The Kerry campaign is a self-fisking organization. It's getting to the point that it's really really funny.

Again, I must invite the Bush-? 2004 campaign to run on its record of job creation.

Face it, Mr. Hobbs, these stats and factoids are to cheer up the GOP demoralized--not to convince any independent voter.

JG - the story is about projected job growth (projected by an independent non-partisan organization that has issued such projections for years and has a pretty good track record as best as I can tell)> I posted the information because if job growth is strong over the next few months, as that organization predicts, it will work to Bush's advantage in the campaign.

Understood, Mr. Hobbs.

But don't you think counting jobs that have yet to be created and filled is a bit, well, premature?

I'd also note ManPower is a temp agency--therefore I'd be kind of wary about the inherent selection bias in their survey. After all, they're probably surveying firms that primarily employ temps.

Either post facts that disprove what Mr. Hobbs has put up, or shut up, Jade. You are a liar, a fraud, and a troll.

Where did we hear this before? Wasn't it 2.5 million jobs this year or 300,000 jobs a month. Last month (Feb)was 21,000 jobs. JadeGold is right. Try and cheer yourselves up,Losers

What a bunch of hypocrites. The economy's booming and you'll do anything you can to shoot it down because the wrong guy's in the White House. More proof that Democrats are more interested in power for themselves than the success of the country.

If you had told me on September 12, 2001 that 2 1/2 years later we would have:

(1) A growing economy with 4-5% growth rates
(2) A declining unemployment rate of about 5.5%
(3) A rising stock market over 10,000
(4) Zero follow-up terrorist attacks here
(5) The total defeat and removal of the Taliban; and
(6) The defeat and removal of Saddam Hussein with less than 1,000 lives lost

I would have had you locked up for being insane.

SMG

SteveMG:

You're trying hard to convince yourself.

A net 2.3M job loss? No way to spin that except as a miserable failure.

Try this experiment: pretend for a moment that our last democratically-elected President was still in office. And he is presiding over the same economic conditions that exist today. Would you be singing his praises?

I don't think so.

The fact is you know Bush is in serious kimchee on this issue; you're dispirited.

Not to rain on your parade, some more, but did you see the neat report that came out today that now says the unemployment rate of college grads now exceeds that of High School dropouts? Yup, that Bush knows how to screw up an economy.

bhahahah

That's rich FoolsGold.

You can't use facts to denigrate the great job the the current, democratically elected President is doing. Now you're trying to tell us how we feel.

President Bush has turned around the Clinton Recession and is successfully fighting a global war. It's a good thing that he restored honor and decency to the White House.

Matt S:

Think about it for a moment. If Bush-? had the slightest bit to brag about WRT economy--don't you think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops?

They don't because they know they'd be laughed at.

Further, I don't think the Bush-? 2004 campaign will be talking about 'honor and dignity' in the WH after Halliburton and WMD and the Lincoln Bedroom and Valerie Plame and the energy task force, etc.

JG,
I don't see Bush not talking about the economy. And as far as ads, the campaign is just starting, we'll see more as things get better and we get closer to the election.

But really, how much influence does a President have on the economy in the short term? Clinton benifited from the policies that Reagan/Bush instituted. GW Bush had the liability of the economy he took over from Clinton.

We won't see the full benifits from Bush's policies for a while yet.

I don't see Bush not talking about the economy.

Then you're not paying attention.

GW Bush had the liability of the economy he took over from Clinton.

Let's see; he was appointed to an economy with unemployment well under 5%, low inflation, and a modest surplus.

Bush turned all those numbers around. High unemployment, record deficits.

Let's see; he was appointed to an economy with unemployment well under 5%, low inflation, and a modest surplus.

Unemployment is now somewhat over 5%, about the same place it was at this point in Clinton's administration. We do not have high unemployment. We still have low inflation. And there never was a real surplus, only rosy projections.

The deficit has soared and that must be dealt with. But, the Clinton Recession coupled with the tech bubble burst are largely to blame for the revenue shortfall. The fact that we were attacked accounts for a large chunk of the increased spending. Congress has to get their act together and reign in spending.