Happy Days Are Here Again: Tax Cuts and The Jobless Recovery

April 16, 2003 11:38 PM

The change in private employment, two years after recession began, for 1953 to Present.
Details: The jobless recovery continued in March 2003 as the nation's payrolls contracted by 108,000, according to report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These losses are in addition to last month's payroll declines, which also were revised up to 357,000. Taken together, the economy has lost 465,000 jobs in the past two months. In the two years since the recession began in March 2001, total payrolls have fallen by 2.1 million and private sector payrolls are down by 2.6 million.
The Jobless Recovery.
Low growth accompanies record trade deficit:
Last month in Beijing, Robert Zoellick, President George W. Bush's international trade ambassador, had nothing but praise for China's growing trade surplus. Meanwhile in St. Louis in January, the president stumped for more tax cuts, standing before a facade of boxes with the words "Made in China" covered over in tape.
2001 Tax Cuts and the Proposed 2003 Cuts
Details: Discarding pretense of tax cut equity
Also: Economists Voice Opposition to Bush Tax Cuts
posted by y2karl (43 comments total)

well... yes. but gwb did catch and prosecute those behind the attacks on september 11 ...
posted by specialk420 at 11:56 PM on April 16, 2003

"Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. The permanent dividend tax cut in particular is not credible as short-term stimulus." (pdf, with signatures of ten Nobel laureates)
posted by eddydamascene at 12:11 AM on April 17, 2003

I must have missed something, is there a particularly interesting website or issue I may have not have seen otherwise, or are we just collecting websites to post political messages now?
posted by brettski at 2:20 AM on April 17, 2003

Brettski: if you don't want to discuss the dire state of the economy and what Bush is planning to do, if anything, about it, there are other threads you can explore.
posted by sic at 2:57 AM on April 17, 2003

I must have missed something, is there a particularly interesting website or issue I may have not have seen otherwise, or are we just collecting websites to post political messages now?

Nope. It's called agendafilter, best suited for personal blogs, but hey, you wouldn't get all these eyeballs otherwise.

if you don't want to discuss the dire state of the economy and what Bush is planning to do, if anything, about it, there are other threads you can explore.

Metafilter has certainly grown and changed over the years, but your definition of its purpose obviously strays far from its original intentions.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 4:22 AM on April 17, 2003

The economy may be in the crapper but Saddam is a bad, bad, man. Wait, need another line now since Saddam is no longer in charge.

OK, how about this?

We may have lost many of our Constitutional rights but Saddam is a bad, bad, man. No, that doesn't sound correct either. Must try again.

How dare you question the wisdom of der Fuerher at such a sensitive time in our nation's history! There, that's better.

Many of my Bush Feyadeen friends were complaining about having to pay more taxes this year than ever previously and I couldn't resist asking them if they can stand one more Bush "tax cut."
posted by nofundy at 4:55 AM on April 17, 2003

We haven't lost any of our constitutional rights, you moron.
posted by techgnollogic at 5:13 AM on April 17, 2003

switch to decaf, techgnollogic.
posted by jonmc at 5:45 AM on April 17, 2003

er, that would be 'moran', techgnollogic. emphasis on "no logic"
posted by quonsar at 6:20 AM on April 17, 2003

So show me. Show me the rights I've lost.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:42 AM on April 17, 2003

Just to be clear: the point of MetaFilter is to find the best and most interesting of the web to share with others

Hmmmmmmmm
posted by Outlawyr at 7:06 AM on April 17, 2003

Great post! I found the information to be eye opening and amazing.

In other related news, here is a rock. Here is another. And one more.
posted by angry modem at 8:28 AM on April 17, 2003

I must have missed something, is there a particularly interesting website or issue I may have not have seen otherwise, or are we just collecting websites to post political messages now?

Yes.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:38 AM on April 17, 2003

Average Household Income Growth, 1995-2000 and 2000-2001, by Income Fifth--with Top 20% Further Divided Into 80-95% and Top 5%.
Details: Recession Takes Toll On Living Standards.

Employees Affected By Mass Lay-offs, 1997-2002
Details: Large-scale, permanent layoffs climb

Sources of Likely Increases In Federal Deficit
Deatils: The Deficit: Who's Counting?

From The Economic Snapshots Archive of the Economic Policy Institute.

I must have missed something, is there a particularly interesting website or issue I may have not have seen otherwise, or are we just collecting websites to post political messages now?

You tell me, brettski.

These Graphics are interesting and informative. Partisan postings are not new on MetaFilter. Agendafilter accusations are usually raised in comments by those with no other arrows in their quivers. Why is it you didn't complain in these other partisan posts--Hmm, Dennis Murphy? Hmm, Angry Modem?

Instead of whining, members may present any Rosy Scenario informational graphics and supporting documentation they find from any reputable source at any time they wish.
posted by y2karl at 9:06 AM on April 17, 2003

y2karl:Instead of whining, members may present any Rosy Scenario informational graphics and supporting documentation they find from any reputable source at any time they wish.

I'd rather whine. This thread has been around for about 10 hours now. East coast is taking lunch, West coast has already arrived at work. This post has hit many, many pairs of eyes by now.

And no one has seen fit to add anything really relevant to the thread.

Nofundy and Specialk420 have made their usual contributions. Four (now five) people have displayed their irritation, and here you come again, adding fuel to the dying fire.

Are you surprised? You must have conclusively proven that Bush has screwed up the economy, and he can't fix it!

This FPP defines agendafilter, and no amount of tu coque will change that.
posted by trharlan at 9:48 AM on April 17, 2003

Well, as far as elections go with the Grand American Public, it's still the economy, stupid:

The rush to recession is becoming so scary that President Bush can no longer pretend that the state of the economy is irrelevant to his prospects for re-election next year.

His recognition of this uncomfortable political reality is increasingly apparent. His photo opportunity with a handful of economists, programmed to parrot approval of his latest outlandish tax-cut proposal, was a sham. The group was chosen for its partisanship rather than its influence; it did not include Wall Street's most prominent figures, many of whom oppose his plan.

Bush has stopped touting what he used to call a "strong" economy in favor of more cautious language. His advisers are now hinting that he might accept a compromise rather than continue to demand the $726 billion package of tax cuts he favors.

He took an enormous gamble when he decided to please his big contributors with reckless tax cuts for the privileged rather than apply some common sense to the federal budget. It's clear that keeping that endless campaign money spigot flowing is his first priority.

But Bushists aren't worried, of course. There's always Faith Based Budgeting.

So show me. Show me the rights I've lost.

Once you flush the sand out of various head orifices, you might be interested in reflecting on rights lost in the past year.

Instead of whining, members may present any Rosy Scenario informational graphics and supporting documentation they find from any reputable source at any time they wish.

That, of course, is the problem. Many of the folks above are apparently incapable of adding anything to a discussion of the economic policies of the current administration. In particular, they appear incapable of refuting criticism of the current administration. They therefore fear any criticism of their own little agendas (which is becoming more and more difficult to defend), so they merely sob aloud any time they see such criticism. That kind of behavior is called intellectual cowardice.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:49 AM on April 17, 2003

y2karl - I actually appreciated the post. Thank you.

Anyone interested in additional excellent reading on the topic should check out just about anything by Paul Krugman.

Here are some good examples (they're all short reads):
About the job market
About the raping of the budget surplus
About who is to blame for the economy
About the "soaking of the rich"

...and this last article, which is probably the single best explanation of what's going on with the American economy today:
For Richer
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:09 AM on April 17, 2003

Now the thread is complete. Foldy has graced us with his presence.

And you're right y2carl. I have nothing to add to your or foldy's speeches. Maybe I'll just post some random images?

Spare me with your hypocrisy
posted by Dennis Murphy at 10:43 AM on April 17, 2003

A: You don't need the 'with' in that sentence.
B: You didn't spare us yours, Demmis Nurphy.
posted by y2karl at 10:47 AM on April 17, 2003

strange that anyone pointing out that the economy is in the crapper is pushing an anti-Bush agenda. The economy is in deep trouble and tax cuts won't help anyone who needs any help. Ignore it, call it partisenship, attack the poster, do anything you want; you can't argue that any of this information isn't true. Feh.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:10 PM on April 17, 2003

So, are we going to discuss the matter, or are we going to be so nasty that the thread goes away? I'm sure there's plenty of other things for the disgruntled to do here on Metafilter.

