Dems hit Bush for job losses

"OBAMA IS A NICE GUY"

Bush could care less, he said just keep on listening, and when he says something that impeeds my reconstruction reconciliation occupation, then we will act.

37.4 billion to Homeland Security still no fence no workers no progress, Just a "PHONY ACHIEVEMENT." 60 million to the Anbar Province today. No healthcare for more Americans.

"NOT ON MY DIME"

So Obama has still not "TRIED ON THE GLOVE" and blast this Lame Duck Wanna be President out of the water. Every Speech should start with 'BUSH DROPS THE BALL AGAIN, ON anything and everything.

Now if you can get him to cough up that 9 billion dollars he lost the 1st week of his war, now that can have an impact on a lot of things. Education, Health Care, Veterans Health Care, more body armor for our troops. Something other than lame duck rhetorical speeches that don't mean anything or that are contradicted right after the Rose Garden Barbecue.

OH WHERE OR WHERE IS DICK CHENEY HIDING, OH WHERE OR WHERE HAS HE GONE!

OK, I fully realize this is off topic, but so what? Sue me, if you don't like it.
Doug Zook, just a few weeks ago you were telling me and everyone else just how honest and up and up union officials are.

Well, get a load of this:
An officer of Teamsters Local 743 in Chicago has been indicted along with three former union employees in an effort to rig elections in 2004, authorities announced today.

In two closely contested elections a few months apart, the defendants allegedly diverted hundreds of mailed, official ballot packages to friends, relatives and confidants instead of Local 743 members. They then cast the ballots to ensure the election of an incumbent slate of officers running under the "Unity Slate," the indictment alleges.

Charged with conspiracy to commit fraud are Richard Lopez, 53, of Maywood, identified by prosecutors as the secretary-treasurer for Teamsters Local 743; as well as Cassandra Mosley of Gary, Mark Jones of Joliet and David Rodriguez of Chicago.

Mosley and Jones were union business agents until last year, authorities said. Rodriguez was an organizer since 2003, the U.S. attorney's office stated.

There were no immediate court appearances set in the case. The four charged could face up to 5 years in prison if convicted, prosecutors said.

Local 743 represents about 12,000 union members in warehouse, office, medical, service and other industries, authorities said.

Anyway, this particular Swamp item is just more politics as usual. Hey, the numnbers are slightly down (4,000, oh my!!!) so it's fair game for the Dems to pounce on it. They are largely wrong, as usual, but that is par for the course.

Under the last president, we gained an average of 275,000 jobs a month. That number has never been reached by this president. Simple stuff, the average of the last president is greater than this presidents best in terms of job creation.

Home foreclosures, job loss for the bumpkin rubes. It's all gooood! My pals at the country club are freakin' rich.

Roger Morris: 10

Caps lock key: 10

Johnny Donuts: -15

Wow, more incoherent inane ramblings from the Demented Left. And I continune to enjoy lame Johnny E.'s little Swamp Scoreboard, which has all the integrity of the officiating at the basketball games in the 1972 Olympics.

Deport 4000 illegals and we'll be all good.

Well, it's all balanced by the large amount of credit the Democrats gave Bush for the millions of new jobs created in recent years. Yeah, and elephants fly! And did you notice, when the jobs numbers were way up, it was usually on business pages 3 or 4? And finally, there are more people employed in the U.S. than in any point in history and wages also are at their alltime high. Did the Demos say that today? No, they were too busy covering up for Hillary's bag man.

Roger Morris, he's our man if he can't do it no one can! Yeah Roger!

Bush sux!

John D.,

I never said what you wrote and you know it.

Now excuse me while I and my union brethren go heal the sick, feed the poor, and otherwise make the world safe from Republicans.

John D, are you calling the statistics I quoted inane ramblings?

Joe,

The Chicago Bulls won more World Championships while Bill Clinton was in office also.

Wow, more incoherent inane ramblings from the Demented Left. And I continune to enjoy lame Johnny E.'s little Swamp Scoreboard, which has all the integrity of the officiating at the basketball games in the 1972 Olympics.

Posted by: John D | September 7, 2007 5:00 PM

Look in the mirror freak boy! Your just an angry little turd.

Wow, and Obama says he's above partisan politics. Unbelievable. What a disappointment this guy has been.

Joe - please explain specifically how each president created job gains.

