The Economy as of TODAY August 6, 2004

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And I'm not disputing them necessarily, but you and he are changing the subject from the shape of the economy to the government's finances. And it was Democrats who created the nanny state....so ask them why we have so much debt.

actually the deficit first became a major thing with reagan who denounced wasteful government spendin and then racked up a 2 trillion dollar deficit buying things that go boom, george bush is doing much the same. Also the unemployment figures actually get taken off the registry after a certrain period of time so most likely the bush level is higher couple that with the record layoffs and no pay rises i'd say that Bush's stewardship has hardly been good for the economy.

 

[maxwell's demon]

WHAAAAA?????

I go away for the night to hang out with my friends, and i come back to see...
can it be?

an actual DISCUSSION?
no flaming....?

it...

it... im getting choked up here guys....

and what's this? actual figures...?...sniff... and researching? and a relative lack of insults?

It...it brings a tear to my eyes guys.
really.

thanks! i feel so much better about the hype now. iwas about to lose hope.

you guys are the best.

 

[Mastermold]

Originally posted by El Diablo
actually the deficit first became a major thing with reagan who denounced wasteful government spendin and then racked up a 2 trillion dollar deficit buying things that go boom, george bush is doing much the same. Also the unemployment figures actually get taken off the registry after a certrain period of time so most likely the bush level is higher couple that with the record layoffs and no pay rises i'd say that Bush's stewardship has hardly been good for the economy.

Try typing coherent sentences next time.

And if the unemployment rate is really higher than it looks, which you don't provide any info. to prove, then it was also higher than it looked when Clinton was running for reelection-unemployment was the same-5.5%

As far as I know, the method for measuring the unemployment rate has not changed since '96.

 

[maxwell's demon]

i think it's pretty hard to provide info for that, as the names do get taken off the registry....once they're gone- there are no really figures to trace them- resulting in alot of frustration for those trying to give an accurate account.

i'm not trying to stir things up- but i've seen that statement reported on often, by reporters and commentators on both sides of the fence.


of course- that doesnt mean it might not also have been higher .than it looked back in 1996- it's be a very difficult thing to prove either way --
I have noticed the registry situation reported on much more in relation to the current admin than i did back in 1996. but maybe that's just me.

 

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Mastermold
Try typing coherent sentences next time.

And if the unemployment rate is really higher than it looks, which you don't provide any info. to prove, then it was also higher than it looked when Clinton was running for reelection-unemployment was the same-5.5%

As far as I know, the method for measuring the unemployment rate has not changed since '96.

No, but the people on unemployed then would be taken off the registry now. I'm not defending clinton, although he did preside over either the largest or second largest period of growth ever. All of these figures are kind of irrelevant when you consider the ****ty minimum wage and the fact that pay rises have all but stopped for the average worker, and there are 1 million less jobs than when Bush started (under clinton things IMPROVED from the last administration) . there was a reason the stock market was hit by the job creation figures released yesterday.

 

[Mastermold]

I already debunked the "Bush is the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term" myth. Why do liberals continue to say stuff that isn't true even after it's been disproven?

It's like when they scream "no banned weapons have been found in Iraq" even after sarin and long-range missiles were found.

 

[Mastermold]

Here I'll post the info again...

January 2001: 136 million employed ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/...t.02022001.news

July 2004: 139.7 million employed http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

[Constantine J.]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And you still have not rebutted one simple fact:

The unemployment rate of the summer 1996 and summer 2004 are the same-5.5 percent.

Yeah what's your point about recovery? The economy had been in recovery since March 1991 when Clinton ran for reelection. Currently, it's been in recovery since Nov. 2001.

Actually NO if you were to look again at the table you posted you would notice that there had been a nosedive in the economy since bush took office , even if you just went with the table you posted you should be able to realize that the economy was FAILING since 2001 (under your same criteria) and the current situation is still so bleak that it could seldom be called a stabilization.

 

[maxwell's demon]

i'd have to agree with Constantine- i think maybe it's a question of context- the times spanned for each figure have to be consistent, otherwise the corrolation of info is meaningless---

 

[maxwell's demon]

in other words, looking at any one month is not going to give you nearly as much meaningful information as taking alonger amounts of info.

your point is ABSOLUTELY irrefutable correct- the numbers- for the ONE month, were the same. But what do we truly learn from this? I would say very little. because if we compare many other corresponding months the numbers are NOT matching.

TO reiterate what Constantine said specifically-
while the numbers were each 5.5%, in Clintons case there was an overall DOWNWARD trend in unemployment- while Bush has been in office there's been an overall UPWARD trend in unemployment.

