« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Roughing it »

Bread Lines & Soup Kitchens

Unemployment Rates

June 1997 - 4.2 - whites
June 2007 - 4.0 - whites

June 1997 - 10.4 - blacks
June 2007 - 8.5 - blacks

June 1997 - 7.6 - Latinos
June 2007 - 5.7 - Latinos

If Ritalin-popping liberal students observed those numbers their eyes would bug out of their collective heads -- like Marty Feldman in "Young Frankenstein."

Wage Growth -- Lower-Tiered Workers

$14.55 - avg. hourly wages, June 2001
$17.38 - avg. hourly wages, June 2007

19.5% - increase in avg. hourly wages, 6/01 - 6/07
16.8% - total consumer inflation, 6/01 - 6/07

If Lou Dobbs saw those numbers he'd probably commit hari-kari.

Overall Job Growth

137.8 million - total employment, June 2003
146.1 million - total employment, June 2007

Ergo:

8.3 million - net gain in employment, 6/03 - 6/07
(173,000/month)

If Krugman saw those figures he'd start acting out like De Niro's character in "Taxi Driver."

Payrolls Job Growth

129.8 million - total W-2 employment, June 2003
138.0 million - total W-2 employment, June 2007

Ergo:

8.2 million - net gain in W-2 employment, 6/03 - 6/07
(171,000/month)

Breaking that down by sectors:

91% - private sectors
09% - government

Go figure.

Breaking that down by certain occupations:

1,130,000 - health care
216,000 - computer systems design
215,000 - engineering & architecture
162,000 - management of companies & enterprises
137,000 - accounting
95,000 - securities & investments
81,000 - insurance
48,000 - commercial banking

On the other hand, the publishing and broadcasting industries -- i.e., the media -- combined generated the sum total of (minus) 3,000 payroll jobs over the past four years.

But there's still some good news out there for young liberals at big-city newspapers and TV affiliates.

There are plenty of eligible and well-heeled Democrat mayors besides Mr. Villaraigrosa.

Shake those money makers, Chomskies.

* * *
Data source: DOL, BLS.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22331.

Comments (90)

Jayson, Great work... (Below threshold)
Tom Gordon:

Jayson,

Great work as usual.

After seeing the economic numbers buried in the WaPo online this morning, I was hoping for this post.

You didn't disappoint!

Good stuff happening all ar... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Good stuff happening all around!

Jayson, this post is cruel ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jayson, this post is cruel to liberals. Their heads exploded on the Libby deal, now they have to shoot this down. Man, they have their work cut out for them. Never mind. They don't work. ww

WW, just wait till Kos and ... (Below threshold)

WW, just wait till Kos and DU put out the Official Lefty Talking Points, then we'll see them start trolling here.

Jayson, One thing I would a... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jayson, One thing I would add is what the 2001 average hourly rate would be adjusted for inflation:

$14.55 - avg. hourly wages, June 2001
$17.08 - avg. hourly wages, June 2007 (6/2001 adjusted for inflation)
$17.38 - avg. hourly wages, June 2007 (actual)

The economic numbers are ev... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The economic numbers are even more impressive when you consider that oil hits $70/barrel, 9/11 effect, and the cost of the GWOT (including Iraq and Afghanistan war). Amazing that this economy is even better than the 1990s when we had low oil price, the peace dividends, and the internet bubble!

Wait a minute, Eric! The M... (Below threshold)
g:

Wait a minute, Eric! The MSM has been telling us for years that, under Bush, wages have fallen way behind inflation. Are you saying they were wrong? That they didnt check official govt sources? That they cant do basic mathematics? I'm stunned beyond belief! gc

This can't be. The antique ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

This can't be. The antique MSM, especially the NYSlimes say the economy is in shambles. I guess they are looking at the falling employment of anti-american reporters across the country. Funny how that works. People are tired of the total BS from the MSM so they quit listening or reading their garbage. Hoping for a total failure of most news (sic) organizations. It will come shortly after the next major terrorists attack on the country. Then people will know just how dangerous the left wing lies are.

This should be on the front... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_logic:

This should be on the front page of every newspaper in America.

(HAAAAAAAAAAAA)

The MSM thinks the economy ... (Below threshold)
Greg:

The MSM thinks the economy is bad because their sector is in the tank. Instead of complaining they should learn a skill and get a real job.

Hooverville!... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Hooverville!

19.5% - increase in a... (Below threshold)

19.5% - increase in avg. hourly wages, 6/01 - 6/07
16.8% - total consumer inflation, 6/01 - 6/07

That growth is even more significant given that in 6/01 the economy was still suffering a hangover from the dotcom binge. Then 9/11 and the slowdown thereafter.

In case anyone is actually ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

In case anyone is actually interested in the truth.


Notice how under Clinton, the unemployment rate dropped every single year. Despite inheriting a terrible economy from the elder Bush.

June 1992 (Bush Sr): 8.0%
June 1993 (Clinton's first): 7.2%
June 1994 (clinton's Second): 6.2%
June 1995 (Clinton's third): 5.8%
June 1996 (Clinon's fourth): 5.5%

June 1997 (Clinton's fifth): 5.0%
June 1998 ( Clinton's sixth): 4.7%
June 1999 ( Clinton's Seventh): 4.5%
June 2000 (Clinton's eighth and last): 4.1%


Bush is up and down. Seems to ending ok though.

June 2001 (Bush jr first) 4.7%
June 2002 (Bush Jr's Second) 6.0%
June 2003 (Bush Jr's Third) 6.5%
June 2004 (Bush jr's Fourth) 5.8%
June 2005 (Bush jrs Fifth) 5.2%
June 2006 (Bush jr's Sixth) 4.8%
June 2007 (Bush jr's Seventh) 4.7%


So there is still hope that Bush Jr will leave the unemployment rate as low as Clinton did, but it is unlikely. Clinton of course took a bad economy and made it great. Bush seems to be getting things back to where they were after initially losing a lot of ground.


This is the unemployment rate every June from 1992 for all person over the age of 16.

I will be getting to the other stats in just a second.

To really compare what was ... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

To really compare what was vs is, then all figures should be from 2001. The economy bottomed out in 2003 so everything should be going up since then. But, in any event, 2007 economic figures are pretty much better across the board than in 2001.

Another thing for those "Clintonistas" out there. Several of the major indicators had turned down in August 2000, and most were down by September of the same year. Bush II inherited a recession.

Bush Senior shot himself in the foot by not following his pledge for no new taxes. His "revenue enhancements" were one of the causes (in my opinion) for the downturn in the economy at the end of his watch.

We can go back and forth on... (Below threshold)
mixti:

We can go back and forth on this all night and discuss the impact of things such as a war paid for by chinese dollars and what that menas for future generations.

The bush economy is ok. But he certainly didn't inheret anyhting as bad as the elder bush left Clinton.

More stats to come tonight, after I eat and run some errands.

mixti, don't be ignorant as... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mixti, don't be ignorant assclown. Clinton did squawdoosh to stimulate the economy. In fact, name ONE economic policy introduced by Clinton that stimulated the economy to unprecedented levels in the mid- and late-90's? Oh wait, it was Al Gore's invention of the internet that spurned all that growth! That's right! Silly me.

Let's conveniently forget, too, the billions upon billions invested stupidly into thousands of worthless and unproven .com startups who couldn't even spell "business plan" let alone come up with one. Put economy-wrecking 9/11 on top of it and what do you get, a recession.

At the very least, the Bush tax cuts helped stimulate the economy at a time of stagnation, whereas as Clinton did.....wait, what did he do again? Oh yeah, increased taxes on individuals, corporations, Social Security, etc.

Hell, if anybody can take credit for the 90's boom, it should be Bill Gates and his like-minded industry cohorts.

From <a href="http://kudlow... (Below threshold)

From Larry Kudlow's Money Politics Blog If you graduated from college your jobless rate is 2.0 percent. If you failed to graduate from high school your rate is a much higher 6.7 percent. Message: Stay in school.

mixti An Inconveni... (Below threshold)

mixti

An Inconvenient Truth:

Clinton had tax policy and budget reforms crammed down his throat by the 1994 Republican Majority.

Bush proposed tax cuts that were approved by a then Republican controlled Congress.

Tax policy is the predominant driver in economic growth. Bush embraced it; Clinton did not.

The bush economy i... (Below threshold)
The bush economy is ok. But he certainly didn't inheret anyhting as bad as the elder bush left Clinton.

Here's the difference: Everyone knew we were in a recession during Bush 41. Everyone acknowledges it. Very few want to acknowledge that a recession started on Clinton's watch. Because the first quarter of contraction didn't start until the last quarter of 2000 (or first quarter of 2001) they want to say it wasn't Clinton's doing.

The fact is, the economy was on a teetering point from the last quarter of 1999, when unemployment dipped to an unsustainable below 4% for a few months. What gave was the tech bubble that took pressure off the labor force.

Additionally, when Clinton took office he pushed through a tax hike that nearly reversed the growth coming out of the Bush 41 recession. Fortunately, the Clinton tax hikes were reversed and we continued our expansion throughout the 90's.

The fact of the matter is, there was not a policy that Clinton pushed or endorsed that was the source of the 90's economy. He was just savvy enough to not mess it up and hope that credit accrued to him.

Our economy is not going to grow continuously forever. All the best policies, the most business and growth friendly policies won't guarantee continued growth. We'll eventually suffer a slowdown or even a contraction. The question is how shallow and how quickly government can respond to correct whatever it can to stimulate a recovery.

