Economy always looks good from D.C.

"It wasn't clear what the White House meant by "our economy," that is to say, did they mean "their" economy or the one that every American lives in every day, where manufacturing jobs slid by 25,000 last month."

John D and Bruce -- this is the point you and much of the GOP misses. For the average American worker, it is incrementally difficult to keep pace with the cots of living, especially energy and healthcare costs. This is nothing new, its been going on for longer than when Bush in office. I think that is Bill's point as he refers to "Washington DC". But for you two to in defense of party belittle bad economic news (as you have in other posts today) that has real consequences for people who were just barely getting by as it was just demontrates the basic disconnect of the GOP on this issue. When it comes to the economy, its one taling point for you guys, "lower taxes and its all better". Well, its not been.

"the White House bragged more than 8.2 million jobs had been created over the past four years"

So, if we subtract out the over 2 million jobs LOST during Bush's first 2 years, we have a net gain of 6 million jobs in 6 1/2 years of his administration.

President Clinton average over 200,000 jobs created PER MONTH during the 8 years of his administration. And that came in spite of the recession he was handed by George H. W. Bush in 1992.

What posters "kb" and "bc assert are, as usual, the exact opposite of economic reality.

Specifically, the assertions that Bill Clinton inherited a faltering economy, and George W. Bush inherited a booming economy. The reality is that the recovery had started prior to Clinton taking office, and the boom had peaked well before GWB took office.

Another reality they ignore--GWB's economic program didn't get through Congress for months and thus its impact was not felt his first year in office (2001). For every president, Republican and Democrat, whatever the economy is the first year of office is what his/her predecessor left behind. This time lag is both well-known and common sense, both qualities in short supply on the political left.

In reality, the Bush years have been great years for the economy, as well as for union-card carrying "working men" like myself.

BC - are you trying to tell us that Clinton had something to do with the jobs created in the 90s, in the midst of the tech boom? Are you telling us that Bush was not handed a recession, dot.com bust, plus 9/11 and Katrina?

"Our economy" means the way George Bush wants it interpreted, or spun, regardless of what economists say.
If George says it's good, it's good. Doesn't matter if he's talking about the economy, Irag, global warming, etc, it's always mission accomplished.

I continue to marvel how the Republicans convinced the majority of Americans to vote against their economic interests in electing Chimpy McFlightsuit in two straight presidential elections. The chickens are coming to roost.

Repubs have been crowing for the last couple of years how IRS receipts (in total revenue collected)have been higher then ever. However, what they fail to note is that that is because the changes in the tax code encourage the wealthy to recognize their gains today (at lower rates) - but that this will have significant negative consequences on the federal budget down the road . . . .

Real data:
Goods Price Index
Baseline Y2000 = 100
Prices today = 205,6.
Actual U.S. Unemployment:
by consensus of international estimates = 11,6%.
Home repos up 400%.
U.S. Stock Market priced in Euros = 1999 level.
Tax cuts for the richest 1% = priceless.

Hmmm Bruce, recovery started when Clinton took office? President George H.W. Bush RAISED taxes. Let me follow your evolving excuses:
Clinton economy due to tech boom was yesterdays excuse. Today you are saying raising taxes were the cause of Clinton's economy. What will you say tomorrow? Swampsters want to know.

TB, 9/11 and Katrina happened on Bush's watch. They were NOT handed to him. He allowed blades to be taken onto planes even after being told al-Qaeda wanted to use planes as weapons. And his Homeland Security Dept. severly mismanaged a declared FEDERAL DISASTER (declared prior to landfall).

A N - those could be the most desperately spun economic stats I've ever seen. Are you Paul Krugman? Of all the valid reasons to rip on GW, the economy simply is not one of them...and it's been humorous watching people try.

That said, Janet, I am one who believes the president has a lot less to do with the economy than most. We had an insane tech boom, then a correction. We've had an insane housing boom, now it's time for a correction. Oversimplistic, but you get the point. Sorry, but you'll never convince me that John Kerry would have done better with 9/11 and Katrina, but that's a debate for a different swamp.

