Results of Bush policies

from JoeUser Forums




I have written many blogs about the impact of the policy we have been following on the American economy. Many of the Joe users refute as “my opinion” many of the things I reported. Below are a series of actual data retrieved from federal government agencies using the Google search engine:

Item Dec 2000 March 2005 Source

National Debt $5.7 Trillion $ 7.7 Trillion Bureau of Public Debt
Annual Budget * $ 235.2 Billion Surplus $ 470 Billion Deficit CBO
Trade Deficit Annual $ 370 Billion $ 700 Billion U S Commerce Dept.
Gasoline Regular $ 1.61/gal $ 2.28/gal U S Dept of Energy
# without Health Ins. 39.8 Million 44.9 Million U S Census Bureau
Unemployment rate 3.7% 5.2% Dept. of Labor
* Amount reported under the “Unified Budget” which combines the Federal deficit with the
Surplus in Social Security and Medicare. The impact of adding the surpluses is to LOWER
the federal deficit by about $200 Billion in 2005.

NOTHING OF THE ABOVE IS MY OPINION BUT FACTUAL CHANGES SINCE GEORGE W. BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT!
politics
9,413 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The actual numbers are always higher than what's reported. Also the system is designed to create confusion and muddled statistical numbers. The evidence is easily visible. The Republicans have a lower unemployment number and a higher jobs created number. The Democrats have higher unemployment numbers and lower jobs created numbers. It's because of the system which is designed to make you think you have a choice, yet the powers that be still get this obvious mind-slip erased from people's mind radar. The government has very simple rules when it concerns hiring new employees and laying off old employees. It's documented on paper and immediately forwarded to the federal government, unless of course the owners or company wishes to be thoroughly audited by the I.R.S. In our business, we would know how many people are showing up for work by looking at their time sheets. Plain and clear, right? In this day of the information age, there is absolutely no reason to believe the government hasn't the ability to count and subtract. You could argue that the time difference between a person being hired and being fired so the numbers will be in a constant state of disarray. That is incorrect. Even if that were the case, there would still be reliable numbers pertaining to the 2 or 3 month period previously. What I mean is that months later the absolute figure should be easily tallied since all the figures would be in by then. But still the numbers don't corelate at all. That is evidence that there is a clear system of confused disinformation when it comes to adding and subtracting in the halls of power. There is no reason for a significant difference in numbers other than to create muddled numbers which no one can agree on. Of course the real evidence is in the job loss related to businesses moving to third world countries or cheap labor countries. Go to WalMart and look at all the toys there. If you find one not made in China you can have my neighbor's wife.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
all of these statistics are comparable and reported and calculated by the same federal agency. The deficit is calculated to the penny. The annual budget deficit as reported is under the unified budget reporting system the same system that was in effect in 2000 and is in effect today. The same is true of the unemployment rate and all the other statistics contained in this blog. The point is the relative difference in these statistics during the last four plus years. I have not characterized these changes in this blog you be the judge. is a $2 trillion increase in the national debt good for America? Are 5 million Americans more without health insurance good for America? Is it better to pay $1.61 for a gallon of gasoline or $2.28 for a gallon of gasoline? Is it better to have a trade deficit of $370 billion were $700 billion ?
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
# without Health Ins. 39.8 Million 44.9 Million U S Census Bureau



WASHINGTON — The number of Americans without health insurance — one of the most watched and worrisome indicators of economic well-being — may be overstated by as much as 20%, according to research conducted for the government.

That could mean 9 million fewer uninsured, reducing the total to 36 million from the 45 million reported for 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

Link
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top



Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US existing home sales climbed 1.0 percent in March to their third highest pace on record, the National Association of Realtors reported, in a sign of a still-hot housing sector.

Home sales grew to an annualized pace of 6.89 million units, better than the 6.8 million expected by Wall Street analysts.

"With mortgage interest rates remaining historically low, gains in the labor market and economic growth appear to have lifted the confidence of home buyers," said David Lereah, NAR's chief economist.


Link
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Factory activity in the Mid-Atlantic United States expanded much more rapidly this month, a regional central bank said on Thursday in a report that countered growing fears of a slowdown in economic growth.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said its business activity index jumped to 25.3 in April from 11.4 in March, confounding Wall Street forecasts of a dip to 10.0. A measure above zero denotes growth in the sector.

