It`s the Economy Stupid(USNews)

[White_Male_Canada]

Good Economic News

Which you won't find on the front pages of mainstream media:

The Labor Department Friday announced that the number of jobs increased between April 2005 and March 2006 not by 5.8 million but by 6.6 million. As an editorial in the Wall Street Journal notes, "That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the entire number of workers in the state of New Hampshire. What's going on here?" The most plausible explanation, advanced by the Journal and by the Hudson Institute's Diana Furchgott-Roth in the New York Sun, is that lots more jobs are being created by small businesses and individuals going into business for themselves than government statisticians can keep track of. Newspaper reports on the number of jobs usually focus on the Labor Department's business establishment survey. But over the past few years, the Labor Department's household survey has consistently shown more job growth than the business establishment survey. The likely explanation: The business establishment survey misses jobs created by new businesses. Our government statistical agencies do an excellent job. But statistics designed to measure the economy of yesterday have a hard time reflecting the economy of tomorrow.

The federal budget deficit has been cut in half in three years, three years faster than George W. Bush called for. Why? Tax receipts were up 5.5 percent in FY 2004, 14.5 percent in FY 2005, and 11.7 percent in FY 2006. That's up 34.9 percent in three years. And that's after the 2003 tax cuts. When you cut taxes, you get more economic activity, and when you get more economic activity, the government with a tax system that is still decidedly progressive gets more revenue.

The bottom line: The private-sector economy is much more robust and creative than mainstream media would have you believe.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/061010/good_economic_n.htm

[thombergeron]

Good source, Michael Barone. You get real quality journalism from US News & World Report. I like to read it when I'm on the can in a bus station.

What the Department of Labor actually announced was that the economy added 6.6 million new jobs since August 2003, or over the last 37 months.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html

Fact-checking's always good.

[White_Male_Canada]

Good source, Michael Barone. You get real quality journalism from US News & World Report. I like to read it when I'm on the can in a bus station.

What the Department of Labor actually announced was that the economy added 6.6 million new jobs since August 2003, or over the last 37 months.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html

Fact-checking's always good.

The adjustment between that period was for .8 million.

Since the jobs recovery started in August 2003, the household survey has shown a gain of 7.3 million workers, compared to a gain of 5.8 million payroll jobs. The "jobless recovery" Big Lie , exposed.

Fact checking is good.So is comprehension:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

[thombergeron]

The adjustment between that period was for .8 million.

I'm pleased that you understand that. It's unfortunate that Barone, noted conservative columnist, does not.


Since the jobs recovery started in August 2003, the household survey has shown a gain of 7.3 million workers, compared to a gain of 5.8 million payroll jobs. The "jobless recovery" Big Lie , exposed.

Do you know what the household survey is? I'm certain that the author of the NY Sun opinion piece that you cut-and-pasted this from understands. Do you understand why we use payroll survey numbers and not the household survey?


Fact checking is good.So is comprehension:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

So 2.6 million net jobs created since 2001, 6.6 since the tax cuts. Wow, that's almost one job for every four Americans added to the population during that period. And, curiously, the poverty rolls have increased by 5.4 million people in the last six years. What a coincidence.

Bubba's economic policies led to the creation of 22.7 million net new jobs 1992-2000. While increasing taxes. It's nice that we're finally back in positive territory for net job creation, but the President has a long way to go in proving that cutting taxes creates jobs and increasing them leads to unemployment. Right now, it looks a lot like the opposite.

[Quinn]

If you think that out of control budget deficits and a spiraling national debt are signs of a healthy economy then you’re also the type of idiot who thinks that living off of your credit cards is good financial planning because it’s virtually the same thing (actually it’s worse for governments because they can’t walk away from their debt the way individuals can).

Something for the economically illiterate:

[White_Male_Canada]

Bubba's economic policies led to the creation of 22.7 million net new jobs 1992-2000. While increasing taxes. It's nice that we're finally back in positive territory for net job creation, but the President has a long way to go in proving that cutting taxes creates jobs and increasing them leads to unemployment. Right now, it looks a lot like the opposite

I see you kneel in front of slick willy with a blue dress on too.

Clinton`s “projected surplues” were due to his OMB`s failure to account for the fact that any OASDI surpluses are used by Treasury to create IOU`s, essentially a debt the government owes itself. Clinton`s claim that outstanding publicly held stock of government
debt would fall was somewhat correct because old bonds were being retired but in reality (where the rest of us live) the Treasury had to create debt to be
held by OASDI. It is true that the public may have held fewer bonds,but in reality the
government must go deeper in debt due to socialist programs.Everybody knows that.Privatize social security,repeal the Medicare prescription drug benefit and you Americans may,I say may,have a chance to get out of debt.

So much for the mirage of his projected surpluses,now his 22 million jobs.Under Reagan's policies 19.4 million new jobs were created and under Mr. Clinton only 13.7 million new jobs were created when we consider that jobs lag changes in economic policy and the business cycle by a year or more. The difference is even larger when adjusted for the bigger U.S. population under Clinton. Properly adjusted,they show a 19.4 percent increase in new jobs under Reagan, and only a 7.3 percent increase under Clinton.Reagan did all this while winning the cold war,Clinton cut the military by drastic numbers and rode the dot-com bubble and the end of your much dreamed of new (soviet) man.

President Bush has grown the economy while,at the same time,managed a recession,a terrorist attack on US soil which did inflict damage on the economy, fought a war,increased military spending, and is now shrinking deficits due to tax cuts.

My only criticism, Bush`s domestic economic policies, which seem too liberal for my taste. But then you should be praising him for increasing spending on social programs.Seems odd for neo-marxists and leftists to complain of too much social spending.

[thombergeron]

Jesus, Michael, you have a shitload of time on your hands.

It's such a mixed blessing when you depart from your usual cut-and-paste posts. I'm encouraged that you actually possess the capacity for original thought, but your written communication skills verge on incoherent.


I see you kneel in front of slick willy with a blue dress on too.

Not that it's even remotely relevant to the conversation here, but I didn't vote for Clinton, in either election. At the time, I generally felt that his presidency was a disgrace. Sure is looking good in hindsight, though.



Clinton`s “projected surplues” were due to his OMB`s failure to account for the fact that any OASDI surpluses are used by Treasury to create IOU`s, essentially a debt the government owes itself.

Uh, this is not just the practice of Clinton's OMB, it's all OMBs. You do understand that President Bush's 2005 budget deficit -- $318 billion -- also includes the OASDI surplus, don't you?


So much for the mirage of his projected surpluses,now his 22 million jobs.Under Reagan's policies 19.4 million new jobs were created and under Mr. Clinton only 13.7 million new jobs were created when we consider that jobs lag changes in economic policy and the business cycle by a year or more. The difference is even larger when adjusted for the bigger U.S. population under Clinton. Properly adjusted,they show a 19.4 percent increase in new jobs under Reagan, and only a 7.3 percent increase under Clinton.Reagan did all this while winning the cold war,Clinton cut the military by drastic numbers and rode the dot-com bubble and the end of your much dreamed of new (soviet) man.

Sure, Reagan's fiscal policy resulted in some nice job creation numbers. However, that was way back before you were born, and we were talking about the current administration's failure to spur adequate job growth.

In any event. Your numbers are a little screwed up. If Reagan's 19.4 million net new jobs is a 19.4 percent increase, then that would imply that there were exactly 100 million American jobs when Reagan took office in 1981 (there weren't, but for the sake of argument, let's follow your reasoning) and 119.4 million jobs when he left office in 1989. Bush 41 added about 2.5 million net new jobs 1989-1993. So, by your reasoning, Clinton took office with 121.9 million jobs in the American economy.

Now, I don't know where you're getting the 13.7 million new jobs number. 22.7 million for the Clinton administration comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which was an acceptable source for you a couple of posts ago. But again, for the sake of argument, let's accept this 13.7 million number. The problem is that 13.7 is not 7.3 percent of 121.9. So it really looks like you're just pulling random figures out of your ass. I think your computer probably has a calculator on it.


President Bush has grown the economy while,at the same time,managed a recession,a terrorist attack on US soil which did inflict damage on the economy, fought a war,increased military spending, and is now shrinking deficits due to tax cuts.

Well, again, you've used Reagan's record to defend the current administration. Apart from numbers that you've made up, there's not really any evidence that President Bush has "grown the economy." And the deficit that he is shrinking (and nonetheless still projects to hand off to the next administration), is also one that he created.


My only criticism, Bush`s domestic economic policies, which seem too liberal for my taste. But then you should be praising him for increasing spending on social programs.Seems odd for neo-marxists and leftists to complain of too much social spending.

That must be very lonely for you. Not only do you occupy a tiny minority of the American population (about 13% describe Bush as "too liberal"), there really aren't any truly fiscally conservative governments left anywhere in the world. At about 14%, the U.S. lags nearly every other developed nation in percentage of GDP spent on social welfare. Maybe you'd like South Korea. Or Mexico.

[White_Male_Canada]

Clinton`s “projected surplues” were due to his OMB`s failure to account for the fact that any OASDI surpluses are used by Treasury to create IOU`s, essentially a debt the government owes itself.



”Uh, this is not just the practice of Clinton's OMB, it's all OMBs. You do understand that President Bush's 2005 budget deficit -- $318 billion -- also includes the OASDI surplus, don't you?”

Took you like a month to reply to my simple post? OMB is political,CBO, not as much. The differences are mainly due to contradictory assumptions regarding the maturity structure of future debt issues and the future course of debt buybacks. Clinton`s OMB was merely more political than that of Bush`s OMB.



“Now, I don't know where you're getting the 13.7 million new jobs number. 22.7 million for the Clinton administration comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which was an acceptable source for you a couple of posts ago. But again, for the sake of argument, let's accept this 13.7 million number. The problem is that 13.7 is not 7.3 percent of 121.9. So it really looks like you're just pulling random figures out of your ass. I think your computer probably has a calculator on it.”

I`ll trust Dr Richard Rahn`s numbers. Just so happens he earned his B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida an M.B.A. from Florida State University and a Ph.D. in business economics from Columbia University and was also awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University .
He is also a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.


“At about 14%, the U.S. lags nearly every other developed nation in percentage of GDP spent on social welfare. Maybe you'd like South Korea. Or Mexico.”

14% is entitlements only and does not include all other social programs,ie:education,HUD,agriculture,etc.

[thombergeron]

Took you like a month to reply to my simple post?

Yeah, I have a job. Thanks, Mr. President. I'm one of the lucky ones.


OMB is political,CBO, not as much. The differences are mainly due to contradictory assumptions regarding the maturity structure of future debt issues and the future course of debt buybacks. Clinton`s OMB was merely more political than that of Bush`s OMB.

Sure, Michael. Why don't you tell us all about "contradictory assumptions regarding the maturity structure of future debt issues and the future course of debt buybacks." The point is that you said Clinton's budget surplus was not a real surplus because it includes the OASDI surplus. And I pointed out that Bush's very real budget deficit also includes the OASDI surplus.


I`ll trust Dr Richard Rahn`s numbers. Just so happens he earned his B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida an M.B.A. from Florida State University and a Ph.D. in business economics from Columbia University and was also awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University .
He is also a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.

Oooh, a PhD? That is impressive. Still, I think I'm going to go with facts, and math. In the words of the immortal Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Tell me something. I hold a doctorate. If I affirm that you're an idiot, will you take my word for it?


14% is entitlements only and does not include all other social programs,ie:education,HUD,agriculture,etc.

God. No, it's not. Look this stuff up before you post, please.