No talk about the Economy at RNC, why? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 09-03-2008, 01:49 PM

Our economy has gone through some tough issues over the past few years and is weaker than we would like it to be. However, it is not as bad as Democrats would want us to believe. We can look at historical measures of our comparative economic strength and we can look at how our economy is doing compared to other national economies. No matter which method you use, perhaps Republicans realize that things are not as bad as Democrats want people to believe. This WSJ editorial points to some interesting facts concerning our economy compared to other industrial nations:

Quote:

Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush's economic record. The clear aim was to justify the party's call for "change," and to undermine support for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His election would mean a "third Bush term," delegates groaned.

Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.

- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.

While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.

- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.

Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.

When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank.

The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries.

- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.

The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

- Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.

The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.

The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a "social justice" strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in "old" industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged.

Bush Has a Good Economic Record - WSJ.com

Tully Mars · 09-03-2008, 02:00 PM

Are you saying a publication owned by Rupert Murdoch thinks Bush has done a good job handling the economy? I for one am shocked, just shocked I tell you.

There are so many things wrong with this piece but I really like-

Quote:

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.

flstf · 09-03-2008, 02:04 PM

I guess a lot of it has to do with the old saying "when you're out of work it is a recession, when I'm out of work it is a depression". I wonder how many would answer yes if they were asked the question that Reagan did "Ask yourself, are you better off now than 4 years ago?" Except now it would be 8 years.

aceventura3 · 09-03-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Are you saying a publication owned by Rupert Murdoch thinks Bush has done a good job handling the economy? I for one am shocked, just shocked I tell you.

There are so many things wrong with this piece but I really like-

Perhaps it is not about the publication but the sources and facts cited. If the IMF, OECD, ICP and US Census Bureau have no credibility I could be as dismissive as you.

Again, to me it is an issue of honesty. It can be as simple as liberals saying the Iraq war is "Bush's war", which is dishonest or uniformed, the consequences of tax policy or the general health of our economy, the left rhetoric is often not supported by facts but they want us to believe otherwise.

dc_dux · 09-03-2008, 02:45 PM

I guess the voters are not reading WSJ editorials when they answer the question in polls or maybe they dont particularly care about the IMF, OEDC, etc. but are more worried about paying bills, job security, and saving for their children's college education.

What issues is most important in deciding your vote for president?
(http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm)

USA/Gallup: economy
Diago/Hotline: economy
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:economy and jobs
CBS/NY Times: economy and jobs
NBC/WSJ: job creation and economic growth
CNN/Opinion Research: economy

By margins of 20-25% over the next highest issue.

Someone here (and at the Republican convention?) might just be a little out of touch.

roachboy · 09-03-2008, 02:45 PM

i think , ace, that we would all be better served were you running mc-cain's campaign as over against the folk who are---they've already conceded defeat on the issues. they don't seem to think they can win if substantive questions are introduced into the debate--you know, what an election should be--a debate. so what it looks like they're doing is using the same old tired memes to frame obama as an Evil Liberal on the one hand, and trying to center things on what a swell people the mc-cain ticket consists of, dont you want to believe in them as people?

it would be better were they of more faith, someone more like yourself, who wants to think things are better than they're made out to be and even finds some information to support that claim.

now there are problems with every last claim in the wsj editorial that you bit and presented without mentioning it's editorial status, an oversight that anyone could have made.--but for the moment, i'll leave things at this. it would be better for all of us were you running mc-cain's campaign.

dc_dux · 09-03-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

"Ask yourself, are you better off now than 4 years ago?" Except now it would be 8 years.

It seems only fitting to quote the WSJ:

Quote:

for the first time in 50 years of polling, a majority of Americans believe they are stuck or falling behind, according to a new Pew Research poll measuring the attitudes of the middle class.

“Americans feel stuck in their tracks,” Pew states. “This is the most downbeat short-term assessment of personal progress in nearly half a century of polling by the Pew Research Center and the Gallup organization...

.... Pew notes that in the long-view, middle class Americans have seen economic gains, with median household incomes rising 41% since 1970.

But looking at the shorter term, Pew said real median household income peaked in 1999 “making this decade one of the longest downturns ever for this widely-accepted measure of the middle-class standard of living.”

According to the poll, 25% of respondents said they haven’t moved forward in life in the past five years, while a higher number, 31%, believe they have taken a step back.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Are You Better Off Than You Were Five Years Ago?

Perhaps the Democrats should be hammering this question harder.

dksuddeth · 09-03-2008, 03:25 PM

I've come to the realization that there is no difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to the economy......other than they can be counted on to do what is in their own best interests.

When a democrat was president with a majority congress/senate, I had plenty of work all the time. The problem I faced was those jobs paid less than what i needed.
when a republican was president with a majority congress/senate, I could find work with a lot of searching eventually. The upside to that was when I finally had a job, it paid way above what i needed.

theres a mix of alot of things in between all of those variables, but the one clear thing that I think people just don't get is that these two political parties are not out to make your life better. They are there to make their lives better.

reconmike · 09-03-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It seems only fitting to quote the WSJ:

Perhaps the Democrats should be hammering this question harder.

Maybe the whining americans should take a friggen good look in the mirror, ask themselves do they really deserve the lowest prices?

Maybe the Democrats, the party of unions, should tell their constituents to try and buy goods from onshore instead of their cheap chinese trinkets at Walmart.

