Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on September 13, 2004, 10:19:50 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/business/yourmoney/12view.html?ei=5006&en=662be44cd0308d8f&ex=1095652800&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=
For instance, they said, the unemployment rate in the Clinton administration averaged 5.2 percent, only three-tenths of a percentage point less than it has under George W. Bush. But while 44 percent of Mr. Clinton's headlines on unemployment were positive, only 23 percent of President Bush's headlines on the subject have been upbeat.
-------------------------------------------------------
CNN article from 1996
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/
--------------------------------------------------------
The Economy -
GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease
Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change
* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.
Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.
Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease
* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton.
In July 1996, Unemployment Rate Rose From 5.3% To 5.5%. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, Accessed 8/7/04)
In July 2004, Unemployment Rate Fell From 5.6% To 5.5%. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, Accessed 8/7/04)
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/407_1095085300_unemploymentchart.doc.jpg)
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
I'll go ahead and answer for our board democrats since they'll avoid this thread like the plague.(exception: drive-by's ^^)
The "Media" then, probably is not the same personal that does that specific job today. ;) ;)
-
Off topic
-
Can we stop the Purple Hijack of the thread.
Thread has been viewed 58 times and all we get is Purple helmet warrior post.
geeesh.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Can we stop the Purple Hijack of the thread.
Well, in his defense, we won't lure any democrats into a thread that has facts based upon data that they cannot argue other than the atypical responses like "Well, my brother doesn't have a job yet!".
SO maybe alittle thread diversity is what we need to get them to discuss this wonderful economy we've been experiencing and that they've evidently chosen to ignore?
:eek:
-
What about learning Statistic ?
You're all managers or what ?
Exemple (picked randomly) :
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well, in his defense, we won't lure any democrats into a thread that has facts based upon data that they cannot argue other than the atypical responses like "Well, my brother doesn't have a job yet!".
SO maybe alittle thread diversity is what we need to get them to discuss this wonderful economy we've been experiencing and that they've evidently chosen to ignore?
:eek:
You are right about it being ignored, You mention the economy anywhere near MT and others and all you get is "Clinton's longest running Eco growth in history" rant.
-
Originally posted by straffo
What about learning Statistic ?
You're all managers or what ?
Exemple (picked randomly) :
You left out something.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
-
That's not +1.1% and that's not +0.7% either.
-
Fact is, for the most part, you picked the first three years of both in office to compare.
Problem with that, is that those years were inherited by the previous person in office.
What were the last years of Clinton in office like when compared to Bush #2?
What were the first years of Clinton in office like when compared to the last years of Bush #1 in office?
What were the first year(s) of Bush #1 in office compared to Reagan's last year(s)?
etc.
Statistics can be played any way you want, this thread is a great example of that.
Oh, and pre-emptive typical battle cry of "handsomehunkcrat"- I am no democrat.
-SW
-
Add to that the incredible incapacity the average journalist can show when there's basic math. to do.
-
The economy tanked in Clinton's last year. Certainly the tech stock market bubble that was driving the great late 1990s economy burst during the last year of Clinton..
That and 911 is why the economy sufferes and why the job situation is not what we remember in the late 1990s.
To be honest the tech bubble economy was ridiculous and unsupportable, especially the wages. Kids straight out of school with mininimal experience were getting 80K base salaries or more here in the late 1990s - that was simply nuts and there was no way they produced so much value to earn that kind of pay..
And lets not even talk aboput the stock market, there were times when I was making $500+ per day on my small investements when I was just 18 or 19 and didnt know anything.. Just nutz, it was fun, but nutz...
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Fact is, for the most part, you picked the first three years of both in office to compare.
Problem with that, is that those years were inherited by the previous person in office.
What were the last years of Clinton in office like when compared to Bush #2?
What were the first years of Clinton in office like when compared to the last years of Bush #1 in office?
What were the first year(s) of Bush #1 in office compared to Reagan's last year(s)?
etc.
