President Bush: Is He a Liar?

But I'll throw you a bone...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041006-9.html



http://www.bls.gov/mls/mlsimpac.htm

FYI

See? That wasn't so difficult.

Of course not. Which doesn't say much for your inability and/or unwillingness to do it yourself.

You must have me mistaken for cicerone imposter.

I am very much afraid that a referral to the activities and comments made by a former president, Bill Clinton, are not off topic when the allegation is made that President Bush lied.

If there would be NO referral to activities of past presidents, there could be no baselines for comparitive purposes.

As Drew Dad is, I am sure, aware, Barry Bonds' 714 Home Runs are notable mainly because their number is compared with another former baseball player who finished his career in the forties--Babe Ruth.

I must replicate my former post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do Presidents say about former Cabinet Members when they are replaced?

Here is what President Clinton said in 1996 about the former Secretary of Defense and the former Secretary of State:

Quote:

Earlier, I had the opportunity to pay tribute to the contributions of Secretary Christopher. I want to say again how much I appreciate what he has done.

But today, I also want to thank Bill Perry for being one of the finest defense secretaries in the history of the United States. I thank you, Bill, and I will miss both of you very much

End of quote:

Apparently Bill Perry was "one of the finest defense secrataries in the history of the United States".

Despite the fact that Mr.Perry was named as "one of the FINEST defense secretaries in the United States, President Clinton, on that day, named Mr. William Cohen as new defense secrartary.

Could the words, "fine" and "finest", be suffering from misuse?



Now,

I am very much afraid that a referral to the activities and comments made by a former president, Bill Clinton, are not off topic when the allegation is made that President Bush lied.

If there would be NO referral to activities of past presidents, there could be no baselines for comparitive purposes.

As Drew Dad is, I am sure, aware, Barry Bonds' 714 Home Runs are notable mainly because their number is compared with another former baseball player who finished his career in the forties--Babe Ruth.

I must replicate my former post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do Presidents say about former Cabinet Members when they are replaced?

Here is what President Clinton said in 1996 about the former Secretary of Defense and the former Secretary of State:

Quote:

Earlier, I had the opportunity to pay tribute to the contributions of Secretary Christopher. I want to say again how much I appreciate what he has done.

But today, I also want to thank Bill Perry for being one of the finest defense secretaries in the history of the United States. I thank you, Bill, and I will miss both of you very much

End of quote:

Apparently Bill Perry was "one of the finest defense secrataries in the history of the United States".

Despite the fact that Mr.Perry was named as "one of the FINEST defense secretaries in the United States, President Clinton, on that day, named Mr. William Cohen as new defense secrartary.

Could the words, "fine" and "finest", be suffering from misuse?



Now,

I'm afraid I don't follow baseball, but did you intend to actually make a point?

I am sorry, Drew Dad, I did not wish to offer any arcane explanations.

Perhaps this will help--

from "The Presidential Difference" by Dr.Fred I. Greenstein, Published by the Free Press- 2000(Dr. Greenstein has superb credentials. If you wish, Drew Dad, I can replicate them for you)


P. 175

(In his chapter on Bill Clinton)

QUOTE:

"Like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton had a number of traits associated with children of alcoholics."

END OF QUOTE


You will note, Mr. Drew Dad, that one of the nation's most highly respected Presidential Historians--Dr. Fred Greenstein--references a former president-Ronald Reagan--when commenting on Bill Clinton.
All Presidential Historians do that. You really should not be surprised when someone refers to a past president's policies or actions to gain perspective on a present occupant of the office.

I have quite a few books on Presidents and can quote some other Presidential Historians who indeed reference Bill Clinton when talking about George W. Bush.

Would you like some examples, sir? I would be happy to provide them.

One way to judge the performance of a present politician is to put his actions in context and compare his policies with a past politician.

All Presidential Historians do it, sir. But don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

I am sorry but I must respectfully request that Drew Dad give more information concerning his claim that the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the Number of jobs directly or indirectly lost because of 9/11 was 125,631. I simply cannot find that figure in the BLS reports,but I have found another source which is in wide disagreement with that figure. It may well be that not only is Brandon correct,but that Brandon has underestimated the numbr of jobs that were lost because of 9/11

Note below:

Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million
Brian Sullivan



Small Businesses Start Using Technology as a Sales Advantage


March 25, 2003 (Computerworld) -- Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Job cuts in the 18 months before Sept. 11 tallied 1,642,988 positions lost. From Sept. 11 through the end of February, job losses totaled 2,523,217, an increase of 54%, or 880,988 jobs, Challenger said. The largest losses were in the transportation industry, where 226,674 jobs were eliminated, and the aerospace/defense sector, where 138,937 jobs were cut.

"There is no way to gauge to what degree the effect 9/11 and the war on terror had on the economy," Challenger said in a telephone interview today.

