Economy UP

“"Hey, little ditties can be good." - John Cougar Mellencamp (circa 2004)”

“Hey Tilt, I didn't think there was ever such thing as a "last word" around here! Ha ha!


Sure there is. It's when people remember the futility of making valid points for you to ignore or misconstrue.”

“Right on, Phaed.”

“laqtis looks cute in that cheerleading skirt! :Þ

Phaed, if you see any specific point I missed, I'll be sure to address them. Of course you think my worldview is invalid, so anything I say according to you is gonna be invalid. You just don't like my way of stinkin', which is cool. Earlier in one of these threads you falsely said I took the thread off-topic and showed documentation (libs hate that word!) of the truth, that it wasn't mean. You were veddy veddy silent. I guess it (the facts) was another invalid point on my part. Ha ha! Anyway, it's all good. I respect your views whether I disagree with them or not. Peace, bro!”

“: "Earlier in one of these threads you falsely said I took the thread off-topic and showed documentation (libs hate that word!) of the truth, that it wasn't mean."

Ha ha! Yikes, I slaughtered the english language on THAT paragraph! It should read, "Earlier in one of these threads you falsely said I took the thread off-topic and I showed you documentation (libs hate that word!) of the truth, that it wasn't me."”

“Yeah, I didn't answer you because you miscontrued my original statement to mean that you had taken the thread off topic. Not exactly what I said, but feel free to believe you're right.”

“February 2003: President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors estimated that the economy would create about 306,000 new jobs per month between June 2003 and the end of 2004.

October 2003: Treasury Secretary John Snow forecast 200,000 new jobs per month until the elections in November 2004.


Soft US job market (Forbes)
<snip>
After revisions, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show job growth has averaged just 73,000 a month over the past five months, and has yet to recoup even the jobs lost in the first half of last year.
<snip>
As long as job growth remains sluggish, there is a risk the economy will falter.

"This is the weakest job creation rate relative to economic growth on record," said Steven Wood, chief economist at Insight Economics.

"If you don't get the employment gains, you have an economic recovery that's not going to sustain itself," he said.

Economists reckon it takes around 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. The last time there was an increase that size was in November 2000.



U.S. job growth in January disappoints (Forbes)
The U.S. economy created just 112,000 new jobs in January, far fewer than expected, government data showed Friday in a disappointing report that will likely weigh on President Bush's re-election campaign.

The fifth straight monthly gain in payrolls outside farming followed a revised increase of 16,000 new jobs in December, the Labor Department said.

The unemployment rate ticked down to 5.6 percent, the lowest since January 2002, from 5.7 percent the previous month -- but those numbers are taken from a separate, smaller, survey.

Analysts had been expecting the improving economy to create 150,000 new jobs in January. They were looking for the unemployment rate to hold steady at 5.7 percent.

"The payrolls number was well below market expectations and confirms the jobs market in the U.S. is weak," said Daniel Tenengauzer, vice president for foreign exchange at Lehman Brothers.

The dollar and stock futures fell after the report and Treasury bond prices rose.
<snip>”

“Well the obvious answer to the lack of job creation is MORE TAX CUTS for the wealthy. That will fix it.”

“That was a pretty good article MaryPhyl. The part about 22 million manufacturing jobs disappearing worldwide between 1995 and 2002 caught my eye. I was surprised to read that China had lost 15% of their manufacturing jobs. That goes against common perception. I decided to find the Alliance Capital report Zuckerman referenced. Imagine my surprise when I found their January 2004 report showed a gain of 1.5 million jobs in the largest 20 economies in 2003. China added 2 million jobs. Still Zuckerman references Alliance Capital to support his claim that "Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world." Hmmmm....”

“We only need to eliminate one job to fix the rest: shrub's! He says the economy is doing better, but it is only for CEOs and billionaires, both groups made record earnings increases last year. Did you make record earnings increases last year? Class warfare is rife in every decision this criminal (shrub) makes. Down with class-warfare-mongering chickenhawks!”

“Hell, from what I have seen, yearly salary increases from companies are way down from what they used to be. Sometimes, you are lucky to get the 4% cost-of-living increase, let alone anything in the 6-10% category...”

