More bad news for Kerry
 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040303/D8132R2O1.html

I'm glad I'm not a democrat who has to hope things get bad before next November. The question is how will this be spun to seem less good then it really is. Most recessions have unemployment in the high 7's and low 8%, but Bush despite 9/11 has not only keep unemployment in the 6's and now 5's, but has allowed the economy to recover as well.

Keep on shopping.

I am a Democrat, and I certainly hope America comes to its senses and sends President Bush back to Crawford next November. That being said, I and most Democrats I know, are not hoping for bad economic news or any kind of disaster. I am an American first. True, if the economy is good it will be much harder to defeat President Bush, but I am not one to cut off my nose to spite my face.

If fact, while I am concerned with the long term effects of the Bush economic policies, it is clear that tax cuts have a stimulus effect in the short term and we are feeling the results of that right now. I hope this upturn in the economy continues but I still feel that excessive tax cuts and excessive spending are a recipe for distaster.

Finally, I have many more concerns with the Bush Administration that just the economy. Their poor environmental policies, restriction of stem-cell research, radical judicial nominations, poor follow through on No Child Left Behind, Border policies, and funding of Homeland Security needs. Add to this a joke of a prescription drug bill and the call for an unnecessary Constitutional Amendment and our nation has plenty to be concerned about.


Oh, and by the way, I agree - Keep on shopping! :)

"I'm glad I'm not a democrat who has to hope things get bad before next November."

I don't think Democrats need to "hope things get bad by November". Come November, we'll all vote, and it'll be close.

The country has grown so partisan and close-minded, it's all gonna depend on voter turnout and who's inspired to actually SHOW UP. It shows in statements like this, where your first comment is one of partisanship. Until the tide turns, Dems will vote for Dems, and Republicans will vote for Republicans. Fate of the world be damned, we'd rather stick with our "teams".

I'd be willing to bet even if Bush started a war, proposed a constitutional amendment, encouraged amnesty for illegal aliens, and proposed huge expenditures for Mars exploration despite record debts, partisan Republicans would still support him.

And I'd be willing to bet if he cured cancer, fed the world's people, eliminated unemployment for all, and returned earth to a pristine environmental condition partisan Democrats would still oppose him.

As far as the thread topic, there's no doubt this will make it more difficult for those who want to oust Bush.

The economic growth we are seeing is not due solely to tax cuts or government spending. The consumer is buying and feels confident. That's the main reason we are seeing growth.

I wonder just how much faster we'd be growing if all the ridiculously inaccurate characterizations of the economy hadn't been peddled for the last year or more? Perception of the consumer is important and anyone who thinks the sky is falling news reports touting how terrible the unemployment levels are, how the economy is in a shambles, how jobs are being shipped to India, etc don't impact the economy is mistaken. (This isn't just meant as a bash on Democrats since Republicans do the same thing when a Dem is in power but more a bash on the media's inflammatory portrayal of stories).

First, if you call having to work 2 or 3 jobs at wages that 10 years ago were laughable economic recovery, then I guess Bush has done a semi decent job.

Secondly, what good are his tax cuts doing when states are having to raise thiers and school districts and cities are in disarray trying to raise monies to keep running?

Sure Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Walton family and so on are reaping benefits from taxcuts, but it's not helping the average citizen.

Wal-Mart still have (what 29-30 states) atty generals going after thier wage and hour practices. Wal-Mart still puts companies like Rubbermaid out of business because they refuse to sell the product unless the company gives Wal-mart concessions.

We're still losing jobs overseas. Factories are still being closed down or on hiring freezes. Those that are hiring are paying TEMP services so they don't have to pay benefits.

Healthcare is still unaffordable to those without insurance and barely affordable to keep if you do have it.

Products maybe not going up in price but the quality is going down because companies choose cheaper labor and supplies.

Yep, we are in econmoic recovery all righty, we have become a shop at Wal-Mart country that has totally gotten away from small business.

Until small businesses start popping up and companies have ties to regions again we are doomed economically. The rich will continue to own 95% of all wealth and there will be no middle class.

It's funny the man who has Teddy Roosevelt's picture as his avatar is pro big business when it was Teddy Roosevelt that brought about the anti-trust lawsuits in the early 1900's. It was Teddy Roosevelt that developed the national park system that the GOP today is destroying with thier cuts.

It was Teddy Roosevelt, who worked to change labor laws, started legislation for unions to be legal, and so on. The very things the GOP today despise. Teddy, I'm sure would despise what his party has come to today.

"And I'd be willing to bet if he cured cancer, fed the world's people, eliminated unemployment for all, and returned earth to a pristine environmental condition partisan Democrats would still oppose him."

I'm criticizing being partisan and closed-minded, and yet your response is just that, partisan and closed-minded. If you honestly believe Democrats wouldn't vote for a guy who cured cancer, fixed the environment, and fed the starving, you'd absolutely freaking insane. Many Democrats turned to Reagan after Carter's "leadership", regardless of partisanship. They may have disliked his particular politics, but they assumed he wouldn't run the country into the ground. Many Democrats have been critical of Clinton for his moderate nature, his sexual affairs, and his defense record. The whole world isn't partisan, nor should it be... and a guy who did the things you mentioned would inspire the entire WORLD, not just one nation. But, oh yeah... you're not using ACTUAL facts, just fantasies.

Notice I said PARTISAN Democrats? There was a reason I made the distinction. And yet you decide to get on your soap box and denounce a statement that's in complete agreement with you.

:rolleyes:

Well, if this is a humming economy, i'd hate to see a faltering one.

The Nasdaq has retreated the last 8 weeks in a row due to uncertainty about the so called jobless recovery.

There are something like 2 million americans out of work in 2004 that were working in 2000.

That's hardly a stellar economy. Mind you, the employment numbers are always a lagging indicator. Tomorrow the employment numbers are out for last month. I guess we will see what happens.

A faltering economy will put this to shame. The economy is still growing and at a pretty healthy pace. The Nasdaq is far from an important indicator of economic health. Unemployment, while higher than it's been recently, is still relatively low in historical terms.

The economy is growing at a rapid enough pace that Greenspan was threatening the other day to raise interest rates to stop inflation.

His position has been and, as far as I know, remains that interest rates will have to go up at some point. Not exactly big news though since rates are at amazingly low levels. If we see GDP growth of >4 to 4.5% in the next quarter or a bump in inflation we'll see rates go up but I don't know if he'll do it before the election.

Consumer confidence also just took a pretty big leap, although it really hasn't been the greatest predictor of economic activity.

Umm, no.

Greenspan never threatened to raise interest rates. The man never threatens anything.

In the last meeting of the federal reserved, he merely changed the tone of his language concerning the overnight rate and it sent shivers through the stock market.

He never actually threatened anything, he changed tone.

And as far as it goes, today's employment numbers were a huge let down. Only 21,000 jobs added, and the street was expecting 125,000.

Furthermore, another 396,000 americans "left the work force" which means they have been unemployed so long that their benefits have run out and they are no longer counted in that figure of 5.6% unemployed.

The true number of unemployed people is far higher.

My family is decided worse off, economically, than it was 4 years ago, despit the fact that I show slightly higher gross income now as opposed to then. My cost of living has gone through the roof, despite what the media reports. The tax cuts have done "0" to make my life better. Energy costs, food, clothing and housing have expanded beyond any growth in my take-home pay.

For the record, I have not changed jobs or relocated during that period. In fact, I've have a child move away, and cut back from two cars to one car.

Bush's economics have hurt my family tremendously, and his deficits will haunt my children for their entire lifetime.

I don't hope for things to get worse before November, I merely believe that that will be the result of Son of Bush's misguided fiscal policy. Not that they need to get any worse for Kerry to win. We need 200 K jobs a month before Bush is a net benefit to the economy. That won't happen. We got what? 20K? And the only reason the unemployment rate was stable was because of the number of people who have just given up looking for work.

If the tax cuts go to the wealthy and jobs are hard to come by, it won't be hard to paint this Administration as just another in a long line of Bush Jr. business failures.

I'd love to hear how Bush caused this.

I think it's just as reasonable for him to vote his pocketbook as it is for the guy making a million bucks who got 113,000 bucks more back. *shrug*

Yep, I quite obviously said he has no right to vote against Bush. Precisely it. I wasn't asking about how it is that Bush has raised energy, food, and housing prices.

:confused:

part of the reason the unemployment is so low is the number of people that they just aren't counting into that statistic anymore.

my ass is unemployed, and i've been looking for a job. most places i've gone to are letting ppl go, not hiring. others are keeping an even employment level cause business isnt going up so they dont need anymore help.

and my ass is certainly not counted in that statistic.

<img src=http://www.brayinghills.com/images/jennets/current/sharrona-c.jpg>

Put your donkey to work!

Take out the riding crop if you have to!

I'd love to hear how Bush helped the economy.

If one takes credit for the good, one must also take credit for the bad and strive to change it.

I don't see Bush doing that.

GWB has presided over the most severe reversal in American economics since 1929. And, while he may not have been directly responsible for it, he bears the responsibility of how the government managees the recovery.
He has NOT put more money in the pockets of the ones who spend it to drive the economy. (his tax cuts did NOT help MY family)
He has NOT promoted the generation of jobs of a quality and pay scale to replace the ones being shipped overseas. (his "booming" economy is NOT helping the citizens who need it most)
His energy policy has allowed non-productive brokers to siphon off profits that the local power generators would have been able to invest in upgrading the power grid. (my gas and electric bill soar while large corporate customers get off cheap)
The war that he lied to us about, coupled with his immoral tax cuts, has created the fastest growing deficit in history, and he makes no pretense to having a plan for paying it off. He has saddled the nation with a burden that will drag it down for decades.

Hmmmmm.... I guess I'm just not a patiot. I'd rather feed, house and protect my children than kill Iraqis and give their oil to the vice-president's buddies.

I talk to people in manufacturing all over the lower 48 as part of my job. Most say business is good, not great, but better than last year. Personally my income has gone up more than enough to compensate for the raise in utilities etc. My only complaint is that having 2 teenagers and mid-life crisis at the same time can be heniously expensive.

Remember that America is changing from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. That will cause lower wages.

Things that I have found that can effect your personal bankroll:

Is the economy bad all over, or just in certain sectors, or in certain states where the state/local government was a player?

Are/Were you employed in a sector of the economy that was affected by the .com bust?

Were you willing to adapt to a change in the market or are you still trying to sell tobacco?

Certain jobs always seem to be in demand, if willing to relocate. Are you willing to relocate? Are you in a job that is going away and need to retrain?

I once blamed that wife for spending too damn much money on bs. Nice tasting crow when I found out that it was my cigs and booze that were hit by a nasty sin tax.

Just my thoughts.

The big recession presided over by Bush was, by historical standards, minute. The three quarters defining this recession carried growth rates of -0.2%, -0.6%, and -1.3%.

In comparison, the one presided over by his father consisted of two quarters with -3.0% and -2.0%.

Going further back (4Q '81 and 1Q '82), we find drops of -4.9% and -6.4%.

If you look at the next earliest, you find -7.8% and -0.7%.

The next, -3.8%, -1.6%, -4.7%.

The next, -1.9%, -0.7%.

The next, -4.2%, -10.4%

The next, -2.4%, -6.2%, -2.0%

The next, -5.8%, -1.2%

The next mid '47, -0.5%, -0.2%

This is far from the biggest turnaround since 1929.


The consumer drives the economy and the consumer has been spending. The wealth gains from the stock market and home values in combination with low interest rates have more than enabled consumers to refinance debt and spend.

The "outsourcing" pointed to has been going on for decades and will continue. It's the price we pay for moving towards a global economy. The US has gained far more in lower prices due to lower labor costs than it has lost in jobs being shipped overseas.


Again, the nation's energy policy has been formed over many decades. If by energy prices you mean oil, there are many other factors besides brokers to blame. Political turmoil and worker strikes in key oil producing nations are more to blame than any policy you could point to from Bush.

If you'd like to look at the electrical issues of California, the state government’s decision to be ruled by the market is primarily to blame.


I guess this pretty much tells me where your objections to GWB lie. “Immoral” tax cuts? Please. What’s immoral about them?


Yeah that’s it. If the Iraqis oil is being funneled to Cheney’s buddies, why doesn’t it seem to be showing up in the market and helping you with those exorbitant energy bills?

First off, I don't believe the President influences the economy in any significant way.

Second, his detractors have left him no alternative but to take credit for the good.

The good includes increasingly productive workers, low interest rates, high home ownership, high home values, low inflation, more than 9 quarters of economic growth since the utterly mild recession of 2001, and more American workers invested in the stock market than ever before.

The bad? Unemployment that, by historical standards, is moderate, segments of the US workforce being impacted by global changes effecting virtually EVERY industrialized nation on earth, and high budget deficits at least a fair portion of which were unavoidable due to the acts of 9/11.