Yes, Joe, please explain how Bill Clintoon created jobs? i know Al Gore created the Internet and all, but please tell me what role Clintoon had in those tech companies like Cisco to hire people? And then maybe if you think Clintoon had a role in those companies growing, does that mean that Clintoon had a role in the implosion of the tech market in 2000-2002??

Little Johnny,how's that great "Bush" housing boom going?

Remember Little Johnny,Clintoon left office with a 65% approval rating,highest in modern history.

Where will Bushie end up?

Worst in modern times?

The "Swamp" already published a Democrat response--Bill Niekirk's "Swamp" article.

John D.,

Let me simplify this for you:

Democrat=Good!

Republican=BAAAAD#*@%*#@

Democrat=Good!
Republican=BAAAAD#*@%*#@
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 8, 2007 10:07 AM

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. Obviously you don't live in Melissa Bean's district. Her voting record makes Republicans swoon. She makes Lieberman look like a Leftie.

Yes, Doug, the Democrats running Illinois, Crooked County and Chicago are real good, huh?

But I love the nonanswers to exactly how Bill Clintoon created jobs!

I wonder how many striking union members like the idea of cut-and-run where their battles are concerned. Do union negotiators get to say "If I knew then what I know now" or maybe we should wait till our strike fund is larger or Lets go back to work, that was a different negotiators fight?

Doug once again adding expert analysis

Damn!

Looks like I hit the nail right on the thumb.

But seriously folks.

whatnow,

Union members vote whether to go on strike. It's not top down and nobody takes striking lightly. It is costly, emotionally heartrending, and exhausting.

John D whines about 3 bad union officials out of a union of 12,000 people.

That's 1/4 of 1 percent.

I wish the casinos in Vegas have odds that bad.

[quote]
But I love the nonanswers to exactly how Bill Clintoon created jobs!

Posted by: John D | September 8, 2007 12:20 PM
[/quote]

Just like your non-response to provide a link to anything that is PROOF POSITIVE to back up your allegation that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush.

Meanwhile, you buy yours at a K-Mart Blue Light Special sale.

Pay no attention to John D's ramblings. John if you cant figure out how jobs were created during the Clinton years then go back to school. Start with economics and english literature. God knows you could use it!!! p.s. try thinking for yourself as well. You follow these administration scumbags like a sheep.

Joe:

I'm with John D., Terry and Ted on this one. How exactly did Bill Clinton or any other President ever create new jobs (other than hiring new federal employees or directly funding employment)?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Logic Prisoner:

Lay off John D. (this time). He and I know how jobs are created, and they aren't created by the President of the United States.

I suggest you take a class in reading comprehension if you can't figure out what the subject of debate happens to be this time.

John W:

You can make the argument that tax cuts free up money for corporations and entrepreneurs to create jobs. Personnally, I think the power of tax cut/increases as compared to the entire economic cycle is overrated, but at least it's an explanation of how a President can have influence. As for Clinton, I've never heard a convincing explanation. What's even more interesting is the Clintons considered it their greatest accomplishment.

Oh BC, since you have such a fixation with suits, all of my suits came from Brooks Brothers, ranging in price from $600 to $900, and those are their lower to moderately priced ones. Brooks Bros suits can go into a few thousand. And there are suit places in which Brooks Bros is relatively cheap by comparison.
But you keep thinking that John Edwards pays more for his haircut than he does his suits. And then seek professional help -- QUICKLY!

Just One Quarter of the Jobs Created Under President Clinton Have Been Created Since President Bush Took Office. Only 5.6 million new jobs have been created during Bush’s tenure in office. In contrast, on President Clinton’s watch, 22.7 million jobs were created – a 20.7 percent increase. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Employment Statistics available at www.bls.gov]

Fair enough John W. I have studied Milton Friedman who was not a fan of Bill Clinton in general. I will not however lay off John D how has presented no facts. With a little homework he could have made the argument that UFE that over a six-decade period job growth rose and fell irrespective of the direction various presidential administrations took on tax rates. In fact, job growth dipped under tax decreases enacted while Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton held office, the report noted.

"I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it's only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater."

Milton Friedman

Now if you can get him to cough up that 9 billion dollars he lost the 1st week of his war, now that can have an impact on a lot of things. Education, Health Care, Veterans Health Care, more body armor for our troops.

Posted by: Roger Morris | September 7, 2007 3:32 PM

The President can have a great deal of influence on Jobs. Roger has rightly pointed out the tip of the iceberg. This President is a failure. Why I voted for him I'll never know. Brainwashed I guess. I also find it interesting that everytime a story is printed about Mr Bush's shortcomings all his defenders can muster are attacks on Bill Clinton. I don't see how that constitutes a defense of the Bush administrations economic policies.