"It's a pretty solid performance, a good indicator that the manufacturing sector is probably still growing nicely," said Patrick Fearon, senior economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons.


Link
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Average unemployment rate of the last 25 years: 6.2%
Unemployment Rate today: 5.2%
Average unemployment rate of the whole eight years of the Clinton Era: 5.2%

Average unemployment rate of the first four years of Bush Presidency: 5.5%
Average unemployment rate of the first four years of Clinton Presidency: 6.0%

You love to cherry pick the lowest month of unemployment rate in 35 years 3.7% to compare Bush’s present 5.2% too. But that is the lowest rate since 1969 (Nixon). Even the last year average of Clinton was 4.0, not 3.7%. So for now on we are going to compare this one month in 35 years to the rest of all future unemployment rates?

Bush’s average rate for his first four years beats Clinton’s. But the tech. bubble bust and 9/11 also took place at the start of Bush’s era and Clinton did not have to compete against disasters like those.

Let us see how the next four years workout before throwing stones.

Yes, you are right that 3.7% is lower, but let’s keep that into perspective though and say that Bush’s unemployment rate (with all the disasters) still out performs Clinton’s rate at this time in office, and the historical average unemployment rate of 6.2%.

Info provided by our good friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Link

P.S. Island Dog, good work beating me to the punch, but your rating by president is a little missleading because it only counting the best years of Clinton, making his numbers look better then they really where.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing posted by any of you changes the facts I have reported. If you believe that $2 trillion increase in national debt is good for America you got it! If you believe going from a budget surplus of $235 billion to a deficit of $470 billion is good, you got it!. If you think a trade deficit from $370 billion to $700 billion is good you got it! If you think 5 million people loosing their health care is good, you got it! If you like to pay $2.28 a gallon for gas as opposed to $1.61 you got it! If you believe a increase in the unemployment rate of 1.6% since 2000 is good, you got it! Enjoy all the GOOD news guys! PS wait until you see the increase in the annual interest on the growing debt - you will love IT!.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
If you think a trade deficit from $370 billion to $700 billion is good you got it!quote]

I'm not arguing with you on the trade deficit, because I feel that if we raise tariffs with our enemies (i.e. China), and keep the same course with our allies, much of that trade deficit will shrink. Knocking two birds out with one stone. But as long as the Democrats have a love affair with China (some strait out bought by then) and the Republicans turning their head the other way, nothing will happen.

If you believe that $2 trillion increase in national debt is good for America you got it!


I'm not arguing with you on paying down the national debt. But class warfare that you advocate is not the answer. The tax cut was stupid, IMO. I believe that not only should that rich get the cut repealed, but unlike you everyone else too(middle and low class included). Since neither party truly wants to cut spending (it's all political meat until their party is in power), we are stuck with the debt.

If you think 5 million people loosing their health care is good, you got it!


So what. Again, why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare!!!!!!!! This is not a socialist country and I would like to keep it that way.

If you like to pay $2.28 a gallon for gas as opposed to $1.61 you got it!


No I don't. I pay $2.57 here by the way. But preventing drilling of domestic sources is stupid too. Having eco. nuts blocking, through legal briefs in courts, any improvements or building new safer high tech. nuclear plants don't help either. If you want agriculture support, let’s start making ethanol. But as long as gas is cheap (historicaly with inflation it still is), the econamic motives to the private industry is not there, and neither the last Democrat adminastration or this Republican adminastration is willing to do anything about the problem.

If you believe a increase in the unemployment rate of 1.6% since 2000 is good, you got it!


I just have a beef with your job numbers. As I said above, you’re just trying to make the unemployment rate sound like the sky is falling; when historical the unemployment rate is lower then the norm.

Personally IMO, the president has no effect on the unemployment rate. It took Roosevelt eight years, major social programs and major deficits (for the time) to move the unemployment rate from 25% to 21%. The only reason the Great Depression ended was because of WW2.

