"DSK" wrote in message
...
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?


Now you're learning! The manufacturing jobs peak happened in 1998...two
years before Clinton left office. The mass exodus started then...and
continues today. Picture a roller coaster. We reached the zenith in 1998,
and it's been all down hill from there.


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

You think it's good that Clinton presided over a 2 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by 4%?



... 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,

You really can't follow a thread, can you?

4% drop...not 2%.


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.

At least you admit that he inherited a "downward trend".





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"

Because he *did* say 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.


I've got news for you:
The conventional wisdom is changing. There has been a huge discrepancy
between the Household and Payroll surveys. Historically, folks (at the CBO
and Fed) relied more heavily on the payroll data. However, things are
beginning to change. Even the most hardened conventionalists admit that the
real job picture falls somewhere between the two surveys. The more
progressive and sophisticated analysts are going so far as to state that the
household survey is the more accurate of the two.

NOYB wrote:
Now you're learning!

Learning what? That you still can't do math? That you still think
everything bad is Clinton's fault?



... We reached the zenith in 1998,
and it's been all down hill from there.


Yep... following the longest peacetime economic boom in history. Not a
bad record over all. There were still a LOT more jobs, and more
manufacturing jobs, when Clinton left office than when he was elected.

Why do you keep skipping over this fact, NOBBY? Too painful?



You think it's good that Clinton presided over a 2 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by 4%?

I think it's better than Bush presiding over a 4 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by more, and all other job growth was
pathetically low.


Yes, by golly, a 2 percent drop in the very last part of Clinton's 2nd
term,


You really can't follow a thread, can you?

4% drop...not 2%.

Do the math, NOBBY.



... Now
look at Bush's record... he took a downward trend and let it get far worse.


At least you admit that he inherited a "downward trend".


And has failed to even slow it down, much less reverse it. But hey, the
economy's booming folks! Really it is!


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"


Because he *did* say 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.



I've got news for you:
The conventional wisdom is changing. There has been a huge discrepancy
between the Household and Payroll surveys. Historically, folks (at the CBO
and Fed) relied more heavily on the payroll data. However, things are
beginning to change.

Oh, so now you try to backpeddle and pretend it's a mix up in the
sourcing of statistics?

Did President Bush admit that he had lost America jobs, or didn't he? I
sure don't recall such a statement, OTOH I do recall a LOT of
spinmeistering of the sort you're trying to pull now.

Was Bush honest enough to admit the facts which you stated earlier
(although you had a hard time with the numbers)?

No.

Case closed.

Oh wait, that list of important things Bush has lied about... add this
to it... never mind, it's already so long we can't see the end of it
from here...

DSK