On the other hand, Bush has a four-year record of lies, deception and mismanagement that are costing this country money and lives while lowering the quality of life for the majority of its residents.

It's an easy call on November 2nd.

Notwithstanding the bursting of the dot com bubble, the Wall Street scandals, terrorist attacks, and the war on terror? Gosh, it's so easy to forget those little annoyances isn't it?

And the real worry for Kerry is, of course, that despite all those problems, the worst any president has had to face since WWII, the economy is growing steadily, unemployment is low, and we haven't had a single terrorist attack occur in this country since 9/11.

Perhaps the choice is not quite so cut and dried. You think?

David

Especially the war on terror, David - we need somebody in power who will pursue the terrorists, rather than neoconservative political objectives.

And unemployment is high: there were 4 million unemployed in July 2000 and now there are 8 million unemployed, with another 4.7 million not on the rolls but looking for jobs. That's an increase of nearly 9 million unemployed, by far the worst record of any president since Hoover.

For the majority of Americans, the economy is not improving, with real wages down and costs up in many areas (food, housing, health care, property taxes), far more than the nominal tax "cuts" they received - their quality of life is getting worse [opens in new window].

And mentioning no attacks in the country for any particular length of time is just a stupid right-wing red herring - it proves nothing.

For a better picture of how badly Bush has performed on terrorism, check out: Terrorists: Bush "gets it" - but he gets it wrong [opens in new window].

8 million unemployed, with another 4.7 million not on the rolls but looking for jobs.

I'm sorry, I really would have to see statistics on this number of unemployed. And does this include those who don't need to work? Also, it might include data from companies on hiring, but does it cover those who are in business for themselves?

Even Kerry doesn't say 8 million unemployed, he is saying 1.6 million these days, acknowledging the fact that we've seen 1.5+ million new jobs in the past year. Let me mention this statistic; in the 90 days following 9/11 between 1 and 1.5 million jobs disappeared because of the loss to the travel industry. It took over two years before that industry began making a comeback.

And will you stop whining about Bush's "failures" in the war on terror if we get Osama bin Laden? That seems to be the liberal obsession lately.

Thanks,

David

I'm curious to the rationale behind citing total numbers unemployed vice percent unemployed. Is there a reason for this? It seems if you use the percent numbers when compared with historical figures the unemployment situation doesn't vary significantly over the last decade.

The stats are on the BLS site and are real. I'll get the links later.

Kerry's 1.6 million is a different number (and a bit higher than I remember), not unemployment. What he's talking about is the drop in total jobs available in the U. S. Jobs peaked at 132+ million, were roughly 131 million the last time I looked.

As I said, the numbers I use are real and I'll be back with links, maybe not until tomorrow, though.

Kerry's number was high, but maybe he used numbers that weren't seasonally adjusted. To get the seasonally-adjusted historical employment number, go here.

Click on Item 1.

On the first line of the form (total nonfarm), check both boxes.

Go to the bottom of the page and click "Retrieve Data."

The not seasonally-adjusted numbers peaked at 133,372,000 jobs in November of 2000. Preliminary figures for August of 2004 are 131,202,000 jobs in the U.S. That's a drop of 2.17 million jobs.

Seasonally-adjusted numbers are ususally used by economists, and that peaked at 132,507,000 in March of 2001. Preliminary figures for August of 2004 are 131,475,000 jobs in the U.S. That's a drop of 1 million jobs.

Your Kerry number may have been from earlier this year, as there has been a partial recovery of lost jobs from the 2.17 million loss last year.

Note also that in the last four years, 5 million additional people have been added to the workforce, while the number of available jobs has decreased.

I'll be back with more links later.

My 4.7 million was too low - the current BLS total of those not in the labor force but currently wanting a job is now over 5 million. You can find the data in Table A.13 in the BLS pdf file here.

And unemployment is now 5.4%, a very favorable number and below what used to be seen as "full employment" for the nation.

And the way you cite numbers is based on whether you subscribe to the corporate survey or the household survey. The household survey shows a net increase far larger than the corporate survey, simply based on the fact that it can measure self-employed workers. I work in an industry where we hire thousands of IT folks, many of whom are self-employed. That way, they don't have to split their fees with an agency and they have the added benefit of special tax breaks.

Thanks,

David

Economists (who don't work for the Heritage Foundation), including Alan Greenspan, Mankiw of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and others, agree that the Establishment survey is better than the Houseehold survery.

The reason is that the Household Survey asks quesitons of 60,000 households representing about 70,000 jobs and gets opinions, including a lot of "self-employed" who are unemployed looking for a job.

The Establishment Survey is hard numbers from 400,000 companies with about 40 million actual jobs. It is recognized as being more accurate.

It's interesting how the right wing, including guys like Steve Forbes who do know better, suddenly got behind the household numbers when jobs started tanking (and offshoring).

The percentage of unemployed masks reality because it is a percentage and because it too is simply a household survey of a relatively small sample.

Note also that the BLS explained the apparent drop in the unemployment percentage from 5.5% last month as being because so many people ran out of unemployment insurance that they're no longer counted.

Bush has failed massively in leading this country to make things better for workers - as I said, we're in bad shape.

Hal Pawluk: Economic Girlie-Man

Was your mother, RJ, scared by a fact before you were born?

I can't think of any other reason for your lack of ever using, understanding or dealing with them.

[edited]