Repub. or Demo. Who's better for the eco nomy?

“With all the accusations going back and forth this campaign season, I felt a need for some real numbers.
A search of the web produced a guy who had already done the work for me, Warren Vieth, a L.A. Times writer. He sourced the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Board, Economy.com and adjusted the figures for inflation.

Here’s what he found:

Real GDP growth
Kennedy - Johnson 5.2%
Johnson 5.0
Clinton, second term 3.9
Reagan, second term 3.8
Clinton, first term 3.3
Nixon, first term 3.3
Reagan, first term 3.2
Carter 3.2
Eisenhower, first term 2.8
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) 2.5
Nixon - Ford 2.2
George H. W. Bush 2.1
Eisenhower, second term 2.0
Previous 50 years 3.5

Consumer price inflation
Eisenhower, first term 0.8%
Kennedy - Johnson 1.2
Eisenhower, second term 2.0
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) 2.1
Clinton, second term 2.4
Clinton, first term 2.8
Johnson 3.2
Reagan, second term 3.4
George H. W. Bush 4.2
Nixon, first term 4.6
Reagan, first term 5.3
Nixon - Ford 8.2
Carter 10.1
Previous 50 years 4.0

Job growth
Johnson 3.9%
Carter 3.1
Reagan, second term 2.7
Clinton, first term 2.5
Clinton, second term 2.3
Kennedy - Johnson 2.3
Nixon, first term 2.1
Nixon - Ford 1.7
Eisenhower, first term 1.5
Reagan, first term 1.4
George H. W. Bush 0.6
Eisenhower, second term 0.5
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) -0.2
Previous 50 years 2.2

Average jobless rate
Johnson 3.9%
Eisenhower, first term 4.3
Clinton, second term 4.4
Nixon, first term 4.8
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) 5.5
Eisenhower, second term 5.5
Kennedy - Johnson 5.8
Clinton, first term 6.0
George H. W. Bush 6.3
Reagan, second term 6.5
Carter 6.5
Nixon - Ford 6.7
Reagan, first term 8.6
Previous 50 years 5.7

Real median household income growth
Johnson 3.9%
Kennedy - Johnson 3.3
Nixon, first term 1.8
Clinton, second term 1.7
Reagan, second term 1.7
Clinton, first term 1.2
Carter 0.9
Reagan, first term 0.4
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) -0.3
George H. W. Bush -0.7
Nixon - Ford -1.2
Eisenhower, second term NA
Eisenhower, first term NA
Previous 50 years 1.3

Real household net worth growth
Clinton, second term 5.7%
Reagan, second term 4.3
Clinton, first term 3.5
Johnson 3.4
Kennedy - Johnson 3.1
Carter 1.9
Reagan, first term 1.2
Nixon, first term 0.9
George H. W. Bush 0.7
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) -0.6
Nixon - Ford -2.4
Eisenhower, second term NA
Eisenhower, first term NA
Previous 50 years 2.2



I scored each category 1 to 13, best to worst. To be fair to Ike I gave him a 6.5 for the NA’s.

Johnson 16
Clinton, second term 21
Kennedy - Johnson 23
Clinton, first term 32
Reagan, second term 32
Eisenhower, first term 34
Nixon, first term 38
Carter 47
Eisenhower, second term 47
George W. Bush
(through Mar. 04) 51
Reagan, first term 56
George H. W. Bush 60
Nixon - Ford 65


So, who do you think is better for the economy, Republican or Democrat?”

“Your numbers sure make the Dems - with the exception of Carter - look good.

I'd be interested in numbers on the budget deficit and the trade deficit (as a percentage of GDP?) - factors that affect the economy long term.”

“I posted something on that not long ago, and can't seem to find it. It compared the growth of the defecit and unemployment under each president.”

“UnDead - Table 1.3 has the info you are looking for (in current & constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP). It doesn't match it up to administration - I'll see what I can find.”

“Is there any wonder why they're referred to as 'Banana Republicans'?”

“So, what the numbers say is that under democratic leadership, we have less of a defecit, more people are employed, income growth is up, and inflation is barely up at all?

This seems like a tough choice.”

“Because when thier achievement numbers for national growth are put into chart form, it looks like the downward slope of a banana (insert slide whistle sound here)?”

“That's something - the last budget without a deficit was submitted by Clinton, before that - the last balanced budget was submitted by Johnson.

Reagan and little Bush really put the budget in a deep hole. George Sr. may have ended up helping break the slide, by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge.”

“Waiting for the Bush loyalists to respond.
Come on boys.”

“Really the individual deficits are no big deal - it’s the cumulative impact on our national debt and the portion of GDP needed just to pay interest that is the real cause for concern. Those numbers don’t reflect the money borrowed from social security either.

Of course if you are a moneylender or their lackey, things have never looked better.”

“i remember reading an article on MSN Money before last election that talked about the influence of the president's party on the stock market. it showed overwhelmingly that the stock market fairs far better with a dem in charge, even excluding the great depression/29 crash.”

“Waiting for the Bush loyalists to respond

Meh, economics bores me. I honestly don't know who's better for the economy, as I don't see the POTUS being too influential on it. I did read a cogent analysis of the Clinton boom. It supposedly resulted from the weakening of labor under Reagan and the resultant freedom of industry to invest in technology. Bush Jr inherited it right after the bubble burst, making it look like he bungled it.

Oh, and I remember hearing on NPR that the figure on job losses that Kerry keeps tossing out is misleading, as it doesn't count the huge number of Federal govt jobs created under the Bush admin.
last edited: 10/21/04 2:41:32 PM”

“That's right mutt. The number that Kerry referenced during the debate was private sector job losses. If you include public sector employment, the job losses under Bush are only around 800,000. Too bad Bush didn't take the bait and brag about how much he had expanded federal payrolls.”

“So you don't refute the Clinton boom analysis?”

“Well I think the economy is up chit creek.
But given the number of super rich a tax of 100% would not solve the problem.

The problem is on the spending side.
Reagan and GH Bush had no control over spending because Dems had the Congress.
Newt Gingrich had more to do with the Clinton surplus than Bill.

But, the current administration is a fiscal mess, and they have control of congress and the White House. No excuses.

How will or can Kerry change that ?
All I see is his spending plan, and I see no improvement over Bush.

Is it too late to replace Kerry with Dean and Bush with McCain ?? I would be in favor of a special delay in the Election for 2 months for them to spell out their policies.”

“According to the CBO, about 2/3 of the deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts.

I think the reason Dean got walloped has more to do with his proposal to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts, including those that go to the midddle class, than his famous scream.

I'm afraid the American public is living in some sort of la-la land regarding fiscal sanity and our politicians are too scared to talk about the problem openly.
last edited: 10/21/04 3:25:16 PM”

“Yeah, tell the truth and be out of a job.

This goes right along with the "you can fool all of the people some of the time"

about 12.5 days of BS promises to go.
last edited: 10/21/04 3:35:23 PM”

““According to the CBO, about 2/3 of the deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts."

Violin


That's AMAZING! The amount that government spends is only 1/3 of the reason for deficit spending?

According to your economic theory, if congress manages to decrease the size of government, and decrease federal spending, it will only have a 1/3 impact on deficit spending. Tax rates will account for the other 2/3.


Ya lurn sumthin nue evry day.”

“Mutt, let me get this straight...
It took 12 years for Reagans policies to kick in. 12 years for them to start?

Then Clinton rode the wave for 8 years, but popped the "bubble" just in time for George the 2nd to take the blame.

Am I reading you right?”

“Hey arclite, long time....

I would value your perspective on the above numbers.”

“Howdy, nav. I need to find more threads where you are posting. I like your thoughtful discussion. I wish I could add more, but I don't pay too close attention to numbers like these. Here's why:

1. Congress controls spending.
2. Our economy is so large that many things effect it's well-being and it takes a while to change. Past policies may take years to have an effect on the economy.



I don't think Carter was responsible for the economy and I don't think Bush is either.

I think their policies can effect change, but the change may not take place until the next administration.

Most current economic (read: voodoo) theory states that strong private property rights, low taxes, and less government regulation are all beneficial to economic growth.



I used to have discussions about the economy for years. Before Clinton got into office, people told me they thought the economy was under the President’s control. I reminded them that congress was responsible for government spending. I said that if the congress were Republican, they might be more responsible with spending. Low and behold when congress finally got a Rep majority, during Clinton’s first term, our economy started to improve and we developed a budget surplus.

Carter was hit with the hostage crisis. Bush was hit with 9/11. Neither event was their fault. Both effected government spending. I think the current administration has done a poor job by increasing the size and scope of government. But if you read your newspapers, you know that the costlier spending packages for both Homeland Security and Medicare reform were put forth by the Dems. The difference being, the Dems wouldn’t have lowered our taxes.

