The Bush Legacy: Jobs Permanently Gone
 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/982733.asp

Thanks to GWB's tax cuts for the rich and lack of investment in USA infrastructure, jobs are leaving the country forever.

Despite GWB's promises, the unemployment rate has hovered at 6% for the last year. Wasn't his first tax cut supposed to fix things?

I guess if you want to get ahead in the future, you'll need to learn Mandarin.

Then why is the economy on the rise?

FEL: Figures? Facts? Anything at all besides your own luminous wisdom to show us the self-evident truth of your statement?


At least <i>attempt</i> to use evidence when you argue. Being querulous for its own sake is tiresome.

Speaking of stats, from the article:

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Recent figures
Sept 6.1%
Aug 6.1%
July 6.2%
June 6.4%
May 6.1%
April 6.0%
March 5.8%
Feb 5.8%
Jan 03 5.7%
Dec 6.0%
Nov 5.9%
Oct 5.8%

GDP
Recent figures
Q2 3.3%
Q1 2003 1.4%
Q4 1.4%
Q3 4.0%
Q2 1.3%
Q1 2002 5.0%
Q4 2.7%
Q3 -0.3%
Q2 -1.6%
Q1 2001 -0.6%
Q4 1.1%
Q3 0.6%
What is it?
The gross domestic product is the broadest measure of the economy, comprising the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It is reported quarterly with frequent revisions. Generally expressed as a percentage change from the previous quarter in “real” or inflation-adjusted terms. Economists presume real GDP is capable of growing at an annual rate of about 3.5 percent over the long term. When GDP declines over a sustained period of time the economy is considered to be in recession.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION

Sept* 57,000
Aug -41,000
July -57,000
June -83,000
May -76,000
April -22,000
March -151,000
Feb -121,000
Jan 03 158,000
Dec -211,000
Nov 1,000
Oct 119,000

What is it?
Represents the month-to-month change in jobs on payrolls of the nation’s business, government and non-profit establishments. Generally considered a more accurate indicator of labor market health than the unemployment rate. Analysts estimate the economy should add about 150,000 jobs monthly to keep up with the nation’s growing work force. Based on a sample of 300,000 establishments employing nearly a third of the nation’s workers, the figure is adjusted for seasonal variations and frequently revised.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Well it IS hard to clean up from the mess Clinton left, or are you going to blame Bush for a recession that started before he took office?

Oh and how do tax cuts lose jobs?

Pardon?

Lets not be trolling with party solgans eh?

Step 1: enact a tax cut in June 2002 (not to mention the other tax cut, but for the sake of argument let's look at the June 2002 cut, which has had plenty of time to take an effect)

Step 2: lose jobs

What part of the statistic above about job loss is unclear?

Yeah, here in the tech sector of Silicon Valley, things are just booming. Booming with the rush to outsource development to India, that is.

And why not, we only pay them 1/3 the salaries of American engineers.

I won't start pretending I know much about economy, but the numbers certainly don't look good. Guess I's good for India that they get all those lucrative jobs, but not neccecarily for the unemployed Americans. But hey, if your economy and wages take a real dive, you might soon compete with those darn developement countries.

There once was an industry that was comprised of people that shoveled coal into the locomotive's burner box. They all had to learn to do something else. Lots of folks made their living in the home gas lighting industry, overtaken by technology. Menial jobs migrate to where labor is cheap. On paper, it looks like we are losing jobs. We have the advantage of access to education. Perhaps I'll become a typewriter repairman.

Ustwo, irresponsibly applied tax cuts lose jobs when states get less money from the federal government and have to raise property taxes to compensate. The majority of the people who have to pay these now higher taxes never really saw a substantial benefit from the cuts in the first place to offset this because, the tax cut was for the richest of us all.

Putting a new tax burden on a large segment of americans slows everything down.

9-11 caused some jobs to disappear permanently - companies that moved out of New York, and many that stayed in New York restructured their organizations. 9-11 created some jobs - granted, these are probably not a good replacement for some of the jobs lost because many of those lost were very high paying executive posiitons that were not refilled. George Bush inherited an economic nightmare from old what's his name that Bush replaced. Time and policy are alleviating the economic downturn and the economy is coming back. By the time the election gets here the economy will be a non-issue - in fact, it will probably be an area that the Democrats want to avoid like the plague. Why have the 9 or 10 stoogies that are running for the Democratic nomination dropped, or are dropping economics as an issue and concentrating all their efforts on Iraq? It is the only card they've got to play and that card could easilly bust their hand before the dealing is through. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike George Bush - or if you approve or disapprove of the job he's doing - he beats anything offered by those wanting to move into the White House at this time. I believe that the only card any of them have to play that will work is the old pick me if you're wanting change simply for the sake of change - don't look at me too close because you won't like what you see.

Exactly right. "Permanent" job losses are a fundamental part of innovation and something that was bound to happen as we become more of a global economy.

IT jobs going out of the country is just like garment worker jobs going to China. It happens. Those that put all their faith in the "get into computers" career advice of the last 20 years were being set up for this type of thing.

Unemployment is typically at the 5 to 6% (median rate over the last decade has been 5.4%) level. To scream over .7% more unemployment than is "normal" is ridiculous.

Not to get too involved in the economics again since the other half a dozen times that this has been pointed out have been ignored, but GDP was growing at more than 5% a year. This rate is unsustainable, period. It is now growing in the 3% range which the Federal Reserve had as its target since Alan Greenspan has been there. The SLOWDOWN in the economy--that's right, slowdown, not a recession, not a depression--has been warned of for years. If you don't believe me I'll fax you some articles that I wrote 5 years ago, or better yet you can do some research since you probably won't believe anything I wrote anyway.

