The forgotten facts

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

These facts directly affect all Americans:

6.5 million jobs have been created

The unemployment rate is the lowest in 5 years

Prices at the pump down

Stock market at an all time high

These are facts that we don't want to lose sight of either:

More people w/o health insurance

More working people live in poverty

Gas prices are up about 100% from when Bush came into office - they're up a hefty 80% from 2002. Still more than 50% from 2003. They're anything but down.

Great. Those that profit from the stock market high will be happy to know. For a rather large section of Americans, an all time high in the stock market means little to nothing.

Other facts:

We plunged Iraq into a civil war, destabilized the Middle East and watched North Korea go nucular [couldn't help it], will watch Iran do the same (the Pres' strategery [again, it was too tempting] got us into a situation where we can't do a thing about it) and had close to 3,000 of our troops killed without need or purpose. More will die for nothing but greed and ignorance.

We have needlessly racked up a deficit that my just born baby's great-grand kinds will still be busy paying off.

We cave in to terrorists by allowing them to change our way of life in the most drastic ways. We lost any and all credibility in the world on matters of international law, human rights, the environment, etc. There are not many allies left and we had plenty before the Texas Yahoo with his team of cronies and crooks moved in at 1600 Penn Ave.

Those are the facts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These facts directly affect all Americans:

6.5 million jobs have been created

The unemployment rate is the lowest in 5 years

Prices at the pump down

Stock market at an all time high

These are facts that we don't want to lose sight of either:

More people w/o health insurance

More working people live in poverty

Gas prices are up about 100% from when Bush came into office - they're up a hefty 80% from 2002. Still more than 50% from 2003. They're anything but down.

Great. Those that profit from the stock market high will be happy to know. For a rather large section of Americans, an all time high in the stock market means little to nothing.

Other facts:

We plunged Iraq into a civil war, destabilized the Middle East and watched North Korea go nucular [couldn't help it], will watch Iran do the same (the Pres' strategery [again, it was too tempting] got us into a situation where we can't do a thing about it) and had close to 3,000 of our troops killed without need or purpose. More will die for nothing but greed and ignorance.

We have needlessly racked up a deficit that my just born baby's great-grand kinds will still be busy paying off.

We cave in to terrorists by allowing them to change our way of life in the most drastic ways. We lost any and all credibility in the world on matters of international law, human rights, the environment, etc. There are not many allies left and we had plenty before the Texas Yahoo with his team of cronies and crooks moved in at 1600 Penn Ave.

Those are the facts.

nicely put.

[Marc and Olga 0]

WE are talking about the deficit in the federal budget - the national debt. How do you not get that?

the democrats are saying they will roll back Bush's tax cuts - tax cuts which have been criticized by fiscal conservatives, not just nancy pelosi

Robin, there as always been debt and always will be! Dems want money to spend, not pay debt!

Let us consider the last Democrat we had as president and the economy under his presidency:

The economy

Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union. After numerous reports revealed that the federal budget deficit would be far greater than expected, Clinton quickly made cutting the deficit a high priority. Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[10] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[11]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[12] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[13] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and FICA taxes, providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment–in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.[14] The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history—lasting ten years. In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time in history by 2008.

Emphasis added - source

Hmm what a nice thought that WAS, the USA to be debt free!

Perhaps they want to spend the money on things like the deficit and not unprovoked wars.

[Heracles 417]

Lets not forget that a lot of the policies implemented today don't produce immediate results. The benefits could take 3 to 5 years to come through. The fact is prior to George W coming to office the economy was going downhill. IT bubble bust etc.. Plus the Sept 11 attacks which costs the US economy billions..

Considering the circumstances George and co have done well. Iraq is a different story. I think everyone, yes including Democrats, underestimated the complexity of the issue. On top of that the odds were against them considering so many other countries are still happy to see the US fail there.

[girl 37 7]

Infidel, you should check out the current admin's record on the environment. It's downright scary.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lets not forget that a lot of the policies implemented today don't produce immediate results. The benefits could take 3 to 5 years to come through. The fact is prior to George W coming to office the economy was going downhill. IT bubble bust etc.. Plus the Sept 11 attacks which costs the US economy billions..

Considering the circumstances George and co have done well. Iraq is a different story. I think everyone, yes including Democrats, underestimated the complexity of the issue. On top of that the odds were against them considering so many other countries are still happy to see the US fail there.

