Population growth required 125,000 new jobs EVERY month just to stay even. During the past three months we have NOT added the 375,000 new jobs.

This month's Kiplinger's magazine quotes 2005's job creation figures at 1.8 million (150,000 per month - that's over your "magic number" of 125,000/month) and predicts next year's job creation rate at 2 million new jobs (that's 166,667/month).
I trust Kiplinger's numbers more than "faireconomy.org". Kiplinger's magazine has no agenda other than business reporting; I'll bet faireconomy.org has quite the agenda.

Oh lookie here...

From their website's introduction:
UFE raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart.

If you want spun numbers, don't look at Bush. I say look to faireconomy.org!

We are still 1.5 Million short since Jan 2001 and many on the new jobs are non-living wage jobs. I would like Bush and Cheney to live on $8 per hour. That is just about what their labor is worth come to think of it!

Unemployment was 3.9% in 2001.

Gene, The unemployment rate was 4.7% in 2001. I think you are talking about 2000 that was 4.0%, just before the tech bubble burst.

But yet again you fail to put every thing into historical context. 3.9% lasted for three months (again just before the stock bust), this was the lowest rate in over 35 years. By your definition a President should always hold the unemployment rate at a 35 year low? You need to keep things realistic Gene.

Now lets really look at the data provided by our good friends from the Bureau of Labor statistic: Link

The average unemployment rate since 1975 (to include this years average) is 7.55%.
The average unemployment rate for Clinton (1993-2000) was 5.2%.
The average unemployment rate for Bush (2001-2005) is 5.4%.

Now lets add in the tech bubble, 9/11 attack, and Katrina. I would have to say Bush has done very well with a 5.4% average, that is over 2% lower then the norm.

But IMO the president has very little to do with employment numbers. Because if it was the President’s fault, then Roosevelt would have been a miserable President. After 10 years in office and a major social welfare program, he was only able to move unemployment from 25% to 20.5%. A man named Greenspan has more power then the President to effect unemployment numbers. History has shown the economic up and downs that effect the country have little to do with Presidents. It is only the perception given by political pundits that make it seem that way.

When I can see excepting application signs on about half the businesses in my area, and the shopping malls packed with people, I would have to say the economy is doing rather well. And that's without a Political pundit from either side telling me what the economy is like.

Tell that to the 1.5 Million that can not find a job. The fact remains that the average worker is NOT seeing an economic boom like Bush claims. only 29% believe the economy is good. That is because for most it is not. Some big companies are doing well (oil) and the GDP is growing. That does not change the fact that the average weekly weage after inflation is down. Many companies are reducing benefits. Many companies are in real financial trouble. More and more good paying jobs are ending. That is why 71% of American workers believe the economy is either poor or at best fair. Given the Federal deficit, we should be in fat city. Only the wealthy are in Fat City and they are rolling in money. The poor are poorer and the middle income American is worse off in 2005 then on 2001.

In my humble opinion, I think if the actual rate of unemployment works out to only 1.5 million people in the whole United States, that's a pretty good figure.

But unfortunately it doesn't. Let's not look at unsubstantiated figures, let's look at the real figures, from the real reporters of government statistics...

As of December 2nd's Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Report, the numbers were thus:
Nonfarm payroll employment grew by 215,000 in November, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 5.0 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor reported today. Over the month, job growth was widespread,
with large gains in construction and food services.

The unemployment rate was unchanged in November at 5.0 percent. The jobless
rate has ranged between 4.9 and 5.1 percent since May. The number of unemployed
persons, 7.6 million, was essentially unchanged in November. The unemployment
rates for adult men (4.3 percent), adult women (4.6 percent), teenagers (17.2
percent), whites (4.3 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (6.0 percent) showed
little or no change in November. The jobless rates for blacks (10.6 percent)
and, specifically, for adult black women (9.1 percent), rose over the month.
In November, the unemployment rate for Asians was 3.6 percent, not seasonally
adjusted.

Those unspun numbers come straight from the government. Unvarnished. Doesn't get more credible.

By the way, that took about fifteen seconds to get the actual figures from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thank you Google!

Why do we have to do your homework for you, COL Curmudgeon?

Unemployment was 3.9% in 2001. The issue is just not the numbers but what the jobs pay and what benefits they have. many of the new jobs pay far less and have less benefits.

And you are STILL WRONG! According to the Dept of labor it was 4.7 percent. Go read and learn:
Link

Tell that to the 1.5 Million that can not find a job.

Hey klink....there will "always" be people in our country who are out of work and having a hard time finding a job. That's life....."deal with it".

You should be one of them

You should be one of them

Like you? I doubt it! When I was still able to work (have MS and am disabled) I commanded a good price due to my skills and experience ($16 @ hr). I repaired computers,printers and networks with 10 years OJT.

You should be one of them

Why do you always resort to ignorant replies when people work hard to find facts to contradict your infinite complaints about the Bush Administration.

Tell that to the 1.5 Million that can not find a job.

So what, all this time there have been thousand of people without work for years and years and know it's Bush's fault. Hows about you consider those who just don't want to work and like receiving Govt money? Why work when you can stay home and still get paid? Not everyone in the US will have a job at the same time. Try at least look like your rtying to fight back as oppose to just replying in anger or let your hatred towards Bush make you reply with the same thing you posted before. Just a suggestion.

Look, I believe you are doing what you believe is right and I, personally, don't take that away from you. You don't seem to be a dumb (opps, put the wrong word here for those who saw my post before editing) person when trying to prove that Bush sucks, it's your fact finding that needs work. People here provide link after link after link to disprove your points and facts yet you chose to continue to ignore them and push your points even if your wrong. I'm trying to be nice and point these things out but I can only expect a rude response from you because that's what you seem to be good at when someone points out your bad side.

drmiler WRONG., The President has the responsibility to enforce Federal laws via the attorney general and FBI.

As per usual you've got it ALL backwards! The attorney general and the FBI are the ones responcible for enforcing "federal" laws.

So how many times is that now? 6 times you've been proven wrong by me with direct proof contrary to what you seemed to think at the time on this thread alone. In case you're interested that would be replies #9,18,32,41,52 and 53. And that's not counting the ones where I basically stuck the proof in your face only to have you ignore it.

Tell me something, Col:

Why is it that, when the numbers are bad for the present White House occupants, you and your Bush-basher butt buddies accept them utterly and completely as being true, but when they're favorable, you say it's just a spin? Couldn't it JUST be POSSIBLE that your side spins things their way, too?

Hmmm?

D'ya think?

Why is it that, when the numbers are bad for the present White House occupants, you and your Bush-basher butt buddies accept them utterly and completely as being true, but when they're favorable, you say it's just a spin? Couldn't it JUST be POSSIBLE that your side spins things their way, too?

COL Curmudgeon's side works with the overarching premise that Bush is bad.
And magically, everything else falls right into place.

So how many times is that now? 6 times you've been proven wrong by me with direct proof contrary to what you seemed to think at the time on this thread alone. In case you're interested that would be replies #9,18,32,41,52 and 53. And that's not counting the ones where I basically stuck the proof in your face only to have you ignore it.

He has been proved wrong so now he will talk about the deficit.