war honesty has nothing to do with job creation, in point of fact at best war should stimulate job creation in manufacturing of war time goods and services.
instead with 2 wars bush lost a record number of jobs more than any prior sitting president in history. as to the stock market it didnt affect the creation of new jobs as the effect of 9/11 was actually not as bad as predicted and therefore didnt have the adverse effect people thought it might.
The mere existence of a war doesn't automatically create jobs. While we have been involved in two wars, this is not a "war time" economy a la WWII.
QUOTE
Bush administration economic policies allowed millions of jobs to be sent overseas or downsized in both the private sector and in manufacturing.
Yeah, and Obama's policies are going to exasperated this problem by increasing the cost of doing business within this country through increased regulation and massive tax increases.
QUOTE
add in the fact that is the wars were responsible for those losses, then whose responsible for the wars? afghanistan was a joint Nato op so we had support there, but Iraq was a strictly american undertaking based on falsified evidence given to congress by the president. So really he remains responsible for the worst job creation record and worst net job loss of any president in history.
I'm sure that's news to the British soldiers that are still there.
This line was a dishonest claim by a bunch of Democrats having to explain why they voted for a war that was losing popularity. Bush was constantly called a dunce by liberals, but he couldn't have been that stupid if he managed to con enough of them to get both war resolutions, right? Don't they have a duty to investigate the evidence before they vote on it, especially from a President they apparently didn't trust? I guess not.
I think you can legitimately debate whether the information they had at that time was sufficient for the resolution, but I think the BUSH LIED!! about all of it is a totally dishonest claim used by a bunch of Democrats that found themselves be forced to explain a vote their base hated. Rather than actually say, "I screwed up" they regurgitated that line ad nausium.
Of course, people forget that it wasn't just the United States that believed he had WMD. The Brits thought he did. The French thought he did. The Russians thought he did. It was also learned that Saddam had been intentionally trying to get people, notably the Iranians, to believe that he did, in fact, possess such weapons. Added to the fact, was that he's actively pursued them, repeatedly booted weapons inspectors, and even used them on both the Iranians and his own people.
QUOTE
I don't really trust the allegorical accounts, but mine have run in the opposite direction. I know people that have been applying for 10 jobs a day and for months without getting a hit. Our office recently had an opening for a short-time receptionist position without any benefits and we got over 300 applicants. As it turned out, we lost the funding and couldn't hire any of them.
It goes both ways. Both Catsi's story are anecdotal. Catsi's own situation doesn't prove anything other than that SHE chose not to make that choice. Ditto for the MSNBC story. Many would find deliberately hanging out the doles when they otherwise didn't have to morally repugnant as a matter of principle. I posted that intending to ask a legitimate question: How long should they last? Shall we extend them in perpetuity, because they will always be people facing long-term unemployment. It's more rampant problem in a down economy, but that we recover doesn't eliminate it.
Prior to the extensions, the norm was 26 weeks, but even if a good economy there we be those who can't find a job in that span no matter how hard they try. It's sad and, they could argue that it's not fair they didn't get 99 weeks because their prolonged unemployment didn't occur at a time when constantly extending them was more popular.
So, I ask again....How long and under what conditions she they be extended?
QUOTE
I don't know how many applications you need to make in order to keep unemployment, but if you're a single person w/o dependents getting $2500 a month, you're a resident of Massachusetts. (Some states allow more for those with dependents.) The maximum weekly rate for Massachusetts is $653. If you're getting $3000 a month, it's because you have kids. The average unemployment benefit is under $300 a week.
Unemployment insurance is usually a percentage of what you make. I used those numbers to illustrate a basic economic point, though I'll conceed that type of example was more symptomatic of welfare abuse as opposed to unemployment insurance.
QUOTE
I'd be more inclined to believe that if the Senate hadn't just passed a bill for war spending that cost $58.8 billion (67-28, including McConnell) only to balk at a bill that cost $34 billion. Social programs are almost never popular with Republicans. And bringing up Jim Bunning? Even his Republican colleagues in the Senate were saying that he's bad for America. He's basically been an empty chair ever since he got there so I'm kinda surprised that he bothered to do anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was because he was ticked at the Republicans (especially McConnell) for not giving him open-ended support for another term.
War funding will always be a different animal for most politicians. If funding isn't granted and we have to pull out and the place collapses, who wants that around there neck? I predict Obama will still be in Iraq by the time his first terms ends for this reason. I'm sure he hates it, but he doesn't want defeat crammed down his throat. Second, I don't know why anyone would expect a different result after Republicans supported the wars for all these years. I don't know anyone that expect them not to support the war now and solely on the grounds of a pay-go rule they didn't implement. Call it what you want, but no one wants to be the one responsible for losing a war.
I know they did. I brought up Bunning because that was, in fact, his stated reason for opposing it the first time. Nothing more, nothing less. If that's so, then they threw him right back under the bus because unemployment extensions are rather popular. I'm surprised they actually did it collectively this time around, especially after that.
If the benefits are so necessary, I don't see the reason not to draw them from the Stimulus since Pelosi just claimed that they are such a boon from the economy. To date the funds primary use has been to prop up over extended state budgets. That part I genuinely don't understand and, if the Republicans genuinely meant it, I think that it is a fair compromise, especially if the true concern for all involved is the fate of the unemployed. If it's BS, then Pelosi/Reid should call the bluff and embarrass them. Why is new spending required when the amount requested is such a meager percentage of the stimulus, especially if the point of stimulus is economic recovery.
As I said, that Pay-go was going to be nothing but a partisan tool used to whip the opposition over the head with and should be abandoned.
QUOTE
a stimulus bill that has begun the slow process of reinvigorating the economy, and creating more jobs then bush created in his entire 8 year run.
The only people that genuinely believe the Stimulus created 2.5 to 3.4 million jobs is the Obama Admiistration and the members of Congress who passed it. I suppose you could say he "saved" a bunch of state level jobs by delaying the day of reckoning for state budgets.
If you cite the CBO, I'm going to need more than just an estimation. I need to know all the assumptions they used in arriving at the conclusions. I know a number of people have claim the Keyensian multiplier 1.5, but no one can prove this is true. It's just a stated assumption.
One painful lesson of the health care debate is when citing the CBO, it's vital to know HOW they got their numbers and if the assumptions they used to get them are actually worth anything. If the underlying assumptions aren't any good neither is the estimation.
It's ObamaCare score is good case in point.
QUOTE
just recently signed a comprehensive financial reform bill that promises no further bail outs, and no more ""to big to fail"" banks, as well as establishing new rules to stop wall street execs from leaidng us into the same blakc hole that were now crawling out of.
Yeah, but for some reason it mysteriously leaves out two important agencies that were heavily involved in the mess: Freddie and Fannie.