I didn't underestimate the "complexity of the issue". Come to think of it, none of my friends did either - the current abysmal security situation was entirely forseeable from the get go. Go figure. It seems the explanations for the ** up are what has shifted - not the situation itself, which was entirely predictable.

Edited October 27, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lets not forget that a lot of the policies implemented today don't produce immediate results. The benefits could take 3 to 5 years to come through. The fact is prior to George W coming to office the economy was going downhill. IT bubble bust etc.. Plus the Sept 11 attacks which costs the US economy billions..

Considering the circumstances George and co have done well. Iraq is a different story. I think everyone, yes including Democrats, underestimated the complexity of the issue. On top of that the odds were against them considering so many other countries are still happy to see the US fail there.

I didn't underestimate the "complexity of the issue". Come to think of it, none of my friends did either - the current abysmal security situation was entirely forseeable from the get go. Go figure. It seems the explanations for the ** up are what has shifted - not the situation itself, which was entirely predictable.

Oh hypocracy can be one bitter pill to swallow.

[Michaela_Hassan 1]

6.5 million jobs have been created

The unemployment rate is the lowest in 5 years

Prices at the pump down

Stock market at an all time high

PS these not this in the title

There aren't any decent paying jobs being created, oh maybe the payday loan places that are sprouting up all over are hiring some people.

Gas prices actually have risen since the last administration, and are only "down" because elections are coming up.

[GaryC 7]

In reality the Bush economic plan has made the economy improve, lower unemployment and increase revenue to the government. This is from the treasury web site.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js3039.htm

[kaydee457 13]

Innibig.

You're blurring this debate by providing facts.

Please stop infusing this thread with facts otherwise many here will be upset.

Edited October 27, 2006 by kaydee457

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index

By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutto

According to public opinion polls, most Americans feel the U.S. economy has been moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, an analysis of several important economic indicators shows they're right. In apples-to-apples comparisons of annualized data, these indicators of the country's economic well-being show mostly negative change during President George W. Bush's administration, compared to mostly positive change during President Bill Clinton's administration. Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch. But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices.

This chart compares economic performance under the two administrations on a number of especially important fronts:

Methodology

This index provides a broad view of the economy over the last 12 years by focusing on: (1) things that effect people's everyday lives, such as health insurance and homeownership; (2) measures of economic outcomes and performance, rather than inputs or intermediate variables like inflation rates; (3) percentage changes, rather than total changes in such things as the number of jobs or the dollar value of per capita gross domestic product (GDP); and (4) average annual changes -- to account for the fact that Clinton was in office for eight years, and Bush has been in office for three and a half.1

For the most part, the numbers in the chart correspond to the annual compounded rates of progress for each indicator.2 The indicators have also been inverted in some cases, so that positive scores represent moves in the right direction, and negative scores represent moves in the wrong direction. For example, poverty declined by an average of 2.29 percent in the Clinton years (a move in the right direction), and it grew by 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years (a move in the wrong direction). To make the decline a positive number and the growth a negative number, we have changed the indicator to poverty reduction. Thus, Clinton's score is plus 2.29 percent, and Bush's is minus 4.33 percent.3

What the Indicators Mean:

Our Fiscal Future

* Debt Reduction Relative to GDP

The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003).5 It increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.

* Trade Deficit Reduction Relative to GDP

The trade deficit increased during both administrations. It increased by 0.52 percent of GDP per year under Clinton and by 0.37 percent per year under Bush.7 This is one of two indicators where economic performance under Bush appears to be better than it was during the Clinton administration. But underneath that data is a less flattering story for the Bush years. The trade deficit grew at the rate it did under Clinton for two main reasons: because the first Bush Administration's recession had cut imports to an artificially low level, and because the economy was expanding rapidly. People were confident, so they were buying a lot of imported goods. Businesses were growing, too, so U.S. factories were importing materials to manufacture their products. Throughout this period, export growth was very strong. In the Bush years, the trade deficit has been a product of a different, and less healthy dynamic: U.S. exports have dipped dramatically relative to imports.

Employment

* Jobs

One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush.9 While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law.10 This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).11

* Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs

The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.