If anyone believes that these are bad economic times, you might want to leave the country to see what real bad economic times look like. Most countries only dream about the growth rates that we are still achieving to this day. When the economy does go into recession again (and it will) people better watch out. This economy is still growing. There are sections of the economy doing very well (check out the growth in service industries over the last several years), when ALL the sectors slow it will be an ugly sight.

And once again, the President has virtually nothing to do with the performance of the economy. Clinton didn't "give" us the 5% GDP growth just as Bush did not "give" us the 3% rate. The economy is made up of businesses by the thousands and hundreds of millions consumers. The interactions among these businesses and consumers are what generate GDP. Two-thirds of GDP (about 7 trillion dollars of the 10 trillion dollar GDP) comes from consumer spending.

onetime2 is wise.

Yes, we are down from the "boom times" of the 90s, and yes, a lot of people are unemployed or underemployed, but the death of the business cycle was greatly exaggerated and what we're going through right now only looks so dire compared to the days of wine and roses we all thought would last forever. I think we should be doing more to help people who just can't find a job, whether it's education credits so they can learn new skills, or extension of unemployment benefits, or small business loans or what have you. But while Bush's economic advisors have been somewhat inept, I think the economy is far too complex a system to be able to pin blame or credit on any one force. However, human beings don't like complexity and go looking for simple causal explanations, and because presidents are so willing to take credit for the economy when it's good (ahem, Bill C.) they also tend to be who we point the finger at when it's bad.

Step 1: Collect Underpants

Step 2:

Step 3: PROFIT!

Harmless you are missing a step 1.5, with your logic we can assume the following.

Step 1: Chicago White Sox have a June 2002 record 12 16.

Step 2: Lose Jobs.

Or

Step 1: enact a tax cut in June 2002 (not to mention the other tax cut, but for the sake of argument let's look at the June 2002 cut, which has had plenty of time to take an effect)

Step 2: Chicago White Sox have a June 2002 record 12 16.

So using your logic I have proven that the Chicago White Sox win/loss record causes job loss and that tax cuts have caused the team to have a losing record.

Now again, how did me getting back 600 of the dollars that my labor earned cost someone their job when I spent the money on the nice desk I'm using right now? (Its a really nice one too, its like two desks joined together, my wife uses one half and I use the other, it also cost exactly 600 dollars (plus tax))

Hmm, so it looks like the early return of your own money added to the coffers of the state government. The only thing lost by the federal government was the interest they would have earned on that $600 over the months between you cashing the check and you filing your tax returns.

Although your win loss record argument could use some work since there are lots of times that win/loss records in baseball cost people their jobs. :D

I guess what scares me the most is that I do not see the current administration doing anything about the jobless situation. They seem to be entirely focused on external issues. Everytime I hear our president speak it is about the "War on Terror". The only real terror I face right now is the thought I might lose my job.

We attacked Afghanistan, "freed" Iraq, now lets focus on us.

As for those who like to blame Clinton, all I can say is that the 8 years he was president my job was more secure, the company I work for was making money, and the only thing I had to worry about was which fat chick he was gonna go after next. GW seems intent on starting WW3 so he can stay in office.

Our economy is not controlled by the govt (at least not yet), so what do you want them to do? There is VERY little a president can do for an economy. The last thing I want is the government attempting to controll the largest economy in the world, I would think by now we all know how well state run economies work.

(btw our economy is doing better then Europes)

No, all I meant was I don't see anything being done to encourage companies to keep jobs here, expand, bring in new businesses. Government plays a large part in our economy. Economic confidence draws heavily form how our gov't is performing.

The "jobless situation" is hardly an issue. Yeah, it sucks if you don't have a job but the economic reality is that at least 4% and more than likely somewhere between 5 and 6 % unemployment is "normal". A great majority of them are people in transition from one job to another, one region to another, one career to another, or are in the midst of a life change (perhaps going from a working father/mother to a stay at home father/mother). There are also a number of people displaced due to changing market factors.

The IT industry is one example. There are far greater numbers of people that are capable of doing the work and want to do it than there are companies that want/need to hire them. Until this situation equalizes (people decide to give up on that career and move to another or there is an increase in companies wanting this work to be done locally) there is little the government can do. Even if the government does something to stimulate work for those in this situation what would motivate the IT employers to hire more expensive labor than they need to? Even if they pass a law saying companies can't outsource IT to other countries, it is a temporary solution that will eventually fail.

It's far more likely that the government can NOT stimulate that specific area of the economy to hire more people than if it were to try to stimulate the overall economy to grow jobs. Now, if this happens, the jobs will still require certain skills which the IT worker probably doesn't have. So, they need to be trained. This takes time and then there are those IT workers who will refuse to do that type of work and will remain unemployed by choice.

As with the rest of the economy, employment is complicated. There are no easy answers. The government can impact things only marginally. The market is far more powerful than the government.

I don't understand how you conclude that the federal government only lost the interest from his tax return.

They gave him $600--they now have $600 less than they had before. The federal government didn't recoup that amount from him or anyone else so shouldn't the rational response be to lower spending by $600, not raise it?

The $600 is money that would have been returned to the taxpayer when they filed their tax returns.

Thank you for resonding.

If Ustwo is referring to the $600 he received from his tax return does your statement still hold true?

The way I read it, he received an extra $600 on his tax returns (money that "[his] labor earned") that he wouldn't have received had the tax cuts not been enacted.

We'll need to wait for Ustwo to come back and clear it up but your claim doesn't seem to be correct if he was the taxpayer who received $600 due to a tax cut provision after he filed his tax return.

It was the $600 refund check from the Bush tax cut that I bought my nice desk with.

I'm still trying to figure out how $600 in Federal hands creates a job, but $600 that I spent does not.

Maybe the Underpants Gnomes, know.

I believe my statement holds true as that's the way the tax "cut" was designed. It wasn't a cut in the real sense of the word. It was more of an early refund.

