| Author |
Message |
sabertooth1217
UPN Boycotter
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 11484
Location: Texas
|
 Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:53 pm Bush, 3 million people in american lost jobs |
|
What do the Users at StarTrekVoyager.com have to say about this Issue? I would like most Republicans to answer this one. When George 2. Bush became President of the United States of America, and for the Last 3 years there has been over 3,000,000 People alone to loose their Jobs. The Economy has become worse since Clinton left Officer, and Im not saying he is a good man after what he did with another women, and what does George Bush do? Give Tax cuts for the Rich, Try to take away Medicare from the Elders and he Send people to mars. Which i am looking forward to but in this age the Countries money should stay here where people need it the most, not where there is going to be only around 6 Humans. And another note, Why the Hell are we the only Country over in Iraq? If we are preventing there Nuclear weapons, which they have not found any bug ones, then why does The UK and Canada not assist also? This is my Thoughts I would like to have yours.
John
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:20 pm |
|
Do you have any proof of your claims about jobs and such? This appears to be simply an opinion topic.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:28 pm |
|
(respectfully)
How is anyone to say that it is Bush's fault for the job loss, I think it was coming. 9-11, Enron, all the other *beep*. No of course, he may be to blame partially, but Clinton is to, he did didly while he was in office. Plus the economy is goin up.
The War:
Other countrys are assisting but yes I understand your point.
Personally:
I do not like Kerry because of many of his veiws such as on abortion and others. (dont get me goin on abortion)
I gtg, more later.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:17 pm |
|
The UK is Bush's "best" partner in Iraq at the moment, with more troops over there than any other country (apart from the US, obviously).
I'll have you know also, that British troops are over there fighting with much of their basic equipment not given to them. Infact one soldier died from a gunshot wound after being ordered to give his armour to someone else due to the shortage.
It's pretty ridiculous.
EDIT: About the US economy, Look here.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:57 pm |
|
Chakotay99, when you have facts to back up what you say, sources, legitimate sources, and no, the National Enquirer does not count, PM me, and I'll reopen this topic.
From your post, it's mainly ranting. And accusing one party, Republicans, for the economy is ludicrous. You know who holds the power in the US? The media. If they keep telling us we're poor, don't spend, we won't. If they tell us the economy is great, people will buy, creating jobs. So it's BS.
Anyway, now that I too have ranted, PM me when you've bothered to do any research. And remember this is WORLD NEWS, not Politics.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:49 pm |
|
Reopening this upon request. And C99, http://www.awolbush.com is not a non-biased, (as much as you can get) media source. It's obviously prejudicial, and therefore cannot be taken at face value. I didn't have time to check your other site. I'll be sure to post the Clinton statistics, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 9:45 am |
|
Get Bush out of office hes only messed up our country to the point we are a joke ...
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 10:38 am |
|
Jeff, I've told you dozens of times to post facts with your opinions, or to clearly state your opinions as such. You keep ignoring me. One more time, and you won't be posting in WN anymore.
And a joke? Do you remember Clinton? Apparently not, 
Bush used his cajones to do something other than "initiate interns", and he didn't stick to the status quo of let Saddam do what Saddam wants, oooh, we're all so scared of him, What Bush did was right. He rid the world of a tyrant. A murdering tyrant. Fact.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepedII
Captain
Joined: 21 Jun 2002
Posts: 1476
Location: Belgium
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:48 pm |
|
Fact: Sadam was a murdering tyrant 10 years ago, but they didnt overtrew him then and nobody seemed to care , the only thing that was important was the fact that koewait was one's again able to trade oil with the us, and that was the only reason for that war btw.
what was the reason now i wonder...
-------signature-------
Im a Jedi, SO DONT PISS ME OFF!!
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:57 pm |
|
Oil was not the only reason for any war. The reason was that the U.S. does not allow tyrants to spread there tyranny.
|
|
|
IntrepedII
Captain
Joined: 21 Jun 2002
Posts: 1476
Location: Belgium
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 2:17 pm |
|
then why didnt they remove him during the 1st gulf war?
-------signature-------
Im a Jedi, SO DONT PISS ME OFF!!
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 2:31 pm |
|
I dont know. But beleive you me, the U.S. does not defend a country because they have oil. If needed, the U.S. has reserves and other ways to have energy. With or without Kuwait, the U.S. would not have an oil crisis. However, I do wish that people would begin to quickly move away from using petroleum products so that we do not have to be so reliant on other countries.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Feb 07, 2004 10:50 pm |
|
How does anything about the first war support the fact that "G.W. Bush is an embarrassment"? Politics stopped the completion of removing Saddam the first time. I suggest you ask the UN about that...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 8:21 am |
|
http://www.zianet.com/boje/peace/facts_and_myths_about_iraq_war.htm
That's a really good site that gives some, well alot, of facts about the war and the involvement of western nations.
