Hillary is Poison!

I'm still in recovery from the Eisenhower rescession. Isn't everyone?

Just hang in there, dys! The Johnson boom should start kicking in any day now.

Right. Four years of bumbling under Bush I set the stage for EIGHT YEARS of decline in unemployment under Clinton.

Bush can't even run a good economy during his own four year term. But we are supposed to give him credit for Clinton's eight years of excellence?

ROFLMAO!

For those of us living in the real world, here is the chart, once again, of unemployment under Greenspan the Genius, who doesn't look like such a genius except under Clinton.

Keltic Wizard continues his tiresome attempt to compare a retired president with one which is still in office. I hope that Keltic Wizard is aware that there is such a thing as business cycles and that presidents have little to do with the direction of those business cycles-

See--http://freedomkeys.com/stupid.htm

Keltic Wizard may be economically challenged and not have an understanding that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has far more power in giving direction to the Economy than any president.

However, If Keltic Wizard insists on making comparisons between the Economy of the Nineties and the Economy under George W. Bush, he must, unless he is decerebrated, understand that there can be no FINAL comparison made between Bobby Bonds and Babe Ruth.

BOBBY IS STILL PLAYING.

GEORGE W. BUSH HAS JUST STARTED HIS SECOND TERM.

Can one compare the early days of Bonds with the early days of Ruth? Certainly.

The same goes for Bush vis a vis Clinton.

Let us look at some evidence. The only comparisons that can be made is between the first forty six months of Clinton's tenure and the first forty six months of Bush's tenure.

What do we find?

Ehm, according to Keltic's graph, what we find is that:

- in the first 46 months of Clinton's tenure, unemployment went down from roughly 7,2% to roughly 5,1%

- in the first 46 months of Bush's tenure, unemployment went up from roughly 4,0% to roughly 5,4%

Italgato, that was the name. I knew an A2K search on Posner would bring it up. Italgato and then mporter and then septembri.

Not to ignore his/her last post, but one more question regarding when


In your opinion, in terms of who started the boat pushing which way, should the credit/blame for the sudden and huge increase in unemployment in 1990-1992, up to the highest point its been in twenty years, go to Bush I-era economic policies, because it took place during his term, or to Reagan II-era policies, because the turnaround in unemployment started at the very end of his second term?

Nimh-stop that! You're overloading the poor dears' circuits.

Look, it's hard enough to try to concoct a theory for Bush I to grab credit for Clinton's economic success, when every indicator shows Bush I couldn't even generate success in his own term.

But when you take the theory that they so painstakingly stuck together with chewing gum and piano wire, and actually take it to it's logical conclusion-that Bush's subpar performance must be laid at Ronald Reagan's door if Clinton's success must be laid to Bush's-now that's kicking a man when he's down.

KW - do you have a source for your graphs?

How I prepared the deficit chart is explained in the first post in which it appeared. The source of the figures-the Congressional Budget Office-is linked to.

The second chart was made by the Department of Labor graph making engine. I just put the demarcations between presidents using Microsoft Paint.

Both charts are for Alan Greenspan's term at the Fed.

If you want me to give the path to check the figures at the Department of Labor, just ask.

Incidentally, I am just using the most used figures for unemployment. I really do think the whole picture favors Clinton even more, but this is the most familiar figure, so I used it. The Department of Labor uses several figures.

I am very much afraid that both nimh and Keltic Wizard, in their frantic effort to denigrate Bush, show that they are suffering from a severe disease called innumeracy.

Innumeracy manifests itself in many ways.

Keltic Wizard and nimh are saying that eight equals four and two thirds.

Eight years of Clinton Unemployment Figures equal four and two thirds of Bush Unemployment figures.

Sorry!!

That is like saying that Bobby Bonds has not hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth therefore Bonds is not the all time home run champion.

WRONG!

Bonds, like Bush, has not ended his career.

Nimh and Keltic Wizard cannot predict the number of home runs Bonds will hit. They also cannot predict the Unemployment figures for the next forty months of Bush's term.

Let us compare what is comparable.

Let us look at the chart provided by Keltic Wizard and DRAW A LINE at June 1997. What do we find?

We findan unemployment rate of 5.0%

Let us look at the chart again. What do we find in Jan. 1993 -7.3%

Therefore, Clinton's first fifty four months in office showed an unemployment rate which went from 7.3% to 5.0%

What do we find on Keltic Wizards Chart for Bush FOR HIS FIRST FIFTY FOUR MONTHS IN OFFICE?

We find that the unemployment rate has gone from 4.2% to 5.1%.
However, when we compare figures month for month we find that there are twenty three( 23) months in The first fifty four months of the Clinton Presidency in which the Unemployment Rate was lower than the corresponding period during the Bush first fifty four months.

Given the horrendous twist on the Unemployment Figures by the left, this is highly surprising.

Let us compare month by month-

Source- BLS LNS 14000000

1993

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5

2001

4.2 4,2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.7

-----------------------------------------------------------
1994

6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5

2002

5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 60

-----------------------------------------------------------
1995

5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 56

5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 57

2003

___________________________________________1996

5.5 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 54

5.7 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 54

2004

___________________________________________1996 first six months jan- June

5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.3

5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1( est)



Several things leap out when these figures are examined.

First, WHEN COMPARING THE FIRST FIFTY FOUR MONTHS OF CLINTON'S UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES WITH THE FIRST FIFTY FOUR MONTHS OF BUSH'S UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES, THERE ARE ONLY TWENTY THREE MONTHS( WHEN MONTHS ARE COMPARED MONTH FOR MONTH) THAT THE CLINTON NUMBERS ARE LOWER

A. Two months of 2002

B. Twelve Months of 2003

C. Six months of 2004

and Three months of 2005.

This means that month for month when the Bush figures for the first fifty four months are compared, Bush's unemployment numbers were lower in 33 of the months.

It is also clear that the months of 2003 had relatively higher unemployment for Bush but there was no figure for any month which was more than seven tenths of one percent difference in Unemployment WHEN THE WORST MONTH IS VIEWED.

Indeed, many of the differences which can be viewed show clearly that there are many months in which the Clinton Unemployment was only one tenth or two tenths of one percent higher.

Now, I am sure that Keltic Wizard will indicate that the figures for Clinton's second term were low--very low. He would be correct. However, those figures are not comparable UNTIL BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION GOES THROUGH THEM. It is only then that valid comparisons can be made between men how have finished their careers- Bonds and Ruth.

chiczaria, I glean from your consistent messages that everyone but you is stupid. Well, you are probably right so can you tell us just what we can do to have your insight? and does it have anything to do with enemas?

Is that where your brain is? I knew it!

enemas? Dorothy Parker allegedly said, when she was in the Hospital--"Who goes there, friend or enema"?

Why don't you put your brain to use, Dyslxia and find some "errors" in my post?

Throw away comments like yours only clog up the thread.

good line chic, your getting better, I would imagine you could use this one almost endlessly.

Good line chic, your getting better? Don't you mean You're getting better or You are getting better.

You must not type too fast, Dyslexia.

My line is OK but McGentrix gave us the masterpiece.

Thanks, McGentrix

yeah that McG. he is a lot more creative than either of us chic. Kinda makes me jealous and you?

Can we please get back to bashing Hitlery? It is far more interesting.

No it isn't. chic is providing free entertainment for all the folks reading a2k tonight.

I think McGentrix harbors....special feelings for Hillary and expresses them by dipping her pigtails in the inkwell whenever possible.