Why do I constantly hear conservatives boast about unemployment?

Question

Clinton handed Bush a 4.2 rate... and it's 4.6 now?

is that something to brag about? I mean it's not "high"... but it's not improving the situation any?

I just find it odd?

Clinton was handed a 7 percent rate... and got it down to around 4... that's pretty good improvement over 8 years if you ask me...

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

cajun bill... please go back to the chart... go to the top of the chart...pull down the little button/key thing to 1991... Clinton came into office in 92... and take a look...

Kevin M: strong fundamentals... like a war... an inflated housing market...

the simple fact is... there are always "bubbles" of some sort in every economy... that doesn't exactly make it a weak economy though...

Joe 6pack American: so you think taking the elder Bush's 7 percent unemployment rate that he handed to Clinton into account... is more "fair"?

I think looking at where they left the numbers is a much better indication than an average, which both would CLEARLY have been skewed by the states at which they inherited them...

Answer 1

Pres. Clinton also handed the current Pres. a recession. have to overcome NAFTA, China trade deal and Vietnam trade deal that have taken American jobs overseas. we had a wall street economy in the 1990 s which is not good for the country. a stock market bubble is not a good for an average American , while a housing bubble helps American homeowners. the only difference between the two Presidents is that every night the media is not calling this the greatest economy every night. just a quick question what is it called when the economy grows when a republican in office? a depression what do you call a declining economy when a democrat in office? prosperity.

Answer 2

Because historically, anything under 5% is considered full employement. Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and look up the historical rates for the last 40 years.

Yes, Clinton had it down to 4.2%. Yet, we now know that was an artificial bubble. Remember the dot.com bubble bursting? I'm not blaming Clinton for it. He had nothing to do with the dot.com boom nor the bubble bursting. The chart you reference shows unemployment rising as Bush is sworn in. He hadn't yet had the chance to implement any policies.

I'd rather have a 4.7% unemployment rate, with strong economic fundamentals, than a temporary 4.2% rate based on a bubble economy.

PS....Come on, you don't remember the how big the bubble was. Remember the "new paradigm" and how it was about getting eyeballs, not sales? Remember tech companies trading at hundreds of times earnings with no justifiable economic reason? It was a big bubble, and it burst before Bush even took office.

Yes, Strong fundamentals. Corporate profits are up. More Americans own their own homes than ever before. Unemployment low. Wages going up. More tax revenue rolling in, deficits going down. Yes, there is a housing dip, but so far it's no making any difference. There' been a war on since 2002, but the economy has only been getting stronger.

Answer 3

After 9/11 and two devastating hurricanes Bush's numbers are pretty dang good also. Plus you took only the lowest... You didn't average. I took all of his Jan's and added Dec of 2000 and came up with 5.45 average. You'll also notice that the rate dropped AFTER the conservatives took congress. I know it's a common ploy by liberals tweak the facts to your side. I understand. It's not your fault since you don't have a decent record to pull from.

I do blame clinton for the dot.com bubble bursting. His judicial department sued MS for no reason other than stupid computer users and that's when the dotcom bubble busted.

Why do I say that? They sued MS for packaging software with their OS... Big deal. If you knew what you were doing you weren't forced to use their software.

Answer 4

You had better go back and look at your own chart. It was 5.5 when Clinton came into office and the average during his term was more than 4.6%. The current 4.6% is lower than the average of the 70's, 80's, and the 90's. After having to fight the democrats to get his tax cuts the Bush administration has great numbers.

Answer 5

Just wait. AT&T is about to bring 2000 jobs back from India. The Bush Administration will try to make you believe they had something to do with it. Here is the truth. In 2004, Communication Workers of America went on strike for 4 days during contract negotiation. The one sticking point was we the union wanted all the job the company contracted out to be brought back to the union. The contracting firm was using call centers in India. Well, the union won out and the company agreed to end the use of the contractors at the end of the current contract....which is in 2007

Answer 6

One concept that people find hard to grasp, particularly if you're part of the unemployed, is that a roughly 5% unemployment rate is actually good for the economy. Let's say the rate was zero, that would indicate a period of stagnation in the economy. The reason unemployment insurance was developed, was to give people who are unemployed the ability to expand their horizons in finding a new job.

Answer 7

Bush doesnt have a clue in what he is doing. People are braging bcuz everyone else is, if people rele want to be stuck serving people at McDonalds, then instead of getting their jobs handed to other people, they should fight *not physical* but fight for their jobs...and Clinton was controlling it, but now that Bush is in office, he is handing all our jobs to people in foreign countries, just to get on their good side and if he rele wants to be a good president, then he should look out and get back jobs in America!

Answer 8

the illegals are stealing jobs from that 4.6.

Answer 9

WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER 50 MILLION PEOPLE TO! FORGET THAT? OH THAT'S RIGHT YOU ONLY SEE WHAT YOU WANT!