Interesting.. interesting

[FMBI]

One of my hobbies (or, as I'm sure NBVegita would put it, one of my addictions ) is political "fact checking," as you can usually find some very humorous things. Tonight, though, I was googling about, and I found something unusual - a need to fact check a fact check site.

 

Anyway..

 

From frankenlies.com (a site devoted to attacking Al Franken) :

 

"Unemployment," you say? President Clinton began his second term (Jan. 1997) with a nice 5.3 percent unemployment rate. President Bush? He began his second term (Jan. 2005) with an impressive 5.2 percent unemployment rate!

 

"Rotten economy," Al? Sorry. Not even close.

Sounds interesting, but as the saying goes, if it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, and spreads bubonic plague like a rat..

 

http://www.economagic.com/chartg/feddal/ru.gif

 

You'll note that there was a steady drop during the Clinton years, bottoming out at ~4% - while during Bush's years, it sharply increased to nearly 6% (after the 01 recession), before dropping to slightly below 5%.. at which time it again began a sharp upward trend. Combine that with the best guesses by analysts of the recession "endgame," and we could be looking at a peak of up to 9%. Not bad if you're a *shriek* welfare country, but if you live in a country where low unemployment is a necessity.. well, you're !@#$%^&*ed.

 

But, to summarize: under Clinton, net drop of 4% - under Bush, net gain of 3-5%. Cool, huh?

Edited June 9, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[SeVeR]

A good example of how people cherry-pick the stats they want to support their argument.

[NBVegita]

That also takes no consideration into the .com bubble burst, Enron or the housing market crash.

 

As sever points out above, for just about every argument there is a statistic you can find to support it.

[Hoch]

But, to summarize: under Clinton, net drop of 4% - under Bush, net gain of 3-5%. Cool, huh?

During the Clinton years unemployment averaged 5.2%.

For the years totaling 2001 to 2007, the Bush years have

produced an average unemployment rate of 5.1%

 

Yes, it is cool how statistics can be used both as a shield

and a sword http://forums.deathstarbattle.com/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

 

-Hoch

[FMBI]

Hoch, look at the chart. Clinton produced an endless drop (yes, some of that was due to bubbles, but then, Bush's bubbles helped him drop unemployment.. temporarily), while Bush saw a spike that could not be attributed entirely to either 9/11 or the web-bust. And the "2007" figures conveniently ignore the fact that unemployment is surging in 2008 and will probably do so for several more years (the housing crisis won't finish up until the end of the next presidential term, if then).

 

Going by the logic that "the record doesn't end with the term," Clinton doesn't look quite as spectacular, because he was, after all, in office while the web-bubble was building, but I am personally of the opinion that Bush badly mishandled that and made it worse. In addition, even if you factor in a slight increase from that, when comparing the post-president records, I am sure that Bush's will be far worse than Clinton's. No matter who the next president is, they're going to be ranked with Hoover, who, by a happy coincidence, succeeded Silent Cal.

[Hoch]

You extrapolated a conclusion based on a statistical

analysis of unemployment during the Clinton and Bush

years. I merely did the same.

 

In politics, it is not what you know but how you use it.

 

-Hoch

[FMBI]

The "average" figure completely ignores the reality, even if, as I said, you factor in the first few years after the end of the presidency. Clinton took it from near-record highs to one of the healthiest periods in US history, while Bush has witnessed a major recession, a short-term recovery, and yet another unemployment boom and recession (not technically a recession, but when you have a country where almost all the growth occurs at the top, and you still have virtually zero growth..) - obviously the average is ignoring some vital facts here. It's not a matter of "extrapolation," it's a matter of honesty.

 

And again, you skipped the 2008 figures. I bet that the number of Russians killed in WW2 isn't quite so bad if you skip the first year, when they were dying in the millions. Sure, it's a few million compared to 20 total, but that's still one !@#$%^&* of a difference.

[NBVegita]

while Bush saw a spike that could not be attributed entirely to either 9/11 or the web-bust.

 

How so?

 

Simultaneously as the .com bubble finally burst, 9/11 and the biggest financial/corporate scam (enron) in the history of the United States, unemployment jumped.

 

Bush had only passed one]/i] economic policy by 2003, which was a tax break, so what else are you attributing to the spike in unemployment?

 

Clinton's success was almost singularly based upon .com bubble. Note I say almost. You could have put just about any president in office during that period and the unemployment rate would have dropped like a rock.

[Black_Bolt]

while Bush saw a spike that could not be attributed entirely to either 9/11 or the web-bust.

 

How so?

 

Simultaneously as the .com bubble finally burst, 9/11 and the biggest financial/corporate scam (enron) in the history of the United States, unemployment jumped.

 

Bush had only passed one]/i] economic policy by 2003, which was a tax break, so what else are you attributing to the spike in unemployment?

 

Clinton's success was almost singularly based upon .com bubble. Note I say almost. You could have put just about any president in office during that period and the unemployment rate would have dropped like a rock.

 

Bush's unemployment rate did lower because of one reason: More people working minimum wage jobs. Good times.

[darkhosis]

minimum wage jobs pay moar now

[Samapico]

minimum wage jobs pay more now

Please avoid 4chan-speak in this particular subforum. Thank you. Especially when the post doesn't bring anything interesting to the topic...

[NBVegita]

Hey bolt please give me a source on that one.