The “Rodney Dangerfield economy” is what Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., aptly called the U.S. economy the other day, because it deserves more respect than it’s been getting lately. It added 215,000 jobs last month, the most since July, and the rate of economic growth from July to September was at a 4.3 percent annual rate; that’s the best since early 2004. So some optimism is in order, especially among wannabe holiday shoppers. That said, as Roberts noted, the national debt and federal budget deficits are points of concern. So is the growing disparity between the rich and everybody else.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
26 Comments
Wow, it’s almost back to what it was on Clinton’s worst day.
There is a very interesting disconnect between what we are being told (how good the economy is doing) and how people feel about the economy. I read recently the Bush team is very frustrated by this problem that polling data so clearly illustrate.
The stock market is doing great, but GM workers are being laid off — even after their unions agreed to significant cuts in their benefits.
It doesn’t seem to me that wealthy people are exclusively driving these supposedly good economic indicators. I am doing okay personally, but I have this apprehension that our economy could fall apart.
If the worst happened, Mr. Bush, Harvard MBA, would not have a clue on how to help correct the situation.
“Wow, it’s almost back to what it was on Clinton’s worst day.”
I know how the Liberals hate it when someone other than themselves brings up their god, Clinton. But if you remember your history, Clinton inherited an economy that was starting to boom, and left one that was headed towards the toilet.
If presidents have anything to do with the economy, then one would gather that Clinton blew it, wouldn’t one? That would then leave me to believe that if it wern’t for rose-colored glasses, Liberals would be blind indeed.
The national debt is a whole ‘nother story, though. THERE is where boy George has thrown the baby out with the bath water. Clinton did good there, but remember also: the senate and house were controlled by Republicans. Go figure!
I’d like to see a study done on how the jobs being created compare financially to the jobs that are leaving the country.
Sure, we can create new jobs, but if they don’t pay a living wage are we really bettering ourselves?
Here’s my Joe Stiglitz-like, econ-impressionistic ah, er..impression of what’s going on.
On the one hand, we are fighting a war. We are not paying for that war, however: it’s being financed solely by debt. Financing a war should – and has – caused the greater economy to boom.
The key difference between the economy under Clinton and the economy under Bush is that the deficit was corrected under Clinton – and the economy continued to boom. Under Bush the economy has boomed – but the deficit has exploded.
Under Clinton’s leadership marginal tax rates were tinkered with as those in the top brackets were burdened with slightly higher taxes. Under Pres. Bush this has been reversed completely and the reversal has been pursued so that tax incidence has shifted far to those further down the economic ladder. Coincidence that under Clinton ALL Americans had more confidence in the economy? Coincidence that under the leadership of Pres. Bush that confidence is now lagging? I certainly don’t know – but I’d like to.
And the war? Note that we’ve moved from “ending Iraq’s WMD capability” to “instilling a state-of-the-art, Western democracy, one that will be a catalyst for beneficial change in the Arab world” to “let’s just not let things get worse than they were under Saddam, ok?” …er, strategy. Actually, I think that it’s fair to call that a “strategy” under Pres. Bush’s leadership. Er, “leadership.”
In short, yeah, the economy is booming. But at what cost?
JM, 250,000 new jobs a month was Clinton’s AVERAGE. When BushCo finally after FIVE YEARS gets one single month over 200,000, they have orgasms.
You’re entirely wrong that the economy was doing poorly when Clinton left office. It did poorly when Bush TOOK office and started cutting taxes for unearned income (capital gains) and the super-rich.
The stock market is STILL NOT BACK to its historic high of 11,070 after FIVE YEARS. It would normally be up something like 35-45 percent.
The only thing that’s different now than when Clinton was in office are the policies of President Cuckoo-Bananas: cut taxes on people who don’t work (owners of large portfolios), shift the tax burden on people who DO work (middle class like you and me), run the national debt through the roof (a historical high as percentage of GDP), and start a huge unnecessary war in Iraq.
Conservativism . . . it’s easier than thinking.
Oh, yeah, Mr. Fiscal Responsibility also GREW the federal government by a full THIRD while slashing taxes during wartime.
When you subtract all the new Washington GOVERNMENT jobs BushCo created, Bush’s economy looses jobs year after year.
However, Halliburton is doing well, isn’t it.
Er, make that “loses” . . . “losses” are what we have in Iraq.
I spent more than two years and thousands of dollars to be a social studies teacher. Now I lean the local school system thinks “no one really uses history that much so we don’t really need to teach it.” And yes, I’ve actually hear people in the schools say this. We have a state school board that is trying to destroy public education and run off many of their new teachers.What should I drink for this celebration- Hemlock?
How many of those 200,000 plus jobs were temporary holiday jobs? ‘Tis the season to be employed.
Galahad,You are still under the mistaken impression that the President “creates” jobs. If you will go back and reread my post, you will see that I made my view clear in that regard.
You will also see that Clinton brought the deficit under control while having a Republican controlled senate and house. A mean feat, I’ll give him that. But the Democrats didn’t have much to do with that now, did they?
But you are way off in the fact that the economy WAS tanking when Clinton left office. That is an undeniable fact, except if your a Liberal.
Bush is fiscally irresponsible, yes, no doubt about it. But Facts is still facts: the President doesn’t have a lot to do with the ebb and flow of the economy, unless, of course, you are a Liberal. And that’s where the rose-colored glasses come in.
Galahad: The national debt as a % of GDP is actually approaching 50 year rather than historic highs, but that is bad enough. The Iraq spending is an obvious factor in this.
Domestically though, the president and the Republican Congress are spending like drunken Democrats. That is pretty discouraging to fiscal conservatives.
But despite everything, according to all the usual measures, the economy is doing very well. That’s amazing considering 911 and Iraq. HOT TIP: You might want to consider buying some Halliburton stock.
Galahad buy Halliburton stock? He already owns a major share. If you check him out and read between the lines, you will find him a member of the KBOE. He voted for ID:-)
“You will also see that Clinton brought the deficit under control while having a Republican controlled senate and house. A mean feat, I’ll give him that. But the Democrats didn’t have much to do with that now, did they?”
Wrong again, JM. He and the Democrats raised taxes that allowed the US to start paying DOWN the national debt for the first time since Carter. The Democrats raised taxes on the rich without a single supporting Republican vote.
The economy loved it–finally, gov’t was acting responsible in paying for itself.
Unfortunately that only lasted until President Cuckoo-Bananas finessed the system in Florida and “won” even though he got fewer votes than Gore.
If “Presidents don’t matter,” J.M, why did Clinton see the number of poor people go DOWN every year he was in office, while we see the number of poor people go UP every year under Bush?
Oh, yeah, the unseen hand of the marketplace . . . boom and bust cycle . . . can’t do anything about it . . . throw up your hands and act like an idiot.
Well said, Galahad,
Of course government can have an effect on the economy. If you’ll recall, Paul Volker “rang” inflation out of the economy at the expense of the diggest recession in post WWII history. Taming inflation certainly needed to be done, and Volker did it. You have to wonder, though, was his the only approach?
Deficit spending is also a way that government can influence the economic cycle. Keynes pointed this out long ago and it’s known to work.
There are obviously lots of unknowns in macroeconomic understanding. Every time they think they understand something well, an event occurs to shatter that perception – stagflation being a classic example.
But we do have some understanding and some mechanisms for modifying economic cycles. We shouldn’t throw up our hands, even if it is “the dismal science”.
JM, I guess whether the economy had tanked by Pres. Bush’s inauguration in Jan 01 depends on your definition of “tanked.”
My definition of tanked is that an economy that’s tanked is a shrinking economy, as measured by GDP.
The available evidence shows very clearly that the economy didn’t shrink, or go into recession, until March 2001. By that time, Pres. Bush had been in office for some 5-6 weeks. While it’s true that the rate of growth had slowed in the last few months of Clinton’s presidency, saying that the rate had tanked is not the same as saying that the economy had tanked.
