When the Clintons were in the White House, I could have my dinner in a restaurant and have a pitcher of Samuel Adams and prime rib for supper. Now that we have President Bush, I have to shop in the supermarket and cook my own steak. I only wish we had the Clintons back, because I'm tried of my own cooking.

Now that being said, I do not know what country you have been visiting. To me, living in poverty, is not being able to spend thirty-five dollars a day on my food and beer and that is only for the main meal. Nobody lives in the kind of poverty that you have just described in the United States, unless they want to do it. We are back to 1992, not 1932.

Unfortunately, we will not have the Clintons to bail us out of this one. You can help by a generous donation and contribution to those Democratic candidates that you can believe in. That way you will have good government, one that will generate good paying jobs.

Some working people do have a hard time. This happens, when you have conservative government, one that does not know how to manage the economy. However, what you describe here is something out of the history books. We are not in a depression and although working families are hurting, they are not that bad off. Otherwise, Hillary would have won every primary by a landslide.

There are some people that will live on the street, whether the president is Obama or McCain. If Obama and McCain gave them money, they will buy more drugs with it and curse the country for not giving them more. They will say that we are a mean country, because we will not support their drug habit. Why don't they go to a nice country, if they do not like it here?

Wow what a great idea. Carrying an extra bottle of water and breakfast bars. Next time I go out I will do the same. I'd much rather do that than give money.

I have another great idea. How about registering some Democrats at the upcoming county fair in Pomona? I have already signed up for several shifts. See you there!

I have to say stephenwinkler I admire your tenacity when it comes to your devotion to the Democratic party. I suppose your right there are those who will remain homeless by choice. The problem I have is how do I decipher who's the guy who chose to be homeless and who is the one who truly needs help? No matter who is elected in November I hope you are able to eat prime rib again!

May the source be with you

The Clinton Manufacturing Recession - Bush inherited this job-challenged economy.
National Review Online ^ | May 16, 2003 | Greg Kaza
Posted on May 16, 2003 5:10:43 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds

Gross Domestic Product has expanded six consecutive quarters and industrial production grew in 2002. But total non-farm payroll employment has declined by 2.1 million jobs since its peak in March 2001, leading critics to pin the decrease on President Bush and to describe the current economic situation as a “jobless recovery.

But closer examination of the employment data shows that if blame is to be awarded, it should go to ex-President Clinton. The data also reveal the need for the Bush tax cut.

Job losses are concentrated in the economy’s manufacturing private industry sector, which peaked in April 1998 on Clinton’s watch. In the ensuing five years, 2.6 million manufacturing jobs (14 percent) have disappeared.

You can call this the Clinton Manufacturing Recession — and it's the major reason why total non-farm employment has not grown.

The services-producing sector — 82 percent of the economy — has created 353,000 new jobs under President Bush since reaching a trough in December 2001. Job growth is spread across two private-industry sectors: services and the sector that includes finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE).

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of cyclical turning points, has said the economy reached a peak in March 2001. FIRE employment was 7.6 million in March 2001 and has grown to 7.8 million as of April 2003. Services employment was 41 million in March 2001 and has edged up to 41.4 million as of last month.

Growth in the services sector under President Bush has been greatest in the area of health and education. Gains have also occurred in engineering and management services, a hi-tech component. Government employment, counted in the services-producing sector, has also grown, but the largest gains are in non-federal employment.

Not every services-producing industry sector has grown under President Bush. Declines occurred in retail and wholesale trade, as well as transportation and public utilities. But these drop-offs pale in comparison with the manufacturing job losses that started under Clinton.

Nondurable manufacturing employment peaked at 7.9 million workers in January 1995. Components that peaked under Clinton included: food and kindred products (October 1995); textile mill products (November 1994); printing and publishing (May 1998); and rubber and miscellaneous plastics (February 2000). Many of these jobs were once concentrated in the South.

Durable manufacturing peaked at 11.2 million workers in April 1998. Components that peaked under Clinton included: lumber and wood (February 2000); furniture and fixtures (July 2000); primary metals (January 1998); fabricated metals (July 2000); industrial machinery and equipment (March 1998); electronic and other electrical equipment (November 2000); transportation equipment (October 1998); instruments and related products (March 1998); and miscellaneous manufacturing (April 1998). Some of the largest durables goods employment is in the upper Midwest.

No manufacturing component has peaked under President Bush. Stone, clay, and glass — a durable component — peaked in January 2001, the month Clinton left office. Six other manufacturing components peaked pre-1993.