Well it was $600 of my money I wouldn't have had, unless the Bush tax cut was passed, so while you could argue it was a refund, it was a refund I would not have had if a Democrat was the president. Democrats think they can spend your money better then you can. We, the people, don't spend it correctly.

I have an idea. Instead of paying property taxes, perhaps we should just pave the roads ourselves... We are better at spending our own money aren't we?

http://www.uoregon.edu/~rkimble/Mirw.../Roadhouse.jpg

Don't even get me started on road paving. I worked in the Road Machinery division of Ingersoll Rand for a few years. The spending that went on by state and local governments was far from efficient.

I think Astrocloud raises a good point but where we should cut spending (that is, what services we are willing to pay for) is an ideological point.

Keep in mind, however, that this is an interesting twist of the debate. Very few progressives were opposed to things like the $600 credit--in fact, we wanted it extended to the lower classes, as well, because we argued that demand side spending would boost the economy.

The problem was, however, that your $600 was wrapped by provisions that gave extremely wealthy individuals and corporations money they weren't going to use to invest domestically. If they were intelliegent (and there isn't any reason to believe they weren't) then they invested whatever gains they made in the stock market or other global investment where their capital could seek the highest return for the lowest cost of investment.

Thus, we (progressives) agreed that you should get your $600 back because we believed that once you spent it, our economy would start moving. The opponents, however, argued that the economy would start moving from topside investment--not consumers--and consequently, they should receive the bulk of the tax reimbursment.

One of the issues as I see it then becomes how to effect domestic investment. I believe we could have tied specifics tax refunds to domestic investment and small business ventures. I think we would be hard pressed to find multi-millionaires purchasing $600 desks with their tax credit. They might purchase other high ticket items but, for the most part, their money is going to create jobs--just not in the US.

The other issue, of course, would be to reduce expenditure comensurate with tax refunds, cuts, or whatever you want to label them--normally the stance of the conservative party. Instead, for the first time in our country's history, we had simultaneous tax cuts for the wealthiest portion of our society while increasing expenditures for military endeavors--by far the largest chunk of our national expenditure that outpaces several of the lagging nations combined!

So while the conservative party laments the rise of an activist judicial branch and appropriately points to comments by our nation's framers as evidence of their claims, they ignore the warnings of those same leaders regarding the dangers of the growth of a massive, industrial military complex.

Awesome dude, because out here there ARE places where you get a tax break and the city doesn't take care of the roads. In those places -the roads are a complete mess. Perhaps the "far from efficient" government paving roads is a wee bit better than expecting the citizens to do it themselves.

You Liberals (note I didn't say progressive, you can relable yourself but its the same rose) don't get it. You can't give a REFUND to people who don't pay an income tax.

If you gave $600 to low income families its not a refund, its welfare. Of course the 'rich' get the tax refunds because the top 50% earners PAY 97% of the tax!

And Astro, I'm talking income taxes, we have lots of other taxes which can pave the roads quite nicely, lets start with the gas tax.

A group of concerned citizens can pool their own money together and hire a contractor to do it at a lower cost than it would take for the government to do so. All that it takes is for citizens to be interested in improving their community without the intervention of government.

Wouldn't you rather promote community interest rather than an apathetic "the government will take care of it" attitude?

I live on an unpaved road right now. No city maintenance it's up to the homeowners to do it all.

So it's the Bush tax cut that keeps those roads from being paved and maintained? I think not. If government was more efficient in their spending on the roads in the rest of your state they could pave and maintain the other roads without increased taxes.

A prime example of government's inability to manage the roads is how long it has/will take to spend the money associated with TEA-21. As the government delays spending the roads worsen which ends up boosting repair costs exponentially.

Here are some stats that show the exact opposite of what Harmless Rabbit posted. Note I used a real source, not a secondary article to pursue an agenda.
Notice unemployment is LOWERING. Not rising as HR's post claimed.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 03-523
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release is
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EDT),
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, October 3, 2003.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: SEPTEMBER 2003

The unemployment rate remained at 6.1 percent in September, and total
nonfarm payroll employment was little changed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The number of jobs in manu-
facturing declined at a slower pace than in recent months, while employment
in temporary help services continued to trend upward.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons, 9.0 million, was about unchanged in
September, and the unemployment rate was 6.1 percent, the same as in August.

Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.7 percent),
adult women (5.3 percent), teenagers (17.5 percent), whites (5.3 percent),
blacks (11.2 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.5 percent)--were little
changed in September. The unemployment rate for Asians was 6.2 percent,
not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In September, there were 2.1 million unemployed persons who had been
looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, representing 23.2 percent of the
total unemployed. Since November 2001, the proportion of long-term unem-
ployed has increased by about 9 percentage points. (See table A-9.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Both total employment (137.6 million) and the employment-population
ratio (62.0 percent) were about unchanged in September. The employment-
population ratio was down by 1.0 percentage point over the year. Both the
civilian labor force, 146.5 million, and the labor force participation
rate, 66.1 percent, also were little changed in September. (See table
A-1.)

The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons rose
in September to 5.0 million, seasonally adjusted. These persons indicated
that they would like to work full time but worked part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. The total number of persons at work part time, including both the
economic and noneconomic categories, was essentially unchanged at 24.0
million. (See table A-5.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In September, 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, how-
ever, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey. Of the 1.5 million, 388,000 were discouraged workers--persons
who were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed
no jobs were available for them. The number of discouraged workers in
September was about the same as a year earlier. The other 1.2 million
marginally attached had not searched for work because they were in school
or had family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)

