Republicans cannot

[AUman43 5]

[/b]Posted August 20, 2007.

Contrary to the mythology the party has created, GOP presidents are terrible for business.

By Robert Weiner and John Larmett

At last week's news conference, President Bush again said that he's reduced the deficit to $239 billion, created 8 million jobs and generated unemployment at a low 4.5%. He said the economy is strong, largely due to his tax cut policies. On the other side, Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin.), House Appropriations Committee chairman, has complained of our limited resources now because of Bush's "gargantuan deficits he created with that stupid war and those stupid tax cuts paid for with our money."

There is a widely held belief that Republicans are better for business than are Democrats. Let's look at the facts. The wild stock market ride of recent weeks does not compare to the two worst stock events, the crash of 1929 and the 1987 free fall, which also occurred under Republican administrations. Since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3% annual return on the S&P 500, Republicans only 8%. Gross Domestic Product growth since 1930 is 5.4% for Democratic presidents and 1.6% for Republican presidents.

Bush inherited from President Clinton an annual federal budget surplus of $236 billion, the largest in American history. Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. Budget surpluses were expected to total $5.6 trillion between fiscal year 2002 and 2011.

Despite this, Bush transformed the surpluses into a $1.1 trillion annual deficit in just three years because of the Iraq war and his relentless push for permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans, a new iteration of Herbert Hoover's equally catastrophic "trickle-down" theory. Bragging about a $239 billion deficit sets such a low standard that Bush can claim horrific failure as a good thing for the country. The Bush administration's annual loss of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is unprecedented. Bush presided over the loss of 2 million American jobs in his first 2 1/2 years and has net gained 5.6 million in six years, the worst since Hoover. Clinton created 23 million jobs.

It's not rocket science to figure out the difference. Clinton: tax breaks for the middle and lower incomes who actually spend the money, no Iraq war. Bush: disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthy (50% to the wealthiest 1% by 2010), $750 billion for a war monetarily benefiting only a few military contractors and a financial sieve for the country. Democratic presidents spread the wealth through spending on needed social programs and targeting tax cuts to lower- and middle-income Americans, stimulating the economy more broadly. Republicans pump into defense contractors and high-income Americans, creating a significant detriment to the whole economy with larger deficits and higher interest rates.Economist John Maynard Keynes was right in 1936: When you "prime the pump" into people programs (like jobs or lower income tax cuts to help Americans buy what they need), you get people results. On the other hand, when you move money from the economy into tax cuts for the rich and a military vacuum, you don't prime the economic pump; you deplete it.

Contrary to opinion, we do not have record high stocks. It would take 14,300 for the Dow Jones industrial average just to match for inflation the 11,750 under Clinton in 2000. We're now around 13,000, meaning, in real terms, a stagnant market with a loss for the past six years. Democrats empower the buyers, Republicans the sellers. Misdirected tax cuts, plus the Iraq war, have taken the money not just from America's working class but from America's businesses as well.

Economic Indicators: Democratic Versus Republican Presidents

In six major criteria - GDP growth, per capita income growth, job creation, unemployment reduction, inflation reduction, and federal deficit reduction - for the ten post-World War II presidencies until Bush, there is a record to track the reality of Democratic versus Republican economic success.

Democrats

Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" created robust economic expansion, first in both GDP and personal income growth. He also reduced unemployment from 5.3% to 3.4%. Economic growth remained robust through most of LBJ's presidency.

John F. Kennedy campaigned on the idea of getting America moving again, and he did. Under Kennedy, America entered its largest sustained expansion since WWII. GDP and personal income growth were second only to Johnson, all with minimal inflation. Contrary to Republican attempts to say Kennedy's tax cuts are like Bush's, Kennedy's were targeted at middle and lower incomes.

The economy added 10 million jobs under Jimmy Carter despite high inflation; Carter ranks first in job creation next to Clinton during just four years in office. Carter also reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP.

Harry Truman's second term saw the fastest GDP growth and the sharpest reduction in unemployment of any president surveyed (of course, FDR's post Hoover-depression New Deal jobs are first).

Republicans

Ronald Reagan focused on reducing the cost of capital through cutting tax bracket highs for the rich and reducing the size and scope of government. But, instead of lowering spending, Reagan shifted money to the military (i.e. Star Wars) and the deficit tripled with the tax cuts and military spending - as under Bush II.

Under Gerald Ford, the deficit soared and the unemployment rate grew from 5.3 - 8.3% in just 2 years. His "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) buttons were no match for economic inactivity.

It was under Richard Nixon that inflation started to spiral out of control, from 4.4% to 8.6%, and the deficit shot up from $2.8 billion to $73.7 billion.

The Eisenhower years were characterized by slow growth (2.27% annualized GDP growth) and relatively high unemployment (7.7% at end of term).

George H. W. Bush had the poorest record for both GDP and income growth. During his single term, the deficit ballooned (from $152 billion to $255 billion) more than under every president but his son and Ford.

(Sources: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and White House Council of Economic Advisors)

Link: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/60217

[AFTiger 282]

Not impressed with your source

The Case for AlterNet

I. Who We Are

AlterNet is an award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism and amplifies the best of dozens of other independent media sources. AlterNet's aim is to inspire citizen action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, and health care issues. Our editorial mix underscores a commitment to fairness, equity and global stewardship, and making connections across generational, ethnic and issue lines. AlterNet serves as a reliable filter, keeping hundreds of thousands of people well-informed and engaged, helping them cope with a culture of information overload and resist the constant commercial media onslaught. Our aim is to stimulate, motivate, and engage. Invest in AlterNet now.