The biggest concern for our economy right now is a democrat controlled Congress. They want to raise taxes, but will get any tax hikes vetoed by Bush. It's the lurking boogeyman of a dem WH and Congress in 2009 that will slow our growth by discouraging investment in the latter part of 2008. The more it looks like a demo takeover, the worse it will be for our economy.

The democrats don't even have to get tax hikes to hurt the economy. They just have to make it seem like it will happen. Either way, they see it as a win. A slowing economy they can blame on Bush, or tax hikes that will further their socialist ends.

Peter F.Aww, I am ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Peter F.

Aww, I am sorry to shatter your little fantasy. I imagine you acted this way when you found out Santa Claus wasn't real either. But you should be careful who you call names as you are likely to get bitch slapped.

Now back to the stats.

Well, it is amusing that NO... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Well, it is amusing that NOONE was talking about what either president was doing until it starts to look like Clinton did a better job. Then suddenly everyone is talking about tax policy. I would remind you there are other things that effect the economy such as balancing the bufget. Which Clinton did. Which Bush turned into a record defecit.

Clinton: increase of... (Below threshold)
mixti:


Clinton: increase of 22.71 million jobs in 8 years

Bush : 8.3 million - net gain in employment, 6/03 - 6/07

In fairness the Bush Presidency figure is only measuring the job creation rate for four years so if we double wha Bush did we would get

16.6 million new jobs to Clinton's 22.71 million. But I don't beleive that would be accurate either as we are assuming the Bush economy did as well during the recession as it has from 2003.

mixtiGetting bitch ... (Below threshold)

mixti
Getting bitch slapped is not gender exclusive, girl.
Tax policy has everything to do with federal revenues....and balancing the budget. But that assumes you understand the difference between a blance sheet and an income statement.

I would remind you there are other things that effect the economy such as balancing the bufget (sic)

The principal behind lower taxes and greater Federal revenue was first espoused by Mises and Hayek....then Friedman, who won the Nobel when the proof was literally indisbutable.

Look up the Federal budget girl, start in 1974 and stop in 2004.
Plot a histograph that tracks top marginal tax rates and Federal Tax receipts.
Then confess your fantasy to yourself.

Clinton left a projected go... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Clinton left a projected government Surplus of 5.6 TRILLIO projected ten-year surplus

Bush turned that into a deficit of 2.8 trillion over the same period.

A swing of 8.4 trillion dollars.

source:

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pdf/presidents_fy2008budget.pdf

"Getting bitch slapped is n... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Getting bitch slapped is not gender exclusive, girl."


Well when i bitch slap you we can test it out. 'till then provide a link if you hae any evidence or quit your crying... bitch.

Looks like the news is wors... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Looks like the news is worse as the bush budget seems to be neglecting a good portion of the war costs, so most likely we should tack on another 650 billion or so to see what he is doing to future of our economy.

mixtiThanks for lett... (Below threshold)

mixti
Thanks for letting us in on the wisdom of Jim McDermott. I'm confident your extensive political knowledge informs your opinion that any conservative would be swayed by something Jim McDermott said (unless he said it on a private cell phone conversation while travelling down a Florida highway while talking to, say, Robert Byrd)....but I digress: why should I argue about projected budget line items?

And this bitch asked....</p... (Below threshold)

And this bitch asked....

What results in greater federal tax receipts?

1) High marginal rates?

2) Low marginal rates?

Hint: channel JFK.

Well when i bitch sla... (Below threshold)

Well when i bitch slap you we can test it out. 'till then provide a link if you hae any evidence or quit your crying... bitch

I'm not going to give you a link because you don't deserve one. Your ignorance precludes that privilege. Look it up if you can't make a more informed argument.

"but I digress: why should ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"but I digress: why should I argue about projected budget line items?"

Well you shouldn't you are not smart enough to.

Since it is quite apparent that arguing over what would be if say, Bush spends the way he is spending, and contines to take in the current level of income he is taking, lets stick to what has already hapend.

In 2000, there was a total surplus of $236.4 billion, $151.8 billion was borrowed from Social Security, $2 billion was given to the Post office, for a total on budget surplus of $86.6 billion.

in 2006 the Bush budget defcit exceeded 400 billion.

Any other stupid arguments Hugh?

Any other stupid argu... (Below threshold)

Any other stupid arguments Hugh?

Just waiting on your next comment.

You didn't answer my 8:13 question.

mixtiWell you ... (Below threshold)

mixti
Well you shouldn't you are not smart enough to you quoted it, you defend it.

MixtiDefend McDermot... (Below threshold)

Mixti
Defend McDermott's budget policy

Any other stupid argu... (Below threshold)

Any other stupid arguments Hugh?

Yes

Perform my 7:59 assignment. You don't understand it do you?

Another stupid question:</p... (Below threshold)

Another stupid question:

What happened between FY 2000 and 2006?

"Well you shouldn't you are... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Well you shouldn't you are not smart enough to you quoted it, you defend it."

Defend it from what? You refuse to attack it. See it works like this:

I put forth an argument say that the projected deficit represents an 8.3 Trillion dollar swing,

Then you attack (you refuse to do this saying you won't talk about projections)

So what is there to defend?

"I'm not going to give you ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"I'm not going to give you a link because you don't deserve one. Your ignorance precludes that privilege. Look it up if you can't make a more informed argument."

HAHAHAHHAHA you can't provide one can you? HAHHA. uyou moron. The way logic works is this the person making the claim has to bring the proof. bring some proof.


"MixtiDefend McDermo... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Mixti
Defend McDermott's budget policy"

Defend it fro mwhat? again you haven't attacked it. You have just said as a conservative you won't accept it. No reason at all given just that as a conservative you do not accept it.

:) When you make an argument, I'll make a rebuttal.

"Another stupid question:</... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Another stupid question:

What happened between FY 2000 and 2006?"

You mean other than Bush turning a record surplus into a record deficit?

So what is there to d... (Below threshold)

So what is there to defend?

I defend this:

Lower marginal tax rates increase federal tax receipts.
Republicans, with the sole exception of JFK, have exclusively sponsored and passed lower marginal tax rates.
It's what you guys called trickle down, except it was more like a waterfall down.
From 1982 until 2002 Federal tax rates at the highest margin have fallen from 70% to 39%. In the same period of time Federal tax receipts have ballooned. So we have settled the revenue question, right?
Who spends the money? Congress. Not Bush. Who got thrown out of Congress last year? Republicans. Why? They spent too much. Not Bush. Congress.

Giving Clinton the credit for surpluses is ridiculous. Blaming Bush for deficits is almost as ridiculous, except that he is operating in war economy. Understand?

You asked for it wise guy, ... (Below threshold)

You asked for it wise guy, here it is. Figure it out. And I want that defense of McDermott NOW. I love it the way you libs are so fast to cal ht e other side "moron". Enjoy being hoist on your own petard.

HAHAHAHHAHA you can't provide one can you? HAHHA. uyou moron. The way logic works is this the person making the claim has to bring the proof. bring some proof.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Well Hugh, at least you act... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Well Hugh, at least you actually made an argument. Even it is a very weak one.

the budget every year is CALCULATED by the white house and submitted to congress, who approve or disapprove of it.

The whitehouse is the cheif force behind this process and certainly did not do any Pushback when it was a republican congress.

But hey, if you want to give the Republicans in congress the blame for following Bush's idiotic budget plan then fine. They were stupid from following the recomendations of a man who ran two companies into the ground.


But if you are right on that then you will also hae to take away the credit for the tax cuts you are giing Bush as congress is the ones who passed that based on his recomendation as well.

Now finally do you hae any evidence that:

A) Low marginal rates equal more revenue
B) Republicans have been better about this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH,<br ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

HAHAHAHAHAHAH,


You jackass! That article doesn't even mention McDermott! What a moron!

Once again, after you provide a reason why we shouldn't listen to McDermott I will rebutt it.

It gets even better!<... (Below threshold)
mixti:

It gets even better!

Everyone in an argument about the BUSH economy versus The Clinton Economy this guy posts the following article:

"Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About
the Reagan Economic Record"

A) I have never mentioned Reagon
B) I never mentioned anything about tax cuts.

So I think he is having an imaginary argument in his head. Lets see if we can find him a shrink.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH,</i... (Below threshold)

HAHAHAHAHAHAH,


You jackass! That article doesn't even mention McDermott! What a moron!

Once again, after you provide a reason why we shouldn't listen to McDermott I will rebutt it.

Did I say that link specifically addressed McDermott? No. It addressed tax rates, GDP and spending.

I still want an explanation on McDermott. Call Congressman John Boehner. He just obtained a judgement against McDermott...look it up.

the budget every year is CALCULATED by the white house and submitted to congress, who approve or disapprove of it.

I'm going to resist the ad hominem attacks that you make and just suggest that you research the CBO and Ways and Means missions. White House budget "CALCULATIONS" are not a term congressional staffers and reps recognize, unless it is to describe some proposals as dead on arrival.

They were stupid from following the recomendations of a man who ran two companies
into the ground.

Which ones were those?

But if you are right on that then you will also hae to take away the credit for the tax cuts you are giing Bush as congress is the ones who passed that based on his recomendation as well.

Which party controlled congress then?


Now finally do you hae any evidence that:

A) Low marginal rates equal more revenue
B) Republicans have been better about this.

The answer to A is Yes
In the past 40 years, the answer to B is Yes

Sweet looking table. Howev... (Below threshold)
waddayknow:

Sweet looking table. However, I am curious about the stats if you had adhered to a single time reference to evaluate (ie. 1997-2007). Your statistics do no include the economic implosion of the early 00's and we are unable to compare net jobs gained with net jobs lost in apples to apples comparison.