In my opinion, the Reps need to get off their butts and reduce government spending.



Even though government policies have an effect, I don’t think that our government should have a huge impact on our economy. If it does, then I will worry more about moving closer to a socialist state. And THAT, I believe, is detrimental to the wellbeing of society.”

“"Carter was hit with the hostage crisis. Bush was hit with 9/11. Neither event was their fault. Both effected government spending"

Personally, I am appalled by Bush's taking Zero responsibility for 9/11 - compare that to Richard Clarke's public apology and we see where the buck is passed. Remember the terrorist alerts before the new milenium - Gov't alerts raised the level of pre-cautions and people were caught. Attacks were prevented. Before 9/11 - people like Clarke were begging Bush to alert agents of the risks. Would terrorists learning to fly, but not land planes have still fallen through the cracks - we will never know for sure, but certainly a government alert could have helped.

Could 9/11 have been prevented if Bush had taken the warnings more seriously? The answer is "maybe" but a strong maybe.”

“Arclite, I usually don't post on the other threads once the name calling starts. You know about having a battle of wits with an unarmed person. 8^)
I like your thoughtful post, I enjoy having to think about a reply.

I do believe the President has an influence over the economy. Granted, one of MANY factors. Just watch the way Wall Street reacts when they think The Fed is going to raise or lower intrest rates.
Do you think it's a coincidence that when comparing the six economic catagories above Democrats seemed to come out on top?
The President does set the tone for his party and he has the veto if the other party gets out of line. So he can control congress to a degree.

Dang, the boss is here, got to get to work. More later.”

“News flash for arclite - BOTH spending and taxation impact the budget. That should be obvious to everyone. I know what the CATO and Heritage people would like you to believe, (that the deficit has nothing to due with the massive tax cuts that they favor) but I'd expect you to be curious enough to find out for yourself. The Congressional Budget Office is a bipartisan organization charged with actually looking at these things. If you look at the effects of the tax cuts - both the immediate effect and the cost of paying interest on the debt - it works out to about 2/3 of the deficit. Check it out for yourself.

Does the runaway discretionary spending under the Republican controlled government have anything to do with the deficit? Absolutely! Discretionary spending has gone up more under 3 years of Bush than it did under 8 years of Clinton. It actually fell as a percentage of GDP under Clinton but has grown under Bush. The thing that CATO and Heritage isn’t telling you is that most of that spending is military and security related. They’d like to gut social programs, but most of those have been underfunded in recent budgets.

It is true, like they say, that Bush hasn’t vetoed one spending bill. The obscene farm subsidy bill is one example of an unnecessary and very costly piece of legislation that Bush could have vetoed early in his career that would have sent a strong signal to Congress to control spending. Bush has demonstrated he is not interested in shrinking government when it comes to corporate welfare.

Reagan was responsible for a lot of good things, but economic policy is not one of them. The main thing that got unions to ease off on demands for large cost of living increases was the tight money policies of Paul Volker - a Carter appointee who’s approach was supported by Reagan. Clinton’s deficit reduction package was passed by a Democratic Congress in 1993 over Republican obstruction. That, combined with our earlier successes in combating inflation, set the stage for massive investments of private capital for two main reasons - 1) the world saw that we were serious about fiscal responsibility and were a stable place to invest 2) the banking system was made healthy again and was hungry to lend to any business with a plan to make money.

Sadly, the return to structural deficits under Bush and the inevitable return of inflation has had the opposite effect. The US is no longer seen as such a safe place to invest and international capital is desperately seeking to invest in other countries. We need to elect leaders that will put the long-term interest of our country above the short-term gains of their corporate and aristocratic sponsors.”

““I do believe the President has an influence over the economy. Granted, one of MANY factors. Just watch the way Wall Street reacts when they think The Fed is going to raise or lower interest rates.”

the-naviguesser


Influence no doubt. But what measurable influence? Tax cuts worked for both Kennedy and Bush. But I believe that a President’s influence is smaller than a lot of partisans want to make it out to be. Congress undoubtedly has at least as much influence and the fed is not under the President's control.




