PDA

View Full Version : Reagan appointee on economy


Secretariat
02-14-2006, 09:52 PM
Forget Iran, Americans Should be Hysterical About This
Nuking the Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.

In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.

Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.

Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.

Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.

Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.

They were wrong.

At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for “free market economists” who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.

No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)

The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.

On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005--$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.

Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression? Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

Bala
02-14-2006, 11:51 PM
For crying out loud -- how many times do I have to say it --

Outsource congress to India.

Kids and Credit Cards, the new economic slaves...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181794,00.html

_______________________________________
If evolution is true then any monkey can pick '06 KD winner.

PaceAdvantage
02-15-2006, 03:11 AM
So how the hell is the unemployment rate currently at 4.7% ??


FOUR POINT SEVEN PERCENT.


Say it out loud brothers and sisters.....four point seven.


Yes, it's just all fun with numbers, isn't it? THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU!!!!!!!!!!!


BOOLA BOOLA!!!


And to the wise asses out there, no, I haven't been drinking.

Secretariat
02-15-2006, 04:33 AM
PA , did you read the article? This is not a liberal writing this, it is the Asst. Secretary to the Treasury under Ronald Reagan.

The basic thrust of the article is job creation is not keeping up with population growth. It has nothing to do with unemployment. You can't file for unemployment if you don't "qualify". Being out of work doesn't mean you "qualify" for unemployment compensation. There are many independent contractors who don't or people who have expired their benefits, and the jobs aren't there. You're measuring one benchmark that does not tell the whole story.

The man makes some very valid points...even though he is a Republican. Here's one excerpt where he addresses UC:

"Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones. "

rastajenk
02-15-2006, 05:16 AM
Roberts may have worked for Reagan, but he is no Republican. He is a libertarian of the most extreme order.

wes
02-15-2006, 06:04 AM
What percent of the people can't hold a job? Because of too old, sick or other things. Seems they would be in the 4.7% as well.

wes

ljb
02-15-2006, 07:17 AM
So how the hell is the unemployment rate currently at 4.7% ??


FOUR POINT SEVEN PERCENT.


Say it out loud brothers and sisters.....four point seven.


Yes, it's just all fun with numbers, isn't it? THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU!!!!!!!!!!!


BOOLA BOOLA!!!


And to the wise asses out there, no, I haven't been drinking.
Just curious here PA. Does this rate include the illegals ? And does it have a breakdown for categories ? How many illegals are unemployed ? My point being, while this number may look good, there are two factors not included.
1. the number of people that are no longer recorded as unemployed because they have given up on looking for a job.
2. The increase in those working 2 or more minimum wage part time jobs just to survive.
Just curious, as you seem to place an inordinate importance on that number.

JustRalph
02-15-2006, 08:26 AM
1. the number of people that are no longer recorded as unemployed because they have given up on looking for a job.
2. The increase in those working 2 or more minimum wage part time jobs just to survive.
Just curious, as you seem to place an inordinate importance on that number.

This is such crap. I have heard this arguement since Reagan. When Clinton was in office the unemployment numbers were touted everywhere you look. But when a Repub is in office............the numbers are suddenly no good.

As to number 1, these people need to get back up and turn off Maury and start looking again. As to number 2, Good for them. There was a time when I worked one full time and two part time jobs. It leads to good things and they eventually will move up the food chain as long as they keep working hard.

Tom
02-15-2006, 09:34 AM
Boola boola? :eek:


Uh, the 4.7% figure is not really representative of the actual number of people out of work. And it doens't even begin to address the number of household that earned 50-100 thousand a year in 1999 and are living on 20-30,000 today. I think a more important stat is that nobody has any money to save.

"We hold these truths to be self evident....all jobs are NOT created equal!":rolleyes:

Bala
02-15-2006, 12:21 PM
Tom wrote:"....I think a more important stat is that nobody has any money to save."
_____________________________________

It is essential to take great care as to where you get your stats. According
to the statisticians of all 3 credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and
Trans Union, the nations credit reports as a whole are healthy. Also,
according to the statisticians at Standard and Poor, mutual funds are flushed
with cash. NYSE back to 11,000 this week.

Witness the 30year long bond pays LOWER interest than the 2year govt.
bond. This is called an inverted yield curve.

Just today - new Fed chariman Ben Bernanke in front of a congressional
committee stated the US economy is all wine and roses.

The sky is not falling. Impressions of 1929 are greatly exaggerated.

Also, note that the underground economy is in great shape. I just bought my
bookie his second car this year - and it's only February. :jump:



_____________________________________
Outsource congress to India.

xtb
02-15-2006, 01:52 PM
Boola boola? :eek:


Uh, the 4.7% figure is not really representative of the actual number of people out of work. And it doens't even begin to address the number of household that earned 50-100 thousand a year in 1999 and are living on 20-30,000 today. I think a more important stat is that nobody has any money to save.

"We hold these truths to be self evident....all jobs are NOT created equal!":rolleyes:

Amen. It's unfortunate that there are no official stats on under-employment. I can immediately think of at least a dozen people I know personally who lost high paying software related jobs in the last 5 years and were unemployed for years or forced to take much lower paying jobs, and/or change careers. This was unheard of 7 years ago, headhunters couldn't fill positions, signing and referral bonuses were the rage. All gone now.

JustRalph
02-15-2006, 04:18 PM
Amen. It's unfortunate that there are no official stats on under-employment. I can immediately think of at least a dozen people I know personally who lost high paying software related jobs in the last 5 years and were unemployed for years or forced to take much lower paying jobs, and/or change careers. This was unheard of 7 years ago, headhunters couldn't fill positions, signing and referral bonuses were the rage. All gone now.

Did you not expect some kind of change after the dot.com bust? This is a completely different world............manufacturing and Tech has all gone overseas. There were warnings for years................

Tom
02-15-2006, 04:40 PM
Which makes US dependend on foreign countries for everything we need. What happens when We get boycotted?

What galls me is when china conducts illegal trade practices, manipulates its currency, used slave labor, Bush calls them "most favored trade partners."
When WE conplain about having to compete with $.09 and hour slaves, he calls US protectionists.

There is no way we should even be allowing any trade with china at any level - evil empires that ignore human rights should be shunned by free people everywhere. Having formal relations with china, to me, is exactly the same thing as harboring terrorists.

We are either with free people or we are against them.

xtb
02-15-2006, 05:31 PM
Did you not expect some kind of change after the dot.com bust? This is a completely different world............manufacturing and Tech has all gone overseas. There were warnings for years................

You are sooooo right, this is a completely different world than it was 10 years ago and it's not just because of the dot.bombs. And whose fault is it? Our own! Are you saying that giving away our technology and jobs is a good thing???

JustRalph
02-15-2006, 05:58 PM
Y And whose fault is it? Our own! Are you saying that giving away our technology and jobs is a good thing???

No way am I saying it is a good thing. And you are right it is our own fault. For years the leaders at GM and Ford screamed that the UAW was going to drive them out of the country. They moved to Mexico and beyond. People Ignored warnings as usual. In the IT industry there were articles and prognostications about moving things overseas and nobody seemed to care. I sat in on meetings at my company where 3rd party companies were setting up call centers in foreign countries and offering to replace the technicians who worked for me. They were going to do it for 1/3 the cost too. We balked due to problems with communications (you think it is bad now, five years back it was worse) so we started a tiered support system wherein the customer had to pay for basic support. The customers revolted and screamed and yelled, literally. I took those calls. Americans were unwilling to pay for Tech support. They wanted on average $90 worth of free Tech Support on a computer system that showed a $16 dollar profit. Guess what,,,,,,,, I laid off half of my call center a year later. Then the big boys went overseas (HP-Dell etc) and that was the end of thousands of jobs in the U.S. Tons of coding and support functions including production, packaging and testing jobs. All gone. In this case it wasn't employee/union related. It was customer related and today the same mindset exists. The customers just wouldn't pay for it. I used to use an analogy for customers. If you bought a Chevy Truck and wanted to add fog lights or a larger engine after owning it for 6 months, do you think you could call the dealer and have a mechanic walk you thru two hours of the work for free? We did it to ourselves.............and we are still doing it.

Bala
02-15-2006, 06:55 PM
Tom wrote: ".........What galls me is when china conducts illegal trade practices, manipulates its currency, used slave labor, Bush calls them "most favored trade partners."
When WE conplain about having to compete with $.09 and hour slaves, he calls US protectionists."
__________________________________________________ _____

We are all to blame. Millions of people love to shop at Wal-Mart. Personally,
I own Walmart stock. {NYSE, WMT} It has been great to me over the past
5 years.

I love those made in China rolex. Not the $20.00 street fakes but the 200.00
knockoffs. Even if you open the back to reveal the inner levers and springs, I
challenge anyone but the expert to tell the difference.


________________________
Outsource congress to India.

Secretariat
02-16-2006, 12:21 AM
We are all to blame. Millions of people love to shop at Wal-Mart. Personally,
I own Walmart stock. {NYSE, WMT} It has been great to me over the past
5 years.

I love those made in China rolex. Not the $20.00 street fakes but the 200.00
knockoffs. Even if you open the back to reveal the inner levers and springs, I
challenge anyone but the expert to tell the difference.
________________________
Outsource congress to India.

Not ALL. I do not shop at Walmart, and I have never owned Walmart stock, nor intend to.

I make an effort to buy American products, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do. If I do not buy American I try buying from our allies with fair labor standards. I particularly try not to buy Chinese products because of near slave labor there and because they are a communist nation.

Do I succeed? I'm still trying, but I sleep better at night.

PaceAdvantage
02-16-2006, 12:25 AM
All I'm saying is the 4.7% stands for SOMETHING. It cannot be entirely dismissed just because you can't stand the current administration.

And yes Sec, I read the article, but started to glaze when I came across this line:

Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression.

Up is down, down is up, black is white, white is black....I think I am starting to understand.

Secretariat
02-16-2006, 12:35 AM
All I'm saying is the 4.7% stands for SOMETHING. It cannot be entirely dismissed just because you can't stand the current administration.

And yes Sec, I read the article, but started to glaze when I came across this line:

Up is down, down is up, black is white, white is black....I think I am starting to understand.

Why would the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury in Ronald Reagan's adminstration write this?

PaceAdvantage
02-16-2006, 12:44 AM
Why would the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury in Ronald Reagan's adminstration write this?

Just like some like to say Clinton doesn't matter anymore because he isn't in office, neither does the fact that this guy was once in RR's administration. Why not bring up some other more noteworthy credentials?

Secretariat
02-16-2006, 01:21 AM
Just like some like to say Clinton doesn't matter anymore because he isn't in office, neither does the fact that this guy was once in RR's administration. Why not bring up some other more noteworthy credentials?

Well, this ain't too shabby.

He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

The WSJ is considered one of the most conservative papers in the country, and one of the most heavily tilted on financial matters. An Associate Editor position is certainly reputable beside being Asst. Secy of Treasury under Reaganomics.

Tom
02-16-2006, 08:36 AM
All I'm saying is the 4.7% stands for SOMETHING. It cannot be entirely dismissed just because you can't stand the current administration.



I agree it stands for something, but it a lot like horse racings - a 33% win percentage sounds good, but you need to knwo your ROI....the value of these "new" Mcjobs needs to be factored in. The loss of a $50K job is only -1 on totals, and if it is replaces by 4 $10K jobs, it looks like a jobs increase, but moneywise, it is a loss.
And I don't blame Bush for starting it - tip o' the hat to Billy clinton for NAFTA and that impetus - that huge sucking sound Perot refered to. But Bush could be doing things to help it and he is not. He is just ignorant as far as middle class America goes. And then he goes and back CAFTA.
I gotta wonder what goes on in that head of his. I have tried to be supportive and back this guy from day 1, but comes a time when I have to admitt, this guy's presidency is a gross failure on so many levels, but is still better than Gore ( the TRAITOR) or that nitwit Kerry could have ever done.
But George wnated to be president, and he made promises, so as his employer, I am going to call out this SOB at every step - for his salary, I expect perfection and will not accept anything less. (remind to get that hole in my head patched up soon)
Republicans control the whole damn government, and the only ones getting benifits are THEM, bug business, and Bush's disgusting foreign friends.
NOW this turkey wants to put ARAB countries in charge of our ports?
This guy needs to be put away in a rubber room - he has totaly lost his mind.

