Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>
Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.
And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...
The Unemployment Rate keeps dropping, that is true. However, so is the amount of Persons Employed. IOW, the people dropping out are lowering the Unemployment Rate. Where they're going is another question.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>
Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.
And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...
The Unemployment Rate keeps dropping, that is true. However, so is the amount of Persons Employed. IOW, the people dropping out are lowering the Unemployment Rate. Where they're going is another question.
That is incorrect, more people are employed today than ever.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>
Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.
And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...
The Unemployment Rate keeps dropping, that is true. However, so is the amount of Persons Employed. IOW, the people dropping out are lowering the Unemployment Rate. Where they're going is another question.
That is incorrect, more people are employed today than ever.
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: rchiu
Only you forgot to mention Clinton started his first term with 7.3% unemployment and brought it DOWN to 5.6%. GWB started with 3.9% and brought it UP to 5.3%.
Did it go from 5.6% to 3.9% on midnight of 1/20/2001?
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>
Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.
And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 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
Yawn. Yep, let's hear Bush talk about the economy some more! Can't wait to hear him boast about it during the debates. Stick a fork in your boy, he is done. As much as I would like to be eloquent like you and end my post with a Muhahaha, I'll let the pwnage wait until November.
The U.S. Government's new welfare state: Iraq.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where did all that money go?
You are hardly qualified to say that times are bad. Why is it that any time a conservative says something that a liberal doesn't agree with, it's because he's a sheep or 'you just say it out of obligation to the team'? Are liberals the only people capable of independent thought? Doubtful.Originally posted by: umbrella39
You truly are unbelievable. Either you really believe that or you just say it out of obligation to the team. Look past your own front yard and your own block. There is a big country out there and you are hardly qualified to declare times are good. They might be good for you.
I so enjoy when someone like you uses the unemployment rate as the litmus test for everything being OK.
Posting that site over and over again doesn't help anyone's argument. I already stated that it's misleading by not supplying with a more real-time graphical format - something no peer-reviewed publication would even consider. I know what the facts are, which is why I'm voting for Bush over Kerry. My not agreeing with your opinions doesn't make me a sheep, regardless of how many times you say it does.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If you can't see the real facts for yourself, then your are a sheep. You have to sift the chaff from the grain.
http://www.jobwatch.org/
It's not about "wishing" or not, the strength of the economy is subject to a lot of interpretation, any economist will tell you that. Either the two sides could have different opinions because they see the fact differently, or they have different opinions because they want to see it as whatever is best for their candidate.Originally posted by: raildogg
No matter how much you try to tell these libs, they always point out the negative aspects. Its like as if they really wish the economy were bad so that Kerry would get elected
But where are the numbers indicating that the economy is not doing well? For the love of Pete, please don't post jobwatch again - that doesn't give useful data.Originally posted by: Rainsford
It's not about "wishing" or not, the strength of the economy is subject to a lot of interpretation, any economist will tell you that. Either the two sides could have different opinions because they see the fact differently, or they have different opinions because they want to see it as whatever is best for their candidate.Originally posted by: raildogg
No matter how much you try to tell these libs, they always point out the negative aspects. Its like as if they really wish the economy were bad so that Kerry would get elected
But if that's the case, the idea that all the "fact" people are on the conservative side and all the "wishing" people are on the liberal side is just silly. It's just as likely that liberals really think the economy is bad, and conservatives wish it was good because that would support their candidate. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe liberals disagree with you for the same reason you disagree with them? I doubt it very much, but I just thought I'd ask.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Posting that site over and over again doesn't help anyone's argument. I already stated that it's misleading by not supplying with a more real-time graphical format - something no peer-reviewed publication would even consider. I know what the facts are, which is why I'm voting for Bush over Kerry. My not agreeing with your opinions doesn't make me a sheep, regardless of how many times you say it does.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If you can't see the real facts for yourself, then your are a sheep. You have to sift the chaff from the grain.
http://www.jobwatch.org/
I would that both the tax cuts and spending will result in an increase in tax revenue over time, since all that money floating around in the hands of the private sector is being spent many, many times. Patience.Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Cyclo, compared to the previous months, yes the economy would appear to be doing well. In the grand scheme of things, the economy isn't doing so hot but at least its improving. If Bush thinks he can make up for 3 years of failed economic policies in 2 months he better think again. Tax cuts and big spending just don't go hand in hand, that's something any economist will agree on. And don't gimme the war on terror cost, you take that one out and we are STILL in the biggest deficit since Hoover.
You're becoming cowen's alternate identity - how did you slip so far so fast? Two days ago you were making posts that were approaching a third grade level, and now this. :<Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
With all the spending, the tax cuts, etc, where ae the jobs?? Can't answer that one can you.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Posting that site over and over again doesn't help anyone's argument. I already stated that it's misleading by not supplying with a more real-time graphical format - something no peer-reviewed publication would even consider. I know what the facts are, which is why I'm voting for Bush over Kerry. My not agreeing with your opinions doesn't make me a sheep, regardless of how many times you say it does.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If you can't see the real facts for yourself, then your are a sheep. You have to sift the chaff from the grain.
http://www.jobwatch.org/
The labor force contracted by 152,000 in August, and there was also a significant jump of 214,000 in the number of those not in the labor force who say they currently want a job. The average annual growth rate of the labor force this year has been 0.5%, about half that of last year (1.1%).
