Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Country listens and remembers who entangled America in a war that will never end and left a huge deficit behind, even though he inherited surplus from his predecessor.
No matter how much you try no one will ever forget what 8 years of GW Bush did to this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfman
Okay, so what you're saying is... it's Bush's fault?
GWB the excuse that just keeps giving. Too bad the rest of the country isn't listening to that excuse anymore.
The Country listens and remembers who entangled America in a war that will never end and left a huge deficit behind, even though he inherited surplus from his predecessor.
Good grief... another brainwash victim.
1) There was no surplus. The National Debt increased every year. That means money had to be BORROWED each year to pay the federal government's expenses. Look it up.
The Country listens and remembers who entangled America in a war that will never end and left a huge deficit behind, even though he inherited surplus from his predecessor.
No matter how much you try no one will ever forget what 8 years of GW Bush did to this country.
Pretty sure the entire Congress had a say in that deal. It wasn't like Bush went rogue and signed an executive order.......
1) There was no surplus. The National Debt increased every year. That means money had to be BORROWED each year to pay the federal government's expenses. Look it up.
2) Clinton says Iraq has WMDs = not a lie.
What's to reconcile? Clinton didn't sent troops to Iraq and spent billions on a senseless war, did he?
1) There was no surplus. The National Debt increased every year. That means money had to be BORROWED each year to pay the federal government's expenses. Look it up.
I looked at your website and there is only a 3% difference in regards to a comparison of the labor participation rates of 2004 and 2014.
Do you think this is a significant change?
I personally feel that the chart posted is pretty misleading. It stated the labor participation rate was 66% in Feb of 2004 and 63% in Feb of 2014. That really isn't that much of a drop. Also if you compared GW Bush's years to Clinton's second term, the graph is practically the same, a decrease. So evidently the rate of participation has been decreasing since 2000 when it was over 67% (went to 65% under Bush, but then back up).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
