| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 529
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:22 pm: |     |
On the Today show this morning, the president's campaign chairman Marc Racicot, said that that forecast of 2.6 million new jobs this year wasn't a forecast but rather a "goal".
That prompted this exchange in this morning's gaggle ...
QUESTION: Scott, on taxes and jobs, your campaign chairman, Marc Racicot this morning said that the job prediction or the job forecast in the CEA report was a "goal." You indicated to us yesterday that it was simply a figure that was based on economic modeling. So what is it? Is it an objective analysis of the current state of the economy, or was that a political document?
Scott McClellan: John, I think it is what it is. The data is a snapshot that economists use at a point in time for economic modeling. That's what I said yesterday. So it is what it is --
QUESTION: Right, but Racicot --
Scott McClellan: -- and it's based on the data available at that point in time.
QUESTION: So was Racicot wrong in describing it as a goal?
Scott McClellan: I haven't seen those specific remarks. I'll be glad to look at them, but it is what it is, and it is how I described it yesterday.
[Here there's a short and snappy back-and-forth between John and Scott on the difference between predictions and goals, and what the definition of 'is' is.]
Scott McClellan: John, I'm giving you the facts. It is what it is.
QUESTION: And the meaning of the word "is" is?
Scott McClellan: Well, John, I think that where the discussion of policy should be -- or the discussion should be is on policy. And the President is a decision-maker. The President leads by making policy decisions. And the policies we are implementing are working to strengthen our economy and create an environment for robust job creation. New jobs are being created. The unemployment rate is declining. The policies this President has advocated and passed are working. And I think the American people think the discussion should be there on the policy decisions that are being made. Some don't want to discuss the policies. But it's important for a President to lead and make decisions, and then defend those decisions.
QUESTION: You understand the difference between a forecast based on economic modeling and a stated goal. Racicot just seems to indicate that this is a stated goal.
Scott McClellan: It is the economic forecast for our annual Economic Report. That's what it is.
QUESTION: So it's not a goal? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2017
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
There's one job that's prime to be taken over by a machine.
QUESTION: If they want to focus on the policy decisions, why issue forecasts or goals? |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 532
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
From Josh Marshall
"If I'm not mistaken there's a general consensus among economists that in our current economic circumstances we need roughly 150,000 new jobs created each month just to break even -- basically, just to keep up with a growing working age population.
So just to break even on the employment front we needed about 750,000 new jobs to have been created over the last five months. In fact, the economy created just less than half that number. So basically, 366,000 new jobs in five months isn't very good at all.
The president is pleased that on his watch the economy can't even produce enough jobs to keep up with a growing population? Can't he set his sights a bit higher?"
|
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 69
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Here is Greenspan's take on job forecast:
Greenspan said the reason that the administration and private forecasters have been wrong about job creation in recent years has been because productivity growth, the ability to produce more with fewer workers, has been so strong. But Greenspan said productivity is likely to slow this year and if this occurs, it would trigger a rebound in job growth. He called the administration's forecast on jobs "probably feasible" if productivity growth slows.
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 534
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Probably feasible?
What does that mean? |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 70
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
It means that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve thinks that if productivity goes back to normal levels, which is beginning to happen, then job growth for the year will be in the millions. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4734
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
The December rise in productivity was lower than it has been over the last couple of years and was followed by some job growth, although lower than expected, in January.
The questions in my mind are the productivity increases the result of true improvements or because there are fewer US employees and more foreign employees which I don't think is covered by the survey?
One way or another, however, slowing productivity improvements should mean more jobs in the US, although I believe in January the new jobs were mostly in the retail and service segments which are not particularly well paid. |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 71
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Even though Mel Gibson's father wants him hanged, I will go with Greenspan's take on jobs and economy. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 539
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 9:16 pm: | |
I would lay down one dollar per percent over and under on the Bush estimate and give away 10%. Any takers? |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
I will get back to you on March 5th. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 542
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
But Mr. Greenspan, who spent two hours on Capitol Hill this morning offering testimony and answering questions from members of the House Budget Committee, admitted that the size of the deficit made it unlikely that spending cuts alone would be sufficient to accomplish the task. And he said it was unlikely that the United States could "grow its way" out of its budget deficits solely with an expanding economy, a solution often promoted by conservatives.
I will go with his take on growing our way out of deficits. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 942
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
themp - way to cherry pick from an article to suit your needs.
"The central bank chairman also repeated his assertion that recent tax cuts should be made permanent and said cutting spending was a better way to fix the deficit than tax increases."
Finally, someone willing to look at the spending side of the ledger.
I suppose that since you agreed with him regarding "growing our way out of the deficit" you'll agree that tax cuts should be made permanent and that spending needs to be reduced? |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 82
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Wow, THEMP , that Greenspan quote doesn't reflect the essence of his testimony. It sounded like a Bush campaign ad.
GREENSPAN-SHOULD AIM TO CLOSE FISCAL GAP PRIMARILY OR WHOLLY ON SPENDING SIDE
GREENSPAN-TAX RISES TO COVER LOOMING FISCAL PROBLEMS COULD POSE ECONOMIC RISK
GREENSPAN--TAX CUTS CAN BOOST GROWTH, CONTRIBUTE TO INCREASED GOVT REVENUE
GREENSPAN--BUSH TAX CUTS HAVE HELPED ECON BUT HARD TO QUANTIFY IMPACT ON JOBS
GREENSPAN--TAX CUTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED BECAUSE WILL HELP ECONOMY OVER LONG RUN
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Now he's calling for social security benefits to be cut. What does he care, he's 78. Anyway and his wife makes a ton of money, so hiking taxes would hurt them! |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 84
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
This just in, Kerry endorses Greenspan, he says he has done a fine job and was responsible for the economic growth in the late 1990's. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 544
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:55 pm: | |
"Greenspan once again parted ways with President Bush by insisting that Congress should only make the tax cuts permanent if it makes up for lost revenue with spending cuts or tax increases in other areas."
