»

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:

Maybe this thread title should be renamed, Why is the Canadian recovery so jobless?

What a strange thing to say. Didn't you notice the link you posted before. We've gained jobs for 2001, 2002, and 2003.

[6]

Hey Fade:

Did you ever hear "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple"?

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
"What a strange thing to say. Didn't you notice the link you posted before. We've gained jobs for 2001, 2002, and 2003."
--------------

Let me see if I have this straight Fluffy. You are saying that Canada's employment rate has improved every year that G. Bush has been in office. That would indicate to me that the Canadian unemployment rate was even higher in previous years. If this was so, just how bad was it while Clinton was president?

That got me wondering, so I have looked it up for you. During the 1990-2000 period unemployment in Canada "rose to 8.6%" and Europe did even worse at 9.4%. (Source)

Now, since G. Bush has been president, Canada's unemployment rate is 7.5%, UK around 5.1%, and Europe as a whole is 7.9%.

This information begs some questions.
Do you blame Clinton for the high unemployment in Canada and Europe through 2000?
If so, do you give Bush credit for lowering the rates since 2001?
If you don't blame Clinton for the high rates, why do you try to blame Bush?

The question still stands, If the US unemployment rate is 5.7% and Canada's rate is 7.5%,
why isn't this thread about Canadian unemployment?

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"What a strange thing to say. Didn't you notice the link you posted before. We've gained jobs for 2001, 2002, and 2003."
--------------

Let me see if I have this straight Fluffy. You are saying that Canada's employment rate has improved every year that G. Bush has been in office.

No. What I am saying is "We've gained jobs for 2001, 2002, and 2003."

Hope that helps clarify it for you.

Since this should help you see the difference between "unemployment rate" and "jobs" I hope you will also see that your subsequent questions based upon this mistaken premis are meaningless as stated.

why isn't this thread about Canadian unemployment?

Because it is a thread about the number of jobs, a related but different metric.

[Fade]

@ Fluffy
No. What I am saying is "We've gained jobs for 2001, 2002, and 2003."
--------------

Wow! I guess if Canada keeps gaining jobs for a few more years, then the unemployment rate will be back at 8.6% like the good ol' Clinton days.

I never was able to figure out that new "Canadian" math.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ Fluffy
No. What I am saying is "We've gained jobs for 2001, 2002, and 2003."
--------------

Wow! I guess if Canada keeps gaining jobs for a few more years, then the unemployment rate will be back at 8.6% like the good ol' Clinton days.

I never was able to figure out that new "Canadian" math.

It seems that is just one of many things you can't figure out. :-D