What are you saying to Republicans gloating about the 7%

One just did a drive-by gloat past my desk: "I've got one thing to say: 7.25% - Go Bush!" This is a guy who gets all of his news from/bases all of his opinions on Willam F. Buckley. I yelled after him, "You are living in a fairy tale!" Was that OK? Or what else could I have said that would have made him stop and think?

Why are they so dead set on believing in the fairy tale? Sane Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all agree Bush's economic policies suck. Yet seemingly intelligent individuals are clinging to the myth of Bush as a success.

I know the results of the tax cut are temporary - and that the middle class cuts are set to "sunset" after 2004. That most of the cuts went to the top 1% and yet jobs were still cut (from the very companies showing record profits.) That there was no gain of jobs. That many jobs are gone for good overseas (both factory and white collar.) That the numbers have not yet been properly analyzed. That the deficit will HAVE to come home to roost at some point. Am I missing something?

so how much of raise did you get?

by simply sending low tech and high tech jobs overseas. It is called a jobless recovery. This spells bad news for the unemployed in this country because they are forgotten in the misplaced euphoria.

And they are happy to be collecting those unemployment checks and don't see it as welfare or socialism.

Did ya get 7% this quarter? 2%? Are you still employed?

Not a fan of the current economic emphasis, but I did get an 11% raise last week. And 7.2% growth in a quarter is really, really good. This has nothing to do with anything Bush* has done and everything to do with cycles. So we might want to watch out about talking down an improving economy.

Credit card spending is where the bulk of the GDP increase is coming from.

I bet there are a lot of maxed out cards in this country.

"The hen is the wisest of all animals, because she never clucks until the egg is laid." Let's see where Bush's policies take us long term, before the clucking begins.

This boost was artifice due to the tail end of the refi boom, and auto sales due to zero percent financing.

Job loss continues, albeit at a slower pace: only 341,000 new filers for unemployment

So a nice response might be
"341,000 newly unemployed! Go Bush!"

let's not forget

"Largest Deficit and government payroll ever! Go Bush!"

but people don't have jobs - or raises - isn't that all that matters? One would think that even if they are really happy :eyes: CEO's are making record profits, they'd care more that they themselves are going broke?

If it was only 341,000 we are in BIG trouble. That's a good 13-15% below what it should be.

Was that part of the report? Or news today? Even 391,000 would be bad, I was hoping it would go over 400k again to take the wind out of Bush's sails.

OK, I wasn't "hoping" in the sense that I want the economy to suffer but.... oh, you know.

That 7.2% will almost certainly be revised downward and the news will be buried on page 4 of the business section, where noone will read it.

This is how they get away with lying. I would like to see a headline for once saying, "Bush lied-GDP really 4.1%".

They will put out a vision (probably closer to hallucination) of reality that will make your head spin. It will be difficult to fight because it will be lie piled on top of more lies piled on top of logical fallacies piled on top of pure bullshit. It will make internal coherent sense and make a great soundbite and will take more resources than the Democratic party or any one candidate will have to fight it.

2004 will be won by charisma - fairy tales.

was on Diane Rehm this morning. He was blindly cheerleading for Bush. Kept saying, who cares about lost blue collar jobs, there will be lots of intellecutal jobs. I felt like screaming, because I have an intellectual job that is getting shipped to India in droves.

1)The overwhelming majority of that bump is due to a one time increase in consumer spending due to the tax cuts. The basic infrastructure of the economy in terms of job creation, etc. is still in shambles.

2) A considerable amount is also due to the Iraq war. Atypical bumps such as this occured in both World Wars, and possible the first Iraq war (not exactly sure).

Overall, our economy is not changed at all, and these are one time shocks that don't reflect the underlying troubles our economy are facing.

:)

I hate talking with RW types because all they respond to and use are infactual soundbites.

I could be mistaken, but I hear WWII helped the economy because the money the government was paying for the war actually went into the hands of the people - soldiers, factory workers building supplies, etc. I also hear FDR was picky about who was awarded the government contracts, that he didn't want some rich guy to get richer.

On the other hand, while we all think that war is always good for the economy, it actually rather depends on who is getting the government contracts. In this case, the benefactors are Bush's buddies. Kinda resembles a money-laundering scheme, doesn't it?

I wonder if solders got a cut in their benefits when Bush said the war was over. I wonder if there is a difference between war-time pay and peace-keeping pay.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Thank you for the warm welcome. It's good to be here, among independent thinkers at last!

down .03 percent. Growth, if it continues will probably be between 3 and 4 percent. The big surge cannot be sustained. Many people who have lost their jobs will not get them back because those jobs are gone forever. Some due to technology allowing employers to get along with less people, or, worse yet, jobs have been outsourced to India and other countries where employees work for much less.

Your fellow employee is a fool. What goes around comes around. Wait for the drop and remind him/her that life with bush is not ever going to be a bowl of cherries.

The indescribable ecstasy of all this GWB-inspired progress with regards to the economy and the war is still not considered legal tender by my mortgage company.

If that doesnt shut him up, compare job creation under both administrations....

this was from the Weekly Standard Article linked off that one (guess this guy will get fired for telling some of the truth):

With real wages more or less stagnant, no such "other sources" are on the horizon. So, heavily indebted consumers--many at the lower end of the income scale--may find themselves caught in a vise between stagnant incomes and rising interest rates. Indeed, mortgage delinquencies rose in the second quarter, and that was before interest rates started moving up.

Worse still, rising rates will prevent consumers from refinancing their mortgages, and therefore deprive them of the ready cash that kept them in auto showrooms and cruising the nation's malls. Higher rates will also discourage home buying, no small thing in an economy in which the 100,000 increase in construction jobs provided the labor market's bright spot, and in which residential construction accounted for 16 percent of the economy's entire growth in the first half of the year, according to estimates by BusinessWeek's James Cooper and Kathleen Madigan.

n/t

I assume the GDP has been dropping for the last two years. So it is moving up 7.25% from a very low position.

It is like a kid who has all F's on his report card getting 2 D's and 2 C's. He might win the "most improved" award, but he still has a long way to go.

How does the current GDP compare to the third year of the Clinton Presidency?

It's been moving up at an average of around 2-2.5% since then. That just isn't very "robust" growth. 7% is.

By comparison, it's similar to Clinton's 1999 4th Quarter.

:yourock:

Which means "see you same time next quarter."

Easy, fast, gets the point across.

You'll be gloating next time these figures are released, unfortunately.

Cher

given enough fiscal stimulus (tax cuts and/or gov't spending). The issues are at what cost and how sustainable is it. To get 7.2% growth for one quarter, Bush has saddled the country with a structural (that means it doesn't go away even after revenues recover) deficit equivalent to 25% of the federal budget. This deficit will be a drag on future growth in perpetuity. As impressive as the third quarter GDP number may seem, in hindsight it will be clear that Bush got very little bang for the buck from his tax cuts.

I'd say "Oh yeah? Well that won't bring back all of those people killed on 9/11, and we won't be able to defend ourselves against another 9/11 because Bush is opposed to finding out what went wrong in the first place. Bring me Osama's head on a platter before you start crowing to me about how good a job Bush is doing".

Or words to that effect.

Now we can afford a comprehensive prescription drug plan.

This question is obviously a trap. If you try to contradict it, you will be accused of hoping things fall apart just because you hate Bush. If you agree, they'll say "See, we told you so. All hail, our great leader." Ask them it THEY feel 7.25% richer.

Have been working on the Federal books.

No seriously, say you hope the economy is improving enough to eventually help all of those poor, long-term unemployed people out there.

Enough said

Still pretty bad, but not nerely as bad as Carter (almost double the unemployment rate now) and certainly not an economy that can be compared to Hoover.

The economy (GDP) SHRANK by about 25% under Hoover. Bush went down about 2-3% over a nine month period and has been growing at about 2-3%/yr since then. The economy was bigger by about Q2 2002 than it was when he "took" office.

Te better statement is just to point out how great things were under Clinton and how He's got nothing to show for the last four years by comparisson. No point in exagerating to compare to Hoover.

Does not include people who are scared out of the labor force and have stopped looking for work.

I don't know when they changed the stats to not include these people, but they used to, which means that his unemployment numbers are worse than Carter's.

The figure inclded that before as well. Otherwise we would have 100Million+ unemployed.

It doesn't include people who accept jobs at McDonald's when they get laid off from AOL either. But that's the same as every previous president as well.

so I don't know where you're getting your numbers - care to share them?

every economic thread, you try to paint things better than most media sources for Bush

why do you think the media - who is not on our side - is reporting things as being far worse than you are?

they just said it once more on the Diane Rehm show in front of a rabid Washington Times journalist, and he didn't correct it

I just have a problem with people making things up, that's all.

Knowing, as I do, that the voting public is not stupid, and hoping that my party will realize this beofore trying to get them to VOTE for us... I go out of my way to "spin" what can be legitimately be spun while shunning untruths.

And I encourage you to read those "most media sources". I'm not "painting" anything better than they are. They are painting things pretty rosy right now and some here are going too far trying to pretend that the numbers don't exist - or are other than what is reported. I'm just pointing out the facts.

So let's go over Hoover again. The GDP (the single best measurement of the economy) SHRANK about 25% under Hoover. Shrub's economy shrank about .6% 1st quarter of 2002, by 1.6% in the 2nd Quarter and about .3% in the 3rd. For a total GDP contraction (and a REAL recession) of about 2.75% or 1/9 of the contraction under Hoover. The GDP then grew by about 2.6% in the Fourth quarter of that year to put it about back where it started when shrub took over (all these numbers are annualized, of course). The following quarters were, respectively, +5%, +1.25%, +4%, +1.25%, +1.25%, +2.25% and now +7%. That puts it at about even for his first year, +3% for his second and +4% to +4.5% for his third. Really NOT the same thing as a 25% contraction. Not good by any real measure, but not the same as Hoover.


Wouldn't it be truer (and poltically more potent) to say "Bush presides over the worst economy since... Bush"?

Frodo, you brought up GDP, but we/they were talking job loss/job creation.

http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/327

With wages stagnant, job creation slow and unemployment swelling, it’s clear that President Bush’s trillion-dollar tax cuts still haven’t produced the kind of economic recovery that will lift all workers and job seekers.

A new report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the labor market is in worse shape now that when the most recent recession ended, in November 2001.

In "Labor Market Left Behind," senior economist Jared Bernstein and EPI President Lawrence Mishel give Bush and his team the dubious honor of presiding over the lousiest recovery, in terms of employment growth, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking employment in 1939.

Bush’s first and perhaps last term in office will end with a net job loss, likely in the millions, making him the only commander-in-chief since Depression-era President Herbert Hoover to earn such a distinction.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/03/news/economy/jobs/?cnn=yes

The hardship of unemployed people has become a political problem for President Bush, up for re-election in 2004. His father lost a re-election bid in 1992 because of a "jobless" economy, and Bush's predicament has been even worse -- since he took office in January 2001, 2.6 million jobs have been lost. He's likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a net job loss during his four-year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/01/national/main566203.shtml

& etc.

(do a Google on "worst job loss since hoover")

Hoover was out of office before the worst was over, but he took unemployment from roughly 5% to the 25% neighborhood. Do you really compare going from ~4.5% to 6%... to THAT???


Thirteen MILLION people lost their jobs between 1929 and 1932 (or so). In a country with well under half the population (and WELL under half the work force) and your going to talk about 2.6 Million in a workforce three times the 1932 size in the same breath?

Shrub would have to lay off 30-35 Million people tomorrow before they would compare.


But answer the important question please? Why not just say "Clinton created 18.9 Million new jobs and you got rid of almost 3 Million of them... why should people even consider voting for you?"

See... he'd have no response to that. This business about a comparison between today and the Depression is just too easy to refute with facts. Why not just compare him to what everyone remembers?

Go argue the numbers with him.

Against the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

I LIKE Harold Ford (though he's a lot more conservative than most here would be comfortable). But I'd like a link. Here (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tn09_ford/20030502CongressMustActtoCreateJobs.html) is the only story I've found, and in May he seemed to be accepting the current figures. I can't find him saying "12 Million" anywhere.

nt

No link? Just insults?


(Actually, I used to be a Zell fan).

Delivered in your best Clara Peller "Where's The BEEF?????" voice.

It ain't a "recovery" unless EVERYONE's recovering....

Jay

"What are you saying to Republicans gloating about the 7%?"

Don't spend it all in one place...

The only ones who are "missing something" are the clueless republican base.

If there isn't significant job growth pretty soon, no economic growth will be sustainable.

whaaaaaaaaa?

just pulling the drive-by-gloater's leg - hehehe

however ... the consumer spending "abandon" thingy ... yielded this news item today:

Consumer Spending Dips 0.3 Percent

Consumers kept a tighter grip on their wallets in September, trimming spending by 0.3 percent after a summertime shopping spree that propelled a third quarter of strong economic growth. (AP Graphic)


October 31, 2003 11:40 AM EST


WASHINGTON - Consumers kept a tighter grip on their wallets in September, trimming spending by 0.3 percent after a summertime shopping spree that propelled a third quarter of strong economic growth.

The largest over-the-month decrease in spending in a year, reported Friday by the Commerce Department, came after consumer spending shot up by 1 percent in July and then another 1.1 percent in August. Consumers spent more lavishly earlier as they began to see the cash from President Bush's third round of tax cuts.

~snip~

In September, consumer spending on "durable" goods - big-ticket items, such as cars and appliances, expected to last at least three years, was cut by 5.1 percent, reversing part of August's 3.8 percent gain.

But for "nondurables" such as food and clothes, consumers boosted spending by 0.3 percent in September, after a 1.4 percent increase the previous month. Consumer spending on services, meanwhile, rose 0.4 percent in September, up from a 0.3 percent gain in August.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=1&aid=1031112614_5304_lead_story

:-)

... for something."

:-)

JUST WATCH WHAT HAPPENS

Watch out for next quarter. Krugman has a good article out today that says there have been 2 other good gdp numbers during idiot boys term, and were followed by quarters with 1-3% gdp numbers.

Consumer spending slips

September pullback came after summer shopping spree


ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 — Consumers kept a tighter grip on their wallets in September, trimming spending by 0.3 percent after a summertime shopping spree that propelled a third quarter of strong economic growth.
THE LARGEST OVER-THE-MONTH decrease in spending in a year, reported Friday by the Commerce Department, came after consumer spending shot up by 1 percent in July and then another 1.1 percent in August. Consumers spent more lavishly earlier as they began to see the cash from President Bush’s third round of tax cuts.
Economists had said in advance of Friday’s report that the brisk pace of spending — which helped spur a 7.2 percent annual rate of growth in the third quarter — just couldn’t be sustained. They had predicted that shoppers would rein in their finances in September, and they did just that.
Analysts had forecast a 0.1 percent decrease in spending. The 0.3 percent decline was the largest since a 0.4 percent drop in September 2002.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/987426.asp?0cm=c20

those Republicans who I talk to are not concerned that people do not have jobs--if they were disciplined enough, they would not have had jobs that were vulnerable like them! They believe that is the fault of the person who is being laid off and is now in financial difficulty. These people are not that wealthy--they are merely rather puny, small minded little teachers in a dinky little school in rural Maine--yet they they are totally non compassionate==they hate the parents of their poorest pupils because, well because they are just plain ignorant, uneducated and stupid parents--yea, those women who have not married well besides, are in some way not favored by their god--marry well all you women, and you will have it all without too much effort---and that is good enough for them.

Teachers need to be more professional.

Survival of the fittest

Funny, it's OK for economics, but not creation?

When their tech jobs get sent to India, will it be survival of the fittest then?

I no longer have any confidence that anything I hear is factual. Everything that is put out is fabricated.
Enron accountants!

....How could that be?

I heard it on CBS news.

As soon as I saw these numbers, I thought that this is caused by the fact that the people who received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts, hadn't spent their money. If I make over 300,000/year and I get a tax cut, what am I going to do with it? I probably can already buy the things that I need and I want. Meanwhile, people who got the little credits spent them in August and now don't have that extra income to spend; it was a one time thing.

