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 around!

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 DU put out the Official Lefty Talking Points, then we'll see them start trolling here.

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 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 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 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 page of every newspaper in America.

(HAAAAAAAAAAAA)

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!

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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....

What results in greater federal tax receipts?

1) High marginal rates?

2) Low marginal rates?

Hint: channel JFK.

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 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 arguments Hugh?

Just waiting on your next comment.

You didn't answer my 8:13 question.

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

Mixti
Defend McDermott's budget policy

Any other stupid arguments Hugh?

Yes

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

Another stupid question:

What happened between FY 2000 and 2006?

"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 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.