Republicans seized on a drop in the unemployment rate to assert on Friday that tax cuts were invigorating the economy, highlighting just four days before the election an issue that party strategists are counting on to offset bad news about the war.It's a last-minute issue, but it should have been a big issue all along.
November 4, 2006
Making the economy an issue.
The NYT reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
So we're saying that tax cuts might be a reasonable factor in one's vote?
Yes, the economy is booming. Growing a whopping 1.6% in the last quarter.
The stock market has returned less than a 1% annual return since Bush took office.
The unemployment rate is higher than when Bush took office.
The number of jobs created per quarter is running less than half during the Clinton years, despite a bigger population.
Gas prices are about double compared to when Bush took office.
They can try and use the economy as an issue. I think it's a losing battle.
And who is to say that tax cuts are invigorating the economy as opposed to say a massive increase in federal spending fueled by the war?
Let's not forget that we've gone from a $200 billion surplus to a $300 billion defecit in just five and a half years.
"The stock market has returned less than a 1% annual return since Bush took office."
What are you investing in? I'm making between 6.5 and 7% on my investments.
Oh - I apologize. The DJIA has returned 2.16% a year during the Bush Presidency.
Here are the stats:
2001 - negative 7.1%
2002 - negative 16.8%
2003 - positive 25.3%
2004 - positive 3.1%
2005 - negative 0.6%
Some boom.
But of course non-reality based people like Shanna will be insisting that 2.16% = 10.00%.
And we should remember that the stock market looks ahead. So it's very likely that the recent rise in the market is directly related to the recent rise in fortunes of the Democrats.
The market is hoping for gridlock.
Shanna,
I've been retired since 1999, and that's about what my investments have been returning. Mutual funds and Real Estate Investment Trusts.
Cattle futures it ain't.
Whatever happened to "it's the economy, stupid"? The NYT makes the "seizing" of the economy as an issue sort of slimy, like...well, botched jokes about the stupid military, er, I mean, president.
Ann: You should read your NYT article along with today's NYT idiotorial that claims the economy is just so bad and inequitable.
Here are some quotes from the idiotorial......." The latest information about the economy leaves no question that it has slowed down by just about every measure — housing and manufacturing, retail sales and job growth, and others.
Even the recent increase in compensation is generally believed to be a sign of coming layoffs, not a harbinger of wage inflation. When business dries up at firms and factories, employers don’t cut back immediately. So for a time, pay and benefits hang in there." So the NYT is saying employers are actually kind and generous?
"As for the recent improvement in the unemployment rate, sorry to say, it’s an aberration. The job market won’t turn up in any meaningful way when the overall direction of the economy is down."
So the Times is saying do not believe the man behind the curtain or statistics.
IMHO, the last 12-13 years have been the best this country has seen even without adjusting for 911 affects.
Perhaps the NYT idiotors just see a bad economy cause the MSM and circulation is hurting (as Instapundit has suggested) or perhaps it just can't find its rose-colored glasses when a Republican is in office.
And I wonder how the NYT would view this horrifying statistic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
A BLS report from October of 2005) claims 69 out of every 100 graduates in the high school class of 2005 were enrolled in college in October 2005. Sounds like good news to me but can it be true or is it just more chicanery from the man behind the curtain?
Oh please great NYT idiotor, tell me what to believe. I want to be miserable but this news makes me feel good about America. Please help me to feel bad again. You know like in the 1970's when I could only buy gas on even-number days.
Here is the link to the BLS data:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
Democrats are ther type of people who if you gave them 100 lbs of gold, would complain that it was too heavy.
And then demand that the government subsidize wheelbarrows for them.
The stock market has returned less than a 1% annual return since Bush took office.
Baloney!! First of all you need to define what you mean by "the market". The DJIA represents only 30 stocks and is NOT a representation of the stock market as a whole. Neither is the S&P 500 index a whole market figure. People who use these as the Holy Grail of investment performance are missing the BIG picture.
Since I am a financial advisor and am not allowed by law to make any recommendations to people I don't know, I am NOT making any recommendations. But let me say this: mid caps have had annual returns in the 15% range in the last 5 years, small caps have had some phenomenal returns as well. If you had invested in REITS you would have had even better returns. If you are only making 1% in your money, it is obvious that you are doing your own investing and have a fool for a financial advisor.
The real problem is that the people who are reporting on the economy don't have a clue about economic theory, probably can't balance their own checkbooks and have an agenda to make the government and especially this current administration look bad.
The media is full of self important ignorant fools who are reporting garbage and distorting the facts through their political biases. The end result is that they and the Democrats (God help us if they get control) will bring down this economy and put us into recession through sheer ignorance and hubris.
I'll take the Clinton years anyday - when government spending as a percentage of the economy plummeted and my 401K got fat.