I'm just saying...

Well, waddayaknow. Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics

Well waddayknowLet's... (Below threshold)

Well waddayknow
Let's see if mixti picks up on this. That's a pretty micro economic example and she seems to thrive on the surface.
And then there's the ANGER!

waddayknowTha... (Below threshold)


waddayknow
Thanks for reminding me of what I posted 4 hours ago.


19.5% - increase in avg. hourly wages, 6/01 - 6/07
16.8% - total consumer inflation, 6/01 - 6/07

That growth is even more significant given that in 6/01 the economy was still suffering a hangover from the dotcom binge. Then 9/11 and the slowdown thereafter.

Posted by: HughS at July 6, 2007 05:30 PM

Did I say that link spe... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Did I say that link specifically addressed McDermott? No. It addressed tax rates, GDP and spending.

I still want an explanation on McDermott. Call Congressman John Boehner. He just obtained a judgement against McDermott...look it up.

So let me get this straight, You admit to having posted no reason why i shouldn't listen to mcdermott but want me to do your research for you and call Republican congressman John Boehner?

Sorry Hugh you have do you your own research, although i am not inclined to take the word of a congreeman over the word of a economimist on a matter of economic policy.

Next your article did not address how budget deficits are in anyway good for the economy. as I made no mention of tax rates anywhere in any posts your whole paper is irrelevant to this discussion.

Which ones were those?

Arbusto energy and spectrum 7 I beleive were the names.

Which party controlled congress then?

So you admit then that Bush had nothing to do with the tax cuts right? using your won logic it had to be all congress.


The answer to A is Yes
In the past 40 years, the answer to B is Yes

Do you have the guts to share it?


The fact is, the e... (Below threshold)
The fact is, the economy was on a teetering point from the last quarter of 1999, when unemployment dipped to an unsustainable below 4% for a few months.

Errr, that should be the last quarter of 2000 of course.

MixtiMy answer will ... (Below threshold)

Mixti
My answer will be in two posts:

McDermott is a partisan hack; if you will not admit or acknowledge that he is then you ignore that he is a CONVICTED partisan opponent of John Boehner. Boehner obtained a six figure judgement against him. Look it up! It is stunning that you feign no knowledge of this.

Arbusto energy and spectrum 7 I beleive were the names.
No. As you say, prove it! So here is the challenge. You prove that W ran two companies
into the ground, specifically the ones you mention, and I will provide a PDF of the Boehner judgement.

Want to take it a step more? Deny the McDermott accusation.

As to the Bush tax cuts, look it up. No one, not even Charlie Rangel, denies he proposed to Congress and succeeded in getting the cuts.

But Mixti, I'm more interested in your denial of the McDermott matter and the failure of the Busch companies you allege.


Do you have the guts ... (Below threshold)

Do you have the guts to share it?

The guts to share what?

MixtiHere is your Mc... (Below threshold)
MixtiArbusto... (Below threshold)

Mixti

Arbusto energy and spectrum 7 I beleive were the names

You're going to have to do better than that. I want names and evidence of dissolution, bankruptcy or abandonment. NOW.

"bankruptcy or abandonment.... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"bankruptcy or abandonment. NOW."

Ok shithead first off you don't tell me when to do something. You will have to wait 20 minutes because I am in the middle of something. But don't worry i wil take care of you then,

The answer to A is Ye... (Below threshold)

The answer to A is Yes
In the past 40 years, the answer to B is Yes

Do you have the guts to share it?

Plug this in at DU while your at it.

Me thinks mixti sounds just... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Me thinks mixti sounds just like wee wee lee lee wardie from bluie-STUPID

You're in the middle of mak... (Below threshold)

You're in the middle of making a fool of yourself. Let me guess: Harken Energy

No, I will not search the EDGAR System to prove you wrong because that would have been done with a microscope by Gore already.

And to refute the failed co... (Below threshold)

And to refute the failed companies myth, as I have said repeatedly here, he organized, led , and turned around a major league baseball franchise before running successfully for governor twice , the first time defeating a major Democratic icon, Anne Richards.

And he made better grades at Yale than John Kerry...that will leave a mark, won't it?

I'm done.Loud scre... (Below threshold)

I'm done.

Loud screaming to ensue.

Wow Hugh,Everytime... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Wow Hugh,

Everytime I think you can't possibly top your stupidity you do.


So here we go, point by point, where I make a fool of you.


Here is your McDermott judgement:

So, the best you can come up with is you don't like his politics? No argument against his economic creditianls, not capable of that are you?

Now finally do you hae any evidence that:

A) Low marginal rates equal more revenue
B) Republicans have been better about this.

The answer to A is Yes
In the past 40 years, the answer to B is Yes

So again , you claim to have evidence of A and B but refuse to post it. Are you scared?

