WOO HOO! Great job, Mr. President!
:)

The Wall Street Journal article doesn't mention what type of jobs were created, full-time/part-time and
at what salary these jobs pay. They have a good knack for writing somewhat long articles but not saying too much. :))

Jef,
*sighs* You really should learn how to read labor statistics.

This really has to be considered good news for Republicans. But one question remains: Was it the tax cuts, or the keynesian spending that created these jobs?

The conservatives will no doubt claim it was 100% due to the tax cuts, ignoring the white elephant of spending. But is it True? If you give a business owner a tax cut, he/she may invest it, or not. But if you give the same owner a contract for some pork project, he has to hire people to get it done.

This common-sense idea hides a very deliberate act on the part of the Republicans. Do you think the Republicans are spending the way they are for no good reason? They know that the keynesian spending is what is driving this economy, but they claim it is not the spending but the tax cuts that did it. If they actually cut spending, the economy will tank and they would be ousted.

But the Democrats have outsmarted them--they are poised to take complete control of the government by 2008. They will raise taxes on the rich, but it will not cripple the economy as the conservatives suggest, since the economy is driven by spending, not tax cuts. The Republican claim that tax increases kill the economy will vaporize. Just like the Clinton '93 tax increases, revenue will increase dramatically, possibly enough to balance the budget.

And the Dems are clever enough nowadays to call their tax raise a "rollback of tax cuts for the rich". If they are smart enough to leave middle-class taxes alone, they will be able to stay in power for a long time to come.

All in all, the economy will look good for the Dems, the Repubs will see a huge die-off and the old idea that "tax cuts increase revenue" will die with them

How many were not in health care and construction?

That's the operative question.

I kinda doubt Pelosi wants this kind of economic progress...more money in people's hand means less victims that government has to help.

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of jobs created as a result of trickle-down economics are low quality, low pay, no benefit jobs for companies in which the top executives are compensated with countless times as much money as their blue-collar workers. Maybe 6.6 million jobs looks good on paper..... But what kind of jobs are we talking about? Probably the kind people don't want, but are forced to take to avoid continuing their descent into the lower class. And also, is 6.6 million jobs enough to make up for the number we lost as a result of President Bush's economic policies? Have we actually seen a net gain since President Bush took office? I don't mean to slam the good news of job creation, just balance it.

Prog... lefties have been questioning the type of jobs being created since 2003... All I hear from the left is how millions of millions of burger flipping jobs are being created, when they know that is not the case.. why can't you just admit that the Bush tax cuts did exactly what you thought they wouldn't do...

Well, you can bet that there werent 6.6 million CEO jobs created, thats for certain, though I suspect that is worthy of crying about somewhere in blue-state America. SOMEONE has to do the menial labor.

I guess that means at least some of the jobs were bottom-rung type labor, you know, the kind of thing you start at as you try to achieve more in your life.

More victim-society thrashing and whining; if everyone doesnt get an easy 60k position it means the job market is failing.

Yee haaaa. Keep them fast food 5.15 part time jobs rolling. Thank you George for creating a lot more 5.15 part time fast food jobs.

Oh by the way... GOP Blogger better change its title, the GOP is no longer in the Majority (But then neither are the democrats). I would say its the Central Party that is in the vast majority. you know... Centralist, In the Center Man. Moderates.. Dig?

"They will raise taxes on the rich, but it will not cripple the economy as the conservatives suggest, since the economy is driven by spending, not tax cuts."

Jim,
So you're saying that the government should (and will, probably) spend the money and not use it to balance the budget, if it wants a healthy economy?

Liberals are so insane in their hate that they continue to ignore evidence.
What jobs were created? Click the link I provided yesterday.

Financial activities gained 16,000 jobs in September, as employment continued to trend up in credit intermediation and insurance.
.
Within the education and health services sector, health care employment continued to grow, with a gain of 24,000 in September. Within the industry, ambulatory health care services (which includes doctors' offices and home health care) and hospitals added jobs.
.
Within professional and business services, accounting and bookkeeping services added 10,000 jobs in September, and employment in the management of companies and enterprises grew by 6,000.
.
In the trade, transportation, and utilities sector, employment continued to trend up in the durable goods component of wholesale trade. Within the retail trade industry, sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores lost 8,000 jobs, as did general merchandise stores.
.
Employment in food services and drinking places, part of the leisure and hospitality sector, edged up in September (+15,000).
.
Reflecting the continued slowdown in the housing market, employment in construction was little changed over the month. Employment in mining was flat in September.
.
Manufacturing lost 19,000 jobs in September. Within durable goods, factory job losses occurred in several industries that are related to home building. Employment continued to trend downward in a number of nondurable goods manufacturing industries. (MLR Editor’s Desk)

I told you before, the economy grew 20% over the past 3 years, private sector grew at 37%, while revenues to the government grew; Keynesian spending requires the government consume to spur growth, with the private sector leading, not following, your Keynes analogy doesn’t work; try again.

Morris,

Remember that the upcoming tax increase on the rich will be additional money, over and above current revenues. The Dems will save this money, as they are becomming increasingly politically savvy. Can you imagine the political damage that they can do if they look more fiscally responsible than the Republicans? It's NOT that hard, as the Repubs have been absolutely attrocious on spending.

