I Need Help

[LiberalVoice]

Yesterday afternoon i was watching a show on one of pittsburgh's local cable channels(PCNC) and a show called Honzberger Live was on. The host Mr. Honzberger said that the loss of american jobs started declining in mar, 2000 while clinton was still in office and that it wasnt bushits fault. That it was just the economic cycle taking place....

I have been trying to find info on whther that was true or not but to no avail. Can anyone help?

Thanx

[sandnsea]

1. And Bush cut taxes

Not once, but three times. After it was obvious something else needed to be done. There is such a thing as a business cycle, we're not in one. We're in a massive economic crisis because of the choices Bush made, huge tax cuts when we're at war which has never been done in the history of this country. Republicans don't know what to do except go to war, cut taxes and lie when it doesn't work out.

[lynndew2]

2. JFK cut taxs during vietnam

Nevertheless, the "no-tax-relief-during-war" argument forgets that the Cold War was won with a combination of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts to spur the economy and a defense buildup to convince the Soviets they could not win.

It also ignores the experience of President John F. Kennedy when he cut taxes and spurred a boom that helped pay for the war in Vietnam. Kennedy said, "We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax-cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. I think we can do both."

http://jimdemint.com/cgi-data/op_ed/files/2.shtml

It has been done before and even by the greatest President ever!!! JFK

[Julien Sorel]

3. He's full of elephant doo-doo.

Here's a chart of the data:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9
2001 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8
2002 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
2003 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.1


Source: www.bls.gov

Notice that the unemployment rate was holding steady at about 4.0 percent, and had actually declined by 10 basis points in December, the month before chim-chim swung into office. Even in January, when chimpster took the oath, it only went up 20 basis points -- a jump, to be sure, but nothing catastrophic -- it had happened once before in the past year (actually, a 30 basis point jump), and the economy quickly bounced back. We're still waiting for the bounce since Bush got in.

Chim-chim got his SC decision, immediately started talking about an impending recession -- and he got one. I didn't like him to begin with, hated him when he used the court to get into power, but the hatred went white hot when I heard him talking about how lousy the economy was going to be -- it's the sort of thing that destroys public confidence, and in the wake of the battle for the White House, public confidence was already shaky.

Anyway, for this guy to blame 3 years of awful economic performance on Clinton is absurd. The economy, as you can see, did quite well under Clinton, and has simply been wretched under Bush. Bush is, and should remain, on the hook for it.

[radfringe]

4. same tired argument of blaming Clinton

When looking at the "boom" during the Clinton administration, GOPers point out that the repugs were in charge of congress and that Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom or the surplus. They maintain that it was the repug congress that deserves the "real" credit

We now have the white house, the House and the Senate under repug control - yet they blame Clinton, who they have previously state had nothing to do with the economic boom

If Clinton had nothing to do with the economy, then how can he be held responsible? Might as well blame my dog for the past and current state of the economy.

meanwhile - the Whistleass has had 3 years to get the economy back on track, but it continues to sputter, stagger and hemmorage jobs

Once the Whistleass was planted in the oval orafice and with the passing of his first wealthy-fare taxcut - the economy became his problem and responsibility

Blaming Clinton for all the ills of the world is just the way gopers duck responsibility - 'nothing is ever their fault'

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. actually, it did

spike from the low around then, recovered slightly and then started up seriously in the fall

http://www.wallstreetview.com/unemployment.html

the arguement is sort of silly though. there is a bleed over of policies between administrations. policies, for good or ill take time to have an effect.

and there is a business cycle. when times are good, business invest. they buy new equipement and build new facilities and hire more people which feeds the good times. this goes on until everyone has updated everthing that they can. then they stop buying, building and start laying off, which puts a downward pressure on the ecomomy.

this last depression was caused, at least in part by the failure of all the dot.com companies. that had nothing to do with bush. they were silly things that had no business model indicating that they'd ever make money, yet people bought the stocks anyway. when that whole pyramid scheme collapsed, so did the stock market nd the ecomony.

last, the whole economics of increased production and automation kills jobs. again, nothing to do with whoever is president.

IMHO, job loss is hard to hang specificly on any administration but
the lack of focus in creating new jobs is.

i may get flamed for this but it's important that we realize the president really doesn't have much control over the economy, other than the gov budget. think about it....if bush had the power to increase jobs, he would in order to better his re-election chances.
it's just out of the control of the president to push a button and bingo, more jobs, un;ess they are government hires.

we can't build up any false expectations for our guy. the conditions that exist now, a slooowly recovering economy, will not change tomorrow if a dem is president. job loss, through increased productivity and firms moving overseas won't change the day our guy takes over. we need to be realistic about the power or lack of, of the presidency. of course that requires we admit that clinton was not soley responsible for the 90's good times which seems to be a blasphamy around here.

[LiberalVoice]

6. Thank You all very much!

This is exactly the info i was looking for...:D