posted on December 17, 2003 04:21:14 PM new
Democrat Rivals Pile On Dean
By Charles Mahaleris
Talon News
December 17, 2003
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Howard Dean, the leader of the Democrat pack of candidates vying for the White House, ignited a firestorm of protestations when he said on Monday that America was not safer with Saddam Hussein captured. His Democrat party rivals seized that comment as an opportunity to attack Dean's lack of foreign policy experience.
Dean's closest rival in Iowa polls, Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO), said, "The capture of Saddam Hussein Sunday and Governor Dean's remarks (Monday) in the speech that he made, I think make one thing pretty clear. And that is a candidate with no foreign policy experience is not going to beat George Bush."
Gephardt, who has more than two decades of legislative experience, pointed out Dean's lack of experience.
"Governor Dean can do all the repositioning he wants but the fundamental truth is that he made many contradictory statements about the war on Iraq and the aftermath. He has consistently exploited foreign policy for his political agenda and his positions don't demonstrate a person grounded in serious foreign policy experience and expertise," Gephardt said.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who supports the mission against global terror, was very critical of Dean.
"Howard Dean seems to believe if you are just against everything, that's enough," Lieberman said. "Against removing Saddam Hussein. Against tax cuts. Against knocking down walls of protection around the world so we can sell more products that are made in America, by Americans. Dr. Dean has become Dr. No."
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said on Tuesday, "Today, we confront a dual danger -- two major detours from the true path of American leadership. On one side is President Bush who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism and ideological preemption. On the other side are those in my own party who threaten to take us down a road of confusion and retreat."
Dean's campaign responded after television ads, paid for by Democrats, began airing in battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Dean's Campaign Manager Joe Trippi said, "Last week, a group called 'Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values' began airing a television ad in New Hampshire and South Carolina attacking Howard Dean's commitment to defending America. The group is headed by a Democratic contributor, and the press secretary is a former aide to one of Dr. Dean's rivals. Using the image of Osama bin Laden, it is the kind of fearmongering attack we've come to expect from Republicans and panders to the worst in voters. I'm writing to call on each one of you to condemn this despicable ad and demand it be pulled from the airwaves."
Trippi said Democrats were "better than this" and chastised those responsible for its release.
Rivals Assail Dean on Hussein Remark
Front-Runner Says Ex-Iraqi Leader's Capture Will Not Make U.S. Safer
By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 17, 2003; Page A07
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean planned to use his foreign policy address Monday to reassure Democrats that he has the judgment and experience to serve as president in a time of terrorism. His rivals for the Democratic nomination, in increasingly tough language yesterday, said it proved just the opposite.
Dean held his ground while campaigning in Arizona, saying again that the capture of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein did not make "America safer." But in rapid succession, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) assailed Dean as wrongheaded, inconsistent and exhibiting dubious judgment on one of the campaign's paramount issues.
Their criticisms reflected not only the effort to disrupt Dean's march toward the Democratic nomination but also the increasingly competitive jockeying among the other candidates to emerge as the clear alternative once the field begins to winnow after the first round of votes next month.
The competition to become the "non-Dean" Democrat in the field took on greater urgency after Dean won former vice president Al Gore's endorsement and as he has solidified his strong lead in New Hampshire and threatened to open a clear lead in Iowa as well. Iowa's Jan. 19 precinct caucuses mark the nomination calendar's first major event, with New Hampshire's Jan. 27 primary being the second. Seven states vote Feb. 3, but Democratic strategists expect the Iowa and New Hampshire results to shape the races in the states that follow.
Kerry accused Dean of a "Simon Says" foreign policy that would tie the United States' hands by giving the United Nations veto power over the use of U.S. military force. "Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing, it cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound danger for both our national security and global stability," Kerry said in the prepared text of remarks delivered in Iowa.
In New Hampshire, Lieberman labeled Dean "Dr. No" for his opposition to the war that led to Hussein's capture on Saturday and for many of his domestic positions, as well. "Governor Dean has made a series of dubious judgments and irresponsible statements in this campaign that together signal he would in fact take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend America's security," Lieberman said.
Gephardt held a conference call to add his voice to the chorus of Dean critics. He said Dean's comment that Hussein's capture did not make the country safer was wrong and "disingenuous," adding, "To say that he [Hussein] doesn't present an ongoing threat by being able to pass help to terrorists is just wrongheaded, just further evidence of the difficulty Howard would face in any contest with George Bush."
Dean's rivals cited past statements to argue that Dean has been, as Kerry put it, "all over the lot" on Iraq. Gephardt told reporters, "Governor Dean can do all the repositioning he wants, but the fundamental truth is that he made many contradictory statements about the war in Iraq and the aftermath. He has consistently exploited foreign policy for his political agenda, and his positions don't demonstrate a person grounded in serious foreign policy experience and expertise."
Campaigning in Arizona and New Mexico yesterday, Dean made his declaration that the capture did not make "America safer" part of his stump speech. In Sun City, Ariz., he told a group of seniors: "I hope very much this will begin to diminish attacks on our troops, but I do not think it will make America's homeland safer." In Sun City and later in Yuma, Dean questioned President Bush's understanding of what it will take to secure the nation and reduce the threat of terrorism.
Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, said that with the exception of Lieberman, the other candidates had been inconsistent in their attacks on Dean's war position. "I think people have figured that out, and that is why I don't think it has affected us," he said. "I don't think it's lost on anybody that if Saddam hadn't been caught over the weekend, many of [the candidates] would be in their antiwar stance and trying to score votes that way. We've been consistent."
Lieberman said yesterday he presents the clearest alternative to Dean, both on national security and domestic issues. Kerry and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark have brandished their own national security credentials to try to attract voters who worry that Dean's rιsumι will prove to be a liability in a general election.
Gephardt and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) have jumped into the foreign policy debate with Dean this week, but both are campaigning more on domestic issues. Gephardt's campaign manager, Steve Murphy, said his candidate is not pursuing "an attack Dean strategy" and said the former House Democratic leader's strategy to emerge as Dean's main challenger is to win in Iowa next month.
As his rivals stepped up their attacks, Dean continued to attract more support among elected Democrats. He picked up endorsements yesterday from former interior secretary Bruce Babbitt and his wife, Hattie Babbitt, former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States. A Democratic source confirmed that New Jersey Gov. James C. McGreevey plans to endorse Dean on Friday.
posted on December 17, 2003 09:45:23 PM new
The sad fact is - Dean is right. THis country is in no less danger without Saddam than we were with. Saddam was not the threat. The more his aids and heads of weapons programs and such come forth - the more his paper tiger staus becomes. He was a threat to his people, not to ours.
Dean says what he thinks, he says the same thing he was saying 6 months ago and fellow Dems attack him? Are they really that assinine or just unaccustomed to personal integrity?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 03:58:02 AM newDean says what he thinks, he says the same thing he was saying 6 months ago and fellow Dems attack him? Are they really that assinine or just unaccustomed to personal integrity?
No, I just think they're pointing out truths about his reversals and untrue statements, as are documented here.
posted on December 18, 2003 09:08:11 AM new
fenix03
[i]Dean says what he thinks, he says the same thing he was saying 6 months ago and fellow Dems attack him? Are they really that assinine or just unaccustomed to personal integrity?
[/i]
Dean has a bad habbit of speaking before thinking, personal integrity has nothing to do with it.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 18, 2003 09:21:10 AM new
Twelve - Being a liar is not like being the King of England - more than one person is able to hold that title at once. Bush lied - hell everyone lies, sometimes it is a lie of omission, sometimes it is more of a misspeak than a lie, sometimes it's inadvertant but everyone lies - ESPECIALLY poiticians. The difference is the intention of the lie.
What I have to wonder is what the Demmocratic Partyy does when all of their candidtates spend months attacking the integrity of Dean and then he wins the nomination. Don't many of them put their integrity at question if they then support him in his campaign against Bush?
The one thing I learned long ago was to give zero credence to one politiicians opinion of another.
Bear - you know something - I would rather have someone that occasionally contridicts himself as a result of saying what he thinks as opposed to someone whose comments on every subject are distilled homogenized and memorized.
I want a real person, occasionally falible but at the core, honest, in the White House, not a human position paper.
I have not decided who I support yet but I have to say that I would have a had time supporting someone who attacks another for speaking his mind.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 11:02:23 AM newWhat I have to wonder is what the Demmocratic Partyy does when all of their candidtates spend months attacking the integrity of Dean and then he wins the nomination.
They'll all be crying in their beer then. Automatic re-election time for President Bush.
posted on December 18, 2003 11:34:32 AM new
Linda - do you honestly believe that? Do you really think it will be that simple? The more that comes out about Iraq the more obvious it becomes that Bush intentionally mislead this country. Do you really think that more time and examination is not going to open the can of worms up farther? Do you think that the American people can forgive being lead into a needless warr and billionns of dollars of money being spent overseas when our own nation is in historical deficit just because they finally found Sadam? Do you really believe that most americans found Saddam an actual threat to their lives and country?
Don't you wonder why Bush keeps going for the bid attention grabbing stunts (Do we REALLY need to go back to the moon?) when there are so many basic issues to be dealt with. Why invest billions in returning to the moon when that money would be infintately better spent on education.... isn't he supposed to be the Education President? With everything that needs real attention in this nation today, why would he even start thinking about the moon? (I know I'm harping on that one but I thought that had to be the most ludicrous and frankly insulting concept I had heard in a while).
I really don't think that it is going to be quite as easy as some republicans think, especially if you have someone like Dean that stands up and says what he thinks. Remember that there is a decent percentage of voters make their decision based on personality rather as opposed to issues and that percentage can make the differennce in a close election.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 12:13:12 PM new
fenix - WOW!!! You're just full of questions
:o you honestly believe that?::
Yes, wouldn't be saying so if I didn't. The more moderate democrats are quoted all the time saying they're hoping Dean doesn't win the nominiation.
:o you really think it will be that simple?:: What I think is that SHOULD Dean get the nomination he's going to have to come more to the center to be any kind of a threat to Bush. But what I also read about all the time is the clintons are working to prevent his nomination. So a lot will depend on who wins this inner-party war.
::The more that comes out about Iraq the more obvious it becomes that Bush intentionally mislead this country:: What I think you don't understand is only a small minority want an anti-war president.
:o you really think that more time and examination is not going to open the can of worms up farther?:: Like what?
:o you think that the American people can forgive being lead into a needless warr and billionns of dollars of money being spent overseas when our own nation is in historical deficit just because they finally found Sadam?:: I don't think the majority of American's think that way. I think he's removed Saddam from power and even other dems are happy to see that, finally.
:o you really believe that most americans found Saddam an actual threat to their lives and country?:: Yes, since as I've repeatedly said the past three administrations felt he was. I believe I've even read Dean saying he thought so too....just didn't like the way Bush went about it.
:on't you wonder why Bush keeps going for the bid attention grabbing stunts (Do we REALLY need to go back to the moon?):: I think space exploration is very important. I agree, with the economy where it is now is not the best time to be thinking of this. But then, these plans have to be made well in advance of when they're expected to occur...so it's just in the talking stages right now.
::Why invest billions in returning to the moon when that money would be infintately better spent on education:: Why was it spent in that way in the late 60's instead of being put towards education? Because running a country involves many aspects. And because a lot of technology comes from the space program.
::I really don't think that it is going to be quite as easy as some republicans think, especially if you have someone like Dean that stands up and says what he thinks.:: Well....we won't know for sure until that day arrives. But right now in polls running against Bush, as of this week, Dean is quite a ways behind. 20 points I think. But I think more importantly people see him as being the leader of the ANGRY LEFT...and not enough of a centralist, as was clinton. Also....if you read my link you'll see SOME don't see him as standing up for what he thinks, but rather saying what it takes to get the support of all the angry ones.
::Remember that there is a decent percentage of voters make their decision based on personality rather as opposed to issues and that percentage can make the differennce in a close election.:: You think Dean has a good personality? LOL Maybe I miss understood you. Voters will be looking for a president who is improving the economy, seeing positive steps in Iraq [and nabbing Saddam IS seen as a positive], not who wins a personality contest.
posted on December 18, 2003 12:36:00 PM new
I also want to add that many American's, like myself, don't want the US to have to get 'permission' from the UN before they do anything....in this case go to war. Which Dean appear to want us to do.
Also I think a lot of Bush haters aren't seeing any positive things in all the issues that were brought up before Bush took our nation to war.
Like everyone was screaming about not going alone. He couldn't get the support of our [supposed] allies, France - Germany - Russia. Yet won't acknowledge that clinton couldn't get their support either. Well, we went alone and we removed Saddam from power.
Then they screamed that we should be working with our [supposed] allies in the rebuilding of Iraq. They thumbed their noses at helping us, due to their own best interests, and now some were upset Bush wasn't awarding them with Iraqi contracts. But as soon as Saddam was found.....look who came rushing to us to work out Iraqi debt with us, France and Germany.
So while many don't see those issues as successes/victories MANY of us do. And so do the voters.
posted on December 18, 2003 02:56:44 PM new
Linda- I just want to clarify one point. When I asked the questions regarding you assumed ease of a Bush re-election, I did not have Dean in mind as his oppostion in comparison. I was asking those questions based on Bush alone. I have no idea who his opponent will be, I don't think anyone will for a couple more months. There is no one to compare him to yet.
As for the Saddam issue, one of the articles I read asked a number of people if they now felt safer with the capture of Saddam and none of them said yes.
As for the question of personality - I believe that many americans will be more eager to back someone they feel is saying what they think as opposed to what they think people want to hear.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 03:31:00 PM new
fenix - sorry about all those 's. Guess putting your ::'s together with the "D" put them there.
Anyway....you and I both know that polls are worth little, and change often. Too many variables. But the ones I have seen match Bush up with each individual candidate to see who gets the most votes. Being than Dean is the current front runner, I posted his vs Bush. But there's not one of the 9 that beat him when compared.
::As for the Saddam issue, one of the articles I read asked a number of people if they now felt safer with the capture of Saddam and none of them said yes.:: One article? Maybe from a liberal paper? Anyway....this is how I see it. Many Iraqi's have come forward to give our troops info. on what's where, who's where. They've basically been our best source of intelligence on the ground. I feel many were still fearful of helping our side because Saddam still had not been captured. Now they know Saddam is not coming back, *for sure*.
For the states being safer.....the democrats have continued to make not having caught Saddam and BinLaden a *BIG* deal....now they want to discount it's importance. They kept/keep saying Bush was/is a failure. Like they're thinking if their guy was in office our troops would have an easier time catching these two? I don't think so. Well, now we've caught one. One to go.
I think the way some questions are worded also affect the answers. Many know that just because Saddam has been captured that doesn't mean there aren't many more behind him, ready to attach us. We won't know that until it happens. But NO ONE will ever convince me that capturing Saddam hasn't made the world a safer place. Even dems feel that way, believe it or not.
Because until he was found, no one had any idea if he were in another country, if he had a small army still backing him, etc. Now we know he was hiding like a rat in a hole. A coward....on a FARM so many were upset our military were 'disturbing'.
::As for the question of personality - I believe that many americans will be more eager to back someone they feel is saying what they think as opposed to what they think people want to hear.:: Many already think the President says what he thinks....and stands by his strong beliefs and decisions.
I think if Bush has been one thing, it's been consistant. He's known what direction he felt we needed to take and he took it. Didn't back down with all the screaming was going on here - in the states, and abroad that he not go to war. He did what he thought needed to be done. He hasn't waffled one bit. I think he's got a strong foundation and doesn't change according to the way the 'wind' is blowing.
I give the voters more credit for putting our national security ahead of a candidates personality. Few vote any more, but the one's that do KNOW the importance of the outcome. Especially now. If we've reached that place as a nation, where personality beats national security, we may as well surrender to the terrorists right now. I'm sure not worried that's going to happen.
posted on December 18, 2003 03:44:23 PM new "If we've reached that place as a nation, where personality beats national security, we may as well surrender to the terrorists right now"
I think we've reached the place where brains and integrity beat lies, deception and photo ops with plastic turkeys and trips to the moon.
posted on December 18, 2003 05:59:20 PM new
Linda- here is the piece I was referring to. It's an AP piece.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Strategists and analysts say that by criticizing Dean, the pro-war candidates appear to be siding with Bush not a good idea in the Democratic primary and may be out of touch with even swing voters, many of whom don't feel safer with Saddam in prison.
Michigan pollster Ed Sarpolus said voters haven't considered Saddam a threat to their personal security since his regime was toppled.
"For regular people here, how does capturing a guy in a spider hole stop terrorists from bombing me or my kids? It's great that we got him, but it doesn't affect me personally. I'm still scared," Sarpolus said, adding that Dean communicates hopes and fears in ways that fail his Washington-based rivals.
John Glenn former hero-astronaut, Democratic senator and failed presidential candidate from Ohio paused amid celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first flight to ruminate on Saddam's capture.
"No," he told CNN. "I guess I don't feel that much safer."
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 06:16:35 PM newIt's great that we got him, but it doesn't affect me personally. I'm still scared," Sarpolus said, adding that Dean communicates hopes and fears in ways that fail his Washington-based rivals.
CNN....I told you
It's doesn't affect me personally....short sighted thinking, imo. From the ME generation for sure.
I'm still scared. And just how do you see that changing with an anti-war president? One who felt we should withdraw our troops from Iraq? The terrorists would have won. Would she have less reason to be fearful with an angry President Dean in office? I don't think so.
Imo, Dean's got a real anger problem....I can see it now...some nation pisses him off, like NK....yeah...he'll be REAL calm in dealing with them. Sure. He's a fuse just waiting to explode.
We're never going to be totally safe. But I'd rather have a president working to do all we can afford to do to deal with the terrorists than one who thinks he can negotiate with them, or ignore them. Or pay them not to do something to us like Saudi Arabia has been doing.
posted on December 18, 2003 06:20:03 PM new
But notice "Michigan pollster Ed Sarpolus said voters haven't considered Saddam a threat to their personal security since his regime was toppled."
His regime wouldn't have been toppled if it weren't for this President. So they have him to thank for feeling more secure since it was.
posted on December 18, 2003 06:44:03 PM new
The election is going to be about the economy, not the war. Everyone says bush is unbeatable, but I remember what happened in 1992 when they were saying the same thing, and Bush Sr. had higher approval ratings. Even the honest republican pollsters will admit the country is split 50/50. When the curtain is drawed people ask themselves "am I better off today than 4 years ago?" That will decide this election.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:27:24 PM new
From the NYT
Economy's Surge Poses Challenge for Presidential Hopefuls
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: November 2, 2003
For more than two years now, the Democrats seeking the presidency have planned on running a 2004 campaign built around the weak economy and patterned after Bill Clinton's 1992 defeat of President Bush's father.
But with the economy having surged this past quarter they are suddenly confronting the possibility of a far less encouraging historical comparison: that the election year economy could be more like the one Ronald Reagan ran on in 1984, when the country was coming out of a long slump.
The rapid change in the outlook underscored by figures released on Thursday showing the fastest quarterly economic growth since 1984 is already forcing the Democratic presidential candidates to calibrate their attack on Mr. Bush's economic record in ways they did not have to just a week ago.
It has also left them in danger of looking as though they were clinging to economic gloom.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:42:53 PM new
The economic situation is not really showing a substantial improvement. Unemployment rate is still 5.9 percent, essentially unchanged from October. 8.7 million people are unemployed - unchanged in November. Even the expected number of new jobs was not met. All this while we are rebuilding another country and cannot fund social services in our country. The enormous deficit will be another problem. So don't get too carried away by a report that can be easily manipulated.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a conservative who voted against the proposal to add a $400 billion drug benefit to Medicare, said bluntly that Bush's inability to hold the line on spending could hurt him politically as the federal deficit soars into record territory over the next two years.
"I've always felt that sooner or later voters, if they want big government, will return to the genuine article, and that's the Democrats," Flake said. "If [Democrats] were in charge, we wouldn't be allowing this kind of spending. We'd throw up roadblocks everywhere we could. I just can't imagine that we wouldn't be wreaking havoc."
Stephen Moore, an economist and president of Club for Growth, a political action committee seeking to elect conservative candidates, agreed. "This is one of the biggest-spending White Houses we have had since Lyndon B. Johnson was president," Moore said.
posted on December 18, 2003 08:00:53 PM new
The fact is the ecomony isnt improving. The factories are closing daily, and moving to China. I went to the fall republican county dinner and trust me many republicans are uspet over the massive spending, and job loss. Like I said above I heard the same stuff in 1992. Its way too early to make a prediction.
Yeah...put the democrats back in....they're the one's ususally spending, spending, spending. This is absolutely terrible that the republicans are doing it now.
posted on December 18, 2003 08:06:11 PM new
July...before the costs to rebuild Iraq were revealed.
Mr. President, I rise to address this years federal budget deficit, which is now expected to exceed $450 billion. This will be the largest federal deficit on record. This is a staggering $680 billion increase from the $236 billion budget surplus the federal government ran three years ago.
And who knows how much the true deficit may in fact be if, a few months from now, the projection increases again due to the ongoing costs of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Reconstruction costs are now running $4.8 billion per month, or $58 billion annually, which is well above what we have budgeted.
According to the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan group that advocates for balanced budgets, The first six months of the 108th Congress were the most fiscally irresponsible in recent memory. The members of this chamber and the American public should know the simple truth: putting our economy back on track is even more difficult in the face of deficits of this magnitude. And next year, the on-budget deficit will likely top $600 billion.
In my ten-year career in the U.S. Senate, there has never been a greater need for fiscal discipline than there is now. The then-record $290 billion deficit we faced in 1992 required some very tough choices to be made, but the choices that lie ahead will be even harder. It is incumbent on the President and the House and Senate leadership to prepare the country for those choices. Instead, the President and the Republican leadership in Congress have cut taxes with abandon while increasing spending at a rate faster than at any point during the past ten years.
posted on December 18, 2003 08:13:24 PM new
The Democrats were not spending while having the biggest deficit on record. It should wake you up when your own conservative leaders are raising hell about Bush's spending.
Tax cuts, subsidies to drug companies and insurance companies disguised as a health plan, destroying a country and then rebuilding it with no end in sight...What a disaster!
posted on December 18, 2003 08:44:44 PM new
Don't let me stop the
'doom and gloom' club....
but things are improving
Unemployment, Worker Productivity Numbers Continue to Improve
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
November 7, 2003
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The Department of Labor reported on Thursday that unemployment claims fell to their lowest levels since early 2001, and worker productivity grew to its best showing since early 2002 as the American economy continues to show strong signs of improvement.
Unemployment claims dropped an impressive 43,000, down to 348,000 for the week ending November 1. This was the lowest level of unemployment claims since President George W. Bush was inaugurated into office in January 2001 and just prior to the economic recession.
Economic analysts had predicted unemployment claims would fall only slightly to 380,000. This is now the fifth consecutive week that unemployment claims came in under 400,000, a compelling sign that the unemployment rate is diminishing.
RBS Greenwich Capital Markets Chief Economist Jade Zelnik says the unemployment numbers over the past month show that businesses are expanding their workforce again.
"The large drop in claims ... confirms that firms have begun to hire and employment has turned up," Zelnik remarked to Reuters.
At the same time, the report found that worker productivity grew by 8.1 percent in the third quarter, the largest rate of growth since the first quarter of 2002.
However, economic analysts had predicted the rate of growth in worker productivity would be at 8.5 percent.
Talon News reported last Friday that the U.S. economy grew by 7.2 percent in the third quarter, the largest quarter of growth since 1984.
Some economists believe the drop in unemployment claims can be attributed to growth in spending.
They suggest that businesses are being forced to hire new workers in order to keep up with consumer demand for their goods and services.
Economic experts say they are confident that businesses will hire even more workers as their profits grow exponentially in relations to the stronger economy.
posted on December 18, 2003 08:52:50 PM new
Linda, for the record, and regardless of the Dem's penchant for spending, do you support the current administration's spending patterns? A yes or no, without comparison to Democrats will do. I'd really like to know.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 18, 2003 09:05:17 PM new
profe - I refuse to answer with a simple yes or no. It depends on what the money was spent on, whether I agree with it or not.
Like I've previously stated medicare needed help. I think they gave the program too much help to begin with. But I also stated that MANY democrats were upset and not going to vote for the bill because they wanted it to be BIGGER.
So....to me that one's a pass. If the dem's had done it, more would have been spent.
posted on December 18, 2003 09:28:47 PM new
Democrats wanted a plan to help people...not the drug industry and the insurance industry and surprise, surprise, it would not have cost as much.
She can't answer with a simple yes or no but "things are improving" and "lies are truth". War is peace, freedom is slavery and bush is president.
The country can't survive another "mission accomplished"
So they have him to thank for feeling more secure since it was.