Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Snow Job: Bush's economic numbers keep getting flakier.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 01:20 PM
Original message
Snow Job: Bush's economic numbers keep getting flakier.


"...But before investigating some of its outrageous claims about the economy, let's do a quick reality check. Where are we? The economy went into recession as George W. Bush took office, so it would be unfair and inaccurate to blame the initial downturn on the current administration. The Bush policies, however, have been flawed because they were never intended to generate jobs or growth in the short-term; they were always about cutting government revenue and shifting the tax burden away from income from investments (from the few) and onto income from labor (that's most of us). A decent set of policies -- enacting one-time tax cuts aimed at lower- and middle-income families, building roads and bridges, renovating schools, providing aid to the states, offering improved unemployment insurance -- could have yielded a much better situation today.

What did happen? There were continuous and record-breaking employment losses for roughly two and a half years, followed by some modest job gains starting last September. Oh, there was one very good month for job growth, this last March. After three years, though, the economy has lost 2.6 million private-sector jobs and created about 600,000 government jobs for a net loss of 2 million. In every other business cycle since the 1930s, the economy had recouped all the lost jobs by three years from the start of the recession. In the current case, however, the economy is still suffering a 1.5-percent loss of employment after three years. In the better-managed cycles of the last three decades, the economy had gained 2.5 percent more jobs after three years. That 4-percent difference between the current cycle and recent cycles represents a shortfall of more than 5 million jobs. So, we've certainly had a tough time on the job front.

What's more, inflation-adjusted wages are flat, at best, and are eroding for many workers. When jobs are short, it is inevitable that weekly and hourly wages grow more slowly as employers take advantage of the situation. The offshoring of white-collar jobs has only added to these pressures this time around.

Poor job performance and wage stagnation add up to very little growth in overall wage and salary income -- what most of us live on. With fast productivity and minimal growth in wages and employment, you get big profits. This is exactly whats occurred. Even Alan Greenspan noted this recently, saying: "Most of the recent increases in productivity have been reflected in a sharp rise in the pre-tax profits of nonfinancial corporation … . The increase in real hourly compensation was quite modest over that period. The consequence was a marked fall in the ratio of employee compensation to gross nonfinancial corporate income to a very low level by the standards of the past three decades..."

more@link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. it continually blows my mind. . .
that the first pres* ever to hold an MBA has absolutely no regard for fiscal solvency and has probably bankrupted us for many years to come.

But, who cares about the future?. . .'cause "we'll all be dead."

A true visionary.

Ugh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'd really like to know
what kinds of grades and courses he took at Harvard? According to the O'Neill book he lacks any knowledge of finance. With his lack of intellectual rigor and curiousity I sincerely doubt he'd get into Harvard today.;(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihaveaquestion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Didn't he have to produce a master's thesis?
Is that a requirement for an MBA at Harvard? If so, I'd like to see it. Just to see if it was even remotely readable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I assure you it was a masterpiece
Well it should be for all the money Poppy paid for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. How many people
know that Shrub applied to The University of Texas School of Law, but he was rejected? Harvard Business School was his fallback position.

UT was not into legacies. Furthermore, even if it had been, the crime family had no legacy there and was still unpacking its carpet bags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. of course he'd get into harvard
they always need a new pool or dormitory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC