Extrapolate. I doubt the conclusions would be much different.
I forget, are you the one who claims to be an expert in statistics?
Quite honestly… this thread illustrates why most liberals cannot perform sufficient analysis to challenge the global warming wackos. They take on faith anything with numbers that is put in front of them.
What a thread burn. Nice one biggestal.
Did you answer this before? I missed it.
Why not at least define what you mean by “grew”? A sophomoric “final-initial” of all government calculation is silly and meaningless.
And integrated labormonths of the executive branch over the terms of office are the facts. What does THAT calculation show? Maybe it supports the OP rant, maybe it doesn’t. I dont know.
And I would add … exclude active duty military.
In my business, I don’t typically answer questions without understanding the context. Thus far I’ve seen no context so I don’t feel compelled to provide a substantive response.
Thanking Peek for that laugh. Dude should be doing stand up.
The gentleman from the calculated risk blog didn’t think it silly or meaningless.
Grew. What is the definition of is, is.
Grew is self explanatory. Either is grew or it didn’t grow.
Already done earlier in the thread.
I can’t help you, dude, if you dont understand what I mean by or the relevance of the integrated labor months of the executive branch over the presidential terms.
LOL. Read the calculatedrisk blog link earlier in the thread and all will be answered.
I do understand the difference between growth and no growth.
sorry you are no quite grasping the question posed Its a real simple one.
Read the blog and answer the question. Its not macro economics.
it a simple question with one of two answers. Fact or fiction?
Labor months expended over the presidential term to perform the functions of the executive branch.
It’s an integrated number… not simply a subtraction of the initial number from final number.
Then compare one president’s terms with another.
read the blog. its all explained there.