On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:46:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:56:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

More nonsense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

Clinton has a surplus going and GWB crapped all over it.

You, like BP seem to think there was no effect from a 55% drop in the
NASDAQ.(2000)

compared to today? you're serious?


I suppose you do know Clinton's surplus was just a CBO projection
based on 1999 revenues, not anything that ever really happened. The
debt never dropped.

the debt dropped by a small amount. the DEFICIT was erased under
clintion and brought back with a vengeance by bush who squandered
trillions on wars and tax cuts for the rich


Oh and did you hear about the planes crashing into the buildings? That
may have deepened the recession a tad.

yeah. and bush send troops into iiraq

go figure

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

The other 15 million must have been union jobs

since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing
boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses.
Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication


You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like
"100 million middle class workers". Why can't I?

I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save
so now they are working at the 7-11.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

On Jul 25, 10:59*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

The other 15 million must have been union jobs

since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing
boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses.
Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication

You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like
"100 million middle class workers". Why can't I?

I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save
so now they are working at the 7-11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

D'Plume, you're January-2007 article is an invalid response and is
irrelevant to the subject.

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 10:59 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

The other 15 million must have been union jobs

since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing
boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses.
Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication

You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like
"100 million middle class workers". Why can't I?

I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save
so now they are working at the 7-11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

D'Plume, you're January-2007 article is an invalid response and is
irrelevant to the subject.

Actually, it's quite relevant, except for a moron like you.

"John H" wrote in message
...
...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start
losing
power.
--

John H

I guess you (moron/liar) missed this part of the article:

"They also place the school system at the head of a national movement --
fostered in part by the Obama administration's $4.3 billion "Race to the
Top" grant competition -- to more rigorously assess teachers'
effectiveness."