I was stunned last night as John Kerry continued to retell a falsehood over and over and no one called him on it. In fact, it was the biggest whopper of the night. His lie was not a simple twisting of words. His lie was not a faulty memory. It was a down and dirty lie. What was it? From the WAPO transcript:
In a number of earlier posts I thought I had disproved this myth, but perhaps John Kerry just hasn't gotten word yet. So, let me restate some of the conclusions drawn in those earlier posts. Also, will the rest of the blogosphere do their damn jobs and call Karl Rove, Fox News, and the rest of the VRWC so we can finally put the '
Let's look at the numbers, keeping in mind that the job numbers have improved since I last analyzed them. If we were to include the latest numbers, Bush's record would look even better. All numbers were gathered from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics website.
more...
Posted by: Digger at October 14, 2004 10:11 PM (FYEx6)
2
Ditto. Can you email it to the White House?
Posted by: Jane at October 15, 2004 12:25 AM (AaBEz)
3
Rusty:
Well, I'll tell you what bothers me... but you won't like it. What sort of Presidency is this, that in the midst of one of the most complex foreign policy implementations in the history of the planet this president can't even muster enough coherence to defend himself from a bald-faced lie, in spite of the fact that it's easily defended? It's as though your team has loaded the bases, and rattled the pitcher, and the batter that's at the plate can't even manage to get a walk.
WHAT THE FREAKIN' HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THIS GUY!
Yeah, I know Kerry is worse... but I am not amused. One false step and we could be hip deep in Armageddon... and it's really hard to convince myself that I'm supporting someone who is even marginally competent.
Sorry, just had to get it out of my system.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 15, 2004 01:22 AM (KVEF9)
4
From Factcheck.org (2nd Debate)
Kerry misled when he claimed the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush. It is true that figures released earlier in the day show the economy is still down by 1.6 million private sector jobs since Bush took office, but the drop in total payroll employment -- including teachers, firemen, policemen and other federal, state and local government employees -- is down by much less than that -- 821,000. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced, with the release of the latest figures, that its yearly "benchmark" revision would add an estimated 236,000 payroll jobs to the total when made final next February. That means the best current estimate is that 585,000 jobs have been lost under Bush, about one-third of the number Kerry stated.
Kerry may turn out to be correct when he said Bush would be "the first president in 72 years to lose jobs." Payroll employment has been growing at roughly 100,000 jobs per month for the past four months, and there are only four months to go -- October, November, December and January -- until the end of Bush's term in January, 2005. (The number that will actually go into the economic history books won't be known until February 2006, when the BLS publishes its final benchmark revisions of 2004 data.)
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 02:08 AM (NJzm6)
5
You know what they forget the most when it comes to the economy and the job market? Florida and the hurricanes - making a major dent in not only the govt numbers but that states' numbers. We've had some major catastrophe's lately and no one takes them into account - it's also going to take a lot of time to fix that just one state never mind the other states that were involved in the destruction of the storms. Just adding my 2 cents.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 15, 2004 02:13 AM (D39Vm)
6
Here is another thought to chew on...Kerry sometimes cites his role in balancing the budget under Clinton, and complains that Bush took a huge budget surplus and turned it into deficits with know end in sight...but government surplus budgets take money away from the engine that drives the economy - business and consumer spending and investment. Why hasn't anyone suggested that Kerry and Clinton, with their tax increases, actually caused the recession that Bush inherited?
I understand the need for a balanced budget. But it occurs to me that we may have gotten there too fast, and should have been cutting taxes along the way to keep the economy's fuel tank full.
Posted by: Mr. K at October 15, 2004 06:17 AM (ZMWnE)
7
Excellent post Rusty. You the man.
Prof. Peter Von Nostrand,
If Fact check is correct the total loss at the end of bush's FIRST term would be projected as 185,000 lost. Maybe Kerry's decimal misplacement(1.6 million)was just one of those
exaggerations?
Rusty,
Which MSM outlet would you suggest report this first?
CBS and the ever unbiased Dan Rather?
ABC and their Political Director, Mark Halperin's
Equally Accountable memo?
