Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

[RyanM]

There are only 59 deceits in F911? Wow. I was expecting far more than that.

 

[DeeKnow]

I wonder... everytime the Bush fans scream that Moore lies, uses deceipt, spin, or 'guilt by association' ..... do they have that DUH moment soon after that begins with .... and so does Bush actually..!

 

[XZeroII]

Look at the Moore apologists rushing to his aide...

 

[jackschmittusa]

Sometimes these threads about Moore just about have me ROTFL. Moore's whole intent was to get people talking about whether or not Bush & Co. are a bunch of lying, coniving bastards. The conversations will of course not convert any Bush bashers, but do have the possibility to get Bush supporters thinking, and maybe change their minds. Moore knew that the right-wing attack dogs could not let this die. He played you guys like a fiddle.

 

[Ferocious]

Has anyone been successful in debunking anything Moore said in the movie?

Moore did a bullet-proof job apparantly.

 

[jpeyton]

F9/11 has made over $61 million domestically. Bush is screwed come November.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ogg]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Michael Moore = Fraud

:thumbsup::beer::laugh:😀

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who the hell is Dave Kopel, and why should I believe anything he says?

Unlike Moore, Kopel has documents to back up his claims.

What documents? Where?

Also, Kopel claims this is a "deceit??"

Bush Presidency before September 11

Deceit 5

The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush?s inauguration. Moore continues: ?No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. And for the next eight months it didn?t get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn?t get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to sink.?

Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the confirmation of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the federal courts.

Congress did enact the top item on Bush?s agenda: a large tax cut. During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives easily passed many of Bush?s other agenda items, including the bill whose numbering reflected the President?s top priority: H.R. 1, the Bush ?No Child Left Behind? education bill. The fate of the Bush bills in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain. The Senate later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush proposals did not pass.

What part of that bolded section isn't true?!? If this is any indication of the rest of the so-called "deceits" then Kopel's got a serious credibility issue. Pffft, what a farce.

Well its partially true. But uh whats the point? Also Nixon had rioters and protestors.

As for Bush not getting judges voted on, every president has a damn hard time, more so in the first year. He never had his major legislation stalled, sure there were compromises but thats always the case. Bush didnt lose the Senate, if I recall correctly the republicans won it outright in 2002. A 50/50 split going to a 50-49-1 is not losing the Senate.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I find point one to be hilarious. Moore knows before he even releases the movie that his primary audience would rather hear him state Fox News since most of the left hates the Fox News Channel. Using CBS as his target wouldn't really have had any sort of effect. People in the crowd wouldn't be doing internal cartwheels and 'ooo' 'ahhhs' to themselves upon hearing the three letters as opposed to the name that is Fox. 😛

But, that's why he's such a good filmmaker.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I feel that Kerry's pick of Edwards has just tipped the scales in the Democrats favor. If things don't drastically get better in Iraq and the economy, it's hard to see Bush winning reelection. People want to see results, and quite frankly the Bush administration has not delivered.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who the hell is Dave Kopel, and why should I believe anything he says?

who the hell is michael moore, and why should i believe anything he says?

Somebody with a well-documented opinion.

 

[Genx87]

I find it rather amusing the fans of Micheal moore are complaining about nitpicking. This guy has made a life of nitpicking and exploiting the smallest of things and then twisting them around and selling a movie.

Not going to go thru this, but point one is stupid. It seems this person went thru the movie looking for things to be miscunstrued. But hey on the postitive side this thread is the 1,000,000th thread about Michael Moore, so I'm sure that qualifies you for some sort of prize.

And what exactly did Moore do to make this movie?

I find it rather funny the defenders of Moore claim he is not pushing half-truths or lies. The guy in the early part of June claimed everthing is legit and that they will sue anybody who debunks his movie. Well after the 9-11 comission destroyed at least a part of his movie and people started looking at it. He has decided to layoff and call it an op/ed piece instead of a "documentary".

