DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   News You Won't See in Print (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/390793-news-you-wont-see-print.html)

natesfortune 10-15-04 01:45 AM

News You Won't See in Print
 
These posts are full of hyperlinks to this data. Just click into the links if you want to get to the hyperlinks:

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4547


News You Won’t See in Print


Yeah, sure, we’re tickled about the free publicity that comes with being featured in a New York Times article. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Times is a Pravda-like entity that has devoted itself, for decades, to promoting liberal causes and to electing liberal Democrats to public office.


Let’s see if the Times considers the following economic comparison – of which many “swing voters” undoubtedly would be unaware – to be “fit to print":


October 12, 1996 - Clinton

Layoffs (4-week avg. of jobless claims) as a percentage of workforce = 0.25%.
Year-over-year change in total number of layoffs = (minus 5.78 percent).


October 9, 2004 - Bush 43

Layoffs (4-week avg. of jobless claims) as a percentage of workforce = 0.24%.
Year-over-year change in total number of layoffs = (minus 9.72 percent).


Surprising, huh?


And for a detailed analysis of the connection between layoffs and presidential bids, click here.


(Note: Data for jobless claims here and here; data for size of workforce here.)
-- Jayson

Posted at 5:10 pm Link to this post | Comments (23)
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4527


Misery Loves Company


Check this out:


September 1996

Inflation rate = 3.00
Unemployment rate = 5.2
Misery Index = 8.20


September 2004

Inflation rate = 2.65 (through August 2004)
Unemployment rate = 5.4
Misery Index = 8.05


You know, in light of the points of economic contention, at the latest presidential debate, maybe the foregoing piece of news will make tomorrow’s editions of the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, USA Today, the NYT, etc.


Sure.


And perhaps the locked-out hockey season actually will open . . . in hell.


By the way, for those of you interested in a detailed anthology of Misery Indices and presidential election results, click here.


(Note: Data for inflation rates here; data for unemployment rates here and here.)
-- Jayson

Posted at 6:08 am Link to this post | Comments (6)
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4396


News You Won’t See in Print


W-2 job creation in September was 96,000. The unemployment rate remained the same, at 5.4 percent.


And please see the post below for the “October surprise,” so to speak, regarding the labor market.


In any event, let’s play a game of compare and contrast, shall we?


Check this out:


Unemployment Rates


September 1996 - Clinton

Whites - 4.5 percent
Blacks - 10.5 percent
Latinos - 8.2 percent


September 2004 - Bush 43

Whites - 4.7
Blacks - 10.3
Latinos - 7.1


Hmm.


You know, instead of the monikers of “greatest economic expansion in history,” on the one hand, and “worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover,” on the other hand, perhaps the liberal media – in light of the foregoing data – should switch gears and start using these:


Bush 43 = “the progressive economy”
Clinton = “the racist economy”
-- Jayson

Posted at 9:38 am Link

post | Comments (5)
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4308 to this


News That Never Made it to Print


Here’s some news from last week that never found its way past our national liberal media censorship screens:


Clinton - September 1996


Index of consumer sentiment = 94.7
Result: Clinton wins 379 electoral votes.


Bush 43 - September 2004


Index of consumer sentiment = 94.2 (warning: heavy liberal bias)
Result: We report, you decide.


(Note: 1996 data can be found here [Public Access, Tables, Historical, Table 1].)
-- Jayson

Posted at 9:44 pm Link to this post | Comments (26)
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4289


News You Won’t See in Print - Part Deux


Check this out:


Real GDP Growth - 1995-1996 - Clinton

1995 - Q1 = 1.1
1995 - Q2 = 0.7
1995 - Q3 = 3.3
1995 - Q4 = 3.0
1996 - Q1 = 2.9
1996 - Q2 = 6.7

Average quarterly rate (annualized) of real GDP growth = 2.95 percent.


On the other hand:


Real GDP Growth - 2003-2004 - Bush 43


2003 - Q1 = 1.9
2003 - Q2 = 4.1
2003 - Q3 = 7.4
2003 - Q4 = 4.2
2004 - Q1 = 4.5
2004 - Q2 = 3.3

Average quarterly rate (annualized) of real GDP growth = 4.23 percent.


