Results of Bush policies

Published on April 26, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

I have written many blogs about the impact of the policy we have been following on the American economy. Many of the Joe users refute as “my opinion” many of the things I reported. Below are a series of actual data retrieved from federal government agencies using the Google search engine:

Item Dec 2000 March 2005 Source

National Debt $5.7 Trillion $ 7.7 Trillion Bureau of Public Debt
Annual Budget * $ 235.2 Billion Surplus $ 470 Billion Deficit CBO
Trade Deficit Annual $ 370 Billion $ 700 Billion U S Commerce Dept.
Gasoline Regular $ 1.61/gal $ 2.28/gal U S Dept of Energy
# without Health Ins. 39.8 Million 44.9 Million U S Census Bureau
Unemployment rate 3.7% 5.2% Dept. of Labor
* Amount reported under the “Unified Budget” which combines the Federal deficit with the
Surplus in Social Security and Medicare. The impact of adding the surpluses is to LOWER
the federal deficit by about $200 Billion in 2005.

NOTHING OF THE ABOVE IS MY OPINION BUT FACTUAL CHANGES SINCE GEORGE W. BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT!

Comments (Page 1)

Reiki-House

on Apr 26, 2005

The actual numbers are always higher than what's reported. Also the system is designed to create confusion and muddled statistical numbers. The evidence is easily visible. The Republicans have a lower unemployment number and a higher jobs created number. The Democrats have higher unemployment numbers and lower jobs created numbers. It's because of the system which is designed to make you think you have a choice, yet the powers that be still get this obvious mind-slip erased from people's mind radar. The government has very simple rules when it concerns hiring new employees and laying off old employees. It's documented on paper and immediately forwarded to the federal government, unless of course the owners or company wishes to be thoroughly audited by the I.R.S. In our business, we would know how many people are showing up for work by looking at their time sheets. Plain and clear, right? In this day of the information age, there is absolutely no reason to believe the government hasn't the ability to count and subtract. You could argue that the time difference between a person being hired and being fired so the numbers will be in a constant state of disarray. That is incorrect. Even if that were the case, there would still be reliable numbers pertaining to the 2 or 3 month period previously. What I mean is that months later the absolute figure should be easily tallied since all the figures would be in by then. But still the numbers don't corelate at all. That is evidence that there is a clear system of confused disinformation when it comes to adding and subtracting in the halls of power. There is no reason for a significant difference in numbers other than to create muddled numbers which no one can agree on. Of course the real evidence is in the job loss related to businesses moving to third world countries or cheap labor countries. Go to WalMart and look at all the toys there. If you find one not made in China you can have my neighbor's wife.

COL Gene

on Apr 26, 2005

all of these statistics are comparable and reported and calculated by the same federal agency. The deficit is calculated to the penny. The annual budget deficit as reported is under the unified budget reporting system the same system that was in effect in 2000 and is in effect today. The same is true of the unemployment rate and all the other statistics contained in this blog. The point is the relative difference in these statistics during the last four plus years. I have not characterized these changes in this blog you be the judge. is a $2 trillion increase in the national debt good for America? Are 5 million Americans more without health insurance good for America? Is it better to pay $1.61 for a gallon of gasoline or $2.28 for a gallon of gasoline? Is it better to have a trade deficit of $370 billion were $700 billion ?

Island Dog

on Apr 26, 2005

# without Health Ins. 39.8 Million 44.9 Million U S Census Bureau

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans without health insurance — one of the most watched and worrisome indicators of economic well-being — may be overstated by as much as 20%, according to research conducted for the government.

That could mean 9 million fewer uninsured, reducing the total to 36 million from the 45 million reported for 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

Link

Island Dog

on Apr 26, 2005

Island Dog

on Apr 26, 2005

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US existing home sales climbed 1.0 percent in March to their third highest pace on record, the National Association of Realtors reported, in a sign of a still-hot housing sector.

Home sales grew to an annualized pace of 6.89 million units, better than the 6.8 million expected by Wall Street analysts.

"With mortgage interest rates remaining historically low, gains in the labor market and economic growth appear to have lifted the confidence of home buyers," said David Lereah, NAR's chief economist.

Link

Island Dog

on Apr 26, 2005

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Factory activity in the Mid-Atlantic United States expanded much more rapidly this month, a regional central bank said on Thursday in a report that countered growing fears of a slowdown in economic growth.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said its business activity index jumped to 25.3 in April from 11.4 in March, confounding Wall Street forecasts of a dip to 10.0. A measure above zero denotes growth in the sector.

"It's a pretty solid performance, a good indicator that the manufacturing sector is probably still growing nicely," said Patrick Fearon, senior economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons.

Link

Lee1776

on Apr 26, 2005

Average unemployment rate of the last 25 years: 6.2%
Unemployment Rate today: 5.2%
Average unemployment rate of the whole eight years of the Clinton Era: 5.2%

Average unemployment rate of the first four years of Bush Presidency: 5.5%
Average unemployment rate of the first four years of Clinton Presidency: 6.0%

You love to cherry pick the lowest month of unemployment rate in 35 years 3.7% to compare Bush’s present 5.2% too. But that is the lowest rate since 1969 (Nixon). Even the last year average of Clinton was 4.0, not 3.7%. So for now on we are going to compare this one month in 35 years to the rest of all future unemployment rates?

Bush’s average rate for his first four years beats Clinton’s. But the tech. bubble bust and 9/11 also took place at the start of Bush’s era and Clinton did not have to compete against disasters like those.

Let us see how the next four years workout before throwing stones.

Yes, you are right that 3.7% is lower, but let’s keep that into perspective though and say that Bush’s unemployment rate (with all the disasters) still out performs Clinton’s rate at this time in office, and the historical average unemployment rate of 6.2%.

Info provided by our good friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Link

P.S. Island Dog, good work beating me to the punch, but your rating by president is a little missleading because it only counting the best years of Clinton, making his numbers look better then they really where.

COL Gene

on Apr 26, 2005

Nothing posted by any of you changes the facts I have reported. If you believe that $2 trillion increase in national debt is good for America you got it! If you believe going from a budget surplus of $235 billion to a deficit of $470 billion is good, you got it!. If you think a trade deficit from $370 billion to $700 billion is good you got it! If you think 5 million people loosing their health care is good, you got it! If you like to pay $2.28 a gallon for gas as opposed to $1.61 you got it! If you believe a increase in the unemployment rate of 1.6% since 2000 is good, you got it! Enjoy all the GOOD news guys! PS wait until you see the increase in the annual interest on the growing debt - you will love IT!.

Lee1776

on Apr 26, 2005

If you think a trade deficit from $370 billion to $700 billion is good you got it!quote]

I'm not arguing with you on the trade deficit, because I feel that if we raise tariffs with our enemies (i.e. China), and keep the same course with our allies, much of that trade deficit will shrink. Knocking two birds out with one stone. But as long as the Democrats have a love affair with China (some strait out bought by then) and the Republicans turning their head the other way, nothing will happen.

If you believe that $2 trillion increase in national debt is good for America you got it!

I'm not arguing with you on paying down the national debt. But class warfare that you advocate is not the answer. The tax cut was stupid, IMO. I believe that not only should that rich get the cut repealed, but unlike you everyone else too(middle and low class included). Since neither party truly wants to cut spending (it's all political meat until their party is in power), we are stuck with the debt.

If you think 5 million people loosing their health care is good, you got it!

So what. Again, why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare!!!!!!!! This is not a socialist country and I would like to keep it that way.

If you like to pay $2.28 a gallon for gas as opposed to $1.61 you got it!

No I don't. I pay $2.57 here by the way. But preventing drilling of domestic sources is stupid too. Having eco. nuts blocking, through legal briefs in courts, any improvements or building new safer high tech. nuclear plants don't help either. If you want agriculture support, let’s start making ethanol. But as long as gas is cheap (historicaly with inflation it still is), the econamic motives to the private industry is not there, and neither the last Democrat adminastration or this Republican adminastration is willing to do anything about the problem.

If you believe a increase in the unemployment rate of 1.6% since 2000 is good, you got it!

I just have a beef with your job numbers. As I said above, you’re just trying to make the unemployment rate sound like the sky is falling; when historical the unemployment rate is lower then the norm.

Personally IMO, the president has no effect on the unemployment rate. It took Roosevelt eight years, major social programs and major deficits (for the time) to move the unemployment rate from 25% to 21%.

The only reason the Great Depression ended was because of WW2.

