Since Bush has taken office... * Unemployment has risen from 3.9% to 6.0%; * 42 States will or expect to make Medicaid Cuts; * 41.2 Million People in America Have NO Health Insurance; * The number of Americans living in Poverty rises for first time in eight years; * Overall economic growth at 1 percent, the lowest for any administration in 50 years; * The value of Americans' stock holdings down $4.5 trillion and a 30 percent drop in the value of IRAs and 401(k) plans; * A projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion converted into a deficit of $400 billion; * Bush Budget Will Spend the Entire Social Security Trust Fund Over Next Two Years; * "Consumer Comfort" has dropped from +20 to -20 in one year; * 49% of Americans Are "Dissatisfied With The Way Things Are Going in the United States at this time," up from 29%; * Bush Budget Posted First Deficit Since 1997, Predicted Deficits Until 2005; * 98% of Pension Funds expected to be Under-Funded; * "Consumer Confidence" continues to drop; * U.S. debt will have "Major International Consequences."
Hey regarding your sig....whatever happened to Achebe? Regarding your post, as much as i feel bush is an imbecile and corporate/political lobbyist w****, any commander in chief presiding over the past four years would have overseen a dwindling economy. He inherited the post-bubble deflation. If anything, his 12-13 consecutive rate cuts, tax cuts, increased govt spending such as "war on terrorism" (what a joke) have delayed the big hit to the economy for at least a couple years now. Of course everyone's grandkids here will be paying for all these financial gimmicks down the road, but hey what the hell - let's enjoy the good times right now while they're still lasting
I don't understand the need to exaggerate. Does using the actual numbers not look bad enough? Unemployment rate: January, 2001 (seasonally adjusted): 4.2% Unemployment rate: July, 2004 (seasonally adjusted): 5.5% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Still bad, just not as bad. That's the only one I looked up (because I knew the 6% number wasn't currently correct). Speaking of unemployment, the payroll survey might not be giving an accurate picture of the employment situation in the United States, especially since the BLS changed worker classifications and didn't do parallel surveys to account for any potential glitches (and since the Payroll Survey doesn't take into account things like people starting their own businesses or being independently employed. If one is an independent Realtor, for example, he counts as unemployed on the payroll survey even though he might well disagree). The household survey shows a net gain of something like 1.6 million jobs since January, 2001. Most of the time, the household survey and payroll survey give fairly close numbers. They apparently do differ by larger amounts during times of economic recovery. It may well be that this is one of those times. But quite honestly, George W. Bush could point to having created 1.6 million jobs and be just as accurate as someone who says he's lost 1.1 million. Proving the point, I suppose, that one can use statistics to prove just about anything you want them to prove.
I agree w/ the premise of your point. But just to add my 2cents....i highly doubt that 5.5% figure. When you factor in all the ppl who want to work but have simply given up looking or gone back to school for further training and have therefore dropped out of the govt statistical calculations.....when you factor in that a majority of jobs being created are close to minimum-wage level....you see the true unemployment figure is likely noticeably higher than even 6%. The Bureau of Labor Stats seems to like using the Enron handbook on Pro Forma Accounting
Turns out the household survey shows a net gain of 1.9 million jobs rather than 1.6 million. And here's another interesting stat, in the past twelve months, the economy has grown at a faster rate than at any time during the 1990s (according to Forbes).
Then the number from January, 2001 can't be trusted, either. No number can be if none of them have any basis in reality. Why even bother debating economic issues at all then if none of the numbers can be trusted?
That's why you never see any posts from me debating this stuff! No really, there has been a change in economic policy as mentioned in my first post. Since the current administration has come into office they have done anything and everything to PUMP UP the economy and rallying public perception w/ optimistic "news" and reports has definitely been one of their methods or tactics or whatever you want to call them. I am not really denegrating them for this - they have no choice and as i said before most any politician would have to do this in order to avert a complete economic meltdown and of course also to win re-election. They MUST inflate the economy. If "massaged" govt statistics helps their cause then so be it. So i would suspect the Jan 2001 figures were probably a little more accurate than what we have seen the past few yrs.
these guys seem to agree. Don't know if the Bush supporters on this board will be convinced by their credentials, though. At my own liberty, i deleted the utterly pointless and unrelated half of the article over the vietnam issue, which i'm all sure we're sick of reading about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/ 10 Nobel economists endorse Kerry Experts criticize Bush's 'reckless and extreme course' Updated: 11:03 a.m. ET Aug. 25, 2004 PHILADELPHIA - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs. advertisement The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists saying the Bush administration had “embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.” They cited “poorly designed” tax cuts that instead of creating jobs have turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits, a “fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation.” The endorsement, in the form of an open letter American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. Kerry, in remarks prepared for an appearance in Philadelphia, called for “jobs that don’t just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while.” Now, he said, good jobs are being replaced “with ones that just don’t pay the bills,” — 1.8 million private sector jobs lost replaced by ones that pay $9,000 less and are more likely to be temporary less likely to offer health insurance.
