Republicans = Clean Air & Jobs

[Peter_Puget]

link1

 

link 2

 

 

What Fear?

[selkirk]

You think that clean air in LA has anything to do with Bush? Remember they voted Kerry... I'd say that's more due to local politics and regulations which are decidedly liberal.

 

The new jobs are good news though

[catbirdseat]

You gotta be kidding! The jobs are from hurricane reconstruction, which is being paid for out of insurance money. The cleaner air in Los Angeles has come as a result of local and State laws which are much more stringent than Federal Standards.

[cj001f]

You gotta be kidding! The jobs are from hurricane reconstruction, which is being paid for out of insurance money. The cleaner air in Los Angeles has come as a result of local and State laws which are much more stringent than Federal Standards.

 

And are opposed by the Bush administration.

[Jim]

PP - as usual your toll lacks a logical construct. CA has the toughest air quality laws in the nation because the feds will not step up.

 

You manged to avoid this gem in your posted article about jobs:

 

Still, the unemployment rate edged up to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent in September, but that was because more people joined the search for employment, a potentially hopeful sign.

 

The jobs created are not even keeping up with the number of folks coming into the labor market. Try again.

[klenke]

Damn, it doesn't seem like 5.5% is a high unemployment rate. Seems pretty close to historical average. I think it was down to something like 4% in Clinton's Roaring late-90's. 5.5%, 4%, small difference but spells big issue to so many folks. Wasn't the unemployment rate like 7% a couple years ago?

 

Either way: I suck.

[catbirdseat]

Hey klenke, I hear Walmart is hiring.

[klenke]

Sorry, I'm not obese nor skinny nor stupid enough for Wal-Mart. Although I am pretty skinny...and stupid.

[Jim]

In contrast to many European countries, the United States, in compiling jobless data, excluded persons without employment who had stopped looking for work. People who want to work but are discouraged about job opportunities and so have given up an active job search are not counted here as unemployed. Instead, they are considered not to be in the labor force. Part-time workers who wanted full-time jobs are nevertheless counted as fully employed. People working even as little as one day a week are categorized as "employed." About two million Americans, for example, are "on-call" workers who are called to work as needed -- sometimes for one day, sometimes for longer. Substitute teachers meet this definition. Such a methodology for determining the extent of unemployment in America is symptomatic, at the very least, of the lack of official concern regarding the problem. Many might say, with good reason, that it reflects an intent to mislead.

 

Many independent economists accept that the true level of unemployment in the United States of America is at least double the official figure. Even former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Janet Norwood, after declining reappointment in 1991, began speaking out on the inadequacies of government data. Not only did she acknowledge that the unemployment numbers were misleading, but she also said, "I am very worried, extraordinarily concerned, about the polarization I see going on in our country."

 

Unless things get booming, Bush will no only have the honor of being the only president to have lost jobs during his tenure, it will extend to 8 years worth.

[catbirdseat]

There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Look at all the climbers who are out of work, but not interested in finding new jobs until they run out of money. I think the ideal situation would be for the government to research and publish more than one jobless figure- 1) Unemployed and seeking, 2) Underemployed, and 3) unemployed and "discouraged" (not seeking work).

[Ricardo_Montalban]

...air in the Los Angeles was the cleanest on record this year, regulators said Thursday.

 

Still, the region's air quality remained the worst in the nation by one key measure, said Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

pp, is this what you consider a success story?

[klenke]

I think the ideal situation would be for the government to research and publish more than one jobless figure- 1) Unemployed and seeking, 2) Underemployed, and 3) unemployed and "discouraged" (not seeking work).

You forgot 4) unemployed and a climber.

[catbirdseat]

...air in the Los Angeles was the cleanest on record this year, regulators said Thursday.

 

Still, the region's air quality remained the worst in the nation by one key measure, said Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

pp, is this what you consider a success story?

Yes it IS a success story. I am from California and I once worked on clean fuels research for Arco. In the process, I learned a little about smog. The Los Angeles basin as most people know naturally traps pollutants in an inversion layer. It was hazy even in the days of the Spaniards. The air is much, much better than it was in the 1960's.

 

Now Houston is an entirely different story...

[Ricardo_Montalban]

i'm not trying to dismiss the progress made with clean fuels, clean business, clean etc.

i'm saying it's ridiculous to attribute this years clean air to the republicans. the article clearly states that it is the result of specific weather patterns.

i do have to give shrub sr. one prop for passing the CAA, but on the whole republicans advocate easing pollution regs.

i consider this year's air a lucky break.

i consider the clean air advancements an improvement.

but this is not a success story.

[catbirdseat]

You DO understand that PP's post was a troll of sorts.

[scott_harpell]

You DO understand that PP's post was a troll of sorts.

 

What tipped you off? The laughing graemlin?