Jump to content

Biggest Difference between Republicans and Democrats


Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

See I can take a comment like that... knowing that in essence it is words. Lord knows my balls dropped when I realized what it was to think critically as opposed to follow the leader. So I can't take seriously a comment like this. You can't claim to be a critical thinker and accept that Cheney won't divulge what he met energy companies about,

How is this relevant? Didn't you read my post on how we are actually paying LESS for gas than we did 30 yrs ago?

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

why Bush commits only an hour to the 9/11 Commission

And this matters how?

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

why WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda are non existent.

So since Al-Qaeda doesn't have WMD's then we should just leave them alone right? I mean they ONLY blew up our World Trade Centers, no biggie right?

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

I mean you'd have to be mildly retarded or extremely gullable to just accept this fascist rhetoric right.... right.... guys? *Throws up hands*

Actually, you would have to be Mildy retarted to think that Saddam was a cute lovable dictator, who just wanted the best for Iraq & the world. He broke every rule that the UN laid down as a condition of his surrender, and the UN did absolutely nothing about it. Somebody had to stand up to him. I know that you are too afraid to, but luckily W isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

why Bush commits only an hour to the 9/11 Commission

And this matters how?


Makes him look suspicious.

quote:

Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

why WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda are non existent.

So since Al-Qaeda doesn't have WMD's then we should just leave them alone right? I mean they ONLY blew up our World Trade Centers, no biggie right?


I think it should have been OR. As in two separate instances. Iraq WMDs are non existent. Iraq ties to Al qaeda are non existent. Al qaeda did not have WMDs. Except a few airplanes.

quote:

Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

I mean you'd have to be mildly retarded or extremely gullable to just accept this fascist rhetoric right.... right.... guys? *Throws up hands*

Actually, you would have to be Mildy retarted to think that Saddam was a cute lovable dictator, who just wanted the best for Iraq & the world. He broke every rule that the UN laid down as a condition of his surrender, and the UN did absolutely nothing about it. Somebody had to stand up to him. I know that you are too afraid to, but luckily W isn't.


Oh I seem to remember some inspections that were going on.

quote:

$ilk

That's right - it's not based on all the security council resolutions, assassination attempt on a president, and statements by all the democrats up until Bush came into office that Sadaam needed to be stopped through force if necessary... it's all about the fact that WMD's have not been found - when EVERYONE - including Clinton thought they were there.


Funny that. I posted two years ago it was about "He tried to kill my daddy" but that wasn't the reason at all back then. It was the Imminent Threat. Funny that the UN resolutions called for inspections which were happening and were working but it was about the Imminent Threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

Oh I seem to remember some inspections that were going on.

Yes, all the inspections. Lest we forget, that WMD's were only a small part of the issues that the UN (Not the US) had with Saddam. The UN had filed report, after report on how Saddam was financing the human Bombers going into Isreal, his constant attack against the Kurds, His constant threats to shoot down UN planes, they filed a report 400 pages long of all the rules that Saddam broke. But I know how you Democrats feel. As long as the guy says he won't do it again, that's good enough for you. Just like Willie Horton, he said he wouldn't rape & kill again... Oh but he did, guess you guys were wrong on that, just as you are wrong about Saddam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Jaguar spare me... are you going to debate facts or are you going to spew? You attack me for basically calling out a guy that says he doesn't have the time to post because he runs a business yet, he posts every day. You wanna debate the facts Jag you lemme know. I have been very civil, not resorting to your kind of ridicule by emoticon and the liberal use of the word moron. You do a good job of jumping in to help others but you don't do much to serve your own argument... anyway I think I said I was done with this argument... and crushing your thin skull is likely poor form. You inspect houses... good for you. I won't tell you about faulty electrical systems or bad roofs and you can spare me some BS about how healthy it is to run up amazing amounts of debt in government. As for being lobotimized thank you for not dissapointing me... and posting yet another nasty retort. I could comment on why I believe a guy that was recently unemployed and inspects houses should keep his mouth shut on the economy but why bother?

Oh and if you want to nuke my posts go ahead I'll consider it a victory especially given your nastiness... this is the court of ideas if you can't handle it just ask me to stop I'll let up on you. This is a political thread if you can't take the heat then why don't you just bow out or close the entire thread?

Ciao Ciao Ciao.

Oh puhlease, can we get real? What heat?

You're talking nonsense...

