Hey Dubya, "It's The Economy, Stupid"

[JoseCuervo]

Not looking good for ol' Dubya, as we know he is failing Hunters and Fishermen, and then there are the problems in Iraq, and the economy. Hope he remembers his daddy's down fall was forgetting that it was The Economy.... (And before you say this was another Cut and Paste job, I want you to know that it took a bit of effort to re-format into something that was easy to read for those who didn't do so well in school...)

The Bush Economic Record: What a Difference Three Years Makes

Jobs
2,931,000 -- Number of jobs lost in the private sector since Bush took office.1

135,000 -- Average number of jobs created monthly under every President since Truman.2

-79,189 -- Average number of jobs created monthly under Bush.1

2,447,000 -- Number of people who have become unemployed since Bush took office.1

37 percent -- Increase in the unemployment rate since Bush took office.1

4.1 percent -- Unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 2001.1

5.6 percent -- Unemployment rate in March 2004.1

8,170,000 -- Total number of unemployed Americans.1

675,000 -- Number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) when Bush took office in January 2001.1

1,871,000 -- Number of Americans suffering long-term unemployment in March 2004.1

177 percent -- Increase in long-term unemployment under Bush.1

11.8 percent -- Percentage of consumers who believe jobs are plentiful.3

760,000 -- Number of workers who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 2002.4

Ballooning Deficits
$5.6 trillion -- Baseline surplus for the 10-year period for FY 2002-2011, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office when Bush took office in January 2001.5

$5.2 trillion -- Budget deficit over next 10 years if Bush's 2005 budget proposal is enacted.6

$2.4 trillion -- Amount Bush's budget will raid from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years.6

$478 billion -- Budget deficit for 2004 as predicted by CBO, if Bush' s proposals are enacted.6

$188 billion -- Amount Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was posted in 1992 by Bush's father.6

Bush's 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan
$2.2 trillion-- Ten-year cost of Bush's proposed tax cuts including additional costs for interest on the national debt.7

32.4 percent -- Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8

8.5 percent --
Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8

64 million -- Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan.9

$30,127 -- Average tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9

$289 -- Average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9

$4-5 billion -- Amount Bush tax proposal would cost states.10

1 million -- Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax affected in 1999.11

36 million -- Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax will affect in 2010 because of Bush's tax cuts and his failure to address the AMT.11

Lower Income, Rising Costs

1.1 percent -- Decrease in real median household income in 2002.12

10 percent -- Increase in bankruptcies since Bush took office.13

1,625,213 -- Number of consumers who filed for bankruptcy in 2003.13

24 percent -- Drop in consumer confidence since Bush took office.14

50 percent -- Increase in out-of-pocket health care costs for workers since Bush took office.15

14 percent -- Increase in the cost of job-based health insurance in 2003; highest rate in 13 years.15

8.7 percent -- Increase in the cost of the 10 most-used prescription drugs in 2003.16

61 percent -- Percent of employers who cited rising drug costs as a major cause of premium increases in 2003.15

11.5 percent -- Increase in gas prices since 2000.17

49 -- Number of states that increased tuition at their public colleges and universities in 2003. State budget cuts fueled by the Bush recession have forced colleges to hike tuitions and fees-threatening access to higher education for low-income students.18

35 percent -- Increase in tuition and fees at four-year public institutions since Bush took office, adjusted for inflation.19



Sources: 1Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/04; 2House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff, 3/04; 3Conference Board, 3/04; 4Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/25/04; 5Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011, 1/01; 6Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/1/04; CBO, An Analysis of Bush's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2005, 3/04; 7Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/04, 1/21/04; 8CTJ Fact Sheet, 1/8/03; 9CTJ Fact Sheet, 2/3/03; 10CBPP Fact Sheet, 1/10/03; 11Brookings Institute, Tax Policy Center, The AMT: Out of Control, 9/18/02; New York Times, 1/10/03; 12U.S. Census Bureau, "Money Income in the United States: 2002"; 13American Bankruptcy Institute, 3/04; 14Conference Board, 3/04; 15Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003; 16AdvancePCS, 8/25/03; 17CNN.com, 2/23/04; 18Associated Press, 8/25/03; 19College Board, College Costs 2003

 

[Hangar18]

And September 11 was Bush's fault too.

Where is the link?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Hangar18:
And September 11 was Bush's fault too.

Where is the link?

