About all of those lost jobs

maybe some folks should demand a recount of employment stats

from JoeUser Forums
From a Commentary in The Washington Times

Link follows: Revising the job count
politics
9,853 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure Would. During the time since President Bush became President, the work force, due to population growth, increased about 5 million workers. It takes about 115,000 new jobs per month to provide jobs for our growing population. If the number of jobs, given the job growth in the last year, shows about the same number of jobs as in January 2001, where are the jobs for the 5 million new workers? In addition, the pay and benefits of many of the jobs created this past year are below the pay and benefits of those that were lost prior to last fall.

The rate of economic growth is far below that needed to provide empolyment for our growing population and more and more people receive less pay and fewer benefits especially healthcare. The Supply side BS is not working to the degree needed to repay the lost revenue from the tax cuts to the wealthy and provide the addad revenue to fund our ever increasing expenses. That is how we went from a $125 Billion surplus to a $450 Billion dollar deficit. Great work Mr. Bush - and I an a moderate Republican. Just think what a liberal would have to say!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
and I an a moderate Republican.


That is a bald face lie or at best an overly optimistic wrongful characterization.

That's almost as good as the claims about the economy. Almost.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
terpfan1980

Apply what evey label you wish, these are the facts. If you are one of the 5 Million that can not earn a living it is a real problem. When interest rates return to historic norms, the added interest on the debt will kill this country! The trade deficit is a disaster in the making. Bush is doing nothing to solve ANY of these issues. He is making them worse day after day!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
WHen the baby boomers are beginning to retire, how can there be 5 million more employees in the market for a job Gene?.

BTW I have to agree with Terpfans assessment of your politics if the bile you directed at President Bush this election season is any indication.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
That is a bald face lie or at best an overly optimistic wrongful characterization.

That's almost as good as the claims about the economy. Almost.


Wow, snappy comeback. Why dazzle them with facts when you can just apply labels.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: whoman69Posted: Tuesday, November 23, 2004That is a bald face lie or at best an overly optimistic wrongful characterization.That's almost as good as the claims about the economy. Almost.Wow, snappy comeback. Why dazzle them with facts when you can just apply labels.


See the reply immediately above yours. Facts are facts. The comments that came out of COL Gene demonstrated him to be anything but what he portrayed himself as in his response above.


As for facts, if we ignore the job losses that are clearly related to the shutdown of the airline industry and hospitality related businesses that were devastated after 9-11, and look back with that 20-20 hindsight at the job numbers since then, we find that many jobs have been created, and many people are making money.

When census figures and income tax revenue figures come out in future years, we're gonna find that the alarmist media played along very nicely with alarmist Democratic candidates that tried to hype a broken economy in the hope it would lead them back to the White House. Then we'll find that the economy hasn't been as bad as claimed, revenue coming into the government will clearly be shown to be at record highs, and disposable income levels will also be in line with historical data.

Of course by then we'll be well past this election cycle and we'll be arguing over a new set of candidates.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: whoman69 - 11/23/2004 7:30:06 PM
That is a bald face lie or at best an overly optimistic wrongful characterization.

That's almost as good as the claims about the economy. Almost.


Wow, snappy comeback. Why dazzle them with facts when you can just apply labels.


He wasn't doing anything but stating the facts. Examine the rest of the Col's posts on JU and you will find the exact same hate filled rehtoric against *President* Bush!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Facts are facts. I do not hate anyone but the economy, jobs, the Federal deficit and the Trade deficit are real issues that are not being resolved. The real problem is that all the major issues that will impact all of us are not being made better and the policies we are following are not working! If you go back to 1985, we were told the same thing that the tax cuts were going to balance the budget. Well we spent and cut taxes and got deeper into debt. We did that by cutting faderal revenue while increasing Federal spending. This is the SAME thing we are doing again with the very same results. We have not learned from history and are destined to repeat it!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

The rate of economic growth is far below that needed to provide empolyment for our growing population and more and more people receive less pay and fewer benefits especially healthcare. The Supply side BS is not working to the degree needed to repay the lost revenue from the tax cuts to the wealthy and provide the addad revenue to fund our ever increasing expenses. That is how we went from a $125 Billion surplus to a $450 Billion dollar deficit. Great work Mr. Bush - and I an a moderate Republican. Just think what a liberal would have to say!

