2004 Democratic Primary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Those are adjusted for inflation (all in 1997 dollars?).

I'll double check that.  But the 1997 number came from a report published in 2000.  So at the most, it only needs to be adjusted for inflation from 2000 to 2003, during which inflation was at a 40 year low.

But I'll see if I can get them all in the same dollars.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is the total number for 1997 and the quarterally numbers from 2003 projected annually.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't have time to keep the numbers on the first page updated, but I'll continue to keep the first page updated with most recent data in chart form.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My guess, around 2% growth in 2004, job growth 500K to 1 million, unemployment rate 5.8%-6.3%.

Well, JNB, the 1st quarter of 2004 had a gain of 513k jobs for a yearly average of 2.1M...the umemployment rate so far in 2004 has been in the range of 5.6%-5.7%...we'll have to wait for the end of the month to get a reading on GDP.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's like you're a fashion model who gained 300 pounds since we hired you but you want to be rehired because you lost 30.

No, more like a doctor who diagnosed in late 2000 the declining health of a patient when you thought every thing was perfect; and in July 2003 was trying to tell you that the patient was recovering faster than at any rate in 20 years!

While you doom&gloomsters have been forecasting a slip back into recession, I've been trying to tell you that the economy has a HUGE head of steam.

Granted, I didn't count on such huge gains in productivity delaying rehiring, but I have been telling you that things are improving, which for you Dems, if VERY bad news!  LOL!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jobless claims dive to a 3-year low
 
Claims for unemployment insurance falls by 14,000 to 328,000, lowest since Jan. 13, 2001.
 
The Labor Department's four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out weekly fluctuations, declined 3,250 last week to 336,750 -- the lowest since 335,750 in the week of Nov. 25, 2000.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/news/economy/jobless.reut/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

  Sadly for me bringing up facts, I am derrided as a "gloom & doomer".

Do you plan to be around Thursday, when Q1 QDP numbers are released?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jobless claims fall by 18,000
 
Initial claims for unemployment insurance come in below estimates.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

---

Q1 2004 GDP +4.2%

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economy, grew at a 4.2 percent rate in the quarter after growth of 4.1 percent at the end of last year. Economists had forecast growth of 5.0 percent for the first quarter, according to a survey by Briefing.com.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(see first post of this thread for more charts)

Job growth strong
 
Strong April report shows unemployment rate down to 5.6%; March jobs total revised up.
 
April added 288,000 jobs
March number was revised up to 337,000 jobs from the 308,000

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/07/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My guess, around 2% growth in 2004, job growth 500K to 1 million, unemployment rate 5.8%-6.3%.

JNB, job growth for the first four months of 2004 is 850k with 5.6% unemployment and a 1Q GDP of 4.2%.

What were the names of those european magazines you claimed were better than the WSJ?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

GDP growth rate revised up to 4.4% from 4.2%

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/27/news/economy/gdp_revision/index.htm

---

Not that it matter to people when gas is over $2 a gallon.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Avg. salary of jobs lost under Bush Administration: $41,000
"                             "gained"                                ":$26,000

McJobs people.  

No, it's just that when the tech bubble brust, it took with it a lot of 6 figure jobs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A cool little graphic I got from pollingreport.

That first big dip in Feb 2004 is about Iraq.  That last dip is all about gas prices.  It won't affect consumer spending, but it still hurts Bush.

After OPEC agrees to increase production Thursday, Bush needs to wait a couple of days until OPEC has committed to deliveries for the next 4 weeks...then Bush needs to release 100 million barrels from the reserve along with lifting mixture restrictions.

Bush is not to blame for the rise in oil prices, but he is to blame for not doing something to bring the price back down to $30.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jobless claims down last week -15k to 336,000

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans filing for unemployment assistance for the first time fell by 15,000 last week, coming in below estimates, the government reported Thursday.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped to 336,000 in the week ending June 12, according to the Department of Labor, which attributed some of the drop to federal offices being closed last Friday in memory of Ronald Reagan.

Last week's claims are down from a revised 351,000 the previous week and below economists' estimates of 340,000, according to Briefing.com.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Economic indicators post solid gain - LEI +0.5%
 
Conference Board says its index rose 0.5 percent in May, coming in a shade above forecasts.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A gauge meant to forecast the economy's direction in the next several months rose at a solid clip in May, a research group said Thursday.

The Conference Board said its index of leading indictors rose 0.5 percent to 116.5 last month after rising in each of the last two months.

Economists on average had forecast an increase of 0.4 percent for May, according to a survey by Briefing.com.

Eight of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in May, the business research group said.

The biggest positive contributors were increases in weekly manufacturing hours and real money supply.

The negative factors were consumer expectations and stock prices.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news/economy/lei/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

WOW!  That's      $1.153 Trillion in just three years!   But..., if that is the one that gets you, then you should at least get your facts straight:

FY2003 -375.3B
FY2002 -157.8B
FY2001 +127.4B

That's $0.404 Trillion, not the $1.153 Trillion you stated.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Kerry has a much higher percentage of his donations coming from the top 2% of income earners than Bush does.

---

Pathetic.....  

