The Evidence Is Clear – Republican Economic Policies Are Working

[cmh6476 1,146]

FROM THE OFFICE OF

Chairwoman Deborah Pryce

Office of the Republican Conference

 

 

NEWS RELEASE

 

Pryce: The Evidence Is Clear – Republican Economic Policies Are Working

 

WASHINGTON June 2

House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) said today's announcement that the economy gained 75,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.6%, the lowest in nearly five years, in May is just more evidence that Republican economic policies are working.

 

 

Just in time for the new crop of graduates universities are unleashing, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced yet another month of job gains the 33rd straight month of job gains to be exact, Pryce said. Our economy just keeps on growing. GDP for the first quarter grew at a robust 5.3 percent. Unemployment remains low. Productivity is up, manufacturing is up, earnings are rising. The evidence couldn't be clearer: Republican tax relief and Republican economic policies have produced vigorous economic growth.

 

 

And not only vigorous economic growth, but record levels of revenue to the federal government, Pryce continued. Republican tax relief has significantly increased revenue to the federal government. In fact, we are on track for the largest inflation-adjusted, two-year increase in tax collections ever recorded. In short, thanks to Republican economic policies, the American people are paying less, the government is getting more, and our economy is thriving.

 

 

It's important to remember, however, that not every area of our country has experienced the same robust growth. My own state of Ohio, for one, has lagged behind the national average. But the worst thing we could do for the areas of our country that haven't fully experienced our economic progress is abolish the policies that have created this progress in the first place. Instead, we need to continue and extend these policies, so that the strong areas can get stronger and the weak areas can catch up.

 

 

http://www.gop.gov/item-news.asp?docId=61276

[hoytdwow 202]

The net increase in nonfarm payrolls in May — 75,000 — is a significant falloff from April, when the Labor Department estimates that 126,000 jobs were added, a figure it revised downward today from the 138,000 it initially reported.

 

Anything below about 150,000 net new jobs a month is regarded as too slow to keep up with population growth, so in effect, workers are losing ground.

 

link

[cmh6476 1,146]

link

liberal bias

[hoytdwow 202]

liberal bias

You're complaining of bias when your link is direct from GOP HQ?

[cmh6476 1,146]

You're complaining of bias when your link is direct from GOP HQ?

maybe

[parrot 790]

And if you can't trust the "Office of the Republican Conference" to give you the straight dope on Republican policies, just who can you trust?

[torridjoe 48]

labor participation rate stagnant

 

and that's still significantly lower than the 67.2% when Clinton left office....

 

as hoytdwow points out, raw numbers mean little. Bush's administration has meant fewer of us have jobs, even after all this "recovery" that Pryce wants to gloat about that simply represents a partial fix of the damage they have caused.

[Voltaire 5,505]

It's a great day for hillarity.

 

Thanks Hoyt.

[parrot 790]

cmh debating torrid on the economy. This should be good.

[MDC 8,001]

The Republican party thinks Republican economic policies are working? Get outta Dodge!

 

This just in: "Survey Says Guys like Big T1ts and Blowjobs!"

[cmh6476 1,146]

The Republican party thinks Republican economic policies are working? Get outta Dodge!

 

This just in: "Survey Says Guys like Big T1ts and Blowjobs!"

hey, you're employed aren't you?

[Snuff 10]

cmh debating torrid on the economy. This should be good.

 

Agreed. Poor torrid.

[footballpowers 0]

liberal bias

 

How about one from your boys at fox

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197923,00.html

 

what say you now???

[VikesNation 0]

Bush's administration has meant fewer of us have jobs

What are you talking about? There have been more than 2,000 new job openings in the armed forces since the beginning of the war.

[OriginalMonkeyBoy 0]

labor participation rate stagnant

 

and that's still significantly lower than the 67.2% when Clinton left office....

 

as hoytdwow points out, raw numbers mean little. Bush's administration has meant fewer of us have jobs, even after all this "recovery" that Pryce wants to gloat about that simply represents a partial fix of the damage they have caused.

 

just curious..what damage did they cause, and how did they cause it?

[cmh6476 1,146]

How about one from your boys at fox

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197923,00.html

 

what say you now???

Yet the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest since the summer of 2001.

 

[torridjoe 48]

just curious..what damage did they cause, and how did they cause it?

 

Starting a war, cutting taxes at the top, spending outrageous sums of money, failing to prepare for or mitigate the effects of Katrina, failing to prepare for or mitigate the effects of 9/11...shall I go on?

[footballpowers 0]

 

But it's not as low as when Clinton was in office

[TimmySmith 2,783]

labor participation rate stagnant

 

and that's still significantly lower than the 67.2% when Clinton left office....

 

Talk about neagtive spin. This could easily be explained by fewer people needing or wanting to work. One possibility is more moms not having to try to bring home half the bacon like they had to under Clinton.

[Strike 6,030]

Starting a war, cutting taxes at the top, spending outrageous sums of money, failing to prepare for or mitigate the effects of Katrina, failing to prepare for or mitigate the effects of 9/11...shall I go on?