The relatively trivial part of revenue that was lost due to the tax cut (which amounts to 1.3t OVER 10 years, or an average of 130b per year) does not account for the deficit.  And the simple fact of the matter is, you CANNOT get a tax cut unless you pay taxes.  To do otherwise, would no longer be a tax CUT, but a Welfare Payment.

The country was headed into a recession when 9-11 occurred.  9-11 made it worst.  The so called Supply side BS is helping us to recover.  WHen was the last time a democrat pulled us out of a recession with tax increases?  And dont claim Clinton.  The recovery started 6 months before he took office.

I dont see how you can call yourself a moderate anything as this is just pure left wing drivel.  But if you want us to think you are a moderate republican, so be it.  But it does not surprise us that you voted for the most liberal candidate in the last 20 years.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt.


Just to name 3.


Cheers

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt.


I asked when was the last time.  And a little thing like WWI and WWII helped your first 2.  I dont remember Teddy raising taxes either.  Oh, wait.  He couldn't!  That was before the tax admendment!

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Income Tax is not the only kind of tax the federal government can levy.  Tariffs for instance.


Cheers

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
SSG Geezer.

Babby Boomers reach full retirement age starting in 2012 (66 plus 1946) . If you pin your help for the millions of new workers that do not have jobs you have a long time without help.

Dr Guy

The issue is not labels but results. Yes 9/11 had a impact on our economy. The issue is that the policies Bush has implemented to deal with 9/11 and the slowing economy has NOT PRODUCED GROWTH AT A RATE NEEDED TO REPLACE THE LOST TAX REVENUE AND THE MONEY NEEDED FOR THE ADDED SPENDING! CBO has stated, that $270 Billion of the $450 billion annual deficit in FY 2004 was because of the Tax cuts! Bush in his own projections (SEE OMB ) NEVER brings the federal budget into balance much less produce a surplus to repay the deficit. The Bush projection (OMB) puts the deficit at about $10 Trillion by the end of FY 2008.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #8 By: COL Gene - 11/24/2004 8:20:21 AM
Facts are facts. I do not hate anyone but the economy, jobs, the Federal deficit and the Trade deficit are real issues that are not being resolved. The real problem is that all the major issues that will impact all of us are not being made better and the policies we are following are not working! If you go back to 1985, we were told the same thing that the tax cuts were going to balance the budget. Well we spent and cut taxes and got deeper into debt. We did that by cutting faderal revenue while increasing Federal spending. This is the SAME thing we are doing again with the very same results. We have not learned from history and are destined to repeat it!


Yes, but you say it over and over and over again. No matter what the topic is you manage to change the subject so you can say the same thing yet again. This is a post about "lost jobs".
IE:
Bush in his own projections (SEE OMB ) NEVER brings the federal budget into balance much less produce a surplus to repay the deficit. The Bush projection (OMB) puts the deficit at about $10 Trillion by the end of FY 2008.
And again:
I do not hate anyone but the economy, jobs, the Federal deficit and the Trade deficit are real issues that are not being resolved. The real problem is that all the major issues that will impact all of us are not being made better and the policies we are following are not working! If you go back to 1985, we were told the same thing that the tax cuts were going to balance the budget. Well we spent and cut taxes and got deeper into debt. We did that by cutting faderal revenue while increasing Federal spending. This is the SAME thing we are doing again with the very same results. We have not learned from history and are destined to repeat it!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

CBO has stated, that $270 Billion of the $450 billion annual deficit in FY 2004 was because of the Tax cuts! Bush in his own projections (SEE OMB


I would like to see a link.  Can you provide one?


And I take it you mean the total deficit of 10T.  Which is not as bad as it seems since it was over 6t before Bush took office.  I dont like them either, and as I have said many times, I dont buy Bush Hook Line and sinker.  But tax cuts do work and are working.  Macro Econ 101. 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are refering to the total debt, not the total deficit.  And an increase of approximately 4 trillion dollars over four years is very bad.  Tax cuts work, but so do tax increases, especially when there are a large number of new expenditures.  The tax cuts would hav been better after the wars, not during.