Your claims of being an ex republican are ridiculous. your other claims are just as much so.

Your naivete is astounding, your nonthinking illogical thought are just as astounding.

I just don't think that you ought to continue to embarass yourself, but if you wish to continue, hey, feel free.

Darkling is pretty much eating you for lunch and you have yet to realize it, which is even more amusing.

Keep going, it is rather amusing, so please, continue, if you really wish to...

I inspect houses because the electronics industry just didn't do it for me anymore. Getting jacked by some goofball on commissions was not my idea of a good time. Oh, and making $600-800 a day for 8 hours work, sounded pretty good to me... I am not making that much yet, but am doing between 2-3 inspections a week at anywhere between $300 to $500 a pop. I think that that is pretty good money. I don't know about you, but I survive rather well on $1200 a week, and considering its for only about 12 hours work, works for me....

I never said it was a good idea to run up amazing amounts of debt to run the government. I think the government is FAR larger then it needs to be. The socialism is unbelievable, but I know better then to vote Democrat, because those numbers will not only go higher, they will kill me and the economy with their tax hikes.

The Democrats love to reach into my pocket and take my money that I could use to support my family, and give it to those that won't bother to work and will have more children to get more money.

Welfare reform, BAH, and this idiotic BS with the prescription drug benefit is a crock of crap.

The fact is that I have plenty that pisses me off about republicans, but they are the lesser of 2 evils, so until there is a REAL VIABLE 3rd party, I will continue to vote republican. The democrats will never get me to vote for a little third party so I get them into office. So I will vote Republican and vote every time I am given the opportunity.

I would rather vote for a party that agrees with me 70% of the time, then vote in a party that I disagree with 100% of the time.

[ 03-20-2004, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The republicans are always trying to take credit for the black middle class after plunging more black families into poverty than any adminsitration in modern history.

From Family Secrets, by Walter E. Williams, November 20, 2002:

quote:

Airing the "family's" dirty laundry in public can qualify one for less-than-flattering descriptions. That's particularly applicable to a black person, and even more so when he questions the civil rights gospel that the problems black people encounter are rooted in racial discrimination and a legacy of slavery.

To argue that most of the problems black people confront today have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination risks being labeled everything but a child of God, not to mention accusations of having "sold out" and "letting white people off the hook." One need not deny the existence of racial discrimination to ask the policy-relevant question: How much of what we see can be explained by discrimination?

The black illegitimacy rate is close to 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families. This produces devastating socioeconomic consequences, but is it caused by racial discrimination? Or, might it be a legacy of slavery? In the early 1900s, black illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate. Roughly 75 percent, and in New York City 85 percent, of black children lived in two-parent households. The fact of lower illegitimacy and more intact families, at a time when blacks were much closer to slavery and faced greater discrimination, suggests that today's unprecedented illegitimacy and weak family structure has nothing to do with discrimination and slavery. It's explained better by promiscuity and irresponsibility, and as such it's not a civil rights problem.

To point out that black people are the primary victims of violent crimes is OK. Some of the statistics are staggering. FBI reports on arrest data show that blacks committed half of all homicides, nearly half of rapes, 59 percent of robberies and 38 percent of aggravated assaults. Suggestions about causes and solutions can get you into to trouble.

It's clear sailing if you argue that the high crime rate is caused by poverty and discrimination, and the way to get rid of crime is to eliminate these root causes. But there's a problem with that theory. It doesn't explain why black communities were far safer in earlier times, such as in the '20s, '30s and '40s, at a time of far greater poverty and discrimination, and fewer opportunities. Crime imposes devastating economic and personal costs on many black neighborhoods, but it's not a civil rights problem. The high crime rate represents political choices made by black politicians, civil rights organizations and many black citizens to tolerate criminals.

Another family secret is that black academic achievement is a national disgrace. Many youngsters who manage to complete high school do so not being able to perform at the eighth- and ninth-grade levels. Standards that others have to meet for employment or college admittance which many blacks cannot meet are labeled racist. Demands are made to lower standards using face-saving euphemisms such as affirmative action, diversity and multiculturalism.

The standard civil rights vision of the solution to these problems for blacks is to vote more Democrats into federal, state and local offices, and to elect more blacks to city mayorships and city councils. That theory suggests that cities run by Democrats and black politicians must be the very cities where illegitimacy and violent crimes are the lowest and black academic achievement is the highest -- cities such as Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark and East St. Louis. In these cities, blacks hold mayorships and have representation on city councils. That's a nice theory, but the result is the exact opposite.