I'm just asking you to stop posting employment numbers that though technically true, truly does not reflect reality. I grit my teeth every time you do that, because the uninformed sheep of the left like to bleat the same thing and I know your more intelligent then those guys. So every time you drag that out, it makes me wonder if your blind hate for Bush is true or if maybe you’re not as intelligent as I think you are Sir.

If you have not noticed, it is has been Moderates (i.e. me and Island Dog) attacking your numbers on unemployment the most. IMO this is a hint to stop giving the radicals on the right around here, more red meat against you.

COL Gene

on Apr 26, 2005

The unemployment numbers are not nearly as important as the quality of the jobs and the lack of growth in the income for the majority of workers. The most important of all is the increasing debt and the long term impact on the budget due to the increasing interest the higher debt will require. It will impact all other needs for funding and under the current fiscal policy the condition is never resolved but gets worse and worse.

Island Dog

on Apr 26, 2005

You get proven wrong on your employment numbers so you result back your "underemployment" rhetoric. Pathetic.

COL Gene

on Apr 27, 2005

Island Dog

The unemployment rates are as reported by the Dept of labor are 3.7% in Dec 2000 and 5.3% today. Where is the error? I guess the increase in the debt, annual budget deficit, price of gas etc are also wrong. The bottom line in the policies Bush has instituted have not solved this countries problems and they are getting worse every year. The cumulative impact of the added national debt ( and the added interest we must pay) will continue until we repay that added debt which will NEVER happen under the policies Bush is following! The underemployment issue gets at the quality of the jobs and the ability of workers to be able to live on the wages being paid. That is a very REAL issue. From March 2004 to March 2005, the Average Weekly Wage went DOWN for 80 % of American Workers. How does that help our country? This is after the great economic recovery we are told about. The revovery is in corporate profits and the compensation of the top people not in the wages of the people that are needed to keep our economy strong!

dabe

on Apr 27, 2005

Enjoy all the GOOD news guys! PS wait until you see the increase in the annual interest on the growing debt - you will love IT!.

Great response, COL! Basically, you summed it all up in a nutshell. Amazing how, after all the mindless spin, all the dismissive rightie arguments, it all comes down to elemental math. Fact is, I just got myself out of debt. No more revolving credit. It took years, literaly. Now, just to be sure that I don't remain out of debt, the bushie deathcult makes certain that their corporate buddies get paid anyway, by saddling Americans with the worst god-awful debt for generations to come.

Hey righties? Who the hell do you think will be paying off this debt? Dubya? nahhhh Kenny Boy? nahhhhh Wall Street? naaaaahhhhhhh. Yes, boys and girls, your impoverished citizenry, we Americans. But dubya doesn't care. He's done his job.

Lee1776

on Apr 27, 2005

I guess the increase in the debt, annual budget deficit, price of gas etc are also wrong.

Have I or Island Dog said anything about those numbers? No.

The unemployment rates are as reported by the Dept of labor are 3.7% in Dec 2000 and 5.3% today. Where is the error?

Your first error is that today's rate is not 5.3%, and you are cherry picking numbers that don't fit reality of the situation: Link

The underemployment issue gets at the quality of the jobs and the ability of workers to be able to live on the wages being paid. That is a very REAL issue. From March 2004 to March 2005, the Average Weekly Wage went DOWN for 80 % of American Workers.

Since you chose to ignore facts provided in replies to your other posts on these subjects, reposting them again appears to not stop you from skewing the numbers wrong again.

Amazing how, after all the mindless spin, all the dismissive rightie arguments, it all comes down to elemental math.

When 150 elemental math problems show that someone is wrong, and one cherry picked number (out of context) is right. Does not make it his end argument right and a true reflection of reality. It just shows dabe, that people like you are gullible enough to drink the Cool-aid without doing your own elemental math.

drmiler

on Apr 27, 2005

Hey righties? Who the hell do you think will be paying off this debt? Dubya? nahhhh Kenny Boy? nahhhhh Wall Street? naaaaahhhhhhh. Yes, boys and girls, your impoverished citizenry, we Americans. But dubya doesn't care. He's done his job.

Will everyone grow a brain? GW is not getting these things done by himself! Republicans may be in the majority in both the house and senate, but they do NOT have the sheer numbers to get things done WITHOUT democratic help. You want to yell at the right? That's fine. Start yelling at the "left" too! And dabe....he can't pass "anything" by himself. Period! Anything he does requires congressional approval.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!