Economy UP

“No it hasn't bacpac. It hasn't risen in the last couple, with I believe a .1 percent drop.


Typical Republican roosting..BLECH!”

“The lastest reports for the third quarter have shown the fastest growth in 20 years, hasn't it?”

“In dollar terms, economic output in the US has shown extremely high levels of growth recently - I don't know if its the fastes in 20 years - but that sounds plausible. Thats not job growth, and it would not hold if we valued US economic output in Euros or yen - but its real growth in output. There has been some modest hiring, but so far - its a drop in the bucket compared to jobs lost to date.

Anyway with record deficit spending... with the US now spending something like 20K per tax payer per year and taking in 16K per taxpayer per year - we sure ought to be seeing incredible growth for a while. Is the growth anywhere near the 4k per person we are borrowing... and will be paying interest on? I don't think so.

Bush claimed that if congress held the line on spending, the deficit could be cut in half in 5 years. A deficit that was a surplus until he came in. Now, with his support - congress has smashed through the line on spending and deficits look to soar.”

“Interesting perspective, Ped. It seems very simple, and I hadn't considered it in that context before...”

“I hate having to apologize for good news.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news/economy/jobs/”

“We read the same article right bacpac?

"Other economists note, however, that job growth is still not strong enough to keep up with the 150,000 or so new entrants to the labor force every month, and few economists expect a significant decline in the unemployment rate in the next year.

Payrolls are still 2.4 million jobs smaller than in March 2001, when the 2001 recession began. Though job growth has come in spurts since then, payrolls are still about 800,000 jobs lower than in November 2001, when the recession officially ended."”

“It's kinda like getting mugged and celbrating when the guy who just took your wallet gives you a token for the subway. Yeah, things are headed in the right direction for that moment - and it's better than not having a token - but you're a long way from getting back what's had been yours.”

“You been riding the (T), pedxing?”

“So, bacpac's link proves my point. Thanks bacpac, you're tops!

Nother question:

Where are the 300,000 jobs per month Bush promised the tax cuts would create? Those jobs are not there. Shall we add the 300,000 jobs not created per month (since the passage of the tax cut) to the 2 + milions jobs lost since he's taken office?

Fact:
Bush is the first President since the Depression Era to have a net loss of jobs while in office.

Fact:
Bush promised 300,000 jobs per month if his tax cut were passed. Those jobs have not been relized.

Fact:
2 + Millions jobs are lost since he took office. He would have to create 2 + millions jobs in order to break "even".

Fact:
Worker productivity rose to higher levels this past quarter. Not suprising since most of these companies cut jobs. One worker is now doing the jobs of 2 others. Who wins? The company does, with lower overhead (less insurance and wages paid per employee). So again, the rich get richer.

Fact:
Jobs = healthy, long term recovery. If people are working, people have money to spend. No jobs = no money for them to spend. One or two quarters do not equal a recovery, fellas.

Fact:
Am I happy about the current news? Phuck YES!!! It's about time!

Fact:
Am I not worried anymore and cracking that bottle open?
Phuck no!!! We have had "false recoveries" before in the Adiminstartion. Let's keep the economy going strong for a few, return to the days of consumer "drunk spending" and I'll buy all you Repubs a beer, K?”

“Good for America = Bad for Democrats.”

“Good for America = Good for all.

This is not a love/hate relationship. Bush is so much trouble that he needs this. If it fails to pan out, he's cooked, we all know that. He's got a big hole to dig out of. If he lifts the tariffs on steel, that might cost him dearly in the Rust Belt (Fox News report from two days ago.) Granted, anything he did with the steel tariffs would cost him dearly in the Rust Belt, poor fella!”

“We also can't demand instant results. The past has shown that cutting taxes helps. Worked for JFK, worked for Raygun and there is no reason to think it won't work now. Everyone does hope it works, but the left is hoping for AFTER Nov. 2004. LOL!

I just find there is a huge lack of intellectual integrity from many liberals by absolute refusal to credit Bush with doing anything of a redeeming value. The funny thing is that social spending has never been higher. Bush has done more in this area than Clinton ever did. More for fighting AIDS, new Medicare entitlements…the left is getting nearly 70% of what they want and yet they flat out refuse to acknowledge anything positive. It IS a matter of hate.

I do agree that spending is way out of control. Bush was screwed on the tariffs no matter what he does.”

“Has that mountain gorilla caught up with you yet?”

“Republicans = Hogs at the Trough.”

“Every other post-war recession has been remedied by monetary policy. The 13 cuts the Federal Reserve made since early 2001 had very limited results because the effect the growing deficit has on credit markets. The simulative effect of tax cuts has been more than counteracted by burgeoning deficit. I hope the economy is back on track for good because there are very few tools left in the bag if it decides to stall yet again.

My fear is that a growing economy will be seen as vindication of lopsided tax cuts and there will be more effort to make them permanent or enact further cuts. The most costly parts of the tax bills have not even taken full effect yet, will have very little economic benefit and will worsen the deficit situation. The economy is growing in spite of this legislation, not because of it. A temporary cut in payroll taxes would have had far greater simulative effect and would have cost a whole lot less.”

“Woe is me.

Nigal, You hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Helper, I don't believe in Santa Claus.”

“The problem with Bush's tax cuts is the magnitude and the places where they are aimed... they are not geared towards increasing the purchasing power of average Americans or creating incentives. In fact, some of the cuts were retroactive give aways - with no incentive force whatsoever.

There are some good things in the medicaid drug package, but a lot of the money goes to keeping the pharmaceutical companies fat. Medicare/Medicaid are forbidden to negotiate prices for drugs.

Bush's total failure at fiscal responsibility is an integrity test for self proclaimed conservatives. Only McCain and a few folks at the Concord coalition have the guts to say there is a bidg problem with cutting all these checks and lowering taxes at the same time.

I gave Bush senior lots of credit. In fact I praised him for making realistic budget balancing compromises despite his no new taxes pledge (yeah lots of liberals took cheap shots after the fact).”

“Let's see how things work economically. I am one of the lucky people who still has a job.

I get a 1 percent pay raise this year. That comes to about $50 a month in the paycheck after all the deductions.

Rent: up $25 a month.
Health Insurance: up probably $10 a month with higher copays likely.
Food: Probably $20 a month higher in light of beef price increases.
Heating fuel: up, but probably not a lot when spread over the year.
Gasoline (need car for work): overall, up, and probably costing me $5 a month more. (but no change in auto allowance).
Car insurance: up a few bucks a month.
So will somebody kindly explain to me how the current economic climate is making me so damned rich?
BTW, I'm registered Republican and voted for Bush. I will not make that mistake again.”

“I gave Bush senior lots of credit. In fact I praised him for making realistic budget balancing compromises despite his no new taxes pledge (yeah lots of liberals took cheap shots after the fact)."
pedxing
01:07:26 PM
12/04/03

I gave him a lot of credit for that, also, and his foreign policy decisions made that following election a difficult choice for me.

Raising taxes was the right thing to do in his case.”

“Geo,

I guess you blame the President for all your woes.

My company is having a record year with fewer people than ever before. Profits are through the roof. I don't blame the President that we are employing fewer people I credit our employees for increasing productivity.

There are many reasons that the economy took a dip. Very few can be attributed to the President. The bursting of the internet bubble, 9/11, the Enron, et. al. scandals and a continuing trend of loosing jobs to foreign markets have all impacted the economy in a negative way. None can be attributed to the President.

Liberals ignore the fact that the economy was taking a dive before Clinton left office.

I must add that I got a 4.5% raise and am looking forward to a big fat bonus. If the economists on this board spent as much time working as they do surfing the web the economy might improve even more. You can't blame that on the President.”

“Good point Phaed:
Bush I's coalition building for the first Iraq wat was impressive (his leaving the rebellion he helped incite to get mowed down by Saddam's army undid some of that). I do think that dem's attacking Bush I for his foreign policy successes (as if good itnernational diplomacy made him less involved domestically) was unfair.”

“There was lots I disagreed with Bush Sr. about, but I always felt that the White House was led by a highly competent reasonable individual who was 100% up to the job.”

“I just never get over the fact that bacpac has such blind faith in a guy that is such a moron. It delutes his stance and those who stand with him.

So goes bacpac's paycheck, so goes America. As long as he's gettin' his, who cares, right, bp?”

“laqis, same rosponse you had about rush....idiot, anybody that agrees with him is idiot too..

glad you stopped my man, thanks for the contribution.....

"

"We have failed our children if we have not passed on to them a
realistic perspective of government. We must insure that they know
that it is not okay to raid people's paychecks and steal their
property, even if doing so seems to be in the best interest of
society. We must not take it for granted that our children know
the importance of spiritual things and understand the foundations
of traditional morality. We must insure that they do. Walt Disney
would not know the company he founded only a generation ago. He
would roll over in his grave at what those at the helm of Disney
today have made of his dream. Henry Ford would turn away in
disgust at what the Ford Foundation is doing with his fortune.
I am certain that the Founding Fathers would be distressed
at the way we have allowed their carefully constructed, much
debated words...twisted so as to kick God and the Bible out of
our schools and to protect the purveyors of obscenity. They would
wonder in disbelief at the income taxes we allow to be confiscated
from our paychecks today and the property that is stolen without
compensation by means of egregious land use regulations. In their
day, they would have hung the government official who told them
that they could not build a deck on the back of their house without
a government permit or could not own a gun without the government's
consent.... Today, 'church going' Walt [Disney] would not even be
welcome to sit on the board of directors of his own company. Today,
neither George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, nor James
Madison could be elected to Congress in any of the states from
which they hailed two centuries ago. That's what happens when a
generation or two fails to pass on to their children and those
who work under them the values and traditions that form the very
underpinnings of their society. Precious things slip away, for
the price of liberty really is eternal vigilance." --Bill Sizemore”

“Bush Can't Say `Mission Accomplished' on Economy: Gene Sperling

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- A recent spate of good news for the U.S. economy has led some commentators and policy makers to claim ``mission accomplished'' on a strong recovery.

News of each positive indicator has been met with the same refrains: Growth is back for good, the economy is no longer a political issue, and the trend is vindication of the Bush administration's economic strategy.

Consider some of the newspaper headlines following October's addition of 126,000 jobs to the economy:

``Economists Hail Increase in Payroll Figure as Sign that Growth is Finally Feeding Through to the Labor Market,'' read the front-page headline of the Financial Times. ``Bush Takes Pride in the Signs of Economic Turnaround,'' was the headline on a Los Angeles Times article. ``Employment News Hailed as the Missing Ingredient in Recovery,'' announced the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

While October's job growth was certainly good news compared with almost three years of job losses, we need to put this and other economic numbers in perspective.

The Numbers

Let's start with the basic fact that even with the recent job additions, the first two years of this recovery -- from the end of the recession in November 2001 to the most recent job report for October 2003 -- represent the worst period of job growth in any U.S. recovery on record since 1939.

Since we are still down 2.3 million jobs and nearly 3 million private sector jobs since January 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, it will take a great jobs expansion to prevent Bush from being the first president to preside over net job loss since Herbert Hoover.

What if we wipe the slate clean? Shouldn't those of us who comment on the economy be willing to put aside the last two years and simply celebrate a job gain of 126,000 as a sign that the U.S. job machine is humming again?

One problem: While an addition of 126,000 jobs is better than a loss, it represents anemic job growth for any month during an economic recovery. Indeed, it would have been the fifth worst month of job growth in the 48 months of President Bill Clinton's first term.

A Growth Signal?

If we assume that October's ``impressive'' job growth continues for an entire year from November 2003 to October 2004, it would still amount to the worst third year of a recovery since 1958.

Even if the release of tomorrow's job numbers shows an increase of 180,000 or more in November, which would be an average for October and November of about 150,000 additional jobs, if extrapolated over the entire year, it would continue to represent an unusually weak third year of recovery by historical standards.

Yet could these modest employment increases signal the type of job growth we saw in the 1990s, which would include new labor market entrants and the millions who are still out of work? Every American should hope so, but it's way too early to tell.

While some of the job growth hype can be forgiven as political spin and an earnest hope for better times, the notion that it in some way vindicates the Bush administration's long- term fiscal policy is flat wrong.

New Standard?

Could it be that our new standard for judging the success of economic policy implemented by the White House is that no matter how weak the economy is, any recovery sign is an immediate slam- dunk validation? A lot of football coaches with 0-10 records would be glad to hear of such a standard heading into the final game of their seasons.

The economic research company Economy.com found that only about one-eighth of our third-quarter growth can be pinned on the 2003 tax cuts, and that even this amount was primarily due to the child tax credit and the bonus depreciation, precisely the type of short-term, middle class tax cuts that Democrats were always willing to support.

Had the Bush administration been willing to work with Democrats earlier to pass more effective stimulus --that didn't explode the deficits in later years -- we might have been able to stem the loss of confidence and jobs in our economy far sooner.