In medicine, misdiagnosis leading to mistreatment and further injury can lead to malpractice suits. Unfortunately, in politics, misdiagnosis, mistreatment and further injury lead to re-election.

From Education fraud in Philadelphia, by Walter E. Williams, December 19, 2001:

quote:

Education in Philadelphia's public schools is so rotten that the state government is threatening a takeover.

There are 176 out of 264 schools on the failing list. The primary victims of Philadelphia's public schools are black students whose chances for upward mobility are being systematically destroyed by callous politicians and teacher's unions. If the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan set out to destroy black academic excellence in Philadelphia, I doubt whether he could achieve as much damage. Let's look at some of the facts of black education.

Earlier this year, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that 63 percent of black fourth-graders were unable to read proficiently. This is devastating because a child unable to read and write by 9 or 10 years of age will probably never catch up. As such, it's virtually a life sentence to the fringes of an increasingly high-tech information society.

Education fraud is further evidenced when Philadelphia's students take college admission tests. At predominantly black high schools, the average SAT scores in 2000 were: Audenreid (590), Bartram (693), Overbrook (726), Gratz (790) and West Philadelphia (709). There were similar average SAT scores at most other predominantly black high schools, including my alma mater Benjamin Franklin (750), where I graduated in 1954.

These scores, out of a maximum of 1600, are a disgrace -- especially considering that test-takers get 400 points for simply taking the test. The scores also mean colleges must practice racial discrimination in order to admit many black students.

At neighborhood and school reunions, I've asked former classmates and friends, "Did we know anybody who couldn't read, or perform simple computations?" The answer has always been no. Black academic achievement in Philadelphia was higher during the '40s and'50s, at a time when there were no black principals, only a handful of black teachers, never a black mayor and maybe just one black city councilman. What's more, blacks were poorer, faced more discrimination and had fewer hopes and opportunities for upward mobility.

That's in stark contrast to today. I don't believe history is going to be very kind to today's black politicians and civil rights leaders who foster, promote and protect Philadelphia's disgraceful public education system.

From Do facts matter?: Part II, by Thomas Sowell, October 19, 2001:

quote:

During the era of slavery, it was illegal to teach slaves to read and write, throughout the Western Hemisphere. In parts of the antebellum South, it was also illegal for free blacks to be educated, and there was no provision for them to be educated in much of the North. Yet the census of 1850 showed that more than half of the 500,000 free blacks were able to read and write.

How did that happen? It happened because they set up their own schools, even in places where such schools were illegal and had to operate underground. What an insult to their memory when blacks in ghetto schools today who want to get an education are accused by their peers of "acting white"! Black people risked jail to set up schools for their children before the Civil War.

One of the most inspiring and heroic episodes in the history of black education in America came after the Civil War, when numerous white school teachers from the North went South to teach the children of the freed slaves, often under the auspices of religious organizations -- and in defiance of ostracism by Southern whites. Voluntary and privately financed efforts to educate blacks were so widespread that it was 1916 before there were as many blacks in public high schools as in private high schools.

Blacks themselves went to extraordinary lengths to create an educated class. The building of Tuskeegee Institute, literally with the students' own hands, is a story seldom told, because it was done under the leadership of Booker T. Washington, who is not politically correct today. He is excoriated by those who have never bothered to study the facts about the man or his times.

As far back as 1899, the one black academic high school in Washington scored higher on standardized tests than two of the three white high schools in the nation's capital. In the decades that followed, its graduates went on to college at a higher rate than that of white Americans. From this school came the first black federal judge, the first black general to lead men in combat, the first black Cabinet member, the first black elected to the Senate and many other firsts. All this from one school.

Yet this story too is seldom mentioned today, because it too was done in ways that are not considered politically correct today. Far from looking inward at the ghetto or being Afro-centric or teaching -- or even tolerating -- "black English," it opened the students' minds to a wider world of culture, including requiring the learning of Latin and the study of the classics.

Facts about other successful black schools, past and present, get very little attention from the intelligentsia because the stories of these schools would not forward the agendas of the left. In short, history is treated as just the continuation of politics by other means.

From A usable black history, by Walter E. Williams, August 22, 2001:

quote:

John McWhorter, linguistics professor at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, has written a compelling essay in the summer 2001 issue of City Journal titled, "Toward a Usable Black History."

