You mean the unemployment was a mere 5.3% just recently? That's a darn good unemployment rate, about as close to full employment as you can get.
How come the MSM wasn't all over this? The last I heard any mention of the unemployment rate was when unemployment was "remaining steady at 5.6%, and likely to rise if President Bush is re-elected".
For that matter, where were all the retractions from leading Democrats that President Bush did do what they insisted was impossible and helped create enough jobs that he didn't have a net job-loss number in his first term? Which initial spate of job losses should probably be attributed to the double-whammy of the dot-com bubble economy bursting along with the general economy-depressing effect of the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.
MSM wasn't all over this for a very simple reason:
so many people have stopped looking for work that the "reported" unemployment rate doesn't mean much anymore. It's almost a joke for those who are aware of this fact.
Real unemployment is closer to 9%, with newly created jobs mostly low wage service sector.
Ain't Bushworld grand......
Do you have a clue how ridiculous you sound? Making stuff up doesn't constitute proof, nor does repeating DU talking points.
If you have a shred of proof of your assertions, provide a link.
If not, I'll have to ignore you.
Posted by: Nathan at March 12, 2005 03:48 PM
Prev | List | Random | Next Powered by RingSurf! |
Pagerank |
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |