Let's do it this way.
the current recovery, as of March 2004 (the report's cutoff date), had produced no job growth.
research.stlouisfed.org
You lie.
The Bush record also pales compared with Bill Clinton's average of 236,000 additional jobs per month, or 2.3 million in 10 months. Clinton's average gain per month is 50 percent greater than the average of Bush's gains in the past 10 months.
Clinton had the luck inherit the recovery that had started under GB 41.
research.stlouisfed.org
If you hit "View Data" on that page, you will see that Civilian Employment bottomed in August 1991 while GB 41 was still President and climbed during the rest of his term.
Finally, Stephen Roach, chief economist for Morgan Stanley, has pointed out that over four-fifths of total job growth in the past year has been in low-end occupations. "The Great American Job Machine is not even close to generating the surge of high-powered jobs that is typically the driving force behind greater incomes and consumer demand," he wrote in a New York Times column last month.
The exporting of jobs in the information industry was predicatble years ago- -and was predicted. Once computers, modems, and communications satellites existed, it was inevitable.
Neither you nor Lizzie is going to destroy the knowledge and technology that drives it.
After the economy reached its low point in the last quarter of 2001, the inflation-adjusted annual rate of economic growth in the first two years of the Bush recovery was 3.6 percent. Only the average real growth rate of 2.9 percent during the early 1990s in the first Bush presidency was lower.
Let's look at the last year- -the one Kerry REALLY has to worry about.
research.stlouisfed.org
Using the data shown below that graph, we get a GNP growth rate of 7.1% from Jan 2003 to Jan 2004. Not bad.
The authors of "Tax Returns" observed: "Two years into the eight previous recoveries since World War II, the economy has grown at 5.7 percent." That's more than one-and-a-half times greater than President Bush's rate of growth in real GDP in the current relatively weak recovery.
See above.
In assessing Bush's performance, deleterious consequences clearly resulting from the three tax cuts also need to be taken into account. Most important was the swing from a budget surplus in 2000 of $236 billion, or 2.4 percent of GDP, to a Congressional Budget Office-projected deficit of $477 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP, in 2004.
Did you know there's a war on? Did you know in 1943, the federal outlays exceeded income by over 200%?
research.stlouisfed.org
There's total federal debt. You will notice it declined only just at the end of Clinton's term. Cherry picking.
Also, that 4.2% actually isn't bad historically as a ratio of debt to GDP.
As Shapiro and Friedman underscored: "The swing of 6.6 percentage points of GDP is the sharpest deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance since World War II."
WHAT "underswing"?
Despite Bush's efforts to blame the size of the deficit on the economic downturn and increased defense and homeland security spending, the authors wrote that his three tax cuts "account for more than half of the 2004 deficit."
SO:
When JFK cut taxes to stimulate an ailing economy, that was GOOD.
When GWB does it, that's BAD.
??????
The largest three-year tax cut in the nation's history produced record yearly budget deficits, but failed to generate lots of good jobs or high economic growth.
See graphs and numbers above.
The bottom line is that Bush refuses to accept the hard facts showing the failed policy performance and instead relies with blind stubbornness on a bankrupt economic theory that threatens to bankrupt the nation.
The bottom line is you picked a flawed partisan hit piece and it blew up in your face when the facts hit IT. |
