Help here giving someone specific information ..

[ray of light]

with how the unemployment rate is measured and why it's a faux argument when they say it's better.

http://www.progressiveu.org/211056-bush-republicans-compassionate-conservatism-suffering-in-america

[Lasher]

1. How the Government Measures Unemployment

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Edit: Don't let supply siders single out one month or one quarter of job growth to make it look like Junior has done a good job. The Decider has been in office for over 5 years, and his failures are obvious if you don't let them cherry pick. Unemployment was 3.8% when Junior took office. Here's a good graphic:

http://ibew.org/legislative/Rev042304-JustFacts.pdf

Here is another good resource:

http://hannah.smith-family.com/archive/001122.html

And finally, here is an article I did a while back on Supply Side Economics:

http://modernamerica.blogspot.com/2005/06/supply-side-economics.html

[ray of light]

2. thank you! do you want to post on that thread?

[Lasher]

5. Thanks for the suggestion

I might jump in later, I don't know. That sort of thing can get to be time consuming, and I spend too much time on the net already. Right now my tomato plants need attention. Gotta slide.

[ray of light]

3. thatgayconservative is all over that blog but this is the first time

he ever argued "factual" information instead of just anti-lib stuff.

[ray of light]

4. any comments about his later stuff on James Lee Witt?

[Lasher]

6. Here's a thing or two about Witt

While Governor of Arkansas, Clinton appointed Witt as his Director of Emergency Services. When he was elected President, Clinton appointed Witt as Director of FEMA. Clinton elevated FEMA to a cabinet level agency during his tenure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lee_Witt

Before Witt came along, FEMA was a lackluster agency under abysmal political management. As Donald Kettl of Brookings has written, the old FEMA was a laughing stock: "Every hurricane, earthquake, tornado and flood, the joke went, brought two disasters: one when the event occurred, and the second when FEMA arrived."

People in Washington assumed that since Witt came from Arkansas, and they'd never heard of him, he must be another hack. But in disaster after disaster, he turned the agency's reputation completely around.

As a governor, George W. Bush was so impressed by the agency's renaissance under Witt that he singled him out for praise in his first presidential debate with Al Gore:

You know, as governor, one of the things you have to deal with is catastrophe. I can remember the fires that swept Parker County, Texas. I remember the floods that swept our state. I remember going down to Del Rio, Texas. I have to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

Yet it was CIA Director George Tenet, and not Witt, who was selected by The Decider to be the lone Clinton administration holdover. Compounding the irony, and despite his praise for Witt, Junior returned to the old FEMA model in 2001.

He turned the agency over to Joe Allbaugh, his chief of staff while presiding as Governor of Texas, and manager of his campaign for the presidency. Allbaugh shook up the internal organization of FEMA in order to shrink the agency's size and scope. In particular, the Allbaugh FEMA diminished the Clinton administration's organizational emphasis on disaster mitigation in favor of terrorism response. He left in 2003 for a more lucrative disaster gig, as a lobbyist for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Now FEMA is a tiny subsidiary of the mammoth Department of Homeland Security.

http://img.slate.com/id/2125224/

[Lasher]

7. Myth: Forty years of liberalism have ended in failure.

Fact: It's been 60 years, and the most liberal years were the most successful.

The last 60 years can be divided into two parts: the New Deal era (1933-1975) and the corporate special interest era (1975-present). America experienced its greatest economic boom in history during the New Deal era; it has seen a stumbling economy in the current one.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-fortyyears.htm

Edit: I wish I could copy text at that web site.

Go back and rub his nose in this statement: "We presently have a lower unemployment rate than even your sweet lord BJ could have fabricated." You have mentioned the 3.8% unemployment rate that Clinton "fabricated", but it might be fun to ask him if the current unemployment rate is lower than that.

[tenshi816]

8. That's a great website!

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Lasher]

10. Thank you. Here is a link to the index at that same site.

This is an extensive treasure of rebuttals to right wing lies:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backdemodeficit

[Lasher]

11. Republicans and Deficits

I noticed your friend made the following claim:

"We're on track to have the lowest deficit as a percentage of GDP in decades." This is the same snake oil the GOP has tried to sell before, but let's have some fun with it.

Here is a chart, prepared by the House Budget Committee, that shows deficits as a percentage of GDP:

http://www.house.gov/budget/msrslide4bgt071703.pdf

Since your friend's claim goes back decades (plural), let's look at the last 20 years. You will note that Clinton delivered a surplus of 2.4% of GDP in fiscal year 2000. And so, for his claim to be true, we would have to see a surplus greater than that. Can he tell us who is saying we are "on track" to produce a surplus of 2.5% of GDP or more? Certainly not the White House.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The White House will release the annual mid-session review budget forecast on Tuesday, a spokesman at the Office of Management and Budget said Friday.

President George W. Bush has recently hinted that the report will show that the government's revenues are sharply exceeding expectations, helping cut the federal government's massive budget deficit.

In its budget request for fiscal year 2007, the White House projected deficits of $423 billion, or 3.2% of gross domestic product, in fiscal 2006 and $354 billion, or 2.7% of GDP, in fiscal 2007. Bush has pledged to cut the deficit in half as a percentage of GDP by fiscal 2009, a goal that could be reached earlier if revenues continue to be healthy.

http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=17637&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2

Now let's update the chart I furnished earlier. The actual deficit was 3.5% for FY '03, 3.6% for FY '04, and 2.6% for FY '05. The White House currently predicts deficits of 3.2% and 2.7% for FY '06 and '07, respectively.

Hey, what's with that? I don't see a prediction of any surplus.

I know Junior doesn't want to talk about his actual economic performance, and I don't blame him. But he's not done a very good job of making predictions in the past. For example, remember all those jobs that his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were supposed to create?



http://zfacts.com/p/563.html

Soon we're going to be told that the actual FY'06 deficit was something less than the 3.2% the White House currently predicts. Small minded people will fall for this spin. It's like a coach saying his football will lose their next game by 50 points, then claiming a victory when they actually lose by only 40 points. They have been hoping that there would someday be some actual good news about the economy, so that they can point to it and say, "See, the tax cuts are working!"

Deficits increase our national debt. Here is a very clear picture of what Reaganomics has done for us in that respect:



http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Edit: Spelling

[U4ikLefty]

9. K & R!...why?!? Because unemployment is a bridge betweeen the

"left" and the "right". Every American wants to earn a respectable living to make them/their families proud. This is the stuff we should be pushing in 2006.

[Lasher]

12. 121,000 new jobs: Is that all?

BY JEANNINE AVERSA | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added a disappointing 121,000 jobs last month, wary of bulking up payrolls with the economy slowing and energy prices rising. Wages rose sharply, fanning inflation worries.

Wall Street groaned and stocks tumbled. The Dow Jones industrials lost 134.63 points to close at 11,090.67.

The latest employment snapshot, released by the Labor Department on Friday, also showed that the nation's civilian unemployment rate held steady at 4.6 percent.

<snip>

The count of new jobs added to the economy in June did mark an improvement from the 92,000 new positions logged in May - the fewest in seven months. But it still fell short of economists' forecasts for an increase of around 175,000.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060708/BIZ/607080325/1001

This is not enough to keep up with population growth.