Bush's failed economic policies...in his own words

[tibor75]

The 2003 Economic Report of the President:

http://rothstein.wustl.edu/2003ERP.pdf

The 2004 Economic Report of the President:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf

If you look at page 61 of the 2003 report, the administration reports non-farm payroll employment at 131.9 million for 2001 and 130.8 million for 2002. No doubt caused by 9/11. It then projects 132.5 million for 2003 and 135.2 for 2004.
But, a brief glance at page 103 of the 2004 report, shows that for 2002, the actual number was 130.4 million (small difference), and for 2003, non-payroll employment was 130.1 million, a far cry from the 132.5 million it projected the previous year. Well, you can't blame them for trying.

Now, this same report from 2004, predicts projected nonfarm payroll employment to be 132.7 million at the end of 2004. Let's see: (132.7 million - 130.1 million) / 12 = 216,000 per month. Hmm...don't think we're getting there. And of course, this 132.7 million is a far cry from the 135.2 they projected two years ago.

Looks like the Democratic congress is to blame for this. Oh, wait...

[DA-Bucks]

I'm really upset about this!

[DaytonBuck]

Job loss distortions continue (9/7)

By Brendan Nyhan

Democrats continue to spin the number of jobs lost under President Bush.

John Kerry's campaign and the Democratic Party have frequently attacked the White House by taking the total number of net private sector jobs lost under Bush and presenting the figure as if it represents the total net job loss for his presidency. The actual figure for net job loss since January 2001 including both the private and public sectors is 913,000 jobs according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Sept. 4, which revised the figure down from 1.1 million in August. However, Democrats have repeatedly cited private sector job losses instead, which declined from approximately 1.8 million to 1.6 million when the new data were released, without noting the important qualifier.

For instance, before the announcement of the new data, Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, referred on August 31 to "1.8 million jobs gone." His campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, made a similar statement in advance of President Bush's convention speech on Sept. 2, saying, "The last four years have been an abject failure: almost 2 million lost jobs, 5 million more without health care coverage, health care and energy costs going through the roof and a mess in Iraq that has cost America over $200 billion."

The talking point was exaggerated still further by Congressman Frank Pallone, D-NJ, on CNN August 31. Pallone claimed that "if you look at it over the last four years, the number of jobs that have been lost is over two million jobs" and later added that "We lost over two million jobs in that four-year period."

Since the new figures came out, Kerry has cited the 1.6 million figure at least twice without clarification. In his radio address Saturday, Kerry claimed that "Over the past three years, we've lost 1.6 million jobs in the United States." And he repeated it in a statement released today.

These are part of a long pattern of Democratic trickery with net job loss figures that we have documented on our website and in our book. The media need to clarify the facts each and every time Kerry or his supporters make one of these deceptive claims.

http://www.spinsanity.com/

[ohiobuck94]

[daddyphatsacs]

Bush has decided to work out a great trade policy with India for the sake of the American economy. They will send their students to our schools, in turn we will send our jobs over to them. Seems like a win win situation to me. And who said Bush wasn't a good diplomat.

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

I'm as directly affected by outsoursing to India as any on this board, but I fail to see how Bush is responsible. I started competing with the injuns way back in Clinton's presidency, but I don't blame him either. You shop at Wal-Mart? It's your fault. You own stock in a company that outsources jobs? It's your fault. You think 'it's all the same stuff I'll just buy the cheapest one!'... It's your fault.

I'd love to point the finger at the president, but that leaves three fingers pointing back at me.

[tibor75]

Outsourcing doesn't explain why Bush's economic forecasts are completely out of touch with economic reality.

[Ex-Wolverine]

Originally Posted by daddyphatsacs

Bush has decided to work out a great trade policy with India for the sake of the American economy. They will send their students to our schools, in turn we will send our jobs over to them. Seems like a win win situation to me. And who said Bush wasn't a good diplomat.

The Indian students here thing isn't that bad when you realize that they pay full tuition and are thus keeping you/your kids from having to pay tuition that would otherwise be twice as high, or you can look at it as they are paying for the scholarship and need-based grant kids to go to school.

As for the job outsourcing, well, Bush doesn't outsource any jobs himself. Heinz-Kerry does. If you think that Kerry is going to do anything to stop job outsourcing when his family is doing it every day, you're crazy.