« What Are You Scared of Dean? | Home | Hillary Clinton »
I’m Sorry, Is The Economy Not Supposed to Improve Before the Election?
By Matt Margolis | July 31, 2003
Various reports from the media, take your pick of any of the number of sources, reported today that the economy has been showing definite signs of speeding of up…
What? The economy is improving? After Bush’s huge tax cuts nonetheless?!?!?!
Well, this isn’t unfair to the Democrats running for President?
Some key quotes for you from one article:
“The economy seems to be shifting into a higher gear and we should start seeing that in the numbers,” said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Banc of America Capital Management.
This is quite interesting and exciting isn’t it? I mean, who would have though the economy would improve after those big, scary, and evil tax cuts?
That confidence is expected to get a further boost as Americans start benefiting from a new $330 billion tax cut package passed in May. This month some Americans started seeing fatter paychecks and some families got checks in the mail from a $400 per child increase in the child tax credit.
What was that? Are they suggesting that once Americans start getting back more of their own money that they’ll start spending it, and pumping money into the economy? Sounds a lot like what Bush has been saying doesn’t it?
For the economy to mount a sustainable rebound, Americans will need to turn around and start spending that money. Most economists believe that will happen, giving a good boost to retail sales in coming months.
So it’s in our hands now isn’t it? Americans now have a choice. Spend your tax cut, and help our economy recover, or do nothing with it, and contribute to inflating the egos of Democrats.
It all comes down to whether or not you want to help America, or let it suffer all for the sake of political gripes.
By giving Americans more disposable income, the tax cuts are also expected to help lift consumer confidence. Analysts believe that Tuesday’s report on consumer confidence could show a gain to around 85 for June, up from 83.5 in May. That would be the highest reading since last fall and an indication that consumer optimism is rebounding from the jittery days before the Iraq war.
It just keeps getting better doesn’t it? The simple, common sense rationale behind tax cuts is being explained once again by economists, and we’re soon going to see the beauty of having more of our money in our wallets, and less of it in Washington.
Democrats point to the rising unemployment rate and soaring budget deficits as evidence that Bush has bungled the economy.
But many forecasters believe the July unemployment report, to be released Friday, will show that the jobless rate dipped slightly to 6.3 percent last month as businesses stopped cutting jobs and actually added as many as 15,000 workers to their payrolls.
Prediction 1: The Democrats, who have wet dreams about blaming Bush for the economy, will find themselves shooting blanks on the economy issue once things show dramatic signs of improvement. They will never give Bush or his tax cuts credit for improving the economy.
Prediction 2: The Democrats in congress are going to try all they can to increase spending to further contribute to the deficits, and to intentionally weaken the economy before the election.
Prediction 3: The Democrats are going to find anyway possible to advocate people bank their tax cut, not spend it, so they can’t contribute to economic growth.
Mark my words.
Even with growth improving, it will still take time to make much of a dent in unemployment rate. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, said the country isn’t likely to see a significant rebound in employment until next year. But the improvement should still come in time to give Bush a boost in his 2004 re-election campaign.
“It is much easier to run a campaign when you are creating jobs than when you are losing them,” said Zandi. “If everything sticks according to script, we should be getting some substantive job growth by next spring.”
Oh the sweet sound of Democrats’ sorrow. Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats. The economy is improving, the tax cuts only stand to benefit the situation, and the Democrats are finding themselves further and further away from the Oval Office in 2004.
Topics: Bush 2004 |
Related Posts:
July 31st, 2003 at 11:00 pm
Add to that the news about the higher than expected GDP growth. (which was made to sound like a really good thing)
And the fact that it was credited to increased defense spending. (That one is a win-win situation. The Economy goes up as does the military’s resources).
August 1st, 2003 at 5:40 am
Prediction 3: The Democrats are going to find anyway possible to advocate people bank their tax cut, not spend it, so they can?t contribute to economic growth.
Even the act of just banking the check will stimulate the economy by allowing banks to loan out more money, which is a cascade effect. In order to see just how this works I humbly suggest checking out my post over at my blog concerning Just how money is created?
It is a bit too long to post in a comment section.
August 1st, 2003 at 9:00 am
Feel the burn as the new-jobless flood the market.
“Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy unexpectedly lost 44,000 jobs in July for a sixth straight decline, the government reported. The unemployment rate dropped to 6.2 percent as discouraged job-seekers left the work force.”
