I’ve been resisting the urge to get catty and fisk the following but… I need something to vent my frustrations upon and since this person ends his tirade with a sentiment that makes me utterly ashamed to be American, I thought “why not?”
The proof is in the numbers! They don’t lie.
President Bush so often accused of only helping his friends, you know all his rich oil friends, has pulled us out of a Bill Clinton recession faster than anyone would have expected.
On top of this productivity in the US of A grew at an 8.1% annual rate!
Now we all should be happy! IF you care for the poor or the rich, then you will be happy. The only thing to be hateful about is if you HATE Bush, and HATE the country that is being made better!
OK… let’s talk about what is wrong with this picture:
1.) This blogger fails to identify the sectors where the growth occured. Was it service, manufacturing, tech??? Those have an impact because the service sector normally grows faster and offers more jobs… but at a lower pay and without benefits. Indeed, the growth was service sector jobs… which means that the nation’s unemployed people can be treated to a bunch of McJobs. Wanna know why this is a bad thing? Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenereich.
2.) This blogger has repeatedly ignored the fact that most presidents don’t have a lot of control over the business cycle. When Clinton was elected, we were in a recession. We rebounded during the Clinton years and actually kept things going well for longer than happened when Reagan supposedly rebounded the economy in the 1980’s. Bush’s economic plan is almost identical to Reagan’s. It didn’t work in the 1980’s (and increased our national debt) and it ain’t gonna work now.
3.) This blogger is quoting numbers… without looking at the other indicators. Yeah.. the economy grew 8%. Does this mean that all the unemployed tech people are working again? Does this mean that the laid off people are actually living without fear of forclosure on their properties? And does this economic boost apply to all areas of the country or is it focused in a region? I can tell you pretty honestly that the economy is still in the toilet and the Bush tax cuts aren’t helping a lot of people rebound. Wanna know my rationale for this? Looking at the people in my area, where I grew up (Silicon Valley), where we’ll be moving to, and looking at life in other parts of the country where my classmates are doing pastoral internships. Things still suck.
4.) This blogger is turning a blind eye to the fact that the Bush tax cuts mean that welfare mothers are having a hard time getting their kids daycare so they can go back to work. (This was in the November 3rd issue of the New Yorker in the quiz on the tenth 100 days of Bush.) If mothers have no place to leave their kids, how are they supposed to work? Head Start is a federal program which means that it needs funding. Funny how the numbers may say one thing but reality is another.
5.) The last paragraph indicates that this blogger is practicing idolatry as they are putting their country up on a pedestal and equating it with God. It’s one thing to love your country — it’s something else to ignore all the wrongs and not even consider that there is room for improvement. We had the world’s sympathy after 9/11 and we’re now hated. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?
As for loving the rich and the poor, I think our country does a crappy job of it. People can criticize France and Germany all they want but… they take care of their people. People can talk about how stupid Canada is but… they don’t have half the problems we do with crime, poverty, or terrorism. Why is this? They. take. care. of. their. people. Most things like Social Security and the FDIC were created in the Great Depression era to protect people. Why can’t our government think like this now?
Another thing: when all the right-wing fascists were complaining about Clinton, they were never told to go to Canada. (Most of us just patted them on the head and said, “Suuuuuuuure”.) Why is it that these people are telling those of us that disagree with our country (and unlike that blogger, have a brain) to go to Canada. If all of us went to Canada, I’d hate to see how messed up this country would be.
/rant.
*applauds*
Another thing to remember when talking about unemployment stats: that number refers to the number of people eligable to and actively claiming benefits. How many people have been bumped off the rolls because they’ve been on the list so long? How many people have failed to maintain eligability?
yes this person is a moron.
bleh. people can be so dumb about economics. really. like you said, presidents have VERY LITTLE to do with the business cycle. what they have to do with is the national debt and taxes. bush is obviously not doing a very good job with either. i’m all for tax cuts because i believe there is so much waste in our government programs (i know; i’ve worked for federally funded grant programs and seen first-hand the problems), but you can’t simply cut taxes without a plan to force the legislature to stop wasting and to actually take care of people.
i think that it’s only fair to compare us to canada. it hink france and germany aren’t as fair comparisons because they are so small. i think that’s the biggest problem here: we’re too big to be handled the way we’re beign handled.
also, i’ve read a good chunck of nickel and dimed (bought it used for like $3 sweet!), and it should definitely be a must read for all politicians AND ceos.
oh and the american idolatry. BLEH!
Jen, I have to respectfully disagree with many of your assertions. For example, “McJobs” and the “loss of manufacturing” …
For example, yes, there are now 500 less textile related jobs in North Carolina. During that same short time frame, there are now 2000 more software jobs … which are in many cases counted as “service” instead of “manufacturing” … though as a code-monkey, I can vouch it is more like the latter than the former.
The recession. Every major economist worth his or her salt agrees that the most recent recession began about six months before Clinton left office. The economic indicators, growth, all that fun stuff, all were trending down at an alarming rate well before Bush took office.
The point is, the Bull is now running, and the economy is on the bound. We should be happy as this will serve both liberal and conservative, democrat and republican as they pursue their fortunes.
An interesting comment on McJobs at http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/000156.html … as a former “Brazier Boy” I’m inclined to agree. As proud as I was to wear the red and white, visions of a career there helped push me through college.
Beyond all the economics, I have a general question about your politicial view that it is the government’s responsibility to “take care of its people.” Why is it the responsibility of the government and not the church?
The government’s responsibility to take care of its people basically goes to the point of keeping people alive. In other words, basic medical care, housing, employment assistance, and public education. It would be a public health risk to not have basic medical care (immunizations) because there would be the possibility of outbreaks of things like measles, hepatitis, and TB. (I know this because I had to be TB-tested in August to substitute teach.) If nothing else, our government functions on the Enlightenment idea of a social contract where we elect those to help protect us from ourselves.
As far as the responsibility of the church, we are called to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, and all. However, there is a limit to the amount the church can do. Pastors only have so much discretionary money and they can’t help everyone that calls in with a problem. (I man the phones on Sunday morning and we have at least 10 calls before 9:00.) The government is more capable of doing it and frequently acts in harmony with churches.
Hopefully that’s a clear answer?