Which Bush Policies Have Led to Job Losses in the U.S. Economy ?

[adios]

This ought to be interesting. I would think that the ABB faction proponents could rattle them off quickly. I honestly don't know which policies people believe have brought about the job losses.

[lastchance]

Seriously, what can the president do to stop job losses? I feel that if you want to critique Bush on the economy, the deficit is by far the most glaring hole.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, what can the president do to stop job losses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question but I think the question begs an answer since it's a Democratic party talking point and many on this forum have knocked Bush repeatedly for the job losses in the economy. I think it's a fair question that I ask.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that if you want to critique Bush on the economy, the deficit is by far the most glaring hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the budget deficit has increased in the Bush administration, the number of jobs created in the ecnomony has increased as well. Correlation or causation? If you're stating it's the budget deficit then it's duely noted. I appreciate your having the gumption to provide your thoughts.

BTW the Democrats have repeatedly lied about it being the biggest budget deficit in history. It's not when measured as a percentage of GDP, it's not even close to the biggest and it's silly not look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP.

[MaxPower]

One guys opinion

http://www.slate.com/id/2106372

[adios]

Again the number of jobs created in the economy has increased since the accelerated depreciation laws were passed by Congress. In fact the pickup in hiring came on the heals of the enactment of the accelerated depreciation laws in 2003. The Wall Street Journal online had a graph of the number of jobs in the economy during the Bush administration yesterday. The graph clearly shows that the number of jobs bottomed in June of 2003, right around the time the acclerated depreciation initiatives were passed. Correlation or causation?

The article is terrible and I point to one paragraph that typifies the author's misconceptions:

[ QUOTE ]
The thinking behind the move? If more companies moved up orders and purchase decisions for trucks, machinery, and computers, that would create jobs for manufacturers and subcontractors and for the people who build, deliver, and install the goods. What's more, companies would then have to hire people to run and maintain all those new machines.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. It wasn't to hire more people making capital goods, it was to increase capital investment which leads to higher economic growth which leads to more jobs being created. We're seeing higher economic growth and there is no doubt that it has led to more jobs being created in the economy.

[Daliman]

Well, i'm really no expert on the subject, but first off, didn't Bush SAY he would create jobs before AND after he was elected? The burden of proof as to why they're not there seems to be on him, not us.

Aside from that, it seems to me that if you allow corporations to outsource jobs to other countries and do not give them incentive to HAVE US employees, seems to me that costs us jobs.

Couse, if Kerry puts a tariff on non U.S. made goods sold in the US by US companies, he's raising taxes again, huh?

Quite the vicious circle.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, i'm really no expert on the subject, but first off, didn't Bush SAY he would create jobs before AND after he was elected? The burden of proof as to why they're not there seems to be on him, not us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember what he stated but that's not the question I asked. There's no burden of proof, I'm asking a simple, direct question that should be answerable directly. MaxPower came up with an answer but the data doesn't support the arguement. Methinks you're trying to change the subject.



[ QUOTE ]
Aside from that, it seems to me that if you allow corporations to outsource jobs to other countries and do not give them incentive to HAVE US employees, seems to me that costs us jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Bush did put a tariff on imported steel to protect the U.S. steel industry as an example and the U.S. had to rescind the tarrifs due to violating the World Trade Organization agreements.

Generally speaking it's more or less accepted that protective tarrifs tend to stifle economic growth and economic growth is what creates jobs. My understanding is the net effect of outsourcing is relatively minor in terms of jobs actually lost. The U.S. has been moving towards free trade long before Bush was in office as Clinton was a strong proponent of free trade. I don't know what it actually would take to rescind U.S. trade agreements. Kerry has stated that he'll review all U.S. trade agreements and enforce environmental and safety standards in other countries per the agreements so we may see things change on that front if Kerry's elected. The bottom line is that if you protect one industry or one group of workers from having their jobs outsourced, their fellow citizens are being asked to subsidize their employment due to the fact that they'll pay higher prices for those goods and services which tends to dampen economic activity which tends to dampen economic growth which will hinder job creation. I'll put you down for advocating protectionism as something George Bush has not implemented as a policy. BTW Herbert Hoover implemented protective tarrifs, raised taxes, and sought to reign in government spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Couse, if Kerry puts a tariff on non U.S. made goods sold in the US by US companies, he's raising taxes again, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

More or less.

