# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
Samir Kelekar writes:
It is quite interesting that despite the bad economy, people losing jobs,It is very interesting indeed, Samir. The truth of the matter is that in spite of the economy losing 1.9 million jobs due to the recession that Bush inherited, and in spite of the economic fallout of September 11, the Bush administration created an economic stimulus package which resulted in the recovery of over 800,000 jobs. ..and it continues to grow for the 14th straight month. Manufacturing has increased too. Unemployment is down by more than 1 percentage point, and is as low as it was during the prosperous Clinton economy of 1996. So, "despite the bad economy, people losing jobs", it is only as bad as it was when Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Nobody was complaining then, and the American people who were affected by it during the last 4 years seem to think it's only as significant a problem as it was in 1996. The United States share of the world's GDP at the time Bush took office was about 25%, it's now 33%. There is no cause to complain about the superb growth in GDP.
people have voted for Bush.
Does this mean that people vote based on their religious feelings, so-calledNo, they also voted based on economic concerns as I outlined above. People do vote based on religious feelings, one of many factors. Values play an important role too. In a country where the rule of law is paramount it must come as a given that a strong moral code undergirds the foundation of that law. I think it was Malcolm X who once said "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".
moral issues, more than their economic concerns?
Or is that the terrorism threat --- the fear factor --- has made BushThe fear factor coupled with the fact that the United States has been effectively protected against any major terrorist act since September 11, 2001 has been an important contributor in the re-election of George W. Bush. There have been many planned attacks which have been stopped, and terrorist sleeper cells have been uncovered. This is well documented.
garner votes? Or is it that Kerry was not perceived as a strong enough
candidate?
With $100 billion a year in war costs, if Iraqi resistance continues, andThe outsourcing of manufacturing has several benefits, among them the average household in the United States has about $2,000 each year in spending cash. The outsourcing of tech jobs to Bangalore and other places has several benefits, one of which is that American consumer goods end up in the hands of foreign consumers. I won't bore you with more detail, but there are liberals and conservatives alike who share that sentiment. You might want to check articles on the subject by Thomas Friedman (a liberal), the influential foreign affairs editor of the New York Times, or the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal (conservative). Regarding war costs: there are significant amounts of the money spent there which comes back to the United States since American contractors such as Raytheon and Halliburton have been providing infrastructural support.
with jobs going to places like India, the future for the US lay people appears not
so bright. Or is it that people do have jobs in the US and this outsourcing/loss
of jobs is just a media hype?
Of course, if the Iraqi resistance calms down, and Bush isSir, you have no idea what you're talking about. Spending an extra $100 billion a year does not make oil cheaper.
able to get cheap oil from Iraq --- which was his main aim anyway --- then
it may be good for the American economy.
Peter D'Souza