I be if I did a poll at Walmart they would be Obama supporters 3 to 1.

dc_dux · 09-03-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Maybe the Democrats, the party of unions, should tell their constituents to try and buy goods from onshore instead of their cheap chinese trinkets at Walmart.

Which party takes a harder stance on shipping jobs overseas? Which candidate will remove tax incentives from companies that do so.

Thats easy....the Democrats and Obama.

reconmike · 09-03-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Which party takes a harder stance on shipping jobs overseas? Which candidate will remove tax incentives from companies that do so.

Thats easy....the Democrats and Obama.

Well good for Obama and the democrats, now if they can only figure out how to keep greedy unions from demanding a floor sweeper be paid 20 dollars an hour, or the same unions demand that a master electrician change a light bulb @ 40 dollars an hour, while 2 apprentices at $20 an hour hold the ladder, he would be the saviour.

guyy · 09-03-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Perhaps the Democrats should be hammering this question harder.

No shit. What's their problem?

It might be the lack of economic brainpower on the Obama squad. If you can't think outside of the neoliberal box, it's going to be difficult to criticise Bush and/or propose realistic solutions.

filtherton · 09-03-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Maybe the whining americans should take a friggen good look in the mirror, ask themselves do they really deserve the lowest prices?

Maybe the Democrats, the party of unions, should tell their constituents to try and buy goods from onshore instead of their cheap chinese trinkets at Walmart.

I be if I did a poll at Walmart they would be Obama supporters 3 to 1.

I imagine that the Democrats, the party of unions, would avoid like the plague a company so full of anti-union sentiment. All the folks I know who shop at Walmart vote Republican all the way.

They're probably the very same people who cheered long and loudly when Hawaii's governor pointed out the fact that one could fit over 200 Delawares inside Alaska. It was an astonishing example of the type of things Republicans look for in their vice presidents (I know, not all of them). I marvel at the absurdity of a bunch of Republican delegates whooping it up like a bunch of frat boys on spring break when the subject of Alaska's low population density is brought up.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

now there are problems with every last claim in the wsj editorial that you bit and presented without mentioning it's editorial status, an oversight that anyone could have made.--but for the moment, i'll leave things at this. it would be better for all of us were you running mc-cain's campaign.

I clearly stated the article was a WSJ editorial. Again, the author has his opinion but he also cited some factual information. I am the first to agree that there are problems with economic data, however, I don't dismiss it without trying to understand it.

Regarding the polls cited by DC. There is perception and there is reality. Predators of the disadvantaged often use and try to create false perceptions to take advantage of their prey. I think the doom and gloom massage of the Democratic Party is intended to do just that. The economy is weaker than it could be, but not nearly as bad as it has been in the past, or as bad as it could be. In my view honest leaders give realistic assessments.

roachboy · 09-04-2008, 08:03 AM

a. mea culpa for missing the tagging of the edito as such. and oversight.
b. i was not joking about the idea that it'd be better for all of us were you running mc-cain's campaign, because regardless of whether we might agree about the interpretation of the data presented in the edito, at least there's something substantive to talk about.

i'll get back to this later when i have more time....

09-03-2008, 02:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I guess the voters are not reading WSJ editorials when they answer the question in polls or maybe they dont particularly care about the IMF, OEDC, etc. but are more worried about paying bills, job security, and saving for their children's college education. What issues is most important in deciding your vote for president? (http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm) USA/Gallup: economy Diago/Hotline: economy Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:economy and jobs CBS/NY Times: economy and jobs NBC/WSJ: job creation and economic growth CNN/Opinion Research: economy By margins of 20-25% over the next highest issue. Someone here (and at the Republican convention?) might just be a little out of touch. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-03-2008 at 03:07 PM..

09-03-2008, 02:45 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think , ace, that we would all be better served were you running mc-cain's campaign as over against the folk who are---they've already conceded defeat on the issues. they don't seem to think they can win if substantive questions are introduced into the debate--you know, what an election should be--a debate. so what it looks like they're doing is using the same old tired memes to frame obama as an Evil Liberal on the one hand, and trying to center things on what a swell people the mc-cain ticket consists of, dont you want to believe in them as people? it would be better were they of more faith, someone more like yourself, who wants to think things are better than they're made out to be and even finds some information to support that claim. now there are problems with every last claim in the wsj editorial that you bit and presented without mentioning it's editorial status, an oversight that anyone could have made.--but for the moment, i'll leave things at this. it would be better for all of us were you running mc-cain's campaign. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-03-2008, 03:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I've come to the realization that there is no difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to the economy......other than they can be counted on to do what is in their own best interests. When a democrat was president with a majority congress/senate, I had plenty of work all the time. The problem I faced was those jobs paid less than what i needed. when a republican was president with a majority congress/senate, I could find work with a lot of searching eventually. The upside to that was when I finally had a job, it paid way above what i needed. theres a mix of alot of things in between all of those variables, but the one clear thing that I think people just don't get is that these two political parties are not out to make your life better. They are there to make their lives better. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

09-04-2008, 08:03 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	a. mea culpa for missing the tagging of the edito as such. and oversight. b. i was not joking about the idea that it'd be better for all of us were you running mc-cain's campaign, because regardless of whether we might agree about the interpretation of the data presented in the edito, at least there's something substantive to talk about. i'll get back to this later when i have more time.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-03-2008, 02:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I guess a lot of it has to do with the old saying "when you're out of work it is a recession, when I'm out of work it is a depression". I wonder how many would answer yes if they were asked the question that Reagan did "Ask yourself, are you better off now than 4 years ago?" Except now it would be 8 years.