| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Xomicron" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2004 12:44:40 PM |
| Object: |
Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
The Economy -
GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease
Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change
* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it
was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush
while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under
GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out
of 8 of Clinton's years in office.
Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under
GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the
average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than
ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than
under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than
in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.
Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease
* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was
after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than
under Bill Clinton.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Worse Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
19 Jul 2004 11:18:48 PM |
|
|
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
The official poverty rate in 2002 was 12.1 percent, up from
11.7 percent in 2001
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "madmax" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
22 Jul 2004 11:27:22 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
<snip>
What matters is how it is out here in the real world.
Go ask the people that used to work for Hoover and Timken.
See how they are doing with their new jobs(if they found one).
Bush says outsourcing is a good thing(for profits maybe).
Oh yea-the new job is at wal-mart!With overseas products for sale!
Bush is destroying the tax base with ill-advised cuts.
-max
--
To help you stay safe see: http://www.geocities.com/maxpro4u/madmax.html
This message is virus free as far as I can tell.
Change nomail.afraid.org to neo.rr.com so you can reply
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in Usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Buff" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
19 Jul 2004 09:27:48 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
The Economy -
GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease
Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change
* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years
as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with
GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under
GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7
out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.
Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year
Average) - 2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years
under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower
than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND
lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than
under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush
than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.
Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease
* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was
after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush
than under Bill Clinton.
<snicker> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics ... take your pick
over the above <g>
--
Buff -
"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved
body;
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting 'Hell, what a
ride!'"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
20 Jul 2004 11:26:26 AM |
|
|
"Buff" <Buffnospam@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40fc83fb@quokka.wn.com.au...
Xomicron wrote:
The Economy -
GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease
Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change
* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years
as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with
GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under
GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7
out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.
Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year
Average) - 2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years
under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower
than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND
lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than
under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush
than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.
Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease
* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was
after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush
than under Bill Clinton.
<snicker> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics ... take your pick
over the above <g>
What's the expression....."Statistics don't lie, but statisticians DO."
-DMc
--
Buff -
"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved
body;
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting 'Hell, what a
ride!'"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
20 Jul 2004 04:27:03 AM |
|
|
"Buff" <Buffnospam@westnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<40fc83fb@quokka.wn.com.au>...
Xomicron wrote:
The Economy -
GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease
Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change
* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years
as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with
GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under
GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7
out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.
Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year
Average) - 2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years
under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower
than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND
lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than
under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush
than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.
Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease
* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was
after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush
than under Bill Clinton.
<snicker> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics ... take your pick
over the above <g>
I am not saying those figures above are wrong or right, but I will say
this. When you have organizations such as the NABE (National
Association for Business Economics) saying the Economy is very strong,
there isn't much a anti-Bush person is going to be able to say.
http://www.nabe.com/publib/indsum.htm
"By almost any measure—output, employment, profit margins, capital
spending—this economy is strong," said Duncan Meldrum, NABE President
and Chief Economist, Air Products and Chemicals, Allentown, Pa.
"Although upward pressure on product prices eased a bit from last
month's survey, the greatest threat going forward still appears to be
higher materials costs and prices, which we also noted in our previous
survey."
http://www.nabe.com/index.html
Industry Survey: This Economy is Strong
By almost any measure—output, employment , profit margins, capital
spending —this economy is strong, according to NABE's July Industry
Survey. The full report is in the members section, and a summary is
available to the public.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
20 Jul 2004 10:49:59 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Buff" <Buffnospam@westnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<40fc83fb@quokka.wn.com.au>...
<snicker> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics ... take your pick
over the above <g>
I am not saying those figures above are wrong or right, but I will say
this. When you have organizations such as the NABE (National
Association for Business Economics) saying the Economy is very strong,
Appeal to authority fallacy.
http://www.nabe.com/publib/indsum.htm
"By almost any measure—output, employment, profit margins, capital
spending—this economy is strong," said Duncan Meldrum, NABE President
and Chief Economist, Air Products and Chemicals, Allentown, Pa.
What makes you think his opinion is worth anything, *****?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert N. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
20 Jul 2004 11:11:52 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:cdkp56$ooq$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
I am not saying those figures above are wrong or right, but I will say
this. When you have organizations such as the NABE (National
Association for Business Economics) saying the Economy is very strong,
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Er...the rhetorical fallacy you're calling a foul on doesn't describe
reference to authorities, generally. It describes a situation in which
the speaker or writer falsely claims that a person or organization is an
authoritative voice on the subject at hand, then bases further argument
on that voice's statements.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that NABE isn't an
authoritative voice on the subject of US economic issues.
