Look at the unemployment rates 1990-2005

[heidler1]

Compare the rates with which party held the white house. With Clinton the rate went steadily down from nearly 8% (Under PaPa Bush) to under 4%. When GW came in it quickly shot back up to nearly 6.5%. Vote Democrat, they care.

[Democrats_win]

1. That´s what gets me. Things were good under Clinton yet they impeached

him. What hate, probably sourced from Rush Limbaugh, drove our fellow Americans to turn their backs on peace and prosperity to warmongering and constitution breaking?

Were the Jones´ or the Gays in California getting too hard to keep up with? Is 'a falling ocean lowers all ships' the truth behind it all?

[bullimiami]

3. i dont believe bush numbers. they have corrupted every institution in the

government. I think the unemployment is in reality, much much worse.

[maxsolomon]

5. you see, Clinton broke the law

he lied under oath. the house members who impeached only care about upholding the constitution. they're not partisan; that's the defeatist dems.

Bush hasn't broken the law. he hasn't lied about a blowjob under oath. if memory serves, that's pretty much the entirety of the constitution regarding impeachment.

:sarcasm: is all i have left.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. Do you have a link to that? I'd like to send this around and print it...

I had some freeper claim that unemployment is cuurently lower right now than it was ever under Clinton.

[heidler1]

11. I wrote it my self, but the link to the unemployment graph is there.

What made me check it was GW just said that the current rate of 5% is average for the 90s, and I thought BULL SHIT. It turns out by the graph that GW's spin is probably true, because Pa Pa Bush's 8% is part of the 90s. It's still BULL SHIT what GW said. Your welcome to print it and you might want to copy the graph on the same paper. I tried to copy the graph onto my post, but no dice. Click on image.

[enigma000]

4. The economy is mostly cyclical

A President can't just pick up the phone on day one and say, "create jobs" or "cause unemployment". The American economy isn't a command economy with everyone working for the government, it's a free market economy that is beyond the control of any one man, organization or government.

[gratuitous]

7. Well then Bushy must be the unluckiest SOB ever to walk the planet

Because the cycle kicked in right when he handed the U.S. Treasury over to his overrich pals and spent us back into enormous deficits.

[maxsolomon]

8. i WATCHED the building industry retract into its shell

the week after election day. jobs that were full speed ahead a month earlier just melted away in a slow motion panic of caution. why did that happen? because capital knew that a bear market was coming. and it sure did.

it has come back, but wages sure haven't, and expenses have gone way up.

[papau]

12. Indeed it is the huge Gov hiring under Bush that keeps numbers from being

even worse.

Cyclical we can all agree on - but the cycle is not independent of what a President does to the economy.

Bush has been a disaster for the economy.

Indeed what are the odds that every Dem has had better econ numbers than every GOPer over last 60 years? Maybe Dems do somethings correctly - meaning differently - than the GOP?

Perhaps putting more money in the hands of the rich does not result in greater demand via trickle down?

[enigma000]

13. Bush was unlucky in coming to power at that stage

of the economic cycle. The coming Bear market and recession was on its way long before he was sworn in, appointed his people or got his agenda going. The fact his agenda hurt the economy further, not helped it is plain to see, of course.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out it takes time to influence an economy as large of the American one.

[papau]

15. MYTH - Bush took office with recession. There were no two consecutive

quarters of GDP decreasing. The 4 trend lines that folks in the little recession committee use did not change greatly, as to trend, over the 30 months prior to the March call of a recession, or indeed before the Nov 2001 call of an end to the recession.

Indeed out of the 22 million jobs created under Clinton around 400,000 was included as the estimate for the magic stay at home no payroll tax job count (the so called birth/death number). To date we are near or over 2 million pretend jobs out of the 1,805,000 jobs created under Bush since 12/31/2000, - we may have actually lost jobs over that period because the pretend Birth/death (meaning in effect work at home jobs) have grown by about the same amount as total jobs. The bias of the birth/death adjustment when you are losing jobs is to hide the loss (there are posts at DU on this topic).


http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

GDP in billions of current dollars........GDP in billions of chained 2000 dollars

1992q4 6,484.3 7,450.7
1993q1 6,542.7 7,459.7
1993q2 6,612.1 7,497.5
1993q3 6,674.6 7,536.0
1993q4 6,800.2 7,637.4
1994q1 6,911.0 7,715.1
1994q2 7,030.6 7,815.7
1994q3 7,115.1 7,859.5
1994q4 7,232.2 7,951.6
1995q1 7,298.3 7,973.7
1995q2 7,337.7 7,988.0
1995q3 7,432.1 8,053.1
1995q4 7,522.5 8,112.0
1996q1 7,624.1 8,169.2
1996q2 7,776.6 8,303.1
1996q3 7,866.2 8,372.7
1996q4 8,000.4 8,470.6
1997q1 8,113.8 8,536.1
1997q2 8,250.4 8,665.8
1997q3 8,381.9 8,773.7
1997q4 8,471.2 8,838.4
1998q1 8,586.7 8,936.2
1998q2 8,657.9 8,995.3
1998q3 8,789.5 9,098.9
1998q4 8,953.8 9,237.1
1999q1 9,066.6 9,315.5
1999q2 9,174.1 9,392.6
1999q3 9,313.5 9,502.2
1999q4 9,519.5 9,671.1
2000q1 9,629.4 9,695.6
2000q2 9,822.8 9,847.9
2000q3 9,862.1 9,836.6
2000q4 9,953.6 9,887.7
2001q1 10,021.5 9,875.6
2001q2 10,128.9 9,905.9
2001q3 10,135.1 9,871.1
2001q4 10,226.3 9,910.0
2002q1 10,333.3 9,977.3
2002q2 10,426.6 10,031.6
2002q3 10,527.4 10,090.7
2002q4 10,591.1 10,095.8
2003q1 10,717.0 10,138.6
2003q2 10,844.6 10,230.4
2003q3 11,087.4 10,410.9
2003q4 11,236.0 10,502.6
2004q1 11,457.1 10,612.5
2004q2 11,666.1 10,704.1
2004q3 11,818.8 10,808.9
2004q4 11,995.2 10,897.1
2005q1 12,198.8 10,999.3
2005q2 12,378.0 11,089.2
2005q3 12,601.0 11,206.1

