Bush Takes Credit on GDP Growth, Outlook Cautious

[DoYouEverWonder]

Reuters

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - President Bush took credit on Thursday for a sharp rebound in U.S. economic growth but said a 7.2 percent rise in third-quarter growth could not be repeated regularly.

"We cannot expect economic growth numbers like this every quarter," Bush told workers at the Central Aluminum Company, in the politically important state of Ohio.

He was speaking after the Commerce Department reported the U.S. economy grew in the July-September period at its fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984. That year, a rebounding economy helped set the stage for Republican Ronald Reagan's re-election as president.

The new numbers could provide a big political boost for Bush as he heads into an election year, but Democrats said the president had little to do with the growth and blamed him for job losses during his presidency.

more...


All of a sudden Bu$h is taking responisbility for something? Gag me with a spoon please.

Question? Isn't tommorrow the day that a lot of investors cash out because of taxes or something? Is that why these numbers were released today? To give the market that extra little bump so they can put some more 'earnings' in their pockets?

[will work 4 food]

1. I'll

believe there is growth when we have sustained job growth. Not bloated numbers from cheap money spending sprees.

[SilasSoule]

2. Does this now officially the make it BUSH Economy?

Because until recently, they were still Blaming Clinton. IF things go sour with growth again and a few months down the road there are still no jobs to be had, He wont be able to to use the Clinton crutch again right?

[Skittles]

9. of course they will, Silas

they use the Clinton excuse as their safety net

[dusty64]

12. No, only when its going

up. I don't believe this is any more than an blip on the trend downward, funny when its down again bet you won't hear a peep from our chimp.

[Tommy_Douglas]

27. Logic would imply...

Now that Bush has taken credit for the growth in the economy. He is now ascerting that it is his economy. Of course in the world of demensia and spin we know this will not be the case.

[cliss]

3. Is anyone besides me suspicious of these numbers?

How are we to know, maybe this was a "statistic" that was up until now, unnoticed and untapped? We know they've been fudging with the unemployment figures (Elaine Chao always paints a rosy picture). I'm not so sure about a lot of the other leading indicators.

I have a graduate degree in Economics, and I'm willing to bet they just "padded" the figures.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. I'm in manufacturing

and from my point of view these numbers are a bunch of bull.

Everyone I know in manufacturing (if they are still in business) has cut positions and has extra capacity, ie machines sitting idle. At year end we were down 4% from the year before and we are considered among the lucky ones.

[IggleDoer]

22. Are you seying that these numbers may be fudged?

From the administration that bought honor and dignity back to the White House?

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. These numbers don't reflect reality

Unless of course you happen to be in the defense industry. I'm sure their numbers are looking very good right now.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. I Think You're On Target

There is still huge excess capacity, and if the big corporations with June 30 fiscal closes hadn't shed tons of inventory in Q2, and then backfilled after books closed (in Q3) then the consumption numbers would not have risen.

These numbers are not only statistically invalid, they also reflect a shift in spending that is not likely sustainable. One of the principle causes of this effect (the inventory dump and refill) is identifiable & provable. It, obviouesly, can't be repeated every quarter.

So, the extrapolation of short term data (btw: a SINGLE datapoint) to a yearly growth rate is invalid.
The Professor

[area51]

14. economic numbers

cliss said:

"Is anyone besides me suspicious of these numbers?"

Me. I'll believe we actually have a recovery when I and the millions of unemployed people can get (decent-paying) jobs again.

[FloridaPat]

15. Military spending is in those numbers. Also, it's a guess

as to the real September numbers. A few won't be in until Nov or Dec. It is really haard to get the whole story on this. Looks like he bought himself a good economy with out money and our kids, and their kids etc.

[moondust]

18. Yes indeed.

I'd like to know how you double your GDP in one quarter after years of layoffs and without any significant increase in hiring. Mighty fishy.

Don't workers in the sweatshops of China and India contribute to the GDP of China and India? Or are they considered U.S. workers now? :puke:

[Sparky McGruff]

20. The stock market yawned.

Apparently, stock traders are suspicious of the numbers, too. This "record" GDP announcement was met with... pretty much nothing. Fake GDP numbers, still no jobs.

[newyawker99]

31. Hi Sparky McGruff!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[CaptAhab]

23. Read Paul Krugman's column

Read today's Paul Krugman column at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/opinion/31KRUG.html (registration required). He argues that much of that growth is spurred by consumer debt:


<...> while there was a significant pickup in business investment, the bulk of last quarter's growth came from a huge surge in consumer spending, with a further boost from housing. These components of spending stayed strong even when the economy was weak, so there shouldn't have been any pent-up demand. Yet housing grew at a 20 percent rate, while spending on consumer durables (that's stuff like cars and TV sets) — which last year grew three times as fast as the economy — rose at an incredible 27 percent rate last quarter.

This can't go on — in the long run, consumer spending can't outpace the growth in consumer income. Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley has suggested, plausibly, that much of last quarter's consumer splurge was "borrowed" from the future: consumers took advantage of low-interest financing, cash from home refinancing and tax rebate checks to accelerate purchases they would otherwise have made later. If he's right, we'll see below-normal purchases and slower growth in the months ahead.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi sun6302!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[unblock]

4. it's still clinton's fault

if it weren't for clinton, 3q03 gdp would have been 9.8%.

:evilgrin:

[young_at_heart]

5. For once he's not blaming

Lately it seems he has blamed anyone and everyone for all the problems. Just the other day it was the Navy's fault for the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He, of course, had nothing to do with that.......but THIS is all him.......give me a break!

[Malva Zebrina]

6. I do not understand much of it

but I hate to see Bush taking credit and I hate to see the big photos of him pointing at the air, and looking as though he really is intelligent enough to know what the hell is going on.-- taking advantage of this as if he really did something good, purposefully.I do not believe a word of it--not with this lying administration! They will say anything and they will lie about anything-nope--they have fixed this somehow--

another headline that has been on the Yahoo News is: "U.S. Economic Rebound Gains As GDP Soars"
Hey--we are now "soaring" under Bush-- WOW

Oh goody-- now I know for certain that Bush is the "lord" and the god ordained saviour. He rescued us all

[La_Serpiente]

7. He knows

that his growth will not be sustained in next year. That's why he's asking for more tax cuts in the Congress next year.

[Blue_Roses]

17. exactly

just enough to get him elected. With another round of tax to bump the numbers it looks like things are improving, but in reality it's a facade.

[chenGOD]

26. Exactly.

What happens when there are hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of people with no access to any sort of federal services because "whoops, no taxes, no money to spend on any of you poor people. Of course if you want to buy health services from my buddies in the HMO industry well..."

[argyl]

10. Maybe he'll take responsibility for the USS Lincoln banner as well.

xx

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Or for the 100's of Americans KIA

or for not finding Osama,
or for not finding Saddam,
or for not finding WMDs,
or for .....

[progressiverealist]

24. or for Osama bin Forgotten

or all of the unemployment, or the "failing" schools in the uS, or for Saddam still being at large, or for the resurgence of the Taliban, or for the North Korean nuclear crisis, or for our strained relations with just about everyone, or for the failure of the "roadmap to peace," or for the record deficits, or for the violence in America's cities, or.....

[Sushi_lover]

13. "That's a trick question"

In his news conference yesterday he refused to promise we'd have fewer troops in Iraq this time next year. "Because," he said, "that's a trick question."

Well if he's so damn shrewd that he can spot a trick question, why did he take credit for something (the economy) he won't take the blame for?

[StClone]

16. Didn't Krugman predict

Little spurts in spite of Bush's supply side lunacy... the long term trend is slow to stagnating. One freaking indicator is up and it's "Mission Accomplished" all over again! Woe be the believer in this perennial loser.

[Wickerman]

19. Yep, and with all these indicators up

the Fed will be hard pressed to not raise interest rates. Next, the Gov has a good share of available money tied up. I smell trouble ahead.

[qanda]

21. Good!

I'm glad he's finally owning up to something. Now, if it's unsustainable because there's absolutely nothing left to throw at this economy, then I hope he remains just as willing to accept the blame, I mean glory.

[tex46]

29. All I have to say is:

SHOW ME THE JOBS

In my book, the economy is still in the crapper until unemployment and underemployment are down to resembling Clinton's numbers.

[Ramsey]

30. Excellent blog on this topic

At dKos there is such an excellent post and discussion of this topic, too complicated to summarize here, but talking about how GDP is not a great indicator of overall economic health. And here is a most interesting point, from poster M Aurelius:

"GDP did not grow 7.2% in Q3. It grew at an anualized rate of 7.2%, which means it grew 1.75% during the third quarter. This is also a preliminary report, that will be revised. As Krugman pointed out a recent report was revised from 5.8% to 5.0% (1.42% to 1.23%). Because the quarter's rate is compounded to obtain the anualized rate, small errors a greatly exagerated. We will only know the true anual growth rate for 2003, after the end of the last quarter, when the final Q4 report is released."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/10/31/114638/72