Huangafu the Braindead wrote:
Do me a favor, will you, sweetie? Hop on over to that 5.7% for a month or two. I'd like to see if everything still looks all sunshine and roses in republican world.
Here. Do us both a favor and take a first year college econ course. You'll understand just how silly your statement is.
Quote:
Thats the problem with these well to do, elite, a$$holes. They like to throw out statistics, that, while looking real small, actually arent. "Only 5.7%. See, we must be doing a good job, 5 is a small number, I can count to it using one hand."
No. 5.7 while not "really small" is very much in the normal range you want to have for your economy.
Quote:
5.7% is alot of people, really, gotta be a few million, easy.
Ok. I'll give you a quick primer on what you'd learn if you took that econ class. You'd learn that a 5% unemployment rate is considered "ideal" for a market based economy like the US has. Lower is not better. If unemployment is too low, businesses aren't able to expand because there's no labor to hire. Seasonal businesses go out of business because there aren't enough people to hire when their season comes along. The economy stagnates and dies.
Lower is not better. The goal is to be right about 5%. 5.7% is well within the "safe" range for unemployment. Yes, that .7% is a "lot" of people. But there's always going to be some people out of a job at any given time when you have a large population like the US. It's not like the president just passes an executive order setting the employment rate. It's a rate that constantly fluctuates in response to a dozen different market factors. No one has direct control over it, so being "close" to 5% is good.
While I'm sure it sounds great to admonish the "evil" republicans for being callous about jobs, it's really about market forces. We had one of the worst market crashes in 30+ years 3 years ago. Record numbers of businesses went belly up as a result of that crash. The fact that we're not sitting at a 10% unemployment rate right now is the indicator you should be looking at. Bush did the right things with the economy. He did the necessary things. He reduced taxes on businesses across the board, giving them the breathing room they needed to recover and saving millions of jobs. Yes. He ran up a deficit. Um... But if he hadn't, odds are we would be sitting at a 10% unemployment rate. You can't argue about both issues as though they are unconnected.
His spending increses were not that huge. It was the cut in taxes from ~21% in 2000 to ~16% in 2003 that reduced federal revenue and caused the deficit. What is the left always saying? Oh yeah. He cut taxes on big business. Um... Who do you think hires people? How many jobs were not lost because of that "corporate wellfare"?
Stop and think before you blindly start spouting off about Bush's economic plan. He did pretty well everything considered.
Edited, Wed May 12 04:22:22 2004 by gbaji