Also, President-elect Bush began talking of tax cuts in Dec 2000, and in Jan 01 began earnestly warning Congress that tax cuts were a necessary inoculation against recession. By Wall Street’s standard, the moral suasion of the POTUS ranks second only to the Chairman of the Fed Reserve Bank in killing growth. In other words, a POTUS who begins talking of recession openly and publicly as a likelihood will probably get exactly that.
That’s one way a POTUS can directly influence economic growth. Another very good way the POTUS can influence GDP is when he’s granted war-spending powers by the US Congress. President Bush is twofer on that count.
I don’t think it’s at all clear that the economy necessarily would have gone into recession in March 2001 without President Bush predicting it would sans tax cuts. In fact, I believe it’s more a case that Pres. Bush was trying deliberately to induce a mild recession at the beginning of his term in order to avoid his father’s fate, a.k.a., the recession of 1991-2.
And if your definition of “tanked” differs from mine, then what term would you use to describe the recession of 03/01 – 11/01? Super-tanked? Belly up? Nuked? Dead?
JM: It seems our friends on the left have taken the bait. They insist on giving Clinton credit for the positive economy. That is silly, but grant them that point.
Using their own logic; now that the economy is doing very well in spite of 911, Iraq, and out of control domestic spending, credit should be given to the Bush tax cuts.
Fair enough, Outlander. As I noted upthread, the credit for a booming economy goes to Bush.
Let’s make sure he gets full credit for the increase in the public debt as well. :)
flike:
As much as it saddens me to say it, he deserves it! How can you not use your veto even once?
Outlander–why do you keep saying “in spite of the Iraq war.”
It was WW2 that finished off the Depression once and for all. Wars generally have a stimulative effect on the economy, as does deficit spending.
Think of it this way, if you maxed out all your credit cards and refinanced your home and spent all the money, you’d LOOK LIKE you were doing well too.
What’s surprising is why this economy sucks so badly given all the incentives the gov’t is pumping into it.
Answer: the middle class–who do most of the buying of things in our economy–aren’t reaping the rewards of a better economy. So the “economic indicators” like GDP growth are good, but if people don’t have more real wealth, they can’t spend that “growth.”
The people doing well are doing very, very well. Everybody else is just muddling along or going backwards, particularly when health care and fuel costs are figured in . . .
“The people doing well are doing very, very well. Everybody else is just muddling along or going backwards, particularly when health care and fuel costs are figured in . . .” …and it’s all the governments fault? Your glasses need cleaning.
Bushes tax increase had zero effect on the economy. Just as Clintons tax increase had zero effect on the economy. When the economy is booming, more taxes are taken in via the increased earnings of the public. Conversly, less is taken in when it tanks. Look at how states overspent when the economy was flourishing, then went down the tubes to the level of bad credit risks when it tanked.
Clinton, or Bush, never created one job in this country, other than for their cronies. Or special investigators and their staff.
You far-left Liberals love to place like-minded politicians as your gods. Without them, where would you be?
Here’s what some 400 some presidential historians concluded about why GW is quite likely the Worst President Ever.
Among his many serious failings, “He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity.”
See link under posting about GW’s immigration mis-leadership.
BTW, if government policies “don’t matter” to the economy, then hell, let’s nationalize health care . . .
Oh, and give everybody a million dollars while they’re at it.
Thou it pains to to say it, Walker has finally something to say worth listening to.
I’ll hate myself at some later date.
“Oh, and give everybody a million dollars while they’re at it.”
“BTW, if government policies “don’t matter” to the economy, then hell, let’s nationalize health care . . .”
It matters to the national debt. No ones arguing that.
I believe you have completly flipped out. Liberalism at its most noxious.
“Here’s what some 400 some presidential historians concluded about why GW is quite likely the Worst President Ever.”
No ones denying that either, but the blog is about the economy. Besides, My money is on the 400 being Liberals. You could probably find 400 Conservatives that would say just the opposite, although the number is shrinking by the day:-)