More good economic news

[g5man]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1203&e=4&u=/ap/20031106/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&sid=95609868

The story hits upon several important factors and compares them to the past.

[zimv20]

new applications for jobless benefits last week plummeted by a seasonally adjusted 43,000 to 348,000. That marked the lowest level since the week ending Jan. 20, 2001, and was much better than the 380,000 level that economists forecast.


good news indeed, that only some 350,000 people applied for unemployment.

that's more people than live in cincinnati.

here's a major problem w/ the job market: manufacturing and high-tech jobs are going overseas like crazy. what is being done to reverse that? the fed has only a single point of wiggle room for the overnight rate.

[g5man]

zimv20

You do realize that people are laid off every month in bad and good economies.

Some of the jobs that are leaving the country will not be brought back. Consumers demand cheap products so manufactures have to save money in producing those products by going where the labor is cheaper.


The data in the report continues to point to a strong healthy economy in the coming months.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

You do realize that people are laid off every month in bad and good economies.


of course. and i also realize that the 348k figure isn't a net. the article points to this as good news. i read it as: the very high unemployment numbers changed to a little less than very high.

i'm not at all convinced there is any good economic news; it's a little early to tell. i would agree that the news is 'less ****ty'.


Some of the jobs that are leaving the country will not be brought back. Consumers demand cheap products so manufactures have to save money in producing those products by going where the labor is cheaper.


the reason has more to do w/ simple cost to the consumer, imo. the US tax laws are set up to encourage US firms to manufacture overseas. recently, the administration floated an idea -- not to close those loopholes -- but to increase them to stimulate the manufacturing sector (there was a thread on it).

i'm very skeptical that sending more manufacturing jobs overseas will help the US economy much.

[g5man]

Ok then please tell me when you are ready to say that the news is good.

What are you looking for in the data that would make you believe that the economy is growing?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

What are you looking for in the data that would make you believe that the economy is growing?

i don't deny that there are aspects of the economy that are growing. it's always doing one thing or another, in a local min/max sort of way.

things i look at (in no particular order):
1. unemployment trends
2. welfare rolls
3. crime
4. market indeces
5. my portfolio
6. net job numbers
7. budget deficit/surplus
8. trade deficit
9. national debt
10. health of social programs
11. theater attendance
12. # of senior citizens working fast-food jobs
13. consumer debt
14. interest rates
15. DOL productivity numbers
16. # americans below poverty line
17. # of uninsured americans
18. unemployment rate
19. state budgets
20. GDP
21. inflation
22. how much my grandma complains
23. # of allowed H1-B visas
24. foreign students staying in US post-graduation, curve slope thereof

[g5man]

Woah!!!

You will be hard to please. Try to be more specific on some numbers.

Here is more positive news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7936-2003Nov6.html

Greenspan feels upbeat.

Oh and one last thing.

http://www.macnn.com/

We know the economy is improving when Apple has to sell more computers in England.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Woah!!!

You will be hard to please. Try to be more specific on some numbers.


it's less about numbers and more about trends.

but here's a few numbers:
1. let's see the DOW hit 12k again, soon
2. i remember the h1-b visa count getting close to 200k, i think it's under 70k now
3. unemployment rate below 5, for starters
4. interest rates for 30 yr. fixed mortgage back to the 8 or 9 range
5. state budgets - no more than 10 facing critical shortfalls
6. crime - chicago murders under 500/yr
7. my theater - 50+% attendance 3 of 4 nights
8. net job numbers > 0

as for being hard to please, once half of my indicators are trending 'the correct way', then i'll feel better about the economy.

edit:
right now, only a couple are trending the correct way. that's why, when only one or two indicators (i.e. productivity numbers and quarterly GDP) are factored out and used to quantify the economy as a whole, i'm skeptical.

[g5man]

I don't think we will see any of those numbers anytime soon.

Why are you so concerned with theater attendance?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I don't think we will see any of those numbers anytime soon.


which is why i'm not celebrating any sort of economic recovery right now.


Why are you so concerned with theater attendance?

i'm a member of a small theater company. our attendance plummeted after 9/11 (same w/ every other small theater in chicago) and it's just never recovered (though we create and run critically acclaimed shows).

it's all we can do to keep from closing our doors. all the theaters are waiting for the economy to pick up.

on a side note, the Cubs being in the playoffs _really_ hurt us. all the theaters in the neighborhood (we're less than a mile from Wrigley Field) had to cancel shows left and right. ouch.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
which is why i'm not celebrating any sort of economic recovery right now.



i'm a member of a small theater company. our attendance plummeted after 9/11 (same w/ every other small theater in chicago) and it's just never recovered (though we create and run critically acclaimed shows).

it's all we can do to keep from closing our doors. all the theaters are waiting for the economy to pick up.

on a side note, the Cubs being in the playoffs _really_ hurt us. all the theaters in the neighborhood (we're less than a mile from Wrigley Field) had to cancel shows left and right. ouch.

Ok Now I understand. I thought you were talking about a movie theater.

I think attendance is down because competition is strong and less people attend live preformance.

This weekend I will go see that Circus Del Sol or whatever the name is.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

I think attendance is down because competition is strong and less people attend live preformance.


that's a longtime trend, yes, and it's sad, 'cuz there's a lot of cool stuff happening in live theater.

there remains a sizable group of people who make an effort to see theater. it's within this group that the economy, imo, has had an effect.

regarding my Cubs comment, it's not that we attract a lot of Cubs fans, it's more that the neighborhood is a nightmare to come to during a game. it's also a Th, Fr, Sat night party zone. add a playoff game on top of that (where there were as many fans crowded around the field as there were inside), and people were scared off. *I* sure didn't feel like heading down there to do a show (but i had to :-)

the chicago tribune did an article about how area businesses were suffering from the cubs, tv-less bars and restaurants included.

anyway, now that baseball's over, we've seen a return to pre-playoff levels, but still not year 2000 levels.

[Taft]

Originally posted by zimv20
that's a longtime trend, yes, and it's sad, 'cuz there's a lot of cool stuff happening in live theater.

there remains a sizable group of people who make an effort to see theater. it's within this group that the economy, imo, has had an effect.

regarding my Cubs comment, it's not that we attract a lot of Cubs fans, it's more that the neighborhood is a nightmare to come to during a game. it's also a Th, Fr, Sat night party zone. add a playoff game on top of that (where there were as many fans crowded around the field as there were inside), and people were scared off. *I* sure didn't feel like heading down there to do a show (but i had to :-)

the chicago tribune did an article about how area businesses were suffering from the cubs, tv-less bars and restaurants included.

anyway, now that baseball's over, we've seen a return to pre-playoff levels, but still not year 2000 levels.

What theatre do you work for? I just saw Anna in the Tropics at the Victory Gardens Theatre. Any connection?

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Taft
What theatre do you work for? I just saw Anna in the Tropics at the Victory Gardens Theatre. Any connection?


WNEP theater (as a company member, not technically "working for")

i've taken classes at VG, and have a couple friends who just finished a production there, but no official connection.

edit: wow, i'm a dope. i'd forgotten i did some sound design for samuel beckett's 'Krapp's Last Tape,' which just did a short run at VG for the Chicago Humanities Festival.

[Taft]

Originally posted by zimv20
WNEP theater (as a company member, not technically "working for")

i've taken classes at VG, and have a couple friends who just finished a production there, but no official connection.

edit: wow, i'm a dope. i'd forgotten i did some sound design for samuel beckett's 'Krapp's Last Tape,' which just did a short run at VG for the Chicago Humanities Festival.

I've been past there a million times, but never saw a show there. Thats up on Halsted north of Belmont, right?

Any good productions currently going on, coming up?

(BTW, sorry to hijack the thread. Returning to topic shortly. :) )

Taft

[g5man]

Actually you are becoming part of the topic. If you attend the theater as a result of this thread you will contribute to the wellbeing of zimv20.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Actually you are becoming part of the topic. If you attend the theater as a result of this thread you will contribute to the wellbeing of zimv20.

:-)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Taft
I've been past there a million times, but never saw a show there. Thats up on Halsted north of Belmont, right?

Any good productions currently going on, coming up?


that's the location, yes.

we just closed the Vladmir Dracula Comedy Showcase and Variety Hour, which was the funniest show i've ever worked on. i was a co-writer and an actor in it.

but we extended our mainstage WWII drama, Let There Be Light...!, which got a highly recommended from the Reader and a critic's pick from the Trib. i did sound design for it (and got my name in the Trib review! :-) you should definitely check it out.

link (http://www.wneptheater.org/_html/LTBL.html)

[g5man]

Well here is more good news.

Over 250,000 new jobs in the last 2 months and unemployment down to 6%.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&e=4&u=/ap/20031107/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Tax cuts work.

[mactastic]

Indeed the economy is looking up. A couple of points though, first the largest increase was in the service sector, (143,000 jobs, which means if there was a net gain of only 126,000 jobs, that many other well-paying jobs were lost if I read the report right) typically low paying jobs without good benefits. Second, manufacturing continues to shed jobs, although the hemmoraging is slowing. Third, 13,000 of those jobs were scabs hired to replace striking grocery workers.

Plus we are heading into the holiday retail season when stores traditionally beef up their temp workers who are then let go as soon as the holidays are over.

I am optimistic (I need to find a job SOON) but still cautious about predicting a complete recovery yet, and I am not very happy with the quality of the jobs we are gaining.

[g5man]

More good news on the economy in 2004.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1111economy11.html

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Well here is more good news.

Over 250,000 new jobs in the last 2 months and unemployment down to 6%.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&e=4&u=/ap/20031107/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Tax cuts work.

They do? That's a bit of a funny logic connection there, sanfelipe.

Do they work by

1) destroying the economy, gutting all the high-paying blue collar jobs, weakening the dollar, causing states to go bankrupt and cut vital services and, overall, help the rich while punishing the middle and lower classes all while throwing the nation into the largest defecit in history

then

2) give us modest employment and GDP growth every now and again.

Wow, that sounds like tax cuts working all right! How do we get more of that good stuff!?

[zimv20]

from the AZ Central article:

Growth in the world's largest economy may reach 4.2 percent next year, the most since a 4.3 percent gain in 1998


taken in context of several years of piss-poor performance, the net may not be so impressive.

i have a friend who just got a 5% raise. it's the job he got last year when, in desperation, he took a 40% pay cut.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
here's a major problem w/ the job market: manufacturing and high-tech jobs are going overseas like crazy. what is being done to reverse that? the fed has only a single point of wiggle room for the overnight rate.

If the feds do not touch the H1B visa cap of 65,000, or if they scale that back even further, to zero, it would help greatly.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
Some of the jobs that are leaving the country will not be brought back. Consumers demand cheap products so manufactures have to save money in producing those products by going where the labor is cheaper.

How are you going to get labor to be cheaper when every other word from politicos is that they need to raise the minimum wage, or that businesses need to offer a 'living wage'?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If the feds do not touch the H1B visa cap of 65,000, or if they scale that back even further, to zero, it would help greatly.

how so?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
how so?

Better to have the jobs in the United States be for residents of the United States that have applied for permanent immigration to the United States.

It takes the air out of the sails of people that say foreigners are taking the jobs.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Better to have the jobs in the United States be for residents of the United States that have applied for permanent immigration to the United States.

It takes the air out of the sails of people that say foreigners are taking the jobs.

ah, i see what you mean.

you know the deal w/ h1-b's, yes? the idea is that there aren't enough qualified citizens to fill those jobs. while serving as recruiting manager for the company i used to own, i petitioned for (and got) 3 such visas written.

why did i do that? because it was damn hard finding qualified people (to be kickass software programmers/designers/architects) and we were growing.

so what does it mean that fewer such visas are being written? it could mean that the demand for such workers is lower. or, it could also mean the supply went down.

why is that? are fewer foreigners interested in living in the US? or are more and more high tech jobs moving overseas?

either interpretation doesn't reflect well on the US job market.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
why did i do that? because it was damn hard finding qualified people (to be kickass software programmers/designers/architects) and we were growing.

so what does it mean that fewer such visas are being written? it could mean that the demand for such workers is lower. or, it could also mean the supply went down.


Yeah. It might be that your salary scale is not inline with what qualified people currently employed are accustomed to receiving. Thats the other side of the coin on the H1B visa issue.

Better to just get rid of the H1B visa program, and just make it permanent immigrants are offered jobs.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yeah. It might be that your salary scale is not inline with what qualified people currently employed are accustomed to receiving. Thats the other side of the coin on the H1B visa issue.


not quite sure what you mean. do you mean one can get away w/ paying a foreigner less? (that's illegal)


Better to just get rid of the H1B visa program, and just make it permanent immigrants are offered jobs.

that doesn't solve the problem. the problem is there's not enough legal status workers in the US to perform skilled jobs. this program producers more legal workers.

if an employer cannot find enough legal workers here, then they'll either hire workers illegally or move their entire operation to wherever there _are_ enough workers.

the only longterm sol'n is to train enough US citizens to do these jobs. but guess what -- the gap is only getting bigger.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
not quite sure what you mean. do you mean one can get away w/ paying a foreigner less? (that's illegal)

the only longterm sol'n is to train enough US citizens to do these jobs. but guess what -- the gap is only getting bigger.

Yes. Its illegal... until you are caught. And how many immigrant resources are spent in enforcing that equal pay is offered to H1B visas? Heck, they can't even enforce that people who overstayed their visas don't attend flight schools, where they don't want to learn how to land?!!! :mad:

Long term solution is to eliminate the H1B visa issue. Employment is part of what immigrants and citizens get when they choose to live in the US permanently. Company can move the jobs overseas, or maybe they can offer larger salaries to spur potential candidates to get training for the job.

College students are not blind to what the job market offers. I remember when the computer industry was taking off, everyone was trying to get into computers, and most colleges had impacted programs. After the downturn, some of these students changed majors to something else... aerospace, chemical, etc.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Employment is part of what immigrants and citizens get when they choose to live in the US permanently.


i don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to become a citizen just to be able to get a job. there is a non-trivial population who want to do exactly that, including americans.

most (all?) countries have a way to allow foreigners to work. i see no sense in the US doing away w/ its program.


College students are not blind to what the job market offers. I remember when the computer industry was taking off, everyone was trying to get into computers, and most colleges had impacted programs. After the downturn, some of these students changed majors to something else... aerospace, chemical, etc.

apologies to college students everywhere, but, as a whole, you're too dumb to fill all the high-tech jobs.

frohickey, there's not enough qualified americans to fill all the high-tech jobs. that's the problem, not highly-skilled foreign workers.

the solution is to friggin' educate americans.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to become a citizen just to be able to get a job. there is a non-trivial population who want to do exactly that, including americans.

most (all?) countries have a way to allow foreigners to work. i see no sense in the US doing away w/ its program.

apologies to college students everywhere, but, as a whole, you're too dumb to fill all the high-tech jobs.

frohickey, there's not enough qualified americans to fill all the high-tech jobs. that's the problem, not highly-skilled foreign workers.

the solution is to friggin' educate americans.

but right now... we have gobs of out-of-work IT professionals... do we need H1B visas approved for foreign IT workers?

Not saying you have to be a citizen to work... just have immigrated to the US and intend on permanently staying on.

Switzerland has a pretty good immigration and employment policy. Immigrants who are unemployed and end up going on the welfare rolls are deported. Citizens are not deported.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
but right now... we have gobs of out-of-work IT professionals...


they're not all the same. IT is a huge field w/ many specializations. and, as you pointed out, many people jumped on board the IT train in the 90s. from my experience, most of them shouldn't have. i worked w/ a LOT of unqualified people. if these are the ones who are out of work, i say good riddance.

believe me, the added hassle (and cost) of hiring an h1b worker made me look really hard to find someone who was already legal. and i did find some, but not enough.


Not saying you have to be a citizen to work... just have immigrated to the US and intend on permanently staying on.


i misinterpreted you.

the h1b is good for 3 years, upon which it can be renewed for another 3. at the end of 6 years, that person must either naturalize or leave the country. (or perhaps get a green card, not sure how that one works).

the 3 h1bs i hired all intended to stay here permanently. one (a brit) married a chicago gal, rendering the h1b unnecessary (green card).


Switzerland has a pretty good immigration and employment policy. Immigrants who are unemployed and end up going on the welfare rolls are deported. Citizens are not deported.

a US h1b who loses his job, and cannot find anyone else to sponser him, reverts to a visitor visa (6 months, i believe).

note that finding a new sponser doesn't restart the 3 years. it's 3 (or 6) years total.

[g5man]

No need to start a new thread since this will do.

Here is a little more positive news about he economy and how tax cuts are helping.

