Democrats & Liberals Archives

AP,
It is funny that the right is bashing Kerry over the number of unemployeed due to the fact that they cut millions off the unemployment numbers when they refused to extend the unemployment insurance last year.

Besides, isn’t it Bush that keeps bringing up the argument that Kerry supports big government. I say adding 850,000 new jobs by Bush supports the idea that he wants a bigger government than Kerry.

Yet another example of how Bush is NOT conservative….

How long does it take for a business to decide lay off workers and how long does it take to make the decision to hire new workers, not just replace leaving ones, but also actually expand? Most businesses don’t like fire good workers. When the economy turns down, they wait until they feel compelled to let people go. When business is better, firms first start by trying to shuffle the work. Then they rely on productivity gains. Only after all this, do they begin to hire again.

The economy began to go bad in March 2000 – almost a year before Bush came into office, but it didn’t affect most businesses right away. By the time Bush took the oath of office, business was definitely bad. Hiring was declining, but there were not many net layoffs. A couple months later, employers began to make decisions to let workers go. Then came the 9/11 attacks that caused the job market to free-fall. ALL OF THIS HAPPENED BEFORE ANY BUSH POLICIES HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE EFFECT. Bush tax cuts and pro-business policies began to impact the economy by early-mid 2002. At that time, the economy began to pick up. Firms waited to hire to make sure the recovery was real. By October of last year, they became more confident and started to hire again. If you want to judge Bush on the economy, start in mid 2002, when his policy actually made a difference. Ironically, one reason there are not more jobs is that the economy was doing so well in 2002-3. A fantastic jump in productivity made it less necessary to hire new workers. Productivity is the only way to make people better off, by the way. If Bush is not reelected, you can blame him for 2004-2005/6. Saying that Bush is responsible for the job loss that happening in 2001-2002 is just wrong. Things take time, especially in economy and employment.

That’s a nice story, jack. Here’s another one:

Two thirds of the economy is driven by consumers. The recession we’re struggling out of is a consumer recession - consumers aren’t consuming.

Now, if nobody is buying goods from Mr. X’s factory, he has to cut production.

President Bush, saying he’s going to stimulate the economy, gives a disproportionately large tax cut to the ultra-wealthy who invest it. This creates a whole lot of capital.

The problem is, we don’t need more capital - we need more consumption.

Poor Mr. X’s factory is running along at half capacity and he’s laid off a lot of employees because no one is buying his product.

But all of a sudden, Mr. X has access to a boat load of capital. Does he build another factory and hire more workers? No, of course not. That would be stupid. He can’t sell the goods he has, why would he make more?

BUT, not wanting to let this capital opportunity go to waste, Mr. X decides it’s time to invest in some technology and processes that increase productivity.

Viola! Mr. X’s factory can operate at the same half-capacity, but with even fewer employees.

Congratulations, President Bush. Your tax cuts are responsible for massive job loss and slow economic recovery.

The End.

Saying that Bush is responsible for the job loss that happening in 2001-2002 is just wrong. Things take time, especially in economy and employment.

I agree that there’s a delay, but even accounting for that, Bush’s record is pretty weak. Job growth was weak or negative his first three years. In 2004 it’s been positive, but still fairly weak, compared to the average over the last ten years. Percent change in jobs over the last 12 months is less than at anypoint between 1994 and 2000.

How long a delay can we allow? If it’s longer than four years, then how can we ever evaluate a president on his record?

Skip the spin, and look at the numbers yourself.
Go here and poke around, it’s easy to throw up some graphs. I recommend “more formatting options”, then pick graphs for 3 or 12 month change.

Jack,
Do you remember the warehouses full of Intel chips that was obsolete or the fact that our businesses had equipment that was obsolete when it was sold to them?

The factor that mostly influenced the market in March of 2000 was the fact that our technology outpaced our ability to keep up with the daily changes.

An other major factor was that the money was in the system not seating on the sideline like it is doing today.

AP

You hit it right on the head. Our economy has always cycled up and down and this time the president did all the wrong things to bring it back up. Quite frankly, I felt the downturn in 2000 was caused more by the Fed’s overeaction to inflationary forces (caused by rising gas prices) and subsequent raising of interest rates than anything else. I love to argue the whole concept of the Fed with an Economics instructor friend of mine, but that’s for another thread… Oh, by the way, why don’t we hear more SQAWKING about the outrageous gas prices? If the current economic picture was in place under a dem, the repubs would be going ballistic!

