DemWorld is a dim and murky place, filled with ick and ooze and disaster at every turn. And it's very confusing.

In Demworld, if we force Foley out, it just proves we are intolerant of gays and probably any form of sex. But if we leave him in, it is proof of the Culture of Corruption.

In DemWorld, Bush has no motive, ever, that is not sinister and evil and demonic, with the eventual destruction of our nation as its ultimate goal. Do you know that in DemWorld Bush is putting together an industrial/military group to allow him to mount a coup and remain in office as a dictator? Yep, I've been warned to "just look out".

In DemWorld, the IRS figures on increased tax revenue are faked, phony, lies, and proof of a conspiracy between the White House and the tax guys. In DemWorld, the fact that more people can own their own homes than ever before is a bad thing, more than offset by the increase in foreclosures--which are caused by some evil plot of Bush's and not by people who are not good at handling their own money.

In DemWorld, killing Al-Zarqawi was no big deal, he was just one man, killing him would just make the rest of the terrorists more angry and more focused on killing us, and besides, there were plenty more to step into his shoes. But killing Bin Laden? That would solve all our problems.

I do think millions of discouraged Dems, increasingly tired of never being given ideas or solutions by their "leadership" but instead being told to believe that things are the opposite of what their personal experience tells them they are, will be looking for an alternative. I think that the Dems who live in the real world are getting increasingly fed up with being told that everyone else is just evil, that all problems are due to corruption and conniving, and that the country is a terrible country.

I just installed Sirius radio and briefly turned on their lefty channel to see what they were talking about. Some woman was talking about Bush releasing poison gas clouds! I shit you not!

I only listened for a minute and moved on. These are the same people that call Rush a liar and being a fear monger!

You have to have something seriously wrong with you to listen to crap like this.

"President Bush is helping the rich to steal from the poor; the war is a complete failure; the Iraq campaign is being fought for oil/Israel/Cheney/insert conspiracy theory here; 100% of America's terrorism efforts should be directed at finding bin Laden ... meanwhile, out in the real world, things are quite different."

Yeah, real different!...Hahahaha! What a jokester! I hope Mark and Almiranta are just joking, because it seems like they are. You can't really believe these things, it's just too funny!

Oh. My. God.

We have higher wages, an unprecedentedly low unemployment rate, and Pelosi says we need to "change direction."

I can tell you this. We definitely will change direction if Pelosi gets to be Speaker.

And that direction is called, "downhill."

Wow, I'm surprised you guys are even willing to post economic statistics any more. The same report indicated just 51,000 new jobs created.

Sounds great, right? Until you realize that 100,000 new people enter the job market every month from population growth alone. This means that even those these new 100,000 people are buying more products and creating growth, only 1/2 of them are able to find work. Hence, negative job growth. The unemployment rate is a completely different calculation and does not take into account those who have stopped looking for work. You righties know this, but continue to post "good" news (ie spin) anyway, assuming the rest of us don't know what the statistics mean? You can't spin what the average person sees in his or her paycheck, or how they feel about our current leadership. I am absolutely confident in the ability of the average person to decide which of two policial parties best serves his or her interest. I trust 100%, in absense of spin from either side, if this administration has done a good job or not...are you? What was Bush's approval rate again? I forget..

Think about it...if the independent voters in this country prefer Nancy Pelosi to the Republicans, doesn't that even give you folks a little cause to question your approach?

Nancy Pelosi (!!!) is going to be the next Speaker of the House...and the average Joe prefers her and her Democrats to the Republicans...my oh my how far the mighty have fallen. See you all in November!

Since the tax cuts in 2003 unemployment went from 6.3% to 4.6%. The deficit went from 418 billion down to 250 billion. Line workers wages (non management) has outpaced inflation each year. Record tax receipts into government troughs month after month. Dow is at an all time high with reasonable price to earnings ratio compared to the 90's. What direction does Pelosi and other democrats want to go in?

Shhh....not allowed to talk about this or war on terror or anything other than Foley 24/7.

Sincerely

Nancy

I like style.

Jim,

And I'm surprised that you're still recycling those stories...we've been hearing them since 1981, how the GOP economic policies are making everything horrible for everyone except the super rich. Whatever.

Oh, and if you think that even 10% of the American people prefer Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, then you're more out of touch than most lefties.

JimOliver:
You're not very smart.
You should at least recognize that IF the Democrats win in November... it's because people were voting FOR the Democrats... they're voting AGAINST Republicans.

Proof of this is the Democratic Leadership trying to use this Foley matter into an issue of leadership.

It's a bogus argument to begin with. I hope Speaker Pelosi can explain why she voted to give someone who actually slept with a minor a chairmanship of a major committee.

“Hence, negative job growth.” Your math skills are worse than your reasoning skills. If the number of unemployed, expressed as a percentage is lower than before even as more people are entering the workforce, then the job creation has exceeded the workforce. At the same time, the number of employed has increased.

“…does not take into account those who have stopped looking for work.” Yes, it does. Unemployment numbers based on a survey and the statistic of those that left the workforce is broken down into several categories as retired, disabled, discouraged, underemployed, incarcerated etc. Unemployment statistics are not a product of unemployment insurance compensation.

