October 25, 2006
The Republican trump card
Despite the deceitful vitriol emphatically enunciated by the double-talking leftist blogosphere, who downplays the world’s most prolific economy and blames capitalism for all of America’s ills, credible evidence avows that America’s economy is thriving and that the capitalistic ideology advocated by Republicans is fostering innumerable wealth and prosperity not just for the affluent, but for all Americans.
That is the simple, unadulterated truth.
From a broad perspective, with a 3.5 expansion percentage over the last year, and an infinitesimal unemployment rate of 4.6 percent, one of the lowest rates in over thirty years, according to a Heritage Foundation report, the economy is not only benefiting wealthy investors, but also providing disadvantaged citizens with an expansive job market.
But broad perspective is not necessarily indicative of the true picture, and is sometimes misleading, especially concerning the average American, who doesn’t always directly benefit from a bustling stock market.
Heritage’s James Sherk asserts that the aforementioned growth is indeed not a façade, suggesting that this dynamic economy is advantageous to most Americans:
“The gains from America’s economic growth have been widely shared throughout society. Low- and middle-income families, not just the wealthy, have seen their standards of living improve dramatically. Family incomes have risen well above where they were a generation ago, and most Americans now enjoy luxuries that in the past only the well-off could afford. Almost all Americans now have better health, education, housing, and consumer goods than they did even a decade ago.”
However, critics of the economy argue, in essence, that America’s economic system is only conducive to the wealthy elite, resulting in, according to critics, a growing disparity in the wealth equilibrium, which has supposedly cultivated an egregious inequity in the distribution of wealth. The crux of their argument suggests that the current economy offers too many incentives to the elite while not offering an equitable prospect to America’s masses.
Sherk, while ceding that the statistics used to support this theory are accurate, believes that the conclusions drawn from the data are misleading:
“The only problem with this seemingly compelling argument is that it is not true. A comprehensive look at the data reveals that most Americans have shared in the United States’ rising prosperity and that America remains the land of opportunity.”
As part of the left’s deceptive attempt to stifle the successes of the Republican-led economy, dishonest critics claim that while the rich have always enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, the poor are seeing their standard of living deteriorate. This notion couldn’t be more false. In fact, according to Sherk, just the opposite has happened:
“The widespread gains from America’s prosper¬ity extend beyond rising incomes and are appar¬ent in Americans’ day-to-day lives. Middle- and low-income Americans have seen dramatic improvements in their standard of living during recent decades…Rising general prosperity also means that increas¬ing numbers of Americans can afford higher educa¬tion…Electronics and their conveniences represent another area in which the rich have lost their lead as all have moved ahead. This did not happen because the rich got richer…It happened because middle- and low-income Americans shared in the widespread prosperity.”
That is the simple, unadulterated truth. Americans are living comfortably. Americans are going to college. Americans are buying high-tech luxuries. Not all Americans, keep in mind, can enjoy these amenities, but the masses can. The masses are not floundering, but rather, flourishing.
As billion dollar conglomerates like Exxon rake in record revenues, and industrious CEO’s bolster their blustering compensation packages, critics, unwavering in their commitment to undermine the economy’s triumphs, are exploiting corporate America’s accomplishments by naively proclaiming that although the overall economy is doing well, productivity is not commensurate with worker compensation.
Actually, in the short-term, those critics are not incorrect, as noted by Sherk, who reports that earnings and productivity do not always change simultaneously. However, Sherk’s data reveals an entirely different scenario when productivity and compensation are compared over the long-term.
As reported by Heritage, who cited the U.S. Department of Labor, from 2000 to 2006, compensation and productivity fluctuated in almost perfect tandem, with sporadic sputters of inconsistent growth occurring only periodically.
Sherk concludes that “workers’ earnings as a share of national income remain at their usual historic levels and have grown along with the economy. Corporate profits, meanwhile, are strong but show no signs of usurping workers’ earnings.”
So much for shortchanging the little guy.
In fact, these figures underscore an economy that not only caters to entrepreneurial investors, but also to the average wage-earner. With productivity oscillating in step with earnings, the middle-class can rest comfortably knowing they aren’t being squeezed by the upper-class.
Another left-wing talking point aimed at undercutting the legitimacy of the economy, while illuminating the plight of the middle-class, is higher education costs. Albeit, the cost of college is rising and many Americans are expressing their concern. However, Heritage reports that from 1991 to 2004, the number of households headed by an individual with a Bachelor’s degree or higher rose 5.7 percent, while households headed by a person with at least some college experience increased 10.1 percent. So, while inflating college tuition costs do not help the average wage-earner, college is still accessible—not reserved exclusively for the wealthy elite—and more Americans are attending college.
Despite an unequivocally vibrant economy, critics present a valid argument by claiming that hourly wages of American workers are dipping. Although this is true, that statistic alone is misleading as it does not adequately characterize the entire situation. Granted, hourly wages are stagnant, but benefits are soaring, according to Sherk. By analyzing total compensation, which includes both hourly pay and benefits, it is clear that American paychecks are not languishing, despite a drop in hourly wages, and are actually increasing.
Further dispelling the relevancy of sluggish wages is evidenced in a consistent growth in total compensation of workers employed in non-farming industries, despite the sweeping wage decline—a 6.6 percent increase from 2003 and a 10.2 percent increase from 2000, as reported by the Department of Labor, typify this claim.
Indeed, Americans are not making less money, despite the misleading economics presented by leftist fabricators. Actually, almost none of the left wing’s drivel about the economy is true: the stock market is booming, the job market is expanding, the masses are not being squeezed by the elite, and the economic equilibrium is in balance. But yet again, the left wing, by lying with facts, has effectively manipulated the truth, replacing it with a disingenuous veneer devised to trumpet fabrication while infusing misinformation, hoping the American people won’t know the difference.
But the people know better. It’s time for America to filter out the troves of pretense, snub the erroneous propaganda—no matter how compelling—and divulge the truth—the simple, unadulterated truth.
Posted by Alex Fitzsimmons at October 25, 2006 03:42 PMHey, that’s a fancy graphic. Kewl. I couldn’t get pass that first sentence, though. A bit overwrought. Let your nouns and verbs carry the burden; adjectives and adverbs are best used sparingly.
Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 04:37 PMAlex,
Be prepared for screaming liberals to attack your source as “right wing propaganda” and refute your entire post with their favorite objective sources like The Daily Worker or moveon.
Posted by: Duane-o at October 25, 2006 04:39 PMSo,
The economy is booming, the country is safe and secure, (because we’re fighting ‘em over there, so we don’t hafta fight ‘em here) all is pretty much happy-happy? Is that it?
If you are right, and that is so, then the upcoming elections will bear that out. There will be a tremendous victory for the republicans, a vindication of all the great policies they have promulgated.
If, on the other hand, Americans feel that their standard of living has steadily eroded (how can that be,HERITAGE says otherwise!!),They just do not have a good feeling about the future, and the country is being flushed down the toilet due to a thunderous, memorable, stupendous incompetence, well, the republicans just may be on the way to a good, old-fashioned shellackin’. We shall see.
I myself would not cast a vote for a rebublican to be dogcatcher!! That’s how happy I am at the great economy. I admit I’m a little bitter that I had to let go of the health insurance that was costing me $12,000 a year, and also that I don’t know where the money to pay my federal taxes is going to come from. Don’t get me wrong, America is a great place to live! I am (on paper) a wealthy man. Thanks go to America and our freedoms for that. But somehow, no matter how much money I make, there somehow is just never enough.
Right or wrong, I blame the vicissitudes of financial being on the republicans. Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Subsidies for oil companies. A ball-less congress unwilling to investigate Cheney and his energy policy. Spending us into the next lifetime and beyond. On and on, it seemingly never ends. The brains on this site (and I am certainly NOT one of them) will, I am sure, go on to detail all the overspending, borrowing, et cetera, by these so-called “conservatives”.
This should be good….
Posted by: Steve Miller at October 25, 2006 04:41 PMEveryone should read the Heritage report that Alex linked to. I admit I couldn’t get through Alex’s article, but from the first paragraph I assume it was all about how wonderful the Republicans are for the economy. But read the Heritage report and, more importantly, look at the charts. For the most part, they show that the enormous gains made during Clinton’s presidency are leveling or have leveled off.
So much for the overwrought rhetoric.
Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 04:55 PMMore than 80% of those making under 50,000 per year said the new stock market highs add nothing to their own financial circumstances.
That is a huge number of Americans, and that is why the polls show the such large numbers of the American public lacking confidence in this economy. Add to that this the public’s growing awareness of this Republican government action in stealing from our grandkid’s earnings in the form of doubling the national debt, it just proving a hard sell to poor and lower middle class Americans that this economy is all that the wealthy cats say it is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 05:12 PMI see… so, rather than attributing America’s economic greatness to say, AMERICA, we are to believe Republicans deserve all the credit.
I wonder how we live through those periods when Democrats are in power.
Posted by: Zeek at October 25, 2006 05:37 PMZeek, apparently quite well, according to the Heritage report.
Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 05:51 PMTrent
Presidents get too much credit for the economy. The “Clinton boom” actually started under Bush I in March 1992. It didn’t pick up full steam until 1997, when REPUBLICANS had been in control of congress for 3 years. It began to decline in January 2000, a year before Bush took office.
