Unemployment down to 5.4%

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: misle
Wow, now we have less unemployment than Clinton when he was running for his second term!

According to this unemployment was down to 5.3 in July of 1996, but Clinton ran on the 5.6% unemployment numbers.

"July 5, 1996
Web posted at: 5:50 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/

Nice try to spin it. The reason that number was good for Clinton is because it was better than when he started. The reason the same number is bad for Bush is because it's worse than when he started.

Census Figures

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1992 7.5 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1993 6.9 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1994 6.1 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1995 5.4 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1996 5.4 BLS

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dullard
From original posters link:

"The unemployment rate in August fell as the labor force shrank by 152,000 from the previous month"

So if the labor force shrinks to zero can we claim 0% unemployment? The US's method of not counting people who can't find jobs after X months is the stupidest method I can think of. Why not count the number of unemployeed, and divide by the number who want jobs?

They can all join the armed forces!

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: misle
Wow, now we have less unemployment than Clinton when he was running for his second term!

According to this unemployment was down to 5.3 in July of 1996, but Clinton ran on the 5.6% unemployment numbers.

"July 5, 1996
Web posted at: 5:50 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/

Nice try to spin it. The reason that number was good for Clinton is because it was better than when he started. The reason the same number is bad for Bush is because it's worse than when he started.

Census Figures

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1992 7.5 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1993 6.9 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1994 6.1 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1995 5.4 BLS

Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1996 5.4 BLS

Alot of the economy was built on the dot-com and tech boom of the mid to late 90s...so I say if it was built largely on false business models, then how can it be used as a fair comparison to the future....

And notice that jobs lost number keeps falling....


And...


If anyone else had been president during the recession and during a major attack on this country...would there have not been a huge loss of jobs?

 

[alchemize]

| <-----Nail

[] <---- Kerry's coffin

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The tech sector wasn't the only one that was booming during the Clinton years. Also, I'm not defending Clinton so why are you bringing him up?

I think everyone understands the economy hit a recession when Bush took over. However, his policies only inflicted more harm on our economy. Tax cuts are fine, but when you have the kind of reckless spending that this adminstration does it only increases the deficit. I also love how Republicans love to talk about the costs of the war on terror. Guess what, extract all the cost from the war on terror and were still seeing the biggest deficit in 75 years. This president has shown that he has no clue or idea on how to fix our economy, and I don't think he's somehow magically figured it out with two months to go.

As far as outsourcing goes, it's only going to get worse. CEO's that outsourced saw their salaries increase by up to 46% this year, so they really have no incentive to keep jobs here.

Talk about not understanding the economy. Look at your numbers again and tell me when you see the decline begin. Then we'll talk.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

If anyone else had been president during the recession and during a major attack on this country...would there have not been a huge loss of jobs?

I would challenge that if someone else had been president, the gain back would've come sooner.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

If anyone else had been president during the recession and during a major attack on this country...would there have not been a huge loss of jobs?

I would challenge that if someone else had been president, the gain back would've come sooner.

And you base that on what information/proof?

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

If anyone else had been president during the recession and during a major attack on this country...would there have not been a huge loss of jobs?

I would challenge that if someone else had been president, the gain back would've come sooner.

Ok... So GWB or this fictitional "someone else" would have had to removed all CEO's from the top 500 companies in the US and replace them with people that were tested somehow to prove they weren't crooks. Then GWB or the fictitional "someone else" would have had to made it illegal for any company to outsource in our out COUNUS. Then GWB or the fictitional "someone else" would have had to make sure that the .COM inflation stuck by pumping tax dollars into these companies that shouldn't have been allowed to trade on the market in the first place. Then GWB or the fictitional "someone else" would have had to what?

The greater majority of all the jobs lost were due to circumstances that the President can't control and circumstances that I don't want any government body to control. If a company wants to outsource that should be their right. If a criminal wants to run the largest employer in the world (I think Enron was right before the fall) into bankruptcy because he is stealing money and providing false information, the President can't do anything about that other than make sure that the Judicial branch of the government is in a position to prosecute once it comes to light that this has happened.

What should GWB have done?

I love all of these replies from different people that are completely uneducated statements. Just like I'd like to hear what GWB and Kerry are going to do specifically to turn things around... I want people to stop saying that "Someone Else" could have done a better job without telling me what could have been done specifically. A Presidential Candidate that says "I will make sure that you keep your money." is saying nothing. How? What will suffer because of your plan? How much will I be able to keep (I am 100% sure not 100% of it)?

