SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (72055)2/5/2005 2:34:21 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
You Repugnicans fudge numbers left and right, ignore bad numbers and fake good numbers. You go with whichever employment figure looks best for Bush at the time. Here's a number the government doesn't control, that can't be faked.

bigcharts.marketwatch.com decade=&monthly=

The Clinton years versus the Bush years. Okay, bring on the excuses for the "Excuse President"! Clinton had REAL econmic growth, reflected by a stock market that went from 4000 to 10,000 plus. Bush has yet to make any improvement on Clinton's final numbers here. All Bush can claim is economic stagnation.



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (72055)2/5/2005 2:48:59 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Interesting column on the Churchill flap....

rockymountainnews.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (72055)2/5/2005 2:54:49 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
No matter how Parson phrased it, the fact remains that the unemployment figure is a lot bigger that what the government numbers would have you believe. It's that simple. "Discouraged workers", ones that have given up looking for a job are not counted and that's a fact.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News