Or NBC and thier invaluable post debate commentary by such great political minds as
Hall and Oates and
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?
Posted by: Jeremy at October 15, 2004 08:24 AM (farnf)
8
Prof. VN,
Did you even read my entire essay? Did you check out the numbers? Bush 41, Reagan (1st term), Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower all LOST jobs in their Presidencies. Under no circumstances could Kerry's repeated statements on the subject be true. NONE. Further, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not even start compiling data until 1946, how on earth does Kerry get that 72 year figure? This was not a mistatement, since he has been saying it over and over again for months--also on his official campaign website. THIS IS A LIE. If FactCheck.org hasn't picked up on this then that is the whole point--no one has!!! Factcheck.org is just wrong in that last statement.
Demos,
Yeah, I agree.
Mr. K,
Maybe, but then again it seems that no matter what a President does, at some point a recession will hit. Just thank goodness that the last recession was mild compared to pretty much all other recent recessions. Oh, wait, something else the MSM didn't want to talk about.
Everyone else,
Thanks for compliments and input.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 08:27 AM (JQjhA)
9
Running the country, fighting a war and preparing for debates with Kerry who has nothing to do but prepare for debates. I can understand why President Bush may not be 100% prepared to have debate after debate. Who really cares about who is the best public speaker? That's not why I'm voting for Bush.
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 15, 2004 09:24 AM (CBNGy)
10
Are the Clinton job creation statistics from before or after the substantial official downward adjustment that Steve Antler (Econopundit) analyzed some time ago?
Posted by: Dave Schuler at October 15, 2004 09:34 AM (q6nJ/)
11
Dave,
not sure, however they are all seasonally adjusted unemployment figures.
Greyrooster,
Just to reemphasize, Kerry has repeated the same thing over and over so it wasn't a slip of the tongue.
Jeremy,
My point exactly.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 11:17 AM (JQjhA)
12
It would be nice to see one of the candidates refrain from lying in their respective campaigns. Unfortunately, this will never happen.
Posted by: Venom at October 15, 2004 12:00 PM (dbxVM)
13
Rusty, I will consider your point; however I would have appreciated if you had given us a better link to exactly which labor statistics you used (can you provide that?). With allegiance to the "null hypothesis" post you did some time ago regarding Rathergate and changing your own mind about that, I will withhold judgment until I can further verify what you're claiming. It seems a bit fishy that I can find nobody else making your point, though I must confess that when Kerry initially made this claim it seemed a bit extreme (in support of a legitimate point about the Bush economy).
VN out.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 02:31 PM (62QDG)
14
I collected the data from the BLS. I ran the numbers myself. Didn't even have to use SPSS. Excel worked fine. Sorry if I didn't footnote according to APSR specifications.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 02:34 PM (JQjhA)
15
By the way Rusty, if you are correct, I found it kinda funny that almost all of the "jobs lost" eras were during Republican administrations.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 02:36 PM (62QDG)
16
Is it just me, or is all Kerry's doing is saying how bad Bush was, instead of saying exactly how he would do things? Most of his campaigns are just bashing Bush, saying what a screw up he's been.
Personally, I don't think the economy is in such bad shape. There are jobs, if you want one.
I remember the big recession of the 70s and the oil embargo and the price of gasoline! To me, that was WORSE!
Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2004 02:55 PM (ptOpl)
17
Laura,
I think it's just you, considering Kerry has been 1)espousing his track record in the Senate (or lack thereof, depending on what side of the fence you're looking from), 2)defending his wartime service record, 3)discussing his own policies should he win the presidency, and 4)talking about Edwards' positive points. In addition to this, he is attacking Bush.
So, no, he's not just attacking Bush. And Bush isn't spending his whole campaign attacking Kerry, either.
Posted by: Venom at October 15, 2004 03:04 PM (dbxVM)
18
The economy is in good shape, Laura. I quit my job last year before Christmas, started my own business. I have more work than I can get done, and have had some trouble finding GOOD help. You don't hear too much about the record growth in construction, especially residential construction. And the record home ownership. Good economic news is suppressed in the media. And as Rusty has aptly pointed out, they conveniently forget to correct Herman Munster when he spouts outright lies about unemployement statistics.
