Think you must have gone back to your roots http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=351975&postcount=10
We can do it your way 295,734,134 people x .007 = 2,070,139 That's 2.07 million people more without jobs than befor. So you can throw any % around you want, the numbers still look bad for Bush Population Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm No, because that is not my way. I would not take the difference between unemployment rates and multiply it by the US Population of 2005. The entire US Population is not indicative of those eligible to work, which the US Bureau of Labor takes into account. We can take the numbers the US Bureau of Labor provide. The unemployment rate. It is the USBL that calculates the numbers based on many factors. There is no warning sign on the site that proclaims "only base numbers are provided, some assembly (using your own math) is required." Your scenario above, is trying to take unemployment rates that have already been factored, and further multiply the difference by the US Population. That would not work, because the US Population is not the only factor in determining the original unemployment rate that you are trying to muliply the percentage difference by. And as usual, not all things are equal. Bush inherited an economy in recession, corporate scandals and 9/11, yet is still with in nominal numbers that Clinton reached. These are real factors that made an impact on employment. I think we all remember when Bush extended unemployment benefits after 9/11 because of all the jobs that were lost around the country. Then the upcoming unemployment rate will be offset because of Hurricane Katrina: http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/04/news/economy/jobs_preview/ The unemployment rate, under Bush, has declined steadily since 2003. It didn't just magically inflate. There are indicators as to why it went up, including recession that he took from Clinton, corporate scandals and 9/11. Airline bailouts, 100,000 jobs to be cut: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/18/rec.mineta.airlines/ Yet just one industry severely impacted by 9/11. http://www.house.gov/budget/econup041604.htm (April 2004) You might also note the chart, which illustrates the spiraling downward change in payroll jobs trend beginning in 2000 and into 2001 when it hit it's lowest towards the end of the year (9/11). Recession. That tax receipts exceeded US Treasury predictions this year is clearly indicative of the downward trend of unemployment. It also suggests that giving incentives to those that hire (poor people do not hire and poor people that don't make enough to pay tax in the first place can't get a better tax break than the $0 they already pay) have hired. People work, they make money. They make money, they pay tax. $54 Billion is a lot of working taking place. Note tax cut, note downward trend of unemployment: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/bowyer200403050905.asp http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html No fabricated math, no mystical numbers, no personal website as a reference, no "different way to do it so it has more impact."
Good info I've read much of it, not going to debate anything that you stated at the moment however 1 red flag I read during the read on the Washington Posts article brings up another one of my main points I am against how the Iraq war was waged. Reguardless, say everything Bush has done for the economy was right and superior to Clinton. He inherited a recession and 9/11 which caused all job losses, all debt, etc. I just honestly feel being so far into debt, then going to war in Iraq without a means to pay for it was the wrong decision. Now if we trully were in danger of an attack then of course money doesn't matter. I realise some of you feel we were but I still am not convinced in the least that we were. I honestly have never been convinced of the immediate danger argument even when I thought that at least some WMD would be found. Isn't anyone mad at all about the war simply because there was no money to pay for it? Looks who's suffering now, much of americas poor, farmers, schools, etc.
Making sure to keep things in perspective here. I don't content that Bush has done a superior job than Clinton. We'll have to wait four more years for that data. What I do contend though, is that rates are not far off and show a steady decline which is important given the rest of the statement. I think he's done a remarkable job, considering a recession, corporate scandals and 9/11. Not trying to argue the point, just making sure to disassociate "superior to Clinton." Clinton did a good job with unemployment. As I recall, there was a plan that Iraq oil would help pay for part of the war. Liberals keep saying we went to war for oil, but I'd sure like to know where that oil is. The Bush administration and the intelligence it received are not the only ones that felt threatened, including Clinton himself: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 America and other countries have always had poor. The poor always suffer, not just because a president is elected. Schools and teachers have always been underpaid. I'd have to do some research, but I could swear I've seen reports that Bush has done a considerable amount for poverty and education. My point would be, that we can always sit around and take shots at something that isn't being done enough, something that is lower or higher. Everyone champions a cause, everyone has something that's important to you. Presidents have never been able to solve all problems. They've never been able to eradicate poverty.
Making b and g at the moment so I'll have to make this short. WMD's or the possibility of them is one thing, the actual threat that we were going to be attacked is another. If Clinton under the same circumstances would have pulled a war with the current situation of the US economy on such shaky grounds I'd be just as p'd. As far as poverty goes yes there will always be poverty, but when our country is already hurting to send the vast amounts of money outside of our country to fight another is again a different story. Schools, well more money may go into them, but from first hand what I see teachers are being cut, class sizes are growing, programs are being cut left and right thanks to the 'No Child Left Behind' act which is more of nice worded title than an actual solution. This is my opinion bases on stories I've read, what is actually happening from what I see at my sons school and even talking to teachers I know. Maybe it's not the money it's the policy? I'll try checking later on the per student funding compared over the years. The point being I'd rather see money especially in a hard time going to our citizens and not outside of the country. I fully believe it was the wrong time and managed in the wrong way. Yes the oil was supposed to pay for the war, which it didn't which was yet another huge blunder on how the war was waged. When Saddam was actually slaughtering his citizens I would of fully supported a full fledged war reguardless of the current economy, however this was not the case at the time the US attacked.