* Jobs with Good Wages

The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush.13 A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.14

* Americans with Health Insurance

Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.16

Incomes

* Productivity

Productivity measures the amount of economic output that each hour of work produces. It is an important indicator of economic performance because high rates of productivity traditionally correlate with strong growth in living standards. The most accurate measure of productivity covers non-farm businesses. During the Clinton administration non-farm business productivity grew 1.83 percent per year. During the Bush administration, it grew by an average of 3.76 percent per year. This is one of the only bright spots in a period of otherwise lackluster economic performance, and it is a measure that suggests hope for the economy in the coming years. But it is important to note that the late 1990s saw both productivity growth and job growth, producing a double benefit for the economy. During the Bush years, productivity has grown while jobs have not. Whether the nation can maintain the robust levels of productivity growth we have enjoyed since 1996 depends in large part on whether we put in place the right policies, including investments in research and development, and the skills of the workforce; promotion of the digital economy, including high-speed broadband deployment; and fiscal discipline to keep interest rates low.18

* Per Capita GDP

Simply comparing the annual growth of GDP under each administration would be misleading, because the population continues to grow. Per capita GDP -- in other words, how much output there is each year relative to the total population -- is a more accurate measure. While per capita GDP rose 2.42 percent under Clinton, it has risen just 1.62 percent per year during the Bush presidency. In large part, this is because fewer people are working.

* Median Household Income

Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

* Poverty Reduction

Poverty statistics are telling indicators of the country's economic health. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell 2.29 percent annually in the Clinton years, but has since gone up 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years.

* Homeownership

No economic indicator can embody the American dream in quite the same way as homeownership. Indeed, one of the successes that President Bush frequently points to under his watch is the increase in homeownership. But while the home ownership rate has increased 0.37 percent per year during the Bush administration, that is a slowdown compared to the average increases of 1.94 percent during the Clinton administration.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAr...ontentID=252964

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

...

There are not many allies left and we had plenty before the Texas Yahoo with his team of cronies and crooks moved in at 1600 Penn Ave.

Those are the facts.

Just want to point out.... he's not even "from" Texas (although he likes to give a lot of people -- even in Texas -- that notion.) He's a carpet-bagger from a rich east coast family.

[kaydee457 13]

Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index

By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutto

According to public opinion polls, most Americans feel the U.S. economy has been moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, an analysis of several important economic indicators shows they're right. In apples-to-apples comparisons of annualized data, these indicators of the country's economic well-being show mostly negative change during President George W. Bush's administration, compared to mostly positive change during President Bill Clinton's administration. Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch. But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices.

This chart compares economic performance under the two administrations on a number of especially important fronts:

Methodology

This index provides a broad view of the economy over the last 12 years by focusing on: (1) things that effect people's everyday lives, such as health insurance and homeownership; (2) measures of economic outcomes and performance, rather than inputs or intermediate variables like inflation rates; (3) percentage changes, rather than total changes in such things as the number of jobs or the dollar value of per capita gross domestic product (GDP); and (4) average annual changes -- to account for the fact that Clinton was in office for eight years, and Bush has been in office for three and a half.1

For the most part, the numbers in the chart correspond to the annual compounded rates of progress for each indicator.2 The indicators have also been inverted in some cases, so that positive scores represent moves in the right direction, and negative scores represent moves in the wrong direction. For example, poverty declined by an average of 2.29 percent in the Clinton years (a move in the right direction), and it grew by 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years (a move in the wrong direction). To make the decline a positive number and the growth a negative number, we have changed the indicator to poverty reduction. Thus, Clinton's score is plus 2.29 percent, and Bush's is minus 4.33 percent.3

What the Indicators Mean:

Our Fiscal Future

* Debt Reduction Relative to GDP

The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003).5 It increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.

* Trade Deficit Reduction Relative to GDP

The trade deficit increased during both administrations. It increased by 0.52 percent of GDP per year under Clinton and by 0.37 percent per year under Bush.7 This is one of two indicators where economic performance under Bush appears to be better than it was during the Clinton administration. But underneath that data is a less flattering story for the Bush years. The trade deficit grew at the rate it did under Clinton for two main reasons: because the first Bush Administration's recession had cut imports to an artificially low level, and because the economy was expanding rapidly. People were confident, so they were buying a lot of imported goods. Businesses were growing, too, so U.S. factories were importing materials to manufacture their products. Throughout this period, export growth was very strong. In the Bush years, the trade deficit has been a product of a different, and less healthy dynamic: U.S. exports have dipped dramatically relative to imports.

