"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:13:13 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:47:11 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobles...0-pct-for-apf-
563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

But of course Obama will whine that it is Bush's fault.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldN...43692420091104

When is it time to man up and accept the reins of leadership and
responsibility. I can see it now. The year is 2012 and Obama is
saying
if you give me another 4 years we can finally get started on getting
undone what Bush did.


Thank you George W. Bush for screwing up an economy and getting us
embroiled in a war of choice. Thank you for sending 1000s to die for
no
good reason.

When is it going to be time for you to man up and accept the facts.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Economy was already screwing up and primed to really implode before
George
got in. George did not help the situation at all. As one of the
financial
comentators said today. Bill Clinton was a better Republican than
George
Bush.

Have a look at this and see if you continue to agree with the above...


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oyment.html?hp

And that has what to do with the discussion?

Why the hell would GW Bush demand those gigantic tax cuts if we were
headed towards the ****ter? Didn't he know any better?

Because, as I said Bush was worse than Clinton. Neither helped the
economy. Clinton looked good because Greenspan let a bubble build.

Untrue. Clinton's terms were much better for the economy. The economy
expanded, unemployment was very low. Greenspan didn't look carefully enough
at what was happening, but you can't blame him for what happened 10 years
later.

--
Nom=de=Plume