Is G.W. really helping the economy? (484 hits)
Category: Politics -> Election 2004Rating: -0.33 on 16 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Homsar (View user info) at 2004-10-06 00:06:03 EDT
Since Kerry officially stomped a mudhole in G.W.'s ass on the subject of Iraq and foreign policy, I thought it was high time to look at the economic situation facing our great country today. I've been hearing a lot of talk about how "the Bush administration has given us the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years". A mere few minutes of research found these numbers. Turns out, the last of the Clinton years has the lowest rate on recent record, with 4.0 Also notice the steady decline from the year Clinton took office until 8 years later when he left. Looks like blow jobs weren't the only kind of jobs ole Bill was enjoying. Come on George, I know you're an imbecile and all, but even YOU should recognize 5.4 is greater than 4.0. can you say owned?
Year Unemployment Rate (percent)
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.4
By the way, just in case any bitches out there try to tell me I found some "biased" information....I got these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
User Reviews
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-10-06 18:46:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can understand blaming 9/11 for it in the very beginning of bush's term, but please. The rate steadily increased until this year, and it's improving now only because most people with brains think Kerry will be elected. Not that it matters, because the world is going to end anyway. The crazy guy with the Bible on Third St. told me so yesterday.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2004-10-06 18:38:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't know if anyone will come back to read this, but Dome, running, you guys have no clue what the fuck you are talking about.
As an economics major, someone who DOES have some clue what he is talking about, 9/11's effect nowhere approaches being the cause of our stagnant economy. Did it have an effect? Of course. Can you blaim umpteen billion dollars gone on it in 4 years of the worst budget anyone has ever seen? Fuck no, and if you claim otherwise you are simply wrong.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-06 11:18:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
There was a little something called 9/11 that sort of affected the economy a little, you dumbass.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-10-06 11:06:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Debate posts knocked me off the front page...http://www.ubersite.com/m/47160
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-10-06 10:25:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Did it ever occur to you that the unemployment rate was affected by a little something I call 9/11? Unempoyment went up after 9/11 and has now started to decline again.
Even without 9/11, the unempoyment rates are relatively low historically. This country had an unprecendented amount of growth and prosperity in the 90's credit whoever (Clinton, Greenspan, Republican congress), thanks in large part to the technological growth. Unemployment was lower than the historical average. It really only had one way to go: up.
Submitted by Kent_Weirdo (user info) at 2004-10-06 08:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Short answer: No.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-06 08:00:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think this is a really good question. I know that Clinton asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (And I THINK that Reagan asked it first, but I'm not absolutely sure on that.) In my case, I can say that I AM better off than I was four years ago, but I don't know if that holds true for everybody.
With regard to your numbers, I think you may be looking at total jobless claims. When Bush et al make the claim that their numbers are the lowest in 20 years or whatever, I think they are referring to a different stat. I think they are looking at the NEW jobless claims.
Yes. It IS a slight-of-hand trick. But both sides use these all the time, and you MUST know that most stats can be spun and spun and spun to show whatever the hell you want them to show. So I think the real question is the one I started this reply with. So how about it everybody? ARE you better off now than you were four years ago?
Submitted by Homsar (user info) at 2004-10-06 01:45:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I appreciate the -2's from Stabkill.
You sly genius, you. How silly of me to not post a link to where Bush said he had the lowest unemployment rate.
If you'll note, I never specifically said Bush made this claim himself. Actually, it was a claim made by a friend and hardcore Republican, which he overheard on the Glenn Beck Program. I simply did some research because I get off on proving people wrong, and I was surprised enough by the results to make an uber post.
Damn, it looks like George isn't the only one getting pwned these days.
Bow down.
Submitted by DonkeyOnTheEdge (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:55:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Does this post really need to be on Uber?
Submitted by Rokinroj (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:54:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Here's a good data snap shot to go with yours. This is the total amount of the national debt for the same period. Though it grows every year, notice that this administration grew it more in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years, and meanwhile undercut funding to some of its biggest programs
10/04/2004 $7,414,024,541,823.04
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
LINK: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Rokinroj
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:37:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like how the unemployment rate was at 7.5 in 1992 (When Clinton took office, after the hell of the FIRST Bush), steadily improved throughout his term, and immediately started getting worse when dubya was APPOINTED.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:35:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There are areas that are having the lowest unemployment rates in 20 years. (Those numbers you quoted are NATIONAL numbers)."
Seriously. I mean, the president can't be bothered with addressing the needs of the WHOLE COUNTRY at the same time. He needs to maintain focus on the little things. For example, this week, the unemployment rate in Russell Springs, Kansas dropped from 4.8% to 4.3%. Thank you George W Bush!
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:24:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
GW is clearly not helping the economy.
Howevor this post lacked any proof of such, and overall was a waste of my time.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:21:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:15:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I think you are an idiot and confused one line of a stump speech in which he might have said that comment about a particular state. In that aspect, he's probably right. There are areas that are having the lowest unemployment rates in 20 years. (Those numbers you quoted are NATIONAL numbers).
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-10-06 00:09:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Now post a link where Bush & Co. have said they've given you the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years to go along with your claim.