Economy Adds 180,000 Jobs, Unemployment Dips

[no1tovote4]

I have never called the Bush economy a "failure". I merely point out that republicans view the economic records of their own presidents with much more optimistic appraisals than they do the economic records of democratic presidents. The FACT is this: the economy during the Clinton administration was a job creating machine. It cranked out more jobs on average for eight solid years than Bush's best month ever.

As I said, this is exactly as I stated. The D President gets all your praise. Either be consistent or be a hypocrite. The economy wasn't due to Clinton any more than the Recession that was already in place when Bush took office was. The economy goes in waves, sometimes the person in office gets lucky, other times they have to deal with more difficult times. But the whole idea that even the President can effect the economy in more than just taxation is plain ridiculous.

 

[red states rule]

the major job loss did not occur when ENRON et al collapsed, but after 9/11 which was unrelated. Eight years of real job growth cannot be written off by revisionist historical fiction about ponzi schemes.

your partisan petticoats are showing.

When Erno became public, investors took their money out of the market. Investors were worried how many other companies were doing the same

Thankls to tax cuts (which libs want back) the economy was strong enough to take that shot and all the others in the last six years

 

[Creek_George]

The good economic news keeps coming in and libs will be depressed

I wonder if libs still want to screw things up with tax increases?


Construction Hiring Boosts March Jobs Report: Economy Adds 180,000 Jobs, Unemployment Dips
Friday, April 06, 2007

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy added a stronger-than-expected 180,000 new jobs in March, largely because of a bounceback in construction hiring, and job growth was stronger in the two prior months than previously thought, the Labor Department said on Friday.

The intently awaited March employment report painted a stronger picture of the U.S. job market than anticipated and included a surprising decline in the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent from 4.5 percent in February.

It was the lowest monthly unemployment rate since last October, when it also was at 4.4 percent.

Wall Street analysts had forecast that a more modest 120,000 jobs would be created last month and that the unemployment rate would tick upward to 4.6 percent rather than decline.

The government also revised up its estimate for jobs created in January and February - by 16,000 each month - to 162,000 and 113,000 respectively.

It said that there were 56,000 construction jobs added in March, a striking turnaround from February when 61,000 of these jobs were lost, some of them possibly due to cold weather. In addition, there were twice as many new retail jobs added in March - 35,900 versus 17,400 in February.

The relatively strong jobs report may help counter some other recent signs of economic weakness like soft durable goods orders that had led financial market participants to speculate the Federal Reserve might have to consider reducing interest rates at some point this year.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264520,00.html

I feel better already...(smile).

 

[Diuretic]

I wish I did.

 

[red states rule]

I wish I did.

The economy is rolling along, people are working, the economy is expanding, the Dow is surging, consumers are spending, and the Bush hating left is sulking

What more can you ask for on the economy?

 

[Diuretic]

The economy is rolling along, people are working, the economy is expanding, the Dow is surging, consumers are spending, and the Bush hating left is sulking

What more can you ask for on the economy?

It's not actually but never mind. I mean if we look at the Dow. I've always thought, what does it really mean? It has two-fifths of sfa to do with the real economy, the Dow is just a gambling index. Consumers are spending - yep - on credit. Meanwhile the house of cards on which consumer credit is built - the real estate market - is about to slide into the ocean (pick one, Atlantic, Pacific, doesn't matter). The left is watching the Bush White House imploding.

But I still want the US economy to succeed. So does China, which owns the US economy.

 

[red states rule]

It's not actually but never mind. I mean if we look at the Dow. I've always thought, what does it really mean? It has two-fifths of sfa to do with the real economy, the Dow is just a gambling index. Consumers are spending - yep - on credit. Meanwhile the house of cards on which consumer credit is built - the real estate market - is about to slide into the ocean (pick one, Atlantic, Pacific, doesn't matter). The left is watching the Bush White House imploding.

But I still want the US economy to succeed. So does China, which owns the US economy.

and how long have people been bellowing their doom and gloom message?

For about six years

So far they have been wrong everytime

 

[Diuretic]

and how long have people been bellowing their doom and gloom message?

For about six years

So far they have been wrong everytime

I don't think it's that long. I hope they are very wrong.

I tell you though, if the US economy goes down the toilet because of economic mismanagement the world economy is going to be fucked. I want the US economy to be sturdy enough to outlast the current administration. Too many ordinary Americans would be badly hurt and ordinary folks around the world would be badly hurt. The super-wealthy can ride out any economic disaster, us average people can't. When I say "us" I mean people like me, ordinary working people.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think it's that long. I hope they are very wrong.

I tell you though, if the US economy goes down the toilet because of economic mismanagement the world economy is going to be fucked. I want the US economy to be sturdy enough to outlast the current administration. Too many ordinary Americans would be badly hurt and ordinary folks around the world would be badly hurt. The super-wealthy can ride out any economic disaster, us average people can't. When I say "us" I mean people like me, ordinary working people.

