The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that in January, "there were 2,428 mass layoff actions by employers." The report also adds: "the number of layoff events and initial claims were higher than a year ago, "and it "marked only the third time in the last two years that initial claims had increased over the year."
So this Administration needs just a mere 232,000 new jobs added per month to meet their prediction that 2.6 million jobs would be created in 2004. That prediction appears to be as good as "Bush will be reelected."
So with an economy quickly approaching "The Great Depression, Part II", Iraq an ongoing disaster (headed for a possible civil war), the nation as vulnerable as ever to terrorist attacks, and the Administration's lies exposed by the failure to find WMD, George W. Bush is speaking out against the horror of gay marriage.
Oh please Dear Leader of the Free World, protect us from gay couples!
The guy who claimed to be "a uniter not a divider" is pushing one of the most divisive issues in the country to the top of the list labeled "Election Year Pandering."
So who is Bush pandering to?
That would be his core "*base" (*Al-Queda in Arabic), the Conservative Christians with big bucks and a direct line to God. (God even called Pat Robertson the other day on his Divine-O-Phone: "God told me George W. Bush would be reelected."
Bush lobbed his first scripted verbal attack at Kerry by implying that the Senator from Massachusetts is a 'waffler'--- a real "put-up-yer-dukes" epithet in today's political scene.
Never mind that Mr. "I'm against nation building" has enough waffles in his background to open a House of Pancakes in Crawford, Texas. And apparently, States Rights, that holy sacrement for Conservatives, goes out the window when it's time to solicit money and votes from homophobes.
"The state[s] can do what they want to" in defining marriage.
- President Bush, 2/15/00
"Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."
- President Bush, 2/24/04
Would you like maple syrup with those quotes?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tom
You liberals are idiots. And Kerry hasn't waffled? He says he is for state's deciding, but against gay marriage. That is exactly what the Defense of Marriage act said. Unfortunately John Kerry voted against it.
As as far as the economy is approaching Great Depression II, just because you are apparently aren't satisifed with your job doesn't 'mean the economy is doing poorly. We are at 5.6% unemployment, 5.5% was considered fulll employment during Clinton's years.
Compare that to the 25-30% unemployment during the Great Depression.
And Bush didn't thrust this upon us. Your liberal activist judge heros and lawbreaking mayors have thrust this upon us.
2 - Mark Saleski
...You liberals are idiots...
political discourse in the year 2004. no wonder the rest of the world thinks we're morons.
3 - Tom
How can Blogcritics be taken seriously as a zine of thought when we have posts which are nothing but bush bashing, or liberal bashing. How about logical, well thought out posts which present thoughts (left or right) well laid out and backed up by facts.
Just look at the picture of Bush swinging the bat at lady liberty. That alone should make you not take this post seriously.
4 - Shark
Tom: You liberals are idiots.
Yeah, well, I've always figured the best way to recognize idiots is they're the first one's to start calling names.
Tom, I'm just happy I could strike a nerve.
xxoo
Shark
5 - Mark Saleski
i would love well thought posts backed up by fact.
however, posts like that generally don't involve usage things like idiots, 'activist judges', 'big government nannies', 'you liberals' and the rest of those cliches straight out of the hannity/coulter/limbaugh playbook.
6 - Craig Lyndall
I don't agree with the name-calling in Tom's first post. I also don't see where this laundry list of Bush bashes which just assumes the reader agrees with it, is ok is at all useful. If you want to discuss the amendment (which I have said I think is a bad idea) then we can do that.
If you want to say that Bush is wasting his and our time. Fine. I might also agree with that. Unless you are going to substantiate your horribly exaggerated claims like the ones about the depression, etc. this just doesn't serve much purpose. And standing behind the "I was trying to get a reaction" card doesn't work either. I understand hyperbole and its uses in literature, so don't lecture me on that either. Just try and do better than this in the future.
Seriously, we can do better, right?
7 - Mark Saleski
yes we can do better.
some catch phrase i fogot:
commie liberal pinko
lurch (as in "doesn't kerry look like...")
