Posted on 02/08/2004 10:40:33 AM PST by Golden Gate
Just The Facts, Folks! JUST THE FACTS!
Do Large Deficits Mean High Unemployment? YOU DECIDE!
From the IBEW Website (Union Electricians): An Economic Chart, 1969 to 2004:
[Chart Image Only; NO link here; Active Image Link = Below]
(Link to Chart below, Adobe Acrobat Document. Link to Adobe Reader below)
The message of the Chart is that the Federal budget deficit showed the greatest increase during the terms of the Republican Presidents, while during Clinton/Gore there was the record budget surplus, and low unemployment.
On the chart, there are five text boxes:
•= Despite inheriting from Republicans Bush/Quayle what had been the highest deficit in the history of the United States, $290.4 billion, Clinton/Gore achieved a federal budget surplus in 2000 of $236 billion. This is a $526-billion turnaround!
•= The lowest monthly U.S. unemployment rate since January 1970 was recorded under Clinton/Gore at 3.8% in April 2000. Under Bush/Cheney the unemployment rate in June 2003 climbed to 6.4%, representing 9,358,000 unemployed workers.
•= As the son of the former President, George W. Bush wants us to relive the policies of the past. As the numbers show, those were the "bad old days." The leadership of the Clinton/Gore years produced historically low levels of unemployment, while helping the federal budget go from the largest deficit in U.S. history to the largest surplus. While the two figures are not necessarily interrelated, they are two of the economic indicators that have the largest impact on working families and the economy.
•= The Bush Administration finally admits that the deficit projections depicted here do not reflect "undetermined additional costs arising from ongoing operations in Iraq, extending beyond 2003."
•= BUSH/CHENEY Report Card:
[Chart Link - Below]
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Office of Management and Budget.
1 The budget surplus of 1969 is due to the budget submitted by Lyndon Johnson.
2 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2004 Mid-Session Review, Table 1, p. 2.
3 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2004 Mid-Session Review, p. 1.
4 April 2000 figure.
5 June 2003 figure.
JUST THE FACTS, FOLKS! ...YOU DECIDE! =
To Display Chart, Click on [Image] Below: (Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader - Free Download Below)
Chart URL: http://www.ibew.org/JustTheFact0309.pdf
If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader,
Click Here = FREE Download for Adobe Reader
The notes on the charts are standard liberal mantra independent of economic conditions.
Anyway, what you said, is what I've heard over the years:
the Clinton/Gore recovery was a direct result of Reagan's 'trickle down economics'. AND, another, -
- Dem. Pres. Carter 'neglected' the military (?? & decimated the CIA, etc.) for four years; so Pres. Reagan had to increase the spending to build the military back up, and win the Cold War. =>> see next post...
As I remember it from 1981, - that Reagan wanted to increase spending for the military, but cut the social spending. But Tip O'Neil & the Dems... purposely kept the social spending high, - 1. to get their way, & - 2. so they would intentionally make Pres. Reagan sign the largest Fed. deficit in history (at that time), so that it would be a future political liability, for Reagan & the GOP. I remember that this info / analysis was actually reported on the radio or TV news, the very day it was approved by Congress. * Anyone else remember the details of this?
If you look at the entire two-decade-long period of Reaganesque tax cutting, America's economic success rate is apparent to all. In inflation-adjusted terms, the American economy has increased $5.4 trillion, or 3 1/2 percent at an annual rate, in this time. New job creation has exploded by nearly 40 million, even with the passage of free-trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, a horde of new immigrants entering our borders, and a spike of outsourcing to Asian countries like India. The Dow Jones, meanwhile, has increased by 9,400 points — or 899 percent.
I know Democrats like to forget about the despair of the late 1970's (when they ruled EVERYTHING) and their willingness, then, to accept that the best we could hope for was slow growth, a worse future for our children, stasis with the Soviet Union that appeared to be ascending around the globe, etc. They all just make me feel like p*king!
As far as discouraged workers only 5.4% are so. The rest are mostly students and others who returned to school after part-time employment. Finally, the late 90's and early 00's were unique and the employment rate of 4% or less is unlikely to be duplicated until all the boomers are retired.
If you question my facts in this matter I refer you to the article American's Fortunes that appeared in the January/February
When you add these facts to the great increases in both productivity and economic growth it remains a puzzle why the Pubbies and the President are so apologetic.
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 2000
Also creative accounting gave us the so-called surplus. Check the following link and see item 8 on page 2.
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 1999For fiscal years 1991 and beyond, the excess of Social Security taxes over outlays for Social Security is excluded by law from deficit or surplus calculations. The Clinton administration, however, has elected to include the Social Security Trust Fund in their deficit and surplus calculations, which has the effect of increasing the reported surplus by $86 billion in 1998 and by $124.7 billion in 1999.
Wow-- do they ever!
Those treasury figures that you're using are my favorites-- they show actual debt, not just budgeted debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.