It's hard to dispute a government website with goverment statisticians who would have NO interest in working the numbers to a particular objective now would they. I'm just one guy who worked in an office that tracked these statistics as they occured in not only the system we run but also in many of the other systems across the country in college databanks. Who am I too argue that the jobs that existed under Clinton supported families yet many of the new jobs considered employment are part-time jobs at McDonalds. Or the fact they dont pay anymore.
Who am I too argue against statstics. All I did was see what happened in the job market and climate after Bush was elected. How things quickly eroded from watching it happen first hand. By speaking with Employers and companies and seeing their lack of confidence in the incoming administration. And watching it all come to fruition in time ahead. But who am I too argue with your statistics off the government website, I mean they must know so much more than someone who actually communicated with the parties involved firsthand. Watching as the web bubble burst and the federal govt not having even the slightest clue how to stimulate the situation, other than of course make preparations to go to war with Iraq. As soon as early 2001. If the fiscal year started in October it must be clairvoyance of an Army recruiter I spoke to in June of 2001 who told me there were plans and money already being put into plan to invade Iraq. Weird!
About Iraq. When you say there is evidence of a connection between Iraq and terrorism, how many countries is there not some evidence of a connection between their govt and terrorism. Saudia Arabia has the largest amount of documented connections, yet how are our connections with them? How come there is so much documentation of NO connection between Saddam and Al Queda. No evidence has EVER been produced, other than the words of Dick Cheany and his henchlings. Find ONE document of a connection? And who struck us exactly? East Eurasia or West. Go read 1984 and tell me WHO attacked us and WHO we are at war with? Clinton and Kerry may have used those words, but they are as hell didn't embark us into a poorly funded war with absolutly no exit plan nor defined agenda or evidence.
If you dont think that the war is the plan of the Neo-Cons than look up the PNAC website. Research the parties involved in that organization. Your idea of "protection" sounds alot like an empire spreading its control to maintain its power structure. The same arguments were made by Hitler to his German population. That Germany needed to do what it did to maintain its standing in the world. That type of thinking is very scarey. This would have not happened if there was an Administration not run by the Neo-Con movement. This did not happen under the first Bush, who even wrote an article in the NY Times that a full out invasion of Iraq is an impossibility. And it def did not happen under Clinton who went about destroying Iraq as a threat through diplomacy. Bosnia? How many soilders died in Bosnia? HOW MANY soilders died in Bosnia? Hmmmm? Zero. You know why? Because there was a dictator worth destroying here, and they faced little opposition in elminating him. Not the same in Iraq where 4 provinces and a large segment of the population now sees the Americans as occupyers and the world views the US as a weak, irrational Empire in the midst of its death throes. Unable to bring supplies to a devastated city because we are stretched so thin. I wonder how Iran and North Korea may be watching the failures in NO right now. I see nothing but weakness.
And your rational for the cutting of funding to fix the levees had no effect on them failing. If you dont pay to fix something thats breaking, and it breaks completely, who do you have to blame? If you stop people from researching and divert funds to a sensless venture and it breaks, whos to blame? You are. You had every chance and were warned it would break, but ignored it to do something else.
In the end you can sit all proud that you are in power right now, but look at whats happened to the world in the last 5 years since youve taken power. Congratulations on engendering the end of our empire out of arrogance and ignorance. And believe me if you think CLinton and Bush are the same, I can tell you for a fact that Clinton was not viewed as the worst leader since Hitler by many parts of this world. But I know there is another guy who is.
Posted by GoNyGoNyGo:
Posted by toodarkmark:
It's great to see that most of this site is politically informed and not blinded by the propaganda. But for the few that are...
GoNY: You seem to have a small grasp on reality, yet claim to have the largest. Few answers and just alot of attacks on those who question. Typical of a con. You've made the sarcastic statement a few times that the world started on 1/21/01 and thats when everything went bad. I dont know how old you are but the world was MUCHHHHH different in 1/21/01 before the neo-conservative coup de tait. And dont talk about 9-11. Im someone who works in a Career Services office and the fact is jobs went to hell within months of Bush's election. The point of a conservative power base is to destroy the middle class. And they have done everything in their power to succeed, and the fact is you dont know the numbers, you just recite something you've been fed. Take it from someone's whos job it is to track jobs in this country that 9-11 affected to job market, but not as much as the neo-conservatives attempt to cripple this country financially to drive their army recruitment.