[ QUOTE ]
Quite the vicious circle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to see that you recognize the problem.

[GWB]

I have created a lot of new jobs since the aftermath of 9/11.

Your question should be, how many fewer post 9/11 jobs would have been created had my pro-growth policies not been in place? Gore or Kerry would not have done nearly as well. You can't create jobs if you are over-taxed, and you can't create jobs if you let terrorists run wild over you.

[MMMMMM]

^

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't create jobs if you are over-taxed, and you can't create jobs if you let terrorists run wild over you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your official policy is low taxation and high spending? Hmmm, now I wonder where that will lead?

[MaxPower]

I take no position on that article. My question is are all types of captital investment equally effective at creating jobs in the US?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember what he stated but that's not the question I asked. There's no burden of proof, I'm asking a simple, direct question that should be answerable directly. MaxPower came up with an answer but the data doesn't support the arguement. Methinks you're trying to change the subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that GWB said HE would bring in jobs, and he DID have a specific # EVEN AFTER 9/11 that he has fallen far short of. Just because yo ubring up a question doesn't mean it is legitimate. You are the one trying to change the subject, when the REAL subject is why this president HAS NOT created jobs when HE said he would.

Loaded question. Ask GWB himself where the jobs HE promised are.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is are all types of captital investment equally effective at creating jobs in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the accelerated depreciation was an across the board allowance i.e. specific capital equipment was not targeted for it so IMO it's appropriate to look at what it represents as a total increased investment in the aggregate.

One thing I can't believe that article that it seems to imply something that is exactly the opposite of what happened. I can't post a link to the graph unless you have an online WSJ subsrciption, but if you look at the graph it's clear that an uptrend in job growth coincides with the acclerated depreciation laws being passed.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that GWB said HE would bring in jobs, and he DID have a specific # EVEN AFTER 9/11 that he has fallen far short of.

[/ QUOTE ]

What specific quote are you referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because yo ubring up a question doesn't mean it is legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No but this question is legitimate of Bush is responsible for jobs lost in the economy, what specific policy of Bush's has caused this.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one trying to change the subject, when the REAL subject is why this president HAS NOT created jobs when HE said he would.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not changing the subject at all. All you have to do is indicate the Bush policy that has led to jobs being lost in the economy. You can't though.

[Jim Kuhn]

Where do you think the $100 billion we sent to Iraq came from?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you think the $100 billion we sent to Iraq came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with my question? If you're implying that the war led to job losses in the U.S. the data doesn't supprt that. Since the Iraq war statted there has been a net increase in jobs in the U.S. to the tune of 1.6 million or so. Thanks for playing though.

[MrSoul]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from that, it seems to me that if you allow corporations to outsource jobs to other countries and do not give them incentive to HAVE US employees, seems to me that costs us jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

We insource more jobs than we outsource.

[MrSoul]

The tariff on steel imports that President Bush imposed in 2002 cost more jobs than it saved.

[MrSoul]

Sorry Adios. You already addressed this issue.

[MrSoul]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that GWB said HE would bring in jobs, and he DID have a specific # EVEN AFTER 9/11 that he has fallen far short of.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is what President Bush said, not with the question posted by Adios. The truth is presidents can't create jobs. Anyone that says they can is lying.

I don't understand what all the concern is over jobs created and jobs lost when the current unemployment rate is 5.4%- one of the lowest rates in the world and below the average rate over the last fifty years.