Instead, the administration used the pretext of fiscal stimulus to push expensive long-term tax cuts like dividend and capital gains relief, retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, and rate cuts for the highest income taxpayers.

The Cost

Most of these provisions were judged by the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and Goldman Sachs, to be just about the worst bang-for-the-buck stimulus you can possibly imagine.

Even if Bush's most prized tax cuts were responsible for 100 percent of the third-quarter lift, it would be absurd -- let me repeat, absurd -- to argue that such a short-term contribution vindicates the administration's assault on our nation's long-term fiscal soundness.

A temporary economic blip justified a temporary rise in the deficit, not policies that blow a hole in our deficit for decades to come. The administration's tax cuts, if extended, will cost more than $4 trillion over the next decade. In 2013 alone, 12 years after the recession has ended, the tax cuts will still be costing our nation over $600 billion!

Fiscal Distress

These cuts if made permanent represent more than three times what it would take to completely ensure Social Security solvency over the next 75 years.

Since taking office, the Bush administration has pursued these huge long-term tax cuts on the hope that if the nation ever stops hemorrhaging jobs, it can simply assert that the cuts have been a success and we should forget the previous years of failure -- and, more importantly, the 30 future years of fiscal distress that its fiscal policy has cost us.

I hope that as we approach upcoming economic news, we are smarter than that.”

“How dare you, Vi! How dare you post this vile, hackish, untruth! All you want is bad news! Don't you know that we ARE on the road to recovery? Are you so narrow minded that you have to dig up this story from such an unreliable source as Bloomberg.com? That would Mayor Bloomberg's company, no? Why he's just a liberial that uses his media outlets to spew liberial hatered and slander towards Republicans! How is it that all of you liberials don't see this?


JIHAD BUSH!!


hehehehehehe.....”

“TomAto/ TomOto:

Unemployment Drops, but Payroll Growth Weak

Friday, December 05, 2003

WASHINGTON — American employers hired far fewer workers than expected in November, the government said on Friday in a report that still showed the fourth straight month of job growth and a drop in the unemployment rate.

The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector in November edged up by 57,000, the Labor Department (search) said, from an upwardly revised climb of 137,000 the previous month.

The November gain was far lower than forecasts for a bumper increase of 150,000. Analysts had ratcheted up their forecasts after recent data showed the economic recovery gaining strength.

The department said grocery store strikes (search), mainly affecting California, had added up to 20,000 jobs to October's gain and deducted up to 30,800 workers from November's number.

In an encouraging sign for the health of the labor market, the unemployment rate edged down to 5.9 percent, the lowest level since March, from 6.0 in October.

A large portion of the job gains came in the services sector while struggling factories cut jobs for the 40th month in a row.



Fat, drunk, stupid and adding jobs only in the Service sector is no way to go through life, son.....”

“Attack attack attack! LOL! The DNC platform. Why is it that liberals know where everything is going wrong but are so short on answers as to how THEY would it? Because no one can get elected on the “We need to raise taxes” platform.

BAHAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!”

“Nigal, you silly Christmas Day goose.....Don't you know the sky is falling??

HA!”

“I don't recall seeing a weaker slate of candidates than what the Democrats have offered up this year.”

“They way the country is progressing under Republican control, I wonder how much longer it will be before the riots begin again.”

“Liberals I know of don't ignore that the economy was slowing at the end of Clinton's term. The economy slows frequently and usually recovers nicely... this has been the most prolonged slump in ages. No president wince the great depression has ended a term with fewer jobs in the US than at the start of the term. Bush is on track to break the record.

Clinton may or may not have been a liberal - but he did have some answers: he blanced the budget and the economy grew nicely. American power and prestige increased around the world. The leaps in US military technology since the first Gulf War (so widely touted by the hawks) happened under his watch. Even a top Reagan era official gives Clinton props (see the "Thank Clinton..." thread).

I have lots of gripes about Clinton (include lying again and again about getting bjs from the low woman on the White House totem pole), but the evidence of his competence is striking.

The Onion satire had it right, Bush would end out "long national nightmare of peace and prosperity."”

“It's very apparent that bacpac cannot argue the facts and must resort to hateful attacks against the Democratic Party, similar to a cat backed into a corner. Every fact bacpac has brought up has been proven false. I find it interesting that bp does not think that Clark is worthy of the highest office in the land, being the God fearing military man that he supposedly is. This goes to further enforce the fact that bp cannot se the forest threw the trees. Too bad, old chap.

