Brain Fertilizer

Sheesh, Nathan….

I went to the linked site and read:

Economy Shows 11 Straight Months of Job Gains
Unemployment Rate Drops to 5.5% -- Lowest Since October 2001

Lowest since October 2001? WOW! Lowest since 9 months into Dub's presidency? And that's good news? I don't get it…

And I also read:

The President will not be satisfied until every American looking for work has found a job.

Well, maybe he should look into DC Councilman elect Marion Barry's proposed legislation to guarantee everyone between the ages of 14 and 21 a summer job.

Can he pick any two, how does this game work?

Welcome back, Frank! I'd been wondering where you've been!
But c'mon, be serious! We had an Dot-com bubble in the late 90s that really drove unemployment down. That bubble burst, which resulted in lots of people being out of work and a recession that hit about October-November of 2000. Still, joblessness hadn't risen that much, maybe because lots of the dot-commers (dot-communists?) were living off of the artificially-inflated wages and stock options they'd earned and unrealistically expecting equally-well-paying jobs? Or maybe it was simply because the US economy is so big and powerful that it absorbed many of the people losing jobs in the recession? Or maybe it was just that companies weren't laying off people much because they hoped the recession would be short?
In any case, the recession was improving when 9/11 hit. That had an extremely deletorious effect on our economy, I don't think anyone can dispute that. Now, if you want to discuss all the things Bill Clinton could and should have done to stop terrorism from getting to that point before handing off the reins to Bush, we can. But I don't think you can blame President Bush for the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost because of the economic effects of the most massive attack on US soil in history.
And since unemployment goes up and down depending on the economic situation, and since 5.6% was touted by President Clinton and Dems as being amazingly good at that time, it only stands to reason that 5.5% (I've heard has since edged even lower to 5.4%) is even better, and all credible experts say is pretty much effectively Full Employment.
So what's your point? Kerry would do even better? What on earth can you point to that indicates that?

So what's your point?

My point is simple: The notion that unemployment is the lowest it has been since October 2001 is nothing to brag about. That it is the lowest it has been for three years? All of which Dub has been President? And that is good?

And there really was no point about Marion Barry's jobs program except its probably as good as anything proposed by Dub...

For Mack's edification:

1) Kerry has missed Senate votes because he is out trying to save America from another 4 years of Dub.

2) Yes!

3) No, just asserting that Dub has failed at improving the economy.

4) I guess the economy has grown if you want a WalMart economy. Talk to me when it is as robust as the mid to late 90's.

5) You can't give credit for what hasn't happened (improving the economy).

6) No, Dub blames everything on Bill Clinton, Democrats, Iraq, liberals, pretzels (get it?) and terrorists. Nothing is his or the GOP's fault. He shirks all responsibility like the shrub (shrub - get it?) he is. He has an excuse for everything (like "its a forgery").

:)

1) Still: Kerry took money to be there for the votes. It seems like he's not even doing a decent job of beating Bush. To be honest, it does seem like the only thing he's effective at is saving us from his Senate voting. That's a good thing.
2) Then you're wrong and ignoring what all credible economists say. (Paul Krugman being excluded when you use the qualifier "credible")
3) It already has happened and is happening. What possible indicator are you looking at to say it hasn't improved? The stock market? Your pay scale? The number of Democrat seats in the House of Representatives? The economy is humming. It grew at 7% in the 4rd quarter last year and I think we're at 4% growth right now. That's dang good.
4) I am. I am talking to you now. The economy is more robust than in the mid-to-late 90's, because things like Manufacturing are at 30 year highs. The mid-to-late 90s were, as credible economists point out: a bubble based on dot-com speculation.
5) What are you sniffing? The economy is as good or better than it was in the "heyday" you are touting
6) Ah. Good, I'm glad you are blaming it all on Dub and the GOP, and nothing is ever the fault of Bill Clinton, Dems, al Qaeda, etc. It's good to know that the only person with the power to affect things is Dubya, and he invariably chooses evil.

I'm sniffing the powder that I got from Dub at Camp David - I'm not taking a flight physical either! :)

And I didn't say that Dub is the only person who affects things. I'm saying that Dub has an excuse for everything that goes wrong but is real quick to grab credit for everything that goes right.

But that's politics, so what the hey...

And Dub isn't evil, he just isn't thinking clearly due to the chemicals!

And yes, my pay is less than it was in the late 90's, gas costs more, food costs more, housing costs more, new cars cost more, but I can purchase less!

I would venture a guess, and this is only a guess, that what little job growth there has been, has been in the government sector, and in defense. Northern Virgina is doing great. In fact the DC metropolitan area is! But I don't think Cleveland is doing as well. Nor is Detroit. But what the heck - I'm working. I should thank Dub for small favors, huh?