This is sheer lunacy to attribute the jobs lost in the past three years to actions of GWB. LUNACY. We had one of the largest stock market bubbles *ever* burst. We had economic fall out as a result. We had the largest terror attacks *ever* occur in NYC, Washington DC and PA. We had a string of the largest bankruptcies of all time in Worldcom, Enron, Adelphia, etc. We had the stench of corporate fraud. None, NONE of these events had anything whatsoever to do with the actions of GWB. To properly evaluate what Bush has done for the economy, you must look at his actions in isolation. Every single action of this Administration has been in an effort to provide stimulus to the economy. From tax cuts, to freer trade, to heightened spending. Every single action. Every time I see a liberal like Terry McAulliffe announce that 3 million jobs have been lost under this administration, they imply that it is GWB's fault. It isn't. CASE CLOSED
How can you possibly argue that the tax cuts have been efficacious? All the Democratic nominee has to do is repeat the future job creation numbers that GWB Admin attributed to his tax cuts. These jobs were demonstrably not created. So what if GWB has been dealt a bad hand? It is not like he is the only President to ever have that kind of bad luck. Perhaps you should consider what the Republicans would be doing with these numbers had a Democrat won in 2000.
1) They helped to lead us out of the recession and vastly improved a dismal economic picture (caused by the bubble bursting, terror, war, and fraud) 2) They helped to lead us to a 6% annualized growth rate of GDP in the last half of 2003. Wall Street points to this stimulus repeatedly in attributing causation for the last half of 2003. 3) They have totally changed the capital allocation process of publicly traded companies. I point you to page D1 of today's WSJ for you to read about how a record number of companies are now paying dividends and the ones that were have increased them significantly. The dividend story increases corporate decision-making transparency and puts money back in peoples hands at a tax-advantaged rate. Half of America owns stocks, so don't even try class warfare/elitism here. 4) Your *only* metric of judging the economy is jobs. You simply do not understand how biased this is. Jobs are a *lagging* indicator of economic performance. They improve once everything else has improved. Every single other indicator is pointing positive right now. Yet you choose the one that is negative. Typical liberal. Don't believe me on the job creation issue? Perhaps you would believe the world's most credible economic source, Alan Greenspan: "In all likelihood, employment will begin to grow more quickly before long as output continues to expand," he said. Once businesses become more confident and the easy productivity improvements have been tried, "firms will surely once again add to their payrolls." GAME, SET, MATCH -- thanks for playing, rookie
To properly evaluate what Bush has done for the economy, you must look at his actions in isolation. Every single action of this Administration has been in an effort to provide stimulus to the economy. From tax cuts, to freer trade, to heightened spending. Every single action. Say what you want ... Bush claimed that his tax package would create 1.7 million jobs last year. We lost 55,000. Whatever you think of him, he was simply flat out wrong, given that he knew about all the various "shocks" in the economy that had already happened. What reason do we have to believe he'll be right the next time? He was wrong on this, he was wrong on the Iraqi intelligence. He was wrong on the cost of his Medicare plan (raised by $150 billion just one month after his initial estimates). Why should we keep giving him chances to get it right?
Every single other indicator is pointing positive right now. Well, except for: Retail sales dropping... http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/12/news/economy/retail_sales/index.htm Business inventories rising... http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/12/news/economy/inventories.reut/index.htm The housing market slowing... http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/11/pf/yourhome/housing4Q/index.htm?CNN=yes But hey, facts aren't important to you anyway. As for Greenspan, if he's the world's most credible economic source, why aren't you railing on Bush for deficits? After all... <I>Greenspan also warned Congress about the potential risk posed by rising federal budget deficits. If foreign and domestic investors lose confidence that Congress will take the actions needed to bring the budget more closely in balance, long-term interest rates could rise appreciably, constraining business growth, Greenspan said. “The fiscal issues that we face pose long-term challenges, but federal budget deficits could cause difficulties even in the relatively near term,” he said. He reiterated his suggestion that Congress restore pay-as-you-go financing and spending caps that would force a return to fiscal discipline. </I>
Major what you posted as 'evidence' is just plain ridiculous. You quote a one month drop in retail sales which was caused by a blip in the auto sales market and claim it is a trend. LAUGHABLE. Did you read this in the article: Excluding volatile automobile sales, retail sales rose 0.9 percent to $after rising a revised 0.2 percent in December. OOPSIE DAISY!!! You then misinterpret a business inventory figure and use it as an argument *against your own self*. Did you read this from the article? The continued buildup in inventories reflects confidence by companies in sales prospects. OOPSIE DAISY!!! Then you try to point to the housing market slowing as a sign of the economy going in the toilet. What you fail to mention is the housing market is experiencing one of its best times EVER. OOPSIE DAISY!!! Now don't you look foolish.