“Wages are worth less now and on a downward trend. Here's another example of the direction we are headed.
A friend of mine owns and farms 1,000 acres. In 1960, sixteen people derived their income from that farm. Now, only four people can claim to derive any money from that farm, and three of them are over 80 years old. The farm produces much more food than it did in 1960. What's wrong with this picture?”

“I must be in the minority here, because I managed to have a 27% increase in my income over the past 18 months. Of course it has nothing to do with who is in the White House. It has more to do with my job performance and the fact that I’m just starting out so a dollar an hour raise is a larger percentage to my income.

If they really wanted to help the economy, the government should pay off my student loans. That would really increase my spending.”

“It seems to me that the state of the econmy's alleged growth is babrely benefiting the vast majority of Americans. In order to correct this, and make things fair, I propose the following:

1. From now on, if the federal government wants spend additional money on any department, or any issue, they must propose the latter in the form of a National Levy, much like our local schools are funded. If the levy passes, then the funding will be granted.

2. Tax "special interest groups". A 10% tax of income or donations on all special interest organizations, including unions and religious organizations.

3. 5 years manadtory prison for CEO's and CFO's who use misleading accounting practices for financial gain.

4. Public ownership of healthcare and untilities.

5. Ban Violin!”

“6. Discontinue the production of pennies. They have cost a lot more to produce than they are worth.”

“That was a great post, BB. Of course my heart is with anyone who advocates #5.”

“You could add "tax universities whose basketball programs consistently fail to measure up to Kentucky's high standard i.e teams like the KU Jayhawks"


Ohhh, that's right, I said it! Bring it, don't sing it Dunny baby!”

“Stop complaining maybe if you got back to work instead of wasting your time on here you would make some money! Complainers! Good for nothing!”

“Stickman is walking a dangerous road, here.
Let's tax the teams that haven't made it to the Final Four the last two years in a row!”

“I forgot to come back and check if you caught that, Tunacan.”

“The national economy is in the toilet. Unemployment only declined because people's benefits expired, not because they found work. Dubya lives in a dreamland. The economy is barely showing anemic signs of life - it is NOT in recovery.”

“"See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but there wouldn't have been the comm -- commiserate -- the, the, the, the, not commiserate -- the, the, the -- kick to our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief."
-- President Bush, Dec. 15, 2003”

“Wait till the reserves get back and their jobs moved to China.Oh, and gas will be a dollar more a gallon.”

“I just thought I’d collect a few paragraphs from prominent liberals and their toadies in the running dog press and let you draw your own conclusions.



From starry eyed idealist Alan Greenspan’s semi-annual report to Congress (2/11/04):

… Very sizable deficits are in prospect in the years to come…

The imbalance in the federal budgetary situation, unless addressed soon, will pose serious longer-term fiscal difficulties. Our demographics--especially the retirement of the baby-boom generation beginning in just a few years--mean that the ratio of workers to retirees will fall substantially. Without corrective action, this development will put substantial pressure on our ability in coming years to provide even minimal government services while maintaining entitlement benefits at their current level, without debilitating increases in tax rates. The longer we wait before addressing these imbalances, the more wrenching the fiscal adjustment ultimately will be.

The fiscal issues that we face pose long-term challenges, but federal budget deficits could cause difficulties even in the relatively near term. Long-term interest rates reflect not only the balance between the current demand for, and current supply of, credit, they also incorporate markets' expectations of those balances in the future. As a consequence, should investors become significantly more doubtful that the Congress will take the necessary fiscal measures, an appreciable backup in long-term interest rates is possible as prospects for outsized federal demands on national saving become more apparent. Such a development could constrain investment and other interest-sensitive spending and thus undermine the private capital formation that is a key element in our economy's growth prospects.

Addressing the federal budget deficit is even more important in view of the widening U.S. current account deficit. In 2003, the current account deficit reached $550 billion--about 5 percent of nominal GDP. The current account deficit and the federal budget deficit are related because the large federal dissaving represented by the budget deficit, together with relatively low rates of U.S. private saving, implies a need to attract saving from abroad to finance domestic private investment spending.

To date, the U.S. current account deficit has been financed with little difficulty….

Nonetheless,… foreign investors, both private and official, may become less willing to absorb ever-growing claims on U.S. residents. Taking steps to increase our national saving through fiscal action to lower federal budget deficits would help diminish the risks that a further reduction in the rate of purchase of dollar assets by foreign investors could severely crimp the business investment that is crucial for our long-term growth.



From that bastion of progressive thought, Business Week:


The government's finances are a fiasco of mammoth proportions…

At the least, the projected deficit over the next decade would run about $2.4 trillion. But if President Bush wins his campaign to turn temporary tax cuts into permanent ones, including the elimination of the estate tax, the red ink would exceed $5.2 trillion…

It's taxpayers who need to be concerned…

The risk is that Americans are living off the seed corn sown from human-capital investments and research and development efforts of the past. To fund its tax cuts, the Bush Administration isn't putting enough money into education or basic research. The same goes for strapped state and local governments. The amount federal, state, and local governments are spending on worker retraining is a piddling sum, after adjusting for inflation…

… The concern shouldn't be the deficit per se but that not enough tax dollars are going to nurture the infrastructure that allows an innovation-driven economy to thrive.





Finally, a clear outline of what the choices are in this fall’s election from the pinkos at Barron’s:

…You might think the president's relentless tax cutting is aimed at generating bigger refund checks and goosing the recovery—because that's what Bush says it is about. Certainly the cuts haven't hurt the economy. But if you look at the bigger picture, there is strong evidence that Bush also is engineering a fundamental change in the tax system. By gradually taking capital out of the tax base through reductions in levies on dividends, capital gains and inheritances, Bush is transforming the income tax into a pure tax on wages.

If Bush can finish his work, the capital gains, dividend and estate taxes may disappear entirely. He will be hard-pressed to get many new tax initiatives through Congress this year, because of concerns about the burgeoning budget deficit. But an estate-tax overhaul, for one, could well be enacted in 2004 if Bush will compromise, a key senator tells Barron's. Bush will almost certainly require a second term to bring his tax plans to fruition, but only a few more big changes are needed to pull off this policy coup….

"It's the most serious attack on the progressive tax since it was introduced" in 1916, claims Joseph Thorndike, a historian who works for Tax Analysts, publisher of the Tax Notes newsletter….

MASSACHUSETTS SEN. JOHN KERRY…, has been vocal in promoting some targeted changes in the code that would give breaks to the middle class at the expense of multinational corporations and affluent individuals.

His most ambitious proposal would change the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. Kerry would use this sweeping budget power to "reduce corporate welfare and excessive spending." He'd ask a commission to determine just which budget items constitute corporate welfare.

Kerry says he would "repeal Bush's special tax breaks for Americans who make more than $200,000."… Kerry says he would preserve the child tax credit and reductions in the marriage penalty and marginal rates that were part of the Bush tax plans -- but only for the middle class, which he has yet to define. He would eliminate last year's reduction in capital gains taxes to 15%, but would institute a lower rate in both the capital gains and dividend levy for the middle class.

He would propose a new tax credit to encourage U.S. manufacturers to keep jobs here. Companies that created new jobs in excess of a 12-month average would receive a refund of payroll taxes for the new employees for two years.

Kerry also is pitching a "College Opportunity Tax Credit," which assumes that the typical college tuition and fees at a public university is just $4,000 a year. Students annually would get a 100% tax credit on the first $1,000 of tuition and a 50% credit for the next $3,000, or $2,500 a year.





The debate is clear. An elimination of taxes on capital and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and our long term interests or a fiscal policy based upon the interest of the majority.”

“Just a reminder - Clinton ran on a promise to add 8 million jobs in 4 years. He beat that estimate while reducing the deficit.

More 16 million jobs were added over his 8 years and the budget was in surplus.”

“And all you had to do to qualify for one of those 16 millions jobs was learn to say "Would you like fries with that?"”

“Even a McDonald's worker can make more than someone who's unemployed...”

“yep”

“As someone has already said, we need to outsource the current administration. Vicene Fox will do it for less than half the cost.”

“Ooops, Vicente, I meant.”

“Average Real Weekly Earnings grew faster in both 1996 and 1997 than they had since 1972.”

“Extortion, If you don't lower interest rates and taxes, I won't invest in your stock market.”

“Anyone want to share their opinion of a flat tax rate? Or how you would structure the income tax schedule? And be brief, espescially if you cut and paste an example (_Violin).”

“No matter how much things change they always remain the same.

I remember 20 years ago, 1984, when Mondale ran a campaign against the jobs being lost to Japan and Germany. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”

“like yer ass, bacpac.”

“Not a history buff, eh laqtis?”

“A flat tax is regressive in that it effects those at the lower end more than the top. In many cases, a large percentage of executive compensation is in the form of stock options which are subject to the lower capital gains tax, not income tax. A flat tax would allow those who can afford to pay more to pay much less.”

“Here's the math:

Add the 1.7 million projected new jobs for 2003 that never materialized, subtract 439,000 jobs lost that same year, then eliminate the year 2003. Multiply the 2004 projection that the average number of jobs will be 2.6 million higher than in 2003 by the number of people willing to believe anything if you say it often enough, then backpedal at a rate equal to the average velocity of two runaway trains heading in opposite directions, and cancel the 8 million unemployed. Factor in the 19th presidential visit to Florida since the 2000 ballot controversy (to the power of 5 Supreme Court justices minus 4), then after inverting the significance of 19,000 actual unemployed in Tampa, assign a greater value to the theoretical "40 more workers" that a factory owner in the same city hopes to add, and extrapolate the least likely outcome in the form of a speech that contains the words "strong" (x4), "upbeat"(x4), and "optimistic" (x7). Carry the one, carry the b.s., and do the hoky-poky as you turn yourself about.

- Joyce McGreevy”

“So that's the fuzzy math Bush was talking about in 2000!”

“Sounds like one of those derivatives Enron came up with to cover their tracks.

That math needs a shave!”

“The central concept of supply-side economics is that tax cuts cause economic growth. Tax cuts allow entrepreneurs to invest their tax savings, which creates higher productivity, jobs and profits. This, ironically, allows the entrepreneur and his new workers to pay even more taxes, even at lower rates.

The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists.1 In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department.2 This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.”

“The man charged to make this all work was David Stockman, Reagan's budget director. Stockman's genius and mastery of numbers was matched only by his relatively young age, which earned him the title of "whiz kid." Stockman, Roberts and Anderson came up with a massively optimistic forecast for the economy, which today Stockman derisively refers to as the "Rosy Scenario." The Rosy Scenario predicted that the 1981 tax cuts would produce 5 percent growth in 1982. (In fact, 1982 was the worst year since World War II, with negative growth of 2.2 percent.) Many budget-watchers pointed out that the tax cuts would only increase the deficit, but Stockman silenced all his critics with a blizzard of statistics and information. "Like a child prodigy chess champion playing fifty matches at once, Stockman answered every query, parried every countermove, checked every challenge," Smith writes. "Congress was mesmerized."5 Today, Stockman admits it was all a performance. "Even the appearance of being an expert is self-validating," he wrote five years later. "I didn't know much about budgets, but I knew more than the rest of them."6

But as early as August 1981, Stockman began having gnawing doubts about his budget. Computer simulations failed to project the tremendous growth he had predicted, and later he would admit to cooking the numbers (!) before selling the budget to Congress. That December, the Atlantic Monthly published an article in which Stockman made several damaging and embarrassing confessions about the entire supply-side philosophy. He admitted that the 1981 tax cut "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate" for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich had long ago been coined "trickle down economics" - and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman told the interviewer. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."7

The Rosy Scenario failed to materialize. The economy did not grow out of its deficits. In 1986, Washington and the rest of the nation would again be surprised when Stockman confessed all in a book entitled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.”

“
How does the sequence go?

Fuzzy Math
Shaggy Math
Overgrown Math
Weed-whacker Math
Knee-high Math
Deadfall Math
Chainsaw Math
Impassable Math?

”

“I don't think Dumbya ever tried to sell his tax cuts as "supply side". That only underscores how thoroughly discredited the whole idea is. It didn't keep the pundits from shilling for it that way though.”

“WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by 21,000 in February, far below Street expectations of 130,000, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent. January's payrolls were revised lower by 15,000 to 97,000. Economists expected February payrolls to rise 130,000, according to a survey conducted by CBS MarketWatch. Private-sector payrolls were flat in February, with government agencies accounting for 21,000 new jobs. Manufacturing lost 3,000 jobs.”

“Adios, George! Maybe you and your dad can combine your libraries and have a real presidential library.”

“So all the new jobs added last month were due to government spending.

Fiscal conservative? Puhleeze.”