Unemployment rate dropped to 4.7% in January - 193,000 New Jobs

February 3, 2006

[showme_the_Glory]

Polls show Dems will vote for Dems who laud higher unemployment.

[1rudeboy]

I'm not saying it isn't lousy performance, but Engler didn't leave things in good shape by any stretch.

[Toddsterpatriot]

At least the budget gets into balance (see '94-2000). :)

The budget got into balance because the Republican Congress slowed Clinton's spending and pushed him to cut taxes.

Without it we're seeing spending growth faster than it has been in decades and massive deficits... I think that's worse... at least live within your means.. :)

Yes, spending growth is out of control. Explain how raising taxes will encourage government to spend less :^)

[newfreep]

Well, you get it half right. The pubbies need to reduce spending, not slow the growth.

But REDUCING tax RATES has INCREASED tax REVENUES. The libs cannot grasp the latter. And they mistakenly portray themselves as intellectually superior. Ha!

[Signalman]

Unfortunately, for the Fed, this is negative news since it (supposedly) increases the odds of higher inflation. That's why the markets are down this morning.

[eraser2005]

I hate to inform you, but there was a massive budget deficit again by the time Engler left....

[1rudeboy]

Show me what happened. Heck, show me something.

[eraser2005]

Spending growth was dropping before the republican congress, though that certainly helped constrain things. However, the GOP of today has taken the opposite tact.

The argument for pay-go is that if you HAVE to increase taxes to increase spending, you're much less likely to increase spending. :)

[WashingtonSource]

It is definitely full employment. I read somewhere it was the lowest level in 5 years, but I don't know if that is correct. The media get alot of the facts wrong.

[Mase]

The first cuts were in 2001... a second wave in 2003

All tax cuts are not created equal. The 2001 vs. 2003 tax cuts were, for the most part, Keynesian style cuts vs Supply Side cuts. In contrast to the 2001 cuts, the 2003 cuts were pro-growth because they reduced tax rates on work, saving, and investment. The result was a dramatic increase in economic growth. The type of tax cut passed will have a great deal of impact on the amount of economic growth that is realized.

A Supply Side Success Story

[Unmarked Package]

"I corrected in a later post - oct-nov growth was revised upward by 49k, not downward... but if you compare numbers in table b-1 of last month's report with this month's report you'll see the significant downward revision I'm referring to (a change of 368,000)..."

Thanks for the links to the data you were using.

I was confused by the fact that you posted revisions to new nonfarm jobs numbers in the same sentence or paragraph with much larger revisions to total nonfarm jobs. It gave me (and mayber others) the erroneous impression you were claiming the net in new nonfarm jobs is negative due to revisions.

While the number of total nonfarm jobs are revised downward substantially for both months (-190k for Sep and -178k for Oct), the delta between the two months (new jobs created) actually increases from +25k to +37k due to the revisions.

[Mase]

I'm surprised that we've had 150 posts so far and not one resident of Mt. Doom has shown up to complain about outsourcing and job losses.

[Toddsterpatriot]

GDP contraction ended in 4Q01, but didn't stabilize until 1Q03.

What does that even mean? You said it yourself, recession ended in 4Q01. The 8.2% growth(it was revised up) was 2 years after the recession ended but only 2 months after the tax cuts. When was the last time the economy grew 8.2% in a quarter?

[1rudeboy]

Nope. All I can find is somebody posting from Gov. Granholm's office.

[expat_panama]

You saw the same GDP growth rates coming out of the 91-92 period, after taxes were raised.
value.

Your statement was: 

"revenues also increase from natural economic growth. The question is what impact do they have in relation to the alternative (no cut)?"

I understood we were talking about the effect of rate cuts on revenue and not the effect of rate cuts on economic expansion.    The long term definitely has rate cuts bringing in increased revenue.  In the short term rate hikes either trimmed or at least slowed down revenue growth; the "91-92 period" is no exception. 

If that's not what you were saying then we can also look at the effect of tax rate cuts on economic expansion.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They're saving their strength for Super Bowl Sunday. And Monday they'll be hungover. Expect them back on Tuesday.

Did you catch Willie's latest error? He claims that GDP is hurt by our trade deficit. He still doesn't understand accounting.

[KC_Conspirator]

That is and outright lie by Rueters.

[lbjgal]

great picture of Kaine...you have to admit it's quite funny as well as amusing
-lbjgal

[1rudeboy]

White conservative hetero male English professor?

[adam_az]

'Hi, I'm Tim Kaine and the Democrats have a better way on jobs. And if I'm lying may my left eyebrow twitch up and down."

I noticed that too. Of course, his eyebrow didn't stop twitching.

Lay off the coffee, Kaine!