Average unemployment rate for Bill Clinton’s first term: 6.0%
Current unemployment rate: 5.2%
Funny how we don’t hear about the jobless recovery anymore.
A serious side question for leftists: Doesn’t it get depressing to always have to find a negative slant on things? I really don’t mean this as a putdown or a provocation. If you want you can pose equal and opposite questions about some river in Egypt. No problem. But I genuinely feel badly for you guys. Seriously.
All that proves is that Clinton inherited a big mess from Bush Sr., as a quick look at the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows:
Unemployment Rate, 1992-Present
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2
Clinton inherited a mess and cleaned it up; GWB inherited a tidy setup and screwed the pooch (it’s especially obvious if you use the site’s graphing options to see it visually).
You think we enjoy watching all the myriad ways the Republican Party is destroying the nation? :eek: Unfortunately, unlike the Bush Apologists, we’re not ready to leave the “reality-based coalition” and go around pretending everything’s dandy just because Scott McClellan and Rush Limbaugh say so…
Unemployment is not “high.” Unemployment is lower than five of the last ten years’ averages, not to mention on a steady decline for the last two years. Things were peachy under President Clinton, yes. Compared to the last three years Clinton was in office, unemployment is about one percentage point higher on average. Compared to 11 years ago, it’s more than one percentage point lower. 13 years ago, the rate was 2% higher than it is currently. The point? What you are comparing today’s rate to makes a difference in how you interpret today’s rate. Comparing today’s rate to what it was in the “Clintonian golden years” makes no difference to the economy today, and gives you no insight to where the economy is heading. Comparing today’s rate to last month’s rate does. The current trend is that unemployment is dropping.
Additionally, Bosda, wages are not “low and getting lower.”
Average hourly earnings of production workers (seasonally adjusted)
1995 11.47 11.52 11.54 11.56 11.58 11.62 11.66 11.68 11.71 11.75 11.77 11.79
1996 11.84 11.86 11.88 11.94 11.96 12.02 12.04 12.08 12.12 12.14 12.19 12.23
1997 12.27 12.30 12.35 12.37 12.42 12.45 12.48 12.55 12.58 12.65 12.70 12.73
1998 12.77 12.82 12.87 12.91 12.95 12.97 12.99 13.07 13.10 13.13 13.16 13.19
1999 13.25 13.28 13.32 13.37 13.42 13.45 13.50 13.54 13.60 13.62 13.64 13.68
2000 13.73 13.78 13.83 13.89 13.92 13.97 14.02 14.05 14.11 14.17 14.22 14.26
2001 14.27 14.35 14.40 14.44 14.48 14.52 14.54 14.58 14.62 14.64 14.69 14.73
2002 14.73 14.77 14.80 14.82 14.86 14.92 14.96 15.00 15.05 15.10 15.13 15.19
2003 15.19 15.27 15.27 15.25 15.31 15.34 15.39 15.40 15.40 15.41 15.45 15.45
2004 15.48 15.51 15.54 15.58 15.62 15.64 15.70 15.74 15.77 15.81 15.82 15.85
2005 15.90 15.91 15.95(p) 16.00(p)
(p), besides throwing off the spacing, means preliminary
(also from www.bls.gov)
Not that obvious to me. By the time Clinton took office unemployment had already dropped by about .6%; in other words the recovery had already started. A more important stat to look at is the DJIA,which is a very reliable leading indicator. It took off in January, 1991, indicating good times ahead, a year before Clinton took office. Then it peaked in January, 2000, indicating bad times ahead, a year before GWB took office. Unfortunately we then had 9/11. But fortunately we had the Bush tax cuts which ended the recession in record time.
I think you missed my point. I was saying not that you enjoy it, but that it must be so depressing to always focus on the negative. We’re living in the greatest, wealthiest country in the history of the world, and so many leftists put so much energy into twisting the data so that things look bad. The unemployment rate is 5.2% and falling. Let’s be happy. It’s just sad to me that so many people can’t do that. That’s all.
On the second point above, you are joking aren’t you? Do you really think the average conservative/libertarian is that dumb? Do you think I tell everyone to clear out of my office every day at noon, turn on the radio for 15 minutes, get reassurance from Rush that everything is OK, then sound an all clear alarm so we can sleep easy for another day?
The IDEAL candidate needs to have certain “qualities”.
He has to be good looking, and the camera has to be kind to him (think JFK).
He should be ex-military, with a war record even Rove can’t tarnish (JFK).
He has to be intelligent (like Kerry and Clinton).
He has to be able to distill complex ideas into simple speech (a “Great Communicator” like Reagan).
He has to have an aura of approachability (like Ike and JFK).
He has to have a “dark side”, in that he can handle himself in the gutter fight that would be coming, and come right out swinging (like LBJ). When Bush makes a mistake or misstatement, pounce on it like a pitbull and never let go.
