Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-04   #1
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush

The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush
Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004


The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim.
One little problem: It's not true.

Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses.

While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America’s economy has been steadily creating jobs.

At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. And though the eight-month recession “officially” ended in November, economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery.

The signs:


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.

Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.

Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.

Productivity growth is extremely high.

Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story.


Faulty Counting


The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.


Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.

But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.

People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.

As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey."

Credit Where Credit Is Due

That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing.

Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels.

"I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said.


"I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year."

Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/171833.shtml


Yet another liberal lie is exposed. Bush is doing the best job on the economy since Reagan.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #2
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
Who does the household survey? Is it the BLS or someone else?

I actually think that the US econmy is doing quite well at the moment, but that isn't at all surprising given that $500 billion pounds more is being invested into the economy by the government than is being taken out. Prepare for an ass-biting a few years down the line. Not until GWB is out of office, most likely, so he's not that bothered.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #3
lazaruscorporat
corporate whore
 
lazaruscorporat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 937
lazaruscorporat is on a distinguished road
Credits: 43,677
I remember in the last few years of the Thatcher government here in the UK.

1. I didn't have employment
2. I wanted employment
3. I was actively seeking employment

However, according to the Thatcher government statistical measurements, I wasn't counted as "unemployed".

Statistics are a wonderfully malleable thing in the hands of politicians.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #4
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arty
Who does the household survey? Is it the BLS or someone else?

I actually think that the US econmy is doing quite well at the moment, but that isn't at all surprising given that $500 billion pounds more is being invested into the economy by the government than is being taken out. Prepare for an ass-biting a few years down the line. Not until GWB is out of office, most likely, so he's not that bothered.


BLS does the survey, but they are not calling new businesses, only old ones.


Where are you getting your $500 billion pound figure?
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #5
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
I believe that's your expected budget deficit. $477 billion in fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430405.stm
__________________
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'

David Hume
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #6
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arty
I believe that's your expected budget deficit. $477 billion in fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430405.stm

We are currently running a deficit caused by a recession and a war. Both of those are very good reasons to incur debt. Our deficit is quite small, and issued at historically low interest rates. It's not going to be a problem during Bush's second term at all.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #7
Corporate Pig
Managing Idealism
 
Corporate Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Manus Island Detention Centre, PNG
Posts: 844
Corporate Pig
Credits: 47,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
We are currently running a deficit caused by a recession and a war. Both of those are very good reasons to incur debt. Our deficit is quite small, and issued at historically low interest rates. It's not going to be a problem during Bush's second term at all.
Isn't it amazing how so many different people, interpret the US National deficit in so many different ways...

Anyway, what you call "small" Lawson, I would call it anything but small...
If $7 Trillion dollars is "Small" - what would you call large - $10,000 Trillion ?

As to the CURRENT US National Debt;
Quote:
Outstanding Public Debt as of 03 Mar 2004 at 017:45 AM GMT is:
$7,101,651,422,409.28

The estimated population of the United States is $293,437,583
so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,201.57.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.06 billion per day since September 30, 2003!

Refer: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
__________________
"aeterna veritas"
eternal truth

Corporate Greed...
Economy without Society
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #8
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corporate Pig
Isn't it amazing how so many different people, interpret the US National deficit in so many different ways...

Anyway, what you call "small" Lawson, I would call it anything but small...
If $7 Trillion dollars is "Small" - what would you call large - $10,000 Trillion ?

As to the CURRENT US National Debt;


Now tell us what the deficit is as a percentage of GDP, and then tell how how it is nowhere near the largest.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04   #9
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Greenspan: Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
AP ^ | Thu Feb 12,10:56 PM ET | By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer




WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said Thursday that Congress should make President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts permanent and cover the $1 trillion price by trimming future benefits in Social Security (news - web sites) and other entitlement programs.

Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee that Congress, "as a first order of business," should restore budget rules that cap discretionary government spending and require increases in entitlement benefits or cuts in taxes to be offset by other program cuts or other tax increases.

