Tell The Media: Bush Didn't Cause Job Loss/Kerry Will Make It WORSE! (action item)

If you're like me, then you're sick and tired of Kerry and his Democrat cohorts lying out of their pie-holes, blaming President Bush for a recession (and the consequential job losses) that CLINTON caused.

John Kerry is misleading America. It is egregiously dishonest for Kerry to politicize the employment issue and blame President Bush for job loss that began under the Clinton administration and was exacerbated by 9/11 - an issue that John Kerry refuses to acknowledge or discuss.

The recession that John Kerry blames President Bush for began in the third quarter of 2000, on Bill Clinton's watch. According to the Joint Economic Committee, severe job loss began in July of 2000, also on Bill Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton did nothing to remedy the situation, and it is blatantly dishonest for John Kerry to blame president Bush - and for the media to happily repeat this fallacious charge.

The fact that John Kerry is willing to lie about this issue for political gain seriously undermines his credibility.

Further, nothing in John Kerry's two decades as a professional politician suggests that he would handle this issue better than President Bush. His remedy for everything seems to be higher taxes and stricter regulation of businesses. Clearly, this would result in reversing the slow, but steady, increase in employment that President Bush's job-creating economic policies have achieved - John Kerry would effectively punish successful businesses and make it difficult for small and new businesses to hire new workers.

John Kerry is lying, and the media must stop perpetuating this lie. An honest, objective media would question Kerry's assertions instead of repeating them, unchallenged.

Pandering Buzzwords
February 20, 2004
Russell Betts - GoGov.com
The latest buzzwords of the Democrat candidates are "overseas outsourcing." The question is, how does a government prevent a company from outsourcing overseas?
The answer is, recreate a favorable business climate in the U.S. Contrary to popular myth, it is not cheap labor that finds companies locating overseas.
Many companies that set up factories overseas do not install much of the equipment that would routinely be used in a U.S. factory. The amortization schedule simply does not provide a payoff for the investment in the equipment. Instead, the machines are never used. In such instances, it is cheap labor replacing a machine - not U.S. workers.
What drives companies overseas are other costs of doing business in the U.S. such as onerous government reporting requirements, human resources policy management, and insurances to name a few. Any one of these line items of nonproductive expenses can exceed the entire administrative cost of a medium sized factory located overseas.

If Kerry and Edwards have something to say about outsourcing, let them tell us how they plan to stop the U.S. government from driving jobs overseas. As U.S. senators, they need only look in the mirror to see where the problem of lost jobs due to overseas outsourcing has been created.

Some statistics:

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.

Investors Business Daily has a story by Jed Graham, "For nearly a year a debate has been brewing over which of the government's employment measures is wrong. Monthly payroll figures derived from a survey of 160,000 employers show a net loss of 537,000 jobs the past two years. But, the monthly survey of about 60,000 households shows the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs in that span." Well, we just heard CNN report there are two and a half million jobs lost. Now we find out from Investors Business Daily there are other government numbers that show 2.4 million jobs have been created.

Many of the stats below can be credited to being retreived by freeper The Maccalan. THANK YOU!

Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)

* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.

* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.

Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.

Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%

* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.

Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease

* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years.

* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton

A few more tidbits:

* "2004 Will Be the U.S.'s Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years" ~ The Conference Board's revised forecast, December 2003.

* Manufacturing is at 20-year record highs.

* GDP for the second-half of 2003 grew an incredible 6 percent while inflation was held under 1 percent.

* Real private-sector GDP has expanded at a 5.3 percent annual rate since the Bush tax cuts were passed while in the prior six quarters private-sector GDP averaged only 2.5 percent.

* Foreign exports have been increasing and have actually doubled since six months ago.

* The Federal deficit is estimated to be $477 billion in 2004 but then drop to $362 billion for 2005. The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s.

* The stock markets (i.e. your pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s and college saving plans) have rebounded solidly and are approaching three-year highs.
Economically, things are looking good and getting better.

And so even though GWBush "wrecked" the economy, caused a long and deep recession and threw 4 gabzillion people out of work - in just two years GWBush was still able to keep the poverty rate LOWER than what Clinton had done in almost EIGHT years?

* And all of this IN SPITE OF 9-11, which annhialated one of America's most important financial centers.

* AND in spite of waging two major overseas wars to overthrow two terrorist regimes.

* AND in spite of completely revamping and reconstructing our national security and intelligence agencies to defend against constant domestic terrorist threats.

* And yet we STILL have (as the numbers show) a far BETTER economy after three years of GWBush than when he first took office.

* And, as shown above, GWBush has had a GREATER positive impact on the economy than what Clinton was able to accomplish in his first three years.

As of February 2004, there has been a household gain of 2.4 million jobs.

Monthly job statistics began to be collected in 1939. Since that time, there HAS NEVER been positive growth in jobs two years after a recession ended. Instead, there's been a 0.6% decline. What's going on with the jobs,therefore, is entirely consistent with what's happened every other time there has been a recession. And we've never had a 9/11 before.

The net worth of all US households is $44.4 trillion, the highest level ever.

More than two-thirds of American families own their own homes, the highest percentage ever.

Weekly initial jobless claims have dropped from a high of 459,000 last year to 345,000 last week.

Consumer prices increased just 1.9% in the past year.

The unemployment rate is 5.6%. The average unemployment rate since 1980 was 6.3%. The average unemployment rate in the 1990's was 5.7%.

The stock market has advanced 45% in the past 12 months.

The gross domestic product, the total goods and services produced in the US, increased in the third quarter last year at an annual rate of 8.2% after inflation and 4.1% in the fourth quarter. Growth in the 1990's averaged a little better than 3% annually.

The wealthiest 5 percent pay more than half the taxes, while people in the bottom half pay just 4 percent.

Factory output is at a 20 year high.

The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S.
history.

The average is currently $15.40 vs. $11.80 during Clinton's term

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.