Bush Job Creation Promises Failing to Deliver

[GePap]

I know my hours are underreported-but then, I don't think anyone places a monetary value on my work, since I do not produce goods, nor do we charge for our services directly (ie, they are paid out of the tax receipts)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Any comment?

Well, only that you keep claiming that people are saying things that they aren't saying.

[Vanguard]

Don't get me wrong. Doing away with taxes probably makes as much, or more, sense as wasting money collecting them.

But combining the costs of tax collection with the costs of borrowing money doesn't seem to offer many advantages.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Ned
Here is a little more from the article:

That's typical politically-biased 'economics' that, looking at causuality the wrong way and ignoring other factors that also contribute to the percieved effects.

Originally posted by Ned
"The economy emerged from World War II in 1945 with a record debt-to-GDP ratio. Since the war we have had the longest depression-free period in the nation's history.

That fails to mention two key facts:
1. The debt to GDP ratio fell sharply due to the government running budget surpluses in the 1950's
2. There might have been less boom or bust in the period since 1945 but the actual growth rate was around the same as before - I would say that the large increase in government spending had far more of an effect on 'smoothing' the path of GDP than increased borrowing.

Originally posted by Ned
We have, however, had nine recessions, each of which was preceded by a reduction of deficits relative to GDP (see Figure 1).

Total confusion of cause and effect here - the economy was booming in the period before the recessions, so it's hardly surprising that tax recipts went up and spending on things like unemployment went down - that would lead to a reduction in the deficit.

Originally posted by Ned
The deficit fell rapidly toward the end of the Carter presidency, preceding the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

And now you are ignoring other factors:
1. What about the doubling of oil prices in 1979-80?
2. Or the sharply rising interest rates in 1981-82? (these were mainly caused by the deficit and were only reversed when they threatened the international banking system)

Originally posted by Ned
Well, we did nothing even though we should have been cutting taxes big time in 1999. We all paid the price of ignorance of our leaders.

It's a bloody good job that US leaders aren't as ignorant of economics as you seem to be.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Don't get me wrong. Doing away with taxes probably makes as much, or more, sense as wasting money collecting them.

But combining the costs of tax collection with the costs of borrowing money doesn't seem to offer many advantages.

The advantage is that, if it's done effectively, the economy is more stable and the govt is funded when taxing alone will not achieve the same goal.

[Ned]

el freako, are you another of the Imraniacs who deny that fiscal policys has any effect on the economy and that deficits and surpluses are completely devoid of influence?

If you do, it is not I who should be labeled ignorant here.

[Vanguard]

Ultimately it is true, in some sense, that it does not matter where the government gets its money. What matters is what it does with it.

But unfortunately this equivilency just moves the problem around. It means that you have to actually consider whether the government's spending and borrowing is benefiting the country as a whole or only a certain group of people. This almost impossible to do.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
el freako, are you another of the Imraniacs who deny that fiscal policys has any effect on the economy and that deficits and surpluses are completely devoid of influence?

If you do, it is not I who should be labeled ignorant here.

Ned, when it comes to econ and chosing whom is more likely to know their stuff-el freako wins 100% of the time.

But I do commend you on "Imraniac"

[Ned]

Why thanks, GePap.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Ned, when it comes to econ and chosing whom is more likely to know their stuff-el freako wins 100% of the time.

Ned's econ is improving, but I doubt that anyone will ever compare with el freako's stat production.

Originally posted by GePap
But I do commend you on "Imraniac"

Very impressive.

[Boris Godunov]

And more:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/manufacturing_post_6

I love this:

"But the nomination had appeared in doubt after Kerry's campaign had raised questions of why the Bush administration was picking someone to guide government efforts to halt the hemorrhage of American manufacturing jobs who had laid off 75 of his own workers in 2002 after announcing he was constructing a $3 million plant in China."

Way to go, Bush!

[Ned]

My initial thinking on a "solution" would be to ask countries like China to lower any tarriff or other non tarriff barriers to trade so that we could sell more goods abroad. This would lead to increased manufacturing employment here in the US.

There was a real nasty debate on Lou Dobbs program tonight between a free trader and Dobbs. The free trader, I don't remember his name, was arguing that US companies had to constantly trying to become more efficient and cost-effective in order to compete in a global marketplace against non-US companies who themselves were competing with American companies by becoming more efficient and cost-effective. The free trader also pointed out that the growing economies in the Third World acted as markets for American goods and services which supported additional employment in the United States.

Lou Dobbs agreed in principle that American companies had to constantly become more efficient to meet their foreign competition. But he still went back to the theme that we had to somehow stop loss of American jobs offshore. The free trader said that if you crippled the American companies ability to compete that they would soon go out of business altogether.

[Vanguard]

Okay, I'm going to accept your argument that the deficit doesn't matter because government debt is just another type of spending. Bully for you! I tip my hat to you.

Now let's see if you really believe it. Since you don't think that a half a trillion dollar deficit is a problem, then I must assume that you are as disgusted as I am at the Bush campaign's false attack on Kerry for his $900 billion dollar health plan. After all, since the Bush deficit doesn't matter, it seems to follow ineluctably that spending $900 on a health care plan is actually a great idea, since it will almost certainly reduce the costs to the US of not having a such a plan. We save money, get health care and don't have to raise taxes. What could be better?

And since it is such a great idea, then why isn't the Bush administration doing it? Not only that, why are they actively opposing it?

If, as your argument on the current deficit proves, cost isn't an issue, then why are the Republicans opposed to this measure, which will easily pay for itself in the overall economy? Is it pure mean spiritedness? Or are they in the pocket of big drug companies and HMOS?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Okay, I'm going to accept your argument that the deficit doesn't matter because government debt is just another type of spending. Bully for you! I tip my hat to you.

Now let's see if you really believe it. Since you don't think that a half a trillion dollar deficit is a problem, then I must assume that you are as disgusted as I am at the Bush campaign's false attack on Kerry for his $900 billion dollar health plan. After all, since the Bush deficit doesn't matter, it seems to follow ineluctably that spending $900 on a health care plan is actually a great idea, since it will almost certainly reduce the costs to the US of not having a such a plan. We save money, get health care and don't have to raise taxes. What could be better?

And since it is such a great idea, then why isn't the Bush administration doing it? Not only that, why are they actively opposing it?

If, as your argument on the current deficit proves, cost isn't an issue, then why are the Republicans opposed to this measure, which will easily pay for itself in the overall economy? Is it pure mean spiritedness? Or are they in the pocket of big drug companies and HMOS?

Vanguard, if you have read my posts over the last few months you will notice that I am in favor of national health care insurance -- but with deductibles and per visit costs, etc. In many ways, my views are consistent with the Democrat party under Kennedy.

I think the Republican Party has so long been in favor of balanced budgets that they cannot break a bad habit.

[Ned]

Vanguard, Back on the topic of national health insurance, Bush has shown that he is different from all prior Republicans in that he is willing to promote new social programs that have merit. I am willing to bet that Bush would favor national health insurance if he is reelected.