The U.S. economy; years 2000 and 2008

[reaganator]

During the economic slowdown of 2000 the media was not blaring about the "failing economy" as it is now during this Presidential election year. Currently 95% employment, even with the recent 600,000 graduates entering the workforce the unemployment rate only rose .05%.

Anyone else that remembers the 2000 economic slowdown notice this difference?

[syriacus]

Democrats got THEIR “change” in Election 2006. Are WE better off now?

[RexBeach]

In the last ten months of Mr. Clinton’s presidency, the NASDAQ went down by 40%.

[norraad]

..yet, NASCARS doin' good.

[reaganator]

Economic numbers had to be amended after the corrupt CEO left office. Bob Novak had suggested the economic numbers were manipulated by the corrupt administration during the year 2000 so that the failing economy would not be evident and hamper VP Gore’s election.

[Uncle Ike]

In 1999, with national unemployment rates also hovering around 5.5%, it was a common sight in Albuquerque to see fast-food restaurants putting “Help Wanted” signs on their marquees, advertising starting wages up to $9/hr...

This year, there is no such labor shortage and attendant wage pressure....

I have yet to see a cogent explanation as to why 5.5% then is so qualitatively different from 5.5% now.....

[bolobaby]

Here - I’ll explain it to you in liberal terms:

George Bush! *sputter* Oil buddies! Spotted owls! *gasp, wheeze* GEORGE BUSH! Gitmo! (Hey, don’t bogart the reefer.) Global warming, global warming, global warming. It will take one hundred years to undo the damage of GEORGE BUSH! *drool, sputter* Selected, not elected! PROTEST!

There. I think that covers it.

[ken21]

that’s right!

the media did not want to embarrass bill or hilary,

even tho’ the downturn started during the clinton admin.

[expat_panama]

why 5.5% then is so qualitatively different from 5.5% now.....

--which is why the dem press won't compare actual unemployment numbers.

Something else they won't compare are the gdp numbers.  The fact is that back during the end of the Clinton economic miracle (that Bush was supposedly 'talking down'), we'd actually had falling growth yr/yr plus a contracting economy --negative gdp change.   This time it's increasing yr/yr growth and all quarters show an expansion and that's supposed to be a "technical recession"?

Jeesh!

[NavyCanDo]

And if you think the airline industry is hurting today because of the cost of fuel, we should look back at 2000 and 2001. Rising fuel and terminal cost, Bankruptcy's,postponed aircraft orders, fewer passengers all spelled trouble for the airline industry and the aircraft builders even before 9/11. Remember all four of the 9/11 aircraft were flying less than 50% full. At least today they are full, in fact many flights are overbooked.

[cake_crumb]

I point it out frequently. There are alleged “conservatives” who agree the entire economy is in the toilet.

[reaganator]

Let me throw something else out there.

In order to create a paper, projected federal budget surplus the Clinton Administration dramatically defunded the military and intelligence agencies.

Were there consequences to this?

When the Bush Administration had to adequately refund the military and intelligence agencies this was caled “squandering the budget surplus”.

[reaganator]

In the toilet at 95% employment?

Just think if the oil companies were allowed to adequately supply the economy with the product at a reasonable price.

The economy is like a car’s engine, if you diminish the fuel supply (oil) the engine will sputter and slowdown. If you hamper the emissions, potato on the tail pipe, (manmade climate change hoax restrictions) you kill it. Which defunds the military and intelligence agencies.

Someone explain to me how the United States is not currently under socialist/communist attack.

[cake_crumb]

Hmm, this isn't entirely off topic. This is another petition about domestic drilling: Drill here, drill now, pay less

[NC28203]

>>>In 1999, with national unemployment rates also hovering around 5.5%,....I have yet to see a cogent explanation as to why 5.5% then is so qualitatively different from 5.5% now.....

Perhaps, two reasons. In 1999, the unemployment rate was not 5.5%, but averaged about 4.2%. Second, the rate fell throughout the year while the current rate is increasing.
http://www.bls.gov/data/

[A message]

Of course, with a sitting Democrat President any economic slowdown was just something that should not be noticed, Remember the “talking the economy down” mantra the media played against Bush and Cheney.

But alas with a sitting Republican President there are just not enough newspapers and media outlets to publish the stories of despair and hopelessness.

Also watch the return of every freeway entrance populated by the “homeless", holding their signs and large soda or large bottled water and their back pack nearby like it is a job. They only are “homeless” during a Presidential election involving a sitting Republican administration and they will disappear after the first Tuesday in November. I wonder how much the local DNC chapters pay their “operation hopeless” warriors.

[SunkenCiv]

Jewish Whispering Campaign (Obama’s treatment of Lieberman)
National Review Online | 10 June 2008 | Mark Hemingway
Posted on 06/10/2008 8:20:51 AM PDT by SE Mom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028859/posts

Anatomy of an Obama Hit Job(on Lieberman)
NRO
Posted on 06/10/2008 8:22:36 AM PDT by wsjreader
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028862/posts