WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. economy grew at a 3.8% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the third quarter of 2005, the Commerce Department estimated Friday. Consumer spending contributed most to the growth rate. The trade sector was a slight drag. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch were expecting GDP to increase 3.6% in the third quarter after 3.3% in the second quarter. Core consumer prices increased as [sic] a 1.3% rate in the third quarter, down from a 1.7% rate in the second quarter, leaving the year-over-year increase at 1.9%.
GDP up, inflation down. Meanwhile the unemployment rate is at 5.1%.
Why don't we hear more about this stuff? Probably because it isn't negative for the Bush administration (it's a resounding positive, if the truth be known) and the media is far too busy searching for negative stories about Iraq and the Plame indictments.
You can bet, though, that if economic growth failed to meet expectations in a given quarter the media (and the left, but I repeat myself) would be all over it like white on rice.
We hear a lot about how the Bush presidency is in trouble. His approval ratings right now are hovering in the low-to-mid 40's, yet is that a big deal? At this point in the Clinton presidency Bill's numbers were hovering around the mid-to-upper 40's. Plus, Clinton had his low point too in 1993 when his approval ratings got as low as 36%.
Keeping in mind that President Bush has to deal with a media establishment that his hostile to both him and his agenda (the exact opposite was true of Clinton's relationship with the media) you can hardly say that the Bush presidency is in trouble. In a funk right now, sure, but in trouble? Hardly.
Things will rebound, and the President will carry out his agenda.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
Allan
Unemployment is also at 5.1%. Federal tax receipts, thanks to Bush's tax cuts, have not begun to outpace spending which is causing the deficit to shrink. Further, the President (in recent speeches) has apparently dedicated himself to cutting government spending (always a weak point with him) and providing Americans with more tax relief.
I really don't find your criticism to be at all accurate.
And don't get me started on what they guy is gonna cut when he's done playing in the piles of other damage done to this country. He would have been better off in the first place to give the "tax savings" to states to use to create more government jobs. We would have had the help we need when disasters help and the money most likely would still have gotten back into the economy. Except of course that wouldn't have pleased any of the profit mongers.
Dang ... I better be careful or I might just find myself mentioned by name in the next Patriot Act.
But you are probably right, the numbers speak for themselves.
Allan
I, for one, believe that government should be kept small wherever possible. I think one of the best ways to deal with things like poverty and unemployment is to give the citizens tax relief. One way we can give the Americans tax relief is by cutting government waste and passing the savings on to the electorate.
Oh ... I feel so idealistic in the AM!
Allan
When has small government and tax relief failed in the past?
What is more empowering than letting people keep more of their own money?
You seem to be working under the assumption that the wealth created in this country is the government's and not the people's. That's a falsity. The money belongs to the people. We volunteer to give it to the government for various reasons. Thus, the goverment does not "let us off the hook." We are the bosses. We control the hook.
I have no problem with protecting the environment. The problem is that the environmentalists often set the bar for protecting the environment so high that actually fulfilling what they see as our obligations would bring ruin to our economy.
What good is a pristine environment if America is impoverished, weak and susceptible to the attacks of our enemies?
IT's a fine line to walk.
Well...maybe I'm too cynical, but that sounds like a utopian pipe dream to me.
The market doesn't work for everything. It needs some guidance, and that, among other things, is what government can do with ideas that encourage innovation--including ideas that punish bad business behavior. Cutting taxes to give a tiny portion back to individual consumers is a very poor way to generate change without there being a greater force to make that change real. Government serves that role (though often below its potential), at least until we have other elements in place. The technology revolution will help fill this gap in the future if it receives the support that is needed there. So frankly I would rather see my dollars go to something like that than have it returned willy-nilly to those with the best lawyers.
Go read about Natural Capitalism on the Web. You might find it an interesting cure for your cynicism.
Allan
Personally, I subscribe to Teddy Roosevelts ideas on the subject. Perhaps you would do well to research his administrtion as a cure to your fear of a marke free of undue regulation.
Allan