--Robert
--
***
My Head Is Filled with Yeast
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spimby/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 01:04:50 AM |
|
|
Robert N. Lee <cranchingwire@earthhibbyjibbyjeelink.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:cdkp56$ooq$1
I am not saying those figures above are wrong or right, but I will say
this. When you have organizations such as the NABE (National
Association for Business Economics) saying the Economy is very strong,
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Er...the rhetorical fallacy you're calling a foul on doesn't describe
reference to authorities, generally. It describes a situation in which
the speaker or writer falsely claims that a person or organization is an
authoritative voice on the subject at hand, then bases further argument
on that voice's statements.
Or falsely claims that the perosn speaking is speaking
authoritatively.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that NABE isn't an
authoritative voice on the subject of US economic issues.
Since it is a BUSINESS organization, and likely biased in favor of
BUSINESS interests, it is highly unlikely that the opinions offered
are accurate and objective.
For example, while some business may be doing better, the stock
markets are flat, workers income has actually dropped, and the dollar
is stuck at a low against foreign currencies. Hardly indicators of a
strong economy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert N. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 04:19:20 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:cdl122$2ef$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
You'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that NABE isn't an
authoritative voice on the subject of US economic issues.
Since it is a BUSINESS organization, and likely biased in favor of
BUSINESS interests, it is highly unlikely that the opinions offered
are accurate and objective.
That's completely insane.
--Robert
--
***
My Head Is Filled with Yeast
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spimby/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 11:13:50 AM |
|
|
"Robert N. Lee" <cranchingwire@earthhibbyjibbyjeelink.net> wrote in
news:Xns952D186C36F6cranchingwireearthli@207.217.125.201:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cdl122$2ef$1@bolt.sonic.net:
You'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that NABE isn't an
authoritative voice on the subject of US economic issues.
Since it is a BUSINESS organization, and likely biased in favor of
BUSINESS interests, it is highly unlikely that the opinions offered
are accurate and objective.
That's completely insane.
No, that's just typical Ray Fischer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hix" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 01:43:35 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns952D186C36F6cranchingwireearthli@207.217.125.201>,
"Robert N. Lee" <cranchingwire@earthhibbyjibbyjeelink.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:cdl122$2ef$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
You'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that NABE isn't an
authoritative voice on the subject of US economic issues.
Since it is a BUSINESS organization, and likely biased in favor of
BUSINESS interests, it is highly unlikely that the opinions offered
are accurate and objective.
That's completely insane.
Not if you're an anti-business, socialist-leaning lefty it's not.
Not that such a position has much connection with reality, mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert N. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 01:45:01 PM |
|
|
Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in news:sehix-
74CC66.11433421072004@news-east.dca.giganews.com:
Not if you're an anti-business, socialist-leaning lefty it's not.
Well, it's kind of strange to make any comments about "the economy" if you
hate business and money that much.
--Robert
--
***
My Head Is Filled with Yeast
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spimby/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hix" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 06:16:10 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns952D7855184B1cranchingwireearthli@207.217.125.204>,
"Robert N. Lee" <cranchingwire@earthhibbyjibbyjeelink.net> wrote:
Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in news:sehix-
74CC66.11433421072004@news-east.dca.giganews.com:
Not if you're an anti-business, socialist-leaning lefty it's not.
Well, it's kind of strange to make any comments about "the economy" if you
hate business and money that much.
It gives them a purity of motive, don't you know. :}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Better Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 10:10:11 PM |
|
|
Robert N. Lee <cranchingwire@earthhibbyjibbyjeelink.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
You'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that NABE isn't an
authoritative voice on the subject of US economic issues.
Since it is a BUSINESS organization, and likely biased in favor of
BUSINESS interests, it is highly unlikely that the opinions offered
are accurate and objective.
That's completely insane.
Written like a true ideological fanatic unwilling to consider anything
but conservative propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Economy Worse Under George W Bush Than Bill Clinton |
21 Jul 2004 10:12:11 PM |
|
|
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Buff" <Buffnospam@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
<snicker> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics ... take your
pick over the above <g>
I am not saying those figures above are wrong or right, but I will say
this. When you have organizations such as the NABE (National
Association for Business Economics) saying the Economy is very strong,
Appeal to authority fallacy.
There is no fallacy. He knows what he is talking about.
Says who?
You do not.
The deficit is expanding, average income is down, stock markets are
down, the dollar is down, job growth isn't, poverty is up.
Those are the facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
