Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 06:32:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin?  (Read 3465 times)
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32474


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2004, 10:51:18 pm »
Ignore

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.



The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

Clinton rode the tech bubble until it burst his last year.  He had no clue what to do then, but did not care either since he was going out.

You want a good economy all around?  Get a moderate President and a conservative congress.  You want one with potential explosive growth but with plenty of pitfalls along the way?  All conservative.  You want to ruin your economy, possibly for a very, very long time?  All liberal.

Clinton created 11 million jobs in his first term with no tech bubble. Every Democratic President for 80 years has had jobs created at a faster rate than every Republican President for 80 years. I don't think that's a coincidence. The amount of months spent per year in recession are less the more control the Democratic Party has, and are the worst when the GOP controls everything. Except for a 6 month recession under Carter, not 1 recession has started under a Democratic President since 1947.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2004, 10:54:03 pm »
Ignore

What's Clinton's company? He apparently has a lot of employees.
Logged
Pollwatch99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 549


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2004, 10:58:59 pm »
Ignore

The government can't really do anything about private-sector unemployment. But it can combat underemployment, which has been a bigger problem recently by doing, among other thing:

- Raising the minimum wage
- Increasing welfare and unemployment benefits
- Enacting universal healthcare

To do this, the government will need to raise taxes. So yes, raising taxes can help the economy.
Raising minimum wage; ok
So let's raise taxes really high, then we can afford to help those people
   who lose their jobs better; no sale that doesn't create jobs.
HillaryCare; no thank you.  Temporary safety net for the uninsured; ok but
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2004, 11:02:41 pm »
Ignore

Hmmmm....Upward revision of jobs data.  Could this be a Rove surprise?  Rover claimed to have something up his sleeve, could this be one of thsoe things?
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
ATFFL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5774
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2004, 11:05:45 pm »
Ignore

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.



The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

Clinton rode the tech bubble until it burst his last year.  He had no clue what to do then, but did not care either since he was going out.

You want a good economy all around?  Get a moderate President and a conservative congress.  You want one with potential explosive growth but with plenty of pitfalls along the way?  All conservative.  You want to ruin your economy, possibly for a very, very long time?  All liberal.

Clinton created 11 million jobs in his first term with no tech bubble. Every Democratic President for 80 years has had jobs created at a faster rate than every Republican President for 80 years. I don't think that's a coincidence. The amount of months spent per year in recession are less the more control the Democratic Party has, and are the worst when the GOP controls everything. Except for a 6 month recession under Carter, not 1 recession has started under a Democratic President since 1947.

What condition was the economy in within 6 months of the end of every democratic White House?  Seriously, look it up.  Since the Great Depression the democrats have letft the economy in dire straits for the Republican who replaces them.

Republicans win when the economy is screwed and fix it.  When the econnnomy is good again, the democrats come in, ride the good times and ruin it for the next Republican to fix.  It's practically the business cycle.

Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2004, 11:16:31 pm »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2004, 11:17:29 pm »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Even Bush and Ford? Wink
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32474


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2004, 11:42:32 pm »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Bush's  recession started 2 months into his Presidency.
Carter's 6 month recession ended in 1980
LBJ and Clinton had a lot of economic boom
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15223
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: October 05, 2004, 12:31:27 am »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: October 05, 2004, 12:36:52 am »
Ignore

The government can't really do anything about private-sector unemployment. But it can combat underemployment, which has been a bigger problem recently by doing, among other thing:

- Raising the minimum wage
- Increasing welfare and unemployment benefits
- Enacting universal healthcare

To do this, the government will need to raise taxes. So yes, raising taxes can help the economy.



What makes you think that any of these things will help the economy?
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32474


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: October 05, 2004, 12:39:38 am »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.

80 years Smiley



It's all in here:

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: October 05, 2004, 12:51:57 am »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.

Why is it that there is always a up-swing in economic growth during the final term of a Republican Administration and why does this trend always continue onto the first term of a Dem administration only to go down at the end?  We saw this with Carter, we saw this with Clinton, we saw this with LBJ.
Logged

Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2004, 12:58:33 am »
Ignore

The government can't really do anything about private-sector unemployment.  But it can combat underemployment, which has been a bigger problem recently by doing, among other thing:

- Raising the minimum wage
- Increasing welfare and unemployment benefits
- Enacting universal healthcare

To do this, the government will need to raise taxes.  So yes, raising taxes can help the economy.



What makes you think that any of these things will help the economy?

They may not increase the rate of total economic growth, but this is not the big problem with our economy right.  The biggest problem is that the direction of our economy is really punishing the poor and working class, and these measures would help the people who aren't benefiting from the current economy.   Our economy can't really be considered in good shape while so make people are struggling....right now inequality is a much bigger issue than growth.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15223
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2004, 12:58:47 am »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.

