Bush's economic record so far
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
During the period 2001-2005 (to February) the period of the George W.
Bush Presidency the following has taken place:
- While non-farm payroll is up roughly 400 thousand jobs, private
non-farm payroll employment has fallen 500 thousand jobs. Worse
Manufacturing Employment has lost 2.8 million jobs for a net loss of
2.9 million jobs.
- The Bush Administration is the first US administration since
Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss.
- The Unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001 to 5.4% in
February 2005 and given the way unemployment is actually compiled it is
suspected that the real unemployment rate may be 9% or higher.
- Long term unemployment as defined by people unemployed for more
than 26 weeks has more than doubled since January 2001.
- It was estimated that between tax cuts and economic growth in
February 2003 that upwards of 2 million jobs would be created by now.
The reality was about 300 thousand jobs.
- During the period 1996-2000 real median weekly earnings of
full-time workers averaged a 1.7% increase. Since 2001 it has averaged
.2%.
- From 1950-2000 average US GDP growth was 3.3%. Since 2001 it has
been 2.7%.
- Investment growth is the second lowest in 50 years only
surpassing that under the administration of Gerald Ford.
- Business investment in plant and equipment has grown less than 4%
since 2001 as many businesses have closed and reopened in low cost
Asian countries.
- Consumer confidence despite improving of late still sits 10%
lower than where it was in January 2001 (Conference Board).
- The stock market of course remains well down from its all time
highs the first administration since Richard Nixon to have it happen
and only the second since Herbert Hoover.
- Large projected budget surpluses that were estimated to be in the
area of $397 billion annually by 2004 instead turned into a $412
billion deficit (Congressional Budget Office).
- In February 2001 the Bush administration (Office of Management
and Budget) projected Public Debt would be $1.2 trillion by 2008; the
current projection is $5.7 trillion.
- The Brookings Tax Policy Center has calculated that the tax cuts
for people making one million or more is more than 90 times the cut for
middle income homes.
- Household income has fallen 1.2% the greatest average decline in
household income in any administration in over 40 years.
- Real Median Household Income has fallen $1535 since 2000 (average
$44,853 down to $43,318) (US Department of Commerce).
- The poverty rate in the US has climbed the second highest average
of any administration over the past 45 years (only exceeded by the
administration of George H. W. Bush). (US Department of Commerce).
- 4.3 million more Americans are estimated to live in poverty since
2000 (US Department of Commerce).
- 5.2 million more Americans are without Health Insurance now
totalling over 45 million (US Department of Commerce). Upwards of half
of all bankruptcies are due to a health crisis.
Over the past five years total debt has grown by roughly $6.1 trillion
or about 33%. This is against a backdrop of GDP growth of $1.9 trillion
or 19%. Meanwhile Personal Income grew $1.2 trillion less than 15%
while consumer debt grew $3.2 trillion up 46%. Debt is growing at a
faster rate than income. In 2000 debt to disposable income was 98% and
in 2004 it had increased to 120%.
[...]
Jeff Tuma
Gulag
> Re: It's only bad for the working people.
> The number of billionaires is up by over 100.
And their collective wealth, up by $300 billion.
--
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people
who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
- Mark Twain
Foxtrot
>JT...@DST.com wrote...
>> Re: It's only bad for the working people.
>> The number of billionaires is up by over 100.
Yeah we're still recovering from the Clinton Recession.
But things are looking up now that BJ is long gone and
taxes have been cut.
>And their collective wealth, up by $300 billion.
Their wealth is NOYFB. Why don't you get off your
lazy butt and work hard to build a successful business
of your own, instead of whining about their success?
chris
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:ho8531pblqpqurdil...@4ax.com...
> Gulag <gu...@gulag.invalid> wrote:
>
>>JT...@DST.com wrote...
>>> Re: It's only bad for the working people.
>>> The number of billionaires is up by over 100.
>
> Yeah we're still recovering from the Clinton Recession.
> But things are looking up now that BJ is long gone and
> taxes have been cut.
>
um, yeah.
>>And their collective wealth, up by $300 billion.
>
> Their wealth is NOYFB. Why don't you get off your
> lazy butt and work hard to build a successful business
> of your own, instead of whining about their success?
