1 Notice how they ebb and flow in the same places. Can you say "business cycle" boys and girls?

2 Why, Professor Chaos, you're not implying that periodic ups and downs are normally occurring phenomena, are you? What are you, some kind of capitalist? /sarcasm

3 It's all about the wording, Rusty. Of course Clinton had a "miracle" economy. He and Dukakis are proof that anytime a Democrat is presiding over an economic upswing it is a "miracle". Of course, in this case I agree with the choice of adjectives. Considering both raised taxes enormously, the fact they didn't kill off growth in its crib was, in fact, miraculous.

4 Dr. C, Phil, Brian: Exactly!

5 Look, over there, it's a bird! It's a plane! No, wait, it's a goalpost moving. Sure, under Bush we're finally seeing a bit of jobs upturn. But there're all burger-flipper jobs. All the recovered jobs are at lower wages than those Bush lost in 2000. /Kerry-Allied Van Lines goalpost advance moving team.

6 Dumb question here, but how could Bush lose jobs in 2000 when the Presidential Election didn't occur until November 2000? I know! It was due to incoming cosmic space rays.

7 2000? The figures are for 2002-2003. Or was that sarcasm?

8 Yo! Dean Douthat! You there? Earth to Dean... I repeat, how could Bush lose jobs in 2000 when the election wasn't held until November 2000?

9 Maranna, I think Dean was being sarcastic...notice the reference to the Kerry-Allied Van Lines goalpost advance moving team. He was just channeling Kerry in a sarcastic way to show that the goalposts have once again be moved (or flip-flopped if you will).

10 You guys don't know the truth of it. This American economy is horrible. How Horrible is it? Thanks for asking! This economy is so horrible that my brother lands 2 jobs in Michigan on the same day just a month ago! 'Ooooooohhhhh' This Economy is soooo Horrible that today I landed 2 jobs at the same time as well! 'Oooooooohhhh!' So folks.. I rest my case. Now pass this information on to who ever badmouthes the Bush economy that Jeff MacMillan and his brother have landed a whopping total of 4 jobs within 1 months time in Michigan!

11 Proof again that there are liars, damned liars, and people who draw charts. So no one is confused, you are comparing selected periods (one begining in June and one in January)from completely different periods in their Presidencies, right? Let's analyze: For Clinton, you show that joblessness fell immediately from the start of his terms from a level inherited from GHW Bush (during whose term it rose from 5% to a peak of about 7.5%.) What your dishonest charts fail to show is that under Clinton, the unemployment rate CONTINUED to fall to about 4% at the end of his last term (accompanied, you fail to mention, by the creation of nearly 20 million domestic jobs.) For Bush, you show a slight decline in unemployment begining almost three years into his term, during which it had risen BACK to about 6.5% from the 4% Bush started with! Even slightly lower RATE you show is an artifact of the way the rate is determined (people receiving unemployment benefits, primarily.) After well over two years of higher unemployment many people have lost their benefits (not found jobs) and are hence no longer officially unemployed. This is strongly supported by the concurrent net loss of about 500,000 jobs in the last 3 1/2 years. You ought to apologize to your readers. "Jiggle it around until it sorta fits" is not a valid statistical method. Which reminds me: Prof. Chaos? Since the charts show periods that begin six months apart, the "ebb and flow in the same places" is much more likely to be coincidence that some fixed business cycle. Thanks , commentors, for the anecdotes about all the jobs you've found, but that's all they are.

12 Jerry, thank you for your comments. This post is only one of a number of posts in a series. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/040299.php http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/039265.php http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/040299.php One link will show a chart that empirically disproves the notion that the economy did not begin to recover until after Clinton came to office. In fact, the recovery was in full swing months before. This post is methodologically sound in my estimation. It shows 13 months after the end of the recession for both Presidents. The main difference in all these time periods just happens to be this: time. The economy goes up, the economy goes down. The point of a presidential's term just happens to be incidental to surrounding factors. Also, you cannot compare a presidency to a presidency. Why? Because some Presidencies only last four years, or less. So, if you look at Reagan's first term he has a pretty poor record of job creation. However, his second term rocks. So, it seems a sounder methodology to look at terms. The point is not that George W. Bush is a wonderful President. Just that President's should neither take the blame nor get the credit for a nation of 275 million. PS- You are a tool.

13 On the other hand, during the Clinton Presidency, joblessness declined and the budget went from a deficit to a surplus constantly for all eight years. A tool? Becasue I point out that your charts are statistically meaningless and do NOT show what you claim they do? As for the leadership of the President in managing the economy, why don't you publish complete, non-zoomed charts showing unemployment, budget deficits, and other aspects of the economy for the last four presidents? You and I know you don't because they show strong trending one way or the other that coincides almost exactly with the terms of the respective presidents.

14 Steve..I mean "Jerry". The reason I chose these two time periods is becaue it seemed like the methodologically sound thing to do. IE, choose recovery periods. But if you will check out my other posts on the subject, I also run the numbers for complete Presidential term lengths. Even when you look at complete Presidential terms, W's recovery is not the worst ever. Period. This is fact. Now, you may choose to interpret those numbers differently than I do. For instance, you might say, "Yes, but the recovery comes late in Bush's administration and therefore shows the weakness of his policies." But it is empirically wrong to say that this recovery is somehow less robust than other recoveries.

15 Guess if you now limit your intention in presenting these data to say that the recoveries, OUT OF CONTEXT, are of about the same "robustness" (though I would say only they trend about the same DURING THE PERIODS YOU SELECTED) rather that what you claimed they showed in your post, I'd have to agree. Not that I really care, but these have been my first posts here. Period. By this or any other name. Still curious about the "You are a tool" dig though.

16 Steve/Jerry-I knew it was you, so I thought I'd try an ad homo-nim attack. But if you are going to try to argue, please stick with the post. This post was simply refuting a claim by the Kerry campaign: "This is the worst recovery since the Great Depression". This is an empirically falsifiable statement. Since the statemnet deals with a recovery period, and not even the total jobs created as some of my other posts falsify, I think my methodology is sound.

17 It's a bogus argument. The author is comparing apples to oranges. First, he is comparing a timeframe for Clinton in which Bush Sr's policies are still the over riding factor (Clinton had no effect on the economy in Jan 1992 when he didn't even get sworn in until Jan. 20, 1992). A more "fair" or accurate comparison would have been a chart showing June 1995 to June 1996. If you are going to try to put Bush in a good light because this is the only time during his term that he has had job growth and you are claiming that it is a result of his policies, then you should be comparing it to the same time period in Clinton's first term also when he had had three years of his policies enacted. Nice try at lying with graphs though. You have a bright future ahead of you pulling up misleading information for Rush or Hannity.

18 lortab lortab lortab lortab

19 lortab lortab lortab lortab

20 asd

21 cheap alprazolam

22 What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros! ......

23 Making use of ebb and flow.- For the purpose of knowledge we must know how to make use of the inward current which draws us towards a thing, and also of the current which after a time draws us away from it. ......

24 Incense.-Buddha said: "Do not flatter your benefactor." This saying should be repeated in a Christian church-right away it clears the air of everything Christian. ......

25 In the end one loves one's desire and not what is desired. ......

26 Once the decision has been made, close your ear even to the best counter argument: sign of a strong character. Thus an occasional will to stupidity. ......

27 Good content, eautiful design, thank! You site is the best.

28 I have found your page and liked it so much.

29 I have loved your site.

30 wellbutrin . prednisone . digoxin . metrogel . promethazine . bactrim .

31 ultracet . alendronate . axid . prempro . biaxin . toprol .