Bala
02-17-2006, 03:51 PM
....I make an effort to buy American products, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult....
Not just difficult but damn near impossible. You typed that post on a
computer or cell phone whose mother board is made in ???

You most likey own a TV, vcr, dvd that is made in ??? You most likely wear
belts, shoes, cloths that are made in ???

Do you use/own hardware/software from:
Cisco/Lynx systems
Nortel systems
Sun Microsystems {Java}
Yahoo
Google
Bill Gates' Microshaft.


In the battle against Chinese internet users (only 11 million users) and the
Chinese Communist Party -- an assortment of western firms provide the
infrastructure for China's internet -- these companies cannot do business in
China except on terms dictated be the Chinese authorities.


______________________________________________
holy cow, say it aint so, the chinese are counterfeiting
Viagra! Time to go play golf. Hello ball...

Tom
02-17-2006, 03:58 PM
Come on you guys, get with the program - Bush told us that FREE trade would allow us to sell our goods in China.......ooppps! We don't MAKE anyting anymore!:bang:

Secretariat
02-17-2006, 08:15 PM
Come on you guys, get with the program - Bush told us that FREE trade would allow us to sell our goods in China.......ooppps! We don't MAKE anyting anymore!:bang:

Sad, but true.

ljb
02-17-2006, 08:25 PM
Just read somewhere that the personal savings rate last year was Negative 0.5 percent. Hasn't been this low since 1929 I think.
Also on the economic front I see where Secretary Snow is taking a hint from corporations and robbing the retirement funds. How do you all think this bodes for the economy?
This administration's economic policies (reverse Robin Hood) have been a disaster for the middle class since day one, it was only their fear mongering and pandering to the religious right that kept them in office and now we are all paying the price for their misdeeds.

PaceAdvantage
02-18-2006, 01:36 AM
What disaster are you speaking of ljb?

Lefty
02-18-2006, 01:43 AM
lbj, hmmm, wonder who was buying all dem dere houses? Can you say upwardly mobile middle class?

ljb
02-18-2006, 08:34 AM
Pa and Lefty,
The bills will be coming due soon. Hang on to your hats. The irrational exurburance in the housing market is about to bite many in the arse. The increased medical costs and college tuition will get many not to mention the increased expenses for water and sewer service many are beginning to experience. I could go on but hopefully you will get the message. You both questioned me but failed to address my question.

Tom
02-18-2006, 11:11 AM
Isn't it kind of scary to think the consequences of Bush's spending like a drunken sailor? And congress , as always,never met a dollar they couldn't "earmark."
By now, we could have BOUGHT Iraq.

Just think aobut the teeter totter - US on one side, China on the other.
Ballanced, perfectly.
But jobs running from our side to thier side.
Dollars flowing from our side to thier side.

There is a tremendous confrontation coming, one we can lose.


And Ljb, I'll answer you - what the heck do we need college educations for - we don't MAKE anyhting here anymore and I already know how to flip burgers.

Lefty
02-18-2006, 11:56 AM
lbj, all I saw was doom and gloom from you. What's the question? That's why i'm a repub, I blve in capitalism and not the socialized utopia you envision.
Housing at an all time high but what do you write. It can't last it can't last.
The sky will fall, it may not now, but it surely will. That's what I get from you and other libs on this board.

Bala
02-18-2006, 01:35 PM
Lefty wrote: "..........Housing at an all time high but what do you write......"
_______________________________________________

The current {inflationary} asset boom in housing is presicely due to the fact we have had historically low interest rates over the past 7 years. Translation, America has become a nation of debtors. Bush's recent Social Security initiative was because Bush and his economic advisors can see the writing on the wall.

Lefty, look at it this way. You borrow and borrow money until you are forced to pass the debt to your children. This debt is so massive you cannot pay it off in your lifetime. This is where we stand as a nation currently.

National debt = 8 trillian (1 trillian=1000 billion)
Trade deficit - 700 billion {projection for 2006}
Total net worth of all 50 states - including all citizens - as it relates to GDP
minus 15 trillian. All this is freely avaible in the Federal Reserve web site.

Someone is going to pay. Our childern and grand children most likely.

Like you - I am also a capitalist. An Alexander Hamiltion type not a Bush type.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best, "I am for a govt. rigorously frugal and
simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap,
we should soon want bread."


PA keeps bringing up the unemployment rate. This is a short term indicator. Certainly, unemployment has been low for a number of years however, a better indicator is salary gap in relation to overall inflation. Inflation for 2005 was officially 4.1%. Salaries rose at an official rate of .8/10 of a percent.

What does that mean -- current debt levels are unsustainable. Throw into the mix rising interest rates and something has to give. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not implying a depression aka 1929. But, we will pay.

The most likely scenario will take place in the next administration - dems or reps is irrelevant. Personal bankruptcies and taxes will go up to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility that this dome of monkeys {congress} and this president has got us into.


__________________________________
Outsource congress to India.
Outsource nukes to Iran.

Lefty
02-18-2006, 07:09 PM
How do you guys keep translating good news into bad? Must be a special art.

PaceAdvantage
02-18-2006, 08:27 PM
PA keeps bringing up the unemployment rate. This is a short term indicator.

I only bring it up because all of the naysayers conveniently ignore it every time it is released.....

PaceAdvantage
02-18-2006, 08:29 PM
Pa and Lefty,
The bills will be coming due soon. Hang on to your hats.

Wait. First you say it's been a disaster for the middle class SINCE DAY ONE. Now you say we have to wait for the disaster. Which is it?

I'm solidly middle class, and live in a middle class neighborhood, and I am not currently experiencing any disaster, nor are my neighbors, as best I can tell....

Let me know when that disaster strikes....

PS. How's the stock market doing....oh wait, I'll go find that thread where Sec wrote how we are all doomed since the market was plunging (I think this was almost one year ago...will have to hunt for that thread).

Sailwolf
02-19-2006, 04:00 AM
So how the hell is the unemployment rate currently at 4.7% ??


FOUR POINT SEVEN PERCENT.


Say it out loud brothers and sisters.....four point seven.


Yes, it's just all fun with numbers, isn't it? THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU!!!!!!!!!!!


BOOLA BOOLA!!!


And to the wise asses out there, no, I haven't been drinking.



The unemplyment figures does not include people who have quit looking because they have not found something in the last two years.

Also, the figures does not include people who have taken a postion lower than they want because they have not found something equal to what they have had in the past.

Another aspect is the figures do not include people who are working part time and would like to work full time.

Finally, the figures do not include people who call themselves consultants, who are really looking for a full time job.

Sailwolf
02-19-2006, 04:03 AM
Wait. First you say it's been a disaster for the middle class SINCE DAY ONE. Now you say we have to wait for the disaster. Which is it?

I'm solidly middle class, and live in a middle class neighborhood, and I am not currently experiencing any disaster, nor are my neighbors, as best I can tell....

Let me know when that disaster strikes....

PS. How's the stock market doing....oh wait, I'll go find that thread where Sec wrote how we are all doomed since the market was plunging (I think this was almost one year ago...will have to hunt for that thread).

You must be living in a nice neighborhood, because in my neighborhood, because there are people who are living on the edge of economic hell.

rastajenk
02-19-2006, 04:53 AM
The unemplyment figures does not include people who have quit looking because they have not found something in the last two years.

Also, the figures does not include people who have taken a postion lower than they want because they have not found something equal to what they have had in the past.

Another aspect is the figures do not include people who are working part time and would like to work full time.

Finally, the figures do not include people who call themselves consultants, who are really looking for a full time job.

But the figures never do. That is, unemployment rates measure the same factors they always have. When the Clintonistas were bragging about 5.6%, that number didn't include everything you've listed above, either. But they still managed to sell it as an indicator of a good, no, great economy.

hcap
02-19-2006, 07:34 AM
37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712965,00.html?gusrc=rss

A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit's streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.

Under President George W Bush an extra 5.4 million have slipped below the poverty line. Yet they are not a story of the unemployed or the destitute. Most have jobs. Many have two. Amos Lumpkins has work and his children go to school. But the economy, stripped of worker benefits like healthcare, is having trouble providing good wages.

Replacing a man's pride in doing a meaningful job with a dumb service sector job, does not reflect in the unemployment rate. But that's what happened and continues to happen. At the rate we are going eventually we are either going to be doing reach others' laundry, or serving each other big macs. I mean how many "consultants" can dance on the head of the economic pin?

Globalization benefits the multi-nationals and in many cases not us.

ljb
02-19-2006, 07:45 AM
Wait. First you say it's been a disaster for the middle class SINCE DAY ONE. Now you say we have to wait for the disaster. Which is it?

I'm solidly middle class, and live in a middle class neighborhood, and I am not currently experiencing any disaster, nor are my neighbors, as best I can tell....

Let me know when that disaster strikes....

PS. How's the stock market doing....oh wait, I'll go find that thread where Sec wrote how we are all doomed since the market was plunging (I think this was almost one year ago...will have to hunt for that thread).
PA,
The disaster has already struck. Many have not seen/felt it yet as they are still in the borrow and spend mode. and that is what I mean when i say the bills will come due soon. Read Bala's note, it explains more explicity, some of what I am reffering to.
As for the stock market has it reached back up to the level it was at when this administration first took office ? Think not.

ljb
02-19-2006, 07:52 AM
lbj, all I saw was doom and gloom from you. What's the question? That's why i'm a repub, I blve in capitalism and not the socialized utopia you envision.
Housing at an all time high but what do you write. It can't last it can't last.
The sky will fall, it may not now, but it surely will. That's what I get from you and other libs on this board.
Lefty, I mentioned the savings rate being at negative 0.5 percent last year lowest since 1929. I also mentioned Secretary Snow's decision to borrow from the federal retirement funds (similiar to corporate raiders techniques). Then I asked how do you think this bodes for the future of America? Has nothing to do with capitalism/socialism. Wake up Lefty, America is living on BORROWED money and the bills will come due. Perhaps you won't be around to pay them but your children/heirs will be burdened with them. Try to think a little further ahead then just the end of today.

Tom
02-19-2006, 10:26 AM
The lack of savings is disturbing, and when coupled with the HUGE credit card debt and the lack of any semblence of responibiltiy on the part of banks ( explain how a DOG get a pre-approved credit card!) tells me many people are living day to day, and loss of job could be disastorous for them. There are financial similarities to the great crash of 1929.

None of this is a certain crisis - nothing here can't be fixed, but sit down, pour a cup of coffee ( or bourbon) and look at the direction Bush is going - he is not putting things in place to fix these things, he is going the wrong way at every corner. Outsourcing our ports is plainly a STUPID idea. His idea of guest workers is an insult. His refusal to close the borders is treason.
Things look bleak not because of where we are, but because where we are going and who is driving us there. this guy has no clue, no plan, no direction.

Lefty
02-19-2006, 11:49 AM
You must be living in a nice neighborhood, because in my neighborhood, because there are people who are living on the edge of economic hell.
I bet they all have cars, tv's and burn up money on fireworks 4th of July.
hcap says 37 milliion live in poverty. There's alway been people live in poverty in this country even though we've spent over SIX TRILLION since Johnson adm. What you libs don't get is no matter what we do it will always be that way. You can't help everybody cause some just won't do their part. There are people who start out in poverty and rise to the top. These are the people who take adv of the opportunities of this country. The poor, the middle class are always in flux. It isn't always the same people in these groups as some pull themselves out of it. Quit acting like we were all rich before GW came along. It's a tired old song and the tune is grating.
lbj, you keep making doom and gloom statements. But I still can't find a q.
You live in the doom and gloom and i'll choose to just sail along happily, knowing i have a pres interested in protecting this country, and interested in opportunity for everyone.

I live in N. LV in mostly hispanic and black neighborhood. Suv's in almost every driveway, cable or satellite connected to almost every house.

JustRalph
02-19-2006, 12:44 PM
You must be living in a nice neighborhood, because in my neighborhood, because there are people who are living on the edge of economic hell.

oh, I thought it was the land of milk and honey...........I have one suggestion....

Move!
http://www.brandchannel.com/images/FeaturesProfile/profile_img1_uhaul.jpg

PaceAdvantage
02-19-2006, 07:11 PM
But the figures never do. That is, unemployment rates measure the same factors they always have. When the Clintonistas were bragging about 5.6%, that number didn't include everything you've listed above, either. But they still managed to sell it as an indicator of a good, no, great economy.

This is exactly what my reply was going to be to Sailwolf...thanks for saving me some typing.

PaceAdvantage
02-19-2006, 07:14 PM
You must be living in a nice neighborhood, because in my neighborhood, because there are people who are living on the edge of economic hell.

Of course it's a nice neighborhood. Most middle class neighborhoods are nice.

Secretariat
02-19-2006, 07:59 PM
But the figures never do. That is, unemployment rates measure the same factors they always have. When the Clintonistas were bragging about 5.6%, that number didn't include everything you've listed above, either. But they still managed to sell it as an indicator of a good, no, great economy.

Well, first of all the unemployment rate is only one factor relating to an economy. But let's look at the unemployment rate Clinton inherited:

1992 - 7.5
1993 - 6.9
1994 - 6.1
1995 - 5.6
1996 - 5.4
1997 - 4.9
1998 - 4.5
1999 - 4.2
2000 - 4.0 (his last year)

In other words the unemplyment rate went down EVERY year he was in office, and left with an unemployment rate of 4.0% which is 0.9% less than 7 years later under GW.

But this is not the issue. The real issues are Job Creation in relation to population and Median Wage and inflation and deficit control.

This is where the GW fiscal plan has been a disaster.

1. Job creation in realtion to population - down (and those jobs are certainly not high paying jobs being created)

2. Median Wage - down when looking at figures in relation to inflation in 2000.

3. Inflation - the one fiscal positive on the GW front.

4. Deficit Control - An embarassment.

Lefty
02-19-2006, 09:47 PM
sec, didja notice how much better it got after the 94 Republican Congress?

Bala
02-20-2006, 01:32 AM
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 15, 2006



You cannot get more conservative than Rep. Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2006/pr021506.htm

and

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

skate
02-21-2006, 07:29 PM
yo yo yo ;

i dont consider myself a dem. or rep.
the last i voted, it was Ross.
but Gesus!

the National Debt was not decreased during the Clinton years either. he (along with his cronys) and the media, seems to me, try to imply that the Nat. Dept had some kind of control during the 90s. did not. as a mater of fact, the Nat. Dept increased, as it does today, during the 90s. But, we dont here this. check it out, go to whatever sited you please (gov) and see for yourself (or ask me to ).

as a mater of fact, the amount owed by the US, is smaller than the share of GDP in the 90s.

and that is what is significant.

first, Debt is Good. as long as it is for a good cause.

our economy had Six Significant times when we (US) had Surpluses and Dept Reductions. the last being a 33% reduction (1920-1930) and we found 1929.
going back to 1817, every time we reduced our debt (from 27% to 100%) we ended up with a bad economy. they include 1819, 1837, 1857,1873, 1893 and the 1929.

Gesus, just take your own account. is it, overall, a good idea to go into debt (buy a house, truck etc.), just dont be foollish? and what % should we consider a good dept, we're not even close.
and yet we keep getting "News" about how horrific...

Kiss, baby.

skate

Lefty
02-21-2006, 08:02 PM
skat, good logic that I fear will be lost on some, but not me. Thanks for your input.

Secretariat
02-21-2006, 10:26 PM
yo yo yo ;

i dont consider myself a dem. or rep.
the last i voted, it was Ross.
but Gesus!

the National Debt was not decreased during the Clinton years either. he (along with his cronys) and the media, seems to me, try to imply that the Nat. Dept had some kind of control during the 90s. did not. as a mater of fact, the Nat. Dept increased, as it does today, during the 90s. But, we dont here this. check it out, go to whatever sited you please (gov) and see for yourself (or ask me to ).

as a mater of fact, the amount owed by the US, is smaller than the share of GDP in the 90s.

and that is what is significant.

first, Debt is Good. as long as it is for a good cause.

our economy had Six Significant times when we (US) had Surpluses and Dept Reductions. the last being a 33% reduction (1920-1930) and we found 1929.
going back to 1817, every time we reduced our debt (from 27% to 100%) we ended up with a bad economy. they include 1819, 1837, 1857,1873, 1893 and the 1929.

Gesus, just take your own account. is it, overall, a good idea to go into debt (buy a house, truck etc.), just dont be foollish? and what % should we consider a good dept, we're not even close.
and yet we keep getting "News" about how horrific...

Kiss, baby.

skate

Lefty credits your points as good logic. There's some problems with it though. Your analogy of buying a house means you're goign in debt, but you've obtained real equity that is resaleable. So while your cash is reduced, your assets have not.

Now, using the analogy of deficits, borrowing money from commie China is not the same as buying a house. We are paying a premium with no asset return, except interest to a communist nation that is allied with countries like Iran and is probably the largest military threat to our future. Our indebtedness to them makes future actions in Asia vulnerable. Besides we are in direct competition with them for energy at present.

The National Debt is different from the current year budget. You have to start somewhere, and that is getting your current fiscal house in order. Clinton and the Republican Congress did create surpluses. That is the way govt. should work, not using a philosophy of debt is good (as Lefty considers logical). Debt is not good if it doesn't bring assets back, and our budget does not. It brings interest payments to commie China. It's irresponsible as Madison stated.

.....................................

“Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations”

James Madison

Lefty
02-21-2006, 10:37 PM
Told ya, not everybody would get it.
The tax cuts increased the economy, increased the tax revenues. They told us the sky was falling during the Reagan yrs too, but the big blue thing still there. Before ya say that's not what we're talkin about it's all part of the picture. We spent a lotta money on the war in Iraq and when all's said and done it will turn into a real asset. Also you musta missed his point about the gnp.
Sec, when it rains you must feel that God's pissing on you.

Secretariat
02-22-2006, 12:34 AM
Lefty,

Just keep charging to that credit card Lefty.

Lefty
02-22-2006, 01:04 AM
sec, cc no prob as long as the income keeps getting better.

Bala
02-22-2006, 02:25 AM
Skate wrote "...as a mater of fact, the amount owed by the US, is smaller than the share of GDP in the 90s..."

Skate wrote "...Dept Reductions. the last being a 33% reduction (1920-1930) and we found 1929..."

______________________

Utter nonsense! I have said in prior posts to take great care where one gets his facts. We have had greater deficits in relation to GDP in the past, mostly during war time. Civil war, WWII etc... However, up untill 1974 we were a creditor nation. Now we are the single largest debtor nation in human history.

The Great Depression happenend when the congress past some very serious import/export tariffs on the largest creditor nation {USA} at the time. A disastrous trade war followed -- igniting the 1929 depression. There were also other reasons. One that comes to mind, was a new act called the Federal Reserve act. The new central bank made some incredibly bone head moves!

Another words - the govt. was solely responsible for the great depression. The debt reduction that Skate wrote about was caused inadvertently by a booming economy of the roaring 1920's.

Today, out national debt stands at 65% of GDP and growing. Bush's proposed buget of 2.77 trillion is the highest in relation to GDP ever excluding war time. That is world war, the current war in Iraq is a small portion of our buget.

Think of it this way, for every $100 dollars you make $65 dollars is indebtedness. For a better understanding of your country I recommend the CIA's site.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Also,

Read the constitution, the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers! It is clear the framer of our country insisted on a small Federal Govt.

Skate, in the future, put your facts in some context of the times.


Separately, has anyone noticed some banks are issuing 40 year mortgages?

_________________________________________________
If evolution is true any monkey can pick the '06 KD winner.

Tom
02-22-2006, 08:44 AM
sec, cc no prob as long as the income keeps getting better.


And there is the rub - for many, the paycheck is shrinking and worse - disappearing. This is why I keep harping on equality of jobs. A $20K job replacing a $50K job is not a good thing. If we lose one job and gain two, you just can't say we increased jobs and reduced unemployment if we replace a $50K with two $20K's. You have to look at more than one indicator.

skate
02-22-2006, 03:11 PM
thanks for the post.


seems like we have our differentials, to say the least.

we may have more in agreement than first thought.

i agree with those that say (wages) the "value" of the money that the working man accumulates is being reduced.

and i can not agree with big business and government tactics. this gives me direction, as to whose side im on.
now:

the fed. budgit for 2005 (roughly on some of these figures, please), to get the overall idea, money taken into the fed. gov., is bout $12 trillion.
the listed (not counting for the war) Deficit (the difference between Fed. expenditures and Revenue in "one Year") for 2005 was under 400 billion.

so we are talking about 3%, or 4% if you consider the war.
that's it folkes.
now we can tune into the local TV stations and get all worked up over that 3 or 4 %, OR we can consider just what that 4% represents. first off, it is very samll.
second, that money is either in the hands of the Gov. or it is OUR hands. not, i say Not in the hands of China or Iran...

that 4% we are talking about is going towards people in our country, schools, hospitals, defense (to make up for the cut back during the 90s), roads, research in universitys, space, many many branches of learning, and all of the above (even more) are investments in the USA.
and this is what should be considered "Asset". a house is no more an asset (in fact it is less) than your ability to achieve. don't pay your taxes and you can still achieve (pick the right horse), don't pay your taxes and you will lose your house.

it is a global economy..

They can do nothing with the dollar, unless They give it back to the USA.

partly the reason why the clinton economic figures looked real. his people, during his term, increased the sale of bonds (foreiners) to record numbers. and, oh, you dont find that (sale of bonds) on your TV stations.
those bonds have to be repayed. and so in return, the present administration must also increase the sale of gov. bonds. they (foreiners) do that with the US dollar, which they get from selling us goods.


hey, thanks again
skate

skate
02-22-2006, 03:56 PM
ok ok ok ;

thes are the debt figures for the USA. note they go back to...
i thought they would transport (figures) in an easier to read manner.
fig. found in many sites and i think these were from Wikipedia (?)

DateDebt09/30/2000$5,674,178,209,886.8609/28/1990$3,233,313,451,777.2512/31/1980$930,210,000,000.0012/31/1970$389,158,403,690.2612/30/1960$290,216,815,241.6806/30/1950$257,357,352,351.0406/29/1940$42,967,531,037.6806/30/1930$16,185,309,831.4307/01/1920$25,952,456,406.1607/01/1910$2,652,665,838.0407/01/1900$2,136,961,091.6707/01/1890$1,552,140,204.7307/01/1880$2,120,415,370.6307/01/1870$2,480,672,427.8107/01/1860$64,842,287.8807/01/1850$63,452,773.5501/01/1840$3,573,343.8201/01/1830$48,565,406.5001/01/1820$91,015,566.1501/01/1810$53,173,217.5201/01/1800$82,976,294.35

1800.

it is the same principle that happens with an individual. the only difference being that the person does not live forever, while the country does (we hope).

above is a basic breakdown, during 1837 ( i believe) was the only time we had a 100% debt freedom.

many interesting points in here:
1860, civil war, we had a 65 million US public debt or gross fed debt or nat. debt.
1863 $1 billion.
1920 $25 billion.
1930 $15 billion.

so, if my figures are close, we went from $25 to $15 billion thru the years 1920- 1930. and that is a very significant decrease in our debt (bout 32%) and we can easily find out what our economy experienced in 1929.

this was the sixth time that we reduced our debt by over 25%.

what we are looking at is only a problem of logic.

of coarse, we can not compare exactly the economic workings of a capitalist gov. and an individual, but the principle is very much the same. if you partake in a capitalist gov., you are better off (when young) to finance. as long as you do so with the idea that your investment will be of benifit to you or in the case of the USA, will the cost be beneficent to our future generation.
that cost, in my mind, would be a highway, school, defense (aircraft etc.) and on and on...

thanks



[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_U.S._public_debt&action=edit&section=3)]

skate
02-22-2006, 04:27 PM
just imagine;

with out the Tv news.

what happens when (if) we as a gov. happen to acquire a surplus?

in one sample, to prevent inflation, in the ideas of Allen, "to prevent inflation of currency the gov. would monetize private assets".
in others words, "buy private debt, equites or invest in other countrys".

this we call Socialism, which some people think this is the way to go, while others think communism is best.

but, for the most part, even though it does not seem to be best at the time (i.e. invest in the future, finance), it just might work.

wrong way for the gov. to invest;
G.E., porkbellies, Exxon, foreign bonds etc.


right way (capitalism);
Legal protection, Infrastructure, Defense, S.S. fix .


i say this because, we can see that we are not at opposite ends, i don't think.

keep the money in the hands of the people, to keep the economy strong.