Whoa, one at a time...

Mark, you are correct when you say that many liberals are totally wacko about the economy. But judging by the rhetoric from the Republican quarters one would have expected HUGE growth from Bush's tax cuts. You know that is not the case. The growth and jobs CAN be attributed to our fiscal policy, but only because of the high deficit spending. If Bush had actually balanced the budget at his tax rate the economy would be in the toilet now instead of the anemic growth we see.

Pelosi, surprise surprise, is advocating pay-as-you-go, a REAL version, including taxes, not just for entitlement spending as the Repubs tried a few years ago. You know what? This plan MAY hurt the economy, but not nearly as much as you "conservative" folks are letting on.

And if she is really only preferred by 10% of the population, why is the replubican anti-Peolosi election strategy not working? I don't see any pundits looking for Republican gains in November. On Drudge today surely you saw her 'MAYBE IT WILL TAKE A WOMAN TO CLEAN UP THE HOUSE'... quote. Sounds like the spitting image of Gingrich to me. People like that...YOU would like that, if a Republican had said it. Too bad no Republicans are saying things like that these days, eh?

wawilliyo,

You are right. People ARE voting against the republicans. But the danger to you is that once we take over everything again (including un-gerrymandering the states in 2010), and the United States is not instantly destroyed as you righties claim, the people will realize that the control of Washington doesn't really make that much difference in the long run. Pelosi will go back to being a grandmother, not Satan. Hillary will be a Senator, not the Anti-Christ. And the country will hum along just nicely, with higher taxes for the rich and plenty of entitlements, such as Bush's perscription drugs, which the Democrats will carefully steal as their own.

No, the United States will not end under Democrat rule. We'll be fine. You won't be happy. But the rest of us will be just dandy.

Bane, my math skills are just fine. Judging by your logic the unemployment rate should never go in the opposite direction as the (number of jobs created - number of new people entering the workfoce) calculation. It did. The rate droppoed. The NET number of new jobs is somewhere around -50k. They went in opposite directions WHY?

They are calculated differently, just as polls do. The unemployment rate only looks at recently unemployed who are active job seekers. It does not count the homeless, for instance. You righties might like that...disempowerment is your favorite pastime.

The jobs created figure is much more accurate, as it asks BUSINESSES about their current payrolls. They simply did not add many jobs, and did not keep up with population, even though there were (approximately, yes) 100,000 new Americans shopping at Walmart, and looking for jobs that don't exist.

A 50K increase in jobs is bad news, folks, whether under Carter or Clinton or Reagan or Bush. When it happens to President Gore I'm sure you'll get a bunch of liberals making the argument you just made...but one of them won't be me.

The unemployment rate only looks at recently unemployed who are active job seekers.

Woah here. Is this true? Does it imply that people who have been unemployed for a longer period of time are not factored in? What's the cut? One year unemployed or longer? Or shorter? And what about people who are not active job seekers (for some reason)?
What about part-timers, are they factored in for the remaining hours as unemployed?

No, Orange, that's not true at all. All of the questions mentioned, including why a person would not be actively searching are calculated into the figures. My silver haired mother had a stoke, she is not counted, my brother-in-law hit the lottery, he's not looking for work either, neither is my aunt who recently became disabled.

The unemployment number has always included only that available, willing and seeking work. Even under Clinton. It's not a conspiracy.

"It went in the opposite direction" because the net new jobs exceed the total amount of new workers in the workforce, minus those leaving the workforce and seasonally adjusted.

“the economy would be in the toilet now instead of the anemic growth we see.” (emphasis added)

The economy grew at 20% in the last three years! More added on to our economy then the entire economy of China! And while the entire economy grew by 1/5, the private sector grew by 37%! Thus, the private sector is leading the charge, not government spending, making incorrect the stupid mistake you make in the following statement,"… but only because of the high deficit spending."

Typical Keynesian!

The unemployment number has always included only that available, willing and seeking work

Then comparing unemployment rates with European unemployment rates are meaningless. Or better, they can only be used for trendlines.

Option #2; unemployment numbers have always been used as a comparative and not as a stand-alone statistic. "trendline" is a good way to look at it.

In these parts, a household survey is done to determine, among other things, unemployed, underemployed, fully employed, employed and seeking employment, underemployed and seeking full employment, underemployed and not seeking full employment, and other variables. It’s done by survey and samplings because private citizens’ rights to self-determination trump the government’s need to know how many citizens are not working. In America we’re not required to tell the government when we’re not working, we’re only required to tell them how much we earn and how we earned it; which is bad enough but a discussion for another day.

The only calculation change was in the 1980's when the military employment was factored into the number; this was a way to shower a higher % of employed, and with an all-volunteer military it made sense. The sampling methodology otherwise remains unchanged from the 1960’s so the numbers consistency is what’s really important.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on the methodology used in determining unemployment numbers in Holland, France and the rest of old Europe. How is it determined in a socialist country like Slovakia, Albania, Romania, and Bulgaria?