Today's unemployment numbers better then 70's 80's and 90's.

[Robin Hood]

That's what I heard * say on his weekly radio address that was played on CNN. The lies are getting more and more blatant.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Only problem is that the Long-Term or "Real" unemployment rate is 10.5%...

...so these numbers are no so good Bushie! Also, no one is hiring right now, how the f--k is that good Mr. Bush???

:eyes:

[Robin Hood]

4. This guy is just like his father.

Far removed from reality and out of touch.

[coloradodem2005]

2. Please..

I have never known people to be so pissed off about the economic conditions.

[Melinda]

3. Listen again - he said "AVERAGE" rate of 3 decades.

What did Senator kerry call this again? Oh yeah... "misleading"

That Bushie* - he's *the* misleader of our times! :eyes:

[alcuno]

5. He's playing the percent game.

The problem is that it is hard to convince people who don't have a job or can't find full-time work with benefits that everything is fine. And they tell two people and so on and so on and so on and so on.

[caledesi]

9. Exactly. nt

[caledesi]

6. This latest lie was explained by Randi Rhodes on her show.

See, he uses 30 years so he manipulate the total of unemployment rate during those years and somehow he comes up looking good. LIAR!

[Robin Hood]

8. I believe that this is called lying.

not juggling the numbers. Lying.

[wuushew]

7. There is an irritating Freeper talking point going around

about how under Clinton CNN reported 5.6% positively and under Smirk 5.6% is viewed in a negative light.

How does one start to refute this?

I know for one that Bush changed the way the unemployment numbers are reported. Secondly during Clinton's Administration the overall trend was improvement out of Bush 41's recession. Thirdly Clinton proved you could have a tight labor market without inflation, so is it wrong to expect better numbers?

[Robin Hood]

10. That darn liburul media.

What a crock of shit. Clinton was bringing down the unemployment rate that Reagan Bush drove up. Clinton created hundreds of thousands of jobs every month of his presidency. Bush has created 0. In fact bush has lost 3 and a half million jobs and the rippple effect from that is even more millions of jobs lost.

And all he can do is give even more money to his rich supporters and pretend to the American people that he is screwing that everything is just fine. In fact, it's morning 1955 in America again.

[Speed8098]

11. During Clintons Presidency

Companies were dying for help. The jobs were so plentiful here in NY that entry level wages were as good as some middle management salaries.

* is nothing but a frontman for the corporations. Outsourcing is just another way to drive down wages, as is the idiotic idea of an amnesty for illegals.

Let the idiot freeps say whatever they want. People have begun to see the light and they will unseat this wannabe in 7 1/2 short months.

There will be no cheers in freeperville that night.

[Robin Hood]

13. THere will be cheers in freeperville that night.

It will be me opening up many accounts to taunt and gloat at their racist dumb asses.

I feel you pain mother f$&@*er.

[papau]

12. mention the 20+ week average duration is the longest in 20 years

Back to Reagan world of pretend "morning in America" when your GDP growth is really the same as Carters!

Indeed "worse in 20 years" means Bush is back to Reagan numbers!

And the rate without removing Bush's recent "dropped out of looking for a job as their benefits ended and removed from count" is 7.4%

perhaps Clinton's 5.6% was great because it was an honest number and was decreasing from quarter to quarter.

[WoodrowFan]

15. easy

Clinton's 5.6% was dropping, i.e. getting lower. Bush's 5.6% is actually HIGHER because so many people have dropped off of the unemployment rolls. A 5.6% when jobs are being created is BETTER than a false 5.6% when jobs are disappearing.

[July]

16. Someone posted numbers here yesterday.

The gist of the post was that Clinton's 5.6 (I thought it was slightly different, but my memory's fuzzy) was after he brought unemployment DOWN from 9+%, I think (inherited!). Bush inherited a lower number (3-point-something %), and it is going up.

Wish I had the details, but they're out there, shouldn't be too hard to find.

[Jim__]

20. Some unemployment numbers

1992 7.5%
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 4.8%
2002 5.8

An annual listing: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html - check the unemployment rate for years we had a Democratic president versus the years we had a Republican president.

Something to remember; NAIRU - Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. Republicans held that the NAIRU was 7% - i.e. if the unemployment rate dropped below 7%, then the rate of inflation would accelerate. Clinton proved their theory wrong.

[wuushew]

17. Here is the thread in discussion

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087145/posts

[polmaven]

18. Well, for one thing,

you point out that in 1992, the year before Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was 7.4%, so, 3 years later, in 1995, 5.6% was quite an accomplishment. In 2000, the year before Bush took office the rate ws 4%. Three years later, in 2000 it was 5.9%, and is still, now, 5.6%.

Umm, ....freepers??? Hello!!! I know it's confusing, but sit down, take a deep breath, borrow someone's brain, and listen for a minute. with unemployment, down ispositive and up is negative, and that is why CNN is reporting it that way.

[Sparkly]

14. What numbers were used?

Did they add up the number of "employed" and compare it with the number decades ago, not accounting for population growth?

They do that with dollar amounts, too -- ignore inflation ("tax cuts always increase revenues," yadda yadda yadda).

[caledesi]

19. And "flipping burgers" is a manufacturing job. Yeah, right! nt