US Economy grows at fastest rate since 1984!!

[Col. Crackpot]

The US economy grew at a rate of 7.2% in the third quarter, the largest single quarter increase since 1984. Thats a big step. Shall i be so bold as to say that economic issues won't be so hot a topic come next november, as many on the left had hoped?

[Durandal]

Hear that, record number of unemployed people? The economy's actually growing!

[theski]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the Commerce Department said. It was the steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.

their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.




Looks like tax cuts do work!!!



http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=3723854

[Xenophobe3691]

Hear that, record number of unemployed people? The economy's actually growing!

I thought employment was always at the tail end of a recovering economy. This might not bode so well if the numbers start dropping by election time...

[Iceberg]

So? Bush is lowering taxes so that his successor will have to raise them in order to balance the budget. He's not exhibiting any form of financial responsibility, just trying to buy re-election.

[Iceberg]

Hear that, record number of unemployed people? The economy's actually growing!

I thought employment was always at the tail end of a recovering economy. This might not bode so well if the numbers start dropping by election time...

Do the words "jobless recovery" ring a bell? Companies aren't hiring because they're overworking their current employees and getting away with bullshit like mandatory, uncompensated overtime and telling their employees to "take work home with them," which amounts to MORE overtime, unpaid this time. If the government lets you get away with treating your employees like slaves, why increase the payroll by hiring new ones?

[theski]

So? Bush is lowering taxes so that his successor will have to raise them in order to balance the budget. He's not exhibiting any form of financial responsibility, just trying to buy re-election.

Well both parties could reduce spending????? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Xenophobe3691]

Do the words "jobless recovery" ring a bell? Companies aren't hiring because they're overworking their current employees and getting away with bullshit like mandatory, uncompensated overtime and telling their employees to "take work home with them," which amounts to MORE overtime, unpaid this time. If the government lets you get away with treating your employees like slaves, why increase the payroll by hiring new ones?

Damn, I never even thought of that. Thanks. That's an excellent point, though, but will employees tolerate it in an open job market?

[Col. Crackpot]

anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics understands that empoyment is the last indicator to be affected by changes in the ecnomic cycle. plays to emotion almost never have anything to do with economic theory as much as partisans would like. I guarantee that unemployment will drop to the 5% range in less than a year provided there are no massive terrorist strikes). if it doesn't i will open myself up for public humiliation. This is big, because it is the first time in this economic cycle that a quarter of economic growth was followed by a second....this one being double the previous quarter's growth.

[phongn]

Do the words "jobless recovery" ring a bell? Companies aren't hiring because they're overworking their current employees and getting away with bullshit like mandatory, uncompensated overtime and telling their employees to "take work home with them," which amounts to MORE overtime, unpaid this time. If the government lets you get away with treating your employees like slaves, why increase the payroll by hiring new ones?

Damn, I never even thought of that. Thanks. That's an excellent point, though, but will employees tolerate it in an open job market?

Probably not. As usual, the recovery of jobs will take longer, however.

[RedImperator]

So? Bush is lowering taxes so that his successor will have to raise them in order to balance the budget. He's not exhibiting any form of financial responsibility, just trying to buy re-election.

Here's a thought: cut spending. This is not a partisan snipe; Bush is among the worst offenders for bloating the government since Johnson. Still, I get deeply irritated when I hear "we have to raise taxes to balance the budget" without a whisper of reducing spending.

[theski]

Do the words "jobless recovery" ring a bell? Companies aren't hiring because they're overworking their current employees and getting away with bullshit like mandatory, uncompensated overtime and telling their employees to "take work home with them," which amounts to MORE overtime, unpaid this time. If the government lets you get away with treating your employees like slaves, why increase the payroll by hiring new ones?

[quote/]

Go to see a little good news isn't getting in the way of your negativity

[Crayz9000]

Here's a thought: cut spending. This is not a partisan snipe; Bush is among the worst offenders for bloating the government since Johnson. Still, I get deeply irritated when I hear "we have to raise taxes to balance the budget" without a whisper of reducing spending.

Now if the CA legislature would take a hint on spending...

[Iceberg]

So? Bush is lowering taxes so that his successor will have to raise them in order to balance the budget. He's not exhibiting any form of financial responsibility, just trying to buy re-election.

Here's a thought: cut spending. This is not a partisan snipe; Bush is among the worst offenders for bloating the government since Johnson. Still, I get deeply irritated when I hear "we have to raise taxes to balance the budget" without a whisper of reducing spending.