After becoming the party of fiscal restraint, what reason will there be to vote for a Republican? So we can have our morality dictated to us by the federal government? Do you conservatives really want the federal government telling you who you can and can't marry? Maybe you conservatives need big government like this, but the rest of us don't, and the libertarians absolutely hate this and will be leaving you guys in droves.

Some of the Dems see this, and we will eventually purge our ranks of the Cythia McKinney's in our party. Are you doing the same with your Katharine Harris's? No, you nominate them.

See you in November.

Prog,
I'll take that bet ~ financial, accounting and bookkeeping (the subjects I teach) and management are hardly the kind people are "forced to take to avoid continuing their descent into the lower class." The private sector grew by 37%! This creates high end-good paying jobs.

And yes, stop the John Kerry 2004 nonsense, the new economy created net new jobs since 2001 when Bush took office, in spite of the attacks on 9-11, and Katrina.

“the upcoming tax increase on the rich will be additional money, over and above current revenues.
Oliver,
There's just no end to your silliness, is there?

"Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.'" (John Maynard Keynes, remember? Your Keynesian Champion?)

"Remember that the upcoming tax increase on the rich will be additional money, over and above current revenues. The Dems will save this money, as they are becomming increasingly politically savvy."

politically savy...I doubt it...but savy about economics definitely NOT.

The tax increase will slow down the economy it not killit entirely, thereby creating a recession which will put people out of work. Tax revenues from individuals and business will be reduced NOT increased.

Remember Bane, we are not on that side of the laffer curve. Keynes didn't call it that, but that is what he was referring to. And yes, if we had taxation of 35% or more you would be correct; Keynes was making this statement in the middle of the New Deal when the highest tax rates were excessive.

My Silliness aside, the Clinton tax increases of 1993 simply do not follow your logic. The boom years that followed were not hampered by this tax increase at all.

And regarding the spending during the Bush tenure, why did you exclude homeland security spending in your calculation? Quote:

Discretionary, non-military spending and non-homeland security spending is smaller to GDP than the Clinton, Bush1 or Reagan Administrations.

This disingenuous argument is typical of the posts here. Doesn't "homeland security" and "military" spending count to the Keynesian effect? Obviously you don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't have excluded them from your calculation. Nice try, but that only works for your conservative buddies.

If the tax cuts were really the source of the growth, we would have expected screaming, fire-hot growth relfecting the size of the cuts that were made. Where is it? You know as a fact that our growth has been less than stellar. For conservatives to assume that the Keynesian effect is exactly 0, and that the growth we see is 100% due to tax cuts is just lunacy. In truth, the tax cuts have had some effect, but if your looking to carve up the GDP growth pie based on reality instead of politics you will find that there is just not enough pie to go around. Our growth in GDP has been lousy, considering the stimulus (both Keynesian and supply-side) that have been pumped into it.

Could you argue that it is not George Bush's fault that the GDP Growth, even under low inflation, has been so marginal? Yes. Could you argue that without the dual-side stimulus we would be in really bad shape? Yes. But could you account for this anemic growth by claiming that tax cuts were 100% responsible for it, and that the economy is in far better shape than the GDP growth suggests is just plain nuts.

Obviously few on either side of the aisle ever look deeply at the numbers, and are easily swayed by one-liners and sound bites, but those that look at the figures (especially GDP) can see for themseleves that tax cuts aren't working, at least to the extent they are advertised.

Where do I start,
Okay here “we are not on that side of the (L)affer curve” Maybe you can explain this, as the returns have not been diminishing as the tax cuts have proceeded. This statement defies logic, but your raise taxes and we’ll have more money statement shows that you don’t understand Laffer or Keynes.

Clinton’s retroactive tax increases did not increase revenue to the government, nor did they spur the economy. The economy of the 1990’s was as hollow as your argument; Federal discretionary spending increased yet in all the investments little or no actual products were produced. Hence, the dotcom bust in 2000, the Corporate accounting scandals and the recession of 2000-2001. After the correction from the negative GDP growth in 2000, Real Gross domestic Product rose 9.3% per year in the last three years, by contrast during the 1990, during the Clinton years, GDP grew 6.5% per year.

Maybe I should type slowly … the e-con-o-my increased … uh, got BIGGER … by 20% in the past three years. That’s an increase of 1/5, more increase than the entire economy of China with no end in sight. Maybe in your job a 20% increase isn’t “screaming” but the growth (37% in the private sector) is what’s driving this economy, not governmental purchases.

Clinton created 20 million jobs during his 2 terms, and most full time, well paying ones.

Bush is a little more and 25% of Clintons numbers and you hail it a victory.??? I guess you forgot to mention that many of these jobs were part time ones and minimum wage Mcdonalds type jobs...

axis,
Clinton created nothing, he didn't have a fiscal policy. Name one thing Clinton did to create jobs or help the economy, just one thing.

Accounting, Bookkeeping, Managerial, make up 40% of the job creation since 2001. Easch of these make more than you, because ... You're an idiot!

Jim,
You're not seeing it yet. You're arguing for Keynesian economics, the idea that economies are spurred by government spending. But if the libs were (and this is nonsense given their record) to balance the budget, there's no guarantee that money gets invested in the projects, workers, etc that according to Keynes spur an economy. If they balance the budget, they could very well be taking capital out of the economy which may be saved rather than spent. So if you're arguing for a balanced budget, you're arguing against a Keynesian remedy to the economy.