Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that
he'd caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of
net job loss under Bush were all lies.

Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to
not know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed
(did you lie?), or less than 1 million.

It seems to me that if you can't explain the situation without either
using two different sets of numbers for the same figure of merit (they
send accountants to jail for that, y'know) and/or calling other people
liars (among other names), then you probably aren't very close to the
truth yourself. The truth is usually simple & commonsense, real world
facts are usually rather consistent.

Why do 'conservatives' fear the truth, and why do they engage in so much
doubletalk?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

NOYB wrote:
Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last November
& December.

The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months. The
economy lost a little over 2 million in the first 20 months. That's a net
gain of around 900,000 new jobs.

At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even. However,
in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added approximately
900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of 900,000 new jobs
since Bush took office in 2001.


That would be very impressive.

"After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry
supporters were quick to declare that Bush was the first American
president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his term.
However, since Bush officially took office in January 2001, he still had
the November and December numbers to add to his total. By the time of his
second inauguration in January 2005, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs
for his first term."

No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!

You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that he'd
caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of net
job loss under Bush were all lies.

It *is* a lie to say that there has been a *net* job loss under Bush.



Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to not
know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed (did
you lie?), or less than 1 million

I've posted the exact numbers on here befo


We're up 3.466 million jobs in the last 23 months. That's 23 straight
months of net jobs *gained*.


Since Bush took office, we've had a total net gain of 839,000 jobs.



So that means there was a net loss of 2.627 million jobs in the first 20
months, and a net gain of 3.466 million jobs in the most recent 23
months...giving us a net gain of 839,000 jobs since Bush first took office
in 2001.

Employment data is a lagging indicator. The first 6-12 months of Bush's
Presidency are a reflection of where the economy was 6 to 12 months earlier.
The next 6-12 months are a reflection of what happened on 9/11. The last 23
months (3.466 million *net* jobs gained) are a reflection of Bush's economic
policies, rather than those of his predecessor.

Got it?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike the
terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them in
custody.



What about the bosses?


Nookular Boy said they weren't important. Remember?

Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that
he'd caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of
net job loss under Bush were all lies.

It *is* a lie to say that there has been a *net* job loss under Bush.



Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to
not know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed
(did you lie?), or less than 1 million

I've posted the exact numbers on here befo


We're up 3.466 million jobs in the last 23 months. That's 23 straight
months of net jobs *gained*.


Since Bush took office, we've had a total net gain of 839,000 jobs.



So that means there was a net loss of 2.627 million jobs in the first 20
months, and a net gain of 3.466 million jobs in the most recent 23
months...giving us a net gain of 839,000 jobs since Bush first took office
in 2001.

Employment data is a lagging indicator. The first 6-12 months of Bush's
Presidency are a reflection of where the economy was 6 to 12 months
earlier. The next 6-12 months are a reflection of what happened on 9/11.
The last 23 months (3.466 million *net* jobs gained) are a reflection of
Bush's economic policies, rather than those of his predecessor.

Got it?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike
the terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them
in custody.



What about the bosses?


Nookular Boy said they weren't important. Remember?

They're not important once they're forced into hiding, unable to communicate
with and train the mercenaries.

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up.

Really?
Let's see what the pros say
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

Hmm, 3.5% which isn't bad, but it darn sure isn't "great." The previous
quarters were less though.

So why are we having layoffs


NOYB wrote:
Jobs going to countries with uneven labor playing fields.

Really? GM is moving jobs to which overseas country?



, huge gov't deficits


Already been asked and answered.


Oh right, you claimed that Bush's tax cuts are going to erase the
deficit someday... funny how that didn't work last time, and the pros
don't think it's going to work this time either...


, dropping the prime rate,


As I said...
To offset the oil spike

How do you explain increased profitability then? Can you cite *any*
economic theory without having it bite you in the butt?

... *and* to create a more level field with our
international competitors who receive government-subsidized loans for cheap.


Hmm, these darn foreign gov't can afford to buy up our debt *and* offer
cheap subsidy loans to businesses stealing our jobs? Wow, we should
elect guys who can do that well.


increasing trade imbalance,


China won't float there currency. It's indexed to the dollar, making it
artificially depressed.

But didn't you say the dollar wasn't depressed? Can you make more than
two statements without contradicting yourself?


... Besides being cheaper due to a lowcost labor
supply, their stuff also appears much, much cheaper due to their
artificially deflated currency.


dropping dollar, etc etc?


A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US.

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?

... It makes
US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement is erroneous: the
dollar has been heading back up against all currencies except for the yuan.


This week yes, largely due to a panic on the euro. But the long term
trend is certainly down, and the dollar is still averaging lower than
it's been in a long time.

But hey, according to you, the economy is booming! We have no troubles!
Let's all sing!

DSK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last November
& December.


NOYB wrote:
The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months.

But they said (and the BLS agrees) that as of Aug 2004, the Bush
Presidency had a net loss of jobs.

Hmm, who to believe, NOBBY or the econ pros? What a tough call.


At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even. However,
in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added approximately
900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of 900,000 new jobs
since Bush took office in 2001.

Shucks, that's barely 100,000 jobs per month. The Clinton economy added
well over 200,000 per month. What gives, NOBBY, is the economy booming
or isn't it?




No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!


You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

You obviously don't understand any concept at all. All you do is parrot
the yay-Bush propaganda, and then look for facts later. Let's see, how
many times has NOBBY contradicted himself in this thread? Is it a new
record?

DSK

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL

LOL. I always hold out for that last glimmer of hope, even from the dimmest
of bulbs. Since DSK is slightly dumber than the average dummy, I'm hoping
that is why it's taking longer than usual.

There are some people, like basskisser, who I have totally have given up on.
I'd rather pull a fish out of the Gulf and explain things to the fish.

P.Fritz wrote:
Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL


He seems to enjoy that more than he enjoys facing reality.

So tell us, Puff Fritzy, when are you going start quoting facts &
figures showing what a great job President Bush has done with the
economy? Don't let NOBBY hog the show.

DSK