(Note: Historical GDP data is here.)
-- Jayson

Posted at 6:31 pm Link to this post | Comments (8)
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4155


It’s the stupidity, economy!


Here’s some interesting data from several key states:


Florida:

Unemployment rate in August 2003 = 5.2
Unemployment rate in August 2004 = 4.5
Net W-2 job creation over past year = 155,400 new jobs


Wisconsin (10 electoral votes - Gore 2000):

Unemployment rate in August 2003 = 5.7
Unemployment rate in August 2004 = 4.8
Net W-2 job creation over past year = 44,200 new jobs


New Jersey (15 electoral votes - Gore 2000):

Unemployment rate in August 2003 = 5.9
Unemployment rate in August 2004 = 4.8
Net W-2 job creation over past year = 65,900 new jobs


Oregon (7 electoral votes - Gore 2000):

Unemployment rate in August 2003 = 8.4
Unemployment rate in August 2004 = 7.4
Net W-2 job creation over past year = 34,300 new jobs


Iowa (7 electoral votes - Gore 2000):

Unemployment rate in August 2003 = 4.6
Unemployment rate in August 2004 = 4.5
Net W-2 job creation over past year = 11,400 new jobs


Hmm.


Well, from Senator Kerry’s perspective, I guess there’s always the all-important credit card debate.


(Note: Raw employment data can be found here and here.)
-- Jayson

Posted at 4:55 pm Link to this post | Comments (12)
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4147


Thursday, September 23rd, 2004

News You Won’t See in Print


You will not – repeat: NOT – see the following analysis in tomorrow’s Boston Globe, or the Los Angeles Times, or the Seattle Post, or the Chicago Tribune, or the New York Times, or in the Washington Post, for that matter:


September 1972 - Nixon

Layoffs (four-week avg. of jobless claims) as a percentage of total workforce = 0.29 percent.
Result: Nixon wins 49 out of 50 states.


September 1984 - Reagan

Layoffs (four-week avg. of jobless claims) as a percentage of total workforce = 0.34 percent.
Result: Reagan wins 49 out of 50 states.


September 21, 1996 - Clinton

Layoffs (four-week avg. of jobless claims) as a percentage of total workforce = 0.25 percent.
Result: Clinton wins 379 electoral votes.


September 23, 2004 - Bush 43

Layoffs (four-week avg. of jobless claims) as a percentage of total workforce = 0.23 percent.
Result: We report, you decide.


(Note: historical data on jobless claims here and here; historical data on size of workforce here.)
-- Jayson

Posted at 1:52 pm Link to this post | Comments (19)
There's plenty more, but I think this makes the point well enough...

This is the "worst economy since Hoover" but Clinton's re-election economy was the best ever?

How is that again? What standard does a Republican have to meet to have a "good economy"?

Contactsport1 10-15-04 01:55 AM

I don't know who this jayson guy is that did all of this research for you, but you owe him a beer or three.

natesfortune 10-15-04 01:58 AM


Originally posted by Contactsport1
I don't know who this jayson guy is that did all of this research for you, but you owe him a beer or three.
:lol:

He's one of the regular posters on www.polipundit.com.

Ranger 10-15-04 02:03 AM


Originally posted by Contactsport1
I don't know who this jayson guy is that did all of this research for you, but you owe him a beer or seven.
Fixed. :)

kvrdave 10-15-04 02:03 AM

That was very interesting. Thanks.

Duder 10-15-04 03:55 AM

Re: News You Won't See in Print
 

Originally posted by natesfortune
What standard does a Republican have to meet to have a "good economy"?
Clearly, the Republican must be a Democrat.

Roto 10-15-04 05:09 AM

All this proves is that we don't need a President

wendersfan 10-15-04 08:42 AM


Originally posted by Roto
All this proves is that we don't need a President
I disagree, but I subscribe to the 'Zaphod Beeblebrox' school of what is proper Presidential behavior.