- 2 -

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
______________________________________________________________________________
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data |
|_________________|__________________________| Aug.-
Category | 2003 | 2003 | Sept.
|_________________|__________________________| change
| II | III | July | Aug. | Sept. |
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______
HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status
|____________________________________________________
Civilian labor force.....| 146,685| 146,539| 146,540| 146,530| 146,545| 15
Employment.............| 137,638| 137,559| 137,478| 137,625| 137,573| -52
Unemployment...........| 9,047| 8,980| 9,062| 8,905| 8,973| 68
Not in labor force.......| 74,090| 74,974| 74,712| 74,977| 75,234| 257
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Unemployment rates
|____________________________________________________
All workers..............| 6.2| 6.1| 6.2| 6.1| 6.1| 0.0
Adult men..............| 5.9| 5.8| 5.9| 5.8| 5.7| -.1
Adult women............| 5.1| 5.2| 5.2| 5.2| 5.3| .1
Teenagers..............| 18.6| 17.5| 18.4| 16.6| 17.5| .9
White..................| 5.4| 5.4| 5.5| 5.4| 5.3| -.1
Black or African | | | | | |
American.............| 11.2| 11.1| 11.1| 10.9| 11.2| .3
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity............| 8.0| 7.8| 8.2| 7.8| 7.5| -.3
|________|________|________|________|________________
ESTABLISHMENT DATA | Employment
|____________________________________________________
Nonfarm employment.......| 129,984|p129,838| 129,846|p129,805|p129,862| p57
Goods-producing 1/.....| 22,093| p21,976| 22,001| p21,972| p21,955| p-17
Construction.........| 6,782| p6,821| 6,804| p6,823| p6,837| p14
Manufacturing........| 14,744| p14,591| 14,631| p14,585| p14,556| p-29
Service-providing 1/...| 107,891|p107,862| 107,845|p107,833|p107,907| p74
Retail trade.........| 14,981| p14,962| 14,958| p14,959| p14,969| p10
Professional and | | | | | |
business services..| 15,999| p16,082| 16,063| p16,058| p16,124| p66
Education and health | | | | | |
services...........| 16,498| p16,507| 16,487| p16,512| p16,521| p9
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality........| 12,036| p12,048| 12,051| p12,048| p12,045| p-3
Government...........| 21,495| p21,452| 21,458| p21,456| p21,441| p-15
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Hours of work 2/
|____________________________________________________
Total private............| 33.7| p33.7| 33.6| p33.7| p33.7| p0.0
Manufacturing..........| 40.2| p40.2| 40.1| p40.2| p40.4| p.2
Overtime.............| 4.0| p4.1| 4.1| p4.0| p4.2| p.2
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100) 2/
|____________________________________________________
| 98.7| p98.5| 98.3| p98.6| p98.6| p0.0
Total private............|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Earnings 2/
|____________________________________________________
Avg. hourly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| $15.34| p$15.45| $15.43| p$15.46| p$15.45|p-$0.01
Avg. weekly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| 517.07| p520.04| 518.45| p521.00| p520.67| p-.33
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______

1 Includes other industries, not shown separately.
2 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers.
p=preliminary.

- 3 -

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (+57,000) in
September at 129.9 million. Over the month, manufacturing job losses
continued, although at a slower pace. Professional and business services
added jobs, as temporary help employment increased for the fifth consecu-
tive month. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing employment decreased by 29,000 in September. Although
small declines occurred throughout most of the sector, September's loss was
below the average for the prior 12 months (-54,000). Most of the easing in
September occurred among durable goods industries.

Professional and business services added 66,000 jobs in September; half
of the gain occurred in temporary help services. Since April, temporary
help has added 147,000 jobs. Architectural and engineering services
employment increased by 9,000 in September.

Health care and social assistance had a small employment increase over
the month (15,000). Job gains in this industry averaged 23,000 a month
during the first half of this year, compared with a monthly average of
13,000 since June.

Within transportation and warehousing, air transportation added 3,000
jobs in September. Employment in retail trade was little changed; however,
employment increased in two of its component industries--motor vehicle and
parts dealers (8,000) and building material and garden supply stores
(7,000).

Construction employment continued to trend up. Since February, the
industry has added 137,000 jobs, with most of the gains among special trade
contractors.

Employment in financial activities remains on an upward trend, though at
a reduced pace. For the past 4 months, job gains have averaged about 5,000
per month, compared with 16,000 per month from August 2002 to May 2003.

Employment in government was little changed over the month. Seasonal
hiring was weak in local education, and, after seasonal adjustment,
employment decreased by 44,000 in September. However, the decline was
partially offset by a gain of 17,000 jobs in local government, excluding
education.

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged over the month at 33.7 hours, seasonally
adjusted. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.2 hour in September
to 40.4 hours, seasonally adjusted. Manufacturing overtime also rose by
0.2 hour to 4.2 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory
workers on private nonfarm payrolls held at 98.6 in September (2002=100).
The manufacturing index increased by 0.2 percent over the month to 94.2.
(See table B-5.)

- 4 -

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls were down by 1 cent over the month to $15.45, seasonally
adjusted. Average weekly earnings were down by 0.1 percent in September to
$520.67. Over the year, average hourly earnings grew by 2.7 percent and
average weekly earnings increased by 2.1 percent. (See table B-3.)

______________________________


The Employment Situation for October 2003 is scheduled to be released on
Friday, November 7, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).

I'll make my point without stooping to labeling you with a perjorative term.

The claim was that tax cuts would stimulate the economy, provide jobs for US citizens, and pull us out of a recession. Who should receive them is a moot point since the tax cuts have already been approved.

I provided a few paragraphs to illustrate challenges of current policies in regards to their effect on promoting domestic growth and suggested policy changes that would or could have facilitated such growth.

Rather than respond, however, you attempted to incite me into an ideological debate--let's stick with addressing the former issues I have already raised because the latter argument will rapidly degrade (as it appears to have done already judging from your first sentence).

FEL, I'm going to point out two alarming trends by bolding the relevant portions from your quote:

While 1.2 million of those 1.5 million are in school or taking care of family responsibility (something I would hope our society wants to promote--not hinder), this is hardly a portrayal of domestic growth.

