A place to exchange ideas supported by facts. Independents and Liberals are invited to submit their comments, provided they support their opinion with facts and references. Spinning is discouraged.
Kerry Attacks Bush Again
Published on March 7, 2004 By aconservative In Politics

Kerry campaigning in Texas told his audience that Pres Bush is a walking barrel of promises referring to the unemployment problem. Right now the unemployment problems remains at 5.6 % or 8.2 million who are looking for work. (This is much better than the last year of Pres Clinton which was 6.1%.)

He said that 3 million jobs have been lost since Pres Bush took the Presidency in 2001.

His solution that he told his listeners is to “lower the unemployment by closing tax loopholes that send jobs and revenue overseas, enforcing the terms of the trade agreements, increasing funds for education and lowering health-care costs. He also said that he would tax those making $200,000 a year rolling back the tax cuts that was implemented by Pres Bush in 2003 then create more workers.

This is quite a mouthful of solution.

I agree to what he said, but I don’t know if Mrs Kerry would agree. According to reliable sources, Mrs Kerry owns the Heinz Catsup conglomerate who have 79 manufacturing plants, of which 57 manufacturing plants are located overseas. Only 22 manufacturing plants are in the United States.

Let’s look at the real unemployment numbers as taken from the Current Population Survey taken monthly by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It provides a comprehensive body of data on the labor force, employment, unemployment and persons not in the labor force.

Since 2002 1.6 million have gone back to work.

Let’s also compare the jobless numbers in the first term of President Bush against the first term when Pres Clinton was President.

Clinton Bush Difference
1991 – 6.8% 2001 – 4.7% 2.1%
1992 – 7.5 2002 – 5.8 1.7
1993 – 6.9 2003 – 6.0 .9
1994 – 6.1 Now - 5.6 .5

These numbers show that there were more unemployed when President Clinton was President. Did the liberals complain then?

Let’s further look at the employment and unemployment number of last February 2004 which according to the government employment was slow. Those indicated by a + are gains and – are losses.

Manufacturing 3,000 –
Construction 24,000 –
Leisure/Hospitality 9,000 –
Retailers 13,000 +
Contractors 32,000 +
Education/Health 13,000 +

Total Gain 22,000 +

Granted that these numbers are very low, but they are still better than the first year Pres Clinton was President. Let’s compare numbers again after President Bush second term. It would be much much better than the 2nd term of Pres Clinton.

The people need facts not blowing smoke! Numbers don't lie.





Comments
on Mar 07, 2004
"Numbers don't lie" You must be an accountant to be so naive. I notice you leave out 1997-2000, which is the guage by which we measure Bush's slide in this area. So if your numbers are right, I guess then we shouldn't vote for Clinton.

They just passed a act to stop outsourcing of government jobs to foreign States. It was so conflicted with existing laws, some passed by Clinton, it became a hollow amendment when done. Neither party has a solution because both are part of the problem. They would repudiate their own agenda to change the law FOR America. We got to make Mexico part of the American economy in 2005, so no action to stop this decided goal will occur.

If you know numbers you know that unemployment is of only those receiving benefits week to week. Those whose benefits have run out are not counted. Bush made sure no extension at x-mas time occured so as to improve his 'numbers'. Neither are those science degreed Citizens now pushing a broom, except to say, they are 'working'. Defending Republicans, Democrats, against the interests of the American people will not ultimately win support for your candidate.

Americans want jobs, good, creative, constructive, infrastructure building, JOBS. Bush is giving them to ILLEGAL alien foreigners. We see that and KNOW the numbers lie if they are used to defend his actions AGAINST Americans. Write them up and list them however you want to, the numbers lie if they defend this Presidents' employment record.
on Mar 07, 2004
Clinton took office in January 1993. The numbers for 1991 and 1992 are for Daddy Bush. Learn some history.
on Mar 07, 2004
Bulbous

As we say it in Farsi - Kahesh Mikonam. (I'm sorry).

Now here's Clinton's 1993 to 1996 record.

1993 - 6.9%
1993 - 6.1
1994 - 5.6
1995 - 5.4

An average of 6.0% unemployment on his first term to Bush's 5.5% unemployment.

Wakhon

I purposely left out Clinton's second term numbers because Bush's has not completed his second term. It will start next year. For sure.

You're right where the unemployment numbers are derived from. Those who run out of unemployment checks can be balanced by those who work at home which are not also counted.

I agree that we want jobs good jobs. But in order to do so, we have to have more than the educational, technical, experience to hold to them. I have hired over 400 positions in my lifetime and you know what I normally ask the applicant? "What can you do for me and the company?" I would be expecting a reply that is quantified.

One of the problems that I have seen is - applicants do not know how to interview. Interviewers to know how to ask questions. Examples: Applicants would state what functions they have been doing, how long have they done such funcitons and they stop there. What that interviewer wants to hear are assurances that when one gets employed he will contribute saving or making money for the company. That s/he had been doing those tasks (saving and making money) in her/his jobs. That is the essense of landing a good job.

There are lots of good jobs available as of today. Take last Sunday's edition of the New York Times, how many pages do you think is the job wanted section? Name any metropolitan newspaper and it lists all these good jobs.

If I was one of those left jobless that was caused by the manufacturing exodus overseas, I would retrain myself to something that I can use immediately. Like sales. I know that there are lots of companies hiring these jobs right now. Some of them will even train you. But you know what - sales is a type of job that requires performance which would be quite difficult if you migrate from manufacturing where you have been doing repetitive tasks not worrying if you make a mistake because at the end of the line there is that QC (quality control) guy who will correct your mistake.

I read somewhere that Kerry by taxing the rich, he will use the money to create more government jobs. How will he implement this? If he succeeds in hiring, for example, 50% of the currently unemployed and give them government jobs, that will be 4,100,000 additional government employees.

Will the taxes derived from those whose income is over $200,000 be enough to pay these people on union wages? or will additional taxes be levied on all of us? Will the government create jobs to fit the applicant experience or will they retrain the applicant? But what kind of jobs will these people be doing? Mr Kerry has not explain this.

One of the Presidential candidates was quoted as saying to establish a Department of Peace manned by school drop outs. Have you heard that?

What a socialistic solution? Is that the best that libs can offer?

aconservative

on Mar 08, 2004
Now here's Clinton's 1993 to 1996 record.

1993 - 6.9%
1993 - 6.1
1994 - 5.6
1995 - 5.4

An average of 6.0% unemployment on his first term to Bush's 5.5% unemployment.


So unemployment fell from 6.9% to 5.4% during Clinton's first term, whereas it rose from 4.7% to 5.6% during Bush's current term, despite the Bush administration changing the way that unemployment rates are calculated, resulting in higher unemployment in the fourth year of the current Presidency than the corresponding year of its predecessor. Duly noted.
on Mar 08, 2004
Ahh, and of course Clinton was coming off a really bad recession when he was elected, whereas Bush was coming off an economic upturn.

Shame how numbers don't tell the whole story isn't it?

Cheers
on Mar 24, 2004
Someone is a liar, using data out of context, maybe both..................Clinton has no reason to lie, he is not running for re-election.

How about a independent review that compares apples to apples ?
on Mar 24, 2004
Yeah. It's normal for the economy to fluctuate. However, Kerry's plan to raise taxes to create more jobs does strike me as odd.
on Mar 25, 2004
The relevant issue is whether continued $500 billion deficits will hurt the economy more than a tax hike, not whether tax cuts in isolation will hurt the economy.