Economy on the rebound?

[camero]

article at: http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.badeconomy24dec24,0,3292091.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

WASHINGTON - Before America allows President Bush to take bows on the economy, let's take a closer look at this recovery. A simple thought experiment will help.

Imagine for a moment that you took all your credit cards and maxed them out. Now take your mortgage and borrow the maximum on it. Cash in the kid's college fund, your rainy day savings, your 401(k) retirement savings. While you're at it, stop paying for your health insurance and the maintenance on your house, your car and your yard. Now take all that money and spend it. Feeling pretty flush? Sure you are. You just pumped tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars into your pocket.

An essentially jobless recovery. Mr. Bush likes to say the jobs will come. They'd better. Because right now, all he's managed to do is spend about $350 billion of "your money" to hire 328,000 checkout clerks and greeters at the local Wal-Mart. Meanwhile, we've shipped some 2.6 million high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas since January 2001.

Is this a success?

Not a surprising result, really. Look at Mr. Bush's economic plan. He says the tax cuts were about "your money." But the truth is, if you're like 80 percent of Americans, most of the taxes you pay from "your money" are in the form of payroll taxes. And until Mr. Bush gave it away, you got "your money" and more back in the form of Social Security, Medicare and disability income.

Bottom line: Mr. Bush traded away "your money" to give his wealthiest millionaire buddies an annual tax cut of $40,000 or more each.

yessiree, this is the Bush plan and it is your money. We can still attack him on the economy.

[Fenris]

1. recession....strong recovery....recession....strong recovery...

CRASH!

We're edging closer to depression with the current climate of coporate anarchism.

[camero]

2. I think so.

I also think this article takes a good argument from the poor freepers about "thier money". Rape and pillage is the name of the game in the Bush economy.

[camero]

3. kick

to keep the link up.

[K-W]

4. Perpetual growth! It's great in theory.

Republicans are asking people to believe that the US economy can grow forever.

[camero]

5. Another fairy tale from Bush

We have to get the point across to the middle class that Bush is really stealing thier money. The only place tax cuts create growth is in the rich man's wallet.

[Cleita]

6. We have a small stock portfolio of very conservative

investments that are part of our retirement and it is not reflecting any meaningful growth.

[Yupster]

13. Well, here are the numbers

The DOW Industrial bottomed in March at 7,416. They closed today at 10,305. That's a gain of 39%.

The S+P 500 bottomed in March at 788.90. It closed today at 1,094. That's a gain of 39 %.

The NASDAQ bottomed in February at 1,253.22. It closed today at 1,969. That's a gain of 57 %.

If your stock portfolio hasn't had a significant gain, please call your broker.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

15. What stock portfolio?

Less than 40% of Americans own stock. The stock market only means something to the select few who actually own mutual funds and stocks. Most people's 401Ks are still in the shitter.

[Cleita]

16. After working for forty years and putting away $2,000 a year

in IRAs we were able to sock away some money. Since Bush became prez we have lost one-third of the worth of our investments which amounts to less than $100,000. Our interest, which is what you are supposed to be socking money away for so that you are not a burden on society, barely covers our expenses now. I hate to think of the future. We didn't own stock until we were over fifty. If it is forty percent of Americans who own stock, we came late to the plate.

[Yupster]

23. Yes, three awful years in a row

In 2000, Clinton's last year in office, the S+P 500 lost 9.1 %. That was its worst performance in 20 years.

It didn't hold the record long though. In 2001, Bush's first year in office, the S+P lost 11.9 % making it the worst year in 20 years.

That record didn't last long either. In 2002, Bush's second year in office, the S+P lost 22.1 %. That was the worst year in over 20 years.

It looks like this year will finish up well over 30 % higher, but that still leaves it well below its top in January of 2000. Better than a fourth down year in a row though.

[Yupster]

22. from election 2000 exit poll

Do you own stocks?

Yes 70 %
No 30 %

Of the 70 % who own stocks, they voted

Bush 51-47

Of the 30 % who didn't own stocks, they voted

Gore 52-45


If less than 40 % of the people own stocks, but 70 % of the voters own stocks, well, ..... I guess people who don't buy stocks don't vote either.

[JNelson6563]

36. you are correct

According to Greg Palast in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, out of the $3.5 trillion in stocks and bonds out there, $2.9 trillion of it is owned by the top 1%.

Yeah, we're all rich thanks to the stock market. haha Nevermind that the dollars we all made so many of has lost so much of its value. Oy!

Julie

[Cleita]

17. Blork.

[rman]

19. DOW up, Dollar down, recovery = bubble

-

[Paranoid_Portlander]

30. If it goes up a further 200%...

... I will have only a small loss on my investments. It's very unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

[tritsofme]

34. If you didnt make money in the stock market this year its your own fault.

My portfolio gained 43% this year, and the vast majority of the stocks are not high risk.

[camero]

7. one more kick

for the night people

[SharonAnn]

8. Economy doesn't look so good in today's headlines

A couple of very important indicators are way down.

Durable-Goods Orders Drop 3.1 Percent
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1203&e=1&u=/ap/20031225/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&sid=95609868

New Home Sales Slide in November
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1203&e=4&u=/nm/20031224/bs_nm/economy_homes_dc&sid=95609869


And then there's this:
For Vietnam Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22922-2003Dec22?language=printer

[camero]

10. thanks for the links

they are all good articles which put to rest the Bush lies.

[Enraged_Ape]

9. Kick

:kick:

[camero]

31. nother kick

[w4rma]

11. I'm bookmarking *and* saving that editorial! It is exactly correct, IMHO!

It hits most of the most important points and explains the situation extremely clearly!

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[camero]

12. I thought so too

And the guy has worked in government yet.

[TruthIsAll]

14. What we have here is a form of looting. ...

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4292.htm

"A Form Of Looting"

Der Spiegel, Interviews George A. Akerlof, co-winner of the Nobel Prize in economic sciences.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Akerlof, according to recent official projections, the US federal deficit will reach $455 billion this fiscal year. That's the largest ever in dollar terms, but according to the President's budget director, it's still manageable. Do you agree?

George A. Akerlof: In the long term, a deficit of this magnitude is not manageable. We are moving into the period when, beginning around 2010, baby boomers are going to be retiring. That is going to put a severe strain on services like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the time when we should be saving.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So it would be necessary to run a budget surplus instead?

Akerlof: That would probably be impossible in the current situation. There's the expenditure for the war in Iraq, which I consider irresponsible. But there's also a recession and a desire to invigorate the economy through fiscal stimulus, which is quite legitimate. That's why we actually do need a deficit in the short term - but certainly not the type of deficit we have now.

snip

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And secondly, you disagree with giving tax relief primarily to wealthier Americans. The GOP argues that those people deserve it for working hard.

Akerlof: The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the US in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy are going in the exactly wrong direction. The worst and most indefensible of those cuts are those in dividend taxation - this overwhelmingly helps very wealthy people.

snip

SPIEGEL ONLINE: When campaigning for an even-larger tax cut earlier this year, Mr. Bush promised that it would create 1.4 million jobs. Was that reasonable?

Akerlof: The tax cut will have some positive impact on job creation, although, as I mentioned, there is very little bang for the buck. There are very negative long-term consequences. The administration, when speaking about the budget, has unrealistically failed to take into account a very large number of important items. As of March 2003, the CBO estimated that the surplus for the next decade would approximately reach one trillion dollars. But this projection assumes, among other questionable things, that spending until 2013 is going to be constant in real dollar terms. That has never been the case. And with the current tax cuts, a realistic estimate would be a deficit in excess of six trillion.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the government's just bad at doing the correct math?

Akerlof: There is a systematic reason. The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting.

more..

[camero]

18. Great Article

I especially liked this part:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It seems that the current administration has politicised you in an unprecedented way. During the course of this year, you have, with other academics, signed two public declarations of protest. One against the tax cuts, the other against waging unilateral preventive war on Iraq.

Akerlof: I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience.

[0rganism]

21. This is an ECONOMICS PROFESSOR advocating civil disobedience!?!

If that don't raise an eyebrow or two, I don't know what will.

[camero]

24. He's right though

This is not normal government policy. At least even other Repubs at least tried to keep the deficit contained. Not Bush.

[bobbieinok]

33. but NOTICE, this is in a GERMAN, internet article

So how many in the US will ever hear about this???????

[Skittles]

20. I thought that during the eighties too

I always pay off my credit cards in full. I could go on a $20,000 spending spree right now; not only would I have lots of neat stuff, I'd be pumping all that cash into the economy.

Yes, it happened again, only with Bush it's a lot, LOT worse.

[MODemocrat]

25. Economy on the rebound for who?

My husband and I have been using our money market interest for our supplemental income, that is, before Bush screwed everything up. Just yesterday, we received our monthly statement, and our interest rate had dropped down to .066%. Groceries are skyrocketing, gas is inching up, prescription medicines are out of sight. So, please news media, quit telling us how the economy is recovering. I know your huge tax breaks are great for you, but many of us don't have an income even close to yours. :puke: Bush cannot get anything right so help us.

[LeahMira]

26. When every American...

... can manage to pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and a few other necessities (like furniture and cooking pots), and also manage to put away about 20% from each paycheck in savings for the future with what s/he earns in one forty-hour a week job, then we will have an economic recovery.

When every American is able to support a family of four with what s/he earns, whether or not s/he actually has a family of four, then we will have an economic recovery.

When people are working two or three part-time jobs (with no benefits, BTW) and still can't make even the basic ends meet, ladies and gentlemen, we have no damn economic recovery going.

When our people who are disabled or for some other good reason cannot work are not able to live in modest comfort and have their medical needs or other basic needs met, then ladies and gentlemen, we have no damn economic recovery going.

I really do not give a flying duck how well the stock market is doing or how much corporations are able to expand or any of that other stuff. Until real needs are met for everyone, all of that means very little.

Pardon me for being so economically unsophisticated. There are those who tell me that if the stock market does well, my piddly little savings account will draw more interest, and that I really should care about corporate well-being. But when all those "economic indicators" are looking good while my paycheck is looking small and thin, something is just not working as it should... and it's not me!

[camero]

29. I agree

then it will be a recovery. Not until then.

[Yupster]

35. Pretty tough standard

by that definition we've never had a recovery in our nation's entire history. Not much point to an economic definition that's never ever been met. I guess that's the idea of utopian thinking which I'm sure has its philosophical place.

[Blue_Roses]

37. well

said! I agree.

[FDRrocks]

27. jobless recovery still?

I love that term. You aren't getting a job, but the corporations are getting money. Well hey, then the government gets more money to pay you unemployment or welfare, but wait, George Bush wants to stop that!

You evil little people! How dare you demand a slice of the economic pie!

[camero]

28. LOL

and it's our money yet. Only the rich got permanent tax breaks.

The rich really ought to remember what happened to Marie Antoinette when she said, "Let em eat cake".

[terryg11]

32. Heck Yes it's a rebound!!!

No new jobs but people are spending money (with their credit cards) what are we whining for? Wait until after xmas, that's all