jbooma Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Well, the president said his tax cuts would create jobs. Remember the "Jobs and Growth Plan?" They didn't. http://www.jobwatch.org/ Tax cuts are not working to generate jobs You can blame the prices in oil for that setback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 The Govt. isn't in the job creation market, other than the ever bloated federal employee roles. The govt. shouldn't be in the job market, the agriculture market, the education market, the energy market... or any other market for that matter. It's the ****roaches in DC that just can't seem to keep their hands off of the revenue generated in this country. History will one day look back on the days and declare that career politicians have made a mockery of the US Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma You can blame the prices in oil for that setback. The administration is actually blaming the latest poor job numbers on the hurricanes in Florida. :laugh: Whatever happened to the "Era of Personal Responsibility". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Well, the president said his tax cuts would create jobs. Remember the "Jobs and Growth Plan?" They didn't. 4,590,000 - 2,882,000 = 1,708,000 new jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin The Govt. isn't in the job creation market, other than the ever bloated federal employee roles. The govt. shouldn't be in the job market, the agriculture market, the education market, the energy market... or any other market for that matter. It's the ****roaches in DC that just can't seem to keep their hands off of the revenue generated in this country. History will one day look back on the days and declare that career politicians have made a mockery of the US Constitution. Amen!!!!:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 This is an interesting thread. I agree with those above who state that President's get too much credit and blame for the economy. I do believe, however, that consumer and business economic confidence are heavily influenced by the actions, demeanor and approach of the White House. Thus, while the government in general and White House in particular do not directly impact the economy much of the time, there is some secondary impact from governmental actions. As posted above, they can certainly screw things up. I think the markets have been greatly impacted by 9/11 and its aftermath. I believe the governmental authorities could have done a lot better to predict that event (especially the FBI!!), but I do not hold that against Bush. I will give him a pass on that one. I feel that Bush's actions since, however, have been overly reckless. He has thrown a lot of unrequired gasoline on the fire. This type of climate creates increased uncertainty, and businesses do not like to invest or aggressively grow in times of uncertainty. To some extent, our geographic region is well sheltered from economic downturns. For every federal tax dollar taxed in No. Va., I believe the area receives $17 or so tax dollars spent. This is due to the governmental concentration of spending in this area, especially agencies and defense contracting. Even with this benefit, there are lots and lots of people laid off over the last few years in this area who have not replaced their old jobs with anything close to what they had before. Vacancy rates in Tyson's are way higher now for example. The tech boom and bust has hit us in No Va pretty hard. Things may be a little better now overall, but it is certainly not a rocking economy in the least. Other areas of the country have been hit much harder. This shows up particularly in larger businesses that are still outputting the same level of work or products, but doing so with fewer employees than before. There are exceptions, and certainly plenty of businesses have recovered and even grown. The last year has shown some net job growth, but overall the entire economy as a whole has not even picked up all the jobs we lost in 2001-2002. For the Bush term as a whole, he is down almost 1,000,000 net total non-farm jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is truly unique. The only other President who managed that nifty trick was Herbert Hoover and that was the Great Depression!! As bad a President as Carter was, as poor as the economy was functioning then (and I remember it quite well), he still managed to add jobs over his four years. Bush has not. That is a pretty damning fact. The markets performance over the last four years is reflective of a pretty sideways economy. We had a good jump last year (predictive of this year's job growth!), but the markets this entire year have slid up and down without any real bull market. This is a great indicator that our economy is no where close to where it was. In large part, I think Wall Street reacts to weak governmental fiscal governance. This is really where I take Bush to task strongly. Republicans, whatever happened to tax and spend liberals? Since there is a majority in the house, senate and the Presidency is Republican, we now have the highest gross deficit ever, and the second highest (to Reagan) as a function of GDP. All this says to me that many of the tax cuts went too far, or were not attached to associated cuts in spending. I am all for paying less in taxes, but jacking the deficit is simply very poor management. The markets have reacted to the same, and no one listens to poor Alan Greenspan on that one. We see the result: nothing even approaching previous market highs despite having years of "recovery". That is poor governmental management and yes, to me, is secondarily tied into the creation of jobs and the performance of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 What did Banarik have on his website? For every regulator fired 150 jobs are created. For those of you that work/live/walk around DC does it make you as ill as it makes me how many federal buildings there are and how many people are in there getting paid by me? The less the government is involved, the less taxation, the better. Art and Luckydevil, as always, hit it right on the head here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 And btw, I had no clue the corporate tax rate was 35 percent!