Bush Has Created No New Private Sector Jobs

This info is from EPI, a Liberal/Progressive think tank, but as far as I can tell, the numbers are accurate. According to EPI and their handy chart, the economy has created no new private sector jobs during Bush’s years in office.

Overall the economy has gained about 2 million jobs total (which doesn’t keep pace with population growth, but thats another debate). However, 2.7 million jobs were created as a result of increased government spending, about half of those defense related and about half non-defense. This means that the economy under Bush has suffered a net loss of 700,000 private sector jobs and only shows job gains at all b/c of the massive deficit spending.

So those major tax cuts appear to have stimulated the private sector economy not much, maybe not at all. Keep in mind that although I am virulently anti-Bush, I am no socialist. I believe that a healthy private sector should be creating most of our jobs. I just strongly disagree that Bush’s brand of pork / cronyism / trickle down policies will actually result in a healthy form of capitalism. So in Bush we have a pretty crappy result: a conservative who can’t even deliver on the basic conservative tenets of encouraging a healthy private sector.

How can he deliver on creating healthy private sector when he doesn’t understand what a healthy private sector is?

If the Bush clique are anything it’s shady business men. They view the world from the perspective of profit; opportunies, competition, backroom deals sealed with a wink and a nod, and opponents to crush using by bending the rules to the point of breaking. Business leaders are only concerned with the overall health of a nation insofar as it pertains to their profit margins. Give someone with that background and nothing to recommend him but his name and ambition, and how could you expect otherwise? It’s not that he’s a ideologue, it’s that he doesn’t have any ideology except Bush is Best. He just passes money to the squeakiest wheel and the greasiest palm because he doesn’t know any better.

I do hope this kills Reagan-omics but it’s unlikely to make a dent in that pipe dream. If Bush fails to do anything positive for the economy, apologists will just say “9/11” and the conversation ends. Kind of like Communist apologists, you know? Oh, it hasn’t worked before because it’s never really been tried!

I assume that you don’t mean to say that there have been literally zero private sector jobs created since Bush was in office - that’s obviously not true. I assume that you’re saying the balance of job layoffs, etc. and newly created jobs is on the negative side. I can see that with the massive layoffs of the mismanaged companies such as the auto companies, losing billions of dollars per year, and the company I came from, which took out a number of jobs as a result of mismanagement. OTOH, the company I move to went from about 0 to 50 people to about 600 in the last few years.

The difference between a bunch of “mismanaged” companies laying people off and not is a couple points of GDP growth.

If the president is responsible for ensuring we come out of recessions, Bush hasn’t done shit; the labor market is still way weak. Wages are basically flat since 2000, and only reason the unemployment rate isn’t high is that a ton of people have dropped out of the labor force entirely.

Tax cuts to the super rich don’t make new wothwhile jobs – they make the rich richer. “Reaganomics” has worked this way for thousands of years, there should be no surprise.

That’s why America is the most impoverished country in the world. Thousands of years of Reaganomics.

Right, there was a period when we didn’t pursue “Reaganomics”, and became increasingly wealthy. Those days are apparently past, and we are swiftly sliding down in 3rd world patterns of under education, trade deficit, unemployment, poverty, and massive debt in the control of foreigners who’s short term interest fortunately align with ours.

We may not be the most impoverished, but we’re no where near the most prosperous either.

Is anyone here seriously claiming that Bush’s economy has been in line with Reaganomics? I’m no econ major but I can read a fuckin’ history book.

I always felt that the President should be more about foreign policy and the Congress more about domestic policy. I don’t like how this has become so severly blurred in the last 60ish years. I’m all for the President making domestic issues public or ratifying laws; and the Congress having certain powers re: national intelligence, conducting war, etc. But this is just way too fucking much. It’s almost like the President has become a member of Congress who is chairman of a special committee, but ultimately it’s just another fucking committee.

Can I get an a-men?

Diverting money to the richest people, then saying that’s good for the economy because it will “trickle down”? Trade deficits and massive government debt? Deregulation? Recession? Yah, that sounds like “Reganomics” to me.

The wording and presentation might have changed a bit and Bush has taken it to another level, but the policy is very much the same, directed by many of the same people.