Tax refunds expected to jump 27%
By Barbara Hagenbaugh, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON — Taxpayers' refund checks will increase nearly 27% to an average $2,500 per family early next year, according to new forecasts from tax experts and economists, who say the windfalls will aid consumers, the economy and President Bush's re-election campaign.

As a result of the 2003 tax cut, about 8 million families who did not receive refunds this year will likely get them in 2004, says tax software publisher Petz Enterprises. It estimates refunds for the tax season will go to 108 million households vs. 100 million this year and will total $227 billion. That's up 38% from 2003. Merrill Lynch estimates total refunds from February through May will be up 34% from this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-13-taxrefunds-usat_x.htm

Please note the article does not say 8 million rich families.

[pseudobrit]

Do me a favor sanfelipe, go back and find links to all the devastatingly bad economic news over the past three years while you're scrounging up tidbits of "good news."

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Do me a favor sanfelipe, go back and find links to all the devastatingly bad economic news over the past three years while you're scrounging up tidbits of "good news."

The bad economic news started prior to the current administration taking office. In fact, the bad economic news started prior to the elections.

[g5man]

Look all that I am saying is that good economic news keeps coming in and the tax cuts are helping. There is no fuzzy math.

Many may not like to hear good news(especially if it is a result of conservative policies), but no matter how much one wants to concentrate on the past it is the present and the future that counts.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
it is the present and the future that counts.

more or less, i'll agree, but i'd put more emphasis on the future.

tell ya what. if bush's tax cuts not only stimulate the economy, but also reduce the deficit (how about back to surplus) and reduce the national debt, i'll start voting republican.

but i'm looking at that future where my kids and their kids are still paying for today's excesses, and that future ain't looking too bright.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
more or less, i'll agree, but i'd put more emphasis on the future.

tell ya what. if bush's tax cuts not only stimulate the economy, but also reduce the deficit (how about back to surplus) and reduce the national debt, i'll start voting republican.



LOL. We will not see a surplus until spending is reduced. And Bush is too much of a whimp to cut anything. If anything he is spending like a drunken sailor. Social spending has increased rather significantly and quickly in his three years in the White House. I tend to agree with some posters who point out that there is no real difference between parties.

Now if the GOP gets a 60 seat senate in about 4 years, we may see some serious cost cutting but I am not holding my breath.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
LOL. We will not see a surplus until spending is reduced. And Bush is too much of a whimp to cut anything.

Really?

He's been cutting everything except the implementation of grand murder and big brother government.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
tell ya what. if bush's tax cuts not only stimulate the economy, but also reduce the deficit (how about back to surplus) and reduce the national debt, i'll start voting republican.

but i'm looking at that future where my kids and their kids are still paying for today's excesses, and that future ain't looking too bright.

Don't vote republican... vote conservative.

Spending needs to be cut as well, or brought in line with the growth of GNP. If GNP shrinks, spending has to be cut. If GNP grows, spending can grow. Somehow, Congress is loathe to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They are the ones that want to mortage the future in order to pay for their pork barrel projects such as a tax-payer funded railroad museum, or the Robert "Sheets" Byrd memorial bridge.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Don't vote republican... vote conservative.


i think i need to start the Sensible Party.


Spending needs to be cut as well, or brought in line with the growth of GNP.


i don't look at spending cuts as dogma, but i am absolutely for trimming waste. i've learned in my life that things cost money, and if they're important things you need to spend money on them.

that said, i friggin' hate waste and believe a lot of it can be cut w/o a hit on standard of living.

Congress is loathe to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.


a balanced budget is a lovely thing, but there are times when it just can't be done. i'd hate to put ourselves into a position where we damage ourselves because of such an amendment.

i try to see longer term, not necessarily in one-year chunks.


They are the ones that want to mortage the future in order to pay for their pork barrel projects such as a tax-payer funded railroad museum, or the Robert "Sheets" Byrd memorial bridge.

changes in lobbying laws would help in this regard. as would the notion of keeping bills on message. but that's a discipline congressmen of both parties need to learn.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by zimv20
i think i need to start the Sensible Party.
...

Yes. I'm tired of the Silly Party candidates (e.g. Jethro Q. Bonwacky Bozzits to Bonbood Walrus Titty, Tarquin Fintimlimbimlimbimwhinbimlin Bus Stop Ftang Ftang Olay Biscuit Barrel, et al).

Though we'll need to watch out for the moderates (Slightly Silly Party) like Kevin
Phillips Bong.

:D

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yes. I'm tired of the Silly Party candidates (e.g. Jethro Q. Bonwacky Bozzits to Bonbood Walrus Titty, Tarquin Fintimlimbimlimbimwhinbimlin Bus Stop Ftang Ftang Olay Biscuit Barrel, et al).

Though we'll need to watch out for the moderates (Slightly Silly Party) like Kevin
Phillips Bong.

:D

YES!

well caught, sir.

[jonapete2001]

For all that took economics in high school or at the college level, you might remember that high levels of tax cuts put money back into the hands of consumers who can then spend it and revitalize it. Also higher amounts of fed. gov. spending also put money into the economy and help to revitalize it. I think this is what is going on right now. I believe that with out either of these economic stimulus movements we would still have a stale economy. The economy started to fall off during the last clinton year, everyone knows this. It is now just starting to come back some. If people would just give it time before they bash it, they would see. For Bush this economic news could not be coming at better time. The economy will be at full steam come election 04 and hopefully the war will doing better( i think it will)hopefully.

[tristan]

I took econ too - if you borrow 500 billion and plow it into the economy, you'll get some economic growth.

Of course later though you'll have to pay it back, and that'll reduce economic growth.

But you guys all missed the real reason the economy's doing better - the falling dollar. American goods are now *much* cheaper (or more profitable) in Europe, while theirs are more expensive in the US.

Our cheaper prices mean increased sales, and also increased inward investment (as foreigners buy up domestic assets). So that explains our higher corporate profits and stock indexes.

Will it last? I dunno... I'm an unemployed MBA so I hope so. :-)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
I don't look at spending cuts as dogma, but i am absolutely for trimming waste. i've learned in my life that things cost money, and if they're important things you need to spend money on them.

that said, i friggin' hate waste and believe a lot of it can be cut w/o a hit on standard of living.


When has a government program been rescinded when it has outlived its usefulness or has been proven to be a complete waste of time and money? What happens is that the government program ends up costing more money to the taxpayer in the name of improving it.

Much better to bring it to the private industry, where a failing program spells bankruptcy of the company and end of the bad program.

There are only a certain amount of things that government should be doing. Post offices, roads, courts, military, patent office, etc. These are all spelled out in the US Constitution. Everything else should be done via the states, where the money collected is spent closer to where it is needed.

How many IRS agents does it require to collect federal taxes that are in turn given to the states? How many Franchise tax board (california tax collection agency) agents are doing the same thing?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i think i need to start the Sensible Party.

Okay, so what are the main platform of your Sensible Party?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by tristan
But you guys all missed the real reason the economy's doing better - the falling dollar. American goods are now *much* cheaper (or more profitable) in Europe, while theirs are more expensive in the US.

Is this a safe, sure and stable way to grow the economy?

Look how low the Fed's cut rates. Will we have to bottom out the dollar also?

[g5man]

Originally posted by tristan
I took econ too - if you borrow 500 billion and plow it into the economy, you'll get some economic growth.

Of course later though you'll have to pay it back, and that'll reduce economic growth.

But you guys all missed the real reason the economy's doing better - the falling dollar. American goods are now *much* cheaper (or more profitable) in Europe, while theirs are more expensive in the US.

Our cheaper prices mean increased sales, and also increased inward investment (as foreigners buy up domestic assets). So that explains our higher corporate profits and stock indexes.

Will it last? I dunno... I'm an unemployed MBA so I hope so. :-)

MBA you say. jk (5 years ago that was the hot ticket)

First of all $500 Billion is not put into the economy. It is mostly put into the government which produces nothing. (And please don't say that they produce jobs)The tax cuts use up less than 10% of this year's budget deficit.

If the weaker dollar contributed to cheaper US goods for the world than why do we have such a huge trade deficit?

Lets look at Apple. Over 50% of sales is still in the good old USA. Sales are barely growing if at all in Europe. Most companies that have posted profits have done so from cutting costs with a little growth at the same time. Most of that growth was not from international sales.

2/3 of GDP is based on consumer spending. Consumers spend if they have jobs, feel confident, and have more money to spend. Plain and simple. The tax cuts gave them a little boost. Real growth will take place when companies invest in plant and equipment. That will take a little more time.

The deficit will be cut not from less spending but rather from higher tax receipts the government will receive as the economy grows. This year alone the federal gov. took in an extra $90 Billion dollars thus reducing the projected deficit.

We of course could cut the deficit significantly just by cutting down on budget increase and some minor cuts in spending.

Housing starts were at a 17 year high. This economy will be cooking by 2nd quarter of next year.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay, so what are the main platform of your Sensible Party?

1. stop subsidizing the oil and coal industries. spend money on researching renewables

2. raise mileage minimums. gradually increase gas tax to incent consumers and industry to build/buy better mileage vehicles

3. return education power to the states

4. implement campaign finance reform

5. implement the hart/rudman recommendations

6. ensure SEC does its job and DOJ prosecutes cases

7. examine canada's and england's healthcare programs and implement universal healthcare

8. balance the budget

9. if possible, nominate judges that at least some members of the major parties of the senate judiciary committee would consider approving

10. make it a policy to not add irrelevent amendments to bills

11. eliminate taxes on interest from interest-bearing accounts, lower taxes on dividends (keep cap gain taxes)

12. fund public transportation better

13. prefer diplomacy to war

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by g5man/ovi/sanfelipe
This economy will be cooking by 2nd quarter of next year.

landslide victories...cooking economies....

you'd be taken a little more seriously if you didn't sound like some tony robbins inspirational infomercial.

it would be interesting to inspect all of your previous predictions...but you conveniently deleted your old posts.... :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

This economy will be cooking by 2nd quarter of next year.

you sure that's just not the books you're smelling? :-)

[g5man]

You guys are confused.

Anyway here is more good news on the economy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103614,00.html

Once you start making statements regarding cooking the books, then you lose are credibility in the debate.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

Once you start making statements regarding cooking the books, then you lose are credibility in the debate.

when i follow a colon w/ a dash and a right paren, consider the 'statement' a joke

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

Anyway here is more good news on the economy.


i'll tell you the flaw you keep making. you find one or two good indicators and then extrapolate that to the entire economy.

but i'm not going to automatically buy into your projections, 'cuz there's another outfit w/ a much better sense of the overall economy: the market.

the market not only knows more than you, but it's aleady taken into account whatever news you choose to post here.

once the DOW gets back to the 15k range, and the NASDAQ actually cracks 2k and starts moving towards 4k, then i'll be ready to say the economy is in recovery.

in the meantime, i'll recognize your news for what it is -- a handful of trees in a very large forest.

[g5man]

You are correct. I knew you were joking, just trying to make sure that is all.

The market was in a bubble in the 90's. It was not a true reflection of the economy.

In may humble opinion it is still in a bubble. But as you so rightly pointed out "greed" is still very much alive. So greed will keep the market growing. I think it will hit 10K by the end of the year. Predicting beyond that is foolish. I am much more comfortable predicting GDP and unemployment.

Now when it comes to the economy the only person who can say that it is good is you. If everyone has a good job but you don't then for you the economy sucks. ( I am talking hypothetically)

You have every right to dismiss any positive "tid bits" on the economy as not a true reflection of the overall economy. Eventually however if these reports keep coming month after month ( as they have) you will have to eventually accept that the economy is improving.

As you well know I believe the tax cut played a large role and will continue to do so.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

The market was in a bubble in the 90's. It was not a true reflection of the economy.


the market isn't accurate, but it is precise.

that is, it will never be a true exact measurement of the economy, but, like newtonian physics, it's close enough to be useful.

yes, there was a bubble in the 90s, but it's not the market's fault. the market correctly reflected all the buying, consumer confidence, etc. that was going on.

then it corrected.

question is, are we still in a correction phase, or does its depressed nature for the past couple of years reflect the true state of the economy?


In may humble opinion it is still in a bubble.


you think the DOW/NASDAQ/SP500/etc are still overvalued?


I think it will hit 10K by the end of the year.


i don't think that's much of a prediction. at the moment, the DOW is 280 points away. it's swung by more than that in a day.

go ahead and make some bold mid-2004 unemployment predictions.


You have every right to dismiss any positive "tid bits" on the economy as not a true reflection of the overall economy. Eventually however if these reports keep coming month after month ( as they have) you will have to eventually accept that the economy is improving.


actually, i don't. any good news is trumpted by the majors, but not so much the bad. pay attention to only that, and one gets a skewed sense of the economy.

case in point is this thread. read only the articles you've posted, and it would seem everything is cherry. look at the DOW/NASDAQ, however, and one gets a different picture.

[mactastic]

But we could be farther along in our recovery. The question isn't so much did the tax cuts help, because they surely did. But could it have been better? Is it the most fiscally sound approach?

I think tax cuts targeted at the right people would have improved things faster, and would be accelerating the improvements right now. I don't buy the trickle down theory, I think that's just an excuse to give tax breaks to the super-rich. Consumer spending was the only thing that carried our economy for a long time through the recession. So instead of boosting consumer spending by giving tax breaks to people who would spend that money buying goods, we have to wait for the trickle part of trickle down. That translates into a slower recovery. The good months, economically speaking, that we have seen have come after the rebate checks have gone out to the masses. That money immediately gets spent instead of being put into a tax sheltered investment, waiting for the right time when signs of economic revival begin to emerge.

We also have to think about the future as well, will the massive deficit caused by these tax cuts cause interest rates to rise as the recovery gets under way, or will they put the brakes on an otherwise-healthy economy in the future? And where is the fiscal sanity of this administration? I thought conservative meant less government spending? The Republican-led congress keeps adding more and more pork and bloat to the government that they whined about growing under Clinton. Now they are lowering government revenue and increasing government spending. The only possible explanation for that is to underfund social programs until they are failing to meet government mandates for performance and can be eliminated or privatized.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
We of course could cut the deficit significantly just by cutting down on budget increase and some minor cuts in spending.

We could cut the deficit significantly by also relying on budget increases and spending cuts dependent on the GDP. In boom years, they can increase their budget, and increase spending. In bust years, they have to decrease their budget and slash spending.

This is how families and businesses work.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
1. stop subsidizing the oil and coal industries. spend money on researching renewables

2. raise mileage minimums. gradually increase gas tax to incent consumers and industry to build/buy better mileage vehicles

3. return education power to the states

4. implement campaign finance reform

5. implement the hart/rudman recommendations

6. ensure SEC does its job and DOJ prosecutes cases

7. examine canada's and england's healthcare programs and implement universal healthcare

8. balance the budget

9. if possible, nominate judges that at least some members of the major parties of the senate judiciary committee would consider approving

10. make it a policy to not add irrelevent amendments to bills

11. eliminate taxes on interest from interest-bearing accounts, lower taxes on dividends (keep cap gain taxes)

12. fund public transportation better

13. prefer diplomacy to war

Here are the changes that I would make to the Sensible Party platforms.

A. Stop subsidizing oil, coal, farming, and ALL other industries. Spend money on enforcing patents. (See Article 1 Section 8, Clause 8)

B. Repeal any mileage minumum laws, this is not a power granted to the federal government. Gasoline tax can be increased, but it should be equal throughout the land (Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1)

C. Return education power to the States, abolish the Department of Education

D. Repeal Campaign Finance Reform, this is not a power granted to the federal government.

E. Hart-Rudman Report (http://www.las-inc.com/hart-rudman/hart-rudman_full_report.pdf) Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal against terrorists (Article 1 Section 8, Clause 11)
Call forth the Militia to repel invasions (border patrol) (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)

F. Ensure SEC does its job and DOJ prosecutes cases. SEC govt employees that do not should be fired.

G. Do not implement universal health care... there is no mention of universal health care as a power given to the federal government

H. Strive to balance the budget. Administrations that balance the budget and operate on a surplus get to keep 0.1% of the interest on the surplus. Surplus is returned to the people via tax cuts, or rebate checks.

I. Nominate judges that are strict constructionists

J. Make every new law have a expiration date of 4 years, it would have to be renewed if it is beneficial.

K. Eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and estate taxes

L. Funding public transportation is a subsidy on mass transit companies, in violation of (A). Instead, allow companies who operate business well enough to get windfall profits to keep their windfall profits.