Greenspan was asked how he would come up with the decade-long cost of $1 trillion to pay for extending the 2001 and 2003 individual tax cuts. "I would argue strenuously that it should be taken out on the expenditure side," he answered.

Greenspan, chairman of a commission that recommended solutions to a Social Security funding crisis in 1983, said he has felt for long time that the promised program benefits greatly outweighed the government's ability to pay for them.

He recommended two items for study in terms of trimming benefits: linking the retirement age to the population's longer life spans and tying annual cost of living benefits in Social Security to a less-generous inflation index than the Consumer Price Index (news - web sites).
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-04   #10
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
The Economist predicts a deficit of 5.2% of GDP. The White House predicts 4.5%.

http://www.economist.com/countries/U...ofile-Forecast

In perspective, the EU guidelines for responsible fiscal policy put the limit at 3%. That France and Germany have gone over that limit is seen as extremely worrying for the Eurozone. The US deficit is huge, in other words. There may have been larger ones in the past, I don't have time to check, but since when was that a justification for anything? Who says it was right then? Why does the US need to do this to itself now?

Section 7 here shows the estimates for the federal debt as a proportion of GDP. As you can see, it came down from the WWII all the way to Reagan, who sent it off upwards again. Clinton just about managed to bring it under control before Bush sent it rocketing again. It is predicted to rise to levels not seen since 1952, when you were still paying off WWII. Unbelievable irresponsibility. I fail to see how Republicans seem to see themselves as the party of fiscal repsonsibility.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...5/pdf/hist.pdf

Section 1 shows the budget surpluses and deficits, but doesn't show them as a % of GDP. It does, however, show that the deficit is well over 25% of the total tax receipts. I think it also assumes that the tax cuts won't be made permanent.


Incidentally Corporate Pig, this doesn't really affect the thrust of your point, but the deficit is not the same as the debt. The deficit is the disprepancy each year, the debt is the accumulation of the deficits over time, so the deficit is about $500 billion and the debt is about $7 trillion.
__________________
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'

David Hume
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-04   #11
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arty
The Economist predicts a deficit of 5.2% of GDP. The White House predicts 4.5%.

http://www.economist.com/countries/U...ofile-Forecast

In perspective, the EU guidelines for responsible fiscal policy put the limit at 3%. That France and Germany have gone over that limit is seen as extremely worrying for the Eurozone. The US deficit is huge, in other words. There may have been larger ones in the past, I don't have time to check, but since when was that a justification for anything? Who says it was right then? Why does the US need to do this to itself now?
Bush has a plan to half the deficit by 2008. So there is the solution.



Quote:
Section 7 here shows the estimates for the federal debt as a proportion of GDP. As you can see, it came down from the WWII all the way to Reagan, who sent it off upwards again.
No, Reagan was not in control of Congress, which controls spending. The Democrats spent $1.62 for every new dollar Reagan brought in. Reagan doubled revenues to the Treasury from $500 billion to $1 trillion during his two terms. Still the Dims spent far more than he brought in.


Quote:
Clinton just about managed to bring it under control before Bush sent it rocketing again. It is predicted to rise to levels not seen since 1952, when you were still paying off WWII. Unbelievable irresponsibility. I fail to see how Republicans seem to see themselves as the party of fiscal repsonsibility.
Clinton projected deficits the first two years of his Presidency. The Republicans took over in 1994, and they balanced the budget in only six years. Those were the first balanced budgets in 30 years of Democrat rule over the House and Senate.

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...5/pdf/hist.pdf

Section 1 shows the budget surpluses and deficits, but doesn't show them as a % of GDP. It does, however, show that the deficit is well over 25% of the total tax receipts. I think it also assumes that the tax cuts won't be made permanent.
Because the GDP grows each year, the only way to compare is by using % of GDP. This is not the largest deficit by a long shot using those rules.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-04   #12
John Preston
Listen
 
John Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,395
John Preston is on a distinguished road
Credits: 256,181
Nobody's ever asked me if I'm unemployed.
So how the hell do they know how many people are unemployed? Mmm? They don't, and the fact is that it was brilliantly demonstrated in a previous thread that they don't even come close to the actual amount of unemployed people, and that the unemployment amount is decreasing due to so much time going by and the unemployed listed as unemployed being taken off the list due to that time going by.
__________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-04   #13
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Preston
Nobody's ever asked me if I'm unemployed.
So how the hell do they know how many people are unemployed? Mmm? They don't, and the fact is that it was brilliantly demonstrated in a previous thread that they don't even come close to the actual amount of unemployed people, and that the unemployment amount is decreasing due to so much time going by and the unemployed listed as unemployed being taken off the list due to that time going by.

They poll the employers, not the employees. Read the article.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-04   #14
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
Bush has a plan to half the deficit by 2008. So there is the solution.
By 2008 the economic cycle is expected to have flipped, so you really ought to be in surplus then. Having a deficit at the peak of the cycle is irresponsible. If you're not going to pay your debts in the good times, when else are you going to pay them? Having a $250 billion deficit at that stage of the cycle is no solution to anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
No, Reagan was not in control of Congress, which controls spending. The Democrats spent $1.62 for every new dollar Reagan brought in. Reagan doubled revenues to the Treasury from $500 billion to $1 trillion during his two terms. Still the Dims spent far more than he brought in.
A grasp of the facts might help you. Republicans controlled the Senate between 1980 and 1986, so you can't blame it all on the Democrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
Clinton projected deficits the first two years of his Presidency. The Republicans took over in 1994, and they balanced the budget in only six years. Those were the first balanced budgets in 30 years of Democrat rule over the House and Senate.
Well if the Republicans are so wonderful I don't see why they making such a balls up of things now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
Because the GDP grows each year, the only way to compare is by using % of GDP. This is not the largest deficit by a long shot using those rules.
I never once said it was. What I did say, and what you have ignored (this is getting to be a habit with you) is that it doesn't matter how big it is compared with other times. This is not then, this is now, and it is wrong now. The recession that we've just had was a very shallow one, it doesn't justify this sort of borrowing.
__________________
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'

David Hume
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-04   #15
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arty
By 2008 the economic cycle is expected to have flipped, so you really ought to be in surplus then. Having a deficit at the peak of the cycle is irresponsible. If you're not going to pay your debts in the good times, when else are you going to pay them? Having a $250 billion deficit at that stage of the cycle is no solution to anything.
It's well below the average rate of 4.5% of GDP by then. We ran deficits for 30 straight years when Democrats ran Congress.


Quote:
A grasp of the facts might help you. Republicans controlled the Senate between 1980 and 1986, so you can't blame it all on the Democrats.
All spending bills originate in the House, not the Senate. I'll forgive you for your lack of grasp of the facts, as you are a foreignor.


Quote:
Well if the Republicans are so wonderful I don't see why they making such a balls up of things now.
Hmm, the best economy in 20 years, the lowest interest rates in 50 years, the lowest inflation rate in 50 years, and unemployment lower than the average of each of the last 3 decades.

We'll take it!


Quote:
I never once said it was. What I did say, and what you have ignored (this is getting to be a habit with you) is that it doesn't matter how big it is compared with other times. This is not then, this is now, and it is wrong now. The recession that we've just had was a very shallow one, it doesn't justify this sort of borrowing.
The borrowing was in part, left over from previous debt, based on rosier economic conditions. We've has a recession, a terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, all that were rooted in Clinton's term. We've had to spend to create an entirely new branch of Government, the Dept. of Homeland Defense, plus fight two wars.

Borrowing money is appropriate during economic slowdowns, and times of war. We have had both.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-04   #16
John Preston
Listen
 
John Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,395
John Preston is on a distinguished road
Credits: 256,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
They poll the employers, not the employees. Read the article.
And that proves that they don't know how many people are actually unemployed.


As for the overall increase of jobs under Bush's little thing, if I remember correctly he's still actually in the negative in overall amount of jobs lost/gained since he came into office.


