. Clinton's mess manifested itself after the bubble burst and as the chart showed, unemployment quickly followed. You say that Bush has "presided over the lowest job growth in modern history"? Wow, that doesn't compute with one of the LOWEST unemployment rates in modern history. Might want to recheck your facts, because they're wrong. ...and then you say "take away government hiring and deficit spending"? First off I find it humorous that a liberal will complain about government hiring, and secondly, deficit spending is/was needed to pull ourselves out of the economic mess that Clinton left behind. Running a temporary deficit is not always a bad thing if it pulls a country out of a recession.
Liberal talking points! You're a good drone! You simply cannot argue with the 4.7% unemployment rate. You liberals honestly believe that this economy is different than ALL OF HISTORY in that there are millions upon millions of people who aren't filing for unemployment. Give me a break. If you can't realize how idiotic that line is, then you truly have been duped by the liberal talking points.
Wow, I feel like I've done my civic duty for the day - I've educated otherwise blind liberals who only focus on the negative and complain about imaginary problems.[/QUOTE] SO your wrong again not a liberal just someone whocan see through bush's BS
With all due respect, texx didn't derail the thread. He responded to edwardc's post. I don't see any of you getting mad at the NoWorries 3rd term argument that doesn't really have anything to do with this topic, either.
The funny thing is the same people decrying the lack of jobs seem to want all jobs to be desk jobs making 70 thousand a year. Is it not safe to assume that whomever applied for the job at McDonald's saw it as an improvement over whatever they were doing before?
No freaking doubt. Is that a liberal talking point, bigtexxxxx? Nope, just reality. Unfortunately, Bush-blinders prevent some from seeing reality.
Manufacturing jobs making 30-40 thousand a year would be nice. Heck, desk jobs making 30-40 thousand a year would be nice.
You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier: Why is it wrong to assume that the person chose to work at McDonald's because it was better than what they were doing before? Doesn't upward mobility have to start somewhere?
