Are bush's and the republican party's claims of a significant decrease in rates of unemployment a valid claim?

Question

How can the public know what effect that bush's economy is having on the US workforce when their data is slanted and incomplete?

Its only those who are actually receiving funding that are counted in those unemployment rates.

The Criteria that American workers have to meet to be allowed to file for unemployment is:
1. Employed for 6 quarters in the last two years to an employer (18 months).
2. Not worked in another state in the past 18 months.
3. Not filed for unemployment in another state in the last year.

Most unemployment funds will run out within six months and it requires the actually payment of funds to be counted on unemployment rates so those workers who are still unemployed when those fund are depleted will no longer be counted as unemployed even though they are not working.

Both the employer or government can contest the payment of unemployment and when a worker is unemployed they have have little money to fight unethical practices.

So we may never know!

Answer 1

Apparently so. But that is only because the index does not measure some important elements:

-- salary, so that when someone loses a union job and winds up working for minimum wage, s/he is counted as employed, as before

-- when someone stops looking for work, counting stops

-- those pushed into illegal, untaxed work are not counted

-- the fact that the wealthy are better off but the middle class is shrinking is not taken account of

Answer 2

i'm at artwork today, so i won't be able to visual reveal unit television. in my opinion i do not trust those unemployment comments besides. I did locate this little tidbit from the AP, nonetheless: "The drop in the unemployment fee replaced into partly triggered because the authorities no longer counts human beings as unemployed even as they end searching for artwork." also, it type of feels each and every unemployment be certain receives revised upward. even as the unemployment figures are released, that is the front web page information, yet once you spot the REVISED numbers, that is buried below all the different headlines.

Answer 3

Of course you will never know. That is the plan. Bush is the first president to have a net loss of jobs while in office since Herbert Hoover. The rich have gotten richer and everyone else has lost ground under this administration.

Answer 4

There's plenty of jobs...at McDonald's. The earning power (adjusted for inflation) of the wage earner has declined steadily since 1973, but especially under regimes like Bush's, and under these regimes the rich get richer and the middle class disappears. So do the unions. Yet, these trailer park red staters vote against there own interests because Bush reads the bible.
I'm NOW against democracy because too many STUPID people vote. (just kiddin').
But they ARE stupid.

Answer 5

no - they paint a bright picture of a gloomy reality - bush says his policies are good but they make his rich friends richer and the rest poorer <> plus he turns a blind eye when companies outsorce so they can get dirt cheap labor in china and vietnam - read DUDE WHERES MY COUNTRY - it explains a lot


according to analysts - for the last tax cut..

some one making

$15,000 saves $41 (about enough to buy a gallon of gas)

$500,000 saves $40,000 (enough to buy a Lexus RS 350)


the person making 15 thousand has a 20 times higher chance of loosing his/her job or losing his pension than the person making $500,000

Answer 6

Ask the government to show the real picture of unemployment,
Make a petition by gathering signatures from people, and
Lead protest actions for this purpose.

Answer 7

Same criteria used by Democratic presidents also. If it is slanted one way I guess it's slanted for both!

Answer 8

He can give to the public wrong data, similar to his friend who worked in Enron.