bigpoppanils Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Bush Can't Say `Mission Accomplished' on Economy: Gene Sperling Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- A recent spate of good news for the U.S. economy has led some commentators and policy makers to claim ``mission accomplished'' on a strong recovery. News of each positive indicator has been met with the same refrains: Growth is back for good, the economy is no longer a political issue, and the trend is vindication of the Bush administration's economic strategy. Consider some of the newspaper headlines following October's addition of 126,000 jobs to the economy: ``Economists Hail Increase in Payroll Figure as Sign that Growth is Finally Feeding Through to the Labor Market,'' read the front-page headline of the Financial Times. ``Bush Takes Pride in the Signs of Economic Turnaround,'' was the headline on a Los Angeles Times article. ``Employment News Hailed as the Missing Ingredient in Recovery,'' announced the front page of the Dallas Morning News. While October's job growth was certainly good news compared with almost three years of job losses, we need to put this and other economic numbers in perspective. The Numbers Let's start with the basic fact that even with the recent job additions, the first two years of this recovery -- from the end of the recession in November 2001 to the most recent job report for October 2003 -- represent the worst period of job growth in any U.S. recovery on record since 1939. Since we are still down 2.3 million jobs and nearly 3 million private sector jobs since January 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, it will take a great jobs expansion to prevent Bush from being the first president to preside over net job loss since Herbert Hoover. What if we wipe the slate clean? Shouldn't those of us who comment on the economy be willing to put aside the last two years and simply celebrate a job gain of 126,000 as a sign that the U.S. job machine is humming again? One problem: While an addition of 126,000 jobs is better than a loss, it represents anemic job growth for any month during an economic recovery. Indeed, it would have been the fifth worst month of job growth in the 48 months of President Bill Clinton's first term. A Growth Signal? If we assume that October's ``impressive'' job growth continues for an entire year from November 2003 to October 2004, it would still amount to the worst third year of a recovery since 1958. Even if the release of tomorrow's job numbers shows an increase of 180,000 or more in November, which would be an average for October and November of about 150,000 additional jobs, if extrapolated over the entire year, it would continue to represent an unusually weak third year of recovery by historical standards. Yet could these modest employment increases signal the type of job growth we saw in the 1990s, which would include new labor market entrants and the millions who are still out of work? Every American should hope so, but it's way too early to tell. While some of the job growth hype can be forgiven as political spin and an earnest hope for better times, the notion that it in some way vindicates the Bush administration's long- term fiscal policy is flat wrong. New Standard? Could it be that our new standard for judging the success of economic policy implemented by the White House is that no matter how weak the economy is, any recovery sign is an immediate slam- dunk validation? A lot of football coaches with 0-10 records would be glad to hear of such a standard heading into the final game of their seasons. The economic research company Economy.com found that only about one-eighth of our third-quarter growth can be pinned on the 2003 tax cuts, and that even this amount was primarily due to the child tax credit and the bonus depreciation, precisely the type of short-term, middle class tax cuts that Democrats were always willing to support. Had the Bush administration been willing to work with Democrats earlier to pass more effective stimulus --that didn't explode the deficits in later years -- we might have been able to stem the loss of confidence and jobs in our economy far sooner. Instead, the administration used the pretext of fiscal stimulus to push expensive long-term tax cuts like dividend and capital gains relief, retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, and rate cuts for the highest income taxpayers. The Cost Most of these provisions were judged by the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and Goldman Sachs, to be just about the worst bang-for-the-buck stimulus you can possibly imagine. Even if Bush's most prized tax cuts were responsible for 100 percent of the third-quarter lift, it would be absurd -- let me repeat, absurd -- to argue that such a short-term contribution vindicates the administration's assault on our nation's long-term fiscal soundness. A temporary economic blip justified a temporary rise in the deficit, not policies that blow a hole in our deficit for decades to come. The administration's tax cuts, if extended, will cost more than $4 trillion over the next decade. In 2013 alone, 12 years after the recession has ended, the tax cuts will still be costing our nation over $600 billion! Fiscal Distress These cuts if made permanent represent more than three times what it would take to completely ensure Social Security solvency over the next 75 years. Since taking office, the Bush administration has pursued these huge long-term tax cuts on the hope that if the nation ever stops hemorrhaging jobs, it can simply assert that the cuts have been a success and we should forget the previous years of failure -- and, more importantly, the 30 future years of fiscal distress that its fiscal policy has cost us. I hope that as we approach upcoming economic news, we are smarter than that. Last Updated: December 4, 2003 10:41 EST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Someone should tell this left wing hateful loon to pick up a book and find that unemployement is a lagging indicator...I wonder if anyone remebers why the Fed started raising rates in 2000? The unemployemnt rate was a 4% and they were fearing infaltion... I wonder if anyone remebers what the unemployemnt number was in the 80'S after Reagen took office? 11%. What are we at now < 6%???From my own experince in the work place.. The productivity advancement is causing the delay in a recovery of the labor situation because employers are queezing more from less... one employee is doing the work of 3... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by mr mahs Someone should tell this left wing hateful loon to pick up a book and find that unemployement is a lagging indicator...I wonder if anyone remebers why the Fed started raising rates in 2000? The unemployemnt rate was a 4% and they were fearing infaltion... I wonder if anyone remebers what the unemployemnt number was in the 80'S after Reagen took office? 11%. What are we at now < 6%???From my own experince in the work place.. The productivity advancement is causing the delay in a recovery of the labor situation because employers are queezing more from less... one employee is doing the work of 3... The sad part is there are actually those who are rooting for the economy not to recover, and then take joy in promoting anything that would support their wishes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by igloo The sad part is there are actually those who are rooting for the economy not to recover, and then take joy in promoting anything that would support their wishes... That's bullshit! Who do you that know says "Gee, I hope I get laid off as well as thousands of others so someone other than Bush get's elected"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by jamiroguy1 That's bullshit! Who do you that know says "Gee, I hope I get laid off as well as thousands of others so someone other than Bush get's elected"? Gephardt,Kerry Dean...SHOULD I CONT???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 I'm sure you can name a democrats all day long..but when have they ever said that they hope the economy is in the crapper? Please!That's like Bush saying he wishes there is another terrorist attack on the US so he'll be able to hold onto the presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by jamiroguy1 That's bullshit! Who do you that know says "Gee, I hope I get laid off as well as thousands of others so someone other than Bush get's elected"? :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by igloo :laugh: You believe this kid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by mr mahs You believe this kid? He is really lost....and dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkFloyd40 Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 its really getting old... i grow tired of destroying these baseless liberal economic arguments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksimons Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkFloyd40 Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by marksimons the only thing the chart you've provided really illustrates is that you'd have to be a complete fool to attribute the weakness in the labor market over the last 3 years singlehandedly to Bush... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted December 4 Report Share Posted December 4 Originally posted by PFloyd40 the only thing the chart you've provided really illustrates is that you'd have to be a complete fool to attribute the weakness in the labor market over the last 3 years singlehandedly to Bush... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted December 5 Author Report Share Posted December 5 Originally posted by jamiroguy1 I'm sure you can name a democrats all day long..but when have they ever said that they hope the economy is in the crapper? Please!That's like Bush saying he wishes there is another terrorist attack on the US so he'll be able to hold onto the presidency. that is not actually a bad point. Democrats tend to poll well when the economy gets bad. Republicans tend to poll well when threats of terrorism/armed conflict arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted December 5 Report Share Posted December 5 Originally posted by PFloyd40 its really getting old... i grow tired of destroying these baseless liberal economic arguments... its really getting old... i grow tired of destroying these baseless conservative economic arguments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted December 5 Report Share Posted December 5 Originally posted by normalnoises its really getting old... i grow tired of destroying these baseless conservative economic arguments... getting old like ummm... you? arent you like a year or two from hitting 50? Damm, do something with yourself already.... stop posting your erratic bull shit and get a job and a life while you are at it.... damm hippie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.