WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Fox, you should try to come up with someone better than Kudlow, who has no credibility. He has always been a shill for the Republicans. He predicted that Bush's tax cuts would produce large surpluses, which is silly on its face. He touts the great economy by pointing to the stock market, which is doing just okay. It is still lower than when Clinton left office.

The great economy is not that great, with job growth almost nonexistent. Virtually all the new jobs are in health care, which is not indicative of added wealth in the country. Corporations are doing well by effectively cutting wages and employee benefits. New college graduates are facing bleak prospects.

President George W. Bush's tax cuts have done an amazing job of reigniting the U.S. economy. The 2003 tax cuts rallied the stock market, generated 6.5 million new jobs and produced soaring revenues that have, in turn, slashed the deficit.

Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms

President Bush has noted that 2 million jobs were created over the course of 2005 and that we have added 4.6 million jobs since the decline in jobs ended in May 2003. But does that mean the labor market is getting back to normal?

Unfortunately, no. Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms. Last year's 2 million new jobs represented a gain of 1.5%, a sluggish growth rate by historical standards (see chart below). In fact, it is less than half of the average growth rate of 3.5% for the same stage of previous business cycles that lasted as long. At that pace, we would have created 4.6 million jobs last year. If jobs had grown last year at the pace of even the slowest of the prior cycles?-2.1% in the 1980s?-we would have added 2.8 million jobs. Over the last half century, the only 12-month spans with job growth as low as 1.5% were those that actually included recession months, occurred just before a recession, or were during the "jobless recovery" of 1992 and early 1993.

Quote:

President George W. Bush's tax cuts have done an amazing job of reigniting the U.S. economy. The 2003 tax cuts rallied the stock market, generated 6.5 million new jobs and produced soaring revenues that have, in turn, slashed the deficit.

I suppose it all depends on the meaning of "amazing"

The Dow is up at only a rate of 11% per year in that time frame.
The Nasdaq is up 14%
The S&P is up 13%
Hardly amazing numbers unless you consider average gains to be amazing.

Quote:

Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms

President Bush has noted that 2 million jobs were created over the course of 2005 and that we have added 4.6 million jobs since the decline in jobs ended in May 2003. But does that mean the labor market is getting back to normal?

Unfortunately, no. Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms. Last year's 2 million new jobs represented a gain of 1.5%, a sluggish growth rate by historical standards (see chart below). In fact, it is less than half of the average growth rate of 3.5% for the same stage of previous business cycles that lasted as long. At that pace, we would have created 4.6 million jobs last year. If jobs had grown last year at the pace of even the slowest of the prior cycles?-2.1% in the 1980s?-we would have added 2.8 million jobs. Over the last half century, the only 12-month spans with job growth as low as 1.5% were those that actually included recession months, occurred just before a recession, or were during the "jobless recovery" of 1992 and early 1993.

http://www.jobwatch.org/


So the job gains have been sluggish and far below normal. Amazing is the word I might use if I was talking about how bad the gains were compared to normal.

I haven't had time to break out the treasury figures yet but I bet they will be just about as "amazing" once you factor in economic and population growth.

Here is a debate a couple of years ago between Krugman and Kudlow. Fox, you will interpret it wrong, but the truth is that Kudlow was demolished.

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/CNBCKudlowCramer080204.html

The fact is, you lefties and the leftish mainstream media will not give Bush policies credit for a very good economic environment

As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Advocate wrote:

As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

When the overwhelming evidence, supported by EVERY credible economist writing on it, is that national revenues are at an all time HIGH and this is due in a large part to those very real tax reductions, it's really difficult for you to support your statement with any credible evidence, Advocate.

Foxfyre wrote:

Advocate wrote:

As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

When the overwhelming evidence, supported by EVERY credible economist writing on it, is that national revenues are at an all time HIGH and this is due in a large part to those very real tax reductions, it's really difficult for you to support your statement with any credible evidence, Advocate.

The premise of your sentence may define your idea of a credible economist. It doesn't describe what credible economists are writing -- let alone every credible economist.

Okay. You're right. Let's amend my more emphatic statement to read EVERY economist that I consider to be credible. Better?