actually war is good for the economy too. look what happened after the great depression.

joe - i apologize if i came off as too arogant to you. however if your going to tell me something i know is wrong you had better back it up. otherwise your just saying nothing.

beef - right, i need to get my bases covered. ok. try this, your post points out exactly what im talking about.

your excerpts from the CNN report basically outline the first sentence and the little list further down in the report.

however, your excerpts from both the CNN report and the excerpts from the actual BLS report dont mention that from 1999 to 2001 4 million people were already displaced. it went to 5.3 million after bush took office. thats only 1.3 million more. after bush took office 3.2 million workers were reemployed. i suppose thats how horrible a job he' s doing with the economy.

not only that but 43% of workers reemployed were earning as much or more in their new jobs.

also, the actual number of workers diplaced in 1999-2001 was 10.1 million. 2001-2004 it was 11.4 million. the BLS report also says that " Two-thirds of the total displaced had found new jobs when
surveyed in January 2004, while 20 percent were unemployed, and 13 percent
were not in the labor force. (See table 8.)"

that means 33% were either unemployed or out of the work force.

which means 77% were reemployed. another sign of the wretched state of the economy i suppose.

now since i cant find the report from CNN your posted i dont know if the reporter left out this stuff to make it look bad or if you left it out. though i am interested in reading this article so if you could post it later that' d be great.

So, a 33% increase in long-tenured job displacement (from 4 to 5.3 million) and a 10% increase in all job displacement (from 10.1 to 11.3 million) is a good job with the economy.
67% reemployment is a good job with the economy.
43% of displaced workers earning as much as they have before - that means that 57% are making less is a good job with the economy.

I see why Bush is so loved.

You people have low standards.

Bush DID bring the majority of job displacements back (3.2/5.3). Not only did he bring back those lost during his office, but 1.9 million from the Clinton years.
Call911:

which means 77% were reemployed. another sign of the wretched state of the economy i suppose.

Beef Shala:

67% reemployment is a good job with the economy.

Why did 77% suddenly become 67%?

Beef:

43% of displaced workers earning as much as they have before - that means that 57% are making less is a good job with the economy.

hello? there' s wars involved here...

Waitaminute... Call911 sez war is GOOD for the economy. Which one of you is right and which one of you is wrong?

Call911 is thinking like it is 1950. War was good for the economy in WW2 because all of the artillery was made here. Every plane was made at home, so that meant jobs and more money being pumped into the American economy. Now with outsourcing to other countries (which the Bushies support), our money gets sent to other countries for them to make our weapons.

Nowadays, war slows the economy because people are less hesitant to invest at turbulant times.

We are at war???? I thought that the President said " Mission Accomplished" a long time ago.

Why did 77% suddenly become 67%?

This is because Call911 can' t subtract.

that means 33% were either unemployed or out of the work force.

which means 77% were reemployed. another sign of the wretched state of the economy i suppose.

That adds up to 110%

ok i just want to give my opinion on the whole election on the bush/kerry election.

1. i dont give a **** about the election, yes i will vote but with the whole campaigns for the canidates i dont care about for i dont even watch the news because of the election

2. bush f***ed up big time on the war for even going into irag in search of biological weapons or nuclear weapons or what ever, and the army found no hard evidence of any of it. yes it was good for us to go to iraq to overthrough sadam husan from the rule of iraq but that is all i see in going to iraq in the first place and nothing more.

so over all for the election bush is NOT getting my vote because of his f***ups on the war and i dont even want him in office any more.

when a bear speaks, people should listen.

Kerry - Edwards in 2004.

well thank you for agreeing with me and at the same time have similar thoughts of the election that i do

I happen to be very much into politics and follow them religously (alongside videogames and of course religion). No matter how much any of you sislike Kerry you still must vote for him in prevention of WW3. Dubya is the worst thing thats ever damaged this country and we have to defeat him again this november)

I really do not care for either, but Kerry appears to be the lesser-of-two-evils.

We have seen the damage that Bush has done...Kerry doesn' t seem smart enough to do worse. I sure wish Gephardt would have won the Democratic nomination...at least we would have a candidate with some sense...

As for Nader, he should have made his run earlier...I would have voted for him...

Nader did run last time... took quite a few votes away from Al Gore. The Republicans definitely want him running this time since it splits the non-super-religious-whacko vote. I think the Dems could have done much better than Kerry.

I don' t see why Yuzo Koshiro or Tomonubo (sp) Itagaki can' t be president. Oh yeah. They weren' t born here.

Kerry' s the lesser of 2 evils? Maybe that' s because he hasn' t been president. I woulnd' t stick with a nominee who backs down to terrorism if u mean lesser of 2 evils to be non-agressive. Oh yea, Bush is more evil because he' s fighting terrorists...and i guess you guys want more 9-11' s cause terrorists are safe with Kerry.

You want " mission accomplished" to mean absolutely no more casualties? Well, after April 30, 1975, thousands of Vietcongs were still killed after taking over S. Vietnam. If you' re fighting terrorism, these things are bound to happen. Let me see Kerry avoid aftermath deaths (after Sadam) with his own war against terrorism...impossible. Let terrorism grow and you will get your build-up for WW3...like the way Kerry wanted to be spokesperson against the US in Vietnam in which he succeeded in pulling US troops out and PREVENTING democracy to take place...and now what? ALL of Vietnam is communist...whooo...go Kerry!!!

Anyone who has and/or will vote for Nader is purely undeserving to live in the states. Voting for somebody who u know will not even make it through the first state is uncaring...that' s just like searching for a panda in Iraq.

---I regret---

#1. It is not our job to police the world.

#2. I believe that the US has officially admitted that us getting involved in Vietnam was a mistake.

#3.

u can go to Antarctica and live with your own kind where there' s no president.

" your own kind" ? Now you' re throwing around insults and with a comment like that, you insinuate that " your kind" is BETTER than " his kind" . That is something that is very dangerous to think. It' s the basis of all discrimination I' d say. It' s comments like this which make your arguments seem laughable. It' s like the smiley face at the end of a joke sentence. How can I take anything you say seriously when you say things like this? Please think more carefully when you reply.

Alley_Hater,

You may need to step back a minute and take a d-e-e-p breath...

I am not against the war on terrorism.. I am against a war that proposes to fight terrorism, but is actually fought to take control of the world' s 2nd largest oil field.

Bush has never produced one bit of evidence concerning ' Weapons of Mass Destruction' . You know why? There weren' t any over there! It was all about the oil!

Now, we have about 1,000 soldiers dead over what? Oil!!!

Explain that to the soldiers that died! Explain that to the families and friends of those soldiers! EXPLAIN THAT TO THE TAXPAYERS WHO ARE PAYING FOR THIS GROSS MIS-HANDLING OF OUR NATIONS MILITARY RESOURCES!!!

Bush has done nothing but kill off Americans for his, and his big-business friend' s, interests.

Bush cheated his way into office...and now he is cheating families of their loved ones...

Want honor back in our military service? Get Bush, or any businessman, out of office and let a military leader take over!

Bush was in the Coast Guard...that' s not even the military! That' s under the Dept. of Transportation!!! And it appears that he was missing for some time from there!!!

Personally, I would prefer Powell...not Kerry.

Now...for the Kerry argument...Kerry will say anything to get voted in office. That makes him almost as harmful as Bush, but that' s politics. However, his election may allow for some healing between nations that are concerned about our intentions...this would allow us to gather ' respectable' support against terrorism.

Nader is a non-issue...no support, no campaign, no chance for Presidential Office.

You' re dismissed!!!

Joe Redifer:

" your own kind" ? Now you' re throwing around insults and with a comment like that, you insinuate that " your kind" is BETTER than " his kind" . That is something that is very dangerous to think. It' s the basis of all discrimination I' d say. It' s comments like this which make your arguments seem laughable. It' s like the smiley face at the end of a joke sentence. How can I take anything you say seriously when you say things like this? Please think more carefully when you reply.

Joe, u didn' t understand what I typed. His screen name includes " bear" , so I meant your own kind to be polar bears, which is why Antarctica is in the sentence. So, it IS actually a joke. You can make fun of me living in " alleys" and I woulldn' t take that seriously. For your convenience Joe, I edited that post and all that remains of that sentence is

---I regret---

I recall the military found weapons underground. Provided Sadam violated the weapons resolution of the UN in the last Desert Storm is enough to take him out of rule.

Yes, I agree Bush cheated his way into presidency. My parents voted for Gore in Election 2000. Just as you guys think in your opinions, I support Bush at the time being; there are different candidates at different times

I don' t think we' d be able to hide any oil intentions from all the intelligence in the world. There' s always outsiders who know. Plus, with the new Iraqi gov' t in place, more power is transfering to them. So it wouldn' t be right for the US to give everything but oil back to them. Anyways, oil refineries are being attacked occasionally by insergents.

Since I just turned 18 this year I feel sad that neither choice really appeals to me in either way, making voting for the first time pointless...they both seem like asses...then again Im not the political type...

If my earlier response came off a bit too intense, I apologize.

I served in the military when I was younger, and I know people who are currently serving in the military...to see a President use the military like it is his own personal toy just makes me sick.

America used to be most-respected nation in the world...now, I feel, we have allowed ourselves to become the ' bullies' of the world.

Bush only has the possibility of one more term. So, if he' s re-elected, it would only be for one last term. At least we know his agenda...

The more I see and hear about Kerry, the more I fear the world will begin to laugh at the U.S., as he will become the biggest joke this side of Jupiter. No one know this guys agenda, not even him...

Who' s left?

yep sorry, beef was right (for once) i did do my math wrong. thats my late night math skills for ya. 67% is still 2/3 though and not bad. remeber that 13% of the other 33% are not in the work force and dont have an impact on the economy.

why are you focusing only on the portion of the report that you think is bad?
sure 1.3 million workers were displaced, thats correct, however dont you see that Pres. Bush not only replaced those 1.3 million jobs but 6,171,000 more. the fact that those people are making less is because they got hired when there was less of a demand for workers.

we have low standards? what do you actually know about kerry? he may have high dreams but high standards is hardly something he stands for.

outsourcing, here we go again. are you forgetting about Lockheed Martin, textron, united technologies, McDonnell douglas, gm-hughes, raytheon.

DaRoosh65-

we do not control the Iraq oil fields. we never have and we never will. the oil belongs to OPEC. think about it. if we owned those oil fields dont you think our gas prices would be going down?

so the reason for war was not oil. do you actually think this man is that heartless? the lust for money may be strong for some people but think about it, why would Bush sacrifice the lives of his countrymen for money? hes already rich and after hes no longer president he gets what 200,000 a year? or is it 400,000? i think it changed. but regardless he gets that every year for doing absolutely nothing, and that may not seem like a lot but then theres also speeches, public appearances, books. with all that he stands to make over 1 million a year at least. what benefit could he get from helping his so called big buisness friends? hes not a buisnessman.


do any of you really think Kerry could run a better war? based on those 4 months in Vietnam maybe? he got his purple hearts from self inflicted minor wounds. i dont think any of which even involved blood. but he got 3 purple hearts in 4 months of service, way way above the average. he didnt even get them while in Vietnam. he applied for them and got rejected by the officers that were there, then he went home and got them from officers who werent even there. plus when he got home he started condemning the war. he went before the senate and said that the GIs were war criminals. and he said that he even commited war crimes.

the man you want to vote in to office is an admitted war criminal. the so called " war criminals" in vietnam were beaten and tortured, and partly because of Kerry, because they played the recording of his speech to the senate and that only supported their idea that the POWs were war criminals.

how could you possibly vote that man in? how?

In short, I will clarify my oil statement by saying that it sure did help the oil company shareholders' pockets, when the U.S. went into Iraq and began security for oil reserves and the region. Gas prices went to over $2.00 a gallon where I live!

Also, even when we controlled the oil fields, just before we gave them to the newly formed Iraq government, oil prices sure stayed high...and we were helping the Opec nations (and the world) by providing them a ' removal' service to stabilize the region by catching Saddam.

Don' t you think it a serious coincident that every time we should have seen a drop in oil prices, due to mid-east stability, the prices stayed high due to a mysterious oil refinery accident/explosion?

Come on, people!

Don' t just believe everything you' re told by the government...they' re gonna try to get away with as much as they can...Bush and friends, that is...