"Ted Cruz’s ‘biggest lie in politics:’ Is it actually the truth?"

[4-2-7]

Employment to Population Ratio Not Improving



Reagan-style Recovery = 7.0 Million More Private Jobs

[d-ray657]

So, who is the publisher of the charts that you copied, -5?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Thank God I have blocked -5 and his embarrassingly mindless drivel.

This thread would have been difficult to follow had I been first person subjected to his inability to reason.

You need to work on your PC vocabulary. It's dribble. Check Post #63.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Employment to Population Ratio Not Improving



Reagan-style Recovery = 7.0 Million More Private Jobs

have you been on another planet since 1989 Underdog?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

So, who is the publisher of the charts that you copied, -5?

Bureau of Labor Statistics as stated in the graphs.

I thought I posted the link provided by Cruz's and linked in the update in the fact checker.
http://www.jec.senate.gov/republican...arDisplay=2014

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Did you search this vage graph? It goes nowhere. Shows no dates or presidents per bar and looks like a kid put it together. It also does not match the data present as referenced here. The reference report is not even talking about how he is trying to spin data.

As a matter of fact I did look into the details on that graph..

http://books.google.com/books/prince...ffects&f=false

The published link goes to the Princeton publications page where one could buy the book, but also provides a google link that allows searching most of the book for free. My link above is to such a search. The answer to your questions about matching years to presidents is found on page 33, footnote 7. The data was lagged one year to best match the data to presidential tenure. Regression analysis was done to determine what lag best fit the data.

The work was not done by kids, moron.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Bureau of Labor Statistics as stated in the graphs.

I'm quite certain that the BLS did not provide the editorial commentary included in the graphs. Please tell us who massaged the data into the charts that you copied. If they indeed came from the BLS website, provide a link.

[CarlV]

Maybe Cruise-itis is a contayjus dizeez.

Carl

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Bureau of Labor Statistics as stated in the graphs.

I thought I posted the link provided by Cruz's and linked in the update in the fact checker.
http://www.jec.senate.gov/republican...arDisplay=2014

So are you suggesting that the editorial commentary on the chart, provided by a republican organization, is factual?

You have criticized an article from a commercial publication as untrustworthy because it is allegedly opinion-based, yet you respond with charts from a purely partisan source. Tell me that you do not see the hypocrisy in that.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I'm quite certain that the BLS did not provide the editorial commentary included in the graphs. Please tell us who massaged the data into the charts that you copied. If they indeed came from the BLS website, provide a link.

Data provided by BLS does not get any clearer than that. A graphs is just a visual reference of the data on record with the BLS.

You can go round and round D-Ray I don't care. Im not on trial so Im not going to play your lawyer games you like to participate in. You should maybe spend your time Fact Checking the data. Maybe you can disprove it ya think?

However I doubt you or the fact checker will bother, it's not your agenda.