"the government pavement" argument
 

First of all, -since some want to talk about whether living on a paved or an unpaved road is better... (I was speaking figuratively about living with a paved road vs. an unpaved road.) Personally I think most people would prefer paving at a cost through their taxes; I'm sorry if some of us prefer to drive within squalor. But I'm not talking about that so let's take it up a notch.

More literally speaking -we are talking about federal taxes. The literal "pavement" is things that the Federal Government pays for. A great deal of our Federal tax dollars goes to social spending -it's a fact. Defense is also a significant expendature.

Without actually considering the numbers (or politics,) we can note that both these expendatures are going up. For example, the number of unemployment claims has made a significant rise since Bush came to office. One could also say the same of the defense budget.

Obviously, the wars Aghanistan and Iraq are a federal expendature. Whether they are "just" or not is the topic of another thread, but whether they could be managed better... especially fiscally better is perfect for this one, now.

A simple fiscal fact about war is that the more parties you have on your side -the more the economic burden of war can be distributed (shared) with allies. At least in the Afghanistan war, Bush had the chance to include Allies, but snubbed them... It doesn't make sense in an economic sense.

Furthermore, if you are trying to determine the state of the economy and you really want to consider "the numbers" -rather than just plugging various numbers in (from various sources): Why not read what the Experts have to say?




http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wj030403.html

And your point is? The fact is that the truth is the opposite of what Harmless Rabbit tried to pass as truth. The economy is on an upswing, and unemployment is lowering, not rising.

I can give you a very large list of leading economic PHd's who will say otherwise. Should I call you doctor?

http://www.theonion.com/3941/history.htmlIt's never been better!

According to the article you posted, unemployment rates have primarly dropped because people stopped looking for work once they realized there weren't any jobs--not because jobs came back on the market. Of the jobs that did come back to market, they are only rising at a fraction of the previous years' rates.

Not only is that not an "upswing", according to numerous economists' claims I have read and heard, it appears to be a recipe for long-term, economic disaster.

I'm content with leaving that analysis to them.

FEL, I get the distinct impression that you ignored large portions of your own post. The article states that the broadest indicators of employment were <i>unchanged</i>, not that there was an increase in employment. Furthermore, your source refers only to September of this year. A more relevant reference would provide data to show how the job market is faring since the Bush tax cuts, since that seems to be the hot-button issue. Did they provide the stimulus they were allegedly intended to, and if so, was it worth the price in decreased education funding, veterans' benefits, etc., etc.?

To show that the tax cuts are responsible for this spectacular one-month-long trend of tepid employment figures may be possible, but do you really want credit for proving that Bush flushed over a trillion dollars down the toilet in order to generate a single month of mediocre economic news? Yes, a tax cut for low- and middle-income people would have been good. It also would have been affordable, with increases in taxes and penalties for offshore corporate tax cheats and the super-rich, who wouldn't even notice. To free up even more cash, the welfare (I know how much any good individualist hates welfare) that Uncle Sam forks over to oil, timber, agribusiness and nuclear industries could have been eliminated. Then we could have used that money where it was actually needed, rather than handing over half of it to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers in the nation.

Furthermore, FEL, since you seem intent on perpetuating this fallacy, a tax cut <i>is</i> possible for those who do not make enough to pay income tax. Their SocSec and Medicare taxes could have been eliminated, creating much-needed cash for them that would immediately be spent. Stimulus, anyone? This is far from welfare; it simply allows poor workers to keep every penny they earn. Surely there can be no objections to such a scheme from a true conservative? Hm? (conservative is not equal to Republican, nor is it a pejorative term).

And there is an even larger list that say it is. And perhaps the most knowledgeable economist of them all, Alan Greenspan seems to think it is. Seems he's done a pretty good job of understanding the economy for the last couple of decades, but I guess that doesn't matter.

The economy is far from bad but since that doesn't fit your agenda you don't want to hear it. If it were bad, I'd be the first to state it as such since I've spent a fair portion of my life studying the damned thing.

Certainly there is a portion of unemployed who have become discouraged and are no longer looking, but this is far from a large segment of the unemployed. As outlined earlier in the thread there are many components to the unemployment figure, pointing to just those that have dropped out of the labor force is naive at best and flat out misleading at worst.

Once again, for those that missed it, the economy is far more complicated than a sound bite mentality allows.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/6872006.htm

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy, powered by a red-hot housing market and a huge dose of spending for the war in Iraq, grew at a surprisingly strong 3.3 percent clip last quarter and raised hopes for an even better performance the rest of the year.

The increase announced yesterday in the gross domestic product for the April-June period represented an upward revision from a 3.1 percent estimate a month ago.

Analysts said growth in the July-September quarter would be at a significantly higher rate, fueled by President Bush's newest round of tax cuts, which took effect in July, and continued low interest rates from the Federal Reserve, a combination that has helped to push auto and home sales to record levels.

"The economy is firing on all cylinders," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "The strong economic growth we are predicting in the future should create some new jobs." --Associated Press

First of all, I stated that I would defer to the economists (which I think you claimed to be) in terms of the larger picture--no need to insult me by inferring that I'm naive or misleading.

I was pointing out two trends that were apparent in the article FEL posted--that millions of workers (5 million, actually) have been relegated to part-time positions against their will (creating a total of 24 million part-time workers) and that 1.5 million have stopped looking for work for various reasons.

Now if you want to claim that the article isn't the entire picture, fine; it certainly isn't naive to respond that the particular article isn't evidence of a strong economy and doesn't claim that unemployment has gone down due to an expanding economy. In fact, there didn't seem to be any evidence of "growth" in the article except for a few sectors that experienced relative upward trends in hiring. That is, while companies hired workers they did so below the normative rate according to past years.

When I heard Greenspan speak about the topic before Congress he didn't seem as content with the long-term prospects of our economic structure but maybe you heard him somewhere else.

As to the "soundbite mentality": everyone reading this can probably tell by now that we are thinking about these matters and aren't just getting our information from an hourly cable news show.

The source I gave thusfar was Martin Feldstein who (-if you bothered to read the article I so generously cited;) was the CEA chairman during Reagan's first term. He was also being considered as a replacement for Greenspan; until he started criticizing Bushonomics. He is the head of the economics department at some crappy university named Harvard.

But all of this means nothing. You said that Greenspan said otherwise. Prove it. You can't -and if you bothered to read Marty Feldstein's article you would see that he is following what the Fed has been doing and concludes "the Fed has gone unusually far to provide a margin of safety."


Ever heard the expression that actions speak louder than words? Greenspan's actions at the Fed have already spoken... In other words: Why would Greenspan have to provide a margin of safety if everything is as rosey as you think it is?


My agenda? Yes here is my agenda:

Do Laundry -check
Feed Cat -check
hand out reality check -NF


Oh yes, and Alan Greenspan says it is.

I'm done with this silly thread. You can't teach a blind man to see.

The last gasp of someone who has lost an argument.

ASTROCLOUD WINS!

:)

If you'd like to look at actions then please do. Greenspan has always acted in a very cautious way (even during the "boom years" of the last decade). Feldstein's comment that the Fed has "gone unusually far to provide a margin of safety" is ridiculous as that has ALWAYS been a hallmark of Greenspan. His comments are always designed to be on the cautious side.

Have you seen Greenspan say that we need more stimulus? No. He pointedly alludes to low interest rates, home refinancings and cashouts, as well as tax cuts as sources of yet more consumer spending. The policies he has enacted are meant to temper the possibility that the Fed will be caught without the ability to impact the economy through monetary policy. His biggest concern is and always has been falling behind in the fight against keeping a stable economy growing in the 3 to 3.5% range.

And smooth, I don't know what thread you are reading but I have written quite extensively about the mechanics of unemployment, consumer spending, and a number of other issues throughout this thread. The sound bite mentality is obviously not coming from me.

To point out one SMALL piece of unemployment and ignore industry changes that are occuring is both naive and misleading.

And yes, I do claim to be an economist. Whether you choose to believe it or not I don't care. I don't need to quote the thinking of one or two "leading" economists because I have a firm grasp of economic principle.

From the FOMC in September:

"The Committee continues to believe that an accommodative stance of monetary policy, coupled with robust underlying growth in productivity, is providing important ongoing support to economic activity. The evidence accumulated over the intermeeting period confirms that spending is firming, although the labor market has been weakening. Business pricing power and increases in core consumer prices remain muted."

This is Greenspanspeak for "the economy is growing". The "economic activity" cited in this statement is growth.

I love how direct sources are not accepted, but a secondary opinion is taken as gospel. The thinking is this, if it makes Bush look bad, it must be true.

Fact of the matter the stock market is a better indicator of the state of the economy then the jobless rate is. So going by that we have had almost a year of solid growth (full year come November). Plus jobless rates aren't that bad, first off its a guesstimate, secondly 6% is not that bad compared to 10% in the 80's.

Ok I lied I'm back, but its good to see you here again Harmless, I thought I had banished you already in a pile of underpants.

No one has been able to show in any way why a tax cut costs jobs. You just want to keep your Bush bashing alive, no matter how weak your arguments be my guest, but until one of you lefties (GASP A LABEL) can show me how a tax cut on the people paying taxes hurts the job market, you have nothing to say.

I must admit that the Greenspan argument is compelling. Please cite a reputable source for his comments.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/000009.html

His comments were in the latest FOMC (Federal Open Market Committe) press release. Check the Federal Reserve Board website. As far as his comments regarding fiscal responsibility, that has to do with a general long term strategy not a specific short term impact. The article you cite is eight months old and carries the same warnings about fiscal responsibility that he's been espousing since around 1987 when he began his tenure as the head of the Fed.

Funny how when Bush 1 and Clinton (credit to both, where it's due...) commit to fiscal responsibility espoused by Greenspan and we get the longest stretch of economic growth *EVER*, and when Bush 2 tosses fiscal responsibility out the window we get... *shrug*

It isn't a recession, it isn't non-growth, but don't you think the US economy is capable of more, especially considering the evidence of the last 12 years?

And the worst attack on our soil in history had nothing to do with the down turn, lets blame Bush, and then ignore the upswing when it happens.

And lets not forget when the downturn started and just who was president. :lol:

B B But the president isnt responcible for the economy,,, wait, er I mean he is only when its Bush.

George Bush? Unfortunately, I am reminded of that every day.

http://www.ibew.org/JustTheFact0309.pdf

LOL I remember the last year of Clinton's presidency and the sourness of the econony, but of course Harmless Rabbit's fun house mirror of distorted history and facts doesnt.

Clinton was handed a growing economy in 93 and left with one in decline. Yes its all Bush's fault. *heh*

I still remember a Jay Leno joke about who would want to win the 2000 election since they would inherit the recession.

And remember how MAD the Clintonistas got whenever anyone mentioned the slow down before the election, or even after the election but before Bush took office? Gotta keep that legacy going, while getting paid for those pardons I guess :)

I don’t really believe there was ever a commitment to fiscal responsibility by either administration. The surpluses we saw for a few years were due to an incredibly accelerated economy and the politicians were caught off guard by the extra money they had. The debate over what they should spend the surplus on showed that there wasn’t a wide spread commitment to pay down debt or be fiscally responsible. Additionally, the economy was growing before and began its fall during this supposed era of “fiscal responsibility”. But we could debate this subject all day and not get anywhere.

