7 reasons the job market is about to take off!

CNBC ^ | 9/11/03 | RepublicanWizard

[republicanwizard]

Let's all hope that this man's predictions come to pass and that our heroic President is re-elected. I have faith in this economist. I hope he doesn't disappoint me.

[prairiebreeze]

I hope he's right. For all our sakes.

Prairie

[Brian S]

I have faith in this economist. I hope he doesn't disappoint me.

You, me, Bush, GOP, America included...!!! ;)

[The South Texan]

I think the jobs market will be getinng better by the month starting with this one. But this guy fails to understand that the media will repeat over and over what the Democrat nominee says about the economy. We could add 300,000 jobs per month and see that rate shrink to under 5% and have a GDP of 5-to 6%+ and the Rats will say we have the worst economy in the last 50 years.

It worked for them in 1992. Why not 12 years later?

[.cnI redruM]

Unless we're benighted enough to hope for a Howard Dean presidency, this process needs to take root.

[zencat]

This economist sounds right on track to me.

With real growth in GDP and jobs it won't matter how the Dems or media try to spin it.

Remember were at 6.1% unemployment now, and things look to improve. Reagan won his 49 state landslide with 7.4% unemployment.

[SW6906]

Yes, but Reagan was running against the guy who presided over (and caused?) that unemployment. Bush will be on defense in 2004 - not offense like Reagan - unless this comes to pass.

[Willie Green]

The economic stimulus promised by Dubya's tax cuts will be negated by his globalist trade policies and expansion of federal welfare programs. Instead of trickling down and rippling through our domestic economy, the money hemorrhages OUT of our domestic economy in the form of record trade deficits and increased overseas investment. To compound this problem, Dubya's unprecedented Budget Deficits merely increases the National Debt and burden on U.S taxpayers. A burden that is greatly amplified with his expansion of Medicare entitlements.

The Bush Administration is an irresponsible economic disaster that will collapse us into Third World poverty.

[zencat]

"Yes, but Reagan was running against the guy who presided over (and caused?) that unemployment. Bush will be on defense in 2004 - not offense like Reagan - unless this comes to pass."

Reagan was running against Mondale for re-election in 1984. Unemployment actually peaked about the middle of Reagan's first term around 10%. It began to fall in 1983 and he was overwhelmingly re-elected.

Bush is in better shape than many think.

[oceanview]

unless the cycle of corporate white collar jobs offshoring is stopped, this won't happen. what people don't seem to understand is that corporations are investing and spending money to expand, in India and China.

[Revolting cat!]

13?

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

I honestly hope this economist, Charles Lieberman, is correct.
However, since he never even mentions the impact of offshoring, outsourcing, foreign visa workers, illegals, the devalued yuan, the huge trade and budget deficits, I'm having a difficult time believing him.

[republicanwizard]

Because Bush has 100% support from his Party.

Because Bush is 100% to 1000% a better politician than his father.

Because Bush has opponents who have 0% of Clinton's skills.

[republicanwizard]

Yeah, let's hope.

[republicanwizard]

Anyone know what September is generally like for job creation?

[Tennessean4Bush]

The Bush Administration is an irresponsible economic disaster that will collapse us into Third World poverty.

You may be wrong, but you are never in doubt, are you?

[republicanwizard]

I take your word as accurate, but didn't Reagan have 10% growth in early 1984. That's when I was born.

[Ciexyz]

What a cold comment on the part of the author: some of those aged fifty-five and up will be forced into early retirement. Guess the author isn't facing downsizing himself. His job sounds secure spewing out articles like this.

Early retirement: That very well could be YOUR future, folks, when you reach age fifty and above. Take it from someone who is facing early retirement (I'm running for my life). Companies know it works--get rid of the the older workers and save money. And the experts step in and provide justification from "experts" who say it's necessary, it's effective.