Employment

* Jobs

One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush.9 While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law.10 This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).11

* Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs

The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.

* Jobs with Good Wages

The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush.13 A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.14

* Americans with Health Insurance

Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.16

Incomes

* Productivity

Productivity measures the amount of economic output that each hour of work produces. It is an important indicator of economic performance because high rates of productivity traditionally correlate with strong growth in living standards. The most accurate measure of productivity covers non-farm businesses. During the Clinton administration non-farm business productivity grew 1.83 percent per year. During the Bush administration, it grew by an average of 3.76 percent per year. This is one of the only bright spots in a period of otherwise lackluster economic performance, and it is a measure that suggests hope for the economy in the coming years. But it is important to note that the late 1990s saw both productivity growth and job growth, producing a double benefit for the economy. During the Bush years, productivity has grown while jobs have not. Whether the nation can maintain the robust levels of productivity growth we have enjoyed since 1996 depends in large part on whether we put in place the right policies, including investments in research and development, and the skills of the workforce; promotion of the digital economy, including high-speed broadband deployment; and fiscal discipline to keep interest rates low.18

* Per Capita GDP

Simply comparing the annual growth of GDP under each administration would be misleading, because the population continues to grow. Per capita GDP -- in other words, how much output there is each year relative to the total population -- is a more accurate measure. While per capita GDP rose 2.42 percent under Clinton, it has risen just 1.62 percent per year during the Bush presidency. In large part, this is because fewer people are working.

* Median Household Income

Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

* Poverty Reduction

Poverty statistics are telling indicators of the country's economic health. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell 2.29 percent annually in the Clinton years, but has since gone up 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years.

* Homeownership

No economic indicator can embody the American dream in quite the same way as homeownership. Indeed, one of the successes that President Bush frequently points to under his watch is the increase in homeownership. But while the home ownership rate has increased 0.37 percent per year during the Bush administration, that is a slowdown compared to the average increases of 1.94 percent during the Clinton administration.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAr...ontentID=252964

What you've posted wasn't prepared by a bi-partisan government agency such as the treasury department but rather a couple of people that clearly have a political agenda.

How many times has it been said that statisitics can be manipulated in any way to prove any point?

Who asked these people to prepare this report? What motivated them to do so? These questions need not be asked of the U.S. Treasury Department.

Edited October 27, 2006 by kaydee457

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What you've posted wasn't prepared by a bi-partisan government agency such as the treasury department but rather a couple of people that clearly have a political agenda.

How many times has it been said that statisitics can be manipulated in any way to prove any point?

Who asked these people to prepare this report? What motivated them to do so? These questions need not be asked of the U.S. Treasury Department.

I think that analysis goes into detail as to what each statistic means. Take it for what it's worth. BTW, the Secretary of the Treasury is a cabinet member...not exactly politically neutral.

[PlatyPius 5]

You would probably be wasting your time telling the people of Michigan the economy is going well -- people there would point him to the nearest crackhouse (in Detroit there are plenty to choose from) and tell you to light up. The unemployment rate there is the highest it's been in past 3 years than when the first Bush was in office.

You don't think that has something to do with left wing unions and their ever increasing wage demands forcing companies to close shop...

PS I highly doubt many Californians give a ###### about buying US cars to keep jobs in the US.

i'd buy a US car if they had a decent mileage like the japanese hybrids.. actually ford has a hybrid model, or a more than 30mpg.. i'd buy it.. but, oh well.. Real Americans want big trucks!! gas guzzling behemoths!!

I bought a US truck. A Toyota Tacoma. Assembled by American workers using American parts. Only the company headquarters is in Japan. Therefore, most of my money goes to Americans: The people who make the parts, the people who assemble the truck, the transport company who delivered it to the dealership, and the dealership itself.

On the other hand, you could buy a Chevy Sonoma. Make in Canada from Canadian, Japanese, and Mexican parts, built by Canadians, transported to the US by Canadians. The CEO is in the US, though!

So, which truck is REALLY an American truck?

And Pedroh.... I know it's hard for you to believe, but some of us "fat a$$" Americans actually use our trucks as trucks....you know, for hauling stuff?