That's the question to have asked, how much of that 7% growth did he see?

I know for a fact he got a whopping 2% raise

You can point out that the Democrats were the ones who put that credit in the tax slashing bill, to give something back to the lower-income 95%.

You can point out that 7.2% is ONE quarter extended to represent FOUR quarters.

You can point out that any sharp upticks other than those from the CTC are on the tab for the next generation to cover.

You can point out that the manufacturing growth was all overseas sweatshops.

You can point out that there was NO growth in living wage jobs for Americans.

Just know this: anything you say will be lost in the memory hole, by the time the repuke gloaters get back to their comfy chairs in the Fox News echo chamber.

... structural reforms that Clinton put in place are finally paying off. It's not true, but it should piss him off.

Otherwise, you might tell him that this is just a "Wal-Mart" recovery - it was bought on margin by giving tax cuts we couldn't afford, and by people refinancing their homes and going on a buying splurge.

Here's some heavier ammo:

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

deficits as a percentage of GDP and much better economic growth. LBJ's "guns and butter" fiscal policy contributed to the inflation of the 1970's and 1980's. Bush is taking us in the same direction.

You also can tell them that not only is Bush emulating LBJ, he also is repeating the same republican mistakes that account for the incredibly pathetic republican record on job creation, federal deficits, and the performance of the stock market.

Job Creation

Republican presidents are always, always, always bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents.

Since the depression, not a single republican president has had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has had a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.

Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.



Fedral Deficit

Since Kennedy was president, republican presidents have always run higher federal deficits in current dollars, in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than democratic presidents, except for 1968. In the 42 years since Kennedy's first budget, the US has increased the publicly held national debt by roughly $3.5 trillion. $3.2 trillion of this debt piled up in the 22 years under republican presidents. $300 billion piled up in the 20 years under democratic presidents.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls

The estimates in the table for 2003 and subsequent years are no longer applicable. The current estimates are much higher. Also, the numbers for the first year of a presidential term are from the budget of the preceeding term.

Stock Market

The stock market also performs better under democratic presidents.

The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than
Republican presidencies:nine percent for the value-weighted and 16 percent
for the equal-weighted portfolio.The difference comes from higher real stock
returns and lower real interest rates,is statistically significant,and is robust
in subsamples.The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle
variables related to expected returns,and is not concentrated around election
dates.There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across
presidencies that could justify a risk premium.The difference in returns
through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.

http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/Politics.pdf

This analysis covers the years 1927-1998 and separately examines the years from 1927-1962 and 1963-1998. Results which included the years from 1999-2003 would show an even greater difference.

probably -14& in truth.

(or a title something like that) that is on at about 2pm Sat afternoons had 2 economic reporters saying that it was a "blip" and unlikely to be sustained. They also mentioned several new announcements of huge layoffs and said that a jobless recovery was nothing to get excited about. Also mentioned the drop in consumer spending in Sept. And the fact that the stock market didn't surge on this "news"--the Dow was only up 14 pts yesterday.

The creeps who get their talking points from the WH (like Kudlow and Blankley) were crowing of course, but there are some sane voices still (thank goodness).

I would be very happy to see the economy improve. Though if it does, Bush* will say it was the tax cuts and then push for more--and that's why I am skeptical of their numbers. It all fits a little too neatly into their plans for more and deeper tax cuts. Still, Krugman didn't dispute the numbers--just the interpretation and the premature glee. So, as a non-economist, I'll save my worst paranoia for Bush*'s MANY other sins.

Oh, a question about the jobless rate statistics. Does anyone keep records of not just the crude number of jobs lost, but of income lost? As when someone who lost a $50,000/yr job takes one for $20,000/yr rather than go hungry? Add that to the official numbers, plus the people (like me) who were never eligible for unemployment insurance, or who ran out the clock on unemployment comp--and the number is a lot bigger. (Someone said above that this is the way every administration counts, but that doesn't make the official numbers an accurate reflection of the real problem.)