The tax cuts have given us this great economy - now Dems want to repeal all of them - even the lowest wage earners

 

[Diuretic]

The tax cuts have given us this great economy - now Dems want to repeal all of them - even the lowest wage earners

What is the link between tax cuts and the state of the economy?

 

[red states rule]

What is the link between tax cuts and the state of the economy?

When you allow people to keep more of their money they invest and spend it

It worked for JFK

It worked for Ronald Reagan

and it is working for Pres Bush

 

[Diuretic]

When you allow people to keep more of their money they invest and spend it

It worked for JFK

It worked for Ronald Reagan

and it is working for Pres Bush

What do you think of the proposition that the people who get the biggest tax cuts don't actually spend the money they gain as windfall from lower tax rates?

 

[red states rule]

What do you think of the proposition that the people who get the biggest tax cuts don't actually spend the money they gain as windfall from lower tax rates?

Windfall? So now keeping the money you earn is a windfall

Since the top 25% of earners pay 84% of all Federal income taxes - if their is a tax cut the people who pay the tax get the tax cut

These people spend and invest their money to make MORE money

When they make more money they pay more in taxes

Tax revenue to the US government is at record highs - due to tax cuts

 

[red states rule]

Economists warn of perils of expiring tax cuts
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 23, 2007


Congress will have to steer carefully to avoid a shock to the economy as it strives to balance the budget by allowing tax cuts to expire in the next few years, economists say.
The biggest danger is the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which this year is scheduled to cut deeply into the pocketbooks of as many as 23 million upper-middle-income taxpayers unless Congress extends tax relief.
President Bush's budget and the House and Senate spending plans rely on the expiration of AMT relief to achieve balance in the next five years. Mr. Bush's budget provides a one-year fix of the tax, costing $36 billion this year, while providing extensions of his own tax cuts that expire in 2011.
House and Senate leaders put a priority on maintaining AMT relief for the middle class, but their budgets require offsets under pay-as-you-go rules reinstated this year.
Economists warn that ending tax cuts abruptly can damage the economy, which has been weakened by the housing downturn and has slowed with the end of business investment deductions that Congress provided at the end of 2005.
Economists support lawmakers' goal of balancing the budget as baby boomers prepare to retire.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke emphasizes that this will require major trade-offs between taxes and spending. "Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices," he has told Congress.
Republicans who favor low tax rates must recognize the need to increase spending cuts, he said, while Democrats who favor higher spending must realize that taxes must be raised and that the "adverse economic incentives associated with higher tax rates" could slow growth.
Economists expect congressional action to do little to set back the economy in the next few years, but some fear that a mishandling of expiring tax cuts combined with a collapsing housing market and imploding mortgage market would be damaging.
The Levy Economics Institute is worried about an economic jolt from expiration of the AMT relief. It estimates that by 2010, half of all taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be required to pay the tax unless Congress acts.
Institute President Dimitri B. Papadimitriou said the rising tax burden on the middle class could reverse consumer spending, especially when combined with rising energy prices, slow wage growth, slumping house prices and rapidly rising debt burdens.
"Debt-ridden consumers need tax relief," he said, noting that tax burdens are scheduled to rise at a much faster pace than incomes or economic growth. In the past, rapid growth taxes as a percentage of the economy has preceded recessions, he said.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20070423-123951-5586r_page2.htm

 

[Diuretic]

Windfall? So now keeping the money you earn is a windfall [/quote]

It is if you understand the meaning of the term.

Since the top 25% of earners pay 84% of all Federal income taxes - if their is a tax cut the people who pay the tax get the tax cut

In percentage terms you could be right, I don't know. In percentage terms who are the biggest winners in terms of the sum gained? Here's a clue, it's not the lowest wage earners.

These people spend and invest their money to make MORE money

The super-wealthy, in terms of their personal income, tend not to spend on consumer items when they get windfalls from tax breaks.

When they make more money they pay more in taxes

True.

Tax revenue to the US government is at record highs - due to tax cuts

I don't know if tax revenue is at record highs so I'll take your word for it. Whether it's due to tax cuts I don't know either. But there's another more important question. How's the spending rate of the government against its income? How big is the deficit now?

