Now let's deconstruct this. Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996. He had since 1993 to work on the economy. The jobs situation placed in context demolishes King's argument. Clinton came into office with a 7.5% unemployment rate. By the time he ran for re-election in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.4%. That would be a 2.1% DECREASE in the unemployed. By the time Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 4%.
Now let's look at Bush's record. He inherited Clinton's 4%. By 2003, the unemployment rate was 6%. That is a 2% INCREASE. Of course King and the other Bush apologists will invoke 9/11 and say it's all the terrorists fault. That cheap excuse won't wash. Sure there were job losses after 9/11 in he airline industry and business in NYC. That does not account for a 2% increase in unemployment. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing fast and it isn't Osama bin Laden's fault. The unemployment rate has gone down this year in drips and drabs not because more people are working but because they are not applying for unemployment benefits. PLUS the Bush administration has re-classified burger flipping jobs as "manufacturing jobs." Putting the numbers in context, unemployment steadily INCREASED under Bush while it steadily DECREASED under Clinton. King tries to pull a fast one whenever the economy comes up and he should be called on his lies.
Here are the numbers:
1990 - 5.6
1991 - 6.8
1992 - 7.5
1993 - 6.9
1994 - 6.1
1995 - 5.6
1996 - 5.4
1997 - 4.9
1998 - 4.5
1999 - 4.2
2000 - 4
2001 - 4.7
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6
No comments:
Post a Comment