II. The Challenge We Address

The right-wing media machine: Virtually everyone who has a stake in our political future agrees that when compared to the radical conservatives and the religious fundamentalists, the progressive sector lacks media capacity. The scope of conservative media is vast, including Fox News, Sinclair, major right-wing talk radio market penetration, many newspapers, a fast-growing religious broadcasting system, and sophisticated use of the Internet and new technologies. The ability of the right-wing media apparatus to dominate public discourse is at the expense of liberal and progressive values and represents a fundamental transformation in American politics. This is what we are fighting against.

The negative impact of right-wing media: Over the past two decades conservative media has had a huge impact, and the results are disconcerting. First, most conservative media uses an ideological propaganda model that results in a more ignorant audience. One recent study showed that 80% of Fox viewers got the facts all wrong about the war in Iraq. Not only did they believe that Saddam Hussein had a chemical arsenal, they thought U.S. troops had actually discovered it and they believed the 9/11 Commission had beyond a doubt linked Hussein with al-Qaeda. Only 23% of the NPR/PBS audience held these misconceptions, and the percentage was even lower among those who get their news from the Internet.

Building the progressive echo chamber: The top-down delivery model of right-wing rhetoric (e.g. "death tax," "culture of life") traces a path directly from the White House and conservative think tanks, to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of conservative talk shows. These messages are repeated and further reinforced on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, creating a right wing echo chamber. AlterNet is working hard with many partners to build the progressive echo chamber that will fight back.

[AFTiger 282]

CNN/Money's Laugher on Economic Policy Institute's 'Stagnant Wages' Report: Part 1

By Tom Blumer | September 4, 2007 - 16:14 ET

In its Labor Day report entitled "GDP Growth Not Reaching Paychecks," CNN/Money began with this multi-faceted howler (bolds are mine):

The economic expansion that began six years ago has failed to benefit most workers, according to a report from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, released Monday.

Productivity growth, although slower of late, has been strong since 2000. After a sluggish start in the period, employment has picked up, although at a slower pace than in past recoveries. Yet, that growth hasn't transferred to workers' paychecks, particularly for workers at the lower and middle end of the pay scale, the report found.

After rising quickly in the second half of the 1990s, most workers' (sic) real wages have been stagnant in the 2000s, especially since 2003.

This post will deal with EPI's claims; Part 2 will deal with its absurd assertion, swallowed whole by CNN/Money, that it is "nonpartisan."

As to the claims -- How convenient of EPI to begin by using "six years," when meaningful post-dotcom bubble expansion in the economy didn't begin until the second quarter of 2003, when GDP growth was an annualized 3.5% (go to this Bureau of Economic Analysis page and select the appropriate time period to confirm this). Of course, after a year of languishing because of the jolt of of the 9/11 terror attacks, and the relatively ineffectual impact of 2001's piecemeal rate cuts, the kick-start to GDP finally took place once the Bush 2003 investment-related tax cuts and steeper rate cuts took hold.

Any attempt to debunk specific numbers in CNN/Money's report is hampered by its lack of citations to specific sources. The EPI report itself, with its frequent references to "Author's analysis of data," makes verifying its representations difficult without what I believe would be many hours of reverse engineering.

Fortunately, that's not necessary. If you go to recently released comprehensive Census Bureau data on households, you'll find that the EPI's "especially since 2003" claim of wage stagnation -- the benchmark for whether the 2003 tax cuts have had their intended effect -- isn't even in the neighborhood of the truth (information is from page 46 of the Census Bureau report, "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2006," released last week; it is a huge PDF that can be downloaded by going to at this regular web page):

I'm not claiming these results are where I would want them to be, but they are all positive. In fact, the household results show more real improvement at the lower income levels than is found in the middle and upper-middle.

As to whether incomes have continued to grow in the first half of 2007, go here -- There are very few income-increase numbers that are less than inflation plus population growth during the first and second quarters of this year.

For things to be "stagnant" in the economic sense, meaning "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement," the numbers above would have to almost all be near zero. They clearly aren't, and EPI is clearly wrong.

So the EPI is hyperventilating about "especially since 2003" because its fervent desire is to discredit the 2003 Bush tax cuts.

CNN/Money's "help" to EPI in this case goes beyond its usual role as liberal think-tank stenographer, as this picture of a portion of the report clearly shows:

That's right -- In case you dumb readers don't get the point, CNN/Money is reminding us, with a prior-story link dropped smack dab into the midst of the article's text, that this is really all about "us-vs.-them."

Back to EPI -- Its hyperventilation is occurring because it is anything but "nonpartisan."

[WinCrimson 61]

I thought this was going to be a "fill in the blank" thread.

Republicans cannot ____________.

... manage the government.

... show fiscal discipline.

... lead effectively.

... practice what they preach.

... take back Congress in 2008.

... accept reality.

... keep their feet within the stall, and what not.

[AFTiger 282]

I thought this was going to be a "fill in the blank" thread.

Republicans cannot ____________.

... manage the government.

... show fiscal discipline.

... lead effectively.

... practice what they preach.

... take back Congress in 2008.

... accept reality.

... keep their feet within the stall, and what not.

Let's continue

Democrats cannot ___________'

... manage the government.

... show fiscal discipline.

... lead effectively.

... practice what they preach.

... keep Congress in 2008.

... accept reality.

... keep their feet within the stall, and what not.

... be trusted with the public's money

... protect America

... reduce taxes

... manage the economy

... tell the truth

Goes either way.

Like I have said before, voters threw out the amature scoundrels and put in the professionals.

[CCTAU 3,336]

It's not the heat that gets you. It's the humility!

They are all corrupt.