When is 5.4% Unemployment better than 5.1%?
By Brian Kirwin | Sunday, April 13th, 2008 | Catch-AllWhen Bill Clinton is President, of course. Media folks proclaim Bush’s 5.1% unemployment is an economic collapse, but Clinton’s higher unemployment was a “booming economy?”
(h/t Death by 1000 papercuts)
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Brian Kirwin
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
5 Responses to "When is 5.4% Unemployment better than 5.1%?"
The economy is more than unemployment numbers. For one thing, did you know that the 2001-2007 expansion was the first time in recorded US economic history that the median income in constant dollars DECREASED?
Not so good Mr. Bush.
I wonder if NAFTA had anything to do with it… Hmmm, I remember when Bush pushed for that and got that passed during his admin… wait.. what?
Excellent observation. The MSM’s arrogance has been their undoing. How many subscriptions lost and jobs cut at the NYT and WaPo to name just two?
Part of this is the lie of the accuracy of the “unemployment rate” – which doesn’t include those who have simply given up trying to find a job – include those folks and your number will jump.
SW – of course you are probably correct, President Clinton’s support for NAFTA very well may be partially responsible for the poor economic conditions our nation is suffering from – also, of course, you must recall that it was the GOP Senate that got NAFTA passed (as it is a treaty – something Bush may need to be reminded of if he tries to sign an agreement with Iraq w/o the “advice and consent of the Senate) – during the NAFTA debate you must also recall that many Dems were condemning Clinton as a Republican free-trader.
Final point – if you want a quick summary of how bad our economy has gotten in objective, free-market terms, look no further than the weakness of our dollar. In 2001 $.65 bought you a Canadian dollar, now it takes $1.05 US for one Canadian dollar. Amazing what six years of strategery can accomplish.
Rather than spin the numbers, I think it’s important to note that in 1996 unemployment was on the way down – now it’s on the way up. Unemployment for the year 1992 averaged 7.2%; 1996 averaged 5.4%; 2000 averaged 4.0%; 2007 averaged 4.6 % and the 2008 YTD average has been 5.3%. That’s the difference.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.