Gene,

Could it be that the raise in oil prices are due to Hurricanes in the Gulf and a Russian oil company that is having some serious problems, things that the president, congress, no one can do anything about other than what we’ve done, release some of the oil reservers and get assurances from Saudia Arabia to help with oil production outputs.

Next you’ll want to blame Bush for the hurricanes in Florida and the gulf because he didn’t sign Kyoto, right?

Actually, according to my co-worker, the hurricanes in Florida, Mt. St. Helens, and the war in Iraq are all because of the coming Apocalypse.

Oh wait, voter intelligence was being discussed in the Ind. column, not this one.

Rhinehold,
Greenspan spoke at a luncheon today that was aired on CNBC today that addresses your question on oil.

There are a number of fundamental errors in several of the posts here. The most blatant was saying that the past recession was a consumptions driven recession. This ignores the fact that consumer confidence has remained historically high throughout the recession. The real story was the rapid loss of investment capital following the dot com bust. After the stock market fell, and many capital investment firms took it hard from foolish dot com companies much of the money left the market. The real story was the lack of investors in the market. That is why Bush’s tax cut made since. It was designed to spur the investment capital that disappeared after the dot coms. Even the fed agrees with that.

-D

Gene:

If the current economic picture was in place under a dem, the repubs would be going ballistic!

18 more days until Bush’s legacy stands side by site with Herbert Hoover.

We could debate the causes of the downturn forever. Historians and economists still argue about the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The bottom line is that the downturn began BEFORE Bush took office. Most of the job losses took place BEFORE any of his policies could take effect. So the accusations about job loss are NOT on target. In addition, we had the attacks of September 11 and the resulting security measures, which were a fantastic drag on the economy.

Any president’s ability to affect the economy in the short term is not great. His ability to affect it before he takes office or before his policies are enacted is zero. The job picture is more complicated because it reacts slower to economic turns. People keep their jobs for a while when the economy declines and they are not rehired for a while after the economy recovers. Economists argue about how long this takes and it is different for each recession and recovery, but no matter what we say, the Bush policies could not have caused the job loss because the losses began before the effects of the policies could have begun to be felt. You can’t harvest a crop before you plant the seed.

The data on jobs for the past 5-8 years is fundamentally flawed.
The baseline does not adjust for the “dot.com” bubble that accounted for nearly 30% of the workforce for a time, based within an industry that grew too fast, too soon.
The marketplace correction was so massive that it will take nearly a decade to get more accurate baselines.
The entire arguement of this many hundred thousand jobs gained, or these many hundred thousand jobs lost is moot.
The economic agencies that gather and coallate the monthly and quarterly economic data do so, because that’s all they do. Because they must, to continue to have a data flow to form a baseline.
IF however, you do more accurate adjustments to the data, accounting for the “dot.com” bubble, along with the secondary and terciary jobs in support roles to the “dot.com” bubble… the job numbers are incredibly good in the face of the 09/11/2001 attacks and subsequent war on terror.
Incredibly good.
If you take the time, (or have your marketing or accounting firm do it for you), to research the data and do the math; these results are ridiculously obvious.

This ignores the fact that consumer confidence has remained historically high throughout the recession.

Ha! Delzario, this is from February 2003 (jack),

The confidence of U.S. consumers, whose spending fuels more than two-thirds of the nation’s economy, crumbled to the lowest level in more than nine years in February

I can’t believe anyone is still peddling that supply-side crap. How many times does it have to fail before it finally dies?

You supply-siders remind me of this Canadian Communist I used to know. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s embracing of capitalism, the guy kept insisting that Communism was viable, it just never got a fair chance to work.

I swear, we’re never going to get back to the Golden Age of Clinton until someone drags the Republicans out of their their wacky fiscal fantasy world.

William, thanks for the link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I checked the “include graphs” box. Then, just for fun, I generated a quick graph for 2001-2004. Then I generated 1992-2004 to get some perspective. HOLY CRAP!! Bush’s job record is uglier than I thought.

Hey Rhinehold, are you asking me a question and answering it for me too? Its just so easy for repub’s to snipe at Dem’s when things are lousy but when its under a republican watch, all of a sudden its “very complicated” and there all these other factors beyond our admin’s control. If the dem’s would use this line, the repubs would retort with name calling — “slick willie”. I simply pointed that out that if this economy was under a dem, the republican’s would be squawking.

As for gas prices, what do the hurricanes have to do with it? What percentage of effect have they had? Same question for the Russian scenario. My economics professor friend claims that a great portion of it is the low value of the dollar. I think its the Saudi’s and the Bushes collaborating … (at least I didn’t say he caused the hurricanes).