As far as politicizing it? Thats a common reponse by a sheep. Dont ask questions! Dont think! What SHOULDNT be politicized is someone have sexual indiscretions, but when the Federal Govt cuts funding for research to save its own people, stretches its resources paper thin, all for what a majority of this country and now politicians consider a senseless war, than that sure does need to be politicized.
----
How old am I? Old enough to remember Clyde getting traded to Cleveland. Not that I need to answer that question for you.
So you know about jobs? Did you know that the economy was beginning to have trouble in 2000? Are you aware of the tech bubble burst of 1999-2000? A slight recession hit this country starting in 2001. The Bush economic agenda did not take affect until October of 2001. If you are as astute as YOU claim, you would know that the FEDERAL fiscal year starts in OCtober, and see the Recession started under the previous economic plan from before. And so you see it really had little to do with whom the PResident was contrary to the BS you try to feed those who are ill-informed. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT has gone up about 5 million since 01/21/01, the day the earth started spinning for you. Admittedly, CLINTON had 3 times the amount of job growth (the INTERNET boom may have had SOMETHING to do with it). Although in GWs case, the growth really has been in the last 2 years after the 2nd round of tax cuts in 02-03. Also JOBS reached a peak of 137799000 in March of 2001. Then started dropping (recession) By 9/11 - October 2001, the jobs were at 136392000 about 1.4M less. Of course, October 2001 is when the BUSH's first budget started. So economic growth or stagnation would be credited to the previous admin. After 9/11 they reached a low of 135693000 in 1/02 or another 600,000 less. So 9/11 did have an effect. On 1/2003, the jobs reached 137429000 (+1.8M) almost a complete recovery from 1/01 and today are at 142449000 (or since 9/11 +6M), net effect since 1/1/01 is again +5M.
As of this morning, more jobs were added and UNEMPLOYMENT is now at 4.9%. Can you say that these were not for middle class people?
Check the #'s: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
So now that I have blown apart the first paragraph of your response and TAUGHT you something, lets move on to the rest.
In your opinion the war is senseless. That is fine. You are entitled to that opinion. You talk about the pre9/11 era. It was radically different. Since 9/11 the govt has decided to fight back. UNlike the 1st WTC attck in 93, this response was strong ( i wish it was stronger and still do). I am sure it is your belief that IRAQ has nothign to do with anything, but I can and have read many links between IRAQ and world wide terrorsim directed at the US. In addition, the WMD thing was a smokescreen that the US had been trying to sell us for years. Pres Clinton used the same exact words as BUsh did when talking about it as did Kerry. Let's not mention the other countries that said the same thing. DO THE RESEARCH, I HAVE. THat has all been neatly forgotten by you right?
I have a theory on why we are in IRAQ and soon to be other places in the ME. It has less to do with enriching the pockets of Bush and CHeney (they will benefit) and much more to do with securing OUR FUTURE. If you contend that this whole thing is the brainchild of some "neocons" I disagree. Since the 70's remember the first FUEL shortage and the IRANIAN hostage crisis, the GOVT has been planning ways to set up bases in the ME. It is a choice of AMERICA protecting what it needs to protect to maintain its position in the world. I believe it would have happened, regardless of who the PResident was but it makes it easier to do with another Bush in charge.
Were you against our involvement in Bosnia too? Or is it simply war that Bush got you into? We still have troops there ya know. By the way I was not against it.Would you be against troops in Africa? I stated previously my issues with BUSH. Add to that our lack of involvement in Africa and stopping the absolute horrific GENOICIDE that is going on there. Please dont read that I think we should send $$ there. The money just goes to the dicatators causing the harm. I don't, we should be sending troops but why will it not happen? i think you know that answer.
You attack me for spewing things I have heard. I think I have proved that I follow this closely and have a deep understanding of the issues but I want to ask you why are spewing the words that you do like NEOCON and COUP'de'tat? Are you just repeating what you have heard? Come on now. The cuts in funding for Louisiana for the levees had no effect on the flood. The project is only half way done as of this year. It would take another 10 years at full funding to complete! i am assuming that is what you are referencing, right?
In the end, BUSH, CLINTON, KERRY, its all the same. My repsonse were to the claims that BUSH should have done more prior to Katrina. I maintain that is just ridiculous and typcial POLITICAL Posturing by those who are out of power. If that makes me a sheep, I guess I am just joining your flock then. BAAAAAHHHH.
I don't care what people think. People are stupid. - Charles Barkley
9/2/2005 5:26 PM