Bush gets good news on jobs...
The jobs numbers, while below market forecasts of 150,000, were respectable enough to give the Republican president a lift, and he quickly noted the U.S. unemployment rate of 5.4 percent was a point below the rate last summer and below the average of the 1970s, the 1980s and 1990s.
And great news in the polls....
New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.
1 comment:
Anyone who uses the Kerry party line about Bush being the only president since Hoover to lose jobs is subjecting themselves to disingenuous rhetoric.
First of all, by using the names Bush and Hoover in the same sentence, Kerry is obviously trying to suggest that somehow our economy is in a similar state to that of the Depression Era. Since unemployment is at 5.4 percent and declining (with no reason to suggest a reversal) and interest rates and inflation are new historical lows, this argument is ridiculous on its face.
Secondly, the "answer" of number of jobs lost doesn't result from a relevant "question". The question answered here is how many jobs were gained/lost since President Bush took office. This is irrelevant to the question that should determine why people would or wouldn't vote for the President. That question is how many jobs were created by President Bush since the policies which were uniquely his own took effect? Then a natural follow-up would be can we expect similar success/failure?
Eevn if one was to ignore the job losses releated to the Clinton recession, stock market bubble burst, etc. and then ignore the effects of 9/11, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that we can expect future job losses. Therefore we are on the right track.
As an aside, unemployment can't go down forever. Cliinton's best 3.9% was the result of some serious speculation going on and wasn't healthy for the long run. 5.4% ain't so bad even if it was maintained for the next four years. That would lead to the best decade for unemployment since at least the 1960's.
GBAM
Post a Comment