I'm glad I had enough sense to massively overweight international and emerging market stocks over the last five years, as well as getting into real estate.
We can add economics and the market to the long list of things DTL knows very little about. And in this case what he 'knows' is mostly just wrong.
I guess if all you know about the economy comes from Lefty media and websites it wouldn't be unusual not to know much that's true.
I can not wait to see the Restupidlicans take a dive on Tuesday.
But then again, only Dumbocrats will take their place.
And we should remember that the stock market looks ahead. So it's very likely that the recent rise in the market is directly related to the recent rise in fortunes of the Democrats.
The rise in the stock market has much to do with the capital gains reduction. If corporations are taxed less they can give out larger dividends to stock holders and reinvest into R&D and expansion. If those dividends are taxed less there is more revenue from the corporation and the stock holder to be reinvested or just plain spent. The velocity of money is increased. (google it)
Anyone in this country who has a 401K, IRA, Company Pension Plan, State Funded Pension Plan or was holding appreciated assets has benefited from the capital gains reduction. For tax payers the advantage is that as the pension plans do better with underlying performance less has to be diverted from local taxes to subsidize the actuarial assumptions of the Defined Benefit plans that government entities use.
(I know I am whistling into the wind trying to explain any of these concepts to people like DTL who have their minds made up and their heads firmly entrenched where the sun doesn't shine.)
The Democrats will squash these gains when they allow the 2004 tax cuts to be rolled back, thereby increasing taxes and discouraging growth. They have already indicated that this is their plan.
If people feel bad, it is because they are burdened primarily by high taxes. Take a two-income family where both makes $50,000 per year. Right off the bat, they pay about $14,000 towards their social security when you include their employer share. Now think about that- $7,000 per year for a person who makes $50,000 (or almost $300,000 over 40 years) and the social security benefit amount will be miniscule.
Next subtract, FIT, state and local taxes, daycare, two car payments and car expenses, mortgage and real estate taxes (Ann pays $11,000 per year in Madison!), life insurance and food, vacations, savings and what the heck is left? So, that is why people are anxious but IMHO, it is primarily a function of the burden of government taxes.
And that said, there was a news article in Philly this week,that said more than 50% of people felt very secure in their jobs and most people were planning on spending more than last year on Xmas gifts (last year was average of $1,300. So what gives- are Americans happy and safe and secure or scared for their economic future? Please NYT idiotors- I am begging you-help me make up my mind.
The economy was great during Clinton because of the dotcom bubble. And the economy we have now is on the heels of the dotcom bubble bursting, 9/11, Hurricane K., and the ongoing war. Complainers need to get realistic.
I give Bush and the repubs an F because they're spending like drunks and being totally irresponsible in numerous ways. But anyone who thinks the democrats will help the situatuon! DTL is right in that the prospect of gridlock might actually help... this is the best we can hope for if the democrats take one of the houses.
Anyone who starts talking in terms of class-warfare like Cedarford, sorry, you lose credibility.
The vast majority of America's wealthy are self-made, not a privileged aristocracy. Something like 75% of the country own their own home. It's easy to enviously look at someone who has more than you and just postulate that they got their wealth somehow illegally, or from China, or whatever conspiracy theory you fancy this week. It's also petty and ill-informed.
And corporations are owned by their stockholders. Trying to make them boogeymen is immature and short-sighted. There are bad guys out there, sure; but the vast majority of corporations are making profits for their shareholders: regular people who invest, people who have 401ks and own mutual funds.
As far as jobs going out to foreigners: people come here from all over the world for jobs, and still are. They must coming here under the mistaken delusion that they can join the Owner Class, I guess.
(dave is right about getting an education, by the way. I worked retail in my 20's, living check-to-check and still falling behind; went back to school and now freelance for a very, very good rate. No need to cry about the wealthy sucking up all money, as if it's your Halloween Candy... go out and get some.)
You're right! Bush seems to trumpet good economic news upon the release of fresh data, which has been pretty positive most of the year. This is full a employment economy, and the GOP should benefit, but Iraq is trumping all else.
Burkean Reflections
We can add economics and the market to the long list of things DTL knows very little about.
Right. I studied Quantitative Economics at university and I've been working on Wall Street for almost two decades.
Sorry - But all of your knowledge on economics wouldn't fit on the lint between my toes.
Dust bunny queen had to go into the retail side of the business. Anyone on Wall Street knows that they are just marketing bluff. It takes about two hours of study to pass the Series 7.
Her IQ is too low for her to actually get into the real side of the investment business - and she's now projecting her deficiencies on me.
Yup - Stupid Republicans want to believe that the stock market has just been roaring along for the last five and half years.
How stupid do you think Americans are? Not as stupid as Dumb Bunny Queen.
