Skip to comments.
Bush 1 million job loss is a lie!
Bureau of Labor and Statistics ^
| July 2004
| Bureau of Labor and Statistics
Posted on 08/27/2004 1:33:43 PM PDT by freedomination
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
BLS Stats show almost 2 million jobs GAINED since Bush took office. January 2001=137,790,000 July 2004=139,660,000. Thats a gain!!!
To: freedomination
Yep. I've pointed this out many times. Everyone just thought that it was unfathomable that the Democrats could be telling anything but the truth, so they assumed that I must have made a mistake. I hope that someone listens to you.
2
posted on
08/27/2004 1:36:53 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(Let me take yet another opportunity to tell the "moderates" to shove it ....... then twist it.)
To: freedomination
This is the central theme of the latest slander-ad by Matt Damon and the usual list of suspects.
3
posted on
08/27/2004 1:37:00 PM PDT
by
evad
(We are free to draw our conclusions as to who's credible.I can't help it if your perception is wrong)
To: freedomination
To: freedomination
liberals use "FUZZY MATH"
5
posted on
08/27/2004 1:38:25 PM PDT
by
kingattax
To: freedomination
Oh, here's the other thing they bring up: "population has increased."
But if you look at the number of jobs gained over previous years (percentages) you'll see that the President is right on track.
6
posted on
08/27/2004 1:38:27 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(Let me take yet another opportunity to tell the "moderates" to shove it ....... then twist it.)
To: Jaysun
Will Bush have this statistic on a huge screen for all to see during the convention????? If not, why not?????
To: freedomination
They keep downgrading this charge. At the beginning the Dem mantra was 3 million jobs lost.
To: Jaysun
Everyone just thought that it was unfathomable that the Democrats could be telling anything but the truth, so they assumed that I must have made a mistake. LOL.
To: gathersnomoss
Will Bush have this statistic on a huge screen for all to see during the convention????? If not, why not?????
Great question.
10
posted on
08/27/2004 1:40:09 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(Let me take yet another opportunity to tell the "moderates" to shove it ....... then twist it.)
To: Republican Wildcat; All
11
posted on
08/27/2004 1:40:12 PM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
To: kingattax
for somebody who uses 'fuzzy logic' i am offended at the bad reputaion fuzzy math is getting. :)
nerd joke.
12
posted on
08/27/2004 1:46:22 PM PDT
by
KOZ.
(i'm so bad i should be in detention)
To: Jaysun
But if you look at the number of jobs gained over previous years (percentages) you'll see that the President is right on track.
Like when? Can we have some stats?
13
posted on
08/27/2004 1:46:22 PM PDT
by
lelio
To: freedomination
I show a gain of 1,870,000 jobs from Jan '01 to July '04.
Not bad economic stewardship by the Bush Administration considering we went through a recession, 9/11 and two wars during that time.
14
posted on
08/27/2004 1:48:50 PM PDT
by
rudypoot
To: freedomination
This is the statistic that seems to be the benchmark...
National Employment, Hours and Earnings
Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 112473 112665 113133 113490 113829 114139 114498 114801 115155 115361 115786 116056
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130730 130876 131369 131677 131908 131883 132043 132015 132104 132134 132317 132441
2001 132388 132492 132507 132236 132237 132087 131972 131831 131564 131203 130871 130659
2002 130494 130404 130447 130379 130381 130406 130295 130306 130259 130342 130305 130096
2003 130190 130031 129921 129901 129873 129859 129814 129789 129856 129944 130027 130035
2004 130194 130277 130630 130954 131162 131240(p) 131272(p)
p : preliminary
15
posted on
08/27/2004 1:54:16 PM PDT
by
CV_Gas
To: lelio
Yea, let me find it. I look at the percentage of increase from year to year for the last 15 years or so.
16
posted on
08/27/2004 1:55:13 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(Let me take yet another opportunity to tell the "moderates" to shove it ....... then twist it.)
To: CV_Gas
sorry, I can't figure out how to get a nice table layout to post :-)
17
posted on
08/27/2004 1:56:27 PM PDT
by
CV_Gas
To: CV_Gas
That's Total nonfarmIndustry NOT total employment!
18
posted on
08/27/2004 1:59:46 PM PDT
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: freedomination
Yup. Any stats coming from pols you have to be careful of. Another lie accepted as gospel is the so-called surpluses during the Clinton years. We had no surpluses then, we have no job net job losses now.
To: Hiskid; third try
20
posted on
08/27/2004 2:01:15 PM PDT
by
reformedliberal
("John, YOU were the wrong one, here". Bob Dole)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson