Bush Is Faulted on Economy as Gasoline Prices Rise, Poll Shows

[steross]

Bush Is Faulted on Economy as Gasoline Prices Rise, Poll Shows
By Matthew Benjamin

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aas9yMMtElZI&refer=home

Like most other Indiana residents, Chris Burden voted for George W. Bush twice, mostly because he saw the Texan as someone with values similar to his own.

Now, with his income stagnant and rising fuel prices making it harder to keep his Evansville lawn-care business in the black, Burden has soured on the economy, and the president.

He's not alone. More than six in 10 Americans say the country is on the wrong track, according to a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. More than half disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy, and 36 percent strongly disapprove. Almost half, 48 percent, say his policies have made the economy worse than it was when he became president; 19 percent say it's better.

``Gas prices are knocking us back into the dirt,'' said Burden, 31, one of the respondents in the poll. ``It seems like, since Bush took office, the government is burning up cash again, and things are getting worse.''

Americans have grown more negative even as the economy grew at an annual pace of more than 5 percent in the first three months of this year and the unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent in May from 5.1 percent a year earlier. In the poll, 47 percent say the economy is doing badly, up slightly from 44 percent in January.

The nationwide poll of 1,321 adults was conducted by telephone June 24 to June 27. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Energy Prices

Approval of Bush's performance on the economy breaks along partisan lines, with 73 percent of Republicans giving him a thumbs-up versus 21 percent of Democrats. Only 29 percent of independents say they approve. While almost three-fourths of Republicans say the economy is doing well, most Democrats and independents say it's doing badly.

Republicans tend to be more optimistic about the economy, with 26 percent saying it will be better six months from now. Only 11 percent of both Democrats and independents say that.

Those who think the economy is doing poorly cite energy prices and difficulty finding a job as the biggest reasons. Six in 10 Americans say rising costs for gasoline, home heating and electricity are forcing them to cut spending in other areas to compensate.

The average price nationally for gasoline hit $2.87 last week, down from a high of $2.95 in May but up 65 cents a gallon from a year ago. Evansville drivers are paying $2.70 a gallon.

Most Americans -- 61 percent, according to the poll --hold Bush at least partly responsible for high prices at the pump.

`Bush Isn't Working'

``There could be alternate means to get energy and oil, but Bush isn't working on that,'' said Brian Riggle, 28, who quit his job delivering pizzas around Evansville, Indiana a few months back because filling his tank made it unprofitable.

He's now looking for a factory job, ``something that pays decent, but they're hard to come by.'' Bush is spending too much time and money on Iraq when he should be working to get Americans better jobs, Riggle said.

Republican candidates in close races nationwide are distancing themselves from Bush. U.S. Representative Mark Kennedy of Minnesota, hoping to capture a Senate seat this November, recently replaced two pictures of Bush on his Web site with shots of Kennedy and some kids, according to the National Journal.

George Boop, a coal miner who lives in Evansville, said he isn't sure who he likes in the congressional race, but thinks the Iraq war is hurting the economy, and he isn't too pleased about spending $120 a week on gasoline to fill his pickup. Boop, 49, voted for Bush in 2004.

``Would I vote for him again if he could run? No,'' Boop said, though he says he's not doing too bad financially under Bush because rising energy prices have boosted wages at the mine.

Falling Wages

That's not the case for most Americans. Average weekly wages adjusted for inflation fell 0.7 percent in May from the previous month, the biggest decline since September 2005. Wages were down 0.2 percent from a year ago.

Americans say things were better under President Bill Clinton. By a margin of 39 percent to 13 percent, those surveyed say wages and income grew more when Clinton was president than they have under Bush.

``I had a lot more money in my pocket when Clinton was president,'' said Bill Eastham, 56, an assembly line worker at an Alcoa smelting plant in nearby Newburgh, Indiana. ``I blame everything on Bush; the buck stops there.''

While the Bush administration has touted its tax cuts, saying they have stimulated the economy, six in 10 people surveyed say they haven't benefited from them.

Down $100,000

``I don't think anybody has,'' said Ramona Junge, 65, a retired nurse who lives in Huntingburg, Indiana. She says the economy has been poor since Bush took office, pointing to gasoline and stock prices. Her 401(k) plan has fallen by $100,000 since Bush was elected, she said.

``We did much better under Clinton,'' Junge said. `Now a lot of the jobs are just going to China.''

