Who Is He Calling "Stupid?"
* Real GDP increased 3.5% in 2005
*The economy has been growing for 17 straight quarters, and the composite index of leading indicators has risen the past 6 months, indicating continued growth
*The Conference Board Index of Consumer Confidence rose to 107.2 in March - The highest level in nearly four years
*Inflation remains contained. The core Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose just 0.1% in February. Core CPI has increased a moderate 2.1% over the past 12 months, indicating core inflation remains contained
*Over the past year, Employment has increased in 48 states
In March, the economy Added 211,000 Jobs
The unemployment Rate is at a 4 1/2 Year Low, below 5%, which is considered well at full employment by many--if not most-- economists
America has the most productive workers of any major economy in the world
*Real Disposable Incomes have risen 2.2 % over the past 12 months
*Since January 2001, real after-tax income per person has risen 8.3%.
*Real household net worth is at an all-time high of $52.1 trillion
*The median net worth of American households rose 1.5 % between 2001 and 2004
*Real consumer spending has increased 3.2 % over the past year
*Nominal retail sales are up 6.7 % over the past 12 months
*College graduates face the best job market in five Years
*Manufacturing expansion continues: The Institute for Supply Management (ISM), a private research group, reports manufacturing activity grew for the 34th consecutive month in March, and its reading of 55.2 indicates continued sector expansion
*According to the Federal Reserve, over the past 12 months total industrial production rose 3.3 %, including a 0.7 % increase in February, and manufacturing industrial production rose 4.2 %
*New orders for durable goods surpassed expectations and rose 2.6% in February
*Construction spending is at an all-time high, rising 0.8 % in February to reach a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $1.185 trillion
*Service sector grows: The ISM reports non-manufacturing business activity grew for the 36th consecutive month in March. The ISM's business activity index reading of 60.5 indicates continued sector growth
*Productivity growth continues: During the past four quarters, productivity has increased 2.5 %. Productivity has grown at a 3.4 % annual rate since the business-cycle peak in the first quarter of 2001
In the past five years, the President's tax relief kept $880 Billion in the American people's hands.
Those are the facts.
Have a nice day.
posted by John | 9:37 AM
18 Comments:
Bush's Job Creation Record Worst of Last 40 Years
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday:
Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 211,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the month, job growth was widespread in the service-providing sector.
Bush made the following statement to promote this number:
This morning's economic report shows that America's growing economy added 211,000 jobs in the month of March. The American economy has now added jobs for 31 months in a row, created more than 5.1 million new jobs for American workers. The unemployment rate is now down to 4.7 percent -- that's below the average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
Bush's record of job creation is still the worst of the last 40 years.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the last recession ended in November 2001. That means we have had 54 months of an economic recovery. First, notice how Bush uses May 2003 as the starting point of his comparison? Why is he doing this? Because May 2003 is the lowest point of establishment job creation in his administration. Since the actual trough in November 2001 Bush's economy has created 4,083,000 jobs. At the same point (54 months) all other expansions of the last 40 years had created more jobs.
At 54 months,
The expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs
The expansion starting in November 1970 created 6,240,000 jobs
The expansion starting in March 1975 created 13,565,000 jobs
The expansion starting in November 1982 created 12,366,000 jobs
The expansion starting in March 1991 created 8,718,000 jobs.
Therefore, Bush's economy would have to create 2,157,000 jobs to be second to last on this list.
There is no way that Bush can create enough jobs to increase his rank to 4th on the list. At this point, he will go down as presiding over the weakest records of job creation of the second half to the 20th century.
A few more facts that were left out for you.
President Bush's Saturday radio address dealt with the economy. He played head cheerleader, telling everybody just how wonderful things are going. Of course, he forgot to mention many facts or provide historical comparison so we could judge how well he is doing.
Here's the money quote from the address.
"One politician in Washington said in 2003 that our tax cuts were "ruining our economy and costing us jobs." The truth is that since August 2003, America has added almost 5 million new jobs. Our unemployment rate is now 4.8 percent -- lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels. Consumer confidence is at its highest level in nearly four years. Productivity has grown strongly over the past five years, and our small business sector is thriving."
The truth is that since August 2003, America has added almost 5 million new jobs
Once again, the administration has used 2003 as the starting point for their jobs analysis. Ever wonder why that is? Well, it makes their record look good. The only problem is it's a bad number. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research - the government agency that provides analysis to the Federal Reserve and determines the dates of economic cycles - the recession ended in November2001. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 130,883,000 establishment jobs in November 2001 and 134,789,000 establishment jobs in February 2005, giving this "recovery" total establishment jobs growth of 3,906,000 million - a full 1 million less than Bush's claim.
"Real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001"
Here Bush is making the classic Right Wing Noise Machine argument. He is using a macro number that he thinks describes everybody's circumstances. Anyone with an MBA knows smaller constituent parts make-up these numbers. For example, non-supervisory wages represent the pay of about 80% of Americans. Real wages for "everyday folks" have increased an inflation adjusted 1.86% since Bush took office. Since November 2001 - when the recession officially ended - inflation adjusted non-supervisory wages have decreased .31%. Thanks Mr. President.
Also notice that Bush doesn't mention anything about the effects of the tax cuts on revenue for the Federal government? I wonder why that is.... Let's see. According to the Congressional Budget Office, revenue from individual taxpayers was $994 billion in 2001 and $927 billion in 2005 for a decrease of 6.7%. Shouldn't those have increased according to the Laffer curve?
"More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels."
First, home ownership has increased gradually from 62.9% in the first quarter of 1965 to 69% in the fourth quarter of 2005. In addition, this number usually reaches a "historical peak" during an economic expansion. In other words, this is a good figure but isn't a surprising development. What Bush failed to mention was the record amount of debt Americans are taking on in order to buy their homes. According to the Federal Reserves Flow of Funds report, total mortgage debt outstanding has increased from $4.871 trillion in the first quarter of 2001 to $8.208 trillion in the third quarter of 2005. That's a 68% increase in 4 ¾ years and a compound annual growth rate of 11.61%. Also notice how the word "bubble" didn't enter into his address, nor did he mention that Merrill Lynch and Moody's have both estimated that 50% of this expansion's growth is real estate based. The bottom line is the US' over-reliance on real estate could be a double-edged sword if the market slows (and considering new and existing home inventories have risen steadily for the last year, that's a real possibility).
