November 06, 2003
Democrats might lose another issue even before the primaries
Sen. John Edwards has famously said, “…there is no such thing as an economic recovery without jobs.” He may be right, but not in the way he thinks. He thinks we don’t have new jobs and therefore it’s not a real recovery. I say it’s a real recovery and therefore we will have new jobs. The evidence is starting to emerge to support the latter case.
A Bloomberg.com headline says “U.S. Initial Jobless Claims Fell by 43,000 to 348,000 Last Week”. That’s the lowest rate since January 2001. Even better, “The four-week moving average of benefit filings, a less volatile measure than the weekly total, fell to 380,000, the lowest since the week ended March 10, 2001, from 390,000 the week before.” The number of people continuing to collect state unemployment benefits dropped as well.
Posted by at November 6, 2003 10:48 AM
I had the misfortune of seeing Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) interviewed on CNBC following the release of this morning’s economic reports and it was, to say the least, humorous. What went from a fairly normal line of questions turned into a debate between Mr. Stark and Larry Kudlow. Stark, had trouble focusing on the questions posed to him such as, “Do you feel like the economy is in recovery?” His answer was “No because our president is a dunce, an idiot who lied to us for the cause of war.” Now I could be wrong, but that doesn’t sound like the answer of a man who is happy to see the economy turning around. The argument escalated somewhat from that point, especially with Kudlow on his case to actually answer the questions minus the rhetoric. It would seem that the Democrats are starting to make Ad Hominem arguments to avoid having to deal with issues that don’t suit their respective campaigns.
Posted by: JT at November 7, 2003 12:30 PMthere are two sides to every issue… at least two!
Are the numbers good? On thier face, yes. Will that give Bush a push? Yes.
Now, when the numbers are revised in a week (as has been done every month this year) they will rise and we will see that the drop was not that big. By then it is old news. Bush has lied again, gotten a surge and moved on before the truth catches him.
Some pundits have been tracking this effort (I don’t have the link).
Also, and I think you all know this, the jobless claim number is NOT the number of out of work Americans. That number is not tracked anymore, thanks to a Bush mandate.
So, we who on the left (meaning those who will sweep the insanity of Bush out of Washington next year) know that the overall job LOSS in the country continues, with millions of out of work Americans who lost their jobs under Bush, but whose numbers are no longer tracked.
Yes, do I need to say it clearer? You cannot believe the numbers any more, good or bad. They are all lies.
BTW — when economy tanked under Bush, a lot of pundits said to blame Clinton because the President’s effort shows 4-5 years later, not at the time. So the decline wasn’t Bush’s fault.
Thus, I expect to see Clinton get credit for any up turn, correct?
Jonsey
OH NO! We can’t believe the numbers anymore because they’re lies? So does this mean that Al Sharpton is really the Democratic frontrunner? How exactly do jobless people no longer get tracked? The theory that Bush mandated they no longer be tracked is as priceless as the theory that the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow. By your rationale, approximately 8.8 Million people are no longer being tracked, especially the 2 Million unemployed over 27 weeks, even though economic reports seem to acknowledge them.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20031107/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_24
Posted by: JT at November 7, 2003 01:13 PMJonesy is right about one thing. The numbers do get revised. New numbers for August and September are reported in a story on CBS MarketWatch. It’s good news for everyone except the most partisan Bush-haters who can’t stand to see any good news while Bush is the president.
August’s 41,000-job loss was revised to a gain of 35,000. September was revised to a gain of 125,000 jobs, more than 57,000 originally reported.
Posted by: Jason Erickson at November 7, 2003 02:47 PMJonesy is right about one thing. The numbers do get revised. New numbers for August and September are reported in a story on CBS MarketWatch. It’s good news for everyone except the most partisan Bush haters who can’t stand to see any good news while Bush is the president.
August’s 41,000-job loss was revised to a gain of 35,000. September was revised to a gain of 125,000 jobs, more than 57,000 originally reported.
Posted by: Jason Erickson at November 7, 2003 02:47 PMThe only number that matters to me is the one that was on the contract I signed on Monday next to ‘Salary’. I credit my new job, which pays me twice what I was earning before Bush took office, to the President and his fiscal policy.
I will be voting for Bush,
k