I think you can just search Google for:
"Bush +Iraq +False Reasons + Ignore Richard Clark"

But why bring Sept 11 into the discussion. Surely Dubya has something else to campaign on, and promote as worthy of re-election. He can't just answer every question with a picture of firemen carrying flag draped coffins, can he??

 

[BuzzH]

Hangar,

No it wasnt his fault, but the huge defecit and poor economy is something he could do something about.

Also fair to note is the fact he's completely pissed away a great opportunity to give the United States some great foreign policy. The world would have rallied behind anything the U.S. did to curb terrorism, if there was even a shred of proof we were pursuing a positive lead.

Instead, he acted on his own, lied, and got caught, and has lost nearly all U.S. credibility in the war on terror. What a jerkass, you damn near have to TRY to screw up that bad.

Bush has very few redeeming qualities...he's cost the economy jobs with his trade policies, he spends money like a drunken sailor, gives tax cuts in spite of the deficit, losses United States credibility around the world, gotten us in a quamire no-win war, and the average American doesnt even feel much more secure about terrorism than they did before 9/11.

There just isnt much to like.

He did handle Afghanistan perfectly though, I will give him credit for that.

I'll save you some typing, I'm not a Kerry fan either...

 

[Hangar18]

Found your source on the DNC website, and you are right, Richard Clark was not there. Neither was Howard the Scream errr Dean.

http://www.democrats.org/economy/bushrecord.html

Why bring Sept 11 into the picture? I never said he was campaigning on it. Maybe I brought it in because it has something to with, I don't know, the ECONOMY.

 

[Nemont]

Yep the economy is terrible
Economy Grows at 4.2 Percent Rate in 1Q

Economy Grows at 4.2 Percent Rate in First Quarter of 2004

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON April 29 — The economy grew at an annual rate of 4.2 percent in the opening quarter of 2004, a solid showing and fresh evidence that the business recovery is solidly on track. But the performance wasn't the blowout that some analysts wanted.
The reading on gross domestic product for the January-to-March quarter, reported by the Commerce Department Thursday, marks a slight pickup from the 4.1 percent rate registered in the final quarter of 2003. While the first quarter figure suggests that the recovery is in good shape, it fell short of the strong 5 percent pace that economists were forecasting.

GDP measures the value of goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the most important barometer of the economy's health.

Economic growth in the first quarter was bolstered by spending by consumers, business and the federal government, especially on defense.

The state of the economy figures prominently in the presidential campaign, where President Bush and presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry have been facing off over that issue, among many others.

Economic growth in the current April-to-June quarter is expected to clock in at a rate in the range of 4.5 percent to 5 percent, according to some analysts' estimates. Growth in the second half of this year, however, may slow a bit to around a 4 percent pace, a still-healthy rate, some economists said. That may occur as the stimulus of tax refunds and tax reductions fades, if energy prices remain high and mortgage rates climb factors that could slow consumer spending, analysts said.

"Looking forward, the prospects for sustaining solid economic growth in the period ahead are good," Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress last week.

Expectations for such solid economic growth raise hope that the jobs market the one part of the economy where a full recovery has yet to take place will continue to show improvements in the months ahead.

After months of sluggish payroll gains, the economy added a hefty 308,000 jobs in March, the most in four years. Economists are hopeful the March employment figures are a sign that the job market is turning a crucial corner. But they said they want to see net payroll gains in the range of at least 150,000 to 200,000 a month on a sustained basis to provide confirmation that the corner has been turned and the labor market is on a real path to full health.

The shape of the economy and the jobs market are important issues in the presidential campaign. Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, points to the loss of 1.84 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001 as evidence that the president's economic policies aren't working. But Bush says they are, and he wants Congress to make his tax cut permanent, contending that this will make the economy stronger and spur job growth.

Federal Reserve policy-makers are expected to hold a key short-term interest rate at 1 percent, the lowest since 1958, when they meet next Tuesday. Some economists believe the Fed will begin to raise rates in August before the presidential election. Greenspan last week said that ultra-low rates must rise at some point to keep inflation in check, but he didn't say when that might happen.

An inflation gauge tied to GDP and favored by Greenspan showed that "core" prices excluding food and energy rose by 2 percent in the first quarter, up from a 1.2 percent rise in the previous quarter.

Higher prices, though, didn't stop consumers.

