he never recovered from Katrina

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"While President Bush?s labor market record is better than Hoover?s, Bush has presided over the worst annual job creation record of any president since Hoover. Most presidents in the 20th century have created jobs at an annual rate of between 2 percent and 4 percent. Hoover lost jobs at an annual rate of 4.4 percent, making him the only president to preside over an economy that actually lost jobs. While President Bush has not lost jobs, he created jobs at an annual rate of only 0.4 percent through the end of November. And the economy is now losing jobs at a rate of 1.4 percent per year."

Pick one FACT and refute it. You can't. You just yammer on with spin and bullshit. Your tired old "liberal logic" lines are so played and boring.

Your fact was in the thread than you kurby away from last time--I reposted it above-- Maybe I was expecting to much out you on being able to figure it out for yourself--so let's go through it AGAIN FOR THE 3RD TIME
I'll walk you through it--

A: if a president was 1 term that means you take the (4 years) he served--add unemployments #'s together and divide by 4. then write down the #
B: if he was 2 term pres he served 8 years so add 8 years together and divide by 8 and write down #.
C: when your finished- the higher the number the greater the unemployment.

Now you can report back to us on your findings or do the ole :00x7 kurby and wait a few months (hoping everyones forgot) and bring up again-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Employment #'s from 1948 thru 2007 and
source also have added 2008 figures thru oct.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)
Year Ann Avg
1948 3.8
1949 5.9
1950 5.3
1951 3.3
1952 3.0
1953 2.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5
1961 6.7
1962 5.5
1963 5.7
1964 5.2
1965 4.5
1966 3.8
1967 3.8
1968 3.6
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.5

July was 5.4 August 6.1 Sept 6.1 Oct 6.5 Nov 6.7

 

[THE KOD]

"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like president ? because, let's face it, that's what he was ? was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," Wilkerson said, adding that he considered Cheney probably the "most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur" he'd ever met.

"He became vice president well before George Bush picked him," Wilkerson said of Cheney. "And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush ? personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum."
...............................................................

Face facts DTB

Bush and Cheney sucked even with Cheney as President

Palin/ McCain :142smilie

 

[Jabberwocky]

"While President Bush?s labor market record is better than Hoover?s, Bush has presided over the worst annual job creation record of any president since Hoover. Most presidents in the 20th century have created jobs at an annual rate of between 2 percent and 4 percent. Hoover lost jobs at an annual rate of 4.4 percent, making him the only president to preside over an economy that actually lost jobs. While President Bush has not lost jobs, he created jobs at an annual rate of only 0.4 percent through the end of November. And the economy is now losing jobs at a rate of 1.4 percent per year."

Pick one FACT and refute it. You can't. You just yammer on with spin and bullshit. Your tired old "liberal logic" lines are so played and boring.

Ok, so your answer is no, you cannot refute one single statement in the above. As for you lecturing me on math, Jethro, that is a joke.

 

[StevieD]

--only time you ever tore anything up is when your finger broke through the toilet paper.

1st lets clear up your "official" source the jec.senate
--that is Joint economic committe with U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer Chairman and Carolyn Maloney Vice Chair and Representative Carolyn B. Maloney--DUH-- can you figure the rest.

I believe we settled this arguement before on you liberals with O's (for opinions) on your calulators-

I saved the thread so I don't have to go through same shit ever month--
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343671&page=2&highlight=calculator

--and speaking of that thread I'll also comment on stevies--


--again more opinion--I don't know what he meant on tax issue--

- on economy --he must have forgot my notes on this board and movers and shakers on bailing on almost all U.S. stocks after 06 elections--you might want to do inventory on who has been having the wailing and nashing of teeth past year--and a little warning to those wanting to jump back in now--you might take step back in time to last period of Dem Pres and congress majority--Was 1st 2 years of Clinton ( refer to thread above)to see what happened -until they booted out Dem congress in mass in 04
Expecting same next 2 years.

Iraq--I assume Stevie you must still be of opinion of your liberal leaders and still believe we are losing-have lost and the surge didn't work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am of the opinon that we are going broke, in great part, because of Iraq and that no matter how it turns out we have lost because this so called victory of yours came at a price that we cannot afford.
If you are such a fan of the surge what took so long? Bush had 6 years of everything he wanted and we didn't have a surge.:shrug:

 

[Jabberwocky]

DTB can't even answer the simple question of who we are at war with. But he will attack the "liberals" for taking a losing position in the "war".

DTB, who are we at war with?