Posted on 09/02/2004 6:50:56 AM PDT by mnehring
There have been a lot of misleading stories on the unemployment numbers, but I just now have realized the worst of them all (I am sure others have caught this..)
Everyone is quoting the unemployment numbers going up for the past 4 years. Their folly is they are accounting the year 2000 into that equation. Bush was not sworn into office until 2001.
Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, not even accounting for household numbers and 1099s, if you remove the job losses from the equation, Bush has not lost any net jobs. It is only when you add in the last year of Clinton where you see a net job loss. The fault is all the press is talking about the last four years, hoping people dont realize that Bush has not been in office four years yet.
Then of course, if you look at the household survey and 1099 reporting, employment has actually improved under Bush but that is a whole other story
http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm
What do you all bet these numbers will never see press?
All of this in spite of 9-11, the war on terror, and a recession!
Hmn.
Hadn't noticed THAT!
Interesting. I never gave it a thought when the press trotted out those numbers. This needs repeating!
The problem is it take works to calculate the numbers based on the reports. How many of your average Dems can do that?
I'm ashamed to admit I didn't think of this. Can you break out the numbers? There's a few Dems i would like to show these figures.
Wow this is very interesting if true. I would love a break down of the numbers to have an understanding of this.
Establishment survey: cumulative change in nonfarm payrolls, January 2001 to July 2004: -1.169 million
Household survey: cumulative change in total employment, January 2001 to July 2004: +2.028 million
You know, I like that better. It is more cut and dry. It also reinforces the fact that there are a lot more small businesses being started and people being hired to these small businesses (IE, Tax Cuts work!)
Ok, but this same survey shows that during the malaise of the Carter administration the economy added about 9 million jobs between January 1977 and July of 1980. The growth rate was more than 10% from 80.7 million to 89.8 million.
Yesterday on http://www.dailyreckoning.com/
(This is his normal style of writing)
MOGAMBO GURU by Richard Daughty
Well, to be fair, this is news to somebody? How could they NOT have an expanding economy? Everybody is having an expanding economy! That is the whole freaking point of deficit spending and creating excess money and credit via the central banks! It expands economies! Nobody would ever suggest otherwise, and by "nobody" and "ever" I mean that there is not one instance of an idiot ever saying so, in the whole history of idiots, which is a probably a long, long line of really dumb people all genetically related to me somehow, and I am as surprised as you are about that! But, of course deficit-spending will energize an economy, you fool! Tons and tons of instantaneous spending will always energize an economy! And with globalization, when one economy is energized, it tends to leak out into all the other economies after a few iterations of the system.
Okay, that now we know about the worldwide explosive expansion of credit, all of which stem initially from Alan Greenspan and his Federal Reserve, and how it is a tonic for economies. It is usually at this exact point where I usually throw in some verrrryyyyy disrespectful and insulating remarks about either a) monetary policy, b) fiscal policy or c) something entirely unrelated ("Oh, look!" she says. " A puppy with a pretty ribbon tied around its neck!" and I say "Yeah, just like the Federal Reserve has tied a rope around our necks, and pretty soon you are going to see how much fun it will be to have your legs slowly eaten off by inflation in prices!")
But it always comes down, in the final analysis, to price. And price means money. And money means Federal Reserve. And Federal Reserve means Alan Greenspan. And Alan Greenspan means continuous Federal Reserve expansion of money and credit. And expansion of money and credit means expansion of the money supply into "surplus mode." And a money supply in "surplus mode" means all that money will eventually find a home in prices. And that means higher prices.
Say what??
Why shoudl Bush be blamed for job losses from January to August of 2001, prior to his economic and fiscal policies going into effect?
Take off the rose colored glasses.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186643/posts
Series Id: LNS13000000 |
|||||||||||||
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 | 5997 | 6072 | 6136 | 6274 | 6227 | 6481 | 6583 | 7057 | 7151 | 7723 | 8020 | 8291 | |
2002 | 8126 | 8184 | 8278 | 8578 | 8397 | 8384 | 8400 | 8335 | 8269 | 8363 | 8565 | 8698 | |
2003 | 8428 | 8581 | 8519 | 8799 | 8957 | 9245 | 9048 | 8929 | 8966 | 8797 | 8653 | 8398 | |
2004 | 8297 | 8170 | 8352 | 8164 | 8203 | 8248 | 8196 |
Series Id: LNU03000000 |
|||||||||||||
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 | 6647 | 6523 | 6509 | 6004 | 5901 | 6816 | 6858 | 7017 | 6766 | 7175 | 7617 | 7773 | 6801 |
2002 | 9051 | 8823 | 8776 | 8255 | 7969 | 8758 | 8693 | 8271 | 7790 | 7769 | 8170 | 8209 | 8378 |
2003 | 9395 | 9260 | 9018 | 8501 | 8500 | 9649 | 9319 | 8830 | 8436 | 8169 | 8269 | 7945 | 8774 |
2004 | 9144 | 8770 | 8834 | 7837 | 7792 | 8616 | 8518 |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.