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

Mensnewsdaily.com ^ | 19 March 2005 | Jimmy Moore

[dodger]

DO TELL WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN YOUR INCHOATE POINT IN THAT (& WE LIKE YOUR NAME TOO, 'YOUR NIGHTMARE') ...

YOU SAY: And you didn't address my point. Am I to assume you can't? You have an appropriate nickname.

I SAID: ... 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?

YOU SAID: ... That's why we use the unemployment rate to gage what the employment situation is in the country.

I SAID: 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??

[dodger]

PS: I have not said that you 'endorsed the Dems wingeing about Bush', but merely raise the question. Indeed, your 'point' -- such as it barely is discernable as a point -- has been previously flushed by yours truly down the porcelain stool as dispensable donkey-wipery ....

Moreover if you must at all, please do respond with a relevant comment lest you be confirmed an apologist for the Botox Queen hisself and, further thereby, do yourself tell why you would yelp as if MORE JOBS and the SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE with W & Beelzebubba is a bad thing.

Assuming both the insincereity and inconsequence of your further hypnopompic replies,

TTFN ...

[Texasforever]

5 to 6% was always the "structural" employment figures I have seen cited. 4% is and was used as a sign of "overheating" and generally resulted in higher interest rates because of inflationary pressure.

[dodger]

& FINALLY, MY DEAR PHANTASM de NOCTUS, IT IS -- REALLY -- YOU WHO HAS THE MORE APT NICKNAME (NOT THAT I WOULD 'GAGE' [sic] SUCH ...).

TTFFN,

[Texasforever]

I think you may be, out of ignorance or willful omission, failing to include in your assesment about the jump from 4.3% to 7.2% unemployment the dynamics that caused that jump from the mid to late 90's and Bush taking office. The recession had only a small effect on the actual number of jobs lost.

[Your Nightmare]

I'm not sure what jump from 4.3% to 7.2% you are talking about.

[Your Nightmare]

Now, do tell why you would yelp as if MORE JOBS and the SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE with W & Beelzebubba is a bad thing.

As I was trying to explain, MORE JOBS is a really bad way to gage a job market. Due to the expansion of the workforce there are always MORE JOBS. Again, every president in modern history has had a record number of jobs during his term(s). It is really nothing to brag about. It's a natural process.

On the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, 5.6% rising from 4.2% is not as good as 5.6% falling from 7.3%.


BTW, "gage" is a correct spelling. It can be spelled "gage" or "gauge." Check your dictionary, if you have one.

[dodger]

You really seem obtuse. This is not about 'bragging' and I well appreciate the utility of statistical trends but that is not the point initial point made. Rather it was to emphasize the use of two standards for comparison that disadvantages the President -- something you ignore as conveniently as you do persistently.

Please explain whether you think the DemoKerrys should get a lamestream pass for using an absolute number of jobs "lost" whilst Bush is bashed for an economy with the same percentile unemployed AND absolutely more jobs than Clinton (especially as it rose to 7.3% early under Bubba)?

Finally, per the OED 'gage' is not synonymous with 'gauge'. It really is ta ta for good but you may have your last whine if you wish, Beavis.

[Your Nightmare]

Finally, per the OED 'gage' is not synonymous with 'gauge'.

That's interesting. I just accessed the OED Online and below is the definition for gauge, gage.

gauge, gage, v.¹

    1. trans. To measure or measure off (a length or quantity). Obs. rare.

    2. To ascertain by exact measurement the dimensions, proportions, or amount of; applied spec. to the measurement of objects of standard size (e.g. wire, bolts); also to the measurement of fluctuating quantities such as rainfall and intensity of wind. In non-technical use, the commonest application is to the measurement of the depth of a liquid content.

    b. to gauge a ship (see quot.). Obs.

    3. To ascertain the capacity or content of (a cask or similar vessel) by combined measurement and calculation (usually performed by the instrument called a gauging-rod).

    b. humorously.

    4. fig.; esp. to ‘take the measure’ of (a person, his character, etc.).

    5. To render conformable to a given standard of measurement or dimensions; also to gauge up. Hence fig. to set bounds to, to limit.

    b. spec. To cut or rub (bricks or stones) accurately to a uniform size.

    6. To mark off or set out (a measurement or measured distance).

    7. Plastering. To mix (plaster) in the right proportions for drying rapidly or otherwise.

    8. Dressmaking. To draw up in a series of parallel gatherings.