Interesting WSJ poll: How would you grade Bush's record in creating jobs?

[question everything]

A - 4%

B - 3%

C - 2%

D - 15%

F - 72%

President does have real impact on job creation: - 4%

More than 12,200 votes

And some comments:

What really puzzles me is that he has managed to perform pretty miserably on jobs and yet is running a record deficit. It was always my understanding that tax cuts + deficit spending = jobs. The only conclusion that I can therefore draw, is that he is unquestionably the best president at funneling money to very specific interests (i.e. his buddies). It is truly unfathomable to me how true conservatives continue to support this man. He is a neo-con on social policy and an ultra liberal on fiscal policy. What a miserable combination.
Mike Aswell

In four years, job creation met or exceeded the necessary new jobs to meet population growth four times. That's right, over the last 48 months, the economy was able to generate enough jobs just to cover the growth in the workforce four times. The President will finish his term with fewer jobs in the economy than when he started. That is a remarkable accomplishment in the face of what most agree was an exceptionally mild recession, an approximate $200Billion stimulas package in the form of tax cuts and deficit spending (the other $200billion in the current yeear deficit can be blamed on the war and higher federal spending generally) and putting several hundred thousand men and women into the military and taking them out of the economy - theoretically leaving jobs that could be filled by all of those folks who didn't go. It seems that supply side economics has finally met its test and it has failed miserably. Several years of tax cuts did not result in job growth. What we do know now is that they did result in a continuation of the skewing of wealth distribution, a shrinkage of the middle class and the feeding of a fderal deficit that threatens the future of my children and my grandchildren. I don't think an individual administration can directly influence the job creation rate of the economy in the long term - but it seems to me that this horrible record of eroding the economic stability of the middle and working class should have at least been a focus of the administration and the Congress. The fact that it was ignored for the most part and the data discounted is a striking statement about misguided priorities. Today we face an even more interesting situation - the economy as measured by the GDP (as flawed as that is) looks healthy. Yet the people who live here have seen steady deterioration in their quality of life! As a capitalist I am wondering why this is? How can an economy grow at over 4% a year and jobs stagnate, incomes fall and economic security deteriorate? More importantly, consumer spending in the middle is slowing while consumer spending on the high end is growing at a brisk pace. We have dollars for diamonds and luxury cars but nothing for health insurance? And is there any concern in Washington for the plight of the greatest success story in the world - the American middle class? The silence is deafening. And now, counter-intuitively - I am supposed to accept the idea that unemployment hovers around 5% when the actual number of jobs is smaller than it was in 2000? Did all these people just die? Go to Canada? Of course not, the true unemployment rate is much closer to 8% (and if under-employment is included more like 10%). So we have a president who is at the end of his first four years. The economic recovery has been well underway since 2002 and the effective unemployment rate is 8%, real income continues to fall for most Americans, people living in poverty has risn by more than one million - mostly children (I guess they get left behind), the federal budget deficit is at a record $440 Billion, the future of Social Security has not been addressed (even though one political party controls both houses of Congress and the White House), jobs are leaving our shores in record numbers, our trade policies are a mess and our international alliances are in shambles. If you were his econ teacher, what grade would you give him?
Joe Bute

I consider his performance to be very poor. This administration has pumped money into the private sector, through record levels of government contracts. If you disqualify these jobs (paid for entirely with tax dollars), his private sector job creation looks even worse.

In short, he has policies that include both massive spending and tax cuts which will make it very difficult for subsequent administrations to provide services and maintain economic growth. Yet, the particular contracts and tax cuts he has advocated have not been targeted in a manner that efficiently creates jobs in the short term. These policies result in long-term "pain" with very little short-term "gain." They appear to reflect an outdated, liberal economic theory that assumes growth depends only on how much money the goverment puts into the economy, rather than where that money is put.
Terry Schell

[Nordic]

1. Wow. Sounds like Republicans for Kerry

or at least Anti-Bush.

I guess the only people supporting Bush at this point are the trailer-trash "don't take mah guns" folks and the religious nut-case "liberals will take your bibles" folks.

Oh, and the heads of the oil companies who are chortling at $53 a barrel oil.

[question everything]

2. Yes, I was amazed at the results, too n/t