The bottom line is Bush's cheerleading shows his bias. His friends in business are doing well. The average American has not seen his paycheck rise for 5 years. No wonder he's pissed.
First off, 250,000 jobs per month is considered to be stable and not robust. You do have to love how he decides to use May of 2003 as his starting point.
How exactly does this work?
"Core CPI has increased a moderate 2.1% over the past 12 months, indicating core inflation remains contained"
and
"Real Disposable Incomes have risen 2.2 % over the past 12 months"
hmmmm notice anyhing??
LOL... John, your going to be busy with your infamous line by line rebuttals! BTW, you know that Begala book came out years ago.
I agree with Amy. Anonymous seems so willing to take his stand so long as we don't know anything about who he/she is.
I have said this before, "Where is your blog?" or is your purpose to tear down without the fear of anyone knowing who you are? Sounds cowardly to me.
I have a question to either John or anonymous. What exactly is it that a president can do to promote job growth *other* than reduce taxes (which does promote economic growth) or appoint a banker to head up the Federal Reserve (the folks with a great deal more to say about the economy than the president)?
Obviously keeping federal spending at a minimum is a good factor, but that is not the sole property of a president. Federal spending has grown under both parties for quite some time, and pork-barrel politics is just as alive today as it was in the 1800's. We are just better at it these days. Even at that, I would point out again that without something like a line-item veto and a president willing to actually spend less this year than was spent last year, there is going to be no change there. Reducing the percentage increase over the previous year and calling that a "surplus" is not a satisfactory answer.
In the end, I think that the answer is that the president only has an incidental ability to create jobs in a free market. Reducing the number of restrictions on the taxpayer is a great help, but both parties have an inability to tell the IRS to 'pack up and shove off' in favor of a better tax system.
I have to say this, John. The Dems are honest when they say they want us to pay for more government and are willing to make laws to make it so. I supported the Republican tax reduction, but they have to do much more than give us back a pittance and tell us that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Obviously there is controversy about the points I bring up, and I do not pretend that I am the final arbitur of the perfect system. I do think that this game of saying that this president or that has a profound effect on my personal ability to find gainful employment is a smokescreen. It has a great deal more to do with how much money we can earn and keep, and then spend to the betterment of our own personal situation. THAT is what makes an economy grow or shrink.
Final note...please God save us from MBA's....
Anonymous attacked:
"Bush's Job Creation Record Worst of Last 40 Years
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday:
'Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 211,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the month, job growth was widespread in the service-providing sector.'"
Yes. Excellent.
"Bush made the following statement to promote this number:
'This morning's economic report shows that America's growing economy added 211,000 jobs in the month of March. The American economy has now added jobs for 31 months in a row, created more than 5.1 million new jobs for American workers. The unemployment rate is now down to 4.7 percent -- that's below the average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.'"
Si. Viva Boosh!
"Bush's record of job creation is still the worst of the last 40 years."
HUH?!?
"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the last recession ended in November 2001. That means we have had 54 months of an economic recovery."
Hold on there. "Economic recovery" began two months after 9/11? That's odd, but, if true, one would suppose the only direction from there is up, but it was a rough ride upward from WAY DOWN low with the contemporary crash of the Dow, the implosion of the NASDAQ from 3/11/2000 to 10/9/2002, and the revelation of mega-corporate scandals landing a haymaker to consumer confidence to boot.
"First, notice how Bush uses May 2003 as the starting point of his comparison? Why is he doing this?"
Bcause it's the beginning of a 31-month streak in positive territory after traversing over a year of lost ground?
"Because May 2003 is the lowest point of establishment job creation in his administration."
Right.
"Since the actual trough in November 2001 Bush's economy has created 4,083,000 jobs. At the same point (54 months) all other expansions of the last 40 years had created more jobs."
Whoa. Did they create more jobs in any 31-month straight job-creating period? And if so, you're ignoring the successive economy-killers he faced along with novel macroeconomic phenomena that no president in the last 40 years had to deal with (globalization/outsourcing, critical mass illegal immigration, etc.).
Former-President Clinton was right when he realized in his last year or so in office: "This is a new economy."
(and it took him by surprise, too)
You can't measure progress by the pace of previous expansions (from the starting point of "official" expansion) in the last 40 or so years, especially when the rate of progress in fields diverse and sundry in the private sector blow away what was even imaginable only ten years ago.
Why are you arguing with all other things being equal?
With the exception of the deficit and the fact that the economic cycle is forecasted to--quite naturally--slow down this year or the next (with all "predictions" of economic disaster several years old now, anyway), this is one fine economy.
Why are you knocking it?
Enjoy it and save your harangues for the inevitable slowdown.
"At 54 months, the expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs."
How did it do in the first 31 months?
This is quite a roundabout way to assure everyone that this is a failed--or anemic--expansion, Anonymous, especially when your crowd was refusing to acknowledge that there even was one as recently as the Fall '04 Gloom & Doom Kerry campaign.
It was "The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression!"
Did you, Anonymous, frown at the self-evident LIE and dig up little "facts" and figures comparing the EXPANDING '04 economy with the one of the Great Depression and ask: "Why is Kerry saying this?"
Hell no. You probably assisted in circulating the propaganda and went out of your way to "prove" that the new luxury condo popping up in your backyard was actually-- no, really!-- a Hooverville.
Now the expansion is not fast enough for you, eh?
And why, throughout your whole partisan diatribe disguised as an objective observation do you fixate on the rate of employment growth and no other factors which reflects the excellent standard of living for the average American (compared to the SoL for the average American in the last 40 years)?
