Bad news for liberals

[TitanTiger 20,510]

WASHINGTON  — The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence...

Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.   

Although the nation's payrolls grew by 57,000 in September — the first increase in eight months — the economy needs to add a lot more jobs than that each month to drive down the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, analysts have said...

In other encouraging economic news from the Labor Department (search), new claims for unemployment benefits last week dropped by 5,000 to 386,000, a sign that layoffs are slowing. U.S. workers' wages and benefits went up by 1 percent in the third quarter, up slightly from a 0.9 percent increase in the previous quarter...       

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth.   

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -  U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter of 2003 to the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said Thursday, in a report that was much stronger than most economists expected.  

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing at a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Economists, on average, expected GDP growth of 6 percent, according to Briefing.com. 

"This is obviously an extraordinarily strong report, led by the consumer, but also with good signs about the state of the business sector and business confidence," said Lehman Brothers economist Drew Matus. 

The burst of GDP growth was led by a 6.6 percent growth rate in consumer spending, the fastest pace since 1988. Consumer spending grew at a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter. 

Child tax credit checks and lower rates of income tax withholding helped fuel the third-quarter spending surge, enabling the Bush administration -- which pushed for tax cuts earlier this year -- to take a victory lap Thursday morning...

In a separate report, the Labor Department said new weekly claims for unemployment benefits were still relatively high in the week ending Oct. 25, pointing to the Achilles' heel of the strengthening economy: a sluggish job market. 

In fact, during a quarter with the strongest growth rate since 1984, non-farm payrolls shed a total of 41,000 jobs, according to Labor Department statistics, in part because of strong productivity growth, which enables companies to get more work out of fewer workers. 

But job growth is typically a lagging economic indicator, and most economists hope that continued strong demand will eventually catch up with the recent gains in productivity and lead to sustained job growth...

Government spending, which contributed mightily to the second quarter's growth rate, slowed down. Defense spending, which grew at a 45.8 percent pace in the second quarter, driven by spending on the war in Iraq, was flat in the third quarter...   

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Jobless claims fell in the United States last week, the government said Thursday, as the labor market continued its slow recovery from a long slump. 

The Labor Department said 386,000 people filed for benefits in the week ended Oct. 25, compared with a revised reading of 391,000 in the prior week. 

Economists, on average, expected 385,000 new claims, according to Briefing.com. 

New claims have fluctuated in a narrow range near the 400,000 mark since mid-July. Most economists consider new claims below the 400,000 threshold as a sign of a recovery. This is the fourth consecutive week the figure has been below that level. 

Continued claims, the number of people out of work for a week or more, rose slightly to 3.56 million for the week ended Oct. 18, the latest data available, from a revised 3.50  million the prior week. 

The four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out the volatility of the weekly data, was fell to 388,750 in the week ended Oct. 25 from a revised 393,500 in the prior week.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[BamaGrad03 0]

but but...but.....

"Awww man! We were gonna use that to show how Bush is such a bad president"

Shucks.

"Ohh well...we can at least keep bringing up the cocaine thing..." "It almost worked last time"

[CarolinaTiger 0]

now they'll complain that it took too long :roll:

dems are truly dim for picking something as cyclical as the economy to base their hopes on. 'its the economy stupid' thing worked against B1 because of the timing...better hope this is a short-lived recovery....

hey...i heard the white house staged a photo op on board a ship... now that could get some traction!

i still think the dems would do better if they came out FOR something instead of the constant and incessent bush-bashing. try giving us something to vote FOR!

ct

[Weagle98 119]

Notice that 19 years ago was 2 years after the President Reagan.s tax cuts. We are not currently 2 years since President Bush's tax cutts.

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't know why you'd think this is bad news for liberals. We live in this economy, too. I hope it continues to grow. Any growth without addressing unemployment will be a short-lived and hollow victory. I'll predict another quarter of 'growth' because the government is about to spend another $87 billion on Iraq.