Bala
02-22-2006, 05:58 PM
Skate:

In your posts you are forgetting one important equation - former chairmen of the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan is not a nobody. Greenspan is considered to be the brightest economic mind within the past 50 years. He was relentless in drumming to congress a "pay as you go plan." Of course congress never listened. Greenspan has said publicly that debt is the single most important issue in the future of American life.

Total National Debt: 8 trillion and rising - not including off balance sheet items.
Estimated trade deficit '06: 715 Billion

% of Bush's buget on debt service: 24%

_______________
Outsource congress to India.

skate
02-23-2006, 02:42 PM
Bala;


relentless seems to too strong. and Big Al was in favor of reduced taxes.

i remember, during the 90s, steve wynn (vegas) opens a downtown casino and acquires a million plus in credit. later he opens the mirage, soon after he was given $1 Billion plus credit.

now why do (we) suppose that such a move would be benificial. why would it be important for steve to acquire such a huge (to me,not him) debt. after all, he was doing so well without that huge debt.
and now just look at the fool, he's off building another casino (bellagio).
i'm thinking. maybe hes putting that credit to good use, not giving it to china.

and of coarse we got the "NY guy", i'm thinking again, might it be that his credit line keeps increasing. the bigger he gets, the more he (must) invest. as i stated, but you may have left off when you quoted my thought, "as long as it is put to Good Use".
making up for a depleted defense system comes to mind.

who gives money to china, not george, but we the people do. and when they get our money, they Must return our money, or else it is of no good what-so-ever.
they return our money when they buy bonds, or better yet they buy our port access and get a chance to pay uncle some tax money in return.
not to mention the jets from Boeing that china has ordered, what, i'm thinking about 150 (737s), not a bad start, to return some of our (me and you/not george) money.


thanks
skate

ps, i'm not forgetting the fact that everytime we reduced our debt (substantialy), ex. from 1867 thru 1873 we dropped 27% from our debt and the result was "the panic of 1873", their term, not mine.

lots of changes have come about in regards to the way our economic systems is working today, we were schooled on the past, keyn...ism (?).
we can handle a 30% to 40% over spending by the feds and yet we are only spending bout 3% to 4% over budget. relaxe, have a party, bet the Super

oh yeh, stay away from that 60 minute trash, etc.

Suff
02-23-2006, 02:46 PM
Bala;



who gives money to china, not george, but we the people do. and when they get our money, they Must return our money, or else it is of no good what-so-ever.
.

You got it backwards. We have thier money. Steve Wynn Built his Casino with money from child slaves in china.

Tax credit:lol:

You guys are killin me.

skate
02-23-2006, 03:00 PM
oh oh oh ya;

almost forgot the other situation, bout employment.

i mean, either we rely on the stats that the feds (non political) guys put out or we dont. i don't really care so much, but what gets me is the yak yak, bla bla and we seem to be making up the rules for one side but we forget them when we talk of the other side.

and i'm sure, i do that very thing.

but look, here is what really counts, just ask "Big Al", it's "Productivity". so, we can dispute how the employment figures are brought about, who's doing what with whatever?
but it is productivity that really really counts. i.e., the amount a worker produces in an hour. this is the figure that tells us, just how much our standard is up or down.
a sustaining rate would be bout 2% to 2.5%. you guessed it,during the years from 2001 through 2004, productivity ran an average of 3.7%, wow!


and thanks again
skate

Bala
02-23-2006, 10:54 PM
Skate:

You and I have a different paradigm - a different philosophy.

Is it possible that you may be missing this:
Steve Winn's corporation total assets far exceed the corporate liabilities. Unlike Donald Trump who has been in bankruptcy before, Winn can balance his books.

The deficit is the future gap between the federal government's revenues (assuming no changes in tax law) and spending (assuming no change in spending habits). Two economists, Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Cato Institute and Kent Smetters of Wharton, have studied this gap in some detail, taking the spread for all future years and discounting it back to the present. In an academic article due to be published in the spring, they come up with $63 trillion. Forget net worth. We're $15 trillion in the hole.

Now, households are not going bankrupt en masse and the government is not going bankrupt. Instead, we are in for a period of disillusionment. Benefits like Medicare drug coverage and Social Security will be scaled back. Or taxes will go up. Or both. Either way, you are not going to retire in the grand style you were expecting.

In other words -- USA (the corporation) has more liabilities than assets. Steve Winn has a healthy balance sheet -- USA does not.


BTW: I am not a Keynesian.

Lefty
02-24-2006, 12:11 AM
Wynn is a for profit corp. The US govt is not. Apples and Oranges. Oh, if we only had the 6 trillion back we spent on povrty only to still have poverty and a certain amt of people who will always be dependent; as long as we let them. Nobody is going to retitre in style on SS and if it's not privatized thee's going to be people who will receive none at all. Cold hard facts.

skate
02-24-2006, 04:54 PM
Gees Suff;

talk about backwards, when you say "THEIR" money.

you are making my point. now i dont know about how much money Steve used that was from china, but it is my point. china has nothing else to do with "the Dollar", but to return it. as in " investment in the USA", bingo.


thanks
skate


and china is doing fine also, witness their purchase from boeing.

skate
02-24-2006, 05:56 PM
Bala;

i put my answers in the quotes under each of your questions.







Skate:

You and I have a different paradigm - a different philosophy.

"ok, you could be right(after i looked up paradigm)". you are coming more from a direction of socialism, which is fine, but it usually comes in a distant 2nd to capitalism (that's me)" i'm not trying to be funny.

Is it possible that you may be missing this:
Steve Winn's corporation total assets far exceed the corporate liabilities. Unlike Donald Trump who has been in bankruptcy before, Winn can balance his books.

" above, as you stated, Steves assets far exceed liabilities as do the USA current assets vs liabilities."

The deficit is the future gap between the federal government's revenues (assuming no changes in tax law) and spending (assuming no change in spending habits). Two economists, Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Cato Institute and Kent Smetters of Wharton, have studied this gap in some detail, taking the spread for all future years and discounting it back to the present. In an academic article due to be published in the spring, they come up with $63 trillion. Forget net worth. We're $15 trillion in the hole.


"above you say forget net worth (?) yet you compare Steves asset/ liabilities. future gap has been a long long time coming. take your $15 trillion, gees, here we are doing $12 trillion per year"

"do you think that Steve went into the hole? do you think he recouped his debt immediatly? (by the way the guy from NY is doing just fine and dandy. i use him to show you what can happen even if you do get short on money, you re-group, go in the hole again, with a debt, just like Steve did , otherwise he would not have to increase his debt limit.). and when i state "into the hole", non of the above Steve, the USA or Trump had total assets lower than what they owed. and that is especially true in the case of the USA. that $64 trillion figure (how much in the future)? gees wiz, you can see that it would not take long, with a $12 trillion (and on the increase/ to maybe $65 trillion. also) yearly economy to pass your $65 trillion.
debt, as long as it is put to good use (someone may have missed this point) is a very very very (just ask Steve, the USA or Donny) good thing.
while i make this point, all other figures and ideas are mute without the understanding that to have a $12 trillion yearly (on the rise) economy with a budget that went over by 4% is, if anything, far short of full utilization of its (USA) total assests."






Now, households are not going bankrupt en masse and the government is not going bankrupt. Instead, we are in for a period of disillusionment. Benefits like Medicare drug coverage and Social Security will be scaled back. Or taxes will go up. Or both. Either way, you are not going to retire in the grand style you were expecting.

"easy now, dis illiusion is exactly what i'm pointing out, thanks. hey, take a look the cut in capital gain tax, your boys could not believe the $100 billion windfall (they called it, ha, we now know better) for 2003." " this goes with my thought, put the money in the hands of the people, not gov."

In other words -- USA (the corporation) has more liabilities than assets. Steve Winn has a healthy balance sheet -- USA does not.

"again, give me the total assests of the USA". yoo!

i'll be back
skate



http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/report.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/report.php?p=255355) http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/quote.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=255355) http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/reply_small.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=255355&noquote=1)

skate
02-24-2006, 06:12 PM
Bala;

keep in mind, Steve had to increase his debt to achieve more asset.

let me say;

ex. i make $100,000/yr.

you make $500,000/yr

if it cost us $50,000 per year to live.

i can invest 25% for my future.

while you can invest, well over $250,000. 50% or much more if you prefer.

and then to keep it easier yet. let"s say that you are able to control the bank rates (as our fed does), gee wiz, what now?
i'll be thinking that, you my friend are in H..eaven. you da boss! hoss!

the GDP of the USA is higher than all of Europe combined, aint nobody even close.

Bala
02-24-2006, 11:07 PM
Skate;


Ours is an economy dominated by consumption, and consumption requires spending, which insists that people have something to spend. In today's news we find that average weekly consumer incomes in the month of January went down 0.4% from the year before. We also find more circumstantial evidence that the spendable cash is getting tighter and tighter.

The reason is not hard to find. The spending boom of the 2001-2005 period owed its genesis to the boom in real estate. Their own four walls and roof turned many Americans into party animals. Asha Bangalore, an economist at Northern Trust Company, figures that 43% of the jobs created in the U.S. during that period were a by-product of real estate. People were put to work building houses, fixing up houses, financing houses, selling houses or put to work serving drinks to people who made money on houses. In the first nine months of 2005, calculates Bangalore's colleague Paul Kasriel, 100% of the increase in household net worth came from asset-price appreciation, most of which was the increase in house prices.

The show CBS Sunday Morning w/Charles Osgood sent a camera crew and producer to Baltimore from their DC bureau on Tuesday. They're doing a story on the American love affair with debt. The segment will air this Sunday. If you're a fan of the show you can check it out between 9:00 -10:30am on CBS.




Skate wrote: ".....you are coming more from a direction of socialism, which is fine, but it usually comes in a distant 2nd to capitalism (that's me)....."

No, I am not a socialist. I am an Alexander Hamilton capitalist. http://tinyurl.com/m2d7k (http://tinyurl.com/m2d7k) Not a Bush {turbo} capitalist. I will not sell my soul for a buck nor will I sell my ports to my enemies.

Interest rates are going up - the housing (spending) boom is over.

Lefty
02-24-2006, 11:58 PM
Interest rates are going up - the housing (spending) boom is over.

