Subscribe in a reader

An on-line magazine supporting the Ninth Amendment


The State of the Union 2007

What is the State of our Union this day?

The State of the Union

REAGAN
1987

CLINTON
1999

BUSH
2007

UNEMPLOYMENT

6.6%

4.4%

4.5%

BLACK
UNEMPLOYMENT

13.7%

7.8%

8.4%

WAGE
PARITY FOR WOMEN

65.1%

72.1%

76.7% [2005]

WORKFORCE
PARTICIPATION RATE

65.7%

67.4%

66.7%

HOME
OWNERSHIP

63.8%

66.7%

69.0% [3RD QTR
06]

PRIME
RATE

7.5%

7.75%

8.25%

CPI-U
[82-84=100]

113.6

166.6

201.6

INFLATION RATE

1.9% [1986
ANNUAL]

1.6% [1998
ANNUAL]

3.3% [2006 EST
ANNUAL]

POVERTY RATE

13.4%

12.8%

12.6% [2005]

BLACKS
IN POVERTY

32.4%

23.6%

24.7% [2005]

ELDERLY IN
POVERTY

12.5%

9.7%

10.1% [2005]

CHILDREN IN
POVERTY

19.6%

17.1%

17.6% [2005]

GDP [IN BILLIONS]

$4,412.4 [1986]

$8,627.9 [1998]

$11,443.5 [Q3
2006]

FEDERAL DEBT [IN
MILLIONS]

$2,120,501. [1986]

$5,478,189. [1998]

$8,031,387. [EST
2006]

FED DEBT
AS % OF GDP

48.1%

63.5%

66.7% [EST
2006]

EXEC
BRANCH CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES [THOUSANDS]

2,113 [FTE
1986]

1,778 [FTE
1998]

1,877 [FTE
2006]

Data contained in this analysis was found at the following sources:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S Department of Labor

U.S. Census Bureau

Federal Reserve Bank Minneapolis

GPO Access

Special thanks to Ronald Reagan, without whom this article would not have been possible.


Subscribe to America's North Shore Journal Subscribe



Comments

5 Responses to “The State of the Union 2007”

  1. [...] comparison of the state of the union at the same time in three different administrations: Reagan, Clinton, and G W Bush. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

  2. Billy Oblivion says:

    Are you using the same definition of poverty in all three years?

    [EDITOR: Yes, from the Census report on Poverty in America.]

  3. submandave says:

    That teh poverty statistics come from the same source does not necessarilly mean it is the same definition. For example, does poverty in 2007 = poverty in 1987 x inflation? Or is it based upon real buying power? Or is it a moving scale? Not attacking the work, but I have little confidence in any government agency maintaining a consistent definition of so volitile a term.

  4. anon says:

    The inflation rate under our current President is the most troubling
    number. It is not surprising however, with the Federal Government
    spending $1,000,000,000 each day that it doesn’t have. Lots of
    that went into vastly inflated home prices. While that market
    failing, it’ll be the middle class that takes all the damage.

    Yet again.

  5. Tully says:

    Poverty figures are a moving target. No, they don’t mean the same thing from year to year or decade to decade. Federal debt is likewise a misleading figure, as much of that is the SS/Medicare trust funds, money the government owes to itself, an accounting fiction. External debt is the relevant number.