I took that as Peggy feels the economy is going to
Posted By: get better and that she will have enough income on 2008-11-04
In Reply to: Yes, they do believe it. As far as.... - sam
to finally not to worry about how she will put gas in her car and how she will pay her mortage. I highly doubt Peggy is looking for a free ride. She's looking for an answer.
Again, this is all left up to interpretation of how you feel about Peggy's comment. Typical pubs will bash Peggy because they think they'll have to pay Peggy's mortgage, which is wrong.
There are already programs in place, i.e., welfare, section 8 housing, etc. Why does the government helping those in need surprise everyone at this point? I'll tell you why because the republicans have managed to smear Obama's plan and that's all they've got. The same old plans of Bush is what they have; that's it. Oh, wait they Governor Palin; yeah she's intelligent enough to fix anything with her overspending and "fixing of the books."
I don't think the good 'ole USA needs more "fixed books" to suit the suits. I'm off my soapbox now I guess.
I can't believe how many people on here honestly believe that Barack Obama is going to just let people have free gas and free homes. That's absurd.  That doesn't grow the economy.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Peggy Joseph - in her words
"I won't have to work"
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk&feature=related
Gee - maybe we should all quit if Obama is just going to give us all a check for doing nothing.
I would suspect that Peggy Johnson
is in for a RUDE awakening.
See the article I posted above by Peggy Noonan.
She talks about Bush's out of control spending, and she's no liberal!
Bush cut OIL COMPANY PROFITS? Yeah... right! Time of crisis or not, they don't care. I'm no O'Reilly fan, but O'Reilly publicly challenged the oil companies on his show to just voluntarily take a small reduction in PROFITS during this time. Ain't gonna happen.
For all the conservative posts on our board, I haven't seen ONE who can explain who is going to PAY for all Bush's spending. I pity the poor person who is the next President and inherits Bush's huge MESS. If (hopefully) it's a Democrat, you can bet the necons will be trashing him/her from the git-go, calling him/her atheist, drunk, and whatever other libel they invent between now and then.
I'm working as hard as I can because my daughter and her husband won't be able to afford to heat their home this coming winter. There is no way I'm going to let my grandchildren, daughter and son-in-law freeze, and I'm going to try to help out as much as I can.
I've read where some of the most radical whacko evangelicals with a direct pipeline (no pun) to God blamed Katrina on lack of morals of people in New Orleans. In the light of Rita, seems to me that God's actually targeting the people controlling the oil rigs. Maybe God's warning that if we don't quit coveting and trying to steal oil from the Middle East's Gulf, God's going to send in a really BIG storm to destroy the oil rigs in America's Gulf. Maybe it's God's way of telling Bush that Bush isn't listening to what God has been telling him, that we need to protect and take care of our own, and stop lying and murdering and killing for his own personal gain and that of his cronies.
Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but I become very angry at the thought of my family freezing this winter (even though they work hard and are/were considered middle class). Hopefully, I will be able to help so that doesn't happen, but what about all the other families with children out there? What happened to conservative family values? They obviously don't exist if a school choose to CLOSE to conserve fuel, and oil companies keep right on churning and collecting huge profits.
Just like you, I truly hope a revolution is churning. Someone has to start caring about regular, hard-working, underinsured or uninsured people in this country. These are the people who are the backbone of this country, the people who do the REAL work, while the fat cats (Bush's base) sit back and get fatter and fatter with Bush's blessings!
I took it as Peggy wants a handout and Obama is her savior..nm
//
*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending
 
Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span: Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid. In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have. I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.
PEGGY NOONAN
'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?
Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.
George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.
That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.
Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.
Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.
As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.
A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.
Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.
At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.
Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?
The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.
But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.
Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.
First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.
Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.
Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.
The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.
Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.
Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.
Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?
At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.
But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.
I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.
I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.
Well, they probably can, short term.
Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.
Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.
If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;
If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;
If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;
If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;
If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?
And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?
It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Probably because she feels as I do that
there is going to be some cookedness going on. They have already predicted that there are going to be technical difficulties. We will not even find out who won by Wednesday.
It feels to me like..........sm
the people who are participating in this (apart from the vendors....they are just there to make a buck) are preparing for the invasion of the Beatles or the Super Bowl or some other pop culture event. It just doesn't seem dignified to me, especially in light of the dignity Mr. Obama tends to project. The car covered in MLK pictures and blaring Obama speechs seems to be "whipping up the crowds." There is too much of a sense of hero-worship here for my taste.
this is what it feels like to be in the
minority.
kinda sucks huh?