Bush did not destroy the growth, nor did Clinton. Neither have any actual control over the economy. I blame Greenspan, and here's why: He started grumbled about irrational exuberance way back in 1996 but did nothing. Granted, it would have pissed off a lot of brokerage houses and ultimately their associated banks if he raised interest rates, but it would have been the responsible thing to do. Instead, we got a bigger money supply starting with the response to the LTCM mess. He then continued to increase liquidity because of fears of a Y2K bug.

Congress can, of course, pass tax increases and cuts. This certainly affects the economy, but never quite the way they expect.

Regarding this particular tax cut: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has never seen a tax cut that he doesn't like, and he still has some complaints about this one, namely:

While tax cuts are always good for the economy, it’s dangerous to promote the idea that government can create value in the financial markets. The collapse of stock prices in the last two years provides stark evidence that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies of the 1990s did not create lasting prosperity, and we should understand that tax policy is no different. Centralized planning via tax policy is every bit as harmful as centralized planning in monetary policy.

In other words, tax cuts are good, but they don't guarantee growth and can't create *real* value in the financial markets. He's an interesting guy, and his weekly columns are usually worth reading, mostly because he doesn't necessarily agree with either party.

I wish he was my Congress critter. Until January, mine was that asshat, Jim Moran. Now I have a guy who I don't know shit about, but once his voting record for 2003 starts to appear, I'll have a better idea.
posted by astrogirl at 12:31 PM on April 17, 2003

Elwood-

I stated that y2karl was adding "fuel to the fire", and I stated, sarcastically, that he had proven that this was all Bush's fault.

Midas, Angry modem, Dennis Murphy and brettski (and maybe outlawyr, I can't tell) all attacked the post for one reason or another, chiefly that the post doesn't really meet the guidelines.

No one "attacked the poster". We attacked the post. Civilly. In fact, you'll find that it's y2karl who started calling people out.
posted by trharlan at 1:27 PM on April 17, 2003

We live in a world where bubbles are the norm. We've had bubbles in currencies, in property, government bonds, corporate junk bonds, bubbles in equities. The granpappy of them all, however, is the bubble in optimism.

The optimism bubble works like this. When the economy looks good, growthwill last for ever. When the price of an asset rises to an extent that all historical parallels are broken, it is because "it's different this time". When the market starts to come off the boil, it is a blip. When it comes down a bit further, there will be no impact on the real economy. When it goes into free fall, the recession will be short-lived because policymakers are on top of the situation. When the bad times go on longer than expected, there is merely a temporary obstacle to recovery, to be removed any time soon.

The basic argument that Elliot, author of the article, from the Gaurdian, makes is that the real problem for the US economy has been over-speculation not over-investment, as is the common wisdom.

However, the US government, companies and consumers, who have been doing some heavy borrowing on the "back of house price increases", seem to be in a permanent state of denial about what may be real structural problems that will have to be addressed sooner of later. He suggests that these structural problems may include: "20 years or so of financial deregulation on the demand for consumer and business credit, the size of the US trade deficit, the changing balance between investment in real assets as opposed to speculation, and the quality of corporate earnings".

Has anyone here taken out a second mortgage latley? And what ever happened to that Enron-World Com etal. business?

By the way, I've never understood why anybody would complain about any post or a poster (excluding disagreements that arise during a debate). If you don't like, or are not interested in a post, just go to another one. But I suspect that some of the negative elements in this thread are very interested in this post, but not too add anything useful to the discussion but rather to try to add background noise, to troll and to do anything that impedes an intelligent discussion.
posted by sic at 4:05 PM on April 17, 2003

Agendafilter accusations are usually raised in comments by those with no other arrows in their quivers.

Actually, complaints about "Agendafilter accusations" usually come about when someone posts a group of extremely one-sided links that are clearly meant to simply further an agenda, guaranteed to produce discourse that is at best divisive, and at worst will degrade quickly into personal name calling. The MeFi community, that seems to be getting increasingly sick of this sort of shit, is increasingly responding to these sorts of posts by calling them exactly what they are ... Agendafilter posts that are barely above the level of the troll. They people that post this stuff naturally want people to take them seriously and address their "issues".