RevLiver 10-15-04 10:17 AM


Originally posted by Contactsport1
I don't know who this jayson guy is that did all of this research for you, but you owe him a beer or three.
Presumably not Jayson Blair.

Chew 10-15-04 10:18 AM

Anybody remember Kerry's "new" misery index calculation from several months ago? What happened to it and Kerry talking about it? Must of gotten better since then, I guess?

raven56706 10-15-04 10:34 AM

LOL...... his wife is Mrs Misery..... She looks like the witch of the wizard of oz

RoboDad 10-15-04 11:48 AM


Originally posted by raven56706
LOL...... his wife is Mrs Misery..... She looks like the witch of the wizard of oz
I don't know. That seems like a pretty rotten thing to say about the witch from The Wizard of Oz.

Myster X 10-15-04 11:59 AM

I remember how the media just went nuts, I'm mean frenzy feeding nuts, over the story that Bush declared the US is still pointing nukes at Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea.
Then again, it turns out Clinton and his 5 or so predecessors was doing the same shit.

natesfortune 10-15-04 03:33 PM

I don't see how the media can be defended on this. The economies are so similar, but the Democrats was "the greatest expansion ever", and the Republican's is "the very shaky economy".

Contactsport1 10-15-04 03:54 PM


Originally posted by natesfortune
I don't see how the media can be defended on this. The economies are so similar, but the Democrats was "the greatest expansion ever", and the Republican's is "the very shaky economy".
While the original post is quite long. It doesn't begin to give enough data to judge an economy on.

natesfortune 10-15-04 04:04 PM


Originally posted by Contactsport1
While the original post is quite long. It doesn't begin to give enough data to judge an economy on.
No, it doesn't. But like I said there is "much more". I also did not say the economies are "the same", only "similar", and that is the truth. It does however give a good sample of some main measures that people use to judge an economy.

Add in things like record construction spending now, and the highest percentage of home ownership ever, and this economy is smoking 1996 on those things.

Regardless, between the data above, and other things like home ownership and construction spending, etc. - it is extremely hard to make the case that this economy is much different from what we had in 1996, yet how it is portrayed by the media is strikingly polar in nature.

shifrbv 10-15-04 04:48 PM


Regardless, between the data above, and other things like home ownership and construction spending, etc. - it is extremely hard to make the case that this economy is much different from what we had in 1996
What about record bankruptcy rates?

And I don't see how "record homeownership" can be counted. What kind of metric is that anyway? Anyone can go in and get a home loan for way over their salary. I would hardly call that "ownership". In fact, I've known several people who "own their own homes" who've been living there for quite some time without making payments. In the neighborhood I just moved from, a couple "owned a home" for 2 years without making a payment and finally had to be removed from the premises by the local sherriff.

Another person I know has been living in their home since January without making a payment. That home will likely be sold at the end of this year. I bet the sale will make the home ownership number increase so people like you can tell us all how wonderful things are going.

Also what about the lack of wage growth? My spouse hasn't had a raise since Bush took office. Also my job is the lowest paying job I've ever had (but with the most responsibilities). I was lucky to get it because there were over 150 people who applied. But it's also a reminder to me of just how low things have sunk in the past 4 years.

Jason 10-15-04 05:01 PM


Originally posted by Myster X
I remember how the media just went nuts, I'm mean frenzy feeding nuts, over the story that Bush declared the US is still pointing nukes at Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea.
Then again, it turns out Clinton and his 5 or so predecessors was doing the same shit.

But Clinton had the good sense not to brag about like it's a good thing.

Mordred 10-15-04 05:02 PM


Originally posted by natesfortune
Regardless, between the data above, and other things like home ownership and construction spending, etc. - it is extremely hard to make the case that this economy is much different from what we had in 1996, yet how it is portrayed by the media is strikingly polar in nature.
You're right, the big boom in the economy started around '94-95 and continued through 2000. So yes, the economy may not currently be all that much different than Clinton's was in '96, it completely ignores the boom that continued throughout his 2nd term.

Do you know/remember what the stockmarket was like? Here's a quick table of highs and lows since 1993. It opened at 3301 in Jan 03.
1993: 3,818.92-3,219.25
1994: 3,972.72-3,544.12
1995: 5,266.69-3,794.40
1996: 6,623.96-5,000.07
1997: 8,328.99-6,315.84
1998: 9,457.95-7,379.70
1999: 11,428.94-8,994.26
2000: 11,908.50-9,571.40
2001: 11,224.41-7,926.93
2002: 10,728.87-7,181.47
2003: 10,494.44-7,602.81
2004: 10,794.95-9,822.10

Do you see the trend? Under Clinton we had explosive growth in the stock market. Under Bush it's been rather stagnant, receding a lot at times, but usually bouncing back only to fall again. To say that the economy under Bush has just been fine is ridiculous. Tell that to my mother in law who lost 25% of her 401k and had to postpone retirement. Explain to me why I didn't get a raise for over 2 years. Tell that to my neighbor who got laid off from his tech job and worked in his parents Subway restaurant for 18 months before he could find a job... that happened to be 200 miles away. Obviously this is anecdotal, but living in Austin I know a lot of people who were a lot worse off than me... I kept my job.

The economy went to crap under Bush. A lot of it wasn't his fault. We had unsustainable growth that was had started to stagnate and 9/11 pushed it over the edge. Things are improving and I'm generally optimistic now and hopefully this growth will continue no matter who is president.

Disclaimer: I didn't like Clinton. I never voted for him. I think he was a crappy president.

natesfortune 10-15-04 05:51 PM


Originally posted by Mordred
Do you see the trend? Under Clinton we had explosive growth in the stock market.[/SIZE]
Yes, you're referring to the dot.com BUBBLE. Bubbles are, by definition, explosive, unsubstainable growth built on wild speculation(in this case driven by the new global phenomenon the Internet) and not on fundamentals.

So how can one credit Clinton for a bubble? Of course the stock market was going through the roof - that's what bubbles are. But it popped in early 2000, a year before Bush took office, and showed us what the real underlying fundamentals in the economy were - nothing too great.

So Bush steps in with a recession and then gets hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

Yes, terrorism has shaken the world economy and made investors very jittery - that's what it was supposed to do, but even then, this recovery is following a pretty standard path compared to historical standards of recoveries in general, and despite that huge bubble and the terrorists attacks, the recession was among the shallowest ones we've ever had.

According to Alan Greenspan, we can thank the Bush tax cuts for that. Beyond that, we just have to let the economy get back onto its normal growth cycle.

What else should Bush "do" for the economy anyway?

And as for the poster above - the wages now are at normal levels for a recovery.

When a recession hits and many lose their jobs - they are losing jobs they've held for a few or many years, where they've built up raises and higher pay, benefits, etc.

When the recovery starts, and people start going back to work, they are coming back in at an entry-level, so OF COURSE the jobs won't pay as much at first as the ones that were lost - they need the time to build up the raises and the benefits, just like before.

There is nothing different about this recovery in that regard than the last one.

Mordred 10-15-04 06:25 PM


Originally posted by natesfortune
Yes, you're referring to the dot.com BUBBLE. Bubbles are, by definition, explosive, unsubstainable growth built on wild speculation(in this case driven by the new global phenomenon the Internet) and not on fundamentals.

So how can one credit Clinton for a bubble? Of course the stock market was going through the roof - that's what bubbles are. But it popped in early 2000, a year before Bush took office, and showed us what the real underlying fundamentals in the economy were - nothing too great.

Obviously it was a bubble. I never said otherwise. I don't give Clinton any points for it either, he lucked out and it would have happened no matter who was president. My "under Clinton" was meant to imply, during his terms... not due to his term.


So Bush steps in with a recession and then gets hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

The economy was not in a recession when Bush took office:

It's not quite true, as the ad claims, that Bush inherited "an economy already in recession (emphasis added)." It would have been accurate to say Bush inherited "an economy on the verge of recession."

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-partisan group of mostly academic economists, set the start date of the recession as March 2001, weeks after Bush took office on Jan 20. The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

To be sure, the rate of economic growth had slowed significantly at the time Bush took office, as the longest boom in US history drew to a close. Real Gross Domestic Product, a general indicator of economic performance, grew an an unimpressive annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final quarter of 2000, after actually contracting by half a percentage point in the previous quarter. But employment was still growing when Bush was sworn in, and the economy actually added 113,000 payroll jobs between January and March 2001, before starting to decline in April.

In fact, the NBER did not even make a determination that a recession had begun until 10 months after Bush was sworn in, and said that the downturn might not even have qualified as a recession until the attacks of September 11, 2001 exacerbated the nation's economic troubles.
http://www.factcheck.org/article278.html

I took issue with the fact that you (or more accurately Jayson) were trying to paint the economy as all rosy when it's not. The economy has sucked and trying to act like it doesn't or was just as bad 8 years ago is pure biased fantasy. Whether that's Bush's fault I leave to the individual voter. I'm not voting on the economy this election anyway.

natesfortune 10-15-04 06:47 PM

I mentioned the bubble because you put up numbers for the nineties stock market as compared to the market today in an attempt to show today's economy isn't strong. I merely pointed out that those stock market numbers were based on a bubble economy - you say you agree - then why put up numbers for a bubble economy and try to compare them with now, as if that means something?


Originally posted by Mordred

The economy was not in a recession when Bush took office:http://www.factcheck.org/article278.html

There's a problem with that fact check.

First of all, jobs numbers are not part of a calculation to gauge "recession". In fact, jobs numbers are always the "lagging indicator", both in recessions and recoveries, and the start of job losses do not mark the start of a recession - rather, when job losses start a recession has already been underway. Likewise, job losses continue when the economy is in recovery for a while - they did in this recession, and they did in the last recession. Jobs are "the lagging indicator". Fact check doesn't know much about economics.

Secondly, there have now been two estimates as to when the economy was in recession - the first estimate, and thus the most widely stated, was March 1991. A later estimate put it in November 2000.

Bush was sworn in in late January 2001, so regardless of which date is correct(we will know better in a year or two), it is still quite clear that Bush inherited the recession, and I can't imagine anybody saying otherwise with a straight face.

But let's assume the date was March 2001, a month or so AFTER Bush took office. That is still Bush "inheriting" a recession. A recession just doesn't "happen" all of a sudden - one month the economy is roaring and the next month it's in negative growth. We all knew the recession was coming in 2000 as the stock market crashed and GDP growth started shrinking - and shrinking and shrinking, until we finallly hit the "negative growth" that is a recession by March 2001 at the latest. This should be elementary, but partisans so quick to blame Bush are actually saying that the economy just flipped a switch to "recession" right when he was sworn in, even though a recession is at least TWO quarters of negative growth and he hadn't even been there one, let alone done anything to affect the economy!

How you can say Bush did anything but inherit a recession is beyond me. When he stepped into office, it was there - at the very least, the official start of it was one month from his innauguration, which made it inevitable that Bush would walk into a recession - he hadn't even been there long enough to pass a single initiative when it hit, even according to the later March number.

How can that be called anything other than "inheriting" it? It was going to happen within a month of the innauguration no matter who was President or what was done.

The high tech bubble which was the fantasy(that's what a bubble is, afterall) that was "Clinton's great economy", popped in January 2000 when the stock market crashed. The economy in 2000 was in steady decline, and everybody at the time knew what was going on - we were heading for recession, quite obviously. That was a full year before Bush took office, mind you - and we'd been in official "recession" territory for at least half a year before Bush's first budget hit the books in October/November 2001.

So to say Bush didn't inherit a recession is just complete, provable fallacy - he obviously walked into office with a recession - but luckily, as Alan Greenspan said, the tax cuts he put into place to stimulate the economy probably kept us out of a far deeper recession(this past one was the mildest in many decades) and perhaps even a depression due to 9/11. So thank Bush for that.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.