Spillminds Bash Bush thread

[spillmind]

things are not looking good for the 'man' born with a silver spoon up his nose.

the body count coupled with the staggering underestimation of the bill, and do i really need to mention the higest unemployment rate of the century? record deficits, teleprompted 'speeches' and brilliant statements like 'bring 'em on'... lots of foresight and professionalism in that georgie!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030924/ts_usatoday/11867744

but who knows, knowing the slimy capabilities of our current regime, they've got saddam in prison, ready to bust him out right before the elections!

and get ready to pony up for taxes hikes in january 2005! no matter who is in office.

 

[5stringJeff]

Body count - while I do have a friend who has died in Iraq, which really sucks, I have to say that we are still losing fewer people in Iraq than we did in every other conflict the US has fought, with the possible exception of Grenada.
The highest unemployment rate of the three-year-old century was easily surpassed by some unemployment rates during your boy Bill's administration. And expecting Republicans to raise taxes is pretty ridiculous on your part.

I'm confident that whichever Democrat wins the sacrificial lamb contest will be soundly defeated by Bush.

Originally posted by spillmind
things are not looking good for the 'man' born with a silver spoon up his nose.

the body count coupled with the staggering underestimation of the bill, and do i really need to mention the higest unemployment rate of the century? record deficits, teleprompted 'speeches' and brilliant statements like 'bring 'em on'... lots of foresight and professionalism in that georgie!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030924/ts_usatoday/11867744

but who knows, knowing the slimy capabilities of our current regime, they've got saddam in prison, ready to bust him out right before the elections!

and get ready to pony up for taxes hikes in january 2005! no matter who is in office.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
things are not looking good for the 'man' born with a silver spoon up his nose.

the body count coupled with the staggering underestimation of the bill, and do i really need to mention the higest unemployment rate of the century? record deficits, teleprompted 'speeches' and brilliant statements like 'bring 'em on'... lots of foresight and professionalism in that georgie!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030924/ts_usatoday/11867744

but who knows, knowing the slimy capabilities of our current regime, they've got saddam in prison, ready to bust him out right before the elections!

and get ready to pony up for taxes hikes in january 2005! no matter who is in office.

In case you didn't notice, this thread is about Wesley Clark and democratic hopefuls. Please start a new thread if you want to bash the current administration.

 

[eric]

Yes Jeff, he forgot the century is only three years old. As far as taxes go there is an alternative, cut the wasteful spending on many social programs.

 

[spillmind]

this is rich!

you say that slick willy had higher unemployment rates, i implore you to prove it.

i am reffering to the previous century, and you people know it.

the most common theme about you GOP feel-gooders is that you slam me for the tiniest thing and insist i post sources and then claim to have 'beaten' me, when most of you all sadly miss the obvious. (or you choose to be selectively ignorant, i don't know which is worse)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0703-03.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1530731.stm

should soundly quell the statement about clinton. (whom you people cannot seem to get over)


http://www.njfac.org/jobnews.html

Employment Situation Summary
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 03-253
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release is
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EDT),
Media contact: 691-5902 Thursday, July 3, 2003.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2003


Nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in June, while the
unemployment rate rose to 6.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the
U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll job losses continued in
manufacturing, but were partly offset by employment increases in other
industries.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons increased by 360,000 in June to 9.4 mil-
lion, and the unemployment rate rose from 6.1 to 6.4 percent. Since March,
unemployment has increased by 913,000. The rate for adult men edged up for the
third month in a row; at 6.1 percent, the jobless rate for this group was 0.8
percentage point higher than in March. The teenage unemployment rate, at 19.3
percent, has trended up since the beginning of the year. Over the month, the
unemployment rate for blacks increased to 11.8 percent. Jobless rates for the
other major worker groups--adult women (5.2 percent), whites (5.5 percent), and
Hispanics (8.4 percent)--showed little change from May. The unemployment rate
for Asians was 7.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and
A-3.)

In June, there were 2.0 million unemployed persons who had been looking for
work for 27 weeks or longer, an increase of 410,000 over the year. They re-
presented 21.4 percent of the total unemployed, up from 18.8 percent a year
earlier. (See table A-9.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The civilian labor force increased by 611,000 over the month to 147.1
million. The labor force participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage point to
66.6 percent in June. The rate is up from its recent low of 66.2 percent in
March. Total employment in June was 137.7 million, and the employment-
population ratio was unchanged at 62.3 percent. (See table A-1.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In June, 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
little changed from a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were avail-
able to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search
for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 478,000 discouraged
workers in June, up from 342,000 in June 2002. Discouraged workers, a subset
of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically
because they believed no jobs were available for them. (See table A-13.)

- 2 -

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
______________________________________________________________________________
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data |
|_________________|__________________________| May-
Category | 2003 | 2003 | June
|_________________|__________________________| change
| I | II | Apr. | May | June |
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______
|
HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status
|____________________________________________________
Civilian labor force.....| 145,829| 146,685| 146,473| 146,485| 147,096| 611
Employment.............| 137,430| 137,638| 137,687| 137,487| 137,738| 251
Unemployment...........| 8,399| 9,047| 8,786| 8,998| 9,358| 360
Not in labor force.......| 74,280| 74,090| 74,067| 74,283| 73,918| -365
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Unemployment rates
|____________________________________________________
All workers..............| 5.8| 6.2| 6.0| 6.1| 6.4| 0.3
Adult men..............| 5.4| 5.9| 5.6| 5.9| 6.1| .2
Adult women............| 4.9| 5.1| 5.1| 5.1| 5.2| .1
Teenagers..............| 17.2| 18.6| 18.0| 18.5| 19.3| .8
White..................| 5.1| 5.4| 5.2| 5.4| 5.5| .1
Black or African | | | | | |
American.............| 10.3| 11.2| 10.9| 10.8| 11.8| 1.0
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity............| 7.7| 8.0| 7.5| 8.2| 8.4| .2
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
ESTABLISHMENT DATA 1/ | Employment
|____________________________________________________
Nonfarm employment.......| 130,225|p130,005| 130,062|p129,992|p129,962| p-30
Goods-producing 2/.....| 22,213| p22,095| 22,119| p22,103| p22,063| p-40
Construction.........| 6,719| p6,782| 6,760| p6,785| p6,801| p16
Manufacturing........| 14,926| p14,747| 14,795| p14,751| p14,695| p-56
Service-providing 2/...| 108,012|p107,910| 107,943|p107,889|p107,899| p10
Retail trade.........| 14,997| p14,984| 15,000| p14,983| p14,970| p-13
Professional and | | | | | |
business services..| 16,013| p15,987| 15,989| p15,987| p15,984| p-3
Education and health | | | | | |
services...........| 16,429| p16,509| 16,483| p16,510| p16,533| p23
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality........| 12,089| p12,039| 12,043| p12,026| p12,048| p22
Government...........| 21,570| p21,501| 21,526| p21,488| p21,489| p1
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Hours of work 3/
|____________________________________________________
Total private............| 33.8| p33.7| 33.7| p33.7| p33.7| p0.0
Manufacturing..........| 40.4| p40.2| 40.1| p40.2| p40.2| p.0
Overtime.............| 4.3| p4.0| 4.0| p4.0| p4.0| p.0
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Earnings 3/
|____________________________________________________
Avg. hourly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| $15.27| p$15.34| $15.30| p$15.35| p$15.38|p$0.03
Avg. weekly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| 515.50| p517.07| 515.61| p517.30| p518.31| p1.01
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______

1 Establishment data reflect the conversion to the 2002 version of the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the basis for the as-
signment and tabulation of economic data by industry, replacing the 1987
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. Due to differences in NAICS
and SIC structures, NAICS-based data by industry are not comparable to the
SIC-based data.
2 Includes other industries, not shown separately.
3 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers.
p=preliminary.

- 3 -

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-30,000) in
June at 130.0 million. Over the month, job declines continued in manufactur-
ing, but were partially offset by gains in construction and some service-pro-
viding industries. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing employment decreased by 56,000 in June, in line with the
average job loss over the prior 12 months. Losses occurred across most of the
component industries. Since its most recent peak in July 2000, manufacturing
employment has fallen by more than 2.6 million. In June, primary metals,
fabricated metal products, machinery, and plastics and rubber products each
lost about 6,000 jobs. Employment in textile mills and leather products
manufacturing also declined in June, continuing their long-term downward
trends.

Employment in construction edged up in June, the fourth consecutive monthly
gain. Construction has added 101,000 jobs since February, reflecting strength
in residential building activity.

Employment in health care and social assistance rose by 35,000 over the
month and has increased by 306,000 over the year. In June, ambulatory health
care services (including offices of physicians, outpatient care centers, and
home health care services) added 24,000 jobs; hospital employment increased by
9,000.

Within professional and business services, employment in the temporary help
industry rose by 38,000 in June, following a gain of 44,000 in May. This rise
was partly offset by an employment decline in accounting and bookkeeping ser-
vices (-24,000). Accounting and bookkeeping experienced a large seasonal
buildup for the tax season followed by even larger layoffs. After seasonal
adjustment, employment in this industry is down by 36,000 since last November.

In the leisure and hospitality industry, employment edged up in June fol-
lowing 4 months of declines. The over-the-month gain was largely in the food
services industry.