The economy is so bad that even with a surprise 50k jobloss, we still have mopre people throwing up their hands and stopping looking for work than getting fired.
How foul. We need a Democrat in the Whitehouse and a Democratic congress again, or at least a executive/legislative split.
August 1st, 2003 at 10:54 am
actually, Matt’s article addressed that:
….will show that the jobless rate dipped slightly to 6.3 percent last month as businesses stopped cutting jobs and actually added as many as 15,000 workers to their payrolls.
In fact, that would seem to indicate that unemployment was not as bad as it was expected to be.
I know this doesn’t exactly fit into your “blame Bush” strategy, but Dims never were known for letting facts getting in the way of their accusations
August 1st, 2003 at 11:57 am
Matt’s article was about estimates before the release, which estimated 11K job adds. There were 44K jobs lost. That’s bad. There are 54K less people with jobs in reality as opposed to the inaccurate estimate. This is a bad thing. Perhaps in partisan-hack world it’s a good thing to crash through the floor of the estimate, but I don’t think so.
At the same time, however, half a million people gave up looking for work, discouraged that they could not find a job. If you think that this is a “good” thing, than the numbers were a pleasant surprise. If you live in non-partisan-hack world, that’s another bad thing.
The non-partisan-hack world knows that the fact that workers are discouraged, and walking away from the job force, compounded with the fact that there are less jobs is a bad thing, not a good thing. Perhaps you could join us over here in reality?
August 1st, 2003 at 4:14 pm
Media- I was going to elaborately show you where you had made arbitrary assumptions, and ask you where you got these numbers you cited.
I decided to just let you have it.
In the article, the unemployment rate was for June was 6.4, The estimate for July was 6.3 (a lower rate), but the actual rate turned out to be 6.2 (or so you say) (even lower than the prediction). I thought that a non-partisan hack would take a falling unemployment rate as a good thing. You also fail to explain how the rising consumer confidence is a sign of a bad economy. And, if it turns out that the GDP has been higher than expected, you also need to explain how that is a bad sign for the economy.
Once you explain all of that, then maybe you can start about non-partisan hacks, but until then, you are the example of such.
August 1st, 2003 at 4:36 pm
We need a Democrat in the Whitehouse and a Democratic congress again, or at least a executive/legislative split.
LOL…. I almost shit myself reading this….. like we need a democrat to raise taxes and effectively take more money out of the pockets of people already struggling…. the economy is coming back, it may take a little while for unemployment to rebound, but give it time… NO democrats in the white house!!!
August 1st, 2003 at 5:29 pm
God help us if a Democrat gets elected President in 2004.
August 1st, 2003 at 5:31 pm
I don’t think we need to worry…. with Hitlery doing whatever she can to make sure that a democrat doens’t win… we are in good shape. God damn Hitlery….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12721-2003Aug1?language=printer
August 1st, 2003 at 7:07 pm
the economy only grew by about .7% when you exclude defence spending which does not have knock on effects in the economy as in other sectors.
Another war, anyone?
August 2nd, 2003 at 5:34 pm
(LA Times)– “But the economic indicator that traditionally has the most political significance is also the slowest to rebound: job creation. And GOP hopes for good news on that front were dashed Friday.
The economy lost another 44,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department reported. Although the unemployment rate dropped to 6.2% — down from a nine-year high of 6.4% in June — officials said that was because nearly 500,000 people simply had stopped looking for a job.”
Sorry guys–the economy is not improving.
August 2nd, 2003 at 6:39 pm
Job creation will be the result of more money going into the economy which will be the result of Bush’s tax cut.
August 2nd, 2003 at 7:54 pm
This is just a short bounce, either way there is still the 450 billion dollar deficit staring us in the face.
August 2nd, 2003 at 8:42 pm
In the article, the unemployment rate was for June was 6.4, The estimate for July was 6.3 (a lower rate), but the actual rate turned out to be 6.2 (or so you say) (even lower than the prediction). I thought that a non-partisan hack would take a falling unemployment rate as a good thing.
If the rate was falling due to job creation, yes. The rate is falling because people have given up on looking for work. That, as you may know, is bad. Or, you might not know, and just make shit up.
August 3rd, 2003 at 12:21 am
If people wish to stop looking for a job, and leave the unemployment trough(sp?) to do something else, (spend time w/ kids, go back to school, move back in with parents), then that is their freedom to do so.
Hell, In about ten days here, I am going to be “unemployed.” Can you guess why? (hint: it’s not because I have “given up”)
August 3rd, 2003 at 12:41 am
a guy in my office got laid off a month or so ago, spent much of that time after eing laid off with his newborn son, and just now starting sending resumes. people are going to enjoy unemployment while they can.
August 3rd, 2003 at 8:37 pm
Neither of you have demonstrated any understanding of what the statistics regarding discouraged job seekers mean. Discouraged job seekers are only people who were looking for a job and then gave up.
If you consider people doing that to be “good” for the economy, more power to you. Yes, people have the “right” to go do it, but do you honestly think people want to?
Bottom line - buisness cut 44k people from payroll. That is bad.
August 4th, 2003 at 2:36 am
In defense of hipocrite, at least he was telling us what he was by his handle. :^) TruthInPosting anyone? (Doh, I forgot, can’t get that from a leftist. Sorry my mistake.)
August 4th, 2003 at 8:37 am
Actually, it’s me forgetting what I was calling myself here. You can go right ahead and attribute it to me, as I did.
August 4th, 2003 at 8:45 am
Cannons email address is fake. Are you going to delete his post?
August 4th, 2003 at 10:57 am
What do you mean my email address is fake.. I check it daily.
Opps, just like a leftist I can’t get the facts strait.
Oh well at least my blog address is correct, so I may be contacted that way. Not hiding my identity by any stretch of the imagination. The fake email address is just there to limit the spambots. (Much like your removethis part of your email address.) Besides good ole FredU is just such an awsome school that I have to sing its praises as my email.
August 4th, 2003 at 12:37 pm
Thanks Media for verifying. I will fix your post later today when I get home.
Also, I am personally aware of Cannon’s identity, for he and I have corresponded via e-mail before. As long as I personally have proof of one’s identity, that is intially satisfactory, and besides that, the link to his blog is an acceptable form of identity.
August 4th, 2003 at 1:29 pm
And of course I was talking about the Straits of Cannon in my above post…
Must remember to preview… preview is my friend. (Yes it should have read “facts straight”… You try commenting after working the graveyard shift.)
August 6th, 2003 at 3:41 pm
Media- When I leave work, someone will be hired to replace me. That person will stop looking for work. There will not be any additions to the net payrolls. Whoever replaces me will “simply give up looking for work”. Why? because they found a job. I understand what they are saying, but you assume that nobody is leaving their job for any reason. If that were true, you would be right. Unfortunately, I can prove that this is not the case.
I am the proof- I am leaving the workforce voluntarily.
August 6th, 2003 at 7:07 pm
Don’t expect them to understand Dok.
August 7th, 2003 at 8:09 am
1. People who leave the workforce voluntariarly are not counted as unemploeyed or discouraged.
2. The person who replaces you will leave the workforce for a job, and will not be counted as discouraged.
Discouraged workers, the ones who raised that unemployment stat .1 percentage point, are people who were looking for work, but stopped looking for work and didn’t get a job.
The 44,000 new jobless are people who had a job and are now looking for work.
I know these complicated “statistics” are difficult for you to understand, but please, stop trying to explain them if you don’t.
August 8th, 2003 at 2:33 pm
Matt- you are right; they don’t understand.
“People who leave the workforce voluntariarly are not counted as unemploeyed or discouraged”
like me. But since this frees up a payroll spot which is filled by someone who subsequently gets off of unemployment, there is less unemployment, and nobody got discouraged, like you are saying.
“The person who replaces you will leave the workforce for a job, and will not be counted as discouraged.”
they leave the Workforce for a job? I thought that if they got a job they were entering the workforce.
Do you always post after smocking crack?
August 16th, 2003 at 9:28 pm
doc - I’ll try one last time - the unemployment rate fell because, and I quote “…discouraged job-seekers left the work force.”
If someone lost their job and didn’t look for employment, they will not be counted as a discouraged worker. The person that replaces that person will come from the unemployment pool, and will not be a discouraged worker. In your case, there is no discouraged worker, at all.
However, seeing as the discouraged worker stat was way up last month, the fact is - people who were looking for work, quit looking for work. That’s not a good thing, that’s a bad thing.