John Kerry

[drew70]

It's hard to imagine a presidential candidate would be unable to fathom the economic impact the destruction of 2 skyscrapers in New York City, along with the aerial bombing of the Pentagon in Washington, would have upon the country, but clearly John Forbes Kerry and his followers are unable to do just that.

Kerry is thus seen as an economic dufus, in addition to a man who lied about his 4 months in Vietnam ("I took my boat to Cambodia for Christmas!") and someone who is a gigalo, marrying rich women so he can live a life consisting mostly of windsurfing and snowboarding.

Kerry never talks about his 20 failed years in the Senate, and with good reason. He prefers to talk instead about how he "voted for the war on Terrorism before I voted against it".

The man holds THE most liberal voting record in the Senate, he has never run a business or worked an honest day in his life, and he looks like someone who just crawled out of a casket. His running mate is a well-known ambulence chaser. Kerry himself has pledged to outsource our drug industry to Canada if he is elected, even while at the same time lecturing America about how bad he thinks outsourcing of American jobs is.

What's doubly embarrassing is that Kerry represents the best and the brightest the modern Democrat Party has to offer.

[Xodlirv]

The man holds THE most liberal voting record in the Senate

I'm sure he thanks you for the compliment.

[Mitchell]

LOL Xod! Nice one, my friend. When you get a chance, please check out my unemployment and jobs report thread, I think you might find that interesting.

Mitch

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

I'm with YOU, DREW!

http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/photogallery/photo20800/bunker%2010001.jpg

[BOFH666]

I'd like to ask, though I know already it's futile, that any opinions that are based on easily verifiable data such as this are backed up with statistics.

Employment figures, total employed in thousands:

2001

Jan - 137790
Feb - 137581
March - 137738
April - 137275
May - 137063
June - 136842
July - 137091
August - 136314
September - 136869
October - 136447
November - 136234
December - 136078

2002
Jan - 135715
Feburary - 136362
March - 136106
April - 136096
May - 136505
June - 136353
July - 136478
August - 136811
September - 137337
October - 137079
November - 136545
December - 136459

Emplyment - Population Ratio

January 2001 - 64.4
April 2001 - 64.0
July 2001 - 63.7
October 2001 - 63.2


January 2002 - 62.7
April 2002 - 62.7
July 2002 - 62.7
October 2002 - 62.8

January 2003 - 62.5

January 2004 - 62.4


Now, granted these are very basic figures, you'd need to do a lot more digging through the data to form a full picture, but this is clear enough for the topic at hand. The economic impact of 9/11 in terms of job numbers was small and short lived, in fact the economy had recovered to August 2001 levels by February of 2002, though there would be a further dip in this figure in March and April until May 2002 brought it back for good.

In short, with regards to the total number of jobs available in the United States the imapct of the events of September 11th 2001 was absorbed completley by May 2002.

The Employment/Population ratio downward trend is also (relativley) simple to explain. In order for the US economy to keep up with the total number of new members entering the workforce a certain number of new jobs must be created every month. While a gross oversimplification this is equivalent to the number of people entering the workforce minus the number leaving it (presuming all jobs are filled rather than removed). The commonly accepted figure is approximatley 150,000 new jobs every month.

Even if the US economy manages to recover to January 2001 levels in terms of total jobs it will still be several million jobs short of actually reaching the equivalent level seen in 2001.

This data, and a great deal more, is available here:

http://www.dol.gov/index.htm

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
It's hard to imagine a presidential candidate would be unable to fathom the economic impact the destruction of 2 skyscrapers in New York City, along with the aerial bombing of the Pentagon in Washington, would have upon the country, but clearly John Forbes Kerry and his followers are unable to do just that.

Kerry is thus seen as an economic dufus, in addition to a man who lied about his 4 months in Vietnam ("I took my boat to Cambodia for Christmas!") and someone who is a gigalo, marrying rich women so he can live a life consisting mostly of windsurfing and snowboarding.

Kerry never talks about his 20 failed years in the Senate, and with good reason. He prefers to talk instead about how he "voted for the war on Terrorism before I voted against it".

The man holds THE most liberal voting record in the Senate, he has never run a business or worked an honest day in his life, and he looks like someone who just crawled out of a casket. His running mate is a well-known ambulence chaser. Kerry himself has pledged to outsource our drug industry to Canada if he is elected, even while at the same time lecturing America about how bad he thinks outsourcing of American jobs is.

What's doubly embarrassing is that Kerry represents the best and the brightest the modern Democrat Party has to offer.

Where do I begin?... You say Kerry can't fathom the economic impedence of a tragedy like 9/11? Well, if Bush is so smart, then how come he couldn't fathom that France, Russia, and a bunch of other countries wouldn't help us fight Iraq if they were already part of an oil-for-food program with Iraq? Gee, I wonder how much of a dumbass you have to be to not understand that conflict of interests?

An economic dufus, eh? Usually, I refer to someone as an economic dufus if they've helped a country lose millions of jobs each year and enacted huge tax cuts while spending way more than you have the funds for.

Gigalo? Well then... I guess Kerry's remarrying habits couldn't possibly live up to the deserting and drunk driving virtues of Bush.

The most liberal voting record in the Senate? Oh c'mon now... Don't you know that belongs to Ted Kennedy?

I'm sure Bush has worked several honest days in his life, and he's even run several businesses into the ground as well. He's good at that kind of thing. Bush also looks a lot like his simian ancestors too, so I guess that puts him at a tie for appearance with the Lurch like Kerry.

