SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (484234)10/30/2003 11:02:21 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
<<Also, the economy has been slow to add jobs after the private sector shed more than 3 million positions. The Labor Department on Thursday reported a drop of 5,000 in new unemployment claims last week -- smaller than is needed to significantly reduce the 6.1 percent unemployment rate. >>
washingtonpost.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (484234)10/30/2003 11:23:16 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
He was drowned out by a bevy of Democratic strategists, who argued, in the words of pollster Celinda Lake, that Democrats must draw "clear distinctions" between themselves and Bush's increasingly unpopular reconstruction effort. A public memo from über-pollster Stanley Greenberg and former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta said "the $87 billion Iraq request was a shock to the country, and many voters can recite the actual number." It urged Democrats to attack Bush's request as a budget-buster, noting that "just 27 percent [of Americans] trust the Republicans on the budget and deficits, with the Democrats, remarkably, holding a 20-point advantage." A similar memo from Greenberg, James Carville, and Bob Shrum said the Democrats' "core message" should stress that Bush had "no plan for post-war Iraq." Sure enough, John Kerry justified his vote against the $87 billion by citing Bush's lack of a "real plan" to reconstruct Iraq. John Edwards, who also voted no, declared, "We don't have a plan."

In policy terms, the sound bite is almost meaningless. Whatever its earlier blunders, the Bush administration now clearly does have a plan to reconstruct Iraq. Its aid request specifies in excruciating detail how the United States will rebuild different sectors of Iraqi society. And, on the day Edwards and Kerry voted no, the United States won U.N. backing for a plan under which Iraq will write a constitution and then hold elections in 2004. But that's the whole point: On one of the key national security votes of the post-September 11 era, policy barely mattered at all. And it's not likely to anytime soon.

Peter Beinart is the editor of TNR.

tnr.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (484234)10/31/2003 12:54:32 PM
From: Original Mad Dog  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
average wages have gone down $500 tyhis year. That is not a good sign.

I don't see a citation to any source for that statement. And I don't see much support for it in the actual numbers either:

U.S. Personal Income totals (in Billions of dollars; months seasonally adjusted at annual rates)
Source: bea.doc.gov (Bureau of Economic Analysis)(see Table 1)
Personal Income (in billions)

Feb.: $9080.2
Mar.: $9102.0
Apr.: $9119.8
May: $9155.4
June: $9192.9
July: $9218.5
Aug.: $9247.7
Sep.: $9274.8

That shows that U.S. personal income has increased every month for the past seven months.

A different way of looking at it is the government's data on National Income by Type of Income:

bea.doc.gov

This shows in line 2 that Compensation of Employees (in billions; seasonally adjusted at annual rates) has steadily increased for at least the past 7 consecutive quarters:

2002Q1: $5,908.4
2002Q2: $5,963.9
2002Q3: $5,988.4
2002Q4: $6,017.4
2003Q1: $6,064.5
2003Q2: $6,094.5
2003Q3: $6,131.0

If there are fewer jobs than before, and total personal income is up, and total compensation of employees is up, how is it that "average wages have gone down $500 this year" as you claim (without telling us where you got it)?

The simple answer is that you are, once again, factually incorrect.