President Bush inherited an economy on the brink of recession. Employment in the goods-producing sector (manufacturing, construction, mining) and industrial production peaked under Clinton. GDP contracted for three quarters in 2001 but has expanded for six quarters under President Bush. Yet total non-farm employment has not grown due to manufacturing job losses. Far from a “jobless recovery, the economy is suffering from the Clinton Manufacturing Recession, and is in need of fiscal stimulus.

And if you will remember, we were on our way to recovery under President Bush Senior, that was inherited by President Clinton. He was a very LUCKY man....He inherited an economy on the upswing and got out of it on it's downswing. That, my friends was very good timing. And if you argue this point then you are siding with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party who agreed to The New Deal with President Clinton. By your standards, stephenwinkler, then the economy must have been booming under President Carter too....can you say stagflation, price freezes on food, long lines for gasoline? These too, were your Democratic Principles at work. If I remember correctly, the Democrats tricked President Bush Senior into signing tax increases, that is when the economy went south. Then Newt Gingrich and the Republicans talked President Clinton into signing legislation to reduce taxes and the economy shot up.

I have to say that I admire lachawkfan's tenacity, because he has me worn out. Since Carole Lutness and the Democratic Alliance for Action will not answer my call to defend our Democratic principles and values, I declare lachawkfan the winner of this blog.

Incidentally, if only Senator Obama knew what little support he is receiving from the DAA, he might immediately withdrew his name from the contest. Meanwhile, enjoy your pizza and beer, Alliance members.

Boring.....
Doesn't matter what the subject is you guys turn right or left depending on your political views. Can't you just comment on the blog instead of turning into a politcal forum?

Cowboydad:

Would love to...but I am also not going to let people get a false sense and a one-sided viewpoint of what is going on. This blog does have some ties to politics since having to spare a buck is usually directly related to economics, which is political, but I absolutely get your point.

One evening we were at a fast food resteraunt and when we finished we came out to find a man with two young children asking for money for food. My brother in law went back in the resteraunt and bought the family some hamburgers, when he offered the man the food he promptly threw the food to the ground and started yelling profanities.
A friend of mines daughter has a drug problem and was living on the street by her choice, she would beg for money for food but was actually using it for drugs. Its hard to determine what to do when someone asks for money but I do like your idea of water or food instead but some times no matter what you do you get kicked for trying to help.

If you're a good panhandler, you can make $2,000.00 a month easily. TAX FREE

Hi justme,

I have also experienced what your brother in law has as well. I usually will ask "can I buy you something to eat?" I also have bought food and watched a person throw it away as I pulled away. Unfortunately there are many homeless people that are hooked on drugs begging for money for another fix and some that have mental problems. It's easy to get cynical especially when your trying to help a fellow human being and you experience these types of things.

I still can't decipher in some cases who needs help and who needs a fix so I'll continue with the bottled water and breakfast bars/etc..

May the source be with you

Hi llids,

I suppose there are those that panhandle "professionally" There is always someone who is a con artist, name a field or profession? It's a fact of life unfortunately.

May the source be with you

Hi lachawkfan,

I'm sick-and-tired of you running down President Clinton. I could reply with details to refute your arguments, but instead, I decided upon a different approach.

With all the errors committed by Senator Obama, Senator McCain should be ahead of him by twenty or thirty percentage points. Instead, he is behind between five-to-ten points, depending on the source of your poll. Why? Most people want change. They see our eroding influence on the international scene and we are unable to close the deal in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our economy is a mess. Our financial institutions are falling apart. We are paying too much at the pumps and are a hostage to foreign oil. We are losing our homes and small businesses cannot stay in business. President Clinton left a surplus and President Bush spent that surplus on two useless wars. The great majority of people would say that we were better off under Clinton, then under Bush.

Now, I'm not sure that Obama is the right kind of change. However, his high poll ratings are a reflection of a failed administration. People want Obama, because anything is better than four more years of Bush. You cannot say that Obama is high in the polls, because of his phenomenal accomplishments or outstanding achievements. However, the country is in a hell of a mess and people are afraid that they will get more of the same from McCain.

The real victim here is McCain. He is not President Bush. He is more honest and has more courage. He is a better human being. However, he is a Republican and he is cursed, because of him.

So stop your cheap partisanship! Clinton was a great president, while Bush is about about average or adequate. Incidentally, most people would say that I'm being too generous to your Republican president, but I'm trying to be fair.