Just the Facts Folks!
- Thread starter Sparx
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
It's not hard to see that some of the data is a bit disingenuous. For one thing, unemployment figures for the past year dropped considerably - 6.4% June 2003 was the *HIGHEST* figure for the year 2003. (BLS reports it at 6.3). Figures for 2000 didn't go much above 4% until after 9/11 - they were stable.
Unemployment rates since June of 2003 have been dropping - EVERY month since then. The chart suggests it is worsening. It's not.
The single best thing for the economy during the 90's really, actually WAS balancing the budget - something that any reader of that chart could see had almost NEVER been done in the 30 years it covers.
But what it DOESN'T say, is that those WERE ALL Democratic controlled Congresses. Until the '94 elections. When *Republicans* took over. *THEY* balanced the budget. The Democrats in Congress *hated* them for it. In '95, they tried to force Bill Clinton to commit to balancing the budget. He chose to let the government SHUT down rather than agree to such a pledge. The Republicans tried to make a balanced budget amendment. The Democrats killed it. The Republicans shrank the deficit and produced the first balanced budget in almost 30 years.
So you see, it's hysterical that Democrats are crowing about fiscal responsibility after historically running up deficits for 40 years. And it comes as NO SUPRISE to me, they claim credit for the budgets of the late 90's - which they *didn't* craft.
Unemployment rates since June of 2003 have been dropping - EVERY month since then. The chart suggests it is worsening. It's not.
The single best thing for the economy during the 90's really, actually WAS balancing the budget - something that any reader of that chart could see had almost NEVER been done in the 30 years it covers.
But what it DOESN'T say, is that those WERE ALL Democratic controlled Congresses. Until the '94 elections. When *Republicans* took over. *THEY* balanced the budget. The Democrats in Congress *hated* them for it. In '95, they tried to force Bill Clinton to commit to balancing the budget. He chose to let the government SHUT down rather than agree to such a pledge. The Republicans tried to make a balanced budget amendment. The Democrats killed it. The Republicans shrank the deficit and produced the first balanced budget in almost 30 years.
So you see, it's hysterical that Democrats are crowing about fiscal responsibility after historically running up deficits for 40 years. And it comes as NO SUPRISE to me, they claim credit for the budgets of the late 90's - which they *didn't* craft.
Note the unemployment trends:
Ford takes office and unemployment rates hit a high, then start to go down. They go down until about the middle of the Carter Administration, when they start to climb again. They keep climbing until the end of Reagan's first term, where they start to plummet. And plummet. And plummet. Until the middle of the Bush Administration, when they start to climb again, then start steadily falling off. Clinton takes over when unemployment rates are on their way back down. At the end of Clinton's 2 terms, the rates start to climb again. And that's where they are now for Bush.
I'm not a genius or anything, but what I'm seeing is unemployment getting high under a Democrat. A Republican brings it back down, then a Democrat takes over and it goes back up again.
Ford takes office and unemployment rates hit a high, then start to go down. They go down until about the middle of the Carter Administration, when they start to climb again. They keep climbing until the end of Reagan's first term, where they start to plummet. And plummet. And plummet. Until the middle of the Bush Administration, when they start to climb again, then start steadily falling off. Clinton takes over when unemployment rates are on their way back down. At the end of Clinton's 2 terms, the rates start to climb again. And that's where they are now for Bush.
I'm not a genius or anything, but what I'm seeing is unemployment getting high under a Democrat. A Republican brings it back down, then a Democrat takes over and it goes back up again.
D
dems4me
Guest
SamSpade - I know a few people who are unemployed and have given up looking for work because its just not out there for them. In order to receive money from the government there is a set amount of job interviews you need to go on per week. They have given up even going to the job interviews to be told no. Them, like others have given up and no longer report to the government -- thereby reducing the unemployment rate. Its because people have given up trying to find a job because the unemployment rate is soo terrible and the government assumes its because things are going great.
Send your friends up here to Frederick - the papers are FILLED with jobs. If they're looking for contractor work, tell them to check the Somd.com classfieds - dozens of positions.
Anyone who says they "can't" find a job isn't looking real hard.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Guess what? *I* was one of those guys! Until last spring. Tell me about it. Newsflash - that phenomenon you described has *always* existed. Under every president before this one. There's no way to actually track those numbers, which is why it's so attractive for Democrats to bring them up. You get to cast aspersions on someone's record, in the absence of actual facts.
Here's a homework problem for you - find out the total employment number. Guess what - it's UP. Yeah - they keep TELLING you how many jobs have been LOST under Bush - while neglecting to mention those created (it's manufactured from industries with large layoffs that have not re-hired). The total number employed has been growing since January 2002, and is now a million greater than when Bush took office.