And whilst I do believe that Saddam deserved to be toppled because of the horrific crimes against his own people, reading this site makes you realise just how involved the US was in his ascension.
|
|
|
sabertooth1217
UPN Boycotter
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 11484
Location: Texas
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:35 pm |
|
This Graph shows how the 3 Million or so people have lost their Jobs in George Bush's Time.
Yes it is a little prejudice to that fact of Republicans.
It was at 4% at the end of Clintons run and then it was back to 7% now.
Source: www.awolbush.com
Last edited by sabertooth1217 on Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
sabertooth1217
UPN Boycotter
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 11484
Location: Texas
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:37 pm |
|
Looking foward to see the 'Clinton Statistics' Maquis
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:50 pm |
|
Can I first laugh at your graph? You should know, as should any American, and I've posted this before, that it takes two to three years before things from one administration are felt. So according to your graph, President Bush Sr. made the economy start getting better, and Clinton, amazingly, for awhile, stayed on the same track. Then suddenly something happens. Things start going wrong. Hmm... Now this year, other than the war and 9/11, is when we will really start to feel the changes made by G.W. If you know anything about the US Government, you know how incredibly slow it is. BTW, source for the graph, please?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:59 pm |
|
| Quote: | Working Families Starve on Bush-Clinton Diet
By Ralph R. Reiland
Published: Monday, August 26, 1996
Remember when candidate Bill Clinton called President Bush's economic-growth record "the worst economy in 30 years"? As it turns out, only one of Clinton's gross domestic product, or GDP, growth rates - 2.2 percent in 1993; 3.5 percent in 1994; 1.3 percent in 1995; and most likely 2 percent this year - will match Bush's 2.7 percent GDP growth rate in 1992. Furthermore, none of Clinton's growth rates match the 4.0 percent average annual growth rate achieved under President Reagan's policies from 1983 through 1988. The bottom line? If Clinton had maintained the 4.3 percent economic-growth rate of Bush's final quarter, GDP would be higher by an average of $3,500 per family.
Clinton was all smiles about the 239,000 new jobs created in June and the estimated surge of 4.2 percent GDP in the second quarter, taking credit for "the most solid American economy in a generation." One must wonder, however, how many of these jobs would have been created if the first lady's health mandates had been enacted, and how many jobs would have been created in the absence of Clinton's 1993 tax hike.
It is worth noting, however, that the Bureau of Economic Analysis underestimated the growth rate during the Reagan administration in 63 percent of its advance estimates. During Clinton's watch, the BEA has overestimated the growth rate on more than 69 percent of the advanced estimates of GDP.
Hiring in June was exceptionally strong at restaurants and bars, especially in Atlanta in preparation for the Summer Olympics. Manufacturing, in contrast, suffered a loss of 7,000 jobs in June. Overall, June's job growth was concentrated in the service sector, with retail stores adding 75,000 jobs, almost half of them in restaurants and bars.
It's this small-business/retail sector that most vigorously opposed the Clinton health plan, seeing the increased costs as an unaffordable mandate that would kill jobs and business. At the time of the health-care debate, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, the Clinton administration's chief economist, estimated that the Clinton health program would trigger a loss of 600,000 jobs, primarily in the small-business sector.
America's restaurant owners, earning an average of $1,880 in annual profits per employee before taxes, made it clear to the first lady that funds simply were not available to cover her proposed health-insurance scheme. Her response? "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."
While the Clinton health plan failed to become law, the administration did succeed in passing the largest tax hike in American history in 1993, aimed primarily at the sector that produces the vast majority of America's jobs. Nearly three-fourths of the family incomes above $200,000 that were hit by the tax increase were small-business owners, the same people who innovate, invest and create most of America's employment.
During the last decade, small businesses have become the key employers of the American workers set adrift from large corporations. Since 1985, as the Fortune 500 firms cut 3.5 million jobs, newly formed businesses hired 12 million new workers. Altogether, since the mid-1980s small and medium-sized firms have created six times as many jobs as were cut by the Fortune 500 corporations.
The economic record is clear during the past three decades - America's workers reap the benefits when government policies create a healthy climate for small businesses. Real median family income, adjusted for inflation, dropped by 8 percent during the 1970s, when top-income earners - those who do most of the investing and hiring - were burdened with a job-killing top marginal tax rate of 70 percent.
In contrast, in the eight years following the Reagan tax cuts, when the top marginal tax rate for job creators dropped to 28 percent, GDP growth increased, the demand for labor rose and median family income, adjusted for inflation, increased by 11 percent. And contrary to the media loudspeakers that sneer at trickle-down economics, real family income grew in every income group during the 1980s.