Their spending in the first quarter grew at an annual rate of 3.8 percent, following a 3.2 percent pace in the fourth quarter. While consumers in the first quarter boosted spending on "nondurables," such as food and clothes, and on services from the previous quarter, they did cut back spending on big-ticket "durable" goods, such as cars and appliances.

Businesses, meanwhile, increased spending on equipment and software at a 11.5 percent rate in the first quarter, a brisk pace but down from the 14.9 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter. Spending on new plants and other buildings, however, remained weak, falling for the third straight quarter.

Spending by the federal government also contributed to GDP growth in the first quarter, with national defense spending rising at a rate of 15.1 percent, compared with a 3 percent growth rate in the previous quarter. The first quarter figure marked the biggest increase since the second quarter of 2003.

An improved trade picture also helped out economic growth in the first quarter, compared with the drag on GDP that the trade situation had been in the fourth quarter.

 

[Nemont]

Kerry pushes an old myth and a new one (4/15)
By Brendan Nyhan and Bryan Keefer

During a conference call with college reporters Tuesday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, falsely claimed that three million jobs had been lost under President Bush, saying, "There's a direct choice in this race, and it's a choice between common sense and a failed economic policy that's seen us lose three million jobs."

The most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show, however, that 1.8 million net jobs have been lost since January 2001. Over the same period, 2.6 million net private sector have been lost (the difference is due to increased government employment). Yet Kerry has now misrepresented total job loss twice since the numbers came out. As we previously showed, he told a press conference shortly after the figures were released that, "Obviously all of us are pleased with the job numbers for this month, but there's almost no way this administration will avoid having lost two million jobs."

Earlier this year, Kerry and his campaign engaged in a more subtle form of exaggeration, claiming that three million jobs had been lost during Bush's term and omitting the qualifier that this represented the decline in net private sector jobs at the time (see, for instance, March 19 press release).

Kerry's campaign also responded in kind this week to Bush's misleading claims that the Democratic candidate supports an increase in the federal gasoline tax. A Kerry press release Monday stated that "Under George Bush, the gas tax has gone up by $24 billion," implying the figure represents money taken by the government. In fact, that figure is the estimated increase in what consumers will pay for gas over the course of this year. Bush has never proposed such a hike.

At this point, there's one thing that's hard to exaggerate - the number of dishonest claims already being made in this ugly campaign.

 

[Nemont]

Bush never endorsed outsourcing,

but Kerry's flacks want you to think so

Kerry's campaign has counterpunched by taking a series of administration statements about outsourcing out of context and playing on confusing job-loss statistics.

In an ad released April 1, Kerry's campaign claimed that "George Bush says sending jobs overseas 'makes sense' for America" and that his "top economic advisors say 'moving American jobs to low-cost countries' is a plus for the U.S."

However, Bush did not say outsourcing itself "makes sense." The 2004 Economic Report of the President stated that the "basic economic forces behind" outsourcing services and importing goods "are the same," adding, "When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically." This statement clearly was intended to explain the economic logic of outsourcing, not explicitly endorse it.

Even though Treasury Secretary John Snow and Gregory Mankiw, Bush's chief economist, have both defended outsourcing, Kerry's second claim is also deceptive. Snow and Mankiw have argued that outsourcing offers net economic benefits for America. They have not praised job loss itself.

The spin continued when new data showing substantial job growth in March were released the day after Kerry's ad.

In the past, Kerry frequently claimed that 3 million jobs had been lost under Bush, a figure that referred only to net private-sector job losses; the total net loss since the beginning of the President's term was actually 2.2 million.

Overall net job loss now totals approximately 1.8 million, with net private-sector job loss at 2.6 million. During a press conference Friday, Kerry again elided the distinction, saying, "Obviously all of us are pleased with the job numbers for this month, but there's almost no way this administration will avoid having lost 2 million jobs."

Unfortunately, the media, which often repeated Kerry's original claim as fact, bungled or ignored the new figures, with NBC's Darlene Rodriguez, CNN.com, the San Francisco Chronicle, Knight Ridder's Washington bureau, and Stuart Varney, a Fox News guest host, all citing incorrect statistics on job loss under Bush.

As we can see, both sides' spin is hardening into outright falsehood - a pattern that is all too common in today's politics.