Last year, he wrote "Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America," arguing there's a culture of black anti-intellectualism impeding academic excellence, resulting from an ideology of victimization and separatism. The pursuit of academic excellence is seen as "acting white" and as such amounts to racial betrayal.

In his City Journal article, McWhorter says that, while it would be folly not to teach the history of the injustices of slavery, Jim Crow and gross racial discrimination, " a history of only horrors cannot inspire."

McWhorter says, "When, 'Learn your history,' means, 'Don't get fooled by superficial changes'; and, 'Today's New York City Street Crimes Unit can't be distinguished from yesterday's Bull Connor'; and our aggrieved despair over our sense of disinclusion from the national fabric remains as sharp as ever, could any people find inner peace when taught to think of their own society as their enemy?"

Instead, a better, more usable history would be one that gives greater emphasis to black successes in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. That kind of history inspires, instead of breeding victimhood. McWhorter says today's education chaos is not business-as-usual but something entirely new.

From the late 1800s to 1950, some black schools were models of academic achievement. Black students at Washington's Dunbar High School often outscored white students as early as 1899. Schools such as Frederick Douglas (Baltimore), Booker T. Washington (Atlanta), P.S. 91 (Brooklyn), McDonough 35 (New Orleans) and others operated at a similar level of excellence. These excelling students weren't solely members of the black elite; most had parents who were manual laborers, domestic servants, porters and maintenance men.

McWhorter says that instead of "romanticizing failure" in black communities, young people should be taught that successful economic communities can be had.

Chicago's "Bronzeville" is a handy example. After 1875, blacks occupied a three by 15 block enclave on the South Side. During the early 1900s, Bronzeville was home to several black newspapers and 731 business establishments, by 1917 in 61 lines of work. The Binga Bank opened in 1908 by its founder Jesse Binga, who started out with a wagon selling coal and oil. By 1929, Bronzeville blacks had amassed $100 million in real-estate holdings.

Chicago wasn't the only city where blacks established a significant business presence. Other cities would include New York; Philadelphia; Durham, N.C.; Atlanta and Washington, D.C. -- and Tulsa's Greenwood district, which was destroyed by rioting whites.

Keep in mind that when blacks established business successes such as those in Bronzeville and Durham, it was accomplished in a harsh racial environment. No one can attribute their successes to SBA minority loans, business set-asides, affirmative action and measures deemed indispensable by today's race experts. It was accomplished through hard work, sacrifice and, as my father used to say, coming early and staying late.

Ignoring or downplaying black achievement promotes the victim attitude, where people believe that in order for them to be successful somebody else must perform some benevolent act.

The bottom line indisputable fact of business is that black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles, in a shorter span of time than any other racial group in mankind's history. That speaks well of the intestinal fortitude of a people, and it also speaks well of a nation in which such gains were possible.

Today's whining and portrayal of black people as a victim class amounts to an unspeakable betrayal of the sacrifices and the successes of our ancestors.

From Demoralizing young blacks, from Walter E. Williams, April 4, 2001:

quote:

David Bell, Harvard law professor, counseled, "Black people will never gain full equality in this country." The late columnist Carl Rowan said, "Racism remains a terrible curse on this society, and ... nothing in sight suggests that that curse will end soon."

New York Rep. Charles Rangel said: "Black men are not the problem. Black men are the victims." Jesse Jackson said: "We (blacks) are under attack by the courts

, legislatures and mass media. We're despised. Racists attack us for sport to win votes." New York Supreme Court judge Ivan Warner somberly said, "The entire United States is a racist society."

These comments, observations and counsel are just a tiny sample of three decades worth of defeatist poison bestowed on the black community by leftist politicians, civil rights leaders, professors and teachers.

Black people are taught that every waking thought of white America is racist; black people are perennial victims of white oppression; we have no control over our lives and destiny. The only way black people can achieve anything is to prey upon white guilt, and seek special privileges like quotas, handouts, and lately reparations and apologies for slavery.

We're taught that racism is everywhere. If a disproportionate percentage of blacks are on death row, it isn't because 50 percent of murders committed in America are committed by blacks and almost all the victims are black. No, the disproportionate percentages are caused by racism in the criminal justice system and slavery's legacy. When large percentages of black high-school graduates can't muster even 700 or 800 on the SAT, it isn't because they haven't studied hard enough and applied themselves. It's the result of racism and slavery's legacy.