[/font][/QUOTE]

Well, heard that one many times. The boom comes and goes. With the recession inherited from Clinton, then 9-11 and the war, only Bush could have inspired the economy we have enjoyed. Real Estate always been a great investment. That's why I bght this cheap old house in N Vegas and now it's worth 5 times what i pd.

ljb
02-25-2006, 12:31 AM
Lefty,
You will go to your grave trying to blame Clinton. RIP

Lefty
02-25-2006, 12:39 AM
lbj, if the facts fit; and they do, try as you might to disavow them.

ljb
02-25-2006, 08:35 AM
Lefty,
From the Associated Press
by Martin Crutsinger

"After the booming 1990s when incomes and stock prices were soaring, this decade has been less of a thrill ride for most American families."
"Average family incomes, after adjusting for inflation, fell to $70,700, a drop of 2.3 percent when compared to 2001. That was the weakest showing since a decline of 11.3 percent from 1989 to 1992, a period that also covered a recession."
"The gap between the very wealthy and other income groups widened during the period. The top 10 percent of households saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent while the bottom 25 percent suffered a declinefrom a net worth in which their assets equaled their liabilities in 2001 to owing $1,400 more then their total assets in 2004."
Chew on those facts for a bit Lefty, and let me hear your spin.

Tom
02-25-2006, 11:12 AM
To be fair, I think both administrations are to blame for the bloodletting of good manufacturing jobs. Clinton and Bush put far too much emphasis on FREE trade and forgot about FAIR trade.

Clinton planted the seeds with NAFTA, and Bush fertilized them with CAFTA.
In retrospect, I now think Ross Perot was the best candiate for president in the last......what is it four elections?
That huge "sucking" sound he spoke of........if only we knew then what we know know.

The sad part is that Bush is always so close to the right things to do, and just keeps turning the wrong way. If only he "walked" his own talk.

Lefty
02-25-2006, 11:48 AM
no spin lbj, just facts you don't like. The 90's didn't start to boom until the 94 repub congress took over and even then, the last quarter we started slipping into a recession which the left tyried to blame on candidate Bush, cause he dared address it. You gotta admit, with the economic chaos after 9-11 this pres done a magnificent job. Home ownership at an all time high and isn't that a big part of the american dream? Unemployment a tad lower than the Clinton yrs but what they painted as great then, somehow doesn't matter now. Spin lbj, you boys got it.

JustRalph
02-25-2006, 12:05 PM
tom
That blood letting falls on a lot of shoulders.........Nafta, and such. But the workers themselves are as much to blame. When the Union's can get a guy 95k a year for bolting two tires on a car (and a robot lifts the tires up to the assembly line and puts them on the hub) for 6.25 hours a day....Monday thru Friday with ten paid holidays and 6 sick days a year....full pension and other bennies.......then it wasn't that hard to foresee what was going to happen to our manufacturing jobs.

skate
02-25-2006, 08:08 PM
Bala;

to me, it comes down to this, you take the cards that were dealt.

i think my point was made, and thank you for the feedback.

i've got one request, please.

you said you had some friends (sweden ?) who are gonna right a book about debt, fine.
and i would like you to ask them, how much debt are they gonna have when their book hits the market?


thanks again
skate


ps; the name of the game is ...(steve,USA, donald) "Debt". and please, "when done for a good cause".

Tom
02-25-2006, 10:42 PM
tom
That blood letting falls on a lot of shoulders.........Nafta, and such. But the workers themselves are as much to blame. When the Union's can get a guy 95k a year for bolting two tires on a car (and a robot lifts the tires up to the assembly line and puts them on the hub) for 6.25 hours a day....Monday thru Friday with ten paid holidays and 6 sick days a year....full pension and other bennies.......then it wasn't that hard to foresee what was going to happen to our manufacturing jobs.

Never been accuses of favoring unions by any stretch-I gree the Useless Auto Workers brought a lot of this on themselves, but the Big Three of days of Old -GM, Ford, Chrysler, rolled over like whores in a lilly patch and never acccepted thier responsiblity either.
But greed aside, there is a lot of crap happening - can you spell c-h-i-n-a - that are hurting us and Bush refurse to address them. And he might not be the gut who started it all, but he is the guy who is in the position to do something about it, unless he is completely unaware of the problem, like he was of the selling of the port deal. What does this guy do all day??????

Secretariat
02-26-2006, 12:03 AM
no spin lbj, just facts you don't like. The 90's didn't start to boom until the 94 repub congress took over and even then, the last quarter we started slipping into a recession which the left tyried to blame on candidate Bush, cause he dared address it. You gotta admit, with the economic chaos after 9-11 this pres done a magnificent job. Home ownership at an all time high and isn't that a big part of the american dream? Unemployment a tad lower than the Clinton yrs but what they painted as great then, somehow doesn't matter now. Spin lbj, you boys got it.

Facts, Lefty? You wouldn't know facts if they hit you in the face.

Let me get this right. The booming economy during the Clinton administration was due to the Republican Congress. By that logic, the supposed Reagan boom years were then due to the Democratic Congress.

Now, to reality? You state "this pres done a magnificent job." You gotta be kidding. Six years and the markets have only tepidly risen since he took office, and are well below inflation figures on your dollars. In fact if you invested 10,000 dollars on the DOW index (or Nasdaq) on the day GW took office, and looked at that money now adjusted for inflation it wouldn't even approach a simple savings account. That's not booming, and neither is an obscene deficit.

For a better look at the economy why don't you actually do some due dillegence rather than Rush talk. Here's a starter, and it's not libs Lefty, it's the facts you so love.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11530132/

Be careful of the GW spin with phrases like "after-tax average income" rather than "median household income". The GW phrase factors in huge tax breaks given to the wealthy as "after-tax income" and averages it with people who got little. "Median Household Income" looks at the bottom line at the actual middle household.

I realize GW is your superhero Lefty. But be careful because he looks likes he holding a bundle of Kryptonite.

Lefty
02-26-2006, 12:23 AM
sec, your own chart a while bk(or was it hcaps)showed the boom didn't start till after the 94 congress.
I know you think you're funny by saying by that logic Reagan's economy due to dems but that ain't logic that's your leftwing spin. The 94 Congress and the Contract with America forced Clinton to Balance the budget and sign welfare reform. Then Clinton took all the credit. Stick to the facts and you know i'm right, but you can't bear it.
Before Reagan the Dems had the economy in a mess.
Let's say it together: Tax cuts, that's the way.
Yeah, Pres done a great job. Imagine if Gore had been Pres during 9-11. He would have raised taxes on a falering economy and caused a real mess. We diodged a bullet there. During Bush home ownership at an alltime, high, black home ownership alltime high. For me, that's a good job. For Dems who want power; it's a disaster.

Secretariat
02-26-2006, 01:23 AM
sec, your own chart a while bk(or was it hcaps)showed the boom didn't start till after the 94 congress.
I know you think you're funny by saying by that logic Reagan's economy due to dems but that ain't logic that's your leftwing spin. The 94 Congress and the Contract with America forced Clinton to Balance the budget and sign welfare reform. Then Clinton took all the credit. Stick to the facts and you know i'm right, but you can't bear it.
Before Reagan the Dems had the economy in a mess.
Let's say it together: Tax cuts, that's the way.
Yeah, Pres done a great job. Imagine if Gore had been Pres during 9-11. He would have raised taxes on a falering economy and caused a real mess. We diodged a bullet there. During Bush home ownership at an alltime, high, black home ownership alltime high. For me, that's a good job. For Dems who want power; it's a disaster.

In actuality Lefty, when Clinton "raised taxes" on wealthier individuals the economy began booming.

And you can't have it both ways Lefty. You can't state that in Clinton's administration the booming economy was due to a Repub congress, while in Reagan's supposed boom years it was despite the Democratic congress. It smacks of pure partisanship, and in no way represents the facts.

You state: "Before Reagan the Dems had the economy in a mess." one could say befroe Clinton, GW's dad had the economy in a mess - we were in a recession. I posted earlier the signficant unemployment drops every year under Clinton, not just 1994 onward. Under his tenure there were like 21 million jobs created.

I don't see where you get this booming GW economy. The two industries that have been successful under GW is housing (which is now slowing) and defense (because we're at war). The result of the economy is flat or retrograde.

Here's some more facts Lefty, since you disregard the Federal Reserve figures on Median Household income as "lib" I guess. You really don't like facts do you? So choke on these for awhile:

"Since Bush was elected the number of lobbyists registered to do business in Washington has more than doubled. That’s 16,342 lobbyists in 2000 to 34,785 last year. Sixty-five lobbyists for every member of Congress.

The amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by nearly one hundred percent in that same period, according to The Washington Post, going up to anything from $20,000 to $40,000 a month. Starting salaries have risen to nearly $300,000 a year for the best-connected people, those leaving Congress or the administration.

The total spent per month by special interests wining, dining, and seducing federal officials is now nearly $200 million. Per month
...

"As great wealth has accumulated at the top, the rest of society has not been benefiting proportionally. In 1960 the gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was thirtyfold. Now it is seventy-five fold. Thirty years ago the average annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives in the country was 30 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is 1000 times the pay of the average worker. A recent article in The Financial Times reports on a study by the American economist Robert J. Gordon, who finds “little long-term change in workers’ share of U.S. income over the past half century.” Middle-ranking Americans are being squeezed, he says, because the top ten percent of earners have captured almost half the total income gains in the past four decades and the top one percent have gained the most of all – “more in fact, than all the bottom 50 percent.”

....

Lefty, take the blinkers "OFF".

.................................................. .................................................

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." super-conservative - William F. Buckley

ljb
02-26-2006, 10:58 AM
no spin lbj, just facts you don't like. The 90's didn't start to boom until the 94 repub congress took over and even then, the last quarter we started slipping into a recession which the left tyried to blame on candidate Bush, cause he dared address it. You gotta admit, with the economic chaos after 9-11 this pres done a magnificent job. Home ownership at an all time high and isn't that a big part of the american dream? Unemployment a tad lower than the Clinton yrs but what they painted as great then, somehow doesn't matter now. Spin lbj, you boys got it.
Lefty,
Blah, blah, blah. You choose to ignore the facts I posted and spin to your narrow minded view. Open you eyes Lefty, you are being duped big time.

Lefty
02-26-2006, 11:31 AM
sec, lbj, you two spinmeisters refuse to blve in economic principles. Clinton raised taxes on wealthy you say? Well bub, when you raise taxes on one group you effectively raise taxes on all groups. The Repub congress put in measures(i listed em) that helped the economy and a recent chart on this forum shows the economy took off after 94. I'm not trying to have it both ways but you are with your convuuluted logic. blah, all ya want but there's facts and then there's you dems and your webs.

Secretariat
02-26-2006, 02:26 PM
sec, lbj, you two spinmeisters refuse to blve in economic principles. Clinton raised taxes on wealthy you say? Well bub, when you raise taxes on one group you effectively raise taxes on all groups. The Repub congress put in measures(i listed em) that helped the economy and a recent chart on this forum shows the economy took off after 94. I'm not trying to have it both ways but you are with your convuuluted logic. blah, all ya want but there's facts and then there's you dems and your webs.

Lefty, I'm still waiting for your response on this on the Median Household Income. How do you explain this?

No spin. Just this article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11530132/

skate
02-26-2006, 04:59 PM
ok ok ok , then ;


we should let them (arabs) fly their aircraft (bought from us) over the states, but (a) we should not let them into our ports.

ok, right.

makes a whole lot of sense

Tom
02-26-2006, 07:06 PM
I get a bad vibe from arabs in airplanes.

lsbets
02-26-2006, 07:13 PM
I get a bad vibe from arabs in airplanes.

I have a friend who flew on an Arab airline once. The pilot got on and said "The estimated arrival time is 3:00 en shallah" (I know Light the spelling is wrong). Which means God Willing. He told me that was rather disturbing to hear the pilot say.

Sailwolf
02-26-2006, 07:20 PM
oh, I thought it was the land of milk and honey...........I have one suggestion....

Move!
http://www.brandchannel.com/images/FeaturesProfile/profile_img1_uhaul.jpg




To where?????????????


After 20 years and a college degree and at working at LEAST 4 companies that went bankrupt, I have almost nothing to my name. That is after living in Texas during the savings and loan problem, living in Oregon during the "spotted owl situation" and other places. Like a recent Business Week article stated, the richer are richer, the lower class is sinking and the middle class is on its downward spiral

Lefty
02-26-2006, 08:05 PM
sec, i'm no economist but your harping one aspect of the economy and i'd say the reasons are higher healthcare costs and unions pricing labor out of jobs. These two things set in motion by dems long ago. You don't want to credit bush for keeping the economy goung during trying times and wasn't there something mentioned about 20 yr records awhile back?