Yes, your knowledge of the facts is "pathetic"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF,

Do you know of a website that shows the % of Kerry and Bush donations by income bracket?

Not off hand, but I'll google it.  So far, I've only been able to find  that Bush has many more <$200 donantions than Kerry, but that is a given (and doesn't tell us anyjthing about income bracket).

But we do know one piece of info: that $6M of Kerry's money came from just one individual in the "top 2% income bracket"....his WIFE!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your quite right, my numbers for 02 & 03 were wrong.

Actually, you number for 2001 was wrong also.

---

But you forgot Bush's own FY2004 budget deficit projections of $521 billion which would make $925 billion in deficit spending on his watch.

The 2004 deficit will come in at well South of $395B, the Bush Admin's $521B number was just a very early estimate, and probably intentionally inflated.

---

You also forgot to mention that 02 and 03's numbers used the Social Security Trust Fund for General Revenue expenditures, somthing that hasn't been done since 1997 to make those years deficits appear smaller.

Yeah, right....The surplus figures for '98 (+$69.2B), 99 (+$125.6B), '00 ($236.4B), '01 (+$127.4B)...are ALL given with the SS surplus INCLUDED.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

---

You also forgot to mention that Bush's first OMB Director, Mitch "Hide The Red Ink" Daniels, used Expected Corporate Reciepts for FY 02 in the FY01 budget so that he would appear not to be dipping into the SS Trust Fund in FY01.

The government always spends the SS surplus.  The balance of the "SS Trust Fund" is $0.00.  There is nothing in there but a huge IOU.

---

Its kinda like the way the administration forgot to mention to Congress that the $400 billion Republican Medicare Bill would actually cost $530 Billion the day after Bush signed it because they refused to allow the Medicare Actuary's report to be viewed by Congress before the vote.

I would have voted against it.  But how much would the Dem's bill have cost?  Answer: MUCH MORE!

---

People may not forget this one though....

National Debt on Jan. 20, 2001  -  $5.88 trillion
National Debt Today                   -  $7.21 trillion
(per national debt clock)

That's the "national debt" is NOT the "public debt".  The 'national debt' never decreased under Clinton, even during the surplus years.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The RIch get richer?  Not quite.

The rich are ALWAYS going to get richer in a growing economy.  Why?  Because they are the ones positioned to take advantage of opportunity, they have the most skin in the game.

If you have no marketable skills and are unwilling to sacrifice in order to attain marketable skills (which basically describes those in the lower income brackets), you have no means by which to take advantage of opportunity.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

OK, lets talk Public Debt:
9/28/01 Publically Held Debt = $3.34 Trillion
6/16/04   "            "        "     = $4.23  Trillion

Well, now you're taking the debt from beginning-fy2002 to almost the end of fy2004.  That's a different time period than the fy2001-2003 timeframe you orginally mentioned.

---

And even if Bush's red ink comes in "well south" of $395 billion as you claim, again those numbers include NONE of the operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which of course they will not disclose.

Not true, the <$395B figure is for monies already allocated for fy2004, Iraq and Afghanistan included.  What Bush hasn't "disclosed" is the request for fy2005 military operations.  That's going to come in the form of a initial $20B request to get the military through the beginning of fy2005 (Oct 2004) to Jan 2005, at such time another request, much bigger, will be made.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was out of town Thurs thru Tuesday, so I wasn't able to post that only 115k jobs were added in June, compared with an average of 300k/month for the last three months.  The June 115k number was less than half of what was expected by Wall Street.

Only time and a couple more reports will tell if this below average number is a trend.  If it does become a trend, then we can probably say hello to President Kerry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So I ask you again, why are we asking for permanent tax cuts for those making over $200K a year, with this much deficit spending, whose interest costs alone will put presure on meeting the demands of the retiring Baby Boomers, at a time of war, with increasing defense spending for the war of terror?

Where is their sacrifice?

1st) Why are you asking only those making more than 200k/year to "sacrifice" for the war effort?  Are we not all in this together?  And aren't the 200k/year earners STILL, even after the tax cuts, paying more of a percentage of their income in Federal taxes?

2nd) the purpose of the armed forces is to sacrifice so that the whole of the nation can go on living normal lives.  Their purpose is to stand guard, ready to commit violence in order for us to sleep peacefully at night.

3rd) The credit of the US is more than adequate to meet the needs of the armed forces - the armed forces aren't hurting because American aren't taxed "enough" - an M-16 works the same way regardless of how it was purchased, cash or credit.

(Sorry for the late response to your post, which I missed until now.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I heard that April and May job numbers were revised downward as well.......35,000 fewer in May, didn't catch how many fewer in April.

The revisions still show very vibrant job growth for April and May, and the revisions were small, unmeaningful - certainly less troublesome than June's overall number.

---

You obviously didn't catch the meaning of my question regarding those making over $200,000 a year. I'm not asking for "only" the wealthy to sacrifice....I'm asking them to Start sacrificing.

Yeah, I know, and that's your problem.  You don't feel that a $50k/year tax bill on a $200k salary is a "sacrifice".  Obviously you don't feel that those making $200k/year have enough skin in the game, yet they are the very people that are taking almost all the risks, creating almost all the new businesses, driving almost all the innovation, creating almost all the new jobs, and basically paying for your government services...they are the ones who said, "I will equip myself with the skills to pay my own way, even if that means I must retool my skills every 2-3 years by spending 15-20 hours a week, apart from work, to continually reeducate myself."

---

Yes they pay a larger percentage in taxes (thank god for a progressive tax code) but they and their businesses also benefit disproportionally for Federal spending as well (subsidies for Agri-business, infrastructure investment, college educated employees, etc.).

The vast majority of those making 200k/year don't own large businesses, though a good portion are self-employed.  And self-employment brings with it MUCH higher taxes than working on a W-2.  The self-employed play TWICE the Social Security tax compared with those on W-2's and they have to pay 100% of their medical premiums....AND, they are NOT eligible for Unemployment Insurance if they become unemployed.

The self-employed not only face higher tax rates and added costs, they also have no safety net waiting to catch them if they fail.  

Your own paycheck is paid by one of these types of individuals; unless, of course, you're living off the tax-payer’s dime.  But since those making more than 200k/year pay most of the taxes, they also provide most of the salaries of those working for the government.

---

Permanent tax cuts benefiting disproportionally the top 2% of income earners, in an era of massive red ink (which will effect the future solvency of Soc Sec.) and a "War on Terror".......its not just bad fiscal policy.....its morally wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the top 2% pay an even higher share of federal income taxes AFTER the tax cuts were put into place.

Also, I don't see how you can use a morality argument...what is your tax code morality based on?  It certainly is not based on the Christian/Judeo beliefs since the biblical tax code was a flat tax of 10%.

---

Although I don't have any numbers....it would be interesting to see how many of our troops now in Iraq actually come from those families making over $200,000. My money is on its less than 2%.....

We have an all volunteer force.  The reason why more lower income people join the army is not because they are more patriotic than their higher income counterparts, rather it is because the lower incomes are in greater need of the monetary/educational benefits the armed services provide.  And those military benefits are front and center in every recruiting campaign.

When Reagan came into office, he stopped the outflow from the military by boosting military pay, not by delivering a good patriotic speech.

Is there anything wrong for a recruit to seek military service for the purpose of gaining the military benefits?   Absolutely not!  They offer to risk their lives for our protection and we open to them a world of opportunity by shaping them into highly motivated and responsible individuals while funding their education.

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your arguments on the self employed I generally agree with, they are to be applauded. Yet your argument that the wealthy "will equip themselves with the skills necessary to pay their own way etc etc etc....." those making 200k a year have the means to be able to do so. Working 80 hours a week just to get by leaves little room to re-tool yourself every 2-3 years.

Actually, those making 200k/years gained their initial skills PRIOR to earning the big bucks by working 80 hours a week.  

As far as those just getting by...it should be obvious that if you work 80 hours a week at two low-skill jobs, you're not going to get anywhere.  What is needed is to work one job while studying to increase your skills that will enable you to get higher paying work.  If that requires cutting back by living in public restrooms and eating mayonnaise sandwiches, then the thing to do is: live in public restrooms and eat mayonnaise sandwiches with a attitude that looks forward to better opportunities.

--------

MODU, jmfcst........Let me clarify my position on taxes and my "morality" statement...The numbers I've seen on Bush's initial 1.3 trillion tax cut showed that 42% of that amount went to the top 10% of income earners, and the bulk of that 42% went to the top 2%. Fine.....The problem is that this huge tax cut has produced huge deficits...yes......I stand by my statement...... that cutting taxes on the top 2% IS immoral IF that is in the end paid for by the middle and lower classes.  

When the rich pay an every increasing percentage of federal income taxes, even more so after Bush's tax cuts, I don't know how you conclude that the middle and lower class is going to end up paying off the debt.

Also, if the current system had been replaced in 2001, while the budget was still in surplus, by a revenue neutral flat-tax (say 17%), then, by your definition, it would be "moral" since it didn't produce deficits.  And since such a "moral" flat 17% tax would be a HUGE tax break to the wealthy, much greater than Bush's current tax cuts, it demonstrates the contradiction of you logic by your simultaneous claim that the rich have YET to sacrifice by paying their fair share.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The self-employed play TWICE the Social Security tax compared with those on W-2's.

Not quite true.  The tax is the same, but half of the Social Security Tax is hidden from the non self-employed since it never appears on theiir paycheck.  Of course, since it is a hidden tax, it makes Social Security seem like a great deal unless you realize that you have paid twice as much as you think you have.

What?

If you are on a W-2, then your employer pays half the SSI tax and you pay the other half.

If you are self-employed, then you pay ALL the SSI (FICA) tax.

Therefore, instead of a W-2 worker paying around 7.5% in SSI  and the employer paying the other 7.5% in SSI tax, the self-employed person pays the whole 15%.

You're splitting hairs.  The bottom line is that I, being self-employeed, pay twice the Social Security tax was someone working on a W-2 since their employer pays the other half

A self-employed person making 80k/year is paying 7.5% more in taxes than he would if he was was making 80k/year on a W-2

That's a difference of $6000 in take home pay.