Unemployment.

I heard alot of democrats complaining about how GWB has ruined the economy, and bout how much unemployment we have now. Just today, on TV in defense of Mr. Bush I heard somebody essentially say that employment was better now, than it had been under Clinton. What he didn't mention until a little later, (and quite slyly, without those who were debating with him noticing) was that the number he gave for Clinton's time, was an average!
Here's the unemployment rates, from Bureau of Labour Statistics.
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
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

currently unemployment is at 5.6% this is not to argue who is a better president at all, but purely to say, who can honestly claim that we're better now than we were four years ago? 5.6% is not an improvement over 4.0%! what nerve that guy must've had to pull that stunt, and I bet most viewers didn't even notice his trick! :eek:
Who says the republicans aren't over a little deception to make the other party look bad? Sometimes it seems as though the reps are complaining that only lefties would lie to try and prove a point! :2cents:

Don't forget that the goalposts have been shifted,so that anyone in part-time work or temporary work is no longer counted.If they used the same criteria for counting the 'unemployed' that they did back in Clinton's day,the Bush figures would look far worse.

Who says the republicans aren't over a little deception to make the other party look bad? Sometimes it seems as though the reps are complaining that only lefties would lie to try and prove a point! :2cents:

Thats not just a republican trick but a trick used by anyone needing the popular vote to win office!

What I love seeing is everything negative being blamed on Bush surely one man cannot be everywhere causing havoc on everyone. Can you blame mis-management of say Enron, Martha Steward, USair and the many companies that expanded like crazy during Clinton and being forced to downsize now on Bush? I would say the same thing if we had a democrat for president. If I owned a company and made stupid mistakes that caused my company to fall could I possibly blame Bush for my mistakes? Our economy is a cycle it goes up and it goes down!

I belong to a 401K retirement plan. This is the first year I didn't lose money out of the last 6 years! Under Clinton I lost thousands of dollars, under Bush I have made money, is it Clinton's fault I lost and Bush's fault I gained? No its neither fault but the companies that ran their business into the ground! Its timing Clinton got elected at a good time and Bush came in at the down cycle.

I know under Bush my paycheck is higher now than under Clinton's. I make more money now then when Clinton was in office! Can I blame Clinton for my smaller paycheck's? Its not Clinton's fault I got raises in my pay the last 5 years.

This shit going on is the blame game! Who can we blame and have it stick to them! Isn't it time we place the blame were it belongs and not just were it looks good for an election!

All I see is if we have a democrat in office my taxes go up and my pay goes down. The democrats love to make up social programs and make me pay for them! I don't get any social programs because I work for a living. Its time we kick the lazy non-working people out and make them work and earn their keep. No one should be getting money for free to sit at home and watch talk shows al day while I am busting my ass working to provide for my family!

I live in Pennsylvania we have a democrat for governor who was elected recently I have seen the sin taxes go up! Cigrettes tax has doubled in the last year to fund malpratice insurance for our doctors. I have seen my income tax go up 30 % to fund social programs that we don't need! I have seen my medical insurance go up 27%! And to top it off we were the last state in the country to pass a budget 6 months late! Wouldn't it make more sense to cutback on un-needed programs when we have less money coming in instead of raising taxes which drive tax payers out of the state! Who's fault is that?

Naki I would love to hear how New Zealand runs their unemployment programs and their social programs? How does New Zealand run medical insurance? If New Zealand runs their government better I would be willing to move next door to you!

Every government has its weak points.but in comparison to the United States,I'd have to say that New Zealand's government is doing far,far better on social issues.Medical care is seen as a neccesary social service,not a commodity to be insured and paid for by the individal.Unemployment is not considered to be a conspiracy of lazy people,it's a fact of life brought about by financial considerations.But it is still much lower than yours.One of the biggest social costs,motor vehicle accidents,is funded entirely from a levy on vehicle registrations.If you own a car,you pay the same levy,regardless of income.Roading is paid for entirely from fuel taxes.The more you drive,the more you pay.The surplus gets spent on social programs.Smokers pay all of the costs of their habits through cigarette taxes.Seems fair to me.
The police force can still do their job without routinely pointing firearms at people.The traffic laws are pretty draconian,but the human cost of car ownership is coming down,even though the number of vehicle registrations is continuing to climb.

