Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 6, 2004.
zim, haven't you heard our economy has turned the corner. Given the revision of the past two months figures downward, will we see these figures go into negative territory two months from now?
One opinion piece I heard on Fox, stated that the increase cost in fuel prices, which Bush can't control, make them less likely to hire new employees. That they are waiting for fuel prices to stabilize or go back down before the employment numbers can go back down.
First time this year, hopefully the last too.
Don't like fox
Yes I know this article is from before the July job data but is still relevant. Rising fuel prices which is currently out of our control is causing problems accross the board including stifling job growth.
I'm confused. Job growth is down in July but so is unemployment. It went down 0.1% not up, to 5.5%.
I heard this on NPR originally...
Couldn't find a link through them but searched and found this. Sorry for the site I found it on... the numbers are more compelling than the spin of the site.
essentially: Dubyaw's record on jobs is the worst since the depression of the 30's.
The raw data. Read it as you will....
Looks pretty stagnant to me. Once you take into account the growth of the US population we're actually a bit screwed.
That's a pretty old article. The current news is that if the economy doesn't add about a million jobs between now and November (which seems increasingly unlikely), Bush will be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net job loss. But just keep repeating, "we're turning the corner..."
Yeah, right -- from calamity to disaster.
Best I could find. The NPR piece was current but I couldn't find it. The fact that Google is blocked from here really impedes my ability to research effectively.
I really don't want to get into a huge economics debate, but, interesting to me is the theory that the President or even the federal government has absolute control over the economy and job growth. Silly me, I thought it was the citizens at large that controled how much they spend...
no one is saying the fed has "absolute control." but are we expected to believe that running a huge budget deficit and paying massive amounts of interest of the trade deficit has no effect on the economy?
colirio, even if I were to concede your point about the Fed. Government/President having little control over the Economy (which I don't completely, in part for the reasons mentioned by zim), I ask you is it appropriate that the President should be going around taking credit for affecting the Economy?
The obvious irony of that aside, you cannot have it both ways...
abcnews reported tonight that the stock market closed at its lowest level in all of 2004.
also of interest was the clip of bush saying today's report shows the economy is improving.
Of course the economy is improving. Didn't it say that 32,000 new jobs had been created? While it might not have been what was hoped for, it's still an increase rather than a decrease.
Of course it has an effect. However, the only two points that democrats have accused Bush of using to cause this deficit were tax cuts and the War in Iraq. (The War on Terror we had no choice in so it could hardly be blamed upon the President.)
May I remind you that when the President entered into office there was a surplus of 4.6 trillion dollars? (I believe that is the correct figure as I recall.) That means that the government over the next 10 years would take 4.6 trillion dollars MORE than it needed in taxes from the citizens of this nation. That means that after ALL government programs had been paid for, they would have that much in excess.
The War in Iraq has now cost how many billions of dollars? 100 billion? 200 billion? The tax cuts ended up being how much in total? 2 trillion at the most over the next ten years? So, how can you even claim a Bush imposed deficit based upon these figures when it hasn't even exceeded the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus?
You know, this is a point I agree that you make. This is one area where I have been critical of Presidents in the past as well as President Bush. A booming economy should be credited to the people who have contributed to its growth. It is not the effects of one man. And if any single person DOES have power over the economy, it would be the man who is able to raise and lower interest rates.
HOWEVER... The President DOES have power to lower taxes to create a confidence in consumer spending. So, while I agree that the President and Congress hold this power that can have an effect, the vast majority of it really does come down to the people themselves in order for tax cuts or anything else to have a lasting effect on the economy.
Hmmm.... the economy has to create something in the neighborhood of 130,000 to 150,000 jobs just to break even with the amount of new people entering into the work force. So while there is a slight increase in the number of jobs, it does not reflect an economy that is improving.
This isn't your area is it, Colirio? We have gone through a massive shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and the shrinking economy of the recession while spending increases have continued to go up (not just on the war in Iraq - and in a situation in which the GOP controls all the branches of government.) All of this has led to record deficits. Go look it up; don't take my word for it.
Why is it that so many people here have to constantly insult other people? Because somebody doesn;t agree with yout point of view on the issues I guess they are just stupid, huh? Don't you realize that this weakens your argument when you have to resort to small ribs like this? Anyhow, moving on...