Now you know how Rush feels. sm
Only he really IS deaf.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way
I have a really hard time with the religous nut bags who have their own idea of what is right or wrong. Maybe right and wrong is not the correct words. I just wish they would mind their own busness and not push their opionions/viewpoints on other people as though what they say is correct. Like one poster said years ago there was segregation... can't imagine that happening today, just like inter-racial marriage or gay marriage. What is wrong with sharing your love for another person no matter what shape, color, size or sex they are. I definitely think this needs to be changed - period! There should be no question about gay marriage. You love a person and want to get married then that's it you get married. The question is when is some politician going to stand up and do the right thing. So I say live in peace and harmony. Do not tell me how I should and should not live and I won't tell you how you should or should not live. And for pitty's sake - stop making gay marriage a political issue. It is a personal issue between two people and nobody's elses business unless they want to tell you about it. - Okay that's my rant of the day.
Wow - maybe now you know what it feels like to be a Republican
And have to fend of attacks.
How'd you like it?
LOL
Knowing how he feels
about the military, and based on what I've been hearing I believe it is ƈ years mandatory service' which would be more like community service, peace corps, that civilian corps he's trying to start, etc. Although a hitch in the military would probably also fulfill the obligation.
Feels good!
That's right...... why don't we all just teach our kids that if it "feels good" then just do it... the heck with the consequences.... just go ahead and do it!!
That's the problem now! No responsibility for their actions!
Get a CLUE!!!!
I don't know what rabid hatred feels like.
Would you please describe it to me?
What does a person who feels the war is wrong do then? sm
Sit quietly until the war is over, because attempting civil debate with people who are not trying to hear what you have to say is not working.
hmmmm....four against one....sure feels like a gang to me....lol
I really don't care to engage in dialogue with four or five people on this board whose only goal at the moment is to ridicule Sarah Palin, in every context imaginable. And not to mention, the current conservative poster on the board, which at the moment happens to be me.
So bye all....I know I've been civil and polite to everyone here.
Can you say the same?
And by the way....Sarah Palin is worth her weight in gold. Can't change my mind, no matter how much you trash her.
Carry on.....
Wonder how it feels to have your own party's analyst
Wow. Talk about condescending. Can you say party defection?
How the World REALLY Feels About Obama
This is an excellent article. It includes pretty dramatic graphs that I wasn't able to copy and post, and I would urge anyone who is unbiased and is truly interested in giving the President-Elect a chance to succeed -- JUST A CHANCE -- click on the link and see for yourselves.
Foreign poll favours Democrat but shows hostility to US
Julian Glover
guardian.co.uk, Friday October 17 2008 00.01 BST
People around the world are pinning their hopes on Barack Obama in next month's presidential election, according to an international survey published today. It shows that America can no longer count on the friendship even of its closest neighbours and allies after eight years of the Bush presidency. Only a minority in the countries surveyed describe relations with the US as friendly.
The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.
Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.
The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's LA Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.
People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.
French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.
In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.
But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.
Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.
Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.
Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.
Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.
The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain.
In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.
Each newspaper involved in the survey used professional polling organisations, including ICM for the Guardian in Britain. Research was carried out this month, except in Poland, where polling took place in September.
Although the methodologies used differ - which may affect exact comparisons - the scale of Obama's lead everywhere outweighs any variation in results.
Research was carried out by: La Presse, Canada (1,500 telephone sample); the Guardian, UK (1,007 telephone, October 10-12 2008); Le Temps, Switzerland (600 telephone); Le Monde, France (1,000 face to face); Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (3,000 face to face); Reforma, Mexico (850 telephone); Le Soir, Belgium (1,007 telephone); Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland, (1,000 telephone)
q · This article was amended on Tuesday October 21 2008. A graphic showing the results of a poll on how the US is viewed around the world reversed the findings for Belgium. We stated that 39% of Belgians polled said their opinion of the US had changed for the worse since the start of the Bush presidency, and 52% said it had changed for the better. Those figures should have been the other way round.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama1
Ogden basically feels that
censorship is unconstitutional. That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools. However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up. If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see. Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models. Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do. Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts.
I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography.
Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults. Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.
This is not a personal attack on Obama. I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography. I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub. I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.
Not everyone who reads the Koran feels that way
and if you're going to go there you better include the Bible. I know thousands of people who interpret what the Bible says, and these are the sick ones who kill doctors who perform abortions and they blow up abortion clinics.