Among those earning less than $40,000 a year, only 24 percent say the tax cuts helped them, while 41 percent of those taking home $100,000 or more a year say they did help.

Almost twice as many Americans say the economy will be worse in six months as say it will improve. While those with incomes higher than $100,000 are more sanguine, 25 percent of them say they expect the economy to worsen versus 21 percent who say it will get better.

[GodsPeace]

I remember my old econ professor laughing at the way people put so much stock in the effect the President has on any economy. I kind of marvel at that myself.

[Pokefan]

I don't know about the President himself but the Administration has a huge effect. I was watching an interview on CNN last night with the Director of the GAO. He mentioned that the governemnt has gone from an estimated 20 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities 5 yrs ago to 46 TRILLION currently. He also said the continued cycle of cutting revenue and deficit spending will make matters even worse...
Let's put those numbers in perspective. That is 46,000 Billion dollars or a million dollars 46 million times over. Just nothing to worry about at all. :eek:

[FWPoke]

Anyone who thinks the President has no effect on the economy is kidding themselves. Look at gas prices. They are not based on fact so much as they are on speculation. When the President ramps up military spending in an oil rich part of the world, people immediately assume oil shortages will follow. When the President starts posturing and pissing off the leaders of the Arab world who control a huge portion of the oil reserves, people assume oil shortages will get even worse. Therefore, prices soar, leading to outrageous prices at the pumps. Add in the fact that people are losing faith in the President which leads to consumer unrest and people starting to hold on to there money instead of spending it, and the economy starts to hurt.

Bush may not be setting interest rates or raising gas prices, but his actions do have an effect on the average American's spending, therefore having a HUGE effect on the economy as a whole.

[MustangPokeFan]

Bush may not be setting interest rates or raising gas prices, but his actions do have an effect on the average American's spending, therefore having a HUGE effect on the economy as a whole.

Since nobody has mentioned it in this whole discussion I thought I might add that we are talking about probably THE BEST economy in US history right now. Gas prices were artificially low and haven't even come close to approaching where they should be if prices had grown commensurately with other good and services the past 30 years. It's all about supply and demand and Bush has nothing to do with that. If anything he's trying to keep supply from getting even lower.

Look at the economy as a whole. Unemployment is at record lows, home ownership at all time highs, the stock market will break the all time record this year possibly within the next month or two and all of this at the same time we are fighting a war on terrorism that some of you have detailed the expenses of. I have a feeling most of you on this site weren't around to remember what the economy was like when Carter was President. If you were, you would know how good we have it right now!

[zachya]

Look at the economy as a whole. Unemployment is at record lows, home ownership at all time highs, the stock market will break the all time record this year possibly within the next month or two and all of this at the same time we are fighting a war on terrorism that some of you have detailed the expenses of.
ya, but haven't you heard??? the economy is doing horrible!!! :rolleyes:

[Pokefan]

unemployment is at record lows because they have changed they way the count the unemployed. The unemployed are there but no longer counted. Same with the inflation rate, while appearing low, if counted the way it was indexed in the 80's it would be about 12%.

As to Supply and demand the market for gasoline is artificially controlled and has no relationship to supply and demand. We've had this discussion before and as we've all determined no one is going to convince anyone else that what they are saying is true.

I do wonder though if the economy is so strong how and when will we as a nation address the 46 Trillion doolars in UNFUNDED liabilities.

[sutton1]

did they poll anybody w/ half a brain

[MustangPokeFan]

unemployment is at record lows because they have changed they way the count the unemployed. The unemployed are there but no longer counted. Same with the inflation rate, while appearing low, if counted the way it was indexed in the 80's it would be about 12%.

As to Supply and demand the market for gasoline is artificially controlled and has no relationship to supply and demand. We've had this discussion before and as we've all determined no one is going to convince anyone else that what they are saying is true.

I do wonder though if the economy is so strong how and when will we as a nation address the 46 Trillion doolars in UNFUNDED liabilities.

Dude, you need to cancel your subscription to the Ward Churchhill newsletter. Listen to yourself. How in the world would you suppose that supply and demand could be controlled. Do you suppose all the "Big Oil" tycoons get together on a conference call and say "let's raise gas prices another dime today". The price of gas is based on oil futures and those are hedged against supply and demand. The worldwide demand for oil has skyrocketed with China and other formerly third world countries increasing their use drastically.

