Democrat's Final 2004 Issue Starts to Dissolve

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The economy is now unquestionably on the mend. GDP was in the more healthy "mid twos", and beat estimates by almost 1%. The market is up bigtime, as it has been for the year.



From the link:







http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...1946&printer=1



Quote:

The return in business investment, a 52-year record surge in defense spending, robust consumer spending, and a red-hot housing market powered growth, early Commerce Department (news - web sites) estimates showed.



"This is a very positive confirmation that the economy is turning the corner," said BMO Financial Group economist Sal Guatieri.



Gross domestic product, which had grown at a sickly 1.4-percent pace in the first quarter, appeared to be responding to a double dose of tax cuts and 45-year record low interest rates.



Note the defense number is not a yearly total....it's written to sound that way.



More links:



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93407,00.html



http://www.msnbc.com/news/946435.asp





Now, on to the topic. The economy is perhaps the last real issue the Democratic party has to run on in 2004. I'm not saying there aren't others, but as I have been saying, if the economy improves by the 2004 Presidential Election, Bush is in. That statement should now read "...continues to improve...".



If the economy is in te 3% GDP range and unemployment goes down by any significant manner, Bush will get credit. His tax cuts will be seen by the electorate as effective.



The only other politcally significant issue will be, possibly, the Iraq intelligence fiasco. This is assuming no changes occur between now and Novemember 2004, which is unlikely. Even this issue, taken on its own, is not enough to unseat Bush. The issue is already beginning to fade out this week in the press....as some here may have noticed.





"It's the economy, stupid!:" may well be the battle cry again....but this time for the other side.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 130
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    The reason I am not a democrat is because the democratic party is so full of it. Bush took action via tax cuts as a policy decision to protect against further downward economic loss than is necessary. The US is in a lot better shape than many European economies at the moment. Even Schroeder in Germany wants lower taxes to stimulate growth in Germany and he is no conservative. I just happen to agree with supply side economics and realize that if interest rates are lowered and tax relief is given then more capital is going to flow and oil the economy. Heavy tax and higher interest rates put the brakes on the economy. It is that simple. I admire what Bush has done to try to ensure a growing out of a slowdown. Considering we came out of the "Gold Rush late 90's tech bubble" to have reality set in and the bubble bust, combined with higher energy costs, and 9/11 I am encouraged by the fact that the US economy and stock markets are not worse off than they are. I do give Bush much credit for addressing the issue and taking measures to work on the issue.



    When democrats complain about deficits it seems to be a little bit of doublespeak. The New Deal was a program by which to jump start economic growth. There was a debt to behold for the new deal but it was a way to expand economic growth and democrats NEVER complain about the deficits that went with the new deal. As a matter of fact democrats never complain about deficits when a democrat is in office as president. Sure under the watch of President Clinton we had a surplus later on in the late 90's but keep in mind this was due to the "gold rush tech bubble run up" combined with cheap energy costs giving americans more money to spend and invest and thus capture gains in the stock markets leading to the large revenue the IRS realized from such capital gains tax revenues.



    While not happy with all that the Republicans do I am more than sickened by democrats who only know how to complain and insult my intelligence.



    They sure dish out the complaints and insults but seem to be missing a plan of their own.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 2 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    I agree fellows. I can't believe there aren't other comments on this!



    This isn't flame bait, folks. What do the Dems run on if the Economy is stable and in decent shape by next year? The only thing I can imagine is the lack of WMD. Then again, there is this:



    http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm



    Besides, there is little evidence that the above issue is having the impact the Dems desire. Opposing the war (or criticizing it after voting for it) is not going over very big. The Economy is the only real issue left....and it's going away fast. Dean has gained support from the Left wing of the party, and some moderates with these positions...but I don;t think that's even going to get him the nomination, much less allow him to defeat a unified Republican base.



    Medicare will probably be a non-issue when a version of the prescription drug benefit passes. Republicans will take credit for that, too. Social Security will be discussed, but that won't win the game for the Dems. Bush can't be beaten on the War on Terror or foreign policy...despite any crtiticisms here (which may be valid....but not popular on the whole). What's left? Civil rights "violations"? Slave reparations? "Bush is destroying Social Security"?



    No flames intended...what is left for them from a national political standpoint? ( not a personal views standpoint!)
  • Reply 3 of 130
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Well, it's still way too early to call the economy the 'main issue' of the 2004 election. After all, that will come into play more in the latter half of 2004 more then anything else.



    The thing that disturbs me is that you seriously believe that the economy is the only issue the Democrats will run on.



    Bush Approval Rating: 47% and falling.
  • Reply 4 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    Well, it's still way too early to call the economy the 'main issue' of the 2004 election. After all, that will come into play more in the latter half of 2004 more then anything else.



    The thing that disturbs me is that you seriously believe that the economy is the only issue the Democrats will run on.



    Bush Approval Rating: 47% and falling.




    Where do you find these numbers? The LOWEST one of any major reliable poll is 54%. Most are in the upper fifties.



    http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm





    As far as other issues, why won't you offer up some others? You tell me you are "disturbed" by my thoughts that the economy will be the main issue, but present no other issues yourself! What's left? You can't be telling me that a Dem is going to win by criticizing Bush on Iraq and telling folks he's destroying social security and running up big debt. It won't work, because that's not an agenda, it's a review.



    Again, not trying to flame you here, but when you make a contradictory statment (to mine) you need to back it up.
  • Reply 5 of 130
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Aren't elections always about the economy?
  • Reply 6 of 130
    Yes. But I'll be holding my breath next fall waiting for a possible terrorist attack. Don't you think there might be someone out there thinking they can sway the election? It's a terrible thought and I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.
  • Reply 7 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Aren't elections always about the economy?





    Nope, the last one was about the Clinton sex scandal and the choice between two milktoast candidates.



    Also some people are saying this upturn in the economy is due to depleated stocks used in the war. After those stocks are full we'll be right back to where we were. These aren't new orders just filling stocks from old ones.
  • Reply 8 of 130
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    More gloomy news:



    Quote:

    July payroll employment fell by 44,000 jobs. The unemployment rate edged down to 6.2 percent from 6.4 percent last month. Economists polled by CBS MarketWatch looked for an increase of 13,000 jobs and a jobless rate to remain unchanged at 6.4 percent from June.



    Much of decline in he unemployment rate represented the exodus of 470,000 discouraged people who abandoned job searches because they believed no jobs were available.



    In another piece of bad news, June's payroll loss was revised to 72,000 from the 30,000 drop first reported.



    Manufacturing, retail trade and government all reported job losses, while the temporary help sector and the construction industry expanded their payrolls.



    A string of consecutive monthly payrolls declines since February now totals 486,000 lost jobs. The average workweek fell by six minutes in July. Factory hours fell by 12 minutes. Overtime in the factory sector was unchanged



    I dare you to tell the economy is rebounding to the unemployed.



    Quote:

    The economy grew at a 2.4 percent rate in the second quarter, helped out by the biggest increase in defense spending since the Korean War. While that was an improvement over the mediocre growth seen in the previous two quarters, it still wasn't strong enough to help the labor market.



  • Reply 9 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    More gloomy news...



    I dare you to tell the economy is rebounding to the unemployed.




    Unemployment is ALWAYS a lagging indicator. That's not an argument someone who'd out of work wants to hear but it's true.
  • Reply 10 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Also you have to remember how bad things are ( despite what SDW says ). A small temporary improvement may not amount to much in the long run.
  • Reply 11 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Also you have to remember how bad things are ( despite what SDW says ). A small temporary improvement may not amount to much in the long run.



    Remember what? Compare this recession with any recession you want. Things just AREN'T that bad. Even unemployment is only a couple of percentage points off what has historically been considered full employment. Moreover, Existence's gloomy link reports a small DROP in unemployment. And GDP now comes in at 2.4 percent for the second quarter. There's no question that's a significant spike.
  • Reply 12 of 130
    I'm not going to go into detail about it right now, because I'm tired and cranky. If you really think the economy is going to be a lot better than it is right now in a year, you're fooling yourself.



    The economy is still going to suck next year, and I don't see a noticeable rebound until about 18-24 months from now. As to whether or not the economy is treating you well, I guess that depends on what business you are in. Do you make missiles? You're probably doing alright then.



    But the economy will get better. I see the main issue for the next election as getting this tyrannic madman out of office. Just about anything would be an improvement...
  • Reply 13 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Yes. But I'll be holding my breath next fall waiting for a possible terrorist attack. Don't you think there might be someone out there thinking they can sway the election? It's a terrible thought and I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.



    That could be a factor, I agree. I also agree that Unemployment is a lagging indicator.



    Existence, jimmac, and Locash:



    The whole point is that it's not a question of if the economy wll improve, it's a question of how much. We are now in recovery...unquestionably. There is simply no argument against it. None. Read the links and look at what economists and people in the money business are saying. There will still be setbacks and pockets of problems, but the overall economy is now on the mend.