I'm just asking you to stop posting employment numbers that though technically true, truly does not reflect reality. I grit my teeth every time you do that, because the uninformed sheep of the left like to bleat the same thing and I know your more intelligent then those guys. So every time you drag that out, it makes me wonder if your blind hate for Bush is true or if maybe you’re not as intelligent as I think you are Sir.

If you have not noticed, it is has been Moderates (i.e. me and Island Dog) attacking your numbers on unemployment the most. IMO this is a hint to stop giving the radicals on the right around here, more red meat against you.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The unemployment numbers are not nearly as important as the quality of the jobs and the lack of growth in the income for the majority of workers. The most important of all is the increasing debt and the long term impact on the budget due to the increasing interest the higher debt will require. It will impact all other needs for funding and under the current fiscal policy the condition is never resolved but gets worse and worse.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The unemployment numbers are not nearly as important as the quality of the jobs and the lack of growth in the income for the majority of workers. The most important of all is the increasing debt and the long term impact on the budget due to the increasing interest the higher debt will require. It will impact all other needs for funding and under the current fiscal policy the condition is never resolved but gets worse and worse.


You get proven wrong on your employment numbers so you result back your "underemployment" rhetoric. Pathetic.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

The unemployment rates are as reported by the Dept of labor are 3.7% in Dec 2000 and 5.3% today. Where is the error? I guess the increase in the debt, annual budget deficit, price of gas etc are also wrong. The bottom line in the policies Bush has instituted have not solved this countries problems and they are getting worse every year. The cumulative impact of the added national debt ( and the added interest we must pay) will continue until we repay that added debt which will NEVER happen under the policies Bush is following! The underemployment issue gets at the quality of the jobs and the ability of workers to be able to live on the wages being paid. That is a very REAL issue. From March 2004 to March 2005, the Average Weekly Wage went DOWN for 80 % of American Workers. How does that help our country? This is after the great economic recovery we are told about. The revovery is in corporate profits and the compensation of the top people not in the wages of the people that are needed to keep our economy strong!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Enjoy all the GOOD news guys! PS wait until you see the increase in the annual interest on the growing debt - you will love IT!.


Great response, COL! Basically, you summed it all up in a nutshell. Amazing how, after all the mindless spin, all the dismissive rightie arguments, it all comes down to elemental math. Fact is, I just got myself out of debt. No more revolving credit. It took years, literaly. Now, just to be sure that I don't remain out of debt, the bushie deathcult makes certain that their corporate buddies get paid anyway, by saddling Americans with the worst god-awful debt for generations to come.

Hey righties? Who the hell do you think will be paying off this debt? Dubya? nahhhh Kenny Boy? nahhhhh Wall Street? naaaaahhhhhhh. Yes, boys and girls, your impoverished citizenry, we Americans. But dubya doesn't care. He's done his job.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
I guess the increase in the debt, annual budget deficit, price of gas etc are also wrong.


Have I or Island Dog said anything about those numbers? No.

The unemployment rates are as reported by the Dept of labor are 3.7% in Dec 2000 and 5.3% today. Where is the error?


Your first error is that today's rate is not 5.3%, and you are cherry picking numbers that don't fit reality of the situation: Link

The underemployment issue gets at the quality of the jobs and the ability of workers to be able to live on the wages being paid. That is a very REAL issue. From March 2004 to March 2005, the Average Weekly Wage went DOWN for 80 % of American Workers.


Since you chose to ignore facts provided in replies to your other posts on these subjects, reposting them again appears to not stop you from skewing the numbers wrong again.

Amazing how, after all the mindless spin, all the dismissive rightie arguments, it all comes down to elemental math.


When 150 elemental math problems show that someone is wrong, and one cherry picked number (out of context) is right. Does not make it his end argument right and a true reflection of reality. It just shows dabe, that people like you are gullible enough to drink the Cool-aid without doing your own elemental math.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey righties? Who the hell do you think will be paying off this debt? Dubya? nahhhh Kenny Boy? nahhhhh Wall Street? naaaaahhhhhhh. Yes, boys and girls, your impoverished citizenry, we Americans. But dubya doesn't care. He's done his job.