Under questioning, he admitted that spending cuts alone were not likely to balance the government's books.
So what does that leave? I don't get it. Permanent tax cuts should be paid for, but spending cuts and growth won't pay for them, but taxes should not be raised because it might slow growth, but growth won't close the deficit.
He's 78 years old. Maybe he needs to be eased out. I think he speaks from both sides of his mouth. He's a stylist.
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 545
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
Let me ask a serious question:
Back when Clinton was running surpluses, we had a government shutdown because some members of congress took a very hard line on gov't spending.
Now that the republicans control both houses and the presidency, why hasn't anyone in congress simply made a list of cuts in discretionary spending necessary to balance the budget? I don't see what's so hard about acting on your dominant ideology when all power to do so is yours. If not now, when? Is cutting spending yet another fake issue?
Also - didn't Prez Bush have a social security comission meet a couple years ago? What were their proposals and how do they compare to Greenspan's comments on social security? Did they produce anything?
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 546
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
Also - Bush job creation estimate bet is still wide open. Dollar a percent and I'll give away 15%.
At winner's discretion, dollars are convertible to clown suit jumping jacks.
Any takers? |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 90
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Themp , back in the 90's we had surpluses as a result of a Stock market bubble, tax increases, and huge cuts in Military spending. The Congress had the luxury of trying to force a balanced budget amendment. Then comes the recession of 2000
and 9-11 and tax cuts are needed to restart the economy. The deficit will be dealt when the economy and jobs have rebounded sufficiently.
ECONOMY and JOBS FIRST< DEFICIT SECOND. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 549
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
So the shutdown was a luxury. I did not know that. I though it was a crisis of profound principles in conflict with feckless spending. |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 93
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Luxury meaning that you could afford to deal with spending because you didn't have to worry about growing jobs and the economy. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 555
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
And this was after Reagan proved that deficits don't matter (to Republican administrations). So when there is a deficit, spending should not be seriously cut, but when there are huge surpluses, a politically theatrical budget crisis over spending is appropriate?
Isn't the rule of thumb that spending cuts are a great idea if you can make the other party responsible for not thinking them up, but you should never actually present any yourself because some incumbant might get kicked out of his job when a wheat farmer loses his subsidy or a Head Start program closes? Isn't it just a shell game? |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 94
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
Themp , my answer to your origianl question and the last one is growing the economy and jobs is more important than the deficit. When the economy is on solid footing you can address spending cuts.
Recessions cause deficits , tax cuts grow economy which increases revenues and shinks deficits. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
There was no surplus during the government shutdown. Surpluses were still 4-5 years in the future. |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 95
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
You are right, the stock market bubble and the huge cuts in our defense spending didn't kick in until later, but my point was the economy was on solid ground and therefore you could talk about spending cuts. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 558
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Fair enough. There were no surpluses at that time. I went to the National Gallery that day to see the Vermeer show (?) and it was closed. My wife made baklavah for my birthday because she was locked out.
'"The Republican party is simply not interested in small government now," says Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "They're worse than the Democrats they replaced."
Federal spending per household is above $20,000 this year - a level not seen since World War II caused military spending to surge. This time, military spending is again a big factor, but accounts for less than half of recent increases, the Heritage Foundation says. '
If we spend out way out of a recession, a la Roosevelt, that's ok with me. I wish we would build log cabins in state parks and pay artists for murals or something. I feel bad for those cranks at the Heritage foundation who feel gipped by their party, though. But what do they know.
I'm not the hugest deficit hawk myself. It is funny how priorities change when a party is in the opposition and when it is in power. Cutting discretionary spending seems to be very hard because no one ever seems to want to be specific.
It's also funny how the left saw Clinton as a huge spender on the military who caved to Rebuplicans just to avoid it being said that he cut military spending.
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 559
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
I'll give away 20% |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
What a load. One of the reasons Clinton shut down the government is that, despite what guy describes as a solid economy, the republicans wanted to cut Medicare. Now, with the economy in trouble (but one of their own in the whitehouse) they add a huge program to Medicare. Very consistent. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
congress shut down the government. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
How many government jobs are there? Every single person who works for our government gets to receive his salary for life, even after retirement. I think this is true. If so, I'm willing to say that that adds up to billions. Talk about big government - neither side will touch this with a ten foot pole. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 981
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Not true. Government employee retirements are similar to those in private corporations that still have defined benefits plans (not as many as in the past, but they still exist.) Retirees receive a proportion of their final salary (or average of final x (3 or 5?) years' salaries) reduced from 100% by factors such as age at retirement and number of years of service. It is nearly always a lot less than 100%. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Would it be more accurate to replace "even after retirement" with "only after retirement"? It leads one to believe that I could work for the feds for six months, quit or be fired, and receive 100% salary for life. At least that's the literal meaning of the post above. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
okay, well I was trying to find out what the policy is. So if it's "after Retirement", that makes more sense. ANyway, is this normal in any other business to get some percentage of your average salary from the last 5 years of earned salary factored in with age at retirement? |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 566
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
A friend and I were discussing deficits. He said that the Bush/Cheney "Deficits don't matter" approach has three aspects.
In a political sense, there is a calculation that the voters don't care. Further, there is an ideology of undermining government by messing up its books. Third there is a financial redistribution aspect having to do with creating debt. This is the part I don't understand. Basically, the Rubinomics types who wanted to balance the budget are bond traders and Democrats, but those who benefit from gov't debt are players who finance this debt, and they tend to be republican.
Anyone have any understanding of this? Who gets rich off gov't debt? Currency traders? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page