ECONOMY: Jobs, Unemployment and The Democratic Strategy to put America Back on Track!

The American economy needs Jobs. It is as simple as that folks. Jobs for you, me, jobs for your family, jobs for your neighbours, friends, relations and children. They are the lifeblood of our economy, without them, we would see recessions, and that is never beneficial to a nation such as our own. Jobs are what we need more than anything else. Let us not forget that our entire way of life, rests atop that fragile pillar. We must strive to build good, solid, well-paid jobs in America today. Not in ten years, by that time you may be collecting your pension, in a retirement home and watching your grandkids grow up� oh, and they will be needing jobs too. John Kerry will take us forward into a new era of American prosperity, helping us to set a stronger foundation to build our lives on.

- We must create jobs across the nation by offering tax cuts and incentives to business that wish to come to or stay in the United States.
- We must reduce middle-class taxe. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan
- John Kerry will cut the deficit by HALF within his first 4 years in office.
- John Kerry will end corporate welfare and roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that do not benefit the majority.
- John Kerry will impose a real cap to keep spending in check
- And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it.

Sources:
Kerry For America



1.1

In this figure we see the level of jobs created by each President since the 1970�s. Only in Reagans second term do we see a respectable increase in jobs. Those numbers are far eclipsed by Democratic Presidents of the age. The most troubling figure we see is that of George W Bush�s first and only term. With a decrease of 100,000 jobs after the 300,000 created by his predecessor.



1.2

In this figure we see a breakdown of the lack of jobs created over the administration of George H. W. Bush and George W Bush. Time and time again we see that the sound financial planning and policies of previous democrat governments lead America into new era�s of prosperity and wealth for all. The Clinton Era is over but we can replicate its successes. The only negative thing they put on Clinton was that he received oral sex in white house. Did they attack his policies? No. They attacked him. If you want the economy fixed then vote Kerry.



1.3

Unemployment in America has come to all areas of the nation. With strong decreases all across the board there is no real center of gravity for the growing crisis. A string of major outsourcings and small-town closures due to the failing economy have caused this sharp decrease in employment. Fuelled by relentless upper class tax cuts that benefit only the top 2% of the population this situation is worrying and if allowed to continue may push America fully into a recession.

So where is all the money going� Well its plain to see it�s the Tax Cuts� take a look�







Source: JobWatch.com

One year later, Bush Administration's tax cuts not fulfilling job creation promises
The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004�306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that, starting in July 2003, the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 3,672,000 would be created over these last 12 months, the first year after the tax cuts took effect. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, there are 2,230,000 fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts. As can be seen in the chart below, job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 10 of the past 12 months.

www.jobwatch.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">JobWatch

Did you know America is now in the greatest period of job loss since the great depression?

Did you know America is 7 million jobs short of the prediction President Bush made in February 2002?

Did you know The typical family's income has declined by nearly $1,500 under President Bush?

If you wish to continue down this rocky road with careless disregard for the needs of the middle classes and working classes then ignore us.

However�

If you want to see America move forward into a new era of prosperity and unity with our true allies then VOTE KERRY FOR AMERICA.

I'm greatful to the sources at...

JohnKerry.Com
JobWatch.com
awolbush.com
And special thanks to The Bush Economy for the graphics.
The Bush Economy

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nerdling]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nerdling]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nerdling]


(edit to demote)

[edit on 5-8-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nerdling]

[edit on 6-8-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Nevermind.

Thanks for the offer of space nerdling.

I will return shortly to debate the merits of your post.





[edit on 8/5/04 by Seth Bullock]

You misunderstand my point old chap.

What we have now is a dire situation with OPEC blatantly stating that they CANNOT meet global demand and with American demand increasing through gas prices etc etc we are going to have to get more oil by hook or by crook. ITs pretty obvious we secured alot from Iraq to keep us going and many many americans died for this under the leadership of George. They died under him for Oil.

Its of little consequence whether i use my staff area of or not, i used it because it was quicker for me but its not exactly hard to find webspace. In fact if you can't then i'd quite happily put your images in my space if you asked me to.

Originally posted by Nerdling

Nerdling-Would you clarify two items contained in this chart?