The strangest feature of this particular claim, and a testament to the power of racists, is that racists are able to wreak the greatest educational havoc in the very cities where the mayor is black, the superintendent of schools is black, and most of the teachers and principals are black.

When it's noticed that black illegitimacy is 70 percent, and less than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families, and social pathology reigns supreme, it's not because of personal irresponsibility. Instead, it's racism and the legacy of slavery. Nobody bothers to notice that a century ago, when blacks were much closer to slavery, had fewer civil rights and far fewer opportunities, black illegitimacy and family breakdown was a tiny fraction of today's.

The victimization counsel of black and white liberals is debilitating. Think of it this way. Imagine you're a high-school or college administrator. Your basketball-team coach counsels his players: "You're going to play a team that's better than you. No matter how much you practice, no matter how hard you try, you can't win. The only possible way for you to win is if we can get the scorers and referees to cheat for you." What would you do to that coach? I'd say that simply firing him would be too kind.

The victimization vision teaches young blacks they have no choice or control over their own lives. Success depends not on their own efforts, but on handouts, concessions and leg-ups given by white people. As a black person born in 1936, who's witnessed and experienced gross discrimination and seen the personal sacrifices made by both blacks and whites to create today's opportunities, I find the victimization vision not only offensive and racially demeaning, but a gross betrayal of the monumental bravery and sacrifice of those who came before us.

South Carolina Rep. Robert Smalls (1874-1886) said it best: "My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in this country proves them to be the equal of any people anywhere. All they need is an equal chance in the battle of life."

From Democrats, republicans and blacks, by Thomas Sowell, September 28, 2000:

quote:

Democrats can claim credit -- if that's the word -- for all the government social programs that have played such a role in the disintegration of families. These programs have done little to reduce poverty. Blacks did more to reduce their own poverty than the government ever has.

Between 1940 and 1960, the poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent to 47 percent. Yet there was no major federal civil rights legislation or welfare state programs created during that period. The continuing rise of blacks out of poverty during the 1960s, when their poverty rate fell an additional 17 points, cannot be arbitrarily attributed to the Great Society programs, since this trend was already decades old before these programs were created. As for the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- the poverty rate among blacks fell by only one percentage point then.

Education had much to do with the rise of blacks. As of 1940, black adults averaged just 5 years of schooling. By 1960 that was 8 years and by 1970 it was 10 years. Obviously, doubling your education within one generation tends to increase your income, regardless of which party is in power or what policies they follow.

In our own high-tech era, education is even more important. Nothing is more of a handicap to blacks today than inadequate education. There are many reasons for these inadequacies. How do the Democrats and Republicans compare, when it comes to the education of black youngsters?

Democrats are too completely dependent on the teachers' unions to be able to break the public school monopoly or to get rid of incompetent teachers or even to insist on the teaching of the basics, instead of the dumbed down education and amateur social engineering that the education establishment likes.

From Blacks and bootstraps, by Thomas Sowell, August 10, 2000:

quote:

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much.

The fact that an entirely different picture has been cultivated and spread throughout the media cannot change the historical facts. What it can do -- and has done -- is make blacks look like passive recipients of government beneficence, causing many whites to wonder why blacks can't advance on their own, like other groups. Worse, it has convinced many blacks themselves that their economic progress depends on government programs in general and affirmative action in particular.

It is undoubtedly true that the careers of black "leaders," politicians and community activists depend heavily on government programs. It is their ability to lobby for government goodies that keeps such people in business and in the limelight. It was the breakdown of restrictions on black voting in the South that caused a rapidly rising number of black elected officials.

Even today, it is the politicizing of racial hype that enables many black public figures to remain public figures and to extort money and concessions from private businesses by threatening to call them racists or organize boycotts if they don't pony up. There is no question that the 1960s marked the decisive upturn in opportunity for race hustlers.

At one time, the aspirations of black leaders and the well being of the black population at large coincided, since both were striving to end Jim Crow laws and other racial barriers. But such coincidences do not last, either among blacks or among other racial or ethnic groups in the United States or in other countries.

"Leaders" have their own interests and agendas that they push, even when the effect on those for whom they claim to speak is detrimental. That is where we are today. Black leaders have a vested interest in black dependency -- on them and on the government that they can try to influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest point that's being missed is that it cannot be debated that Sadaam was in material breach of quite a few treaties and resolutions.

