Where is the US economy headed?

You evidently did not read my post carefully. According to the link I posted, the poverty rate dropped to 12.6% in 2005, a year not shown on your graph, so as I pointed out, this tends to moderate the subtle upward trend under Bush, and if incorporated into the graph, it makes it look flatter, and furthermore as I point out repeatedly, his average is better than Clinton's.

Further, my point about conservatism working, my reasoning is very pertinent. You and imposter both claim Clinton was conservative, at least probably fiscally, and throw in the fact that welfare reform directly impacts the issue of poverty rates, which was a conservative idea, the conclusion is inescapable. Any progress made by Clinton was in large part due to conservative policy.

Bush has done something right, both with unemployment and poverty rate. He inherited a decent situation with both, and he has kept them reasonable, especially considering the negative effect of 911, etc.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with welfare reform at all - I supported the Republican congress who pushed it through in the 90's and I support it now. Personally, I'd like to see the WPA come back and have welfare done away with pretty much altogether.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, yeah.



It dropped from 12.7 to 12.6? Big whoop. Still an overall upwards trend. Compared to Clinton's significant and pervasive downward trend, it isn't a good record.

Cycloptichorn

okie is not even honest in his declaration about "poverty dropping to 12.6%."

Here's the graph:


Now, okie, translate what's on this graph for us?

imposter, if you can believe graphs like this, and I don't put alot of stock in them, because you need to look at how the numbers are derived and collected. Further, I remember the 60's, 70's, until now, and to be honest, I am skeptical of the statistics, some of the reasons I have already mentioned.

But even if you accept the graph, it shows we are alot better off than we were about a half century ago. I have pointed this out numerous times, and have gotten mostly ridicule from liberals. Further, poverty rates are pretty decently low right now, as Bush inherited it and as Bush has maintained it. From 2004 to 2005, the number of people in poverty remained about the same, but because of the increase in population, it dropped a tenth of percent. It is difficult to be precise when looking at a graph, but that seems likely.

And imposter, what do you have to say about Clinton's conservative approach, as you have claimed, along with the conservative Congress of the 90's, namely welfare reform, deserving credit for lowering the poverty rate? You need to be consistent. If you are going to brag on Clinton's poverty rate, and also own up to your claim he was conservative in these matters that impact the poverty rate, then what other conclusion can we draw here?

okie, That you don't believe our own Census Bureau, who do you believe in? Being "skeptical" is fine, but please show evidence by other research or reliable source that refutes the Census Bureau's stats. Your personal opinion doesn't mean much without support for your position.

I agree, and I will quote this right back to you the next time I cite BLS unemployment figures, and you respond that you don't trust government statistics.

I don't trust government Unemployment stats; never have, never will, because they track only the unemployed for four to six weeks - and leave out the long-term unemployed.

So unemployment stats are more unbelievable than Census Bureau data, which may be based on nothing more than samplings or questionaires to citizens about how much money they make?

Honestly, I don't know how the Census Bureau gets its information, especially in off years between major census taking. If anyone has more info, I am interested.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a page on its website describing in detail how the BLS measures unemployment. Click here to check it out. According to this description, you need to have been looking for work for at least four weeks to be counted as unemployed, meaning they don't count anyone having sought employment for less than four weeks. But I can't see in this description any time limit on the other end of the time scale. Could you please show it to me, perhaps in other sources?

In the meantime, I will assume that you misremember the definition, and that you confounded "less than four to six weeks" with "more than four to six weeks".

okie, Poverty is based on income and number in the family as defined by the government.

For unemployment, it doesn't count the long-term unemployed who stopped looking for work - even if they're in need of a job.

That's a different claim than your last one, which was that "they track only the unemployed for four to six weeks - and leave out the long-term unemployed." Are you retracting your claim?

In any event, even your new thesis is false. The BLS defines those who no longer look for work as discouraged workers, and states their number in its monthly employment situation reports. For example, see the April 2007 report, the latest one available today. The BLS may not use the definitions you prefer, but it does track the kinds of people you say it should track.

And I am guessing that this may be one of the means, or the only means the Census Bureau uses to produce poverty statistics.

http://www.census.gov/cps/

This is a survey of 50,000 households, imposter, and the data is based on what the people tell them. First of all, do the people tell the truth, or are they always accurate what percentage of the time? This would be akin to using a polling company before elections to try to document something, and we all know about the margin of error for those.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out numerous times to cyclops, without any satisfactory answer from cyclops pertaining to this point, I would find it extremely doubtful that the respondents would include the Bush tax rebates due to earned income credits, etc., over and above what the people earn, which if reported, would kick a significant percentage of the people above the poverty line. If I am wrong on this, I would like to see evidence. This is only one reason why I view the statistics very skeptically.

At least the unemployment statistics are based on a broader based and more reliable source of information.

okie, If you have a better method, show it to us. Otherwise tell us how their method lacks in defining poverty other than "will they tell the truth?"

I never said I had a better method. And I've already pointed out far more than whether they tell the truth. Read my posts, imposter.

But if it was my job to publish this stuff, I would recommend footnotes at the bottom of these graphs and tables, which would indicate possible pitfalls in the data, plus other factors not considered, plus an estimated margin of error.

If the Census Bureau was my line of work, I would look for ways to make the statistics more accurate, and perhaps I would ask questions of the respondents in regard to taxes paid or received as refunds, so that adjustments to the figures could be considered.

Last thought on this. The Census Bureau, in my opinion, is involved in far more than they need to be, and has far surpassed their original job, which was to count people every ten years. Now, they are apparently trying to count everything every month, down to the last freckle on my arm. I would be interested in their budget and if it should be curtailed.

If you ever bothered to study statistics, there is always a "margin of error" based on the bell curve. The government understands all this, except people like you. You have the obligation to show where the government is lacking in their method - not the other way around.

I've pointed out why the government's Unemployment rate is lacking; they do not count those who need jobs, but could not find it after looking for a very long period of time. That's a big chunk of the "unemployed."

Looked at another way, we have at the very minimum about 200,000 new job seekers every month from high school and college graduates. If they are creating less than 100,000 jobs every month, they are not meeting demand.
It's that simple.

Bush was bragging recently that he created 2.3 million jobs since his presidency. If you do the math, that means only 35,000 jobs were created every month - a far cry from the 200,000 jobs needed for full employment.

You continue to ignore the fact that most of the people not looking for jobs do not need jobs or want jobs. Thomas has already pointed out the fallacy of your reasoning by pointing out that the percentage of people employed of employable status does not support your unfounded assertions regarding the unemployment rate. Yet, you insist upon repeating the same line of reasoning as if it is correct, when it isn't.

I totally understand margin of error. I was the one pointing it out, so why do you insist upon looking at the numbers as if they are so certain? Margin of error was only one of my concerns. If I have a choice, I like good hard numbers vs those gathered by polling, and I simply think such a footnote should be more prominently displayed when such graphs are used.

The Census Bureau maintains a list of the sources for its Statistical Abstract here. With a bit of work, you can research your question by Googling the sources, reading them, and finding out how they acquired their data.

The Census Bureau does the census every ten years. They estimate the population between those ten year periods the best way they know how. According to that estimate, the US now has over 301 million in our country. Probably a pretty good estimate, based on their ability to look at the variables on death, birth, and immigration/migration laws. FYI, it's too costly to do an annual census, so they are relegated to doing estimates which meets most government needs.