The U.S. Department of Labor reports the mountain West region - covering eight states along the Rocky Mountains - has the lowest overall unemployment rate in the nation. The region hit an all-time low of 3.4 percent in May.Wow that Bush economy is kicking ass right? WRONG!
The problem has created longer hours and tougher working conditions for current employees.That sentence wants to make me rip my eyes out. For those who don't understand the current situation, let me explain.
In Utah - where unemployment rates have been hovering around 2.5 percent - amusement parks, trucking companies, telemarketing firms and others have been paying bonuses of hundreds of dollars or more to find workers.This trend has led workers in Utah to see "a 5.4 percent average wage increase in 2006", according to the article.
Have you seen the movie 'No end in Sight'?
I watched it a few weeks ago and I'm having dilemma reviewing it on my site cause I'm not as politically sound as you are.
Unemployment rates can be effected by a presidential policies, but sometimes people go to far. The economy is not run by the president. Natural fluctuations occur with unemployment all the time.
If you look at a graph of the unemployment over the past 50 years, it constantly moves. It never stays the same.
If anything, I would say the last four presidents (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and G-Dub) all deserve credit for contributing to a downward trend of unemployment.
As for unemployment being on the rise...it is due to start rising again. I am not an economist, but any monkey that looks at the history of unemployment in this country could tell you what is going to happen.
It will happen no matter who is president and no matter what their policies are. The question is how bad will it be and how long will it last.
My opinion of how Bush handles the economy would probably more in line with probably the two best known republican economists, Alan Greenspan and Ben stein.
Something tells me that you would have no problem giving Clinton credit for a strong economy in the 90s. I could be wrong and correct me if I am.
If you give Clinton credit for his bs economy based on the little evidence that exists, then you should do the same for Bush.
I don't really credit either with anything more than keeping unemployment low. No president runs the economy or is the major driving force behind anything economical. Presidents don't deserve much of the credit or blame they get.
Bush spends too much money. I really don't think we can afford him much longer. But let me guess the The president policies only have a minimal effect on the dollar just like the economy. Right?
The trade deficit is something the president has NO control over what so ever (unless you want him to unilaterally nullify every trade agreement we have). Everyday consumers control that.
I do believe he spends too much, however, with the current deficit we have, we could continue on indefinitely. To say we can't afford him or spending habits like his is untrue. Do not forget, the reason we have all these spending obligations is by and large thanks to Democrats.