New York Times reporter Timothy Egan is a great writer, and while I haven’t read his new book — “The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl” — I have no doubt he well deserves the National Book Award he just won.
This is a prestigious award, and it’s great to see the Spokane-raised Seattle resident get some local recognition. Front page, above the fold in yesterday’s Seattle Times; that’s quite a tribute, and while I’d rather see Seattle Times reporters writing like Egan than writing about him, I certainly can’t begrudge him the spotlight. Congratulations Tim, you deserve it.
But an editorial in today’s Seattle Times as well? Man, that’s spreading it on a little thick. I mean… who do you gotta sleep with on the Seattle Times editorial board to get gushy coverage like that?
wasn’t he once jim vesely’s page?
Yes it is good to see a Spokane raised resident get recognition they deserve.
As for who you need to sleep with, is that how you got the KIRO gig?
Goldy,
Don’t let up on the Times. Frank is your bitch forever!
Just out of curiosity, is anyone in a position to check out the Seattle Times archive for the time period, to see if any articles were written about the plight of the “Oakies” who were driven west from the dust bowl?
Despite the focus in movies on the 1930’s era depression in the cities, it was always worse in the rural areas. They had suffered from poor crop prices, drought and floods for several years before the depression hit the rest of the country.
I remember the PBS documentary a few years ago about the depression, where the young school teacher asks one of her young students why she is crying. “I’m hungry!” the girl responds. “Well, why didn’t you bring your lunch?” asks the teacher. “Becuase today it’s my sister’s turn to eat!” responds the young girl.
In related news, the Bush administration announces that the war against hungar has been won. Now it will no longer be called “hunger”, because as far as they are concerned hunger no longer exists in the U.S. Instead, it will be referred to as “food insecurity”.
Reminds me of the Reagan agriculture dept., attempting to justify cuts in school lunch funding for the poor by re-classifying ketchup from a “condiment” to a “vegitable”.
And these are the same people who critized Clinton for asking what the definition of “is” is?
While I am thinking about the Depression generally, I remember in the same PBS documentary they were discussing why there was so little food aid to people in rural areas. The answer? It was opposed by the big farm owners. Their own land wasn’t mortgaged, so they purchased land foreclosed upon by the banks for pennies on the dollars. But they needed people to work these farms, so they wanted them hungry so they would be desperate enough to work for whatever pennies they deemed to throw in their direction.
I think about this every time the Republican party obstructs a raise in the minimum wage.
MORE BAD NEWS FOR RIGHTYS!
The Dow is up again today, pushing farther into record territory, as Wall Street endorses last Tuesday’s Democratic election victory with a week of market advances! Not exactly a ringing endorsement of wingnut economics when even the capitalists like Democrats better.
Two points on the Depression commentary: One, it was Nixon not Reagan who classified ketchup as a “vegetable” for school lunch purposes; and two, let’s not overlook there’s a depression in eastern WA wheat country RIGHT NOW, i.e., their crop sells for less than it costs to grow it.
David @ 3 & David Goldstein:
Let’s eliminate the state sales tax exemption for newspapers.
Other depression-era stories:
My uncle told me about how my grandfather lost his farm in Alabama during the depression. They worked all year, harvested the crops, loaded them into mule-drawn wagons, and headed to town to sell them to the distributors.
But the distributors were not buying, at any price. They had plenty already, and were not going to buy any more.
So they took the wagons to the edge of town, parked them at the side of the road at an informal “farmer’s market”, and tried to sell products to the town’s people. But nobody in the town had any money to buy the food.
Finally, my grandfather told the boys to drive the wagons to the black section of town, and give the food away before it spoiled.
A few months later the farm was foreclosed upon, and they spent the next eight years moving from one job to another as my grandfather found work as a carpenter. As soon as school ended, his sons came to join him on the job. My father was “swinging a hammer” by the time he was six, and learning to work with mules (a job he intensly hated). He also learned to dig a ditch as fast as any other laborer.
My uncle told me that they never finished the school year in the same school where they started it. As new kids, other students would try to steal their lunches, so if you didn’t want to go hungry you had to learn to fight for it. After a while they learned that as soon as they changed schools, they would pick out the biggest bully in the school and then make sure they gave him a black eye (or worse) before the day ended. That way nobody messed with them.
No dice, Goldy. Until you read “The Good Rain” by Egan, you should hush your mouth and show respect – after you read it, you’ll know to bow.
RR says: “It was Nixon not Reagan who classified ketchup as a “vegetable” for school lunch purposes”.
Really, I distinctly remember this discussion occuring in the early 1980’s, because I was on a downtown Seattle street waiting for the bus when I read it in the paper, and I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t move to Seattle until late 1979, and didn’t start working in downtown Seattle until 1981, so that’s how I draw my time line.
Perhaps Nixon did it first, Carter reversed it, and Reagan did it again?
Goldy,
I am afraid you are too cryptic for your readers.
“His wife, Joni Balter, is a Seattle Times editorial writer.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ard15.html
Harldly retard rabbit. The great market is under a Republican congress. One the Democrats take over officially, it will crash.
“The Good Rain” & “Breaking Blue” are good, well-written books.
My grandfather had a small farm near Puyallup during the depression and could by potatoes from some branch of the government for an obscenely small amount of money, $2.00 a ton or something like that, the only catch being that he had to sign a form stating that the potatoes were not for human consumption. So, grandpa signed the oath that the potatoes were for his pigs and then drove off to his church to distribute the potatoes to whom ever needed them.
Everyone should read “The Worst Hard Time” – especially people who want to deny that human actions can change the climate or that ecological change can be disastrous to people living through it.
People plowed up too much marginal prairie for crops in the boom years of the 20s. When the weather turned dry in the 30s this over-planting exacerbated the problem and led to the famous dust storms. Humans action turned a bad drought into a catastrophe.
Something for Global Warming deniers to think about.
Careful Reader @12,
I guess I was too cryptic. I didn’t think it would take 12 comments before somebody pointed out that Egan is married to Balter.
Oh… and I was being absolutely genuine in lauding Egan. He’s an excellent reporter and a great writer.
Balter & Egan are not the Didion and Dunne of Seattle, however.
bah dump bump
DID BUSH SAY U.S. WON VIETNAM WAR?
I was listening to the Ed Schultz show on Air America this afternoon, and I swear Schultz said Bush claimed the U.S. won the Vietnam War because of the determination of the South Vietnamese people … but until I can confirm this, I just don’t want to believe my ears. Does anybody else know anything about this?
ANOTHER BAD DAY FOR RIGHTYS ON WALL STREET
The Dow set another new record today as Wall Street moneymen continue to ratify last week’s Democratic victory. Looks like the smart money doesn’t trust the GOP’s ability to run the economy. Suck on it, wingnuts!
13 Truth2006 says: The great market is under a Republican congress. One the Democrats take over officially, it will crash. 11/17/2006 at 12:12 pm
This one goes in my filing cabinet. You’ll be seeing it again. Count on it!
Any member of the Federal Reserve Board could explain to the casual observor of the stock markets that this is clearly “irrational exuberance” caused by the decline & impending fall of Bu$hInc & the Rovian empire. When the new congress takes office in January, the exuberance will be perfectly rational.
I doubt it. Once the market crashes, you will lie and deny. It is the Democrat modus operandi. Remember, from the moment the liberals take over, they own it. So any market downturn is a repudiation of liberal control.
“Truth2006 says:
Remember, from the moment the liberals take over, they own it. So any market downturn is a repudiation of liberal control.
11/17/2006 at 2:39 pm
If that were true, then how do you explain the so called “Clinton recession” that happened on Bush’s watch?
Clinton had screwed it up so bad that it took Bush a while to turn it around. Bush did turn it around and in fact surpassed the highest numbers Clinton ever had in spades. Besides, if one claims that the moment the election is done and before Democrats have even taken power that a market upswing belongs to them, then surely from that moment forward, they are responsible for any and all results good and bad. Now I never said I agreed with Rabbit’s theory, but if it is true, then one must accept all market conditions that follow while they are in power.
Why would Rabbit consider an up market to be bad for anybody? Only a Rabbit brain could say such a stupid thing. If true that the market will be up, who’s complaining? All I want are those hot picks that made you a bundle Rabbit. In the oil sector as I recall when you were bragging about it. Hmmm. Haliburton I bet.
On a more serious note, KVI “The Commentators” is doing a charity drive for Union Gospel Mission for Thanksgiving. $38 feeds something like 20 people. I have already given $100.00 . I challenge each of you to give as much. Call the station or give directly to Union Gospel Mission.
24 Truth2006 says: Once the market crashes, you will lie and deny. It is the Democrat modus operandi. — 11/17/2006 at 2:39 pm
Pyschiatrists refer to this syndrome as “mirroring.” That is, the patient attributes his own characteristics to others.
25
Truth2006 says: Clinton had screwed it up so bad that it took Bush a while to turn it around. Bush did turn it around and in fact surpassed the highest numbers Clinton ever had in spades. — 11/17/2006 at 2:48 pm
This is complete and utter bullshit. Bush has created only about 1/10th as many jobs as Clinton did. Bush’s unemployment numbers have never matched Clinton’s. Bush turned Clinton’s surpluses into garantuan deficits. Currently, the economy is growing at about 2% annually and adding about 90,000 jobs a month — less than what is needed just to keep up with population growth. You are blowing smoke out of your ass.
27
Truth2006 says: Why would Rabbit consider an up market to be bad for anybody? — 11/17/2006 at 2:51 pm
I’m glad you feel last week’s Democratic sweep is a good thing, ProudAss. I think it is, too! Now … why would a wingnut consider a terrorist attack on the U.S. good for anybody?
“Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need. … Posted by FullContactPolitics at November 8, 2006 10:52 AM”
http://tinyurl.com/ydlfwu
27 (continued)
I bought NOV at 48. You?
Bill Clinton: 22 million NET jobs created while in office
George Bush: 6 million TOTAL jobs created while in office (3 million net)
Other than a few small things like that, the kid’s lookin’ good…
goldy…spoken like a true far out there liberal. maybe he didn’t have to sleep with anyone…,.maybe, just maybe he worked really hard and has talent.
it’s a thinker……….
and daddydearest…government does not create jobs…..where have you been? employers create jobs.
ghost … so are you saying government policy doesn’t affect how many jobs there are in the economy?
Suggestion for the House Intelligence Committee chair…
Throw out Crazy Pete Hoekstra and put anyone in his place. He has been front and center in the fight to protect the Bush administration by covering up how the intelligence community was pressured to cook the books to make the case for going to war in Iraq.
Get rid of him. That’s what’s important.
From (Un)Truth2006: “Clinton had screwed it up so bad that it took Bush a while to turn it around.”
Please! Stop it! It hurts too much to laugh so hard! You should quit your day job and go on the comedy circuit!
Oh, I forgot. You don’t have a job.
34 CG
If only I mentioned any agent responsible for the job creation I cited, but sadly, no. Perhaps my phrasing was at fault.
Anyway, don’t tell me, tell Truth2006 that his hero didn’t create any jobs. Or raise the stock market. Or lower the price of gas. Go ahead, tell him.
A hint to (Un)Truth 2006: A President can blame the economy on the previous administration only for the first 1-1/2 years. After that, it’s his problem.
Yea, I know it sucks. Especially since the Republicans have raided the national treasury to give themselves and their buddies as much money as possible, paid for by massive budget deficits at levels never known before, and passing on this increase in the national debt (and service upon that debt, i.e., interest payments) to our grandchildren. It will probably take twelve years for the Democrats to dig their way out of the hole Bush & the Republican Congress put us into in only six years, with the Republicans complaining about it the whole way. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. As Democrats, we’ve become used to picking up the mess made by Republicans.
While we’re talking about the Great Depression, I’d like to remind everyone that it was merely the worst of a long string of depressions the occurred as regularly as rain under the laissez faire capitalism of the late 1800s and early 1900s. And I’d also like to remind everyone that wingnuts want to do away with all the government intervention that prevents runaway economic cyclic swings and takes some of the hard edge off downturns. Do we really want a replay of the 1890s, or 1930s? If you don’t, whatever you do, don’t vote Republican!
For example, Social Security is hugely important in preventing depressions. Here’s why. Those government retirement checks go out every month no matter what the economy is doing. A Social Security check never gets laid off, downsized, outsourced, of offshored. And the people who receive those checks spend them, which helps keep the economy going during the down cycles. Basically, all that Social Security money flowing into the economy puts a floor under how far consumer spending can fall when jobs and earnings are curtailed.
