Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (360677)	11/28/2007 11:37:03 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571784

Unemployment is low, and has not greatly increased recently. It was lower under Clinton. Not significantly, and only for part of his time in office. Clinton inherited a high unemployment rate.....remember....."its the economy stupid". It took a while to whittle down. Also that point isn't relevant to any claim that unemployment is a big problem. "Worse than Clinton", doesn't equal bad, when your talking about stats that where very good under Clinton. I'm not saying 4.5% is not good....what I'm saying is why has it remained at that level for most of the year. The obvious answer is that we are not creating enough jobs. Under Reagan, the unemployment rate went from 7.6% to 9.7% and then back down to 5.5% during his last couple of years. I hardly find that impressive. It was very impressive considering the mess he inherited. Or if you consider the total jobs created during that period. And yet its decreased much faster under Bush II, Bush I and Reagan, than under Clinton. Why? Is the next president going to inherit a mess, Tim? I've already answered that question to the extent that it can be answered, despite the fact that its not a very useful question. And note since growth in manufacturing productivity is a good thing, and is the main reason for a decrease in manufacturing employment, a faster decrease under some presidents than others, is hardly a clear negative mark against them. We are not talking a few jobs....we are talking the loss of millions of jobs under those presidents while Clinton had a small gain. The contrast is striking.