Why is it that there is always a up-swing in economic growth during the final term of a Republican Administration and why does this trend always continue onto the first term of a Dem administration only to go down at the end? We saw this with Carter, we saw this with Clinton, we saw this with LBJ.

Sure, there's an economic upswing near the end of the GOP term. Again, the business cycle kicks in eventually, just as it does with Democrats, causing the economy to eventually settle down after long growth.

The chart that Jfern posted doesn't lie. You can explain away an individual case here or there, but the evidence is just too much over the course of 80 years time to be that consistent.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15223
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2004, 01:00:21 am »
Ignore

The government can't really do anything about private-sector unemployment. But it can combat underemployment, which has been a bigger problem recently by doing, among other thing:

- Raising the minimum wage
- Increasing welfare and unemployment benefits
- Enacting universal healthcare

To do this, the government will need to raise taxes. So yes, raising taxes can help the economy.



What makes you think that any of these things will help the economy?

They may not increase the rate of total economic growth, but this is not the big problem with our economy right. The biggest problem is that the direction of our economy is really punishing the poor and working class, and these measures would help the people who aren't benefiting from the current economy. Our economy can't really be considered in good shape while so make people are struggling....right now inequality is a much bigger issue than growth.

Exactly. The economy is growing, but it is mostly going into the hands of a select few. Economic growth under Democratic administrations is much more equitably distributed generally speaking. That's better for the economy in the long term, to raise the fortunes of those on the bottom more relative to those on the top.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32474


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2004, 01:14:30 am »
Ignore

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.

Why is it that there is always a up-swing in economic growth during the final term of a Republican Administration and why does this trend always continue onto the first term of a Dem administration only to go down at the end?  We saw this with Carter, we saw this with Clinton, we saw this with LBJ.

Let's refute this.
Using those job numbers,
1960 (Eisenhower) -0.8%
1961-1968 (JFK and LBJ) at least 2.1% each year
1968 (LBJ) 3.5%
1969 (Nixon) 2.9%
1970 (Nixon) -0.6%

That seems to break your pattern. I will admit that Carter and Clinton's worst numbers were the last year, but those were still postive, and other years of their Presidency were quite good.

Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2004, 01:26:36 am »
Ignore

The government can't really do anything about private-sector unemployment. But it can combat underemployment, which has been a bigger problem recently by doing, among other thing:

- Raising the minimum wage
- Increasing welfare and unemployment benefits
- Enacting universal healthcare

To do this, the government will need to raise taxes. So yes, raising taxes can help the economy.



What makes you think that any of these things will help the economy?

They may not increase the rate of total economic growth, but this is not the big problem with our economy right. The biggest problem is that the direction of our economy is really punishing the poor and working class, and these measures would help the people who aren't benefiting from the current economy. Our economy can't really be considered in good shape while so make people are struggling....right now inequality is a much bigger issue than growth.

You've just posted two excellent reasons not to vote for Kerry. His proposals won't stimulate economic growth and he will raise taxes not to stimulate it.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32474


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2004, 01:31:43 am »
Ignore

Here's another way to look at the numbers:
Post-war with 1 year lag on the terms

Truman 1946-1949 2.82%
Truman 1950-1953 3.42%
Eisenhower 1954-1957 1.37%
Eisenhower 1958-1961 1.17%
JFK/LBJ 1962-1965 3.25%
LBJ 1966-1969 3.40%
Nixon 1970-1973 2.35%
Nixon/Ford  1974-1977 2.0%
Carter 1978-1981 1.85%
Reagan 1982-1985 2.1%
Reagan 1986-1989 2.47%
Bush 1990-1993 0.77%
Clinton 1994-1997 2.62%
Clinton 1998-2001 1.27%
Bush 2002-2003 -0.20%

The 2001 numbers hurt the 1998-2001 numbers a lot.  Well, not Clinton's fault, 9/11 changed everything, right?
Anyways, only Carter and Clinton 2nd term numbers are worse than any Republican term.

Maybe 6 month lag would be more usefull.....
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2004, 01:31:58 am »
Ignore



Exactly. The economy is growing, but it is mostly going into the hands of a select few. Economic growth under Democratic administrations is much more equitably distributed generally speaking. That's better for the economy in the long term, to raise the fortunes of those on the bottom more relative to those on the top.

Allow me to explain this chart




Well, you cannot really count Roosevelt because things couldn't have gotten much worse during the Depression and the war certainly created a lot of jobs.  So there is one gone.

We then go onto Truman.  Most of what Truman gained was nherited from FDR.  The Truman administration saw the worst Recession until Carter and at the end the economy was just abismal.  Can't blame Truman for this, though, it was the post-war bust.

Kennedy cut taxes!!!!!!!  A lot!!!!!!!  And put in place a lot of good reforms to keep things running.

LBJ just inherited what Kennedy did and by the end of his term we were once again in recession because of Veitnam and the Great Society.

Nixon attempted to remedy this, but rapid inflation caused by global problems and years of post-war economic bust caused problems for both he and Ford yet they still managed 3.3% jobs growth.

Carter's first two years were marked by jobs growth.  His last two were marked by the biggest recession in the 20th century.

Reagan inherited this recession, but still managed to create 20 million new jobs by the time he was out.

The Pacific Rim Market Crash ruined the first two years of the Bush 41 Presdency, but it is now a proven fact that the economy was growing during the last 8 months of his Presidency.

Clinton was in the right place at the right time.  He benefited from the lift at the end of Bush's term and also from the changing economy and new technology that gave a massive lift to the economy.

However, towards the end, the "Clinton" economy began to slow down and by Jan 2001, before G.W. took office, slipped into recession.  Jobs growth should have out paced jobs loss, but guess what?  9/11 happened.

At anyrate, the jobs are coming back and, if you believe the Democrat, these figures are insignificant anyway, because the number of jobs matters nothing, now that Bush is adding jobs, it is the quality.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32474


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2004, 01:40:34 am »
Ignore



Exactly. The economy is growing, but it is mostly going into the hands of a select few. Economic growth under Democratic administrations is much more equitably distributed generally speaking. That's better for the economy in the long term, to raise the fortunes of those on the bottom more relative to those on the top.

Allow me to explain this chart




Well, you cannot really count Roosevelt because things couldn't have gotten much worse during the Depression and the war certainly created a lot of jobs.  So there is one gone.

We then go onto Truman.  Most of what Truman gained was nherited from FDR.  The Truman administration saw the worst Recession until Carter and at the end the economy was just abismal.  Can't blame Truman for this, though, it was the post-war bust.

Kennedy cut taxes!!!!!!!  A lot!!!!!!!  And put in place a lot of good reforms to keep things running.

LBJ just inherited what Kennedy did and by the end of his term we were once again in recession because of Veitnam and the Great Society.

Nixon attempted to remedy this, but rapid inflation caused by global problems and years of post-war economic bust caused problems for both he and Ford yet they still managed 3.3% jobs growth.

Carter's first two years were marked by jobs growth.  His last two were marked by the biggest recession in the 20th century.

Reagan inherited this recession, but still managed to create 20 million new jobs by the time he was out.

The Pacific Rim Market Crash ruined the first two years of the Bush 41 Presdency, but it is now a proven fact that the economy was growing during the last 8 months of his Presidency.

Clinton was in the right place at the right time.  He benefited from the lift at the end of Bush's term and also from the changing economy and new technology that gave a massive lift to the economy.

However, towards the end, the "Clinton" economy began to slow down and by Jan 2001, before G.W. took office, slipped into recession.  Jobs growth should have out paced jobs loss, but guess what?  9/11 happened.

At anyrate, the jobs are coming back and, if you believe the Democrat, these figures are insignificant anyway, because the number of jobs matters nothing, now that Bush is adding jobs, it is the quality.

Those are the per centage increase job numbers per year. You can't add Nixon and Fords numbers, that's a meaningless statistic.
FDR averaged a 5.3% increase per year over 12.1 years, which is simply amazing.  Truman still beat the average even after FDR had created so many jobs. FDR and Truman about doubled the jobs in their 20 years.  Sorry, 1968 and 1969 had good job gains, LBJ did not leave us in bad news job wise. You are right that 1980-1982 were bad for jobs, but if you think that compares to the Hoover adminstration, you're smoking crack.  Reagan/Bush averaged only 1.6% per year for their 12 years. Increase in 2000=1.5%. Increase in the last 12 months now (about the only 12 positive months for Bush)=1.3%.  And that 1.5% was by far Clinton's worst year, and in fact is the 3rd worst year of any post-WWII year under a Democratic President.

As for JFK tax cuts, the top marginal rate was an effective 87% his whole Presidency. The top marginal rate was 70% or more for 1936-1980.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
« Last Edit: October 05, 2004, 01:55:44 am by jfern »Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15223
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2004, 01:59:58 am »
Ignore



Exactly. The economy is growing, but it is mostly going into the hands of a select few. Economic growth under Democratic administrations is much more equitably distributed generally speaking. That's better for the economy in the long term, to raise the fortunes of those on the bottom more relative to those on the top.

Allow me to explain this chart




Well, you cannot really count Roosevelt because things couldn't have gotten much worse during the Depression and the war certainly created a lot of jobs. So there is one gone.

We then go onto Truman. Most of what Truman gained was nherited from FDR. The Truman administration saw the worst Recession until Carter and at the end the economy was just abismal. Can't blame Truman for this, though, it was the post-war bust.

Kennedy cut taxes!!!!!!! A lot!!!!!!! And put in place a lot of good reforms to keep things running.

LBJ just inherited what Kennedy did and by the end of his term we were once again in recession because of Veitnam and the Great Society.

Nixon attempted to remedy this, but rapid inflation caused by global problems and years of post-war economic bust caused problems for both he and Ford yet they still managed 3.3% jobs growth.

Carter's first two years were marked by jobs growth. His last two were marked by the biggest recession in the 20th century.

Reagan inherited this recession, but still managed to create 20 million new jobs by the time he was out.

The Pacific Rim Market Crash ruined the first two years of the Bush 41 Presdency, but it is now a proven fact that the economy was growing during the last 8 months of his Presidency.

Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He benefited from the lift at the end of Bush's term and also from the changing economy and new technology that gave a massive lift to the economy.

However, towards the end, the "Clinton" economy began to slow down and by Jan 2001, before G.W. took office, slipped into recession. Jobs growth should have out paced jobs loss, but guess what? 9/11 happened.

At anyrate, the jobs are coming back and, if you believe the Democrat, these figures are insignificant anyway, because the number of jobs matters nothing, now that Bush is adding jobs, it is the quality.

Those are the per centage increase job numbers per year. You can't add Nixon and Fords numbers, that's a meaningless statistic.
FDR averaged a 5.3% increase per year over 12.1 years, which is simply amazing. Truman still beat the average even after FDR had created so many jobs. FDR and Truman about doubled the jobs in their 20 years. Sorry, 1968 and 1969 had good job gains, LBJ did not leave us in bad news job wise. You are right that 1980-1982 were bad for jobs, but if you think that compares to the Hoover adminstration, you're smoking crack. Reagan/Bush averaged only 1.6% per year for their 12 years. Increase in 2000=1.5%. Increase in the last 12 months now (about the only 12 positive months for Bush)=1.3%. And that 1.5% was by far Clinton's worst year, and in fact is the 3rd worst year of any post-WWII year under a Democratic President.

As for JFK tax cuts, he cut taxes to a top marginal rate of 70%. Do you want a top marginal rate of 70%?

Exactly. These are per year averages, so you can't spin it away by saying that LBJ had a couple bad years or Carter had a couple bad years, those are already being factored into the chart.

And likewise, you completely discount FDR's tremendous job creation. Sure, the depression left a lot of room for improvement, but who put us in that mess? Coolidge mostly, and then Hoover failed in his attempts to pull us out. You conveniently left them out of your analysis.

Adding Nixon and Ford's numbers show that you either don't understand the chart, or are trying to spin.

Yes, the war helped FDR.

But the same goes for the 9/11 effect. Yes, the attacks themselves hurt the economy, but the recovery effort and the wars that we have fought since have helped the economy. You can't have it both ways, saying that Pearl Harbor was good for the economy but 9/11 was bad for the economy.

I'm not saying that there aren't external factors in all of these that are to a certain extent beyond the President's control, but the per year average figures don't lie. They can't all be explained away as coincidence. That's spin. The cold hard facts are that Democrats create a better environment for job creation to take place.
Logged
London Man
Silent Hunter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2004, 04:32:07 am »
Ignore

The recession started two months in. Bush's tax cuts hadn't come in then.

I'd say 9/11 prolonged the recession. The difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbour is that Pearl Harbour damaged the US militarily, while 9/11 damaged it financially.

Of course numbers of jobs will generally increase as population increases. Such charts need to be treated with scepticism.
Logged

apricot
Newbie
*
Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2004, 07:03:25 am »
Ignore


The difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbour is that Pearl Harbour damaged the US militarily, while 9/11 damaged it financially.


Iraq war is damaging US financially a lot more than 9/11.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15223
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2004, 08:55:13 am »
Ignore

The recession started two months in. Bush's tax cuts hadn't come in then.

I'd say 9/11 prolonged the recession. The difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbour is that Pearl Harbour damaged the US militarily, while 9/11 damaged it financially.

Of course numbers of jobs will generally increase as population increases. Such charts need to be treated with scepticism.

But this chart goes by percentage increases, and thus remains consistent throughout the years.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2004, 09:42:08 am »
Ignore

Republican presidents inherit recessions from Democratic presidents all the time.


The difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbour is that Pearl Harbour damaged the US militarily, while 9/11 damaged it financially.


Iraq war is damaging US financially a lot more than 9/11.

No, it's not
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines