The record speaks for itself......
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in total
jobs.... that's a lie!
The liberals would have you believe that "real earnings" are down.... that's
a lie!
Check it out for yourself at: http://www.bls.gov/
Here's what BLS actually states; (don't take my word, check it at
http://www.bls.gov.)
Current Dollars, Real Earnings
January 2001: "Average weekly earnings total private" $477.65
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.02212001.news
August 2004: "Average weekly earnings total private" $536.94
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/realer.09162004.news
An increase of 12.4% during Bush's term....
Find out for yourself.......
Kerry would have you believe that "real earnings" are down. He has made that
claim in many of his dishonest rants! It's a lie, "real earnings" are up
over 12% under Bush's leadership!
Check it out your self at the
U.S. Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/
(Real average weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings in
current dollars for changes in the CPI-W.)
Real Earnings = Net earnings after inflation.Real average
weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings in current dollars for
changes in the CPI-W.
Kerry Caught In Lies About Low Paying Jobs!
Kerry bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less
that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic
Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The
EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of
specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we
showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job
categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within
industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those
figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying
occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs
lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among
economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the
pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three and a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline in total
jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/
Kerry: Worst Economic Record Since Hoover
Challengers don't often win when the economy is good, and so Kerry has
systematically distorted, exaggerated and misstated facts about the economy
under Bush. For more than a year, as far back as his speech Sept. 2, 2003
formally announcing himself as a candidate for the nomination, Kerry has
been making bogus comparisons to the Great Depression, overstating the
number of payroll jobs lost during Bush's tenure, and (once jobs started
growing again last August) falsely claiming that the new jobs pay $9,000
less than those that were lost, a claim unsupported even by the evidence he
cites from a pro-labor think tank.
Actually, the economy in October 2004 is about average -- though certainly
not as good as it was in the four years before Bush took office.
a.. Unemployment: According to the most recent figures available, the US
unemployment rate stood at 5.4 percent in September. That's was slightly
better that the average rate of 5.63 percent for every month since 1948,
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping records. But it's not
quite as good as the 5.2 percent rate that prevailed at the same point in
Clinton's first term, and it is significantly worse than the remarkably low
4.2 percent rate in place when Bush took office in January, 2001.
b.. Job Growth: Kerry repeatedly claims that 1.6 million jobs have been
lost under Bush, which is false. The BLS currently puts total payroll
employment for September at just under 600,000 below where it was when Bush
took office, taking into account an annual "benchmarking" adjustment that
will be made next February. The economy has gained nearly 2 million jobs
since the worst of the slump 13 months ago, but it now appears Bush will
probably finish his term in January 2005 with a slight loss. Only in that
sense could his tenure be compared to Hoover's.
c.. Job Quality: Kerry's bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less
that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic
Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The
EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of
specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we
showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job
categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within
industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those
figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying
occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs
lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among
economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the
pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.
Post by TomaxoPost by telliePost by TomaxoPost by telliein
Prove it......site/cite/source????
Glad to embarrass you with your own source tellie (nice try at lying
with statistics though)
You made a statement based on employment figures that included farm
labor employment (the measure used by economists is "Non-farm
employment", but I'll get to that embarrassing statistic later).
Obviously, there will be alot more farm employment during September
than in January. Thus, you end up with the following stat's
Yea Buckwheat, It's called "total employment"
Post by TomaxoJanuary 2001 (in thousands)
Civilian labor force 141,955
Employment 135,999
Unemployment 5,956
Not in Labor Force 68,934
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news
September 2004 (in thousands)
Civilian labor force 147,483
Employment 139,480
Unemployment 8,003
Not in Labor Force 76,458
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.10082004.news
Thus, of a total (farm labor included) labor force that grew by 5.5
million, Bush has provided 3.5 million new jobs (primarily farm labor
jobs), meaning he lost net jobs even when using your clever ploy to
boost the stat's in Bush's favor by including farm stat's of different
seasons.
Now for the stat's that matter. The ones economists measure true
employment success by (all from the same pages)
Non farm employment (in thousands)
January 2001 132,129
September 2004 131,567
Meaning, Bush lost 1.4 million jobs
What an embarrassment you must be to your inbred cult.... you have, in your
immature effort to discredit my numbers, actually confirmed exactly what I
said.... " President Bush has added 3,500,000 jobs to "total Employment"
Never made it out of Jr High did you Tellie? Otherwise you would
understand that any seasonally biased statistic, such as farm labor,
which is almost entirely seasonaly based, has to be factored into any
statements made using those statistics.
JANUARY is in the dead of Winter. The fast majority of all farm
laborers are not working in the fields, because there are no crops for
them to work. SEPTEMBER, on the other hand, is a very high farm labor
month. Using your methodology, I could just as well declare that the
climate was changing by using statistics from January of 4 year ago
and September of this year, to "PROVE" the climate was warming up.
Economists never use total employment as a measure of job growth for
this very reason. You will find when you compare your "Total" number
to the more accurate "Non-Farm labor" numbers, that there has been a
loss of non-farm jobs, but "Miraculously" there has been a huge surge
in farm labor jobs. No Tellie, it doesn't mean farm job growth has
occured. It means more farm laborers work in September than do in
January.
Post by tellieWhat a fool you are but 'thanks" nevertheless......
Education free of charge.
Post by tellieIt's not my goal to jump on a mental-midget, but you joined the fray of your
own free-will.... now live with it!
Try this site... you might like it
www.I.am.such.anidiot.com/somebody.slap.me
Post by TomaxoPost by tellieDidn't think so!
You thought wrong nucklehead. Quit listening to rush Limbaugh's
cleverly veiled lies and get an education.
Post by telliePost by PRE$IDENT CHENEY-NO MORE YEAR$========
VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS---BRING "ILLITERACY" BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Post by tellieAccording to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics Bush has generated three
and
a
half million (3,500,000) new jobs since January of 2001;
January 2001 Total Employment: 136,000,000
September 2004 Total Employment: 139,500,000
The liberals would have you believe that there has been a decline
in
total
jobs.... that's a lie!
Check it out for yourself at http://www.bls.gov/