I think it's similar to the question "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?"
7% unemployent is NOT a good thing (especially for those who are IN the 7%!), but, like all statistics, it can be turned around--thus, if 7% of the workforce is unemployed, then 93% of the workforce IS employed--or so the reasoning goes.
By the way, texting shorthand is not understood by everybody, so it might be a good idea to spell the words out fully.
2007-10-24 03:33:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chrispy 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
93% + 7 % = 100%.
OK, so I know that's not the point of your question. Actually, the thrust of the statement is to keep a sense of perspective and realism about the social issue and impact of unemployment. Of course, for the 7% it's a tragedy, but in the big picture, which is what Presidents must stay focussed on, the 93% is a very satisfactory number. Politics is the art of the possible, and at the time of this statement, JFK was contrasting current figures with those of the 1950's.
2007-10-24 04:15:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by JIMBO 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
in case you probably did not be attentive to, you're utilising a translations to help a trinity doctrine - a rendering isn't supported by utilising the Bible. when you consider that, they replied the Greek, i'm going to bypass alongside and answer the Coptic. when you consider that Ego Eimi became into used as modern in Greek, swpe anok tsoop is used could nicely be utilized in a matching way. in basic terms like theres many Coptic Translations that helps the trinity doctrine, theres many translations that don't. What translators of Coptic attempt to disclaim at ultimate is John a million:a million, which needless to say shows indefinant article being modern. replace: quite they don't. in the event that they did, they does not use the item "a" in brackets, nor will they use a capital "G" in God.
2016-10-07 12:37:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