Statistics can be played any way you want, this thread is a great example of that.
Oh, and pre-emptive typical battle cry of "handsomehunkcrat"- I am no democrat.
-SW
But as the link points out, as well as the subject of the thread why did the press play Clinton's reign as "a great ecomony" while Bush's gets meager positive press?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
But as the link points out, as well as the subject of the thread why did the press play Clinton's reign as "a great ecomony" while Bush's gets meager positive press?
'
because the evil newspapers are evilly liberally biased!!!111oneoneone
-
Why did you quote my post? Seems a little bit much.
Reason they hyped Clinton was because of the techno-bubble that blew up during Clinton's time in office. So many new businesses (as opposed to job openings) were popping up. It was happening so fast, as Grun points out, kids right out of college were being swallowed up and being paid wages atleast twice - if not three times - as much as the same job pays now with the same education.
It was a great time, but Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just the same as Bush has little to do with the current economy.
Of course, I don't like this game of "my president is better" - I was just pointing out the obvious flaws in the use of the statistics. So with what I said above, enjoy the "RAH RAH, GOOOO TEAM!" that is already in progress.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It was a great time, but Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just the same as Bush has little to do with the current economy.
-SW
Why didn't you quote my post? Im not sure if you're replying to me or not...
So tax cuts did nothing for the economy? (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040721/greenspan_12.html) Is that your speculation? Or do you just choose to be ignorant of chief economists like Greenspan?
-
Lets compare National Debt then and now.
Then, lets compare National Deficit then and now.
Are we now more reliant or less reliant on foreign investment than before?
Is it possible to compare the number of peoples that made up the 'work force' in the Clinton/Bush2 years? Is it true that if you are not out actively searching for a job or not registered with your local employment programs that you're left out of the overall unemployment statistic?
Also, what impact does the redesignation of the food service industry and the like play into these numbers?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Lets compare National Debt then and now.
Then, lets compare National Deficit then and now.
Are we now more reliant or less reliant on foreign investment than before?
Is it possible to compare the number of peoples that made up the 'work force' in the Clinton/Bush2 years? Is it true that if you are not out actively searching for a job or not registered with your local employment programs that you're left out of the overall unemployment statistic?
Also, what impact does the redesignation of the food service industry and the like play into these numbers?
Why not start a thread on that, instead of hijacking this one? This thread is about media bias related to the economy.
Oh and...I'd better add the skuzzy thing...
Off topic.
Editted by Skuzzy[/size]
-
It wasn't a tax cut, it was a tax refund.
No, I do not believe that is the reason for the economy and employment rate going on the upswing. Things such as increased security measures (more man power required), new government departments and reorganization of prior government departments (Secret Service went on a recruiting binge due to most of their Uniformed Officers going into the DHS), increased need for logistical assistance via private corporations, increased need for consulting via private corporations - both corporations have their underlying support staff from IT people to janitors. etc.
Thats what got the economy moving.
Oh, nice edit - maybe I'll go search for something to make my point while you are reading this and then replying, then put it in. You are so predictable, I was wondering where your link was.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It wasn't a tax cut, it was a tax refund.
No, I do not believe that is the reason for the economy and employment rate going on the upswing. Things such as increased security measures (more man power required), new government departments and reorganization of prior government departments (Secret Service went on a recruiting binge due to most of their Uniformed Officers going into the DHS), increased need for logistical assistance via private corporations, increased need for consulting via private corporations - both corporations have their underlying support staff from IT people to janitors. etc.
Thats what got the economy moving.
Oh, nice edit - maybe I'll go search for something to make my point while you are reading this and then replying, then put it in. You are so predictable, I was wondering where your link was.
-SW
Obviously you're a victim of the DC school districts.
Tax CUT is when it is issued.
Tax REFUND is when you receive it.
It helped a struggling economy, whether you deny it or not. No one said it was the SOLE reason for recovery.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Lets compare National Debt then and now.
Then, lets compare National Deficit then and now.