Walker, not sure what your post had to do with my post… Tax and spend under repubs should be “spend now and tax later under democratic admin”.

Sorry, but I’ve got another question…ignore it if it’s out of line with the thread. Why after 9/11 when the Airline industry was grounded and not burning the gazillions of gallons of fuel, didn’t gas prices fall? Surely there must have been a huge surplus…?

AP,
Read this site and tell me what you think.
http://www.rense.com/general58/demand.htm

Although I can’t post it in a colum for an answer from the right, I would love to hear their comments on the subject.

PS found the web site on The American Street Blog

I don’t know, Henry. I googled Patmos Nanotechnologies and nothing came up. I suspect this is just one of those internet things.

The questions he asks cover just about all the Bush/oil co. rumors. It would be interesting to see some real answers, but I suspect most of these are in the realm of murky conspiracy theories.

If the guy did actually email it to the White House, I guarantee he got the following response,

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

Thank you for your message. We appreciate your views and welcome your suggestions.

President Bush is dedicated to pursuing policies and programs that make America safer and more prosperous for all citizens. We hope you will visit the White House website at ww.whitehouse.gov for more information on these issues. Thank you for writing. Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Heidi Marquez
Special Assistant to the President
and Director of Presidential Correspondence

AP,
Thanks, Although I have heard bits and pieces the information stated in that letter, last night I didn,t have time to research the source. So I figured instead of losing it, I’d post it for you to evaluate. However, I do believe it lays out a good argument for a clear investigation into the dealings.

Bush’s tax cuts eased the recession he inherited as well as the aftermath of 9/11. Without those tax cuts, the recession would have lasted longer and been much worse.

Lawrence Kudlow had a terrific article in the Wall Street Journal this week. He points out that, since the Bush tax cuts, economic growth has been at 4.8%, higher than any time in the past 20 years. Our unemployment rate is at 5.4%. Compare those numbers to Europe: unemployment between 9 and 10 percent and GDP growth of less than 2%.

Here is a link to a Heritage Foundation research report which refutes or explains many of the comments made so far in this thread.

Troy,
Where is the data that shows gas went up by 90% over the last four years. Hourly wages for the bottom 20% of the population do not pay benifits and have not kept up with the cost of living. Where is the fact that most Americans are single and thus have the same basic expenses as a family. The list goes on and on when you look at the economy as a whole not as an individual stat.

Over the last four years how much has your income grew, all taxes risen, and cost of basic necessitities gone up? For that is the number that all Americans have to live with and thus show the real condition of our economy.

Henry,

What do your comments have to do with the Bush tax cuts? Inflation is another issue entirely. Today,inflation is much better than at many times in the past. We have had nowhere near the double digit inflation we had under Carter.

Are you blaming Bush for the rising oil (gas) prices? The single biggest factor in the oil price rise is the rapidly increasing demand for oil in China. How is that Bush’s fault?

I don’t know about you, but my expenses were much lower when I was single. I think that would be true with just about anyone. At the same time, I can afford more now because my household has two incomes. Marriage has been found to reduce child poverty.

You can’t think of the bottom 20% of income earners as a fixed group. The people in that position thirty years ago are, generally, not the same ones in that position now. People acquire skills and work their way of of the bottom 20%. New, younger workers typically take their places. Also, while low-paying jobs may not have benefits, most of the people in minimum wage jobs live in households with incomes far above the poverty level. Other household members are, most likely, getting benefits.

Troy,
Although your spin is good on the issue of the overall economy, you need to take a walk through any major city USA and find out how many people have been living in the lower population for generations. Look at Mississippi as a real good example of this.

Henry,

You can thank the war on poverty for the problems you cited. You get what you pay for; if you pay people not to work, they won’t. If you pay people to have children out of wedlock to get higher benefits, they will.

Is that your solution to solving the problem?

Not at all. I think that government should ensure we all have opportunities, not redistribute wealth.

Bush’s tax cuts eased the recession he inherited as well as the aftermath of 9/11. Without those tax cuts, the recession would have lasted longer and been much worse.

Troy, that’s true for the middle-class tax cuts: the child tax credit, the extension of the 10% bracket, and the “marriage penalty” relief.

Had President Bush focused his tax cuts on the consumers who generate 2/3s of the economy, the recession would have been even shorter and shallower.

Instead, 3/4s of the Bush tax cuts went to the ultra-wealthy and had little or no effect on the economy. As I stated earlier, the recession was a consumer recession, not a capital recession.

