Friday, November 07, 2003
Leave it to CNN to put a negative spin on the economic recovery. I caught a some of Lou Dobbs's show last night, where he led off a piece on the economy with the following statement:
"A new report today shows productivity in this country surged to a 10-year high. That's, of course, great news for businesses and the economy. But that increase in productivity is being carried on the backs of the already-overworked average American. And all of this comes while CEO paychecks are, yes, at an all-time high."
Is he serious? Just who's backs does he expect a recovery in the US economy to be carried on, French workers? It seems the focus of criticism of the economic recovery has shifted from "Yes, but where are the jobs?" to "Sure people are working, but they're working too hard!" I'm sure those who are still unemployed would gladly accept a longer work week or fewer vacation days in exchange for their current position. As far as the CEO salaries are concerned, (notice the obnoxious "yes" pause in the quote) of course CEO's salaries are at an all time high. In a year, they'll be higher, and a year from that they'll be even higher; that's how capitalism is supposed to work. Perhaps Dobbs meant that in comparison to other workers, and taking into account inflation and the current state on the economy, CEO salaries are at an all time high. The fact that this statement went unqualified throughout this report leads me to believe that all those evil CEOs probably aren't being compensated as disproportionately as Dobbs suggests. If he's got the facts, why not lay them out there?
How about this little gem from Kitty Pilgrim later in the piece: "Even with the economy growing, companies are still shedding jobs, 2.5 million jobs in the last 2.5 years."
Has the economy been recovering over the last 2.5 years? I seem to have missed that one. Lumping job losses over the last 2.5 years in with a recovery that is a few months old at best is an obvious distortion. Again, if there have been significant job losses during this months old recovery, why not give us the facts? The reason is likely because the real numbers are a whole lot less alarming than "2.5 million jobs."
Dobbs and Pilgrim wrap the piece up with this exchange: "PILGRIM: Another survey by that same group found 63 percent of workers admit to extremely high levels of stress. That's up 15 percent in just the last six months -- Lou. DOBBS: And that's why everyone should be extraordinarily careful when they get excited about these high productivity numbers, as we emerge from recession to recovery."
We'll, at least he admits this is a recovery.
-scott
"A new report today shows productivity in this country surged to a 10-year high. That's, of course, great news for businesses and the economy. But that increase in productivity is being carried on the backs of the already-overworked average American. And all of this comes while CEO paychecks are, yes, at an all-time high."
Is he serious? Just who's backs does he expect a recovery in the US economy to be carried on, French workers? It seems the focus of criticism of the economic recovery has shifted from "Yes, but where are the jobs?" to "Sure people are working, but they're working too hard!" I'm sure those who are still unemployed would gladly accept a longer work week or fewer vacation days in exchange for their current position. As far as the CEO salaries are concerned, (notice the obnoxious "yes" pause in the quote) of course CEO's salaries are at an all time high. In a year, they'll be higher, and a year from that they'll be even higher; that's how capitalism is supposed to work. Perhaps Dobbs meant that in comparison to other workers, and taking into account inflation and the current state on the economy, CEO salaries are at an all time high. The fact that this statement went unqualified throughout this report leads me to believe that all those evil CEOs probably aren't being compensated as disproportionately as Dobbs suggests. If he's got the facts, why not lay them out there?
How about this little gem from Kitty Pilgrim later in the piece: "Even with the economy growing, companies are still shedding jobs, 2.5 million jobs in the last 2.5 years."
Has the economy been recovering over the last 2.5 years? I seem to have missed that one. Lumping job losses over the last 2.5 years in with a recovery that is a few months old at best is an obvious distortion. Again, if there have been significant job losses during this months old recovery, why not give us the facts? The reason is likely because the real numbers are a whole lot less alarming than "2.5 million jobs."
Dobbs and Pilgrim wrap the piece up with this exchange: "PILGRIM: Another survey by that same group found 63 percent of workers admit to extremely high levels of stress. That's up 15 percent in just the last six months -- Lou. DOBBS: And that's why everyone should be extraordinarily careful when they get excited about these high productivity numbers, as we emerge from recession to recovery."
We'll, at least he admits this is a recovery.
-scott
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Japan is sending troops to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Perhaps they'll bring along a few of these.
About the Iraq "quagmire": It can be effectively argued that historically those who refused to use force in the face of an imminent threat have done more harm than those who used force recklessly or in the name of evil. Where there is a ruthless tyrant there's almost always someone who had the oppotuniy to stop them before they became a monster. Liberals who would have us follow in Neville Chamberlain's footsteps and pacify those who have vowed to kill us are in many ways more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. The fact that liberals politicize and idealize an issue so painfully obvious as terrorism shows just how far from reality they have strayed in their quest for socialist nirvana. Thank God we have a president that isn't so feminized and politically correct that he can't tell when there's a gun pointed at our heads.
-scott
-scott
I hope that the ass-clowns who are convinced we're in a "quagmire" in Iraq and got so knowledgeable by walking past the TV while Dan, Tom, or Peter are on (you know who you are) will take the time to read this. I grow weary of people who are so opinionated and well versed in U.S. foreign policy spouting off about this subject and then clamming up or telling me that President Bush is an idiot (Oooh, nice rejoinder! And so relevant. Congratulations, you just changed my mind.) because they haven't bothered to expend ANY time or effort delving even half a $%^#$ millimeter below the surface.
Ooh look! It took me all of maybe 3 minutes on line to come across the above link. Whew! I'm exhausted. I'm not going to do that again, I think I'll just use Peter Jennings in place of my native cognition.
Ooh look! It took me all of maybe 3 minutes on line to come across the above link. Whew! I'm exhausted. I'm not going to do that again, I think I'll just use Peter Jennings in place of my native cognition.
First GW goes along with Big Ted's education free-for-all bill, and now this. Perhaps the award is for going 34 consecutive years without drowning anyone, or maybe it's just part of Bush's proposed "No Bloated Drunk Ass Senators Left Behind" act. Rumor has it that Kennedy secured the award by agreeing to donate his jowls to help feed the poor. Now that's compassionate conservatism.
-scott
-scott
Oh, the irony! George H.W. Bush will be presenting the 3rd annual George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service to none other than Senator Ted Kennedy. How exactly I would like to know did former President Bush determine that Kennedy "deserved" this award? By spending the most taxpayer's money over the most years in the Senate? Let's see, the only service that I can think that he has done for the public would be not taking care of himself physically, such that we can hope for not too many more years of his "excellence"......
Posted by Kerry
Posted by Kerry
I love the smell of whining in the morning. It seems the left has chosen to cry censorship in the wake of CBS's decision to cancel the Reagan miniseries. The same people who would like to outlaw negative speech directed towards someone of minority status are now champions of the first amendment again. How convenient. I guess it's only worth defending freedom of choice when people make choices you agree with. Perhaps there's a way for them to somehow use the senate intelligence committee as a political tool to convince CBS to air the miniseries...
-scott
-scott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)