From my understanding, once a party reneges on a contract, that contract is no longer valid. Thus the Persian Gulf War was probably legally in effect once again.

If Sadaam was or was not an imminent threat legally doesn't matter - even though many - including the Clinton Administration and quite a few prominent Democrats were echoing the Bush administration as well.

The DNC is just mad because Bush basically yanked his pants to his ankles and smacked his arse to the UN - which I applaud very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takvah, and others new to this board:

The tone of debate on this thread is starting to get out of hand. We encourage spirited debate and all points of view, but we do not tolerate personal attacks. Attack the message, not the messenger.

Jaguar is right about posts disappearing. If they do, it is not because he disagrees with your point of view, it will be because you violated board protocol.

So, message to everyone: tone down the personal snippiness and stick to the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

1991-01-01 6.4 - President George H. W. Bush

1992-01-01 7.3 - President George H. W. Bush

1993-01-01 7.3 - President William J. Clinton

1994-01-01 6.6 - President William J. Clinton

1995-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1996-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1997-01-01 5.3 - President William J. Clinton

1998-01-01 4.6 - President William J. Clinton

1999-01-01 4.3 - President William J. Clinton

2000-01-01 4.0 - President William J. Clinton

2001-01-01 4.2 - President George W. Bush

2002-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

2003-01-01 5.8 - President George W. Bush

2004-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

5.6% unemployment has historically been considered low. In fact, in 1996 CNN ran stories on the low rate: U.S. jobless rate hits six-year low.

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

So the question is, why was 5.6% considered low when Clinton was in office, but now it is considered high when Bush is in office?

Also, if 5.6% is high, what do you consider to be low? The theoretical minimum for unemployment has been around 3.0%-3.5%, considering normal turnover and seasonal employment.

[ 03-20-2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

quote:

1991-01-01 6.4 - President George H. W. Bush

1992-01-01 7.3 - President George H. W. Bush

1993-01-01 7.3 - President William J. Clinton

1994-01-01 6.6 - President William J. Clinton

1995-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1996-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1997-01-01 5.3 - President William J. Clinton

1998-01-01 4.6 - President William J. Clinton

1999-01-01 4.3 - President William J. Clinton

2000-01-01 4.0 - President William J. Clinton

2001-01-01 4.2 - President George W. Bush

2002-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

2003-01-01 5.8 - President George W. Bush

2004-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

5.6% unemployment has historically been considered low. In fact, in 1996 CNN ran stories on the low rate: U.S. jobless rate hits six-year low.

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

So the question is, why was 5.6% considered low when Clinton was in office, but now it is considered high when Bush is in office?

Also, if 5.6% is high, what do you consider to be low? The theoretical minimum for unemployment has been around 3.0%-3.5%, considering normal turnover and seasonal employment.


The Democrats are very good at moving the goalposts.

Clinton has great unemployment during his tenior, but Bushs suck, even though it's actually lower.

Why, because Democrats can do no wrong, and Republicans are never right.

I find it fascinating. Such hypocrisy and downright dishonesty is not only rampand within that party, but encouraged.

Like $iLk said, go take a look at Democrat underground, they are full of anger and hatred, and they actually plan some of this crap on their forum. It's fascinating to watch such mental illness spew forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So the question is, why was 5.6% considered low when Clinton was in office, but now it is considered high when Bush is in office?


I believe it's about perception. To use these same numbers and not throw other things into the mix (dragging ALL unemployment history and play the blame game) let's look at the presidents in question. H W Bush was 6.4 (chart doesn't say what he inherited, that would be interesting.) and then it rose to 7.3. Clinton inherited 7.3 and it went steadily down until his last year in office when it had a small uptick.

W Bush took that 4.2 and it jumped to 5.6 within his first year. Then it rose again the second year and now it has dropped back a bit. This signals that things are somewhat improving but for people to consider 5.6% low they would have to forget that 4.2% was perhaps extraordinarily low. That's not gonna happen. People are going to remember the Clinton good times and blame Bush because he could not maintain the status quo.

Disclaimer 1: I'm not taking sides. I just think it's about the perception.

Disclaimer 2: I know that the president doesn't have "control" over the employment numbers. However, the policies any president advocates or even signs into law indirectly effects the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton's "exraordinarily low" unemployment numbers is what we today call the "dot com bubble." All these companies popped up to try to take advantage of the maturing internet. When people realized that these companies didn't actually produce anything, the interest dissipated, the captial went elsewhere, the dot coms failed, and the bubble burst.