Sail, where did all the new millionaires come from if not from the middle class? Get a grip, quit feeling sorry for yourself and get to work. If you don't own your own home this should be a priority. Find a foreclosire you can afford and buy it.

Tom
02-26-2006, 08:48 PM
Oh great advice - kick somebody else out on the street.

Lefy, how many struggling Americans could have been helped with that $25 BIllion for the bridge to nowhere that Bush refurse to veto?
Hardly anyone benifits from the bridge, millions of Amercians could have been helped - Amercians, who through no fault of thier own are having tough times while Bush spends like a drunken sailor.
Try this on for size, too. Federal aid for re-training for thoise who lost thier jobs due to the stupidity of NAFTA is drying up - many will NOT get the promised aid for re-training becashe Bush has spent all the money.

Let me ask you a question - how is this a great country when we don't take care of our own?

Don't give me the standard reply about thirty years of welfare - I'm talking now, people who have worked and saved all thier lives only to screwed by this great country.

The only thing I am asking is that if the government doesn't have to live by a budget, I shouldn't either. I don't want special consideration, just the same health care Bush gets from my taxes, and the same spend now pay somehow situation he is in.

Bush is in the position to stop pork and he has failed at every opportunity.

And that's the bottom line.
:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Lefty
02-26-2006, 10:08 PM
Oh great advice - kick somebody else out on the street.

Lefy, how many struggling Americans could have been helped with that $25 BIllion for the bridge to nowhere that Bush refurse to veto?
Hardly anyone benifits from the bridge, millions of Amercians could have been helped - Amercians, who through no fault of thier own are having tough times while Bush spends like a drunken sailor.
Try this on for size, too. Federal aid for re-training for thoise who lost thier jobs due to the stupidity of NAFTA is drying up - many will NOT get the promised aid for re-training becashe Bush has spent all the money.

Let me ask you a question - how is this a great country when we don't take care of our own?

Don't give me the standard reply about thirty years of welfare - I'm talking now, people who have worked and saved all thier lives only to screwed by this great country.

The only thing I am asking is that if the government doesn't have to live by a budget, I shouldn't either. I don't want special consideration, just the same health care Bush gets from my taxes, and the same spend now pay somehow situation he is in.

Bush is in the position to stop pork and he has failed at every opportunity.

And that's the bottom line.
:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

"kick somebody else out on the street. Jesus, Tom, I found a home that was boarded up, a foreclosure and I bght if from a friend with the winning bid. Did I kick somebody to the street? I haven't been kicked to the street because I make my pmts. I can't help it if the other guy wasn't responsible enough to do the same. I educated myself in creative financing; spent long hrs at it when I would have rather been watching TV.
Don't know much about the bridge, prob a boondoggle, but looky people were employed at good paying jobs to build it, right; so some good came of it. You just can't help people that won't help themselves, Tom.
You mean Bush gets special healthcare that other Presidents didn't get. All of a sudden Bush responsible for all the ills that befall us when in reality he has done a lot, but gets no credit. No he hasn't been perfect, but has any Pres? Why don't you give the man the credit he deserves.
SS and Healthcare, the libs down every attempt to revamp these systems by spitting negativety all over the place. How can any Pres overcome that?
People, stop the whining and take some responsibility for your lives.
The govt ain't your Nanny.

JustRalph
02-26-2006, 11:33 PM
Sail..........ever heard of the midwest? You might try...it ..........do some research. The wife and I are working our asses off as usual and prospering...........incomes increasing etc..........slow but sure.......keep pluggin away..........

schweitz
02-27-2006, 12:47 AM
I work for a manufacturing company that has been in business for 60+ years----our customers are other manufacturing companies. Our business is the best it has been in the history of the company and our customers are telling me that their business is booming which is obvious based on our sales. We sell to many different industries all over the US and I'm having a hard time believing any negative statement about our economy.

Tom
02-27-2006, 08:24 AM
"kick somebody else out on the street. Jesus, Tom, I found a home that was boarded up, a foreclosure and I bght if from a friend with the winning bid. Did I kick somebody to the street? I haven't been kicked to the street because I make my pmts. I can't help it if the other guy wasn't responsible enough to do the same. I educated myself in creative financing; spent long hrs at it when I would have rather been watching TV.
Don't know much about the bridge, prob a boondoggle, but looky people were employed at good paying jobs to build it, right; so some good came of it. You just can't help people that won't help themselves, Tom.
You mean Bush gets special healthcare that other Presidents didn't get. All of a sudden Bush responsible for all the ills that befall us when in reality he has done a lot, but gets no credit. No he hasn't been perfect, but has any Pres? Why don't you give the man the credit he deserves.
SS and Healthcare, the libs down every attempt to revamp these systems by spitting negativety all over the place. How can any Pres overcome that?
People, stop the whining and take some responsibility for your lives.
The govt ain't your Nanny.

Talk about spinning. Tell you what, I think for what I pay in taxes a I deserve a damn nanny. But let ME keep what i earn - ALL of it, and I will not trouble the government to do anything for at all. But I am paying a HUGE amount of taxes for which I expect a competant government. Loose cannon, eh?

ljb
02-27-2006, 08:44 AM
I work for a manufacturing company that has been in business for 60+ years----our customers are other manufacturing companies. Our business is the best it has been in the history of the company and our customers are telling me that their business is booming which is obvious based on our sales. We sell to many different industries all over the US and I'm having a hard time believing any negative statement about our economy.
If i was a betting man, i would bet you were working in an industry that creates war material ? Bombs or something in that line.

Tom
02-27-2006, 09:48 AM
If i was a betting man, i would bet you were working in an industry that creates war material ? Bombs or something in that line.

It sure isn't the automotve industry!

schweitz
02-27-2006, 10:12 AM
If i was a betting man, i would bet you were working in an industry that creates war material ? Bombs or something in that line.

It's a good thing you are not a betting man---the only thing that comes close to what you are talking about is about 5% of our business is from the aircraft industry---both commercial and military----and it has been constant for many years.

schweitz
02-27-2006, 10:14 AM
It sure isn't the automotve industry!

You are correct---but we do sell into the truck industry and and that part of our business is good.

Tom
02-27-2006, 11:17 AM
You are correct---but we do sell into the truck industry and and that part of our business is good.

And do you know why?
It takes a lot of trucks to ship our car business to Canada and Mexico!:lol: :rolleyes:

Lefty
02-27-2006, 11:29 AM
Tom, what the hell did I spin? I told the truth. Funny, you say you should keep all your taxes; cause under Bush you don't get to keep em all but you sure get to keep more than any dem will let you. But tell ya what, vote for dems and get your taxes increased and their hollow promises to take care of you.
And let me ask you a q, would you feel safer under Gore or Kerry than you do Bush? Those were the choices.

Secretariat
02-27-2006, 11:40 AM
I work for a manufacturing company that has been in business for 60+ years----our customers are other manufacturing companies. Our business is the best it has been in the history of the company and our customers are telling me that their business is booming which is obvious based on our sales. We sell to many different industries all over the US and I'm having a hard time believing any negative statement about our economy.

Then how do you explain that wages are stagnant acording to he Federal Reserve article and that Median Household incomes are reported by "THEM" as down.

See earlier article I posted. Your anecdotal story is good for your situation, but does not tell the broad story across America as the Fed Reserve article did. This is one reason GW's approval rate hovers under 40%.

And Lefty, lighten up on the booze, because from your posts it appears you're drunk.

Lefty
02-27-2006, 11:40 AM
And do you know why?
It takes a lot of trucks to ship our car business to Canada and Mexico!:lol: :rolleyes:
No matter what is said, you are bound and determined to turn it into a negative. I will try and stay positive. The good GW has done, far outweighs some of the things he hasn't done right. It's an intricate job he has, and the world is not as simple as we would like or see it in our limited view. We go about our daily lives but his is dealing with all these problems. It would drive most of us insane, i blve.

Lefty
02-27-2006, 11:50 AM
Then how do you explain that wages are stagnant acording to he Federal Reserve article and that Median Household incomes are reported by "THEM" as down.

See earlier article I posted. Your anecdotal story is good for your situation, but does not tell the broad story across America as the Fed Reserve article did. This is one reason GW's approval rate hovers under 40%.

And Lefty, lighten up on the booze, because from your posts it appears you're drunk.
sec, easier to insult than enlighten. Page 102 Dems handbook. For your edification I quit drinking 18 yrs ago.
Hey, just saw on a Fox stock show last night that the all signs point to a 5% increase in the economy! So peddle your doom and gloom to somebody else.

Tom
02-27-2006, 12:37 PM
No matter what is said, you are bound and determined to turn it into a negative. I will try and stay positive. The good GW has done, far outweighs some of the things he hasn't done right. It's an intricate job he has, and the world is not as simple as we would like or see it in our limited view. We go about our daily lives but his is dealing with all these problems. It would drive most of us insane, i blve.

Yes, I agree.
And it looks like it already did! :D :rolleyes:

ljb
02-27-2006, 01:50 PM
It's a good thing you are not a betting man---the only thing that comes close to what you are talking about is about 5% of our business is from the aircraft industry---both commercial and military----and it has been constant for many years.
Well then, the only other industry that is prospering under this regime is "The Halliburton industry". Must be you're getting some of them corruption dollars. :D

ljb
02-27-2006, 02:10 PM
sec, your own chart a while bk(or was it hcaps)showed the boom didn't start till after the 94 congress.
I know you think you're funny by saying by that logic Reagan's economy due to dems but that ain't logic that's your leftwing spin. The 94 Congress and the Contract with America forced Clinton to Balance the budget and sign welfare reform. Then Clinton took all the credit. Stick to the facts and you know i'm right, but you can't bear it.
Before Reagan the Dems had the economy in a mess.
Let's say it together: Tax cuts, that's the way.
Yeah, Pres done a great job. Imagine if Gore had been Pres during 9-11. He would have raised taxes on a falering economy and caused a real mess. We diodged a bullet there. During Bush home ownership at an alltime, high, black home ownership alltime high. For me, that's a good job. For Dems who want power; it's a disaster.
Lefty,
Why do you always use what ifs to try and make a point ? I know reality is hard for you to grasp but it is real. The middle class are getting the bum rap again while Bushco makes deals with his arabian cohorts to concentrate the wealth amongst the few and the mighty. Meanwhile illegal immigrants continue to pour across the borders keeping downward pressure on wages here in the good ol USA. Lower wages and higher living expenses equal a lower standard of living for the middle class and you sit there counting the lousy $300 tax break you got as some sort of blessing from the mighty one. Spit out that rehashed Rush rehtoric and take a bite out of reality Lefty, it is refreshing and enlightening.

schweitz
02-27-2006, 02:35 PM
Then how do you explain that wages are stagnant acording to he Federal Reserve article and that Median Household incomes are reported by "THEM" as down.


Don't need to explain it---all I know is my situation and the situation of 1000+ of my customers.

schweitz
02-27-2006, 02:38 PM
Well then, the only other industry that is prospering under this regime is "The Halliburton industry". Must be you're getting some of them corruption dollars. :D

Actually Halliburton is a customer of ours---a small one. As I said before we sell into MANY industries---it is just not one or two segments of mfg than are doing good.

Tom
02-27-2006, 03:27 PM
Some businesses are doing well - it's not like everything just died.
But enough have died to cause concern, and more will unless we do something postive.
I'm soory LEfty, but I have given Bush tons of credit for things he has done right - I just cannot and will not accept as a standard "better than Gore."
Bush is the guy right now who can make a major difference and he refuses. He is a failure any many fronts.

Secretariat
02-27-2006, 06:09 PM
Don't need to explain it---all I know is my situation and the situation of 1000+ of my customers.

