Alarming News

October 30, 2003

Looks like the Dems lost their main issue

‘The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003.’

Posted by Karol at 09:39 AM |

The Democrat who really suffers from this is Lieberman. The rest can just fall back on the crowd favorite “BUSH LIIIED!!!”

Posted by: Yaron at October 30, 2003 at 11:21 am


Posted by: Judah Maccabee at October 30, 2003 at 2:38 pm

Job growth is still anemic. And one good quarter does not a boom make.

Posted by: Dan at October 30, 2003 at 10:07 pm

Hopefully, the people of this country know that this is a relatively predictable timeframe for a boost in the GNP. Also, do you think that this boost would have been so extreme if we had not been in such a “recession like” environment before?? It’s like weight loss. The more you have to lose the easier the first few pounds are to lose. We still have no jobs, and the effects of this tax-cut will eventually fade away…especially when Bush has to call for another 80 billion of our dollars to bail out Iraq.

Posted by: Trailseeker at October 31, 2003 at 2:49 am

Bush is a brilliant practicioner of what his father famously called “voodoo economics”. Britains economy is dangerously reliant on consumer expenditure as well. It’s all going to go tits up soon. If I was a Republican I would throw the election and let the Democrats take the blame for the impending downturn. Bush snr merely paid for the economic mismanagement of the Reagan administration.

Posted by: Bobby at October 31, 2003 at 8:23 am

I would argue that the economy is cycular in nature and that you cannot have continuous growth. There is also an old saying out that many a fortune was lost betting against the consumer.
Not to question your brilliant economic insight, but this is the part of the cycle where you would not see massive job growth. However growth did occur in non-farm payrolls last month and most likely (judging by the weekly #) in October as well. To have an expansion you need to have an available pool of labor. Also contrary to what the media (and Democrats) would have you believe 6% (ish) unemployment is by no means historically hi. Some would say it’s actually low. Also second quarter GDP was in the 3+ range, so does 2 good quarters a boom make?
The GDP # that came out also was very interesting because it showed that gov’t spending did not cause the increase in activity as was the case in the last few #’s. Don’t let em sway you K, that # is a huge indication that the American consumer is in fact not dead and the economy is benefitting from the Bush tax cuts. I would expect this number to be revised down and I would not expect to see this kind of number next quarter but numbers like this are huge for Bush politically.

Posted by: Judah Maccabee at October 31, 2003 at 10:46 am

I don’t think the government can do too much (other than cut taxes and raise government spending-both of which Bush has done) to improve the economy. That said, it’s pretty unbelieveable how unhappy the left is with yesterday’s development. I’ve said it before but I can’t imagine hoping for the economy to stay bad or for more troops to die in Iraq for political purposes. I rather have neither of those be the case and a Democrat be president. What kind of people are you to be hoping otherwise?

Posted by: Kashei at October 31, 2003 at 11:01 am

The donks will just shift from braying “it’s no good” to braying “it’s not good enough”

Posted by: M. Murcek at October 31, 2003 at 11:17 am

K, it’s not that anyone is particularly unhappy, but overheating an economy only tends to make the downward cycle that bit more painful (just ask Bush Snr / or any of the westerners who lost out personally during the 90s recession).
To be honest, I think that you are more or less right about the govts control of policy, and furthermore, there is little difference, in practise, between how the left and right manage the economy these days. To be fair to the UK Conservatives, even they did not cynically fuck up the UK econmomy with give away short term election tax cuts in the late 90s.
I just love the way you put words in peoples mouths (”what kind of people are you to be hoping otherwise”). You’re turning into Ann Coulter (-:

Posted by: Bobby at October 31, 2003 at 12:58 pm

I do agree that overheating is very bad Judging by the low rates in the U.S. and the Fed speak of “disinflation”, it does seem to me that we could be in for an unusually hi inflationary period which is no good for anyone. Especially with the Fed on “hold” during an election year.
I assume when you refer to the 90’s recession you are talking about ‘91 when Interest rates spiked up really hi. Bad for Housing, investments and the Economy as a whole….[shiver] Flashback or foreshadow…..

Posted by: Judah Maccabee at October 31, 2003 at 2:37 pm
Post a comment