Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
INFO FOR NEWBIES | ASA | |||
More bad news for Bush, good news for Americans | General | |||
OT - FLIP-FLOPPING MAY HAVE INJURED KERRY’S SHOULDER | General | |||
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General | |||
Bush Resume | ASA |