That is why you see the low dip in unemployment under Clinton. Track the employment numbers with the dot com craze, and it all becomes evident. His unemployment numbers are as flimsy as the dot com bubble was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I always thought something was fishy during the dot com era. There just wasn't enough substance to support everything they were doing. It was like a bunch of multi level marketers were in room pumping up the clueless sales force.

quote:

Track the employment numbers with the dot com craze, and it all becomes evident.

I'm not that good. However just looking at that chart (which I just realized leaves out the first two years of H W Bush) '91 - '92 had an uptick of .9% to 7.3%. Clinton maintained 7.3% for a year and then it dropped .7% then the next year it dropped a full percentage point. I see a slow steady drop from that chart. The dot com bubble was in there somewhere but I don't see a year with a HUGE drop unless you count that full percent point drop.

From what I remember of the dot com era it was maybe 97 but defintitely 98 - 99 when the thing exploded.

quote:

His unemployment numbers are as flimsy as the dot com bubble was.

But wouldn't you agree that it is the perception of the thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

]But wouldn't you agree that it is the perception of the thing?

No not really, if one actually took the time to research an issue a candidate brings up then you would have facts and not perceptions. You also have to take into account the enormous working population growth from either immigration and also high school/College grads throught the entire US population since clinton left office. When you think of the numbers, it amazes me to think how any country can employ that many people no matter how good the economy is. It's just impossible. More and more people will be looking for work in the years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question was

quote:

So the question is, why was 5.6% considered low when Clinton was in office, but now it is considered high when Bush is in office?


Clinton's 5.6% number was considered low because it came down from 7.3%.

Bush's 5.6% number is considered high because it went up from 4.0%.

PERCEPTION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Clinton's 5.6% number was considered low because it came down from 7.3%.

Bush's 5.6% number is considered high because it went up from 4.0%.

PERCEPTION.

You say perception, I say BIAS.

4.0% was extroardinarily low. Even CNN was amazed in 1996 at how low it was, given the normal churn in employement. That 4.0% (and lower) has to be at the extreme of probabilities, the kind of number that occurs less than 5% of the time. In fact, given that the CBO has already restated the economic figures from 1995-2000 in 2002, I wouldn't be surprised if the unemployment numbers were cooked somehow, also.

Anyway, back to the question, I believe that it is bias in reporting that is making 5.6% seem high when it has been historically low, just like with how CBS recently spiked their own recent poll showing Bush ahead of Kerry. CBS claims that the poll became invalid because it was taken before the Spain bombing, but they never failed to report a Kerry leading poll, no matter what events may have led to that. They should have reported the poll as taken, and then run an explanatory story along with it, leaving it to the reader to decide the merits of the poll.

It is that kind of bias, spiking polls harmful to Democrats and spinning good numbers as bad, that we will see more of in the months to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1993-01-01 7.3 - President William J. Clinton

1994-01-01 6.6 - President William J. Clinton

1995-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1996-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1997-01-01 5.3 - President William J. Clinton

1998-01-01 4.6 - President William J. Clinton

1999-01-01 4.3 - President William J. Clinton

2000-01-01 4.0 - President William J. Clinton

-------------------------------------

43.3 / 8= 5.4

2001-01-01 4.2 - President George W. Bush

2002-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

2003-01-01 5.8 - President George W. Bush

2004-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

------------------------------------------

21.2 / 4= 5.3

Clinton's Average Unemployment = 5.4%

Bush's Average Unemployment = 5.3%

Looking at this, how can anyone say Bush's economy in terms of employment is worse than Clinton's? This is what I mean about not relying on Perception do the math!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have NO faith in the intelligence of the American people.

The media and public school system has pretty much done a majority of the population in. Dumbed them down to apoint where if someone in a position of power that will give them something, says something, even if it's NOT true. They will eat it up, believe it, and act upon that untruth.

They do NOT think for themselves, they are the sheeple of this country, and they are becoming the majority.

I saddens me, but I see the end of this great republic coming sooner rather then later, when even the republicans ignore the constitution, then the end is near. I can't blame them, they want the sheeple to vote for them as well, so giving them their money, their prescription drug benefits etc, will get them to vote Republican, or so they hope, don't count on it boys...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheeple? Damn right!