Well, if you can't explain why the Federal Reserve says median household incomes are down, but yours is up, it means one thing and one thing only. Yours is up. Since that is the case, it means a lot more people are down if the Federal Reserve is correct.

schweitz
02-27-2006, 07:31 PM
Well, if you can't explain why the Federal Reserve says median household incomes are down, but yours is up, it means one thing and one thing only. Yours is up. Since that is the case, it means a lot more people are down if the Federal Reserve is correct.

If you say so sec---how's your income doing? Or are you even working in the US?

chickenhead
02-27-2006, 07:41 PM
Mine is down. Me and Schweitz balance each other out. Pretty soon I'll even be shopping at Walmart :eek:

JustRalph
02-27-2006, 08:06 PM
count me as up...........looks like a tie

schweitz
02-27-2006, 08:23 PM
Mine is down. Me and Schweitz balance each other out. Pretty soon I'll even be shopping at Walmart :eek:
:D :D

Secretariat
02-27-2006, 08:38 PM
If you say so sec---how's your income doing? Or are you even working in the US?

No, it's not if I say so. It's what the Federal Reserve report said. And it's not if I'm doing well or poorly...it's what a majority of the country is doing. I'm doing OK, but nowhere near the business I did in the 90's.

Lefty
02-27-2006, 09:28 PM
Mine is UP!
lbj, look at the chart.
I use the what-if of Gore cause that was the alternative to Bush. He's a real terror warrior, you think? And you keep forgetting that only Haliburton can do what they are doing in Iraq.

Tom
02-27-2006, 10:42 PM
Spin spin spin

Lefty
02-27-2006, 10:50 PM
Spin spin spin
negative negative negative

chickenhead
02-27-2006, 11:06 PM
my county has lost around 5000 net jobs in my occupation over the last few years....I'm not blaming Bush, but I would sure like him to help. Outsourcing is a very real problem, and bringing in more foreign engineers to help compete against me for whats left doesn't seem real friendly either. I know a ton of guys in my biz out of work, not a single one has been fired of course, all have either been laid off with jobs relocated, or biz failure trying to compete with offshores with higher profit margins. Its trouble man.

I'll be honest, I'm kind of scratching my head over what to do next. Moving doesn't really solve it, changing industries might -- but it's not exactly clear what a good choice would be. Either way, my income is going DOWN.

Tom
02-27-2006, 11:09 PM
negative negative negative

Come on Lefty - you are doing the same thing you always acuse Ljb of - changing the subject. How does Haliburton fit into this discussion?

schweitz
02-28-2006, 12:56 AM
my county has lost around 5000 net jobs in my occupation over the last few years....I'm not blaming Bush, but I would sure like him to help. Outsourcing is a very real problem, and bringing in more foreign engineers to help compete against me for whats left doesn't seem real friendly either. I know a ton of guys in my biz out of work, not a single one has been fired of course, all have either been laid off with jobs relocated, or biz failure trying to compete with offshores with higher profit margins. Its trouble man.

I'll be honest, I'm kind of scratching my head over what to do next. Moving doesn't really solve it, changing industries might -- but it's not exactly clear what a good choice would be. Either way, my income is going DOWN.

Don't know how old you are but I know that I have had to reinvent myself several times since I entered the work force 37 years ago. I have been up and I have been down. It's just part of life and not something new. Yea, losing jobs to overseas companies is a fairly new phenomenon but there has always been whole industries drying up, or companies going out of business, or layoffs because of mergers, or a bunch of other factors that effect certain jobs or industries.

What I'm saying is that I have been where you are now many times and it has always worked out for me and I bet it will for you too. Just stay positive and research your options.

chickenhead
02-28-2006, 01:44 AM
no doubt schweitz. I'm not too old yet, so I have time to learn new tricks, but it still sucks, I should be in the sweet spot here in what I'm doing, but it just poof went away. I know, I'm whining...I'm pissed off! :D
I'll get over it.

JustRalph
02-28-2006, 07:03 AM
I think the re-inventing or rolling with the punches is the key. I have had to re-invent myself and learn something new 3 times in the last 10 years. It is the new economy and it won't change in the near future. In fact, I am getting ready to do it again.

Lefty
02-28-2006, 11:21 AM
I think the re-inventing or rolling with the punches is the key. I have had to re-invent myself and learn something new 3 times in the last 10 years. It is the new economy and it won't change in the near future. In fact, I am getting ready to do it again.

Did it all my life. When there were no jobs in the sixties, in my town, I sold Fuller Brush, door to door, on commision.
Some whine, Some just do. Great post, JR.

chickenhead
02-28-2006, 11:33 AM
Some whine, Some just do.

Are you taking a shot at me here? Sure sounds like it, I just want to be sure.

Lefty
02-28-2006, 11:52 AM
Are you taking a shot at me here? Sure sounds like it, I just want to be sure.

No, i'm not. But note the whiners on this thread. I've had tough times all my life, never let it stop me and still won't. I've prob been fired, quit and found more jobs in my life than most people have had. Not all of them pleasant and not all making much money, but do what ya gotta do.

chickenhead
02-28-2006, 12:06 PM
I just think we're being a little cavalier about whats happening, we are losing tech jobs, engineering jobs....the creme de la creme of the job market. We're not outsourcing the low paying menial jobs.

All I keep hearing is we need more engineers, we need to graduate more engineers, businesses are short on engineers, we need to import some engineers.....they're laying them off in droves around here, and at all the other hot spots around the country! Where are these businesses? I'll gladly sign up as headhunter...make a mint.

When you work in design, most people end up specializing, that is the nature of the beast...there are some generalists but for the most part the complexity requires specialization, that doesn't mean you are static, you are always updating your skills -- technology marches on -- but usually focused within your specialty.

It's not like you can just transition those skills directly into another $100K job, some people will, but like I said, in my county we got 5000 roaming around..there just aren't 5000 $100K jobs that were waiting to be filled. Of course everyone will retrain, everyone will do something else...but for a lot less money. I know some guys went into real estate...it just seems ludicrous to me, here is a guy with 30 years experience in detailed design of communications system, we're sending these messages back and forth on technology he helped create....and all that knowledge is just getting thrown away. Not because it's not useful anymore, it's heavily in demand...but not here, overseas. And for a lot less money.

So I'll do something else, got no choice...and I'll be successful...but that doesn't mean I think what is going on is good, I think it's a very bad thing. We need those kind of jobs, they are important to keep.

Lefty
02-28-2006, 12:22 PM
chick, life has always been tough and will continue to always be tough. Things change and then change again.
But the people that say we don't manufacture things in this country just write manufacturing in the U.S.A. in their search engine and you will see there's still plenty going on. We still manufacture more goods than any other country, it sems to me.
Chick, goodluck. I know you are a survivor.

Secretariat
02-28-2006, 03:01 PM
Chick,

Thank you for your honesty and an excellent account of the price of globalization, and the outsourcing of American jobs.

You've been hit with the typical, buck up, find something else, change is always happening crap, and life has always been tough (no, it hasn't always been Lefty), and I've picked myself up off the floor stuff promulgated by Lefty and the like. Well, of course we all have to struggle in the face of adversity. That's not the point and it never was. Of course you'll find a way to get by. The question is "why" has that become necessary? "Why" have good paying American jobs been exported? "Why" have high tech jobs been exported to third world countries ands countries who violate standards that weren't acceptable during the robber baron times in this country tolerated today? And the answer is simple. Corporate Profits.

American workers don't want handouts. What they want is an even playing field, and not to go backwards on a traditional standard of living in this country. It's a sad thing when you have to tell your children to brace for a worse standard of living than you grew up with. But with mega-deficits, and a dwindling job market with sustainable wages, and a median household income that can't keep up with inflation, and perpetual war, that is what the children of this nation face.

Chick, I wish you the best with your search. Best to you and your family.

Lefty, your post about manufacturing would take an entire thread to talk about, but i'll keep it short. You're wrong.

schweitz
02-28-2006, 03:30 PM
Working from memory----the US produces about 33% of the world's gross national product with less than 5% of the worlds population. I guess it must be robots doing all this producing.

JustRalph
02-28-2006, 06:04 PM
Working from memory----the US produces about 33% of the world's gross national product with less than 5% of the worlds population. I guess it must be robots doing all this producing.

Excellent piece of knowledge. It also explains how screwed up the rest of the world is...........compared to this country..........you know the one that the left seems to think is in the toilet...........things are so baddddd!!!! And it is all Bush's fault!

ljb
02-28-2006, 06:11 PM
schwiez,
Do you recall the other half of that statement ?
The one that tells how much of the world's resources we use.

Tom
02-28-2006, 06:40 PM
It truly amazes me how this country allows others to take advantage of it, outright break international laws, and then shrug thier shoulders when someone complains that out elected official fail to do thier jobs and stand up for our rights. Maybe we do create 33% of the world's GNP, but maybe it use dto be 43%...????


Why are you guys so dead set against Bush standing up to china for its outright illegal trade practices?

Lefty
02-28-2006, 06:54 PM
schweitz, JR, love the positive remarks. Sadly, sec and a few others will only see the negative and not any positives. Sec, nope i'm not wrong and I have picked myself up may times. Too bad you can't see that as a positive.
Corp profits? Of course! THat's why they're in business! And Union demands have driven a lot of jobs elsewhere. But you just want to blame the evil corps...and GW, of course.

JustRalph
02-28-2006, 07:03 PM
schwiez,
Do you recall the other half of that statement ?
The one that tells how much of the world's resources we use.

Good , we deserve it. The hell with the rest of them..........! :D

Lefty
02-28-2006, 09:09 PM
Hey, lbj, and you help use those resources and enjoy the comforts they bring.

Secretariat
02-28-2006, 09:48 PM
schweitz, JR, love the positive remarks. Sadly, sec and a few others will only see the negative and not any positives. Sec, nope i'm not wrong and I have picked myself up may times. Too bad you can't see that as a positive.
Corp profits? Of course! THat's why they're in business! And Union demands have driven a lot of jobs elsewhere. But you just want to blame the evil corps...and GW, of course.

Lefty,

There have been decades and decades of unions without this kind of mass globalization. The expansion of it began under Clinton and his Republican Congress with NAFTA, and expanded out of control under GW and his love of globalization and now CAFTA. These are political decisions for lobbyists, not for the people. There were unions around a long time before that, and coporations made profits decades before that as well. Under GW the number of lobbyists have doubled. And Lefty, corps have always made profits. No one has problems with that. The problem is the obscenity that is going on, and the growing division between the common worker and the CEO. Go look up the figures for yourself Lefty. They've been posted here multiple times.

Get your head out of the sand and wake up. Your love affair with GW will soon be you and JR and schweitz and isbets alone. His poll numbers show he is out of touch with the majority by a very large margin.

Lefty
02-28-2006, 11:12 PM
Man, my head's been outta the sand a long time. All my life I have realized I had to make my own living. I had kids to raise. I had no time for negative attitudes like yours. The jet plane has been invented. We are in a global economy. Adjust or cry.

Lefty
02-28-2006, 11:21 PM
sec, this global economy didn't start with GW and won't end with him. He cut taxes, gave the economy a boost and unemplyment at an alltime low; financial pundits say the economy poised to increase another 5%. The Pres did his job, now it's up to individuals to do theirs.