 

[Ferocious]

Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

Not like he had any control over the dot-com bubble bursting and then 9/11.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

What should he have done differently? Do you have any specifics that you would like to share?

 

[ReiAyanami]

now if we could only do something about the world's largest budget deficit and national debt.

too bad the economy isn't improving for Intel, 3coms, Acclaim (bankruptcy), Seagate/Maxtor/WDC, nVidia and the other techs

 

[Todd33]

Where are the six millions jobs they promised in January? That's right we are still at -1 million. 144,000 sounds like a lot until you think about it. Is it even ajusted for population growth?

Bush should run on the economy, that would be great. But he won't it's going to be 911...911...911...911...911...911...911...911...911...911...

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

If anyone else had been president during the recession and during a major attack on this country...would there have not been a huge loss of jobs?

I would challenge that if someone else had been president, the gain back would've come sooner.

And you base that on what information/proof?

It's pure opinion, just as yours is.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize
| <-----Nail

[] <---- Kerry's coffin

PFt.

You got the nail part correct but the coffin is wrong. These numbers are terrible for Bush and he has fallen WELL short of the 3 million jobs he PROMISED.

The fat lady is warming her voice up.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

If anyone else had been president during the recession and during a major attack on this country...would there have not been a huge loss of jobs?

I would challenge that if someone else had been president, the gain back would've come sooner.

And you base that on what information/proof?

It's pure opinion, just as yours is.

A question is not an opinion....what I said was good news for America was based on fact

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

What should he have done differently? Do you have any specifics that you would like to share?

Do you have anything specific you would like to share about what Bush has done in the past 3 years to address this? Instead of asking what he should have done differently, you should be asking what has been done PERIOD.

 

[Todd33]

Job growth was a modest 144,000 in August, enough to absorb the increase in working-age population but, in the long-term, too small to actually lower unemployment (unless the labor force shrinks again, as it did last month). August's job growth follows two months of very weak growth of 73,000 in July and 96,000 in June and is substantially slower than the 295,000 jobs created monthly (on average) in March, April, and May. This pace of job creation is far slower than what the Bush Administration said would follow as a result of its 2003 tax cuts.

http://www.jobwatch.org/

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Job growth was a modest 144,000 in August, enough to absorb the increase in working-age population but, in the long-term, too small to actually lower unemployment (unless the labor force shrinks again, as it did last month). August's job growth follows two months of very weak growth of 73,000 in July and 96,000 in June and is substantially slower than the 295,000 jobs created monthly (on average) in March, April, and May. This pace of job creation is far slower than what the Bush Administration said would follow as a result of its 2003 tax cuts.

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Stop making sense and posting spot on links. They want to repeat their mantra that the economy is just dandy and that hardly anyone is unemployed anymore.

 

[dmcowen674]

Look at this, looks and sounds just like the Posts in here:

9-3-2004 Bush, Kerry Spar Over New Jobs Figures

NEW YORK - Bush and Kerry clashed over figures showing modest monthly jobs growth Friday as they plunged into a nine-week post-convention sprint toward Election Day.


Kerry: Previous presidents "have faced wars and recessions, but not one of them has failed to create a single job," Kerry said. He said the most recent statistics made it inevitable that Bush's term would end with a net loss of employment.

Not surprisingly, Bush offered a different interpretation.

Bush:"Overall, we've added about 1.7 million jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is down to 5.4 percent," he said. "That's nearly a full point below the rate last summer and below the average of the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s."

 

[CycloWizard]

The Bush policy won't increase in a net gain in jobs until shortly after the election. Heaven forbid. Even Kerry has stated that if things continue as they are, there will be 10,000,000 new jobs in the next ten years (when he was called on his claim that HE would create 10 MM jobs over that time period).

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

I know. Not only that, but I was in my first car accident under his watch! We have to get this guy outta there! :roll:

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

He's got four months to make up 244,000 per month

Or else it's Hoover Time

 

[chowderhead]

"we've turned the corner" so many times, we are ALMOST right back where we started four years ago ( a net loss of "only" about 1 million jobs).

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize
| <-----Nail

[] <---- Kerry's coffin

PFt.

You got the nail part correct but the coffin is wrong. These numbers are terrible for Bush and he has fallen WELL short of the 3 million jobs he PROMISED.

The fat lady is warming her voice up.

lol, youre kidding right? This is just more momentum for Bush, it gives him something to talk about...Kerry is done dude, I know you cant believe it, but hes gonna be down 5 points when the polls start coming out