Maybe I need to take a class in reading comprehension class along with Logic Prisoner because the above data seems to be a pretty good primer on Mr Bush's management of the economy.

John W and Ted did I read it incorrectly? Take me to Logic Prison if I did.

The "above data" has the usual spin. It could alternatively state:

Since the spring of 2003 (when the Bush policies started to take effect as opposed to the recession he inherited), the economy has had average growth of over 3%, 8.2 million jobs have been created, and the inflation rate has stayed low. The current unemployment rate, 4.6%, is a full percentage point below what it averaged during the 1990s, and there have been 47 consecutive months (almost four years) of job growth. In the last three years, workers’ salaries have risen by $1.2 trillion, or $8,000 per worker, and consumer confidence recently reached its highest level in almost six years.

I am no great fan of Bush, but his "management" of the economy has been fine. The only reason Clinton needs to be brought into the conversation is because we are constantly being reminded of the "good times" under Clinton as a comparison...an unfair comparison considering the tech boom.

I'll try this one more time: please explain specifically how Clinton created all those jobs.

Ted:

I know. I agree with you. That's why I said what I did.

And, no I will not make the argument that supply side economics is one way President Bush has created jobs. There are two flaws in thinking this way.

First, the supply side method does not change the fact that private industry, and not the President, makes the only definitive decisions as to whether to hire more workers, expand business, and so on. At best, monetary and economic policies can only influence these decisions. Private industry has created every single non-governmental job. That is why I believe it was false for Clinton to claim credit for "creating jobs."

Second, supply side economics - as practiced - has no guarantee of uniformly boosting businesses, market spending or job creation. Simply giving the top bracket a tax break offers no guarantee that those in the top bracket will invest their tax savings in a manner that "trickles down." All things being equal, it is just as likely that they will pocket the money.

While it is true that some businesses and investors use the extra cash to invest in business, it is not uniformly true. The only way to make the tax break work in the intended manner would be to add a quid pro quo, like: (Government): for every X Americans you hire you get X% of a break, and/or for every $X you invest into businesses and/or the market you get X% tax break. That would at least guarantee that investment is rewarded, and that profit taking is taxed at a higher rate - in a manner to encourage the kind of investment that supply side economics expects. Without such incentives, however, it's like shoveling fleas across a barnyard floor - there is no guarantee that any of it will get where you hope. That supply side economics has worked at all – if it has worked at all – has been pure happenstance.

Logic Prisoner:

Thank you. That's all I was getting at. All a President can do is influence the economy through monetary and economic policies. A President can't create jobs outside the federal government.

And you can go back to bothering John D. now. $:^l)

Dear Former Brainwashed Republican:

I will never defend Duh'bya's economic, monetary or tax policies. Never. He is a disaster, regardless of whatever end of the spectrum from which one might look at him.

My whole point has been that the President doesn't have enough direct control over the economy to effectively create or wipe out jobs. The economy is still largely the affair of private industries, and they are subject to the vicissitudes of economic cycles. As such, the captains of industry have far more to say about the level of employment in this country than any President ever had. As Logic Prisoner has even pointed out, job rates have fluctuated in unpredictable manners under various administrations, and regardless of the particular economic (e.g. tax) policies in play.

Influence is one thing. The power to decide who gets hired and fired is another. There are too many factors at play in making those latter decisions to say Presidential influence is that determinative.

John E, RL, KB, Bub, DT, Catherine, Bill R, C.Mo, Tony, DZ, R.Mo, all other Loony Lefties;

I theenk veee shood neecknam Jean D, 'Turd Blossom II'. Hase a nice reeng du eet!

"John D, are you calling the statistics I quoted inane ramblings?

Posted by: Joe | September 7, 2007 6:13 PM"

That's what he accuses everyone he disagrees with of, inane ramblings.

Hey Joe,

Hawking, Einstein, Maxwell, Darwin, Newton, any geologist; All just inane ramblings.

I think he thinks the world is only 6k years old, thus discrediting all the above mentioned 'inane ramblers'.

C Morris, as usual you just don't get it. I do not consider opinions other than my own as inane ramblings.
However, comments like this ARE inane ramblings:
"Home foreclosures, job loss for the bumpkin rubes. It's all gooood! My pals at the country club are freakin' rich."