By the way - the S&P has LAGGED the DJIA over the last five years. It still hasn't reached the highs it had in the Clinton Years.
The fact is you would have been much better off putting your money into cash over the last five and half years. And we're supposed to give Bush kudos for that? Not.
Yes - and tax cuts will destroy the economy.
I mean Clinton raised taxes. And the economy was utterly destroyed during the Clinton years. You know - the Great Depression of the 1990's and all.
Must be fun to pretend reality doesn't exist.
Hey, Donald Douglas:
Are you THE Donald Douglas, the famous Aircraft Guy?
McDonnel-Douglas (after he sold the business--which was a mistake IMHO) etc...
Boeing isn't doing very well these days. The lost that big Goverment contract.
Without Goverment contracts....nobody in the Aerospace industry eats.
Peace, Maxine
Recent increases in the stock market are forward looking, but that forward looking has to do with future expectations of profits, not from the expectation of a Democratic controlled congress.
What exactly is on the democrats agenda that would help the stock market that would end up being enacted? Rangel's ramblings about increasing taxes wouldn't please Wall Street, and it wouldn't make it out of congress either. Democrats threats to blow up free trade agreements certainly aren't popular with the Clinton/Rubin free traders on Wall Street.
If Wall Street is affected by who controls Congress, does that mean the stock market skyrocketed in the 90's because Newt took over?
Yes - and tax cuts will destroy the economy.
then why did Clinton cut taxes after the Republicans took over in 1995 if it was so awful for the economy? Clinton gave the rich a huge capital gains tax cut and offered credits to people with children in the 90's.
If raising taxes was so great for the economy, then George HW Bush would have gotten a second term in 1992 since he raised taxes in 1990.
The mistake that the moonbats and the MSM are making is in trying to compare today's economy to the past. That doesn't work..
What you need to do is compare the U.S.'s economic performance to that of our competitiors in the present day. And by every measure we are beating the rest of the world hands down.
I generally agree with Dave's first post in response to this rather glib post by the good prof. You would have to be some kind of fool to not have economic growth given the spending increases in the federal budget. Any president who could pump a surplus of $200 billion and $300 billion in extra spending into an economy and NOT show some growth would have real serious problems.
Katrina? It is probably a net positive economically, though it is personally devastating to the folks and businesses that reside down there and have to rebuild.
I think the Dems win if they use a balanced-budget argument with modest middle class tax cuts as the short-term growth engine. If I am not mistaken, President Bush 2 is the first president to lower taxes during a time of war. I have my doubts that that is good tax policy.
Leave it to Downtownlad to measure everything against the height of what was even then obviously an unsustainable market bubble.
Yeah, you are a real pro, DTL.
"90% of Americans have seen no dribs or drabs of that deficit-generated prosperity that ... [and] [t]hose 90% vote."
They absolutely do not. Have you looked at turnout figures any time in the last two centuries? When was the last federal election where 90% of elligible voters went to the polls?
Simon, Simon, Simon. Don't confuse anyone with facts. Especially when we all know that the reason for that is that the 90% are so exhausted by their endless hours of fruitless toil and soul-numbing grinding poverty that their malnourished, emaciated bodies are incapable of crawling into a polling place
Yes, Internt Ronin- you are so right so let's declare a national week off for elections. Then so many more of us can find the time to walk our skinny, underfed butts uphill both ways to the polling place.
Afterall, my car was re-possesed and I am sure yours was too. But that's not a bad thing cause I say screw those oil companies- now they ain't getting any more of my money. The bus is good enough for me. Hell, I even saw John Kerry riding it the other day- but the senator looked like he was having a little trouble deciperhing the bus schedule.
but are concentrated in the owner, professional, and investor classes -
Well considering the rise of homeownership, small business and stock ownership this covers most Americans today.
Those who are still trying to follow the economic model of the 1970's are being left behind..primarily because it is not 1970 anymore. Anyone relying on a company pension ort social security today is a fool.
Cedarford alluded to:
"Or note that the biggest sufferers in the Bush Economy have included stalwart Republican manufacturing towns in Upstate New York, Ohio, Pennsyvania..the "Reagan Democrats" of Indiana and Iowa, etc."
Come on- are you trying to say the Bush econ policies have wrought devastation to these communities in his less than six years in office? And are you claiming it didn't start way before that in prior administrations? I remember the lousy economy in upstate NY was an issue that Hillary Clinton was going to fix when she was first elected in what 2000? So, give me a break,I might agree if you said Bush policies did not slow the decline but they sure did not cause them.
That said, I believe Bush is way off track on the size of the federal budget, supporting losers like Chafee, not ramming a fix thru for social security by using those under 45 years old as his voting bloc and motivation to force the change, and not replacing Rumsfeld long ago.