1. Please explain what a tax-free corporate dividend is?
2. How much do you have to make to take advantage of it?

None of the parties have paid attention to the historical context of our current job-loss cycle and how it compares to the "great depression". We experienced a massive boom soon after the depression, primarily because of the economic results of inexpensive and widely available electricity. Any economic policy must have a long-view and undestand that the next 20 years will experience similar boom, but because of an inexpensive and widely available global digital network. The third great economic boom is starting, only no one is noticing.

To simply place the blane of unemployment on Persident Bush is misleading at best. These are some of the unemployment stats that I posted in the Outsourcing Thread

Figures are from: www.nationmaster.com...
Lets look at Europe's Unemployment Rate 2001-2002:
Spain 10%
Germany 9.8%
France 9.1%
Italy 9.1%
UK 5.2%
Dennmark 5.1%
Austria 4.8%
Portugal 4.7%
Sweden 4%
Swiss 1.9

With the exception of the Scandanavian countries, (and the Swiss) the economic powerhouses of Europe are sporting a much higher rate than the US. The UK is pretty close. To blame Bush for the number of Unemployed is simply not correct.

Lets look at Ohio during the glory years of the Clinton Administration:
Unemployment during one of the biggest economic booms in modern times was anywere from 5 to 3.9%. Bush who inherited a recession, had to deal with the dot com meltdown, and the events of 911 has managed to keep that rate to its current 5.8%. Given the global economic slump, the releative rates are actually pretty good. All of these facts were taken from the State of Ohio web site.

In this figure we see the level of jobs created by each President since the 1970�s. Only in Reagans second term do we see a respectable increase in jobs. Those numbers are far eclipsed by Democratic Presidents of the age. The most troubling figure we see is that of George W Bush�s first and only term. With a decrease of 100,000 jobs after the 300,000 created by his predecessor.

Funny, what you fail to mention is that Reagan in his first term inherited an Economic disaster. GWB I made economic decisons that led to the boom times that the Clinton Era enjoyed. What exactly did Clinton do to stimulate the economy. Please do not trot out paying off the deficit. That had some influence but it simply is not the holy grail as preached by the Democrats. As the figures have showed above, we are emerging from a global recession. Other countries would be so luck to have our unemployment rates. One factor you fail to mention is that the benifits for unemployment were extended quite a bit during this administration.

Has Kerry explained how he will fund his ambitious agenda? Not really, unless you are a believer in Vodoo Economics. The bottom line is Kerry will raise taxes for everyone, not just the ultra rich. Anybody making over 80,000 a year will take a huge hit. Kerry's social and health care agenda instead of making real reforms is a bandaid at best and at worst it could be called "The Great Society II"

Let's address a few things: Are we, if looking to historical cycles, perched at the start of an economic 'boom', coming off of a recession as opposed to our grandfathers depression? Maybe. Resilience is an outcrop of necessity more than anything else; it's in our Darwinist DNA.
But let's face the variables: the shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy is vastly more dependent on stability & investments.....a one / two punch. Our devalued dollar + a primary energy driver (oil) being scarce + another large entity keeping pace with us ( China) for demand that we didn't have after the depression. All that adds up to very strong skepticism.
On 8/5/04, Wall St. took an old fashioned @ss whipping. If the jobs report, which is released today, is under 250,000 net new, it's going to get very UGLY. With prices looking at $50/barrel for sweet crude, you're even further hobbled.

Unemployment: globally, as " the USA goes, so does the World". We can't, however, compare Spain to NYC and take away anything meaningful.
Some other hearsay FALSEHOODS: GW I did NOT make ANY economic decisions that lead to the economic growth under Clinton: his only point of lucid management was to reverse Regan's tax cuts. I know it cuts against the Republican grain to admit, especially when the Sainted Ronnie is involved, but a GOP president raised taxes over another GOP president's hubris!
The DotCom meltdown was not anywhere near what people have made it out to be. The truth is this: no one who invested prior was unaware of the dynamics of a 'bubble', nor where they blind to valuation. Simply, the fringe of a movement, those who are make or break, get the press, steady center road investors do not.
George Bush did NOT INHERIT A RECESSION. This piece of Republican elephant shiit has not stood before, and it won't stand here. The economy had declined and was at a plateau....after hitting record high numbers. Like an orgasm, those things do end. That, however, puts our economy from going from a point of record growth to still high to still good.....into the month prior to Bush's term. People forget that the Bush campaign stumped on our "dire state of affairs" on morals, adult stewardship and economy. They talked the economy down severely. Us being a service economy fully dependent on investments reacted accordingly; much the same way when a corporations value drops like a stone when a CEO is changed for the worse.
No, Bush had a almost a full year to F&$% up the economy to fit the grand design of "starving the Beast" ( attacking social programs) and making a case for tax cut mania.