M. Publically televise diplomatic negotiations with other countries. War, or any actions involving the military require a Congressional Declaration of War.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I think tax cuts targeted at the right people would have improved things faster, and would be accelerating the improvements right now. I don't buy the trickle down theory, I think that's just an excuse to give tax breaks to the super-rich.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100._ If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing

The fifth would pay $1

The sixth would pay $3

The seventh $7

The eighth $12

The ninth $18

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by_ $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes._ So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat_ their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)

The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before._ And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man._ He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man._ "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man._ "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2?_ The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison._ "We didn't get anything at all._ The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important._ They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Here are the changes that I would make to the Sensible Party platforms.


omg we've already got a party split. :-)

i like a couple of the changes, but overall i think you're lobbying for a platform for the Constructionist Party.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing

The fifth would pay $1

The sixth would pay $3

The seventh $7

The eighth $12

The ninth $18

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


i like the whole analogy, but it seems you're taking into account only a subset of the whole tax picture (what is that subset, btw?)

according to mccrain*, each man would pay about $10, once everything is taken into account.

* if i understand his view of taxes correctly. apologies if not.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
omg we've already got a party split. :-)

i like a couple of the changes, but overall i think you're lobbying for a platform for the Constructionist Party.

hehehe... party split.

Actually, if you look at my changes, it makes for the maximum use of citizenry, but voluntary. It also makes use of greed for positive uses, in the budget surplus area, anti-terrorism, etc.

Besides, makes for a more involved citizenry, which is always good.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
makes for a more involved citizenry, which is always good.

i _was_ thinking there's need for the Responsible Party, which advocates personal responsibility of the citizen.

the GOP does advocate this, to a degree, but it always seems to get mixed up w/ a bunch of religious and "poor people are taking your money" rhetoric.

one of the Responsible Party's main platforms would be advocating healthier living and people taking responsibility for their own healthcare, to a degree, and frown upon people w/ colds running to the doctor for antibiotics.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
i like the whole analogy, but it seems you're taking into account only a subset of the whole tax picture (what is that subset, btw?)

according to mccrain*, each man would pay about $10, once everything is taken into account.

* if i understand his view of taxes correctly. apologies if not.

Actually, the analogy is flawed.

Each man would have eaten whatever he ordered. Then they'd all be forced to tip 100%

The rich man would whine about his bill because he had to tip $70 on his foie gras while the poor man (who only had a cup of coffee) only tipped $1.09. Meanwhile, the poor man would love to be in a position to order a sandwich, regardless of the extra cost.

And with the Bush tip, er, tax cuts, we've just taken some of the tip money owed by those who eat well and put it on our $6 trillion tab instead of paying it now.

[mactastic]

Oh yeah thats right, the poor pay zero in taxes! Bull$%#@! The poor man would still pay sales tax, unemployment insurance, and his/her half of the payroll tax. I swear we've had this discussion over and over. You right wing construstionists swear that the only tax people pay is income tax when that is simply untrue.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
one of the Responsible Party's main platforms would be advocating healthier living and people taking responsibility for their own healthcare, to a degree, and frown upon people w/ colds running to the doctor for antibiotics.

Responsible Party shouldn't even frown upon people with colds running to the doctor for antibiotics. Only if these people were on the dole should we frown on them. If they pay the doctor with their own means, then they are being responsible, they might not be sensible (to us), but they are responsible nonetheless.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Responsible Party shouldn't even frown upon people with colds running to the doctor for antibiotics. Only if these people were on the dole should we frown on them.

If they pay the doctor with their own means, then they are being responsible, they might not be sensible (to us), but they are responsible nonetheless.

Why? Because if you can't pay you're irresponsible (for being sick), but if you do pay, you're being responsible?

What kind of logic is that?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Oh yeah thats right, the poor pay zero in taxes! Bull$%#@! The poor man would still pay sales tax, unemployment insurance, and his/her half of the payroll tax. I swear we've had this discussion over and over. You right wing construstionists swear that the only tax people pay is income tax when that is simply untrue.

The above restaurant analogy to tax cuts was taken from a site talking about the income tax cuts... it wasn't talking about the sales tax, which is a flat tax.

Unemployment insurance, wouldn't it be better to be paid more in take-home pay, than have unemployment insurance? I could CHOOSE to invest, or save, or spend that extra in take-home pay. Or, I could CHOOSE to enroll in a voluntary unemployment insurance policy with a private insurance company.

Payroll tax, that is another word for Social Security. I'd rather get more take-home pay, than have Social Security. If I save a lot now, maybe I can retire earlier than the next guy that didn't save as much, or I would have more retirement money than the next guy that didn't save as much. Instead, the guy retiring right now gets a lot of benefits, than when I end up retiring 30 years from now because Social Security is not as solvent. Sure, my savings could be wiped out if I invested poorly, but I'm responsible for the investment choices, and I should take responsibility for the outcome. Now, if I was the victim of fraud, and I lost everything, the government should come down hard on the fraudulent people.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Why? Because if you can't pay you're irresponsible (for being sick), but if you do pay, you're being responsible?

What kind of logic is that?

I'm responsible for paying for my care. If I pay for YOUR care, you are not being responsible for YOUR care, and are depending upon me for it.

What if we are identical twins, but you choose to live dangerously and jump out of airplanes while its raining with no parachute, and I stay indoors during rainy season. If you break your leg, why should I pay your doctor bill to get your leg cast, or when you get pnemonia?

[mactastic]

But you present it without saying it only applies to the income tax, without even a link to where you got that nonsense from! And every time you argue about "taxes" and how unfair the progressive nature of the tax structure is you always, and I mean ALWAYS neglect to talk about the regressive nature of a flat tax such as sales or unemployment insurance or any of the other fixed-rate taxes people pay.

[mactastic]

And what if you are twins who both live safe lives and one gets cancer? Should that person be in debt for life if they survive the disease? Or should they just let it take them, knowing they would live in debt if they survive? Your every-man-for-himself argements make me ill.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Responsible Party shouldn't even frown upon people with colds running to the doctor for antibiotics. Only if these people were on the dole should we frown on them. If they pay the doctor with their own means, then they are being responsible, they might not be sensible (to us), but they are responsible nonetheless.

in this particular example, the party would want that individual to also take responsibility for not contributing to the formation of superbugs. therefore, he should shun the antibiotics altogether. the doctor is also responsible for not prescribing it.

the Responsible Party advocates more than being responsible for your own expenses; it advocates being responsible to society as a whole.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
in this particular example, the party would want that individual to also take responsibility for not contributing to the formation of superbugs. therefore, he should shun the antibiotics altogether. the doctor is also responsible for not prescribing it.

the Responsible Party advocates more than being responsible for your own expenses; it advocates being responsible to society as a whole.

A responsible person would take the antibiotics, and FINISH the whole prescription. A responsible doctor would prescribe antibiotics ONLY when its prudent, and prescribe enough so that no superbugs are made.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
A responsible person would take the antibiotics

we've really gotten into splitting hairs, but i'd add that the point i was getting at was one shouldn't take antibiotics for a virus. it's a very specific statement and i don't mean to imply that doctors shouldn't be listened to in general.

the Responsible Party is sorry if its message was lost and accepts full responsibility for that.

the Sensible Party understands and doesn't want to make an issue of it.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
A responsible person would take the antibiotics, and FINISH the whole prescription. A responsible doctor would prescribe antibiotics ONLY when its prudent, and prescribe enough so that no superbugs are made.

But I guess an "irresponsible" person would get sick (his first lapse in responsibility) and not have enough money for the whole prescription either, because he's on the dole.

Since when is being on the dole irresponsible? Have you no compassion? Have you no heart? Or do you just ignore what it says to ease your conscience?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But I guess an "irresponsible" person would get sick (his first lapse in responsibility) and not have enough money for the whole prescription either, because he's on the dole.

Since when is being on the dole irresponsible? Have you no compassion? Have you no heart? Or do you just ignore what it says to ease your conscience?

Being on the dole is irresponsible, people that contribute to the dole are responsible and compassionate.

Is forced compassion still compassion? Or is it called coersion?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Being on the dole is irresponsible, people that contribute to the dole are responsible and compassionate.

Being on the dole is not a choice for most who are. How can you be responsible for something you have no control over?

Is forced compassion still compassion? Or is it called coersion?

It's called civilisation. You belong to one whether you like it or not.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Being on the dole is not a choice for most who are. How can you be responsible for something you have no control over?

It's called civilisation. You belong to one whether you like it or not.

If you are on the dole, you are responsible for getting yourself out of it. Finding any type of employment, not living beyond your means, saving for a rainy day, cultivating enduring friendships, etc. You have far more control over it than you think you do.

You consider it civilized to have 51% take the property of the other 49% to use as the majority sees fit? Is that what you call civilization?

You seem to be arguing for the rights of the individual, but you do so by violating the rights of another individual. In my setting, the rights of both individuals are preserved. Circumstances just happen to be not the same for both parties. Circumstances are rarely equal to both parties, that is the way things are. Civilization is not for making the circumstances equal for all, because to do so, would require the intervention of men (and women). One side loses that doesn't deserve to lose, and another side wins that doesn't deserve to win.

If the circumstances are because of fraud, that would be the time when civilization should intervene.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Is forced compassion still compassion? Or is it called coersion?

actually i'd just call it sad to not feel compassion, to not feel blessed enough to share and not keep score...it lacks a higher grace.

winning sides, losing sides....we're talking much deeper issues than equal access to healthcare...

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
actually i'd just call it sad to not feel compassion, to not feel blessed enough to share and not keep score...it lacks a higher grace.

winning sides, losing sides....we're talking much deeper issues than equal access to healthcare...

Some people just cannot grasp such notions of selflessness and sacrifice.

Which is precisely why they're forced to by the government.

[g5man]

The economy is improving.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&e=3&u=/ap/20031124/ap_on_bi_ge/economic_outlook


Much of the current strength is coming from tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress in May and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve (news - web sites), which is expected to keep holding its key benchmark rate at a 45-year low of 1 percent for some time to come.



"We just have an unprecedented amount of economic stimulus coming from Washington to boost economic activities," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "That is going to keep economic activity at very high levels."



Asked why unemployment was not expected to come down any faster given the strong economic growth, the NABE analysts cited the expected continued drive by businesses to boost productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, in a tough competitive environment.

I am no expert on the economy, I am only repeating what I hear.

Sure there is some negative items to point out but I am also a glass half full type of person.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, the economy is "improving," but you have to consider where it's been over the past three years. The employment situation remains quite bleak, as does the growth in household income. This is where the economic rubber really hits the road. Growth in corporate profits is all well and good, but ultimately is not terribly meaningful if it doesn't result in employment and wage increases.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, the economy is "improving," but you have to consider where it's been over the past three years. The employment situation remains quite bleak, as does the growth in household income. This is where the economic rubber really hits the road. Growth in corporate profits is all well and good, but ultimately is not terribly meaningful if it doesn't result in employment and wage increases.

The Census Bureau offered some news last month that surprised few - household incomes dropped between 2001 and 2002. The median credit card balance is $1,900, meaning half of us owe more and half owe less than that, with an average interest rate of 12.9 percent. Median home value is $122,200, while the median value of our retirement accounts is $24,000. That last figure is problematic. It is very concerning to see how much debt the average American has and the small amount they have saved for retirement. The average person has over 38 percent more debt than they have in their retirement account. This is a very dangerous position for an individual. The future for American Citizens, who look forward to a relaxing retirement, is slipping away. Many will have to work until death do them part.

[mactastic]

More (http://msnbc.com/news/997307.asp?0cl=c3) on the effects of massive tax cuts combined with massive spending increases as a fiscal policy...
As Congress rushes to conclude its 2003 session, Republican leaders are trying to garner votes for controversial legislation by loading the bills with billions of dollars in added costs that analysts said would expand the budget deficit for years to come. The year-end binge has alarmed analysts in Washington and on Wall Street, coming as it does after three years of presidential and congressional initiatives that have both substantially boosted government spending and shrunk its tax base.
“The only thing I can tell you is evidently the word ‘tomorrow’ no longer exists in the vocabulary of otherwise responsible members of Congress,” said Warren Rudman, a former New Hampshire Republican senator and long-standing budget hawk. “They are acting as if there is no tomorrow.”

Former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin said, “Our political system has simply lost its willingness to take the very difficult path of maintaining fiscal discipline.”

Some rank-and-file GOP lawmakers expressed concern that the burgeoning deficit is happening under the watch of the Republican Party, which came to power in Washington preaching fiscal restraint and less government.

“I’m very troubled by the possibility that the party of Ronald Reagan, the party that came to Washington to change the welfare state, could fall into that 75-year parade of entitlement makers,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), citing the new Medicare bill. “This will be the third time in history, first with the New Deal, then in Great Society, and now 2003, that Congress created a massive new entitlement.”

At several points in recent weeks, when opposition was voiced to controversial legislation, congressional leaders simply increased the price.
Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), said the “hundreds of thousands of jobs” that would be created by the energy bill would more than offset its cost, and by injecting free-market competition into Medicare, the prescription drug bill should actually restrain costs.

But some budget experts say such optimism is a large part of the problem.

“It’s very hard for Congress to show fiscal restraint when the White House hasn’t raised the deficit as a primary issue,” said Robert D. Reischauer, a former Congressional Budget Office director who now heads the Urban Institute. “Spending restraint and tax increases are unnatural acts on Capitol Hill. It takes some political leadership from White House, some external motivation, to get Congress to focus on the deficit, and there doesn’t seem to be any of those forces at work.”

Goldman Sachs economists concluded last week that tax cuts and surging spending will push the deficit this year to half a trillion dollars, and “any thoughts of relief thereafter are a pipe dream until political priorities adjust.”

Even conservatives who support tax cuts have begun to note the imbalance. Government spending now totals $20,000 per household, a level not seen since World War II, said Brian Reidl, a federal budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, taxes total $17,000 per household.

“Conservatives are so afraid of losing their majority status right now that they feel a need to . . . pass the other side’s legislation to prove how moderate they are,” Reidl said. “But they’re showing an astonishing willingness to spend now and dump all the cost in our children’s laps, and an amazing unwillingness to reconcile the size of government with the amount of taxes needed to fund it.”
The true cost of the Medicare bill, for instance, would not begin until 2007, but it would escalate rapidly from there. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated, the bill would cost $40.2 billion. By 2013, that price tag would be $65.2 billion. CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin has told members of Congress that the bill’s cost in its second 10 years could reach between $1.7 trillion and $2 trillion.

Likewise, analysts said, the cost of the energy bill is understated by unrealistic “sunsets” that would eliminate nearly half of the legislation’s 46 tax cuts well before the bill’s overall expiration date of 2013. If all those tax cuts were extended the full decade, the bill’s cost would roughly double, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rudman puts the long-term costs of these commitments in dire terms: inevitable currency devaluations, massive tax increases, collapsing retirement accounts.

“It is puzzling, unless you take the most cynical political view of ‘I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do, and whatever bad that’s going to happen is not going to happen on my watch,’ ” he said, trying to explain lawmakers’ motivations. “If that is what’s happening, we are facing the Titanic of fiscal crises in eight to 10 years.”

[Rebel]

mactastic,

Are you ready to revolt yet?

[g5man]

I was hoping you guys would beat me to this post.

Here is even more good economic news. This surprised even me. I thought the revised numbers would be lower than the original 7.2% growth.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&e=3&u=/ap/20031126/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

And the economy is just warming up. Any candidate who is running on the economy as an issue will find it impossible to blame Bush's tax cuts as the reason that the unemployment rate remains high.

I guess those who got the mufflers after the first tax break instead of the Lexus are benefiting after all.

No need to debate income growth or quality of jobs, for as long as the general population is satisfied the sitting president will do just fine.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
No need to debate income growth or quality of jobs, for as long as the general population is satisfied the sitting president will do just fine.

Well, shoot, I sure wouldn't want to be caught debating the undebatable...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

And the economy is just warming up. Any candidate who is running on the economy as an issue will find it impossible to blame Bush's tax cuts as the reason that the unemployment rate remains high.


the Economist had an article last week about the effect of the 90s widespread technology investment.

it went something like this: the 90s boom was largely an investement in technology. it took a few years for the benefits of that technology investment to have an effect on the companies that bought. we're just now seeing those positive effects, through streamlined operations and increased automation.

if this is, in fact, true, not only does it help explain why the economy does seem to be heating up, but also why it's -- so far -- a jobless recovery.

in other news, i had a meeting w/ my CFP (cert. financial planner) yesterday to go over my investments. i hadn't realized how well my investments have done this year (though that enthusiasm must be measured against the losses over the last 3). it's nice to see most everything in my portfolio trending upwards.

[g5man]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well, shoot, I sure wouldn't want to be caught debating the undebatable...

The reason I made that statement is to counter what I have seen and continue to see here.

As soon as the tax cuts were past many stated it would not help. Now that they are helping many state where are the jobs. When the jobs come many will say, yah, but there are not high paying jobs.

Attention is always taken away from the simple fact that tax cuts for the rich and poor will lead to everyone getting rich. Tax cuts are helping the economy. Many here say it is short term and I say it will last 10 years.

