The US Economy

Just a reminder: it has been the contention of many liberals from the days of Bush's campaign in 1999 that there was an intention -- intention -- to create a deficit through tax-cuts and then, slowly but surely, kill off social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What we may be seeing here is a long stall in the run-up to the 2004 election. Then, if Bush wins, much of this prediction would be borne out during a "nothing-to-lose" second term.

0 Replies

Running a deficit in California certainly didn't work but I'm convinced our voters just didn't like Grey Davis' looks and decided they wanted a more cosmetically pleasing Governor.

0 Replies

timber, What you are talking about are "public interest" programs; roads, the space program, and WPA were and are government directed programs. They benefit the general public, but they produce nothing of value to "purchase" by the public unless some private citizen produces something from the use of those government funded programs. Your stretches are obvious to all of us except you; why don't you admit it for once?

0 Replies

I'll also provide some good news on our economy. Our airlines are doing much better; most are showing profit, and those losing money are losing less. That's a good indication that our economy is improving - atleast to me. I believe the travel industry is a good indicator of how our economy is progressing, but that's only one of many indicators.

0 Replies

Travel and entertainment including restaurants and other discretionary spending is a good indicator -- the gallery business seems to be picking up but we won't know until the end of the first quarter of 2004 if it is a stable, substantial rise. The Calfornia voters didn't like the proposition to institute infrastructure improvements -- I guess I'm in for another set of tires, wheel alignments, etc. in the daily run over the potholes in the highway on the way to work.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
And listen to dys; he knows of what he speaks. Presidents do not create jobs nor effect the economy all that much. "Pissing in the wind" sounds about right.

So the Dems and media who discuss the Clinton economy are all liars? And, why would Clinton use "Its The Economy, Stupid", blaming Bush 1 for the economy, and inferring he could make changes to improve it?

My point: If Presidents don't affect the economy, why all the blaming Bush when it was not so good, yet claiming he had no part in the upsurge?

Can't have it both ways.

0 Replies

Sofia, The point is, it's not good policy to give tax breaks to the rich while our national debt increases that must be paid for by future workers at a time when our economy is struggling to improve. Having said that, it's not only the president we must blame, because congress must also take part in this foolishness. Understand yet? If not, I can give you more examples.

0 Replies

Sofia's just playing "gotcha." Bush has sure affected the economy adversely, with Congress as handmaiden. The GDP numbers still don't have the necessary foundation of continuity. Far too many people are not only out of work but have given up trying (and the jobless rate grew once again during the quarter the GDP rose). Conservatives opining about the economy seem to behave those weather forecasters who haven't looked out the window.

Keep on truckin', CI.

0 Replies

I am thrilled with the progress in Iraq....

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3738218

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Conservatives opining about the economy seem to behave those weather forecasters who haven't looked out the window.

Actually, the economy outside my window is gaining remarkably.

0 Replies

The economy outside our window in Silicon Valley is still a bit of a so-so. No real improvement with the real prospects of more city and county government workers being laid off from their jobs. If Ahnold resends the vehicle tax, that will mean $4 billion of tax revenue loss for the state, and I'm not sure how he plans to make up for that.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

timber, What you are talking about are "public interest" programs; roads, the space program, and WPA were and are government directed programs. They benefit the general public, but they produce nothing of value to "purchase" by the public unless some private citizen produces something from the use of those government funded programs. Your stretches are obvious to all of us except you; why don't you admit it for once?

Actually this time he was quite obviously right.

You originally asked, "when did Presidents ever create jobs". Both Craven and Timber referred to the obvious example: FDR's New Deal program. Was intended to create jobs and did create jobs (as well as "benefiting the general public") - lots of 'em.

0 Replies

nimh, I'm interested in what kind of jobs? Most government jobs are public service jobs that creates nothing of commercial value.

0 Replies

Lets open one little window on the economy; historic unemployment, year-to-year.

77 : 7.1%
78 : 6.1
79 : 5.8
80 : 7.1
81 : 7.6
82 : 9.7
83 : 9.6
84 : 7.5
85 : 7.2
86 : 7.0
87 : 6.7
88 : 5.5
89 : 5.3
90 : 5.6
91 : 6.8
92 : 7.5
93 : 6.9
94 : 6.1
95 : 5.6
96 : 5.4
97 : 4.9
98 : 4.5
99 : 4.2
00 : 4.1
01 : 4.7
02 : 5.8

So, over the past 25 years, US unemployment has averaged 6.6% ... well, 6.572%. In only 11 of the past 25 years, has the figure been 6% or lower. The simple fact is that current unemployment is well under the 25 year average. Over the past 108 years, the entire period for which reliable statistics are available, the average works out to 6%. Only during the WWII period did unemployment beat the 4-5% range of the late '90s.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 Replies

The most recent statistics show 6.2 percent unemployment rate. Looking at the past five years, 6.2 percent doesn't look very good. If you're going to go back 25 years, why not 75 years? Those depression years should balance your 6.6 percent. Wink

0 Replies

The 108 Year average is 6% c.i. ... and even if both the warboom periods of 1918-19 and 1940-45 and the depression period of 1932-38 are backed out, the average remains the same.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

nimh, I'm interested in what kind of jobs? Most government jobs are public service jobs that creates nothing of commercial value.

Well, thats not what you asked tho. You asked a simple question: "Sofia, Go back in history and see how many presidents "created" jobs." Timber answered in her place with some straightforward answers. It wont do to go all, "Your stretches are obvious to all of us except you; why don't you admit it for once?", at him when he's simply answering the question you asked.

Anyway, your new point doesnt make sense. The New Deal gave a lot of people who were miserably poor at least some kind of decent working wage. With that wage, they bought stuff. In that, not yet globalised world, that stuff would have been mostly American stuff. Which would have been of great commercial value to businessmen and -women.

0 Replies

timber, Thanks for the update. I know zero uenmployment is not possible or even desired, but I didn't know that the 'average' unemployment in the US was that high. I guess I assumed that unemployment rates were better from personal experience; been pretty lucky during my career, I guess. Before I graduated from college with my accounting degree, I had four job offers. Not true any more. Wink

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The 108 Year average is 6% c.i. ... and even if both the warboom periods of 1918-19 and 1940-45 and the depression period of 1932-38 are backed out, the average remains the same.

Thing is, your stats shows that unemployment had been consistently falling every single year in the Clinton era - and has consistently risen every single year in the Bush Jr era. Now I tend to side with Dys when he says its silly to credit too much of any economic up- or downturn to the President - too many other factors involved - but at the very least it looks bad. Not much to brag about there.

0 Replies

nimh, Sorry, I failed to make my point clearer. Government has always employed people to work and earn wages, but most are public works jobs, and they do not produce goods and services that have commercial value. When the tax base is reduced in both federal and local levels, increasing government jobs will not help our economy. Only the federal government has the legal rights to work with annual deficits, and they're doing a yeoman's job of that right now. Government spending alone does not help any economy (ever hear of communism working?); it must be based on the goods and services produced that have commercial value in the market place. That's all I meant by my question.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know