An even larger deceleration occurred among so-called prime-age workers , those adults age 25-54 who are most likely to be in the job market, dropping from 1.6% last year to 0.5% this year. Since March 2001, their participation rate in the labor force is down 1.3 percentage points, a highly unusual occurrence this far along in a business cycle. In fact, averaging over all past recessions/recoveries, the participation rate of prime-age workers has been up 1.2 percentage points, almost the same amount it has fallen in the current case.
Given these dynamics, a central question is whether employment is now growing fast enough to absorb the considerable slack left over in the labor market from the recession and jobless recovery. For this to occur, payrolls need to grow fast enough to accomplish two goals. First, simply to keep the unemployment rate from rising, the economy needs to provide enough job openings for those entering and re-entering the job market. Obviously, this is not a challenge in months like August, when the labor force contracts. In fact, employment growth in the Household Survey, from which unemployment data are derived, was up only 21,000 last month; unemployment, however, still fell due to the labor force decline. Second, the economy needs to provide enough jobs so that those who were laid off or left a previous job can be rehired.
The estimates of monthly growth needed range from about 125,000 to 150,000 to meet the first goal, and significantly more than that to reach the second. Thus, given the fact that payrolls have been expanding at around 100,000 per month over the past few months, it is not surprising that the unemployment rate has been largely unchanged. The labor market needs at least twice that average to make significant progress against remaining labor slack, especially once the labor force begins to grow apace again.
BIG government is back. And while that fact may not have been heralded at Madison Square Garden this week, it is largely responsible for the best long-term economic statistic that Republicans cited.
By one measure, President Bush has presided over a reversal of the trend to smaller government that began nearly 30 years ago. That measure is the share of wage and salary income that comes directly from governments, and its rise has helped keep the economy growing.
In the Republican platform, most of the economic statistics referred to recent months, noting, for example, that "since last August, 1.5 million new jobs have been created." Such numbers ignore the recession at the beginning of the Bush administration, and the slow recovery that followed until growth took off in mid-2003, when one tax cut - the child credit - put significant cash in the pockets of parents just in time for back-to-school sales.
But one statistic did stand out: "Real after-tax incomes are up by 9.6 percent since December 2000."
That statistic was through June. This week, the government updated it, and the figure through July is a little better, up 9.7 percent. That is a highly respectable number, and it helps to explain why consumer spending remained strong during the downturn.
The tax cuts that President Bush pushed through Congress were a big reason for the gain. Adjusted for inflation, taxes paid in July were down 23 percent from December 2000, the last month of the Clinton administration. (All numbers are at seasonally adjusted annual rates.)
What else contributed to the increase? Private businesses are paying a lot more for employee benefits, especially health care. Those costs are up 23 percent, adjusted for inflation. And government spending on its benefit programs, principally Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is up 19 percent. All that spending counts in disposable personal income, and makes the overall number look better. But few of us feel better off when health insurance premiums go up.
In the area people think of when they hear about personal income - wage and salary payments - the picture is not as pretty. The entire increase there comes from the government payroll. Adjusted for inflation, private industry is paying almost exactly the same as in 2000. To be precise, private spending on wages is up less than 0.1 percent.
No administration back to John F. Kennedy has done as poorly. The two that came closest - a 1.4 percent rise under the first President Bush and a 3.3 percent gain in the term that ended with Gerald Ford in the White House - each ended with incumbents losing the election.
The share of wage and salary income coming from the government can be seen as a measure of the size of government relative to the economy. It began to rise in the 1950's and peaked in the second quarter of 1975, under Mr. Ford, at 21.8 percent of total wage and salary income. It declined under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, rose a little under the first President Bush and then fell rapidly under Bill Clinton, hitting a low of 16 percent in late 2000.
It has risen under the current administration. The latest quarterly figure showed 17.4 percent of all wage and salary payments came directly from the government.
Some of that is simple economic cycles. Government salary payments tend to rise less rapidly than private ones in good times and not to fall in bad times. But it also shows that this administration has not cut the size of government.
A bigger government and tax cuts are the main reasons that real personal incomes are up since 2000. The big question for the economy is whether the stimulus has been enough to produce a self-reinforcing recovery. More signs that the private economy has turned around will be needed before that can be deemed a sure thing.
No, I refuse to answer someone who puts a smiley after asking where all the jobs are. You're rooting for economic failure for the country, so it's pretty obvious nothing that is said will change your opinion.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Like I said, you can't answer the question.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
But where are the numbers indicating that the economy is not doing well? For the love of Pete, please don't post jobwatch again - that doesn't give useful data.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>
Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.
And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...
The Unemployment Rate keeps dropping, that is true. However, so is the amount of Persons Employed. IOW, the people dropping out are lowering the Unemployment Rate. Where they're going is another question.
That is incorrect, more people are employed today than ever.
Moot point. Even maintaining the same Unemployment Rate would require the total amount of Employed Persons to Increase, due to population Growth.