tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 12:53 AM
Original message |
|
Does anyone know what exactly we considered to be the "jobless recovery" under poppy bush?
As in, I assume that jobs were created, but at a minimal rate.
|
Don_G
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 12:55 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I'm So Sick Of That Fundie Term |
|
There is NO recovery without jobs; only credit of which we are running out and IF the price of oil dosen't change to the euro.
|
ClintonTyree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 02:34 AM
Response to Original message |
|
and the Thugs are going apeshit about the almost 300,00 jobs added in the last three months. If I'm not mistaken, if there aren't 300,000 jobs added EACH month, there is not job growth at all. I believe 300,000 is the break even point for those new to the job market. In essence, there still has been a net loss of jobs over the last three months. That fact doesn't seem to get reported though. Damn Liberal Press!
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. What Im wondering about is the numbers on, |
|
the so called jobless recovery of poppy in the early 90's.
I think the jobs report is net jobs added. I work for a retailer for one hour last month, Im employed.
|
ComerPerro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Dont forget the jobs Bush lost |
|
Hell, even if he gains 1 million jobs, he still is in the hole by 1.5 million or so
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. im not talking about junior, im talking about poppy's |
|
Edited on Sun Nov-09-03 04:49 AM by tritsofme
supposed recovery
|
PurityOfEssence
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 04:15 AM
Response to Original message |
4. It's when ex- President Junior checks in to Betty Ford in January '05 |
|
What it shows, more than anything else, is that the joyous continuance of amassing money is the only real concern of these people. The well-being and viability of the populace is simply not a concern.
Someone who cared about the hopes of the people and the community at large would never even express such a concept; it would be couched in terms of "pre-recovery" or somesuch thing.
It's often not necessary to go any deeper than the very obvious surface to see the coldness beyond callousness that is conservatism.
Think of "compassionate conservative" for a moment: it not only proves that conservatism is interently heartless, but it uses a denial modifier with the adjective "compassionate" that reeks of the connotation of condescension.
|
0rganism
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-03 05:07 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Dunno about poppy, but... |
|
...when Clinton's policies led to a slump of only120000 jobs being created in October 1999 (IIRC, might have been 2000), it was called a dismal failure. Given that around 10% of chimpy's October job growth was in temporary scab jobs during a grocers' strike, I think it's safe to say that chimpy's "economic boom" is about the same as Clinton's "dismal failure" in terms of job creation.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:05 PM
Response to Original message |