Friday, November 30, 2007


Success Breeds Failure

A lot of people, including our own Mark Dunn, are talking about the retreat from retreat the execrable Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) is tentatively embracing, but the effect of the President's successful change of Iraq strategy, called the surge, is rippling though the Democratic Party generally. They have not stopped the war or even slowed it down much despite even recent lame efforts and so are ready to move on to matters on which they have not so totally failed. Or so says the Politico.

Especially telling is this sentence: Meanwhile, Democrats are planning to shift their attention to the economy when they return next week.

Concentrate on the economy, huh? Yeah, that should be a winner.

The GDP under Clinton grew 2.37 Trillion in 8 years, pretty darn good, in fact terrific growth. Unlike Clinton's administration, the Bush administration started in a recession not of its making. Yet even with that stumble out the blocks, the GDP has grown 2.66 Trillion under George Bush, and that's 2.66 Trillion in just 6 years. Well, that would be much better then, wouldn't it? Despite across the board income tax rate cuts (or rather because of them), the Treasury is taking in record amounts of taxes, and the overspending has slowed. Inflation is less than 3% for 2007, unemployment is 4.7%, which is close to full employment. Since August, 2003, 8.31 Million new jobs have been created, new jobs for 50 months straight, record growth. Real after tax per capita income has risen 12.7% since President Bush took office. So, the Democrats have their work cut out for them to blackguard the best economy ever. Not that they won't try, and with the help of their supporters in the media, perhaps succeed.


Someone should put up a sign in Hillary's campaign HQ:

"It's not the economy, stupid!"

How many of those jobs paid benefits and how many were the equivalent of Wal-mart greeters?

Jusat so yiu remember, the surge is working, democracy in Iraq isn't.

Also, the tax cuts for the rich that Bush pushed through and their connection to the economy is one that is only seen by those favoring the tax cuts.

Beware old friend, you are starting to go off the conservative deep end. Reread yoor comment. It has all the buzz words.
Seriously Roger stick to the things you know.

Does the '91 Recession not count? Do you realize that unemployment was at 4.5% during the 2001 recession? Job growth is barely keeping up with population growth, and as Tony mentions, the quality of jobs has decreased and part-time jobs have increased (as evidenced by the average work week index which is now 33.8 I believe). Also, this expansion has seen far lower gains in earnings than did the Clinton expansion.

Greenspan has made it clear that it is not possible to say that there is a causal relationship to the tax cut and growth. There has been a global boom in growth that has outpaced the U.S. Even the EU has stronger growth than the U.S. with all those taxes. The global growth especially in emerging markets is not only helping the U.S. but just may save it from recession.

Historically low interest rates were instrumental in creating the housing bubble which fueled consumer growth as people took equity out of their homes and spent it. Those who didn't have equity to spend have taken on more debt than Americans have at any time in history, the savings rate even dropping into negative figures last year. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of GDP and a much higher percentage of GDP growth over the last 7 years.

While GDP has increased by $2.77T the debt has increased by almost $4T and will likely be double what it was when Bush took office. Spending is not under control. Tax receipts have generally set records every year. They grew by between 7 and 12% per year throughout the Clinton years. By 2002, they were down 10% year on year and continued to drop until they hit rock bottom in late 2004. So now, they are gaining ground again, and just recently passed (in absolute terms) the levels they were at in 2000, and are growing at about 7% a year again. So what you say about "record tax receipts" is true, but extremely deceptive to economic novices. And unlike growth, their is definitely a causal relationship between the tax cuts and the budget deficit.

Meanwhile, the interest on the debt that was created during the 2001-2005 stretch now more than offsets the increase in tax receipts we've seen in the last two years.

And finally the dollar: it's worth about 50 cents.

I'm not saying all of this is Bush's fault, but I wouldn't be bragging.

I don't write about weaponry....
Look...a puppy !!!
One last thing... real after tax per capita income is up 12.7% since Bush took office. O.K. is that supposed to be good? Inflation is at about 3%, but let's call it 2.5% yoy change (the actual figure is a bit higher) for the last 7 years. Get out your calculator and multiply 1.025X1.025 and so on until you get to 7 years. Never mind, I just did. The answer is 1.1886856, lets call it 1.18 just to be safe.

18% inflation vs 12.7% increase in per capita after tax (i.e. after tax cut) income.

I don't even need to get into how that money is being distributed, but I think you know the answer to that as well.
Thanks, Eric. Tony, I don't know but I believe there are ways to find out the quality of the jobs created. Some people want part time jobs, sometimes part time is a way to get a long look at an employee. Democracy is overrated. I like a constitutional republic where the representatives are elected. Like in Iraq. Every time (Kennedy, Reagan, Bush) the tax rates have been cut the real revenue has gone up. You can cling to the straw that it's just co-incidence but it is a very small and damp straw. I'm no more sure what a buzz word is than I know what a buzz saw is, but I'll re-read it.
Mike, would job growth be better if millions of people weren't sneaking in illegally? OK about the Clinton comparison re earnings, how much lower? What was the EU GDP in 1999 and what is it in 2006? We do spend too much but in the years 2001 and 2002 we had the world's ecomony to bear on US citizens' backs. We also spend way too much in Congress. Except for voting eveyone out and starting again, I don't know how to stop that. I agree that inflation has outstriped the gain in after tax income. Just shopping tells you that. We should therefore lower taxes again and do without some of our wonderful government spending on benefits. What's inflation like in the EU? In the CR?

I don't really see what immigration has to do with it. We have illegal aliens in the EU too. What has your party done about it?

EU growth has been slower, but more stable over the last 8 years. EU GDP growth is now out-pacing the US and the EU remains the worlds largest exporter (and second largest importer).

We do spend too much but in the years 2001 and 2002 we had the world's ecomony to bear on US citizens' backs.

That cracks me up. I love how you think that. We all hold each other up, if the truth be known.

In terms of spending, I'll post some charts so maybe you can see where the real problem is. Yes, spending is starting to come down, now that the Democrats have taken over Congress (but not by much). It was a Republican White House who wrote the budgets, and a Republican Congress that approved them. What exactly is your point in shifting the blame to Congress?

I know how to stop it: it is called fiscal responsibility. You might have heard of it.

And if you think tax cuts are the answer, you might want to consider a cut that is skewed towards the consumer class since consumption accounts for 70% of GDP. Despite the tax cuts for the investor class, investment has been sluggish in this cycle.

Benefits go directly back into the greater economy, cutting those will not help the economy to grow.

Inflation this year is in the 3% range but it is expected to break 4% next year. Median wages are growing at well above 10% annually.

There is no subprime issue here.
I still want to see the EU GDP if it's recorded somewhere you can get to. My point about illegal immigration is 8 mill in 50 months seems pretty much for our domestic, 'legal' population growth, which is just above replacement. I thought the Budget started in the House. Must be my faulty memory. Still the spending bills are from congress, the President either signs or vetoes. Bush vetoed no Republican budgets (or anything else). I don't think the Democrats in control now have see the light, they just can't get anything done and the budgets have not been completed. I've heard of fiscal responsibility, I just haven't seen any lately and I doubt I'll see any in the next year. I don't think the government does anything to make the economy grow, but spending less should not grow the debt as fast. Thanks for the info.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?