More suit talk from BC:
Just like your non-response to provide a link to anything that is PROOF POSITIVE to back up your allegation that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush.

Meanwhile, you buy yours at a K-Mart Blue Light Special sale.

And then there is Doug Zook's desire to debate:
John D.,

Let me simplify this for you:

Democrat=Good!

Republican=BAAAAD#*@%*#@

And, of course, anything from JOhn E.

Put forth some ideas and why those ideas are good, that would not be inane ramblings. Understand?

John W:

I agree with the vast majority of what your saying. What I'm curious about is, if "the economy is still largely the affair of private industries" (agreed), then which part of GWB's economic policies have been a "disaster". It seems to me the economy has rebounded better than expected post-tech bust and 9/11: record home ownership, record Dow highs, full employment, consistent growth, low inflation, record consumption, record tax revenues, record charitable contributions, etc. (to spin a few statistics). I don't give credit to GWB for most of this, but which policies do you believe have had a negative influence? Foreign trade policies, perhaps?

I'm not talking about budget/spending, which has been horrible (although I find it hypocritical that Democrats now find record tax revenues and spending on social programs "irresponsible").

Let me know. Thanks.

Ted:

Rightly or wrongly, I have always assumed that President Bush's choice to engage in deficit spending was part of an overall Keynesian monetary policy – along with his supply side tax scheme – in an effort to boost the GDP and reduce unemployment. I also believe the Federal Reserve has been intentionally cooperating with this policy in its adjustment of interest rates to hedge against inflation. As such, it is not simply a budget or spending policy, but part of his larger economic policy.

In my view, this deficit spending policy has been a disaster. Since 9/11/01, our government has added more than 3.2 trillion to the government debt. That represents 3.2 trillion in spending after tax revenues have been exhausted in the same fiscal period. As of right now, that makes our debt approximately nine (9) trillion dollars. The effect of racking up this debt has been detrimental in the following particulars:

1. It is inflationary. You tell me that inflation is under control. If you mean to say there is little or no inflation because prices have remained relatively low, I must respectfully disagree. Rising prices are symptoms of inflation, but they are not inflation itself. Inflation occurs when the money supply is larger than the market “demands” to represent the value of goods and services in the economy. Prices rise in response to inflation because creating too much money “waters” the relative value of each dollar. Such “watering” occurs when the government creates more money by printing more treasury bonds, thus issuing itself credit to cover its massive debt. [Much the same way banks before the depression created more money by using government holdings to pyramid their lending ability.]

I believe we haven’t seen the rise in prices – yet – because: 1) the Federal Reserve has adjusted its interest rates to keep money somewhat expensive. [If you recall, the fed’s interest rates were much lower a few years ago.]; 2) we have countries like China pumping large quantities of cheap goods into the market – which tends to mask any rise in prices; and 3) we have been lucky with the way energy prices have come down recently.

Yet, we do have evidence of inflation. This is shown by the drop in the value of the dollar relative to other currencies despite having the same or higher GNP/GDP. A lower dollar value is bound to translate into higher prices because it then takes more dollars to draw foreign goods to market – like oil.

2. Too much spending is not of a kind calculated to boost the economy and/or increase tax revenues. I’ll make this part brief. The Keynesian benefit of deficit spending comes from the ability to pump money into the market to stimulate economic activity. But the federal government spends too much money on stuff it consumes itself. In particular, the federal government spends a lot of money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Except for military goods and contractors, it doesn’t go to the supply side of the economy. Most certainly, the spending makes little impact on the demand side, other than for the benefit to military personnel. To that extent, the deficit spending has not materially contributed to the economy.

3. It has painted us into a political corner. China buys up a lot of the paper the government issues to finance its debt. But what would happen to our foreign policy if foreign countries and their central banks threatened to stop buying U.S. government paper because of their distaste for our foreign policies? We would then loose our ability to engage in deficit spending without becoming a vassal of foreign interests. Thus, one can’t help but believe that our dependence on foreign finances has compromised our ability to take legitimate foreign policy positions at odds with some countries. We’re not going to bite the hand that feeds us. One should also note that the fact the dollar has dropped in value against other currencies is also causing these same bankers balk at buying more dollars for fear their investments will decline in value.