But what would happen if $1 trillion of this Social Security money were diverted to Wall Street, as Chimp Bush and Roadkill McGavick wanted to do? (1) In a downturn, this wealth would evaporate along with all other private investments; and (2) $1 trillion of consumer spending would be removed from the economy, making recessions worse!
No wonder these idiots lost the election.
29 RR
I thought it was projecting.
28: I hold nothing against the Union Gospel Mission, but my church has its own program to feed the homeless and needy, and I will be participating in it next weekend.
God doesn’t have time to bless George W. Bush. She’s too busy cleaning up after him.
If you think the market has anything to do with Democrats winning you must be in a coma. It was going up up up way before the election happened. I think that is a good thing.
That the Democrats got elected has nothing to do with the market. If anything, the market looks forward to gridlock. That’s my theory anyway.
As far as that quote you keep posting over and over, #1 I didn’t write it. #2, it clearly states that a terrorist attack is a prediction because we showed the terrorists we will surrender because Democrats were elected.
I do agree with the sentiment that a terrorist attack is more likely now that Democrats run congress. Not hoping for one, it is just reality that when you run away, they will follow. Already Democrats are contemplating their Iraq cut and run strategy.
So then after the first 1 1/2 years they president “owns” the economy? Then the record unemployement (less that under Clinton), record home ownership (higher than ever under Clinton), record stock market (as Rabbit pointed out) is all Bush’s fault. Thanks for clearing that up!
You are full of it. During the tech boom under Clinton, that was when Bernie Ebbers, Keny Lay and the other crooks were cooking the books on their companies. They weren’t prosecuted until Bush came into office. Then the economy collapsed as the “irrational exhuberence” subsided and people figured out the boom was all based on flawed internet statups with such ridiculous notions that a company didn’t need to make a profit, all they needed were hits on their website. The term was the “new economy”. It was more aptly named the “false economy”. About as trustworthy as Clinton with an intern in the Oval Office.
You already said it Rabbit, the market is doing great. Bush is president, he gets the credit. Home ownership is at historic highs, interest rates are at historic lows, gas prices are low, the market is up. Thank you President Bush. At least some of us are grateful!
I am not in the market. Can’t afford it. Wish I could.
record unemployement (less that under Clinton)
Pop quiz:
Is 4.0% less than, equal to, or greater than 4.4%?
One of the busywork things that people did during the Depression was to go around testing childrens’ IQ’s. Two of the highest scores recorded were Truman Capote’s and Young Richard Milhous Nixon’s. They both scored in the low 180’s — very respectable. The thing that disturbed people about Nixon’s test were the grotesque cartoons of maimed and beheaded human figures in the margins — although they were extremely well drawn for a tyke!
David, that’s just petty. I’m no fan of Joni Balter, but there’s nothing wrong with her colleagues praising her husband on his well-deserved award. Sheesh.
Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.
[…]
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, “I have no comfortable political home.”
The political left accuses Dutch conservatives of the exact same thing. They simply refuse to understand that conservatives are not greedy, but that conservatives simply believe that the government should not take care of certain things: private charities should. As a result, conservatives are glad to charities. We simply believe that we should not be forced to give. We want to decide who we want to help, instead of the government deciding it for us.
The government is not your father, not your mother, or your wife. It should not take care of you.
Full Story…
47
Truth2006 says: I am not in the market. Can’t afford it. Wish I could. — 11/17/2006 at 3:44 pm
Do you realize what this MEANS??!! According to wingnut ideology, it means you’re LAZY and IMMORAL!!! According to Mark the Redneck Welsher, it means you made “bad choices!” You’d better lay low for a while and not show your face in wingnut circles until you acquire some PROPERTY and become a member of the CAPITALIST CLASS.
50
Hey Stefan good buddy — are you gonna plant CARROTS in your garden next spring? YUMMY!!! I LOVE CARROTS!!! :D :D :D
P.S., why do you let jihadists post their pro-terrorism messages on your petite little blog?
:D
Just testing … how come the smiley face doesn’t work anymore?
4.0% is less than 4.0% that is why I am glad it was 4.0% under BUSH! Your OWN link shows it at 4.0% under Bush in 2000. You proved my point. Unemployment under Bush has been lower than under Clinton. Thanks for the link. ;) I am glad you agree that unemployement under Bush was lower than Clinton.
