"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad40bfb445b286b989690@news.individual.net...
In article <2LCdnWRAEcfwO_bdRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad402036de11d3998968d@news.individual.net...
In article <Xns94BDE3F94717Cxomicron@0.0.0.1>,
says...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in
news:pan.2004.03.31.22.29.51.142504@hoo.com-amikchi:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:47:44 -0500 in episode
<lN6dnQPsZpkZjPbd4p2dnA@comcast.com> we saw our hero "Osprey"
<
>:
"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.
Hm...
Jan 1993 109.725 million employed
Jan 1997 121.232 million employed
Difference being 11.5 million.
Or looked at another way, at the same time in his first term, it
was:
Jan 1996 118.192 million employed
Which is an increase of about 8.5 million.
How did Clinton create those jobs?
Another one line statement by you demanding that I do your homework
for
you.
You've shown no evidence that you even have a basic comprehension of
economics
or for that matter that you can engage in original thought. Most of
the
time
you only cut and paste propaganda. You betray your ignorance by
pretending that
it's an easy or effortless thing to explain all the ways that Clinton
created
jobs. Aside from directly subsidizing higher education, establishing
americorp,
providing targeted capital gains cuts, and helping small businesses to
deduct
many expenses like health insurance, he also reformed welfare and
moved
many of
these people back into private sector work. Additionally, Clinton did
help
working families with things like EITC. He cut taxes on the middle
class
while
asking those who could afford to be a bit more socially responsible.
Clinton
signed off on empowerment and enterprise zones and reinvested billions
more in
revitalizing community infrastructure. He provided r&d tax credits,
helped
promote higher fuel economy, expanded student loans and most
importantly,
lowered long term interest rates by substantially eliminating the
deficit
red
ink of previous administrations. Those are only a few of the highly
successful
policies that people like Greenspan credited with helping to
strengthen
the
economy and grow new jobs.
Of course, you could look any of that up, but you're too partisan and
too
blinded by irrational hatred.
Just because you can't explain your own claims
I can and have explained them, unlike you.
No, I don't think you can and your not explaining anything except rhetoric.
I want you to get down to the nuts and bolts and explain in full detail.
Don't just give me some repeated garbage from some web site or book.
and credits for Clinton isn't
any reason for you to go and
attack and name call.
First off, those "names" are ones that many republicans have earned will.
Hmmm, well I can see how you and other liberals earned their names then.
It
perfectly and truthfully describes them, so I am entitled to use them.
Secondly, you continue to make unsuported claims, such as that I can't
explain
things which I've already explained throughout this thread. How about you
attempting to do the same thing?
This is something liberals are very well known for
Republicans are quite well known for it too, or do you deny that Anne
Coulter
and Sean Hannity and Mr. "pinhead" O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh ever call
anyone
names.
Sure they call names, not necessary, but they do.
If you don't deny that then it makes you a hypocrite for selectively
attacking liberals. You've also managed not to support your claims by
actual
evidence making it hypocritical again for you to ask me to support my own
claims
earlier. Oh and before you say it, I'm not calling you names, but fairly
describing your actual behavior.
when they get angry and *****...they react with name calling and
attacking.
It's fairly obvious to anyone that all people do that sort of thing from
time to
time. Again, since you've given no examples (perhaps you can't, according
to
the standards you apply to me) there's little point in placing much
credence in
it.
What does it serve?
It's not calling someone a name to say that they are partisan if, in fact,
they
display those tendencies. My conversation has served to address the issue
at
hand. I have done less "name calling" than many others in this thread and
have
backed up many of my statements, unlike you and some of your republican
cronies.
Answer: Nothing...just makes you look foolish.
That's your unsupported view,
My view doesn't need support.
but it's not accurate at all. I don't look
foolish, but you certainly look hypocritical since you haven't supported
the
charges against me, but have managed to make the kind of insulting
statements
that you claim liberals are known for. When you decide to seriously
discuss
some issue then let me know.
I have, and you continue to not be able to explain how Clinton increased
jobs specifically.
.