And dammit, Jim! Why, in your tortured effort to "prove" that unemployment is an albatross Bush must bear do you ignore what the 4.8%--FOUR-POINT-EIGHT-PERCENT--- unemployment rate means (which doesn't include the many millions of undocumented workers who are gainfully employed)?
I'll tell you why: Because you're just a Bush-hating propagandist, Anonymous.
You're full of ca-ca.
Everything's a "debacle."
Here's where he's going with this, people: He is essentially premising that an administration's fiscal policies are responsible for the peaks and troughs of the macroeconomy they are presiding over.
That may be true for a rigid, socialist one, and certainly for a static, communist one since both are geared for class equity and the overseers have more shackling control over economic movement (and therefore both doomed to stagnation and demise), but that is not true of the nature of a free market, profit-driven capitalist one which is a flexible, bucking bronco that can be reigned but not easily lassoed.
A dynamic economy like ours has a cyclical life of its own that can only be spurred or slowed--but not caused-- by fiscal policy to the degree of how large tax hikes or cuts are enacted in tandem with the raising or lowering of interest rates by the monetary policies at the Fed (a dancing together and with the mutual stepping on toes) that nevertheless are not the *causus causata* of expansive momentum or exhausted depression.
But if you, Anonymous, want to fully--and erroneously-- credit the cardiographic vicissitudes of the American economy with the respective cardiologic expertise of the presidents who preside over the peaks and troughs, your error is only worsened because most often the seeds of acceleration of an expansive upswing or recessive slowdown are caused by previous events presided over by predecessors who themselves had little control over them but nevertheles tried to manage them as they saw fit (more in regard to the political short term than the long one), and all they can do is contribute--by fiscal policy-- to the speed of growth or shrinkage of the inevitabilities of expansion and recession, but certainly, once again, not cause either one.
"The expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs."
How did it do in first 31 months of job creation?
Anyway, that was after a decade of Ike's steady presiding over America's new, post-war role as the supreme super power the led world in technological innovations and manufacturing alike as Europe and Asia were rebuilding and the government offered jobs-a-plenty with the paving of the nation's highways and the military industrial complex.
The robust expansion, however, NATURALLY had to take a breather and recessively slowed down in the last year or two of Ike's second term only to be revitalized by JFK, who ushered in the Austin Power's go-go Sixties with TAX-CUTS.
But that expansion--afer a hiccup--was a continuation of the American post-war expansion spurred by the cuts.
And America--with occassional hiccups and slowdowns-- has not stopped expanding.
"The expansion starting in November 1970 created 6,240,000 jobs."
How did it do in the 31 months of job creation?
Anyway, yes. Nineteeen months into the Nixon Administration which had experienced a level of inflation and unemployment in 1969 that were much worse than any inflation or unemployment rates Bush ever presided over and had much more room for improvement.
"The expansion starting in March 1975 created 13,565,000 jobs."
How did it do in the first 31 months of job creation?
But hey, way to go Nixon-Ford!
Nevertheless, your lefty crowd still saw fit to reject Ford and elect Jimmy Carter instead.
Why? Isn't it the economy, stupid?
Well, maybe that's why lefty propagandists like you felt compelled to tell everyone how bad everything was--as everything is again (and, of course, Ford had to be punished for pardoning Nixon).
Then Carter takes the expansion and turns it into a recession and then whined about an "American malaise."
Oh, boo-hoo, Jimmy. :(
Where's Reagan? :)
Ah, here he is:
"The expansion starting in November 1982 created 12,366,000 jobs."
How did he do in the first 31 months of job creation?
But yes, that's what tax-cuts will do, and a contagious optimism and promotion of the All-American can-do spirit that made us--and our slandered military--all we could be.
But what about the homeless, Anonymous, as your crowd constantly whined about during the Reagan boom? What about AIDS? What about the deficit?
What happened to "The Decade of Greed?"
Surely you don't want Dubya to have to compete with Reagan's "dismal" record, do ya?
And why did your crowd vote for Mondale then, who was likewise bashing an expanding economy?
That's why it doesn't really matter if Bush 43 added the extra 2 million jobs or so in 31 months to match what his predecessors did in 54 to get him off of your "Worst" list. You'd find some other absurd comparison to downgrade it, like "Well, they're hamburger-flipping jobs, so they don't count!" or "Well, the jobs today don't provide for healthcare, so they don't count!" or "There's hiring discrimination against minorities, so they don't count" or some other BULLSHIT.
"The expansion starting in March 1991 created 8,718,000 jobs."
How did it two in the first 31 months of job creation?
But right. The aggressive, Foreign Policy of Reagan-Bush ended nearly a half-century of Cold War with us as the victors and in a global leadership position not seen since the end of WWII, with the Technological Revolution about to boom.
President Bush 41 assured us of all that in the campaign of '92.
But--as Kerry obviously page-lifted-- Clinton characterized the Bush 41 expanding recovery as "The worst economy since the Great Depression."
What a coincidence. YOU are practically doing the same thing here by saying that the sweet recovery under Bush 43 is "therefore the worst in 40 years," with a smug sniff because you think that your spinning and cart-wheeling rationalizations are indisputable.
Anyway, what does Clinton do with the expanding recovery he inherited?
He makes HISTORICALLY HIGH TAX INCREASES that to this day he credits for the expansion that began in March of 1991 (having called them--in typical lefty Orwellian newspeak--an "economic stimulus," saying that they reduced interest rates-- but, surprise, that's a bald-faced, self-serving lie: Interest rates started doing jumping-jacks right after the raise and stayed air-borne for years).
The boom we all remember that arrived late in his second term could have arrived much sooner but for the tax-hikes (among other factors).
He slowed the expansion.
"Therefore, Bush's economy would have to create 2,157,000 jobs to be second to last on this list."
Oh, bravo, Anonymous, Bravo. And he arrives at that stunning conclusion by ignoring the testicle-kicking trauma of 9/11.
And the collapse of the DOW.
And the implosion of the NASDAQ balloon (which had been pumped with so much hot-air that it almost swelled to the size of Clinton's BIG, FAT, HEAD).
And the corporate scandals which pulled the rug out from under an already-rattled consumer confidence (as well as also hitting the economy with a multi-billion price-tag, and causing how many to start collecting unemployment?).
But all those were Bush's fault anyway, right Anonmymous?
Anonymous also insists that Bush's expressed prerogative of using the 31 months of job creation in an expanding economy is "wrong," and -insists instead that the 54 month stretch from 11/01 is the rule, and that therefore Bush is lying and that the good news isn't really good at all (but the worst in 40 years!).
"There is no way that Bush can create enough jobs to increase his rank to 4th on the list."
This is pathetic. How old are you, Anonymous? Does Republicus have to start checking I.D.'s before he wastes his time with such petty, spiteful, and malicious drivel?
Any fair-minded critic--or the most sophomoric of economists, Anonymous--would factor in generational fluctuations like the number of retirees and those entering the work-force--or looking for work-- for the first time, hardly a sum-zero game if the respective populations differ from one another by any significant quantity.
And did you consider the phenomenon of home businesses made possible by the Internet?
Those are hordes of gainfully working people barely begun to be counted among the traditional ranks of the "employed."
And furthermore, how many "unemployed" adults are unemployed by choice?
There's plenty of surplus jobs available.
Just open a newspasper.
Google "job openings" and see what you get.
And have you factored in the multi-million undocumented worker who found work in this country with minimal education and zero ability to speak English?
How about those who are between jobs?
But forget all those. A 4.7% unemployment is nothing to brag about because Bush's predecessors have done better by a million or two workers after likewise presiding over 52 months of an expanding economy!
Now here's what I want you to do, Anonymous: I want you to look at the unemployment rates for the 54 months into recoveries from 1961, 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1991-- the dates you trumpet as the proper gauges to measure Bush's economic record--and rank him then.
And let me tell you something else: I don't give a damn if he's dead last there, because, as Jesse Jackson would put it (but never say it with Bush presiding), a FOUR-POINT-SEVEN PERCENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE is something to celebrate, not denigrate.
"At this point, he will go down as presiding over the weakest records of job creation of the second half to the 20th century."
This is the beginning of the 21st Century, in a post-9/11 situation, Anonymous.
And how com you seem to think that 54 months after each of the five recoveries since 1961 comprise the whole record of job creation in the 20th century to succeed or fail against?
No serious historian will neurotically fixate on your absurd formula to measure success.
Or your implicit claim that the working conditions for the average working American--or even the one looking for work-- were better in 1961, 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1991 than they are today.
What you just did to "rank" Bush can be done in infinite permutations to prove that any president was an utter failure at this or that point of his presidency when comparing statistical minutiae in an arbitrarily-chosen and imperiously-defined segment of time of predecessors and successors.
At 54 months into the first term of one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, half the country had seceded and fighting a civil war with thousands at a time being killed in battles.
And here you are angry that Bush felt the need to remind people-- who have been told by partisans like YOU, ad nauseum, that he lost gazillions of jobs on his watch-- that the unmployment rate is, nevertheless, at FOUR-POINT-SEVEN PERCENT.
Oo, how horrible!
Give him a friggin' break, Anonymous, Jay-zuz.
"A few more facts that were left out for you."
Yes. "The facts."
Anonymous *exuents*
Anonymous returns:
"President Bush's Saturday radio address dealt with the economy. He played head cheerleader, telling everybody just how wonderful things are going."
They are. Stop your whining.
"Of course, he forgot to mention many facts or provide historical comparison so we could judge how well he is doing."
"How well he is doing" with what?
I don't need any "facts" or "historical comparisons" or any president for that matter to tell me how well or bad I--an American citizen--am doing, and as for my fellow citizens--with the exception of unhinged Bush-haters like you who just make a lot of noise-pollution and might just as well be insisting that the marching hordes of working Mexicans who want to stay because the jobs are here are really unemployed Americans demanding jobs-- the rest of the fellow Americans of Republicus are worried about getting too fat but are otherwise happy and, yes, working.
They don't need the president to be their nanny.
YOU, sir, are a liberal.
And they don't need you and your ilk to tell them they should be unhappy because there are "millions and millions" of others not working.
What others?
Why, "The People!"
What "people"?
Why, "The parents of The Children!"
Yeah. Impeach Bush and vote for Hillary!
"Here's the money quote from the address.
'One politician in Washington said in 2003 that our tax cuts were "ruining our economy and costing us jobs." The truth is that since August 2003, America has added almost 5 million new jobs.'
Right.
'Our unemployment rate is now 4.8 percent -- lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.'
Bada-bing.
'Real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001.'
Bada-boom.
'More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels.'
Fantastic. God Bless America.
'Consumer confidence is at its highest level in nearly four years.'
Very good. Nice comeback, kid.
'Productivity has grown strongly over the past five years, and our small business sector is thriving.'
Indeed. Those Asian and Indian- Americans kick ass.
'The truth is that since August 2003, America has added almost 5 million new jobs.'
I heard it the first time you quoted it. Pay attention. But anyway, yay!
"Once again, the administration has used 2003 as the starting point for their jobs analysis. Ever wonder why that is?"
We went over this. You already asked this question. Because it's the beginning of entering positive territory and a 31-month streak after traversing over a year of lost ground.
"Well, it makes their record look good."
Well, why do you imperiously use the November '01 date?
Because the NBER authorized you to?
No, because you can use it to make Bush look bad.
I reject, throw down, and stomp on your rationalizations that employment gains should be gauged by the "official" beginning of the recovery of 11/01, because, again, unless you're an imbecile, you know that our country underwent successive, economic traumas starting with 9/11/01 and including the NASDAQ crash of 3/11/2000 to 10/9/2002.
"The only problem is it's a bad number."
Sez you. It's when employment gains crawled out of the hole and hit positive territory and kept growing for 31 months straight.
"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research - the government agency that provides analysis to the Federal Reserve and determines the dates of economic cycles - the recession ended in November 2001."
Can you repeat that for the umpteenth time, please? Yo no lei' Inglez.
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 130,883,000 establishment jobs in November 2001 and 134,789,000 establishment jobs in February 2005, giving this "recovery" total establishment jobs growth of 3,906,000 million - a full 1 million less than Bush's claim."
You put this recovery in quotations, Anonymous, as in "so-called recovery"-- as Bush "claimed"-- because he didn't include the first 23 months from the official date of the recovery, even though he explicitly stated that the measurement was the 31-month streak from 5/03??
You refuse to give the economy any credit for starting late in job growth--at a 23 month disadvantage--and only coming up short by a couple million in the 54th month, under the circumstances?
Listen carefully, Anonymous: NOTHING Bush can do will meet your approval. NOTHING. If he matched the previous 54 month marks, or even surpassed them, you would find something else to attack.
You proved that with this insane nitpicking.
The unemployment rate is at 4.7%, Anonymous, and by using the word "claim" your implying that he's lying about establishment job growth. He explicitly said since May 2003, and that was the beginning of the 31 month streak.
What's your problem?
Bush kicked ass in leading this country out of the abyss of fear and despair.
I think you know that, all of you, somewhere inside, but it's hard to stomach because you hate the man.
"'Real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001.'
Here Bush is making the classic Right Wing Noise Machine argument."
Oh really, Anonymous? Enlighten us.
"He is using a macro number that he thinks describes everybody's circumstances."
But you just used a macronumber (54 months) that you think describes every economic expansion's circumstances!
"Anyone with an MBA knows smaller constituent parts make-up these numbers. For example, non-supervisory wages represent the pay of about 80% of Americans. Real wages for 'everyday folks' have increased an inflation adjusted 1.86% since Bush took office. Since November 2001 - when the recession officially ended - inflation adjusted non-supervisory wages have decreased .31%. Thanks Mr. President."
What kind of nonsense is that?
So the president said that real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. Then you refer to the 1.86% wage increases of "everyday folk" and the .31% decrease in non-supervisory wages since 11/01, once again disregarding a whole bunch of stuff like the effects of 9/11, the crash of the Dow and NASDAQ, the mega-corporate scandals and collapse, because "smaller constituent parts make-up these numbers" to "explain" why Bush was engaging in the "classic Right Wing Noise Machine argument" WHEN HE WAS SIMPLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE SUBTRACTED TAX CUTS WHICH KEPT $880 BILLION DOLLARS in the pockets of the American people.
There's the 8%/person, Anonymous.
What's "noisy" about that?
You're the one who just engaged in spinning, contorting, and distracting BULLSHIT.
That's what you guys do. You have to create all sorts of complex and contradictory theories to explain why things can't possibly be as good, or even acceptable, as they appear.
It's too good to be true. Someone's lying. The grassy knoll. Diebold did it...
Bush said nothing about wage fluctuations in either direction from any working class.
That's none of his business.
Well I'll be darned. That one sounded a lot like Lee Harvey pretending he's not Lee Harvey!
And what was he doing there, throwing around incrementals and infinitesimals that were irrelevant to what the president said, anyway?
Typical, left-wing blathering NOISE.
"Also notice that Bush doesn't mention anything about the effects of the tax cuts on revenue for the Federal government?"
Did YOU notice, Anonymous, that you didn't mention anything about the effects of the tax cuts on income--which is precisely what Bush was mentioning-- when you blathered about wage fluctuations?
"I wonder why that is.... Let's see."
Oh gawd. How annoying is that liberal, patronizing tone?
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, revenue from individual taxpayers was $994 billion in 2001 and $927 billion in 2005 for a decrease of 6.7%.
Shouldn't those have increased according to the Laffer curve?"
You're such a weasel. You did the same thing with the employment stats, ignoring 9/11 and other stuff in between.
Federal Revenue--like employment--has been steadily increasing from a later starting date (like 2004 , perhaps 2003).
The Laffer Curve model stands confirmed.
"'More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels.'"
Fabulous.
"First, home ownership has increased gradually from 62.9% in the first quarter of 1965 to 69% in the fourth quarter of 2005. In addition, this number usually reaches a 'historical peak' during an economic expansion. In other words, this is a good figure but isn't a surprising development."
It is very surprising under the economic circumstances you imply, Anonymous.
"What Bush failed to mention was the record amount of debt Americans are taking on in order to buy their homes. According to the Federal Reserves Flow of Funds report, total mortgage debt outstanding has increased from $4.871 trillion in the first quarter of 2001 to $8.208 trillion in the third quarter of 2005. That's a 68% increase in 4 ¾ years and a compound annual growth rate of 11.61%."
So what you're saying is that with record homeownership comes record mortgage holdings.
Is that supposed to be surprising?
You're missing the problem.
"Also notice how the word 'bubble' didn't enter into his address, nor did he mention that Merrill Lynch and Moody's have both estimated that 50% of this expansion's growth is real estate based."
So what. Bricks, mortar, and land deeds are the soundest investments.
I mean, would you prefer the dot.com stocks of late 1990's which accounted for the stupendiferous peak of the "Clinton Economy" you probably hail as superior?
Furthermore, if "experts" like you were listened to, the real estate "bubble" would have popped long ago.
It's not an industry encompassing "bubble." There are bubbles here and there.
The market's going to exhaust itself--naturally--and there will be an adjustment.
What you fail to mention is the record-amount of foreclosures, and what would be interesting to know is if the ratio of buying:foreclosing has been relatively, reasonably, constant or if in fact the foreclosing variable has increased, and to what extent, as the danger is the loosening of lending practices which allowed pople who couldn't afford a particular home to find themselves owning it and paying a mortgage they couldn't afford by the earlier lending standards.
A lot of that was enabled by the lower interest rates, but a lot of the mortgages are ARMs, which means that an uptick of a whole point or two in interest could indeed cause a loud popping sound and a cascade of foreclosures.
But the point here, Anonymous, is that a record amount of people do own their own homes, and making ther payments, and building equity, and having bricks and mortar and property as the backbone of the economy is as good as anything else you could speculate on (which is everything).
Life is good in America. There's nothing "sham" about it, as you are suggesting--if not insisting.
"The bottom line is the US' over-reliance on real estate could be a double-edged sword if the market slows (and considering new and existing home inventories have risen steadily for the last year, that's a real possibility)."
Don't get too excited there, Anonymous.
"The bottom line is Bush's cheerleading shows his bias."
The bottom line is you show your own.
"His friends in business are doing well. The average American has not seen his paycheck rise for 5 years. No wonder he's pissed."
I daresay it is Lee Harvey, speaking on behalf of the "average American!"
Or maybe not, as Lefty's tend to think and argue alike.
But what do Bush-haters plan to do on behalf of the "average American," "Anonymous?"
Force their employers to provide health insurance? Raise the minimum wage? Give them affordable public housing?
Anonymous *exuents*
Anonymous forgets his jacket and comes back:
"First off, 250,000 jobs per month is considered to be stable and not robust."
Right. Just like record homeownership is good, but "not surprising."
"In other words, this is a good figure but isn't a surprising development..."
LOL
Oh, you predicted record homewnership AND "stable employment" rates, did you, Anonymous?
What, was that between your predictions of catastrophic collapses of the real estate market and your applauding of Kerry calling the jobs record "The worst since the Great Depression?"
"You do have to love how he decides to use May of 2003 as his starting point."
It was the beginning of the 31 month streak.
Why does that stick in your craw so much?
"How exactly does this work?
'Core CPI has increased a moderate 2.1% over the past 12 months, indicating core inflation remains contained'
and
'Real Disposable Incomes have risen 2.2 % over the past 12 months'
hmmmm notice anyhing??"
Ummmm...hmmmmmm...Maybe the correlation with inflation and the rise in real disposable income, professor?
Is that a bad thing?
I wish Jimmy Carter knew how to do that.
The liberal samurai said:
"LOL... John, your going to be busy with your infamous line by line rebuttals!"
I don't think that's very funny, LS.
"BTW, you know that Begala book came out years ago."
I know. So? Is he going to apologize, or embark on nonsensical rationalizations why an excellent recovery is, at best, a "good" one but "not surprising" (*sniff*) and really no big deal and is bound to slow down and maybe go pop and crash someday, so there.
And Bush still sucks!
Jess said:
"There has been a significant job increase here in NY, but they're in the wrong areas."
Hi Jess. :) Well, Hillary never promised you a rose garden.
No, wait, yes she did.
"Albany, and NYC. F***load of good that does me here in Wapp Falls, 2 hours from either."
It'll reach you.
But is moving out of question?
Amy said:
"It's interesting to note how someone with so many "facts" could remain seemingly 'anonymous' on a blog. If you're so proud of what you're commenting, then why not stand behind it with a name and/or face? (Sorry, that's just something that's always annoyed me about political blogs. The 'anonymous' commenter with allll the answers. C'mon, John Kerry, fess up!)"
Doe. John Doe. ;)
"As for Begala ... it IS still the economy, and Jess makes a very valid point: much of our nation's job growth is in sparse areas, not spread wide across the country. Places like the rust belt and in former automotive strongholds are still suffering immensely with sinking economies."
It's ALWAYS like that, Amy, especially in big countries.
The rust belt needs another Iacocca. There's one around somewhere.
Kelly said:
"I agree with Amy. Anonymous seems so willing to take his stand so long as we don't know anything about who he/she is."
Well, I respect someone's desire to maintain their privacy--unless it's Lee Harvey pretending to be someone else.
That's just being sneaky at this point of our relationship.
"I have said this before, 'Where is your blog?'"
Kelly, are you discriminating against homeless trolls I mean blogless bloggers?
"...or is your purpose to tear down without the fear of anyone knowing who you are? Sounds cowardly to me."
Yes. I am JOHN. Here me roar. ;)
Ah, Phelonius!
Phelonius said:
"I have a question to either John or anonymous. What exactly is it that a president can do to promote job growth *other* than reduce taxes (which does promote economic growth) or appoint a banker to head up the Federal Reserve (the folks with a great deal more to say about the economy than the president)?"
I hear that, Phelonius, and I responded thusly in the comment above:
"Here's where he's going with this, people: He is essentially premising that an administration's fiscal policies are responsible for the peaks and troughs of the macroeconomy they are presiding over.
[...]
A dynamic economy like ours has a cyclical life of its own that can only be spurred or slowed--but not caused-- by fiscal policy to the degree of how large tax hikes or cuts are enacted in tandem with the raising or lowering of interest rates by the monetary policies at the Fed (a dancing together and with the mutual stepping on toes) that nevertheless are not the *causus causata* of expansive momentum or exhausted depression."
That's all they can do.
But they can also be inspiring, like Reagan was.
The socialist, however, expects him to do a lot more.
"Obviously keeping federal spending at a minimum is a good factor, but that is not the sole property of a president. Federal spending has grown under both parties for quite some time, and pork-barrel politics is just as alive today as it was in the 1800's. We are just better at it these days. Even at that, I would point out again that without something like a line-item veto and a president willing to actually spend less this year than was spent last year, there is going to be no change there."
Yup.
"Reducing the percentage increase over the previous year and calling that a "surplus" is not a satisfactory answer.
They do that all the time. Clinton's surpluses "as far as the eye can see" were "projected,* with all things remaining equal.
"In the end, I think that the answer is that the president only has an incidental ability to create jobs in a free market. Reducing the number of restrictions on the taxpayer is a great help, but both parties have an inability to tell the IRS to 'pack up and shove off' in favor of a better tax system."
Yup.
"I have to say this, John. The Dems are honest when they say they want us to pay for more government and are willing to make laws to make it so."
Oh yeah. The next Democratic President is going to hike taxes big time.
"I supported the Republican tax reduction, but they have to do much more than give us back a pittance and tell us that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread."