Are we now more reliant or less reliant on foreign investment than before?
Is it possible to compare the number of peoples that made up the 'work force' in the Clinton/Bush2 years? Is it true that if you are not out actively searching for a job or not registered with your local employment programs that you're left out of the overall unemployment statistic?
Also, what impact does the redesignation of the food service industry and the like play into these numbers?
First the only true measure of dept and spending and all things money in the government is to adjust for inflation. You never measure as whole dollars, bad Economics.
You do this by comparing it to the GDP of that year. Just like you would find the common denominator in algebra.
The History of Government has shown that all recession are followed by debt of 5%. This is because as a recession happens there are jobs lost therefore lose revenue. The government must pick up the slack and therefore spend more then it takes in.
The “RECORD” defect that Kerry and the media like to quote is BS at best. It stands at 3.6% of the GDP. The “record” was set at the end of WWII at 38.9% GDP. The historical average is about 5% for the past 30 years.
Foreign investment, we have a huge amount of foreign investment, because we have the freest markets with the lowest taxes on the gains of those investments.
The population has grown since 1996, I’m sure a quick look at he censure numbers would show you that more people have entered, legally/illegally, the US then we have lost in jobs.
Now back to the topic, Why is this betrayed as a bad economy.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why not start a thread on that, instead of hijacking this one? This thread is about media bias related to the economy.
Oh and...I'd better add the skuzzy thing...
Off topic.
Editted by Skuzzy[/size]
National Debt and Deficit, IMO, would have a very heavy voice in a 'great' economy or a 'meager' economy. I believe my post was very much on topic.
After you post:
Why didn't you quote my post? Im not sure if you're replying to me or not... So tax cuts did nothing for the economy? Is that your speculation? Or do you just choose to be ignorant of chief economists like Greenspan?
Do you really find it necessary to attempt Skuzzy's job and lecture about off-topic post? ppppplease!!
This thread is home to my very first Skuzzy edited post since the new rules.. 8)
-
A tax cut is when the government reduces the tax rate, they only gave back money - didn't reduce the tax rate.
Just because I lived in DC does not mean I went to a DC school, maybe you should look to see just how small DC is and how accessible MD and VA are by public transportation.
You only use Greenspan as your support because he agrees with you. See, I just found a link that agreed with me: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=as5MNXx4cs94&refer=us
Government official, or independent market analysts - I know who I trust more.
It isn't just me that doesn't agree with it, but of course you don't bother to research the half you don't want to see.
-SW
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
National Debt and Deficit, IMO, would have a very heavy voice in a 'great' economy or a 'meager' economy. I believe my post was very much on topic.
Well if you insist on bringing it into this topic, both candidates running for the presidency promise to spend even larger amounts of money by expanding existing entitlements and creating new ones. Corporate debt has hardly budged over the last four years despite a bear market in equity. Companies have used historically low interest rates to add additional debt to the balance sheet. Households are also loaded to the gills with debt, chiefly in the form of mortgages, home equity loans, and credit card debts.
So what else is new? We haven't spent Gov't monies "within our budgets" since 1969.
-
The US Govt. has effectively barrowed $100 billion from the Communist Chinese to help finance the tax cuts.
-
I also find it funny that you immediately presumed I didn't think the tax breaks had any effect on the economy. I clearly said:
"It was a great time, but Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just the same as Bush has little to do with the current economy."
I didn't say, "nothing." But, like always, you read what you want to read and then go on an offensive posting links that agree with you and ignoring links that don't.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
A tax cut is when the government reduces the tax rate, they only gave back money - didn't reduce the tax rate.
-SW
Ah, I see. You only looked at a certain section of the tax cut.
Here is the rest for you. Its good to be informed. You're welcome in advance!
~Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule);
~Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
~Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples;
~Reducing the death tax;
~Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemizers; and
Making the Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permanent.
-
Okay, I was wrong about the definition of what the Bush tax relief was.
Still googling to attempt to prove the rest of what I said wrong?
-SW