Your second comment is far more thought provoking. You are absolutely right that it wasn’t a recession and wasn’t even a period of non-growth. As far as what the economy is capable of, it is capable of considerably more growth. But with this fast growth comes far greater risks. It’s not unlike driving a car at 100 mph. You may be capable of doing it in short spurts but you’re not likely to be able to sustain it at that level, and even if you could, a bump in the road could cause far more damage at that speed than it would at 55 mph.

There were several drivers within the period of strong growth. Increased productivity, a strong stock market, low interest rates, increased home values, and low inflation combined to create high consumer confidence and impressive levels of consumer spending. Within these drivers we have seen some very good and some very worrisome developments and it was the relatively calm reaction of consumers and investors to these events that kept us from plunging into recession.

Specifically,

The stock market took a slight tumble. Given the increased consumer exposure (everyone from cab drivers to CEOs have ties to the stock market in the form of direct investing, 401ks, pension funds, etc) to events in the stock market, this drop could have precipitated a cut in consumer spending.

Corporate accounting scandals. Had investors/consumers looked at these as commonplace rather than isolated incidents it may have convinced them that their retirement savings were at risk. This probably would have led to pulling money from stocks and cutting back on consumer spending.

Low interest rates allowed consumers to manage their ever-growing debt levels. Had these rates gone up, the cost of servicing these debts (their monthly payments) would have gone up and cut into their spending.

High home prices combined with the above-mentioned low interest rates have allowed homeowners (and that’s a huge portion of the US population with around 2/3 of households owning their own home) to refinance. This has either allowed them to cut their monthly mortgage payments or to cash out some equity (or in some cases both) to pay down debt or go on spending sprees.

High productivity has allowed companies to keep prices steady (i.e., low inflation) and still make a decent profit.

The consumer/investor has become far more sophisticated than just ten years ago. They have taken to heart the advice of experts that investing in the stock market needs to be done over the long haul. They’ve made pretty good use of refinancings and low interest rates to solidify their financial positions and they haven’t over reacted to bad news.

So, while the economy CAN perform at a higher level than it is, it may not be what we should be shooting for. There’s a pretty good chance that this 100 ft economic drop has saved us from a 1000 ft tumble down the road. It’s also quite possible that this slow down will allow our economy to grow for another ten years without hitting a recession. Of course, we’re far from being out of the woods. More corporate scandals, the bottom dropping out of the housing market, widespread layoffs, or anything that causes the consumer to stop spending will push us towards a recession.

Kid, you really take the cake. First of all -YOU ARE THE ONE ESPOUSING THAT GREENSPAN SAYS THIS OR GREENSPAN SAYS THAT. WHY DON'T YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY WITH QUOTES RATHER THAN HAVING OTHERS FIGURE OUT WHICH COMMENTS YOU ARE DIRECTLY REFERRING TO AND WHICH YOU ARE NOT.

THE "LATEST" FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD PRESS RELEASE says this:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...2003/20030916/

Roughly equal risks is far from the rosey picture that you paint.

First off I am not a kid. But that’s okay since it’s obvious you have a need to discount my opinions without actually discussing the facts, if you addressing me in this manner helps you to more easily disregard my points, well good for you. As to you having an issue with me pointing you to the source of the quote rather than cutting and pasting it, you’re the one that wanted it. I didn’t have time at that moment to find the link. I’m not sure why you had a problem with finding it yourself as the quote you just posted was the paragraph DIRECTLY beneath the paragraph I quoted.

Now, as to your belief that the statement about roughly equal upside and downside risks not painting a rosy picture, the risks say absolutely nothing about current or future performance. They only speak about the possibility of change from current levels. Is the upside risk 50% and the downside risk 50%? Is the upside .0001% and the downside .0001%? They are both equal but have vastly different meanings.

It’s interesting that you don’t comment on the other half dozen issues I mentioned. I guess you can’t find an article to quote.

And, so long as you’re here, I wanted to address your belief that living on an unpaved road equates to squalor. It’s especially interesting since your comments suddenly became “figurative” after asserting that the government handles road paving efficiently. When it was pointed out that the process is far from efficient, it became a figurative assertion. Further, I find the embracing of paved roads to be antithetical to most liberal ecologic opinion. As you may or may not be aware, road paving impacts the environment immensely. It reduces the surface area which is capable of absorbing precipitation, creates unnatural flows of water, promotes erosion in surrounding areas, and absorbs a considerable amount of heat throughout the day which raises the temperatures during the night in the immediate area. Throw in the environmental impact of asphalt production and the increased salinity due to road salt being used in the winter and you’ve got a pretty big negative thrown into the mix. But I digress, as that’s outside the realm of this topic (I did just want to point out that it was you who brought it up).

Here's a little history lesson for all the conservatives who think that Greenspan supports 'Bushonomics'.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/11/news/economy/greenspan/

Well Astrocloud, it's obvious you don't have a leg to stand on as every article you quote is 8 months old and you still don't bother to discuss any of the economic points I've made. You make it a conservative versus liberal versus Greenspan argument and that has nothing to do with the economic reality of our times.

You choose to ignore the quote which was in the same press release which says that there is economic activity, you ignore the fact that, as much as you want to believe it isn't, the economy IS growing, and you can only debate by proxy since your knowledge of the subject is woefully inadequate.

Further, my contention has continually been that the President has virtually no effect on the economy. This negates any political influence in my analysis as not a single point that I made in describing the drivers of economic growth over the last decade is directly influenced by the party in power. You, however, are blatantly anti Bush and are looking to blame him for the SLOWED economy.

My grasp of economic principle has been well presented throughout this thread, you have only shown an ability to quote out dated articles and misread the statements associated with them.

First of all this isn't a "conservative versus liberal versus Greenspan" argument. I’ve never cast it as that. This is a reality vs. opinion argument. You are flat denying a basic truth about the current US economy. You said that I am quoting articles that are dated -fair enough. Yet when I asked you to cite directly -you make vague references and then blame me for reading the paragraph directly below it.