You make some good, respectable points. It's refreshing to see honest rationale as to why someone takes exception to the war.
No child left behind, money shortfall or the policy the following link describes basically what is happening in local schools where I live. The policy itself might be great, but Bush did withhold the funds the schools were supposed to get in order to implement the policies. In order to be in compliance with No Child Left behind the schools are now cutting staff and programs http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/21/AR2005092102303.html Ohyeah by the way I'd actually argue teachers in some areas could take pay cuts and don't put total blame on the admin, but the policy is hurting especially when there is no money to fund it.
I am simply amazed that there is still a debate over the math. What is so difficult to understand? 4.9 - 4.2 = 0.7 The unemployment rate is up 0.7 percentage points. As a percentage of the unemployment rate that equals 16.67%. 0.7 / 4.2 = 0.16666666 or 16.67% How much clearer can it be made? If you have $49 and someone gives $7 more your cash has increased by 16.67%. That is not subject to anyone's opinion or approval. That is just the way it is. It's math. The poverty rate was at 11.3% when Bush became president. It is now at 12.5%. 12.5 - 11.3 = 1.2 / 11.3 = 0.10619469026 or 10.62% The Poverty Rate has increased 10.62% under Bush. If all facts remained exactly the same only there was a Democrat in the White House right now doing the exact same things Bush & Co. are doing there would be no debate amongst the CONS as to whether or not the president was doing a good job or if the current numbers were good or bad. All these people who defend BushCo right now would dragging the Democrats across the coals for doing the same exact thing. That is called partisanship. Loyalty to a party and a man, not the truth.
If an unemployment rate of 4.9% dropped to 4.2% that would be this.. 4.9 - 4.2 = 0.7 / 4.9 = 0.14285714285 or a 14.28% decrease in the unemployment rate For someone who can't understand the most basic math it's amazing you're capable of operating a computer in the first place to be here arguing over the math.
I'll have to get back to you on this later. Deep in other work right now. But thanks for you help. I do appreciate it.
Okay, let's compare the same point in both terms. By August of the first year of both second terms Bill Clinton saw a reduction in the unemployment rate of 32.88% from 7.3 in January 1993 to 4.9 in August 1997 whereas George W(orst) Bush saw the unemployment rate increase from 4.2 to an alleged 4.9, an increase of 16.67% after peaking at a high of 6.3% in June of 2003 a 50% increase over January 2000. -32.88% vs +16.67% Average Retail Price per Gallon of Gasoline Clinton began 106.17, by August 1997 raw price 122.350 cents, adjusted for inflation gas should have cost $1.2146 1.2235 - 1.2146 = 0.0089 / 1.2146 = 0.00791392495 or +0.79% By January of 2003 the Average Retail Price per Gallon of Gasoline had only risen to 145.8 cents from 144.7 in January 2001. And then in March the unnecessary war that Bush lied his way into and now has no way of getting out of began and gas jumped to 169.3 cents. A year later it was at 173.6 and then another year later at 207.9. Had Bush not started this war gas would not where it is today. That is his fault. If you don't think a president affects the price oil just ask a RepubliCON about Carter and the price of oil. Then a president absolutely has an affect on the price of oil. Bush began at 147.1 cents per gallon. By August 2005 raw price was 248.6 cents. Adjusted for inflation gas should have cost $1.6777. 2.486 - 1.6777 = 0.809 / 1.677 = 0.4824090638 or +48.24% Clinton's +0.79% vs Bush's +48.24% S & P 500 Bush -8.50% Clinton +117.21% DJIA Bush -0.09% Clinton +143.96% NASDAQ Bush -21.98% Clinton +140.25% You best do your homework before you decide to tangle with me.
especially if you try to blame the affects of 9/11, corporate fraud (which, BTW, flourished under a previous pres.), huricanes, and the dot.bomb on Bush
I think 9/11 could be argued to the point if Bush didn't do enough to stop it, after the fact though the actual cause and effect to the economy no. Same thing on the hurricane, policies and people put into the place for disaster and how those policies/people hurt the effort certainly can be blamed back to the president. Not on the local level but the federal level. Not stating Bush is to blame on either of these, but it easily could be argued and I for one will wait to see if anyone chooses to do so __________________
The evidence from 9/11 makes it look like Bush had nothing to go on. The hurricanes however, show that we need to change the laws surrounding who dispatches what and when. Since neither city or state officials would call for an evac or for help until it was way too late and the Feds didn't overstep by sending in before they were given the OK. Now should the Feds have broken the law and called for the evac and send in the troops without permission? Either way things went wrong, obviously and need to be changed, but I found it pretty lame when people started blaming Bush for the problems, yet when he does cross the lines of federal/local government everyone gets mad. Don't get me wrong, I still am not saying bush is perfect or did the right thing, but I hate it when people just want to blame him without any facts, they just simply hate him so they want everything to be his fault. This leads us back to Jr. High....
But you need to understand that if the unemployment rate did drop back to 4.2% then the complaint would still be that bush only gained back 14% when he had lost 16% so he still lost 2%. The point I am making is not the factual numbers but the way people represent numbers to make them appear more extreme. Kind of like the graphs that the media uses, factual numbers, but only showing the ones they want to make it look a certain way. I don't think anyone is saying certain numbers are false, just the conclusion of those numbers used in a formula or percentages.