The ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS OF BETTER ECONOMY DON'T FOLLOW THE NUMBERS

[TOAD6147]

ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS OF BETTER ECONOMY DON'T FOLLOW THE NUMBERS

While the Bush/Cheney re-election website promotes the idea that the economy
is "stepping on the gas pedal," new figures released today by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics showed hiring to be flat in December 2003 with a net gain
of 1,000 jobs. A new report released today by the Economic Policy Institute
finds that the Bush administration's assertion that the president's 2003 tax
cut fell 1.615 million jobs short of its prediction for the year.

The president publicly unveiled his 2003 tax cut last year by tying it to
job creation. In the State of the Union, Bush said, "When America works,
America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word:
jobs." But the president's policies have failed to benefit American
workers. A National Journal piece last week noted that "The economy is so
far behind the administration's forecast that an average of 400,000 jobs
would have to materialize every month until the end of 2004 to keep to the
White House schedule. How hard is that? During the 1990s boom, such
phenomenal job growth occurred in eight months out of 102."

The White House has thus far focused on putting a positive spin on the state
of the economy. The president said in early December, "This administration
has laid the foundation for greater prosperity and more jobs across America
so every single citizen has a chance to realize the American dream." But
so far, the widely reported increases in productivity and growth aren't
translating into jobs or higher wages. New jobs being created are paying
13% less than those lost during the recession--$14.65/hour versus
$16.92/hour. By contrast, new jobs created during the later years of the
expansion, 1998 to 2000, paid 12% more.

While the rapid growth of the recovery has so far failed to benefit workers,
corporate profits have increased at a rate far beyond those of previous
recoveries. According to the EPI study, previous recoveries provided an
average of 61% of total income growth - and never less than 55% -- to
workers. In this recovery, however, only 29% of the total income growth has
gone to workers' wages and benefits. Meanwhile, corporate profits have
claimed an average share of 46% of total income growth in this recovery,
compared to an historic average of 26%.

Read the Mis-Lead -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1155689&l=14089 >

[Epidemic]

While the rapid growth of the recovery has so far failed to benefit workers,
corporate profits have increased at a rate far beyond those of previous
recoveries. According to the EPI study, previous recoveries provided an
average of 61% of total income growth - and never less than 55% -- to
workers. In this recovery, however, only 29% of the total income growth has
gone to workers' wages and benefits. Meanwhile, corporate profits have
claimed an average share of 46% of total income growth in this recovery,
compared to an historic average of 26%.

Perhaps thing are bleak or perhaps one is measuring at the wrong moment. Note the words economic recoveries. We are still in the recovery stage it is not complete. So how many economic recover periods had 26% at some point in the process?

[osprey4]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling....

[daveleau]

Hmmmm. During Clinton's initial run for the top office, the GDP growth was looked at as the marker for Pres. Bush Sr.'s bad economics. Then Clinton's growth, which was significantly lower than Pres. Bush Sr.'s, was touted as a boon for the country. Then the fact that the NYSE was over 10,000 points was used to tout how good Clinton's economic policy was. Now that under Pres. Bush's watch the NYSE is over 10,000, it is not looked at to see if the economy is good. One of the top 10 deficits in US history was under Clinton, but no one mentioned the deficit. His is the highest peace time deficit ever. Now, we crush two terror nations, further securing the safety of Americans, Afghanis and Iraqis and all we can talk about is how much it costs. Clinton lowered taxes to boost a failing economy and that was great, but why not now?

Anyone see a double standard here? And people say there is no media bias! Good grief! Basically, it comes down to what you want to believe. If most people hear bad stuff about people they don't like, they take it as gospel. The same is true for the reverse situation. It doesn't take a genius to see that we are finally rebounding from the fact that the American economic center was attacked and two of the largest buildings in the world fell with 2750 people inside. Now, you can blame Pres. Bush, but do we really want to be media lemmings?

The numbers can be made to look any way you want. While I am no math wiz, I worked in a research lab where grant moneys were based on stats and believe me, they can be fudged very convincingly. People just have to do a little digging to get past what facades are placed in front of them to get to the truth.

Interesting that the above article does not mention the decline in the unemployment rate, the fact that 5 states have raised their minimum wages well above the federal standard (which backfired since those 5 states have the highest unemployment rates as well....hmmmm) causing greater growth restrictions on new jobs.

[whitebeard21]

http://www.quicken.com/investments/n...r&column=P0DFP

time to duck so the sky doesnt hit you.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_518805,0003.htm
then read this
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...1300460000.htm

[TOAD6147]

daveleau,

The unemployment rate may have fallen to a 14-month low of 5.7% from 5.9%, but the alarming lack of job creation spooked investors. Treasury and gold prices rallied, while bond yields and stocks plummeted.

[TOAD6147]

"The shift of North American technology jobs to low wage countries like India cannot be stopped because not only are Indian companies a third of the cost, but they actually are better," said Pradeep Sood, president of Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce.

India produces 67 per cent more engineers and computer scientists each year than the US

This may be more incentive for the conservative right to cut spending on education.

[daveleau]

I was talking about the above article. FoxNEws has been reporting in the same manner as Quicken.com's article that you quoted.

That is a minor point though and the meat of my point regards the slanted view of the media on projections. If this exact economy was present under Clinton, he'd be getting little/ no flak from the press. During his terms, he had significant drops that were not tied to terrorist attacks, yet everyone talks of his good economic presidency.

In reply to the India stat...
That is a hilarious stat. Do you know how much more of a population India has compared to the US? It is 4 times as big (1.027 billion in India versus 248 million in the US). Yes, they have a high illiteracy rate, but it isn't pervasive enough to discount the idea that their population dwarfs the US's. Pres. Bush is not in favor of cutting education- he is favor of vouchers, which is a proven winner.

Disgruntled Bush-haters do have some footholds for their angst, but I have yet to see any real solid facts from most here by the membership. Most is just twisted info like the above. My question is: do you not know that you are being manipulated, or are you hoping that the opposition won't see the fact that you are using known tainted numbers and facts?

[TOAD6147]

To suggest that the media is slanted to the left is ludicrous and just a cop-out to suggest that Bush can't stand on his own record. He doesn't need any 3rd party help to appear incompetent and in the pocket of big business cronies.

[daveleau]

Originally posted by TOAD6147
To suggest that the media is slanted to the left is ludicruous and just a cop-out to suggest that Bush can't stand on his own record. He doesn't need any 3rd party help to appear incompetent and in the pocket of big business cronnies.

The media is coming back towards the center because of the criticism that has been prominent lately and because of FoxNews' example. The media is biased and I challenge you to read Goldstein's books on the subject. He shows it from the inside. ...I mean that is if you are not objective enough to see the way the media words things differently depending on which party they are talking about. I guess the above answers my question above pretty well too- You don't know.


www.iespell.com