As to the Bush tax cuts, look it up. No one, not even Charlie Rangel, denies he proposed to Congress and succeeded in getting the cuts.

Man oh man, I am arguing with the missing link. OK one more time, if you don't demonstrate you understand it after this, you will have demonstrate that you have completed a remedial reading class before I will talk with you again. people cannot expect me to waste my time on an illeterate.

Earlier in your argument you claimed that it was absrued to credit Clinton with a budget surplus and Blame Bush for the deficit because the budget is passed by congress. (even though it was the budget Clinton proposed). next you are claiming that Bush deserves credit for the taxcuts, even though it is congress that ultimately passes tax cuts.

So which is it? Is the president responsible or not?

If you say yes you ackowledge Clinton deserves the credit for the surplus and Bush the balem for the deficit.

if you say no you admit Bush deserves no credit for the tax cuts. So which is it?

This is the third time I have asked this by the way so I assume you are just afraid to answer. So we can all agree that I won.

So back to the facts of the... (Below threshold)
mixti:

So back to the facts of the case.


Notice how under Clinton, the unemployment rate dropped every single year. Despite inheriting a terrible economy from the elder Bush.

June 1992 (Bush Sr): 8.0%
June 1993 (Clinton's first): 7.2%
June 1994 (clinton's Second): 6.2%
June 1995 (Clinton's third): 5.8%
June 1996 (Clinon's fourth): 5.5%

June 1997 (Clinton's fifth): 5.0%
June 1998 ( Clinton's sixth): 4.7%
June 1999 ( Clinton's Seventh): 4.5%
June 2000 (Clinton's eighth and last): 4.1%


Bush is up and down. Seems to ending ok though.

June 2001 (Bush jr first) 4.7%
June 2002 (Bush Jr's Second) 6.0%
June 2003 (Bush Jr's Third) 6.5%
June 2004 (Bush jr's Fourth) 5.8%
June 2005 (Bush jrs Fifth) 5.2%
June 2006 (Bush jr's Sixth) 4.8%
June 2007 (Bush jr's Seventh) 4.7%


So there is still hope that Bush Jr will leave the unemployment rate as low as Clinton did, but it is unlikely. Clinton of course took a bad economy and made it great. Bush seems to be getting things back to where they were after initially losing a lot of ground.


This is the unemployment rate every June from 1992 for all person over the age of 16.

Clinton: increase of 22.71 ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Clinton: increase of 22.71 million jobs in 8 years

Bush : 8.3 million - net gain in employment, 6/03 - 6/07

In fairness the Bush Presidency figure is only measuring the job creation rate for four years so if we double wha Bush did we would get

16.6 million new jobs to Clinton's 22.71 million. But I don't beleive that would be accurate either as we are assuming the Bush economy did as well during the recession as it has from 2003.

Clinton left a projected go... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Clinton left a projected government Surplus of 5.6 TRILLIO projected ten-year surplus

Bush turned that into a deficit of 2.8 trillion over the same period.

A swing of 8.4 trillion dollars.

source:

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pdf/presidents_fy2008budget.pdf

The whole sordid portfolio ... (Below threshold)

The whole sordid portfolio on Baghdad Jim McDermott"

If a Republican had done the same thing, the demos would have run a two year campaign based on it.

Clinton left a pro... (Below threshold)
Clinton left a projected government Surplus of 5.6 TRILLIO projected ten-year surplus

The operative word being, of course, projected surplus. Additionally, a surplus indicates the government had stolen too much money from it's citizens.

Democratics, naturally, see it as the government's money they have so benevolently allowed us to earn.

Furthermore, look at where the budget in the 90's was balanced. The only areas that had real, year over year cuts was in defense. All other budgets had level or increased funding.

I don't blame Clinton entirely for that. The damn Congress went along and allowed our military and national security to suffer, deluded by the benefits of the peace dividend.

Since it seems the right ha... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Since it seems the right have nothing but ad hominem attacks against MCdermott. I will glady provide other sources that say the same thing. That way any fair minded reader will see I am right about the essense of that article.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4131906

more to come for the open minded.

So, the best you can ... (Below threshold)

So, the best you can come up with is you don't like his politics? No argument against his economic creditianls, not capable of that are you?

The best I will say about him is that he is not believable as a critic of Republican policy. Other than that he is a liberal hack. I know what his budget policy is. Spend. Spend. Admit it. He was caught, convicted and judgemented. If you follow national politics at all you know he is liberal tax and spend Democrat. Name one tax reform measure he has brought before Congress that will give tax relief to tax payers.

So again , you claim to have evidence of A and B but refuse to post it. Are you scared?.

