Suma,
I don't wish to take the time to go over all of your facts. I will take the time to comment on just two of your so-called facts.
FACT -- BUSH'S JOBS RECORD IS AN EMBARRASSMENT: Bush will say " the economy is strong and getting stronger
>>> " But the economy added a paltry 96,000 jobs in September, once again failing even to keep up with population growth. <<<
The economy's growth is based on GDP, not jobs. GDP is up 5% indicating that the economy is growing stronger. Those who have a job are producing more. Therefore, not as many people are required to get the same results.
>>> Since the president took office in January 2001, the economy has shed about 585,000 jobs. President Bush is a lock to become the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs over a four-year term. <<<
Now there's a narrow mind trying to prove a pre-conceived biased thought.
The economy suffered from the bursting of the Y2K stock bubble, corporate scandals like Enron and WCOM, and the 9/11 attack. How you can attribute those events to Bush is beyond my realm of comprehension.
Not to mention that Bush inherited the Clinton recession.
Dr. Mark Zandi of economy.com, in assessing Bush's fiscal policies says that if it weren't for Bush's tax cuts, we still would have been in a recession 3 years later and the job growth, as paltry as it seems to you, would not be having any job growth at all at this particular time.
If you want to put blinders on and only look at the Bush 4 years, yes he'll go down as having the worst job performance from Hoover.
If you want to talk fact though, fact is .... any president who followed Clinton would have had the same poor job performance based on the above events. To think otherwise is quite naive, in my opinion.
dabum |