As I've said,no government is perfect.Ours is far too politically correct in terms of race relations,and gives far too much money to the social and cultural 'needs' of the Maori.Our armed forces participate well in international peacekeeping operations,but as a defence force,they would be of limited use.Given that we occupy a patch of land roughtly the same size as Britan,but have less than one-tenth the population,it's hardly surprising that we don't have the money to 'defend' against a non-existent enemy.
My final thought on New Zealand? When you weigh up the statistics,and talk to your friends,it's fairly obvious that you are reasonably safe from violent crime.The fact that I don't need to sleep with a baseball bat or a gun under the bed makes this a country worth living in.

this is not to argue who is a better president at all, but purely to say, who can honestly claim that we're better now than we were four years ago? 5.6% is not an improvement over 4.0%! what nerve that guy must've had to pull that stunt, and I bet most viewers didn't even notice his trick! :eek:
Who says the republicans aren't over a little deception to make the other party look bad? Sometimes it seems as though the reps are complaining that only lefties would lie to try and prove a point! :2cents:

What did Twain say, "Lies damned lies and statistics"

Employment rates can be manupulated to prove or disprve a point, exactly as you say.

I would just like to point out that economists consider (for some very good reasons) a 4% unemployment rate to be effective full employment.
Their point is that an economy with less than 4% unemployment is having a labour shortage, that is, overall, harmful to the economy and the labour pool is not being used at its peak of efficiency.

This shit going on is the blame game! Who can we blame and have it stick to them! Isn't it time we place the blame were it belongs and not just were it looks good for an election!

Actually I wasn't blaming anybody, a decrease of less than 2% in employment is not really, in anyway directly Bush Jr's fault - though I'm sure alot of people would like to have you believe it was that way. But I was fed up with, especially in these forums, the "everyone who criticizes bush is a democrat, and all democrats are America-hating liars" attitude. So I just wanted to show that the right side is certainly not above twisting and distorting the truth to get their points across.

Actually I wasn't blaming anybody, a decrease of less than 2% in employment is not really, in anyway directly Bush Jr's fault - though I'm sure alot of people would like to have you believe it was that way. But I was fed up with, especially in these forums, the "everyone who criticizes bush is a democrat, and all democrats are America-hating liars" attitude. So I just wanted to show that the right side is certainly not above twisting and distorting the truth to get their points across.


I wasn't trying to imply you are doing the blame game but it seems like whomever is in office gets blamed by the guy who lost that office. In elections one side blames the other side and the other side does the same thing back. I am not a democrat but a republican who would bash any elected offiical no matter what party they belong to! I am turning into an independent over time. I am getting tired of hearing he did this he did that by both sides they all need to grow up and take care of the people that got them into the office! Quit making promises that they cannot make or keep.

I agree with you about if you bash Bush you are labeled a democrat in this forum. But we are raised to pick sides and its either you are on my side or the enemy's side. Do you think any president republicn or democrat would sit there and state the truth if it was bad they will find a way to say it that sounds good for them. Is it really a lie if Bush stands up and states the unemployment rate has been lower in his term then in Clinton's term? You could also say that in Clinton's last 2 years in office the unemployment rate was lower than in Bush's first 2 years in office. It depends on how you look at the numbers both of my examples are correct and not a lie but both show 2 different things. Numbers are just numbers and can be changed depending on how you ask the questions. I rather see the numbers than the statements and decide for myself.

Don't forget that the goalposts have been shifted,so that anyone in part-time work or temporary work is no longer counted.If they used the same criteria for counting the 'unemployed' that they did back in Clinton's day,the Bush figures would look far worse.

Actually Taranaki, if you work one hour a week you were considered unemployed back in Clinton's day just as today. It has been that way for quite some time now in regards to figuring unmeployment precentages. Either you are thinking of another nation, or you are simply mistaken.

It is worth noting that if Japan figured their unemployment by the same measures that the U.S. do they would have an unemployment rate of about 20 percent (yep pretty high huh?). Also, nearly all of Europe has a higher unemployment rate than the U.S. with the EU's average coming in at right around ten percent. Folks, that sucks.

The U.S. is in pretty good shape regarding unemployment. A fluctuation within a couple of points is normal and to be expected. Also, for those who don't know...when an economy starts to rebound (as this one is) unemployment numbers virtually always rise noticeably. This is basic economics, but can anyone tell me why this is? (BTW, there is only one correct answer to this particular question)

I would be particularly pleased if Taranaki or Two Stroke knew the answer. :)