CEU0000000001Not Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 108021 108625 109058 110060 111021 111610 110742 110847 111831 112493 112837 112980 110844
1994 110730 111308 112283 113364 114376 115171 114227 114535 115591 116217 116827 116861 114291
1995 114551 115213 115972 116803 117523 118243 117008 117268 118180 118780 119017 119015 117298
1996 116315 117252 118056 118890 120017 120681 119642 119931 120673 121383 121842 121815 119708
1997 119269 120125 121007 121979 123052 123701 122709 122770 123770 124673 125063 125196 122776
1998 122636 123405 124121 125159 126240 126902 125833 126069 126874 127652 128052 128215 125930
1999 125462 126445 127158 128305 129176 129906 129039 129093 129867 130804 131262 131403 128993
2000 128763 129428 130526 131525 132481 132998 131777 131785 132450 133007 133372 133308 131785
2001 130433 131098 131690 132094 132800 133179 131686 131613 131871 132072 131880 131491 131826
2002 128602 129069 129672 130257 131023 131404 129959 130044 130559 131227 131346 130933 130341
2003 128248 128660 129148 129800 130559 130890 129549 129601 130253 131045 131207 131026 129999
2004 128365 128976 130019 131150 132068 132527 131384 131416 132127 133139 133406 133187 131480
2005 130495 131337 132196 133377 134112 134718 133583 133770 134335 135025(p) 135361(p)
p : preliminary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 109725 109962 109916 110223 110496 110660 110960 111119 111359 111638 111901 112203
1994 112473 112665 113133 113490 113829 114139 114498 114801 115155 115361 115786 116056
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130781 130901 131377 131662 131882 131839 132015 132004 132122 132110 132326 132484
2001 132454 132546 132511 132214 132187 132029 131941 131803 131549 131172 130879 130705
2002 130581 130478 130441 130335 130326 130377 130277 130295 130250 130309 130315 130161
2003 130247 130125 129907 129853 129827 129854 129857 129859 129953 130076 130172 130255
2004 130372 130466 130786 131123 131373 131479 131562 131750 131880 132162 132294 132449
2005 132573 132873 132995 133287 133413 133588 133865 134013 134030 134074(p) 134289(p)
p : preliminary


http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm
The table below shows the net birth/death model adjustment used in the published CES estimates since the establishment of the most recent benchmark level for March 2004.
Benchmark does not mean benchmark and is indeed undefined - we have a time series refit that is not explained as to effect. Birth-death may be between 1.5 and 3 million fake jobs in the total of 134289000 less 132484000 = 1,805,000 jobs created.

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total
225 204 181 -80 123 44 55 9 66



2005 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Total
-280 100 179 257 207 184 -76 132 54 37 18

[heidler1]

14. Clinton is exuberant, passionate, fuzzy warm, cares about people,

out going and smart. This rubs off on everyone thar sees him and can't be faked. Bush is withdrawn, secretive, distrustful, likes to playact being a macho texan, always bitching about working hard, backbreaking,LOL
and worst of all he continually tells it like it ain't.

[Neil Lisst]

17. Let me dissuade you of that notion.

The economy was solid under Clinton for 8 years because Clinton's economic policies were sound. He balanced the budget, and that foundation created the success of the general economy.

As soon as Bush took office, he made it clear that his tax cut was the first priority, and by March, the recession had begun.

He has wrecked the economy by running up these outrageous deficits, which cost the generations to come dearly.

Government policy creates the market in the US. It's not a free market, and hasn't been in decades. It's constantly manipulated through monetary policy, government spending, and laws which favor one business over others.

[enigma000]

18. The US isn't socialist

The announcement of a policy initiative like tax cuts isn't enough to cause a recession. I can blame Bush for much, but I can't for the recession of 2001. I think it was a naturally occurring economic event. Would it not have happened if Gore or Nader had taken office?

Events after this, once his program was underway, yes, of course.

[Neil Lisst]

19. You are wrong.

Government policy is the primary influence on the economy.

It was good under Clinton because of his policies, and it's bad under Bush because of his policies.

Your position is a common one of a student whose perspective is limited to some professor who has captured their mind, months or years ago. Taint so, McGee. Government policies shape the economy. Why do you suppose Mexico's economy sucks so hard? It's not for lack of resources or hard working people.

You're blinded by some doctrine someone spoon-fed you.

[MrBenchley]

6. And bear in mind

that Chimpy's Department of Labor simply stopped counting some of the unemployed to get what decline they got....

[tritsofme]

10. There are six measures of unemployment

http://stats.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

With U3 being the official measure. These formulas have not been changed.

[kentuck]

9. Bush said in his speech unemployment rate lower than average of 90's...

the 80's, and the 70's... Of course, that's the way they deceive people with their numbers. Yes, if the present rate is 5%, that would be lower than the average of the last three decades. Of course, three months before Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 3.9% ! When Bush took office it was about 4.1%. So, in fact, the unemployment rate of 5% at present is 25% higher than when he took office! See how easy it is to play with numbers?? :)

[papau]

16. With the birth death fake jobs sure Bush has good numbers - if you

believe that they are real indicators of the job market we have some bridges to sell.