No, I'm not scared. I just pay attention. Personal income tax rates have fallen since 1982. Federal Tax receipts have risen every year since then. Therefore, lower personal tax rates equal more federal tax receipts. I'm not going to provide a link. I found a much more difficult link that you were obviously ignorant of (McDermott). Walking you across the Federal Budget is your job. Prove what I said above is wrong.


you will have demonstrate that you have completed a remedial reading class before I will talk with you again. people cannot expect me to waste my time on an illeterate

Keep pounding your chest, tell us how smart you are!


Earlier in your argument you claimed that it was absrued to credit Clinton with a budget surplus and Blame Bush for the deficit because the budget is passed by congress. (even though it was the budget Clinton proposed). next you are claiming that Bush deserves credit for the taxcuts, even though it is congress that ultimately passes tax cuts

Did Clinton ever propose the type of tax cuts that Bush proposed? That is the question and your poor attempt at diversion is noted.

And BTW, I'm still waiting on your answers to :Arbusto energy and spectrum 7.


Almost all other stats cite... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Almost all other stats cited come from the same blace wizbang got them so we won't see anyone attacking that source.

Data source: DOL, BLS.

mixti And BT... (Below threshold)

mixti

And BTW, I'm still waiting on your answers to :Arbusto energy and spectrum 7.

??????????????????????????

mixtiYou don't have ... (Below threshold)

mixti
You don't have any real personal historical knowledge of the McDermott affair, do you?

No, I'm not scared. I j... (Below threshold)
mixti:

No, I'm not scared. I just pay attention. Personal income tax rates have fallen since 1982. I found a much more difficult link that you were obviously ignorant of (McDermott). Walking you across the Federal Budget is your job.

No you provided a Biased Republican Cato link and expect that to stand as proof when you will not accept a liberal economic assesment. I have provided further non partisan proof you refuse.


Prove what I said above is wrong.

Class, Hugh is here to demonstrate logical fallacies to us. The fallacy he has decided to demonstrate is called burden of proof.
Description of Burden of Proof.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.


Did Clinton ever propose the type of tax cuts that Bush proposed? That is the question and your poor attempt at diversion is noted

Well I see that you still refuse to take a remedial reading class. So what are you saying is it Congress who controls taxes and the budget or do they follow the presidents plan? Which is it. Anser the question now quit ducking it.


In 1982, Arbusto became known as Bush Exploration, a year after George H. W. Bush became Vice President. A friend of the Bush family, Philip Uzielli, invested $1 million in 1982 in exchange for a 10% stake in the company, at a time when the whole company was valued at less than $400,000. As it neared financial collapse again in September 1984, Bush Exploration merged with Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., a company owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Bush became Chairman and CEO of Spectrum 7.


In June 1990 Bush sold most shares in Harken to a Los Angeles broker named Ralph D. Smith. One week later Harken announced an overall loss of $23.2 million triggering an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into the sale.

Well I see that you still r... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Well I see that you still refuse to take a remedial reading class. So what are you saying is it Congress who controls taxes and the budget or do they follow the presidents plan? Which is it. Anser the question now quit ducking it.

Come Hugh answer this now who gets the credit congress or the president?

"mixtiYou don't have... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"mixti
You don't have any real personal historical knowledge of the McDermott affair, do you?"

You have NOT demonstrated that the economic conclusions are wrong. All you can do is attack him. Even ignoring the fact that I listed other sources that say the same thing. What have you to say to the other sources? The fact remains Bush took surpluses and turned them into deficits. You can cry about it all you want but you have presented no counter facts.

So what are you sa... (Below threshold)
So what are you saying is it Congress who controls taxes and the budget or do they follow the presidents plan?

Well, the demo Congress sure isn't following the WH budget proposal this year. They're trying to include the single largest tax hike in American history. The only thing that will keep them at bay is the promise of a veto, which they will not be able to override.

In 1982, Arbus... (Below threshold)


In 1982, Arbusto became known as Bush Exploration, a year after George H. W. Bush became Vice President. A friend of the Bush family, Philip Uzielli, invested $1 million in 1982 in exchange for a 10% stake in the company, at a time when the whole company was valued at less than $400,000. As it neared financial collapse again in September 1984, Bush Exploration merged with Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., a company owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Bush became Chairman and CEO of Spectrum 7.


In June 1990 Bush sold most shares in Harken to a Los Angeles broker named Ralph D. Smith. One week later Harken announced an overall loss of $23.2 million triggering an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into the sale.

Straight out of Wiki...proves nothing. What was the source of Harken's loss, Einstein? Depletion? Writing off reserves held before? Development cost? Or just writing a check to Bush and defrauding the shareholders? Let me guess....

You have NOT demonstr... (Below threshold)

You have NOT demonstrated that the economic conclusions are wrong.

You have not answered the question. I have STATED that your economic conclusions are false. Lower personal tax rates result in higher federal tax receipts.

You require not only th the remedial reading class, you require a dose of reality. Prove my statement wrong.

Hugh, I notice you continue... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Hugh, I notice you continue to duck the questions related to economics the subject of the debate. Answer it NOW coward!