 

LOL most of those are things that Clinton should have been doing as well. typical.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

There have been more than 2,000 new job openings in the armed forces since the beginning of the war.

[torridjoe 48]

Talk about neagtive spin. This could easily be explained by fewer people needing or wanting to work. One possibility is more moms not having to try to bring home half the bacon like they had to under Clinton.

 

It could--if any of that were true, which it's not. Real wages have declined under Bush. I especially like that you suggest that the boom times of the Clinton era caused moms to have to work, but the currently stagnant economy has made for women being able to stay home. Now there's some logic!

 

You do realize that 1% represents almost 2.3 million people in the labor force, right? That's a lot of focking moms suddenly staying home.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

It could--if any of that were true, which it's not. Real wages have declined under Bush. I especially like that you suggest that the boom times of the Clinton era caused moms to have to work, but the currently stagnant economy has made for women being able to stay home. Now there's some logic!

 

You do realize that 1% represents almost 2.3 million people in the labor force, right? That's a lot of focking moms suddenly staying home.

 

Please, I gave one example. Retirees is another. Stay at home dads is another. More people in college could be another. Just pointing out your logic is twisted again and you will have to dig deeper to use the "labor participation rate" as a barometer for anything.

[torridjoe 48]

Please, I gave one example. Retirees is another. Stay at home dads is another. More people in college could be another. Just pointing out your logic is twisted again and you will have to dig deeper to use the "labor participation rate" as a barometer for anything.

 

You can throw out theoretical possibilities all you like, but you do nothing to present them as actual rebuttals to my point. And I didn't mention this before, but you persist: you seem to fail to understand that the categories of people you are mentioning ARE NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE.

 

Say 100 people are in the labor force.

Now let's pretend 20 of them became stay at home moms or retired or went to college.

The new base for labor force participation is now 80, NOT 100.

 

That's why LFP is the predominant single way to best measure employment health--it's a ratio, not a raw account. It refers to the percentage of people IN the labor force who are working. People who leave the labor force--for whatever reason--are not counted.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Fools and your biased sources. Here's a story from a paper that isnt afraid to tell the TRUTH!

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47977

 

CAPE CANAVERAL, FL—Officials at the Kennedy Space Center announced Tuesday that they have set Aug. 6 as the date for launching $700 million from the Denarius IV spacecraft, the largest and most expensive mission to date in NASA's unmanned monetary-ejection program.

[Korben Dallas 0]

No matter how you feel on this.

1. The evidence is far from clear

2. This topic is boring as hell

3. CMH's source wouldn't tell the truth if it wasn't.

4. And the policy will never be defined as working until the elephant in the room is discussed.

No econ policy that's motto is "lets fock the grandkids" is working in my book:

 

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jun 2006 at 06:38:27 PM GMT is:

 

 

The estimated population of the United States is 298,831,343

so each citizen's share of this debt is $27,984.17.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$1.75 billion per day since September 30, 2005!

[TimmySmith 2,783]

You can throw out theoretical possibilities all you like, but you do nothing to present them as actual rebuttals to my point. And I didn't mention this before, but you persist: you seem to fail to understand that the categories of people you are mentioning ARE NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE.

 

HOORAY, you finally figured it out. All the "labor paticipation" is, is a percentage of the total that is IN THE LABOR FORCE. Now go back and re-read what I said to give you a clue as to why that percentage can drop and not truly be a negative to the employment rate. Thereby rendering "labor participation" as an ambiguous statistic.

[torridjoe 48]

HOORAY, you finally figured it out. All the "labor paticipation" is, is a percentage of the total that is IN THE LABOR FORCE. Now go back and re-read what I said to give you a clue as to why that percentage can drop and not truly be a negative to the employment rate. Thereby rendering "labor participation" as an ambiguous statistic.

 

I have re-read it. It has no bearing on the LFP, because the people you speak of are never counted. The LFP is the percentage of people IN the labor force, who are working. That number is down sharply in the Bush administration.

You are incorrect when you say this: "All the "labor paticipation" is, is a percentage of the total that is IN THE LABOR FORCE. "

[TimmySmith 2,783]

I have re-read it. It has no bearing on the LFP, because the people you speak of are never counted. The LFP is the percentage of people IN the labor force, who are working. That number is down sharply in the Bush administration.

You are incorrect when you say this: "All the "labor paticipation" is, is a percentage of the total that is IN THE LABOR FORCE. "

 

 

You are still banging your head against the wall.

 

If EVERY 80 YEAR OLD was forced back to work, they would leave the NOT IN LABOR FORCE category and go to IN LABOR FORCE category. That the raise the labor participation rate. Not necessarily a good sign.

[torridjoe 48]

You are still banging your head against the wall.

 

If EVERY 80 YEAR OLD was forced back to work, they would leave the NOT IN LABOR FORCE category and go to IN LABOR FORCE category. That the raise the labor participation rate. Not necessarily a good sign.

 

And that has what to do with your claim, which was that people are leaving, not entering?