Cheers

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are refering to the total debt, not the total deficit. And an increase of approximately 4 trillion dollars over four years is very bad. Tax cuts work, but so do tax increases, especially when there are a large number of new expenditures. The tax cuts would hav been better after the wars, not during.


I know, and it is an increase of about 3.5t over 8 years.  Read all the threads.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I did read all the threads, allow me to clarify my statement.


Tax cuts during war=bad.  War presents a unique opportunity for a president to convince the people of the added need to increase taxes.  Putting aside that rationale, expenditures always increase during war time.  They always increase, there has never been a case of war when a state was spending less during a time of war than after.


Since that wasn't the main thrust of the post that you were snidely commenting on, allow me to further clarify.  By the order of the quotes Dr. Guy, you were hammering someone for talking about an increase in the deficit, and demanding a link to the Congressional Budget office, which is incredibly easy to find by googling, "Congressional Budget Office", and then telling them they were incorrectly referring to the total deficit [sic], which was incorrect on your part.  You were referring to the total debt, they were referring to the total deficit.  Perhaps you should read all the threads.


Cheers

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since that wasn't the main thrust of the post that you were snidely commenting on, allow me to further clarify. By the order of the quotes Dr. Guy, you were hammering someone for talking about an increase in the deficit, and demanding a link to the Congressional Budget office, which is incredibly easy to find by googling, "Congressional Budget Office"


First, I was not demanding, I was asking.  And I was not snide.  Second, I know how to get to the CBO, but since he stated the facts so authoratatively, I thought he might have them handy.  thus reducing my work (you understand that concept dont you?).


Finally, I merely said I know - i.e. I realize I mis-typed and it is total debt, not deficit.  Then correctly pointed out that the year was 2008, the debt will be 10t if true and it was 6.4t when Bush took office. so that is over 8 years, not 4.


I think you are just overly sensitive..

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's possible I was being overly sensitive, my point was that I was agreeing with you.  I only wanted to clarify that you were refering to the Debt and not the Deficit.


Cheers

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #18 By: Citizen jeblackstar - 11/24/2004 12:15:30 PM
I did read all the threads, allow me to clarify my statement.


Tax cuts during war=bad. War presents a unique opportunity for a president to convince the people of the added need to increase taxes. Putting aside that rationale, expenditures always increase during war time. They always increase, there has never been a case of war when a state was spending less during a time of war than after.


I'm thankful that folks that agree with your way of thinking didn't win this past election.

Tax increases are NEVER good. Period.

The times when tax increases are good are so few and far between that I won't even begin to support a case for when they might be good.

The government takes in more than enough money as is. But unfortunately it also wastes hugh amounts of what it takes in (see other thread / blog entry for article on waste in current budget). There are plenty of areas where we are supporting things that should be privately funded, where non-public funding would provide a better product and better result, and yet we continue to pour public money into them because someone, somewhere, says we must and that we have a duty to, blah blah blah.

Cutting taxes, or keep taxes at low levels, in an effort to encourage growth in the economy, to create more jobs, more wealth which can be taxed, and more income which can be taxed, works. It's been proven time and again and yet there are those that come out with arguments like above that say we should raise taxes, curtailing growth, and hampering our economy.

After each tax cut cycle -- going back JFK (not John F. Kerry, but John F. Kennedy), there have been record periods of growth for our economy, and record periods of revenue growth for our government. Jobs have been created, wealth has been created (and taxed), and the government has continued to grow along with it at an even higher rate, because Congress people just can't cut the spending, they just can't go home to their constituents without being able to carry along press release after press release that shows where they've brought home the bacon for their locals. When the budgeting process is reformed to the point that this silly, wasteful spending is gone, and we instead spend money on true national priorities (and leave local priorities up to local politicians to solve), then we might get some where.