Yeah but it was $880 billion worth of pittances. In the private sector. That finds its way to us somehow.
And it's better than nothing.
"Obviously there is controversy about the points I bring up, and I do not pretend that I am the final arbitur of the perfect system."
I'm in full agreement.
"I do think that this game of saying that this president or that has a profound effect on my personal ability to find gainful employment is a smokescreen."
I think it reeks of socialist--if not communist--government dependency.
"It has a great deal more to do with how much money we can earn and keep, and then spend to the betterment of our own personal situation. THAT is what makes an economy grow or shrink."
Amen.
"Final note...please God save us from MBA's...."
lol They got their first president with Bush!
Anonymous took issue with Bush's information that real after-tax income is up 8%/person since the beginning of 2001, by sneering "Here Bush is making the classic Right Wing Noise Machine argument," and "explained":
"Anyone with an MBA knows smaller constituent parts make-up these numbers. For example, non-supervisory wages represent the pay of about 80% of Americans. Real wages for 'everyday folks' have increased an inflation adjusted 1.86% since Bush took office. Since November 2001 - when the recession officially ended - inflation adjusted non-supervisory wages have decreased .31%. Thanks Mr. President."
I summarized:
"...you refer to the 1.86% wage increases of "everyday folk" and the .31% decrease in non-supervisory wages since 11/01, once again disregarding a whole bunch of stuff like the effects of 9/11, the crash of the Dow and NASDAQ, the mega-corporate scandals and collapse, because "smaller constituent parts make-up these numbers" to "explain" why Bush was engaging in the "classic Right Wing Noise Machine argument" WHEN HE WAS SIMPLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE SUBTRACTED TAX CUTS WHICH KEPT $880 BILLION DOLLARS in the pockets of the American people.
There's the 8%/person, Anonymous."
That's simplifying the arrival of 8% figure. The "smaller constituent parts (that) make-up these numbers" as Anonymous "debunked" include stuff like the cost of consumer goods which have been incrementally lowered by the supply-side tax-cuts.
Corporations are profit-driven entities. They pass to the consumer the costs of production.
And factored into those costs are the tax burdens.
"Tax-cuts for the rich!" imply that the CEO's catch a break on their FIT and then funnel the money into a house in Switzerland.
Maybe so, I don't care, but that angle of demagoguery simply--and shamelessly--tries to instigate class warfare and distracts from the real wisdom of the supply-side tax-cuts: It decreases business'--large and small-- titheing to the fed and loosens up production and puts less pressure on the cost of goods.
Voila: near-zero inflation.
And you don't need an MBA to understand that.
John said, "Yes. I am JOHN. Here me roar. ;) "
You have a point...you are only one step above being anonymous...we can, at least, tell it is the same person each time...as opposed to different people under the moniker of "anonymous".
4.9% when compared with the shear numbers in our population is still pretty big.
It's still pretty impressive. But our economy is not based soley on whether taxes, interest rates or spending rise and fall.
We are not like ants with a unified purpose in mind.
My husband works in an industry that has fluxuations that would make a roller coaster seem tame. He has worked for Bill Gates, he has worked for small insignificant companies and several inbetween. He has seen companies disolved into nothing and left to find another.
We are in a global economy. It has many more influences on it than mere national politics.
He was working for one company writing Playstation games when the company was bought and then that company was bought...by a FRENCH company. It then fell flat on its face and he was left without a job.
Was Bush to blame for that??!?
All in all he has still been successful at finding employment...time after time.
I do believe, however, that a US President can stifle economic growth when heavy taxes are placed upon hard working people.
I also believe that when businesses are left to pay heavy taxes they are stifled in their ability to hire or to pay fair wages.
But taxes are only one piece of the puzzle. We have seen, in very recent years, what happens when corruption and greed come into play.
Corruption and greed can be found among both major political parites.
When business' fail to offer jobs the government is left holding the bag. People then look to the country to fill in the gap.
Reducing taxes does stimulate the economy...but it can only go as far as.
As one Democratic once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your county."
Anonymous, quit complaining about how things are and do something besides rant about the current administration. Go out and be a positive force for change. Go out and make a business. Be part of the economy. Help it grow.
It's people like that who make this economy what it is. It is people with vision and the ability to get up and make things happen who strengthen this economy. Sometimes they fail. Sometimes they don't.
Amen, Kelly. Well said.
Hey Jess, I'm not an expert in human resource management, and when I pass through small, one-horse towns over an hour away from any metropolis (lots of them in central and upstate NY, where you could see tiny, lived-in villages ensconsed in the hills off the interstate), I wonder how the denizens scrape by, but they have, many for over two centuries (even though I've seen some blighted and decaying properties in those communities, I don't recall ever seeing a ghost town).
Or maybe they're just the country homes of wealthy city-dwellers.
I don't know, but the belabored point is that with the Internet, no one is really isolated anymore, and can run business from their own homes to supplement their income (If not actually making it the primary source).
I'm referring to the many Online small business opportunities that are out there and that people swear--and thrive-- by, involving cyber-industries like Ebay, to name but one of countless examples.
I'm sure a lot of scam programs and pyramid schemes are peddled out there, but it seems there are also legitimate, money-making opportunities for the geographically-challenged (as long as they have a PC and aptitude with requisite programs and applications, most of which can be picked-up easily enough, and which you self-evidently possess).
I'm not a financial consultant, either, but it doesn't take one to know that many Americans, who are able to make money easily enough if they're willing to work for it in our excellent system, nevertheless have forgotten the virtue of saving and investing in a consumer-driven economy that encourages spending and that even has the highly-paid professional living large but paycheck-to-paycheck.
Hard-working immigrants are the role-models to follow, as within two generations of hard-work, saving, and investing--while sacrificing many immediate gratifications for years-- have built more wealth than Americans who had the head-starts of being here for many generations and have English as their first language.
The Vietnamese boatpeople were refugees of war.
They started out with nothing when they got here, and with many things against them (e.g. language, ethnicity, etc.), but now their children are engineers for NASA.
