Jobs are the election issue as 2003 full year GDP growth of 3.1% will

[papau]

not be much different than Clinton's situation re GDP going into 96 election.

Over the whole of 2003, GDP was up 3.1 percent. In the 4th quarter they expected 5% - they got 4% and consumer spending dropped to 2.6 percent, down from 6.9 percent in the 3rd quarter. But the key to election 04 is jobs - and the lack of jobs will elect the Dem.



GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2003 (ADVANCE)= 4%

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003,according to advance estimates released by the Bureau ofEconomic Analysis. In the third quarter, realGDP increased 8.2 percent.
www.bea.gov/bea/rels.htm


The unemployment numbers will be a different story all through 04, but will still need to be explained - since the top-end GDP numbers are virtually identical for '95-'96 and '03-'04 after you remove the effect of inflation:

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3.3 2.7 4.0 2.5 3.7 4.5 4.2 4.5 3.7 0.5 2.2

The election was in 92 - so Clinton's GDP years are 1993 to 2000 - and the year before the 96 election would be 95 - which is a growth of only 2.5!

By the way - Bush revised the Clinton year results to increase Dad's results and decrease Clinton's results! - I found it interesting that like a dictator 2000 years BC, he tries to make folk forget the fellow before him accomplished anything!

[trotsky]

1. So much for the "blistering" 3Q growth...

being an indicator of how well * was managing the economy. If he's supposed to get the credit for Q3, then why were the Q4 numbers so pedestrian?

Could it be, that us lowly liberals, who said the surge in Q3 was mainly due to once-in-a-lifetime interest rates causing people to refinance and cash out, were right? Nawwww...

[mastein]

2. It the jobs, Stupid

The most dangerous person isn't the one who never had anything. It is the one that has had and lost. They will be the ones that will join us and get rid of the current cabal.

[papau]

3. I hope you are correct!

:-)

[GOPBasher]

7. Also,

huge government spending caused that growth. When you put so much money into the economy, of course it will grow like it did. But all of the money went to just a few companies: military and oil contractors. That's why we lowly liberals think that you can do so much more for the economy by spending on infrustructure. If all that money went into infrustructure, it would be more well distributed among various companies, and the unemployment rate would be lower than it is.

[MsUnderstood]

4. Why have our priorities shifted

Now I'm not saying jobs ARENT important, but I ws surprised to hear on Hardball's commentary about the debate that the country doesn't care about the war. I know the economy is the hole, but what about the war?

If we don't continue to make war an issue, won't the next president try the line of "Yes the war was bad but now we have to fix Iraq so we are staying in?"

[rockymountaindem]

5. Although Bush's number's reflect Clinton's...

Times are different. After the lowly days of Bush I, 3-4% made Clinton look good. These days, people have higher expectations and 3.1% just doesn't look as good today as it did in '96. People still think the economy is weak.

[jeter]

6. Listen...

...we have a budget deficit that is 3%+ the GDP. So at the very least you would expect the economy to grow as much.

Consider it this way. Growth as the stuff you buy. Deficit as the money you borrow. If you borrow 3%+ over what you make, wouldn't you logically expect to have 3%+ more than you had last year?

What that means is that economy hasn't grown at all in real terms.

What is Bush going to say, "I borrowed enough money - which you will pay for later - so I could get reelected?"