The Republican Congress fought tooth & nail to NOT extend unemployment benefits. It's given the artificial impression of actual improvement towards Bush's governance: millions of the unemployed have exhausted their benefits, so they are no longer counted , which reduces the number of unemployed receiving benefits, which has been marketed as improvement!!!!!!

"Has Kerry explained how he'd fund his ambitious agenda?"

Yes, he has, and it's been detailed right here TAXES: Perceptions & Solutions .
I strongly recommend a deep read because it's what the Bush Economic team is battling against. As a point of MAJOR CONCERN for you pro-Bush people? Several of Bush's economic advisors have fully endorsed several of the plans that Kerry has chosen to implement ( referenced in the linked information provided in that post).

Originally posted by Nerdling
- We must create jobs across the nation by offering tax cuts and incentives to business that wish to come to or stay in the United States.

Does that mean if Sony were to open a factory here, they would be given a tax break? Or are they one of the corporations that give "tax free corporate dividends" (which you still haven't explained)? Would they get a tax break and a tax increase at the same time?

Sounds like this one may need a little fleshing out...

- We must reduce middle-class taxe. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan

From what I cans see most of Mr. Kerry's "middle class tax cut" consists of making the Bush Administration's cuts permanent. Though an excellent idea, I find it hard to give Mr. Kerry much credit for it. As far as small business goes, targeted tax incentives to promote hiring do not work. Didn't work for Carter or Reagan, won't work now. If you want businesses to hire more people - help them sell more products or provide more services. You do that by keeping money in the hands of consumers - not in government coffers.

- John Kerry will cut the deficit by HALF within his first 4 years in office.

Really? How? Oh wait here it is...

- John Kerry will end corporate welfare and roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that do not benefit the majority.

He'll do it by cutting the governments electric bill and raising taxes on the wealthy, you know, the ones who got billions of dollars in tax cuts from the Bush Administration. Lets examine that for a moment shall we?

The top statutory income tax rate has fallen to 39.1 percent and the total payroll tax rate has risen from 14 percent to 15.3 percent. If one knew these figures in 1984, almost all economists would have projected a sharp decline in taxes paid by the rich and an increase in those paid by the poor.

In fact, the data show that those in the bottom quintile are only paying about half what they did 20 years ago: 5.4 percent. This is down from 6.4 percent just the year before, owing to the Bush tax cut.

Those in the top quintile did pay a little less in 2001 than they did in 2000: 26.8 percent versus 28 percent. But this is still well above the average tax rate they paid in 1984. Interestingly, those at the very top saw virtually no cut at all, even though liberals constantly say that they got the lion's share of the 2001 tax cut. Between 2000 and 2001, those in the top 10 percent of households saw a drop from 29.7 percent to 28.6 percent and those in the top 5 percent saw a decline from 31.1 percent to 30.1, but those in the top 1 percent saw their effective tax rate virtually unchanged: 33.2 percent versus 33 percent.

All of those in the middle 3 quintiles paid less in 2001 than they paid in 1984. In other words, between 1984 and 2001 average tax rates for the wealthy substantially increased, while at least 80 percent of households paid considerably less. Progressivity rose as the wealthy now pay about 6 times more than the poor.

Looking at the share of taxes paid shows a similar pattern. From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile reduced their share of the total tax burden from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. Among the ultra wealthy, the top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent, the top 5 percent raised their share from 28.2 percent to 38.5 percent, and that of those in the top 1 percent went up from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.

In short, the poor paid half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001 as they did in 1984, while the rich paid about 50 percent more. Those in the middle paid about a third less.

Surprising isn't it? Mr. Kerry can claim he is rolling back the President's tax cuts all he wants, but what he is really talking about is a good old-fashioned Democratic tax increase, plain and simple.

- John Kerry will impose a real cap to keep spending in check

Okay, well except for defense, homeland security, health, education, Medicare, Social Security, and other mandatory programs. But hey, these are just minor parts of the government anyway. That clamp down on the governments electric bill will sure help, and who needs roads anyway.

