"thelizman" wrote in message
...

at best, a 1.5 million net gain for Bush41, a 22 million gain for
Clinton,
and a close to 3 million loss for Bush43 utilizing Reagan's economic
model.

I'd love to see you justify a 3 million job loss in light of the fact
that unemployment is lower and real incomes are higher today than they
were under Clinton. The facts are right there on the BLS website - there
is only a net 240,000 job difference from the beginning of Bush's
administration to when 3Q FY2003 figures were available. Job gains in 3Q
and 4Q more than erase that figure.


--
thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either"

Before you ask a question, check the FAQs for this newsgroup at
http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq. It contains over a decade and
a half of knowledge.

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

are you stupid, well we already know that, for much of Clintons term the UE
Rate was below 5% but it's not that way with GWB. the only ones getting
rich are the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. the ones that own the companies.
there is also this thing of a job freeze and the most applications for UE in
the history of the US.