In article <Xns94BDE3CE0E799xomicron@0.0.0.1>, says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ad4cba9eb255e7a9896d9@news.individual.net:
In article <lN6dnQPsZpkZjPbd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad4bce9f680e729896d5@news.individual.net...
In article <Xns94BD5CC0C3257xomicron@130.133.1.4>,
says...
Actually Clinton lost more jobs in his first term than Bush did.
Clinton added 10 million more jobs to payrolls at the end of his
first
term than
there were when he took office. Clearly Clinton kicked Bush's *****.
Specifically, tell us how Clinton added 10 million more jobs.
I could, but why should I?
Because you can't.
First off, that's not an answer to my question. It's just a fallacious sentence
fragment. Of course I can and, in fact, I have listed some reasons that Clinton
was more successful already. It's well known that targeted keynesian fiscal
stimuli can produce a better multiplier than tax cuts in terms of things like
increasing aggregate demand. Bush's supply side nonsense didn't work because
supply factors were not the relevant problem in this business cycle. It doesn't
help that Bush believes that tax cuts are a magic cure all that operate via an
invisible hand style mechanism. In any event, Gephart explained in detail
during the primaries the many policies and procedures that the Clinton
administration used to create tens of millions of new jobs and kick Bush's *****
economically. You obviously weren't paying attention then and most likely
aren't smart enough to understand it now either.
Furthermore, where is your explanation for how bush is stimulating the job
market. (of course he hasn't stimulated it to do much but shed jobs, however,
that requires that you look at honest statistics, as opposed to the *****
kind that you seem to prefer.)
.