Employment in transportation and warehousing was little changed at 4.1 mil-
lion in June. Within this sector, air transportation employment continued to
decline. This industry has lost 123,000 jobs since its peak in March 2001.
Both wholesale and retail trade employment edged lower over the month.

The information sector showed little job change in June. Employment within
this industry declined in nearly every month since March 2001, losing a total of
434,000 jobs. The telecommunications industry, which shed 7,000 jobs in June,
accounted for nearly half of the losses over that period.

- 4 -

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls was 33.7 hours for the third consecutive month. The manu-
facturing workweek and manufacturing overtime also were unchanged from May,
at 40.2 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory work-
ers on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged in June at 98.7 (2002=100).
The manufacturing index fell by 0.4 percent over the month to 94.7. (See
table B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 3 cents in June to $15.38, seasonally adjusted.
Average weekly earnings rose by 0.2 percent over the month to $518.31. Over
the year, average hourly earnings grew by 3.0 percent, and average weekly earn-
ings increased by 2.1 percent. (See table B-3.)

______________________________


The Employment Situation for July 2003 is scheduled to be released on Friday,
August 1, at 8:30 A.M. (EDT).


please try to post any information on any president with a higher unemployment rate under his watch.

 

[spillmind]

oops misspelled 'referring'. watch now as the vultures attempt to rip me limb from limb, while leaving their grammatically challenged cheerleaders intact.

and since you guys git in this vein, figured i'd bridge a gap for your bird of feather. why not?

http://www.eyeontheleft.com

hahaha! this shit cracks me up.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
this is rich!

you say that slick willy had higher unemployment rates, i implore you to prove it.

i am reffering to the previous century, and you people know it.

please try to post any information on any president with a higher unemployment rate under his watch.

Well, here you go... from the same website you just pulled your data from. The current unemployment rate is 6.1%, according to the BLF.gov website.

Unemployment was >= 6.1% 18 different years since 1948 (as far back as the stats went).

Here's a list of yearly unemployment rates, with the President(s) during that year.

Year Ann Avg
1958 6.8 - Ike
1961 6.7 - JFK/Ike
1975 8.5 - Ford
1976 7.7 - Ford
1977 7.1 - Carter/Ford
1978 6.1 - Carter
1980 7.1 - Carter
1981 7.6 - Reagan/Carter
1982 9.7 - Reagan
1983 9.6 - Reagan
1984 7.5 - Reagan
1985 7.2 - Reagan
1986 7.0 - Reagan
1987 6.2 - Reagan
1991 6.8 - Bush
1992 7.5 - Bush
1993 6.9 - Clinton/Bush
1994 6.1 - Clinton

Will this suffice for proof for you?

 

[jimnyc]

Thread was split into 2 as it is 2 different topics. The "Wesley Clark" thread is still there intact.

 

[spillmind]

and the current rate (including hidden unemployment)?

since jim has taken upon himself to change this thread to a bash bush thread, i might as well bash.

this is only one the reasons bush doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a supernova next year. (unless they caught and held saddam fo 'capture' come elections time)

how are bush economics working for you?

 

[NightTrain]

I got an extra tax refund this year. Going to get one next year.


What did you get from Clinton, other than terrorists encouraged to attack the USA?

 

[spillmind]

'other than terrorists encouraged to attack the USA?'

what the hell kind of fabricated paranoid propoganda is this shit?

false sense of security, anyone?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
since jim has taken upon himself to change this thread to a bash bush thread, i might as well bash.

You had the opportunity to call it whatever you wanted when I asked you not to hijack a thread and to start a new one.

 

[spillmind]

whatevs.

ain't no big deal.

 

[5stringJeff]

"and the current rate (including hidden unemployment)?"

What the hell is "hidden unemployment?" As I put in the post that you replied to, the current unemployment rate is 6.1%.

"how are bush economics working for you?"

Well, let's see... I've had lower and lower taxes every year for the last three, even though I've been getting steady raises. And I'm buying my first house. It's really rough for me.

 

[eric]

All I can say is my corporate taxes have gone down, giving us the oportunity to make capital investments in new equipment, and opening up new markets to us.

 

[spillmind]

'All I can say is my corporate taxes have gone down, giving us the oportunity to make capital investments in new equipment, and opening up new markets to us.'

big tax breaks for corporations have not exactly led to job stimulus. good for you, not for your 1,000 workers. so this benefits the rich, but what about the other people? too bad for them for not being on top?

two larger returns for two years running. a couple hundred bucks makes you feel better about the deficit? WTF?! yeah i saw them too, but it's not soothing my conscience, especially when we all know the taxes are going back up in 2005!

besides, with all the trouble in each state's economies, over half of the states have increased their total tax base that has more than offset the federal cut! (at least for me)

and we have increased spending! lucky for you you can buy a house. it may never be a reality for me in my hometown. i rent a house that would sell for 900,000... and it ain't even that nice.

