Sorry to burst your bubble Matt (so to speak). Perhaps you thought by getting your defence in first that you could confuse the issue.

Its true there are many indicators of economic performance and the Bush administration has made a hash of most of them which is perhaps what you were alluding to. Unfortunately for you though, the most effective overall indicator of economic performance is and always has been the deficit.

What does an expanding services sector mean? Well it can mean many things but one thing it definitely does mean is that the service sector is outperfoming secondary industry.

ie: People are spending more of their paycheck on their utilities bills then they are in purchasing new items. Doesn't sound so good now does it?

Oh yeah, and that deficit thing. Wheres Clintonian economic policy when you need it?

wow... the left will spin any good news to make it sound bad. you guys are so determined to see this country in the poor house you'll deny everything good and distort things to make it look bad.

Yes, there are many sectors of the economy that are doing well (back to pre-bush levels). It is also true that wealthy Americans are benefiting most by the growth. A recent study on Bush’s tax cuts, proved what the left had said from the beginning, that the wealthiest 1% of the population is benefiting the most (average increase in tax break per person of $500,000).

The study referred to in this post indicates that service sector jobs are increasing and manufacturing and farming jobs are decreasing. Under bush we went from a country that made stuff to a country that sells stuff. Hardly a far trade off for workers.

Is that the best you can do? claim that only wealthy people are benefitting under the Bush economy???? do you think the millions of people who got jobs after the Clinton recession were billionaires or something? Wake up!

I only have one question for those who are so enamored with improvement in the service sector -- "You want fries with that?"

Lobes wrote, " … the most effective overall indicator of economic performance is and always has been the deficit."

This is going to be a shock to my economics professor; can you provide some evidence of this?
Didn’t Jackson pay off the national debt in 1837, setting off an inflation boom, the panic of 1837, the Depression of 1840? (in case you can’t tell, I could go on and on on the terrible conditions caused by paying off the national debt.)
But, pray impart to us your wisdom on the debt and corresponding economies, this will be interesting.

Salvelinus,
Does your boss know you’re web-surfing during work? Look, buddy, take care of your customer first, then come back when you have time to contribute something, we’ll wait …

btw, did your customer want fries?

Yeah Bane, that's right: debt = good; surplus = bad. Try flying that by a prospective employer.

Yeah Bane, that's right: debt = good; surplus = bad. Try flying that by a prospective employer.

Oops, wrong thread -- my bad.

If they liked it once, they’ll love it twice, eh Salvelinus?

By “prospective employer” I assume you mean somebody that might/will employ others, right? Correct me if I’m wrong (because I know I’m not) isn’t small business starts up?

Whoops, I think someone is at your drive through window, better put your paper hat back on.

Bane, I thought that the panic that lead to the depression was caused by Jackson’s pissing fight with congress over the federal bank and the gold standard which lead to a public panic and a run on all banks. Isn’t that what lead to the only censure of a president?

Bane,
Please explain how the heck deficits are good and surplus' are bad. Please go ask your Economics Professor that you mentioned earlier.
I bet he says that is the most ridiculous thing he's ever heard.
Think about that in your life. Do you want to be in debt or do you want surplus cash? Then again... so many Americans are in debt since they can't afford gas for their cars or health insurance, etc...

One measure of economic growth is the GDP. According to the World Fact Book (CIA). The estimated 2005 GDP for the US was 3.5% growth which ranked 119th, and behind such countries as: Libya, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Cuba and Iran.

Off topic, but I thought you would want to know.

Didn’t the prez say something about firing any one involved with leaking classified data? Well it looks like the president has to fire him self:

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

Off topic -- but on target!

Yeah Barney, I saw it too. My only thought on the subject is: "Did you ever doubt it?"

Glad you asked Barney,

Generally there are two reasons attributed to the fiscal disaster in 1837, both related to Jackson’s economics. The first was the Specie Circular in 1836 and the second was the Deposit Act of 1837. Because the debt had been paid off in 1837 there was increased demand for species currency and a tightening of monetary policy in anticipation of the surplus-distribution legislation.

Although related to the banking crises in 1838, and the panic of 1839 and subsequent depression in 1840, the congressional demand for documents from the Jackson White House is what caused the (later expunged) censure.

Is anyone out there still awake?

But, not to digress, the thesis posed by Lobes was, “…the most effective overall indicator of economic performance is and always has been the deficit.” With spending in surplus historically at odds with this statement, I still await an answer as to how this is an indicator of economic strength more so than all of the other indicators that Matt has provided.

Yes Barney,
Sustainable GDP is another indicator, just as unemployment is. The estimated Gross output per capita in the US is $42,000 putting it fifth behind Norway. The percentage you quote is misleading as it doesn’t account for the relative poverty of the nations; Libya ranks 95th with an output of $8,400 per capita.