Texas energy business, George W. Bush started out researching who owned mineral rights. He later traded mineral and royalty interests and invested in drilling prospects. He had started his own oil and gas company by 1978, taking $17,000 from his education trust fund to set up Arbusto Energy (arbusto means Bush in Spanish). The company fell on hard times when oil prices fell. He made several attempts to revive the business, first by changing the company's name and later by merging with other companies. In 1983, Bush's company was rescued from failure when Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds, bought it.

"You have not answered the ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"You have not answered the question. I have STATED that your economic conclusions are false. Lower personal tax rates result in higher federal tax receipts."

And what does this have to do with deficits versus surpluses you colossal idiot?
You keep ducking the question you are scared to answer it.

Well I see that you still r... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Well I see that you still refuse to take a remedial reading class. So what are you saying is it Congress who controls taxes and the budget or do they follow the presidents plan? Which is it. Anser the question now quit ducking it.

Come Hugh answer this now who gets the credit congress or the president?

Shw how you are afraid to answer this question yet again dimwit.

Congress adopts the budget ... (Below threshold)

Congress adopts the budget as legislation, mixti. In fact, the Constitution states that the House of Representatives is the only house allowed to initiate budgets.

Do learn about our Constitution, its easily found.

"Come Hugh answer this n... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

"Come Hugh answer this now who gets the credit congress or the president?"

That's a bullshit question, Trixie. Although the President and the Administration get the recognition: "Venture capitalists, Internet entrepreneurs, globally competitive corporate executives and 130 million working Americans deserve most of the credit for this expansion, not politicians." And that was said back when Clinton held office. Get over yourself and your insults.

Is it just me,or does Mix... (Below threshold)

Is it just me,or does Mixti keep calling Hugh the dumbass dimwitt yet my 10 yr.old daughter could spell
better than her.
Kind of like hearing Hillary say she did not vote for
the Iraq war when the resolution was to take Saddam out
with force.Guess Hillary can't read,and super smart
Mixti can't spell.
This is why liberals are always having to tell everybody how smart they are,because it does not show.

I am wondering why Hugh wan... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I am wondering why Hugh wants to discuss intelligent matters with someone who lacks the ability to reason. Mixti, I had a projected income of 600 billion dollars last year, but I fell short about 599,000,050,000 dollars. Projected surpluses based upon Clintonian math is as usless as Hillary is a role model for women.

"I am wondering why Hugh wa... (Below threshold)

"I am wondering why Hugh wants to discuss intelligent matters with someone who lacks the ability to reason."

I don't anymore.

"Congress adopts the budget... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Congress adopts the budget as legislation, mixti. In fact, the Constitution states that the House of Representatives is the only house allowed to initiate budgets."

Why am I getting lectured by someone who doesn't bother read the thread? If you go back and READ you will see the reason I am even asking the question is because Hugh can't stop contradicting himself.

First he claims Bush deserves no blaim for the budget because the budget is passed by congress.

Then he claims that Bush is responsible for the tax cuts (even though this is passed by congress)

It is his own reasoning. If he argues that the president is completly free of blame on the deficit by the smae logic he must not deserve any credit for the tax cuts.

How can he be responsible for one and not guilty of the other? it is a contradiction. I am just trying to pin him down so he will stop squirming. However he refuses to answer the question because he knows if he does he has to lose on one of the two points.

So it either

a) Bush is responsible for the tax cuts and the budget deficit.

b) Bush is not responsible for te budget and deserves no credit for the tax cuts.

I am wondering why Hugh ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

I am wondering why Hugh wants to discuss intelligent matters with someone who lacks the ability to reason. Mixti, I had a projected income of 600 billion dollars last year, but I fell short about 599,000,050,000 dollars. Projected surpluses based upon Clintonian math is as usless as Hillary is a role model for women.


HAHAHHA Godamn you people are dumb. here is how it works dipshit. Lets say you make $6.00 (probably true) If you work 30 hours a week. I can project your income is $180 a week. See how it works stupid? it is based on current levels of revenue. and projected hours worked So Sorry your 600 bilion analogy just shows how fucking stupid you are.

Is it just me,or does Mi... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Is it just me,or does Mixti keep calling Hugh the dumbass dimwitt yet my 10 yr.old daughter could spell
better than her.

And she probably turns a trick better than you.

HAHAHHA Godamn yo... (Below threshold)
HAHAHHA Godamn you people are dumb. here is how it works dipshit Posted by mixti | July 7, 2007 1:32 PM |
And she probably turns a trick better than you.

Posted by mixti | July 7, 2007 1:34 PM

You are really a vile, vulgar, disgusting creature. Your style would be much more acceptable at DU or Firedoglake.

Are you really Amanda Marcotte?

Smartest question... (Below threshold)

Smartest question asked in the whole thread.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy