In Nancy Reagan's words- Just say no.

Crack kills...

 

I stand corrected and you are right.

Under Clinton the national average unemployment rate with a booming economy was 5.13%.

Under President Bush who was handed a recession and then a major terrorist attack has a national average, to date, for unemployment at 5.19%.

So let’s see, a President who had a booming economy (thanks Reagan) has a national average unemployment rate 0.06% below a President that was handed a recession and major terrorist attack…

Go figure and kind of makes you wonder what the hell Kerry is talking about when it comes to employment or unemployment in this country…

 

Look around bub.
numbers can lie.
There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics
Its all about how the numbers are generated.

 

"(thanks Reagan)"

I love when you say that, reminds me of drug dealers around the country thanking him for speeding up the flow of cocaine into our country.

 

True. But you must admit no other President had to deal with a little terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center. They have estimated that cost the US economy AT LEAST 1.1 million jobs. IF you are a thinking person, you know that accusing Bush of job losses beyond that are not reasonable.

But then again lets not cloud the air with facts, it's too much trouble.

 

Exactly and that is how I calculated the national average for both Clinton and Bush up to this last unemployment numbers.

You see every month a number is released, for example 5.2%. You take and add all the numbers for the months and then divide that sum by the amount of months you added up. Here let me make this simple:

Example numbers –
5.2% 4.8% 6.1% 5.8% 5.2%

You add those numbers and the sum is 27.1%

Then you divide 27.1% by 5 (number of months) and that would give you an “average” of 5.4%

I researched and got numbers for every month beginning in Jan of 1994 to Sept. 2004

Armed with that information and basic math skills I came up with a national unemployment average for Clinton of 5.13% and an average for Bush of 5.19%


However, and in fairness, I found another site that gave me information so I could calculate Clintons “actual” national average unemployment rate when he entered office which was in Jan of 1992.

Using those numbers for ALL 8 years Clintons national average unemployment rate while he was President is 6.2%

So, we have:

Clinton 6.2% national average unemployment rate with a booming economy.
Bush 5.2% national average unemployment rate after being handed an economy in recession AND a terrorist attack that slaughtered over 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

Numbers don’t lie and the liberals have nothing to whine about when it comes to unemployment rates since Clinton had a much higher rate in a peaceful and booming time.

In other words Clinton had a 20% higher unemployment rate then does Bush…

It’s simple math my friend, try it and the truth will set you free, just stop using the Algore fuzzy math…

 

01 XLT Sport,
I wish you would quit clouding this argument with facts. We all just need to keep calling you and President Bush names, like a certain member here wants to do. Just leave the facts out of the discussion so he can have something to argue about

 

We would put someone at the helm of this country who admitted that he voted not to fund our troops AS A PROTEST!!!
That alone should be grounds for removal from Congress.

 

2000Lariat,

I agreed with your post before I disagreed with it…

How’s that?

 

Well put o wise one

 

Fu*kin right RP, W all the way....

 

Perfect!

 

spert, the operative words in my post were 'Its all about how the numbers are generated.'

You see, my friend, the numbers are generated by how many people apply for and who is receiving unemployment. When unemployment runs out, then they aren't counted but they are still out of work. Its about how the numbers are generated.

KERRY: "Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton.

And guess what, thats exactly what happened.
He was for funding the troops (I voted for it) but saw that the management of the money was never implemented into the bill (then I voted against it).
For all of you crying about being overtaxed, the inconsistency of fiscal responsability in your posts seem like flip flopping on a grand scale.
If that bill didn't pass then the controls would have been added to it, and quickly.
shrub and cheatey had it drafted so the companies would benefit.
Now there are missing billions, under equipted troops, living in cement like dust, while Halliburton and it subsiderary companies are overcharging us while living the life of Riley in Iraq.

Look at the price of gasoline here at home. On average its 60 cents more than a year ago. The cost of crude is at record highs.
Its being manipulated in concert with the Saudies to ding us here as well as the rest of the world.
Who is benefiting from this high price, not me or you, but the already rich oil concerns.
This is what shrub has encouraged that directly affects everyone yet you still believe hes a conservative?

History has shown that when we were at war the economy thrived, not this time. The game has changed so much by the big companies that the money doesn't find its way to common working folks the way it used to.

The spoils of this war are going to the cronies of shrub and cheatey, that has certainly been shown, and if shrub is reelected, he will go on a full out rape of this country as he is a lame duck and cheaty has no desires for the presidency.
It will be even more of a fiscal, domestic, personal rights bloodbath than it is right now.

 

Didn't realize I posted to this one when I opened it.

Just wanted to see what her name was....Monica?

Kerry, Clinton? All the same, nailing another one...

 

I was wondering who was going to be the first to comment on the thread heading. I thought he had found another rich ditz, he could fool into thinking she would be first lady someday, and dumped Theresa H-Kerry.