>
Yeah!! Anyone who doesn't have their own successful business is a lazy,
no-good wastoid!
The Real Diddy Pop
is tied to their stock performance. Bill Gates has a little over a
billion shares of MS, what does that equal...2/3 of his net wealth?
maxw...@my-deja.com
investments are made overseas and they get a tax cut so
they can invest even more overseas. This money that could
create jobs here, grow other jobs and generate tax revenue
to help balance our budget is lost. Unfortunately very few
people in Washington understand this equation.
Michael Jackson - future DNC advisor?
<maxw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1110641891....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> And it does nothing for our job creation and economy when
> investments are made overseas and they get a tax cut so
> they can invest even more overseas.
Nonsense. When I make an investment overseas, reap a huge profit, and then
use my profit to hire someone like you to clean one of my summer homes, and
hire someone like your sister to clean one of my winter homes, and hire
someone like your uncle to service my Rolls Royce and keep it buffed, that
creates jobs here in America and boosts the economy here in America. Plus
it makes you, your sister, and your uncle happy, and provides you with the
means to buy yourself a 5-year old car to replace the 10-year old ones you
had been driving.
And if I get a tax cut IN ADDITION to that huge overseas profit I reap, that
allows me to keep even MORE money in my pocket rather than have Ted Kennedy
and Nancy Pelosi spend it, which means maybe I even hire your mother and dad
to do domestic servent work and yard work for me.
maxw...@my-deja.com
really clarify your sarcasm though otherwise everyone will think
you are a complete moron.
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
was president?
Only a true partisan would think that this label is anything but a
troll.
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
pittance compared to the money they used from those tax cuts to build a
new factory overseas, which undersells an American factory, which puts
more Americans out of work.
But then I think you were just trolling anyway.
Foxtrot
Goodness, you Clinton lovers/Bush haters are stubborn!
This is the third time I've had to post this in a week or so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38826-2004Jan22.html
Economists Say Recession Started in 2000
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
of the recession.
Which would be pretty hard considering that the 4th quarter of 2000
still has positive GDP growth.
Sorry Foxtrot. This still doesn't work. Looks like you are the
stubborn one.
Foxtrot
Suppose your premise that the recession began after
Bush took office, say in April of 2001, is correct. What
could he possibly have done to cause it? His first budget
didn't even begin until October of 2001.
maxw...@my-deja.com
way but instead his policies go in the opposite direction of what
was needed given the state of the economy
when he took office. Greenspan actually had a lot to do with
the fall of the markets and the start of contraction. He
at least tried to reverse the mistake he had made. Bush on
the other hand will never try to change a mistake he made.
He will continue to ride his action into the ground and
doesn't really seem to care who it hurts.
Check out the thread "Greenspan should be fired"
Foxtrot
>There is a lot Bush could have done to turn things back the other
>way but instead his policies go in the opposite direction of what
>was needed given the state of the economy
>when he took office.
Things Bush [could have done to turn things back the
other way]? So you admit that the economy was already
headed for problems when he took office.
>Greenspan actually had a lot to do with
>the fall of the markets and the start of contraction. He
>at least tried to reverse the mistake he had made. Bush on
>the other hand will never try to change a mistake he made.
>He will continue to ride his action into the ground and
>doesn't really seem to care who it hurts.
Nonsense. This Bush, unlike his stupid daddy, believes
in Reaganomics. Cutting taxes spurs business, promotes
growth and prosperity, and means more jobs. We know
that it may take a short while, but will eventually work.
His tax cuts are one reason the economy is improving
now.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Some get sold on the idea that supply side economics is a
cure all. There is a false assumption that cutting taxes
means more investment in THIS system. If the system is ripe
for investment then it will work on the other hand if there
is no shortage of investment capital and the system
simply isn't ripe for investment then the plan will fail,
budget defecits will grow and demand will slow further.
This is why Bush's economists have been wrong as many times
as I have been right.
This situation is different than when Reagan came into office.
Reagan came into office under high inflation rates, and a
weak dollar. Bush came into office when there was
no inflation and the dollar was strong.