8 - Shark
Craig,
LET ME BE CLEAR: I don't 'do' statistics and facts. That's for others with more patience and more faith in numbers. Hell, nobody can even agree on the 'facts' and statistics. (Witness the 'debate' on outsourcing jobs on BC; I read about four entries and I'm dozing off from chasing the friggin' footnotes and bibliographies.)
Seriously. I could care less about yer facts. And few people change their minds on an issue by hearing the proper statistics quoted.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not here to change anyone's mind, either. I'll leave that to the ad agencies. I'm here to:
1) ENTERTAIN
2) demonstrate to others out there like me that WE'RE NOT ALONE, despite the marketed impression that everyone in America is a semi-literate, frothing Right-Wing Christoid who loves guns, hates gays, and thinks Donald Trump is the next Regis Philbin.
And frankly, the most interesting entries on BC are usually the ones devoid of facts, multi-headed hydra-links to links to links, and some dipshit regurgitating a news story wrapped in little pink bows of his or her own unoriginal opinion.
In short: you don't like my style, don't read it.
There's always a fun-filled, fact-filled statistical sparring *bout somewhere next door.
* "exporting jobs", anyone?
9 - CW Fisher
Go Shark Go! Why'd you stop?
This is one of your best blogs, I thought, in terms of research! You quoted from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for cryin out loud. Solid enough for me. I'm not expecting you to do any more research than say, the Bush administration. Should you acknowledge you may had some facts wrong about your depression analogy? NO!
As for You Conservatives... until now I never considered myself a name-caller, but I have to speak the language you understand. You "Conservatives" know we "Bush bashers" are right and you can't stand being wrong. You Cons impeached a President over a blow job, then stole an election, then started a war that killed upwards of 600 American soldiers and untold THOUSANDS of Iraqi citizens (estimates run from 11,000 to 40,000 but remain "untold" because we don't count them because Iraqis are subhuman, even though we came to "liberate" them -- making things significantly worse and guaranteed to worsen). But if someone should dare criticize a neocon or any policy of the Bush adminisration, you whimper like the silver spoon babies you are, you say NO FAIR! You call names and run to mommy. Cowards! The wrongs committed by this administration are so obvious that only a person deep in denial could claim otherwise.
This president WILL be out of office and I don't care what God told that moron with the tv show.
I want Bush impeached AND put in jail along with Dick Cheney and Ken Lay and that's just for starters. I want you people out of business in this country. And I want the Christians to get the hell OUT of matters of the state.
Less than two years ago I was against handguns. Not anymore. I now believe in a well-armed civilian militia. Talk doesn't work with you jerks.
Shark? GO BITE EM!
And the picture was fine, great in fact. It tells it as it is. Bush has whacked our liberties and it's only the beginning. If we give this beast another term, heaven help us all.
If we allow ourselves to be intimidated by the Republicans for Christ, even for a moment, we will lose, and we will deserve it.
10 - Shark
YOU MEAN I'M NOT ALONE?!
I'M NOT ALONE?!
re. "Less than two years ago I was against handguns. Not anymore. I now believe in a well-armed civilian militia."
Welcome to Shark's new political party:
~THE REACTIONARY LIBERALS~
We believe in Peace. ...And sometimes, ya just gotta KILL somebody to get it.
We believe the borders should be sealed tighter than Dick Cheney's sphincter.
We believe in mandatory post-partum abortions for religious fundamentalists of all persuasions.
And we don't discriminate: we loathe everybody.
We believe that within this decade, the only people still employed in America will be terrorists.
We believe Santa Claus is the Messiah, that Bambi’s mother died for our sins, and that Rudolph’s Nose, although able to lead our Savior in The Long Night of Shopping for Ginsu Knives, is unable to cure itself from an eternal radioactive glow caused by overexposure to television, cell phones, and the unknown effects of genetically-engineered deer corn.
We believe in carrying numerous credit cards, taking them to their limits, denying the debt---and that we will all die before the collection agencies can find a correct address.
We believe that the more you consume, the less you live.
We believe believe in leaving an estate that is bankrupt for generations to follow.
We believe the Pope saying “Trust God” while standing behind bulletproof glass tells us something about Faith.