But he noted that since the attacks people have been flying less, which has reduced the number of face-to-face meetings, which he said are vital for creating new partnerships between companies, new ideas and new entrepreneurial opportunities.

"Global business is one of the keys to the turning around of this economy, and it has inevitably been affected," Challenger said.

Challenger said job market problems could be made worse by the war in Iraq and the eroding image of the U.S. abroad. The war footing has caused companies to lay low, which affects trade and can lead to cutbacks in production and a loss of more jobs. In addition, anti-U.S. feeling could affect businesses by shutting them out of potential contracts and markets for their products.

The downside to the global economy is that jobs get exported overseas, Challenger said. The upside is supposed to be that the market for products becomes limitless.

If the U.S. is locked out of markets because of anti-U.S. sentiment, it will hurt economically and could contribute to more job cuts in the months ahead. "If [the war] is drawn out and long and there is not a clear success and there is more chaos, that could continue to destabilize the world economy and the U.S. with it," Challenger said.

Challenger said a quick resolution to the war and an outcome that shows the U.S. in a favorable light might create a kind of "euphoria" in U.S. businesses and spark a boom. He said such a boom came about after the last Gulf War and helped end the recession of the early 1990s. That recession was worse in terms of lost jobs, Challenger said, but it didn't last as long and it also had factors within it that helped reignite the economy after the war.

In the early 1990s, a number of industries had deregulated, which opened up entrepreneurial opportunities. Major leaps in technology had taken place that allowed for new types of applications and the creation of new industries. And the global market really opened up after the Gulf War.

Unfortunately, he said, there are no corresponding factors present in the current economy.

The one bright spot in Challenger's study of job trends since 9/11 is that the flood of lost IT jobs seems to have slowed, especially in the telecommunications sector, which led all industries in the number of job cuts for quite a while.

Challenger's company studies the job market and issues reports on a regular basis about market trends.

Source

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers

Hmmm... Computerworld quoting person of unknown qualifications, vs. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Golly. I'm not sure who to believe!

I am sure, Drew Dad, that I would believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but, as I mentioned in my post, I could not find the information in the vast jungle of the BLS.

Would you be more specific, please, and give the area and date of the BLS in which you found the information?

If you cannot do so, even though my information is not from as good a source as yours, my information stands.

I can wait!!!

I'm so sorry you had such a hard fruitless slog thru BLS statistics, Bernard. I avoided all your apparently arduous labor by simply clicking on the link Drew provided, and, golly, there it was, right in the third paragraph.

Here, let me help you out:

http://www.bls.gov/mls/mlsimpac.htm

It's gratifying to hear you think so highly of the BLS. You don't have to bother waiting anymore. Have a nice day

Username- I wish to thank you for providing the information which I could not find. However, I am very much afraid that the information is quite misleading. If you re-read the paragraph, it mentions that in the eighteen weeks following 9/11 employers reported 430 events of jobs lost directly or indirectly because of 9/11 as 125,631. The number of people who lost jobs in the four months after 9/11(eighteen weeks as referenced above) was much much higher than 125,631.

I am very much afraid that the number of employers reporting did not at all equal the number of employers that could have reported. Here are some additional figures from the BLS which are much more representative of what actually happened in the four months following 9/11.


********************************************************

Employment continued to decline in December, and the unemployment rate
edged up to 5.8 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment decreased
by 124,000 over the month and by 1.1 million over the last 4 months of
2001. In December, job losses continued in manufacturing, transportation,
and trade; these losses were partially offset by employment gains in
services and government.

SOURCE- BLS

********************************************************

I am certain, Mr. Username, that you will note that the BLS reported that--

NONFARM PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT DECREASED BY 124,000 OVER THE MONTH(December) and by 1.1 MILLION OVER THE LAST FOUR MONTHS OF 2001."

I hope this has been helpful to you,sir, and also to Mr. Drew Dad.

The quote was (from memory), "BECAUSE OF 9/11, nearly a million jobs were lost" (emphasis added). The economy sucked for other reasons than 9/11, if you will remember. BLS attributes 120.000+ to 9/11 (and you in your post also were talking about 9/11). A million or so jobs were lost, but the bulk of them were not due to 9/11. Bush was wrong. 9/11 did not cause a million jobs to be lost. 9/11 caused 120.000 or so jobs to be lost. Don't confuse what you're talking about and try to conflate everything into one statistic.

Oh come on, Bernard, that's so weak. The BLS has layoffs DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to 9/11. The rest is due to other causes. Are you seriously trying to tell me that layoffs at dog food manufacturers in Omaha are attributable to 9/11? Uh huh, sure. If you remember, the economy was in recession. Mass layoffs events for 2001 by months numbered Jan-1522, Feb-1501, M-1527, A-1450, M-1434, J-2107, J-2117, A-1490, Sep-1327, Oct-1831, N-2721, D-2440. So you're trying to claim that all the layoffs prior to 9/11 were due to the weak economy, while all those after had nothing to do with the weak economy but were due to 9/11? No. Doesn't wash. The BLS separates them out. You have absolutely no valid reason for conflating them.

The average recession lasts 18 months. But it's taken five years for Bush to catch up to 2001? Great work, George.

I didn't confuse them. Senator Bob Bennett( Utah) did. Reread my post.

And, as far as the so-called weak economy you speak of before 9/11, I am very much afraid that you may have missed some key points in your economics classes.

The so called "weak economy" you speak of had these Unemployment Numbers in the months before 9/11

SEE BLS

year of 2001

Feb. 4.2 Mar. 4.3 Apr. 4.4 May 4.3 Jun. 4.5 July 4.6 Aug. 4.9

Sept. 5.0

Only then did the rate shoot up rapidly OVER 5.0 to show a 5.7% in December.

If you remember your economics, any unemployment rate under 5.0% is defined as "full employment" by the consensus by Economists.


Quote from "Economics" by Fisher, Dornbusch and Schmalensee, McGraw Hill- 1983 BELOW. Quote from P. 602

"The natural rate of unemployment is the unemployment rate that corresponds to practical FULL EMPLOYMENT in the economy--The full employment number is believed to be anything under five percent ."


I am very sorry but the Unemployment Figures for the months BEFORE 9/11 do not show, as you stated, "a weak economy" according to Professional Economists. The Rate only shot past 5.0 after 9/11.

Please re-read Senator Bennett's quote again.

1. to reiterate the facts that show Bush lied about job losses due to the 911 attack:

"Impact of the Events of September 11, 2001, on the Mass Layoff Statistics Data Series," the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics says that only 125,637 jobs were reported lost as a direct or indirect result of the attacks.
In the 18 weeks following the September 11 attacks (the weeks ending September 15 through January 12), employers reported 430 events involving 125,637 workers separated as a direct or indirect effect of the attacks. A majority of the layoff events took place in the weeks immediately following the attacks, and the number of new events has tapered off since then.

Yes, companies reported laying off only 125,000 people as a result of September 11, but the White House is claiming it's 1 million.

The Department of Labor goes on to note that it really isn't possibly anyway to separate out how many people were unemployed as a result of September 11 versus how many were unemployed as a result of the ever-worsening economy before September 11 - but that didn't stop the White House from doing it anyway.

It is not possible to separate overall job losses for October 2001 and subsequent months into the effects from the September 11 events and the effects from a generally weakening employment trend that had been evident for several months prior....



2. the Recession of 2001-2, when it started.... 6 months before 911



"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER.) NBER -- the private, nonpartisan organization whose business cycle announcements have long been considered the definitive word on the topic -- announced its determination on November 26, 2001: "[/quote]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405010002

[quote]The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.

btw: NBER's president, Martin Feldstein, was a Bush campaign adviser who has long been close to the Bush family, as the National Review's Lawrence Kudlow recently noted:

Conventional thinking has Greenspan departing in 2006 and Bush appointing Harvard economist Martin Feldstein as his successor. The former Reagan economic adviser has strong ties to the administration, dating back to Papa Bush and extending through Bush Jr.'s presidential run, when he sat on the campaign's economic policy committee. Since then he has frequently briefed both the president and vice president. As president of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a prolific writer, he enjoys considerable credibility inside the economic establishment.

In short, NBER is widely respected, long recognized as the arbiter of recessions, and is headed by a Bush ally; so if NBER says the recession began in March 2001, the recession began in March 2001.[/quote]

http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/

.

Barons: Economists say Job Market Far Worse than Data Suggest, Real Unemployment 9.4%
15-Oct-04
Barons: [quote]"[Economists say the 5.4% unemployment] rate is ... mathematical sleight of hand. [T]he actual number may be closer to 6.4, 7.2 or 9.4%. The reason the unemployment rate has stayed so low, these economists argue, is not due to improvements in hiring trends. Instead, people are 'dropping out' of the labor force. [N]early two million additional unemployed people who are not showing up in the unemployment rate data. ISI Group's Tom Gallagher noted that 'if the participation rate was at the older, higher level, then the unemployment rate would be around 7.2%. Even using a 10-year average of participation rate yields a 6.4% unemployment rate.' If that sounds bad, consider what happens when we add the 'so-called marginally attached workers and part-timers who really want to be working full time.' Barron's Alan Abelson [explained the real] unemployment rate [is] 9.4% [and] 'we're now 9.3 million jobs below where we'd be in a 'normal' recovery.'" [/quote] (Link requires Subscription)

[quote]Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent[/quote]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101304E.shtml