 

[eric]

You little twink, how dare you judge me, when you know nothing about me at all, just like most of the issues you debate. You hop around the Internet finding snippets that support your warped ideals.

First of all I employ less than 1000 people, although I wish I could. If you noticed we bought equipment, I did not take that money and stuff it into tax shelters. By opening up new markets allows the company to grow and hire more people. I happen to be very good to my employees because they are good to me. Believe it or not there are some people who run businesses who are not greedy, self-centered, elitists. Obliviously this is a foreign concept to you. You think the worst of everyone who is slightly successful or in any position of authority.

Not that I feel I need to explain anything about my life to you, but chew on this. My father died when I was 4 years old, instead of my mother going on welfare she cleaned other people’s homes, which I never stopped respecting her for. I started working full time when I was 17, part time at 15. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, far from it, I watched my mom sitting up at night not sure if she could pay the bills. This humbles me to this day and makes me treat my employees very well, with dignity, and respect. So go ahead and deny me a little success in my life, try and make me feel guilty, just because I run the company, but I broke my ass for 20 years to get here. Everyone has a job to do in this life, all of equal importance!

Now I surmise that something must have happed to you in your life that makes you so paranoid. Where you molested? Did you resent your father because you had a crush on you mother? Or do you just feel no one in any position of authority takes you seriously?


I’m sorry that your $900,000 dollar mansion is a piece of crap; thank your lib friends for destroying your states economy.

 

[eric]

Now, if you wish to have real debate, then drop your pompous, know it all attitude, and the demeaning tone of your posts. You can be confident and persuasive without them. You would be well served taking a lesson from spirit_soul. We do not always agree with her, but since her posts are intelligent, respectful, and even likeable, she is treated with respect.

 

[spillmind]

i respect everyone here, which is why i don't call them names like 'twink' or whatever the hell that was. i don't judge you, as a matter of fact, i am far from perfect myself. where did i judge you? if things sound demeaning, it may be a response to a similiar style post.

since you were not demeaning, but instead looking at the issue from a skewed perspective(in my *opinion*), i call it likewise.

you know, it's statements like these" 'I’m sorry that your $900,000 dollar mansion is a piece of crap; thank your lib friends for destroying your states economy.' that are just plain tough to 'respect'. i mean, come on man, get real.

'If you noticed we bought equipment,' -no i didn't. sorry.

'Believe it or not there are some people who run businesses who are not greedy, self-centered, elitists. Obliviously this is a foreign concept to you.' um, ok. please point out where i said that all businesses are like that? you have a sad misconception of me. i suggest you lose it, since it is wholly false. do you run an oil business? (it still doesn't automatically make you evil) ... but you people will believe whatever you want, as you all have proven here time and time again!

'Now I surmise that something must have happed to you in your life that makes you so paranoid. Where you molested? Did you resent your father because you had a crush on you mother? Or do you just feel no one in any position of authority takes you seriously?'

you have already 'surmised' plenty about me that was way off the mark. unless you earned a doctorate in a psyciatric practice, i would suggest you stop trying to classify my personal stability.

my life was not easy either, a grisly history that has shown me to respect and value what i have and i have the luck of being born in this great country of ours. while you people stand by and watch it be highjacked by special interest, whilst it moves away from WE, THE PEOPLE, really burns me.

you people should be standing up for what is right all the time, not when it's convenient. stop blaming 'cons' or 'libs'. that's merely a cop out.

 

[eric]

Look spill lets clear up a couple of things. I do not like to resort to name calling myself, but I will be honest you pissed me off. Maybe I am a little sensitive about certain subjects; that I will give you. As I explained I did not have it easy growing up and I worked for some real pompous greedy Asses for many years. I made a promise to myself to never be like these people, and I think I have done a pretty good job. So when someone implies that I am like the rest, I take offense to it. Maybe this statement was not directed at me:

"Big tax breaks for corporations have not exactly led to job stimulus. Good for you, not for your 1,000 workers. So this benefits the rich, but what about the other people? Too bad for them for not being on top?"

But I took it that way because it was in direct reply to:

"'All I can say is my corporate taxes have gone down, giving us the opportunity to make capital investments in new equipment, and opening up new markets to us.

Now if this was not what you meant, then accept my apology. All I would say in reply is I think many times your posts tend to have a sharp edge to them and are taken the wrong way by people. Just think about it.

As far as standing up for what is right and wanting to do the right thing for this country, I believe your intentions are genuine, and I hope you believe ours are too. We just have different philosophies as to how it is done. I do not think you want to see Americans killed in terrorist attacks anymore than we want to see our young men and women getting killed in Iraq for the sole reason of businesses making a profit.

Now, ready for some debate ?

Eric