US Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984

[Seoulstriker]

7.2% growth for GDP!!! finally, we are out of the Clinton recession. Tax cuts work. woot woot woot woot woot


http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,101680,00.html


WASHINGTON — The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product (search), the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department (search) reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

The economy's recovery from the 2001 recession has resembled the side of a jagged cliff; a quarter of strength often has been followed by a quarter of weakness. But analysts are saying that pattern could be broken, considering increasing signs the economy finally has shaken its lethargy and is perking up.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining, they say.

Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.

Although the nation's payrolls grew by 57,000 in September — the first increase in eight months — the economy needs to add a lot more jobs than that each month to drive down the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, analysts have said.

The administration has argued that as economic growth improves, meaningful job creation will follow. Bush will be counting on that as he heads into the 2004 presidential election season.

In other encouraging economic news from the Labor Department (search), new claims for unemployment benefits last week dropped by 5,000 to 386,000, a sign that layoffs are slowing. U.S. workers' wages and benefits went up by 1 percent in the third quarter, up slightly from a 0.9 percent increase in the previous quarter.

Amid signs that the recovery is regaining traction, the Federal Reserve on Tuesday decided to hold a key short-term interest rate at a 45-year low of 1 percent. Super-low short-term rates may give consumers and businesses an incentive to spend and invest more, boosting economic growth.

Economists believe the economy will grow at a slower — but still healthy — 4 percent rate in the final quarter.

In the third quarter, consumers ratcheted up their spending at a brisk 6.6 percent annual rate. That was the biggest increase since the first quarter of 1988 and was up from a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter.

Consumers in the third quarter spent lavishly on big-ticket items, such as cars, boosting such spending by a whopping 26.9 percent rate. And, they also spent briskly on "nondurables" such as food and clothes, which grew at a 7.9 percent pace, the strongest showing since the first quarter of 1976.

While consumers have been the main force keeping the economy going, there are more signs that businesses are starting to do their part.

Especially encouraging was the 15.4 percent growth rate in spending by businesses on equipment and software in the third quarter. That marked the largest increase since the first quarter of 2000 and was up from a 8.3 percent growth rate in the second quarter.

Sustained turnarounds in capital spending and in hiring are crucial to the economy's return to full throttle. Economists said business wants profits to improve and wants to be sure of the recovery's vigor before it goes on a spending and hiring spree.

The red-hot housing market, powered by low mortgage rates, also contributed to the strong showing on third quarter GDP. Investment on residential projects grew at a 20.4 percent rate, the biggest increase since the second quarter of 1996, and more than three times the 6.6 percent growth rate seen in the second quarter.

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth.

A better trade picture in the third quarter also contributed to GDP growth.

But inventory reduction by businesses continued to be a drag on the economy and reduced third-quarter GDP by 0.67 percentage point. And a continuing reluctance by businesses to build up stocks suggest that executives remain wary of the rebound's staying power.

[budanski]

Let's see now....."It's only for the rich"?

[Seoulstriker]

Let's see now....."It's only for the rich"?

hehehe. I can't believe liberals are still going for the "tax cuts for the rich" line.

http://img.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcol11.0021.ImageFile.jpg

so if you consider the top 50% of wage earners to be rich, then i guess you could say that the tax cuts were targeted towards them. but then again, you would have to change your definition of rich to "anyone who makes more than $70,000 per year".

[budanski]

I wonder what the 9 dwarves will have to come up now that one of their selling points has gone to crap. "Quagmire in Iraq"!!

"This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover."
John Kerry, 8/6/03

[Seoulstriker]

I wonder what the 9 dwarves will have to come up now that one of their selling points has gone to crap. "Quagmire in Iraq"!!

"This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover."
John Kerry, 8/6/03

anything negative. the democrats have a message which noone in the US wants to accept (except hard core democrats).

i feel sorry for them: once Iraq gets stabilized in 1 year and once the economy's growth is expanded for every successive quarter, they have nothing to run on. i see 2002 again but with more dramatic results. woot

[Kriz]

i feel sorry for them: once Iraq gets stabilized in 1 year and once the economy's growth is expanded for every successive quarter, they have nothing to run on. i see 2002 again but with more dramatic results. woot

I doubt that Irag will get stabilized in one year, and if it does that still doesn't mean that the war on terror is over :|

[Seoulstriker]

i feel sorry for them: once Iraq gets stabilized in 1 year and once the economy's growth is expanded for every successive quarter, they have nothing to run on. i see 2002 again but with more dramatic results. woot

I doubt that Irag will get stabilized in one year, and if it does that still doesn't mean that the war on terror is over :|

iraq will get stabilized in one year.

besides, do you know what it is like to have a party win only when the country is doing poorly? that's the reality of the DNC here.

[Trigger]

Hey budanski, you could hear a pin drop in here. :lol:

[fred_engles]

Required Reading (http://slate.msn.com/id/2090498/)

[budanski]

Required Reading (http://slate.msn.com/id/2090498/)

Let the spin begin...

Desparation is humurous...

[Seoulstriker]

But thus far, the Bush boom rests more on hope than hard data—and on a pretty weak definition of a boom.

:roll:


7.2% growth of GDP...

[budanski]

So, an economy that seems to be doing poorly can, when one looks back at it a few years later, be deemed to have been doing OK (see: 1991 and 1992). And when you're at the tail end of a boom, it can feel like it's going to go on forever (see: 2000). v

Interesting. Implicit admission that the economy was not the "worst in 50 years" in 1992 and was waning in 2000 ...

[Seoulstriker]

"This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover."

I think John Kerry is signalling that he thinks the country needs another communist man in power.

[NcDeuce]

The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades.

Hooah! woot

[front]

Hear a pin drop? Most are probably mystified as to why www.militaryphotos.net has been hijacked by news of the US economy.

I'd wait for four good quarters before jumping up and down considering the thumping we've gotten for most of the last eight. Consumer spending is one thing, job creation is another. There still is a spectre of a "jobless recovery" looming over the US.

cheers

front

[Vance]

Don't diss FDR, man!

[budanski]

ah, FDR's mom drives a pickle truck :P

[Trigger]

Seoulstriker wrote:

do you know what caused the great depression? (i'm not talking about the stock exchange crash)
Yeah, adambalhetchet didn't get his green card. Now we're all paying the price. p-)

[Haiw]

How about the government is neither and simply plays the part of a small federal organization designed to protect the Union. Get rid of all the social crap and let local governments deal with their own people. The American government does not need to become some nanny state. Uggg.

yea! let's let the poor people starve...let's not give medical care to those who can't afford it! yeaaaaaaah. let's go back to the middle ages and the 'everyone for himself'-mentality..

[Trigger]

Haiw wrote:

yea! let's let the poor people starve...let's not give medical care to those who can't afford it! yeaaaaaaah. let's go back to the middle ages and the 'everyone for himself'-mentality..
I prefer 'Yaaay let's motivate the poor to better themselves' instead of 'Here's a handout, now go back to the project and pump out 5 more kids, it's OK, we'll just raise the taxes on the working man to pay for it'. :roll:

[James]

do you know what caused the great depression? (i'm not talking about the stock exchange crash)

The stock exchange crash was the fuse. The roots dated back to World War One. The U.S. loaned HUGE amounts of money to France and Britain during the war, and more to them and Germany after the armistice in 1918. The idea was that Germany could pay reperations to the Allies, and the Allies could buy consumer goods from the U.S. But...

People in the U.S. were more interested in the stock market than European investment, which meant that (and this is a very simplistic explanation) Germany had less money to pay to Britain, France, and Belgium, who in turn had less money to spend on consumer goods in the U.S.

Shortly after the market crashed the U.S. moved to protect domestic markets, which hurt the Europeans even more - they weren't able to make any money from exports to the U.S. Their economies were fragile anyway. The depression became global.

FDR was elected in 1932 and took office in 1933. He had nothing to do with the onset of the depression.


There is the daily history lesson for militaryphotos.net.

[Haiw]

I prefer 'Yaaay let's motivate the poor to better themselves' instead of 'Here's a handout, now go back to the project and pump out 5 more kids, it's OK, we'll just raise the taxes on the working man to pay for it'. :roll:
yea but it's not like someone decides to be poor or jobless...some people just can't get a job...and do you think it's right to just let them starve?
or how about people who are physically disabled or something...let's just them them starve huh? oh and all the facilities for old people...pensions? NOOOOO let's just let the kids take care of em, or let em rott.. :roll:

[Seoulstriker]

do you know what caused the great depression? (i'm not talking about the stock exchange crash)

The stock exchange crash was the fuse. The roots dated back to World War One. The U.S. loaned HUGE amounts of money to France and Britain during the war, and more to them and Germany after the armistice in 1918. The idea was that Germany could pay reperations to the Allies, and the Allies could buy consumer goods from the U.S. But...

People in the U.S. were more interested in the stock market than European investment, which meant that (and this is a very simplistic explanation) Germany had less money to pay to Britain, France, and Belgium, who in turn had less money to spend on consumer goods in the U.S.

Shortly after the market crashed the U.S. moved to protect domestic markets, which hurt the Europeans even more - they weren't able to make any money from exports to the U.S. Their economies were fragile anyway. The depression became global.

FDR was elected in 1932 and took office in 1933. He had nothing to do with the onset of the depression.


There is the daily history lesson for militaryphotos.net.


3 things:

1) Higher taxes to support government socialist programs

2) Higher interest rates

3) Highly restricted trade.

[Durandal]

I can't resist - here's another history lesson. ;)

Federal income taxes were first collected in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) was president, and when the USA and CSA were engaged in our great civil war.

Your second statement would likely have sounded good to our founding fathers, but the relationship between the Federal Government and the State Governments was changed drastically after the Civil War. When local governments dealt with their own populations prior to 1860, a number of states seceded from the Union. There was a civil war, and more than 500,000 people died (roughly the number of Americans who died in all our other wars from 1776 to 2003, combined). Before the war, the Federal Government was an umbrella that more or less did what you describe - they dealt with foreign policy and whatnot, but the States had far more power than they do today.
That is why, in 1933, FDR started the New Deal. The Federal government was in a position to do something for the entire country.

There was a forum on this site a while ago where a number of people wrote about the pay that men and women in the military receive, and how many enlisted personnel have to take a second job and/or collect food stamps in order to provide for their families. Would you do away with this part of the "nanny state"?

Actually, here is a real history lesson. The Federal Income tax established during the Civil War was repealed in 1872, later revived 1894-95 and was deemed unconstitutional and ditched.

In 1913 the 16th Amendment made Income Tax a permanent ficture at a federal level. Withholding was started in 1943.

I have igonored the various recent tax bills/cuts put into place by Presidents Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr., but can cite those if needed.

Johnson's welfare system simply added momentum to an already broken system.

Rant...

As a tax payer of the US, and one that pays social security, I feel that the money is poorly spent. I do not need the government to take money from me with a promise that I will get it back (without interest) later on down the road. Especially, when they have been using these monies to balance a budget (I blame all politicians and presidents for this starting with Clinton and including the current Bush...and associated Senators of the last (nearly ) 12 years. We get screwed and they get pay raises (voted on by themselves of course *wink* *wink*)

We can argue that discuss all we want that income tax was started earlier, but ultimately, the very small THREE PERCENT the average taxpayer handed over to the governtment in the mid-1800s to cover the war effort was nothing compared to today's thievery.

To use the Civil War as an example of why States and local governments should not be the focus on support for the needy (regardless of who they are) is rediculous.

We also tend to forget that the politcal parties over 100 years ago were almost the exact opposites...Republicans were Federalists for the most part and the Democrats were pro-State Rights/Slavery and does little to compare to today's parties.

Ultimately, I feel that that Federal tax should be determined by the people, not the politicians.

You complain that soldiers cannot afford a certain standard of living. This is a bad thing. Soldiers (who have ALWAYS had this problem in the United States) should not have to be forced to do this. Pay them more then. Woops. Sorry, we cannot. The Federal government has 45 Million Social Security recipients that need to be paid and it just spent it to cover other pork projects...

No, the federal government needs to live within its means just like the people of the United States. Let the communities decide how to deal with their less fortunate, rather than a government council that ends up costing us three to five times what it would cost for a smaller government or company to accomplish the same tasks.

I live in a country where the average consumer has 20 THOUSAND USD in credit card debt, with an overall nation, personal, debt of 17 TRILLION dollars. These people, less than 5% of the world's total population consume 40% of the worlds total produced goods.

The numbers simply do not add up. This does not even count our nation, federal spending.

No, it has to stop. I do not need to hear that we need more taxes to pay for health care, I do not need to hear that we need 87 Billion dollars to help Iraq when we just cut 440 in State aid (a great decision I might add). Where did that 440 go? It was cycled through the massive tax cut, though I would not be suprised if the "robbed Peter to pay Paul".

It does not matter I guess.

Persoanlly, the federal government needs to tightem its belt. In a perfect, fantasy world, there would be no Federal personal income tax. I'll take a 15 to 20% overall cut though.

Well, its late, I guess this is enough ranting. :)

[James]

God bless you! Another person who knows history!

Your reference about State and local gov'ts not being the focus of local support isn't clear to me - I was pointing out how the relationship between the Fed and State gov'ts changed, and why the Fed was able to do what the States were not.

I say to hell with all political parties. I do not like being labelled Democrat/liberal, Republican/conservative, or other/doesn't matter, in the U.S.

I didn't complain about the poorly paid men and women who defend us, I was merely pointing out a fact. I used to be one of them, after all ;) .

Out of curiosity, though, what would you have us do with an old person who retired without an adequate income? If they didn't have family support, would you have them live on the streets?

I strongly support the notion of people being independent and supporting themselves, but if one thinks that the U.S. is a good place to live, we can't abandon our own citizens, can we?

Do you propose no income tax? A flat tax?

Just curious. Please advise.

[Durandal]

God bless you! Another person who knows history!

Your reference about State and local gov'ts not being the focus of local support isn't clear to me - I was pointing out how the relationship between the Fed and State gov'ts changed, and why the Fed was able to do what the States were not.

They have, truly. I think we should give more power to the States and take away the seemingly much more diversified powers of the United States federal government. It would mean a much more better representation.


I say to hell with all political parties. I do not like being labelled Democrat/liberal, Republican/conservative, or other/doesn't matter, in the U.S.

True, very true. I consider myself a libertarian...maybe a Madisonian.


I didn't complain about the poorly paid men and women who defend us, I was merely pointing out a fact. I used to be one of them, after all ;) .

It should be a complaint though. The US army is a professional one and it should be paid like one. The causation of this inadequate funding is not a problem of lack of federal monies but improper spending on the part of the political leaders in government.


Out of curiosity, though, what would you have us do with an old person who retired without an adequate income? If they didn't have family support, would you have them live on the streets?

The development of local care through democratic process would determine this. Either the community wants to help its elderly or it does not. History, in this nation at least, has proven that when federal tax dollars are not used, people step in and get things done through volunterring and donations. Ultimately, it is an individual need to forsee their needs in the future, or at least anticipate. I know that I will never see social security from the federal government (a paultry sum of money anyways) and I have know since I was 20 something that I needed to save 15 to 20 percent of my income to live well after I retire (which I may never do anyways...I love working...I will quit when I either die or my body fails in some way). The point is, that it is up to the individual to try and gaurantee their happiness at an older age, NOT the federal governments.

The Bill of Rights tries to ensure three things: Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. Pursuit, not the gaurantee. That is where I start getting down on the Federal government. The current one tries to do this. I belive in an America that ANYONE can build themselves to be wealthy. Not wealth in the literal sense, but happy (though, obviously this my include cash wealth).


I strongly support the notion of people being independent and supporting themselves, but if one thinks that the U.S. is a good place to live, we can't abandon our own citizens, can we?

Who says we are abandoning them. I am simply saying that the citizens of this great nation whould be able to determine their level of taxation. If, at a local level they wish to spend more than their neighbors in an adjancent county on the mentally handicapped, cool. If we wish to raise money to help orphaned children, cool. All I want the federal government to do is deal with protecting the nation, inter-state commerce, distribution and control of the national currency, import/export duties and controls, and dialogue with the international community. Let the States worry about the rest.


Do you propose no income tax? A flat tax?

I would love a flat tax. I would enjoy even more, no federal INCOME tax. They can do a "sin" tax, tax gas, have import and export duties, tolls on roads, but cut the income tax crap. Not only do politicians have power now, they also control a vast amount of wealth...not good at all. This is one of the reasons why I think you see less and less differences between the parties. Socially, there are differences, but fiscally, the TRULLY, all want a piece of the pie.

It is a VERY large pie.

I hope that better explains where I am coming from. I see what European governments have become (citing France as the VERY core example) and I fear the United States becoming this...it doesn't work, Americans should be offended by it, and we should try, legally, to prevent it from happening.

It is just a matter of where to start. It is hard though to do something like this in a nation where an average of 20% of the people can vote, actually do.

Very sad.

[usa320]

It was only a matter of time, the economy wasnt going to get any worse...

Definately nice to have it go back up again.

woot

[Seoulstriker]

eurupe should be extremely happy that the US economy is doing better now: europe is strongly affected by the performance of the US in terms of purchasing power of import goods. :)

[California Joe]

I'm filthy rich. I could care less.

[Seoulstriker]

I'm filthy rich. I could care less.

you're rich from working for the government???

[Herrmannek]

eurupe should be extremely happy that the US economy is doing better now: europe is strongly affected by the performance of the US in terms of purchasing power of import goods. :)

This isn't working that way. They are affected but europen economy is inversely proportional to US economy so if you are good we are ****ed :)

[Seoulstriker]

eurupe should be extremely happy that the US economy is doing better now: europe is strongly affected by the performance of the US in terms of purchasing power of import goods. :)

This isn't working that way. They are affected but europen economy is inversely proportional to US economy so if you are good we are f*** :)

nah, man! why would you say that?

when one economy does extremely well, then that economy's prosperity is shared by other countries who depend on that economy. so if the US does well (which it is right now), and if the US is in massive trade deficit (which means we are importing more than exporting (which we are doing right now)), then countries who sell goods to the US will be able to sell more goods, increasing their revenue up to MR = MC. so, when those companies get more profits, they invest more in their own countries. so, when the US does well, everyone else does well. :D

[Herrmannek]

eurupe should be extremely happy that the US economy is doing better now: europe is strongly affected by the performance of the US in terms of purchasing power of import goods. :)

This isn't working that way. They are affected but europen economy is inversely proportional to US economy so if you are good we are f*** :)

nah, man! why would you say that?

when one economy does extremely well, then that economy's prosperity is shared by other countries who depend on that economy. so if the US does well (which it is right now), and if the US is in massive trade deficit (which means we are importing more than exporting (which we are doing right now)), then countries who sell goods to the US will be able to sell more goods, increasing their revenue up to MR = MC. so, when those companies get more profits, they invest more in their own countries. so, when the US does well, everyone else does well. :D

This was Joke, I don't have any specific knowledge on that matter. :)

[Seoulstriker]

eurupe should be extremely happy that the US economy is doing better now: europe is strongly affected by the performance of the US in terms of purchasing power of import goods. :)

This isn't working that way. They are affected but europen economy is inversely proportional to US economy so if you are good we are f*** :)

nah, man! why would you say that?

when one economy does extremely well, then that economy's prosperity is shared by other countries who depend on that economy. so if the US does well (which it is right now), and if the US is in massive trade deficit (which means we are importing more than exporting (which we are doing right now)), then countries who sell goods to the US will be able to sell more goods, increasing their revenue up to MR = MC. so, when those companies get more profits, they invest more in their own countries. so, when the US does well, everyone else does well. :D

This was Joke, I don't have any specific knowledge on that matter. :)

oh, a joke. heheheh. yeah. :P :hug:

[California Joe]

Nah, not from that. I invented styrofoam. I just work for the government cause I'm all patriotic and ****.

[Seoulstriker]

Nah, not from that. I invented styrofoam. I just work for the government cause I'm all patriotic and ****.

you invented styrofoam...

[Seoulstriker]

Nah, not from that. I invented styrofoam. I just work for the government cause I'm all patriotic and ****.

you invented styrofoam...


Styrofoam
What we commonly call styrofoam, is actually the most recognizable form of foam polystyrene packaging. Styrofoam ® is a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation, introduced in the U.S. in 1954. Styrofoam® is a trademarked name, the real name of the product is foamed polystyrene.

[California Joe]

Seoulstalker, are you in like a group home adult assisted living type place?

[Seoulstriker]

Seoulstalker, are you in like a group home adult assisted living type place?

how could you tell? :P

[Beowulf]

ah, FDR's mom drives a pickle truck :P

That joke was lamer than FDR's legs (rimshot).......what?

[Seoulstriker]

ah, FDR's mom drives a pickle truck :P

That joke was lamer than FDR's legs (rimshot).......what?

rofl