My data comes from a study done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and it is not false. You just do not like the results! It documented the DROP in Average salaries of the new jobs. It documented where the 1 million job shortfall exists (18 States) and documented the reduction of both health and retirements benefits for the new jobs that Bush is bragging about!

You are correct Bush did not cut off health care to 2 million working families that lost health care since 2001. He has done NOTHING to help find a solution to this serious problem.

My data comes from a study done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and it is not false.

Maybe it's not false, but it's out of date, and we have shown recent data that says otherwise. 

You are correct Bush did not cut off health care to 2 million working families that lost health care since 2001. He has done NOTHING to help find a solution to this serious problem.

Because it's not a problem for him to solve.  Health care, or rather health insurance is not the responsibiity of the president.  If you want a socialized health care system, then vote Hillary!

IslandDog

You are wrong. The data on the average salaries for the jobs that are being created is correct. The new jobs pay significantly less then the jobs that were lost in the early years of the Bush Administration. You are talking about some improvement in the Average weekly wage. However over the past 6 years, there has been NO improvement in the AFTER Inflation Wage for working Americans. The only group that is doing well under the Bush policies is the wealthy. They have shown a steady improvement in their financial condition. That is in part due to the fact that 70% of the tax cuts go to the wealthy. The low income and low middle income workers have not got much if anything from the tax cuts. They have been impacted by higher insurance, energy, health and food costs. In Florida homeowners insurance has doubled in some cases and has wiped out their entire wage increases.

You are correct Bush does not care how many Americans do not have health coverage. I wish Bush had the experience of not having a job, health care and not being able to feed his family. He is a person of privilege that results from not his accomplishments but upon the accomplishments and contacts of his family. He is a sorry excuse for a leader and has proven that the failures he experienced thought his life has been replicated as president. You would be hard pressed to show how Bush succeeded thought his life from his own efforts. Every time he got into trouble, Daddy and Daddy's friends bailed GWB out!

You are wrong. The data on the average salaries for the jobs that are being created is correct. The new jobs pay significantly less then the jobs that were lost in the early years of the Bush Administration. You are talking about some improvement in the Average weekly wage. However over the past 6 years, there has been NO improvement in the AFTER Inflation Wage for working Americans

Col, if you pay attention to threads that show good things out of the economy instead of ignoring them, then you would have noticed.  You are wrong col, and we have proved it. 

You are correct Bush does not care how many Americans do not have health coverage. I wish Bush had the experience of not having a job, health care and not being able to feed his family. He is a person of privilege that results from not his accomplishments but upon the accomplishments and contacts of his family. He is a sorry excuse for a leader and has proven that the failures he experienced thought his life has been replicated as president. You would be hard pressed to show how Bush succeeded thought his life from his own efforts. Every time he got into trouble, Daddy and Daddy's friends bailed GWB out!

I didn't say Bush didn't care, I said it's not his repsonsibility to provide health care or health insurance.  This is a simple fact you keep ignoring!

The rest of your statement proves to me you have an emotional obesession and hatred for Bush.  I also detect some jealously of him and wealthy people in general. 

The low income and low middle income workers have not got much if anything from the tax cuts. They have been impacted by higher insurance, energy, health and food costs. In Florida homeowners insurance has doubled in some cases and has wiped out

Not true at all.  I benefited greatly from the tax cuts and so have many others that aren't part of the "evil rich".  If someone is "poor" it's their own fault, not the governments or Bush.  Personal responsibility col.  That is where it begins.

Opposition is growing to the Bush Surge.

At least seven Republican senators have said they flatly oppose the troop increase: Sam Brownback of Kansas, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Olympia Snowe of Maine

IslandDog

The study that the U.S. Conference of Mayors sighted was a detailed study that covered the entire country and looked at data over 5 years. That is not a thread.

You are talking about some recent improvement in the Average weekly wage for all workers. The issue I was talking about is the quality of the 5 million new jobs that Bush is crowing about not wages overall. The new jobs pay far less and have fewer benefits. That is not something to point to as a success. Creating lower paying jobs with less health and retirement benefits is not a GOOD accomplishment!

As to the overall wage growth during the past six years, it has not offset the inflation during those same six years. That is per the Census Bureau.

Other studies I have read have concluded that only the top income group has experienced real after inflation improvement in their financial condition. The large tax cuts to the upper income Americans is the primary reason for that improvement along with the fact that upper income workers have received larger wage increases during the past 6 years then the low and middle income workers. In fact many of the low paying jobs have not experienced ANY wage growth.

I think you just ignore anything that differs from your posts.  We have shown your claims to be bogus but you still present them as fact.  Unbelievable!

IslandDog

BS you have not shown anything that disputed the study I posted. It shows that the Bush job growth is for jobs that pay far less then those that were lost.


The Average wage for the jobs that were lost between 2001-2003 was $43,629. The Average salary of the jobs created from 2003-2005 was $ 34,378. How is that good economic performance? How would you like to take a CUT in pay of 20%?

Keep believing that col.

  

IslandDog

The facts speak for them selves. You do not want to accept anything that proves the Bush policies are not helping the majority of the people of this country. There is a reason why less then 1/3 of American agrees with the path he has taken this country down in the past 6 years. It does not matter what the issue—the vast majority including many Republicans do not support him—Iraq, Immigration, Energy, trade, the deficit—Issue after issue is the same.

You do not want to accept anything that proves the Bush policies are not helping the majority of the people of this country

I can't stop laughing.  Are you someone who accepts the fact that you have been proven wrong, and continues to ignore anything that is good about this country?

Keep quoting media polls and basing your "facts" off DNC talking points, it's just hillarious.

Island Dog

Look at the defections on Iraq, the environment, Energy and the debt in Congress and with conservatives. Just today the right wing religious groups have broken with the Bush policy on global warming. You have at least 8 GOP senators that oppose the added troops to Iraq. I look at the letters to the Editor in my local paper-- I live in GOP Land and the letters that show NON-Support for Bush and his policies is growing every day. Finally is the ultimate indication-- the election of 2006. Keep acting like George and refuse to see what is taking place in our country. You and he would not know the truth if it was 3 feet in front of you.


Keep Laughing and show that you are a true Idiot!

Once again col your personal attacks show me nothing but that you are a true liberal.  Don't like what you hear so lodge an insult.  It's typical really.

Now If I cared to argue with you anymore, because it's hopeless for you really.  How about the democrats who were calling for a "surge" in troops before the new year, but now since Bush proposed it, they backed off. 

For you to even mention letters to the editor in your local paper is just hillarious.  I can't believe I waste my time arguing with someone who blames Bush for every problem in their life.

IslandDog

The majority of Democrats were NOT proposing a Surge. The generals were against a Surge. What happened to I will listed to the commanders on the ground. Bush had to Change generals to get someone to agree with him!

I guess you also discount the election results of 2006!

DREAN ON!

The majority of Democrats were NOT proposing a Surge.

I didn't say the majority col.  Just the usual hypocrits.  

I guess you also discount the election results of 2006!

LOL.  Col, democrats didn't win that election because they stand for something, they won because conservatives were trying to "teach" the GOP a lesson.