Posted on Thu, Apr. 08, 2004




EG, See it cuts both ways. Spin can be made to say anything that you or anyone else wishes. If Kerry is going to run on just "Bush Suck" he is going to lose this election. The diehard Republicans and diehard Democrats already know how they are voting so the middle of the country will be the deciding voters and they are not real impressed with Kerry. It doesn't appear most are buying what he is selling .

Focus on War, Terror, Lifts Bush in Polls
Source: AP Published: Apr 20, 2004
Author: Associated Press

*Election 2004*


WASHINGTON - As worries about the Iraq (news - web sites) war and terrorism have pushed ahead of the economy among the public's priorities, President Bush (news - web sites) has edged ahead of Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites), national polls suggest.


The ABC-Washington Post and CNN-USA Today-Gallup polls, both released Monday, showed Bush with a slight lead over Kerry in a three-way matchup with independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites).


Bush was up 48-43 over Kerry among registered voters, with Nader at 6 percent in the ABC-Post poll. In the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Bush was ahead 50-44 among likely voters, with Nader at 4 percent.


Over the past few weeks, Bush has wiped out Kerry's advantage on all domestic issues except health care insurance, where Kerry still holds a small lead, the ABC-Post poll found. Bush still holds a double-digit lead over Kerry on the war in Iraq and fighting terrorism.


Bush and Kerry are now even on who people would trust to handle the economy, at 47 percent apiece. In early March, Kerry had a 12-point lead on that issue.

Four in five in the ABC-Post poll said Bush takes a position and sticks to it. Half that many said the same about Kerry. More said Bush was honest and trustworthy, 55 percent, than said that about Kerry, 49 percent.

The ABC-Post poll of 1,201 adults, including 1,024 registered voters, was taken April 15-18; the Gallup poll of 1,003 adults, including 767 likely voters, was taken April 16-18. Both have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I think I heard on the radio (again) that jobless claims are down. How many months in a row is that now?


Do you think that Bush (or anyone) can wave a magic wand and eliminate joblessness immediately?

The trend is up. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Bambistew]

Its like the idiots leading the morons on a fact finding mission... and none of them can see the facts for what they are...

Come on... Any trained liberal monkey can skew labor statistics!!! How can you put a direct blame on one man?

How about the unemployment rate in march of 1996 (klinton was runing for his second term) 5.5 % while this year 5.6%!!! WOW thats a huge difference...

How about a little reserch on unemployment under the "golden boy Klinton" between 1992 and 1996??? Starting out at 7.3% to a high or 7.8% and back down to a low of 5.4%... Under his devine guidence he was only able to get unemployment back down to what it is at today!!! Then lets look at what Bush had... He was handed an economy that was on the verge of diving off after the dot com busts 8 months later the world trade center... starting out at 4.2% and rising up to the infamous 5.6%. Basing the economy on the unemployment rate is a joke!

Uneducated liberal idiots are the only ones that belive this kind of trash!!! In light of all that happened I think that the ecomony is doing pretty well. Do you think the economy is possibly linked to the stock market? How many points did it drop the day it oppened after 9/11?

Your job loss stat is pretty comical as well. If you want to compare something, then how about comparing the last two years of the Klinton erea... 1999 had a monthly job creatoin of about 225,000 a month but in his last year he only had about 100,000 jobs created per month... When Bush was handed the seat it was already on the decline!

Klinton enjoyed a robust economy during 1996-1999 that he really had nothing to do with (It was all Gores doing, ya know inventing the internet and all)

I can't discredit the deficit however... Thats just plain stupid spending for the most part to try to keep the economy running, but it IS benifiting everyone... not just the rich, plenty of social programs involved there.

32.4 percent -- Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8 (Where did this number get dreampt up? How is dropping the top 1% wage erners down from 39.6% to 33% come up to 32%? That top 1% of wage erners pay more in taxes than the entire bottom 50% do! wow thats a huge tax break for them...I wish I was them

8.5 percent --
Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8 (this number is pretty close... Most droped either 3 or 8 points) But the bottom 60% still account for about 20% of the tax burden!

64 million -- Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan.9 ($100 of???, each month?, year? lunar year?) This is a bull shit number...

$30,127 -- Average tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9 (well do the math... if you got a 6.6% break then you only have to make about $450,000 a year, but what they left out was the fact that these people still paid $150,000 in taxes... Wow that sure takes the sting out of it!

