I dont have time to look the data up but I belive the tax cuts took place in July 2003 (with some retroactive to the beginning of 2003). Can anyone show me a quote from the current administration that those tax cuts will generate jobs by January 2004?
Bush mortgaged our children's future -- twice -- to stimulate the current economy. Instead, three million Americans have lost their jobs. I'd say he bears a fair amount of responsibility for the current economic mess.
Its a serious issue. I have been developing software for 8 years or so with several companies. I cant even count how many jobs have been directly and indirectly lost by the systems my team and I impliment. Some arent realized for years. I discount almost every article I read that links the President directly to the current job situation. This movement has been underway for many years and will be difficult to stop.
I dont have time to look the data up but I belive the tax cuts took place in July 2003 (with some retroactive to the beginning of 2003). Can anyone show me a quote from the current administration that those tax cuts will generate jobs by January 2004? The tax cuts took place in both 2001 and 2002. To quote an article from another thread: <I>Two years ago, the administration forecast that there would be 3.4 million more jobs in 2003 than there were in 2000. And it predicted a budget deficit for fiscal 2004 of $14 billion. The economy ended up losing 1.7 million jobs over that period, and the budget deficit for this year is on course to be $521 billion.</I> He was off by 5.1 million jobs. Specific numbers, totally wrong. Short-term predictions. Again, I ask, is he a liar or incompetent?
Bush Administration's tax cuts falling short in job creation The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. Although jobs increased by 21,000 in the month of February 2004, the "Jobs and Growth Plan" still fell 285,000 jobs short of the administration's projection. The administration projected that a total of 2,448,000 jobs would be created in the first seven months after the tax cuts took effect. In fact, only 294,000 jobs were created over that period for a cumulative shortfall of 2,154,000 jobs. link for folks that don't like to read...
True.....not looking good on the job front, but I think he inherited the situation and we still have not recovered completely from the dot.com bust. DD
Productivity is progressing nicely. We just need to make some cuts in the number of people to get the unemplyment rate down. Maybe if we reduce social services and reduce funding for health care we can attain a higher rates of attrition. The people without jobs are just the underskilled and unmotivated anyway. Capitalism is all about efficiency.
Well, a lot of the unemployed I know are quite talented. They're in the tech sector, and the rebound there has definitely been fairly jobless. But I agree with the efficiency statement. What if we tried this: take half the money away from a single program like missile defense and steer it toward a new version of the three C's. Our country needs so much infrastructure and parks work, and we could put a lot of people to work.
This needs to be said again... Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic... EDIT: • In 2003, 22.1% of all unemployed workers had been out of work for more than six months, an increase from 18.3% in 2002. This proportion is higher than at comparable points in the recovery periods of the four most recent recessions, and it is the highest annual rate of long-term unemployment since 1983. Despite the continued need for help beyond the regular six months of state unemployment insurance, Congress cut off federal jobless benefits in December 2003, leaving the long-term unemployed without a safety net at a time when prolonged joblessness is at its highest rate in 20 years. • College graduates represent 15.3% of total unemployment, but 19.1% of long-term unemployment. Long-term unemployment among college-educated workers increased by 299.4% between 2000 and 2003, a much faster rate than the increase of 156.1% for workers with a high school degree or less. • While long-term unemployment hit all age and occupational groups, more experienced jobless workers had a disproportionately difficult time getting back to work in 2003. Although job seekers age 45 and older made up 25.7% of the total unemployed population, the rate of long-term unemployment for this group was 35.4%.
or maybe just maybe those silly tax cuts were not all they were cut out to be. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
Just think how bad the job market would be without the tax cuts! or how small the deficit would be without those tax cuts (and without that billion dollar a week war in Iraq).
Well if the Bush Administration didn't want to look like either 1. incompentent r****ds 2. liars 3. political hacks doing the bidding of the rich they should have said- Please pass this HUGE tax cut which benefits mostly the rich and balloons the deficit and we project it will create a few thousand jobs by February 2004. If they had said THAT, at least you could take #2 off the table.
Not that it has anything to do with this thread nor is anything wrong with it, but that guy is gay, right?
The scale on that graph sucks. They zoom in to 5 and then make the line look real far away. You could redo that to make it a lot more pro bush. I'm not saying to try and make him look better then he should, but at least make it look fair and non skewed.
Question about graph: Is it true that Nonfarm Payroll Employment under Bush at its worst time has been better than the worst time under Clinton?
That's fair to say, though IIRC, you could say that about any President and his predecessor since FDR. What you couldn't say about FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton that you can say about W is that the number of jobs has declined during his administration. Here's another fun chart documenting the extent of the "lucky duckies..."
