Yeah, folks… the economy is terrible. Soooooo terrible.
Non-farm payroll employment increased by 111,000 new jobs in January, following increases of 206,000 in December and 196,000 in November.
- January marks the 41st consecutive month with payroll job gains.
- Over 7.4 million new payroll jobs have been created in that period.
- Over 2.2 million new payroll jobs were created in 2006 alone.
- Over the past three months, payroll job gains have averaged a robust 171,000 per month.
- Since the enactment of tax relief in 2003 (i.e., from July 2003 to January 2007), monthly payroll job gains have averaged a healthy 172,000. In contrast, average monthly payroll job losses between the beginning of 2001 and enactment of pro-growth tax relief were -88,000.
· The January employment report includes the annual “benchmark” revision which updates past employment gains based on more complete information.
- The benchmark revision increased the level of payroll employment in March 2006 by 752,000, or about 0.6% (this is a larger-than-normal revision—the average benchmark revision over the prior 10-year period was plus or minus 0.2%).
- As a result of the revision, average monthly job creation for 2006 was revised up to a robust 187,000, from an earlier estimate of 153,000.
The stats say it all. This is one of the most successful economic periods since World War II by any account. Well, that rely on facts, not lies. Maybe it is Groundhog Day after all — the Roaring Eighties again!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Another example of Bush and Rethuglicans out to destroy Gaia. A growing economy may be good for greedy Rethuglicans, but it’s bad for Gaia. Economic growth creates toxic greenhouse gases, which 150% of all scientists say with absolute cosmic certainty result in global warming that will raise Gaia’s temperature by 400 degrees over the next five years unless we embrace Kyoto immediately and shutdown all capitalism.
Meanwhile, Silky Pony, a.k.a. The Breck Girl, a.k.a. John Edwards has come down from his marble-encrusted mega-mansion to whine to the DNC about poverty and invoking the image of imaginary 8 year olds going hungry. In this economy, if an 8 year old is going hungry, it’s 100 times more likely to be anorexia than poverty.
Larry Kudlow adds: “In inflation adjusted terms, real average hourly earnings are slightly higher than the 2000 peak, and nine percent above the 1995 fifth year average level. (S)ince President Bush’s supply side tax cuts in 2003, adjusted household jobs (a BLS combination of non-farm payrolls and the civilian employment household survey) have grown nearly 3 million per year over the past three years.”
How much of this is Bush’s doing? Bush deserves much less credit than does Americans’ broad rejection of socialism. The US economy is doing far better than those Eurosocialist ones… and they haven’t had to deal with 9-11, Sarbanes-Oxley, or the destruction of a major city by a hurricane.
What a lot of balderdash all this is.
Listen Bruce, no one is going to take you seriously if all you have to offer is this mindless ideological spin.
You want to deal with facts?
First thing to do is to, just to earn your cred as an honest commenter, is to admit the fact that the greatest period of economic growth since WWII (actually, probably in the history of the country) was during the Clinton years – immedialty following the passage of the small tax increase that all you Republicans confidently predicted would lead to economic disaster.
To earn my own cred, I will admit that there was also strong growth in the latter part of the Reagan years, and there is good growth now. But there are, of course, some other factors to keep in mind, other facts.
During the growth periods under Reagan, and now, their was enormous (80’s) or significant (now) deficit spending. The result was a quadrupuling of the national debt under Reagan and a very significant increase in that debt now. These are facts.
You want to talk about job growth? The facts are that the greatest period of job growth was under Clinton – 22 million jobs, once again, after implementing policies that your ideological model predicted would ruin the economy. 7.4 million jobs in the last 41 months is nice, but it pales in comparison.
And you need to keep these job figures in some context. The economy needs to create 1.8 million jobs per year just to keep up with population growth, so the rate that you herald (about 2.1m /yr) although positive, is somewhat less impressive than it appears on the surface – it is only 300K /yr over replacement level. The Clinton average – 2.75m /yr – was nearly 1m / yr over replacemnt – much more substantial growth.
The American economy has an inherint dynamic that is pretty well buffered from the policies of politicians, though its dynamics include ups and downs. The bottom line facts regarding the impact that the different economic approaches is that economic growth is possible under either regime, though it is stronger under the Democrats. And the Democratic approach has led to excellend growth and fiscal responsiblity – reducing the deficit to zero and actually reducing the national debt a bit.
The Republican approach, arising from your basic ideological committments to the interest of the economic elites, is to offer the voters a free lunch of tax cuts (weighted toward the wealthy) which are, in fact, nothing but tax deferrals to future generations, given that they inevitably lead to higher national debt.
in the past, some might have bought into this notion with the hope that it might have the added effect of bringing greater economic growth, but the empirical facts of the past generation is that the growth that follows from these policies is not nearly as good as the growth that follows sane, responsible Democratic policies.