I'd be one of those "underemployed" people, laid off from a defense contractor, re-hired by the federal government - for MORE money.
Funny thing when you run out of benefits - you can "give up" looking for work but not for long unless you want to lose your house.
What are they living on then? In order to get your unemployment check, you have to report regularly that you're trying to find a job. If they don't report, they don't get their check.
What are they living on if they have neither job nor unemployment check?
D
dems4me
Guest
They sell drugs... ha ha ha j/k
They are trying to survive off of the spouses who still barely make any amount of money.
If times are so tough, why wouldn't they get a restaurant job or something to tide them over until they can get a job in their field?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
You'll notice some other disingenuous reporting. The "peak" during Nixon's admininistration - is slightly higher than Carter's "low" value - but the valleys are only shown in Democratic administrations. So it's funny that a bad ol' 5.9% under Nixon --- looks really "good" under Carter.
It doesn't include the 3.4% in 1969 under Nixon, the 4.6% in 1973 under Nixon, the 5.0% in 1989 under Reagan. Yeah, they're there on the chart, but they're not marked.
Anyway - two comments about the figures. Anyone familiar with the business cycles will notice that all of the jobless peaks occurred during the recessions of the last 30 years. Recovery from joblessness is a lagging economic indicator - companies re-hire a few years after a solid recovery is under way. You'll notice that the pattern is not long periods of joblessness - but "peaks". Short periods where they rise sharply followed by job growth afterwards.
Knowing what I know about the economy - I'd say this makes Bush look outstanding. The effects of the recession we had in 2000-2001 are almost totally wiped out, and it wasn't anywhere near as rough as in the previous recessions. In short - his leadership made it short and less painful.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
You sure do - AND you have to keep a journal of names and contacts. If you should be found to be lying, you can get your azz in jail.
Hey, I just went through all this. I know what it's like. And for a while I figured I had enough savings to tide me over. When my time was running out I got more urgent.
BUT
This doesn't matter. See, ANYONE could have said this about the unemployment figures --
"Oh they only 'look' good because they don't include all those (undocumentable) millions who have just 'given up'" ---
at ANY time. That 3.8% under Clinton - poppycock! They didn't include all those dot com bozos who gave up looking - it just LOOKS like a good number.
See what I mean? You can always say that, because no one can disprove it - or verify it. It's meaningless.
What matters is the shape of the graph - and the strength of the economy. Projections show a 4.4% growth this year. Did you see that manufacturing is WAY up so far? It's gonna be a banner year.
Democrats are gonna have to come up with something better than the economy and the war - the war will be seen as a plus, and the economy will be booming, come fall.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think that chart shows how to deal with both problems: when the deficit goes up, cut unemployment. That will force people to go back to work and save the government money.
I too was one of those guys who lost their job in 2001, and I didn't sit around on my a$$ collecting unemployment and waiting for a suitable job to open up. I sent about 300 resumes out, I was constantly checking the want ads, I put in applications at video rental places, Circuit City, Sears, etc., and did everything I could to keep my family going.
I took a job that paid well less than I had been making, and that I didn't much like - and required me to be away from my family, but I did what I had to do to look out for my family. I worked there for four months before I found a job that was nearby and paid what I had been making before. That was four months I could have been sitting around whining about there not being "any jobs", but that would have been BS... just like the whining coming from all these people who say they are unemployed because there are no jobs out there.
I too was one of those guys who lost their job in 2001, and I didn't sit around on my a$$ collecting unemployment and waiting for a suitable job to open up. I sent about 300 resumes out, I was constantly checking the want ads, I put in applications at video rental places, Circuit City, Sears, etc., and did everything I could to keep my family going.
I took a job that paid well less than I had been making, and that I didn't much like - and required me to be away from my family, but I did what I had to do to look out for my family. I worked there for four months before I found a job that was nearby and paid what I had been making before. That was four months I could have been sitting around whining about there not being "any jobs", but that would have been BS... just like the whining coming from all these people who say they are unemployed because there are no jobs out there.
ceo_pte
New Member
my take on it. I'm not right about everything, but I do know the difference b'twn 'right' and 'wrong'. If you vote for a liberal then that means one of two things. 1) You are STUPID. 2) You are dumb and your IQ must be below 60.
Don't take it personally, but if you vote for a liberal I have no use for you and would be better off if I never met you. So have a great life, stay broke, keep complaining, and don't cross my path.
Don't take it personally, but if you vote for a liberal I have no use for you and would be better off if I never met you. So have a great life, stay broke, keep complaining, and don't cross my path.