Cutting spending is necessary, nobody except maybe super-ideological liberals (like Dennis Kucinich) denies this. But taxes are as much a tool of balancing the budget as spending cuts, and President Bush's programs of massive spending increases while slashing taxes are offensive.

[MKSheppard]

President Bush's programs of massive spending increases while slashing taxes are offensive.

Worked for Reagan

[Iceberg]

President Bush's programs of massive spending increases while slashing taxes are offensive.

Worked for Reagan

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

[MKSheppard]

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

And won the war. Your playtoy Clinton would never have
had all that money to play with from cutting the Defense budget to "balance"
the budget if Reagan hadn't spent all that money to kill the USSR.

[Iceberg]

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

And won the war. Your playtoy Clinton would never have
had all that money to play with from cutting the Defense budget to "balance"
the budget if Reagan hadn't spent all that money to kill the USSR.

False analogy. Clinton is not at issue here; we can NOT assume that his defense policy would have been identical under a Cold War environment because he was not operating under a Cold War environment.

Pointing out Clinton's errors in judgment does not in any way excuse Reagan's.

[Col. Crackpot]

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

And won the war. Your playtoy Clinton would never have
had all that money to play with from cutting the Defense budget to "balance"
the budget if Reagan hadn't spent all that money to kill the USSR.

False analogy. Clinton is not at issue here; we can NOT assume that his defense policy would have been identical under a Cold War environment because he was not operating under a Cold War environment.

Pointing out Clinton's errors in judgment does not in any way excuse Reagan's.

Regan's defense policy was not an error in judgement, but a calculated 'investment'. Ronnie knew the russkies were on their last legs and he knew that the Red Army would spend as much as possible to keep up with the Americans. He played into their delusions of grandeur knowing full well they would bankrupt themselves. In the end we ended up with a tasty "peace dividend" which Clinton promptly pissed away.

[Iceberg]

What peace dividend? The unsustainable Reagan-era military, which was essentially an upgraded World War II-style force designed to win a war which never materialized?

[RedImperator]

So? Bush is lowering taxes so that his successor will have to raise them in order to balance the budget. He's not exhibiting any form of financial responsibility, just trying to buy re-election.

Here's a thought: cut spending. This is not a partisan snipe; Bush is among the worst offenders for bloating the government since Johnson. Still, I get deeply irritated when I hear "we have to raise taxes to balance the budget" without a whisper of reducing spending.

Cutting spending is necessary, nobody except maybe super-ideological liberals (like Dennis Kucinich) denies this. But taxes are as much a tool of balancing the budget as spending cuts, and President Bush's programs of massive spending increases while slashing taxes are offensive.

You'll get no arguments from me on that. The difference in our positions is, you'd cut a little spending and raise taxes a little, and I'd cut a lot of spending and cut taxes a little too.

[Col. Crackpot]

What peace dividend? The unsustainable Reagan-era military, which was essentially an upgraded World War II-style force designed to win a war which never materialized?

are you that fucking dense! That military surved a purpose, it's purpose was to bankrupt the soviets with defense spending, and IT WORKED. The USSR was spending a third of it's GDP in defense spending at one point. The Politburo simply could not let the US have prettier toys than the Red Army. The Reagan administration knew that and used it to their advantage. It's called winning a war without firing a shot. And yes, there was a peace dividend, thats what the Clinton Administration called it. He massively cut defense spending, and got a surge of cash flow.

[SirNitram]

What peace dividend? The unsustainable Reagan-era military, which was essentially an upgraded World War II-style force designed to win a war which never materialized?

are you that fucking dense! That military surved a purpose, it's purpose was to bankrupt the soviets with defense spending, and IT WORKED. The USSR was spending a third of it's GDP in defense spending at one point. The Politburo simply could not let the US have prettier toys than the Red Army. The Reagan administration knew that and used it to their advantage. It's called winning a war without firing a shot. And yes, there was a peace dividend, thats what the Clinton Administration called it. He massively cut defense spending, and got a surge of cash flow.

So where's the peace dividend that was pissed away? Everyone here knows the why's of Reagan's nearly out of control spending, everyone knows that's how the Cold War was ultimately won. That's not the question.

[phongn]

What peace dividend? The unsustainable Reagan-era military, which was essentially an upgraded World War II-style force designed to win a war which never materialized?

Not quite; WW2 was typically 'mass of numbers' while the Reagan-era buildup emphasized so-called smart weapons and large-scale computerization. It was a large conventional force, yes, but it was a force that the Soviet Union could not easily counter.

The Red Army is closer to the WW2-style force.

[phongn]

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

Defense expenditures were not the only component of the 1980s debt buildup, Ice, you know that.