I guess you missed it recently when it was reported that the prosperity realized from Bush's tax cuts are projected to have the deficit cut in half by the time he leaves office (If Democrats don't gain control and raise taxes). What liberal professor has been pumping your brains full of conspiracy theories that lead you to believe that just since Bush came in office the government has altered the way inflation is measured so that today's inflation would really be 12%. That's quite a statement you made "The unemployed are there but no longer counted". Well if that were the case wouldn't that make the unemployment rate "zero". How could it be anything but zero if the unemployed are not counted, everyone else would be "employed".

You're buying into the old 1992 Democratic dogma whereby if we just say "it's the economy stupid" over and over some people will start to believe it's actually bad. Construction and home ownership at all time highs, soon to be a 12,000+ stock market and inflation still at record lows for a substantial length of time. These numbers don't lie.....
317

[Pokefan]

There was a news article posted in this thread about 2 months ago comparing the way indexes are counted today as opposed to the 1980's That thread was discussed on here. theyno long count anyone that they condsider "chronically" unemployed. That is Out of work for more then 2 years. Inflation index was also changed. Not a conspiracy theorist. Just making the point that whatever administration is in power can cook the numbers. So tell me how a Tax cut that increaed the Deficit buy 35 billion dollars is going to cut the deficit in half? Say what you want. FACT when Bush came into office he took over a Government that had a SURPLUS. FACT we are now at the all time record for deficits ever.
In just 6 short years.

FACT the head of the GAO stated on CNN that the unfunded liabilities of the US govt has gone from 20 Trillion to 46 Trillion in 5 yrs. Yet we keep cutting revenue. THAT makes no sense at all.

Oh and Yes Mustang poke numbers do lie.... THAT is the FIRST thing they tellyou in statistics class.

[Pokefan]

here ya go mustang
and I was wrong inflation is running 8% and unemployment 12% using the methods used in the 80's to count the indexes.

MANIPULATING THE MASSES

by John Williams

If you believe the government, annual inflation is running less than 3.5%, unemployment is less than 5%, annual GDP growth is about 3.5%, and the 2005 federal deficit was $318 billion.

In reality, however, annual inflation is over 8%, unemployment is around 12%, and annual GDP growth is flat. Not only does common experience support the latter set of numbers, but also taking a close look at how government economic reporting has been manipulated over time. What will surprise many, though, is that the annual 2005 federal deficit was $3.5 trillion (not billion). That extraordinary number is as reported by the U.S. Treasury, using generally accepted accounting principles.

In 1996 - the middle of the Clinton economic miracle - the Kaiser Foundation conducted a survey of the American public that purported to show how out of touch the electorate was with economic reality. Most Americans thought inflation and unemployment were much higher, and economic growth was much weaker, than reported by the government. The Washington Post bemoaned the economic ignorance of the public. The same results would be found today.

Neither the Kaiser Foundation nor the Post understood that there was - and still is - good reason for the gap between common perceptions and government reporting: government data are biased in politically correct directions and increasingly have diverged from common experience and reality since the mid-1980s. Inflation and unemployment reports are understated, while employment and other economic data are overstated, deliberately.

For several years, I conducted surveys among business economists as to how they viewed the quality of government economic data. The following were actual comments:

The senior economist of a major retail company told me, "Quality varies. The retail sales numbers are terrible, but money supply data are great."

The senior economist at a major bank offered, "There's a problem with money supply, but I think retail sales are pretty good."

The point is that when an economist knows a sector well, he also recognizes the limitations and distortions of related economic reporting.

Gathering and reporting accurate information on a timely (one-month) basis for components of the U.S. economy is nearly impossible. Nonetheless, most career government statisticians in Washington work diligently to provide the best information possible within the limits of the existing reporting system. A number of reporting distortions, however, are not accidental.

The popularly followed economic series are subject to two forms of manipulation. First is the event-driven alteration of data, where specific employment numbers, for example are massaged to help political circumstances. Such is the nature of what appears to be happening at present, with presidential approval ratings doing some historical bottom bouncing.

The second type of manipulation is more insidious, though, where reporting methodologies are altered so as to build reporting biases into a series.

Changes in CPI weighting methodology during the Clinton administration (and as proposed by the earlier Bush administration), for example, were designed to understate the CPI so as to cheat social security recipients out of some of their cost of living adjustments. That purpose was espoused particularly by former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Here is how of the reporting system shenanigans have evolved over time.

