Since June 2003, the economy has seen 27 straight months of net job
gains...yielding a *net* gain of 4,172,000 jobs over that same period.


In the last 18 months alone, we've added 3,533,000 jobs.

Since the election, we've added 1,837,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate stands at 4.9%...which is exactly where it was prior
to 9/11.

Unfortunately, Katrina will probably have a negative impact on the numbers
for the next few months.

http://tinyurl.com/dnb7a

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:10:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/dnb7a

Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the
only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House.
Damn, who would have thought?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:10:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/dnb7a

Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the
only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House.
Damn, who would have thought?

Net job loss? Over what time period?

When I look at the graph, I consistently see a downward slope in the numbers
starting in the year preceding when a Republican took office.

"thunder" wrote in message

Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the
only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House.
Damn, who would have thought?

You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run
that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present
business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:31:40 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and
run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever
present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable.

Thank you and I would agree. When it comes to the economy, Presidents get
far more credit/blame than they deserve. Now, if you could just get NOYB
to see the light.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:31:40 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and
run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever
present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable.

Thank you and I would agree. When it comes to the economy, Presidents get
far more credit/blame than they deserve. Now, if you could just get NOYB
to see the light.

Why are you turning my thread into a political post? I simply posted labor
statistics for the last 27 months, the last 18 months, and the last 10
months. There was no blame or credit assigned to any party or any person in
particular. That is, until *you* and Harry started with the
attack-Bush-and-the-Republicans garbage.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:31:40 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and
run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever
present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable.

Thank you and I would agree. When it comes to the economy, Presidents
get
far more credit/blame than they deserve. Now, if you could just get NOYB
to see the light.

Why are you turning my thread into a political post? I simply posted
labor statistics for the last 27 months, the last 18 months, and the last
10 months. There was no blame or credit assigned to any party or any
person in particular. That is, until *you* and Harry started with the
attack-Bush-and-the-Republicans garbage.


How funny. When the economic news is bad many partisans were sure to rush
in and blame Bush. Now that things have been looking positive for the past
couple of years their answer is:

"When it comes to the economy, Presidents get far more credit/blame than
they deserve."
(Thunder, September 12, 2005 rec.boats)

Damned if you do and damned if you don't with some folks. ;-)

Thanks for posting the information NOYB.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the
only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House.
Damn, who would have thought?

You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and
run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever
present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable.


Indeed they do see what they want to see. Unfortunately your effort to
explain a natural phenomenon such as a business cycle in non-partisan terms
is ultimately wasted on the armchair partisan political hacks that populate
this forum. They genuinely believe that all that happens - good or bad - is
directly the result of the policies of the party leaders that they either
love or hate. All good comes from my side of the aisle, all bad comes from
the other. Such is their sad polarized view of the world. What a
dreadfully tedious drumbeat to march to.

Here Here! You are very correct it is quit pathetic!

"RG" wrote in message news:NDiVe.8810$mH.8732@fed1read07...

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the
only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House.
Damn, who would have thought?

You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and
run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever
present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable.


Indeed they do see what they want to see. Unfortunately your effort to
explain a natural phenomenon such as a business cycle in non-partisan
terms is ultimately wasted on the armchair partisan political hacks that
populate this forum. They genuinely believe that all that happens - good
or bad - is directly the result of the policies of the party leaders that
they either love or hate. All good comes from my side of the aisle, all
bad comes from the other. Such is their sad polarized view of the world.
What a dreadfully tedious drumbeat to march to.

Read back, RG. You'll see that Harry turned an statistical/informational
thread into a political one. And then thunder piled on with his "take it
back to 1977, only when a Republican was in the WH" claim.