Ah yes... and outsourcing the drug industry to Canada. Yes, we wouldn't want to stop paying exorbitant prices for drugs to the oh-so-virtuous pharmaceutical companies that the Bush-Cheney ticket is so friendly with. If anyone should be bitching about this so-called outsourcing, it should be the Canadians, because the more Americans buy Canadian drugs, the more the price goes up, which means the Canadian government has to fork out more dough for their socialized healthcare.

Lastly... Howard Dean is the best and brightest Democrat... Please don't tell me you think Bush or Cheney is the brightest and best the Republicans can offer. Even I'm not that pessimistic....

[Mitchell]

Macphisto, I happen to agree with your post. My mother and I originally thought that Dean would have been the best choice for president by the Dems in the early going, before Kerry got his big lead. Unfortunately, I think Dean was done in by his extremely big mouth, and that scream he did that was well publicized. Not that a big mouth is bad, I would rather have someone with a big mouth who tells us the truth, then someone like Bush who misleads us.
You mentioned Ted Kennedy and his liberal voting record in the Senate. I know you and I are on the same political platitude, and while that may be true, and you are the last person I wish to take issues with, because we are on the same wavelength, and I consider you a friend, I would like to make this one point if I may.
I dont know how many people saw, but Senator Kennedy and several other Democrats were on C Span today on a split screen while the House was in session. Senator Kennedy and the other Senators who were on made the point about Bush and his record. They also talked about several other very important economic issues. His desire not to want overtime pay for those earning more than $26,000 a year, his failure to want to extend unemployment benefits to those who need them, even if they cant find jobs, and his failure to want to raise the minmum wage, all very serious issues. (They also made points about his jobs record that I will not repeat, as some have told me I've beat it to a dead horse already, so I'll refrain)
Okay, in reality, while Mr Kennedy may be "liberal", who is it that we would rather have? A "liberal" who fights for the rights of the lower and middle classes and the downtrodden, or a hard line conservative like Bush who is mostly interested in large corporations. The senators made the point that while the working classes continue to struggle, CEO pay and stock compensation continues to rise every year, a fact not addressed by Bush, who benefits most from CEO campaign contributions, so he would be in favor of such a scenario.
Another issue addressed by the Senators was the continued rise of oil and home heating prices, making it a question for some families of whether to cut back on food, pay their rent, or have homes heated this winter. Oil is now over $53 a barrel, Natural Gas is over $7, and gasoline is well over $2 a gallon, none of which Bush addresses because his primary advocates are big business, oil, and oilmen.
In summary, this scenario, combined with his jobs record, is why Bush should lose this election in November. Iam hoping that Kerry will take advantage and continue the recent momentum he's had lately tonight, because he now has an opportunity, with Bush's approval numbers dropping, and polls tilting slightly in Kerry's favor. Kerry needs to continue the momentum he's had, and win the next two debates, and just maybe, he will be elected the 44th president in 3 1-2 weeks from now.

Mitch

[sushi854]

When did Kerry ever "vote for the war on Terrorism before he voted against it?" Kerry strongly supports the war on terror and in fact would like to actually do more to dismantle Al-Quaeda and capture bin Laden, a concept that seems to be lost on the Bush Administration. What he did vote against, however, was the $87 billion for the president to do whatever he wished with regard to Iraq, which has become synonymous with the "war on terror" in Republican rhetoric. This vote was a protest of the fact that the Bush Administration never really established the coalition of which they spoke, and there were fears of a no-bid contract with Halliburton. Sure, they say they have a coalition, and technically they do, but what good is being in a coalition when the US is still bearing up to 90% of the loss and expense of the war? And Halliburton seems to have this convenient business relationship with the US government in which they overcharge the government for services provided and get no-bid contracts while a former CEO holds office as Vice President.

Regarding economic dufuses, is it sound economic policy to invade a country that MIGHT be a threat when you economy is already faltering, without considerable support from allies, and without a clear exit strategy and a clear idea of how much it will actually cost? Even if they do have some idea about "how long and how much," I doubt such information would serve a useful role in ther reelection campaign, and thus we won't hear about it for a while. Removing evil dictators may be a noble cause if there is a practical approach and a workable strategy, but you can't just invade anyone who may pose a threat.

Regarding the Canadian drugs issue, its not even outsourcing. We'd simply be buying American drugs from Canadian sources at much lower prices because the Canadian government has the balls to stop the price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry. The drugs will still be made by American pharmaceutical giants, many of which already outsource production of the drugs to other countries while continuing to charge exorbitant rates for their products. Actually it's not a matter of a government having "balls." I guess it takes real balls for a government to screw the people in favor of powerful special interests. Kerry may not be perfect, but he certainly has my vote.

[Mitchell]

Some excellent points made, sushi, and I wholeheartedly agree, especially about us bearing 90% of the casualties in Iraq, a very serious problem, and the exit strategy issue.
I also agree with you about the Canadaian drug issue. Bush argued during the debate on Friday that he opposes drugs from Canada for the "safety" issue, but the REAL reason is that he does not want to compromise profits for the drug companies who are his campaign contributors. Money talks, and he's not going to be the one to vote for seniors and their drug concerns.
One final point you made was about the exit strategy. Kerry has said this time and time again, and I agree with both of you. You cannot go to war without an exit strategy. Bush did, and we are paying for it. Hopefully if Kerry gets in, he can work with our allies better than Bush has to bring a coalition together, something Bush has failed to do.
No president is perfect, as you pointed out, but for the reasons you mentioned as well as others, Iam voting Kerry. Great post and points, sushi. Thank you!

Mitch

[Psycho]

Well Kerry isn't the smartest guy in the world but hes pretty funny.

LOL "weapon of mass deception"

Psycho