There was no wage inflation in 1999 and 2000 when Greenspan
deviated from the federal reserve trust act and raised
rates. Bush is using the same tactics as Reagan and
even mimicking his behavior as if it will work magic.
Supply side economics is not improving our economy. The
last breath of it has been bouyed mostly due to historical
low interest rates.
Bush did not inherit a supply side problem he inherited a
low demand problem. In contrast with the late 70's wage
inflation has been nil and demand weak hince the brief
touch with actual deflation 2 years ago.
Bush is using the wrong solution for the problem.
Banks and creditors have been loaning money for next
to nothing and companies have plenty of cash. We have
seen the housing sector benefit while other sectors
continue to contract. If a company with a fall off in
demand for its products or services gets a tax break that
doesn't make them go out and hire more workers or buy more
equipment. When the DEMAND comes back they will, until then
there is only a maintenance effect. This is
one thing especially if you are in business you should
understand. Part of this problem is health care has
become a drain on money and demand. Bush had a chance
to do something to control it but picked the wrong
solution.
Then also consider that in this day the hot investment
is China and India. Tax breaks going into corporate
expansion into other nations is great for them. They
like Reaganomics and I am sure they like Bush but it
doesn't do much for us here in the US. When you
consider that our wages are not growing and layoffs
continue it is going to be hard to raise tax revenue.
It is important to remember that the
market climate changes with global changes and the same
methods don't always work the same. Instead a system
that addresses the correct balance needs to be tried.
Changes must be considered. When Reagan came into office
our imports of oil were dropping and that helped a lot.
MidEast tensions have increased and oil prices have
doubled under Bush and when you add the secret low
dollar scheme it makes energy even more expensive and
exacerbates the damage to the economy.
Another thing he has done wrong is cut domestic spending which
is going to further drive down demand. Most of the spending
increases are overseas which does nothing to help matters here.
The 911 commission recommended 10 times the border control
agents the the Bush budget hires. It seems to me that if
terrorists can't get to us they can't hurt us. It would also
seem fewer illegals would mean more tax revenue.
This list goes on and on but it seems on nearly everything
Bush has taken the wrong approach.
I really do hate to be a naysayer but I don't see things
getting better until he addresses our trade issues the same
way Europe did with us. If he would at least try to do
something it would be nice but there is all this
wasted time forcing the SS matter when we have so many
other more immediate problems.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Foxtrot
Yes, we need to address the high cost of health care,
but it will require meaningful tort reform, which Dems
vehemently oppose. Trial lawyers give them big $$ so
they can continue the frivolous lawsuits. Dems are more
concerned about lining their pockets than helping the
uninsured get coverage.
>Then also consider that in this day the hot investment
>is China and India. Tax breaks going into corporate
>expansion into other nations is great for them. They
>like Reaganomics and I am sure they like Bush but it
>doesn't do much for us here in the US. When you
>consider that our wages are not growing and layoffs
>continue it is going to be hard to raise tax revenue.
Our wages aren't increasing much because of pressure
from competing nations. What do you suggest we do
about it? Protectionism doesn't work. How about if we
cut the strict requirments placed on employers, such as
mandatory overtime pay, so it costs less to employ
Americans?
>Another thing he has done wrong is cut domestic spending which
>is going to further drive down demand.
Huh? You must be kidding. Bush is a big spender. He
has increased domestic spending immensely (IIRC he
has increased education spending by double digits).
>Most of the spending
>increases are overseas which does nothing to help matters here.
What are you suggesting? Throwing money at the
problem? Makework programs, like FDR implemented?
>The 911 commission recommended 10 times the border control
>agents the the Bush budget hires. It seems to me that if
>terrorists can't get to us they can't hurt us. It would also
>seem fewer illegals would mean more tax revenue.
Yeah, Bush's weak position on illegal immigration is
what pisses me off the most about him. Security is
the primary reason. But as a resident of southern
California, there are other reasons. It costs California
taxpayers up to $10,000 per illegal child per year to
put their kids through public schools, and yet officials
do nothing about it.
>This list goes on and on but it seems on nearly everything
>Bush has taken the wrong approach.
Bush sucks alright, but he's president because he sucks
less than Kerry. I was nauseous and grinding my teeth
when I voted for the little turd.
