Posted on 09/02/2004 5:36:35 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy
Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.1 But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.
In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years.2
This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in office."3 Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this year "unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid." For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under President Clinton.4
Sources:
"Census: Poverty up in 2003," The Olympian, 9/01/04.
Census Bureau press release, 8/31/04.
"Monthly report on mass layoffs dropped," Shawnee News-Star, 1/05/03.
"Inventing The 'Clinton Recession'," Business Week Online, 2/23/04.
I am not an economist, and do not know exactly how to to refute this argument. I need the help of some of you FReepers who are experts on this to help me out. What do I say to him?????
The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article on the poverty stats last week. I no longer have the link.
The article said that the poverty rate today is the exact same rate as it was during 7 of Clinton's 8 years.
Borrow Cheney's comforting words to "Leaky Leahy" Tell "Go F*** Yourself"
"while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level"
Is it me, or wouldn't a growing population keep this true perpetually unless there was a drastic drop in percentage of people w/out h.c.?
You have to go into how the statistic are compiled.
One good example is, if you are a millionaire (gobs of money in the bank), and you have no record of having a job for the last year or so, you are put on the poverty rolls because you don't have a "job".
I've been out of work for about 3 months. I'm sure I'll be on the poverty list soon, though I am not poor.
Also, not related but a point I would like to mention, is that I can recall when a 5% unemployment rate was considered full employment. It was understood that 5% of the populus was unemployable. Today they say that it is unacceptable.
It's all in how each administration wants to play with the numbers.
well you have to ask yourself how bad are the lives of people who live in "Poverty". I was a substitute teacher in a "poverty" stricken area and those kids had nicer clothes that I did and they all had cd player walkmen and had the latest gaming system and I am still playing Bonk on turbographix 16.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200218/posts
I have a liberal friend who always sends negative emails to me about the economy, sob stories, etc. Check out the link above.
Good point.
The "Poor" in this country are much better off than most of the middle class in Europe.
Poor to me is "The Depression" type poor, when there really weren't jobs to be had.
"...a point I would like to mention, is that I can recall when a 5% unemployment rate was considered full employment."
Remember - 911 changed everything!!! What was, was. What is, is.
My point exactly.
Even after 9/11 we still only have 5% unemployment.
Not bad!
I would encourage other FReepers to be ready to do so too!
I've always learned that only 2% of the population is more or less unemployable. The 5% as full employment is the result of natural turnover in a flexible job market like the United States and the amount of unemployed workers necessary to ensure the economy can continue to expand at its maximum sustainable rate without creating undue upward pressure on wages and as a consequence inflation.
If you recall in 99/00 when the rate fell below 5% we had a bubble economy in which skilled workers could command ever larger salaries. The result - a wage inflation that has forced firms to send their jobs offshore (India) where they can continue to be competitive.
Simply tell him that the poorest of us are the envy of most of the world. Tell him that our definition of poor today is someone living like a head of state or royalty 100 years ago. Tell him that our system of calling people poor who only have three TV and 2 cars is rediculous.
"In a historical sense, this is one of the lowest unemployment rates in history."
Not historical, but the July jobs number comes out tomorrow. The consenus (average) expectectation is an increase in the 'payroll' number of 160,000 (see Fox website). This would be at best a lukewarm number and has the potential for major spin. The spin could rival Frances especially since it will come 1 day after Bush's acceptance speech. Most are thinking the speech will center on economic items.
"So decade by decade we have the third lowest in the past 70 years."
So do you want what was, or what is, not to mention what might/will be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.