Judging by the amount of issues with his fact checking I cant imagine any sane person calling this a documentary.

feel that Kerry's pick of Edwards has just tipped the scales in the Democrats favor. If things don't drastically get better in Iraq and the economy, it's hard to see Bush winning reelection. People want to see results, and quite frankly the Bush administration has not delivered.

According to who? The economy is growing at neat 5% for the past two years and we have added 1.4 million jobs since January. BTW Clintons best years were around 4.6%. Quite listening to the doom and gloom that is our media in this country. They are in election mode and will skew facts as such.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to who? The economy is growing at neat 5% for the past two years and we have added 1.4 million jobs since January. BTW Clintons best years were around 4.6%. Quite listening to the doom and gloom that is our media in this country. They are in election mode and will skew facts as such.

Bye-Bye, Bush Boom
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/opinion/06KRUG.html

If you want a single number that tells the story, it's the percentage of adults who have jobs. When Mr. Bush took office, that number stood at 64.4. By last August it had fallen to 62.2 percent. In June, the number was 62.3. That is, during Mr. Bush's first 30 months, the job situation deteriorated drastically. Last summer it stabilized, and since then it may have improved slightly. But jobs are still very scarce, with little relief in sight.

Bush campaign ads boast that 1.5 million jobs were added in the last 10 months, as if that were a remarkable achievement. It isn't. During the Clinton years, the economy added 236,000 jobs in an average month. Those 1.5 million jobs were barely enough to keep up with a growing working-age population.

In the spring, it seemed as if the pace of job growth was accelerating: in March and April, the economy added almost 700,000 jobs. But that now looks like a blip ? a one-time thing, not a break in the trend. May growth was slightly below the Clinton-era average, and June's numbers ? only 112,000 new jobs, and a decline in working hours ? were pretty poor.

What about overall growth? After two and a half years of slow growth, real G.D.P. surged in the third quarter of 2003, growing at an annual rate of more than 8 percent. But that surge appears to have been another blip. In the first quarter of 2004, growth was down to 3.9 percent, only slightly above the Clinton-era average. Scattered signs of weakness ? rising new claims for unemployment insurance, sales warnings at Target and Wal-Mart, falling numbers for new durable goods orders ? have led many analysts to suspect that growth slowed further in the second quarter.

And economic growth is passing working Americans by. The average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers rose only 1.7 percent over the past year, lagging behind inflation. The president of Aetna, one of the biggest health insurers, recently told investors, "It's fair to say that a lot of the jobs being created may not be the jobs that come with benefits." Where is the growth going? No mystery: after-tax corporate profits as a share of G.D.P. have reached a level not seen since 1929.

Report: Latinos Find U.S. Jobs, But for Lower Wages
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1966236

A new report from Pew Hispanic Center this week shows nearly three of 10 new jobs in the United States are going to immigrants -- but despite the new job creation, wages for both Latinos and non-Hispanics are flat. NPR's Liane Hansen speaks with Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center.

 

[Genx87]

NY times? Are you really going to use that rag for news?

BTW lets pick apart the quote you put up.

If you want a single number that tells the story, it's the percentage of adults who have jobs. When Mr. Bush took office, that number stood at 64.4. By last August it had fallen to 62.2 percent. In June, the number was 62.3. That is, during Mr. Bush's first 30 months, the job situation deteriorated drastically. Last summer it stabilized, and since then it may have improved slightly. But jobs are still very scarce, with little relief in sight.

This is a bunch of crap plain and simple. You dont add 1.5 million jobs since the beginning of the year because jobs are scarce. No matter how much doom and gloom the liberal times puts on it. The job market has come around.

Bush campaign ads boast that 1.5 million jobs were added in the last 10 months, as if that were a remarkable achievement. It isn't. During the Clinton years, the economy added 236,000 jobs in an average month. Those 1.5 million jobs were barely enough to keep up with a growing working-age population.

This rag has about no qualifications to determine what is an achievement and what isnt. I wouldnt even trust their figures with the amount of fact checking they do, or lack there of.

