248,000 jobs created in US last month; 947,000 in last 3

[Drake Tungsten]

OK, I need people more skilled in economic matters than me to help me sort through the BS sometimes...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Argos65987


You can live next door to Alec Baldwin.

[DinoDoc]

GePap seems to be fighting for Roland's now vacant position. We just need to get him frothing at the mouth about Greenspan and we could start calling him Roland 2.0

[Drake Tungsten]

Eh, why bother?

[DanS]

Another good sign is that productivity of American workers is holding up fairly well also. 3.8% growth annualized in the 1st quarter.

That will hit American workers' pocketbooks favorably soon.

[JohnT]

Yeah, I don't get it either Drake. We have seen, felt, and been told that the economic numbers attained from 1999-2000 (appx) were not only unrealistic but unhealthy, the sort of economic indicators that point to an inevitable decline. However, we are now being told that the inability to re-achieve previously-unhealthy goals "isn't good enough."

I bet a lot of people would be shocked to re-learn that starting from August 1974 it would be another 13 and a half years, until April of 1988, before this country saw unemployment rates as low as 5.6%. Even the Kennedy years had more months of >=5.6% (25) unemployment than <5.6% (7). If you want to run an economy, find out Eisenhowers secret - his highest unemployment rate was 7.5% his lowest was 2.5%.

At worst, unemployment-rate wise, you can say this is an average economy, and recession wise, it was below-average.

You can get the figures here. Just click on "Unemployment Rate (Seasonally Adjusted)" and retrieve the data. The table allows you to go back to 1948 - earlier information would require books. Also, click on "include graphs" for a graph of the unemployment rate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
GePap seems to be fighting for Roland's now vacant position. We just need to get him frothing at the mouth about Greenspan and we could start calling him Roland 2.0

Any of you gents care to challenge the fact that payrolls are lowet today than at the end of 2000?

[Drake Tungsten]

Any of you gents care to challenge the fact that payrolls are lowet today than at the end of 2000?

Why challenge it? It's a stupid comparison; just look at JohnT's post for the reason.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

I bet a lot of people would be shocked to re-learn that starting from August 1974 it would be another 13 and a half years, until April of 1988, before this country saw unemployment rates as low as 5.6%. Even the Kennedy years had more months of >=5.6% (25) unemployment than <5.6% (7). If you want to run an economy, find out Eisenhowers secret - his highest unemployment rate was 7.5% his lowest was 2.5%.

You can get the figures here.

Only those that don;t know much.

Lets stop the bull****. The point of this thread is to state that the economy is "roaring" and that bush will reap political benefits from it-just as every single DanS jobs thread has been.

And you guys know what? DanS was wrong month one, he was wrong month 2, he will probalby be wrong this month, and that is a sad track record.

People measure things in relation-it does not matter that 20 years ago the average unemployment rate was higher-4 years ago it was much lower and that is what carries political heft. The high price of oil and its pressure on consumers will stick in minds more than the jobs numbers, since all Americans feel that instantly. Crime today is far far lower than 10 years ago-and yet people still demand even tougher crime prevention: why? preception.

Will bush get a political boost with swing voters with this? He hasn;t the last two months, and unless other news stops getting billing, he won't. So again, danS was wrong in April, he was wrong in may, and he will be wrong in June. How is that for a three month track record?

[Drake Tungsten]

it does not matter is 20 years ago the average unemployment rate was higher-4 years ago it was much lower

Actually, the current unemployment rate is lower than the average annual unemployment rate in every year of Clinton's term. The average annual unemployment rate hasn't been as low as the current unemployment rate since 1989...

Will bush get a political boost with swing voters with this? He hasn;t the last two months, and unless other news stops getting billing, he won't. So again, danS was wrong in April, he was wrong in may, and he will be wrong in June. How is that for a three month track record?

The economic news won't stay buried forever, despite what you may wish.

[Kuciwalker]

Notice how as soon as GePap is completely pwned on whether or not the economy has "rip roaring growth", he pretends he wasn't arguing about that at all and that it was all about whether Bush would gain politically from it...

[Drake Tungsten]

It's somewhere around his fourth topic change of the thread, so I can't say I'm surprised...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets stop the bull****.

Yes, let's.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Notice how as soon as GePap is completely pwned on whether or not the economy has "rip roaring growth", he pretends he wasn't arguing about that at all and that it was all about whether Bush would gain politically from it...

One, your point was patheticaly wrong, so, what do you speak of?

None of you Bushketeers have answered the simple question, so whatever. (I think your name has gotten to you)

Actually, the current unemployment rate is lower than the average annual unemployment rate in every year of Clinton's term. The average annual unemployment rate hasn't been as low as the current unemployment rate since 1989...

Speaking about lie being told, from JohnT's link:

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

The highest being 4.7, the lowest 4.4. Explain to me math genius Drake how then average of those could be higher than 5.6?

The economic news won't stay buried forever, despite what you may wish.

What are the two indicators average joe gets daily on TV? Stock numbers, and generally also now price of Gas. If by October, gas per gallon is still at a national avergae of $1.80, people won't give a damned. Oh, and the markets remain below were they were in 2000-that will also remain there.

[DanS]

I just think it's fun to bust the left's balls on the fact that they are so morose about good economic growth. It's comical.

During Clinton's presidency, I never heard any Republican looking the gift horse in the mouth with regard to economic growth.