Will everyone grow a brain? GW is not getting these things done by himself! Republicans may be in the majority in both the house and senate, but they do NOT have the sheer numbers to get things done WITHOUT democratic help. You want to yell at the right? That's fine. Start yelling at the "left" too! And dabe....he can't pass "anything" by himself. Period! Anything he does requires congressional approval.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa -the current unemployment rate is 5.2% which is 1.5% higher then on December 2000 when it was 3.7%. Show me where ANY of the other data is not correct?

Yes drmiler- you and all the other mindless Bush supporters will be paying higher taxes because of the added interest caused by the policies of " YOUR BOY".
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I CORRECTED THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE-- HAPPY NOW?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
the current unemployment rate is 5.2% which is 1.5% higher then on December 2000 when it was 3.7%. Show me where ANY of the other data is not correct?


It's not so much your "data" was incorrect. It's just your usual focus one number at one time, while avoiding all the other information. This is why nobody takes you seriously.

Yes drmiler- you and all the other mindless Bush supporters will be paying higher taxes because of the added interest caused by the policies of " YOUR BOY".


We will only pay higher taxes if a liberal is elected. Which the chances of that are close to nothing.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
it is not a matter of whether you take me seriously it is whether you take a $2 trillion increase in the debt seriously. It's whether or not you take a $700 billion shift in the budget seriously. It's whether you see the trade deficit almost doubling as serious. It's whether you believe 5 million people losing their health care is a serious issue. This is how Bush have failed to address our needs. Every one of these has progressively gotten worse in each of the years since he was elected president. He has gotten his way with Congress on almost all of his initiatives and they simply have not made the life of most Americans better. 80 percent of the working American public is making less this year than they did last year. . At the same time we see the ultra wealthy wallowing in new money as a result of the Bush tax policy . there is no justification for performance like this. if you hired someone to do a job for you and they did as poorly as George Bush has served this country economically, politically and militarily you would fire them. The American people made a very serious mistake in 2000 and and even a more serious mistake in 2004. This administration and its policies are going to bear fruit for decades to come that will prove to be very bitter.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes drmiler- you and all the other mindless Bush supporters will be paying higher taxes because of the added interest caused by the policies of " YOUR BOY".


And YOU seem to have missed what I said. so I'll try again.

GW is not getting these things done by himself! Republicans may be in the majority in both the house and senate, but they do NOT have the sheer numbers to get things done WITHOUT democratic help. You want to yell at the right? That's fine. Start yelling at BOTH sides!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is crap. The tax and spending policies were forced through the congress by the GOP. China being added to the WTO is a Bush abd GOP policy . The ineffective energy policy was 100% Bush/GOP policy. When democrats do make alternate suggestions and changes to pending legislation, the GOP prevents them from being considered!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

Given the current course of increasing the debt and the interest required on that debt, escalating costs to defend this country and the pending issues surrounding the retirement of the baby boomers will mandate higher taxes. It won't be a choice when we will not be able to borrow the money we need to meet our day-to-day obligations as a country. When we can no longer sell our bonds to fund one quarter of the expenditures of this country the s*it will hit the fan. When that happens, you will pay higher taxes like it or not .
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is crap. The tax and spending policies were forced through the congress by the GOP. China being added to the WTO is a Bush abd GOP policy . The ineffective energy policy was 100% Bush/GOP policy. When democrats do make alternate suggestions and changes to pending legislation, the GOP prevents them from being considered!


Crap? REALLY? Then show dates and issues so these can be verfied on the us senate home page.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Given the current course of increasing the debt and the interest required on that debt, escalating costs to defend this country and the pending issues surrounding the retirement of the baby boomers will mandate higher taxes. It won't be a choice when we will not be able to borrow the money we need to meet our day-to-day obligations as a country. When we can no longer sell our bonds to fund one quarter of the expenditures of this country the s*it will hit the fan. When that happens, you will pay higher taxes like it or not .



Then raise taxes on everyone, not one class because "they can afford it". Also, you blow the "debt" way out of proportion.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The dates these things were passed by Congress is immaterial. the tax cuts are in effect, China is in the WTO, the energy bill passed the House last week in spite of the fact that there was an attempt to require higher gas mileage by a Democratic representative from Massachusetts. The president has allowed to each budget to be approved without a veto. The dates that they were passed make no difference. They are in effect and they are not working. I don't really give a rats ass if you believe it or not.