Unemployment and Bush.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:21 pm

What is the unemploymant rate? Not the one that bushies keep saying, but the real one?
NOTE: including people who have given up looking/ are still looking

jerman999 · Post by **jerman999** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:23 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20030801_696.html

Technically though, people who don't have a job but are looking are not considered unemployed, so the number is probably a bit higher than that.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:27 pm

Killa-Killa wrote: including people who have given up looking/ are still looking?

please^^^Read^^^

jerman999 · Post by **jerman999** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:49 pm

Jeez, you don't have to be so picky about it:

Clicky

Over all, nine million Americans are out of work.

It's still about 6% any way you look at it. Or my math is wrong.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:41 pm

Well that's not much then, even though it's probably more than 6%, still the EU unemployment rate is about 10% I think

Jimmyjay86 · Post by **Jimmyjay86** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:00 pm

The most accurate numbers are going to be the ones supplied by the Department of Labor. They are really the only ones who track such data for obvious reasons. While you can always conjecture as to the accuracy of the info, a rounding to the nearest percentage rather than tenth of a percent should give a good number.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Killa-Killa wrote: including people who have given up looking/ are still looking?

please^^^Read^^^. I already know the OFFICIAL unemployment rate, but that works on the basis that (I'm not kidding here) Anybody who isn't looking for work obviously MUST work at home!

Lasse wrote:Well that's not much then, even though it's probably more than 6%, still the EU unemployment rate is about 10% I think

That's because Europeans are lazy.

spyder07 · Post by **spyder07** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:01 pm

The unemployment rate is to high no matter what the number is. Maybe if every economy bush touched didn't turn to shit it wouldn't be so bad.

Jimmyjay86 · Post by **Jimmyjay86** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:10 pm

Killa-Killa wrote:
Killa-Killa wrote: including people who have given up looking/ are still looking?
please^^^Read^^^. I already know the OFFICIAL unemployment rate, but that works on the basis that (I'm not kidding here) Anybody who isn't looking for work obviously MUST work at home!

Killa what you don't get is that there really aren't "unofficial sources" to get data from. The only source of reliable data is the DOL and census data. The government is the only one to pass out unemployment checks which is a very accurate indicator of the number of unemployed. The number of people who "have given up looking/ are still looking" is probably a lot less than a percentage point considering the numbers involved.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:47 pm

The economy was going to hell in a hand basket before Bush came to office, get off the "BUSH SAID STARTEGERY SO HE MUST OF FUCKED UP THE ECONOMY YEAH!" kick.

Evil Natured Robot · Post by **Evil Natured Robot** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:00 pm

Technically though, people who don't have a job but are looking are not considered unemployed, so the number is probably a bit higher than that.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. It's been about three years since my high school economics class, but I do believe "unemployment" only covers people that are looking.

And while the stock market was overvalued before Bush got in, increasing spending and cutting taxes really didn't help any. We're going to end up 4 trillion more in debt than we were when he took office, and you certainly can't blame THAT on the Clinton administration, which was more fiscally conservative than Bush's folks.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:03 pm

Hammer wrote:The economy was going to hell in a hand basket before Bush came to office, get off the "BUSH SAID STARTEGERY SO HE MUST OF FUCKED UP THE ECONOMY YEAH!" kick.

I never said that. All I was saying was that his Economics Strategy is CRAP. Never said that the recession was origonally his fault. CAlm down, you mighthave a heart attack.

The Jizz Stain · Post by **The Jizz Stain** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 9:13 pm

Its crap but he's still gonna get reelected and you people will have to put up with Bush again and we people can be cheering and going yay the world hates us and they can fuck off cause we got bush and dick man. I love those guyz. They saved my life. (Breaks down and cries.)

spyder07 · Post by **spyder07** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:57 pm

Yeah, whenever you're in debt, slashing your income and spending more never helps you to get out of it.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:08 pm

Lasse wrote:Well that's not much then, even though it's probably more than 6%, still the EU unemployment rate is about 10% I think

Around 8.9%, to my knowledge. http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Publ ... e=download

Of course, there are always European countries that CAN handle their business, notice "the Netherlands (2.7% in May 2002 to 4.1% in May 2003)"

Yeah, Dutchyland...

Hey, wow, first post at DaC, freaky

Oh, and apparently, according to us: In June 2003, the US unemployment rate was 6.4% and the Japanese rate was 5.3%.

Rayt · Post by **Rayt** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:29 am

^Only 4.1 percent? I thought the unemployment rate was absurdly high and the economy was going to hell? Or so the politicians said to justify the amazing budget cuts.

Silver · Post by **Silver** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:54 am

In Holland it went up from 2-3% last year to abuot 6% in three months. Dunno what it is at now, just that I'm in one of those %'s. Bah.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:43 am

Hammer wrote:The economy was going to hell in a hand basket before Bush came to office

Hmm, I think I'll let this graph speak for itself:

Note that '92-'00 is Clinton, and right at '00, where it starts to go back down, is when Bush came into office... So much for tax cuts right Hammer?

Really, I am wondering if you people honestly think Bush can handle politics and economics like you say he can, or if you just support him because he is trying to bring religion into politics?

PS:I got this from Reuters off of Yahoo, here's a link to the actual article.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:50 am

You're right, it does start to go down in '00. However '00 was the year of the election and Clinton's last year in office. The reality of the situation is that Clinton handed Bush an economy that was already slowing, and that downturn was dramatically exacerbated by the terrorist attacks. Could Bush handle it better? Maybe, but it's a simply economic fact that prosperity breeds recession, and the prosperity we enjoyed in the '90s has to have a cost.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:55 am

Evil Natured Robot wrote:We're going to end up 4 trillion more in debt than we were when he took office, and you certainly can't blame THAT on the Clinton administration, which was more fiscally conservative than Bush's folks.

lol yeah that's a lot of debt, but national debt doesn't have much of an effect on the actual economy... however, unemployment can spin into a vicious cycle because of a high federal deficit, and unfortunately, the deficit is what gets bloated after tax cuts. Anyone who doesn't support Bush solely because of issues like gay rights and abortion can easily see that Bush doesn't care about the middle class, and is only interested in keeping his campaign contributors (big businesses) happy with his ridiculous fiscal policies so that he can get himself reelected in 2004.

Duck and Cover

Unemployment and Bush.

Unemployment and Bush.

Re: Unemployment and Bush.