Personal debt and income growth can be assisted by the overall economy, but the bottom line is these two factors are much more influenced by personal decisions. If your income drops because you have to change jobs, then one must starting looking at more education, relocation, or more traning to get a higher paying job.
If you are full of debt, it likely because you are living beyond your means and trying to keep up with the Jones.

People who made wheels for carriages were left without work when cars were invented. You get the gist of the argument.

If you are full of debt, it likely because you are living beyond your means and trying to keep up with the Jones. As more and more people own their own homes they are easily tempted to get money out to buy more toys. Those people are the ones who have the most debt.

Zimv20,

Good post. I have read about that same issue in the past.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
tax cuts for the rich and poor will lead to everyone getting rich. Tax cuts are helping the economy. Many here say it is short term and I say it will last 10 years.

Is that how long we'll post record defecits too?

You're still using one factor (GDP growth), using it to say the entire economy is improving and ascribing it to upper-class tax cuts.

That's a lot of jumping to a lot of conclusions.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Is that how long we'll post record defecits too?

You're still using one factor (GDP growth), using it to say the entire economy is improving and ascribing it to upper-class tax cuts.

That's a lot of jumping to a lot of conclusions.

The defecits are record in amount but not as compared to percentage of overall economy. Defecits will continue as long as the Congress and the Adminstrations now and in the future spend more than they take in. If the GDP grew at a constant 4% or more growth rate a year the deficit will dissapear in 10 years. That won't happen because in those ten years spending will continue to increase. During the Clinton years we only had 2 actual years of surpluses the rest were projected. We know it can be done, but in those years the government we taking in record amount of taxes as the economy grew at a good rate of 4.3% a year and a GOP led congress kept Clinton's budget in check.

The GDP is the main indicator used to determine if the economy is growing. Every other indicator follows it, unemployment, gov. deficits, and so on. Please note during the great boom of the 90's the housing market was in the toilet. So there are other factors that don't necessarly follow good strong GDP growth.

And no these are not my assumptions. I am not an economist, but just a simple observer. I am repeating what I hear and read and combine it with my small knowldge of macro economics. I know some ask for links and proof, but I don't have the time to document everything I read and hear in order to make my case here.

I keep mentioning tax cuts for the rich because that is how the Democrats described them. I don't think they were but I will go along with their description just to make the point that the Bush tax cut still jumped started this economy the way Reagan did in 1982.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
The reason I made that statement is to counter what I have seen and continue to see here.
You mean it was a joke? In that case, "har, har."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never argued that the tax cuts would not "help." Pouring a whole lot of cash into the system is the classic Keynsian method of jump-starting a torpid economy (it used to be only liberal Democrats who ascribed to this method, but we can save that particular irony for another day). The question is whether the tax cuts were fair, and whether the long-term impacts will be positive or negative. An irony we don't have to save for another day is Republicans only seeming to care about fiscal responsibility when the money is being spent on the Democrat's watch. I'm hardly the only one asking this question. Even Warren Rudman is publicly questioning the wisdom of running up the largest federal deficits in history.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by g5man (ovi/sanfillipe)
The defecits are record in amount but not as compared to percentage of overall economy. Defecits will continue as long as the Congress and the Adminstrations now and in the future spend more than they take in. If the GDP grew at a constant 4% or more growth rate a year the deficit will dissapear in 10 years. That won't happen because in those ten years spending will continue to increase. During the Clinton years we only had 2 actual years of surpluses the rest were projected. We know it can be done, but in those years the government we taking in record amount of taxes as the economy grew at a good rate of 4.3% a year and a GOP led congress kept Clinton's budget in check.

Ovi, deficits add up. If it was just this year maybe you would have a point. Now the GOP led congress is passing amazingly huge pork & corporate giveaway spending plans. And passing benefit packages that will kick in later so they can take the credit without having to pay the bills.

If the congress is still GOP led and the only difference is the party of the president then that makes a good case for the democratic president as being responsible for budget surpluses.

[g5man]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly


I can't speak for anyone else, but I never argued that the tax cuts would not "help." Pouring a whole lot of cash into the system is the classic Keynsian method of jump-starting a torpid economy (it used to be only liberal Democrats who ascribed to this method, but we can save that particular irony for another day).


First of all the Keynsian theory does not apply in regards to the tax cut. If taxes were increased and the gov suddenly spent the money on more governmental programs than that would be consider Keynsian in practice. Gov. this time choose not to take as much money in but continue to spend at the same rate. Hence we have deficits. People kept more of their hard earned money and as a result the economy grew as they put it into circulation.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The question is whether the tax cuts were fair, and whether the long-term impacts will be positive or negative.

The first question has been answered. More people are voting republican possibly because they do see the tax cuts as fair. If they were not fair they should simply vote those who support them out of office. That is not happening but rather the opposite.

Long-term impact has been proven in the 80's with the tax cut by Reagan. Fifteen years later we had a surplus as the economy continued to expand with an occasional recession (91,92).


Originally posted by IJ Reilly An irony we don't have to save for another day is Republicans only seeming to care about fiscal responsibility when the money is being spent on the Democrat's watch. I'm hardly the only one asking this question. Even Warren Rudman is publicly questioning the wisdom of running up the largest federal deficits in history. [/B]

Yes there is irony here, but we must remember that politics comes first. Bush must win re-election therefore he does have to come to the center and spend more than he has. If he were to start cutting he would then be accused of starving children and poor people while throwing the mentally ill out in the streets (oh the good old Reagan years). We have seen it before and it appears the GOP has learned from its mistakes.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Gov. this time choose not to take as much money in but continue to spend at the same rate.

spending has gone way up under bush.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
Yes there is irony here, but we must remember that politics comes first.

"We," as in you and who else?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
spending has gone way up under bush.

I was just thinking about this:

When Clinton was in office with the Republican Congress choking down on him, there were problems, but things seemed to work okay overall. Spending was held down, deficits became surpluses, the economy bubbled and nothing really rude happened.

When Reagan was in office with the Democratic Congress choking down on him, there were problems, but things seemed to work okay overall. Deficits were up, the economy stagnated, but nothing really rude happened.

With Bush II in office with a Republican Congress, spending is soaring, deficits are at record highs, the economy is still crap and really rude stuff is going down (stem cells anyone?). I'm just waiting for the day Bush proudly signs a no-flag-burning bill.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I was just thinking about this:


.......... the economy is still crap ........

pseudobrit,

you either choose not hear good news or you simply don't believe it.

US manufacturers hit 20-year record pace

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1519&ncid=749&e=6&u=/afp/20031201/bs_afp/us_economy_ism

Stocks Soar on Optimism Over Economy

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=7&u=/nm/bs_nm/markets_stocks_dc



Christmas sales are expected to increase by 5% this year.

[zimv20]

the combination of tax cuts and rampant gov't spending _better_ improve the economy.

the question is: at what cost? c.f. link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49563)

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by g5man/ovi/sanfelipe
you either choose not hear good news or you simply don't believe it.

US manufacturers hit 20-year record pace

Christmas sales are expected to increase by 5% this year.

when the economy tanks any relative upswing seems wonderful...but is it a true change or just an isolated bounce? are the numbers even real or is it the result of creative accounting ala tyco/enron/worldcom/kmart...and all the others unknown to us at this time. is it partially a result of illegal gains thru after hours stock manipulation? maybe a one-time surge from the tax refund?

i'm sorry ovi but i don't share your unbridled enthusiam..and it's not because i embrace an equal pessimism...one quarter ( or two) do not tell a complete economic picture and any rational economist will tell you so.

i'd be a little careful about waving another mission accomplished flag.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
the combination of tax cuts and rampant gov't spending _better_ improve the economy.

the question is: at what cost? c.f. link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49563)

The gov't is only spending what it normally does every year. With the exception of increased military spending due to the war on terror.

The cost will be felt by the democratic party who will not control the WH, Congress, and State gov. for at least half a decade.

The economy is growing because people are spending money and the rich are investing it.

I did read that article and found it rather funny. Every Democratic candidate is proposing spending plans that dwarf Bush's Budgets.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
The gov't is only spending what it normally does every year. With the exception of increased military spending due to the war on terror.


I beg to differ with you.
GOP Spending Bills Grow (http://msnbc.com/news/997307.asp?0cl=c3)
As Congress rushes to conclude its 2003 session, Republican leaders are trying to garner votes for controversial legislation by loading the bills with billions of dollars in added costs that analysts said would expand the budget deficit for years to come. The year-end binge has alarmed analysts in Washington and on Wall Street, coming as it does after three years of presidential and congressional initiatives that have both substantially boosted government spending and shrunk its tax base.
Emphasis mine.
n the final days of the congressional session, GOP leaders added billions of dollars to energy and Medicare bills to help persuade key factions to support the legislation. Overall, the energy bill would cost $33 billion and the Medicare bill $400 billion.

Less noticed were congressional moves to expand veterans’ benefits by $22 billion and increase spending on forest-thinning projects from $420 million a year to $760 million to ensure passage of forest legislation promoted by the White House. Lawmakers are also trying to extend 14 expiring tax cuts through 2004, at a cost to the Treasury of more than $7 billion.

All those actions come in the face of a federal budget deficit already projected to rise from a record $374 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 to close to or above $500 billion in the current fiscal year.
Goldman Sachs economists concluded last week that tax cuts and surging spending will push the deficit this year to half a trillion dollars, and “any thoughts of relief thereafter are a pipe dream until political priorities adjust.”

Even conservatives who support tax cuts have begun to note the imbalance. Government spending now totals $20,000 per household, a level not seen since World War II, said Brian Reidl, a federal budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, taxes total $17,000 per household.
And this is the budget guy from the Heritage Foundation!
The true cost of the Medicare bill, for instance, would not begin until 2007, but it would escalate rapidly from there. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated, the bill would cost $40.2 billion. By 2013, that price tag would be $65.2 billion. CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin has told members of Congress that the bill’s cost in its second 10 years could reach between $1.7 trillion and $2 trillion.
And this sums it up much better than I could:
Rudman puts the long-term costs of these commitments in dire terms: inevitable currency devaluations, massive tax increases, collapsing retirement accounts.

“It is puzzling, unless you take the most cynical political view of ‘I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do, and whatever bad that’s going to happen is not going to happen on my watch,’ ” he said, trying to explain lawmakers’ motivations. “If that is what’s happening, we are facing the Titanic of fiscal crises in eight to 10 years.”

[Rebel]

Originally posted by g5man
pseudobrit,

you either choose not hear good news or you simply don't believe it.

US manufacturers hit 20-year record pace

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1519&ncid=749&e=6&u=/afp/20031201/bs_afp/us_economy_ism

Stocks Soar on Optimism Over Economy

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=7&u=/nm/bs_nm/markets_stocks_dc



Christmas sales are expected to increase by 5% this year.

When millions of positions are eliminated where the average hourly wage is $25/hr, and replaced with an average hourly wage of $10/hr, you will see corporations blow-away all market expectations and show huge turn-around that would be categorized as “Stunning," "Blazing," "Blistering," and "Glowing."

Will these current forecasts help the millions of Americans who are out of work? Not unless they decide to work in India, Mexico, Malaysia, Pakistan, China, Chile, etc. Americans will continue to suffer for years before jobs start accumulating in our own country again. Even then, it will be at severely reduced incomes.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
I did read that article and found it rather funny.

Funny? Then you'd be laughing alone.

[Sayhey]

For decades Republicans cursed Keynesian economics because of the very concept of deficit spending was "morally" wrong. It, however, worked to "prime the pump" of the economy. Now Republicans follow Reagan's lead and do the same thing with tax cuts and increases in military spending, and we have yet to learn the lesson that it is in the sheer size of the deficits that we run that we will likely force a crises down the road. I'm glad the economy seems to be starting to recover (though I will be convinced of that when there are more jobs created that pay a decent wage); I am concerned about what this will mean in ten years time. I'd like to not leave a mess of such horrible proportions to my children just in order to get Bush elected next year.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I'd like to not leave a mess of such horrible proportions to my children just in order to get Bush elected next year.
Aw, come on, you know it's worth every penny.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
pseudobrit,

you either choose not hear good news or you simply don't believe it.

Well, sanfelipe, you nicely clipped out the part where I pointed out the soaring spending and record deficits.

I guess you chose not to hear that or simply don't believe it.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
For decades Republicans cursed Keynesian economics because of the very concept of deficit spending was "morally" wrong. It, however, worked to "prime the pump" of the economy. Now Republicans follow Reagan's lead and do the same thing with tax cuts and increases in military spending, and we have yet to learn the lesson that it is in the sheer size of the deficits that we run that we will likely force a crises down the road. I'm glad the economy seems to be starting to recover (though I will be convinced of that when there are more jobs created that pay a decent wage); I am concerned about what this will mean in ten years time. I'd like to not leave a mess of such horrible proportions to my children just in order to get Bush elected next year.

There is no evidence that the growth in the GDP is primarily caused by increased GOV spending. Consumer spending makes up 2/3 of GDP. The Keynesian theory does not apply here.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104927,00.html)

American employers hired far fewer workers than expected in November, the government said on Friday in a report that still showed the fourth straight month of job growth and a drop in the unemployment rate.

The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector in November edged up by 57,000, the_Labor Department (search)_said, from an upwardly revised climb of 137,000 the previous month.

The November gain was far lower than forecasts for a bumper increase of 150,000. Analysts had ratcheted up their forecasts after recent data showed the economic recovery gaining strength.
The department said_grocery store strikes (search), mainly affecting California, had added up to 20,000 jobs to October's gain and deducted up to 30,800 workers from November's number.

In an encouraging sign for the health of the labor market, the unemployment rate edged down to 5.9 percent, the lowest level since March, from 6.0 in October.

A large portion of the job gains came in the services sector while struggling factories cut jobs for the 40th month in a row.

Of note, the jobs that are being created are low paying service jobs that tend to be non-union, and without benefits. Companies are sending the jobs that did pay more overseas where they can pay less than they did here and not have to provide benefits.

We'll see if the "Mission Accomplished" banner was hung out a little too soon on the economy too. If jobs are not created at a rate of around 150,000 a month between now and election day consumer confidence may falter killing off any growth in the economy. Unless of course the American public is bribed once again with tax rebate checks. Notice that's when we have the best months, when we give money to the middle class spenders rather than the super-rich savers?

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104927,00.html)



Of note, the jobs that are being created are low paying service jobs that tend to be non-union, and without benefits. Companies are sending the jobs that did pay more overseas where they can pay less than they did here and not have to provide benefits.

Also please note that the unemployment rate went down to 5.9%.
The debate on the type of jobs created has been around for about 40 years. It is a circular argument since we all know that education and training can impact on the type of job one has. Most would now like free education to deal with this issue. But that is not the solution since in Europe despite free education it still has high unemployment rates.

Originally posted by mactastic
We'll see if the "Mission Accomplished" banner was hung out a little too soon on the economy too. If jobs are not created at a rate of around 150,000 a month between now and election day consumer confidence may falter killing off any growth in the economy. Unless of course the American public is bribed once again with tax rebate checks. Notice that's when we have the best months, when we give money to the middle class spenders rather than the super-rich savers?

Actually if you listen to any of Bush's speeches on the economy he always make a point that there is much work to be done in this area. I don't see the unemployment rate going down much further than 5.8 by end of next year. The American public will thank the president with the next round of tax refunds, since the accelerated tax cuts took affect in July of this year.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by g5man
Actually if you listen to any of Bush's speeches on the economy he always make a point that there is much work to be done in this area. I don't see the unemployment rate going down much further than 5.8 by end of next year. The American public will thank the president with the next round of tax refunds, since the accelerated tax cuts took affect in July of this year.

The most heralded breaks, including reduced rates and family-focused benefits, are overshadowed by slow phase-in periods, automatic expirations of some provisions, a top-heavy skew and, perhaps most threatening of all, an alternative minimum tax that could snag almost as many taxpayers as this bill rewards. The AMT is a tax system, separate from the regular income tax that strips taxpayers of almost all deductions. (In Klaassen v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1998-241, the court decided that the AMT could be applied to large families of modest income with no real tax preference items except personal exemptions. This case shows that, because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, unwary middle-class taxpayers, whom Congress never intended to be subject to this tax, are now getting caught in its web.)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

I don't see the unemployment rate going down much further than 5.8 by end of next year.


oh yeah -- NOW i'm hearing macfan! :-)


The American public will thank the president with the next round of tax refunds

in the same sort of way i thank my credit card company for raising my limit...

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
Also please note that the unemployment rate went down to 5.9%.
The debate on the type of jobs created has been around for about 40 years. It is a circular argument since we all know that education and training can impact on the type of job one has. Most would now like free education to deal with this issue. But that is not the solution since in Europe despite free education it still has high unemployment rates.



