Republicans can you explain this for me?

[anatta]

Job Loss or Gain
by President and Party

Roosevelt 5.3
Johnson 3.8
Carter 3.1
Truman 2.5
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3

Nixon 2.2
Reagan 2.1
Coolidge 1.1
Ford 1.1
Eisenhower 0.9
G. Bush 0.6
G.W. Bush -0.7
Hoover -9.0

note: numbers are percentages
source: US Dept Labor Report

Also if you could, the deficit growth under Carter was actually falling in his last two years in office, and he has a supply shock that devistated the economy to deal with. Under Reagan, it ballooned. Bush I did nothing to reverse this trend. Clinton of course presided over supluses for the last few years. Bush Jr., well...

Well??

[cardcounter0]

According to the Cult Of Bush: Those jobs being outsourced and the resulting job loss is actually good for the economy.

Also from the Cult: The deficit is not that bad.

Now, go back to worrying about the terrorists please.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Also if you could, the deficit growth under Carter was actually falling in his last two years in office

[/ QUOTE ]

This on is easy to explain. You have your facts wrongs.

Here why.

Carter was in office from 1977-1981. Heres the source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.html) for that fact.

Here is CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2) budget data. We won't consider 1981 since Carter was in office for only a few days that year.

The 1977 deficit as a precentage of GDP was -2.7
The 1978 deficit as a precentage of GDP was -2.7
The 1979 deficit as a precentage of GDP was -1.6
The 1980 deficit as a precentage of GDP was -2.7

From 1979 to 1980 budget deficit was trending back up and not down as you try to suggest.

As far as an explanation on jobs. Read This (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2003/200311062/default.htm)

Stu

[jokerswild]

I bet that you worked for the pentagon's accounting team. Please tell us how you justifying spending 500.00 per toilet seat.

I hope that you run your business the same way that you advocate running the government. You will be bankrupt and have to quit posting ridiculous chicken hawk propaganda.

[adios]

It's simple, the recession Bush inherited that started in the previous administration is the main culprit. Give GWB another 4 years and his numbers will be good to.

Given only a choice between cutting entitlements to lower the deficit or keeping entitlements and keeping the deficit at the current level which would you do? The Democrats don't care about cutting the budget deficit especially if it means alienating some of their core constituencies. I've posted before an analysis by the Washington Post and the National Taxpayers Union that Kerry proposals would increase the budget deficit by $200+ billion a year. However, Kerry doesn't have a prayer of getting his big ticket spending items enacted with a Republican controlled Congress if he's elected. So in a perverse sort of way, voting for Kerry is voting for gridlock IMO which may be the best antidote for curbing government spending.

[Utah]

The New York Times had a great chart explaining this about a month ago. The chart shows that Clinton inherited job growth from Bush I and then gave a deficit to Bush Jr.

Bush Jr. inherited a recession and then had the devastating effects of 9/11. Economy is humming along pretty good right now. Job growth could be better, but the unemployment rate is very low and dropping and new jobs are being added.

Presidents are always given too much blame or too much credit for the economy and there are always lagging effects. I think the California governor's race illustrated this concept well. Gray Davis served a term and was reelected. The economy was very strong during his first term, then it fell apart in the second term (although it was already falling apart in the first term but people didnt realize it yet). Lets say that Gray Davis had lost the election for the second term. What do you think the Democrats would have said about the Republican administration? Certainly, they would have said, "look how awesome the economy was during the Democrats rule. Now, its a complete disaster during the Republican's rule".

Additionally, the economy is cyclical. There will always be recessions and expansions and presidents will both get unearned scorn or praise depending on how lucky they get.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet that you worked for the pentagon's accounting team. Please tell us how you justifying spending 500.00 per toilet seat.

I hope that you run your business the same way that you advocate running the government. You will be bankrupt and have to quit posting ridiculous chicken hawk propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jokerswhiner.

People like you are slowly but surely starting to convince me that we need a national prescription drug benefit for the mentally ill.

Stu

[David Steele]

The Republicans might claim they are running bad
or the place is rigged, but I agree, it is likely they
are not so goot.

D.

[Thythe]

outsourcing actually is good for the economy. Anything that improves efficiency is good in the long term. Yes, there will be some job loss in the short run, but it causes a shift in the economy away from activities that can be done cheaper elsewhere.

Note that I dislike Bush and am only defending outsourcing, not him.

[anatta]

I wasn't clear in my post. The rate of growth of the deficit under Carter fell during his last two years. In other words, and I am making these number up, like this 77 - 100billion 78 200 billion 79 250 billion 80 290 billion. No great accomplishment, I'll admit.

[anatta]

Its just seems like a strange coincidence that for almost a century, all the democrat prez are higher than all the republicans. I agree that the economy has a business cycle, but I also think there is something to be said for "scoreboard" and judging Presidents by THEIR RESULTS, not blaming prior admins.

I agree that Bush's economic troubles at the begining were not all his fault, but he also shouldn't be given that much credit for the so-called "turning the corner". Face it, how hard is it to grow the economy when the Government is pumping BILLIONS and BILLIONS of debt which will be funded by future generations. I am sure if I just eliminated all taxes, and doubled the military budget and tripled entitlements, I could get growth up over 20 percent per year. Something tells me this wouldn't work in the long run.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't clear in my post. The rate of growth of the deficit under Carter fell during his last two years. In other words, and I am making these number up, like this 77 -100billion 78 200 billion 79 250 billion 80 290 billion. No great accomplishment, I'll admit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual dollar amounts of the deficit during the Carter years was(in billions of dollars):

1977 -$53.7
1978 -$59.2
1979 -$40.7
1980 -$73.8

Seems deficit growth was highest the last year he was in office.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Its just seems like a strange coincidence that for almost a century, all the democrat prez are higher than all the republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this from? I like to see it.

[ QUOTE ]
but he also shouldn't be given that much credit for the so-called "turning the corner". Face it, how hard is it to grow the economy when the Government is pumping BILLIONS and BILLIONS of debt which will be funded by future generations

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry often compares Bush to Hoover, because Hoover is the only other president in the last 100 years or so who lost jobs. In judgeing Bush, you should make that comparison too, but with a much wider focus than the Kerry campaign would like you to have.

History, as it is prone to do, has repeated itself. Prior to the Hoover administration we had a decade of tremdous growth in the stock market(the roaring 20s). Prior to Bush we had the same(the prosperous 90s). Both markets collapsed, companys went out of business, jobs lost, etc. One thing is different though. Under Hoover we went into an economic depression that lasted years and years. Its concievable that we were headed to that horrid destination again, but we didn't get there. Hmmmmm......Perhaps Bush's economic policies are indeed wildly successful and not anemic as Kerry and the lefties would have you believe.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Another thing you might want to consider is that it is actually Congress which is tasked with approving the budgets and thus is even more responsible for the spending than the President.

Which party dominated Congress during the time periods you are looking at? There have been many times Congress has been dominated by a political majority that is not of the President's party. Actually, I think that has been the case more commonly than the opposite, at least in the last half-century or so. Anyone?

[adios]

From the article:

Having grown up in an era when Republicans were seemingly condemned to permanent minority status in Congress, I have some sympathy for Democrats, who appear to be in a similar predicament today.

There were a number of factors that cemented the Democratic majority from 1932 to 1994 - interrupted only by two Republican congresses from 1946 to 1948 and 1952 to 1954, and Republican control of the Senate from 1980 to 1986.

Basically the Democrats were in control of Congress from 1932-1994 with a few times not controlling one of the branches. In 1994 the Republicans took control. If we want to use correlation arguements it's when the Republicans finally got control of Congress we stared to see the budget deficit shrink. Again this is a correlation arguement not a causation arguement.

GOP struggled for 30 years to gain upper hand in D.C. (http://www.showmenews.com/2003/Jun/20030621Busi005.asp)

[jokerswild]

A Democrat balnaced the busget. Under the current regime, that won't ever happen again.

Of course, low intelligence, morally bankrupt, chicken hawk scum don't care. They ignore warnings from Greenspan, the WTO, and the IMF. They plan to use gains from military conquest to pay the bills. They also support corporate prisons in the USA. In Russia, they used to call those labor camps.

[anatta]

Hmm. Okay, I see it was lower in 79, I remember hearing and reading that it fell the last two years. Perhaps they weren't including interest on the debt in their deficit growth. That would be creative spin.

It looks pretty grim right now for my side, Stu. I know you believe in Bush and I hope you are right. It honestly seems to me that the deficits are a problem. I also think he has alienated the rest of the world and anti-American sentiment is at an all time high which might be a problem in an international war on terror. I see that terrorism is way up, and while I don't blame Bush for this, I think his policies will only lead to the creation of more and more terrorist. I also think he diverted resourses for an unnecessary war, killing thousands of innocents, and untimately the terrorist situation will be made worse by this (you know the typical liberal "hearts and minds" bullshit). Chalabi, Valerie Plame, Haliburton, Kenny Boy, Medicare reform cost scam, Swift boats, no WMD's, not going to the UN for a final resolution...I realize none of these are as important as a decade old land deal or a blow job...sorry. I know you believe in Bush and I hope you are right.

