The only claim I made was that jobs were lost. You dispute that?
Re-read the thread. Here is what you posted:
Shut up already.The plain fact remains that net job loss during an administratoin hasn't happened in 70 years, through peacetime, wars, and recessions, GOP, Democrat...until now. All of your protestations are just excuses. The Bush administration is responsible because it happened on their watch. Aren't you conservatives big on accepting responsibility? Then do it, and stop your bellyaching.
Well, of course it's their fault. It happened on their watch.
What should have been done differently?
This wouldn't have happened under a Demoncratic administration, I suppose?
So, your criticism stems from the fact that something, beyond the control of the administration, occurred?
It happened to lots of administrations in the last 70 years. This one seems to be the only one too incompetent to deal with it, YoniThe plain fact remains that net job loss during an administratoin hasn't happened in 70 years, through peacetime, wars, and recessions, GOP, Democrat...until now. All of your protestations are just excuses. The Bush administration is responsible because it happened on their watch. Aren't you conservatives big on accepting responsibility? Then do it, and stop your bellyaching.
You break it, you own it.
Net job loss.
Massive deficit.
A war without end.
So what should they have done that other administrations over the past 70 years have done?
Come on, if it's so clear even you should be able to state it.
It is crystal clear. NET JOB LOSS!!!!!
Marcus, you imply that if they don't have the answers, I should. I don't get paid to run the country, they do, and they've failed, economically speaking. Attacking me doesn't change that, although you're probably going to continue, since you can't defend them without making a bunch of weak excuses about conditions, none of which is any worse than conditions over the last 70 years.
So you have no basis for your claims except ignorance. Very well.
Yes, please tell us Mr. Knowitall.
70 years of history. The economy is in the ter, Jobs are down during an administration for the first time. That's my basis.
So what should they have done differently? Surely in the course of your review of 70 years of American economic history and presidential leadership you would have gained some insights.
Should they have reduced tax rates even more? Should they have pushed the Fed to lower interest rates even more? Should they have pushed for even greater government spending growth? Should they have pushed for an even weaker dollar?
Come on, take a stab.
Also, to pretend that the burst of the tech bubble (which occurred on Clinton's watch so it's obviously his fault) and the subsequent slowdown in GDP growth which resulted from that as well as reduction in employment as a result of that as well as the direct impact the 9/11 attacks had on the financial markets and employment in this country was some kind of regular occurrence is silly, especially looking back over the course of the last 70 years.
Marcus - It doesn't matter. You act as though this were a classroom exercise, which shouldn't be a surprise coming from a professional student. The bottom line is: they ed it up. It doesn't matter how or why. I don't want W's hands on the throttle of our economy for another 4 years. For whatever reason, he can't get the job done.
Pearl Harbor, WW II, rationing, Korea, Vietnam...those all happened in the last 70 years. Bushco doens't have some sort of monopoly on earthshaking events. Plenty of recessions during that time.
Oh, and I'll accept Clinton's responsibilty for the Tech bubble bursting. You now cannot use it as an excuse.
So how many times in the last 70 years did something like 9/11 happen? Call it an excuse if you want, but the economy went into the ter after that.
I don't know how WWII can be pointed to, Korea, or Vietnam. Of course the economies didn't slide during those events - we had a lot more troops being churned out to fight, along with a lot more supplies for said troops.
Different war, different economic environment at home.
Why can't your argument be examined? Why are your claims immune from critique?Marcus - It doesn't matter. You act as though this were a classroom exercise,
Um, I've worked full-time for 5 and a half years, have an undergraduate degree and a grad degree. The graduate degree was a "professional" degree so if you mean it in that sense, you are correct. Otherwise, you better come up with something else.which shouldn't be a surprise coming from a professional student.
So you don't know, you just want to .The bottom line is: they ed it up. It doesn't matter how or why. I don't want W's hands on the throttle of our economy for another 4 years. For whatever reason, he can't get the job done.
The stock market has recovered to pre-9/11 levels by now. Where are the jobs?So how many times in the last 70 years did something like 9/11 happen? Call it an excuse if you want, but the economy went into the ter after that.
Should our current troop "bubble" be having some positive effect on the economy?...we had a lot more troops being churned out to fight, along with a lot more supplies for said troops.
There were two within the span of 18 months and both were direct hits on economic activity in this country.Pearl Harbor, WW II, rationing, Korea, Vietnam...those all happened in the last 70 years. Bushco doens't have some sort of monopoly on earthshaking events. Plenty of recessions during that time.
Then that takes away a good portion of the "job loss".Oh, and I'll accept Clinton's responsibilty for the Tech bubble bursting. You now cannot use it as an excuse.
New jobs are being added every month. And of course there are problems with how the government counts employment but I won't get into that as it might be too complex for you.The stock market has recovered to pre-9/11 levels by now. Where are the jobs?
Jobs are down. It hasn't happened in 70 years. Bush was the sitting President.Why can't your argument be examined? Why are your claims immune from critique?
Those are all fact, not arguments. If you're contesting my assertion that it's Bush' fault, then fine. Who's fault is it, then? Certainly not the Democrats. They hold neither the Whitehouse, nor either house of congress.
Stay with me here. We're starting at the beginning of the Bush administration. The tech bubble losses don't count, since those were on Clinton's watch, which, by the way, still managed to post positive job growth.Then that takes away a good portion of the "job loss".
Osama's? He nearly put the airline industry out of business...not just here but in Europe as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