He has to have concrete ideas, far more than just “I have a plan”.
He has to have some killer catch phrases (Ask not what your country, Great Society)
Kerry simply wasn’t aggressive enough, and wasted time in defense mode when he should have gone for blood. He had plenty of chances but didn’t use them.
To overcome the talking heads spin machine and the Rove apparatus, he has to be perfect and ruthless at the same time.
Well, if the schmucks in power weren’t screwing so many things up…
From here, it looks like so many Bush apologists put so much energy into twisting the data so that things look great. Or have you forgotten the Downing Street Memo already?
Let’s just say that, from where I’m sitting, the folks who continue to endorse the current Administration are showing a decided lack of moral values and wisdom.
Not to fight for Bush, but you seem to be ignoring such minor events as 9/11, Enron, and the internet burst; none of which have anything to do with Bush. And so far it does seem like the economy has done relatively good towards rebuilding itself after that. Certainly some of this is due to the current administration–but whether that is due to Bush or Greenspan or whoever else, I haven’t the foggiest.
So…
Given, arguendo, the truth of rjung’s assumption that Karl Rove’s magic touch is the element that let a clearly less-qualified candidiate win twice - what possible hope do the Democrats have? (Apart from the hope that Mr. Rove retires, I guess). If Rove were to agree to work on the Republican candidate’s next campaign, how can such a powerfully evil force be defeated, especially in light of the fact that the majority of voters have thus far not understood how evil the Rove machine is?
Let’s re-phrase that then.
Prices are rising, especially in essentials, like housing, rent, & health care, and wages stay the same
Which has the precise same effect as wages falling.
Our median national standard of living, based on population, is falling.
1/2% of the nation is getting unbelievably rich, & 99 1/2% is going to the dogs, primarily because of the “globalization” & “outsourcing” implemented by the 1/2%.
There are more working poor than ever before, and fewer middle class.
Do not use the phrase “culture of entitlement” because that is merely a buzzword for “people have the silly idea that they have a right to food, shelter, education & health care in exchange for their labor. Why don’t the peasants treat their betters with respect?”
People are not made to serve economies. Economies are intended to meet the needs of people. And our economy is being misused.
Rove can be beaten. The key is in getting the message out and going negative from the start. In the last two races, the Dems have taken the high road out of the conventions only to see the Rove machine start flinging mud at the starter’s pistol. Negative campaigning works and nobody does it better than Rove. The way to beat him is to smear the Republican nominee from the get go. It’s ugly, but we find that campaigns based on issues will lose to a smear campaign every single time.
Two questions:
In your view, are the Democrats likely to do this?
If the Democrats follow this advice and lose anyway, what conclusions, if any, might be drawn?
1- No. We tend to nominate people that find that sort of campaigning distasteful
2- If you play by the same rules and get beat, you got beat by someone better. I’d like to see both sides run with the same methodology as a controlled experiment. If both sides play nice or both sides play dirty then the better man wins. I’m just tired of seeing my team refuse to shoot from inside the 3 point line while the other guys take nothing but easy layups.
If that’s the case… on what do you base your hopes for a Democratic victory? Karl Rove’s eventual retirement?
We have a few cards.
Demographics If you look at the red counties vs blue counties nationwide nationwide, you see that we’re a nation of Democratic urban voters vs Republican rural voters. As the US becomes more urbanized, that will benefit Democrats
Republican split I predict there is going to be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party, between centrists like McCain and the radical righties like Frist and Delay. After watching the radicals reign for eight years, look for the centrist faction to bring one of their own into the fray for the 2008 nomination. Whichever side prevails, they can count on tepid support from their GOP brethren.
Iraq The war is steadily losing popularity. If in 2008, there is still no stable Iraqi government and if the supply of suicide bombers is not exhausted, I wouldn’t want to be running as a Republican in 2008.
While I agree with #1, it seems likely to take years.
#3 I don’t buy, because I think there will be a relatively stable Iraqi government by then.
#2… you have raised an excellent point here.
Will there be an ‘Iraq’ in 2008?
On what basis would anyone believe there will be a “relatively-stable” government in Iraq in only 3 years? Cheney and Rumsfeld have already stated they expect the US troop deployment to still be of serious size after the next election. Why would that be necessary, ya think?
The number of suicide attacks is increasing, along with other insurgent activity, btw, despite Cheney asserting that it’s in its “last throes”. “The light at the end of the tunnel”, anyone?
Did you even read that whole article? Admit you were wrong about the jobs situation and move on. This article says that jobs were added but at lower numbers than expected. It also said,
so a mixed report at worst.
Haj
Dead on. The Dems keep wanting to bring a knife to a gun fight, and they they wonder why they lose. The next Pubbie presidential candidate should be smeared with Abu Ghraib, the murder of prisoners by U.S. forces, and anything else that has happened on Bush’s watch that the bulk of Americans don’t like. There’s a lot to smear with.