How do the unemployment statistics prove that Bush economic polices are superior?

Question

Here are the stats, and I hope someone here can explain.

1993 6.9%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.6%
1996 5.4%
1997 4.9%
1998 4.5%
1999 4.2%
2000 4.0%

2001 4.7%
2002 5.8%
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5%
2005 5.1%
2006 4.6%

Poorly phrased question. I should have asked "Do the unemployment statistics prove that Bush economic policies are superior."

Answer 1

Using a bootstrapping randomization test to determine if there is a difference in the unemployment rates between Clinton and Bush and I find that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that they means are the same (p-value for alternate hypothesis is 0.8715). The full output of the tests are:

Mean for Clinton years = 5.2000%
Mean for Bush Years = 5.2833%
StdDev for Clinton years = 0.9943
StdDev for Bush years = 0.5776

p-value for test with alternate hypothesis Bush > Clinton
0.4610

p-value for test with alternate hypothesis Bush < Clinton
0.6070

p-value for test with alternate hypothesis Bush ≠ Clinton
0.8715

There is no evidence to claim that there is a difference between the unemployment rates between the two administrations.

Further, using only unemployment statistics to support general economic polices is asinine. You are forgetting about the strength of the US dollar in other markets, the deficit, national product and many other factors. I can't name them all, I'm only a statistician, not an economist.

Answer 2

If you factor in that Bush 43 has changed the method by which those numbers are calculated, his policies are actually inferior. By privatizing the work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he laid off Federal employees, rewarded some of his supporters in the private sector, and bypassed the minimum standards set by Congress for Dept. of Labor statistics reporting. So the numbers given for the years 2001-2006 were computed differently, allowing the Bush administration to hide their poor performance in this area.

Answer 3

Truth is the economy is bigger then any President. Home ownership was (maybe still is) higher then at any other time during our history. Employment stats are not the only guage of economic health.

The facts: Consumers/voters are king, as soon as they start voting, speaking and spending consistently our government and big business will change. Right now consumers complain about a lot of things but when it comes right down to it will sacrifice those things on price. Businesses are only going to provide what people will pay for, they are not charities.

1. Both Democrats and Republicans spend too much. Now that Dems are in power on the hill earmarks are as high if not higher then they ever have been.
2. Both Democrats and Republicans let big business and their lobbyists have a voice much larger then they deserve

1. It is not Bush's fault American consumers used easy money to buy homes, etc they could not afford.
2. It's not Bush's fault American consumers keep purchasing gas guzzling SUVs driving the demand for a finite resource which will always raise its price.
3. It's not Bush's fault American consumers buy on price alone. If consumers insisted on American made goods companies would still produce them here.
4. etc.....

Answer 4

How about the recession in the housing market, where are those statistics, What about the record debt statistics,where are they.When will the republicans admit that Bush has been the worst thing for the American economy. Never is my guess, that would be admitting wrong and that is not in the republican playbook