- and,

4. It has painted us into a financial corner. We have to retire this debt somehow. The publicly issued paper that the public and foreign bankers buy up require debt service now. We have to allocate money in our budget to pay the debt service. That demands real money and not more debt – lest we simply increase our debt service to an intolerable degree. This decreases our ability to spend tax revenues elsewhere. Allowed to go on for too long, it could have a depressing effect by severely limiting the government’s ability to spend in a manner that stimulates economic growth, or to forego raising taxes – which also tends to retard growth in some sectors.

I understand that Congress comes up with this budget, but Duh’bya still has veto power over the spending proclivities of our national legislature. That’s what makes him responsible for the deficits and resulting debt. To the extent this is done in the name of Keynesian economics, it is already too much to be of continuing value.

P.S. I’m not a Democrat. I have a very dim view of the way our government has been irresponsibly spending us into oblivion.

I understand that Congress comes up with this budget, but Duh’bya still has veto power over the spending proclivities of our national legislature. That’s what makes him responsible for the deficits and resulting debt. To the extent this is done in the name of Keynesian economics, it is already too much to be of continuing value.

Posted by: John W. | September 10, 2007 5:57 PM

Well put on all points.

John W:

Good points, as usual. I guess in terms of commenting on this specific Swamp article I was trying to separate economy/jobs from spending/budget, but I suppose they're all too connected. Believe me, the spending habits of our federal government has been my #1 point of criticism.

1) All your points about inflation are perfectly valid, but I’m not sure that I’m quite as pessimistic about the future. Yes, prices will go up, but I have confidence in the market and advances in technology will keep most areas under control. In the case of oil, an increase in price has a lot of long term advantages for our country. We don’t like to make smart changes unless we’re forced into it.

2) I would have to say that spending on the war reaches a bit further into our economy ( http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/ ) than most realize, especially when you get down to subcontractors and surrounding businesses. I would never suggest it would be a reason for war. Yes, you could also make the case that it’s another reason why the current economy is overrated.

3) The idea of the U.S. being dependent on anyone is indeed a scary thought, but are political decisions less legitimate or more legitimate when you’re dependent on foreign countries? Do countries relying each other economically go to war?

4) Yes, we absolutely need to allocate more money in our budget to debt service, and Dubya is partially to blame. I trust neither party on this, which is why I’ve voted for checks and balances in recent elections. We historically are more responsible with one party in the White House, and the other in charge of Congress.

Ted:

Just a couple more observations:

1. Yes, they are all connected. But the reason I assumed they were connected was that Duh'bya views them that way too.

2. I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic. But, there is a lot more promised "plunder" on the horizon (read: health care reform), and not a lot of talk about the debt, all of which makes me believe the spending and debt problems aren’t going away any time soon.

3. Yes, necessity is the mother of invention - sometimes. On the other hand, we have certain business interests who want to keep us using old technology – e.g. oil – so they can make more money off it before they abandon it to new technology. You have to know that's what oil companies and vehicle manufacturers are up to. Good hybrid technology has been available for decades. So have electric cars. The abundance of oil appears to be the only reason these folks haven't spent much on changing over. Retooling is expensive too.

4. You are probably right about military spending. But, as even you show, the spending on the military doesn't necessarily have a market-wide effect.

5. There are times when being financially dependent goes beyond scary and arrives at dangerous. In the case of China, for example, we should have taken a greater number of trade and military stances that are contrary to China's interests - but we don't. We value China, perhaps, too much as a trading partner and as a source of finance. For instance, we should have opposed Chinese influence in Central America. They have bought up a large portion of Panama. The Monroe doctrine should have fueled that fight, but we hardly hear of it. Is this strategically dangerous? You bet. I can go on about international organ trade (and I don't mean Wurlitzers either), and the balance of their civil rights record (although ours hasn’t been untarnished recently). We just look the other way too much, and there is no good reason to ignore this stuff other than for our trade and financial relations.

To answer your other question: Yes, countries with economic dependence do go to war with one another. It just doesn’t happen very often. But, just think how much more abundant and cheaper oil could be now if we hadn’t gone to war in Iraq.

6. Gridlock, caused by having the majority in Congress different from the White House, is good. But this is true, perhaps, more because the less the government does the better off we seem to be.

So...should we wait for all the people who damned the job numbers to recant their statements?

I didn't think so. :P

It's funny how Bush inherits a bad economy from Clinton and has to deal with 9-11 and Democrats want to saddle those first months on him yet when it comes to Clinton inheriting a fabulous economy from Reagan-Bush they are silent.

We've entered the seventh year of expansion now and Democrats have been claiming we are in or on the verge of a recession for all seven years. When will they admit they have been wrong all along?