Actually if you listen to any of Bush's speeches on the economy he always make a point that there is much work to be done in this area. I don't see the unemployment rate going down much further than 5.8 by end of next year. The American public will thank the president with the next round of tax refunds, since the accelerated tax cuts took affect in July of this year.

I did note the drop in unemployment. Approx. 57,000 non-farm jobs were created last month. That falls far short of the estimates the administration was predicting. It is encouraging that there is job growth instead of loss. However, unless the jobs are in areas that pay well and provide benefits as well as the possibility of "moving up" over time workers will not have the same amount of money to spend as they did before all the high-tech and manufacturing jobs went overseas. The consumer carried this country's economy for nearly 3 years, so lets reward them with tax cuts instead of Dick Cheney and people of his income level.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rebel
The AMT is a tax system

i hate the AMT. one year it managed to wipe out $72k in deductions. i ended up paying more in fed income taxes that year than i made.

[g5man]

I agree.

This was created this way in order to get some necessary votes in congress. It is a well know fact that in Washington one does not get elected and re-elected by cutting down gov. programs and spending. The gov. still needs enough tax revenue funds to maintain the status quo. Bush should be praised by Democrats since spending under his term has increased significantly. Since he is being attacked for the large deficits, he may decide to start doing some serious cutting next year. I am not holding my breath.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Bush should be praised by Democrats since spending under his term has increased significantly.

is this what people think of the democratic party? that spending is a goal in and of itself?

[mactastic]

When we talk about spending under a Republican congress and WH the words "drunken sailor" keep coming to mind!

Remember, Clinton shrunk the federal government. Now who's your daddy?:p

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
oh yeah -- NOW i'm hearing macfan! :-)

You're getting the G5 trolls confused now...

g5man = Ovi Sanfelipe, bond003, etc.

G5ROCKS = macfan

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You're getting the G5 trolls confused now...

g5man = Ovi Sanfelipe, bond003, etc.

G5ROCKS = macfan

ow. brain hurts. too much going on. can we just skip to february please?

[mactastic]

Ailing Dollar Falls to Record Low. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3298543.stm)
The dollar has fallen to a record new low against the euro, before Tuesday's interest rates decision in the US.

In late afternoon Monday trading, one euro bought $1.2241, a new high, as the dollar continued to be hit by growing US deficits and low interest rates.

The dollar also stayed near an 11-year low against pound sterling, which buys $1.7251, and it fell to 107.1 yen.

The US Federal Reserve Board had been expected to keep interest rates low, but may now be persuaded otherwise.




Meltdown

Yet while a rise would help stabilise the dollar, recent worse than expected US job creation figures suggest the wider American economy would not enjoy a hike.

But Hedge fund economist Neil Mackinnon, said the dollar's fall could turn into meltdown, unless action was taken by the authorities.

The dollar's decline, which has been mirrored against the Thai, Taiwanese, Singaporean and South Korean currencies, has concerned many Asian governments, since it is hampering their competitiveness in export markets.

Japan, in particular, would like to see the yen fall, as exports are crucial to the country's slow economic revival.

Economists at BNP Paribas said they expect the dollar to "remain under pressure in the near-term."

Deficit

This year, the euro has climbed by more than 15% against the dollar as investors started to pay more attention to the US current account deficit - the balance between what the US buys in goods and services and what it sells.

At present, the shortfall is about 5% of gross domestic product and is set to expand.

The eurozone, by contrast, has a current-account surplus.

The deficit, and the threat of trade disputes and terrorist attack, have overshadowed signs that the world's largest economy is starting to motor.

The latest estimate of economic output, released last month, showed growth in the three months to September hit an annualised rate of 8.2% - the fastest rate for nearly two decades.

Unlikely

Analysts, however, said the disappointing labour figures on Friday meant the Federal Reserve was unlikely to change its stance on keeping rates low for fear of snuffing out any recovery.

And without the lure of higher returns, the US is unlikely to attract the influx of foreign money it needs to underpin its currency, they said.

While we all know that combining tax cuts with increased spending can't help but to improve the economy, at what cost will the reckless tax cutting and budget busting of this administration come?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ailing Dollar Falls to Record Low. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3298543.stm)


hm. maybe it's a clever scheme to make us buy american.

[Frohickey]

If quality is the same, a lower dollar would make US goods more attractive to other countries with higher currency valuations.

What this tells me is that quality exports would rise because of the weak dollar

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If quality is the same, a lower dollar would make US goods more attractive to other countries with higher currency valuations.

agreed. but i wonder if there's any sort of reverse "buy american" backlash in the world right now.

anyone hear anything?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ailing Dollar Falls to Record Low. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3298543.stm)


While we all know that combining tax cuts with increased spending can't help but to improve the economy, at what cost will the reckless tax cutting and budget busting of this administration come?


A BIG CRASH - Has anybody studied the fall of the Roman Empire? The same empire that 90% of our government is modeled after...

Believe it or not, History always repeats itself...

And I for one, do not want to be a citizen of the China Empire to come.

[g5man]

Good news is not often reported, so I have that fun responsibility
of brining it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105260,00.html

Mortgage delinquencies Fall to the Lowest Level in 3 years.

The economy is getting stronger.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by ovi/sanfelipe/g5man
Good news is not often reported, so I have that fun responsibility
of brining it.



another speculative article full of " shoulds", "coulds" "ifs" and "buts".

btw, those delinquencies were quite high 3 years ago...so you're basically saying they've fallen from really high to just quite high. it's too soon to tell if this is a reversing trend or just a minor adjustment. but don't let that slow down your over-enthusiastic flag waving.

and judging by your post, i think you might need a little more outside responsibility in your life.

[g5man]

I found this interesting.

We now have more employed people than we did in 2001 when Bush took over.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

Total employment was essentially unchanged at 136.0 million, seasonally
adjusted, in January. The employment-population ratio--the proportion of
the population age 16 and older with jobs--was 64.5 percent, unchanged from
December. The civilian labor force, 142.0 million, grew by 466,000 and the
labor force participation rate rose to 67.3 percent. (See table A-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Total employment increased to 138.6 million in November, and the employment-
population ratio rose to 62.4 percent. The civilian labor force and labor force
participation rate also increased, to 147.3 million and 66.3 percent, respec-
tively. (See table A-1.)

[g5man]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/031211/markets_stocks_26.html

The DOW closed above 10000 for the first time since May 2002.

The economy continues to pick up steam.

Was it the tax cuts I wonder?

Of course not, since those against the tax cut kept harping about how they would destroy this economy. Especially since only the rich were getting the cut and they would put it in the bank.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

Was it the tax cuts I wonder?

Of course not, since those against the tax cut kept harping about how they would destroy this economy.

sigh.

the tax cuts were designed to provide short-term stimulus. if that's what we're seeing, why would you confuse that w/ long-term effects?

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
sigh.

the tax cuts were designed to provide short-term stimulus. if that's what we're seeing, why would you confuse that w/ long-term effects?

I would agree with you, if the tax cuts were temporary. They will be made permanent this coming summer so their effect will be long term

So if I hear you correctly, you would be willing to give the tax cuts the credit if the economy continues to improve for what; 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

So if I hear you correctly, you would be willing to give the tax cuts the credit if the economy continues to improve for what; 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years?

i can accept that the tax cuts provided stimulus now.

if, in five years, the market is up, unemployment is low, the taxes remain cut, the budget is balanced, the national debt is being reduced, and there haven't been significant cuts in services, i'll declare bush a genius.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
i can accept that the tax cuts provided stimulus now.

if, in five years, the market is up, unemployment is low, the taxes remain cut, the budget is balanced, the national debt is being reduced, and there haven't been significant cuts in services, i'll declare bush a genius.

Fair enough. Just on a side note, gov. spending increased significantly in the last 20 years and yet we have heard of cuts in services.

Having said that, we could have cuts in budgets without cutting services. Welfare reform comes to mind. I think you would agree with that statement.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
i can accept that the tax cuts provided stimulus now.

if, in five years, the market is up, unemployment is low, the taxes remain cut, the budget is balanced, the national debt is being reduced, and there haven't been significant cuts in services, i'll declare bush a genius.

Why aim so high?

If he can simply make the tax cuts permanent while balancing the budget I'll ****.

It ain't gonna happen. They'll be rolled back or will naturally transfer to a state level (regressive) burden.

Otherwise we'll be packing on a trillion dollars in debt per year by the end of the next presidency.

[wwworry]

The same thing happened at the end of the Reagan era. Huge deficits and debt. It did not work/last then and it won't now.

If it keeps up maybe in another year we'll get back to the number of jobs we had 3 years ago and maybe the stock market will hit the 3-year-ago level.

[g5man]

Originally posted by wwworry
The same thing happened at the end of the Reagan era. Huge deficits and debt. It did not work/last then and it won't now.

If it keeps up maybe in another year we'll get back to the number of jobs we had 3 years ago and maybe the stock market will hit the 3-year-ago level.

Please note my post regarding jobs. The economy would not be growing so strongly if we had lost so many jobs and replaced them with low paying jobs. The the GDP growth was fueled by business spending as well.

I still think the market is too high today, and we all know that in the 90's it was a big bubble. So I don't see the market at the same level it was 3 years ago. If we get a 10% increase next year I will be satisfied.

The market went up because Wall Street knew how hot this economy was going to be in the 2nd half of this year. They are hoping for the same next year, but growth will be more reserved. Around 4%, so the market should not increase 20% like this year. If it does than it is another bubble in the making.

[g5man]

2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years, The Conference Board Reports in a Revised Forecast

NEW YORK, Dec. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Revising its year-end economic forecast sharply upward, The Conference Board today projected that real GDP growth will hit 5.7% next year, making 2004 the best year economically in the last 20 years.

The forecast, by Conference Board Chief Economist Gail Fosler, expects worker productivity, which set a 20-year record in the third quarter, to rise at a healthy 3.6% next year. That would follow a gain of 4.3% this year.

The economic forecast is prepared for more than 2,500 corporate members of The Conference Board's global business network, based in 66 nations.

KEY BAROMETERS FLASHING GROWTH

"Growing business spending and continued strength in consumer spending are generating growth throughout the U.S. economy," says Fosler. "This burgeoning strength is reflected in The Conference Board's widely-watched Leading Economic Indicators, the Consumer Confidence Index and the Help-Wanted Advertising Index. While the labor market, a critical factor in sustaining growth, is growing slowly, a pick-up in hiring may already have begun."

Real consumer spending, which continues to fuel growth, will increase at a 4.7% pace next year, up from about 3.2% this year. Another gain of 4.3% is projected for 2005.

While the U.S. economy is expected to generate more than one million new jobs next year, the unemployment rate will edge down only slightly, averaging 5.6% in 2004.

The Conference Board forecast notes that as the U.S. economy bounces back, so is Europe, although growth will be subdued compared to most other major parts of the world. "For all the concern about a weak dollar," says Fosler, "the dollar will be worth more than the euro by the end of the year."

Real capital spending, which will rise by only 2.7% this year, will climb 11.7% next year and another 8.6% in 2005. Pre-tax corporate operating profits will top $1 trillion next year, up from a projected $928 billion this year. Another trillion-dollar-plus gain in profits is expected in 2005.

The continued recovery in business profits, which was a key ingredient in funding new investment (crucial in making 2004 a strong growth year), depends on price relief. Business profits will benefit from both improved volume and recovering profit margins in 2004, as inflation creeps back toward 3% by the end of the year.


As I posted earlier I am not that optomistic, but that may be because I spend too much time here.
:D :D

[wwworry]

I wonder what would have happened to the economy if Bush had just shoveled $350 billion ($600 billion if you go from surplus to deficit) from moving trucks. You can buy a lot of growth for $600 billion.

[SPG]

There seems to be a big difference in how things look depending on your perspective. A hundred thousand new jobs sounds great, but not if they're replacing two hundred thousand higher paying full time careers with part time temp positions.
A 9% gain in productivity? Wow! but wait, what does that really mean? Bosses squeezed 9% more work out of their workers without paying for it? (I know that's how it works here at my job) or did they replace the five guys on the widget line with a new automated Widget-o-matic?
The reality is that we're still 2.5 million jobs shy of where we were and replacing the high tech jobs with restaurant jobs isn't a great long term solution.

Originally posted by g5man
WASHINGTON — Taxpayers' refund checks will increase nearly 27% to an average $2,500 per family early next year, according to new forecasts from
Since you love analogies... Bill Gates walks in to a homeless shelter, the average net worth of the 9 penniless guys jumps to $600,000,000. Same thing with the tax cuts, one guy at the top gets $250,000 and 99 at the bottom get nothing so voila! Average = $2500

Originally posted by Frohickey
If the feds do not touch the H1B visa cap of 65,000, or if they scale that back even further, to zero, it would help greatly.
Anecdotal, but bare with me... Our company's translator had her H1B visa denied and went back to Japan. What could we do? We couldn't find a native Japanese translator that could do the level of work we needed so we re-hired her through our Tokyo office and had to pay her 15% more to work there (cost of living is higher). So, entire salary gets spent on rent, food, etc in Tokyo not Seattle. Net loss to US economy of $40,000/year/H1B visa. But it makes people like Frohickey feel better knowing that jobs ain't going to dang fereners!

[SPG]

Originally posted by g5man
Look all that I am saying is that good economic news keeps coming in and the tax cuts are helping. There is no fuzzy math.

Many may not like to hear good news(especially if it is a result of conservative policies), but no matter how much one wants to concentrate on the past it is the present and the future that counts.

Whether it's tax cuts or not is debatable, whether the good news is truly representative of the bigger economic picture is also debatable. There is some good news out there, there always is no matter how bad things get, and I hope for even more good news but I'm not yet convinced that we're rolling into a great economic expansion, especially with the reckless ways this administration has been ballooning the deficit to unheard of levels while choking it's sources of income. That doesn't look so good for long term good news now does it?

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How are you going to get labor to be cheaper when every other word from politicos is that they need to raise the minimum wage, or that businesses need to offer a 'living wage'?
I think business and consumers alike are looking in the wrong direction here. If wages keep falling, who's going to have any money to spend? Trim the cost of everything down to the bone a la Wal Mart and yes, you can buy a little more for a while until your company can't compete with Chinese labor at less than 1% of your salary and you're out of work.
Greed is going to ruin us all.

Originally posted by g5man
Good news is not often reported, so I have that fun responsibility
of brining it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105260,00.html

Mortgage delinquencies Fall to the Lowest Level in 3 years.

The economy is getting stronger.
Wouldn't have anything to do with the rule changes that make it much harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy, would it? Not to mention that coming down from an absolutely attrocious peak in 2000 as the tech sector fell flat isn't much of an achievement.

[mactastic]

If you can't stimulate the economy with massive tax cuts combined with massive spending increases then the economy is dead. Stick a fork in it. The real trick is to show some discipline and do it with one or the other, or a modest combination of the two. Dubya's tax cuts combined with his and the Republican congress's appetite for spending while cutting taxes (who ever disapproved of a tax cut or a beneficial spending program?) will cost us, or our children down the line.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Please note my post regarding jobs. The economy would not be growing so strongly if we had lost so many jobs and replaced them with low paying jobs.

I presume you have data to back that up.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by mactastic
If you can't stimulate the economy with massive tax cuts combined with massive spending increases then the economy is dead. Stick a fork in it. The real trick is to show some discipline and do it with one or the other, or a modest combination of the two. Dubya's tax cuts combined with his and the Republican congress's appetite for spending while cutting taxes (who ever disapproved of a tax cut or a beneficial spending program?) will cost us, or our children down the line.

As someone pointed out here a little while ago, the Fed's out of interest rate bullets.

I think Bush has also emptied the clip of every economic gun we have left.

[Frohickey]

Well, NAFTA sure did a number of the manufacturing jobs that the USA had. Previously, you could make a decent living being a machinist, which is a high skill job. Not anymore.

G5s are being made in China, not in the US.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Well, NAFTA sure did a number of the manufacturing jobs that the USA had. Previously, you could make a decent living being a machinist, which is a high skill job. Not anymore.

G5s are being made in China, not in the US.

But isn't free trade a core conservative principle?

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I presume you have data to back that up.

Please read my jobs post in this thread. The data regarding the unemployment rate is not the best indicator of how many people are actually employed. Start up small businesses do not count, nor self-employed individuals, or those who work part-time. So you can have millions working part-time with side self-employed jobs. This happened in the Clinton years as well.

Never the less there is plenty of data indicating that the economy is on the rebound in a very strong way. Many can argue who is responsible or why it is taking place, but since this is mostly a political forum, we all know who will get credit.

[g5man]

Originally posted by g5man
I found this interesting.

We now have more employed people than we did in 2001 when Bush took over.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

Total employment was essentially unchanged at 136.0 million, seasonally
adjusted, in January. The employment-population ratio--the proportion of
the population age 16 and older with jobs--was 64.5 percent, unchanged from
December. The civilian labor force, 142.0 million, grew by 466,000 and the
labor force participation rate rose to 67.3 percent. (See table A-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Total employment increased to 138.6 million in November, and the employment-
population ratio rose to 62.4 percent. The civilian labor force and labor force
participation rate also increased, to 147.3 million and 66.3 percent, respec-
tively. (See table A-1.)

Here this will do the trick

[mactastic]

IBM To Move 4700 Jobs Overseas (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/12/15/ibm.offshoring.ap/index.html)

IBM Corp. plans to move up to several thousand skilled software jobs from the United States to India, China and other countries, which could amount to one of the biggest such actions yet in the technology industry.
While companies long ago began moving manufacturing jobs and other blue-collar work to Asia, big business is now increasingly shifting skilled work there as well. According to International Data Corp., foreign workers performed about 5 percent of information technology services for American companies this year, but by 2007, that share will grow to 23 percent.
IBM shares were up 76 cents at $93.47 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Rower_CPU]

http://www.news4jax.com/money/2701985/detail.html

The preliminary University of Michigan consumer sentiment index for December reportedly came in sharply below November's final result.

Dow Jones Newswires report mid-December's 89.6 was down from the 93.7 registered at the end of November.

Expectations dipped one full point to 87.1, but the current conditions index fell to 93.6 from 102.5 last month.

The weakness is all the more surprising because the index is heavily influenced by financial conditions and many had thought the rebound in stock prices would boost the index.

[g5man]

Were the last two posts trying to show that he economy is about to go down?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Were the last two posts trying to show that he economy is about to go down?

Were your last six pages trying to show the economy is about to really improve?

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Were your last six pages trying to show the economy is about to really improve?

No not the last six pages but the news articles posted in some of them. If you would take the time to read them you might come across some very conclusive data showing a positive economic trend for the last 8 months. You can hang on to the notion that the economy is crap for as long as you can, but some day you will have to admitt that g5man and the rest of the US population is right regarding the economy.

[mactastic]

No the economy is not going down as a whole, but my post is part (if you bother to read my posts at all) of an attempt to make sure we recognize that as the economy improves in certain sectors, it is not as healthy in others. Manufacturing continues to lose jobs, as does the tech industry. Many of the new jobs created are in the service sector, which if you have ever worked in it you'll know is not the highest paid, most rewarding type of job you could ever have. So while our economy improves because corporations are able to cut costs to make Wall Street happy, Americans are losing their $20/hour jobs with benefits and getting $9.50/hour jobs with Walmart. No benefits to speak of, and no union to complain to. The Dow Jones average is not the be-all and end-all of the economy. Jobs are being created instead of lost finally, but they are not being created at a rate sufficient for Bush to evade the title of "Most Jobs Lost Since Herbert Hoover". When we see 300,000 to 400,000 jobs created each month for the better part of a year, then we will have turned a corner. When we can stop hemmoraging our good jobs overseas we will have turned a corner. When our government gains some fiscal sense we will have turned another corner. Tax cuts combined with massive government spending increases will come back to bite the GOP in the ass. Oddly enough, democrats can now claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility that the GOP has clung to for so long. The GOP may have medicare reform, but the Dems have a history of a balanced budget....

[IJ Reilly]

Ironic, isn't it?

For a long while, American voters seemed to accept and even consciously vote for the divided government. With no one party in complete control, the Republican and Democrat's mutual greed and avarice would tend to cancel each other out. So now we're paying the price, literally, for one-party rule. The chickens haven't come home to roost, and probably won't in time for the 2004 election -- but roost they will. When the economy gets off the pavement, interest rates must surely rise, even as they've begun to do even in the face of an ultra loose credit policy from the Fed. People will begin to notice that something is awry when they can't afford that mortgage anymore. Then, huge federal deficits will start to have real meaning to their lives, and they will probably begin voting accordingly.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by g5man
No not the last six pages but the news articles posted in some of them. If you would take the time to read them you might come across some very conclusive data showing a positive economic trend for the last 8 months. You can hang on to the notion that the economy is crap for as long as you can, but some day you will have to admitt that g5man and the rest of the US population is right regarding the economy.

Please.

If you pick and choose what info to post it's very easy to paint an inaccurate picture of what is going on with the economy. The information that mactastic and I posted shows this.

Overall, it appears that the economy is doing better than it was a year ago. But, that still fails to take into account the economy's net position relative to where it was 4 years ago, the mounting federal and state debts and other indicators of an unhealthy economy.

It is impossible, unless you've polled them all, to say that "the rest of the US population" agrees with you about the unabashedly rosy condition of the economy. Give it a rest.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Please.

If you pick and choose what info to post it's very easy to paint an inaccurate picture of what is going on with the economy. The information that mactastic and I posted shows this.

Overall, it appears that the economy is doing better than it was a year ago. But, that still fails to take into account the economy's net position relative to where it was 4 years ago, the mounting federal and state debts and other indicators of an unhealthy economy.

It is impossible, unless you've polled them all, to say that "the rest of the US population" agrees with you about the unabashedly rosy condition of the economy. Give it a rest.

When you take $40/hr job positions and move them to other countries for $5-15/hr, it will give any economy a boost and show how great companies are starting to turn things around. The average American with any intelligence is not buying this "rosy" outlook.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Please.

If you pick and choose what info to post it's very easy to paint an inaccurate picture of what is going on with the economy. The information that mactastic and I posted shows this.

No you are guilty of picking and choosing info. An article on IBM jobs and the data for one month of consumer confidence dose not paint an accurate picture of the overall economy. My data showed a trend in every sector towards the positive side for the last 8 months. In many areas we are at 40 year highs. Most people look at two figures when determining how healthy the economy is. The GDP and the Unemployment rate. Both of those figures have improved. The GDP went from negative growth in 2001 to positve 8.2. The unmeployment rate went from a high of 6.4 to 5.8. The stock market went from a low of under 7000 to over 10,000.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Overall, it appears that the economy is doing better than it was a year ago. But, that still fails to take into account the economy's net position relative to where it was 4 years ago, the mounting federal and state debts and other indicators of an unhealthy economy.

I have shown that net position is not that far. Jobs have been created and we have a positive growth trend. Deficits are created by gov. some for good reasons some for not. California come to mind.

The market, the gdp, are all much stronger as a result of the tax cuts. The projected deficit for this year was revised due to increased economic acitivity. This trend will continue so the unhealthy part of the economy are being delt with as GDP increases and the capital gains from the increase in the stock market increase.

We will never reach an ideal in each area but post after post have shown that we are making progress.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It is impossible, unless you've polled them all, to say that "the rest of the US population" agrees with you about the unabashedly rosy condition of the economy. Give it a rest.

I have seen polls that show a more positive outlook by most which is different than your own. The attached pdf as a poll from LA Times which is a month old.

Please don't tell me to give it a rest just because you do not agree with my opinions and assements.

[mactastic]

Is it time for more tax cuts?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Rebel
When you take $40/hr job positions and move them to other countries for $5-15/hr, it will give any economy a boost and show how great companies are starting to turn things around. The average American with any intelligence is not buying this "rosy" outlook.

rebel,

why don't you take it a step further and blame techonolgy for a loss of jobs. The internet is also a big factor in the loss of some jobs. This is all part of industrial progress and global economies.

So how do you propose stopping the bleeding? Get gov. to tell the business who they need to hire and fire? This is a complex issue that is not resolved by any one policy or adminstartion but rather evolution of free capitalism.

The economy would be decreasing if all the workers are getting paid less since they would also be spending less.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by g5man
No you are guilty of picking and choosing info. An article on IBM jobs and the data for one month of consumer confidence dose not paint an accurate picture of the overall economy. My data showed a trend in every sector towards the positive side for the last 8 months. In many areas we are at 40 year highs. Most people look at two figures when determining how healthy the economy is. The GDP and the Unemployment rate. Both of those figures have improved. The GDP went from negative growth in 2001 to positve 8.2. The unmeployment rate went from a high of 6.4 to 5.8. The stock market went from a low of under 7000 to over 10,000.

I have shown that net position is not that far. Jobs have been created and we have a positive growth trend. Deficits are created by gov. some for good reasons some for not. California come to mind.

Yes, tax cuts and increased spending are great ways to to create deficits. The Governator is doing pretty good so far at

The market, the gdp, are all much stronger as a result of the tax cuts. The projected deficit for this year was revised due to increased economic acitivity. This trend will continue so the unhealthy part of the economy are being delt with as GDP increases and the capital gains from the increase in the stock market increase.

We will never reach an ideal in each area but post after post have shown that we are making progress.

I have seen polls that show a more positive outlook by most which is different than your own. The attached pdf as a poll from LA Times which is a month old.

Please don't tell me to give it a rest just because you do not agree with my opinions and assements.

Your "data" hardly shows a "trend in every sector" if you ignore information that doesn't back up your point. My post on consumer confidence is important because it shows what the general public feel about the issue during the crucial holiday shopping season. Seems like most people are more reserved about the economy's condition than you.

I conceded that the economy is improving overall and yet you still rehash the same tired rhetoric.

Oh, and you forgot the PDF...

[Rebel]

Originally posted by g5man
rebel,

why don't you take it a step further and blame techonolgy for a loss of jobs. The internet is also a big factor in the loss of some jobs. This is all part of industrial progress and global economies.

So how do you propose stopping the bleeding? Get gov. to tell the business who they need to hire and fire? This is a complex issue that is not resolved by any one policy or adminstartion but rather evolution of free capitalism.

The economy would be decreasing if all the workers are getting paid less since they would also be spending less.

Technology is not the reason. The loss of technology jobs is.

And YES! - The Government should be regulating our businesses more closely in regards to international expansion. The only reason Bush backed off the Steal Tariffs was that the international market could destroy us financially. (See IMF article further below)

I personally am not interested in a global economy. This vision will destroy all singular nations and set-up earth's population for domination by the richest and most influential. Instead of Free Trade, we should be working towards Fair Trade ideals. We are at a very dangerous cross-road in our nations exsistance. Let us hope that rightious people start leading us down the correct path.

The International Monetary Fund said the dollar is at risk of falling more than investor’s expect as long as the United States is the main driver of global economic growth (I.e. sending jobs to other countries). The IMF said, “The dollars decline could be sharper than anticipated” because the US economy is expanding faster than that of other nations (Corporations making more profit). The gap in current accounting leaves the United States increasingly dependant upon foreign investors (the reason Bush backed off the steal tariffs). The dollar is holding near record lows against the Euro.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rebel
A BIG CRASH - Has anybody studied the fall of the Roman Empire? The same empire that 90% of our government is modeled after...

Believe it or not, History always repeats itself...

And I for one, do not want to be a citizen of the China Empire to come.

Actually, you got it wrong.

The quote is "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Santayana

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i can accept that the tax cuts provided stimulus now.

if, in five years, the market is up, unemployment is low, the taxes remain cut, the budget is balanced, the national debt is being reduced, and there haven't been significant cuts in services, i'll declare bush a genius.

Why does there have to be no significant cuts in services?

"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper,
1802.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
Anecdotal, but bare with me... Our company's translator had her H1B visa denied and went back to Japan. What could we do? We couldn't find a native Japanese translator that could do the level of work we needed so we re-hired her through our Tokyo office and had to pay her 15% more to work there (cost of living is higher). So, entire salary gets spent on rent, food, etc in Tokyo not Seattle. Net loss to US economy of $40,000/year/H1B visa. But it makes people like Frohickey feel better knowing that jobs ain't going to dang fereners!

Huh?

Why couldn't your japanese translator immigrate into the United States on a permanent basis, and not on a H1B visa?

Perfectly fine with having foreigners immigrate into the United States to stay.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
I think business and consumers alike are looking in the wrong direction here. If wages keep falling, who's going to have any money to spend? Trim the cost of everything down to the bone a la Wal Mart and yes, you can buy a little more for a while until your company can't compete with Chinese labor at less than 1% of your salary and you're out of work.
Greed is going to ruin us all.

That is not the point.

Point is that the parties responsible for negotiating salaries are supposed to be the two parties that are exchanging goods and services. That means, the employer, which is buying labor, and the employee, which is selling labor. When you have a 3rd party mandate that the price (wage) of a good (labor) is set at a minimum, you have a distortion in the market.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why does there have to be no significant cuts in services?

anyone can balance the budget by cutting services.

you may disagree, but i won't call it a win if SS, medicare/medicaid, OSHA, veterans' benefits, public trans, public housing, food inspections, FDA drug approval process, building inspections, head start, NTSB, SEC, FTC, FCC, FAA etc. etc. are eliminated.

[mactastic]

So a lawyer causes a distortion between plaintiff and defendant? Should we get rid of lawyers? How about sports agents? Oh and priests are just causing a distortion between you and God. Heck, by that logic Bush needs to go after Osama himself, the army is just distorting the problem. The police are just distorting the problem between neighbors who have a disagreement. Why do we have ambassadors? Human resource directors? Brokerage firms? Should we get rid of banks so that my money doesn't have to go through an intermediary when I buy or sell a home?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Your "data" hardly shows a "trend in every sector" if you ignore information that doesn't back up your point. My post on consumer confidence is important because it shows what the general public feel about the issue during the crucial holiday shopping season. Seems like most people are more reserved about the economy's condition than you.

I conceded that the economy is improving overall and yet you still rehash the same tired rhetoric.

Oh, and you forgot the PDF...

Here is some new data. Consumers feel more confident about the economy since June 2002.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031216.asp

60% believe the economy is improving.

[pseudobrit]

How's that deficit? Any good news on that?

[mactastic]

I hear it's growing nicely these days. Just wait 'till we hear the calls to make the tax cuts permanant. That'll double their cost. And don't forget the sunset provisions in the medicare bill that will likely be (and were designed to be) extended. It's not to hard to defecit-spend your way to an economic recovery, and all the better if the full effects aren't felt until the next administration is in office. Bush is gambling his legacy on the hope that the economy improves enough to bring sufficient revenue to fund his spending increases and tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by g5man
Here is some new data. Consumers feel more confident about the economy since June 2002.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031216.asp

60% believe the economy is improving.

So 60% is "the rest of the population"?

All that study does is prove my point that depending on the source, the stats given can paint very different pictures of the same situation.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
60% believe the economy is improving.

60% believe the Bush media puppets.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
So 60% is "the rest of the population"?

All that study does is prove my point that depending on the source, the stats given can paint very different pictures of the same situation.

You are very correct. Regardless of what is happening there will still be about 30% who will not accept the same facts. That is why we see about 30% voting for Dean.

Pseudo,

Are you saying we should only believe the media if they give us bad news?

mactistic,

The deficit did not produce economic growth. The only part of it that did that was about $50 billion that went to you and me and we turned around and spent it. The Gov. did not spend an additional $450 billion, but lacked the funds to keep up with most of already established increases in the budget. Some of the increased spending we already talked about.

If Bush gets a big jump in Senate seats next year and in 2006, we may not have to wait for the economy to increase in order to balance the budget.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
60% believe the Bush media puppets.

Are these the same Bush media puppets that said that Iraq is turning into a quagmire, and are keeping a running total of how many dead and injured GIs so far?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
mactistic,

The deficit did not produce economic growth. The only part of it that did that was about $50 billion that went to you and me and we turned around and spent it. The Gov. did not spend an additional $450 billion, but lacked the funds to keep up with most of already established increases in the budget. Some of the increased spending we already talked about.

If Bush gets a big jump in Senate seats next year and in 2006, we may not have to wait for the economy to increase in order to balance the budget.

So you're telling me the money spent on military goods hasn't helped the economy? 'Cause that sure wasn't part of the $50,000,000 you and I got.

If Bush gets a big jump in Senate seats next year I predict more spending and more tax cuts. Not more fiscal restraint. As more than one financial analyst has observed, the word "tomorrow" doesn't seem to be in this White House's vocabulary when it comes to fiscal restraint.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Are these the same Bush media puppets that said that Iraq is turning into a quagmire, and are keeping a running total of how many dead and injured GIs so far?

I haven't seen such things featured prominently in mainstream media. I know every time I walk past a TV with CNN, etc. playing it's usually showing or blurbing another Bush soundbite. Rape rooms are a cable favorite.

And what's wrong with running a news story every time a GI is killed? I don't see any editorialising in those AP articles.

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man

Pseudo,

Are you saying we should only believe the media if they give us bad news?
:confused:
I have no idea where you got that from.

we may not have to wait for the economy to increase in order to balance the budget.

Yeah, maybe a single-party GOP government will simply threaten other nations with invasion until they forgive our external debt.

Or maybe they'll just declare bankruptcy.

Or maybe they'll round up all the Democratic lib, er... communist anti-Americans and put them in slave labor camps to make us more competitive with China.

We can always dream, can't we?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So you're telling me the money spent on military goods hasn't helped the economy? 'Cause that sure wasn't part of the $50,000,000 you and I got.

If Bush gets a big jump in Senate seats next year I predict more spending and more tax cuts. Not more fiscal restraint. As more than one financial analyst has observed, the word "tomorrow" doesn't seem to be in this White House's vocabulary when it comes to fiscal restraint.

Depends if you get RINO republicans or conservative republicans.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Depends if you get RINO republicans or conservative republicans.

And what kind do you see coming in? Will they buck the current leadership and demand restraint? Hmmmm....

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
:confused:
Or maybe they'll round up all the Democratic lib, er... communist anti-Americans and put them in slave labor camps to make us more competitive with China.



Actually we need them to speak up louder and louder. We don't want to shut them up. For the more they speak up the stronger the GOP becomes.

I mean I down loaded a pdf from one of the websites one of you posted about what a terrible shape this economy is in. I am going to hang on to it and then attempt to post it here in about 6 months just to show how little economic sense those on the left make.

A year ago they were sure that the tax cuts would not help the economy. Today they are still repeating the same message despite being proven dead wrong.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
I mean I down loaded a pdf from one of the websites one of you posted about what a terrible shape this economy is in. I am going to hang on to it and then attempt to post it here in about 6 months just to show how little economic sense those on the left make.


Hey as long as you are presenting a "fair and balanced" report, you might want to pull some pdfs that say how many jobs the White House said it would create by now too.;)

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hey as long as you are presenting a "fair and balanced" report, you might want to pull some pdfs that say how many jobs the White House said it would create by now too.;)

The pdf that I have mentions that very clearly. It is very dangerous for politicians to predict actual numbers. I have not personally seen the article in which an Adminstration official is quoted as having made a specific prediction to the number of jobs that will be created as a result of the tax cut.

The pdf is from here.

http://www.misleader.org/special_reports/

[mactastic]

Well you might want to look this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020215-1.html) over.
The tax relief will have helped the private sector create 800,000 more jobs than there otherwise would have been by the end of 2002. _

Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

[g5man]

If you look at the whole statment it basically says that unemployment could have been worse if the tax cut did not kick in. I don't think it was made prior to the tax cuts promising more jobs unlike the more recent statement from Snow.

Snow made the recent statement in Oct. of this year and we will have to see if his numbers are coming true.

[pseudobrit]

Just keep those tax cuts rolling in. The next one will (always) be the one to increase jobs.

Meanwhile, keep spending out of control, the deficit as high as ever and the debt swelling.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Just keep those tax cuts rolling in. The next one will (always) be the one to increase jobs.

Meanwhile, keep spending out of control, the deficit as high as ever and the debt swelling.

I don't think there will be another tax cut but rather the present one will be made permanent.

I too do not like the out of control spending and I feel fairly confident that will change in the second term. I am that sure about that perdiction however.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
I don't think there will be another tax cut but rather the present one will be made permanent.

I too do not like the out of control spending and I feel fairly confident that will change in the second term. I am that sure about that perdiction however.

Considering that making it permanant will raise the costs over what the Bush administration has admitted so far, I would argue that we might as well be talking about a new tax cut.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by ovi/sanfelipe/g5man

I am going to hang on to it and then attempt to post it here in about 6 months just to show how little economic sense those on the left make.

in 6 months, huh?

what username will you be using then?




:rolleyes:

[vniow]

Originally posted by g5man
I am going to hang on to it and then attempt to post it here in about 6 months just to show how little economic sense those on the left make.

A year ago they were sure that the tax cuts would not help the economy. Today they are still repeating the same message despite being proven dead wrong.

Just like the Iraq conflict will last only two weeks? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=278184#post305069)

[pseudobrit]

11

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
If you look at the whole statment it basically says that unemployment could have been worse if the tax cut did not kick in. I don't think it was made prior to the tax cuts promising more jobs unlike the more recent statement from Snow.

Snow made the recent statement in Oct. of this year and we will have to see if his numbers are coming true.

You know g5man, there is a good reason Bush Sr. called this "voodoo economics." If you give huge tax breaks in the hope that people spend them in ways that stimulate the economy then you are betting on a very iffy proposition for little short term gain. It maybe this combined with huge government outlays, especially in defense spending, has helped prime the pump of the business cycle. We will pay for this expediency for generations. Hell of a way to manage an economic policy.

[g5man]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=19&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy


A batch of economic reports released Tuesday showed an economy that was finishing up 2003 in far better shape than the year began; consumer spending was solid, incomes were rising and people were showing increased confidence about job prospects.



"What an amazing end to the year," enthused Joel Naroff, head of a private economic consulting firm in Holland, Pa. "People have the income and they are spending it."

In data about the current quarter, the government reported that personal consumption spending rose by a strong 0.4 percent in November, the best showing since August, while Americans' incomes rose by 0.5 percent last month. That was the strongest gain since May.



The strength in incomes reflected recent gains in payroll employment as the economy finally began growing at a sufficient pace to halt a lengthy period of layoffs. The jobless rate, which peaked at 6.4 percent this summer, fell to 5.9 percent in November.

However, Bush's latest round of tax cuts triggered a surge in consumer spending this summer as the government mailed out millions of child tax rebate checks. Analysts look for a further boost to spending in the first half of next year as consumers get fatter refund checks, reflecting the cuts in individual income tax rates.

I think that should do it for now, no need to add any more commentary from me.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by g5man
I think that should do it for now, no need to add any more commentary from me.

we should be so fortunate...

:rolleyes:

[Rebel]

Originally posted by g5man
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=19&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy








I think that should do it for now, no need to add any more commentary from me.

It's a jobless market because all the jobs are overseas. How many American children will suffer this holiday season becasue their parents cannot find jobs and have lost just about everything they owned in life. American children living in poverty has risen sharply over the past few years.

I really do not give a damn about saving the world from hunger and disease (HIV). The only people I care about are the people that live in America. Let's take care of our own first, then help the world with what's left.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
I really do not give a damn about saving the world from hunger and disease (HIV). The only people I care about are the people that live in America. Let's take care of our own first, then help the world with what's left.

Yikes, the words of a true nativist. You're really scaring me now, my friend.

[zimv20]

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001823098_manufacturing25.html)


Thursday, December 25, 2003, 12:00 A.M.

Orders drop steeply as factory growth pauses

By Michael Oneal
Chicago Tribune

Couldn't they have waited until after Christmas?

Just when it seemed that the economy was pointed in the right direction, two reports emerged yesterday that cast a shadow over the recent spate of good news.

The Commerce Department reported that orders for durable goods fell 3.1 percent in November, signaling a pause in the budding recovery among U.S. factories.

The drop, coming after a summer of robust growth in orders, was the steepest in more than a year and surprised economists, who had been expecting a 0.8 percent increase.

In a separate report, Commerce said that sales of new homes fell 2.4 percent, the third monthly decline in a row. Economists attributed the slowdown to a gradual rise in interest rates over the past several months and spent-up demand after the nation's long binge of homebuying.

Few economists saw the reports as anything other than evidence of what they already knew: that the third-quarter's surprising 8.2 percent surge in economic output — juiced up by tax breaks and low interest rates — was unsustainable.


The bigger worry about the manufacturing sector is that it continues to shed jobs, albeit at a slower rate than over the past two years. Jobless claims dropped slightly for the week ended Dec. 20 and remain at a level indicating stability in the broader job market. But growth in jobs is sluggish and the manufacturing sector is still cutting.

[g5man]

With small children, a "huge mortgage" and a nanny to pay for, Armington echoes the sentiments of many Americans fighting to set aside some cash after all the bills are paid.

"I buy now and sort it out later. That's what credit cards are for," she said with a laugh.
The consumer culture has pushed America's personal saving rate to record lows in recent years and to among the lowest in the developed world, a situation seen by many economists as one of the most serious structural weaknesses in the economy.

"Clearly if you look at the_bankruptcy rate (search), the (payment) delinquency rates, there are some worrisome signs," said_Wells Fargo (search)_chief economist Sung Won Sohn.
The government revealed last week the dearth of savings is worse than first thought. Revised_Commerce Department (search)_data showed Americans saved just 2.3 cents from every dollar earned after taxes in 2002 -- not the 3.7 percent previously reported and less than a third of the 7.7 percent saved in 1992.
While the falling saving rate does not take into account wealth accumulated through rising property values or stock portfolios, it compounds the problem of the burgeoning budget deficit being chalked up by the government.
"I don't know of any other major economy with a savings rate as low as ours," said Sohn. "Take Japan, for example. The government runs huge budget deficits but the consumers save so much that not only can they take care of their own budget deficits, but they take care of quite a bit of ours as well."
America borrows $1.5 billion a day from foreign investors to cover its consumption and lack of savings, and the daily total could hit $2.5 billion by 2005, Sohn said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106649,00.html

Zimv20,

You forgot this story, and also you are posting in the wrong thread.:)

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by g5man
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106649,00.html

Zimv20,

You forgot this story, and also you are posting in the wrong thread.:)

foxnews... nice

[g5man]

WASHINGTON - For the U.S. economy, 2004 could turn out to be a banner year.
Forecasters believe things are falling into place to produce the strongest economic growth in two decades. Consumer spending will be bolstered by tax refund checks early in the year. Businesses are finally beginning to invest in new plants and equipment and rehiring some laid off workers, though improvements in the unemployment rate are expected to be modest.

"The economy is off and running, and 2004 should be a very good year," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.

That should be welcome news for President Bush (news - web sites) and other incumbents who face voters next year. Many analysts believe the overall economy, as measured by gross domestic product, will expand next year by 4.6 percent or more, the biggest gain since 1984, when another Republican president, Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), was running for office.

But analysts believe there will be much less improvement in unemployment as businesses concentrate on boosting productivity so they can expand output without hiring new workers.

For that reason, the current jobless rate of 5.9 percent — down from a high this summer of 6.4 percent — is expected to still be around 5.7 percent when America votes next November.

http://my.yahoo.com/p/d.html?v

Oh just bunch of more speculation. We know the economy will tank in 10 years as the deficit gets bigger.:rolleyes:

I like the part about the unemployment rate. I have predicting 5.8

[IJ Reilly]

The rate hits 9.7% when the underemployed and those who have quit looking are added.

By David Streitfeld, Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO — Lisa Gluskin has had a tough three years. She works almost as hard as she did during the dot-com boom, for about 20% of the income.

When Gluskin's writing and editing business cratered in 2001, she slashed her rates, began studying for a graduate degree and started teaching part time at a Lake Tahoe community college for a meager wage.

It's been a fragmented, hand-to-mouth life, one that she sees mirrored by friends and colleagues who are waiting tables or delivering packages. In the late '90s, the 35-year-old Gluskin says, "we had careers. We had trajectories. Now we have complicated lives. We're not unemployed, but we're underemployed."

The nation's official jobless rate is 5.9%, a relatively benign level by historical standards. But economists say that figure paints only a partial — and artificially rosy — picture of the labor market.

To begin with, there are the 8.7 million unemployed, defined as those without a job who are actively looking for work. But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers such as Gluskin who say they would rather be working full time — the highest number in a decade.

There are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month. Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything. Officially termed "discouraged," their number has surged 20% in a year.

Add these three groups together and the jobless total for the U.S. hits 9.7%, up from 9.4% a year ago.

[...]

A number of economists say it's a mistake to evaluate the job market solely by talking about the official unemployment rate. It's a blunt instrument for assessing a condition that is growing ever more vague.

"There's certainly an arbitrariness to the official rate," says Princeton University economics professor Alan Krueger. "It irks me that it's not put in proper perspective."

More... (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs29dec29,1,6261515.story)

[g5man]

Well I will refer you back to my post regarding the number employed in 2003 compared to 2001. The article fails to point out that unemployment figures are actually not all that accurate in counting all the those who are actually working. It is easy to focus on the negative.

But remember that the markets have shown the future. Employment will improve but those who don't want to work will continue to be unemployed. The DNC can continue to cater to those 5% or 10% while the GOP will cater to the 90%.

Stocks Close at Year Highs Over Optimism


Take it look at where we are today compared to 2 years ago. Once again I will repeated it. Good news is good for the GOP and bad new is good for the DNC and its supporters. This economy is hot and getting hotter. Wait until the GDP numbers come out next month.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
The article fails to point out that unemployment figures are actually not all that accurate in counting all the those who are actually working. It is easy to focus on the negative.


what is this 'employment rate' figure to which you're referring? the standard has always been unemployment rate. it's not the gross number of jobs that's interesting, it's the ratio of the number of jobs compared to the working population.

the population is always growing, so the gross number of jobs should always be growing. it's how they grow in relation to each other that's interesting and is what is supposed to be captured by the unemployment rate.

Employment will improve but those who don't want to work will continue to be unemployed.


it's easy to pretend it's the same 10 million people who just don't want to get jobs. but if you drill down to the actual individuals, i bet you'll find a lot of turnover.

you're overlooking the fact that there are millions of americans trying really hard to find jobs, but cannot. and a lot of them are indeed qualified.


Stocks Close at Year Highs Over Optimism


i think you're missing a link there


Take it look at where we are today compared to 2 years ago. Once again I will repeated it. Good news is good for the GOP and bad new is good for the DNC and its supporters. This economy is hot and getting hotter. Wait until the GDP numbers come out next month.

good economic news is good for americans. what's bad for america is bad and short-sighted economic news masquerading as good.

[g5man]

Zimv20,

I did not provide the link since it is all over the news.

The unemployment rate is not worth debating since I believe that there are plenty of jobs and you and your friends believe the opposite.

One big banner is the 22 million new jobs under Clinton. So I will focus on the new jobs. So far we have a net increase of about 2 million new jobs. (Please look at my post regarding jobs) You can mention increases in the population and I will respond that Sept 11 along with a recession, and improved productivity, and a war on terror, and yet we have had increased employment.

We have record home ownership, record low inflation and interest rates, the markets are going up, the GDP is highest in 20 years, and you can call those short sighted economic data. And by the way I don't give BUSH credit except for the tax cut that stimulated the economy. This is what people will remember on Nov. 2004.

And please stop talking about the budget since most Democratic candidates would increase the deficits with their ideas even more than Bush.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by g5man
And please stop talking about the budget since most Democratic candidates would increase the deficits with their ideas even more than Bush.

I won't say it's a lie but it is certainly unfounded. We have clear evidence that the democrats want to and can balance the budget and the clear fact the the republican controled congress and white house have no interest in balancing the budget. Discretionary spending is WAY up. Pork is WAY UP. Deficits are WAY up.

Has Bush ever vetoed a spending measure? No. Spend spend spend is all they do and pass on the debt for when they are out of office. Easy for them. Hard for everyone else.

g5man, prove you are not a tool and denounce these uncontroled deficits!

[g5man]

Originally posted by wwworry


g5man, prove you are not a tool and denounce these uncontroled deficits!

I denounce all the uncontrolled deficits. We could increase military spending and still balance the budget by cutting about 20% of the federal budget. I would get rid of a bunch of departments and agencies and cut the salaries of all federal employees including congressman and women.

But then I am also smart enough to know that Bush in order to get re-elected and ensure all those governors, and GOP office holders benefit from his two terms will have to give out pork and more pork so they can get re-elected as well. Such is politics and it has been so for well over 200 years in this country.

Back in 96 when the gov. was shut down over the budget battle, Clinton was forced to balance the budget and blame the GOP for the headache the process caused. This is why Clinton was a brilliant politician. I hope to see something similar in Bush's second term.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Zimv20,

I did not provide the link since it is all over the news.


that's fine. just didn't know if it was a choice or not.


The unemployment rate is not worth debating since I believe that there are plenty of jobs and you and your friends believe the opposite.


stellar debating technique. btw, you're pretty darn heartless, too.

filling jobs isn't as fluid as you imagine. it does an out-of-work CA s/w engineer little good to know the Chicago Transit Authority is hiring maintanence workers. or is that engineer just being lazy?


So far we have a net increase of about 2 million new jobs.


????? there's still a net 2.5 million job LOSS under bush.


We have record home ownership, record low inflation and interest rates, the markets are going up, the GDP is highest in 20 years, and you can call those short sighted economic data.


record home ownership happened under clinton. inflation has been low since the mid-90s. i'm not sure low interest rates is the sign of a healthy economy.

and i'm not saying THOSE are short-sighted, bad things. i'm talking about the record budget deficit, the projected shortfalls, the current and projected national debt. combine that w/ an inadequate SS fund that's going to get hit very hard over the next couple decades, and today's DOW and NASDAQ gains still don't give me a rosy for the next 20 years.


And please stop talking about the budget since most Democratic candidates would increase the deficits with their ideas even more than Bush.

you can't know that. all you know is that Dean is for balanced budgets and that bush has not only been unable to do it, but doesn't even seem willing to do more than (mistakenly) blame (the GOP-controlled) congress for spending.

it's amazing to me that the GOP, controlling all 3 branches of gov't, can STILL blame the democrats for overspending.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
it's amazing to me that the GOP, controlling all 3 branches of gov't, can STILL blame the democrats for overspending.

He's not though -- if you look closely, he's saying "yeah, sure it's bad under Bush, but he's a conservative Republican. Imagine how much worse it would be under those tax n' spend liberal Democrats!"

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
He's not though -- if you look closely, he's saying "yeah, sure it's bad under Bush, but he's a conservative Republican. Imagine how much worse it would be under those tax n' spend liberal Democrats!"

bush keeps blaming congress for overspending, which blows my mind since he keeps signing the spending bills, plus other bills which require spending.

the rest is meant for those who keep portraying the democrats as the overspenders, despite the fact clinton and the GOP-controlled congress kept balancing that budget and paying down the deficit.

[wwworry]

then when you look at the growth numbers you also have to look at
profits, which are way up
and
wages, which are hardly up

Why is it that corporate profits are high and hardly anything is passed on to the workers whose productivity is way up as well?

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
bush keeps blaming congress for overspending, which blows my mind since he keeps signing the spending bills, plus other bills which require spending.

the rest is meant for those who keep portraying the democrats as the overspenders, despite the fact clinton and the GOP-controlled congress kept balancing that budget and paying down the deficit.

What is even more frustrating is that Bush has high approval numbers and most of you will have a headache for another 6 years.

[wwworry]

so are you on the Bush payroll, or what?

[g5man]

Originally posted by wwworry
so are you on the Bush payroll, or what?

No, but I think I found out that some staff members of the DNC are hanging around at macrumors:D

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20





you can't know that. all you know is that Dean is for balanced budgets and that bush has not only been unable to do it, but doesn't even seem willing to do more than (mistakenly) blame (the GOP-controlled) congress for spending.



Dean has said he will raises taxes and cut spending

Actually I know from history what that means. Every democratic president (except kennedy and a few republicans) has raised taxes on everyone including old folks and has cut military spending. Even I could balance the budget that way.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
No, but I think I found out that some staff members of the DNC are hanging around at macrumors:D

Oh really? Who?

And the headache will be shared by you if large expanding deficits into the future is not your bag. Or your children.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
bush keeps blaming congress for overspending, which blows my mind since he keeps signing the spending bills, plus other bills which require spending.

the rest is meant for those who keep portraying the democrats as the overspenders, despite the fact clinton and the GOP-controlled congress kept balancing that budget and paying down the deficit.

This is an old trick with a new twist. Back in the '80s, the Democrats in congress were blamed for passing the Reagan budgets -- by Republicans, no less.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This is an old trick with a new twist. Back in the '80s, the Democrats in congress were blamed for passing the Reagan budgets -- by Republicans, no less.

At the time, if I recall correctly, ALL of Reagan's Budget proposals were for greater deficits than what was in the ones passed by Congress. Neat trick, indeed.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Even I could balance the budget that way.

Then why can't Bush?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
At the time, if I recall correctly, ALL of Reagan's Budget proposals were for greater deficits than what was in the ones passed by Congress. Neat trick, indeed.
This is what happens when people listen to the political spinmeisters instead of tracking what's really going down. I'm not saying the '80s deficits would have been any smaller with a Democrat in the White House, but it was kind of shocking at the time to see Ronald "government off our backs" Reagan submit one massively out of balance budget after another to Congress, and then place the blame on them for being free-spenders. Do we still live in that la-la land? Oh yes we do, with bells on.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Then why can't Bush?

Because Bush does not believe in raising taxes to grow the economy. He also does not want to cut SS benefits and Medicare or the salaries of Federal Union employees to keep everyone happy. Can you imagine how much screaming there would be if he cut Medicare. Oh wait he actually gave it $400 billion more and the left is still screaming.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Oh wait he actually gave it $400 billion more and the left is still screaming.

believing that bill is the solution is possible if one reads only headlines.

the sad thing is, rove and the GOP know that to be the case for the majority of americans. the bush administration is successful only in the context of an uninformed public.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20

the sad thing is, rove and the GOP know that to be the case for the majority of americans. the bush administration is successful only in the context of an uninformed public.

Zimv20,

I am going to let you in on a little secret. This excuse that the public is uninformed and stupid and that they are easily moved by anything that come out of the White House will cause more problems for the Democrats than they realize. It may make you feel better to think you are smarter and brighter than the rest of the public but you are so wrong. And it is not just you but I hear it all the time from the left. Everyone is just dumb. Dean talks that way all the time.

Talk to McKinney who opened her mouth to imply Bush Knew about Sept 11. She is no longer in office. People are much smarter than you are willing to give them credit. It is not enought to be patriotic and appeal to God and country. You have to show results and Bush is doing just that. If he had a D behind his name the public would still feel the same way.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
This excuse that the public is uninformed and stupid and that they are easily moved by anything that come out of the White House will cause more problems for the Democrats than they realize.


i'm imagining a lot of problems, so i'm not sure i'm under-realizing the problems.


It may make you feel better to think you are smarter and brighter than the rest of the public but you are so wrong.


hm. standardized testing demonstrates otherwise. but anyway...


And it is not just you but I hear it all the time from the left. Everyone is just dumb.


my evidence is public opinion about bush. maybe some people are willing to forgive the damage he's done to the country, while others are blissfully ignorant that it's been done. and there's probably others who feel that, so long as their pockets are being lined (or think they are), bush may do as he please.

i want accountability. there -- we can separate intelligence from wanting accountability.

while i may believe desire for accountability comes from a sense of fairness and intelligence, perhaps we can both agree that bush hasn't had to be very accountable during his administration.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
Because Bush does not believe in raising taxes to grow the economy. He also does not want to cut SS benefits and Medicare or the salaries of Federal Union employees to keep everyone happy. Can you imagine how much screaming there would be if he cut Medicare. Oh wait he actually gave it $400 billion more and the left is still screaming.

Yeah I'm screaming because he's cutting taxes AND increasing spending, a recipe for budget disaster. I could stomach it if he was principled enough to act like the conservative he claims to be, but he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be able to wear the mantle of the fiscal conservatism, while using increased spending to help grease the skids for his re-election. I'm surprised you are letting him get away with such behavior with little more than a "well it would be worse under a democrat" wave of your hand. If you ran your finances the way Bush is running this country's you certainly would not be getting that 0% interest rate credit cards.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-010904jobs_lat,1,6147677.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

U.S. job growth came to a virtual standstill in December after a promising expansion during the fall, according to a government labor report today that raised concerns about the strength of the nation's economic recovery.
The nation's unemployment rate dropped by 0.2 of a percentage point to 5.7% in December. But that bit of good news was undermined by the fact that much of the decline was driven by a large increase in so-called discouraged workers who have stopped looking for work and are no longer categorized as unemployed by government analysts.
"Neither business nor potential employees have confidence in the economy," said economist Sung Won Sohn in a report for Wells Fargo. "Businesses are squeezed by intense competition from here and abroad with little pricing power. The mantra for businesses continues to be productivity gains."

[Rower_CPU]

Here's a little more to ponder...

link (http://www.jacksonsun.com/news/20040109_unemployment.shtml)

A separate survey of business payrolls showed that employers added only 1,000 positions in December, although economic analysts were expecting over 100,000 new jobs.

Weak holiday hiring by retailers was to blame for holding back job gains. Employment in the nation's stores, malls and even gas stations dropped by 38,000 last month, the report said, and manufacturing continued a 41-month slide by losing 26,000 jobs.

[Rebel]

The president’s three tax cuts — will eventually lead to more meaningful job creation on a sustained basis, and he is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, because of our in-effective political practices, it has created a sustained job market in other countries - not in the US. Companies have been hesitant to take on added costs of hiring new American full-time workers. Instead, they have been working their employees longer and harder and shipping as much as they can overseas.

There also is evidence that the economic impact of tax cuts exceeds its size. According to one model, when taxes are reduced by $100, an additional $38 in economic benefits is created through improved cash flow and investment opportunity. Coming at the same issue from the opposite direction, the congressional budget has estimated that every tax dollar collected results in an economic loss of between 20 cents and 60 cents. Roughly $40 on average per $100 collected is lost to the economy. U-ACT will change the nation for the better. (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm)

If you want to see the destruction of democratic principles, get a copy of USA Patriot Act, USA Patriot Act II, Victory Act, and the ever-popular Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. If you want to see the elimination of individual rights, get a copy of USA Patriot Act, USA Patriot Act II, Victory Act, and the ever-popular Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. If you want to see the paranoid, totalitarians cowering behind all American-sounding laws, Get a copy of USA Patriot Act, USA Patriot Act II, Victory Act and the ever-popular Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

These acts are still in their infancy stage, but whoa to future Americans who will inhabit this country. These documents are the beginning to the end for freedom and democracy. Let us all hope that some future “great” politician(s) will have the courage to change these dreadful acts and lead America to democracy and freedom once again.

Hey, the President of the United Citizens of America (http://www.UCAnation.org) is being pressured to run for the President of the United States of America in ‘04. Can he-will he be the “great” politician? He says no. “Only a powerful organization can make the changes we need as a nation as long as they stay true to their mission.” “The UCAnation organization will be that power to change a nation.”

[pseudobrit]

The Euro has reached a new high as a result of the news that Rower posted.

link (http://www.onbusiness.ie/2004/0109/us.html)

[wwworry]

and the drop in joblessness, besides being fueled by people who have given up, is populated by low paying jobs staffed by foreign workers

profits are up, CEO salaries are up, general wages are stagnant

[Desertrat]

Profits may be up as compared to a previous year, but profitability as a percentage return on sales or value are still low or in many cases are continuing the 20-year fall.

A comment about CEO salaries, obviously not a case of "all": If a CEO can reduce losses, he is considered quite valuable. This particularly has been the case for some airlines. It's worth, say, $10 million to a corporation if they can hire a brain to reduce losses from $1 billion to a "mere" $200 million. I consider this to be, overall, a sad state of affairs about today's profitability and overhead...

And as I've noted before, the disposable income/buying power of our middle economic class has been in decline for around 30 years...

'Rat

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
And as I've noted before, the disposable income/buying power of our middle economic class has been in decline for around 30 years...

'Rat

Don't you think tax policy has something to do with this?

As for "star CEO" salaries, repeated studies have shown that, after a point, there is no connection between salaries and performance. Also, hiring from within an organization usually returns better results than hiring the "dynamic outsider".

It makes sence, doesn't it. A $750,000/year salary is pretty good. It's not like someone is not going to work because they are not getting $10 million. What are they, babies?

THen look at that guy Richard Grasso and his $180 million payout. In the months after he left did the NYSE collapse? No. It's fine. It's just robbery. Sandy Weil, chairman of citibank, made $1 billion in 10 years. That's $100 million per year and I know it came from my credit card and my use of his bank machines. What the hell is with the $1.50 charge to use a machine that saves them money by having to have less bank branches and less employees? It's a rip-off that goes directly in Sandy Weil's pocket.

[IJ Reilly]

Everyone should understand by now that CEOs and boards of directors are members of a mutual back-scratching society. They reward each other handsomely for just being members in good standing.

"You downsized the company out of 8,000 employees? Well done -- here, take some of the money we would have paid them."

"Why thank you, and this board must have a few hundred thousand more stock options because you are also so deserving," replies the CEO.

"Well if you insist!" they sing in chorus.

(A crude, but essentially accurate, image of how corporate America works.)

[yamabushi]

Way back in this thread there was a restaurant analogy for income taxes. It surprised me that no one did the simple math of applying the discounted price for the meal among all the diners equally. $100 - 20 = $80 or a 20% discount. Reduce the amount each diner pays by 20%. Simple.

Of course I have also seen in person prolonged periods of confusion after a meal as people struggle to calculate their portion. This isn't surprising but I find the situation depressing when average people struggle with elementary school level math.

The confusion surrounding income taxes as well as personal income levels, executive compensation and unemployment all seem to share a common theme. Most people are not aware of how such numbers are calculated and some people with selfish motives intentionally obscure the picture.

The fact that many people struggle with the math required to divide and pay a restaurant bill shows that they would probably have difficulty understanding the complicated methods by which important statistics are calculated. If you cannot understand the method by which a statistic is arrived then you do not really understand what it means. If you do not understand what it means then there is little point in having an opinion as to how to react to the information.

If the citizenry is unable to discern what is really going on then those in power can tell them anything at all and they are likely to believe it. The economy is in trouble! Oh no! The economy is booming! Yay!

[mactastic]

Or they believe they will be getting the 'average' tax return, with no understanding of a standard deviation, or the difference between a mean and median average and why that matters to them.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by yamabushi
If you do not understand what it means then there is little point in having an opinion as to how to react to the information.

If the citizenry is unable to discern what is really going on then those in power can tell them anything at all and they are likely to believe it.

indeed. good post.

[Desertrat]

"If the citizenry is unable to discern what is really going on then those in power can tell them anything at all and they are likely to believe it."

Those in power are always wrong?

Those who disagree with those in power are always right?

Does the quote not apply equally to both groups who seek to influence the citizenry?

:), 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Those in power are always wrong?

Those who disagree with those in power are always right?

Does the quote not apply equally to both groups who seek to influence the citizenry?

1. No, of course not, but those in power will always try to remain in power.

2. No, of course not, but we should be mindful of the two-sided nature of most questions and not assume that anyone in power or attempting to achieve power is completely right, let alone, honest.

3. More then two groups are seeking to influence the citizenry. I find it pays to keep as open a mind as possible and to try to find out what is going on for oneself, and not automatically accept the word of anyone who is either in power and trying to retain it, or out of power and attempting to obtain it.

[Desertrat]

IJ, I'm generally willing to believe there is a relatively small amount of outright lying. Regardless of party or position, most of the time the various mouthpieces are saying what's believed by their bosses. Flip-side, I believe there are a lot of weird or erroneous conclusions drawn from agreed-upon facts. The "spin", if you will. I also believe that a tremendous amount is left unside in order to avoid embarrassment. And, I guess you could call this latter "lying by omission"...(Shades of Tom Sawyer! :) )

So, yeah, multiple sources are our only defense against lies, spins and omissions.

'Rat

[g5man]

Here is some good solid news.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by yamabushi
The confusion surrounding income taxes as well as personal income levels, executive compensation and unemployment all seem to share a common theme. Most people are not aware of how such numbers are calculated and some people with selfish motives intentionally obscure the picture.


Along this same thought, thats why its a good idea to have the income taxes, and all taxes, payable once a month, like rent, instead of being withheld from the paycheck before you even get it.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Along this same thought, thats why its a good idea to have the income taxes, and all taxes, payable once a month, like rent, instead of being withheld from the paycheck before you even get it.

Now that sounds like a great way to create even MORE useless government. You'd need even more full time staff to process all that paperwork than the overworked IRS deals with now. Sounds like you've got a repressed democratic side in there somewhere!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Along this same thought, thats why its a good idea to have the income taxes, and all taxes, payable once a month, like rent, instead of being withheld from the paycheck before you even get it.

i don't know if you're self-employed, but paying even quarterly taxes is a PITA.

[Desertrat]

Back in the used-to-be, you paid your year's taxes by March 15th. The withholding tax was instituted around 1942 or 1943, when taxes were raised for the WW II effort.

Were the old system still in place, I bet the federal budget still wouldn't crack the $ trillion mark. There'd have been a tax revolt decades ago.

Most folks just take it for granted, not really realizing how big a cut taxes take from a paycheck. Still, the sorta-hidden taxes at the local and state level are far more onerous on most folks than are income taxes...

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Tax Freedom day is around late April to early May. That means 4 months of working for Uncle Sam. Sounds like Massa' Sam.

If government were like the church, we'd only be paying 10%!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i don't know if you're self-employed, but paying even quarterly taxes is a PITA.

Thats because they make you file taxes every quarter. In essense, you get 4 tax returns to make.

My idea is that you file once, but you make the payments in 12 equal payments spread throughout the year. The payments could be based on the previous year's tax bill, divided by 12.

When you have to write a check to the US Government every month, that is bigger than your rent or car payment, I bet you'd get a tax revolt pretty quick.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
When you have to write a check to the US Government every month, that is bigger than your rent or car payment, I bet you'd get a tax revolt pretty quick.

Now the car payment one I might buy, but if my monthly tax tops my $1300 rent bill I have to be taxed by the feds at around 50%