46 Truth
Two things:
One, when you say “tech boom,” do you mean the stock market phenomenon of the “tech bubble,” or do you mean the historically unprecedented period of economic growth, high wages, and low unemployment that arose from the computerization of American business and its accompanying high growth in productivity?
Two, when you say “the economy collapsed as the ‘irrational exuberence’ subsided” are you referring to the end of the so-called “tech bubble” (which was that to which Greenspan was referring at the time) and stock prices dropping, or to the economic downturn that followed the Federal Reserve choking our economy by raising the federal funds rate six straight times in 1999 and 2000 (to 1 1/4 points HIGHER than it is today after 17 consecutive increases)?
Umm not really. See I contribute to my work retirement. I am mostly in bond funds. Not get rich quick returns I’ll grant you, but with current contribution rates, if I get 7% return, I’ll retire a millionaire.
And I do onw my house, so I own property. I just don’t feel comfortable or knowledgeable enough to pick individual stocks. Know of any good resources for learning to pick stocks?
So now you think it was all the feds fault? You don’t think all the crazy dot coms with business models that didn’t include a profit margin had nothing to do with it?
Isn’t that the typical liberal. Wants someone else to toil so they can come in and get the benefit without working.
51 Does Brooks in his analysis assume that everyone is either a “religious conservative” or a “secular liberal”? What about all of us members of the “Christian left”? I don’t think we’re just a Northwest phenomon. Several of the most hard-over liberals I know of are cradle Catholics from Mississippi.
After the Democrats took over and raised everyone’s taxes, they couldn’t afford it anymore.
46 Truth
“the market is doing great…Home ownership is at historic highs, interest rates are at historic lows, gas prices are low, the market is up…”
Talk to christmasghost. None of that is to Bush’s credit. christmasghost will tell you why.
59 Truth
Here’s when the Fed raised rates (which, by the way, is also why the econpomy is slowing NOW).
Now you tell ME how many of those “crazy dot coms with business models that didn’t include a profit margin” there were, and what portion of the economy they comprised. Because I don’t think you have fact one at your disposal.
Oh, and 59 Truth
Um, I was asking you questions in 57. Wanna answer?
I really don’t believe anybody knows where the economy is going to go from here. We’ve all been made the lab rats in an experiment the likes of which has no real precedent. Never before has a nation accumulated so much debt, period–to say nothing of doing so over a period of only five and a half years. I really don’t think even the most learned of prognosticators are saying anything that isn’t based pretty tenuous extrapolations from past experience.
4.0% is less than 4.0% that is why I am glad it was 4.0% under BUSH! Your OWN link shows it at 4.0% under Bush in 2000. You proved my point. Unemployment under Bush has been lower than under Clinton. Thanks for the link. ;) I am glad you agree that unemployement under Bush was lower than Clinton.
Well, you failed the first quiz. Let’s try another one:
On what date was George W. Bush inaugurated?
From Wikipedia
The Clinton presidency left America with record economic growth and prosperity:
– Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
– Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.
– Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
– Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
– Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
– The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record.
– In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
– The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.
– The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
Truth, you dork, Bush wasn’t president in 2000.
Good lord.
[Under Bill Clinton] The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months.
Reminds me of the Reagan agriculture dept., attempting to justify cuts in school lunch funding for the poor by re-classifying ketchup from a “condiment” to a “vegitable”.
What a crock. He didn’t superfund it to the congressional donk Moonbat! level and you Moonbat!s call that a cut.
STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID Moonbat!s
me says: My grandfather had a small farm near Puyallup during the depression and could by potatoes from some branch of the government for an obscenely small amount of money, $2.00 a ton or something like that, the only catch being that he had to sign a form stating that the potatoes were not for human consumption. So, grandpa signed the oath that the potatoes were for his pigs and then drove off to his church to distribute the potatoes to whom ever needed them.
You mean the Depression era donk controlled congress was against feeding the poor? What? Write this again for the Moonbat!s here.
christmasghost says:
goldy…spoken like a true far out there liberal. maybe he didn’t have to sleep with anyone…,.maybe, just maybe he worked really hard and has talent.
it’s a thinker……….
and daddydearest…government does not create jobs…..where have you been? employers create jobs.