[anatta]

I got the employment stats from a liberal site, the source is the department of labor. It seems to be stating that the percentage increase in jobs during democratic administrations has been, without exception, higher under democratic admin for about the last 100 years or so. Without exception. In other words, the WORST democrat increased jobs (as a percentage, not in terms of total jobs, since comparing Truman's job growth to Fords in terms of numbers would be silly since the size of economy is much greater) more than the best republican.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing you might want to consider is that it is actually Congress which is tasked with approving the budgets and thus is even more responsible for the spending than the President.

Which party dominated Congress during the time periods you are looking at? There have been many times Congress has been dominated by a political majority that is not of the President's party. Actually, I think that has been the case more commonly than the opposite, at least in the last half-century or so. Anyone

[/ QUOTE ]


Its the President's job to lead. As a Democrat said, "the Buck stops here". No Trifecta blame, no Congress blame, no recession blame. Scoreboard. Jr.'s got no excuses for his deficits as they control both. Clinton gets the credit for the surplus. The job got done during his watch, you can say this was 'cause they twisted his arm or he got lucky or whatever, but Clinton got us surpluses, Bush is trying to create what looks like SYSTEMIC DEFICITS, permanent tax cuts, permanent war, no sacrifices on spending (600 billion Medicare reform and lets go to Mars!). He is all about the short term. Like a child let loose in a candy store, it took Bush six month to totally gorge himself on the surplus. Its all about staying in power and looting the treasury to benefit his corporate pals, who must be smart enough to see that deficts will hurts us and the fact that we are hated around the world is bad for business, but they are too greedy (all those coporate criminals are 99.999% republicans white rich assholes except Martha Stewart the only one the threw the book at).

[MMMMMM]

"Its the President's job to lead. As a Democrat said, "the Buck stops here". No Trifecta blame, no Congress blame, no recession blame."

Sorry Anatta but this is not reasonable when discussing the budgets, in my opinion. Congress, not the President, passes the budgets. So historically the blame for bad budgets--or the praise for good budgets--falls more on Congress than on whomever was President at the time.

The President doesn't do the spending; Congress does.

[kak17]

Your argument is worthless without comparing job growth to unemployment rates.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Jr.'s got no excuses for his deficits as they control both

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than an inherited recession, major war and the fact that the economy took a huge shock in the wake of 9/11, including the loss of approximately 1 million jobs.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is trying to create what looks like SYSTEMIC DEFICITS

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see the other thread regarding deficits? If not I suggest you read it.

[ QUOTE ]
permanent tax cuts

[/ QUOTE ]


I can only hope. Unfortunately the taxes revert around 2010 or so unless congress makes them permanent. Hopefully by then we will have gone to a flat tax or national sales tax.

[ QUOTE ]
to see that deficts will hurts us

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative. Deficit spending is not automatically bad for the economy. Go break out your Econ 101 book and look it up.

In spite of what the economic chicken littles would have us believe, the sky isnt falling. Take a look at the leading economic indicators. For bonus points, tell me what the unemployment rate was under the great economic leader Klinton and how it compares to the current unemployment rate. For double bonus points, tell me what an optimal rate of unemployment is considered to be.

[adios]

If the government was running a budget surplus, the ABB faction would be screaming about his not spending enough on social programs.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
It honestly seems to me that the deficits are a problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Deficits can be good or bad. In my household there are months when I operate at a deficit and months when I operate with a surplus. The aggregate at the end of the year ends up being a surplus. I have seen people who operate at a deficit all the time, eventually they go bankrupt.

I believe the nation should operate a deficit when times are bad and operate at a surplus when times are good. The problem I see is that any time it looks like we are going to operate under a surplus for a sustained period, the money ends up getting spent.

I'm not happy with the deficits under Bush, but then I wonder what kinda shape our economy would be in if we were not running them.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think he has alienated the rest of the world and anti-American sentiment is at an all time high which might be a problem in an international war on terror

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you see history repeating itself. Anytime you have a sole superpower, that superpower becomes alienated to a degree by the rest of the world. The fact is as long as we are number one we are going to have nation after nation say to the United States "We hate you, but give us that aid anyways".

You could argue that Bush is magnifying that alienation effect and a Kerry administration would lessen it. I suspect you would be correct because I believe the Bush administrations foreign polices are expressly geared at maintaining the United States as the sole superpower both economically and militarily. I agree with this goal because the thought of my childern or my childern's childern growing up in a world where communist China is the sole superpower frightens me. I don't think Kerry cares about maintaining the special status the United States has in the world and would be willing to sacrifice US soveriegnty (to some degree) just please the international community.