That's the way this big social experiment is designed ro work. Keep them stupid, drunk, and/or addicted to drugs,(prescription and illicit both), while the masterminds get fatter and the people grow thinner.

It's eugenics on a planetary scale.

It's purpose?

To maintain their power over everything.

They won't stop with this nation,nor have they been idle in precipitating the subjugation of all the other nations on this planet.

We are trapped in a huge spider web, populated by many wealthy bloodsucking eight legged freaks.

The seeds of discord and trickery have reaped a garden of poisonous weeds and a huge spider web that none of us can escape from.

The hall of mirrors in fortress DC is not a place the common citizen has even a glimmer of hope of navigating, much less correcting this nations path into the future.

It's not about parties or any of that other nonsense.It's about money.

The law grinds the poor and the rich control the law. It's as plain as the noses on our faces.

We are all slaves to our own complacency and the established money mongers.

If we escape the depths of the web and the weeds and rise above the poverty line to affluence, we are pretty well doomed to join the ranks of the web spinners.

I am now too old to worry about such an advance in my life, and I for damned sure don't want or need six more legs. Gained by selling my soul,integrity, and honesty to the spider club that is our socio-economic system of government.

Our only freedoms in this day and age are those that we are allowed to have, if it benefits the wealthy.

The constitution was a fantastic idea until it started getting in the way of the wealthy overlords who have stripped it and mangled it to suit them.

Elections have become an exercise in futility.

The candidate who wins does not do so by the will of the people anymore.

Government officials are placed, not elected.

You have good reason to be sad, Jag but, the plain and simple fact is it's not because we are sheeple by choice. We have been herded into the pen to be fleeced for a long long time, whether we want to or not. Those of us who refuse the clippers become mutton chops.

Keep your eyes open, the best is yet to come, and anymore debate on this subject is moot and serves no purpose. Just eat your grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

1993-01-01 7.3 - President William J. Clinton

1994-01-01 6.6 - President William J. Clinton

1995-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1996-01-01 5.6 - President William J. Clinton

1997-01-01 5.3 - President William J. Clinton

1998-01-01 4.6 - President William J. Clinton

1999-01-01 4.3 - President William J. Clinton

2000-01-01 4.0 - President William J. Clinton

-------------------------------------

43.3 / 8= 5.4

2001-01-01 4.2 - President George W. Bush

2002-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

2003-01-01 5.8 - President George W. Bush

2004-01-01 5.6 - President George W. Bush

------------------------------------------

21.2 / 4= 5.3

Clinton's Average Unemployment = 5.4%

Bush's Average Unemployment = 5.3%

Unfortunately, a second look at that chart paints a different picture.

You can't use the 1993-01-01 number for Clinton, as he didn't take office until 1-20, so that would be for Bush's last year in office. So, Clinton's average would be calculated from 1994-01-01 through 2001-01-01, and Bush would only have three years, 2002-01-01 through 2004-01-01.

Breaking out the chart that way, you have Clinton with an average 5.0% and Bush with an average 5.6%. However, Clinton is getting the benefit of averaging with 8 observations to Bush's 3, where each observation has a greater impact on the total (Bush's numbers are weighted .333 while Clinton's are weighted .125).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Breaking out the chart that way, you have Clinton with an average 5.0% and Bush with an average 5.6%. However, Clinton is getting the benefit of averaging with 8 observations to Bush's 3, where each observation has a greater impact on the total (Bush's numbers are weighted .333 while Clinton's are weighted .125).

okay point taken but my point was that they are still so close that you can't really say Bush's record is that overly worse or better than Clinton's. In the end, the averages are neck and neck. Looks like we'll have to keep Bush in office for another 4 years to see how he tally's up against Clinton's full record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My god I am watching 60 Minutes tonight and I am in shock. Any indictment I make against G.W. is mild in comparison to this INSIDER'S take. "I think he has done a terrible job in regard to terrorism"... priceless.

As for the unemployment matter... WAKE UP. Perception isn't an AVERAGE... perception is this fact, DURING THAT BASTARD CLINTON'S TERM OF SERVICE THE UNEMPLOYMENT WENT DOWN.. ALL YEARS... NOT ONE, NOT TWO... EIGHT. Jesus Christ... I have just about had enough of you idiots LYING. Wake the hell up and be CRITICAL of failure. I am a republican but I WILL NOT SELL MY SOUL FOR THE PARTY.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...