WE PREFER:
appliances over love,
shoes over happiness,
mindless sex over erotic lucidity,
entertainment over activity,
spectacle over wakefulness,
shopping over prayer,
hypnosis over transcendence,
lying over honesty,
AND
crimes over compassion.
WE ARE FOR abortion and AGAINST stem-cell research"since one decreases potential humans and the other increases a futile hope for those who suffer.
We are against abortion personally, but encourage it for others because it is the taking of life in a quest for convenience, one of the highest ideals of our culture.
We will vote for Compassionate Conservatives only in order to quicken the Apocalypse and reduce the duration of pain among the poor and the powerless.
We believe ALL species should be on the endangered list, but that Man is the only one that really belongs there.
We believe Art to be a Two People in Laz-E-Boys Watching Two Other People On Television Discussing The Purchase Of A Reproduction Of A Signed Numbered Print Of A Soup Can.
We believe that Lying in the only valid form of communication left in America.
We believe the fact that proves all facts are false.
We believe a Conservative Christian is like a leper in a hot tub. We believe Radical Islam is like Captain Hook offering to check your prostate.
We believe everything should be cheap and disposable, including Life.
We don't take shit off machines.
We never answer the phone.
In short --- although we're kinda fucked up and schizophrenic --- we're very passionate.
11 - CW Fisher
And after all that, not one comment. See? You shut their mouths.
I believe in none of what you wrote, and I'm behind all of it.
Shark, you have written a manifesto ("party boy" in Latin) that defines the platform of the 4th party, the party of those who dwell in the 4th dimension, where what is shouldn't be and what will be will be so silly that the whole nation will simply chuckle and snap open a Coke.
Shark! Shark! Shark! Shark!
Sir, permission to reprint? We'll need a petition...
I'm so excited! I'm cleaning my guns!
12 - Shark
CW,
Reprint, hell.
Infect! That's our motto!
Spread IT like Ebola!
Climb on an international flight and cough IT in everyones' faces for the duration.
Whisper IT to giant rats and then set them loose in your city.
(and don't forget "meetup.com!")
(I'll be the guy by the bar doin' Tequila shots and snortin' Tang.)
13 - Eric Olsen
I am nonplussed
14 - Shark
"nonplussed"
CW, I think that's French for somethin'.
Which means Eric's definitely IN!
15 - CW Fisher
No, then he'd be plussed. Eric, are you feeling befuddled again? Is your mouth suddenly on a severe slant? Is it difficult to say "toy boat" three times rapidly? If so, you've had a stroke. You have 3 hours to get to a hospital and give the football and all the codes to Dawn. Damnit, man, I knew you were pushing it too hard with 138 posts in a month. You've GOT to show DOWN!
16 - CW Fisher
Eric, if you recover, I think you should be his campaign manager. You're definitely the smartest. All I want out of this deal is a title. I'm thinking: Guy In Front. Deal?
17 - David Flanagan
Here is some of what Bush will run on this year in regards to jobs and the economy:
The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop.
The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000. Even better, the number of so-called discouraged workers declined in December.
Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years.
Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third.
The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history.
Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.
Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.
Productivity growth is extremely high.
Of course, in regards to the 5.6%, Democrats are trying to question that number right now for the very fact that its a good number and shows signs of getting better. I would imagine that Democrats are going to see their dreams of running on the economy fade as the year goes on. I work in a field that is closely connected with recruitement and everything I've seen indicates a jobs boom this year.
Thanks.
David
18 - Shark
Dave,
Send me an application.
You find me a job and I'll vote for Humpty Friggin' Dumpty.
Shark (in his 3rd year as unemployed Marketing Director in a major American urban center that used to look like The Emerald City but currently resembles Kabul on a Home Depot/Starbucks/Wal-Mart post-invasion bad day.)
19 - Hal Pawluk
David, your numbers apper to match those at the Heritage Foundation but I've found they're not the greatest source.
They're the outfit that last November claimed that one million jobs had been created over the past year. The problem with that was that they used an unreliable survey, then included an error of 600,000 jobs to start with. I've posted details on BC as The Shell Game On Jobs.
There were about 365,000 jobs created in the last five months, and if this rate keeps up we should have the 3 million jobs lost during the bush adminstration back in three years. Real economists are concerned .