$289 -- Average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9 (Does this mean the middle tax bracket,or the middle population or what? Again bull shit... $289 at either 3% to 8%... so lets say 5% either means that these people are taking home about $5780 a month or a year... WTF did they get this number? So are middle income people making $5870 a year or are they making $70,000 if so they are far from being the "middle" 20% (which is about $35-55,000) So if you equate this number to the one above that is more than likely for a year it really is a tax break of almost $3500...

$4-5 billion -- Amount Bush tax proposal would cost states.10 (I pay a 5% state income tax on top of a 6% sales tax... I think they should pull the plug on a few programs if they can't make it on that! My state still managed to ballence thier budget. Hell the city had a 900 million dollar budget and they got it covered!

1 million -- Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax affected in 1999.11 (who was the monkey that put this on here? Last I checked this was a Klinton policy to keep the rich from avoiding taxes)

36 million -- Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax will affect in 2010 because of Bush's tax cuts and his failure to address the AMT.11 (again this "36 million" is affecting the so called rich!, why would liberals whine about this one?)

1.1 percent -- Decrease in real median household income in 2002.12 (umm 2002???) (um... a slight understanding of inflation v.s. deflation might help with this one... come on 1.1% is that really a measureable amount?)

10 percent -- Increase in bankruptcies since Bush took office.13 (How about the increase from 800,000 a year in 1992 to 1,400,000 in 2000 when Klinton left office! Thats about a 80% increase, 10% seems quite measily!!!)

1,625,213 -- Number of consumers who filed for bankruptcy in 2003.13 This is another covoluted number dreampt up by highschool drop outs! (ok so it was up about 5% each year for the last 2 years!, how about the years when Klinton and his troop were in control... 1994-95 up 11%, 95-96 up 27% , 96-97 up 19% 2000-2001 up 19%) The rest were under 10% so I didn't think I needed to show those...now for Bush's... 2001-2002 up 5%, 2002-2003 up 5%... wow this is terrible... Once again the idiots lead the morons into battle with no ammo!

(I'm going to add that to my signature)

24 percent -- Drop in consumer confidence since Bush took office.14 (it was dropping before he took office...It has risen sharply in the last couple months however and is on the rise)

50 percent -- Increase in out-of-pocket health care costs for workers since Bush took office.15
(Should we go to the Hilbilly Klinton health care plan?, maybe if the worthless liberal lawyers would stay out of the court rooms malpractice insurance premiums wouldn't have to be so high resulting in exsesive health care bills to cover those costs) If I remember right, the helth care plan was concieved under Liberal control and was approved by them!

14 percent -- Increase in the cost of job-based health insurance in 2003; highest rate in 13 years.15 (again see above)

8.7 percent -- Increase in the cost of the 10 most-used prescription drugs in 2003.16 (is the goverment supposed to control how bussiness make thier profits? There's no law that says people have to buy these drugs... how did people get by just 20 years ago? People need to buck up and get off all the crap they take, eat healthy and stay fit, but thats Bushes fault as well I'm sure)

61 percent -- Percent of employers who cited rising drug costs as a major cause of premium increases in 2003.15 (see above)

11.5 percent -- Increase in gas prices since 2000.17 (ok lets say it was $1.50 a gallon and is now up to $1.65, people spend less than 5% of thier income on gasoline anyway... compare that to leisure items or about 5 times as much) SO the average person drives 12000 miles a year... at an average of 20mpg that adds up to a whopping $96! Back the woha train up the economy is in the toilet.

49 -- Number of states that increased tuition at their public colleges and universities in 2003. State budget cuts fueled by the Bush recession have forced colleges to hike tuitions and fees-threatening access to higher education for low-income students.18 [I like the "Bush Recession" part of that one like he had control over the outfall of 9-11 (bussiness making less money means less income for schools) Most people I know spend way to much for their schooling anyway, just to go to a "party" school. Everyone I work with spent more on one year's tuition than I spent on my entire 4 year education, during the same time frame.]

35 percent -- Increase in tuition and fees at four-year public institutions since Bush took office, adjusted for inflation.19
(ammounting for an average grand total of about $4000 for all four years) What about the record setting ammount of finacial aid given out to offset rising tuition for students that can't afford it... $105 billion? We should over look that though...

[ 04-29-2004, 15:29: Message edited by: Bambistew ]