The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 11:25:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin?  (Read 5199 times)
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
« on: October 04, 2004, 10:38:03 PM »

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.



The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2004, 10:46:16 PM »

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.



The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

Clinton rode the tech bubble until it burst his last year.  He had no clue what to do then, but did not care either since he was going out.

You want a good economy all around?  Get a moderate President and a conservative congress.  You want one with potential explosive growth but with plenty of pitfalls along the way?  All conservative.  You want to ruin your economy, possibly for a very, very long time?  All liberal.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2004, 11:05:45 PM »

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.



The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

Clinton rode the tech bubble until it burst his last year.  He had no clue what to do then, but did not care either since he was going out.

You want a good economy all around?  Get a moderate President and a conservative congress.  You want one with potential explosive growth but with plenty of pitfalls along the way?  All conservative.  You want to ruin your economy, possibly for a very, very long time?  All liberal.

Clinton created 11 million jobs in his first term with no tech bubble. Every Democratic President for 80 years has had jobs created at a faster rate than every Republican President for 80 years. I don't think that's a coincidence. The amount of months spent per year in recession are less the more control the Democratic Party has, and are the worst when the GOP controls everything. Except for a 6 month recession under Carter, not 1 recession has started under a Democratic President since 1947.

What condition was the economy in within 6 months of the end of every democratic White House?  Seriously, look it up.  Since the Great Depression the democrats have letft the economy in dire straits for the Republican who replaces them.

Republicans win when the economy is screwed and fix it.  When the econnnomy is good again, the democrats come in, ride the good times and ruin it for the next Republican to fix.  It's practically the business cycle.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.