Perhaps before making an absolute statement such as "Unemployment rate is currently 4.9%. A number NEVER reached in the Clinton administration," you should check your facts before flaunting your ignorance. As far as Democrats hailing Clinton for acheiving a number for which they criticized Bush I guess I have to explain this again for you slow RepubliCONS. When Bill Clinton took office the unemployment rate was 7.3%. To lower the unemployment rate to 5.6% means a reduction of 22.37% in unemployment. For George W(orst president ever) Bush to increase unemployment from 4.2 to 5.6 is an increase of 33.33%. Sometimes equal is not equal. One is a 22.37% decrease and one is 33.33% increase. See the difference? Further illustrated as such. Two presidents. One takes office and for eight years decreases unemployment from 8% to 1% thusly. 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 for a total of 36 divided by 8 = 4.5 The second president comes in and increases unemployment from 1% to 8% like so. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 for a total of 36 divided by 8 = 4.5 Both presidents have an average unemployment rate of 4.5%. The first president decreased unemployment 87.50% while the second increased unemployment 800%. Does 4.5% equal 4.5%? Only if you want to be a supporter of the second president. RepubliCONS is so stoopit.
Welcome caseagainstbush, but how about keeping the attacks reguardless of what party a person is affiliated with out? I am probally guilty of this myself in this very thread, I'm sure in debates on the web over the years. But if trying to convince a republican that the opposite way is the best it doesn't help by calling them stupid Good morning all.
I take it you're talking about John Joftus? But of course I'd prefer to point John Loftus to a different page, just trying to help out John Loftus who by his own accounts is a democrat, wow Gtech is quoting a 'liberal'?!?!?! Why I didn't even know that about John Loftus, the same individual right wing publications are pin pointing for infinite proof that their is VX and a saddam connection in the Jordan Terror OP is a whiney liberal democrat? Amazing
Finally someone who actually knows the numbers! I'm loving this... all the pro-war people have scattered like cats when a pitbull shows up to play Wheres willy and zman now!!!
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898026_mz001.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-31-bush-economy-csm_x.htm Kerry's plan? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/07/opinion/main641777.shtml Unemployment Rates Under Bush: 2004 / 11 / 5.4 2004 / 12 / 5.4 2005 / 01 / 5.2 2005 / 02 / 5.4 2005 / 03 / 5.2 2005 / 04 / 5.2 2005 / 05 / 5.1 2005 / 06 / 5.0 2005 / 07 / 5.0 2005 / 08 / 4.9 Unemployment Rates Under Clinton during same months of presidency: 1996 / 11 / 5.4 1996 / 12 / 5.4 1997 / 01 / 5.3 1997 / 02 / 5.2 1997 / 03 / 5.2 1997 / 04 / 5.1 1997 / 05 / 4.9 1997 / 06 / 5.0 1997 / 07 / 4.9 1997 / 08 / 4.8 1997 / 09 / 4.9 -------------------------------------- Yet with 9/11 (I know liberals hate to factor in what it did to our country), scandals, etc. Bush's numbers, except for deficit, are as good or better than Clinton's first four years. And Bush didn't have to gut the military by 500,000 - four active divisions and two Reserve divisions like Clinton did.
Which would bring unemployment up under Clinton in reality, more people back to work from the military = less jobs. Or am I reading you incorrectly? Also adding The reason I bring this up is because those job losses if the person did not find a job yet would not be considered into the unemployment totals which would equate to higher rates under Bush than actually shown, hence 9/11's immediate damage is no longer in the numbers. Does anyone however have a good source for total unemployment statistics and not just the unemployment rate? yet another edit- found a good info source on how it's calculated which could totally disprove the numbers for 9/11 are not still in there, looking for a total uneployment source myself 'could disprove my own point, lol I'm doing all the work for you gtech j/k' http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
That is a possibility hrbl. It's not mentioned in the article though, and I would rather not speculate. The point in the reading is, that these are sourced numbers. They are not fabricated.
Agreed that's why I plan on looking off and on today for a source stating total unemployment rates, not taking a true stance on this issue one way or the other just curious to what the actual overall facts are.
I know that feeling, yet I'm on here getting further and further behind. Ohwell time for another cup of coffee.
This is very interesting, but I am way behind on my info. I'll have some coffee with you and will watch as things develop further
I did check those links out but didn't see the total overall unemployment not just by the way the government determines it. Maybe I'll have a few drinks for lunch then I'll be fully ready to find lots of facts from thin air, probally find a few in the bottom of my glass as well as long as I don't find any in the porcelain god all should be good. Taking into effect those who have been unemployed for 12 months and for some reason did not actively seek work for the past 4 weeks I believe is what the link I posted stated. At first glance 4 weeks is a long time not to look for work, but live in a small area where you've already posted a resume for every business within a hundred mile radius and I could easily see these people taken out of the equation by how the unemployment rate is determined. I realise this isn't how the experts determine it, but the experts don't tell me how to judge the current or previous admins job on employment overall
Who, or what group determines the "overall unemployment rate?" Which is most commonly used? Or does that depend on a point trying to be made?
Basically what I wish to find which I will look for later is a simple graph side by side showing the total US population, total us population currently employed, total US population currently unemployed, etc. More raw data and not already processed by the government formula I guess is another way of stating it Not trying to make a point, looking to be informed.
...an imperfect plan implemented immediately and violently will always succeed better than a perfect plan. -- General George S. Patton
Patton built armies, an inarguably more difficult task. When building a country, you have to convince people to live there and not go out of their way to cause trouble. When building an army, you have to convince people to go out of their way to cause trouble -- in unpleasant and dangerous working conditions where they are likely to experience significant pain or death -- even if they win.
I thought they put patton incharge of an existing army, I didn't realize he was doing recruiting as well
Patton, after a long and successful career of military service, was given charge of a bunch of men. He made them an army.