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Mister Happy 4,590,000 - 2,882,000 = 1,708,000 new jobs Is this that arbitrary point that Bush always mentions when talking about job growth? (August of 2003, I think.) There are still a million less jobs than when he started. His tax cuts didn't help, even though he said they would create millions and millions of jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 And btw, I had no clue the corporate tax rate was 35 percent!! higher than many European countries The corporate tax rate is way too high in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 New jobs doesn't necessarily mean good jobs. My dad got laid off in IT, now he's making way less as a security guard trying to find a way to get a security clearance so he can get back into the industry. A lot of people are worse off even if they have newer jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward His tax cuts didn't help, even though he said they would create millions and millions of jobs. His tax cuts created 1.7 million new jobs. That's the number coming from the article that you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan2 And btw, I had no clue the corporate tax rate was 35 percent!! Corporate taxes are somewhat deceptive though. Aren't corporations only taxed on retained earnings? Thus, bonuses/compensation to execs/dividends all count against the bottom line and are not taxed at the corporate level. Running corporations, you are always trying to avoid being double taxed (corporate retained earnings taxed, then later distributed to shareholders and taxed again). There are reasons for a corporation to retain earnings though -- look at Microsoft, for example, which amassed a gigantic load of cash over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Is this that arbitrary point that Bush always mentions when talking about job growth? (August of 2003, I think.) There are still a million less jobs than when he started. His tax cuts didn't help, even though he said they would create millions and millions of jobs. That is correct. Bush administration estimated it would create a net increase of 2.8 million jobs this year, the actual number is around 1/2 that number. The posts regarding the types of jobs created are also likely correct. I read somewhere recently that "average" wages have increased slightly over the last couple years (about in line with inflation). Median income, however, has decreased. This means the average person actually makes less now, and that upper incomes have increased more to compensate for that. The other really troubling facts to me are despite the "recovery", the markey has remained stagnant. Further, the number of individuals who are without health insurance has dramatically increased. Finally, the number of people below the poverty line has also increased. These are signs that even if the upper end of the economy is doing ok, the base of middle class and downwards are suffering. That is not a sign of a healthy economy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 True or flase: Good infrastrucutre leads to more businesses? True or false: a good legal system leads to more businesses? True or false: Perfect information is one of the assumptions for the working of a pure free market? True or false: Our economy works better for having information on how well it is doing? Infrastructure: Do you think every worker on roads paid by government contract costs 150 jobs as somebody posted above? Legal system: Do you think every worker insuring our legal system (civil as well as criminal) costs us more jobs? If you ever do any research (and I have) on which American Indian tribes have success on their lands versus others, it quickly becomes clear that a legal system viewed as impartial is a key component. Information: Do you think our stock market is better or worse off for having stats like housing starts, GDP, and the like? Productivity of the American worker vs. other places (keep in mind, not all investment is local)? All regulators are bad huh? Who needs that perfect information anyway? Sure is a pity I don't know what drugs are produced properly or which ones have side efects that might kill me. I guess I can always just listen to the drug company right? Hmmm, all these government jobs... I'm sure the free market will take care of them (sarcasm). While the government can't employ everyone, there are various things which it can do to help our economy and create an atmosphere where there are sufficient safeguards for investments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Gbear your post hits some good points. There needs to be a system in place that ensures property rights as well as intellectual honesty. That I will not dispute and is key. Infrastructure is also key. There are times where the government is useful. Now if you have all of that in place, there is still the chance that jobs will not be created. The government simply cannot create good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by gbear True or flase: Good infrastrucutre leads to more businesses? True or false: a good legal system leads to more businesses? True or false: Perfect information is one of the assumptions for the working of a pure free market? True or false: Our economy works better for having information on how well it is doing? Infrastructure: Do you think every worker on roads paid by government contract costs 150 jobs as somebody posted above? Legal system: Do you think every worker insuring our legal system (civil as well as criminal) costs us more jobs? If you ever do any research (and I have) on which American Indian tribes have success on their lands versus others, it quickly becomes clear that a legal system viewed as impartial is a key component. Information: Do you think our stock market is better or worse off for having stats like housing starts, GDP, and the like? Productivity of the American worker vs. other places (keep in mind, not all investment is local)? All regulators are bad huh? Who needs that perfect information anyway? Sure is a pity I don't know what drugs are produced properly or which ones have side efects that might kill me. I guess I can always just listen to the drug company right? Hmmm, all these government jobs... I'm sure the free market will take care of them (sarcasm). While the government can't employ everyone, there are various things which it can do to help our economy and create an atmosphere where there are sufficient safeguards for investments. The best of both worlds... Although I have seen fraud/waste/abuse on a daily basis i also agree a certain amount of gov't is necessary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 True or false: Perfect information is one of the assumptions for the working of a pure free market? Name me one libertarian/conservative economist who believes that Gbear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 9, 2004 Author Share Posted October 9, 2004 Originally posted by gbear True or flase: Good infrastrucutre leads to more businesses? True or false: a good legal system leads to more businesses? True or false: Perfect information is one of the assumptions for the working of a pure free market? True or false: Our economy works better for having information on how well it is doing? Infrastructure: Do you think every worker on