The only thing "amateurish" is your attempt to give credit where none is due: to Bush. And you are not one to be throwing stones regarding partisan talking points. Really? So the fact that YOUR chart showed decreasing unemployment in every single year of Clinton's presidency AND increasing unemployment after Bush took office is Clinton's fault? Talk about partisan talking points. You are right about one thing. It doesn't compute. Somehow, even though under Bush the country is still at a net negative for job creation after five years, the unemployment rate is pretty low. I guess for it to compute, you would have to account for factors like people dropping out of the job market altogether (USA Today article) and people taking jobs that they are vastly overqualified for, but they take anyway because they need to survive (Another USA Today article). You might want to find some ACTUAL facts as the only one you have provided is a chart that is easily refuted by three minutes on Google. Which is a great point since the single biggest increase in hiring has been in the public sector. Private sector job creation has been anemic compared to the massive increases in government jobs pushed through by a Republican. And I find it humorous that a conservative would defend a man who has overseen the biggest government expansion in history. Irony abounds. First of all, Clinton left the government in a surplus. The "mess" that was created by the tech bubble bursting was hardly Clinton's fault. Deficit spending may indeed have been necessary to pull us out of the recession, but THIS much deficit spending for THIS long? Not so much. If Bush got all the policies he wants pushed through (SS "reform," permanent tax cuts, etc.) there would be no end to the deficits in sight. As it is, all we can forecast in the next five years is a 50% decrease in the BIGGEST DEFICIT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER RUN!!! Try again, rookie.
if Whataburger lets you go from a minimum wage job and McDonalds hires for minimum wage, does that constitute better?
But for many, the fast food or Starbucks job is NOT better than what they were doing before. My father worked at Lockheed and Harman for over two decades as a systems engineer and, during the Bush administration, was forced to take a job selling Macintosh computers at Microcenter. 25K for selling computers is not a step up from 80K per year as a systems engineer.
So Clinton's responsible for the 3 million lost manufacturing jobs under Bush too? Replacing $40k a year jobs with $16k a year jobs is progress?
Can you please provide some actual data? I'm not going to bother reading your silly one-liner responses to my detailed, informative posts.
I think this graph proves all you liberal and conservative mofo's wrong. It's just the hard straight facts. To dispute is to dispute against reality. I win, you all lose. If you try to argue against me, you are a terrorist sympathizer and a flag burner.
Sorry to hear about your father. I have many friends with relatives who have been laid off so I know what he's going through. However, these things happened before Bush and will continue to happen after him. To blame Bush for EVERY firing that takes place is beyond unbelievable.
For a teenager with a job after school, yes that is the start of upward mobility. For a manufacturing worker, en engineer or a programmer/IT worker who lost their job due to company outsourcing or moving operations overseas, then I woundn't call working fast food or a retail job at a mall upward mobility. To be fair all the blame doesn't fall with George W. The push for free trade zones has been around since before 2000. NAFTA anyone? Globilization is not helping the lower income rungs in American society. It might be helping those in upper manangement and those with stock portfolios, but it isn't helping Joe Six Pack.
I did provide data in the form of newspaper articles supporting my position. Learn how to read or let the adults talk without interruption.
I do not blame Bush for every firing. However, under Bush, we have had a net negative job growth for the first time in decades. In addition, net pay for hours worked has declined under Bush, showing clearly that the jobs that are being created now are lower wage positions than the positions they replaced. In fact, people are working more now for less pay than they did in 2001. I certainly don't blame it all on Bush, but the facts are clear. Why are the facts biased against Bush? I don't know, but they are.
