Bush's Unemployment Rate Nearly Identical to Clinton's Reelection Bid in 1996

Mensnewsdaily.com ^ | 19 March 2005 | Jimmy Moore

[shrinkermd]

For comparison to the lamestream media now and in 1996 look at how CNN reported 5.6% unemployment in 1996 by going here: http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/ and reading CNN Interactive.

[EggsAckley]

Clinton did not have a "911" to contend with. I for one am very impressed by the come-back of our nation.

[Seth1]

That is funny, but did you also see where Clinton's opponent in 96, Bob Dole, wasn't impressed with the numbers?

Dole camp unimpressed Despite the fact that the United States is now in the third-longest peace-time expansion in history, the campaign staff of Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole said the jobs numbers probably would not help Clinton's campaign that much.

Republicans say a slow-growth economy has made workers anxious, and 20 percent of new jobs have gone to people taking a second job to pay their bills.

So who was right in 96? Was 5.6 good or not?

[KJacob]

Maybe someone who is good at that sort of thing could find out what top economists were predicting after 9/11. If I remember correctly no one even hoped that the economy would be this good after only 2 1/2 years. I seem to recall dire predictions.

[dodger]

Interestingly, the number of Americans in the workforce has now reached a record-shattering 138.5 million, the most ever in the history of the U.S.

Hmmmm, it is remarkable how little this -- historical record jobs in the USA under W -- has been mentioned amid all the 'negative, hostile, nasty' DemoKerry snarls about 'record job losses'. Perhaps the White House could urge this on to all its friends in the lamestream press ....

[dodger]

Interestingly, the number of Americans in the workforce has now reached a record-shattering 138.5 million, the most ever in the history of the U.S.

Hmmmm, it is remarkable how little this -- historical record jobs in the USA under W -- has been mentioned amid all the 'negative, hostile, nasty' DemoKerry snarls about 'record job losses'. Perhaps the White House could urge this on to all its friends in the lamestream press ....

[Your Nightmare]

I guess 5.6% seems a lot better if you start with 7.3% than if you start with 4.2%.

[Your Nightmare]

I wouldn't really classify 138.5 million as "record shattering" when there were 137.8 million when he took office. That's only a net increase of 776,000. For comparison, during the same period of their presidencies, Clinton had 6 million, Bush I had 1.27 million, and Reagan had 3.2 million.

BTW, that 138.5 million of Bush's is now 138.3.

[expat_panama]

comparison to the lamestream media now and in 1996 look at how CNN reported 5.6% unemployment in 1996...

The fact that bush-bashers have decided that 5.6 in '96 is lower than 5.6 now, is not surprising.   The number of people working doesn't matter to a Kerry or Buchanan fan.  Likewise, it won't matter how many people are out of work if they get their way.

The part I can't figure out is why they stop at saying 3 million jobs are lost.  Why don't they say 30 million, or 300 million?

[FreeReign]

I wouldn't really classify 138.5 million as "record shattering" when there were 137.8 million when he took office.

Household survey says about 136.9 million jobs when he took office. Not the figure you gave.

[FreeReign]

I wouldn't really classify 138.5 million as "record shattering" when there were 137.8 million when he took office.

Household survey says about 136.9 million jobs when he took office. Not the figure you gave.

[Political Junkie Too]

I guess 5.6% seems a lot better if you start with 7.3% than if you start with 4.2%.

But what is the theoritical (natural) minimum? Isn't it around 3.5%? Wouldn't that then make 4.2% extremely low and hard to sustain?

-PJ

[BlackRazor]

I guess 5.6% seems a lot better if you start with 7.3% than if you start with 4.2%.

Exactly! That's the context behind the numbers that always seems to get left out for some reason. Clinton had no problem claiming a growing job base because the long-term numbers supported him. Bush will have a tougher job than Clinton did, even though the absolute unemployment number is the same now as it was in '96. Though unemployment has been coming down for the past few months, the Democrats are going to make the comparison to the 2000 numbers, when Bush took office. Whichever side makes the more compelling argument (Dems-long term decline vs. GOP-short term improvement & turning around) probably wins the election.

[dodger]

I wouldn't really classify 138.5 million as "record shattering" when there were 137.8 million when he took office.

Nice try, but it seems 138.5M is record employment even if 'shattery' is rather subjective.

Now, do tell why you would yelp as if MORE JOBS and the SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE with W & Beelzebubba is a bad thing. Do you wish to cover for the DemoKerrys whilst they screech about 'record job losses'?

What's Your NIGHTMARISH angle??

[Enduring Freedom]

Sluggish Economy.

Bad Economic News.

Recession.

Poor Economy.

...

Things heard on Liberal Media during Republican administrations, contrary to facts.

[expat_panama]

And don't forget "jobless-recovery".

I keep thinking that we're beginning to see a shift from employment to inflation as the proof of miserable failure. But now it seems that even when employment goes below 5 percent and the expansion slows because of a labor shortage, the bush-bashers will still be belly-aching for more welfare and protection.

The craving for government assistance has no limits.

[Your Nightmare]

I used the seasonally adjusted Employment Level data from the BLS. I used this data because it matched the 138.5 million the article used. What numbers are you using? And what do your numbers say was the employment level in Jan 2001 and current?

Series Id:           LNS12000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status:  Employed Type of data:        Number in thousands Age:                 16 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1992	117978	117753	118144	118426	118375	118419	118713	118826	118720	118628	118876	118997
1993	119075	119275	119542	119474	120115	120290	120467	120856	120554	120823	121169	121464
1994	121966	122086	121930	122290	122864	122634	122706	123342	123687	124112	124516	124721
1995	124663	124928	124955	124945	124421	124522	124816	124852	125133	125388	125188	125088
1996	125125	125639	125862	125994	126244	126602	126947	127172	127536	127890	127771	127860
1997	128298	128298	128891	129143	129464	129412	129822	130010	130019	130179	130653	130679
1998	130726	130807	130814	131209	131325	131244	131329	131390	131986	131999	132280	132602
1999	133027	132856	132947	132955	133311	133378	133414	133591	133707	133993	134309	134523
2000	136561(1)	136599	136668	137264	136611	136923	136516	136701	136908	137124	137316	137632
2001	137790	137581	137738	137275	137063	136842	137091	136314	136869	136447	136234	136078
2002	135715	136362	136106	136096	136505	136353	136478	136811	137337	137079	136545	136459
2003	137447(1)	137318	137300	137578	137505	137673	137604	137693	137644	138095	138533	138479
2004	138566(1)	138301
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000, January 2003 and January 2004.

[Your Nightmare]

You do understand about the expansion of the workforce, right? There hasn't be a president in the last 50 years that hasn't "shattered" records for employment levels. It's a given that every president will have more people employed under his presidency. That's why we use the unemployment rate to gage what the employment situation is in the country.

[dodger]

Another nice try.

Yes, I do understand what are properly called secular trends in the work force and, more critically, their statistical foundations. However, you would do well to lecture the DemoKerrys as to their fetish for claiming 'record job losses under Bush' in that they refer to absolute numbers rather than rates. Yet you seem to endorse their wingeing him by one standard and absolving themselves by another -- more liberal, of course -- standard.

You do understand about comparing 'apples to apples', right?

[Your Nightmare]

You're going to have to point out where I endorsed the Dems "wingeing" Bush by one standard and absolving themselves by another.

And you didn't address my point. Am I to assume you can't?

You have an appropriate nickname.