Guess it's more of a theory question, but if you personally are doing better under Bush than Clinton why would you want to vote him out? I keep hearing Kerry promising changes to the economy (adding jobs, keeping them here in the States) but how will he do it? How does he add jobs? Tax incentives may help but who ultimately pays for lowering someone else's taxes (hint look in the mirrow). Possibly he raises taxes for corporations who sends labor oversees but I'd love to see that legislation get passed where we raise taxes only on the companies who send work oversees (alot of these places are huge companies with lots of lobbying power). Kerry has a proven track record of raising taxes. I'm concerned if he gets into office my taxes go up. I make decent money and I'm single so I'm not in one of his "chosen" groups where he wants to look out for them (married, kids in school, or the less fortunate he wants to subsidize with better benefits). So at least in my mind I'm happy. Ultimately if enough people aren't happy a change will happen, but the current administration has done good things for me financially.
Not saying who is actually better for the economy, but your stats also reflects the timing of when Bush took office. Whe Bush took office, the economy just experienced the white hot growth of late 90s and early 2000, the economy was overheat, which is set up for a recesssion. This is all part of the normal economic cycle. Which I don't think anyone (Bush/Kerry/Bill) could have avoided. Now you could argue that bush could have made the recession a little less painful (softer landing), but throw in 9/11, things are less obvious. Now I think most of you guys give the president way to much credit in this issue, no matter how good he is, he certainly is NOT going to stop economy from having recessions. In many ways, Grandpa Al has just as much power as Bush if not more, he controls the monetary policy which has some far reaching effects (even globally)
republicans stand for fiscal conservatism and limited government - yall agree? dubya has been anything but fiscally conservative. his spending/defecit policies are very irresponsible, especially in light of the tax cuts (which benefit the wealthy way more than the middle class). i would call bush a liberal as far as spending goes and expansion of government goes - its out of control. the problem is that neither candidate is going to fix our economy. a good start would be to raise taxes and take measures to limit outsourcing of jobs, but no one will ever get elected on that platform.
Bush has helped me out financially as well. However, I don't like the way he's spending my money. I would rather pay 40% in tax and see my money going into education, social jobs, paying those that protect us, basically having the money spent on our own country, than pay 20% tax to see it being used in a costly war that has put our troops at risk and has yet to benefit anyone around me. don't get me wrong, I love to save money and would love lower taxes as they would really help me out in my life, but I would rather have my money being spent on something that I support and making sure others in this country can afford to live a good life.
The unemployment figure NEVER includes people who give up looking. The 5.5% is the natural rate of unemployment by economic standards and is still quite low. That's a basic economic principle.
Yet another economic reason to send Dubya back to Crawford in November. John Kerry is hardly my ideal, but he is definitely the lesser of two evils when stacked up against George W. Bush. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040826/ts_nm/life_poverty_dc Nearly 36 Million Americans Living in Poverty WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some 1.3 million Americans slid into poverty in 2003 despite the economic recovery, and children and blacks were worse off than most, the government said on Thursday in a report certain to fuel Democratic criticism of President Bush (news - web sites). The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent in 2002, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) said in its annual poverty report, seen by some as the most important score card on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office. The ranks of the poor rose to 35.9 million, a boost of 1.3 million. Health care coverage also dropped last year and incomes were essentially stagnant, the Census Bureau said in its annual poverty report, seen by some as the most important score card on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office.
And Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inheriated wealth. You got that from "Work in Essex County," Page 98, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagarize the whole book for me? bawahahahahahaha.......woooooohooooo
in all seriousness, for what stat is this statement not true? 1. stats suck 2. presidents get too much credit for a good economy 3. presidents get too much blame for a bad economy
Amen Brother. I dont like either one of these guys, and it comes down to who will hurt us the least.....a sad state of affairs