Cedarford, put on your Che tee-shirt. You've just spouted every cliche of nefarious-rich-vs-benighted-poor that exists. Like it or not.
"crony capitalism and globalization" indeed. Do you have any idea of the sort of economic havoc that is wrought by attempts to re-destribute wealth?
I feel for anyone who has lost their job. It's happened to me twice. As I said before, when I needed to, I went back to school and am now doing fine. Was it easy? No. But who said life is easy. Lashing out at people who are doing well is lame, grow up.
I believe that more than 50% of Americans are now members of the "investor class," (that is to say that they own stock).
Cedarford,
I'm sorry, but you sound like you're quoting the latest opinion piece from the NYT: trends, maybes, broad segments, coulda, shoulda.
It's only been since the 1930s that our government has even attempted to control the economy; so far tax cuts, or denying politicians access to our own legitmately earned money, seems to work best to promote the general welfare.
Anecdotally, the "poor" in my neighborhood walk by pushing stolen grocery carts (full of food) while chatting on their cellphones. Life could be, and is, worse all over the globe. We are doing well.
Even low-level Americans like Knox girl
Nice, you are low level and I am low IQ. Typical. When you haven't any real substance to your arguments, call the person you are debating with names and try to belittle them. I don't say arguing because I would like to think we are on a higher level than that.
perhaps lacking dental coverage - so she smiles only slightly Plus knoxgirl is evidently a toothless redneck gal in fly over country according to Cedarford. Bet you can spit that tobbacy juice reall fur through the gap in them incisorys.
All the propaganda crap about how "70%"of Americans are 'Owner Class' through their mutual funds or similar, is quickly dispelled nonsense
If it is so easily and quickly dispelled, then do so. Here, I'll do it for you. I agree 70% may be a bit high. The average across age groups in 2005 is 48% with the 50 to 59 yr group being at almost 60%. It is probably even higher for 2006.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/extra/seniors/usmutualfundownership.pdf
Still, in all a respectable number of people who have benefited by the 2004 tax cuts and who would not like to see them taken away. All of the class warfare crap the Democrats are trying to perpetrate is tiresome old tactics from the 1960's. People are getting smarter. Even the downtrodden "poor" people in this country have televisions and access to the internet. Unlike the poor in other countries who don't have food.
As for your charges that business interests have gutted whole regions, look closer at the American cities like Philadelphia or Detroit or now LA or regions like upstate NY that are deteriorating, high income/property taxes(largely controlled by the Dems) also stunt development. People are moving to Nevada for more than the weather.
Cedarford you have proven to be a weirdo on multiple threads and your willingness to get nasty just confirms it. I'll take your criticisms as a compliment.
It's ironic that you perceive my personal story as somehow condescending and elitist. You're the one who assumes that giant swaths of the country can't accomplish the same thing. See, I don't consider myself any better than them... so I believe they can.
Cedarford:
You singled out Knoxgirl for some reason and I have to defend her. You should have recognized by now she is one of the most sensible and tempered people hanging around this blog.
Let's take a poke at your beloved Democratic policies. Once about ten years ago when I was layed off, I noticed a couple things.
Unemployment benefits favor seasonal workers. I had not used the program in over 25 years but my maximum benefit was about $9,000 which is the exact same amount some friends of mine (highly paid union construction workers) get and they tend to use the program every 2-3years on average. Does that make sense to you? Does it make me want to vote Democrat?
And then the Dems came out with a program that gave you a tax deduction for re-education or job re-training. Now unless you are dumb as a stump, you know that few of us need a tax deduction when they are not working and income is negligible!!
Bottom line, the typical Dem program is aimed at their perennial lapdog supporters and not to help the geenral public. Folks like Knoxgirl and myself dig their way out or give up. But these poorly designed programs rarely enter into the equation.
So get over your class warfare, tell me if you would like to live in another country and wake the heck up.
Check out my blog http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/
Very unfair but it seems the reality. Ann seems to be right that the Republicans should have ran on the economy and in my opinion also judges.
“I don’t know of another election cycle in which the economy was so good, yet the election prospects for the incumbent party looked so bad,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist. “If something goes wrong, Republicans are to blame. If something goes right, Republicans don’t get credit.”
http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/
Democrats now claim that the President has now influence on the economy. Far cry from 2002 when the then DCCC Chairwoman Nita Lowey called it the "Bush recession" http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:1mtyU9Xft6EJ:www.fabmac.com/FMA%2520-%25202001-12-10%2520-%2520The%2520Bush%2520Recession.pdf+Nita+Lowey,+Bush+recession&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
or when Democrats blamed Bush in 2004 for presiding over the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.
That's inconsistent rhetoric to say the least.
Post a Comment