Obviously, you don't read very well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

On the rest, you're completely WRONG.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer
months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between
the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be
ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest
expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he
responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max