[KMAJ2]

Let's look at the simple facts.

President Bush's first budget was not enacted until November of 2001. Until that point we were operating under a Clinton budget.

Yet, we allow the democrats to hang their hat on the distortional claim of "since Bush took office".

Here are the real statistics:

The high point of employment: January of 2001 - 137,846,000

Employment figure when Bush's first budget was enacted: November of 2001 - 136,218,000

The latest employment figure: July 0f 2003 - 137,478,000

The conclusion to be drawn is that the majority of jobs lost occurred under a Clinton budget. To be fair, we have to include the effect of 9/11: September of 2001 - 136,858,000

The downturn from 9/11 bottomed in January 2002: January of 2002 - 135,791,000

It can be fairly concluded that under a Clinton budget and recession that just under 1,000,000 jobs were lost between January and prior to 9/11.

The economic effects of 9/11 can be credited for the majority of just over 1,000,000 jobs lost between September of 2001 and January of 2002 - 640,000 under the Clinton budget (September to November) and 430,000 under the Bush budget (November to January).

Since January of 2002, Bush's economic policies have resulted in 1,687,000 new jobs / more people employed and only 370,000 jobs short of the high water mark of January 2001.

My question is how long will this democrat distortion be allowed to be perpetrated ?

P.S. This is my first original post, so forgive me for any mistakes made in this presentation

[marlon]

My answer as long as NY Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, LA Times, Wash Post, etc., etc., etc., can get away with it.

[Chi-townChief]

Welcome aboard - Most people don't want to think about it that deeply.

[AdamSelene235]

This stuff all started back in 95, when Klintoon needed to be re-elected.

Bush's three big mistakes have been:

Reappointing Greenspan.

Expanding the welfare state.

Ignoring the GSE situation.

But we haven't gotten the bill for those yet.

Don't worry, we will.

[KMAJ2]

I apologize the link to bureau of labor statistics did not work.

Here is the url: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

Checkmark the box for: Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted)

Then scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.

[Iris7]

Politics is done on the mythic level, the level Mark Twain called something like "what people believe that ain't so."

The actual truth of the matter is that the current "economic malaise" is caused by malinvestment during the time of the "internet bubble." Examination of the economic time series shows that the bubble could have been successfully avoided with least pain if correct action had been taken in 1992 or maybe 1993. The later action is taken the worse the results will be. Action has not been taken yet, at this time.

As far as politics goes, politics is not rational action. Each side simply keep up a drumbeat of the lies popular with their constituents. Politics is more of a celebration of "us" than an examination of the facts.

[familyofman]

"The high point of employment: January of 2001 - 137,846,000

Employment figure when Bush's first budget was enacted: November of 2001 - 136,218,000

The latest employment figure: July 0f 2003 - 137,478,000 "

Why pick the date of first budget, does that mean that nothing Bush did in his first 10 months in office had any meaning? This seems to be an attempt at what you are decrying - manipulation of data to fit your purpose. The date of innauguration I think is a lot easier to relate to & is generally viewed as the date from which measurements are taken. If not, why are so many people interested in a POTUS first 100 days in office?

[Willie Green]

My question is how long will this democrat distortion be allowed to be perpetrated ?

With the benefit of a GOP controlled Congress, the economy is sqarely on Dubya's shoulders.
Klintoon was an arsehole, but it's time to quit using him as a scapegoat.
If Dubya wants to claim he's a "conservative", it's time that he start taking responsibility for his own inept bungling instead of passing the buck.

[theDentist]

The point still remians, there are highly-trained people who have been out of work for well over a year, and no jobs on the horizon. And those who have jobs are at MacDonalds, or pushing brooms at home depot.

[big bad easter bunny]

Looks like the dems got to your statistics, they must be lurking for trouble?

[familyofman]

"Since January of 2002, Bush's economic policies have resulted in 1,687,000 new jobs / more people employed and only 370,000 jobs short of the high water mark of January 2001. "

The Civilian Labor Force 1/2002 = 143,826,000, labor force 7/2003 = 146,540,000; resulting in an increase of 2,714,000 more people in the workforce.
Unemployed on 1/2002 = 8,035,000, on 7/2003 = 9,062,000; an increase in the unemployed = 1,027,000!!!!!

The above numbers also come from the BLI website. If you want to use selective numbers, don't complain about others doing the same. GWB does not have a good record to run on when it comes to employment - only the hope that things get better.

[Lancey Howard]

ping

(This looks like it may be down your alley.)