CGhost: Small minds, even smaller topics
Roger Rabbit says:
:D
11/17/2006 at 4:15 pm
Roger Rabbit says:
Just testing … how come the smiley face doesn’t work anymore?
11/17/2006 at 4:15 pm
Doesn’t work for cantankerous bestiality bastards!
Daddy Love says:
From Wikipedia – The Clinton Years
Who wrote this bile: Lanny Davis? Harold Ickies? Hillary Clinton? Rahm Emanuel?
Someone should make “Mike Web Sucks” go take his meds.
wingnut @ 44 claims elections have no effect on stock markets.
Rabbit Reply: HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
56 GOTCHA!
Truth2006 says: Unemployment under Bush has been lower than under Clinton. 11/17/2006 at 4:17 pm
Roger Rabbit Comment: This is the kind of categorical assertion that can be proved/disproved. All I have to do is look at the official government unemployment statistics at http://tinyurl.com/rt9hy and here is what I found:
Bush Unemployment Stat:
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.5
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.9
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.9
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.7
2004-04-01 5.5
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.4
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2
2005-02-01 5.4
2005-03-01 5.1
2005-04-01 5.1
2005-05-01 5.1
2005-06-01 5.0
2005-07-01 5.0
2005-08-01 4.9
2005-09-01 5.1
2005-10-01 4.9
2005-11-01 5.0
2005-12-01 4.9
2006-01-01 4.7
2006-02-01 4.8
2006-03-01 4.7
2006-04-01 4.7
2006-05-01 4.6
2006-06-01 4.6
2006-07-01 4.8
2006-08-01 4.7
2006-09-01 4.6
2006-10-01 4.4
Clinton Unemployment Stats
1993-01-01 7.3
1993-02-01 7.1
1993-03-01 7.0
1993-04-01 7.1
1993-05-01 7.1
1993-06-01 7.0
1993-07-01 6.9
1993-08-01 6.8
1993-09-01 6.7
1993-10-01 6.8
1993-11-01 6.6
1993-12-01 6.5
1994-01-01 6.6
1994-02-01 6.6
1994-03-01 6.5
1994-04-01 6.4
1994-05-01 6.1
1994-06-01 6.1
1994-07-01 6.1
1994-08-01 6.0
1994-09-01 5.9
1994-10-01 5.8
1994-11-01 5.6
1994-12-01 5.5
1995-01-01 5.6
1995-02-01 5.4
1995-03-01 5.4
1995-04-01 5.8
1995-05-01 5.6
1995-06-01 5.6
1995-07-01 5.7
1995-08-01 5.7
1995-09-01 5.6
1995-10-01 5.5
1995-11-01 5.6
1995-12-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1996-02-01 5.5
1996-03-01 5.5
1996-04-01 5.6
1996-05-01 5.6
1996-06-01 5.3
1996-07-01 5.5
1996-08-01 5.1
1996-09-01 5.2
1996-10-01 5.2
1996-11-01 5.4
1996-12-01 5.4
1997-01-01 5.3
1997-02-01 5.2
1997-03-01 5.2
1997-04-01 5.1
1997-05-01 4.9
1997-06-01 5.0
1997-07-01 4.9
1997-08-01 4.8
1997-09-01 4.9
1997-10-01 4.7
1997-11-01 4.6
1997-12-01 4.7
1998-01-01 4.6
1998-02-01 4.6
1998-03-01 4.7
1998-04-01 4.3
1998-05-01 4.4
1998-06-01 4.5
1998-07-01 4.5
1998-08-01 4.5
1998-09-01 4.6
1998-10-01 4.5
1998-11-01 4.4
1998-12-01 4.4
1999-01-01 4.3
1999-02-01 4.4
1999-03-01 4.2
1999-04-01 4.3
1999-05-01 4.2
1999-06-01 4.3
1999-07-01 4.3
1999-08-01 4.2
1999-09-01 4.2
1999-10-01 4.1
1999-11-01 4.1
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
I report, you decide.