If he's to "blame" for the economy I'd have to say he gets a solid "B" in my book. Certainly not a bad enough grade in my book to justify a change in leadership. But to each his own.

First off, taking the nation to war has a strong influence on the economy. While the attack on Afganistan was IMO needed, the large financial strain being caused by the invasion of Iraq was IMO not needed at that particular time and in that particular way. I am sure that someone will comment that if we had not invaded Iraq it could have led to them supplying terrorist for another attack on the U.S. which would have worse economic effects, but that is speculative at best.

As far as giving Bush a "B", I would give him a "B" for short term econmic policy in regards to his first round of tax cuts. It was a good stimulus plan that got bipartisan support and helped to float the economy. However, I would give him a "C-" or "D+" for his long term fiscal policies. He continues to push for tax cuts while taking us into an expensive and potentially long term war/nation building endeavor(sp?) and in addition to the necessary war time military expenditures and the necessary increases in Homeland Security expenditures (which are still underfunded), he continued to increase domestic spending at a rate even Democrats (and let's be honest, we Dems love to spend money) would blush at. He is pinning his hopes on a, so far, elusive recovery that will help reduce the trillions in deficit spending. But if he continues to cut taxes and increase spending (while I'm no economist) it seems unlikely that these "Voodoo Economics" (his father's term) are going to succeed.

The impact of large prolonged wars have had economic impact. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not even close to equivalent to wars of the past. If you'd like to debate the impacts of Afghanistan and Iraq both long term and short term, I think it would be interesting.

Long term, in my grade book, he has the potential for an "A" if he can get the government cutting programs along with making the tax cuts permanent. The government does not need more money to achieve fiscal responsibility but, in fact, less money. There's far too much fat in the budget and there's no motivation for our wonderful representatives to cut it. The only way this will happen is if the government is forced to make do on less rather than simply pass off their inefficient spending habits to the consumers/taxpayers.

I was not trying to say that Afganistan and Iraq are going to have the same economic impact as other wars. In fact, extended war can have a positive long term economic results. But what I was referring to was that the President does have a significant influence on the economy. Going to war is just an example of how presidential policy decisions can effect the economy.

And I won't agrue that many people believe that giving the government less money is the way to achieve fiscal responsibility. The question you need to be asking is why we are spending more money as our revenues decrease.

If the concept is that the only way we are going to get the public to accept governmental fiscal responsibility is to create such a huge debt that they will feel obligated to reduce spending, I can think of better ways. We balanced the budget under Clinton with the help and leadership of a Republican congress. We had surplusses which could have helped shore up Social Security and Medicare or been used to provide funding for the numerous unfunded federal mandates which are bankrupting the states. I am not say that trimming the fat is bad, in fact, it is essential. I just don't see the Bush Administration doing this.

And frankly I don't think I have the energy to debate the long term effects of Iraq and Afganistan but if you start a thread I am sure I will chime in. :)

War is about the only way the President has a direct impact on the economy. And even that is fleeting.

You are absolutely right that war usually has a net positive effect on the economy. IMO, there is little to nothing the President can do to directly cause economic stagnation. Now, if we were to group the President and Congress together we could throw in passing certain types of laws, tax increases (or cuts), and a few other things but even those are typically fleeting as there are so many ways around them.

I think I'll skip the long term war impact thread since I could probably script the responses from the "usual suspects" ;)

Considering this statement do you think that having a President and Congress controlled by the same party is generally a good thing or not? I tend to think that it lessens debate which is often where the truly good ideas come from. (I like a little gridlock with my government) I know this is off subject, but I am curious.

It depends on the make up of the Congress and the tendencies of the sitting President. I tend to like a little "gridlock", as you put it, too.

There's alot of room for debate but we ultimately need a leader who is going to push the country in one direction or the other. They then need to convince the American people and Congress that it's the right direction.

Congress is pretty much always going to be a moderating influence simply based on the number of representatives and the vastly different concerns that some of them represent. Throw in the number of career politicians who are only looking to get re elected and that moderating influence gets even higher.

Since Presidents can only sit for two terms it makes them push harder in one direction or the other. I almost believe that Presidents should get one 8 year term so they could institute more change without fear of losing their job in the next election.

Interesting comment, I had not really thought about that, and thanks for you thoughts.

Yes if Bush is reinstated I will be most upset....if you like Bush I'm sorry that I offened your lack of good taste.

I don't think that any Bush supporters will be offended that you don't care for him, but you might express your thoughts without being insulting.