I bet most of those jobs are seasonal additions, to be dropped as the new year commences.
Possibly, but the data indicates otherwise. Perhaps seasonal additions account for the 65,000 jobs above the 150,000 benchmark, but I would highly doubt "most" of those jobs are seasonal. Indeed, the data shows increases in healthcare, education, and various portions of the housing sector, none of which are seasonal jobs.
Some could actually be related to the hurricanes still as well, as those areas get back on their feet and previously existing jobs (or new jobs in reconstruction) open up.
Which again, would not be seasonal, and would last longer than you suggest. Not to mention, I spoke to that in the post!
haha, ok, maybe I should start READING the whole post before making comments. lol. my bad.
After taking a banking and monetary class this semester, I'm even more convinced that growth has more to do with Fed policy than anything Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, et. al. do - that said, I agree with your point about deficit spending, as that can greatly influence our monetary policies and our standing in the international economic system. Of course, tax cuts are more or less just defecit spending, so maybe if the economy is doing better, the time has come to slow down the tax cuts in order to make the sacrafices necessary to fight a war without further expanding the debt and without totally dismantaling the social safetynet that protects the least fortunate among us.
No, slowing down tax cuts would hurt the economy, and most importantly, I would be taking home less money, which would suck (heh). What has to be done is a cut in porkbarrel spending, such as de-funding the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska and stopping stupid studies about things like the mating habits of fruit flies. There is simply too much money being earmarked for things it shouldn't. Tax cuts are good, but they must be matched with sound spending policies, which they were not, in this case. Sadly, the party that is supposed to be against such frivolous spending has become what it defeated.
Social Security isn't helping the "least fortunate among us." It has become an entitlement program that has driven even people with means away from planning for their future. It needs to be drastically overhauled so that it is what it was meant to be- a supplemental program. The greatest problem with SS is that people began depending on the government to care for them at retirement, resulting in increased benefits and a system doomed to failure.
Welfare programs should be in place, but as Reagan said, their goal should be to eliminate their need to the greatest extent possible. Unfortunately, they are not implemented in a way that does this and instead breed dependency and create a culture of defeat.
Oh, and you're spot on about Presidents having little control over the economy. Unfortunately for some leaders and fortunately for others, most Americans do not realize this. At least, most that I know. However, there are examples where the policies of a President did have drastic effects on the economy- Carter, for whom the term "stagflation" was created, and Reagan, who brought us out of stagflation with "Reaganomics." However, in general, Presidents have very little control. It's sort of sad we all give them as much credit as we do.
Commenting by HaloScan
