source: center for american progress-a non partisan research center.
2006-07-25 03:08:52 · 24 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I can believe it.
2006-07-25 03:10:10 · answer #1 · answered by book_worm308 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Center for American Progress is hardly 'non-partisan'. When you read a little further, the author of the article....
Gene Sperling , who was President Bill Clinton's top economic adviser, is a columnist for Bloomberg News and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. The opinions expressed are his own.
2006-07-25 10:21:18 · answer #2 · answered by opusthepenguin_1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The economy is good right now. After 9/11 our President had many pressing issues, like PROTECTING this country from Terrorist. If the Terrorist win this war, then sooner or later, this country will suffer more than just loss of jobs.
I wonder who SPONSORS the Center for American Progress? I looked that their web page and 90% of the columnist are Liberal Left wing commentators. Very hard to believe they are non-partisin.
You can call an Apple Purple, but that doesn't mean is it so.
2006-07-25 10:20:36 · answer #3 · answered by Dog Mama 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
America stands today at about the lowest unemployment level in history, and it can never go to zero because some people are unemployable or just don't want to work. The newspapers are full of Help Wanted ads. What more can anyone ask for, except a certifiable Bush-basher like yourself?
2006-07-25 10:18:01 · answer #4 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Better read it again...I jsut went and read what they had to say.....you can't even read right....dam liberal.......also, you might reflect on the fact that 5.2 million have gotten abck to work since WTC, which was the cause of layoffs, as companies ran scared, or were directly effected by 9/11....also, the 4.6% unemployment is lowest ever...or at least the 60's.....get your facts right, and come back...I am sure you could find something to put Bush down with...he definitely is not perfect...but this is not it
2006-07-25 10:16:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
did you know that in the 6 years Bush has been President, the US economy has grown more than any other industrialized nation? Did you also know that the US unemployment rate is lower than any other industrial nation?
Statistics are a difficult thing to deal with. You need to analyze the facts in a broad arena, not in a narrow focused myopic way.
2006-07-25 10:13:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG the biggest cause of unemployment is due to the factories and companies being shipped out to Mexico...Because of the Foreign Trade Act -signed by Bill Clinton...Presidential decisions also have a long term affect ...
2006-07-25 10:17:26 · answer #7 · answered by Tyler Durden 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not running again. Why beat on him? I have never seen such a large group of sore losers as those of the 2000 Presidential election.
2006-07-25 10:13:10 · answer #8 · answered by scubadiver50704 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. I forgot about that. Did you know that during his term, the american dollar went from 1.45 Cad to 1.10 Cad. My american money is worthless now. It's not even worth a dollar plus tax (14% TAX) anymore. If I ever saw him, I'd shove his face up his *** and send him to iraq so that people can beat him.
2006-07-25 10:11:17 · answer #9 · answered by FIONEX 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't surprise me --- in Florida they say there are "a lot of jobs" but the truth is they are all low paying jobs. Doesn't do people much good. Where we live the teachers and firefighters can't afford to pay for housing. Go figure!!!
2006-07-25 10:10:47 · answer #10 · answered by butterfliesRfree 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get your facts straight.
The US economy is slowly growing at present.
Perhaps you have heard of the depression in the 1920's and 1930's? I can assure you, the economy was in much, MUCH worse condition than it is under President Bush.
Don't buy in to liberal propaganda. It's nothing but doubletalk bulls**t...
2006-07-25 10:14:05 · answer #11 · answered by crazyotto65 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