No difference to me. That's why I'm not involved in any organized religious group.
Maybe a Freudian slip? Maybe he feels like a prisoner with...sm
his campaign not going as well as he would like to say it kindly.
From Hair, Let the sun shine! It feels good.
.
Right! Obama only feels obliged to the Clintons...nm
nm
Being kind to other people feels good, too.
Bigotry in the name of religion - Que lastima!
He feels O's date for Gitmo closure is bad idea
nm
Here's another one regarding the economy.
And you're right. Some people do. 
|
Falling gasoline prices have led to some improvement in consumer confidence over the past few weeks. But the public remains deeply unhappy about the state of the economy. According to the latest Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans rate the economy as only fair or poor, and by 58 to 36 percent people say economic conditions are getting worse, not better.
Yet by some measures, the economy is doing reasonably well. In particular, gross domestic product is rising at a pretty fast clip. So why aren't people pleased with the economy's performance?
Like everything these days, this is a political as well as factual question. The Bush administration seems genuinely puzzled that it isn't getting more credit for what it thinks is a booming economy. So let me be helpful here and explain what's going on.
I could point out that the economic numbers, especially the job numbers, aren't as good as the Bush people imagine. President Bush made an appearance in the Rose Garden to hail the latest jobs report, yet a gain of 215,000 jobs would have been considered nothing special - in fact, a bit subpar - during the Clinton years. And because the average workweek shrank a bit, the total number of hours worked actually fell last month.
But the main explanation for economic discontent is that it's hard to convince people that the economy is booming when they themselves have yet to see any benefits from the supposed boom. Over the last few years G.D.P. growth has been reasonably good, and corporate profits have soared. But that growth has failed to trickle down to most Americans.
Back in August the Census bureau released family income data for 2004. The report, which was overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina, showed a remarkable disconnect between overall economic growth and the economic fortunes of most American families.
It should have been a good year for American families: the economy grew 4.2 percent, its best performance since 1999. Yet most families actually lost economic ground. Real median household income - the income of households in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation - fell for the fifth year in a row. And one key source of economic insecurity got worse, as the number of Americans without health insurance continued to rise.
We don't have comparable data for 2005 yet, but it's pretty clear that the results will be similar. G.D.P. growth has remained solid, but most families are probably losing ground as their earnings fail to keep up with inflation.
Behind the disconnect between economic growth and family incomes lies the extremely lopsided nature of the economic recovery that officially began in late 2001. The growth in corporate profits has, as I said, been spectacular. Even after adjusting for inflation, profits have risen more than 50 percent since the last quarter of 2001. But real wage and salary income is up less than 7 percent.
There are some wealthy Americans who derive a large share of their income from dividends and capital gains on stocks, and therefore benefit more or less directly from soaring profits. But these people constitute a small minority. For everyone else the sluggish growth in wages is the real story. And much of the wage and salary growth that did take place happened at the high end, in the form of rising payments to executives and other elite employees. Average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, adjusted for inflation, are lower now than when the recovery began.
So there you have it. Americans don't feel good about the economy because it hasn't been good for them. Never mind the G.D.P. numbers: most people are falling behind.
It's much harder to explain why. The disconnect between G.D.P. growth and the economic fortunes of most American families can't be dismissed as a normal occurrence. Wages and median family income often lag behind profits in the early stages of an economic expansion, but not this far behind, and not for so long. Nor, I should say, is there any easy way to place more than a small fraction of the blame on Bush administration policies. At this point the joylessness of the economic expansion for most Americans is a mystery.
What's clear, however, is that advisers who believe that Mr. Bush can repair his political standing by making speeches telling the public how well the economy is doing have misunderstood the situation. The problem isn't that people don't understand how good things are. It's that they know, from personal experience, that things really aren't that good. |
The economy. It's not going anywhere
counting.
Economy going down is right.
work for, the largest transcription company in the US, is now paying us for ASR, 60% and others will get straight 4 cents a line.
Actually, no, not the economy....(sm)
I was actually referring to Pelosi and her power grab, cutting off all GOP opposition, behind closed doors, that no one will ever hear about again, from the other day.
And did you catch Barney Frank today on the retroactive rules on the TARP?
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/tarp/2009/01/09/169663.html?utm_medium=RSS
What I am doing to help the economy
1. I pray for this country and the president every day.
2. I'm not constantly complaining about everything.
3. I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.
4. I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.
5. I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.
I did not vote for President Obama. I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part. No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.
Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are. So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American. I would also advise getting some debt management help.
So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive. I have found that this helps me a lot.
Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other. Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.
What I am doing to help the economy
1. I pray for this country and the president every day.
2. I'm not constantly complaining about everything.
3. I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.
4. I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.
5. I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.
I did not vote for President Obama. I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part. No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.
Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are. So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American. I would also advise getting some debt management help.
So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive. I have found that this helps me a lot.
Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other. Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.
Please take Economy 101
Your pathetic little woe-is-me mentality is the problem with the economy.
Wake up, eejit. The 'rich' people are the ones paying all the taxes. The runts at the bottom - you know - the ones so unintelligent or unmotivated to make it in the world - pay no taxes and suck all the money out of the country.
No country ever got anywhere by taking down the successful people and raising up the ingrates. In America, you can get rich if you want to. But you have to work for it. If you don't have the guts or the self-motivation, you get to live according to your own means.
Suck it up.
The Economy
The Economy - Not the President - is Tanking the Market
by: Hale Stewart
One of the more ridiculous statements going around over the last few weeks is "this is an Obama bear market." This statement is, well, ill-informed at best and fraudulent at worst. Let's look at why.
First -- who is saying this? Such economic luminaries as John Hawkins at Right Wing News (who actually asked Is Obama Deliberately Tanking the Stock Market?), Powerline, Brit Hume along with a host of other right wing bloggers. What all of these people have in common is their incessant chearleading during the Bush years despite mounting evidence of an upcoming recession. There are the same people who argued that ... housing is a small part of the economy ... most people are paying their mortgages ... the US economy will decouple from the rest of the world .... it's the greatest story never told ..... you get the idea. Simply put, these are people who have distinguished themselves by being some of the best contrary indicators around.
Secondly, the SPYs -- the tracking ETF for the S&P 500 -- dropped from (roughly) 155 in the summer of 2007 to (roughly) 85 at the end of last year. Yet I don't remember any of them saying that was the Bush bear market -- even though that's a drop of roughly 43%. No -- it's the new President that's causing the problems. In addition, when Bush took office the SPYs dropped from roughly 130 at the begging of 2001 to 85 in the fourth quarter of 2002. Yet somehow I don't think any of them blamed Bush's policies for the drop. Then it was the "lasting effects of the Clinton recession" or something similar.
What all of these idiots are forgetting is the simple fact that the economy is the backdrop of the stock market. When the economy does well the stock market does well. When the economy doesn't do well, the stock market doesn't do well. And to that end, the economy isn't doing well right now. Let's look at some recent news events.
From the BEA:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008,(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by theBureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent.
From the BLS:
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
From the Federal Reserve:
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that national economic conditions deteriorated further during the reporting period of January through late February. Ten of the twelve reports indicated weaker conditions or declines in economic activity; the exceptions were Philadelphia and Chicago, which reported that their regional economies "remained weak." The deterioration was broad based, with only a few sectors such as basic food production and pharmaceuticals appearing to be exceptions. Looking ahead, contacts from various Districts rate the prospects for near-term improvement in economic conditions as poor, with a significant pickup not expected before late 2009 or early 2010.
Consumer spending remained sluggish on net, although many Districts noted some improvement in January and February compared with a dismal holiday spending season. Travel and tourist activity fell noticeably in key destinations, as did activity for a wide range of nonfinancial services, with substantial job cuts noted in many instances. Reports on manufacturing activity suggested steep declines in activity in some sectors and pronounced declines overall. Conditions weakened somewhat for agricultural producers and substantially for extractors of natural resources, with reduced global demand cited as an underlying determinant in both cases. Markets for residential real estate remained largely stagnant, with only minimal and scattered signs of stabilization emerging in some areas, while demand for commercial real estate weakened significantly. Reports from banks and other financial institutions indicated further drops in business loan demand, a slight deterioration in credit quality for businesses and households, and continued tight credit availability.