Jenny, don't you just hate those pesky unions??? Imagine the gall of workers actually organizing to better their lives at the expense of their employers!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It's bad news for liberals because your party of choice seems to have no plan, no goal, no other aim than to take down Bush. And the strategy that you seem to be employing more than any other is based on the economy continuing to be sluggish. If the economy starts growing more rapidly and the jobs start coming back, you can tell the ten little Indians to mail it in...Bush will be reelected.

And by the way, did you note that the growth in the third quarter had little to do with gov't spending?

[Weagle98 119]

I don't know why you'd think this is bad news for liberals. We live in this economy, too. I hope it continues to grow. Any growth without addressing unemployment will be a short-lived and hollow victory. I'll predict another quarter of 'growth' because the government is about to spend another $87 billion on Iraq.

Jenny, don't you just hate those pesky unions??? Imagine the gall of workers actually organizing to better their lives at the expense of their employers!

If the dems think economic growth is good news then how come they have done nothing but talk down the economy when for the past 4 months most indicators would have pointed to this kind of growth?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Jenny, don't you just hate those pesky unions??? Imagine the gall of workers actually organizing to better their lives at the expense of their employers!

It would be great if that is what unions really did. But they don't. Unions are not needed any longer. They create more problems than they solve. For example, IMO, many of the problems in our education systems today can be laid at least partially at the feet of teacher's unions, who protect their substandard members rather than looking after the best interests of our students. Unions USED to be a good thing and were very needed. Now the federal government takes care of things like workplace safety and child labor and minimum wage and other mandatory workplace programs. The unions are outdated. Their membership rolls are dropping as people begin to realize they are better off without formal organization.

Reasons For Union Decline

Increasing participation of women in the workforce is the most important factor explaining falling union density. 

U.S. union membership has been falling in absolute terms since the 1980s, and as a share of the total workforce since the 1950s. Even public sector unionization, whose 1970s expansion helped to cushion falling total membership, declined for a third consecutive year in 1997. In order for union density to remain constant, unions will have to increase current membership by 200,000 annually and stop average annual membership losses of 110,000.

Faced with this decline, the AFL-CIO recently announced a campaign focusing attention on perceived workplace impediments to union organizing. However, it seems unlikely that the campaign will prove successful because it centers on managerial opposition as the primary cause of union decline while ignoring important demographic and economic factors.

One factor that could account for membership losses is that unions have been holding and winning fewer organizational elections, resulting in fewer newly-organized workers. The size of electoral units has also been shrinking over time. This could be the result of service sector expansion, which has forced the organization of smaller, traditionally non-union firms. Also, recent trends favor holding smaller elections, even within large industries.

Another factor in union decline is the structural changes in the U.S. economy. Since 1960, employment in the less-unionized service sector has grown by 182 percent, while employment in the traditionally unionized goods-producing sector has increased by only 19 percent. Furthermore, net job growth has been stronger in white-collar occupations, average firm size has decreased, and employment has moved from the unionized North and East to the less-unionized South and West. Finally, intense global competition has hampered union attempts to negotiate wage and benefit premiums from firms.

  Changing demographics of the workforce are also a factor in union decline. Over time, more women and minorities have entered the workforce, and baby boomers have reached prime-working age. Attitudes of these workers affect the likelihood of unionization; recent surveys show that today's workers express less desire to be represented by unions.

The expansion of private rights to sue over workplace conditions could also explain some of unions' decline. Legislation has made it easier for workers to challenge unsafe working conditions, job discrimination, and workplace harassment. Unemployment insurance (UI) and welfare benefits can also replace traditionally union-provided benefits. Furthermore, federal deregulation has changed the climate facing unions.

Less aggressive organizing effort is often mentioned as a potential cause of union decline, but the AFL-CIO plans to spend $90 million over the next few years on organizing activities. Finally, some have suggested that illegal discharges during elections and employer refusals to bargain with new unions have contributed to declining density. Other research finds, however, that union win rates are higher in units in which illegal discharges occur.

Using a model which incorporates many of these factors, we find that the share of women in the workforce accounts for nearly 20 percent of the decline in union density over the 1950-1990 period, all else equal. Also important are declines in the share of blue-collar and older workers in the workforce, and increases in UI benefits. Contrary to the expected effect, per capita government welfare expenditures have increased density. Finally, we find that managerial opposition to unions has virtually no role in unions' decline. These findings suggest that unions face formidable odds if they are to halt declining membership and density.

[TxWarEagle 3]

Just glad I am not running on the "Repeal the Tax Cuts" platform....

[channonc 466]

And by the way, did you note that the growth in the third quarter had little to do with gov't spending?

Wow! I can't believe you said this. The government has spend billions already on Iraq, not to mention the already inflated government spending that is going on. Spending by anyone usually means growth. Most defense spending as many of you would agree is actually through contracts of private business.

While I would agree the tax cuts might have helped there is no way government spending did not play a MAJOR role as well.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think the cyclical nature of the economy is what is the driving force behind all of this.

Clinton benifitted from it while...up until now...both bush presidents were in the down cycle.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Wow!  I can't believe you said this.  The government has spend billions already on Iraq, not to mention the already inflated government spending that is going on.  Spending by anyone usually means growth.  Most defense spending as many of you would agree is actually through contracts of private business. 

While I would agree the tax cuts might have helped there is no way government spending did not play a MAJOR role as well. 

I didn't say it, the articles posted did:

From Fox News (Associated Press story, also appeared on MSNBC.com):

The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence...

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth.   

From CNN:

The burst of GDP growth was led by a 6.6 percent growth rate in consumer spending, the fastest pace since 1988. Consumer spending grew at a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter. 

Child tax credit checks and lower rates of income tax withholding helped fuel the third-quarter spending surge, enabling the Bush administration -- which pushed for tax cuts earlier this year -- to take a victory lap Thursday morning...

Government spending, which contributed mightily to the second quarter's growth rate, slowed down. Defense spending, which grew at a 45.8 percent pace in the second quarter, driven by spending on the war in Iraq, was flat in the third quarter... 

The articles go on to say a few more specifics about what the consumer was spending their money on. My point stands. 

[Tigermike 3,053]

It would be great if that is what unions really did. But they don't. Unions are not needed any longer. They create more problems than they solve.

Jenny, on that point I tend to agree somewhat, but not completely. But I must ask a question.

If there were no unions, do you think that management would treat workers with respect? Would corporations pay anything more than minimum wages? Would there even be a middle class in the US now if not for unions. The law of supply & demand in regard to workers just doesn't apply, because there are always people willing to work for less. An example is the tech industry right now. They are hiring "tech guys" from India by the boat load. Maybe not a great example, since most "tech workers" are not union to begin with.

TigerAl, don't think I am coming over to the dark side because I am taking up for unions.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I don't think the problem is that unions are not needed. The problem is they tend to weaken their credibility by demanding too much. No matter how much you give them, they always ask for more. Too often, unions are seen as unreasonable, enablers of the lazy or marginal worker, and all too willing to strike and inconvenience people over non-essential issues or differences.

I agree with Tigermike. You eliminate unions altogether and companies will take advantage. Unions just need a new mindset and new leadership. This isn't the early 1900's where businesses force 18 hour days, little to no paid vacation, and employ child labor. Unions won some important changes over the years...but they overreach too often.

[channonc 466]

I don't think the problem is that unions are not needed. The problem is they tend to weaken their credibility by demanding too much. No matter how much you give them, they always ask for more. Too often, unions are seen as unreasonable, enablers of the lazy or marginal worker, and all too willing to strike and inconvenience people over non-essential issues or differences.

I agree with Tigermike. You eliminate unions altogether and companies will take advantage. Unions just need a new mindset and new leadership. This isn't the early 1900's where businesses force 18 hour days, little to no paid vacation, and employ child labor. Unions won some important changes over the years...but they overreach too often.

I agree completely with the both of you. If unions didn't allow their leadership to become greedy, negotiations with companies would not be so complex. Unions do serve a purpose, and honest unions with great leaders (not greedy ones) do help protect the jobs of their members, which is what they are supposed to do. But one more thing I will add, most people do not know that within the labor laws, you are allowed to have peer representation at negotiations or meetings with your boss/supervisor. You are allowed by law to have your own representation, and this doesn't have to be a union member or rep (although often times it is), it could be any one of your co-workers. This is something that many people do not know.

