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 for that fact.

Here is CBO 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

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.