Then there is the lag time. 2001 we were still living with Clinton era priorites. Bush really doesn’t kick in until 2003.
Besides, through all that we have Alan Greenspan.
I do not propose to give Bush too much credit, but he really should not take the blame for 2001-2.
I expect if the Dems win, economic news will improve dramatically. That same economy with robust growth and low unemployment will be praised by the liberal media if they can credit the Dems.
Posted by: Jack at October 25, 2006 06:01 PMTrent,
You already nailed it, so I could have spared myself the effort. The author of the Heritage Foundation article uses a cute trick. You see, the author acknowledges the following are absolutely true and accurate:
“The share of income earned by the wealthiest Americans has risen, and these are the only Americans whose standards of living have improved;
Inflation-adjusted wages have not risen for most Americans;
Wages have not kept pace with rising productivity; and
Wages and salaries, as a share of the economy, have fallen in recent years, while corporate profits have risen.”
His trick is to average in statistics going back as far as 1980 to prove we are doing better today. It rather conveniently ignores the impact of failed Bush administration policies since 2001 by averaging in the successful policies of previous adminsitrations.
How precious.
Alex,
So this is the “simple, unadulterated truth”? Do you consider the methodology of James Sherk “deceitful”? If the only point was that there have been advances and improvements since 1980, no one would disagree. If the point is that Republicans under Bush have significantly contributed, the “credible evidence” is not there, not at all.
Posted by: phx8 at October 25, 2006 06:50 PM
I love how this article spends more time repeating the conclusions (that the economy is great and people are just being stupid) than it does supporting them. The “support” is that: more Americans have more stuff (most of which was made in China); that a “comprehensive” look at the same numbers that reveal disparities between rich and poor can yiled the opposite conclusion (yet “comprehensive” is not defined and a reading of the article shows it to be speculation); that more people go to college (nevermind that otherwise they’d be relegated to working at Walmart with no benefits…and they are borrowing the money in record amounts because they feel they have no other choice); and a proportionate increase in wages (which, adjusted for inflation, have been flat for years while the housing market soars out of control).
The “support” is the same tired speculative crap and cherry picking. Alex, you don’t really feel like you’ve analized this thing from multiple angles do you? If not, then you’re being deceptive and irresponsible. If so, then you’re just naive and gullible. Either way, real people need real tangable benefits before they start saying anything is improving. We all know corperate profits are up, and we all know how much outsourcing, consolodation and restructuring it took to get the stock prices to record highs. And everyone knows that forclosures, bankruptcy filings, and almost every other tangable indicator of reality has skyrocketed as well.
Trump card? More like wishful thinking. Much more akin to holding the queen of spades during a game of heart.
“It€™s time for America to filter out the troves of pretense, snub the erroneous propaganda€”no matter how compelling€”and divulge the truth€”the simple, unadulterated truth.”
Agreed. Here it is: Americans are sick and tired of being told what to think. They want to be appealed to, not lectured on how stupid they are. Maybe if you actually paid attention to their complaints, you’d discover that your “support” doesn’t address them at all…just buries them alive under a bunch of meaningless crap. Burying people’s legitimate issues in crap will only serve to get the favor returned on you in November.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 07:06 PMJack, I’m playing the game as it’s presented. Presidents do propose budgets, of course, which end up being joint efforts of Congress and the president. Clinton was willing to work with Republicans; that was one of his strengths. Considering what we’ve seen budget and economywise with sole control by Republicans — right now I think the country needs the Democrats to take at least one branch of Congress. I know you like to give credit to House Republicans for the Clinton economy, but we both know Clinton had a knack for cutting deals that he liked. Actually, Jack, in a strange way, you seem to be arguing for a Democratic presidency and a Republican House.
Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 07:34 PM“His trick is to average in statistics going back as far as 1980 to prove we are doing better today.”
Phx8:
Actually, I don’t think the author of the heritage article used a single statistic prior to 1990, and a few of his stats reference only the last few years.
I’d be interested in seeing a stat that was used from the 80’s and I’d be more interested in seeing a stat that I actually used in my article from the 1980’s…
Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at October 25, 2006 07:44 PMLOL, well written article as usual, Alex.
Too bad your article is just as much about the “left fabricators” screwing America up as it is about the economy doing well. Always politicizing the issue; one must remember, “correlation does not mean causation.” The economy is doing great and Republicans are in power, this is merely a correlation; I bet the economy would be the same if Democrats or whatever other political party was in power.
Posted by: greenstuff at October 25, 2006 07:46 PMGreenstuff-
Thanks for injecting a little common sense into the debate. It’s refreshing. And not even partisan. Imagine that?
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 07:57 PMEconomists Are Destroying America
October 25th, 2006 by JohnKonop
Economists, politicians, and executives from both parties have promised American families that €œfree€ trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO/CHINA would accomplish three things:
€ Increase wages
€ Create trade surpluses (for the US)
€ Reduce illegal immigration
Well, their trade policies have been in effect for about 15 years. Let€™s review the results:
€ Declining real wages for 80% of working Americans (while healthcare, education, and childcare costs skyrocket)
€ A record-high 46 million Americans who don€™t have health insurance (due in part to declining wages and benefits)
€ Illegal immigration out of control
€ Soaring trade deficits, much with countries that use slave and child labor
€ Personal and national debt both out-of-control
€ Global environments threatened by lax trade deal enforcement
Economists Keep Advocating Policies That Aren€™t Working
Upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of these negative trade agreement results, economists continue with Pollyannish blather. Some say, €œCheer up! GDP is up and the stock market€™s doing fine.€ Others say, €œBe patient. Stay the course. Free trade will raise all ships.€
Even those economists who acknowledge problems with trade agreements offer us only half-measures€”adjusting exchange rates, improving safety nets, and providing better job retraining. None of these will close the wage gap in America€”and economists know it.
Why Aren€™t American Economists Shouting From Street Corners?
America needs trade deals that support American families and businesses in terms of wage, environmental, and intellectual property abuses. Why aren€™t economists demanding renegotiation of our trade deals? There are three primary reasons:
€ Economists are too beholden to corporations and special interests that provide them with research grants.
€ Economists believe€”but refuse to admit€”that sacrificing the American middle class is necessary and appropriate to generate gains in third world economies.
€ Economists refuse to admit they make mistakes.
Economic Ambulance Chasers
Now more than ever, Americans need their economists to speak truth and stand up to their big business clients. Instead, economists sound like lawyers caught chasing ambulances: they claim they€™re €œdoing it for our benefit€.
Posted by: John Konop at October 25, 2006 08:24 PM“I bet the economy would be the same if Democrats or whatever other political party was in power”
Oh so true Greenstuff. The only thing different? The left would be the ones talking about how great “their” economy was and the right would be talking about how bad it was.
Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 08:29 PMJohn Konop,
Now more than ever, Americans need their economists to speak truth and stand up to their big business clients.
I laughed… a lot.
Economists will stand up to big business the day politicians stop accepting bribes.
Posted by: Zeek at October 25, 2006 08:46 PMTrent
What I am mainly pointing out is that most of the people who write about the economy just do not understand it. They do not even know how to count. The economic recovery started in March 1992 and the downturn started in January 2000. Some people evidently think the first one took place when Clinton was president and the second one didn€™t.
Beyond that, they seem completely unable to understand lag times. I would hate to drive with these guys, since they think they can go from 70 mph to a complete stop without any space of time between.
The whole analysis of government and economy gives government too much credit. The economy has been generally good since 1982. We had mild recessions in 1991 and 2001. I credit Reagan with starting the good times. I credit Clinton with not derailing it. But most of the credit belongs to American, workers, investors and managers.
re the economy - most Americans own computers, cars and VCRs or DVDs. Most American homes have airconditioning and 2+ bathrooms. The median American home has nearly doubled in size since the 1950s. You can get a mortgage loan at under 6%. Unemployement is 4.6% One of the biggest problems of the homeless is obesity.
Living in misery sure ain’t what it used to be.
re the economy - most Americans own computers, cars and VCRs or DVDs. Most American homes have airconditioning and 2+ bathrooms. The median American home has nearly doubled in size since the 1950s. You can get a mortgage loan at under 6%. Unemployement is 4.6% One of the biggest problems of the homeless is obesity.Living in misery sure ain€™t what it used to be.
This is just to freaking arrogant. Amazing, but not surprising. It reaffirms my understanding of why you are a republican.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 09:53 PMWoman
Do you know anybody w/o a TV? How many of your friends do not have a car? Have any of your friends been on vacation to Las Vegas. How many people do you know who do not have air conditioning?
I am arrogant about this if you mean recognizing that things have changed. We still think in terms of Dickens, but it is no longer the case. Poor just is not what we used to think it was. I do not see many people who look like they are starving.
As I said, the economy has been good since 1982. Back then unemployment was in the double digits and so were mortgage rates. Since then, things have been getting better.
Posted by: Jack at October 25, 2006 10:15 PMWould someone please explain why CEO’s need multi hundred million dollar salaries and retirement plans? I could live off of 100 million for the rest of my life. Why are these guys getting paid so much if they don’t even know what’s going on in there company, as in the case of Enron and Worldcom? Are massive company profits really necessary? If gas companies are making so much money can’t they lower prices a little, put a little more cash in everyone’s pocket and still make a profit?