 

[Backdrifter]

Well, it looks like you don't know how to analyize the economy there Masterfold, if all your looking at is the unemployment rate. Again, go take even an introductory economics course and you'll be able to arge maybe a FEW vaild points.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Please go to the chart linked - i believe by mastermold originally, showing unemployment figures-
table

once opened, if you go to the top- where it says:
Change Output Options:
you can display all figures going back to 1948 and forward to 2004.

Here, now, is a list of the terms of each of our presidents and their party affiliations-Please connect each presidents term with the corresponding figures.
then look at whether there was an overall upward(negative) trend in unemployment or downward(postive) trend in unemployment for each parties time in office.

Harry S. Truman Democratic 1945–53
Dwight David Eisenhower Republican 1953–61
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Democratic 1961–63
Lyndon Baines Johnson Democratic 1963–69
Richard Milhous Nixon Republican 1969–74
Gerald Rudolph Ford Republican 1974–77
Jimmy Carter Democratic 1977–81
Ronald Wilson Reagan Republican 1981–89
George Herbert Walker Bush Republican 1989–93
Bill Clinton Democratic 1993–2001
George Walker Bush Republican 2001–

EVERY time a Democrat has been in office Unemployment has gone DOWN(positive). Even Carter, who it has been said was very ineffectual during his time in office, saw a slight dip during his tenure.

 

[maxwell's demon]

and you'll note the ONLY time since 48 that a republican's time in office marked a DOWNWARD(positive) OVERALL change in unemployment was during Reagans tenure.
Now it has been said that the longer any party is in office the more it can get done. Often blame for one term presidents falls on the fact that they 'just didnt have time' or whatver.
SO one would presume that Bush Snrs. time in office, adding another 4 years to the previous 8 years of Republican control of the white house, along with the fact that he served Under Reagan as his Vice President, would see even more great results.

HOWEVER- you'll also note that the change Reagan presided over, from 7.5 to 5.3 (fairly impessive) was almost entirely undone during Bush's time in office -in other words the trend started going back up, reaching heghts between 7.0 and 7.3.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Originally posted by Mastermold
I already debunked the "Bush is the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term" myth. Why do liberals continue to say stuff that isn't true even after it's been disproven?

In other words- i agree with your above statement- Bush is not the first president to lose jobs. many republicans have done so.

It should also be noted that for ten months of Reagans first term (september '82 to june '83) our nation saw it's highest unemplyment rate, consistently coming in at over a staggering 10%, in the past 56 years.

 

[Constantine J.]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And I'm not disputing them necessarily, but you and he are changing the subject from the shape of the economy to the government's finances. And it was Democrats who created the nanny state....so ask them why we have so much debt.

Well actually we are not. But I will show how this all relates, If we were to use unemployment (like you are) as a yardstick for the economy you would have to notice that in 1996 as you so clearly stated the unemployment numbers were pretty similar, however there is a key difference, If you query the data for people unemployed for 5 weeks or less you'll see that the numbers are pretty similar, But then if you query the data for those unemployed27 weeks and over you would realize that in fact the 2004 economic situation is much more dire than the one in 1996, And if you were to objectively corelate this with the table Iposted which shows spending trends and deficits, as well as revenues you would see that the most effective economic policy belongs to the Clinton administration, and you would see that this asertion you made about the Democrats putting the U.S. in debt is a falacy, you need to stop making this a partisan issue Clinton was far from perfect, but the current economic policy and spending trends is driving the U.S. further back from economic recovery than you can imagine, you said a while back "Research is fun" but if you're just researching to find fault in the Democratic party I'm sure you will find what you're looking for, you have to do your research in order to find the reality of the matter and not just exalting those facts that you think prove your point while remaining blind to those that thoughly disprove it.

 

[Backdrifter]

And if you want to REALLY get into the unemployment issue, you need to determine what KIND of unemployment your talking about. Frictional, Structural, Cyclical, Seasonal...im sure most of this is above Mastermolds head..

 

[maxwell's demon]

hey- lets not take personal potshots stewie- we seem to be doing well enough sticking to figures.

 

[Backdrifter]

yeah sorry bout that. my apologies

 

[maxwell's demon]

s'ok-i'm just trying to keep this thread as clean as possible-

i'm really impressed so far by both sides.

 

[Darren Daring]

This thread doesn't apply anymore.

 

[maxwell's demon]

wtf brodie?

 

[Man-Thing]

I've made about 3,000 dollars this week, pretty good to me.

 

[Karem-Knight]

Brodie.........