You're not stranded on Gilligan's Island but on a world-wide web and already have a leg-up working for Philips Semiconductors in the Hudson Valley Research Park (next door to an IBM facility, no less).
I bet great opportunities to increase your income are right under your nose, PhD's be damned.
Meanwhile, if you and your fiancee are both working and living in $1000/mo. rental, you have another opportunity right there.
Sit down with him and go over your budget and what you spent last month above and beyond the basics of rent, utilities, automotive expenses, and food.
I bet--if you're anything like me--you'll discover that you could have spent half--if not a quarter--of what you did and could have put the rest away.
Then go to the basics and economize them (utilities, automotive expenses, food, clothing, etc.) and you'll discover that with some thriftiness you could have shaved off and put even more away.
If you have credit card debt, take that extra cash and PAY IT OFF as fast as you can.
They're loan sharks who won't break your thumbs but will damage your credit rating if you're late or miss payments, and will bleed you in the meantime.
You gotta build capital if you want to get ahead, and that means getting out of unsecured debt--first thing-- and sacrificing for a term.
That's how the great majority of "rich" people in America started, and they're no different from anyone other than being able to resist the temptations of consumer advertisements when they first started out while their peers immediately whipped out the credit card to keep up with the new fashion or gizmo and kept themselves in a financial hole wearing a snazzy shirt and Ipod that they couldn't really afford to have at that time.
Those who sneer that "The Rich" only got there by inheritance or corruption are making excuses.
Forgive me if I've been presumptuous in all this (for all I know you may be cultivating a stock portfolio), but statistics show that, chances are, you're making a sufficient amount of money to get ahead, but you spend too much and have little--or no--savings.
My wealthiest friend--a Real Estate magnate in NYC--has a 3-bedroom yacht on the Hudson and drove a Hummer, but on the way up he was--for many years-- driving a pick-up truck and getting his hair-cut at the neighborhood barber-shop.
And still, he's not flashy at all but blends in easily enough with those of more modest means, in clothes and manner (he even got rid of the Hummer because it didn't suit the low-profile he was comfortable with).
Meanwhile, the flashiest people I know who like to show everyone how rich and succesful they are owe multi-millions and dance on the brink.
Look at our Congress. They do the same things.
Anonymous worried that ours is a Real Estate-driven economy and that it could be a "double-edged sword." Sure it could, anything could, but Real Estate is capital. It's investment.
The "double-edged sword" of our economy is more the fact that it is a consumer-driven one that encourages immediate gratification and seduces cash away as soon as it is received, which not only keeps savings thin, but can undermine the proper management of Real Estate investments which, instead of being fed and beefed up, are re-financed over-and-over and doubly-mortgaged not for re-investment, but to get something that keeps up with the Jones'.
But on the other hand, no one wants American businesses to fail, because they provide jobs and pay taxes, too, so please, support your local mall during the Christmas I mean X-Mas season--just don't get caught up in what Phelonius hilariously discerned on his blog as the commercial morphing of all the holidays spread out across the year into one constantly-shopping season of "giving" (i.e. spending).
I want to add to Johns comments on credit and savings.
It doesn't take a lot extra to make double credit card payments, but it sure makes that balance go down a LOT faster. The same thing can be said for car payments and any other payments where you carry a balance.
Not having credit card debt FREES you to spend or save your money the way you want. You are not at the mercy of interest rate fluxuations.
The whole idea of living within our means opens up a future that can weather job changes and down-turns in the economy.
Yes. Savings are important, too. There's a reason why they're called "savings"--though your efforts at that can be spited by inflation, in which case it's good to be invested in inflating things, but you have to make and save enough capital to invest first...
Along the way, you wanna play, you pay, and the tax man expects his tithe.
But if you're going to beat the system from the bottom up, you have to also take risks as well as make sacrifices, because the system is designed to keep the ball rolling and keep as many people as possible spending and in debt and indentured servitude.
It keeps The Man fat & happy.:)
I don't mean to sound cynical.
Our "indentured servants" are more comfortable than a great majority of humans on earth.
Our country has the most millionaires in the world, because of that very system.
Many are well-educated, highly-paid professionals (the doctor/lawyer/engineer trifecta), but plenty of others are imaginative, innovative, and resourceful entrepreneurs who know little about DNA, statutes, or calculus.
But all work hard at what they do to make it, and all understand the virtue of thriftiness (which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being a cheapskate).
It's the wealthy man who appreciates bargains and goes over his bills to ensure that he wasn't overcharged and pays attention to percentiles and other increments, which add up.
That's how they got wealthy.
And all of them understand the folly of maximized, unsecured debt, by experience if not calculating foresight.
The Founding Fathers rejected monarchy, and gave us all the potential to be our own kings and queens.
The socialists want to make everyone serfs.
Government programs are designed to assist the underprivileged in getting some footing, or accessing opportunities which are otherwise closed off to them, but no one who relied on or is sustained by the government ever got wealthy (except the Clintons), or appreciated what this country is really about: Independence.
This country has had plenty of role-models of people who became accomplished citizens simply because they refused to be victimized or feel trapped by their circumstances.
Case in point: Helen Keller, born blind, deaf, and dumb, who became an inspiration to the entire world.
I have no sympathy for people (liberals all) who blame racism, or sexism, or the rich for their circumstances.
No one can take the god-like power of ingenuity residing in every human away.
It's not "oppressed" by some tyranny which "owes you," but suppressed by your self.
The responsibilty to re-ignite it is your own.
John said,
"I have no sympathy for people (liberals all) who blame racism, or sexism, or the rich for their circumstances.
No one can take the god-like power of ingenuity residing in every human away.
It's not "oppressed" by some tyranny which "owes you," but suppressed by your self.
The responsibilty to re-ignite it is your own."
I say, "Amen, brother!"
Read "The Total Money Makeover" by Dave Ramsey and then get your finances under control. It's a great book.
Thanks, John.
Post a Comment
<< Home