46
Truth2006 says: During the tech boom under Clinton, that was when Bernie Ebbers, Keny Lay and the other crooks were cooking the books on their companies. — 11/17/2006 at 3:40 pm
The corporate scandals were primarily the fault of the perpetrators and their underlings, accountants, and lawyers. They occurred in the context of a business community (and graduates coming out of business schools) with no ethics, and in an environment of lax accounting rules that neither the FISB, the accounting oversight board, or the Clinton administration did anything about. However, whether Clinton could have imposed tightened regulation on the business sector or passed remedial legislation after the GOP won control of Congress in 1994 is highly debatable. The GOP is hostile to regulation of the business community. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed by nearly unanimous votes of both houses and signed by Bush, but it doesn’t go far enough to solve all the problems or prevent similar problems in the future, and the Bush administration has done nothing beyond SOX to deal with the issue. The options backdating scandal occurred on Bush’s watch and under his CEO-friendly SEC. So, while Clinton debatably might be criticized for not regulating the accounting and business communities more vigorously, Bush is not off the hook either.
78: Rabbit, you need to learn how to do averages I think.
At the same time in clintons presidency as Bush is now.Clinton had an average unemployment rate of 5.55%. Bush has an average unenployment rate of 5.3%.
This is using your numbers though and if they are as accurate as the rest of the things you say there could be some adjustments.
Truth2006 says: Know of any good resources for learning to pick stocks? — 11/17/2006 at 4:21 pm
That’s not easy to answer, ProudAss. I’m what you might call a value-based contrarian. I use a “value” approach to evaluate what a stock “should” be worth, and buy stocks in what I consider to be good companies whose market valuations are temporarily knocked down by the market for not very good reasons. I look past current P/Es at deeper-lying financial data such as whether sales are stagnant or growing, debt ratio, book value-to-price ratio, and so on. How the company is positioned in its market and industry is very important: Is the company a technological leader; do its customers have a compelling reason to buy their products; does its services and products add substantial value to its customers’ businesses? For example, NOV is a mid-sized company serving the oil industry on a global scale with excellent financials and, more importantly, they sell cutting-edge drilling rig products their customers can’t get anywhere else. I’ve played this stock (and its predecessor companies) for years, buying on the low cycle and selling at the highs. I’ve probably owned this stock (or its predecessor companies) a dozen times over the years.
80
rob says: Rabbit, you need to learn how to do averages I think. — 11/17/2006 at 9:12 pm
Averaging has its limitations. For example, averaging your IQ with my IQ would make you look better than you deserve.
As the reverse was true with your unemployment numbers I would say that the reverse would be true with the IQ averages.
Rabbit, if you don’t want to use averages though at this time in the clinton presidency vs. this time in the bush presidency, clinton was at 4.5% and Bush is at 4.4. Either way your numbers favor bush.
66
ArtFart says: I really don’t believe anybody knows where the economy is going to go from here. — 11/17/2006 at 4:33 pm
Like any credit spending binge, this one will result in less real wealth.
74
Mike Webb Sucks says: Doesn’t work for cantankerous bestiality bastards!
Your mommy told me to give you a message: She enjoyed it better with me than with your daddy!
75
Mike Webb Sucks says: Who wrote this bile: Lanny Davis? Harold Ickies? Hillary Clinton? Rahm Emanuel? 11/17/2006 at 5:09 pm
So sorry the facts don’t conform to your wingnut fantasy. Suck on it.
Clinton economy: Inherited 7.3% unemployment from Bush41 which trended steadily downward reaching 3.9% when the month before he left office.
Bush economy: Inherited 4.2% unemployment from Clinton which rose steadily during the period of tax cuts until peaking over 6% in mid-2003, then slowly declined and leveled off at mid-4% range.
The only reason Clinton’s “average” unemployment rate is higher than Bush43’s is because of the very high unemployment that Clinton inherited from Bush41. Clinton created 7 times as many net new jobs as Bush43.
The economy is now slowing down and may fall into recession sometime next year, so Bush43’s job gains are largely behind him and the net new jobs created during his presidency may end up being less than the current figure.
The unemployment figures speak for themselves, Rob. Clinton inherited 7.3% unemployment from a Republican president and knocked it down to 3.9% by the last full month of his presidency. The 4.2% unemployment that Dubya inherited from Clinton rose immediately, and has never fallen back to that figure at any time during Dubya’s presidency.