But oh, the fact that Cheyney bumbed into "Ambulance" Edwards once in the bathroom on capitol hill, and forgot about it at the debate, that makes the front page.
Posted by: Mr. K at October 15, 2004 03:16 PM (KVgs4)
19
I knew you would, Prof. VN, then again that is an artifact of the baseline measuring time (ie, 4 year intervals, Jan-Jan). Had I measured GDP growth, or average unemployment numbers, or whatever the results would have been different.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 03:46 PM (JQjhA)
20
Bush is easy prey for Kerry! I don't trust anyone with the initials "JK", Catholic and from Boston to boot...reminscent of 1960s JFK!!!!!
Not that I'm against anyone being Catholic, I am myself, it's just that it smacks of another Camelot.
Nah, it ain't me, everyone's saying that all Kerry's doing is saying what a lousy job Bush has done, not much of what he'd do. All the talk shows are talking about it, most callers call in and say the same thing.
Of course, the worst thing that's going to hurt Bush the most is that all the Democrats who favor Kerry are using the iraq invasion as campaign ploy: "gee, look what Bush did"..blah, blah.
We'll see.
Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2004 04:27 PM (ptOpl)
21
An important note must be remembered concerning the job numbers as well as the overall election. A challenger must present life as unbearable under the incumbent in order to win. It his job to tear down the job market, healthcare industry, etc. A challenger must present life as grand in order to be re-elected.
Senator Kerry is doing nothing more than just following election year protocal, though I find his remarks on the war "without allies" to be the most despicable act a candidate can throw.
Posted by: Chad Evans at October 15, 2004 04:40 PM (SIFif)
22
Please explain, Chad? Without allies? What exactly does Kerry mean by that?
Thanks.
Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2004 04:46 PM (ptOpl)
23
I don't mean to go Bill Lumberg on you on a Friday, but at this point I remain unconvinced your numbers aren't actually representative of gross job losses rather than net losses. I am unable to find the table/source for your numbers.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 07:31 PM (fVnyY)
24
LAURA: You hit the nail on the head. My wife, myself and daughters noticed the same thing during the debate. We all agreed that Kerry did nothing except find fault. As I learned while working for the Government, if you don't do anything you will not make a mistake. If you do, you're sticking your neck out someone who wishes to advance himself at your expense. After the fact, there's always a better way.
Hindsight is 20/20. After a while my department got little done but CYA.
Another thing. Did anyone notice that Kerry brought up Cheney's lbut not Barney Frank. Cheap shot at best. Kerry sucks!
Posted by: greyrooster at October 15, 2004 08:08 PM (CBNGy)
25
Left out Daughter after Cheney in last post. Someday I'll learn to use the preview.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 15, 2004 08:12 PM (CBNGy)
26
The economy is so bad that I can't get a new aluminum boat built for at least 6 months. He's booked solid. I'm trying to get several hundred large pines removed from one of my pastures. I just made a deal after 18 months of trying. Guess what? Had to give the trees away to get someone to come and take them. Five years ago they were worth $40-$50 each. Trying to get a plumber for my daughter's new house and he tells me (maybe in a couple months). Eddie my neighbor owns a cabinet shop says it will be 3 months before he can get to the cabinets. And he's my friend. Just where is this horrible economy? Hey everyone!! I live in rural south Mississippi. This is supposed to be the end to the line. Everyone in my neighborhood has a $30,000 plus pickup pulling his boat. And if any of you cry baby liberals tell me to go look at the getto, I'll tell you to go look at the garden district and all the new casinos being built. Poor economy my butt. Poor if you're too lazy to go get some of this great American life. I know at least 6 immigrants who are now millionaires. Even dingbats like Kerry and Edwards made millions. Well, anyway Edwards did. I understand Kerry inherited his. Still not bad for someone whose lived off the taxpayers all his life. By the way Kerry's wife payed 12% tax on her millions earned this year. That's a whole lot less than the 33% this poor republican is going to pay. Kerry's a complete fraud.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 15, 2004 08:49 PM (CBNGy)
27
This looks great - can you help me find the raw data on the BLS site? I'm having trouble navigating it.