Secretariat
03-01-2006, 08:09 AM
Lefty,

We are in a global economy, and I don't care if GW began it or not. He's in the position to do something about it. What does global economy that mean anyway? NAFTA, CAFTA, outsource to China and India. That other nations do not have to proscribe to the same labor practices that our nation has? Since our standard of living has been the highest in the world, we should sacrifice those good jobs to places like Commie China and third world countries where near slave labor is permitted in the name of globalization? So called free trade is only free when everyone is on an equal playing field, and that's simply not the case. Take one example - minimum wage. Now you could advocate doing away with the minimum wage, but then you'd be returning to a time in America when workers were really abused. Why did workers fight for minimum wage anyway Lefty? How about getting rid of OSHA requirements? This would save employers money, but then it does nothing to insure worker safety, but it gets us closer to an even playing field. Lefty, you simply want to give up all worker benefits in favor of using slave or indentured type conditions to make a bigger profit for CEOs. Look at the widening gap between CEO pay and the common worker. Look for a change. I know you like to play the "whine" game.and "negative attitudes" when someone presents you with facts from those "lib" organizations like the Federal Reserve Board or the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. If you don't follow GW, over the bridge you're negative....heard it before. You need to turn off FOX News, turn off Rush, and go back to the first article in this thread and read it. This is not Michael Moore or Al Franken, but a member of Reagan's Treasury Department. I didn't agree with a lot of what Reagan did, but the guy now in charge makes him look like Lincoln. How can you say GW has done a good job with the economy? I know you got your $500? Wow. Do you have children Lefty? Ever figure out what has been added to their deficits? Have you seen GW's budget? Have children LEfty? Ready for college tuition costs next year with the cut in Pell grants? Why does the Median Household Income go down under GW whiule goign up under other Presidents. it can't even keep up with infaltin. The list goes on. The market since he took office as a percentage barely keeps up with inflation. He's been an econmoic disaster, and if you look at his projected figures as compared to the CBO for coming budgets, you'd realize the fantasyland this guy lives on. Frankly, his failed economic policy is creating a long term national security issue.

Lefty
03-01-2006, 12:00 PM
sec, times have never been better. I have children. I have gandchildren. I even have 3 great grandchildren. My children and my older grand children doing great. You know why? Cause this is the country where you have opportunity. You can make the most of them or look for excuses either for your own failure or to try to make political points. All the financial people I listen too say the economy is great. You say it's not. Everybody I know that wants a job, has one. That's not always been the case.
I had a hard time during the Johnson yrs, but I made it. I pd 19% interest on a new mobile home in the Carter yrs and I made it.
Now times are good but you say no. I say, go drown in your own negativety and leave the positive people to live their lives in this economic upward spiral.

ljb
03-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Good , we deserve it. The hell with the rest of them..........! :D
Does this mean you are an isolationist ? Or just greedy? My guess would be greedy. you know
Greedy
Old
Poops. :D

ljb
03-01-2006, 04:11 PM
Hey, lbj, and you help use those resources and enjoy the comforts they bring.
And ?

Tom
03-01-2006, 06:52 PM
Bush is in India today.
If anyone wants to talk to him, just call any tech support hot line. :bang:

Lefty
03-01-2006, 08:10 PM
And ?

So don't badmouth the U.S.A. for using those resources; since you're using them also. I don't think you're going to take shelter in the woods, live on berries and walk barefoot everywhere you go.

ljb
03-01-2006, 10:09 PM
Just wanted to get All the facts out here.

Tom
03-02-2006, 12:47 AM
Euell Gibbons??


http://www.motherearthnews.com/menarch/archive/issues/015/015-006-01.htm

Lefty
03-02-2006, 12:55 AM
Tom, don't understand your Q. The article explains who he was; but then I don't understand why you posted the link. Enlighten me.

Tom
03-02-2006, 01:03 AM
Lefty, you said, "take shelter in the woods, live on berries and walk barefoot everywhere you go."


That was Euell Gibbons, the famous naturalist who advertised Post Grape Nuts. It made me think of Ljb eating nuts and berrys in the woods, that's all. Got a chuckle out of it. :p

Lefty
03-02-2006, 02:19 AM
Got it. Went right over my head. Remember him well.

Secretariat
03-02-2006, 01:56 PM
sec, times have never been better. I have children. I have gandchildren. I even have 3 great grandchildren. My children and my older grand children doing great. You know why? Cause this is the country where you have opportunity. You can make the most of them or look for excuses either for your own failure or to try to make political points. All the financial people I listen too say the economy is great. You say it's not. Everybody I know that wants a job, has one. That's not always been the case.
I had a hard time during the Johnson yrs, but I made it. I pd 19% interest on a new mobile home in the Carter yrs and I made it.
Now times are good but you say no. I say, go drown in your own negativety and leave the positive people to live their lives in this economic upward spiral.

Lefty,

Next tim you look in your grandchildren's faces, remember that they are already tens of thousands of dollars in debt due to the fiscal policies of this President. maybe you could give them your $500 tax cut to abrogate some of their suffering.

Bala
03-02-2006, 09:30 PM
Lefty; your are mortgaging the future of your grandchildren!!


Since Ben Bernanke has taken the helm at the Federal Reserve from Alan Greenspan -- he has stated this:

Bernanke admits the massive federal deficits are a problem — “a looming issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”
He’s also expressed concern that the budget deficit is going to soar as baby boomers begin to collect soaring retirement and health benefits.

But he seems to have no intention of applying pressure on lawmakers to fix the problem. He won’t press for tax changes. He won’t press for spending cuts. From what I can see, he won’t lift a finger to help bring the federal deficit under control.

That’s a big change from his predecessor. Greenspan was at least willing to speak out on fiscal responsibility and use the Fed as a bully pulpit.

Lefty, if you think you know more then these men -- tell us where did you get your PH.D in economics?


Curious -- how Sec, Tom and Lbj are fiscal conservative and you how claim to be a conservative are in fact a flaming liberal on fiscal policy.

Lefty
03-02-2006, 09:55 PM
You know why you two negative guys are wrong? Nah, you don't and i'm wasting my time. I've told you why over and over again but you don't get it. Hint: It's not a zero sum game. My grandchildren will be fine; the oldest already doing a 1000 times better than I did at her age.

Lefty
03-02-2006, 09:57 PM
Lefty; your are mortgaging the future of your grandchildren!!


Since Ben Bernanke has taken the helm at the Federal Reserve from Alan Greenspan -- he has stated this:

Bernanke admits the massive federal deficits are a problem — “a looming issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”
He’s also expressed concern that the budget deficit is going to soar as baby boomers begin to collect soaring retirement and health benefits.

But he seems to have no intention of applying pressure on lawmakers to fix the problem. He won’t press for tax changes. He won’t press for spending cuts. From what I can see, he won’t lift a finger to help bring the federal deficit under control.

That’s a big change from his predecessor. Greenspan was at least willing to speak out on fiscal responsibility and use the Fed as a bully pulpit.

Lefty, if you think you know more then these men -- tell us where did you get your PH.D in economics?


Curious -- how Sec, Tom and Lbj are fiscal conservative and you how claim to be a conservative are in fact a flaming liberal on fiscal policy.
__________________________________________________ _____

These guys aren't fiscal conservatives: Just Bush Haters.

Lefty
03-02-2006, 10:14 PM
BTW, Bush has tried to fx the SS prob but Dems want no part of it.

Tom
03-03-2006, 12:30 AM
Don't lump me in with Sec andLjb - I give Bush credit when he is right, and HELL when he is not. I think I have remained true to my conservative values - Bush is by nomenas a conservative. I think he is dead wrong on some issues and I give as good as he deserves. You seem to think that everyone has to blindly support everyting this guy does. How is that different than those guys hating everyting he does? Can you honestly say you supp[ort his signing the bridge to nowhere bill as being good for the country, or do you support it jsut becasue it is Bush? Be honest.

He has failed at every opportunity to save money and cut pork by using a veto, and theo only time he threatens to use it is when a family "contributor" is involved.
Lefty, he signed the bigest entitlement program in 40 years, he signed the transporktation bill without even reading it. That is plainly irresponsible and I am calling him out on it. This boy needs some economics lessons.

Lefty
03-03-2006, 12:49 AM
When I responded to that post about sec and lbj, Tom, i didn't even notice your name on it. No lumping with them guys from me; least not intenionally.

ljb
03-03-2006, 07:08 AM
When I responded to that post about sec and lbj, Tom, i didn't even notice your name on it. No lumping with them guys from me; least not intenionally. :kiss: :kiss:
All better now? Ain't that cute !

Tom
03-03-2006, 10:26 AM
Thanks, Lefty.....see above post for why that is a sore spot! ;) :D

ljb
03-04-2006, 08:26 AM
BTW, Bush has tried to fx the SS prob but Dems want no part of it.
After the way he "fxd" the medicare drug problem can you blame them ?

Lefty
03-04-2006, 12:05 PM
lbj, yes! To do nothing is disaster but that's what dems want to do. They do not have an open mind. You libs so worried about my grandkids alla time, well, if we don't get some privatization in SS(congress has it)my grandkids won't draw a penny of SS. That's why i'm telling them to be self-sufficient, but be nice if they weren't robbed of the money they will put in for 50 yrs or so.
BTW, I knowsome seniors that have benefiited by the medicare fix. Even the libs at AARP liked it. But know you don't, cause after all, it was Bush who did it. My you are transparent.

Secretariat
03-04-2006, 01:21 PM
BTW, Bush has tried to fx the SS prob but Dems want no part of it.

Yeah, he's been trying to fix a lot of stuff. Only problem is anything he touches, he messes up.

Secretariat
03-04-2006, 01:23 PM
Bush is by nomenas a conservative.
....

He has failed at every opportunity to save money and cut pork by using a veto, and theo only time he threatens to use it is when a family "contributor" is involved.

Lefty, he signed the bigest entitlement program in 40 years, he signed the transporktation bill without even reading it. That is plainly irresponsible and I am calling him out on it. This boy needs some economics lessons.

Tom, that is not my definition of a conservative.

ljb
03-04-2006, 02:35 PM
lbj, yes! To do nothing is disaster but that's what dems want to do. They do not have an open mind. You libs so worried about my grandkids alla time, well, if we don't get some privatization in SS(congress has it)my grandkids won't draw a penny of SS. That's why i'm telling them to be self-sufficient, but be nice if they weren't robbed of the money they will put in for 50 yrs or so.
BTW, I knowsome seniors that have benefiited by the medicare fix. Even the libs at AARP liked it. But know you don't, cause after all, it was Bush who did it. My you are transparent.
The seniors you know that have benefitted from the medicare fix, the senior members of the board at Prudential and/or Upjohn ?
The SS could be fixed in a moment if they just removed the cap.
AARP is an Insurance company of course they liked it.
Your grandkids will be paying the bills run up by this borrow and spend regime, they probably won't be able to retire SS or not.

ljb
03-04-2006, 02:39 PM
I think I have remained true to my conservative values - Bush is by nomenas a conservative. I think he is dead wrong on some issues and I give as good as he deserves. You seem to think that everyone has to blindly support everyting this guy does. How is that different than those guys hating everyting he does? Can you honestly say you supp[ort his signing the bridge to nowhere bill as being good for the country, or do you support it jsut becasue it is Bush? Be honest.

He has failed at every opportunity to save money and cut pork by using a veto, and theo only time he threatens to use it is when a family "contributor" is involved.
Lefty, he signed the bigest entitlement program in 40 years, he signed the transporktation bill without even reading it. That is plainly irresponsible and I am calling him out on it. This boy needs some economics lessons.
You are correct again Tom, Bush is a NEOCON. I had advised many here to regain control of the Republican party prior to the last Republican convention but alas too late they listen. :bang:

Tom
03-04-2006, 04:25 PM
You are correct again Tom, Bush is a NEOCON. I had advised many here to regain control of the Republican party prior to the last Republican convention but alas too late they listen. :bang:

Well, they got it half right - they buried Kerry. Still, the worse choice by Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar.

Lefty
03-04-2006, 09:39 PM
sec, lbj, just more stupid opinions. I love you, libs; economy humming along, unemployment low, but youse guys can see the cloud in the silver lining. I'm really surprised you dems are horseplayers. After all, with parimutel betting, the losers pay the winners. Thght you guys hated that! LOL

ljb
03-04-2006, 10:42 PM
Lefty,
Some day you are going to have to wake up. I hope it doesn't hurt you too much.

Lefty
03-04-2006, 11:19 PM
lbj, more opinion. I need to wake up? Good one. You guys continue to ignore facts and i'm supposed to wake up. uh, huh...