What was the unemployment rates during Clinton years vs. Unemployment rate during Bush years. Hmmm...?
Anyone interested in the TRUTH? Something you will never hear from the mainstream news... The average unemployment rate during the Bush years is running lower than during the Clinton years. June 7, 1996-- Here is how the mainstream news (Dan Rather) reported that the unemployment rate jumped up to 5.6%: “The government came out today with its latest report on unemployment. It says the unemployment rate rose slightly, 2/10ths of a point last month, up to 5.6 percent – still low overall. And the numbers, pure and simple, can be misleading. Economics correspondent Ray Brady tonight has the story behind them.” January 4, 2007-- And, here is how the AP reported on the current unemployment rate of 5.0% today: Hiring practically stalled in December, driving the nation's unemployment rate up to a two-year high of 5 percent and fanning fears of a recession. Employers last month added the fewest new jobs to their payrolls in more than four years, according to the employment report released Friday by the Labor Department. The report showed that employment conditions are deteriorating, strained by a housing slump and credit crunch that are sapping economic strength. "The economy is getting hit by some body blows. The big question is whether the economy can withstand it or will it take a fall," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. UPDATE: Here's CNN's headline today: "Jobs weak, unemployment soars" Since when is a 5% unemplyment rate described as soaring? http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-unemployment-at-50-bad-clinton.html
How would you reduce unemployment with concrete solutions?
No one is going to hire people in the current environment. Taxes are going to go up, and go up a lot, when the new healthcare taxes kick in. The government has declared war on business, making them out to be evil. When in fact, business is the engine that makes the whole economy work. Especially small business. FICA taxes are out of control, and where taxes are going to end up is an unknown. The unknown is another enemy of business. Also, people on unemployment have no incentive to look for work when the government is willing to pay them to sit home for 2 years. And finally, we have reached the situation where government employees are being paid much more on average than private sector workers, due to the power of the unions and the politicians catering to them for votes. Here is what needs to be done right away: 1) Immediately cut FICA taxes by 50%. 2) Repeal the employer healthcare tax law. 3) Reduce unemployment benefits to 10 weeks, maximum. 4) Get rid of Federal employee unions 5) Reduce the minimum wage to $4 6) Increase the fines for companies that knowingly hire illegal aliens to $100,000 per worker. Stand back and get out of the way, because employers will be falling over themselves trying to hire people. And that's just a few ideas to get started.
Why doesn't the current low US unemployment rate prove that trickle down economics works?
Why doesn't the current low US unemployment rate prove that trickle down economics works?Does the OP realize that supply-side economics went into action in the early 1980s? Essentially a generation ago. The employment rate has gone up and down since then.Here is how the employment rate has looked for the past few decades:As you can see, the trend was generally up until the recession. It doesn't appear that Reaganomics did much to affect that.However, this is what average wages have looked like since Reaganomics:Productivity has been increasing all that time. And the top 1% has done very, very well. Not so for the rest of us; adjusted for inflation, the wages of the average worker have barely budged since 1980, while the costs of health care, housing and education have increased exponentially.Sucks, doesn't it?Here is what the unemployment rate looked like after the 2008 crash. It peaked around 2010, and returned to its 2008 level in around 2015.And here is how the unemployment rate has looked under Obama and Trump so far. As you can see, unemployment has continued to fall under Trump -- but it's simply stayed on the same trajectory as it had under Obama.The GOP tax bill that passed in April enshrined Reaganomics into our economy till Kingdom Come. The Republicans claimed that the tax cuts would spur job growth, which was an odd claim, as it's been objectively known for decades that isn't how this works.Economists were essentially unanimous that the bill would increase the deficit, eventually hurt the middle class and do nothing for job growth, but those pesky Republicans passed it anyway.Since then, they have claimed victory even though it's too early for data: GOP tax cut not why economy is boomingThis is Bruce Bartlett:Mr. Bartlett is a historian, formerly with the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank. He served as a domestic policyadviser to Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under George H. W. Bush. He was the chief architect of Supply Side Economics.Since then, he has changed his mind. He has written books and articles on the failure of “Trickle Down” economics: I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth. And he has been very outspoken against GOP tax policy.I really don't understand why there is any confusion over this.
Explain how unempolyment rate can be less than natural unemployment rate?
If the economy is over stimulated (like giving massive tax cuts when the economy is going gangbusters like GW Bush did), you will drive unemployment down below the natural rate (and no one really knows what the natural rate is... people argue about that). Deficit and war spending will do that. It is why unemployment reached record lows during the Bush years. We had a solid economy chugging along and over stimulated it with tax cuts AND deficit government spending on several wars. When the bubble burst on that unrealistic bubble, the money supply tightened and unemployment went up. Inventories were higher than were needed for the reduced demand caused by uncertainty in the markets, so manufacturing could cut jobs until the economy improved. Of course, many of our manufacturing jobs also went overseas under both Clinton and Bush. This is why President Obama supported the Bush Stimulus plan and suggests more stimulus is needed. Counter cyclical government spending can increase demand during bad times and ease demand during strong times. Unfortunately, the Tea Partiers have the goofy idea that the national economy is the same as a household economy and think that deficit spending is per se bad. They just don't understand macro economics.
Why Was Unemployment 10.8% Under Reagan?
hmmm how about a more relevant question like why is unemployment 10.2% and climbing under 0bama when he promised that it would not go over 8% if the stimulus passed? hmmmmm.......typical liberal with a child like mentality of shifting blame. Oh, and Reagan is dead.......just in case you didn't know.
Why do Conservatives say that raising taxes will increase unemployment?
Then again, the economy was a bit sounder in the 1950's. So, your Data really isn't relevant. Why not compare what it was like during the Great Depression, which would be honest, not manipulated, Data. Ah, here we go, Wikipedia - Here's my Data, and it's honest Data. "In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[77] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938." ---edit Keynesian economics has it's points, but it's flaws far outweigh it's utility.
Liberals, wasn't the country a lot better off before Democrats took over Congress?
The Dems controlled the HOUSE and the SENATE beginning in January 2007. January 2007 Unemployment rate-4.6% National debt-$8.67 trillion DOW-near 14,000 How can ANYONE say we were better off before the DemocRATS took office in 2007? These are numbers, and numbers don't lie.