From the FDIC:
Expenses associated with rising loan losses and declining asset values overwhelmed revenues in the fourth quarter of 2008, producing a net loss of $26.2 billion at insured commercial banks and savings institutions. This is the first time since the fourth quarter of 1990 that the industry has posted an aggregate net loss for a quarter. The ?0.77 percent quarterly return on assets (ROA) is the worst since the ?1.10 percent in the second quarter of 1987. A year ago, the industry reported $575 million in profits and an ROA of 0.02 percent. High expenses for loan-loss provisions, sizable losses in trading accounts, and large writedowns of goodwill and other assets all contributed to the industry's net loss. A few very large losses were reported during the quarter-four institutions accounted for half of the total industry loss-but earnings problems were widespread. Almost one out of every three institutions (32 percent) reported a net loss in the fourth quarter. Only 36 percent of institutions reported year-over-year increases in quarterly earnings, and only 34 percent reported higher quarterly ROAs.
I could go on, but you you get the idea. The news of the underlying economy has been terrible (at best). And that's what's causing the problems.
The economy had nothing to do with ........
his jumping to grow BIG and BIGGER government; he was going to do that regardless of the economy. Obama is for big government and was WAAAY before he was elected. The economy was a good excuse to scare people into electing him, as if this country couldn't pick itself up, get rid of the bad, new companies come in, and the economy would continue all on its own, WITHOUT Obama's interference. But, of course, he jumped at the chance to push his HUGE government agenda by taxing us to death. Please don't tell me you won't pay any taxes. How in the heck do you think trillions of dollars of debt will be repaid..... and no, it won't be those mean old "rich" people everyone loves to hate and it won't be the big businesses Obama wants you to hate, it will be YOU and me..... business will just pass their increased tax load onto us!! Way to go Obama!!
And the economy isn't already gasping its
So is theft of the economy! nm
xx
why can't the economy be first and we have the debate...
after it is fixed. Why does the debate HAVE to be on Friday?
I have learned so much about the economy over...sm
the last week but it has only made me see how much more I don't know. Pretty scary! We are all at the mercy of those in Washington and on Wall Street. Plenty of blame to go around but blame will not get us out of this mess.
The candidate who ran from the economy...
Obama voted for the bailout and that is ALL he did. That is not running from it? He still wants to spend trillions, won't say he is willing to cut spending, and wants to RAISE taxes in an economic downturn. You can't turn around the markets by raising taxes on corporations and the so-called "rich." Common sense should tell you that.
McCain has run from nothing. All Obama does is repeat the same old vagaries and NEVER gets specific about anything, but why should he? You obviously don't care. lol.
The OP is talking about the economy. nm
z
Not as compelling as the economy.
x
In a McCain economy, you will be
su
Who has been in charge of the economy for the
Democrats own congress....... they are the ones responsible for the complete mess of this economy. But because there is a republican president, the republicans get the blame.
Republican president really can't get anything done with an all democrat congress.
He is going to do that by destroying the economy...
of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio...making us all pay higher utility bills? What are his proposals? He doesn't want coal. He doesn't want nuclear. We CAN'T do it with windmills, not all of it, even T. Boone Pickens will tell you that.
Nuclear energy and building plants WOULD bring thousands of new jobs.
Sorry...his energy plans make NO sense to me, nor where he is going to get the billions, in this economy, to put his ideas into action.
He is already preparing the speech where he tells his faithful he can't do a lot of what he said he would do.
Snake oil salesman.
You are for, then....destroying the economy of...
the coal producing states and skyrocketing our electric bills...THIS on top of everything else, and he still looks GOOD to you? Amazing. lol.
Yes, and the economy with still stink. O will put us
nm
how is it going right back into the economy?
and WHO is it benefiting?
and one more thing... if this was McCain's inauguration, you would have no problem with the amount being spent either?
come on, be honest now
What would you undertake to fix the economy?.
Any better idea?
If you criticize, you have to come up with a better alternative.
fixing the economy...
I hope that by the time these projects are over, the economy will be better and the companies will therefore have new projects to move on to. The money that these jobs generate in taxes and in spending will spur more movement forward and we can hopefully start getting back on track.
Would that not stimulate the economy? sm
Think about it. If a person has a mortgage payment of say $500 a month (or any figure, really) and the government wrote a check for, say, $50K to that individual and it would pay off their house, would that not free up that $500 to be spent in other ways that would stimulate the economy?
People who are struggling to make their house payment, regardless of the reason, are still consumers and those consumers would be able to put more money back into the economy if they didn't have a mortgage payment. Isn't that the whole idea? To get more people spending more money so that more jobs would be created and so that our economy would grow?
Economy notice
Economy Notice
Due to recent budget cuts and the cost of electricity,
gas and oil, as well as current market conditions and
the continued decline of the U.S. economy,
The Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
|