[PITTM]

you created many, many less jobs than were lost under your administration.

rj

[natedogg]

Surely people don't actually believe that if there had been a different president in office we would have had no job losses in 2002?

Let's, for instance, Al Gore had been president. What exactly could he have done to stem the tide of job losses after September 11th?

PS: I lost my job as a direct result of September 11th about 4 weeks after it happened.

natedogg

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all the concern is over jobs created and jobs lost when the current unemployment rate is 5.4%- one of the lowest rates in the world and below the average rate over the last fifty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sentiments exactly.

[vulturesrow]

It is a red herring. The Kerry campaign is just trying to get around the fact that the economy is in good shape and growing.

[andyfox]

From a 2003 article by Harold Meyerson:

Presidents do not really pay a penalty for holding office when the economy first implodes. Americans did not turn against Hoover because the market crashed; they turned against him because his recovery program, such as it was, failed to produce a recovery, because the economy cascaded downward for three and a half years while he rejected one plausible remedy after another. Likewise, no one holds Bush accountable for the dot-com bust or the shock of September 11. His problems are that he's enacted and proposed nothing that would arrest the current slide, and that his policies have actually worsened it.

More precisely, his policy has actually worsened it. For it is the distinctive feature of the Bush presidency that there is but one economic policy come boom or bust, fire or flood. That, of course, is tax cuts, preponderantly for the rich. As a candidate in 2000, Bush argued for tax cuts because the government was actually running a surplus, and it was a more productive use of funds to return that money to taxpayers. Then the bubble burst, the surplus turned to deficit and those same tax cuts were repackaged as an economic stimulus. The $1.6 trillion tax cut of 2001 was so advertised, though it didn't really kick in for the better part of the decade, and most of it was targeted to the wealthy—the class of Americans least likely to spend it. Since it was enacted, it has stimulated the economy to the tune of 1.7 million jobs lost.

Undeterred, the administration is back at it again with its proposed $726 billion tax cut, more than half of which takes the form of eliminating the taxes on dividends—which, again, will go overwhelmingly to the rich. It's difficult to find anyone not working for the administration who believes this cut will really stimulate the economy. Though virtually no one noticed (there was a war on), in mid-March the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its study of the Bush tax cut. "Taken together," the report concluded, "the proposals would provide a relatively small impetus in an economy the size of the United States." The study had been supervised by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who came to the CBO after serving as chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

The hallmark of the Bush approach to the economy is its absolute rigidity. On matters economic, Bush is a monomaniac with a bad idea, a doctor who prescribes the same all-purpose snake oil no matter what the ailment. And while Bush is not responsible for the post-boom bust in which America finds itself, his refusal to contemplate any remedy save his own for the economy is directly responsible for the increasing longevity and severity of the bust.

Rigidity should be the last thing you want in a president forced to navigate a treacherous economy. "If we can't get a president with a fluid mind," noted Raymond Moley in the spring of 1932, "we shall have some bad times ahead." Moley at that time was just beginning his stint as head of Franklin Roosevelt's brain trust, the academic advisers on whom Roosevelt relied to help formulate fixes for the Depression. Moley needn't have worried about Roosevelt, who mixed and matched, embraced and abandoned a range of economic strategies during his '32 campaign—and then his first three years in the White House—before settling upon the policies we now think of as the core of the New Deal. Surrounding himself with advisers who favored a centralized, planned economy, others who recommended stronger antitrust enforcement and more regulation, and still others who argued for bolstering working-class purchasing power, FDR's credo for a nation in trouble was, "Above all, try something."

"This country is big enough to experiment with several diverse systems and follow several different lines," Roosevelt once told adviser Adolph Berle. "Why must we put our economic policy in a single systemic straitjacket?" A sentiment more alien to Bush is hard to imagine.

With the economy going nowhere but south, the administration has been obliged to come up with an explanation for the downturn that directs responsibility away from the White House. Until 9-11, the recession was Bill Clinton's fault; thereafter, it was Osama bin Laden's and, more recently, Saddam Hussein's. Here, from a recent stump speech, is the president's explanation of the economy: "We've got a deficit because we went through a recession. We've got a recession because we went to war, and I said to our troops, 'If we're going to commit you into harm's way, you deserve the best equipment, the best training, the best possible pay.'"

If the president's account is accurate, we've just gone through the first defense buildup in modern history that depressed rather than boosted the economy. A more plausible calculation, from Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, is that new defense spending will add 0.4 percent to the gross domestic product this year alone. The somewhat more sophisticated version of Bush's self-exculpatory account is that business refused to invest more due to the uncertainty attending the coming war. But that gainsays almost everything business leaders themselves are telling us.

"There's a wide gap between economists and business executives," Sung Won Sohn, the chief economist (though one who's business executive–friendly) of Wells Fargo, remarked recently. "Businesses are basically shell-shocked. They want to see demand rising first."

In fact, what the economy is going through is a classic case of excessive productive capacity built up in a boom time in anticipation of a demand that never came. In 1998 productive capacity was increasing at an annual 8 percent rate in manufacturing, with huge investments in telecommunications and high-tech that were helping drive the boom. Not surprisingly, it's here that the bust is concentrated today. Since July of 2000, America has lost 2.2 million jobs in manufacturing; indeed, manufacturing jobs have now declined for 33 consecutive months, which is the longest period of job loss in the post–World War II era. And because manufacturing jobs pay significantly better than retail and service-sector jobs, the impact on the economy is magnified.

The other engine driving the boom was the market itself, in which investors placed bets on the future value of companies that proved to be largely, if not entirely, illusory. Thanks to the deregulation of financial endeavor—bringing with it the decline of accounting standards, the systemic overvaluation of stocks by analysts, the fictitious bookkeeping of Enron and the like—$7 trillion invested in U.S. stock markets has been lost since the bubble burst in 2000. This has not worked wonders for consumer confidence.

Alongside the problems of vanishing capital and manufacturing decline is that of inadequate purchasing power. Median earnings grew consistently during the near-full employment years of 1998–2001, but they've been falling now for the past four quarters. With wages drifting downward, American consumers—even if they saved some money by refinancing their homes—are not going to shop their way out of the current downturn.

In sum, the current economy is one in which any number of classical Keynesian remedies to boost purchasing power could be applied, particularly with the Fed warning of deflation, not inflation. The administration not only shuns contact with Keynesians, however, it shuns contact with any economists—save supply-siders—who've endorsed its tax cuts, as a number of deficit-conscious business economists have been heard to complain.

By insisting on tax cuts for the rich, moreover, the administration blocks any efforts at real stimulus. In the White House's legislation, no federal funds will flow to the states, which are experiencing the same revenue decline the federal government is. Unlike the federal government, however, they have to balance their budgets. The estimated $68 billion in deficits that the states are running this year (a total that is expected to rise to $140 billion over three years) is coming out of health-care coverage for children and the poor, out of K-12 classrooms, out of the pockets of students who can't afford the tuition increases at public colleges and universities. It is coming out of the jobs of state, city, public-health and school-district employees. By his obsession with cutting taxes on the rich, George W. Bush is not only failing to provide an urgently needed stimulus, he's actually deepening a downturn he could alleviate.

He could, if he chose, boost purchasing power or halt layoffs by directing his tax cuts to low- and middle-income families, or by providing relief to state governments, or by funding a massive renovation and construction of schools. He could ease the rising burden of costs experienced by nearly every American family by creating a system of universal health coverage. But as Bush sees it, he is in office precisely not to do these things. On matters economic, he is there to shrink the role of the public sphere and magnify the market. Recovery is all well and good, but it is not his primary purpose as president.

[adios]

Thanks for posting this Andy. If the current economic expansion is satisfactory then I don't understand where this guy is coming from. To me he looks to be a doom and gloomer predicting doom and gloom in 2003 just before the economy started to gain traction and employment started to pick up. I think comparing the most recent recession with the Great Depression is more than silly. Certainly Bush has done more than "cut taxes for the wealthy" and I'm not sure what other fiscal policy tools are available besides cutting taxes (for individuals and busnisses) and increasing government spending. As far as state budgets are concerned, their budget problems IMO are of their own making. Their long term economic projections were way to rosy or they never believed the economy would ever slow down. Asking the U.S. government to bail them out is doing so at the expense of those that used good fiscal discipline. Deflation is no longer a concern as many are actually concerned about inflation given the rise in commodity prices like oil. There are always different views on the right monetary policy witness the articles I posted about the most recent Nobel price winner in Economics advocating more and steeper tax cuts in the U.S. and Wayne Angell talking about how raising taxes dampens economic growth. Methinks this guy would be writing a much different article today given what's transpired since he wrote it.

[AceHigh]

I don't know that it has, but I think the war in Iraq may have resulted in the loss of jobs.

If we agree that the war created uncertainty, and businesses dislike uncertainty. Then it follows that bussiness may be reluctant to hire more people until Iraq is "stable" and they know we won't have to put lots more troops or spend lots more $$$ in Iraq.

Plus hundreds of thousand of American workers and soldiers have moved to Iraq, taking them out of the national economy.

Tourism and trade may have been hurt by the war. Anti-american sentiment in the world probably created less demand for american products and certainly decreased tourism from overseas.

Airlines were probably hurt because less people wanted to fly when it seemed like the airlines would be a potential target of terrorist looking for revenge on the invasion.

Oil prices have increased in part because of the war, Iraq is producing less oil and the US Armed forces need more oil in wartime than peace. Increased energy prices are a brake on the heavy energy consuming countries, because that money is extra money out of the economy for the same amount of product.

[AceHigh]

Tariffs always cost more jobs than they save. The problem is people know which jobs they will save but they don't know which knew ones will be created. So the job losers complain and the politicians listen.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Again the number of jobs created in the economy has increased since the accelerated depreciation laws were passed by Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

The economy is too large and the effects of change too small to assume a cause and effect relationship. There are too many other factors that go into the US economy to say this tax cut created jobs and this tax cut cost us jobs.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW the Democrats have repeatedly lied about it being the biggest budget deficit in history. It's not when measured as a percentage of GDP, it's not even close to the biggest and it's silly not look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be silly but it's not a lie. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As politics go, that about as close to honesty as we get unfortunately.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you look at the graph it's clear that an uptrend in job growth coincides with the acclerated depreciation laws being passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you are drawing connections that cannot be reasonably made. We can't say the economy was this way and we made 1 small change and look it went like this, so that proves it created jobs. There are too many factors.

The economy was in a recesion, it pulled out of the recession, but the number of jobs created pulling out of the recession was far less than expected.

Did the Bush tax cuts pull us out of the recession sooner? Did the resulting deficit result in less jobs created? Is there something inherent with the Bush economic policy that creates fewer jobs, than say Clinton or Bush I?

I don't know that anybody can answer these questions accurately. Each economic cycle is it's own beast and hard to draw conclusions especially while we are still in the cycle.

It is known that long, drawn out wars are bad for the economy, and Iraq is starting to look like a drawn out war.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
This ought to be interesting. I would think that the ABB faction proponents could rattle them off quickly. I honestly don't know which policies people believe have brought about the job losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about giving tax break to companies that outsource jobs to India? He really screwed the IT guys!

These were high paying jobs, not jobs at Wal-Mart

[andyfox]

Bottom line, of course, is that the president is talking about creating new jobs and his opponent about job losses. Which is how it always is.

And, of course, yet another debate tomorrow night that conflicts with a Yankees game. Decisions, decisions . . .