Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement

The Bush Era in a nutshell

<![CDATA[U.S. Poverty Rate Was Up Last Year – New York Times: Even as the economy grew, incomes stagnated last year and the poverty rate rose, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. It was the first time on record that household incomes failed to increase for five straight years. A rotten record that even exceeds the indifference […]

<![CDATA[U.S. Poverty Rate Was Up Last Year – New York Times:

Even as the economy grew, incomes stagnated last year and the poverty rate rose, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. It was the first time on record that household incomes failed to increase for five straight years.

A rotten record that even exceeds the indifference toward the lot of the average person of the Hoover Administration.

Technorati Tags: ,

]]>

5 replies on “The Bush Era in a nutshell”

Hey,
I don’t think most people really give a shit anymore. Who knows, maybe this new oil spike will ignite a fire to get bushie and crew kicked the hell out of office.

I think this says much:
Clinton Good; Bush Bad: Stories about jobs during Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign were positive 85 percent of the time – more than six times as often as they were for Bush, despite similar economic data. Reporters praised the Clinton unemployment rate of 5.6 percent as “low,” but they downplayed a 5.4 percent rate under Bush and called job growth “anemic.”

The Census Bureau is not “reporters” characterizing the performance of a president, it’s a matter of statistical reality. For the first time in recorded history, U.S. household incomes failed to rise for five straight years.
When Clinton came into office the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent, the 5.4 percent unemployment rate four years later was quite good (here are the statistics). When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent, and by the end of his first term the number of jobs created each month was less than the number necessary to keep up with population growth. Furthermore, the unemployment rate has been redefined to reflect the unemployment of those looking for work, so that the performance of the Bush economy looks better than it really is.
You may want to bury your head, Romeo, but the reality is this administration has been a disaster for America at large.

OK, Here are some good economic statistics for you:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today that 169,000 new payroll jobs were created in the month of August, and July’s job gains were revised upward to 242,000 from the earlier estimate of 207,000. August marks twenty-seven consecutive months of job creation, which has added over 4.1 million new jobs to payrolls.
The unemployment rate also went down to 4.9%. A year ago, it was 5.4%.
So if you want, respond with another bad stat, I will bring bring up record low interest rates, record home ownership, the deficit going down due to record tax collections, etc.
We are in an economic upswing after a recession and unprecedented terrorist attacks on America and around the world as well as supply shocks from natural resources due to economic EXPANSION around the world.
So who is this economy a disaster for? Every American? Not for me, not for just about everyone I know. In fact, of five friends I knew that were out of work four years ago, now all have good jobs. Other people I know across all economic spectrums are going back to school, getting better jobs, earning more, etc.

In order for the per capita employment rate to grow, the economy must add 260,000 jobs a month; even at 242,000 new jobs, we’re not keeping up with population growth—employment as a percentage of the total population is actually decreasing. Ain’t good enough.
Look over the BLS statistics for jobs created by month for the past decade and you can see the average month during the Clinton era was as good or better than the best month during the Bush II era (and here is an Excel spreadsheet if you don’t want to work the numbers yourself).
When you factor in the largest one-decade increase in U.S. population during the 1990s, the new job numbers under Bush pale by comparison to the Clinton years. At the beginning of 1995, there were 261,638,000 people in America; today there are 297,060,468, and increase of 35.4 million. In January 1995, the economy produced 321,000 new jobs—adjusted for population growth, it would take 364,000 new jobs to produce the same positive increase in per capita employment today. That would be a recovery, as it is we’re about one-third shy of real recovery.
Low interest rates also result in lower return on savings, as compared to investment, which hit the poor, who are lucky to have a savings account, harder than the rich, who have investment accounts. Higher home ownership has been great, no doubt, though listen to Alan Greenspan fretting over a housing bubble before you count that as all good.
I’m glad your friends are doing well, but you cannot judge the world based solely on your own experience. I know people who are doing better and who are doing worse—they still have work, but it doesn’t pay as well and the impact of health care costs are cutting down their earnings, too. The statistics from the Census Bureau are as objective a measure as you’re going to get, and they show household incomes stagnant for five years.
This isn’t negative, it’s realistic; and by saying it, I am doing no harm to the economy, rather I am calling for change. The economic performance under the Bush Administration has been abysmal for all but the wealthiest families. After 25 years of trickle-down theory in action, we can say unequivocally that it doesn’t work as advertised.