Thanks,
J
Posted by: J Mann at October 15, 2004 09:30 PM (LoyBK)
28
J's point needs to be addressed.
Aside from that, my update (see trackback) says pretty much all that needs to be said about this with regard to Kerry's "worst lie."
God I love this stuff.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 09:53 PM (fVnyY)
29
Great post. I found it amusing that there were 7 4-year intervals with job growth and 7 with job loss. I would have predicted more growths than losses simply because the total workplace force increases over time. I have just a few comments about your graph:
Although it won't change the number of +jobs/-jobs bars, it would be useful to normalize the numbers by the total available work force. I would suggest multiplying by: 2004_work_force/work_force_of_year. ... just like normalizing e.g., crude oil prices to "2004 dollars". As you are plotting the numbers, you are still stacking the numbers against Bush, and he ends up with the third worst performance in 14 4-year periods (which is not honest, when you include the effects of an increased workplace force).
Secondly, your ordinate label really shojuld be "net payroll jobs" not "net jobs". In total jobs, the net change was something like a 2,000,000 jobs increase (not decrease for W. I think this includes government jobs & private consultants and the like.
Another comment, is that you could, if you really like playing with number, plot the job change in four-year interval, with one year steps. This would probably make it clear that market forces outside of the president's power drive jobs growth and loss. For instance Al Gore's invention of the internet is probably somewhat responsible for the roughly 15,000 jobs exported per year (according the the Labor Dept.).
This doesn't include the jobs lost through new hires & contracts going over seas, which I would guess is a much higher number. Nor does it include the number of jobs created in the US by foreign investment (which I believe is even higher).
Posted by: clt510 at October 16, 2004 03:00 AM (mb88r)
30
Yeah, and what does Cheney's daughter being gay have to do with anything? Why was THAT brought out??!!
You know poor Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't! Does anyone really think there WASN'T any WMD in Iraq? Saddam's a sadistic dictator but I gotta give him credit...he hid them well! Brit's especially are having a nice "go" of it at Bush's expense!
I just read in my local papers this a.m. that most of the troops, while they may not like being in Iraq actually SUPPORT Bush with his decision on invading it.
I see we're bombing the hell out of insurgents' hide outs...we'll get that Zarqawi yet!
As far as job prospects go, I've got two interviews lined up, and that's just for part time work! My son, who will be graduating college this spring, has 5 interviews lined up all over the US, and they are going to pay for him to fly to each interview, the companies are.
People who hate Bush will think of anything to slam him. I say go to hell.
Posted by: Laura at October 16, 2004 08:07 AM (ptOpl)
31
Interesting. Which BLS series did you use? Total nonfarm?
Posted by: Chip at October 16, 2004 08:07 AM (m2zNR)
32
I just went over to the Norstram guy's log...can anyone tell me what happened to the brain of a liberal? How does this guy, who calls himself a professor, post such a flagrant self-contradictory statement on his weblog?
Is he really a professor? Where? I want to make sure I don't send one of my kids to a college where someone with shit for brains can themselves a professor. Maybe he just has that liberal brain disease, where Bush "lies" about WMD's and the 8 prior years of UN sanctions and Bill Clinton speeches does not register. When Clinton delivered a speech on Iraq's WMD's, it was the truth. When Kerry repeatedly pukes out lies about employment stats, its not "Kerry's lie" because the MSM and a bunch of dumbass economists never contradicted the same statements before.
I am starting to think there should be an intelligence test required before people are allowed to vote. Complete fucking idiots should not be allowed to vote.
Sorry...the there wouldn't be any support for John Kerry, would there?
Posted by: Mr. K at October 16, 2004 03:27 PM (GBNrC)
33
"Always like to keep my public riveted!"
Happy to see that Mr. K wants to take my vote away. He'd fit in well at the Florida Secretary of State's office.
By the way Mr. K, you are making the huge assumption that I supported everything Bill Clinton said or did with regards to Iraq. I didnÂ’t. However, I do believe that this president has taken things to quite an extreme. As far as deception is concerned there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration has been extreme on this count, too. I'd post a link but I know you wouldn't read it.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 16, 2004 04:13 PM (NJzm6)
34
Peter:
Post the damn proof of Kerry's statement on employment, I'll read it.
I made no assumptions about your beliefs about Bill Clinton, or the UN. Let me spell it out for you: you claim it is not "Kerry's lie, because others, like the MSM and a bunch of dumbass economists, never questioned it. Well, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and the blowjob president all claimed Saddam had WMD's. By your line of reasoning, then, WMD's are not Bush's lie?
What are you a professor of, Toromerdology? Optirectalology? Where do you teach, at the South Hoboken Institute of Technology?
Posted by: Mr. K at October 16, 2004 05:27 PM (GBNrC)
35
I guess I'm done with this guy.
Out.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 16, 2004 06:19 PM (NJzm6)
36
Posted on your weblog "professor".
Posted by: Mr. K at October 16, 2004 08:17 PM (eYOgX)
37
As someone whose livelihood has never, in my entire 53 years, come from a "payroll" job (my father was self-employed; I've worked for companies below the BLS radar) I consider the entire discussion trivial. Fact - more people in this country have incomes than ever before and that is all that matters.
Posted by: triticale at October 17, 2004 12:03 AM (tV5uX)
38
And yet the basic definition of an “employed” person is someone who works at least one hour a week. Could it be that Bush and Kerry are both blowing smoke? The question I would ask is “how” are the job numbers actually created, and if we are using the criteria that a person is employed because they worked one hour last week; then I think the whole jobs created, jobs lost argument is a waste of time.
Posted by: azygos at October 17, 2004 10:52 AM (CxIc8)
39
I know I mentioned the 185,000 total for lost jobs if we continue on the 100,000 net gained per month. I completely overlooked the seasonal job growth that will be taking place soon. I would like to retract my statement about there being ANY job loss under Bush's watch. When these next two seasons are averaged in (Oct, Nov, Dec and Jan, Feb, Mar) Bush will have positive numbers.
Rusty, I'm not sure how these numbers will tie in with yours but you may want to calculate the four remaining months in based on an average from the previous three years in job gains for the season.
Posted by: Jeremy at October 17, 2004 02:36 PM (farnf)
40
Rusty, you lose all credibility when you bring up misleading statistics in a futile attempt to defend Bush. Facts are stubborn things Rusty and your ignoring them will not make them go away.
Please take a moment and look at factcheck.com for the truth about Bush being the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term of office. Then, with a contrite heart, write a correction. It is the only way to restore your credibility.
Posted by: ken at October 17, 2004 08:32 PM (s6c4t)
41
Ken:
I think Shackleford can defend himself, but occasionally Factcheck blows one. Here it appears you have. I do not quite read Factcheck as supporting the claim here:
http://www.factcheck.org/article114.html
and they don't cite raw data, they cite an article.
Posted by: Mr. K at October 18, 2004 04:52 AM (W3lBo)
42
The sitting president is a turd when it comes to job creation. The best a turd can do is make a stink, that's it. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. have no control over hiring practices of companies. Period. Fooling yourself into thinking the POTUS controls such is lunacy. All the president does is step in the limelight and either take credit or take it where the sun don't shine.
The economy is determined by more things than tax cuts and interest rate changes. I worked my ass off in the late 90's on this neat Interweb thingy. Seems I was onto something and am STILL working with it, even after the .COM busts. Clinton never called me to tell me about job opportunities, and I still made a killing despite the heavy taxation.
I just wish everyone would get off the President Controls Everything gig and realize that the market goes up and down and the Fed's job is to do its best prevent spiriling deflation or too much inflation and the president sits in a nice office and takes what credit he wants.
Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at October 18, 2004 02:38 PM (VxPRK)
43
RS, Judging by your comment at my site I think you missed the point of my post. I'd actually appreciate your thoughts on the matter. VN
Posted by: Professor vonNostrand at October 18, 2004 07:39 PM (1miw1)
44
I knew Kerry's 72 year jobs blather was false the second he said it. Don't people remember anything? How could we go from single digit unemployment under Johnson to double digit unemployment under Carter without some significant job losses? Turns out Nixon, Ford and Carter all presided over significant job losses. Anyone surprised?
Yours,
Wince
Posted by: Wince and Nod at October 19, 2004 01:32 PM (StWf6)
45
This is scary. I just realized that much of the world considers a Bush defeat a defeat for America and it's war on Islamic terror. We had damn well re-elect Bush even if we don't like him. If Kerry's elected that will encourage the terrorists and their supportors. The attacks will get worse. Oh, shit!! There's no choice.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 19, 2004 07:15 PM (pSK/I)
46
What about the number of jobs that are created "off the books" by the illegal aliens that flood the country every day? J. Kerry claimed that 4000 a day move into the United States, and they come here for economic advantage. So if only half are working, that still amounts to about 3 million additional jobs over a four year period.
Posted by: Robert Dible at October 20, 2004 12:51 AM (H31hm)
47
Rooster: It has been said that Zarqawi planned his attacks after the Iraq invasion to make Bush look bad. These beheadings and killings have been going on for some time now. The terrorists despise Bush and don't want him reelected.
Wonder why they even give a shit though? What would Kerry do that the terrorists want him instead? Maybe because he's a chicken shit who would give in to them?
Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2004 07:48 AM (ptOpl)
48
Correction: Zarqawi arranged for the videotapings of the recent beheadings to make it look like Bush's fault for invading Iraq. However, the slaughter's been going on way before we got there.
Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2004 07:50 AM (ptOpl)
49
Robert Dible: Good point. I was doing a job in California one time. Sometimes when bored we would go out into the field and yell IMMIGRACION!! 80% of our laborers would suddenly disappear.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 20, 2004 09:21 AM (CBNGy)
50
Rooster: LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
:-D
Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2004 06:10 PM (ptOpl)
51
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/002966.html
Census Bureau Releases Information on Home Workers
Nearly 4.2 million people worked at home in 2000, according to Census 2000 tabulations, up from 3.4 million in 1990, the Census Bureau reported today. This 23 percent increase in home-based workers age 16 and older was double the growth in the overall work force during the decade.
The data released today include information on home-based workers by age, sex, educational attainment, race and Hispanic origin, industry, occupation, disability status and earnings at the national and state levels. More recent estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) show 4.5 million people worked at home in 2003.
The Census 2000 estimates represent people who reported that they usually worked at home. “Usually” was defined to mean most days during the week. People who worked at home part of the week, but elsewhere more days than at home, were not counted as at-home workers. Thus, the census estimates may be lower than other estimates that count at-home workers differently.
The data contained in the tables are based on responses from a sample of households who received the census long form. Nationally, about 1-in-6 households were included in the Census 2000 sample. The data are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors.
The Census Bureau cautions against confusing the census estimates with estimates from the ACS. Estimates may differ because of different questions, survey concepts, data processing and estimation methods. For further information, see for Census 2000 sample data and for ACS data.
More comments: Although the increase in home workers does not necessarily mean more jobs in all cases, included in the increase are jobs that may not be counted in the employment reports, as people leave companies and work at home.
Looking at the chart you made of Net jobs created in Presidential Terms, it seems to show trends that although Democratic Administrations appear to create jobs, they also create the conditions for job losses. A good term for this that I rarely see used (whether on the web or in the MSM) and that you have well illustrated, is the "lag-time effect" (a word that should be used far more often. This is the amount of time it takes from the decision to make an economic policy change until the impact can be measured. Per a professor at a university in Illinois who specializes in studying the lag-time effect the time frame is 6-18 months or more. I believe the lag-time effect is quite important in explaining any claims about the effects an administration has on the economy. It can also explain that while job growth appears to be higher in Democrat administrations, their policies are conducive to subsequent job loss because they pass on the recessionary effects of higher taxes, increased federal benefit spending, etc., to the succeeding administration.
Posted by: Al Johnson at October 21, 2004 11:03 PM (8LHey)
Posted by: anabolic steroids at December 18, 2004 04:23 AM (r40L0)
53
yes regan,dis is horrible dey should respect each other,i dnt think they got any brains,dey need to screw it back together.... any way wot u doin man lolz.
Posted by: faz at October 22, 2005 04:54 PM (hu96I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
