Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on February 5, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
This week the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released the net bottom line on job creation during the first Bush term in office. According to the Bureau, 119,000 net new jobs were created during the four years of the Bush first term. During that same four year period, over 5 million Americans entered the work force seeking jobs.

The retort is that the president doesn't create jobs. The truth is the economic policy of the federal government has a great deal to do with economic growth and in fact job creation. President Bush is constantly telling us we need to judge by results. I fully agree with the president on this point and so for his first four years, President Bush deserves an F in job creation.

For the economy of our country to make up for the last four years plus create the jobs the growing population will need during the next four years, we will need to produce 250,000 jobs each and every month between now and January 2009 to be at the very same place we were when George W. Bush took office. Let's compare the actual job creation each month with our need to create these 250,000 jobs per month to see whether or not the economic policies being followed by this administration are meeting the needs of our citizens.

Comments
on Feb 05, 2005
And you deserve an F in analysis.

Average job creation rate since WWII = 150,000 per month. And the number is still calculated using the same formula as about 1950 when the economy was slightly different. And you also know that the ability of any President to influence job creation in the short run (2-4 years) is very limited.

He's done as good a job as any President could have done given what you already know but choose to ignore - 9/11, the recession that was well underway when he took office, the growth in outsourcing issue which began long before his election, the transition to more service-oriented self-employment jobs that don't even get counted in that number, etc. The economy itself (the independent collective activity of millions of Americans) is responsible for this recovery. I don't give President Bush much credit, personally, except for the wisdom of not making it worse by increasing taxes. But I sure as hell don't blame him for what he had to deal with.

BTW, COL Gene, have you tried to "create a job" lately? Do you have any clue how cumbersome it is be an employer, thanks to the mountains of regulatory requirements imposed on businesses by the Democrat Congressional majority between about 1956 and the 1990's? I employ 10 people in my small business. I could afford to pay them quite a bit more than I do now, and maybe even hire one or two more, were it not for the huge indirect costs of unfunded regulatory mandates so generously given us by Congress over the years. I run with the leanest configuration of staff possible, because I can't afford not to. I won't take the time to go through the list, which is long, but anyone running a business will know what I'm talking about - all the things we get told are mandatory and that we must pay for out of our pockets. The most our government can do to promote job growth is to make creating jobs economically attractive, by whatever means, and that depends not on year-to-year fiscal policy controlled by the Administration, though it can influence it to a small degree, it depends on Congress.

But, I digress - his name is Bush, he "skirted his duty" in 1978, and he must be blamed for everything.

Cheers,
Daiwa

on Feb 05, 2005
It is not a matter of blame. Its evaluating how well his policies deal with the issues that face us. The national debt, the trade deficit, the lack of jobs for the 5 million new workers, the lack of an energy policy, the non-sloutions for the funding problems in Medicare (which are much larger than Social Security) and Social Security all show he does not have solutions that resolve ANY of these issues. Bush supporters say he a strong leader. A strong leader going in the wrong direction is not a good thing. History is full of strong leaders that lead their nations into disaster! That is where Bush and the conservatives in Congress are leading this nation. I am a Republican that knows we must pay for what we spend even if it means increasing taxes at times. This CHARGE and SPEND policy of Bush and our Congress is dead wrong!
on Feb 05, 2005
Bush has killed the job market, and continues to kill it. One only has to look at his recently pushed through overtime reform laws that cost 3 million Americans their overtime.

The guy is destroying our economy, and its funny people line up and follow right along without even the slightest second thought. Its sad really.
on Feb 05, 2005
Nice non-reply, there, COL. You sound like Clinton - just change the subject a little & pile on more BS.

Speaking of the national debt - exactly which Bush policies & programs were responsible for the swing from a surplus to a deficit?

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 05, 2005
The guy is destroying our economy, and its funny people line up and follow right along without even the slightest second thought. Its sad really.


Guess you haven't been reading the paper lately - just last week the economy was reported to be the strongest it's been in years, record-setting in fact. But then that's good news, and I wouldn't expect you to know or care about that.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 05, 2005
Daiwa

The policy that cut taxes to the wealthy and was responsible for 270 Billion of the 420 Billion Defeict in 04 per the Congressional budget office. The policy that rewards companies for moving jobs to other countries that take money from the people that would spend it which reduces demand. The data about economic growth is fine but the growth is not creating jobs to keep pace with population growth. The economy is not growing fast enough to even replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts much less that added money we need for defense, Social Sceurity, Medicare etc. What is taking place because of our tax and fiscal policies is what former sec of the Treasury O'neil and Geenspan told Bush would happen whan he started with his tax cuts. Both these men told Bush the tax cuts should be tied to the surplus to pay for them. They were aginst returning to deficits the way we were from 1981 through 1997. When the interest rates return to more historic norms (which they will), the interest on the debt will take the money needed for every other thing in the budget. 40% of the debt is currently held by foeign people or governments. What is even worse, is that the Bush policies, if they work, only intend to reduce the annual deficit to $260 Billion by 2009 when the national debt will be at least $9 Trillion. At the historic 5.1% interest rate paid on our national debt, that will be $460 Billion per year and will continue to grow if interest rate go above 5.1% or the debt goes higher than the $9 Trillion (which will happen since Bush never creates policies to balance the budget much less begin repaying the debt). To say this is a responsible fiscal and tax policy is NUTS!
on Feb 05, 2005

Reply #6 By: COL Gene - 2/5/2005 3:11:29 PM
Daiwa

The policy that cut taxes to the wealthy


We've had this discussion before and your *still* wrong. I don't know about you but my wife and I recieved an extra $600 above and beyond our income tax refund. This was a *direct* result of the Bush tax cuts. And since we make *less* than 30K a year I refuse to call us *wealthy*. More doom and gloom about unemployment. The rate stands @ 5.2% Better than Clinton ever had. Yet I don't hear *anyone* complaining about him.
on Feb 05, 2005
The deficit, as a percentage of GDP, is still far below historic highs and is declining.

And dr - you forget, good news means nothing to folks for whom the sky must fall.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 05, 2005
drmiler

I support the tax cuts you are talking about. The tax cuts that do not make sense are the reduction in the top two income brackets (impacts less than 5% of Americans), elimination of the estate tax (impacts less than 1% of Americans) and will cost almost $50 Billion per year. Almost half of the Bush tax cuts go to a few % of the people who do will spend it and do not need it while he borrows the money hand over fist. If we did not have a deficit and truly had a surplus the way he told the American People in 2000, the tax cuts to the wealthy would be justified. That is not the case and we go deeper into debt every day with no end in sight. Now he wants to borrow anothet two Trillion to change Social Security and pay even more interest plus repay the two Trillion some day! No person, Company or nation can follow the Bush fiscal policy and prosper.
on Feb 05, 2005
Daiwa

The issue is the interest on the debt. The historic rate we have paid is 5.1% We are moving toward $8 Trillion and by ther end of the Bush second term we will over $9 Trillion. The interest on that amount will be more than the Bush budget projection for defense. More than on all other nondefense non entitlement spending. In 1980, the interest was $60 Billion on the debt. By 2009, we could see interest of $460-480 Billion EVERY YEAR. That will take the money needed for Social Security, Medicare, defense, education etc. That intetest buys us NOTHING toward the needs of our people. That is the problem with the National Debt and unless we stop adding to it, the problem gets worse and worse.