But then again I don't sit around constantly looking at fact sheets.
__________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-04   #17
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Preston
And that proves that they don't know how many people are actually unemployed.
That's what the article says. There are far more people employed in new startup businesses than they are counting, making the real jobs gain much higher.



Quote:
As for the overall increase of jobs under Bush's little thing, if I remember correctly he's still actually in the negative in overall amount of jobs lost/gained since he came into office.
No, he's up 100,000, in spite of the Clinton recession., and the economy is skyrocketing now, so there will soon be millions more.



Quote:
But then again I don't sit around constantly looking at fact sheets.
That's ok, you have us to do that for you.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-04   #18
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
It's well below the average rate of 4.5% of GDP by then. We ran deficits for 30 straight years when Democrats ran Congress.
Yes, and because of economic mismanagement you ended up with Stagflation in the 1970s and a crash in the 1980s. The point about good fiscal management is that it insulates you from these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
All spending bills originate in the House, not the Senate. I'll forgive you for your lack of grasp of the facts, as you are a foreignor.
Er, yes, but I take it it has to go through the Senate as well. The fact is that the tax cuts were Reagan's idea. They weren't necessarily a bad idea at the time, but he should have either raised them or cut spending once the economy picked up. Don't pretend that the House controls the US economy, because it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
Hmm, the best economy in 20 years, the lowest interest rates in 50 years, the lowest inflation rate in 50 years, and unemployment lower than the average of each of the last 3 decades.

We'll take it!
That's not a million miles from what they said about the Nixon 'recovery.' It's easy to make the economy go well by running a deficit. Any fool can do that, as we are seeing. The bigger the deficit, the better the economy will go, until your debt catches up with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawson
The borrowing was in part, left over from previous debt, based on rosier economic conditions. We've has a recession, a terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, all that were rooted in Clinton's term. We've had to spend to create an entirely new branch of Government, the Dept. of Homeland Defense, plus fight two wars.

Borrowing money is appropriate during economic slowdowns, and times of war. We have had both.
Borrowing is appropriate during times of slowdown - you're a good little Keynsian like me, I see. But there are sensible limits. 4.5% is not sensible. The recession wasn't serious, the debt wasn't as high as it had been, the corporate scandals aren't that important in this context, and the war only cost about $100 billion if I remember correctly. No real excuse.
__________________
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'

David Hume
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-04   #19
RedHawk
Embracer Of The Dark
 
RedHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: michigan
Posts: 476
RedHawk is on a distinguished road
Credits: 20,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arty
I believe that's your expected budget deficit. $477 billion in fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430405.stm
Arty, you DO KNOW that we count different than you guys do, doncha?

A Billion here is 1 thousand million, not 1 million million.
__________________
RedHawk
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-04   #20
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
Redhawk, you DO KNOW that a billion here is also a thousand million, and has been for many many years? Clearly not. Anyway, I don't quite see what your point is. $477 thousand million is more than it ought to be if Bush was doing this properly without an eye to his short-term electoral concerns.
__________________
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'

David Hume
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush Interviewed! Dun dun dun John Preston Topic Discussions 30 03-19-04 20:34
Bush - Certain Invading Iraq Was The Right Move John Preston Topic Discussions 4 01-31-04 01:27
Bush - Claiming and hanging with the locals John Preston Topic Discussions 0 01-22-04 22:34

Recent Threads
what surprised you today?
04-11-13 17:55
Last post by Wicked Lady
3 Days Ago 12:40
I'm not 15.
3 Days Ago 12:39
Last post by Wicked Lady
3 Days Ago 12:39
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 06:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by thefr0g
5 Days Ago 01:11
Drunk again
1 Week Ago 16:24
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 18:27
Under pressure
2 Weeks Ago 15:15
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Weeks Ago 16:07
MiaOw and Lenina
4 Weeks Ago 03:05
by Kendra
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Weeks Ago 14:17
A one world communist...
2 Weeks Ago 15:48
Last post by Dark Messiah
2 Weeks Ago 11:24
Online Users: 74
0 members and 74 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 18:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community