- And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it.

I sure hope so, because what I've seen so far doesn't cut it.

Finally i would like to touch on a real world model of what we know of Mr. Kerry's economic vision thus far:

However an econometric analysis of the Kerry plan, released on April 16 by The Heritage Foundation, shows the negative effects of an increase in taxes for high-income taxpayers overwhelm the positive effects of making key elements of the Bush tax plan permanent for taxpayers with incomes under $200,000. The net effect, according to the study, is "a slower economy and job creation significantly below potential."

The analysis estimates the effects of the Kerry tax plan using a standard macroeconomic model of the U.S. economy. The analysis shows:

Employment growth under the Kerry plan recedes. Employment growth reflects the slower pace of economic activity. Under the Kerry plan, the annual rate of non-farm employment growth will be consistently below forecast each quarter for the 10 years following January 2005.
GDP slows. The nation's output of goods and services quickly drops below current forecasts under the Kerry plan, and growth remains slower throughout the next 10 years.
After-tax income shrinks. Income after taxes, or inflation-adjusted disposable personal income, is below baseline in each year of the forecast under the Kerry plan.
Savings plummet. Lower disposable personal income means the Kerry plan would bring lower personal savings.
Kerry Tax Plan
Kerry mixes tax cuts with tax increases in his proposed tax plan. Though many details remain to be announced by the Senator's tax team, the following appear to be principal, well-developed elements of his plan and were incorporated in the economic analysis of his proposals:

For taxpayers with incomes above $200,000, the tax benefits of policy changes from 2001 and 2003 no longer apply. Their first dollar is taxed at 15 percent rather than 10 percent, and their last dollar is taxed at 39.6 percent rather than 35 percent. Other anti-growth changes are also made.
While Kerry's campaign has been relatively silent on federal estate and gift taxes, the study assumes the senator will propose a halt to plans to expand the estate tax exemption amount and reduce the estate and gift tax rates, as well as repeal of the estate tax in 2010.
For individually filing taxpayers with incomes below $200,000, Kerry proposes to make several of the Bush tax cuts permanent. The senator would keep the 10 percent tax rate and the expanded tax bracket. He would make permanent marriage penalty reforms. And he would permit taxpayers earning less than $200,000 to keep the $1,000 per child tax credit.
The senator provides additional tax cuts to cover health care costs. For taxpayers with incomes below $200,000, Kerry proposes a health care tax credit for those who retire early and for those who are between jobs.
The net effect of these tax policy changes, not counting the negative economic feedback they would cause, is a net tax increase of $609 billion over the 10-year period beginning January 1, 2005.

Keep the economy on track. Keep the GDP going in the right direction. Keep George W. Bush in office.

I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but the Federal government is in so much financial trouble that it's cut aid to the states and to the cities. Many of the cities you live in are cutting services because there's no income (job loss) and no federal dollars, and this means they're letting people go.

This happened under his father, and is happening at an accelerated rate under this administration. I don't think we can stand to have another 4 years of cuts to our garbage and sewer and other municipal services.

Kerry's strategy seems to be to continue the practices put forth by GWB.

Keep the Middle class tax cut. ( I forget, did he vote against it?)
Now remember tax by their very nature a punitive.

Raise taxes on the rich. Ok. Why? What is Rich? Is it 50K a year? Is it 200K?

What is the purpose on taxing these groups? By far the most tax already comes from the top %. So, are you raising because they "are just rich?"

Aren't you taxing the job creators? Did everyone notice the 300 MILLION surplus for JUNE 2004? That is incresed tax revenue.

Originally posted by crmanager
Raise taxes on the rich. Ok. Why? What is Rich? Is it 50K a year? Is it 200K?
What is the purpose on taxing these groups? By far the most tax already comes from the top %. So, are you raising because they "are just rich?"

You hit the nail on the head. They are being taxed for being rich. Hillary Clinton recently told a group of wealthy Dems. that they may have to pay more in the future.

What is rich? in the SF Bay Area 100,000-150,000 or so is middle class given the sky high home prices. So its all relative. What really gets me agitated about Kerry, is he is going to soak me as a "rich" guy but im comfortably middle class. And lets get real for a minute. Is Kerry going to soak his wealth friends and wife to pay for his social agenda? Doubtfull. No doubt all of middle and upper middle calss is going to be fleced by Keryy.