Maybe Tano would like to face a few facts about the Clinton Boom. Such as the expenditure of over $2 trillion to pay for Y2K, which had nothing to do with BJ and was probably unnecessary besides.
Also, Clinton was lucky enough to be president when transformational internet technologies revolutionized the business space. Granted, most of the growth in technology companies in the 90’s was in the form of venture capital dot-com sinkholes (cough… pets-dot-com … cough), but there were transformational effects across business through office automation, not to mention the adaptation of technology-driven production techniques … which had exactly zero to do with BJ Clinton or Democrat policies, (even though Al Gore tried to take credit for inventing it).
Perhaps Tano would care to confront the fact that the Clinton administration looked the other way while comapnies like Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and Global Crossing bilked investors out of billions. Maybe Tano could argue that the Clinton Admin’s willingness to look the other way contributed to the economy… but probably not in the way he would like to admit.
And its kind of funny that when Republicans want people to keep more of the money that they earn, he calls it a ‘free lunch.’ But when Democrats want to confiscate money from people who earn it to give it away to people who don’t… that’s probably considered fiscal responsibility.
Tano,
I’ll give credit where credit is due. With Clinton’s help NAFTA and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 became a reality.
Unfortunately, expanding free trade and cutting taxes isn’t on the agenda of the current crop of democrats.
Whether it’s the economy or global climate change I’m not so sure why liberals and socialists don’t just practice what they preach. Don’t wait for government to be convinced of your ideas and move a large gov’t to impress them upon all the people. Just go ahead and start on your own. If your goal is for a more social economy….send in more money to the government. Instead of waiting for the government to mandate BTU decreases and energy saving tactics, start yourselves. After all liberals represent maybe 30% of the US population and possibly 80% of Europeans. Imagine if tomorrow all these people started walking instead of driving. Hand washed their clothes instead of using a washing machine. Never again fly in airplanes…instead walked or biked wherever they chose to go. Use wood stoves for warmth not furnices, never ever use A/C, it ‘s a terrible energy waster. If the earth is dying, I’m not convinced. If liberals are convinced, they need to pony up and start the sacrificing now. I for one will be very impressed and will take notice.
#5 – Where did you get that $2 trillion figure for Y2K remediation?
#4
To earn my own cred,
Well you shot that to h*ll. Long ago actually. You won’t find any “cred” for you here. Try over at KOSsak land or DirtyUnderwear.
#5
Perhaps Tano would care to confront the fact that the Clinton administration looked the other way while comapnies like Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and Global Crossing bilked investors out of billions.
Now you know that didn’t start until 19 January 2001.
Here more texture to Bruce GP original thread about job growth.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10589
During the Bush recovery that the media was lamenting as a no job growth recovery….they ve adjusted the numbers by +900,000 in a twelve month period!! It’s hard not to suspect liberal bureaucrats in gov’t offices for fudging the numbers. Or are they just incompetent?
I also note that Tano prefers to ignore the effect of the cut in capital gains taxes, starting in 1995, on the economic boom which started at the same time.
I have yet to see anyone here praise Alan Greenspan or Bob Bernanke.
This isn’t a Bush boom — it’s a Greenspan/Bernanke boom.
13, I will. I’ll also add Paul Volcker to the list. It may have been the only economically wise decision Pres. Carter made. And Bush’s appointment of Bernanke appears to have been an excellent choice.
Regarding the economy, I don’t give too much credit or blame to Presidents. The growth during the Reagan years was almost identical to the growth in the Clinton years. During the Clinton years, there was less spending, which resulted in surpluses towards the end of his second term. (By the way, I do know that the national debt still increased during the surplus years, and I don’t know why that is, but at least the debt increased only minimally). The economy did slow down towards the end of Clinton’s presidency, and the recession came soon after. So if one is to blame Presidents for recessions, Clinton deserves some of the blame, not just Bush.
Yes, I also credit Carter for appointing Volckler.
And abolishing the CAB (Civil Aviation Board).
#14 I do know that the national debt still increased during the surplus years, and I don’t know why that is
The national debt is made up of two kinds of debt. Debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings (debt owed by the government to the government ie trust funds). Debt held by the public went down and intragovernmental debt went up by a larger amount thus increasing the total national debt.
#17
I say they should leave it the hell alone. You want to help me? Lower taxes.
Are you kidding? They’re already pushing to add to unemployment by increasing the minimum wage and punishing small business. What makes you think they give a SweetFeatheryJesus about you?
Liberals can’t afford a successful economy. That’s why they’re working so hard to tear it down.
TGC, didn’t you read the memo? Most of the people earning minimum wage are teenagers who live with Mommy and Daddy, and they use their income to buy cell phones and shoes.
So who cares if a few teenaged burger-flippers lose their jobs? They should be studying anyway!
northwest indiana sex offenders registory