The credit for a good economy does not go so much to the government as to those participating in it. The government regulates, the people and companies participate. If a school has good test scores, who should get credit, students or the principal? The students, of course. They did the hard work and learned what they needed to know. The principal makes sure they learn as best he or she can but the students still should get most of the credit. Same goes for the economy. And republicans would probably score more points talking about how well people are making the economy go then talking about how well they make it go.
kctim
I could not agree with you more.
Jack,
Fun and games with Alex’s article aside, what worries me now is the ever-increasing size of the national debt — approaching $9 trillion now. Something like 20 percent of the federal budget goes to service this debt; servicing alone is something like $1 billion or so a day. I know that compared to WWII years, the debt as a percentage of GDP doesn’t look so bad, but it’s been steadily increasing since the big Reagan deficits. Some think, of course, that paying it off isn’t as important as increasing the GDP in order to keep the debt percentage down, but someday, you’d think, the piper has to be paid. The fact that close to half of the debt is to foreign interests — I dunno, Jack. I think it’s just too easy for politicians to spend money they don’t have and to let future generations worry about the tab. At any rate, I agree blame must be shared by both parties.
Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 10:34 PMMassive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing is being used to prolong this illusion of a good economy. It’s a con job, and there will eventually be consequences for so much fiscal irresponsibility.
Other than that, every thing is rosy, as usual, especially in the rose-colored column, where they give away rose-colored glasses to all gullable enough to buy the rosy spin.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2006 10:43 PMSo the economy is doing good. I lost in the market the last quarter and over $10000 for the year so far. Gas has gone down some, but nowhere near the level it was 6yrs ago. Pay raise at work is 2 to 3% under inflation. Yes the economy is doing great….STAY THE COURSE….NOT.
Posted by: KT at October 25, 2006 10:45 PMJack,
I dont have air conditioning in my house and I haven’t went to Vegas on vacation or anywhere else for that matter. Its not me I really worry about its my kids and grandkids that will suffer the effects of the decisions being made today. To think the middle class is not downsizing is wrong. The race to the bottom the transnationals are engaged in does none of us any good, unless of course you are the very upper management of said corporation.
As usual, there is no good news that relates to a conservative agenda, right libs? A conservative President could single-handledly cure cancer, and you’d come up with a reason why the cure is doing nothing but causing the social security system to fail even faster than when the Dems were in power. Or maybe Halliburton had the cure all along, but was waiting for a conservative President to come along.
I stopped posting on here months ago because there is simply no way to win an argument in here. It’s nothing but blind partisanship, and I will be glad to (again) give myself a long break from readin the whining, crying and statistical gamesmanship that is exhibited every three minutes in this place.
You should all just stand back and read how most of this unthinking drivel ends up being nothing but partisanship.
Posted by: Bruce P at October 25, 2006 10:54 PMTrent
I too worry about the debt, but we need to address the causes - spending. We are taking in record revenues, but we are spending too fast. If we had just kept spending in line with inflation, we would have no trouble.
Dems want to raise taxes. I think we should tax some things, such as gas, but generally when our kids throw away money we don’t just raise their allowances. We have to make cuts in spending. The biggest - by far - component of spending is entitlements. They now make up about 2/3 of the budget and they are growing fast. We need politicians with the courage to address that.
KT
You may have lost money in the last quarter, but if you are down for the year, you probably should be a little more careful and if your investments are down overall since 2003 you should give up investing entirely.
A reasonably diversified stock portfolio yielded you over 10% last year. Throw in some international stocks and you do a little better. If your portfolio is not doing that well, consider an index fund and keep your hands off, recalling that old adage about money.
Posted by: Jack at October 25, 2006 10:58 PMj2t2
Sorry about your plight. There are not many like you anymore.
Posted by: Jack at October 25, 2006 11:01 PMNevermind the $12.8 trillion of Social Security debt.
Nevermind the $450 billion (or more) of Pension Benefit Guaranty debt.
Nevermind the hundreds of billions of unfunded Medicare liabilities.
Nevermind the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for hurricane Katrina and Rita.
Nevermind the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just take the $8.6 trillion National Debt.
If we even had the discipline to stop borrowing $1.63 billion per day, and start paying back 1.03 billion per day, guess how long it would take to pay down the debt? 143 years (see schedule), and that is only if interest rates don’t exceed 4.5%.
Now, take the total $22 trillion of federal debt.
Let say we got really agressive and disciplined, and started to pay down that debt. How long would it take? Over 200 years (see schedule)
Now, consider the total $20 trillion of nation-wide personal debt.
Combined, total nation-wide debt is very conservatively estimated to be $42 trillion.
Median wages have been falling since 1999.
The wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population now has over 40% of all wealth (up by 20% in 1980), which has never been worse since the Great Depression of 1929.
And, what ever networth people had is being evaporated by the real-estate bubble … just like it did in the stock-market bubble in 1999, and other bubbles created economic instability cerated by irresponsible government.
Now that things are so hot, you are supposed to be happy about it because it’s still better than some other countries. Gee … with that logic, we can get a lot, lot worse, and still be better than some other countries.
This illusion of a good economy is just that; an illusion that is being funded with massive ponzi schemes. Social Security surpluses are being plundered. Massive borrowing has grown the National Debt by $3 trillion since 2000, and massive money-printing is a ponzi-scheme to reduce debt with an ever present, destabilizing inflation.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2006 11:02 PMAlex-
Technology, more than greater earnings, has improved what people can get in terms of electronics and appliances. The Digital transition and the revolution in Semiconductor processor and laser technology has been crucial in bringing things like home theatre and surround sound to people.
People, though, struggle under greater debt, with newly added infrastructural costs and wages that having changed more than about 70 percent in the last thirty years. Health Care, utilities, and other costs take even more out of people’s pockets.
The Republicans want to claim they are good for the economy, but they neglect the mostly apolitical nature of it, and the cold hard fact that they’re still playing catch up on important fronts.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 11:11 PMHere is an interesting article from a liberal magazine by a liberal economist about just these issues.
Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 25, 2006 11:29 PMBruce,
“I stopped posting on here months ago because there is simply no way to win an argument in here.”
Given your president curing cancer analogy, I completely understand how you must feel.
Alex,
Pardon, but I am not going to do a cut and paste exercise from your link. If anyone cares, scan the linked Heritage article for dates.
Greenstuff,
You make an interesting point about how correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but naive. The party in power exerts tremendous influence over the economy. This includes government spending, allocation of that spending, taxation, trade policy, choice of the appointment to the Federal Reserve, and more. Pursuit of war impacts the economy in nearly every respect. Even something as seemingly intangible as a “War on Terror” creates a climate of fear & depresses investor confidence.
Jack,
You are right, over the past few decades the standard of living has generally improved. The Heritage article mentions that “In 1984, only 340,000 Americans had cell phones. By the end of 2003, that number had risen to 159 million, all of them using far better cell phones than existed in 1984.” (Good luck convincing to the Heritage Foundation & Alex in convincing Americans to vote Republican based on that!) But as far as economic trends are concerned, since the Bush administration has taken office, many areas are staying the same or declining.
There is a good reason Republicans are not mentioning the economy this midterm election: with few Americans benefiting from Bush administration tax policies, there are simply no votes to be garnered by bringing the matter up.
Job creation has been terrible. It is so woeful, Republican policies will not create as many non-farm payroll jobs in eight years as Jimmy Carter created in just four.
Jack:
Actually, I do. I know many of them. I live in a rural county in North Carolina. I have no need to go into detail to satisfy your “prove me wrong” mentality. You don’t know everything, in spite of what you think.
And in spite of what else you may think, these are decent, hardworking people. What jobs there are are agricultural, and otherwise are few and far between.
You need to take a vacation yourself and visit some of the places you apparently know nothing about.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 11:38 PMAnd there are now more workers per household, which makes income per person lower.
If Republicans got a trump card, they’d better play it soon, and it ain’t the “economy” or the “war on terror”. This supposedly rosy economy is an illusion funded with massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing.
True, Democrat incumbent politicians won’t improve anything, no more than Republican incubment politicians will, because it’s not just a Democrat or Republican problem. It’s both and voters keep re-electing, rewarding, and empowering them. A successful voting nation requires an educated electorate; otherwise, that electorate will get what they deserve; they will continue to be used, abused, and ignored.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2006 11:55 PMD.A.N. wrote: “Nevermind the $12.8 trillion of Social Security debt.” I just read on an earlier thread, from a liberal, that Social Security isn’t broken. I’m now confused. No. I think the libs (of course, D.A.N. claims he isn’t a liberal) are confused.
“The wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population now has over 40% of all wealth (up by 20% in 1980), which has never been worse since the Great Depression of 1929.” This is good news, not bad. Since our poor have more than the average bloke during the Great Depression, our society is much better off now than ever before.
Why this worry about what the rich have? You are better off than 5 years ago (or should be if you hadn’t blown your money at the casino). The lottery in our state took in more money last year than EVER before (and our state has the biggest jobless rate in the country). The lottery was brought in by Democrats (so they wouldn’t hurt the poor with it, would they?) That money had to be extra money in someone’s pocket.
Posted by: Don at October 26, 2006 12:10 AMThe American economy is not doing so great independent on itself. Communist China is the glue that is currently holding the American economy together. If China shifts it’s investments away from America and into other markets, our standard of living will drop dramatically.
Posted by: JayJay at October 26, 2006 12:13 AMPoor just is not what we used to think it was. I do not see many people who look like they are starving.
Jack,
I am not sure where you live, but count yourself lucky. Maybe you need to get out more. I work for a community hospital and I can tell you first hand, the truly poor do exist in large numbers. Sure, many communities have done a good job of sweeping them under the rug, but they are still there.
Posted by: JayJay at October 26, 2006 12:23 AMStephen D -
“People, though, struggle under greater debt…”
People make stupid decisions, but why blame the government (Rep or Dem)? Truth is, most people don’t need to have greater debt. I see it all around me…people making stupid financial choices. They buy houses that are beyond their means, new cars (instead of newer used), all the techo-crap they can find, cell phone contracts, cable TV, high-speed internet, and they eat meals out more than ever before. Debt is not a sign of poverty, but of financial stupidity.
Bruce P,
You are correct. The boards just as the nation is torn into blind hyper political partisan ship.
You should be more careful of the term debate, vs discus, vs arguement. And it’s painful that many who are debating instead of discussing have a very very painful lack of understanding of the facts or of history.
I had one person on this board laugh at me for not knowing that Bill Clinton and the Democratic congress balanced the budget. He had no clue that it was the Newt Grigrich bill and the Republicans who controlled congress and passed the Bill. Clinton in the end agreed to sign after fighting the balanced budget. If I recall correctly, it was clear if he rejected his veto would have been overridden by congress.
I think it’s important to put the truth out there from time to time even though the left will denounce the truth as lies or spin. But you aren’t going to “win” an arguement when your opponents have license to be dishonest and have no real clue as to what is often being discussed.
Posted by: Stephen at October 26, 2006 12:28 AMDon wrote: of course, D.A.N. claims he isn’t a liberalI’m independent. I used to be a Republican, but the last six years fixed that.
Don wrote: I just read on an earlier thread, from a liberal, that Social Security isn€™t brokenSocial Security is $12.8 trillion in debt (Source: CATO institute; see 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph). I have never said Social Security wasn’t broken. It’s getting by now, but there will be shortfalls, because the federal government plundered (and still is) the surpluses. There are NO surpluses. It’s pay as you go. It’s a huge ponzi-scheme. Those that talk about a surplus are talking about worthless bonds (I.O.U.s). Where do they think the money for those I.O.U.s will come from?
Don wrote: Why this worry about what the rich have?Don, I don’t envy the wealthy. I don’t make claims for equality to disguise jealousy or envy. Some do, but not me.
What I don’t like are the wealthy that abuse their wealth to control government, and they do that, as evidenced by the fact that 83% of all federal donations (of $200 or more; $2.0 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004) came from only 0.15% (300,000) of all 200 million eligible voters.
Government shouldn’t be FOR SALE.
That’s my major beef with the wealthy.
That’s why donations should be limited to 1% of the median income. Otherwise, the wealthy have an unfair advantage, which is the case now.
Don,
Median wages have been falling since 1999.
There are more workers per household.
Foreclosures have been rising for 18 months.
2007 isn’t looking good either.
Many corporations are already planning layoffs in the tens of thousands.
A mathematical model of the economy developed by a Federal Reserve economist (Jonathan Wright) estimates a 40% chance of a recession in 2007. That’s not very comforting at all to the Federal Reserve, but they helped create this monster. They fear higher inflation, and see limitations on growth. Several large companies are starting to report planned layoffs (10% at GM, 13% at Borg/Warner, 16% at Ford, 17% at Daimler/Chrysler, 10% at Hewlet Packard, 16,000 workers at Intel, recent layoffs at Sun, Microsoft, Borland, Oracle, Novell, Lenovo, SGI, etc.).
+ $12.8 trillion Social Security Debt
+ $450 billion PBGC debt
+ $8.6 trillion National Debt
+ hundreds of billions of unfunded Medicare liabilities
+ hundreds of billions of unfunded Katrine liabilities
hundreds of billions of unfunded Afghanistan liabilities
hundreds of billions of unfunded Iraq liabilities
TOTAL = about $22 trillion
Yep, things are just ROSY as can be.
What am I thinkin’ ?
And total personal nation-wide debt is $20 trillion.
Why don’t we just run up a few hundred more trillion in debt.
Or, better yet, lets just print some more money, eh?
You’re right.
You’re all right.
We’ve got nothing at all to worry about.
The economy is “just fine”.
The economy is “good”.
The economy is “very good”.
Sorry, but the math doesn’t work out.
Debt is growing faster than GDP, and anyone who down plays the seriousness of $22 trillion of total federal debt needs to take off their rose colored glasses.
Don wrote: You are better off than 5 years agoI am. But I’m an engineer and so is my wife. We have no debt, and already put our son through college. That’s because we live within our means. But most people are not better off.
Healthcare costs are way too high. Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous. Pharmaceutical corporations and the FDA are becoming pill pushers that are killing hundreds of thousands in the U.S. annually. That does not even include the huge number of patients that are irreversibly damaged and maimed. JAMA reported that over 2.2 million hospitalized patients in 1994 had serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and 106,000 were fatal, making these drug reactions the 5th or 6th leading cause of death in the U.S.! JAMA’s conclusion was that “the incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in U.S. hospitals was found to be extremely high”. On 27-July-2004, HealthGrades.com reported that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Part of the problem is the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and influence of government by corporations.
Education is increasing in cost and declining in quality. Property taxes have skyrocketed. There are 6 cases of eminent domain abuses per day. Median incomes have fallen since 1999. To assert that the middle class is better off now than 5 years ago is simply refusing the facts.
Foreign competition has never been higher (and becoming better educated too).
Poverty is growing. All wealth belonging to 1% of the U.S. population has never been higher since the Great Depression of 1929.
Global corpocrisy and corporatism, in-league with bought-and-paid-for government has never been worse.
Interest rates are rising and inflation is rising now, because the government and Federal Reserve are printing too much money. We have a bad monetary system.
We have energy vulnerabilities, rising fuel, oil and energy costs. Also, foreign competitors (e.g. China, India, Asia, etc.) are also competing for more oil, and other fuels, as their economies continue to grow at a very fast pace.
The massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing, and all of the above reduces our options when we may need it most, destroys future opportunities, will make the next recovery from a recession more difficult, increases the risk of a depression, and places a huge debt burden on future generations.
But, other than that, things are very good !
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 01:05 AMStephen,
Allow me to be the first to laugh. Here is a link to a wikipedia summary of the economy under Clinton. Here is a description of the crucial bill:
“In August of 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.[7] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, and the implementation of spending restraints.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#The_economy
Dislike Wikipedia? Then prove your point with a specific source. But save yourself some time. You are wrong.
Later, Clinton and the Republican Congress fought over the budget and reached compromises, to both of their credits. However, the boom started with the 1993 bill. Your statements are inaccurate, and that is putting it kindly. Please read up on this.
Posted by: phx8 at October 26, 2006 01:06 AMStatistics are fun to play with especially when you select the period to view and the stats to quote. The truth that most Americans are more than aware of, however are: Real wages and benefits have dropped for the vast majority of Americans since the 1960’s. Not to mention job security.
Yes, college grads continue to rise in wealth and the number of college grads has risen since the sixties.
Yes, the economy is robust at the moment. I wonder what effect the massive war spending will do to it? Can anyone remember the stagflation after Vietnam? I wonder why we have such a huge trade deficit since all those college grads and enriched Americans are swimming in wealth? I mean, where is that money going? Hmmmm, such a conundrum.
Nice spin, Alex.
Posted by: gergle at October 26, 2006 01:07 AMDon wrote: People make stupid decisions … Truth is, most people don€™t need to have greater debt. I see it all around me … oeople making stupid financial choices. They buy houses that are beyond their means, new cars (instead of newer used), all the techo-crap they can find, cell phone contracts, cable TV, high-speed internet, and they eat meals out more than ever before. Debt is not a sign of poverty, but of financial stupidity.
I do have to agree with that, for the most part.
The fact is, the problem with government is due to a problem with the electorate.
In a voting nation, the nation suffers, as we are now, when the electorate is so uneducated (or outright ignorant).
BAD_Voters = BAD_Politicians = BAD_Government
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 01:08 AMJack, Dont feel sorry for me, its by choice I dont have air conditioning. But do realize that just because technology has caused the electronics, that we seem to think defines us as better off, to have come down in price to the point most can afford to have a TV and VCR/DVD that we are better off than we were in the 1960’s and 70’s. Most other items we need to live in this day have went up in price relative to income for those hourly workers amongst us, things like housing, energy,transportation, health care and food.
Posted by: j2t2 at October 26, 2006 01:28 AMAlex Fitzsimmons wrote: Despite the deceitful vitriol emphatically enunciated by the double-talking leftist blogosphere, who downplays the world€™s most prolific economy and blames capitalism for all of America€™s ills, credible evidence avows that America€™s economy is thriving and that the capitalistic ideology advocated by Republicans is fostering innumerable wealth and prosperity not just for the affluent, but for all Americans.
HHMmmmmm … Why didn’t you show this graph ?
That’s all interesting, but it all over-looks a few things:
- this illusion of a “good” economy is being funded by massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing; something the Heritage foundation did not mention at all. There will eventually be a cost for that. It’s easy to look prosperous while you’re maxing out all your credit cards.
- the federal government is still plundering Social Security surpluses to help prolong this illusion of a good economy.
- there is an increasing number of workers per household.
- median incomes have fallen since 1999
- high healthcare costs and health insurance costs
- increasing number of people without health insurance
- healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous. Pharmaceutical corporations and the FDA are becoming pill pushers that are killing hundreds of thousands in the U.S. annually. That does not even include the huge number of patients that are irreversibly damaged and maimed. JAMA reported that over 2.2 million hospitalized patients in 1994 had serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and 106,000 were fatal, making these drug reactions the 5th or 6th leading cause of death in the U.S.! JAMA’s conclusion was that “the incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in U.S. hospitals was found to be extremely high”. On 27-July-2004, HealthGrades.com reported that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Part of the problem is the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and influence of government by corporations. Healthcare solutions are needed.
- many of the graphs and statistics only go to year 2004.
- fuel prices; while they’ve fallen some lately, electricity costs are still sky high.
- the net losses of $70 billion per year due to illegal immigration and burdens on schools, hospitals (many closing), law enforcement, prisons (29% of all incarcerated are illegal aliens), Medicaid (32% to 46% of illegal aliens receive welfare), voter fraud, crime, disease, and 2.3 million displaced American workers.
- increasingly unaffordable college education; steadily falling numbers of graduates in science and engineering.
- decreasing quailty and increasing cost of public education
- the so-called networth in home equity is now disappearing as that bubble bursts, driving up foreclosures and bankruptcies.
- Corporations are outsourcing and moving overseas (part of the reason for their profits)
- Growing corpocrisy, corporatism, corporate welfare, in-league with FOR-SALE government, and corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians; 83% of federal campaign donations ($200 or more; $2.0 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004) come from only 0.15% of all eligible voters, proving that government is FOR SALE.
- the unfunded costs of Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare, and Social Security liabilities.
- a bad fiat money system that prints too much money, perpetuating the ever present, destabilizing inflation
- $20 trillion of personal debt (nation-wide).
The Heritage Report says people have more things, but fails to note the $20 trillion of personal debt. It also fails to recognize many of the other costs that have been temporarily delayed, such as the massive $22 trillion of federal debt. The Heritage Report says people’s net worth has increased, but it stops at 2004, and fails to factor in the current declining real-estate market. Seems to be, they overlooked quite a few things. If you look at the bigger picture, we are not getting ahead. We are digging a deep hole, and time will prove it.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 02:51 AMMy Name Is Roger:
JACK:
Your 6:01 Comments were great, and I could not agree more.
QUESTION FOR ANYBODY WHO MAY KNOW?
Hispanics —> Do they usely vote Rupublican or Democrat?
Muslims —> Do they vote… and if they do… do they usely vote Rupublican or Democrate?
Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
Posted by: ROGER at October 26, 2006 05:11 AMMy Name Is Roger:
DON AT OCTOBER:
I agree with you.
Years and years ago, when my wife and I got married…. we bought into the idea of having every type of credit card you could get your hands on, and use them for almost everything, instead of paying with cash or checks.
Within a year… I hade to take out a lone on my new house… to pay off the credit cards.
We cut them up and now we pay cash for everything.
We save up to by things that most people make monthly payments for [except for or house] , which means that sometime we have to wate a little to get it, but we do get it, and without being debt.
It has worked good for us so far, and I am not in debt.
Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
Posted by: ROGER at October 26, 2006 05:31 AMRoger,
Good advice. That’s how I do it too. I do carry a home equity line of credit for emergencies, but I don’t have any credit cards. Check cards work fine in most situations.
Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 07:12 AMLadies and gentlmen, I find it amussing that there is really no discussion here it is one or two individuls who post factual data and then there are the extremist that see everything completely different. Facts are really not Facts to some here. Standard of living is really not standard for everyone and thus illousional. To loss $10,000.00 of ones investment is not poor investment on ones part rather just a FACT the the economy is going to hell in a hand basket. Blame from the left will always be the same rethrotic. Where is their own personal solution to the problem, “IT’s Time For A Change” mantra. I agree it is time for a change, it is time for those nay sayers to pull their head out of their fourt point of Contact, and do some serious research. Not trying to sway anyone here but the day I find that things are as bad as the left say, is the day I leave this country that I have served so long and try to find a deserted island where I dont have to worry about anyting from the left or right only the essential things for life. Really don’t see that happening but that is always an option. For all those who believe they are right, you probably are from your own perspective. So if you blame the economy, what have you done to improve it, do you buy US products, or do you buy the foriegn made things. I buy US products when ever possible and I have never owned a foreign made Auto. So once again, if the economy is so bad, are you helping retain manufacutering jobs here in America or are you helping those overseas. My take, buy American, Improve the Economy, Save an American Job.
Posted by: Lacy at October 26, 2006 07:33 AMTrent:
I take a slightly different approach, but with the same philosophy. I use credit cards for everything I possibly can, but I only buy what I can afford to pay off at the end of the month. The upshot is that I get a free loan of money for a short period of time, I get the convenience of not carrying cash, and I get free airline miles that allow me to go on vacation on the cheap.
I never pay interest to the credit card companies, and I use their service. If everyone did as I do, the credit card companies would be out of business. It takes some discipline but its well worth it.
And I never seem to be out of options with credit card companies plying me with offers to use their particular card.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 26, 2006 09:24 AMAfter reading all this troubbling news produced by LIBERALS in th last 7 years my income has doubbled from 20,000 to over 40,000. I am not rich,
in 1999 My portfolio was 0 now it is nearing 10,000 and climbing i might add. I feel safer and more secure now than i did under slick Willy.
Woman
I spend time in depressed rural areas. I know there are poor people, but there are not the kind of poor people you used to find a generation ago. Poverty has moved up scale. That grapes of wrath thing is no longer the case.
Lacy
If you lost 10,000 last year on investment, you did something wrong or were very unlucky because an investor who did nothing but buy an index fund made 10%.
Some people cannot handle money. I do not mean that as an insult. I know lots of educated people who just make stupid moves all the time. But there is not much we can do about that. If you insist on buying a time share as in investment, you will soon be parted with your money. If you chase the big payoff you will soon be poor.
Jack, you missed the point I was making, I was refering to an earlier post about someone who stated they lost 10,000 last quarter and used this as justification for stating we have a bad economy. As a matter of fact, I saw my investment drop from 118,000 in 2000 to 67,000, before the market started to recover. Since the start of the recovery, the 67,000 has recovered and now the 118,000 is over 170,000.
Posted by: Lacy at October 26, 2006 09:58 AMWell Jack, again you have proved my point. I responded to your post and you can still deny what I and others have posted and claim you have seen what you need to see and you know better.
I’m not surprised.
Is there anything like you used to find a generation ago? And to what specifically are you referring when you spout that? I’m interested. You asked specific questions about who I know, and I told you. There is apparently no one or nothing you believe except what is in your own little realm of experience. Everyone else must be wrong or misinterpreting your point.
Too bad. And I was one of those poor people a generation ago so I recognize immediately what you supposedly are referring to, from personal experience.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2006 10:05 AMNeo-Con Pilsner-
One Economist a consensus does not make. Median income is down from 1999.
Don-
Sometimes that stupid decision is getting sick. I’m not going to go into details, but the last year for me has been a painful one. People are not perfect, and don’t have perfect foresight, and terrible things can happen to them just because they’re unlucky, or distracted trying to juggle all the other things life throws at them. If we start taking this unforgiving, moralist, elitist position about those who have experienced misfortune, the end result will be America hamstringing itself, as people waste their potential trying to fight back from their misfortunes rather than getting the helping hand they need to get back on their feet.
On the subject of credit cards, the thing to understand is that the industry is an economic minefield. They charge usurious rates, pile on arbitrary fees, charge more to people simply because they’re having trouble elsewhere. People can usually keep up with it. The problem comes if as above, there’s a health crisis, or you get laid off, or something else happens. My family, fortunately, have not been big on credit cards.
Most people keep things together, but they do so assuming that certain good conditions will remain. I can testify as to what can happen when that ceases to be true. And I can say that folks who moralize about these things should spend a weak in the shoes of folks like us.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 10:07 AMWhat would this “very good” economy be like if it were not for the $3 trillion of additional debt since 2000 ?
You’d think we’d be doin’ much better for $3 trillion.
FISCAL Year End Interest on National Debt
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
For fiscal year 2006, interest on the National Debt is $405,872,109,315 .
That’s 2.45 trillion in interest since 2000.
Total $22 trillion of federal debt is 176% of $12.5 trillion GDP (that’s 176% of GDP; higher than 116% after WWII).
And, some think that’s not a problem?
Some say that is within “historical norms”, despite the fact that it’s much higher than after WWII ?
All those that offer their OWN rosy anecdotal evidence do a disservice to those that aren’t doing as well, and ignores the facts, and ignores the massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing being used to fund this illusion of a “very good” economy. Anyone can look prosperous while maxing out their credit cards. It’s a ponzi-scheme. There will be a high price for the massive $22 trillion in federal debt and $20 trillion of personal debt, which the Rose-colored glasses party wants to overlook.
There’s no mystery as to why Republicans want to spin things Rosy. That’s what the “IN PARTY” always does, despite reality.
This nation seems to have a debt problem.
Not just the debt itself.
Americans seem to think massive debt is OK.
Some like to point to assets, but refuse to acknowledge that much of it is in over-priced real-estate (now falling in value).
They’ll learn, but it’s most likely going to be the hard way. This $22 trillion of federal debt and $20 trillion of personal debt is (combined) almost double GDP. It has NEVER been worse. A number of important economic factors have never been worse than now. Anyone who thinks that this is all “very good”, or even “just fine” is delusional. We are reaching the point where we can not grow GDP, tax, immigrate, or print enough money to avoid the painful consequences of that much debt. And what is the real cost current and potential cost of the massive interest on that much debt? Americans are addicted to debt, and it’s very likely to end badly. Look for inflation to start climbing. Look for China and others investing in the U.S. National debt to slow buying our debt. Look for median wages to keep falling, and foreclosures to keep rising. And, in 2007, look for increased unemployment as more corporations move operations out of the U.S. One Federal Reserve economist (Jonathan Wright) estimates a 40% chance of a recession in 2007 with several planned layoffs already (10% at GM, 13% at Borg/Warner, 16% at Ford, 17% at Daimler/Chrysler, 10% at Hewlet Packard, 16,000 workers at Intel, recent layoffs at Sun, Microsoft, Borland, Oracle, Novell, Lenovo, SGI, etc.
It’s not that complicated.
Go get yourself 40 credit cards and run up debt that is 10 times your annual income (e.g. 10 = $22 trillion federal debt / $2.2. trillion annual revenues).
That’s like a person with $100K annual income being in debt for $1 million. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Do the math.
That much debt is economic suicide.
Can a nation commit suicide?
That’s what we’re doing.
This much fiscal and moral irresponsibility will have consequences. Just because they are here yet does not mean they never will. In an economy this size, things take a long time, fooling people to think they can keep being irresponsible forever. They’ll learn. Their education is on the way.
An economic melt-down is not far fetched. Not at all. That is why my home is paid for and have no debt, and have diversified assets. Take those middle-income-class people with hundreds of thousands in debt, little (or no) equity, one or more children, and then lose their job. It seems like an American disease. Americans are addicted to debt, and there eventually will be a high price for that addiction. It leaves this nation very poorly prepared for the next economic meltdown (which occur every 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 10:24 AMphx8
Actual praise fot Jimmy Carter! Unbelievable.. What happened to all of your doom and gloom stats from the last several years? On and on about how bad the economy is. What happened? We keep rolling on. Someday you may be right with your dire predictions. This year is not your year. Maybe next year. Hang in there. Someday you will be right. Most likely when taxes are raised by your fellow travelers.
d.a.n.
Your wealth envy is evident by your posts. You say you are okay, but things are bad for almost everyone else because of the “evil” corporations. Typical.
Who forces ANYONE to take ANY drug? Maybe your education platform should include medications and their effects.
d.a.n. said:
In a voting nation, the nation suffers, as we are now, when the electorate is so uneducated (or outright ignorant).
Agreed. More voter education is needed. When someone is informed on issues they usually vote for the best candidate. When they use emotion and wealth envy,or get their news from Entertainment Tonight, they vote another way. Libertarians throw away their vote, I wish that were not the case, but it’s true. I will not give up on the Libertarians, but to waste my vote now would do as much good as staying home.
As far as healthcare goes, it isn’t difficult to figure out why it’s overpriced.
Posted by: Spot on at October 26, 2006 10:26 AMSpot wrote: d.a.n. Your wealth envy is evident by your posts. You say you are okay, but things are bad for almost everyone else because of the “evil” corporations. Typical.
Spot, your comment is completely unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever. There is nothing I have ever written to substantiate your flawed conclusion. I do not envy anyone for merely being wealthy. Not at all. I do not ever try to disguise envy as claims for equality, like many that do.
But, I do despise the unfair influence on government by some weatlthy (not all) that abuse their vast wealth, as evidenced by
83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) that come from only a mere 0.15% of all eligible voters.
That’s an unfair advantage.
Government is NOT supposed to be FOR SALE.
Also, it is some (not all) greedy owners of corporations that are controlling those in government that peddle influence,
So, I despise greedy owners of some (not all) corporations that exploit people, cook the books, hire illegal aliens, pay obscene compensation to crooked CEOs, and pharmaceuticals that kill 195,000 people per year (in-league with the FDA).
But, if you, Spot, condone and like that sort of thing, I can see why you draw such flawed conclusions.
As for the high cost of healthcare and insurance, that’s a no-brainer. The article you provide a link to alludes to the situation. For years, I’ve been saying the problem with healthcare is the middlemen (government and insurance companies).
An obvious solution is to stop paying all that money to do-nothing middlemen taking a huge cut of everything.
Also, any vote for anyone other than an irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, do-nothing, look-the-other-way incumbent politician is NEVER a wasted vote. But, it is that mentality that helps perpetuate the ignorance of voters.
Spot wrote: Who forces ANYONE to take ANY drug? Maybe your education platform should include medications and their effects.I do. See item (9). Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 11:04 AM
Spot,
You cannot deal with the fact that Carter created over 10 million non-farm payroll jobs in just four years, while Bush has created about 3 million in six years, can you? Instead, you invoke the name of Jimmy Carter as if that were enough to justify that, somehow, everything is “rolling along.” It is rolling, though. We are on the back side of the recovery, and entering the next recession. Did you see that .6 core CPI number? 7% annualized inflation will not cut it. Another core CPI number like that, and interest rates will resume their climb.
Some people focus on the debt as a reason for concern.
I focus on job creation.
Those are obvious factors in what is driving this next phase. The primary factor will be the decline in real estate, and frankly, it is not a field I understand very well. I refinanced the house and cashed out quite a bit.
Will inflation keep real estate prices climbing? Will interest rates & foreclosures make prices fall?
A very interesting number is the home ownership percentage. For the past few decades, the number climbed from @60% to 64%. Under Bush, it has increased three or four additional percent. Yet incomes are stagnant, and the savings rate actually has declined for the past two quarters, the first time since the Great Depression.
I suspect a lot of new homeowners are relying upon creative forms of finance. Increasing interest rates will force foreclosures. What percentage of foreclosures is too much for the economy?
Posted by: phx8 at October 26, 2006 11:15 AMWoman
I know there are poor people. I say they are not poor as people used to be. I base that on my extensive travel. BUT I suppose there are people living in really poor conditions. I don’t care very much about that. I want to give people opporunities, but I know that not all can or will take them. I am not willing to throw out a good system because not everyone makes it.
And the idea that this is somehow the creation of Bush is just silly. If a person does not have internal plumbing today, it is unlikely he had it in 2000.
In the last generations, we have enjoyed fantastic economic and technical growth. Luxuries such as cars, tvs, airconditioning have become common. A generation ago, outdoor plumbing was the rule in many rural areas. No longer. You used to see actual hunger (i.e. skinny people w/o enough to eat)
As you know, I lived overseas for about 15 years and I still travel a lot. There you see real widespread poverty. By U.S. physical standards (what people really can buy) many relatively well off countries are mostly in poverty. Most of E. Europe the buying power of a middle class family is below our poverty line. They do not have the pathologies of poverty and that is why it is not so bad, but if you are talking phyisical standards, it is poverty.
Addressing the pathologies of poverty is another discussion. Welfare reform was a step in the right direction.
I do not deny the fact that you may still find such people, but now you have to go looking for them. In the not too distant past, they were much more common.
Phx8
The unemployment rate today is 4.6%. What was it at the end of Carter? You also need to deal with lag times. Carter policies were operative until around 1982, just like we were living with Clinton priorities until about 2002.
Posted by: Jack at October 26, 2006 11:33 AMLacy-
Did you know that my new Toyota is made in America and has over 80% of its parts made in America? Now compare that to any Ford or Chevy where you are lucky if 50% of the parts are made in America. It shows American corperate greed. They have outsourced so much of their manufacturing overseas that their quality and reliability suck. They could offer me 50% off and $5000 cash back on a $10K chevy and I still wouldn’t buy one for fear of losing my shirt in future maintenance costs.
Want to support the economy? Buy Foreign cars! Toyota is building new factories in the states all the time while the big three export or close them.
D.A.N.-
Great posts…when did you turn into a communist? Since you said things were not rosy, you must be a communist, right? I mean, there is absolutely no middle ground.
I’m obviously being sarcastic.
Jack-
The economy is doing pretty well, but it is being driven by productivity. This productivity is not being fairly rewarded as evidenced by the growing disparity between corperate profits and actual pay.
It was no secret that after companies dropped all perks and benefits above the bare minimum that they would have more capital to play with. It was also never a secret that interest rates being low meant people had less incentive to invest. Blame it on people if you like, they are responsible for their own messes. But the government knew what it was doing when the rates were almost nothing. Then within a year the rates shot up, securities laws were changed so that institutional investors could invest in futures and commodities (artificially inflating prices across the board…screwing the little guy the whole way simply because they had to drive and eat), numerous large banks merged (making flipping balances impossible between the two), the bankruptcy laws changed, laws changed making REIT’s extremely attractive investments and even institutional investors could now help to overinflate real estate prices (effectively taking money out of the hands of normal buyers as prices inflated due to “flipping”), scores of people were sold on creative financing by irresponsible mortgage brokers, people have less medical coverage than ever before with higher deductables, etc.
Don’t tell me that our government did not know what was going on. They didn’t give a shit about real people trying to make it (and no, people simply do not know everything about everything…they can be decieved). They listened to the banks, credit card companies, brokers and fund managers. And if you are honestly trying to BS me into believing that Gordon Gekko has my best interests at heart, then I refer you to the real world. I’m all for the free market when the government isn’t actively un-leveling the playing field.
In the last 5-10 years, the middle class has been increasingly told to hire financial advisors and accountants, buy investment products, buy a house for a tax write-off, send every child to college, etc. Now these ARE positive things. But at every chance, the government changes the rules and pulls the carpet from underneath the little guy. Could planning have avoided the individual messes that people found themselves in? Yes. Are there only so many hours in a day? Yes. Were people putting their trust in professional advice? Yes. Was that professional advice endorsed by our government? Of course. Did that advice end up hurting people more than it helped? Yes, if you have less than vast amounts of liquid assets, you probably got taken for a ride, whereas if you had simply put your money in CD’s and avoided being nickle and dimed and having your accounts churned, you’d be better off.
I still have my series 7 and series 66 licenses, and I had over 100 clients when I quit the industry solely because I could not stand having to give people bad advice in order to make money for myself. The advice was designed for rich people, and it is now mass marketed to people who do not need it. The government’s reaction to this? Make it even easier for the big players to manipulate the market and screw the small investors as well as the consumers. Name for me ONE piece of legislation in the last 6 years that has served to protect small investors from large ones? And let us not forget that the future retirement funds for almost every American is stuck in 401(K) plans or some other type of equity investment. So long as the big players are allowed to run the market, and so long as people like Jack look solely to the market numbers for answers about how real people are doing and then lie to people to keep their confidence up, chances are very good that a lot of people will get screwed. The government knows this, and they do nothing to close the loopholes. They even create more.
But the stock market is up, and so everything is rosy, right? Jack?
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 12:15 PMD.A.N.
It almost sounds as though you can’t stand yourself for making a good living, and having the mental capacity to make financially sound decisions with your money. I’ve said it before, and I will keep saying it; What’s wrong with the wealthy getting tax breaks? Do they not pay taxes also? In fact, they pay the majority of taxes. If you and I get a refund, they should get one also. The refund size is directly proportional to your tax burden, and the amout paid in. People would have a much better quality of life if they stopped being obsessed with “Keeping up with the Joneses.” A lot of people say they have to have 2 incomes to survive, but that’s untrue. They have to have 2 incomes because they must have all of the newest toys, and “Keep up with the Jones”. I am 27 years old with 2 children, ages 4 and 2. My wife and I aren’t getting rich, but we make a ggod living one 1 income. I am an R.N., and my wife stays home with the kids. The only things we buy on credit is our car, and our house. We own 2 cars, but I drive the second car, which I paid cash for. We qualified for a much more expensive house than the one we are living in, but we diligently searched for a house that perfectly fit our needs. Like I said, we aren’t getting rich, but we are comfortable. I am getting ready to finish my Bacheor’s degree in Nursing, and after that, I will be pursuing my Master’s degree, to become a nurse anethesiologist. I DO NOT receive financial aide of any kind. I pay for these things my self, becuase I have learned how to live within my means. We have never taken a lavish vacation out of country, or anything like that. We shop clearance racks, and use coupons. Our closets are full of good clothes, and we never go hungry. We own 3 computers, 2 TV’s, 2 Xbox’s, 2 DVD players, approximately 75 DVDs, and about 30 XBOX games. I say all of this because if I could do it, so can other “dis-enfranchised” individuals. Opportunities are out there for people to make their lives better. The problem with society is that people are to lazy to put the work into it. They want someone to habd it to them, because Liberals have told them for years that it’s not their fault their life is so crappy, and that they lack the faculties to take care of themselves. Most Liberals treat people as if they are too dumb to know what to do with their own $$$, so it would be better to give all of our $$$ to the Libs, and let them spend it for us. When I was first in college, I was on public assistance. It was MY fault that my children were born during a time when we could ill-afford them. I busted my butt to get to where I am now. I am amazed at the people who get put on probation by the public assistance system because they simply won’t put the work into showing up for class, or doing homework, or whatever. They take no personal pride in themselves, because for many years, Libs have told them they are better off if the system takes care of them, rather than taking care of themselves. Cradle to the grave healthcare for everyone. What a ridiculous idea. I am thankful for the opprotunities that were afforded me. I have worked with a cardiologist from India that told me, “Only in America will this patient recieve an extensive cardiac work-up and treatment, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, paid for by the government. In India, this man would’ve already died.” Not only did the man receive the treatment, bu he received it for the 3rd time! He continually exacerbated his already diagnosed condition, and thanks to good ‘ole Uncle Sam, he didn’t have to worry about killing himself, because you and I, Joe Schmo Taxpayer, would pick up the tab to keep his lazy indolent ass alive. What I’m saying really all boils down to this: A good many of the “poor” people in this country are “poor”, (which is a relative term, by the way) because they refuse to seize the opportunities that are there for the taking. Public assistance in most places will reimburse your gas mileage for going to and from school and work, buy you a couple pairs of clothes to wear, buy you shoes, pay for books or tools or whatever you need, as well as other school supplies. It’s a travest that people can’t be motivated to take a more active interest in bettering their own lives, rather than waiting for the Federal/State government to do it for them. Like the Bible says, “God helps them that help themselves.”
Posted by: Ryan D. at October 26, 2006 12:36 PMJack wrote: I do not deny the fact that you may still find such people, but now you have to go looking for them.
It’s going to get easier, as this nation, addicted to debt and crooked government, continues to foolishly threaten its own future. This nation no longer consists of your depression years generation. This nation is on a path of growing fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
You’re right. Some of the supposedly poor are not as poor as some say. But, that is not the real problem, but only another symptom of a much larger problem. Not just government, but those that elect it too (and keep foolishly re-electing it). The problem is truly ALL of us (or most; some get it; but often, not enough; not until they (usually) have to learn the hard way).
Always trying to put a Rosy spin on the economy and stuff is suspiciously partisan motivated. The “IN PARTY” always does this, and the “OUT PARTY” always tries to make it look worse than it is.
But, it’s funny how the discussion, of late, even in the Rose-colored column, has gone from things are “good”, “very good”, and “just fine” to “the poor really aren’t that poor”.
You are supposed to be happy that things are not worse. You should be happy that things are worse elsewhere. You should be content with mediocrity. Maybe so, since its all of our own making? But, that’s not the message. The message is spun to make the positive a result of the magnificent management of the economy by the current “IN PARTY”.
Despite all the spin about this supposedly Rosy economy, there’s definitely a lack of acknowledgement about the $3 trillion of debt since 2000 to maintain the illusion of a “very good” economy, and the future consequences of all that massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing. If you bring that up, they say, it is within historical norms. That’s only if you exclude all federal debt. And, even if you look at ONLY the $8.6 trillion National Debt alone, now at 69% of GDP, it has never been worse EVER except after WWII. If you include the total $22 trillion of federal debt, the debt is 176% of GDP, which has NEVER been worse, ever.
There are a number of things that can’t be ignored.
There are a number of things that have never been worse than now, EVER.
Some have never been worse than the Great Depresssion.
Some have never been worse than WWII.
The BIG picture is NOT Rosy, even if it appears that way at the moment. Three or more decades of massive debt will eventually catch up with us.
It would be nice if we had some real leadership, but that has to come from within, and it is unlikely with voters that are addicted to corrupt government and massive debt, and lack the education and foresight to see the growing potential for a hard lesson; the consequences of their own making.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 12:46 PMLike the Bible says, “God helps them that help themselves.”
Uhhh… no. Try George Herbert or Algernon Sidney
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 12:56 PM“The figure also shows that U.S. policies were relatively ineffective in supplementing poverty-level incomes to keep children out of poverty. After taking into account the taxes (including refundable taxes) and transfers, the U.S. still led the 16 developed countries in child poverty. On average, government taxes and transfers in the other 15 countries reduced child poverty significantly€”by about half€”dropping 10.4 percentage points to 10.7%. France had the largest redistributive decline of 20.2 percentage points to a child poverty rate of 7.5%. By contrast, the U.S. rate was reduced by just 4.7 percentage points to 21.9%€”by far the highest child poverty rate of all 16 developed countries, even after government assistance.
The contrast between the great wealth in the United States and such appallingly high child poverty rates is quite stark. The United States needs to make a strong commitment to reduce child poverty.”
Posted by: Lynne at October 26, 2006 12:57 PMRyan D.
“A lot of people say they have to have 2 incomes to survive, but that€™s untrue. They have to have 2 incomes because they must have all of the newest toys, and €œKeep up with the Jones€”
Well whoopedy doo for you. I guess now you speak for everyone in every situation. Well you know what? My wife has to work, we do not own our home, we NEVER eat out (or well for that matter), we both drive small cars, we have had the same clothes for as long as I can remember, and we live on a shoestring budget. Where does all the money go? Rent, Student Loans, monthly bills, gas, and babysitting.
Get down off that high horse. You obviously don’t understand a damn thing about the problems people face as they try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I never got any support at all from the bank of mom and dad, and I had to borrow to survive during my 7 years of school. Then the trade center fell and I lost any hope of finding a good job for a few years. Now we’re barely getting back on our feet. And now I have to read your ignorant ass comments about how I’m just too busy buying expensive sneakers to notice how easy it would be to keep my wife at home.
Boy that kind of arrogance really irks me. And the fact that it is becoming the prevailing voice of my own party is the most disturbing part. Talk about out of touch…people like Ryan could care less about understanding reality…they just assume everyone has the same situation as them. The solution (and one I’ve heard increasingly being expressed by moderates lately), vote opposite of anyone arrogant enough to make a mockery of real problems.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 01:13 PMRyan D. wrote: D.A.N. It almost sounds as though you can’t stand yourself for making a good living, and having the mental capacity to make financially sound decisions with your money.Pure nonsense. The only thing I feel guilty about is ever falling for and wallowing in the petty partisan warfare. It’s now all too clear that BOTH parties are irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other way, and voters keep foolishly re-electing them. Before you try to label me and stick me in one of your simpleton cubby-holes, look at my site and hundreds of posts. I’m no liberal or neo-con, but actually quite centrist with a slight libertarian leaning.
Ryan D. wrote: I’ve said it before, and I will keep saying it; What’s wrong with the wealthy getting tax breaks? Do they not pay taxes also? In fact, they pay the majority of taxes.Ryan D., Nice spin, but that’s a lame ploy. The wealthy are not paying the same flat rate percentage, because the tax system is ridiculously perverted and full of loop holes. Captical gain taxes are only 10 to 15% which is below the average 21% tax rate.
Ryan D. wrote: If you and I get a refund, they should get one also. The refund size is directly proportional to your tax burden, and the amout paid in.Wrong. The wealthy are not paying the same percentage. We need a fair tax system where everyone pays the same flat rate 17% income tax and only on income above the poverty level)
Ryan D. wrote: People would have a much better quality of life if they stopped being obsessed with “Keeping up with the Joneses.”Agreed.
Ryan D. wrote: A lot of people say they have to have 2 incomes to survive, but that’s untrue.False. It is increasingly necessary for the poor, as the ranks of the poor grow larger. However, they are mostly financially irresponsible. It’s an American disease.
Ryan D. wrote: They have to have 2 incomes because they must have all of the newest toys, and “Keep up with the Jones”. I am 27 years old with 2 children, ages 4 and 2. My wife and I aren’t getting rich, but we make a ggod living one 1 income. I am an R.N., and my wife stays home with the kids. The only things we buy on credit is our car, and our house. We own 2 cars, but I drive the second car, which I paid cash for. We qualified for a much more expensive house than the one we are living in, but we diligently searched for a house that perfectly fit our needs. Like I said, we aren’t getting rich, but we are comfortable. I am getting ready to finish my Bacheor’s degree in Nursing, and after that, I will be pursuing my Master’s degree, to become a nurse anethesiologist. I DO NOT receive financial aide of any kind. I pay for these things my self, becuase I have learned how to live within my means. We have never taken a lavish vacation out of country, or anything like that. We shop clearance racks, and use coupons. Our closets are full of good clothes, and we never go hungry.Good. But, anecdotal evidence is not convincing.
Ryan D. wrote: Opportunities are out there for people to make their lives better.True, but they are shrinking. My goal here is not to just blame Republicans or Democrats. It’s all of us. Those trying to label me liberal are missing the point because they are more interested in deflecting responsibility.
Ryan D. wrote: The problem with society is that people are to lazy to put the work into it.True. I write about that very thing all the time. Education is needed, and it will come the smart way, or the hard way.
Ryan D. wrote: They want someone to habd it to them, because Liberals have told them for years that it’s not their fault their life is so crappy, and that they lack the faculties to take care of themselves.True. That’s not me.
Ryan D. wrote: They take no personal pride in themselves, because for many years, Libs have told them they are better off if the system takes care of them, rather than taking care of themselves. Cradle to the grave healthcare for everyone. What a ridiculous idea.True, that is ridiculous. I want government and the middlemen out of healthcare.
Ryan D. wrote: I am thankful for the opprotunities that were afforded me… . What I’m saying really all boils down to this: A good many of the “poor” people in this country are “poor”, (which is a relative term, by the way) because they refuse to seize the opportunities that are there for the taking.”I’m not really concerned about the supposedly poor that really aren’t. The real issue is the nation as a whole. This stuff about the poor is a typical distracting tactic to cloud the issues and obscure the facts.
The real concern is the real potential for an economic melt-down that will painfully affect YOU, your family, and the poor that really aren’t poor, and the real poor, and most middle-income-class people (i.e. all of us, except for maybe the very wealthy).
Keep on this path of massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing, and that will quite likely be the end result.
D.A.N., Great posts…when did you turn into a communist? Since you said things were not rosy, you must be a communist, right? I mean, there is absolutely no middle ground. I€™m obviously being sarcastic.: ) Thanks! Well, I didn’t know I was a communist. That only seems to happen in the Rose-colored column where the blind loyalists of the Rose-colored “IN PARTY” resides with their Rose-colored glasses, forever trying to spin a Rosy picture all attributable to their vastly superior Rose-colored Republican party. Still, none of them want to touch the $22 trillion of federal debt with a 10 foot pole. If they do, they’ll try to tell you GDP growth will absorb it. Or, that it is still within historical norms (which it isn’t), or that we don’t need to ever reduce the debt (just keep paying over $1 billion per day in interest; what a waste), etc. All nonsense. The $22 trillion of federal debt is a ticking time bomb, so all the talk about this supposedly rosy economy is pointless, since it is really an illusion being funded with massive, irresponsible borrowing, spending, debt, and money-printing. Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 01:29 PM
One doesn’t go to the American Heritage Foundation for the simple, unadulterated truth, as they have a definite political bent and work very hard to promote it. You would be better off citing government statistics, but I guess your handlers don’t spoonfeed you those data.
In any event, try to focus on what really affects people. You do realize that wealth and household income has only been increasing for the very wealthiest, don’t you? If not, you need to question why you are not being spoonfed those data by your favorite “fair and balanced” sources. Do a little research on your own, don’t just cherrypick the already cherrypicked factoids from right-wing think tanks. Doesn’t speak well of you.
Posted by: m at October 26, 2006 01:36 PMD.A.N.
If what you say is accurate, and I will say here that I have not done the research to know whether it is or not, How do you propose to shrink the deficit? My gut tells me your #1 priority would be to defund the Iraq war and bring them all home, but I would classify that as an unacceptable choice, in my opinion. What programs should we cut? Just asking, don’t mean to be hostile. It just seems as though I’m hearing a lot of criticism, without any suggestions. That’s just criticism, but not constructive criticism.
Posted by: Ryan D. at October 26, 2006 01:37 PMOne doesn’t go to the American Heritage Foundation for the simple, unadulterated truth, as they have a definite political bent and work very hard to promote it. You would be better off citing government statistics, but I guess your handlers don’t spoonfeed you those data.
In any event, try to focus on what really affects people. You do realize that wealth and household income has only been increasing for the very wealthiest, don’t you? If not, you need to question why you are not being spoonfed those data by your favorite “fair and balanced” sources. Do a little research on your own, don’t just cherrypick the already cherrypicked factoids from right-wing think tanks. Doesn’t speak well of you.
Posted by: mental wimp at October 26, 2006 01:38 PMMy Name Is Roger
LAWNBOY:
I know you are about to say [ Roger is a real pain in the butt], but nowhere… does the Bible say………………………………………..
GOD HELPES THEM WHO HELP THEMSELVES
It is probably the most quoted verse that IS NOT in the Bible.
If perhaps I am wrong, could you tell me were the verse is?
If you fine it [ oopps ]
Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
P.S.
Would you like to know what the second most Quoted verse is…. that is not in the Bible ?
Posted by: ROGER at October 26, 2006 01:39 PMRoger,
I’m confused. I pointed out the source of the quote (originally the idea was from George Herbert, but the exact phrase is from Algernon Sidney), and it’s not in the Bible. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 01:50 PMm,
Thank you! Yes, look at the big picture, and don’t forget to notice how some avoid the discussion of the masssive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing. Ask ‘em about that and then observe the spin about it not being a problem, it was larger in WWII with respect to GDP (which is false unless you ONLY include the $8.6 trillion National Debt). Or, they might say, “your right, it’s a problem”, and then drop it like a hot potato. Nevermind that this one thing has the real potential to cause problems for many decades to come. It’s certainly not helping make the nation more secure. Of course, BOTH parties ran up that debt, but this administration has set some new records, and there’s still two years left. Yikes!
And they call the economy their trump card?
Jack:
I know there are poor people. I say they are not poor as people used to be. I base that on my extensive travel. BUT I suppose there are people living in really poor conditions.
Your uncanny ability to gloss over and belittle the realities of others is amazing. You asked an outright specific question and I answered it very plainly.
And the idea that this is somehow the creation of Bush is just silly.
There you go, putting words in my mouth again. I sometimes think you only listen to points of view that agree with your own. You ignore completely what other folks tell as their experiences.
I don€™t care very much about that.
This is the only thing you posted that I agree with.
I grew up in the poverty of a generation ago that you refer to, including outdoor plumbing and no running water, and all the other things I suspect you are referring to. So I certainly recognize it when I see it. You really need to give others credit for their experiences also if you honestly want an overall picture.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2006 02:04 PMRyan D., D.A.N. If what you say is accurate, and I will say here that I have not done the research to know whether it is or not, How do you propose to shrink the deficit? My gut tells me your #1 priority would be to defund the Iraq war and bring them