The right-wing Heritage foundation article errenously assumes it was a capital recession and is left wondering why our economy and job situation isn’t stronger.

The Kudlow (who is a Republican) article is a bunch of cherry-picked, “snap-shot” stats without any explanation or context.

Instead of tax-cuts-for-the-rich that had no effect on growing the economy, President Bush could have taken actions that would have made the recession shorter and shallower. Greenspan just said so.

Troy,
Discribe what you and Hannity mean by redistributing wealth please.

AP,

How about the opinion of Edward C. Prescott, the most recent American winner of the Nobel prize in economics? I bet that if he had criticized Bush tax cuts, it would have been fron page news; instead, he said the cuts were a good thing. In fact, he felt that the tax cuts should have been bigger. His opinion was relegated to the back pages since it didn’t bash Bush.

As for your other links: one is a CNN article from nearly two years ago; the other is from a very liberal think tank.

Kudlow is well respected regardless of his political affiliation. If he used snap shots, then his camera was busy because he certainly had a lot of them! Didn’t he? You can’t just ignore the facts: the economy is in pretty good shape. Don’t allow your political biases cloud your view.

Henry,

I don’t know what the phony, butt-kissing Hannity means by redistributing wealth, but I mean taking money from one citizen and giving it to another.

Troy,
Our current tax code is based on individual wealth instead of corporate wealth as it was in early & mid 20th century. This progam has shifted many of the problems and programs that was taken on by the individual corporations to lower their taxes to the individual citizen. Thus now, we face a major problem due to the divide that has occurred over the last 24 years.

By our government and corporations turning a blind eye to illegal aliens and the growing, not shinking, unskilled labor market along with other clear economic disadvantages to those making below what the market standard has put this country’s economy at risk of another stock market crash like in 1929.

Why a hugh crash in the market? Look at how many people are over extended on their credit. Look at how prices are climbing on ever front. Look at your own tax burden. While your federal tax may have gone down, your state and local taxes have risen to offset the lost federal funds. All of these issues and others have left the majority of consumers short on “Spendable Cash” which is the true mark on how well the economy is doing and its ability to expand. How much month did you have after the money ran out in 2000 compared to today?

Without “We the People” directly intervening on this growing economic canyon, our economy will remain flat. What I have pushed for over the last four years is to use the tax code to promote the raising of wages so the people have an acceptable level of “Spendable Cash.” Due to our government and special interest groups interferance into the tax code our country has and is losing our ability to allow to raise the standard of living for all Americans. Until we can close this gap of the money who has to pay 40+% tax rate and those who’s income does not cover the cost of living and thus pay no taxes, the upper tax burden will steadly increase due to our country’s constitutional duty to make commerce equal and fair.

Henry,

You raise some interesting points. I would like to see some sort of flat tax, but I doubt that will happen. Too many people accountants, tax attorneys, support staff, etc. will lose their jobs with a flat tax.

AP,

I guess that you think that Kerry’s economic plan is good. Well, 368 of the country’s leading economists think otherwise.

Troy,
Thanks thats why it depends on how you ask a question and why it is important to look at the micro, macro, and reality of each issue.

For example, you posted an article of how 368 economist thinks Kerry’s plan is wrong based on their point of view of how the economy works. However, are they looking at it from a consumer point of view; a stockholders point of view; or a business profit point of view?

The real interesting argument/question I would like them to answer is what plan would allow everyone to make money. When 368+ economist can answer that question than we can start talking and comparing Apples to Apples, not Apples to Oranges.

, he said the cuts were a good thing. In fact, he felt that the tax cuts should have been bigger.

Haha! Troy, That’s exactly what me & Kerry are saying!

The 1/4 of Bush’s tax cuts that consisted of the child tax credit, the expanded 10% bracket, and the “marriage penalty” relief was good for the economy.

The 0ther 3/4 - the tax cuts for the rich - were superfluous and didn’t contribute anything.

We should have had more and bigger tax cuts targeted at the middle class consumers who drive 2/3 of the economy. Kerry’s tax plan does that.

AP,

You now think that Bush was on the right track, but that he just didn’t go far enough. Am I reading you correctly?

Not quite. Bush only targeted about 25% of his tax cuts on the consumers who drive the economy. He should have targeted more on them.

This would have put substantially more money immediately in the hands of consumers (rather than having to wait for it to “trickle down”, if it ever does), and kickstarted the economy.

When demand goes up, production goes up. It’s that simple.

If Bush was trying to jumpstart the economy, he focused his tax cuts on the wrong people.