But why stop there? Let’s look at the bigger picture …
Jobs Records of Presidents (new jobs as percentage of workforce):
Democrat Roosevelt 5.3%
Democrat Johnson 3.8%
Democrat Carter 3.1%
Democrat Truman 2.5%
Democrat Clinton 2.4%
Democrat Kennedy 2.3%
Republican Nixon 2.2%
Republican Reagan 2.1%
Republican Coolidge 1.1%
Republican Ford 1.1%
Republican Eisenhower 0.9%
Republican Bush Sr. 0.6%
Republican Bush Jr. (0.7%)
Republican Hoover (9.0%)
(Data through 2003)
Notice a pattern here? Not one GOP president since Harding has a jobs record than ANY Democrat! This is not accidental — jobs just aren’t a Republican priority, and workers are ALWAYS better off under Democratic economic policies. But wait, there’s more!
From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003:
— Democrats held the White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42 1/2 years.
— Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs, Republicans less than half that — only 36,440,000. The per-year average is Democrats 1,825,200, Republicans 856,400.
— Republicans had 9 presidents during the period of whom 6 presided over a depression or recession.
— The Dow average grew by 52% more under Democrats.
— The GDP grew by 43% more under Democrats.
Comparing Clinton to Reagan:
— Jobs grew by 43% more under Clinton.
— GDP grew by 57% more under Clinton.
— The Dow grew by 700% more under Clinton..
— The NASDAQ grew by 18 times as much under Clinton.
— Federal spending grew by 28% under Clinton, by 80% under Reagan.
— Federal debt grew by 43% under Clinton, by 187% under Reagan.
— Federal deficits grew by 112% under Reagan; Clinton turned deficits into surpluses.
— National income grew by 100% more under Clinton.
— Personal income grew by 110% more under linton.
Why? Because Republicans have different priorities than Democrats, and Republicans do NOT care about workers or the middle class.
SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.gov)
Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)-Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
Clinton won in ’92 because ordinary Americans were suffering under the Reagan-Bush Sr. economy, and won a crushing re-election victory in ’96 because the country enjoyed peace and prosperity under his leadership.
“Who do you have to sleep with?”, asks Mr. Goldstein.
If you are Maria Cantwell, the answer was Ron Dotzauer (a week before his wedding!)
Roger,
Election results do not have much of an effect on the stock market. That’s because the market has already factored-in what the likely result of the election is before the ballots are cast. The smart guys and gals on Wall Street aren’t thinking about just tomorrow: they’re making decisions on what they think is the likely course of events next week, next year, next decade. In short, Wall Street takes actions before the outcome is known of an event based on the some pretty savvy research and “gut feel.”
Politicians of every party love to take credit when the market is good and blame the other party when the market is bad. The truth is that politicians have little effect on the stock market, especially in the long term. Perhaps the biggest entity related to government that has an effect on the makret is the Federal Reserve, the FED. Keep in mind that the FED is NOT a government entity: it is a corporation that is owned entirely by the government. The government can’t tell the FED what to do, and the FED’s job is to promote price stabiltiy (i.e., fight inflation) and promote economic growth. Sometimes these goals conflict, but overall the FED seems to do a pretty good job. The root-cause of the Depression was the fact that the FED wasn’t paying attention.
Day-to-day political events may have a one-day, one-week, or even a slightly longer impact on the market, but this is transitory. The actions of the FED, if we’re looking at any one entity to affect the market, are far more significant than the rantings and ramblings of politicians. Do you remember when Tricky Dick resigned in 1974? People said, “This is gonna make the stock market crash.” But it didn’t crash because Wall Street already realized Nixon was a goner and made its plans accordingly.
Fear and greed are what affect the market. When sellers exceed buyers, fear takes hold. When buyers exceed selles, greed runs the show. Overall, the American stock market is a great place to invest, and the machinations of politicians have a negligible effect. Through October 31st, my perosnal wealth has risen about 13% on an annualized basis. Not bad, considering my risk tolerance. And the Republicans and Democrats had nothing to do with it.
(Goldy – Is there a way for Roger to graph the unemployment statistics shown in a previous comment? One picture can replace a lot of boring numbers.)
RHP6033: I enjoyed your posts above. Thanks. The thread was truly enjoyable reading up to the point where political posts intervened. I scroll past most posters butalways stop to read yours.
My mother – Montana ranchers – said she didn’t even know about the Depression. She’d been living it so long . . . they were always poor. Also, glad to hear Balter and Egan are still married. I wondered about that.
HorsesAss.Org