No comment on your attempted lying by editing that wikipedia quote,
NOBBY? It's not like you to give up so easy when when you're losing.


Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow?


NOYB wrote:
Actually, they didn't. Manufacturing jobs peaked at 17,708,000 jobs in June
of 1998.

Really? I seem to recall that Clinton was President from 1992 to 2000.
Isn't 1998 almost right at the end?


... By the time Bush took office, the number of manufacturing jobs had
fallen all the way to 16,993,000.

And that's still quite a lot more than when Clinton took office, isn't
it? And quite a heck of a lot more than we have now?

So what happened to your claim that Bush's Presidency has been good for
the econmy?


For the mathematically impaired folks (like yourself) that's about a 4% drop
in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last 2 1/2 years of Clinton's
presidency.

Very good, at least if the hyperbole is discounted. Did one of your kids
help you work out the math on that?

... That shows that a pretty clear downwards trend had already
begun at least 2 years before Bush took office.

Yes, by golly, a 2 percent drop in the very last part of Clinton's 2nd
term, following the largest sustained peacetime economic boom in
history. Now look at Bush's record... he took a downward trend and let
it get far worse.



How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"


He did say exactly that.


No, he didn't Nobby. If you're going to lie, at least make it *slightly*
difficult to disprove. The RNC put up a huge smokescreen campaign based
on the household survey statistics, which weren't intended to be used as
a labor indicator at all.

DSK