It certainly is not hard to find a hundred different "arrows" - as the US (in this case ... and the world in the case of global issues) has many alternative and well-argued perspectives on almost any issue. But when a post starts with an arrogant and dismissive tone ("Happy Days Are Here Again: Tax Cuts and The Jobless Recovery"), and presents a single side of an issue - the intention is not to encourage intelligent conversation, but merely to cause a fight.

The people that assert "Agendafilter" don't do so because they have no "arrows in their quivers" (as a general rule, the more extreme a poster is, the more they believe their perspective is so powerful that there are no credible alternatives) - but rather because it simply is not worth it to make them.

If you want to walk into a room and scream at the top of your lungs, don't then claim that no one answers you with calm, intelligent conversation ... and don't be surprised if they don't scream back - but rather point out that you are screaming.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:20 PM on April 17, 2003

astrogirl didn't have any problems responding on topic with links.
posted by y2karl at 4:24 PM on April 17, 2003

And Midas, really, the arrogant and dismissive tone is your forte.
If you have a problem with the post, may I suggest MetaTalk, rather than continuing to try to shout down the thread.
posted by y2karl at 4:31 PM on April 17, 2003

So MidasMulligan, why don't you simply show the poster the error in his ways by engaging in intelligent discussion, thus making him irrelevant, instead of simply being divisive as he wanted?

This method could be used to stamp out all trolling in Metafilter.
posted by sic at 4:54 PM on April 17, 2003

By the way, Y2Karl, I don't mean to imply that I think you are trolling, I just wanted to suggest a more effective strategy, intelligent discussion, to anybody who feels they are dealing with a troll.
posted by sic at 5:04 PM on April 17, 2003

*pats down ruffled hair*

by the way, this one wins the unintended irony award for eternity--

If you want to walk into a room and scream at the top of your lungs, don't then claim that no one answers you with calm, intelligent conversation ... and don't be surprised if they don't scream back - but rather point out that you are screaming.

--considering the source, apart from the fact that pointing out he is screaming usually means enduring more of same.
posted by y2karl at 5:11 PM on April 17, 2003

A: You don't need the 'with' in that sentence.
B: You didn't spare us yours, Demmis Nurphy.

Oh man, you burned me karl. I'll keep a close eye on your english skills from now on. On second thought, not.

Regardless, any complaining from your side is laughable. You've completely shit on a thread you disagreed with in the past. I merely commented on your using metafilter for your own personal crusade. You are in serious need of anger management. I don't think that's a secret.

But metafilter is your oyster karl. Keep preaching to the converted.

You go boy.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 5:46 PM on April 17, 2003

.
posted by y2karl at 6:12 PM on April 17, 2003

So, I do have a point of view. Actually, Dennis, it seemed hypocritical of you to be complaining about agendafilter when it seemed more IDon'tLikeThisPointOfViewSoI'mGoingToHelpShoutItDownFilter on your part to me.

I wasn't really tweaking your grammar in your second comment so much as commenting on your hypocrisy--may I point out that you referred to fold_and_mutilate with disparagement, not for what he said but because of who he is--and as for misspelling your name, well, you misspelled mine. I should have inserted a smiley there. As for your thoughts on my anger management problems, your point is no doubt well taken--on the other hand, reading the comment in which they came, or the one you made before that, is a bit, well, ironic, considering the even-tempered, dispassionate and objective tone with which they were made.

I commented as I did initially because it seemed to me that a piling on was in progress. I linked to your, angry modem's and rbrettski's comments elsewhere because they supported my view that you all were being hypocrites. MidasMulligan's contention that I started the post with Happy Days Are Here Again... is simply wrong. That is the title tag. The post itself contains nothing written by me. As for the links being one sided, oh please. I guess I missed the You Must Present Opposing Views In Your Post rule.

Now as far as pile ons and pigeonholing, may I quote the owner here and add, as well, the well spoken thoughts--as always--of MiguelCardoso on the subject of political discussions?