roads paid by government contract costs 150 jobs as somebody posted above? Legal system: Do you think every worker insuring our legal system (civil as well as criminal) costs us more jobs? If you ever do any research (and I have) on which American Indian tribes have success on their lands versus others, it quickly becomes clear that a legal system viewed as impartial is a key component. Information: Do you think our stock market is better or worse off for having stats like housing starts, GDP, and the like? Productivity of the American worker vs. other places (keep in mind, not all investment is local)? All regulators are bad huh? Who needs that perfect information anyway? Sure is a pity I don't know what drugs are produced properly or which ones have side efects that might kill me. I guess I can always just listen to the drug company right? Hmmm, all these government jobs... I'm sure the free market will take care of them (sarcasm). While the government can't employ everyone, there are various things which it can do to help our economy and create an atmosphere where there are sufficient safeguards for investments. Very nicely said, people forget about all these jobs that yes we have given to the free market, however these companies now lie about hours worked and what they actually to be awarded these contracts. There is a huge problem in the DC area of certain companies, heck one my friends is head of the HR part of a major player in goverment contracts and you would be amazed what this company does just to get these contracts. This is the free market everyone was crying for and now we are paying even more because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Very nicely said, people forget about all these jobs that yes we have given to the free market, however these companies now lie about hours worked and what they actually to be awarded this contracts.There is a huge problem in the DC area of certain companies, heck one my friends is head of the HR part of a major player in goverment contracts and you would be amazed what this company does just to get these contracts. This is the free market everyone was crying for and now we are paying even more because of it.. There is nothing free market about government contracts given to private businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yank Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil There is nothing free market about government contracts given to private businesses. Government contracting has been a schitzophrentic proposition for many years. The craving for low price competition has not at all been shown to provide the best value to the taxpayer. On the other hand the pretense of "best value" has been used by government contracting officers to justify crony awards that allow them to advance in their government contracting career. The sine wave continues and the cost of business with the government increases, just because it's so uncertain. On the jobs front, the following are to be taken into consideration: 1. The economy was close to a recession when Bush took office. 2. Manufacturing jobs were being lost at a rate seen rarely in 20 years right before Bush took office. 3. The stock market was in a decline before Bush took office. 4. Within 3 months after 9-11 there were 1.1 million jobs lost. 5. The economy took the brunt of the dot bomb joke of the 90s economical boom when their inevitable failures came to pass in the early 2000s. 6. The Enbombs, Global Grossings, and Addtomysonsaccount corporate dilutions of the investment capital were the result of the 90s decade of indifference and worse, political corruption on both sides that was not only not stemmed by the the holders of the White House, it was in fact abetted by it. 7. The response to the 9-11 attacks - the war on terrorism - costs dough and adds to the impact to the economy. But the net effect is that we have taken all that into the economical account, have withstood all the dot bomb potential devastation, have cracked down on the corporate disgraces and have recovered 300,00 of the 1.1 million jobs lost after 9-11. I find it an incredible achievement, to withstand the excesses of the 90s and the 9-11 blow to the economy. The partisans will disagree but the facts are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan2 And btw, I had no clue the corporate tax rate was 35 percent!! That's because corporations have the same rights as people, possibly more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Originally posted by yank But the net effect is that we have taken all that into the economical account, have withstood all the dot bomb potential devastation, have cracked down on the corporate disgraces and have recovered 300,00 of the 1.1 million jobs lost after 9-11. I find it an incredible achievement, to withstand the excesses of the 90s and the 9-11 blow to the economy. The partisans will disagree but the facts are there. This is also known as "Inventing the Clinton Recession." ---------- http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/ The NBER, using their old formulation, set the start of the recession at March 2001. However, if they included the GDP numbers (from a private company), the recession would be pegged as beginning in late 2000. How convenient to switch the system to one that doesn't weigh job creation as much. Cooking the books??? Nah, not THESE guys. Did I mention the head of the NBER was also one of the architects of the Bush tax cuts? HMMMMM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Luckidevil, Do you think the free market approach is the best way to perfect competition? Realise something close to perfect competition is necessary in the "the free market will solve your problems" assumption. If the companies don't have to worry about somebody else being competetive with their product, they won't. If you never hear about the other product or what wrong (even fataly wrong) with a product, you may keep using it. while this web page is way to simplified...it does go a little into the most basic models of free market where good information is shown as needed: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/perfect%20competition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Do you think the free market approach is the best way to perfect competition? perfect competition is impossible Imperfect information is part of the market process, not a stumbling block. This is where the entrepreneur plays a vital role, he/she/it tries to fill that gap. There is no way that individuals can know everything about everything. The notion that government regulation can fill in the gap when it comes to the information problem is fally, more often than not government creates information problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.