And what exactly does the last sentence mean?

In the spring, it seemed as if the pace of job growth was accelerating: in March and April, the economy added almost 700,000 jobs. But that now looks like a blip ? a one-time thing, not a break in the trend. May growth was slightly below the Clinton-era average, and June's numbers ? only 112,000 new jobs, and a decline in working hours ? were pretty poor.

What a shame, 112,000 jobs added. I must have missed where adding jobs is "pretty poor".

What about overall growth? After two and a half years of slow growth, real G.D.P. surged in the third quarter of 2003, growing at an annual rate of more than 8 percent. But that surge appears to have been another blip. In the first quarter of 2004, growth was down to 3.9 percent, only slightly above the Clinton-era average. Scattered signs of weakness ? rising new claims for unemployment insurance, sales warnings at Target and Wal-Mart, falling numbers for new durable goods orders ? have led many analysts to suspect that growth slowed further in the second quarter.

Maybe somebody at that rag should look up the word "recession" and let us know when they figure it out.
2.5 years in a recession is avg at best. I wonder if they had the same outlook during Clintons first term when the economy was equally as good. As for the Clinton era avg of 3.9%. I didnt know it was so low. I even gave the guy more credit than that.

Bushs GDP growth in 2003 was 4.6%. This is apparently above Clinton eras avg and yet it is considered "poor". Interesting look on things from that rag.

And economic growth is passing working Americans by. The average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers rose only 1.7 percent over the past year, lagging behind inflation. The president of Aetna, one of the biggest health insurers, recently told investors, "It's fair to say that a lot of the jobs being created may not be the jobs that come with benefits." Where is the growth going? No mystery: after-tax corporate profits as a share of G.D.P. have reached a level not seen since 1929.

Doesnt surprise me they dont have any idea on where it goes. This is,afterall,coming from an article that cant even figure out the economy was in recession when Bush was taking office and it was compunded by the 9-11 attacks.

The fact we are seeing growth numbers higher than Clintons avg during a time of war is rather amazing if you ask me. And comparing job figures is ludicrious at best because the latter half of the 90s saw unrealistic labor market conditions and wages to match. This was basically due to the internet boom and low fuel costs which all went boom in the Spring\Summer of 2000.

But if Kerry gets elected and the market\economic growth doesnt change. Run this article next year and see if the NY Times has the same attitdue lol.

A new report from Pew Hispanic Center this week shows nearly three of 10 new jobs in the United States are going to immigrants

/gasp How could those immigrants take those jobs! They are supposed to live off welfare and or crime :🙄:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
NY times? Are you really going to use that rag for news?

BTW lets pick apart the quote you put up.

If you want a single number that tells the story, it's the percentage of adults who have jobs. When Mr. Bush took office, that number stood at 64.4. By last August it had fallen to 62.2 percent. In June, the number was 62.3. That is, during Mr. Bush's first 30 months, the job situation deteriorated drastically. Last summer it stabilized, and since then it may have improved slightly. But jobs are still very scarce, with little relief in sight.

This is a bunch of crap plain and simple. You dont add 1.5 million jobs since the beginning of the year because jobs are scarce. No matter how much doom and gloom the liberal times puts on it. The job market has come around.

Then explain how the percentage of employable persons is dropping.

Bush campaign ads boast that 1.5 million jobs were added in the last 10 months, as if that were a remarkable achievement. It isn't. During the Clinton years, the economy added 236,000 jobs in an average month. Those 1.5 million jobs were barely enough to keep up with a growing working-age population.

This rag has about no qualifications to determine what is an achievement and what isnt. I wouldnt even trust their figures with the amount of fact checking they do, or lack there of.

And what exactly does the last sentence mean?

You don't know what that last sentence (I've bolded it for you) means but you call the NY Times a "rag"? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Ok, let me clue you in. You see, as children grow older, they tend to graduate high school and enter this thing called "the workforce". That increases the size of this "workforce". When the number of jobs expands more slowly than the number of workers, the percentage of employed workers drops. That is what the article is discussing.

In the spring, it seemed as if the pace of job growth was accelerating: in March and April, the economy added almost 700,000 jobs. But that now looks like a blip ? a one-time thing, not a break in the trend. May growth was slightly below the Clinton-era average, and June's numbers ? only 112,000 new jobs, and a decline in working hours ? were pretty poor.

What a shame, 112,000 jobs added. I must have missed where adding jobs is "pretty poor".

I refer you to my previous passage discussing the increasing size of the workforce.

What about overall growth? After two and a half years of slow growth, real G.D.P. surged in the third quarter of 2003, growing at an annual rate of more than 8 percent. But that surge appears to have been another blip. In the first quarter of 2004, growth was down to 3.9 percent, only slightly above the Clinton-era average. Scattered signs of weakness ? rising new claims for unemployment insurance, sales warnings at Target and Wal-Mart, falling numbers for new durable goods orders ? have led many analysts to suspect that growth slowed further in the second quarter.

Maybe somebody at that rag should look up the word "recession" and let us know when they figure it out.
2.5 years in a recession is avg at best. I wonder if they had the same outlook during Clintons first term when the economy was equally as good. As for the Clinton era avg of 3.9%. I didnt know it was so low. I even gave the guy more credit than that.

Bushs GDP growth in 2003 was 4.6%. This is apparently above Clinton eras avg and yet it is considered "poor". Interesting look on things from that rag.

I suppose the weakened dollar in 2003 making U.S. products cheaper means nothing? And the fact that non-farm payroll jobs were still 2.3 million less after 2003 than they were when Bush took office also means nothing? Corporations were beginning to reap the rewards of their outsourcing and the cheaper dollar. Workers were not seeing the benefits of that increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/news/economy/gdp/

And economic growth is passing working Americans by. The average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers rose only 1.7 percent over the past year, lagging behind inflation. The president of Aetna, one of the biggest health insurers, recently told investors, "It's fair to say that a lot of the jobs being created may not be the jobs that come with benefits." Where is the growth going? No mystery: after-tax corporate profits as a share of G.D.P. have reached a level not seen since 1929.

Doesnt surprise me they dont have any idea on where it goes. This is,afterall,coming from an article that cant even figure out the economy was in recession when Bush was taking office and it was compunded by the 9-11 attacks.

The fact we are seeing growth numbers higher than Clintons avg during a time of war is rather amazing if you ask me. And comparing job figures is ludicrious at best because the latter half of the 90s saw unrealistic labor market conditions and wages to match. This was basically due to the internet boom and low fuel costs which all went boom in the Spring\Summer of 2000.

But if Kerry gets elected and the market\economic growth doesnt change. Run this article next year and see if the NY Times has the same attitdue lol.

Well, at least your spelling and grammar-challenged self didn't call the NY Times a "rag" in that section. I've lost count, though, of the number of times you have. I guess if you say it enough you'll start to believe it.

Doesn't change the fact that workers are not seeing the benefits of this "boom", only corporations.

A new report from Pew Hispanic Center this week shows nearly three of 10 new jobs in the United States are going to immigrants

/gasp How could those immigrants take those jobs! They are supposed to live off welfare and or crime :🙄:

My, how bigoted of you!

 

[sapiens74]

I love these religious discussions how one side is better than the other.

Both parties are corrupt! They both serve the same master.....

Money

 

[Genx87]

Then explain how the percentage of employable persons is dropping.

Play with the numbers. Why when you add 1.5 million jobs does the unemployment rate not drop?

You don't know what that last sentence (I've bolded it for you) means but you call the NY Times a "rag"? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Ok, let me clue you in. You see, as children grow older, they tend to graduate high school and enter this thing called "the workforce". That increases the size of this "workforce". When the number of jobs expands more slowly than the number of workers, the percentage of employed workers drops. That is what the article is discussing.

Oh, what happened to the doom and gloom of the baby boomers retiring? But without any hard numbers except the NY times word. Ill reserve believing such a thing.

I suppose the weakened dollar in 2003 making U.S. products cheaper means nothing? And the fact that non-farm payroll jobs were still 2.3 million less after 2003 than they were when Bush took office also means nothing? Corporations were beginning to reap the rewards of their outsourcing and the cheaper dollar. Workers were not seeing the benefits of that increase.

So which way do you want it? Do you want a good trade balance or a strong dollar? This is something many people swing on depending on who is in the presidency.

What part of unrealistic employment market conditions fails to register with you? Where I live we had 1.9% unemployment near the end of the 90s. Secretaries were given IT jobs paying 65K a year with no training or knowledge of what they were doing.

This is why comparing Clinton eras employment numbers with today is ludicrious. And if you think Kerry will have the ability during a time of war to reproduce a 1.9% unemployment rate good luck. That is not only unrealistic to maintain it is not even healthy for the economy.

Well, at least your spelling and grammar-challenged self didn't call the NY Times a "rag" in that section. I've lost count, though, of the number of times you have. I guess if you say it enough you'll start to believe it.

Doesn't change the fact that workers are not seeing the benefits of this "boom", only corporations.

Ahh yes the name calling when you cant come up with a viable argument. This is about the only thing we can expect out of you on a regular basis. If you find me calling the NY Times a rag insulting. I suggest finding a new source of information. The fact they are liberal isnt my problem. Their lack of controls for checking facts is.

My, how bigoted of you!

I dont believe I am the one pointing out that 3 of 10 jobs being created is being taken by "gasp" an immigrant.

But nice try on trying to make me out to be the bigot 😉

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Then explain how the percentage of employable persons is dropping.

Play with the numbers. Why when you add 1.5 million jobs does the unemployment rate not drop?

Because people just entering the workforce cannot file for unemployment benefits if they cannot find a job. Also, people whose unemployment benefits have run out are no longer calculated amongst the unemployed. Also, people who do not file for unemployment benefits but, rather, live off of savings until a new job is found are not calculated amongst the unemployed. You should do some research on how the unemployment rate is calculated. It's not a black-and-white issue.

You don't know what that last sentence (I've bolded it for you) means but you call the NY Times a "rag"? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Ok, let me clue you in. You see, as children grow older, they tend to graduate high school and enter this thing called "the workforce". That increases the size of this "workforce". When the number of jobs expands more slowly than the number of workers, the percentage of employed workers drops. That is what the article is discussing.

Oh, what happened to the doom and gloom of the baby boomers retiring? But without any hard numbers except the NY times word. Ill reserve believing such a thing.

We're seeing the start of that with Social Security being insolvent in about 30 years or so. Bush had a grand opportunity to fix Social Security but squandered the money away in his tax cuts. And, because Social Security benefits are rather paltry, many senior citizens still work well past their retirement age. The next time you go into a WalMart, strike up a conversation with the greeter. You might learn a thing or two.

I suppose the weakened dollar in 2003 making U.S. products cheaper means nothing? And the fact that non-farm payroll jobs were still 2.3 million less after 2003 than they were when Bush took office also means nothing? Corporations were beginning to reap the rewards of their outsourcing and the cheaper dollar. Workers were not seeing the benefits of that increase.

So which way do you want it? Do you want a good trade balance or a strong dollar? This is something many people swing on depending on who is in the presidency.

What part of unrealistic employment market conditions fails to register with you? Where I live we had 1.9% unemployment near the end of the 90s. Secretaries were given IT jobs paying 65K a year with no training or knowledge of what they were doing.

This is why comparing Clinton eras employment numbers with today is ludicrious. And if you think Kerry will have the ability during a time of war to reproduce a 1.9% unemployment rate good luck. That is not only unrealistic to maintain it is not even healthy for the economy.

I agree somewhat with your sentiment here. The dot-com boom was a fluke. The Internet business model was an unknown and many people rode that bubble. I'm just trying to paint a realistic picture of the current state of the economy. We're not seeing the big salaries anymore but corporations' profits are rising dramatically. It's a lop-sided recovery.