The recession that Democrats wish to blame on Bush actually began in April, 2000 when the Dot Bomb collapse occurred and hundreds of thousands of jobs and mega millions of investment dollars were lost almost immediately. Who was president in April, 2000? That's right, Bill Clinton. And the Oral Office guru handed that falling economy to his successor. Want proof? Just check the Nasdaq history.

Bruce,
Did I lay everything on Bush's lap in my post? Far from it. You're not reading, just reacting. Slow down. I did say your tone and motives are pretty insensitive. A little touchy, aren't we, for someone so confident? I don't even mention Clinton in my post. Try comprehending, its always a winner.

So what you're telling me is its not getting harder for the typical American worker to get by on a daily basis? I thought wages have been lagging behind the cost of living for at least 25 years? So the costs of healthcare and engery are not rising exponentially much higher than wages or other prices?

In terms of the "reality" Bruce holds so dear, from today's Crain's:
“The housing recession is going to touch many parts of the economy,” Mr. Kasriel said. “It’s related to everything else,” and will harm areas such as consumer spending and the financial services and transportation industries, he said.

Illinois lost 11,500 jobs from June to July, an overall decline of 0.19%. The job losses were Illinois’ most severe since July 2005, and left the state’s unemployment rate at 5.2% for the month.

The latest snapshot of the U.S. employment climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, also showed that the national unemployment rate held steady at 4.6%, mainly because hundreds of thousands of people left the work force for any number of reasons.

Hey, right wing nuts! I didn't say anything about Chimpy - it's the lying liars at DoC that feed you idiots the economiKoolaid, not me. The Price Index is from that ultra-leftist Economist. The U.S. unemployment figures are from non-DoC sources. The home repo figures are WSJ's and the Euro price-based truth about the US Stock Market is also from that Marxist English rag - the Economist again. Sit down and wait for the short bus will ya?

As they do not count the number of kids just out of college who cannot find a job, and those who have run out of unemployment benefits after having their jobs cut and just quit looking, how can anyone claim that the unemployment figure is correct? They can't count the number of job applications filled out each month so they don't really know how many people are looking. I guess the government has grown so much in the past 6 years maybe that is what is filling in those numbers? Or is it the MBA working at the only job they can find...at Starbuck's?

The RNC has a union?

BC,

Let's set some facts straight - President Clinton inherited an economy that had been out of recession for over 18 months. While President Bush inherited a lsowing economy that went into recession 38 days after he entered office.

Buster has zero understanding of capital gains. When an investor recognizes a long-term capital gain at a reduced tax rate, he just doesn't sit on the money - he puts it too use. That "reduced" tax revenue that the gov't doesn't receive fronm that one investment is circulated back into the economy. What the gov't loses in the amount of taxes collected on a sinngle capital gains txn, it makes up for in volume; and thus collects even more tax revenue from the capital gains txns. The reduced taxes collected on capital gains will only occur if Congress raises the cap gain tax rate and thus reduce the amount of capital tax gains txns.

Harrison,

The dot.com bubble bursting was not the cause of the recession but an indictaor that one was coming. The dot.com bubble bursting was the fact that investors were tired of waiting for these companies to generate the cash flow that they were promised.

KB mentions that Illinois lost 11,500, are the lefties going to blame that on Blago?

BTW, economic growth for the 2nd quarter was restated, as often happens, from 3.4% to 4.0%. Bill I missed the Swamp post on that. Could you direct me to the day you posted that?

AN Other - your sources are irrelevant to your cherry-picked stats, and your idea that the president is fully responsible for these stats. I wouldn't pretend to give Bush credit for record home ownership, nor a spike in foreclosures.

lochness- are you saying that previous administrations fully accounted for all "unemployed"?

Yep, economy looks good in DC. Read a DC license plate motto lately?

No what I am saying is you can have the numbers say whatever you want...a term called creative accounting comes to mind.