1) Premanent tax cuts helped with the recession and have helped the economy since then right? I am underwhelmed. 2) Funny, you did not list the GDP growth of the entire year of 2003 or the projected growth for 2004. 3) Here you went on about nothing to do with the economy, just about the shift of money from capital appreciation to dividends. (BTW, next time you trot that lame "most Americans own stock" line, you might want to differentiate between retirement vs regular accounts, particularly when you are making a point albeit obtuse about the the tax cut impacts on equities.) 4) Jobs are lagging the economy. What an understatement!!!! We have been in economic "recovery" since the fall of 2001. Jobs, you would have us believe, are now lagging by 28 months or so from the recovery. Vanna, TJ would like to buy a clue for $100 ....
Every single other indicator is pointing positive right now. You tell me how these are positive. You got caught lying, simple as that. <I>The Commerce Department said retail sales fell 0.3 percent to a seasonally adjusted $322.9 billion after rising a revised 0.2 percent in December. Excluding volatile automobile sales, retail sales rose 0.9 percent to $after rising a revised 0.2 percent in December. Economists, on average, expected sales to be unchanged and sales excluding autos to rise 0.5 percent, according to Briefing.com. </I> Expectations were zero growth with auto sales, we got -0.3%. Expectations were 0.5% without auto sales, we got 0.2%. But hey, in your world, this is positive, right? <I>Separately, the Labor Department said new weekly claims for unemployment benefits were higher last week than analysts expected. </I> Yes, very positive news indeed. <I>After peaking during the third quarter of 2003, the housing market slowed down a bit during the fourth quarter, a real estate group said Thursday. </I> Certainly positive. My point was not a weak economy, just that your ridiculous claims of every indicator being positive is both silly and false. Tell me again why we should keep trusting Bush when he has been consistently wrong in his guesstimates?
Look at Major backtrack! I love to watch this. Face it Major, you didn't read the articles any deeper than the headlines and you got called out for it. I understand your embarrassment, but please deal with it without insults, mmmkay? thaaaaanks The housing market is fueling this economy. It is at record levels. FACT The retail sales number was very positive, excluding a blip in auto sales. FACT The jobs figure will lag the economy, as I, and Greenspan have previously stated. Greenspan predicts an imminent rebound. FACT While we all appreciate your efforts to minimize America's economic growth, I will have you know that your deepest desires will go unfulfilled -- this economy is rebounding. Sorry to break your heart, and the hearts of other liberals, with this news. GOOD DAY
Oh, and one more thing Major. You forgot to thank me for setting you straight on your business inventories folly. Hopefully this contributed to your ongoing economic education. CLASS DISMISSED
The housing market is fueling this economy. It is at record levels. FACT It is slowing. FACT. this is positive in your world? This must be the same logic that 25% consists of "most people". The retail sales number was very positive, excluding a blip in auto sales. FACT It was UNDER EXPECTATIONS. FACT. That is *not* positive. The jobs figure will lag the economy, as I, and Greenspan have previously stated. Greenspan predicts an imminent rebound. FACT Lag by 2+ years, apparently. I assume if jobs are created in 2018, you'll credit the Bush tax cut? What exactly do you consider a reasonable lag? By the way, good job continuing to ignore Greenspan's concern with the deficits and the fact that Bush is wrong on virtually everything he predicts.
Bush predicts 2.7 million jobs added to economy in 2003 FACT Economy actually loses 423,000 jobs OOPSIE DAISY