In the bottom quintile - the poorest 20 percent of families - real family income, adjusted for inflation, increased by 12 percent during the 1980s, reversing a 17 percent slide of the same group under Jimmy Carter's watch. The poverty population, after growing by 7 million in the late 1970s, declined by 4 million during the 1980s. Overall, real median family income, adjusted for inflation, rose by $4,564 between 1982 and 1989.
Since 1989, the picture has been less rosy. Under the Bush and Clinton administrations, with businesses hit hard by increases in regulations and litigation as well as by tax hikes that kicked the top marginal rate back up to nearly 40 percent, economic growth has slowed. The result? The typical family has lost income. "Under the Clinton administration," reports Christopher Frenze, chief economist to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, "the growth rate of real family income has been zero percent." Clinton administration officials, in response to this economic stagnation in family income during their watch, have chosen to distort the facts. "If you go back over 15 years, real family incomes have fallen," says Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Labor Secretary Robert Reich claims that the Reagan-Bush period equaled "12 years of stagnation and decline for most working Americans."
What's true is that incomes in every group were increasing in the 1980s, while higher taxes and new regulations, as well as a green light to aggressive litigation during the Bush-Clinton period, have cut America's economic growth in half and slammed the brakes on any growth in family incomes.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris College in Pittsburgh.
|
http://www.insightmag.com/news/1996/08/26/FairComment/Working.Families.Starve.On.BushClinton.Diet-214243.shtml
BTW, it's no secret that our economy is crappy, and has been.
You want to blame someone, take a look at the Democrats stand on welfare. I can understand that families occasionally need help, but I'm damn sick of seeing people make welfare a career. Here I am out working for minimum wage, and part of my pay goes to support some lazy ass who doesn't want to leave their house? That's bull. Get off your damn ass and do something. Why the hell work when you can sit on your butt and make more. And make sure you procreate, you get more per child. It's damn sick. Bush had the right idea. LIMIT the time you can be on welfare, especially two healthy adults. But people started saying how cruel that was. People=Democrats. Like John Kerry.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 7:04 pm |
|
A propaganda site?! You have so got to be kidding. That was already dismissed as a non-legitimate site. I'm rather disappointed.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 7:17 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: |
And whilst I do believe that Saddam deserved to be toppled because of the horrific crimes against his own people, reading this site makes you realise just how involved the US was in his ascension. |
Yeah, I can only assume they thought of it as "the devil you know". Or that he was the lesser of two evils.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepedII
Captain
Joined: 21 Jun 2002
Posts: 1476
Location: Belgium
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 8:24 pm |
|
^ ah well he's gone now, let's just be gratefull for that
where are they keeping him anyway?
-------signature-------
Im a Jedi, SO DONT PISS ME OFF!!
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:53 pm |
|
That graph is absolutely ridiculous. Your source is AwolBush.com ... THAT'S REAL RELIABLE...
People tend to forget that Clinton did nothing to stimulate the economy.
In his entire two terms, he never raised, nor lower taxes, in fact he coasted off the Bush Sr. tax plan. Not to mention that he never had a single foriegn afair to deal with.
Clinton was not a president, he was a placeholder during an ideal time.
9/11 is 100% responsible for the job loss, Clinton never had a 9/11 to deal with.
Here's the facts about him:
He never changed the Bush Sr. tax solution, and never did anything for the economy.
He never had any foreign policies.
He made resolutions and refused to act on them.
He lied in front of the surpeme court.
He was partially impeached.
He turned the Waco TX situation into a catastrophy.
He refused to stand up to terrorism, even after OK City, the African Embasy, the USS Cole, and numerous other small attacks against the US by terrorists including AL-QUAIDA!
He did virtually nothing in office.
So, when you sum up the fact, it looks like he fell asleep at the wheel, while, luckily, our country was heading down a nearly perfectly straight road.
Last edited by LightningBoy on Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:57 pm |
|
Not that I'm American, or know what I'm talking about or anything, but I find it highly unlikely that a single terrorist act can be the cause of three million job losses.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:01 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | Not that I'm American, or know what I'm talking about or anything, but I find it highly unlikely that a single terrorist act can be the cause of three million job losses. |
You do understand that the world trade center was the central hub of trillions of dollars worth of investments, insurance companies had to shell out major cash, airports had to pay billions, power companies, gov't had to shell out defense money, cleanup, and billions of trillions of dollars more worth of effects.
I doubt there is a dollar in this country that was'nt exchanged in one way or another because of 9/11.
And note that during Clinton's "Recovery" the average income of all the people in this country dropped. http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-5.gif
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:57 pm |
|
| IntrepedII wrote: | ^ ah well he's gone now, let's just be gratefull for that
where are they keeping him anyway? |
It's kind of top secret. "Need to know", and we don't need to know.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
