Re: Bush, The WORST President in History ?

[HubCity]

thelizman > wrote in
:

>
> Less than a few hundred thousand Americans have lost their job, and
> they'll find one soon enough.
>

That is wrong.

By July 2003 there were 2.6 million fewer jobs in the US now than when Bush
took office. That has improved - there are now just over 2 million fewer
jobs.

Bush has seven months to pull a Reagan - who actually lost more jobs than
Bush, but managed to get them all back.

You may have been misled by a statistic that states that there are less
than a few hundred thousand Americans who've lost their jobs and are still
on unemployment, e.g. "looking for work". Those are the numbers the White
House reports.

Citations: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=101

And if you don't like to read things that don't support Bush, don't worry -
the article is actually critical of a Kerry speech that compared the job
loss under Bush to that experienced under Hoover. It's not as bad as that.

But it ain't a "few hundred thousand".

-HubCity

[thelizman]

HubCity wrote:
> thelizman > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Less than a few hundred thousand Americans have lost their job, and
>>they'll find one soon enough.
>>
>
>
> That is wrong.
>
> By July 2003 there were 2.6 million fewer jobs in the US now than when Bush
> took office. That has improved - there are now just over 2 million fewer
> jobs.

Wrong. By July 2003 there was a gross closure of 2.6 million jobs, and a
gross opening of 2.3 million jobs, leaving .3 million positions vacant.
However, that means nothing - people enter and leave the workforce all
the time, and labor markets do not count a number of jobs. Thats why
people don't look at job numbers, they look at jobless claims and
unemployment - or more to the point underemployment. The unemployment
rate is at very low 5.6% - lower than even Clinton ever managed.


The bottom line is you can't argue with facts - employment grew under
Bush because more jobs were created than lost:

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

> Bush has seven months to pull a Reagan - who actually lost more jobs than
> Bush, but managed to get them all back.
>

Change in Payroll Employment:
+308,000(p) in Mar 2004

Change in Average Hourly Earnings:
+$0.02(p) in Mar 2004

Change in Average Weekly Hours:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004

Change in Manufacturing Average Weekly Hours:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004

Change in Aggregate Hours Index:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004

Change in Real Earnings:
-$0.03(p) in Mar 2004

Sounds like the Reagan was already pulled off.


> You may have been misled by a statistic that states that there are less
> than a few hundred thousand Americans who've lost their jobs and are still
> on unemployment, e.g. "looking for work". Those are the numbers the White
> House reports.
>
>
> But it ain't a "few hundred thousand".

You're clueless if you think that jobless claims have anything to do
with receiving unemployment benefits. The fact of the matter is that
only one number counts - 5.6% unemployment.

You just can't stand the fact that Bush is successful, so what do you
do? You slam him with made-up statistics, bad facts, and poor
interpretation of economic theory. That's the problem with people like
you - you don't have principles, platforms, issues, or even an inspired
message. All you have is hatred for Bush, and that ain't gonna win you jack.

--
thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either"

Before you ask a question, check the FAQs for this newsgroup at
http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq. It contains over a decade and
a half of knowledge.

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[Chris Guynn]

"thelizman" > wrote in message
...
> HubCity wrote:
> > thelizman > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >
> >>Less than a few hundred thousand Americans have lost their job, and
> >>they'll find one soon enough.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is wrong.
> >
> > By July 2003 there were 2.6 million fewer jobs in the US now than when
Bush
> > took office. That has improved - there are now just over 2 million
fewer
> > jobs.
>
> Wrong. By July 2003 there was a gross closure of 2.6 million jobs, and a
> gross opening of 2.3 million jobs, leaving .3 million positions vacant.
> However, that means nothing - people enter and leave the workforce all
> the time, and labor markets do not count a number of jobs. Thats why
> people don't look at job numbers, they look at jobless claims and
> unemployment - or more to the point underemployment. The unemployment
> rate is at very low 5.6% - lower than even Clinton ever managed.

For the most part, I agree with your stance on this issue. However, your
own cite
(http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_nam
e=LN_cpsbref3) proves the previous assertion ("lower than even Clinton ever
managed") untrue. Just look at the time period from 01/99 to 01/01. The
unemployment rate begins to climb at the end of this period, but it is
clearly below 5% for the entire period (and even dips below 4% a few times).
It appears to me, especially with the sharp increase at the very end of 01,
that the unemployment problem actually started under Clinton. Hopefully,
the numbers will drop off fairly steeply over the next few months and it
won't matter anyway.