I am not without sin but, on the other hand, I did not cast the first stone. However, I apologize to one and all for derailing my post by making any comments at all.
posted by y2karl at 7:27 PM on April 17, 2003

astrogirl didn't have any problems responding on topic with links.

As I said ... there's no problem responding with hundreds of links. The issue is that being "on topic" means responding on terms that you've set ... which are extremely one-sided.

If you have a problem with the post, may I suggest MetaTalk, rather than continuing to try to shout down the thread.

Certainly. You can suggest anything you want. But just as you are free to continue posting your Bush=Evil posts, so am I (and others) free to call them that within the threads themselves.

Interesting, however, that you would complain that I am not using the correct forum for the points I am making ... as this is exactly what I was talking about. MeFi is not the correct forum for the thread you've started - it belongs on a personal blog. Matt does not delete them ... but I've also noticed that it's getting harder and harder to post such things without at least several people asserting that it is inappropriate. It is getting harder and harder to get away with using the MeFi board - with it's huge audience - to grind your personal axes.

You may want to keep doing so, and keep trying to insist that people stick to the topic you've defined, and try to claim anyone that doesn't is "shouting down the thread" ... but let me suggest that if you want people to engage in intelligent, reasoned discussions, that you introduce topics in a balanced fashion, include several perspectives, and leave the snarkiness out of the titles.

So long as you continue to post extremely one-sided FPP's, however, that appear to not be intended to serve the stated purposes of MeFi, but rather merely to advance your own agenda ... then myself (and others) will continue to name them for what they are. And the thread itself is not an incorrect forum to do this in if the thread itself is in the wrong forum. If you want to use MeFi as your personal blog - you'll get called on it.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:02 PM on April 17, 2003

But Bush is still evil, right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:12 PM on April 17, 2003

I wasn't really tweaking your grammar in your second comment so much as commenting on your hypocrisy--may I point out that you referred to fold_and_mutilate with disparagement, not for what he said but because of who he is

Part of the problem is the fact that more prolific members, such as yourself, are easily linked to topics and ideas. If your post was created by joeblow, I wouldn't have said anything.

But after reading a post such as this one, I can practically predict who the author is. Continued posting on a topic like this, to me, points more to an agenda than the whole 'interesting link' basis metafilter was originally (imho) founded on. I merely pointed out the predictabilty of fold_and_ mutilates appearance, and more than that, his opinion.

--and as for misspelling your name, well, you misspelled mine. I should have inserted a smiley there.

Sorry. It wasn't intentional.

As for your thoughts on my anger management problems, your point is no doubt well taken--on the other hand, reading the comment in which they came, or the one you made before that, is a bit, well, ironic, considering the even-tempered, dispassionate and objective tone with which they were made.

Touche. I should have previewed and then deleted.

I still feel that this type of post would be better served on a personal site. However, perhaps your definition of MF is different than mine, and not much is going to change that fact.

I'll keep that in mind from now on.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 9:12 PM on April 17, 2003

Remember kids: "If you have a problem with the post, may I suggest MetaTalk, rather than continuing to try to shout down the thread."
posted by Mid at 9:13 PM on April 17, 2003

(I know, I know, that thread was a bad one, this thread is a good one. That's the great thing about MetaFilter -- each user gets to decide which thread is bad and which thread is good, and then spew random images all over the bad ones!)
posted by Mid at 9:17 PM on April 17, 2003

Ah, if I'd stopped with the teletubbies, this never would haunt me. Well, on the other hand, at least be grateful I didn't post
[a href="http://goatse.cx/hello.jpg"][img src="http://www.bennett.com/capitolwk2.jpg" height="135" width="180" ][/a] ...
posted by y2karl at 9:33 PM on April 17, 2003

But just as you are free to continue posting your Bush=Evil posts, so am I (and others) free to call them that within the threads themselves.

This post linked some graphics based upon factual data along with interpretation thereof and linked a criticism of the administration's tax plan by 150 economists including 10 Nobel laureates. There is no Bush=Evil--I have not attacked Bush personally here. Bush=Evil may be your automatic kneejerk smear but it has no application to the content of this post.

It is getting harder and harder to get away with using the MeFi board - with it's huge audience - to grind your personal axes.