Why is it that he and other Repubs must resort to attacking type posts? I suppose you guys where praising Clinton while he was in office, or were you guys attacking him too? Aren't you guys accusing the Dems of doing exactly what you guys did while Clinton was in office? Please pick your words wisely......”

“It's only anti-American to attack a sitting president if a Republican is in ofice.

Ain't That Right?”

“Back when "the grown-ups" were in charge, we did weather the Mexican monetary crisis and the East Asian economic crisis quite well.

Too bad we don't have people in place now who can devise effective policies to meet specific problems. This administration acts like it has no concept of 'tomorrow'.”

“bacpac, your claims that the economy is doing just great are what I'm taking issue with, and the fact that you think blaming the president for the economy tanking is wrong means that whatever tinkering he's done has nothing to do with it improving, assuming it even is improving, which I doubt.

When I get a 4.5 percent pay raise, maybe I'll start believing.”

“"The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting.

For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets. It's my hope that voters are going to see how irresponsible this policy is and are going to respond in 2004 and we're going to see a reversal."

-- George A. Akerlof, 2001 co-winner of the Nobel Prize in economic sciences”

“People, people, please! stop with all the facts, here. bacpac only comes up fer air every so often and it is futile to present him with all these facts. It'll just overwhelm him and it is just not fair. Let's go back to name calling and verbal barbs, something that gives him a chance, k?”

“Looting, graft and general corruption.

Call it what it is.”

“I know why Bacpac thinks liberals disolve when confronted with facts!
Every time he sees facts, he closes his eyes as quick as possible - and he doesn't see any liberals around.”

“"For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets......."

That's because of the fire and smoke, with the booming voice "Pay no attention to Karl Rove behind the curtain"...

hehehehe”

“Incidentally, Akerlof called for civil disobedience in the face of Bush's "extraordinarily irresponsible policies" in his Der Spiegel interview.”

“This is probably really old, but try typing in "miserable failure" in Google and hit the "I feel Lucky" button.”

“Heeheh!



”

“Still no solutions given?”

“How about Vote George and the Cronnies outta office? Sounds like a good solution! LOL!”

“Geobeet, If you get a 4.5% raise it won't be because of the President no matter who he is.”

“Nigal:

Clinton's policies worked fine economically - a little tighter regulation. Tax structure as it was under Clinton... reverse the huge spending increases... Bring back the inheritance tax. Put relevant professionals instead of corporate lobbyists in charge of regulation.”

“Disappointing US jobs figures drive dollar to new low

David Teather in New York
Saturday December 6, 2003
The Guardian

The American economy added 57,000 jobs during November but that figure was far fewer than expected, adding to fears that the upturn is failing to translate into significant employment growth.
The jobless rate in the US fell from 6% to 5.9%, the lowest it has been since March. November was the fourth consecutive month of employment gains.

Economists, though, had been forecasting the creation of 150,000 jobs during the month after recent data pointed to a massive expansion in the world's largest economy. Gross domestic product in the US grew at a rate of 8.5% during the third quarter, the biggest increase for 20 years, prompting hopes that employers might start hiring again in big numbers.

The disappointing figures sent the dollar to a new low against the euro. The single European currency was worth $1.2144, up from $1.2066. The pound also gained, up to $1.7251, from $1.7193.

To sustain the recovery, economists reckon that between 200,000 and 300,000 new jobs need to be created every month.

The disappointing numbers weighed on Wall Street. In mid-morning trade, the Dow Jones index of leading shares was 30 points lower at 9900. "It took everyone a little by surprise, especially after having such positive economic data leading up to it," said Stephanie Weiss, head trader at US Bancorp Asset Management.

American states heavily reliant on manufacturing jobs are still seeing little evidence of the recovery. Industry cut another 17,000 jobs last month.

The contraction was the 39th month of job losses in the manufacturing sector and key states affected like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia could have a decisive impact on the re-election chances of George Bush. The manufacturing sector in the US has lost roughly 2.7m jobs since the Bush administration entered the White House.”

“What's been scary lately is hearing some commentators saying that we got spoiled with the low unemployment of the Clinton years - and that its unfair to Bush to expect unemployment to go much lower. Yikes!”