« The Chosen People Should Choose Bush | Home | Actions Speak Louder Than Words »
1 Million In 3
By Matt Margolis | June 4, 2004
While John Kerry is going around the country saying the economy is bad, nearly a million jobs were created in the past 3 months - and over 1.2 million since the beginning of the year.
U.S. employers added an unexpectedly large 248,000 jobs in May, according to a government report on Friday that confirmed a strengthening economy likely to soon bring higher interest rates.
The May tally exceeded Wall Street expectations for 216,000 new jobs and followed an upwardly revised total of 346,000 jobs in April and 353,000 in March. The 947,000 jobs created in the March-May period made it the strongest for any three months in four years.The cascading evidence of accelerating economic activity is certain to reinforce expectations that Federal Reserve policymakers will ratchet U.S. interest rates up from current 46-year lows when they meet June 29-30 and may prove a boon to election-bound President Bush.
Bill Hobbs over at Blogs For Bush points out how at the current rate of job growth, the Bush economy would create even more jobs than Kerry pretends he could create in his first term:
At the current rate of job creation, 238,000 per month so far this year, the Bush economy would create only 11.424 million jobs over four years. That’s fewer than the 10 million Kerry’s policies would create in his first term. Er, um. Never mind.
The fact is, the Bush Boom is now creating jobs at a faster clip than the job growth John Kerry promises if he is elected president and allowed to enact his policies of higher taxes and higher government spending.
In fact, at a rate of 238,000 new jobs per month this year, the economy would create 11,424,000 jobs over four years. John Kerry is promising his economic policies would create only 10 million jobs during his first term.
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
June 4th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for this to run on page A1 of the NYT anytime soon. Great news though!
June 4th, 2004 at 5:04 pm
you dumb shit. The NYT were Bush’s greatest bullshit piece during the lies running up to the illegal war. And now you diss them? Fucktard.
June 4th, 2004 at 5:11 pm
Todd, Good to see you regurgitate leftist propaganda at the drop of a dime…. Come up with an original thought. Your comment adds up to the intelligence of a pussy fart… Now go fuck yourself!!!
June 4th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
well cunt, if you could read you’d know what I said has been proven you shitwad.
June 4th, 2004 at 8:02 pm
Damn, none of that made sense from either of you. Well I think the NYT is owned by ex Italian fascists, ooh I’m original now aren’t I? The media wants money, its not concentrated on delivering an “agenda”. That would not be as profitable. And people shoujld be against all biases. If the Boston Globe is too liberal people should address them and ask for fairer coverage,and the same goes for the Wall Street Journal if it is too conservative. News is more important than which fog it is shown through.
June 4th, 2004 at 11:10 pm
What?! Miles Davis, are you claiming that the media is owned by corporations, and has no conscience beyond what will return the highest value to stockholders, regardless of what serves the country?!
June 4th, 2004 at 11:19 pm
Glad to that liberal Toddy’s first post - his very first post was designed to through the blog off track by spewing an insult. Way to go Toddy! That the way they taught you to do it at the commune seminar?
The New York Times is hopelessly liberal - please. So is the LA Times, the Washington Post (when it was discovered that Bush actually had better grades than Gore the Post headline was “Gores grades almost as good as Bush’s”).
CNN was a rising star during the first Gulf War because it was alone. Now, we know how full of crap they are (Is Larry King conservative?) and FOX was star this time. Why, because yes - we want to root for our guys. I was a Marine, I know Marines, there are marines in my family. Why did we pull out of Fallujah? Was it because the freakin First Marine Division couldn’t handle it? Nope - it was beacuse they we too effective. Marine snipers with bolt action rifles and semi-auto Barrets killed hundreds of enemy. So many so that some intersections were piled high with their bodies - entwined with their AK74’s and RPG7’s. Was that the story you got from the times? That the 1st Marine Division was kicking so much ass that the Muslim clerics who really matter there asked us to ease off? No - it was not.
CBS, NBC, and ABC suck. And NPR is the worst. Worst because it is a great organization with great in-depth stories - and subtly slanted at the same time. Check this out. Clinton speaks better than Bush senior - during that campaign NPR would play Clinton sound bites and read Bushes with their own emphasis. Now - check this out if you don’t believe me - Kerry is an awful speaker (ever hear Rush imitate him? Hilarious) and Bush is awful also. But, they play Bush’s sound bites - and READ Kerry’s (so they can make them intelligable). Subtle intelligent news slanting. Not stupid by any means - instead clever and dangerous. Dagerous because the liberals are completly willing to lose the war to defeat Bush. And willing to play down good economic to keep people dpressed and stifle the economy as much as possible for the same reason. It is the signiture of modern liberalism - Class division, class envy, class hatred.
June 5th, 2004 at 11:11 am
Look at this link
http://tommcmahon.blogspot.com/images/2003senatewealth.gif
The democrats in the Senate are some of the richest Americans. If they, and all the rich dems gave up 75% of their wealth, they could pay for all the social programs they want and then some.
June 5th, 2004 at 11:47 am
Alright how about you give your definition of liberal, then I can stop debating with you. Even if all those Democrats gave up 80% of their money, that 400 million dollars would pay for very little of it. AFDC and food stamps cost only about 24 billion, they are the main welfare programs and compared to what other government expenses are its still little.
If you think as I do that the television news is crap then just don’t watch it. I have faith that people are intelligent enough to decide what news is good and which is not. I don’t think either a liberal or a conservative bias makes something more true, both distort the truth. Why do you think I come to this blog? I want to see what the other side thinks of news stories, that way if I compare it to what liberal sites say I can decide for myself what the actual truths are.
June 5th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
I used the graph to make a point. I was tyhinking of Soros $6 Billion, of Warren Buffet, and the Rockefellers, and Huffington and the rest of the Hollywood crowd. Perhaps I was not clear in my definition.
The Democratic leadership is richer than the Republican leadership. Democrats raise most of their money from these very wealthy benefactors (witness Soros has spent $16 million this year alone thru MoveOn). And yet, they paint republicans as the party of the rich. Either the leadership is extemely paternalistic (not enough to give you their money of course) or they are using the low level dems and liberals to stay in power and increase their own wealth. In effect, they buy off the poor with entitlement programs - but never really offer them a way to increase their own wealth. It is a con game.
My points about the press go to one of the very early quotes in this blog. A few month ago Kerry said the election would be about “jobs, jobs, jobs!” Oh, so going to withdraw from the race now? #What will it be about next week. The press is deliberatly dampening the economy with negative propoganda to hurt Bush and help Kerry. - they learned the technique fro Joe Gobbles
June 5th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
I just spend 20 minutes looking at a site full of non partisan donation statistics. The only groups that give very large sums of money overwhelmingly to the Democrats are unions and lawyers. This is out of 13 interests and industries, two others are even and the last 9 give more so to the Republicans. I don’t really trust either party to care about the people more than the interests that give money to them.
Stop with Nazi comparisons, I’m sure all industries and advertising agencies learned something from Goebbels. The front page of today’s Boston Globe is highlighting the improvement in the economy, the title is postitive “US economy tallies strong job growth”. I did read the article and it shows all opinions with the facts. Show me the articles or the news stories by major media that you find are intentionally trying to dampen the new economic news to attack Bush.
June 5th, 2004 at 2:43 pm
I’m no economist, so I generally attack Bush from other fronts. I hope the recovery is more than a lie though. Job loss has been tough on the small town I’m from. That’s all I know. It’s good to see everybody yelling at each other. It brings me such hope…
June 5th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
And, as to the funding - its a complex subject and hard to get numbers. Lets just look at the $16 Million George Soros gave MoveOn.org - an organization you must admit is if not pro-Kerry, at least dedicated to removing Bush - and THEY started the latest round of Nazi comparisons - not me. How do you apply that donation to the statistics you read on that site? Just one donation from one guy to a site thats not for Kerry or the Democratic party - yet obviously an anti-Bush organization. I beleive I've read that most Dem money comes as large donations from large wealthy individuals. This is the party of campaign finance reform?
June 5th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
Don’t know what happened - had a long post that wasn’t picked up.
MilesDavis - Look at the $16 million Soros gave MoveOn.org - it won’t make it into your statistics because it wasn’t to Kerry and it wasn’t to the Dems - just a group of people who hate Bush. Most Dem money (not raw number of contributions) comes from large wealthy individuals. Soros, Huffington, Steisand, Madona…
The press - lets watch the talk shows Sunday morning and really pay attention to how they handle it eh? Republicans will trumpet it - Dems will say “yes, good but…” That is actually a typical technique. NPR for example can not bring itself to tell a good story abou Bush, Republicans, or conservatives without following the point with “but,…” and giving the last major point to an opponent. Slanting the news is very sophisticated and subtle.
June 5th, 2004 at 6:41 pm
If you don’t say “but” then your not telling the truth. Journalists usually have to answer the who?what?where?when?how?why? questions, and that goes with any story.
Kahn where are your statistics on the Democrats getting their money mostly from wealthy individuals? What I was saying didn’t have to do with the number of contributions it had to do with the amount of money industiries and groups give. Republicans recieve more money from corporations and PACs then the Democrats.
June 5th, 2004 at 8:23 pm
It will take a while to dig it up, but I will.
And you do not have to always follow a point with but. And it does not have to e the final point. That is a way to control the impression received from a story.
For example;
Your baby is cute, but she smells bad
I like your dress, but you’re fat
Sex is great, but you’re ugly
I’d love a piece of pie, but I have the runs
June 9th, 2004 at 9:11 am
Well clearly the news shows on Sunday had bigger things to discuss than the economic news. And even I don’t blame them for centering their coverage on Ronald Reagan. Bye Mr. Reagan. You took my Marines off of food stamps whith the raise you gave us. You gave us back what the Carter years had taken away.