You know, I totally agree that job growth isn't necessarily reflective of the economy as jobs have always been the last thing affected in a good or poor economy. However, it is obvious that the economy has been increasing. Yes, it has small declines, but, compared to when Bush first took office, it has increased VERY well especially considering all that has happened. (September 11th, War on Terror, War in Iraq, etc.)
That's not true. His tax cuts came from the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus. A surplus which actually took into account increased government spending.
I agree with you that the spending needs to stop. This is the one area in which I have been very critical of President Bush. He is not appeasing his base at all in this respect.
On a side note, the problem with government that I personally see daily though is that they don't spend their budgets. They take in all these tax dollars and then sit on them. For instance, look how many billions of dollars that are tied up in Homeland Security that aren't being spent and that have no future plans of being spent. (They plan to "reorganize" the agency eventually they said.) That is money that has basically been removed from our economy and not put back into it. Compound that with SEVERAL of the large government agencies and it adds up pretty fast.
I completly agree with this, the Republicans aren't perfect and Bush has spent too much money. Tax and Spend isn't quite as bad as cut and spend. Both needs to be stopped, government needs to work within a budget and quit borrowing from the future to pay for it even if it means cutting wellfare or other things that the National government shouldn't be involved in the first place.
FYI When I see something that I can't defend that you are talking about Bush or the republicans I don't post. Not because I'm hiding from the truth, but because I don't defend the undefensable, and I don't join in the bashing either. There is no point in simply agreeing with what everyone is saying. So when I do agree I don't post. Thus the only time you see me post is when I disagree, normally. Nothing is 100%, maybe I should put that on my signature.
When I post in ALL CAPS that I have a teaching job with benefits THEN we will know the economy is improving. In the meantime, the economy sucks.
Why am I the defining factor? Because my first year of teaching I will be paid at the highest rate a teacher can get in the first year of teaching. Which means the economy will have recovered enough for them to pay a teacher with a Master's degree +30 units.
That is like a garbage man saying the economy isn't improving unless the city starts paying garbage men more money.
The economy isn't just one job or field.
 If everyone said that, it would require everyone to have a pay raise before they can say the economy is improving. If everyone got a pay raise then the cost of goods would raise to compensate and we could end up with run away inflation. That would most deffinitely  not [/edit] be good for our economy.
this surplus was a projected surplus, based on projected budget surpluses. the reality is that we've been running budget deficits. the projected surplus is "gone," what's being projected now are deficits.
you have a decent job, you make $300 more per month than you spend. you figure if you save carefully, in 5 years you'll have enough for the first year of college for your kid.
you're told you're getting a $10,000/yr raise. the first thing you do is raise your 13 y.o. kid's allowance. next you put down $2k on a car and take out a $20,000 5-year loan, then buy $5k worth of clothes, stereo equipment and computers.
you've spent $7k, plus made 5-year promises to pay what will amount to, say, $30,000.
the raise doesn't come through. you've spent money you never had, and now you've got to pay back what you've spent, plus interest. your $300 "extra" a month isn't enough to cover your new expenses.
who's to blame? you, or your boss?
Nope. When you understand how they hire teachers youl understand what I'm saying. They won't hire me until they flush again. That is when the economy has recovered.
You are speaking about things you know nothing about. Is that an insult, too?
Just FYI: Your surplus figure is off by about 4.5 trillion. Clinton left office with a record surplus of $230 billion. That is definitely impressive - the highest surplus in the history of our government - but you should get the number right.
Actual surplus figure here...
I never called you stupid, Colirio. You are just obviously uninformed on this subject. Read SuperChuck's figures (in his link) or any other informed source on the deficit and we can have a discussion. Please, don't be so touchy when you are called on your mistakes.
FWIW, Bush could have formed the Dept of Homeland Security, run the War in Iraq and weathered the post-9/11 economy without running deficits.
If 9/11 never happened, the DoHS was never formed and the Conquest of Iraq never took place, we'd still be running record deficits; that's how poorly planned (?) his tax scheme was.
I hate it when people try to give Bush a pass on the debt/deficit because of 9/11.
some interesting stuff on how job #'s are collected
so if that "less volative" and "more accurate" establishment survey is correct, all those jobs numbers for the past year or two have been incredibly inflated. on top of that, we're to find out that the high cost of benefits (which i'll bet are mostly health insurance) keep firms from hiring in large amounts.
then we have this quote:
1. bush blew the wad on an ineffective recovery
2. the job numbers are nowhere near what was thought
3. bush's poor health insurance policies (9 million lost health insurance since 2001) keep people uninsured and businesses unable to provide it