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 employment level fell in Dec., 2007, but there was still more net job growth (18,000). Therefore, it is still 52 consecutive months of job growth. In fact, there have been 8.3 million jobs created since Aug., 2003, the longest continuous run of job growth on record.
Lol. Excuses, excuses! I know you hate any kind of good economic news when it involves the Bush administration, but the fact remains that there has been 52 consecutive months of job growth.
Only when job growth is construed to comprise only non-farm payrolls as taken from establishment rather than household surveys and then seasonally adjusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Where is that figure from?
From one of the more salient BLS series than the one you choose to focus on (for obvious reasons)...LNS12000000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
I'm not comparing it to Clinton's record. I'm pointing out the fact that the GDP has been growing very well. But if you want to compare, I will also point out the excellent 8.3% growth in one quarter of 2004 (higher than anytime during the '90s), which was the highest growth since the 9.7% in 1984 (with another Republican President).
You miss the point...namely that your citing GDP stats at all was an irrelevancy to start out with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Tax hikes hurt the economy; tax cuts help it.
In light of such astute generalization, why do we not just reduce all taxes to zero?
Last edited by saganista; 01-06-2008 at 01:35 PM..
Bushies usually compare Jr's best with Clinton's worse, ignoring Clinton's average which is a lot higher than Jr's average, and is light years away from Jr's worse.
Some number of the Bushies have sopped up so much right-wing propaganda that they simply don't recognize anything else anymore. Invalid and otherwise misconstructed arguments are what's for dinner over at their house. 2 + 2 = 5. You've heard it so often, how could anything else be true...
All I know is that 1 in 6 manufacturing ("good") jobs have been lost since 2000 (over 3 million), sent to China and Mexico and India. People can spin whatever stats they want to and pretend more Mickey D jobs are a good thing for our country, but I work in manufacturing and I see people getting let go all the time.
Only when job growth is construed to comprise only non-farm payrolls as taken from establishment rather than household surveys and then seasonally adjusted.
That's also how it was calculated during the Clinton era (and the eras before that).
Quote:
From one of the more salient BLS series than the one you choose to focus on (for obvious reasons)...LNS12000000.
Link?
Quote:
You miss the point...namely that your citing GDP stats at all was an irrelevancy to start out with.
You are the one who brought in a Clinton comparison... I just added to it.
Quote:
In light of such astute generalization, why do we not just reduce all taxes to zero?
Because the government needs some money to run the country. But not a ridiculous 50% tax rate which some (Hillary) would like to have.
yeah, but what type of jobs are those? Service sector jobs mostly. That's great job growth!
SHHHH...that is the part they don't want to talk about.....
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.