In the last last two years we have lost far more jobs than have been created, and the fewer new jobs are paying an average of 21% less.
The BLS says real earnings are down for the last two months.
They also tell us that participation in the civilian labor force is the lowest it has been since 2000, and the the total non-farm employment is 130 million.
I tend to look at Heritage Foundation numbers with a skeptical eye.
20 - Hal Pawluk
The link above for total non-farm employment doesn't work (sorry), but you can go here, check the top box, then submit the form to got the data.
And here's the labor force participation chart.
21 - Shark
Hal, thanks for the info. Seriously. Someone has to counter the crap.
I can't chase Dave's constant data dumps, and as I stated earlier, I have an *aversion to figures.
"Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions." --Esar
And I think it's important to point out that they come from The Heritage Foundation, bedrock of unbiased theoretical and political research. Sounds like Dave is plugged into the Matrix.
Aside: back in the dark ages, (I was one of the first people to sign on AOL), I used to participate in the Time mag discussion board; even at that early date, there were a handful of professional, full-time nicely paid 'commentors' who constantly trotted out the Right-Wing 'party line', including massive amounts of data that they could quote in a heartbeat.
Dave reminds me of one of those guys I used to tangle with on AOL.
(Even now, on the Left, I don't think there's anything like it.)
ie, so Hal, you're a valuable asset to the Good Fight. I'd send you a donation, but I'm still waiting for that job to materialize
...among the MILLIONS on the horizon.
22 - Antfreeze
What some call waffling I'd prefer to attribute to an understanding of nuance. The world is not black and white. To me it shows that the man has grappled with the actual facts and sometimes had to vote against his conscience. We've got a guy now who can tell you how he stands on every issue because the facts don't really matter, just his opinions.
Go Shark!
23 - Antfreeze
For clarities sake, above I'm referring to the issue of Kerry's waffling on issues.
24 - Hal Pawluk
Shark: I don't want to get locked in on the left in anyone's mind, so let me tell you that a few minutes ago I was cheering on California Republican Senator Tom McClintock, who is my kind of conservative. He's rational and responsible, and usually agrees with me :-), currently on the state borrowing $15 billion which isn't going to get California out of its fiscal hole (it adds annual interest costs of $1.3 billion, and does nothing about next year's deficit, expected to reach $7 billion). He was my pick for governor, too, but we ended up with a distant second-best.
As for the stats, it's self-defense. Statements that include numbers sound authoritative, but those passing for conservatives today seem to have a tendency to use false and misleading data. My feeling is that you can't solve problems with bad info, so I try to get a look at what's really happening.
The most disturbing thing to me overall is what has happened to the meaning of "conservative," and especially during this administration.
This administration's irrational fiscal and social behavior should be worrying everyone, Left and Right, Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative.
The only way their actions can not be considered irrational is if you assume that they are not in fact representatives of the people, but rather representatives of business.
From that standpoint, redistributing wealth to the already rich, increasing corporate welfare and a "spend & spend & spend" approach makes all the sense in the world, but it's not my idea of being a "Conservative."
Since this gang is self-defined as "conservatives" (in spite of what they're doing), to some it appears that I'm in the other gang when I disagree with them. I'm not. I simply look at any change that politicians make, then evaluate it. That means I disagree with Republicans a lot at the federal level but with Democrats here in California, since they're the ones making the changes.
No, that doesn't make me a Libertarian, either. It's just that politicians seem to be, more and more, making changes when they would do better to just leave well-enough alone.
The bottom line for me is that I like not having to defend positions I don't fully understand or don't really believe just because I've committed myself to a label, as so many seem to be doing today. On any given issue, I may be "with" some particular political label, but I won't be "of" them.
And AOL was a newcomer - CompuServe rocked :-)
25 - Shark
Hal, I couldn't agree more re. left/right, etc.
I think we need a new approach for the future, and I don't think the Dems or Repubs will understand what's required and/or develop an appropriate reponse anytime soon.
I'm still trying to figure out what it is, and for now, I tend to feel "Reactionary Liberal" is a good tag.
Gotta run; more, much more, later.