 

[Diuretic]

Economists warn of perils of expiring tax cuts
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 23, 2007


Congress will have to steer carefully to avoid a shock to the economy as it strives to balance the budget by allowing tax cuts to expire in the next few years, economists say.
The biggest danger is the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which this year is scheduled to cut deeply into the pocketbooks of as many as 23 million upper-middle-income taxpayers unless Congress extends tax relief.
President Bush's budget and the House and Senate spending plans rely on the expiration of AMT relief to achieve balance in the next five years. Mr. Bush's budget provides a one-year fix of the tax, costing $36 billion this year, while providing extensions of his own tax cuts that expire in 2011.
House and Senate leaders put a priority on maintaining AMT relief for the middle class, but their budgets require offsets under pay-as-you-go rules reinstated this year.
Economists warn that ending tax cuts abruptly can damage the economy, which has been weakened by the housing downturn and has slowed with the end of business investment deductions that Congress provided at the end of 2005.
Economists support lawmakers' goal of balancing the budget as baby boomers prepare to retire.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke emphasizes that this will require major trade-offs between taxes and spending. "Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices," he has told Congress.
Republicans who favor low tax rates must recognize the need to increase spending cuts, he said, while Democrats who favor higher spending must realize that taxes must be raised and that the "adverse economic incentives associated with higher tax rates" could slow growth.
Economists expect congressional action to do little to set back the economy in the next few years, but some fear that a mishandling of expiring tax cuts combined with a collapsing housing market and imploding mortgage market would be damaging.
The Levy Economics Institute is worried about an economic jolt from expiration of the AMT relief. It estimates that by 2010, half of all taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be required to pay the tax unless Congress acts.
Institute President Dimitri B. Papadimitriou said the rising tax burden on the middle class could reverse consumer spending, especially when combined with rising energy prices, slow wage growth, slumping house prices and rapidly rising debt burdens.
"Debt-ridden consumers need tax relief," he said, noting that tax burdens are scheduled to rise at a much faster pace than incomes or economic growth. In the past, rapid growth taxes as a percentage of the economy has preceded recessions, he said.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20070423-123951-5586r_page2.htm

Okay, interesting article. What are your thoughts on it?

 

[red states rule]

The bottom 50% of earners pay less the 4% of Federal income taxes

Why libs whine about tax cuts for the rich is beyond me. The "rich" pay for their social programs and their other pet programs

The revenue is at record levels - the annual defict is down by more then 50%


US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
-By Benton Ives-Halperin, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9255; [email protected]

Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04

 

[red states rule]

WSJ Op-Ed Busts an Old Media Meme: Current Economy Beats Comparable 1990s Period
Posted by Tom Blumer on April 23, 2007 - 06:22.
It's a read-the-whole-thing piece. Too bad it's subscriber-only.

Brian Wesbury, whose previous writings have been blogged on many times by yours truly (including here, here, here, and here), is very tired of the dissing the current economy is taking, and especially how it is unfavorably compared to the economy of the 1990s:

While I find it hard to believe that every complaint is politically motivated, it is difficult to imagine another justification for those who assert that the Clinton economy was better than the Bush economy.

For most Americans, who aren't familiar with economic analysis, it's impossible to determine what's actually happening. But the debate over Bush versus Clinton would be silly, if it weren't potentially influencing policy.

President Clinton took office in January 1993, almost two years after the 1990-91 recession had ended. On the other hand, President Bush took office just two months before the 2001 recession began.

As a result, any economic comparison that uses four-year presidential terms is highly misleading. The Clinton years will always look better than the Bush years with that approach. A better analysis which compares the two business cycles from their previous trough, shows the opposite. The Bush economy is equal to or better than the Clinton economy in almost every area.

Wesbury also makes a great point about the first half of the 1990s that Old Media has collectively flushed down the memory hole. When Wesbury compares that era's economic performance to comparable current times, and the causes of the difference, you'll see why:

There have been periods of sub-par performance, and one of those periods was the first half of the 1990s -- partly thanks to the first President Bush's and President Clinton's tax hikes.

Many argue that President Clinton's 1993 tax hikes did not hurt the economy, and that this proves taxes don't matter as much as supply-siders think. But nothing could be further from the truth. During the first 64 months of the '90s recovery, real average hourly earnings fell 0.2%, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.5%.

For the current recovery, during its first 64 months, real average hourly earnings are up 1.8%, while the unemployment rate is down to 4.4%.

..... Civilian job growth in the past five years is not statistically different than it was in the early '90s, while wages, for every income level, have experienced better performance.

The big difference between the two periods was that tax rates were hiked in the early '90s, while tax rates were cut in the early 2000s. And, contrary to popular belief, tax cuts, because they lift incentives to invest, always lead to a better environment for the overall population.

Wesbury has definitively shown that the tax-hiking era of the early 1990s was one where the average worker made no headway, while during the current tax-cutting era, all boats are being lifted.

If it weren't for writers like Brian Wesbury, information like this would be a closely-guarded secret kept by the Formerly Mainstream Media, whose business-news readers have perhaps never been more poorly served.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12231

 

[Diuretic]

Sorry I missed your thoughts in there, can you point them out?

 

[red states rule]

Try reading s-l-o-w-l-y

The Bush economy is better in some areas then the Clinton economy