I also agree that teacher's unions have been a cause to the educational downfall of America's children. Although, I would definately not want them disbanned, but only for them to accept alternatives to just pumping in money that seems to only be taken into the black hole of school boards. But that is totally another subject.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Unions do serve a purpose, and honest unions with great leaders (not greedy ones)

Oxymoron!!!

When unions first started, they just wanted fair labor practices. But they have now reached the point in which they do not give full days labor for a full days pay.

My granddaddy worked as a carpenter all his life. he said that the union used to do the hiring and firing. If a guy wasn't pulling his weight, the union rep would tap him on the shoulder and send him home. try that today!

[Donutboy 0]

Hmmmm, a jobless recovery is supposedly bad news for liberals? There have been over 3 million jobs lost in the American economy since Bush took office. No president since Herbert Hoover has presided over an economy that lost jobs until George W. Bush. Try telling all of those people that are out of work that the recession's over. Along with losing 3 million jobs, our federal budget deficit has hit an all-time high; almost double the budget deficit in his father's last year in office. It's projected to be almost double that next year and the numbers come out in September, scant weeks before the election. Bush promised to bolster Social Security. Instead our government has been borrowing from current Social Security surpluses to help fund the tax cuts for his wealthy friends, Ken Lay and company. He promised to stabilize health care costs. Instead they have skyrocketed under his leadership. Most people are now having to pay more of their health care costs than before he took office; a hidden tax. BTW, the stock market that Bush wanted to use for the Social Security system is still down almost 33% since he took office. yes, the economy will be a campaign issue in 2004 but Bush's biggest weakness will probably be the ill-advised War in Iraq. Instead of cheering for us in the streets as their liberators, they're more and more looking upon us as occupiers and what goodwill we once had with most Iraqis is eroding away. Remember Bush's words of defiance that we'd track those responsible for the 9-11 attacks down wherever they might try to hide. It seems Bin Laden no longer has to worry about that promise as we've switched our focus and our resources into Iraq instead.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Hmmmm, a jobless recovery is supposedly bad news for liberals? There have been over 3 million jobs lost in the American economy since Bush took office. No president since Herbert Hoover has presided over an economy that lost jobs until George W. Bush. Try telling all of those people that are out of work that the recession's over. Along with losing 3 million jobs, our federal budget deficit has hit an all-time high; almost double the budget deficit in his father's last year in office. It's projected to be almost double that next year and the numbers come out in September, scant weeks before the election. Bush promised to bolster Social Security. Instead our government has been borrowing from current Social Security surpluses to help fund the tax cuts for his wealthy friends, Ken Lay and company. He promised to stabilize health care costs. Instead they have skyrocketed under his leadership. Most people are now having to pay more of their health care costs than before he took office; a hidden tax. BTW, the stock market that Bush wanted to use for the Social Security system is still down almost 33% since he took office. yes, the economy will be a campaign issue in 2004 but Bush's biggest weakness will probably be the ill-advised War in Iraq. Instead of cheering for us in the streets as their liberators, they're more and more looking upon us as occupiers and what goodwill we once had with most Iraqis is eroding away. Remember Bush's words of defiance that we'd track those responsible for the 9-11 attacks down wherever they might try to hide. It seems Bin Laden no longer has to worry about that promise as we've switched our focus and our resources into Iraq instead.

Praise allah, donutboy. Thank you for regurgitaing the exact mantra of the demoncratic party. Oh BTW, Mr. economic genious, jobs are always the last to come back. And a nation employed to the tune of 93.4% is pretty damn good. People lose their jobs all the time. They just have to do till the economy comes back. If they can't make it, maybe its an indication that they have been promised that the gubment will always take care of them and they lived too close to the edge. Yes, it is a downer, but the US has just went through a cutting of the fat. It will get better, as the numbers are telling us. But please don't start Bush bashing just because your economics teacher failed to explain the cycles.

And yes, maybe we should have given Hitler, I mean Saddaam, a little more time. History has proved that is the way to.....if you wish for the death of 6 million people!