jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/30/84)
Recent comment in these newsgroups: > ... the current low unemployment rate > (for which you can thank Mr. Reagan) ... > >Until very recently, "the current low unemployment rate" was higher >than when Reagan took office. It may still be -- I haven't checked >lately. If it's lower, it's not by much. And yes, we can all thank >Reagan for it, as well as for the record high unemployment that >preceded it. It's really amazing how people DELIBERATELY forget that it takes lots of time for economic things to settle out, and that the RESULTS of THE PREVIOUS administration will be evident through the first two years of the next administration. Given that *F*A*C*T* <yeah, damnit, it's a fact. Look to history instead of your party's rhetoric for once, and open your eyes a bit> it's pretty easy to see WHO is good for the economy and who isn't. Take that, Mr. Peanut! -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/04/84)
Well, actually, Joel, I don't disagree with you as much as you think. <I do disagree with the usual ad-hominem bullfeces, of course.> Two years isn't long enough, but at least you can see the effects of an administration in the derivitives by then. <That's all you can see, but at least it's some information.> We are indeed still paying for the end of Vietnam and the oil embargos, as well as for the incredibly irresponsible social programs of the Johnson years. In fact, that's mostly what we're paying for right now, with our massive federal deficit that we can't do much about. As far as the deficit, it is the next problem. Right now, the interest on the FD is as much as the current year's deficit. That's representitive of a system in uncontrolled exponential runaway. The problem is that there isn't any good way to deal with it now, LBJ is the one who had to deal with it, and all he did was put it off a few years. More taxes aren't the answer, as they will only fuel the same problem (inflation/deficit) that they are "supposed" to aid. The only solution that I can see is an IMMEDIATE cut in all parts of the federal budget, INCLUDING human services. I don't like that idea very much, but with human services running at 50% or so of the budget (including administration of them, etc) they must be cut along with everything else. (There are some very basic things that could be done to make such cuts nearly unnoticed, except as regards the unemployed federal employees, but labor will protect its own and damn the poor as usual.) I AM sensitive to ad-hominem attacks, I figure that if someone wants to disrupt, I'm not able to stop them, I might as well either ignore them or drown them out. Why do I support Reagan? Well, his ecomonic ideas are better than anyone else's, even if he can't handle the deficit. <The democratic line is STILL just pushing things into the future. I can't believe that ANYONE can believe it, or not hear the contradictions inherant in it. Look at history, folks.> I can't stand Reagan's moral viewpoints (a look in net.abortion should make that really clear) at all, but I think (and that's as close to certainty as I can come) that economic collapse is more of a threat than the fascist MM stuff. <One can be resisted by individuals, the other cannot.> Cheers -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
scw@cepu.UUCP (04/05/84)
Yes, the Federal Unemployment report does now include the Armed Forces
in the list of employed. This is reasonable as when people are discharged
at the end of their enlistment they get added to the list of unemployed
(assuming that they don't re-enlist). Most media report both statistics
and the AF included statistic is about 0.8% lower than the AF !included.
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus
location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (04/05/84)
From: hdt@sunybcs.UUCP (Howard D. Trachtman)
Date: Mon, 2-Apr-84 00:00:05 PST
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
. .. ... Bits for the buggy machine's bit bucket.
Our economics professor made the claim that Reagan caused the
armed forces to be added to the employment pool, thereby causing the
unemployment rate to drop almost a full point overnight.
This seems a little suspicious to me; does anyone know if this
is true or false or partly true.
This is correct. He did it early '82.
Erik E. Fair
dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, Californiawetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/06/84)
[] Your economics prof needs to start reading the paper more often. The announcement that the Armed Forces were to be added to the employment roles was made months before it happened. The drop was .6% not 1%. It only makes sense to me to include the military in the number of employed, the rest of the Federal Employees are included, and, after all, they are working(?) aren't they? You prof must have an axe to grind. T. C. Wheeler
myers@uwvax.ARPA (04/07/84)
>Your economics prof needs to start reading the paper more often. >The announcement that the Armed Forces were to be added to the >employment roles was made months before it happened. The drop >was .6% not 1%. It only makes sense to me to include the military >in the number of employed, the rest of the Federal Employees are >included, and, after all, they are working(?) aren't they? You >prof must have an axe to grind. Ah, but how many people knew that? Subtle manipulation of government figures is SOP for administrations trying to make things look better than it was before. Remember Johnson's revamping of the way the federal budget is broken down in order to decrease the percentage devoted to the military? Such statistics should be calculated in a *consistent* manner, given that no large structural changes have occurred in the economy warranting the change.