The Bush One-Two punch has lost 5.3 million jobs.

Let's be clear ...

• Between Feb 1989 and Feb 1993, the number of unemployed increased by 44.4% (2,824,000 people)
• Between Feb 1993 and Feb 2001, the number of unemployed decreased by 34.8% (3,193,000 people)
• Between Feb 2001 and Jul 2003, the number of unemployed increased by 41.0% (2,453,000 people)

That's 'trickled on' economics for ya. :puke:

They rather believe the Pysops of the PUBs that tax cuts will help America, create jobs, etc. But historically, those cuts have only hurt America and its masses. The mega rich just loves it, they get to save millions while the average Joe six pack gets a few hundred $.

The problem becomes the National debt which has interest payments. The financial stewardship of Bush is a fraudulent con job on America for the winners, guess who, yup, the mega rich. Das why they luv bush, he saves them millions which has to be made from the rest of us suckers. The sheep got conned and don't even know it.

because then the serfs are desparate for work, will work for less, will not get uppity, and they can be abusive to their workers with less fear of them walking off the job.

Come, we go bar, order some Sanity drinks

Jessica Lynch comes to mind. As do many, many others still stuck over there, whose wives and parents complain that they'd gone into the army to earn money for college or to get job training or some such thing. Not to kill and be killed. For far too many, the military was the only game in town. There weren't any jobs to be had anywhere else. Cannon fodder, anyone?

unemployment and job loss are not strictly related.

in reality, the increase in unemployment of 5.3 million you refer to is about 1/2 due to "lost jobs" and 1/2 due to growth in the size of the labor force without corresponding growth in jobs.

OK then, let's look at that ...

• Between Feb 1989 and Feb 1993, the number of jobs increased by 1.6% (1,396,000 people)
• Between Feb 1993 and Feb 2001, the number of jobs increased by 22.9% (20,448,000 people)
• Between Feb 2001 and Feb 2003, the number of jobs decreased by 2.7% (2,975,000 people)

So, Commander Codpiece vacationed while 3 million people lost their jobs. At the same time, the protofascist sycophants in Congress further devalued labor by creating even greater inequities between the taxation of 'earned' (by laboring) and 'unearned' (from somebody else's labor or merely from greater fools) income -- labor is taxed at more than double the rate of usury. :eyes:

unlike in the past, a huge number of those jobs were high-paying professional jobs. all jobs are not equal. losing a sweatshop job to the Philippines is one thing, but losing an IT job to India representss a greater loss imho. if this aspect of the Bush* economy were somehow numerically tallied up, i believe the result would be even more damning than the gross numbers of jobs lost.

out the hard way they got conned by the Pubs.

This tax cut the pubs promoted only helped the rich.

Now we are losing jobs all over the place and the one area still hiring is the entry level arena.

Many college grads and techies are now working McDonalds and luving it. Tis a sad day for America.

Vote with the Pubs, see what you get. Shit.

"Eliminating tax cuts will lower government revenue, increasing the deficit"





WHAT

THE

SDLFKJSD:FLSDFKJ

... than the entire workforce in any but the largest 47 countries. In other words, more people are unemployed in the US than are able to work in Kazakhstan, Peru, Mozambique, Netherlands, Madagascar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Chile, Zimbabwe, Czech Republic, Portugal, Angola, Burkina Faso, Belarus, Syria, Malawi, Belgium, Iraq, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Cuba, Guatemala, Hungary, Switzerland, Mali, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Hong Kong, Zambia, Tajikistan, Guinea, Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro, Denmark, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia, Finland, Bolivia, Israel, Laos, Norway, El Salvador, Turkmenistan, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, or Singapore.

In fact, the increase in unemployed with Howdy Doodoo squatting in DC is larger than the entire workforce of Norway!

:kick:

I appreciate this info very much and would like to use it in a forum, but need links!

I second that.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. All you have to do is take the numbers they provide and make the comparisons. A simple spreadsheet helps.

Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents. Since the depression, the best rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The worst rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.

There are three totally objective measures which distinguish the economic effects of republican presidents from democratic presidents. These are the annual rate of job growth, the size of the federal deficit and the performance of the stock market. All three of these measures are much better under democratic presidents than under republicans. I think all three are related, with the rate of job growth being the most important and helping to drive the other two.

Of course, there is a fourth totally objective measure which distinguishes republican presidents from democratic presidents. That is the number of members of the administration who are indicted.

the "outsourcing" we hear about...and low wage job transfers....how are we going to see job/wage growth in this country?

... if Wehrmachtsfuhrer Rumsfeld gets his way to 'outsource' 300,000 non-combat military "jobs" (KP? latrine orderly? mama-sans on all bases?) then these "jobs" will be counted as civilian employment and increase the number of employed. It'll also greatly increase the taxpayer's money spent by government on "defense". :shrug:

With (effectively) 300,000 more combat troops, we can occupy two more Iraq-sized countries. Right?