SOL wrote, “deficits are good and surplus' are bad”
“You ignorant slut”
Please demonstrate where in my statement you gleaned that information.

Bane, you ignorant jackass...
Did you not write this on April 6, 2006 11:21 AM?

"Didn’t Jackson pay off the national debt in 1837, setting off an inflation boom, the panic of 1837, the Depression of 1840? (in case you can’t tell, I could go on and on on the terrible conditions caused by paying off the national debt.)"

To me, you are implying that paying off the debt caused all the bad things.

I am ASSUMING you meant that not having debt doesn't necessarily mean good things are going to come of it. If that is what you meant, say it.

f-ing jackass.

Bane, real GDP in ’00 grew at 3.7% and real GDP per capital grew at 2.5%. In ’05 real GDP grew at 3.4% and real GDP per capital at 2.4%, so on both measures, Bush is still not at the same level that he was when he took office. A GOOD president would grow the economy and not shrink it.

PS, easy there sick

SOL,

You are truly an ignoramus of monumental proportions.

You can draw all the erroneous conclusions you want, restating your badly thought out hypothesis doesn’t make it more intelligible.

I said what I meant. You, unfortunately cannot keep up when the adults are talking.

Barney,

“Growth” indicates … well, growth! A negative number would indicate shrink(age).

Didn’t GDP grow in’92 @ 4.2%, and ’00 @ 3.4%? I don't have those figures handy, perhaps you can look it up for me.

just curious.

In ’91 Real GDP grew over ’90 by -1.5% and ’92 grew at 1.9%. Real GDP per capital grew in ’91 by -0.2% and ’92 by 3.3%.

Thanks Barney,
Let’s see, real per capita GDP in 1992 was 6337.7, by 1997 (5 years into the Clinton Presidency) it was 8304.3 or a 31% increase, good job.
In 2000, real GDP was 9817.0 and by 2005 it was 12,487.1 or a 27% increase, not bad.

Since the Republicans took over Congress the GDP rose 69%, better.

When the Clintons took the White House and the Democrats had Congress the DJIA was 3,500, when the Republicans took Congress in 1996 the DJA was 3,700. Today it’s over 11,200. Sure am glad we got Republicans, my stock portfolio never looked better.

Glad those people lower-middle and lower income class people have that great looking stock portfolio too!

Oh wait.... most people don't HAVE a stock portfolio. Can afford it when energy and healthcare costs so damn much.

A liberal is someone always generous with someone else's money.

No, nit-wit who lies,
Job creation is what helps lower-middle and lower income class (sic) people.

The Stock market is also made up of investments of retirement funds, like 401(k), and other funds that anyone with a job benifits from.

Of course, as long as you continue working for TIPS and spending your money on XBox games, you'll never realize the opportunities available.

Bane, Republicans did not take over the Senate until after the 02 election. So what dates did you use in your post?

As far as stocks go, I rollovered a 401K to a private account. By ’00 it grew in value to $55K. By ’03 the value had dropped to 23K and today it stands at $49K. I did make some changes and I did add some contributions to the plan, but for the most part, the stocks are the same.

To be honest, I do have other investments that are doing much better, but again, I benefit the most (tax breaks) because I am rich.

Barney,
Because the House of Representatives controls the purse-strings, and not the Senate, it is the January 2005 takeover date with the first Republican budget to be effective 2006. Wall street responded to the news with accelerated investing, and renewed job creation.

As to your “rollovered” (sorry, it’s hard to type that with a straight face) 401(k), many of the safe investments suffered during the 2001 recession, “Real GDP per capital (sic) grew in ’91 by -0.2%” during this time period I, too moved many of my investments to safe harbor accounts until the market rebounded, the dotcom bubble broke during the period preceding the recession, and the Corporate scandals of the late 1990’s finally exploded accelerating the recession. The recession, terrorist attacks, two wars, natural disasters, Enron, et al, and constant and continual haranguing over the party in power haven’t killed the economy.

There are clouds on the horizon, I don’t deny that. The spending on social programs, and the looming Social Security disaster that Harry Reid says isn’t there are enough to scare any fiscal conservative.

Because the House of Representatives controls the purse-strings, and not the Senate, it is the January 2005

First, I think you mean '95.
Second the Senate and the President both play a part in the budget. Don't forget the goverment shut-downs.
Third, I didn't think rollovered was right, but it sounded good.

Yes, Barney,
They do "play a part" in the budget process, but it is the House that has the responsibility. The government shut down was Clinton's refusal to sign the continuing resolutions that the House sent. These are designed to pay the bills while the House and the Administration negotiate the Budget "in good faith." Clinton showed no faith, and the House took the blame.

Don't worry, I make up words all the time, the question is ... will you ever know that I did?