I sure do:
I don't understand the jargon here. Does anybody have a direct response to this?
Obviously, there are a lot of things you don't understand. I doubt any direct responses here will help you much because you're just not very bright.
You can't be series...
Yeah, it's ridiculous. But see post 45 for a more detailed response.
I sure do:
Here's a direct response. The author did a lot of logical gymnastics to try to manipulate the numbers in a way that would make GWB's economic record look bad and clinton's look good. The funny thing is that in doing so, the author inadvertently pointed out that the big job creation machine that clinton took credit for began 21 months before he was elected and 23 months before he took office. So really you would have to call that the first Bush recovery and the current recovery is the second Bush recover from a clinton recession.
See post #45.
The Democrat scumbag who wrote the piece you posted uses essentially meaningless numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment is at all-time low levels and the economy is roaring (see numerous other reputable statistical measures). All you need is your own two eyes to refute the garbage you posted.
"Only a fool argues with a fool." - - Chinese proverb.
Respond to post # 45 and # 67 and # 80 and # 86 and # 91 for starters!.
They were legitimate responses, so put up or shut up!
Yes, get lost troll.
You knew enough economic jargon to write this collection of drivel but not enough to understand our refutation? Yeah, sure...do you have a bridge to sell us, too?