“Do you think it's a coincidence that when comparing the six economic categories above Democrats seemed to come out on top?”

the-naviguesser


I think some coincidence (maybe only for some Presidents) is highly likely, nav. Economic factors are related, so I don’t really read the ones you posted as six completely separate, and unrelated, categories. What policies does a President enact that immediately effects GDP that a future administration would stop? How does a President effect inflation? Job growth, jobless rate, and real median household income growth may be effected if you take into account government job growth. Democrats do tend to put more people to work on the government payroll. Government growth may look good in the short term, but it is accepted economic theory that it will eventually harm an economy. The CCC and the WPA were disbanded even though those organizations had positive economic impact in the short-term. I would be interested in knowing exactly what policies Democrat Presidents use (that Republicans don’t) to improve these numbers. The economic journals that I read, and my friends who understand economics better than I do, don’t think Democrat economic policies are better than Republican policy in the long run.

I’d be interested in knowing what was the make-up of congress during those times, nav. Most people that I know with a financial background (those who have a more thorough understanding of economic history than I do), don’t like Democrat economic policies. As a whole, regulation, higher taxation, and lessening of property rights (all positions more popular with Democrats than Republicans) are currently accepted as bad for economic growth.

Kennedy cut taxes and Clinton presided over a free-market information technology economic boom that he had nothing to do with. He had a Republican congress that left the market alone, and he was moderate enough to follow the lead.

I think that there are too many variables involved to point to a direct correlation between Democrat administrations and good economic policy. Have you read any academic research as to what policies Democrat Presidents have enacted that work better than Republican economic policy? I believe the Republicans would change their strategy if the Democrats had proven methods of long-term economic improvement.

I think your stats may turn out to be as valid as those showing that most wars have been started under Democrat Presidents and have ended under Republicans. Does this show Democrat Presidents to be warmongers and Republicans to be peaceniks?




“The President does set the tone for his party and he has the veto if the other party gets out of line. So he can control congress to a degree.”

the-naviguesser


He certainly has an influence. Congress, as you know, controls spending. And then there are the congressional constituents who love to see federal money come back home.




Nav, certainly one thing those stats do is calm my fears. As much as I try to be unbiased, I keep dreading Democrat economic policy. Everything I know, read, and hear about economic policy says that regulation, high taxes, big government, and a lessening of private property rights, are bad economic policy. But those stats help to calm what may be unfounded fears. Certainly economists don’t have all the answers. There are too many economic variables that they haven’t been able to figure out yet.

Now if I could only calm my wife’s fears. She’s been worried about the Republicans overturning Roe v Wade since Nixon.








Yeah but remember, violin, 2/3 of the budget is controlled by taxes. I know because you posted a stat by the CBO that said so.


“The obscene farm subsidy bill is one example of an unnecessary and very costly piece of legislation that Bush could have vetoed early in his career that would have sent a strong signal to Congress to control spending.”

violin


I absolutely agree. Not just the farm subsididies, but the subsidies for steel. I believe that both were ill advised.


You are just plain wrong about the Democrat’s and Clinton’s big deficit reduction influence:

"...When one compares the 4 year projected deficit levels with actuals, one sees that $407 billion in cumulative deficit reduction was achieved. CBO figures show that 48 percent of this fall was due to a revision in technical assumptions (notably the unwinding of the thrift crisis and slower spending in medical programs) and 13 percent was due to a rosier economic backdrop. Thus, a full 61 percent of deficit reduction is accounted for by factors other than legislative changes.
The remaining 39 percent came from legislative changes, primarily from tax hikes in OBRA-93. Of the $159 billion in legislative savings, 76 percent came from from higher tax revenues, while only a meager 17 percent came from spending restraint and 7 percent came from debt service. Furthermore, all of the net spending restraint came in 1996, under the Republican controlled Congress. In the FY 1996 appropriations process alone, Republicans were able to pare $19 billion from the deficit. Contrast this with a net spending increase of $12 billion during , FY 1993, 1994 and 1995 combined.
Thus, only 35 percent of the $407 billion in deficit reduction from FY1993-1996 can be directly linked to Clinton's legislative initiatives and debt service savings. This figure would have been even smaller if Republicans had not saved Clinton from himself. They blocked his early plan for a $16 billion stimulus plan, goaded him into offering a balanced budget and stymied his attempted government take-over of the health care system..."
(http://www.senate.gov/comm/budget/releases/budget.html)


Got any more propaganda to share?”

“Boy, arc, you've got way too much time on your hands!!!

Let me see how many points I can answer / question before I get to go home.

Tax cuts worked for both Kennedy and Bush.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kennedy's tax cut aimed towards the middle class? Whereas Bush's (you're talking about Jr. right?) was aimed more toward the rich. I'm still waiting to see the positive effects.

the fed is not under the President's control.

Correct you are, except for appointing and asking for his resignation and the meetings for the Pres. to make suggestions.
I think if Carter had asked his Fed guy to stop printing so much money he would have been listened to. Maybe not followed, but listened to.

Economic factors are related, so I don’t really read the ones you posted as six completely separate, and unrelated, categories.
Totally agree.


As a whole, regulation, higher taxation, and lessening of property rights (all positions more popular with Democrats than Republicans) are currently accepted as bad for economic growth.

With your knowledge of history (quite a bit as I recall), has not the economic cycles, the boom and bust, been lessend since Roosevelt?

He had a Republican congress that left the market alone, and he was moderate enough to follow the lead.
Isn't it a good thing then to have input from both side? (Even though those Republicans are always wrong!!! 8^D)




Time to go!!!! Yeee Haw!!”

“If everyone on this board began buying products from mom and pop shops, instead of welfare feeding, fascist large corporations, I'll bet this country would see a hugfe change, for the better, in the economy.”

“COLUMBUS - The number of missing rare coins purchased with state money controlled by local Republican fund-raiser Tom Noe now totals 121, documents obtained by The Blade show.
An accounting firm hired to check the inventory of rare coins purchased by Mr. Noe or his associates for the state found last year that not only were the coins missing, but 119 coins were possibly stolen by a Colorado coin dealer, according to a 2004 audit report released last week.

Mr. Noe hired the dealer to run a coin subsidiary funded with money from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the agency charged with paying the medical bills and providing income to workers injured on the job.

The 119 missing coins are in addition to two coins worth $300,000 owned by the state that were lost in the mail in 2003, confirmed Jeremy Jackson, press secretary for the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

The state doesn't know what happened to any of the coins, Mr. Jackson said.

The Blade first reported April 3 that since 1998 the bureau has invested $50 million in rare coin funds controlled by Mr. Noe, a local coin dealer and frequent contributor to local, state, and national Republican campaign committees.

He was President Bush's northwest Ohio campaign chairman in last year's presidential race and because of the contributions he raised for the President, he earned the coveted status of a Bush "pioneer."

But his work raising cash for the President's re-election campaign has also made him the subject of a U.S. Justice Department and FBI investigation.
[...]
State Sen. Marc Dann, a Democrat from suburban Youngstown who has been critical of the state's rare coin investment since it was uncovered, said yesterday the revelation that an additional 119 coins are missing is more evidence that the state needs to get out of the investment and get its money back.

"From the start, I had hoped for the best and prepared for the worst. I couldn't have imagined how bad this could be," he said. "What's horrible is the Republicans are so addicted to the campaign contributions, they could not get out of this thing.

"We need to work with the attorney general's office and the bureau's oversight commission to salvage what we can," he said.

Democrats in the legislature have claimed that the bureau gave Mr. Noe $50 million to invest because of his generous contributions to state GOP campaign committees and Republican candidates.

Records show that Mr. Noe has over the last decade contributed more than $11,000 to both Governor Taft and former Gov. George Voinovich, now a U.S. senator for Ohio.

He has contributed more than $70,000 to other Republican candidates over the last 11 years.
[...]

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/NEWS24/505010425”

“I'm still a Republican but it is getting harder and harder for me to be. Bateaux
Is there a difference among GOP and Democratic administrations in terms of the crucial economic fundamentals? You might be interested to learn there is. Helpfully, Michael Kinsley investigated this recently, using uniform data from 1960-2002 (summarized by h2g2fan):
Real GDP Growth:
Democrat: 4.09%
Republican: 2.75%


Unemployment:
Democrat: 5.33%
Republican: 6.44%


Government Spending:
Democrat: 19.58% of GDP
Republican: 20.87% of GDP

But the Republicans spend a lot on defense, so let's remove that...
Government Spending Without Defense:
Democrat: 13.76% of GDP
Republican: 14.97% of GDP
And it follows...
Deficit Spending:
Democrat: 1.21% of GDP
Republican: 2.74% of GDP


Taxation:
Democrat: 18.39% of GDP
Republican: 18.12% of GDP


Inflation:
Democrat: 3.81%
Republican: 4.85%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html
last edited: 5/02/05 11:52:15 AM”

“May 8, 2003 CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES
Support BuzzFlash



How Does George W. Bush Compare with Other Presidents on Job Creation?

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Rick Gilmore

Presidental Term and Jobs created per month:

Truman 1: 60,000
Truman 2: 113,000
Eisenhower 1: 58,000
Eisenhower 2: 15,000
Kennedy: 122,000
Johnson: 206,000
Nixon 1: 129,000
Nixon/Ford: 105,000
Carter: 218,000
Reagan 1: 109,000
Reagan 2: 224,000
G. Bush: 52,000
Clinton 1: 242,000
Clinton 2: 235,000
G.W. Bush: 69,000 jobs DESTROYED per month

- Since Bush signed the biggest tax cut in American history in June of 2001, more then 1.7 million jobs have been destroyed in the economy.

- Even if Bush's new tax cut does create 1 million new jobs by the end of 2004, as he claims, his presidency will still have destroyed nearly 3 million jobs.

- Bush is about to become the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a 4-year economy that destroyed jobs.

- The only two Republican presidents to fail in reelection bids were named Hoover and Bush.

Average Monthly Job Creation Since Truman:

Democrat Presidents: 171,000 jobs created per month
Republican Presidents: 78,000 jobs created per month

Rick Gilmore

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY”

“Interesting stats, bateauxdriver.”

“I agree with your basic premise that Repubs have to learn to do a better job on the economy - but looking at "jobs created per month" does not give an accurate picture of the economy and can easily misrepresent what is happening.

Job creation can come at the expense of business profit and result in larger lay-offs down the line. It can also be misleading because those numbers often do not account for jobs created through entrepreneurship, which are high-quality jobs resulting in a larger roi down the road, including further job growth.

It's similar to the stock market. Remember the dot-com boom. Even at the beginning of the 90s they were saying it will be a false growth, and we will pay later. That is exactly what happened once the dust settled.

There are just too many factors to look at just job creation.

Both parties need to curtail spending. Both are acting irresponsibly.”

“Can anyone disagree with this chart?

http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/1744”

“Sarge I'm an investor and the one thing I personally appreciate about the Bush plan is the tax cut on capital gains. It was a great tax cut for me in this stage of life. When I was young 10 to 15 years ago this tax cut would have done nothing for me. Today when I can afford to pay more taxes it helps me make more money. I just like any rational person want to pay as little tax as possible. The problem is though that trickle down economics just does not work, not now not ever. Trickle up always works because the money changes hands many times on the way up. Democrats seem to focus more on domestic issues and direct stimulus of the economy. Republicans call these tactics wealth transfer. What Republicans offer is wealth protection for the wealthy. They figure they earned it and should be allowed to keep it tax free. That is probably a reasonable feeling to have it just is detrimental to the economy.
last edited: 5/02/05 12:44:53 PM”

““I agree with your basic premise that Repubs have to learn to do a better job on the economy - but looking at "jobs created per month" does not give an accurate picture of the economy and can easily misrepresent what is happening
Sarge
12:26:31 PM
5/02/05


For the working people of America it is all about jobs. Jobs are issue number 1. The long term record does not lie. Many can lie with stats, but the historical record is clear all the way back to WWII. The Democrats are better for the economy.”

“but the historical record is clear all the way back to WWII. The Democrats are better for the economy.

If we kept only a democratic plan, this would not be the case. At some time you have to reign in spending and decrease taxes. There is not an infinite supply of resources.

At some point, you have to sacrifice something.”

“I find it interesting how much credit (or blame) the president gets for the economy.

I always thought that Congress prepared the budget, and the president signed it or asked for some changes and then signed it.
Congress forced Bush I to increase taxes putting the lie to his campaign promise by just not budging on the spending plan.

I think who has control of congress says a lot more about who is in control of the economy than the President.
Current Republican controlled Congress is an out of control spending disaster.

It would appear that not only does Congress not want to share the same Social Security and medicare in their retirement, they do not want to accept accountability for their spending plan either.

As the Founding fathers wanted to separate control in a system of checks and balances, but Congress just wants to defer to the President, we could save an awful lot of government spending by letting the President make the spending decisions (as he gets credit or blame for them anyway), and abolish congress. Send the schmucks home.”

“"Spending of all sorts is rising at a very rapid rate I figure that discretionary spending was up by more than 15 percent this year. That's a pretty good clip," said Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Overall annual spending under Mr. Bush over the past two years has gone from $1.789 trillion in fiscal 2000 to $2.011 trillion in 2002, according to congressional budget officials.
The White House projects that spending will rise to $2.2 trillion in the 2004 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
But budget officials say those dollar amounts do not fully measure the growth in spending. They prefer to measure spending increases as a percentage of the total size of the economy, or its gross domestic product. In 2000, President Clinton's last year in office, total outlays accounted for 18.4 percent of the GDP. By 2002, the budget consumed 19.5 percent of the GDP.
A large chunk of overall spending increases was for national defense, which rose from 3 percent to 3.4 percent of GDP and now totals nearly $400 billion.
"Spending has gone up roughly a full percentage point of GDP under Bush. And about four-tenths of a percentage point is in national defense alone," a senior House budget official said.

Republican President
Republican Senate
Republican House
Republican Supreme Court

How can spending be going up so drastically with these so called conservatives at the helm.”

“FOX NEWS CAN'T BE WRONG!!!!


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108066,00.html


Federal Budget Grows Massively Under Bush
Monday, January 12, 2004
By Peter Brownfeld
WASHINGTON — Conservative observers and budget watchdogs are hoping that President Bush breaks a three-year trend of massive spending increases when he sends Congress his 2005 proposed budget for the federal government on Feb. 2.

But budget experts say while the new Bush budget is likely to be somewhat more austere than previous ones, it will not be radically different.

"There are people in the Republican Party who are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the high level of spending. The difficulty is going to be controlling spending in an election year," said Maya MacGuineas, executive director of the Committee for a Responsible Budget (search).

In the three years since Bush took office, discretionary spending — money that is not tied to long-term entitlements, including defense, domestic security, education and transportation — has grown by 31.5 percent. Non-discretionary spending — mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — has reached record highs.

Overall, federal spending grew on average by 7.6 percent in each of the last two years, more than double the 3.4 percent average annual growth under the Clinton administration.

Current government spending is comparable to the guns and butter growth of the 1960s with the Great Society welfare programs and the Vietnam War, said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation (search). But while national security costs today have swelled the price of government, those costs cannot be entirely blamed for the huge additional spending.
last edited: 5/02/05 1:46:52 PM”

“bateaux, you too can join the few, the proud, the Libertarians!

Who's better for the economy, Reps or Dems?

It's a trick question... NEITHER!




Socialists prefer Dems by a 98% margine. And this figure continues to grow by 10% every year.”

“I have it figured out...

with republicans its one man screwing another.

with democrats its the other way around.”

“If the results of a program cannot be measured, then the program is not worth doing.

This is the basic premise of No Child Left Behind.

This is also the basic premise of Karl Rove politics.

We live in a world in which, fairly or unfairly, performance is measured by objective data.

Those who get the numbers succeed. Those who don't get the numbers fail.

Bush has no problem riding herd on a school with low test scores.

GM sold fewer cars last month. They fired a bunch of people. Was it their fault? Who knows?

Bush should not take it personally when citizens hold him responsible for poor economic scores. He is the responsible party.”

“As someone who loves math and respects Stats, I need to point out that the stat about Bush losing 69,000 per month is out of date - it came near his low point in term 1. Currently he is in much more neutral territory, maybe even in the black. I'm not sur what the most accurate job figure was at the time of Bush's second inauguration, but if he had lost jobs in his first term - it wasn't, many relatively speaking.

I think some of the deficit spending and financial mismanagement is deliberate. It's the "starve the beast" theory - by putting the country deep in debt and cutting tax rates the federal government can be crippled. I think many people in Bush's administration are internationalists - they don't want any kind of world government, but they do want strong and prosperous international corporations and much international trade.”

“Violin - You do realize that graph started going down before Bush took over, right? You do see it stops and then turns around, right?”

“Here’s a thought. Why don’t the Republicans and Democrats start working together to correct the problems in this county rather than pointing fingers and saying, “Well it’s your fault?”

This will probably never happen, but I can hope.”

“Not as long as Violin can help it zac.”

“No. I don't really see that Sarge. It looks like it was bouncing around between about 10,000 and 11,000 and then turned down before almost getting back to where it was.

But I'll buy your perspective for a second.

Contrast it with this one:



up... up... up... up... flat line.


hmmm...
last edited: 6/23/05 12:53:54 PM”