Well, at least your spelling and grammar-challenged self didn't call the NY Times a "rag" in that section. I've lost count, though, of the number of times you have. I guess if you say it enough you'll start to believe it.

Doesn't change the fact that workers are not seeing the benefits of this "boom", only corporations.

Ahh yes the name calling when you cant come up with a viable argument. This is about the only thing we can expect out of you on a regular basis. If you find me calling the NY Times a rag insulting. I suggest finding a new source of information. The fact they are liberal isnt my problem. Their lack of controls for checking facts is.

I did not insult you in any way, shape, or form. I just merely commented on your painfully obvious spelling and grammar skills.

The NY Times is not a leftist publication as your statements are implying. You are attempting to paint the term liberal as a bad trait when, in fact, the opposite is true. You've succumbed to the years-old right-wing rhetoric.

My, how bigoted of you!

I dont believe I am the one pointing out that 3 of 10 jobs being created is being taken by "gasp" an immigrant.

But nice try on trying to make me out to be the bigot 😉

I pointed out a FACT and you responded with a bigoted stereotype. Also, you conveniently left out the rest of the quote I posted re:wages for Hispanics being flat.

 

[Genx87]

BTW I finally got done reading this article. This guy really tears Moore apart in a bad way.

 

[Genx87]

Because people just entering the workforce cannot file for unemployment benefits if they cannot find a job. Also, people whose unemployment benefits have run out are no longer calculated amongst the unemployed. Also, people who do not file for unemployment benefits but, rather, live off of savings until a new job is found are not calculated amongst the unemployed. You should do some research on how the unemployment rate is calculated. It's not a black-and-white issue.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

We're seeing the start of that with Social Security being insolvent in about 30 years or so. Bush had a grand opportunity to fix Social Security but squandered the money away in his tax cuts. And, because Social Security benefits are rather paltry, many senior citizens still work well past their retirement age. The next time you go into a WalMart, strike up a conversation with the greeter. You might learn a thing or two.

And Clintons raiding of the SS fund didnt? SS is broken, has been broken, and always will be broken in its current form. Blaming it on Bush is going a little overboard. If this fund was run in the private sector people would goto jail over it.

agree somewhat with your sentiment here. The dot-com boom was a fluke. The Internet business model was an unknown and many people rode that bubble. I'm just trying to paint a realistic picture of the current state of the economy. We're not seeing the big salaries anymore but corporations' profits are rising dramatically. It's a lop-sided recovery.

Thank you for agreeing with me. The realistic picture is we are seeing good growth and have been for the past 18 months. It isnt spectacular like the late 90s but I dont know if we will ever see that again. But 4.6% annual growth is good and the jobs are coming back. But I would never expect them to be as filled as they were in the late 90s.

I did not insult you in any way, shape, or form. I just merely commented on your painfully obvious spelling and grammar skills.

The NY Times is not a leftist publication as your statements are implying. You are attempting to paint the term liberal as a bad trait when, in fact, the opposite is true. You've succumbed to the years-old right-wing rhetoric.

You are fat but I didnt mean it in a way that is bad. Just being painfully obvious. If you want to get into a grammar pissing contest go somewhere else. I proof read these replies, but I am not going to make them perfect. Pointing out the "obvious" flaws only weakens your argument. If you cant understand something then ask for clarification.

And yes, the NY Times is a leftist publication. If you dont think so Lenin is calling.

I pointed out a FACT and you responded with a bigoted stereotype. Also, you conveniently left out the rest of the quote I posted re:wages for Hispanics being flat.