[ QUOTE ]
I think his policies will only lead to the creation of more and more terrorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you are correct. But bear in mind that you cannot fight this terror war and not have that happen. When Japan attacked the United States, and we went to war with Japan, FDR's policies led to the creation of more Japanese soldiers. FDR could have negotiated a peace with the Japan right after the PH attack and Japan would not have needed or trained as many soldiers as they did. I think that you and I both know that peace would have been short lived (at most a generation or two). Eventually we would have ended up fighting the Japanese but from a much weaker position.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think he diverted resourses for an unnecessary war, killing thousands of innocents, and untimately the terrorist situation will be made worse by this (you know the typical liberal "hearts and minds" bullshit).

[/ QUOTE ]

Please remember that Sadam killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and would have likely continued to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. If only a few thousand innocents die before things stablize, its a fantastic improvement.

The House of Suad is going to fall. When it does we need to be in theater because to absent would be truely disasterous.

Stu

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything that improves efficiency is good in the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only as long as you have the (cheap) energy to bring the goods back home...

[adios]

My take is that lion's share of jobs lost is in the manufactuing sector. I posted an article some time ago about the decline in manufacturing jobs being something that has been occuring over the last 40 years in the U.S. The big is reason is technology. I also posted a discussion between business owners and the impediments to hiring workers. They're substantial, rising health insurance costs, the Family Leave act, workers comp, etc. make it much more attractive to become more effecient and invest in technology than hire workers. From the BLS, over two million manufacturing jobs have been lost. If you look at all sectors in the economy besides manufacturing it seems like the job situation is ok. Greenspan testified before Congress this year that he didn't really see a decline in wages ie the data doesn't support the view that wages have declined substantially. Here's an analysis FWIW of the Democratic party statements about jobs. I see no clearcut evidence that what Kerry's proposing will have an significant impact on the erosion of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. To his credit president Bush has stated that people need to be re-trained and thus educated. It's always easier to go along with the guy promising you something and stating what you want to hear. I think it's fair to say that a lot of folks don't care to hear what Bush has to say about job loss in the economy even though I believe he's dead on the money.


DNC Ad Says Bush Lost Manufacturing Jobs (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=234)

Summary



The Democratic National Committee released an ad Aug. 6 saying 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost under Bush. That's true, but ignores the fact that manufacturing jobs started their decline three years before Bush took office.

The ad also says "Bush protects tax breaks favoring corporations that move their headquarters overseas" and that Kerry would "end job-killing tax loopholes." But as we've said before , "offshoring" accounts for just a small fraction of jobs that are lost, and even Democratic economists say changing the tax code won't end the overseas job drain anyway.


Analysis



The Democratic National Committee ad uses the time-honored tactic of putting the opponent's worst foot forward. It's a one-sided presentation that doesn't give the full picture.


Democratic National Committee
"Believe"

Announcer: Millions of good jobs lost to plant closures and outsourcing.
(Video: 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost: Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001-2004)
Announcer: Yet President Bush protects tax breaks favoring corporations that move their headquarters overseas.
America can do better.
John Kerry's plan: End job-killing tax loopholes, and provide incentives to companies who create good jobs here. Because John Kerry believes we should export American products, not American jobs.
The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the contents of this advertisement.

Job Loss Figures

As the announcer says "millions of good jobs lost to plant closures and outsourcing," the video shows the words "2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost."

That's true as far as it goes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indeed reports that payroll jobs in the manufacturing sector went from nearly 17.1 million at the time Bush took office to just over 14.4 million in June, a decline of very nearly 2.7 million.

But -- as a look at the chart below will show -- US manufacturing employment was in decline for nearly three years before Bush became President. It actually declined by 544,000 between the peak reached in March, 1998 and when Clinton left office, even as the economy added nearly 7.8 million jobs in all categories during the climax of a roaring economic boom that ended a few weeks after Bush was sworn in. In fact, 238,000 of those manufacturing jobs were lost in Clinton's last six month alone, showing that the decline was well-established even before Bush had spent a day in office.

Manufacturing Payroll Jobs Peaked in March, 1998



By choosing to highlight only manufacturing jobs, furthermore, the DNC ad ignores offsetting gains in other sectors that have been growing. A look at the bigger picture -- total payroll jobs -- shows a much less severe decline of just over 1.1 million jobs since Bush took office. The decline in manufacturing payrolls has been offset to a great degree by gains in such industries as health care, construction and government (teachers and firemen, for example.)

Total Payroll Jobs: The Big Picture