Posted on 01/03/2006 8:29:33 AM PST by intruder alert
It is really easy to refute.
There was technically no recession in 2001. There was only one period of negative growth which turned out to have a very shallow bottom and reversed itself to positive growth soon after.
The consequences of 9/11 and the widespread economic problems caused by the collapse of the Internet bubble led to massive inertia preventing any kind of rapid resurgence in the American economy.
The situations the author is trying to draw similarities between with the Bush administration's record are not really all that similar. Most of the important economic considerations are radically different, and the challenges faced were more than just significantly different. They were astronomically different, and still are.
Superficial similarities are easy to point to and spread around, but anybody with half a brain and a little bit of knowledge can recognize a poorly constructed argument intended to suck in people who want to believe the message so badly they'll ignore the inconsistencies.
More and more workers are now independent contractors--I do not know what the author's source is, but people like Virginia Postrel have been documenting this phenomenon and how it doesn't show up in DoL surveys.
Yeah, it's ridiculous. But see post 45 for a more detailed response.
IB4Z!
Bye, troll.
I was laughing at the same thing... Why would anybody pay attention to a grandiose mathematical analysis from an innumerate author?
I've been posting this at various places looking for someone who can refute it. As a staunch Bush supporter, I am disappointed no one has done so yet.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
|
Series Id: LNS12035019 ![]() |
|||||||||||||
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1991 | 114732 | 114485 | 114475 | 114868 | 114165 | 114339 | 114249 | 114171 | 114609 | 114511 | 114474 | 114320 | |
1992 | 114823 | 114514 | 114908 | 115181 | 115162 | 115122 | 115428 | 115547 | 115446 | 115374 | 115669 | 115738 | |
1993 | 115853 | 116150 | 116423 | 116400 | 117015 | 117182 | 117341 | 117830 | 117380 | 117739 | 118012 | 118348 | |
1994 | 118664 | 118747 | 118576 | 118862 | 119455 | 119335 | 119373 | 119891 | 120257 | 120622 | 120942 | 121144 | |
1995 | 121144 | 121308 | 121321 | 121379 | 121072 | 121061 | 121437 | 121478 | 121848 | 121950 | 121850 | 121736 | |
1996 | 121642 | 122092 | 122373 | 122588 | 122771 | 123178 | 123514 | 123777 | 124088 | 124427 | 124415 | 124415 | |
1997 | 124849 | 124945 | 125472 | 125681 | 126027 | 126003 | 126400 | 126651 | 126627 | 126867 | 127267 | 127274 | |
1998 | 127389 | 127522 | 127650 | 127852 | 127959 | 127874 | 127913 | 127970 | 128399 | 128389 | 128897 | 129320 | |
1999 | 129802 | 129647 | 129656 | 129615 | 129937 | 129982 | 130146 | 130366 | 130434 | 130758 | 130989 | 131257 | |
2000 | 133863 | 133912 | 134022 | 134806 | 134144 | 134528 | 134196 | 134311 | 134489 | 134808 | 134921 | 135194 | |
2001 | 135323 | 135273 | 135362 | 135028 | 134745 | 134758 | 134810 | 133964 | 134577 | 134116 | 133966 | 133755 | |
2002 | 133256 | 134084 | 133782 | 133830 | 134299 | 134137 | 134023 | 134627 | 135143 | 134627 | 134196 | 134082 | |
2003 | 135059 | 135218 | 135160 | 135537 | 135389 | 135418 | 135138 | 135262 | 135426 | 135668 | 136068 | 136172 | |
2004 | 136234 | 136191 | 136192 | 136427 | 136565 | 136751 | 137257 | 137321 | 137460 | 137764 | 138068 | 137973 | |
2005 | 138112 | 138005 | 138293 | 138869 | 139294 | 139237 | 139668 | 140345 | 140461 | 140629 | 140413 |
What qualifies one to be zotted?
Why not address the issue? I'm going to re-read the post and do some research. We should answer these 'DUers' with facts not by screaming 'ZOT'.
This is a 11 month plan for the November election the attack Rats will lie lie lie to try to regain congress.
Is this lie still taught at seminars? It's so last century.
Unemployment is at its lowest in 50 years. You can do anything you want with statistics, including make low unemployement look bad.
(Click image below to view)
I think "sum" people refers to individuals who work with numbers like CPAs and financial analysts.
It stands to reason that a booming economy would enable these sum people to do well.
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Dupliping.
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.