[Tuco]

So Bush has lost more jobs under his administration than any president since Herbert Hoover, right? So why has the unemloyment rate hovered around 5%? Why hasn't the unemployment rate reflected the abysmal job loss record of Bush? Perhaps I'm missing some crucial piece of information. Are unemployed people not being counted for some reason?

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by Tuco

So Bush has lost more jobs under his administration than any president since Herbert Hoover, right? So why has the unemloyment rate hovered around 5%? Why hasn't the unemployment rate reflected the abysmal job loss record of Bush? Perhaps I'm missing some crucial piece of information. Are unemployed people not being counted for some reason?

Because people found jobs...they lost one, found another...

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Because people found jobs...they lost one, found another...

This seems logical to me. Then it follows that the job loss gloom and doom portrayed by the Democrats is drastically overblown.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by Tuco

This seems logical to me. Then it follows that the job loss gloom and doom portrayed by the Democrats is drastically overblown.

Yes, it is drastically overblown.

[AcaCandy]

http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm

[deh]

One argument though would be that on the surface losing a job, but then getting a job to replace the job lost seems like an even trade.However, if you lose a $60k+ job and replace that job with a $30k job at Walmart then the employment situation is a bit more dismal.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by deh

One argument though would be that on the surface losing a job, but then getting a job to replace the job lost seems like an even trade.However, if you lose a $60k+ job and replace that job with a $30k job at Walmart then the employment situation is a bit more dismal.

Yes, that is true as well...but the thing is, in the IT sector, before the recession, many people were being horribly overpaid...

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by deh

One argument though would be that on the surface losing a job, but then getting a job to replace the job lost seems like an even trade.However, if you lose a $60k+ job and replace that job with a $30k job at Walmart then the employment situation is a bit more dismal.

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003.

[AcaCandy]

Tuco, don't confuse some of the folks around here with facts

[Stoner]

Move to northern Ohio and find out first hand what job loss is
Stand in line at a Bush ralley at Timken, then say aloha to your job later, as Timken is given a tax break to leave the country.

BTW, the poverty rate in Cleveland is just over 30%.

[Mulderator]

The job loss is another distortion by Democrats or just plain ignorance of the situation (i.e., Stoner). Democrats keep saying things like "biggest deficit of any President", "most jobs lost of any President", etc. What they don't tell you is they are measuring absolutes, not relatives. As an example, the deficits Bush as incurred as a percentage of GDP are relatively small.

We entered a recession which was not Bush's fault. Jobs are always lost in a recession. Bush had nothing to do with that. And since the recession ended, jobs have been replaced. I beleive the "net" job loss is somewhere just over half a million.

It is interesting that Stoner blames business leaving the US on Bush, which is akin to talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, people accuse Republicans of coddling corporations and business to the detriment of the average citizen. If that were true, why would they leave the US? What Stoner fails to tell you is the No. 1 reason businesses leave the US is the high cost of doing business here, primarily due to the unions, which are entirely backed and supported by Democrats. Fortunately, you won't get to see a mass exodus of business, because that's what would happen under Kerry, who would allow them to gouged by lawyers and unions.

Businesses don't leave America because of Republican economic policies, you can believe that--they leave because of Democrats onerous regulations. Saying that business are given tax breaks to leave the US is absurd.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Move to northern Ohio and find out first hand what job loss is
Stand in line at a Bush ralley at Timken, then say aloha to your job later, as Timken is given a tax break to leave the country.

BTW, the poverty rate in Cleveland is just over 30%.

I will happily stay away from northern Ohio. The situation in Cleveland is one of the worst in the nation and I'm not sure that it is Bush's fault. What exactly are the tax breaks given for moving jobs out of the country? I could be wrong, but I suspect those tax advantages were in place long before Bush took office.

[Stoner]

The flaw in your opinion, Mulder, is that Ohio is a conservative Republican state that has not embraced socialism like the neocons and lefties in California.
And yes, it is widely known that Timken and others in northern Ohio have left the country for greener pastures with the incentive of tax breaks.
Unions are pretty much busted in Ohio.
I hear their still pretty strong in Ca.
Don't hear much in the way of union activity here, other than negotiating to keep their jobs.
Guess Ca is the focal point for business backed neocon fascism versus the socialist lefty workers union.
Would rather keep our jobs and reject either forms of extremism from Ca.......

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

The flaw in your opinion, Mulder, is that Ohio is a conservative Republican state that has not embraced socialism like the neocons and lefties in California.
And yes, it is widely known that Timken and others in northern Ohio have left the country for greener pastures with the incentive of tax breaks.
Unions are pretty much busted in Ohio.
I hear their still pretty strong in Ca.
Don't hear much in the way of union activity here, other than negotiating to keep their jobs.
Guess Ca is the focal point for business backed neocon fascism versus the socialist lefty workers union.
Would rather keep our jobs and reject either forms of extremism from Ca.......

In other words, you have no basis for your previous comments!

[Rockn]

Sounds like a business isue with Timken, not an issue of moving jobs overseas.

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir...item_id=634806

The undeniable fact is that, despite significant investments and our associates' best efforts to improve productivity, our Canton bearing operations are not competitive, as they exist today. For more than a year, we have engaged in good-faith discussions with the United Steelworkers of America about the core issues affecting the future of these facilities. Those talks are continuing. It is a business decision - not a political issue.