>I really do hate to be a naysayer but I don't see things
>getting better until he addresses our trade issues the same
>way Europe did with us.
Europe has problems of their own. IIRC their unemployment
is higher than ours.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Getting rid of frivolous lawsuits is a good idea that
Kerry/Edwards agree with, but what is sneaky about Bush
is that he wants a cap on all lawsuits no matter how
meaningful. That won't help the qualitity of health care
and as far as cost to the patients Calif. already tried
this in 1975. Because of the regulation on caps many lawyers
won't take good cases because the risk is too high compared
with the reward. Look up the one in Calif. and see what it
has done.
>
> >Then also consider that in this day the hot investment
> >is China and India. Tax breaks going into corporate
> >expansion into other nations is great for them. They
> >like Reaganomics and I am sure they like Bush but it
> >doesn't do much for us here in the US. When you
> >consider that our wages are not growing and layoffs
> >continue it is going to be hard to raise tax revenue.
>
> Our wages aren't increasing much because of pressure
> from competing nations. What do you suggest we do
> about it? Protectionism doesn't work. How about if we
> cut the strict requirments placed on employers, such as
> mandatory overtime pay, so it costs less to employ
> Americans?
You are right about the reason for falling wages. How
much less tax revenue will it raise? The theory of
Reganomics is that the investment will happen here
thereby increasing jobs and wages and generating revenue.
What we can do about it is what Europe did to us. South
American countries have also called us on violations. We
should call other countries on their violations of our
trade aggreements. Since it doesn't effect Bush's lifestyle
he rolls over and focuses on SS.
What bothers me is your suggestion about worker rights.
This is exactly what Bush would like everyone to think.
Address the symptom and not the cause. <sarcasm on>While
we are at it why don't we go ahead and allow the worker
age to drop to 10. We can also regulate employee lawsuits
and get rid of those stupid OSHA regulations and the EPA
ones too. Global warming is a myth, southern Calif. needs
the rain anyway. </sarcasm on>
The right kind of protectionism can work. If an american
company wants to export a product to Europe they (Europe)
will ask that the factory be built their. When Japan and
Europe build auto plants here it is to sell these to
americans not import them back to their countries by
taking advantage of cheaper labour. We on the other hand
allow american companies to build plants overseas export
their product back and then allow them to close factories
here. This increases pressure on others to do the same.
I have no problem with american companies overseas building
products for those people but it is stupid to allow the
imports back.
The arguments in support of NAFTA apparently were wrong and
yet they are looking at doing the same with CAFTA. It
should be a no brainer in not passing it.
Isn't part of the US goal to spread democracy and american
ideals? Why should we match the lower standards of other
countries? Why don't we instead try to uplift theirs to
improve life for all people? It could be done by grading
their standards and then applying a tariff based on that
grade. It would be changed when they make improvements.
For example Canada wouldn't need a tariff but
India and China would need one based on what we want
changed. We still have a great amount of power and
influence (for now) we could use it to improve everyones
life, not pull ours down.
> >Another thing he has done wrong is cut domestic spending which
> >is going to further drive down demand.
>
> Huh? You must be kidding. Bush is a big spender. He
> has increased domestic spending immensely (IIRC he
> has increased education spending by double digits).
You haven't seen the latest budget. Domestic spending gets
slashed. Before this most of it was the defense spending.
>
> >Most of the spending
> >increases are overseas which does nothing to help matters here.
>
> What are you suggesting? Throwing money at the
> problem? Makework programs, like FDR implemented?
No I am talking about giving the border patrol the ability
to do their job, properly funding the VA, and funding
the education mandates.
>
> >The 911 commission recommended 10 times the border control
> >agents the the Bush budget hires. It seems to me that if
> >terrorists can't get to us they can't hurt us. It would also
> >seem fewer illegals would mean more tax revenue.
>
> Yeah, Bush's weak position on illegal immigration is
> what pisses me off the most about him. Security is
> the primary reason. But as a resident of southern
> California, there are other reasons. It costs California
> taxpayers up to $10,000 per illegal child per year to
> put their kids through public schools, and yet officials
> do nothing about it.
It could be a win win situation if they would just fund