Hahahaha and I suppose you dont understand what /gasp and :🙄: means either? Learn what a little sarcasm is. What if I may ask was the point of bringing up a quote that shows 3 of 10 jobs are going to immigrants?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Because people just entering the workforce cannot file for unemployment benefits if they cannot find a job. Also, people whose unemployment benefits have run out are no longer calculated amongst the unemployed. Also, people who do not file for unemployment benefits but, rather, live off of savings until a new job is found are not calculated amongst the unemployed. You should do some research on how the unemployment rate is calculated. It's not a black-and-white issue.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I did not agree with you. I was showing you how the addition of jobs doesn't necessarily mean unemployment will drop. And, the fact that jobs have been added but the percentage of employed workers has dropped does not bode well.

We're seeing the start of that with Social Security being insolvent in about 30 years or so. Bush had a grand opportunity to fix Social Security but squandered the money away in his tax cuts. And, because Social Security benefits are rather paltry, many senior citizens still work well past their retirement age. The next time you go into a WalMart, strike up a conversation with the greeter. You might learn a thing or two.

And Clintons raiding of the SS fund didnt? SS is broken, has been broken, and always will be broken in its current form. Blaming it on Bush is going a little overboard. If this fund was run in the private sector people would goto jail over it.

Clinton raided the Social Security fund, eh? What exactly is that fund? Where is the vault in which the money is kept?

Oh wait...there isn't one!!

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-16-99.html

agree somewhat with your sentiment here. The dot-com boom was a fluke. The Internet business model was an unknown and many people rode that bubble. I'm just trying to paint a realistic picture of the current state of the economy. We're not seeing the big salaries anymore but corporations' profits are rising dramatically. It's a lop-sided recovery.

Thank you for agreeing with me. The realistic picture is we are seeing good growth and have been for the past 18 months. It isnt spectacular like the late 90s but I dont know if we will ever see that again. But 4.6% annual growth is good and the jobs are coming back. But I would never expect them to be as filled as they were in the late 90s.

I said I agree somewhat. You still paint a very rosy picture that just isn't the case. This is a very lop-sided recovery. Perhaps the most lop-sided ever. Corporate profits are a huge portion of the recovery. Workers' wages are stagnant (either just above or just under inflation depending on the report you read.) Consumer debt has reached 115% of disposable income.

Those are not the signs of a robust recovery.

I did not insult you in any way, shape, or form. I just merely commented on your painfully obvious spelling and grammar skills.

The NY Times is not a leftist publication as your statements are implying. You are attempting to paint the term liberal as a bad trait when, in fact, the opposite is true. You've succumbed to the years-old right-wing rhetoric.

You are fat but I didnt mean it in a way that is bad. Just being painfully obvious. If you want to get into a grammar pissing contest go somewhere else. I proof read these replies, but I am not going to make them perfect. Pointing out the "obvious" flaws only weakens your argument. If you cant understand something then ask for clarification.

How can you claim I am fat when you haven't seen a picture of me? That's a piss-poor analogy. It still doesn't change the FACT that your grammar and spelling are atrocious and, at best, lazy.

And yes, the NY Times is a leftist publication. If you dont think so Lenin is calling.

HA! Equating the NY Times with Lenin? What's your take on Mother Jones, or the World Socialist Website, then?

:roll:

Get a clue.

I pointed out a FACT and you responded with a bigoted stereotype. Also, you conveniently left out the rest of the quote I posted re:wages for Hispanics being flat.

Hahahaha and I suppose you dont understand what /gasp and :🙄: means either? Learn what a little sarcasm is. What if I may ask was the point of bringing up a quote that shows 3 of 10 jobs are going to immigrants?

The point that went sailing far over your head is that 30% of the new jobs being touted as earth-shattering by the administration are low-paying jobs with no benefits that are going to non-citizens.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: conjur
I did not agree with you. I was showing you how the addition of jobs doesn't necessarily mean unemployment will drop. And, the fact that jobs have been added but the percentage of employed workers has dropped does not bode well.

So, employers are still cutting personnel from their payrolls. And, this is happening as the Republicans and President Bush provided favorable benefits to companies? What's going to happen when Kerry gets into office and reverses some of the benefits that companies have been receiving? Will these same companies do even more cutting of personnel? I'm interested in seeing your response in 2-3 years when this becomes a fact.