Unemployment and Jobs report

[Mitchell]

Well, the latest unemployment figures and jobs report has just been released, and the numbers are much more disappointing than expected. CNBC reported that the Labor Dept said that only 96,000 jobs were added in Septenber's employment rolls, with unemployment holding steady at 5.4%. This has got to be disappointing news for Mr George W Bush, who continually insists that we would create 250,000 to 300,000 jobs per month to completely erase the 3 million jobs lost in his term. This wont be happening. We will in fact have a significant net jobs loss during Bush's term, and, since this is the last employment report issued before the election, there will be no more news that could possibly help Bush in his assertion of a "strong and recovering economy"
John Kerry has been given two major issues and open doors this week to seize on, this jobs report, and the findings on Iraq. It is imperative that he must seize upon these issues in the last 3 1-2 weeks of the campaign, to help his cause. According to the latest poll numbers, it appears that things might be slightly moving in his favor, but he needs to continue the momentum.
One final point: On the day Clinton left office, unemployment was at 4.2%, which means that it has ticked up 1.2% in four years, even with the "recovering" economy according to Bush. With such substantial net job losses, and the other issues, this should hopefully be enough to mean his defeat in November.
Of course, Labor Secretary Elaine Cho, speaking after the report was issued, still tried to assert the "recovering and strong economy" It would be nice if for once the Republican leadership in this country would stop misleading the American people on every issue, including jobs and the economy, and focus on the reality. I still assert that they can never do this, because looking at all the issues, this should mean George Bush's defeat, as the economy is nowhere near as strong as it was four years ago, not to mention the other serious issues.

Mitch

[drew70]

Well, you see Mitch, there was this little incident that happened a few years ago called 911 in which the two buildings that housed many financial institutes were completely destroyed. This sent the airline industry into downward spiral and much of the economy followed. Are you going to blame Bush for this as well? I just love this kid! :blaugh:

[Mitchell]

Drew, FYI, some more numbers for you. Your man Bush now has a 44% approval rating on Iraq, and 46% overall, down from 51% just a couple of months ago.
One more thing, your sarcasm is not appreciated. I post numbers that are real and honest, and are not delusional. Iam well aware of 9-11, as members of my family who lived near WTC were forced to flee to my house for ten days, and then forced to move, due to the conditions down there. The fact is that Bush is doing a pitiful job, plain and simple, on both the war and the economy. I respect that voters vote for him for whatever their reasons are, but I do not appreciate being derided because I post true and honest facts about the economy, and how this war is conducted. I attack Bush and Cheney, and NOT their supporters on TMF, as I have friends on here who are Republican, and respect their right to vote for Bush. I respect others rights, it would be nice if the sarcasm would stop, and if you could do the same.

Mitch

[BOFH666]

9/11, while having an immediate effect on the airline industry and causing approximately 150,000 job losses in America is not the main reason airlines are struggling.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/indicators/qtropfinan.html

The data shows that the airlines were making net losses (averaged across the industry) in Q1 2001. 9/11 had an impact of course, but the main problem that arose from that event was the increase in insurance premiums for the airlines. This is currently being subsidised by the US Government and so is not a direct influence at this moment in time.

http://www.ukloans.uk.com/articles/articles515.html

The major problem the airlines are facing at this moment is the cost of fuel. With oil prices rising 60% this year alone profit margains immediately shrink. In fact fuel prices this year are expected to cost $4 Billion despite an almost 20% rise in passenger numbers.

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_472143.html

Other factors to consider are the SARS outbreaks cutting passenger travel, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq discouraging people from flying amongst others.

September 11th was a tragedy but it did NOT affect the American economy in a catastrophic fashion, unless of course you have data that suggests otherwise. Now, if you want to argue that 9/11 had a pronounced effect on New York City, that I'll agree with. But the entire US economy? Not supported by any data I've seen.

[venray]

Keep looking Steve...it's out there....;)

[BOFH666]

Thing is Ray, the employment data just doesn't seem (to my eyes anyway) to support the theory that 9/11 caused any sort of long term damage. And no, I'm not taking that from any sort of analysis paper, that's looking straight at the statistics.

I should perhaps explain something here, I don't consider things such as war costs, homeland security costs or high oil prices a direct result of 9/11. Those happened afterwards and were, arguably, avoidable. Besides which in a war economy, with hundreds of billions being dumped into American companies by the government as a direct result of that war, the economy should grow relativley rapidly.

"If it weren't for the oil price spike, I would be very optimistic about where the economy is going," - U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. So how is 9/11 affecting job creation figures (or the economy in general) for September 2004 if it's only the high oil price that's keeping optimisim off the cards?

As always I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this, but please show me the statistics (not op-ed pieces) that support the claim that 9/11 continues to have a direct impact on the American economy.

[Mitchell]

Ray, I'm not out of touch, I dont deny that 9-11 had a profound effect on the American economy in all areas. I may have posted that I know a man whose business was to distribute films for airlines, and his business took a profound hit after 9-11, as three out of four offices closed, and two of his three partners left. This guy is still making a much better living than most people, but I know he was affected.
That being said, I listened to further reports from financial and political analysts on TV today who concurred that this latest data is very disappointing, and could be damaging to Bush. Iam not by any means saying that Bush was responsible for 9-11, that would be idiotic, and it just isnt fact. What he IS responsible for is not dealing with the economy properly, and the giant budget deficit.
The bottom line is that the economy is very slow in recovering, and normally in this scenario, the president will shoulder the blame, as Bush 41 did in 1992. This election is still very, very close, and it remains to be seen how the debates, and the issues confronting our conuntry and the candidates over the next 3 1-2 weeks, will serve to sway the election.

Mitch

[venray]

What he is also responsible for is keeping the country going and secure since that day in September. Numbers and statistics and all the other Kerry campaign dogma aside.....Bush did what Kerry (nor Gore) would have been able to.....in my opinion only...

And with that I do indeed bow out of Political discussion as there really is no point in continuing in this venue...I have nothing of real value to add here.....I do not wish to just post the one sided opinions of a cranky old man....soooooo....

Keep it going guys....I am too tired as of late.

I have been very rough on some of you with my comments here and wish to apolgize for it publicly.



Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
What he is also responsible for is keeping the country going and secure since that day in September. Numbers and statistics and all the other Kerry campaign dogma aside.....Bush did what Kerry (nor Gore) would have been able to.....in my opinion only...


Yeah... I seriously doubt that Kerry could screw things up more than Bush has in the last four years, even if he wanted to.

I agree that 9/11 had a serious negative effect on the economy, but entering a needless war in the midst of a recession and right after enacting huge tax cuts is not a good way to help the economy recover.

[kurchatovium]

Actually the current unemployment rate is 5.4% which is the lowest it has been in sometime even during the Clinton adminstration. The economy is improving though you will never hear that story from the mainstream media. The economy started to go south during the last year of Clinton's adminstration and he handed over to Bush. That coupled with 9/11 and I think he has done a remarkable job.

[MrMacphisto]

The economy is improving indeed, but you have to consider the state of comparison. 2001: economy sucks... 2002: economy sucks more.... 2003: economy still sucks, but hey, people are buying shit... 2004: economy is floundering mostly due to unstable foreign investment and huge deficit spending. So yeah... the economy is improving, but seriously, could it really get much worse? I'm sure if we entered Syria or did something else equally as stupid, it would. The question is: how many more conflicts are we going to enter in the next 4 years, if Bush stays in office?