I was thinking along the lines of smaller government (Reagan: yes, GWB: no), lowered government spending in every area except military (Reagan: yes, GWB: no), deregulation (Reagan: yes, GWB: no), lowered tax rates but increased tax revenue (Reagan: yes, GWB: no), etc.

When you say Reagan “diverted” money to the richest, you mean he cut their taxes (for good or ill). When you say that for GWB, you mean he handed them no-bid contracts on mutli-billion dollar affairs, handed them free passes out of convictions for felonious fraud, etc. A recession has happened at the start of every decade for like the last 60 years, so that’s hardly a Reaganomics issue.

And so forth.

So without going into Reaganomics in particular, one can easily say that GWB is not even remotely promoting them. If you want to say that Bushonomics (my word nyah nyah) and Reaganomics both suck, hey great. But they damn sure aren’t even really close to the same thing.

I vote we try for Freakonomics next.

deregulation (Reagan: yes, GWB: no)

You wonder why you bother. And that doesn’t even get into Enron and California in 2000.

That’s not the way I remember it at all. Reagan didn’t lead to “smaller” government in my book, money just moved from social spending to other things. Bush has cut government spending substantiall outside of Military and “Security” spending – same as Reagan. Both lowered taxes for the rich, and I recall a staggering deficit, not Reagan increasing revenue. Both undertook deregulation.

When you say Reagan “diverted” money to the richest, you mean he cut their taxes (for good or ill). When you say that for GWB, you mean he handed them no-bid contracts on mutli-billion dollar affairs, handed them free passes out of convictions for felonious fraud, etc.

No, actually I don’t mean that – speak for yourself. Reagan was involved in pork barreling too, and GWB has cut taxes for the richest as well.

A recession has happened at the start of every decade for like the last 60 years, so that’s hardly a Reaganomics issue.

Right, failed reaganomics policies played no role whatsoever. :roll:

Reagan couldn’t manage to spend less on social programs.

From your own people:

Did Reagan cut social spending?

Not according to the Congressional Research Service. Federal spending for social programs increased from $344.3 billion in 1981 to $412 billion in 1989, a 19.7 percent increase using 1982 dollars. As a percentage of Gross National Product, social spending during Reagan’s two terms averaged 1.73 percent. By contrast, during the Carter years, social spending, as a percentage of GNP, averaged 1.65 percent.


I think once you make enough cuts you’re just indirectly causing more people to get on welfare and it comes back to bite you in the ass.

The primary difference between Dubya and Ron is that Ron could lean on the Saudis to produce more oil and thus undercut oil prices to:

a. Boom the American economy.
b. Fuck the Soviet economy.

Reaganomics was just pure bullshit, otherwise. It stimulated production - which was the whole point, but that could not have happened without cheap oil. Trickle-down etc. is just bullshit for essentially peddling to the American people a wasteful and false economic method that had nothing to do with what actually grew the American economy. The point was to get tax revenue and production up to ramp up military spending and drive the Soviet economy down by forcing it to compete in the arms race while at the same time taking away its only source of hard cash. No other Soviet export was worth anything on the open market, and they had to import technologies and certain other resources.

We still have Reaganomics, we just don’t have $10 per barrel oil.

Jasper- So, let me get this straight.

  1. “Reaganomics” have been around for thousands of years??? Did they find some cave paintings of a Laffer curve?
  2. American became prosperous under non-Reaganomic policies? I’m guessing were you to graph American prosperity you’d draw a straight line from 1783-1991 and then a big parabola that terminates in 2000.
  3. “not Reagan increasing revenue”?? Well, far be it from little old me to dispute your unbiased and obviously accurate recollections, but what? Income tax revenue in
    1980- $249M
    1984- $297M
    1988- $412M

Hey Ben,

Notice how little tax revenue increased between 80-84, and then 85-88 it exploded. Think that had anything to do with cheap oil?


Jakub- You know, it might have. What’s your point?

I read a great article from Paul Krugman a few weeks ago (say whatever you want, he is still a Princeton economist and backs up all of what he says with statistics and data) that hypothesized we have entered another robber baron era. Reports like this (and many others) certainly give weight to the idea.

Reaganomics isn’t responsible for American prosperity in the 80s. With $10/barrel oil, you could have a lobotomized lab monkey as President and the dried up, removed portion of his brain as Federal Reserve Board Chairman, and the economy would have still been booming.