You complain loudly when I use the term "kid" to describe you -yet have no problem throwing ad hominems towards me. (i.e. Telling me what my motives are for making a statement rather than addressing any point I'm making. It is insulting to argue with someone who deliberately twists your words and misrepresents your opinions.) Nevertheless, I apologize for calling you "kid". Perhaps we can both take it down a notch.

As far as my alleged 'blaming Bush for the slowed economy' goes... You are way off. I agree that the economy runs at a separate pace than the presidency. "Virtually no effect on the economy" is an exaggeration and an overstatement. Bush can act and have a positive effect on the economy. The economy needs a stimulus and the republicans are in denial. You can argue that Greenspan hasn’t asked for a stimulus but then Greenspan isn’t in a position where he can make bold public statements without having an effect on the current economy. The economy needs a stimulus.

Meanwhile Bush has mismanaged the national debt. His administration treats it a credit card for the next president to pay off. I cited the fact that he could’ve used foreign allies more efficiently in Afghanistan. If he bothered to do this perhaps they would’ve even been on board for an attack on Iraq; but then maybe not. That speculation is irrelevant but seeking outside help during wartime has always been an extremely good strategy, both militarily and economically. So why didn’t Bush use some ally like NATO during the Afghan crisis?

Even though the CNN Money article was sufficient in talking about difficulties with the problems of Bush Deficit spending. I'd like to present two relatively more recent articles pointing to the problem with the deficit. The first article is three months old. Is that too old? –Well maybe except that it has some forecasts and some relevant quotes of the only top dog analyst that you seem to buy –Greenspan

“Mr Greenspan said the deficit "mattered a great deal" and that he had long argued for "fiscal responsibility". So do you think Bush is Fiscally responsible?

Because it can't get much worse.

Hehe, nice one MSD

First off. I didn't complain "loudly" about your your name calling, I said that if it makes you feel better about disregarding my points then good for you. Since you thought it bugged me you decided to continue along those lines. It did give me a good laugh though.

I do not "only" take Greenspan's opinion seriously but that's yet another discussion we could go on with for days. Greenspan can most assuredly ask for a stimulus. The reason he chooses not to, and the reason that he portrays upside and downside risks as equal is that the economy is growing at precisely the rate he has been working towards for his entire tenure.

He has always maintained that the deficit is a weight being carried around by the economy and that national debt should be addressed for long term economic health. There's nothing new here.

As far as Bush being fiscally responsible, that's a laugh. As I pointed out in an earlier response in this thread, neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have shown a REAL commitment to fiscal responsibility.

As far as war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it would have been great if he built a better coalition but even if he had, the US would have carried the majority of costs and would have had to commit the majority of troops.

As far as the economy needing a stimulus, what do you base this on? Growth of 3 to 3.5% isn't enough for you?

When I read your posts, even this last one, I come away with the feeling that you are making it about party needs/wants. If that's not your intention I'm sorry but that is how they come across. In this one you cite Republicans for not pushing for a stimulus and at the same time rail about deficit spending.

I too hope we can have a real dialogue and have attempted that throughout the thread with everyone. I enjoy discussing the economy and that's why I've continued with this thread in spite of the offhanded comments about my education and viewpoints.

It can get FAR worse. The economy has continued to grow throughout this period. When it does fall, people who have never really experienced a recession will be shocked at just how bad it can get.

Thanks for the well-thought out response, ontime2. It really helps illustrate how precarious our position is when you lay it out like that, doesn't it?

The first Bush cleaned up the mess left by the huge S&L crisis, and raised taxes as part of a bipartisan deal to cut back Reagan's deficits.

Clinton did the right thing and raised taxes again in 93, a tax was aimed primarily at high-income households.

I think the misunderstanding here is different definitions of 'fiscal responsibility.' I define it as curbing spending, increasing revenue, reining in pork-barrel projects.

By all three of my markers, the second bush administration becomes a flagrant example of fiscal irresponsibility.

There's a great line in the movie "Dave", where the imposter president brings his friend out to review the government's budget. After spending long hours of study, his remark: "If I ran my business this way, I'd be out of business!"

Truman famously noted that "The Buck Stops Here". Our current president is quite literally passing the buck to the next president, and that person, republican or democrat, has my deepest sympathies.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P62365.asp

In a way, we're all right, I guess.

Jobs are up, but they're not nearly as decent as they were before.

In the article it says that Sony is going to reduce the number of parts in it's products from 840,000 to 100,000, and the number of supplies from 4,700 to 1,000. This means 3,700 companies are losing, what I will assume to be, a BIG chunk of income.

By the way, I have been unemployed for over a year now, have had multiple unemployment claims denied by the national marketing agency I worked for, and have not stopped looking for work. Soo.. if you need a PHP programmer, pm me! :D

Sorry Kid, (meant in a congenial Northern Massachusetts kinda way) -You will have to get in line behind the foreign workers who will be happy to work for less money than you. I guess that the Republicans don't think that there is enough of a high tech labor market glut.

http://sify.com/news/international/f...hp?id=13293386

Well, if the visa cap isn't raised, more companies will just outsource entire operations to other countries (such as India) rather than import some cheaper labor to the US.

I think the operations that can move have probably already done so for a better degree. I have found myself outsourced along with a large portion of the American telecommunications industry. So I guess we're in the same boat.

The fact that American industry IS outsourcing doesn't mean that it's always viable to do so. The fact is that immigrants have always been a cheap alternative to established American labor. I think in this case, the Intel Corp, is pressing for extruding employment to foreign graduate students, which I support.

Again sorry if I called you kid, this is actually kinda colloquial for towny type places... if it's any consolation I called my roommate kid about 5 minutes ago.

As per the New York times today 10/29/03 incomes are on the rise and this quarter's economic report states a 6 point rise, three more than expected. So whats all this talk about Bush's bad economy?