Posted on 08/06/2004 5:30:25 AM PDT by RWR8189
32,000 jobs were created in July. The unemployment rate down at 5.5%
Details to come...
ouch
Contrary to some freepers opinions, he does NOT shy away from the fray. I think he's just begun to fight!
Go rally those troops, and bring the great state of Washington into the Bush column!
Expecting 100K new jobs per month in a GDP growth environment like this one isn't setting expectations too high.
Listen, I know things don't turn on a dime in the economic world...I'm thinking about the political world and if the perception is that the economy is growing - robustly I might add - then that's a plus for W. The debates start end of September and continue into October. It would sure be nice if we have some good economic numbers coming out just before the 2nd debate! If it looks like it's sluggish, that's a plus for Kerry. I don't want any plusses for Kerry.
If new jobs don't outpace demand via new people (immigration) or just new job seekers, then that's not a good thing. It's not as simple as "new jobs were created."
Oil is already coming down. OPEC is bellying up to the bar.
Yes. And they have been trying to pas an Energy bill for 4 years.
That is exactly the point.
It's called U6, I think.
If you mean the August and September numbers, announced in Sep/Oct, I'm with you.
I'm afraid that just like GHWB, the good news won't show until after the election. Make no mistake, I believe that the good news is already here, but it takes the sheep a while to realize that when Dan Rather is doing his best to keep it a secret.
All I've ever needed to know about the lib media came from Rather poo-pooing the fantastic 3rd Q economic numbers in 92 as a stunt by the Bush administration. Of course, he was right, those numbers weren't accurate...THEY WERE REVISED UP!
Probably because the lion's share of these jobs were created offshore.
Its called perception. If people believe the economy is booming they feel one way. If people think the economy is starting to slow down and may in fact go back into recession, that is another perception. When people go into vote, they dont vote on the facts. They vote on their understanding and interpretation of the facts. If they voted on the facts, Bush 41 would have been reelected.
If all they hear over the next few months is negative stories of abysmal job growth, rising oil prices, and a falling stock market, that cant be good for Bush. Spin it however you like to make you feel good but that doesnt change reality.
LOL! Here let me help... < /sarcasm >
You are right, based on old formulae. Problem is, companies small and large and extracting more and more productivity from workers without adding new workers. The game has changed. And more and more persons are starting their own businesses, which is not captured in the jobs number.
I am comforted by what is happening with the Household Survey, but anyone who believes this does not create political difficulties for Bush/GOP is whistling past the graveyard.
The only question is, how much political damage, and for what duration.
LOL! I just said that in my prior post to you. I'm with you - as long as September is blockbuster we are okay. October is too late - won't even report until after the election. But if September comes in good, that's just in time for the debates and will be perfect!
As stupid as I agree that is, its also part of Bush's energy plan.
I saw this coming yesterday when the media types kept saying 225,000 is expected.
I yelled back at the TV, "what the hell is wrong with 50,000!
I am glad I am not in the market. This is still a recovery and a broad based one.
The RATS have successfully talked it down and the polling is becoming worrisome to business who know and fear the economy hinges on Bush and continued tax cuts with cost control for the next four years.
Democrats are licking their fiscal chops to roll back the cuts and the polls suck.
The worry translates as slow hiring and a wait and see attitude. This will muck along until November IMO.
"The irony is that part of the reason energy prices are high is because the Democrats have refused to implement Bush's policies, "
Which of Bush's policies has the GOP-controlled Congress refused to implement?
I don't blame Bush for high oil prices (I blame OPEC and the oil companies who refuse to build new refineries), but I don't see how the minority Dems in Congress now have done much.
If you're thinking 'ANWR'...even if ANWR was opened up (something I have no problem with), it'll take a few years to build the infrastructure and get the wells pumping.
Bush needs to do something here to lower oil prices, even if it's just a political move. Securing Iraq's oilfields and pipelines is hopefully priority #1, as we should be sucking that country DRY. That, and a hard-lined approach to OPEC would be good starters.
You forget Bush and Kerry are fighing over the 8-10% of the population that is undecided. Either one doesnt care or they are pretty dumb not to have an opinion at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.