No cowbell worthy performance, but not bad. I just hope Kerry goes with the 1.7 million job loss figure and Bush says

"Senator Kerry, we've been through a rough patch and the terrorists struck a mighty blow against us but you've just demonstrated an inability to tell Americans the truth. You undercounted 1.2 million jobs that have been created. In the last year alone nearly 2 million jobs have been created. Most of our job losses are directly attributable to September 11 and those terrorists are still out there plotting but our Marines and the newly-trained Iraqi forces are killing them in Iraq instead of over here. As long as we continue to be vigilant and carry the fight to the enemy instead of acting defensively we'll be able to grow our economy. And with states like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (where no shot was fired) no longer supporting terror, Mr. Senator, we will be able to concentrate our efforts on fortifying the homeland while creating areas of peace and prosperity where none have existed. We have partners overseas like PM Howard of Australia, PM Blair of England, PM Allawi of Iraq and PM Karzai in Afghanistan who continue to offer their support in furthering democracy abroad so the roots of terrorism have no soil from which to plant their seeds of destruction. As we continue to fight the murderous thugs of al Queda and other terrorist organization, sir, our businesses will be able to plan in a less risky world, to hire new employees and to provide benefits to them. But only with peace and prosperity will that cause be possible. Only through a strong foreign policy will we be able to have security and jobs here at home--for the good of all Americans."

Not necessarily those words--of course--but tying jobs, peace, prosperity and the fight overseas (through coalitions) together so Kerry's attacks are blunted. But, I don't expect Bush to be able to say anything close to this.

No footnotes nor consideration given for the temporary losses incurred due to various hurricane damages, I see.

Apparently, that would be too realistic.

Hey, don't forget either that this is still based on the payroll survey, which is essentially a list of all major layoffs minus whatever the big companies add back. Remember that little admission a few months ago that tax revenues exceeded expectations? How do you suppose that happened with so many jobs lost? The bottom line is that it is impossible for lower tax rates to yield higher tax revenues unless A) people are making a lot more money (possible) or B) more of them are working than expected. The Pres HAS to hammer on the unemployment rate. It is as good or better than at any time in the "Clinton Gore economy." Plus, the household survey, you know, where they actually ask people if they have a job, is showing that more Americans are working now than ever before in history.

The payroll survey is worthless. The household survey shows 2 million jobs gained.

Another thing that has not been brought up relative to Kerry's comments about Bush'd job creation performance vis-a-vis Hoover in 1932...

Just looked this up on Information Please....

The labor force (employable) in 1932 was approximately 50 million. Today the labor force (employable) is 150 million. So, all these figures being reported today are based on a population 3 times the size it was in 1932 when Hoover was up for re-election. This just proves how ridiculous this comparison is that Kerry keeps making.

The Fed and private economists now hold the Household survey to be a relatively worthless measure because of flaws in population sampling methodology and projecting it onto the larger population. It also suffers from bias - as studies have shown - families tend to say certain family members are "gainfully employed" when they are not, out of pride.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics knows they need a new tool to replace the Household Survey, in light of the new "flex economy" - but they don't have it yet. In the meantime they too discount the Survey as not being very meaningful in tracking job creation, despite White House fans who regularly pressure and agitate using the stats to jack the jobs created numbers up - proving "trickle-down" works.

Since Hoovers time, the traditional way to create jobs is infrastructure improvements using deficit spending during recessions and recession recoverys.

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy started as a way to fairly return surplus dollars according to whose extra tax dollars generated the surplus. But when the gov't went deep in the red, supply side ideologues argued that borrowed money from China was best given to the wealthy to keep the "tax cuts" going despite revenue shortfalls - since rich people would then invest in new industry and create jobs.

Well, they did invest some, in China and India factories to create jobs there, and banked the rest. After 4 years, and 1.8 trillion dollars borrowed - 480 million to fund the "tax cuts" -

The results are obvious to all but the blind.

In the meantime, the need for America to invest 87 billion in fixing highway bottlenecks causing 336 billion in lost productivity went unaddressed. 50 billion in broadband to keep up with Europe and Asia - unaddressed. R&D for basic and applied sciences, flat. The need to put 30 billion into bridge, port improvements and repairs went unaddressed.

We know from past infrastructure improvement strategies that 50,000 dollars creates 3 jobs - using the economic multiplier. The money goes to the worst off areas - that have lost jobs from bad infrastructure. Instead of building McMansions for the wealthy and plumping up their portfolios - borrowed gov't money going into work projects - going on 50K divided into 120 billion in yearly "tax cuts", would have created 2.4(X3) - 7.2 million jobs. And, the improvements done create long term competative advantage.

Well, I had my hopes that tax cuts would work despite all the warnings...but they didn't...and we have to face a failed "trickle down" strategy based on the results. Money flowing mainly to the wealthiest in California, New York City, Texas, Mass and Florida don't help the country as a whole because the rich seek the righest return for their money - and that is overseas or in expanding their mansions.

The underlying reasons for unemployment are contained within Friday’s BLS Employment Situation Report.

(see: stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm)

- people with less than a high school education have an unemployment rate of 8.8%

- high school graduates with no college have an unemployment rate of 4.8%

- people with some college have an unemployment rate of 4.0%

- those with a bachelor's degree or higher have an unemployment rate of 2.6%.

There are jobs in our economy but not for those lacking appropriate education.

Dick Lepre
Residential Pacific Mortgage
San Francisco, CA

Birkel, you left out Pakistan.

In 2001 Pakistan and India were both aggregating armies on the borders, inciting cross-border incursions, and otherwise not contributing to the peace.

That we are where we are with Pakistan (recognizing it isn't Sweden) is a flippin miracle - so the list is Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Pakistan joining the coalition of the reasonably sane.

That's odd, I was listening to NPR today and the only revision they mentioned was that the August numbers were revised down. Why wouldn't they have mentioned a revision up of the year long figures?

...he asked sarcastically...