[Fierce Allegiance]

Thanks - This is just what i was looking for to refute a lib cube-mate who wishes he were "monica", if ya know what i mean.

[Recovering_Democrat]

THIS SHOULD BE SHOWN TO AMERICA--LET US GET THIS INFORMATION OUT OF THE HALLS OF CONSERVATISM AND TO THE PEOPLE!!

[jonno]

bump

[alex]

BIG BUMP.

I feel that the performance on the economy could be made the strongest selling point for GW in this election. Let us compare him to Clinton (everybody including all the Democrats think that Kerry will be much worse president than Clinton, so it this comparison is a very valid predictor).

The economy was sputtering throughout 2000 (e.g. it was so bad that we saw contracting GDP in Q3), Clinton sat on his hands and did nothing but blamed GW for "talking the economy down". GW showed that the true leadership means when he rammed two big tax cuts through the unfriendly Congress and thus provided an environment for economic recovery, which is taking hold despite the ongoing war.

Sure, liberals endlessly snipe about 'jobless recovery' - but this is not an issue here, without GW's leadership in 2001 there will NO recovery in 2003-2004.

Let us compare GW with Clinton in this respect - Clinton got booming economy from Bush Sr. and run it into the ground blowing people's savings in the biggest stock market bubble along the way and then he had to act, he did nothing. Add to this the insane 'strong dollar' policy of Clinton administration, which reduced competitiveness of US economy that ignited skilled jobs migration process. GW got economy sitting in the gutter and it was his leadership which first stopped the slide and then took us out of there.

I hope that GW and his team will hummer it down to every American by November.

[Scenic Sounds]

This is all good stuff and a long-winded argument about statistics can lead to just about any conclusion that is desired. Unfortunately, I think that most people pay little attention to the numbers that fly back and forth and don't get much deeper than "the Carter years were [good/bad] times," "the Reagan years were [good/bad] times," "the Clinton years were [good/bad] times," etc.

However, maybe some folks can be persuaded with numbers. ;-)

[.cnI redruM]

What, we're not DOOMED?!

[familyofman]

"The U.S. remains the world's largest exporter."

If that is true, how come we have a $500billion trade deficit. If we export more than we import - a surplus results. I think what the writer failed to include is the fact that the US is by far the largest importer.

Strange how errors of ommission can lead to false conclusions. It wasn't on purpose - I'll bet.

[Stallone]

BTTT!

[Stallone]

What about this point?

When unemployment was slightly lower, reaching the mythical theoretical absolute lowest unemployment level (4%), the price was too high.

We got a bubble economy, high interest rates to brake the runaway train, and then...*KAPOW*, the economy collapsed before being handed to President Bush.

5.6% may be the PERFECT balance of low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rate, and steady, sustainable growth.

SELL IT, FOLKS!