A pile on five of the few, far right, frenzied and foaming at the mouth grinding their own personal axes but not addressing the topic is not representative of the huge audience. It's just a few guys who can't, who refuse, who are too lazy to address the topic to the contrary but who instead attack the poster, indirectly at first and obviously later on. Agendafilter is a cry made mainly by those on the right.

but let me suggest that if you want people to engage in intelligent, reasoned discussions, that you introduce topics in a balanced fashion, include several perspectives, and leave the snarkiness out of the titles.

Snarkiness of title aside--oh, the horror!--you yourself never discussed a political topic in a balanced fashion that included several perspectives. It's nearly always the same old smears, same trite lies, same introduction of new and unrelated topics and the same trite Bush=Evil accusations made by Mr. Clinton=Evil Incarnate--all of which have nothing to do with intelligent, reasoned discussions. Usually you come into a thread when the topic offends you and bellow--no thinking, intelligence or reason is used whatsoever.

MeFi is not the correct forum for the thread you've started - it belongs on a personal blog.

Sez you--not Matt, nor anyone but the right wing few, who, when they can't respond on points, make phony accusations about how it belongs on a personal blog or how extremely one-sided it is while hypocritically ignoring their own extremely one-sided views to the contrary. If you want more posts to your taste, post some yourself--don't try to shut me up. And if you want both sides, listen to NPR.
posted by y2karl at 7:39 PM on April 18, 2003

Agendafilter is a cry made mainly by those on the right.

Well, metafilter leans far left. What would you expect? It's like claiming only meat eaters complain on a PETA board.

And if you want both sides, listen to NPR.

NPR? Middle?

=)
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:49 PM on April 18, 2003

NPR scruples to present differing views, especially in regards to editorials. Just this morning I heard a stem winder in praise of President Bush given by a Texan supporter named Ruben Navarette about how he took a gamble and risked his presidency, because he's such a man of principle, in waging the war in Iraq and won. My eyes were rolling independently.

It presents voices from both sides of the aisle, which is far, far more than FOX news or Premier Radio Networks do.
posted by y2karl at 10:34 PM on April 18, 2003

The real deal on Bush's tax cut plan :

Frist claims regrets and pledges to work for a tax cut more to Bush's liking, but the fact remains that if Voinovich and Snowe stick to their point that the country can't afford more, the Bush plan can't pass. Worse, if others like Specter and McCain realize that the Club of Growth's machinations are impotent in their states, they could easily return to their own fiscally responsible roots and dig Bush's hole even deeper.

In these circumstances, the idea of selling a repeal of dividend taxation to the country is a joke. The country has higher priorities that have little to do with taxes and more to do with security and budgetary common sense. There is no broad constituency in favor of it that extends an inch beyond the hardest core of the conservative movement.
posted by y2karl at 6:55 PM on April 20, 2003

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Until recently it has been hard to get people excited about the states' worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. For about two years state governments were able to use fancy financial footwork to put off the full effects, and the public probably regarded warnings about looming catastrophe as exaggerated. But now, as Timothy Egan reported yesterday in The New York Times, states are "withdrawing health care for the poor and mentally ill. They are also dismissing state troopers, closing parks and schools, dropping bus routes, eliminating college scholarships and slashing a host of other services." Not to mention unscrewing every third light bulb in Missouri government offices. (Honest.)

Aside from their cruelty and their adverse effect on the quality of life, these cuts will be a major drag on the national economy. So if the administration really cared about jobs, it would provide an emergency package of aid to state governments — not to pay for new spending, but simply to maintain basic services. How about $78 billion — the same sum just allocated for the Iraq war?

Oh, never mind. Anything that would distract from the tax-cut message is out of the question. In fact, rather than compromise on its goal of maximum long-run tax cuts for the wealthy, the administration now says that it's willing to phase tax cuts in gradually — making them even less effective as an economic stimulus.

So when you take the policy consequences into account, it's clear that the administration's tax-cut obsession isn't just busting the budget; it's also indirectly destroying jobs by preventing any rational response to a weak economy. In its determination to stay on message, the administration is also determined not to do anything that would actually help ordinary families.
posted by y2karl at 10:43 PM on April 21, 2003