[DerbyX]

Your stats are not in accordance with statscan. I see you aren't posting your source nor are you addressing the fact that if you want to claim credit for Harper in the first 2 years of his govt then he gets blame as well.

[mtbr]

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ca&v=74

what do you think they made it up

[DerbyX]

Statscan vs index mundi. Yeah, yours looks very reputable.

If you insist though take a good look when unemployment went down. It was in 2004 in began its downward trend, the same trend that continued under harper because he was using the Liberal formula.

Once he instituted his own ideas the economy went into the crapper.

[Thanos]

Brenda Brenda:

Isn't that the joy of politics?

In real life, there is no PM, King, Queen, Pope, Imam or any other leader that could have prevented this recession.
Truth is, that the financial world is build on speculation. Futures. Just as the Global Warming thing, this flows in curves too.

Yeah, but that's the irony of the whole thing. As a NEO-CON lapdog of the evil NEO-CON bad emperor George W. Bush, the politics dictate that Stephen Harper just has to be blamed for the worst of everything that happens. It's the unwritten rule that the game, especially on the part of our blank-eyed media, is always played by. Watch CTV's Question Period once in a while and see how many times an othewise insignificant little shit like Craig Oliver labels Harper a NEO-CON without even bothering to explain what the NEO-CON term actually means and/or why it's apparently applicable to our current PM.

It's all just another example of how good the political operatives, especially on the Liberal/NDP side, are at inserting these sorts of psychological memes and strawmen into the group unconciousness. If everyone were equally literate, or at a minimum trained in how to look through media bullshit, it wouldn't be so dangerous. As it's aimed though a people who can be clearly defined as either disinterested at best, or actively stupid at worst, it becomes then something fairly sinister.

[mtbr]

same stats

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/Englis ... oyment.cfm

give it up hack

why was there so many unemployed Canadians during the Liberal error

7.9 % in Jan 99 WTF kind of shit ass government were they running?

[Thanos]

mtbr mtbr:

same stats

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/Englis ... oyment.cfm

give it up hack

why was there so many unemployed Canadians during the Liberal error

7.9 % in Jan 99 WTF kind of shit ass government were they running?

The little-brown-envelope-stuffed-with-cash-changing-hands-over-a-cafe-table-in-Montreal sort of government?

[DerbyX]

mtbr mtbr:

same stats

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/Englis ... oyment.cfm

give it up hack

why was there so many unemployed Canadians during the Liberal error

7.9 % in Jan 99 WTF kind of shit ass government were they running?

$1:

Quote:
Employment fell by 129,000 in January (-0.8%), almost all in full time, pushing the unemployment rate up 0.6 percentage points to 7.2%. This drop in employment exceeds any monthly decline during the previous economic downturns of the 1980s and 1990s.

Just wait till next month under Harpers tender loving care.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/detai ... -rate.aspx

In fact this tells the true story without partisan BS.

Unemployment made a sharp increase in 1990 and did not start coming down till 1994. From there it was more or less a downward slope until this year.

Nice try hack-boy.

[mtbr]

$1:

Unemployment made a sharp increase in 1990 and did not start coming down till 1994. From there it was more or less a downward slope until this year.

and then it stayed waaaaaaaaay up there for the next 10 years

downward slope

it hovered around 8% for years in Canada while the US was half that rate, how is that possible when are economies are so connected?

spin that one.

[DerbyX]

mtbr mtbr:

$1:

Unemployment made a sharp increase in 1990 and did not start coming down till 1994. From there it was more or less a downward slope until this year.

and then it stayed waaaaaaaaay up there for the next 10 years

downward slope

it hovered around 8% for years

spin that one.

1) Check your data. It went from about 11% in 93 to 7% in 2000. In other words unemployment consistently dropped under the Liberals with a brief rise in 2000/2001 then consistent decline. Under Harper it has now skyrocketed.

Spin that.

2) You want to blame the Liberals for unemployment rates throughout their tenure but you cry foul when Harper receives the blame for the now skyrocketing unemployment and economic crisis.

Spin that.

[mtbr]

it hovered around 8% for years in Canada while the US was half that rate, how is that possible when are economies are so connected

[DerbyX]

read the article which delves into that very question.

BTW, it did not hover. It quite clearly was a downward slope.

[mtbr]

DerbyX DerbyX:

1) Check your data. It went from about 11% in 93 to 7% in 2000. In other words unemployment consistently dropped under the Liberals with a brief rise in 2000/2001 then consistent decline. Under Harper it has now skyrocketed.

Spin that.

.

BS it rose for the next 3 years not just 2001.

[mtbr]

refresh my memory why did we give the Liberals the boot 4 years ago

I thought tradition shows a good economy will retain it's present government and a bad one will replace it

[DerbyX]

mtbr mtbr:

DerbyX DerbyX:

1) Check your data. It went from about 11% in 93 to 7% in 2000. In other words unemployment consistently dropped under the Liberals with a brief rise in 2000/2001 then consistent decline. Under Harper it has now skyrocketed.

Spin that.

.

BS it rose for the next 3 years not just 2001.

No, it rose until 02 and plateaued until 03 then declined (under excellent Liberal leadership! ) until 08 when Harpers policies came into affect resulting in skyrocketing unemployment!

[mtbr]

BS

0:

rates.png [ 3.27 KiB | Viewed 151 times ]