The first regular reporting of now-popular statistics such as gross national/domestic product (GNP/GDP), unemployment and the consumer price index (CPI) began in the decade following World War II. Modern political manipulation of the government's economic data began as soon as practicable thereafter, with revisions to methodology often incorporating positive reporting biases. As a result, investors and most economists, relying on the government's data, often miss underlying economic reality.

Consider:

- During the Kennedy administration, unemployment was redefined with the concept of "discouraged workers" so as to reduce the popularly followed unemployment rate.

- If Lyndon Johnson didn't like the growth that was going to be reported in the GNP, he sent it back to the Commerce Department, and he kept doing so until Commerce got it right. The Johnson administration also was responsible for gimmicking the accounting that hides most of today's federal deficit.

- Richard Nixon had a highly publicized war with the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the unemployment data. Nixon wanted to report the unemployment rate as the lower of the seasonally adjusted or unadjusted number, at any given time, but not specify same to the public. While that approach was unconscionable at the time and never used, basically the same methodology was introduced in 2004 as "state-of-the-art" by the current Bush administration.

- The Carter administration was caught deliberately understating inflation.

- Systemic changes were introduced during the Reagan administration to boost reported GNP/GDP growth and to lower CPI inflation on a regular basis. The wildest manipulations, however, happened at the time of the

1987 liquidity panic. In addition to intervention in the futures markets by the New York Fed to help prop the stock market after the October 19th crash, direct and heavy manipulation of the trade deficit data, under the direction of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, was used in conjunction with massive currency intervention to help bottom the dollar and to contain the currency panic at year-end 1987.

- The first Bush Administration began efforts at the systematic reduction of the reported rate of CPI inflation, and it worked an outside-the-system GDP manipulation aimed at helping with the failed 1992 reelection bid.

- As former Labor Secretary Bob Reich explained in his memoirs, the Clinton administration had found in its public polling that if the government inflated economic reporting, enough people would believe it to swing a close election. Accordingly, whatever integrity had survived in the economic reporting system disappeared during the Clinton years.

Unemployment was redefined to eliminate five million discouraged workers and to lower the unemployment rate; methodologies were changed to reduce poverty reporting, to reduce reported CPI inflation, to inflate reported GDP growth further, among others.

- The current Bush administration has expanded upon the Clinton era initiatives, particularly in setting the stage for the adoption of a new and lower-inflation CPI and in further redefining the GDP and the concept of seasonal adjustment. Event driven manipulations appear to be underway in an effort to help boost flagging presidential approval ratings.

As a result of the systemic manipulations, if the CPI and GDP methodologies of 1980 were applied to today's data, you would get the 8%-plus inflation and flat economic growth discussed in the opening paragraph. Using unemployment methodology of 1960 generates an estimate of current 12% unemployment.

When Main Street, U.S.A., does not believe the government's reporting, the reality of common experience usually is the better estimate of what is happening in the economy. The damage from the fraudulent statistics, however, is much more serious than just politics as usual, the misguidance of overly trusting investors, or the massive cheating of Social Security recipients (payments would 70% higher using the CPI methodology of 1980).

The masking of the actual annual $3.5 trillion deficit is setting up the nation for an eventual national bankruptcy/U.S. dollar collapse. Putting that $3.5 trillion in perspective, consider this: If the government seized 100% of everyone's salary and wages, the government still would show a deficit. But that is a story in itself.

[BigBadBen]

unemployment is at record lows because they have changed they way the count the unemployed.

No sir!

You couldn't be more wrong. The economy is at a record low because everyone who WANTS to work IS WORKING.

Instead of spewing the Liberal talking points, do some investigation for yourself. Take a walk down just about any business district, in just about any city. You cant throw a rock without hitting a Help Wanted sign.

Pick up a newspaper and check out the classifieds. Even more advertisements for Help Wanted.

Throw a resume on Monster.com, see how long it takes to get a bite. I posted mine a while back & forgot to take it off. Ive had 4 calls, this week from recruiters looking for people to work.

See, that doesnt happen if enemployment is high.

If people arent working, its because they dont want to, and that is thanks to the welfare state the Liberals have created in the country.

[ctaggie]

Further along the lines of MPF's comments ... USA GDP is about 25% of the world's GDP and we do it with less than 5% of the people. Pretty strong performance. Pokefan, let me know if you ever start trading the financial markets ... so I can take the other side of the trade. At least then I'd get paid to read your comments.

[SLVRBK]

Pokefan, can you provide the methodologies they used in the 60's?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics actually list the number of people who are considered to be out of the workforce and the subset of that number who want to work. When you add that number into the published unemployment figure you get to about 8.6%.

The Labor Department is pretty loose when it comes to people suffering through long term unemployment, all they have to do to be counted as unemployed is to have looked for a job once in the last year and they move from being "out of the workforce" to "unemployed".

[Pokefan]

Slvrbk I amnot sure of the methodolgy used in the 60's or other periods. Nor would I be sure how to find theat. AlthoughI am quite sure it can be done. What is known is they have changed the way it is calcualted. My guess would be it has changed several times in the last few decades.

As to Big Bad ben This is not a liberal conservative issue. Nor was it discussed inthat context. It is simply stating that the methodology for counting Inflation and unemployment has changed from the 80's. A statement of FACT. That if the previous methodolgy was used the unemployment levels PUBLISHED inthe news would be higher. Whatever the reason for it is not the issue being discussed.

NOR is the issue WHO changed it. It is something that is doenb y BOTH Republicans and Democratic Administrations. Of course Slvrbk when they do make those changes it will always be done to reflect POSITIVELY on the current administration. The numbers used are simply not alsways the reality.

Bigbadben the fact that you see help wanted ads and have job offers to work may not always be a reflection of whats available and what skill sets and opportunities other folks have. Since you used an example I will give you one in return. A friend of mine was laid off from her Managerial job."Reduction in force". She worked in Ponca City. For 9 months now she has looked in numerous places. Posted resume's online Job hunt everywhere. Her options boil down to sell her house and move away from family and friends to accept work. OR accept a 7 dollar anhour job which will not pay the bills. It is all a matter of where you are and what your skills are. If she could weld or was a petroleum engineer it would be a different matter. Of course while it is not supposd to matter I am sure her age (over 50) is also an issue. Bottom Line she wants to work and cannot find it.

As to that welfare society you mentioned. Wer eyou discussing corporate welfare? or Welfare that goes to help the poor? since the majority of welfare receipients are single mothers with two kids who get a whopping 600 a month, Is that who your talking about? or the Corporation that gets hundreds of millions in TAX handouts so they can give the CEO Bonus's of 20-30 million?

I personally would rather my tax dollars go to feed a hungry kid then give someone who already has millions, millions more.

[steross]

I posted this originally to get these comments. Now I feel like I am at the tennis net watching volleys go over my head.

Clearly there are good things happening with the economy. Unemployment is low (even with the methodological changes that have happened it is still relatively low). There are people out there making tons of money.

But, depending on which circles you run in will determine how good this economy seems. Most of my physician and other wealthy friends are quite happy with the economy and how things are going (excluding health care economics- ugh!). But, I also have many friends that are not as economically privileged and they are finding it hard, even with jobs. Their pay is not keeping up with true inflation ( the gov numbers are divorced from reality for most people, imho).

So, just like this thread, I think our economy is becoming quite dichotomous. Those that are doing well are doing very well and are thrilled. Those that are not are becoming overwhelmed by rising energy costs, health care, rising home prices, and frankly, extravagant lifestyle relative to income ( does everyone need a cell phone, SUV and a plasma tv?). Having a job does not mean all is well. My brother in law is an example. He worked at the OKC GM plant for 27 yrs. then was laid-off when the plant closed. He is quite industrious and had no difficulty finding another job. But, being laid off three years before retirement from a high pay/high benefit job does not make him think the economy is great, even with a new job. Knowing the unbelievable pay and bonuses that GM, and worse Delphi, execs are getting for this fine job of destroying an American icon certainly does not help.

What is occurring is exactly what those that elected Pres. Bush wanted to have happen. Personally, it is working out well for me. As for the country, unlike all of you 'cept pokefan, I'm not so sure yet. In history, revolutions have been incited by too much disparity between the rich and poor and from bankrupt government. Are we headed that way in the future? I hope not.

PS. Unless you are a pure free market libertarian, I don't think that our society would qualify as a "welfare state". Especially in comparison to other similar countries.

[MustangPokeFan]

In 1996 - the middle of the Clinton economic miracle -

That statement in itself is all one needs to know about the legitimacy of the information in this story or the beliefs and motives of the author of this article.

ROFLMAO:D

[Pokefan]

Pretty much hit the nail onthe head Steross.

[steross]

That statement in itself is all one needs to know about the legitimacy of the information in this story or the beliefs and motives of the author of this article.

ROFLMAO:D

Read the article, I think that was sarcasm. He nails Clinton on the actual topic more than anyone else.