    What you guys are doing here is confusing macro and micro economics...in a manner of speaking (not literally). Things may be bad for those who are unemployed (when are things NOT bad for people without a job?), or bad for you personally, or what not...but the overall economy is improving.



    zaphod again:







    Quote:

    rRemember what? Compare this recession with any recession you want. Things just AREN'T that bad. Even unemployment is only a couple of percentage points off what has historically been considered full employment. Moreover, Existence's gloomy link reports a small DROP in unemployment. And GDP now comes in at 2.4 percent for the second quarter. There's no question that's a significant spike.



    Exactly. The recession was VERY mild by historical standards. Unemployment was MUCH higher in the 1991-1993 recession, and things were an order of magitude worse in 1980-83 (which was a nearly a depression).



    Most importantly, this isn't just the rigth-wing fanatic SDW looking at one number and making a judgment that fits his worldview. The numbers show recovery across the board, with the markets up, mortgage rates up and decent and unexpected GDP growth. Add this to improvement in manufacturing indices and wholesale prices and the picture becomes clear.



    You guys can go on about how bad things are, but the numbers don't support your position. The numbers actually show things to be fairly decent. The Democratic party is scared shitless about the economy improving.
  • Reply 14 of 130
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    We'll have to see how much this matters to the public in general in November 2004, but the Democrats have got one big issue that's pretty unassailable, and it works for me: Someone (nearly anyone) other than George W. Bush should be President.
  • Reply 15 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    I'm not going to go into detail about it right now, because I'm tired and cranky. If you really think the economy is going to be a lot better than it is right now in a year, you're fooling yourself.



    The economy is still going to suck next year, and I don't see a noticeable rebound until about 18-24 months from now. As to whether or not the economy is treating you well, I guess that depends on what business you are in. Do you make missiles? You're probably doing alright then.



    But the economy will get better. I see the main issue for the next election as getting this tyrannic madman out of office. Just about anything would be an improvement...




    Pinning this all on defense spending, which both you an jimmac have done (along with "Paper of Record") is convenient, but misinformed. GDP doesn't jump a full point because of "replenishng lots of bombs".

    Defense spending may help, but the real story is the effectiveness of the tax cuts and the natural business cycle.
  • Reply 16 of 130
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    economy is improving, but for some strange reason, output is INCREASING but not employment (they usually go in the same direction). i can only assume that increased outsourcing to other countries and a heavier reliance on automation, massive cutbacks in the job market over the past few years, and a persistent worry by big business about spending too much too fast has caused this.



    so the economy is, well, not as bad, but for all of our sakes, i hope it gets better much more quickly.
  • Reply 17 of 130
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    ...and it works for me: Someone (nearly anyone) other than George W. Bush should be President.



    sorry, but liebermann? sharpton? even graham? i can't see any one of these folks leading and managing this country, and being a good spokesperson, too. \
  • Reply 18 of 130
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Edit: -1 Redundant



    No karma for you!
  • Reply 19 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Pinning this all on defense spending, which both you an jimmac have done (along with "Paper of Record") is convenient, but misinformed. GDP doesn't jump a full point because of "replenishng lots of bombs".

    Defense spending may help, but the real story is the effectiveness of the tax cuts and the natural business cycle.




    Don't worry, I read the same numbers you guys did. That's great, but in the longterm, this isn't indication enough that the economy is going to be better in a year. It's not.



    And I'm not pinning it all on defense spending, but I just wonder about the people who think the economy is improving. I mean, do you people make weapons or something? From my point of view, it's still pretty lousy.



    You can show me these numbers all you want, but I'm down here in the melee of it all, man. And it isn't just me, it's a lot of people. We're in a recession, and I don't believe we're coming out of it in a year. Yeah, the numbers right now are good, but keep them consistent over the next two years and let's see if it pulls us out of this rut. I, for one, am not very hopeful.
  • Reply 20 of 130
    hegorhegor Posts: 160member
    SDW2001 no offense against your politics. Bush will lose because the average american voter has not a clue what the're doing. I'm really begining to think that if our leaders were elected by allowing monkeys to fling their feces at pictures of candidates we would still have the same social and political issues. Joe Average Voters only care about marginal issues that really do not effect day to day life, but play well in TV and Mail hit ads.



    In other words, don't count anything out yet. Bush does not have the charisma that Reagan and Clinton have. So he may not get reelected easily.



    My opinion, sorry if I'm off topic.
Sign In or Register to comment.