With todays report on much higher than expected job growth for the second month in a row, this is obviously not good for the Kerry campaign if he wants to keep touting the economy as an issue in the upcoming election.

Last month when there was over 300,000 jobs created the Kerry campaign came out with their own version of the misery index to cast the economy in a negative light.

Questions for Debate: Is Kerry losing credibility by trying to keep the doom and gloom factor going when the economy is obviously getting better.

And also how do you think he will spin the second month in a row of very large job numbers growth?

Just to add some substance here...

The April job numbers came in this morning. 288,000 new non-farm jobs last month. The March number was actually revised from 308,000 jobs to 337,000 jobs.

Jobs jump in April (again)



I think it will be very hard to put a negative spin on this jobs report, especially considering the upward revisions of the past months (which, to me, shows that the Labor Department is being conservative in its estimates).

These last few months have shown the first job creation in the Manufacturing Sector in 43 months (stretching back to the good old days...). That is some positive news.

Is Kerry losing credibility by trying to keep the doom and gloom factor going when the economy is obviously getting better.

I don't know that you can say the economy is "obviously" getting better, there is far more to it than jobs. I'd say it was trending better, but not "obviously" better. I do not think he'll try the whole misery index thing this month, I'm sure he realizes that backfired on him a little.

And also how do you think he will spin the second month in a row of very large job numbers growth?

Again, I don't think he needs to go there, the economy isn't the strongest place to attack Bush anyway. He is far more vulnerable on just about every single domestic issue, the deficit and of course Iraq.

If you take a look at the recent press releases on John Kerry's site, you'll find that very little of what he has been talking about the past month is the economy.

Kerry is losing credibility with his "doom and gloom" about the economy. He now sees that the economy under Bush is improving and there is probably no way it will stop being good unless there is another terrorist attack on American soil and even that is not possible. The only problem now is inflation but that is a short-term problem

I think Kerry will simply remind everyone of the NET JOB GROWTH under the Bush administration. Even with today's numbers, Bush's new job count is -2.2 million jobs. It is great to see job growth, but let's not take our eye off of the big picture. One candidate would like for you to think of the micros, and nevermind the big picture. And a lot of people will follow that herd.

If you support GW at all costs- you believe the economy is great- if you don't, you don't believe this. I take the old Reagan line on this one "Is the nation (in this case, economy) better off now than 4 years ago"? - Well, only the most die-hard GW supporter would say yes. Doom and Gloom? Probably over blown- Optimistic for the future? Possibly- to me, there is no good news that GW can not screw up- if the economy improves, it will be despite GW- not because of him.

I don't think Kerry has to "spin" anything- just point out that this regime has made a bad situation worse, and compare this economy to the Clinton economy, without mentioning Clinton by name (to avoid the negative among swing voters)- and he wrapps up this issue pretty easily.

I don't support Bush at all costs. I think his spending is way out of wack and I don't agree with his immigration policies. Instead of lying and saying the economy is going from bad to worse, why don't you just admit it is getting better?

And in the same you post credit Clinton for the economy under his administration, but then you say that any improvements to this economy have nothing to do with Bush, hypocritical much?

And you say "if the economy improves". So you are saying the economy is not improving?

Not really if you believe that the recent unemployment decreases have absolutely nothing to do with the following:

- tax cuts for mostly the top 1% but some middle class folks
- corporate breaks in terms of destroying or handicapping every peice of environmental legislation since 1992.

If anything I'd credit the economy improvements to natural economic forces and the diligent work of Alan Greenspan. Addiionally, businesses have learned their lessons from the tech bubble days and are making smarter decisions. I don't think Bush has done anything to foster these job increases.

This may merit another topic altogether and maybe we should discuss it there. I don't think we should derail this topic.

Kerry and Bush lost credibility the moment they entered politics. I know that sounds like the old "all politicians are crooks" cliche. Well, they're not all crooks, but they are all equivocators. Winning office is first and foremost; making a difference in the lives of their constituents is ancillary.

With that understanding, I just try to figure out which equivocator will do the least damage.

How's that for cynical!

And also how do you think he will spin the second month in a row of very large job numbers growth?

Of course, things are going so poorly overall that this bit of news is not getting a whole lot of attention.

As jobs increase, the market is plummeting and fears of inflation about high deficits make things more uncertain.

Yes, Kerry will spin the economy to show the things that are wrong in the economy.
Bush will spin the issue to tout the strengths. I saw a wonderful video ad today that was a Bush add putting the best possible spin on Bush's numbers including a claim of a high % increase in the value of the market from its low point (the period just before the launching of the Iraq war) It is accurate, but then again, Kerry could spin it to show the market has lost value from its high of 12 (or 13?) thousand points.

All issues will be shamelessly spun.
Kerry will point out the fact that under Bush's watch there has been a high net loss of jobs.

I think the informed voter will look at policies to fix things. Bush believes in tax cuts. I don't. but it is still a plan.

Kerry has yet to define a convincing economic vision.

I do not think the economy is improving (a little more gloomy right this second- dow just fell below 10000) - I think there are some sluggish indicators that GW would love to sieze on- and there are sectors that are improving- but there are really large regions of malaise right now that don't show much real signs of improving.

I credit Clinton because he had a focused economic plan- namely his 1993 passage of his basic whole package before the repub takeover- that had demonstratable and noticable effects on the econonmy- also notice though, several times, I have also said the good economy he worked for was made great by a stroke of luck with the dot com boom. But things like Hope 6 and such a concentrated attack on deficits are just good practices! I am suprised you don't like them- they were stolen right from the fiscal conservative handbook!

But no part of the GW administration compares favorably to Clinton- as an economic genius, Clinton is the hands down winner. Only the most ardent GW supporter, the one that MUST be repub at all costs, could say otherwise.

I am almost scared to post this, because there is an overwhelming "Oprah" type belief in Presidents and the national economy, but here goes.

Presidents have no effect on the economy. A presidnet can ride the economy like a sailor rides a stormy sea. He/she can guide the ship, but never control the wind and the waves. A poor sailor will sink the ship, a smart one will read the conditions well and complete the journey. His fellow sailors will think that he/she is blessed by God and stopped the bad waves.

Examples:
Coinciding with the Clinton Adminstration there was a silly euphoria that went off regarding the dot.com dream. Extremely wealthy investors pulled their shoeboxes of cash from under their beds and poured it into the myth. They believed.
I live in Silicon Valley and tell you that many stupid people attained very well paid jobs that they could not do (working for managers who should never have been managers). This left a scarcity of available labor for other jobs. Employers had to start paying more to hire, etc. The bubble burst (while Clinton was still in power) and the effects were felt during the Bush administration. The timing hasd nothing to do with either of them.

Probably the best example is FDR. Coming out of the 1929 Wall St. crash, the horrible dust-bowl ruination of crops. The previous President Hoover was blamed. Hell, he's the President, so surely he manages the economy, right? No, he didn't, but people always seem to think that.
FDR took over and made massive changes to re-charge the economy. Probably the most active attempt by any President ever to stimulate an economy. He borrowed money and paid people to build bridges and Dams. But it didn't work. There was still masive unemployment and he had no way of repaying the loans. One day something happend and the few, very wealthy, investors pulled their shoe-boxes from under their beds and built factories all over the country. They hired millions of people and the economy revived. So. what happened?
Hitler invaded Poland and Britain declared war. Factories sprung up almost overnight. But the history books will tell you that FDR raised the economy.

I'll summarize. No President manages the economy. The economy is a game of confidence played by wealthy investors, sometimes influenced by the weather (drought for example), but mostly influenced by rumours, confidence and hysteria. It's quite accidental and over the next ten years it will be what it will be, regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.
But, that won't matter to the voters. They'll just ask themselves whether they were better off four years ago. May as well attribute the weather to the influence of the President. In the past, people blamed their leaders for bad weather.

"Spin" is what Presidential elections are about any more. It just happens that the unofficial poll numbers favor Kerry now regarding the economy. Kerry is the one talking about it. Once again, I'm going to drag out and use that time-worn maxim:
Where you stand depends on where you sit.

If you are one of those millions of people who for whatever reason have lost their jobs and who are having a tough time finding work, you do not want to hear the President say that outsourcing American jobs is a good thing, nor do you want to listen to him suggest that retraining is the key if you don't have the money to go back to school. Health insurance costs have risen far faster than wages; so has college tuition. I'll admit that not everyone shares these problems, but a sizable hunk of America is listening to the Democratic candidate because he seems to be the only one who is expressing concern over these things.

The economy is making the wealthy wealthier. That's good for them, and they are the people George W. Bush is counting on to win the election for him--the wealthy + the Religious Right. The occupation in Iraq has turned really sour lately, and although people are still saying Bush is strong on defense, his poll numbers are dropping. Whether or not Bush's presidency has any bearing on the economy, an upturn in the availability of jobs sure wouldn't hurt him.

Yes, we are experiencing two months in a row of job gains, at the same time-salary and wages are stagnant Furthermore, the new jobs are in industries that provide little to no health coverage This finding is also backed by a report: Falling employer based-coverage by the Center for American Progress. Not only that, but workers who earn the minimum wage are seeing their wages eaten up through inflation and general government inactivity. The minimum wage is melting away as a result of the above listed two problems. Raising it would be a great way to strengthen consumer spending. With tax-benefits and other options that employers have, the rise in wages could be softened.