IF (and that's a big IF) we find that we don't have enough money to deal with our real NEEDS once we get down to just paying for those items, then maybe, just maybe you could convince me that we need to raise taxes somewhere to pay for those needs.

Until then, don't talk about raising taxes because you feel a need (which is really a want) to pay for $330 Billion in miscellaneous crap while carping about us wasting $87 Billion (or $220 Billion, or whatever the current number is) in a wartime effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
IF (and that's a big IF) we find that we don't have enough money to deal with our real NEEDS once we get down to just paying for those items, then maybe, just maybe you could convince me that we need to raise taxes somewhere to pay for those needs.


Jeb, that says it all. Why raise taxes when we are still wasting BILLIONs on boondoggles! When we get to the part about the needs, sure! But since Defense is less than 25% of the total, the rest is really wants, not needs.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fellas, the economy has a mind of its own and has always been cyclical. The government can nudge it around and give it incentives, but in the biggest sense it is the result of a complex of factors not entirely controllable by any government. Like COL Gene, many keep harping that the jobs that are being created are lower paying jobs than the ones that were "lost" (whatever that means), the implication (or explicit claim) being that that's Bush's fault.

Perhaps an analogy with the stock market is fair to make. Many felt, during the early 1990's, that unimpeded growth and a continually rising stock market were inevitable, but we found out that the market had wildly overvalued the tech stocks and they came crashing back down, wiping out a lot of spurious wealth with them. That's partly because the stock market, and our economy in general, doesn't exist in a vacuum. The fact that many of the "new" jobs are lower paying is just a reflection of a similar phenomenon, the overvaluing of labor, which is now going through a correction. We can't just "wish" for high-paying jobs. Someone has to be an employer first, meaning the economy has to pick up enough steam for new venture capital investment, and these jobs are being created in a buyer's market. Further, the growth in self-employment in small business has been rather dramatic since 2000 and, if I remember correctly, isn't reflected in the jobs numbers that COL Gene and others keep complaining about, which, it turns out, haven't been as god-awful as have been claimed ad nauseum.

The deficit matters and should be responsibly dealt with, but I believe the job situation and the economy in general are in far better shape than many are willing to admit. If we use the late 1990's as the standard against which we measure things economically, we're going to be disappointed for some time to come, but that should be understood for what it is, an unrealistic standard.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Until then, don't talk about raising taxes because you feel a need (which is really a want) to pay for $330 Billion in miscellaneous crap while carping about us wasting $87 Billion (or $220 Billion, or whatever the current number is) in a wartime effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The wars are underfunded. I don't care where the money comes from (cutting spending or raising taxes or reworking the money earmarked for the wars into something more efficient), it just needs to be there.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are three ways to bring our spending and revenue into balance. One is to increase the rate of GDP growth which creates more income and therefore more tax revenue. The next thing is to reduce spending and the third is to increase taxes. We should try the first two first but if that does not achieve a balanced budget and than a surplus to repy the debt, taxes must be increased.

For 21 of the past 24 years we have had a substantial annual deficit. It did not begin with 9/11 or the current economic downturn. In 1980 or deficit was $900 Billion. It is now $7.5 Trillion an 8 fold increase. The historic interest rate paid on the debt is just over 5%. The only reason the increased debt has not been a BIG problem is that interest rates are at a 45 year low. As they return to historic norms, t he impact of the debt will take the wind out of everytning- Social Security, Medicate, defense, education and rebuilding our infastructure. Ths lack of Jobs is only one indication of the fact our economic and fiacal policies are not producing the needed GDP growth to create jobs and increase ther federal revenue to balance the budget. If we had used the money from the tax cuts for the wealthy to rebuild America it would have created jobs, profits and demand while rebuilding things that must be replaced. That would have been far more effective than giving the top 2% half the tax cuts. I do not want us to start new spending programs nor do I want us to pay for our current expendatures with debt. The current administration and Congress have no intention to stop the Charge and Spend policies that we have been doing for over two decdes! If you do not believe it look as the budget Congress Passed and Bush will sign.

This has nothing to do with like or dislike Bush. It has to do with what is best for our country in the long run!