It's the economy stupid!

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I wonder what BOBDNs normal account here is when he's not trolling. Moonbeam? Nah, Moonbeam's is far more eloquent. Any other guesses?

LOL No, there is no way BOBDN = Moonbeam. First of all, I understand what BOBDN is saying, I almost never understand Moonbeam. BOBDN sounds like a liberal parrot, he probably got his "info" from a democrat site, because he wouldn't have exagerated the job loss number if he'd researched it directly himself - the difference is at least he's trying to use legitimate data in the argument whereas Moonbeam just spouts*. Maybe it's Bluga?

*Moonbeam, no hard feelings?

 

[BOBDN]

Furthermore, Congress controls the purse. If you really wanted to blame Bush w/ his narrow agenda or such, you should also then blame Congress for simply folding as many Democrats in Washington have been doing. It's not simply Bush who passed the budget.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out the fact that BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE ARE NOW CONTROLLED BY ONE PARTY.

Any more excuses?

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I wonder what BOBDNs normal account here is when he's not trolling. Moonbeam? Nah, Moonbeam's is far more eloquent. Any other guesses?

LOL No, there is no way BOBDN = Moonbeam. First of all, I understand what BOBDN is saying, I almost never understand Moonbeam. BOBDN sounds like a liberal parrot, he probably got his "info" from a democrat site, because he wouldn't have exagerated the job loss number if he'd researched it directly himself - the difference is at least he's trying to use legitimate data in the argument whereas Moonbeam just spouts*. Maybe it's Bluga?

*Moonbeam, no hard feelings?

I think Moonbeam gets a lot of his material from fortune cookies. I sometimes expect to find my lucky numbers listed at the end of his post.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Hey genius. The market and economy tanked in spring of 2000. Who was in office then??? It wasn't Bush.

Thank for recognizing my genius.

The recession began in Q1 2001 according to the Fed. An administration with a viable economic plan would have been able to reverse the downturn by now. Bush's plan is not viable. He is catering to the contributors who paid for his campaign. The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down.

Even with the aid of Greenspan and 12 inrterest rate cuts in one year Bush can't get the economy back on track.
Bush is an economic failure. A foreign policy failure. An environmental failure.
Little wonder you support him.

The market tanked in spring of 2000? It wasn't Bush?

U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average Stock Index Monthly Values (Last Trading Day of Month)

Here are the numbers from 1/2000 through 2/2003.
Care to revise your statement, Aceshigh?

2000.01 10940.50
2000.02 10128.30
2000.03 10921.90
2000.04 10733.90
2000.05 10522.30
2000.06 10447.90
2000.07 10522
2000.08 11215.10
2000.09 10650.92
2000.10 10971.14
2000.11 10414.49
2000.12 10786.85
2001.01 10887.36
2001.02 10495.28
2001.03 9878.78
2001.04 10734.97
2001.05 10911.94
2001.06 10499.79
2001.07 10522.81
2001.08 9949.75
2001.09 8847.56
2001.10 9075.14
2001.11 9851.56
2001.12 10021.56
2002.01 9920.00
2002.02 10106.13
2002.03 10403.94
2002.04 10059.63
2002.05 9925.25
2002.06 9243.26
2002.07 8736.59
2002.08 8663.50
2002.09 7591.93
2002.10 8397.03
2002.11 8896.09
2002.12 8341.63
2003.01 8053.81
2003.02 7891.08

This just shows you being even more so of an idiot. If you go by numbers like that to judge the economy, then we are on an upswing today.

 

[VikingBerserker]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
AHHH ,this is sooo flaimbait!!!

IIRC, the economy was already in the shitter before Bush took office.

Agreed---Clinton did a lot to get us here.

 

[BOBDN]

This just shows you being even more so of an idiot. If you go by numbers like that to judge the economy, then we are on an upswing today.

From over 11,000 to under 8,000 and you say we're on an upswing. And you're even nice enough to accuse ME of being the idiot!

Dow is down 5% so far in 2003. The "rally" we've seen for two whole days wont last once the prez and his Republican congress get their budget busting tax cut for the rich and the price tag for the war and rebuilding Iraq comes in. The next year or so will prove who the idiots are.

From the Op/Ed of today's NY Times for those of us who can read above 10th grade level.

Not you Chadder007, you're in remedial math. We'll try to teach you remedial reading after you can determine which number is higher, 11,000 or 8,000.

The Budget Fight Is Now

A fateful decision looms in the Senate for those moderate Republicans, ever pressured, ever wavering, who sense that the scope of President Bush's latest upper-bracket tax cut is far too embarrassing to be fully indulged. As the country moves deeper into war sacrifice, spiraling deficits and borrowing into the future, the thin G.O.P. line that rebelled and voted last week to halve the president's $726 billion tax cut is about to have its resistance sorely retested.

The outcome is far from certain. Their stand is for a maximum 10-year tax cut of $350 billion, which, by any reasonable standard from saner days, is itself unjustified. The Republican leaders' own bleak budget outlook is for a decade of red ink and depressed government programs even without cutting fresh taxation slack for the wealthiest. Sad to say, the half-loaf measure amounts to the only option outside of runaway retrogressive budgeting in a Capitol eager to please a wartime president.

Even without the partial cut, the most vital services in education, health and welfare are certain to be crimped and hacked by hundreds of billions of dollars at all levels of government afflicted with increasing deficits. Yet G.O.P. leaders work to compound this pain by restoring the president's full tax cut in a closed-door compromise plan that will soon emerge for a showdown vote. "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, blithely told CongressDaily.

With rumors of a $550 billion "compromise" rife along with fierce White House lobbying, the nation is relying on the resisters to hold their ground. Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island should put aside any temptation to hedge and make it clear that they will again join the Democrats and vote down any final resolution with a cut higher than $350 billion. The Democrats will have to hold on to a handful of wavering conservatives who seem incapable of understanding that part of the price of war is giving up luxuries like tax breaks for the well-to-do.

It would help to see the rebels' ranks joined by Senator Susan Collins of Maine. She has talked a good game of resistance but has not yet taken a clear stand. A politician who is theoretically against tax cuts but who sides with the let's-party crowd when the chips are down is perfectly useless to the cause of sensible budgeting. Senator John McCain of Arizona has stressed that he is against any tax cut, including the half-measure, until later, when the war's costs are known. But this proven warrior should know the only promising battle in sight is about to be fought. If it is lost, the bulk of the budget-busting tax cut for the wealthy will be in place. The deficit will spiral out of control, and the burden of war and rebuilding Iraq could trigger mammoth national discontent. The grand principle is fine, but right now the nation needs every principled politician available to rally against this disastrous plan.

 

[BOBDN]

BOBDN - there are few who would find legitimate fault with your data. I agree with most of your opinions. However, when you express an opinion about a president based purely along party lines or family association, in the eyes of many you immediately discredit yourself. It affects my willingness to believe your words.

You can believe the facts and figures. You don't need to believe my words.

But the Bush family? They are like a plague of locusts. They come around every few years and destroy everything in their path. Just when we get everything rebuilt and the country is running smoothly they come along again and destroy everything.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

I don't support socialism either. I have worked all my life, usually more than one job so I don't believe people should be given incentive to not work. But I do believe in a civilized society people who need a helping hand should be able to get one. There have been inequities in society since people began forming them. I'm not talking strictly about race although race has been the major source of inequality in our nation. I am referring to poverty as well as race. Poverty is color blind. And it's nice to read about those people who have been able to overcome poverty. For everyone of them there are a thousand who are unable.

What are the reasons for poverty in what we like to call the richest country in the world? Social programs? I think not. Our economy is big enough to lift every ship. But there are some very big yachts out there that take up way more than their share. And they perpetuate the status quo so they can keep those yachts afloat. The socialist programs in our country aren't in place for the poor or the working class. They are in place to maintain that status quo.

As for the package of incentives to reward CEO's for building wealth I would say that, just as some point out here, the economy is cyclical, these CEO's that build wealth many times happen to be in the right place at the right time. Does their presence justify the salaries they are paid? The CEO's who actually build wealth are a very small minority. Example: the CEO of Verizon Communications was paid $13.5 million in 2002. While Verizon was losing billions. The current treasury secretary, John Snow, was CEO of CSX. He received millions in pay and millions more in stock but CSX was in the red and their status was worsening for the past five years Snow was at the helm.

As for the stock options these CEO's and other top corporate officials receive, wasn't the recent problem with overstating profits a result of corporate execs trying to increase their company's worth so they could get more stock they could cash in before the company crashed ala Enron or Worldcom or others?

I have read that in Japan and other industrialized nations the person on the top floor earns approximately 10 times the amount the average worker earns. Sounds like a good ratio to me. The people on the top floor really don't have that much control over how well a company does. And in our country whether the company does well or not they are getting remunerated in record amounts while workers are being laid off or fired or having their retirement funds disappear.

That's the socialism I'm against. Like the Bush tax cuts. The socialism for the rich.[/quote]


I believe in the notion it is better to teach one to fish than constantly giving away the fish we caught unless there exist reasonable needs. The teaching I refer to requires a particaptory effort on our part as well as the client. The tax credits I spoke of directed in this area will serve a two fold purpose. They will stimulate the employer to engage the client and trikle up to return tax dollars to the highly taxed (I cant recall the term) BUT not to all the highly tax just the ones who can and will particapate. I accept that even with great effort the transition may be obviated by attitudes and situations that are inherent with culture and bias.

The employment contracts enjoyed by the corporate leadership are, for the most part, established, as you know, by the Boards of the various entities. They are the guardians of the stockholders assets. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic that goes into some of the packages I read about. I am familiar with the smaller company scenerios that have reasonableness attached. BUT, the most common in the "traded on the market companies" is the option feature. This is the greatest incentive to steal that I can think of. To steal from you and the other investors. I am a Controller, A cop of sorts who is the historian of the company's activity. Even in a small company ($25 million in revenue) the focus is always on the recognition of revenue and the delay of expense. I battle constantly to report fairly and ethically the Company's financials. The question, I suppose, is how much reward is appropriate in relation to how instramental the Executives are in garnering the results. I am convinced that the incremental benefit achieved by most companies would not be materially differn't if the CEO's chair was populated by a monkey. And I suspect some are! When I read Peter Drucker's "The Effective Executive" I concluded that with a little training an inferior monkey could sit with an empty desk and with cigar in hand grunt incomprehensable directions that had the same validity as its human counterpart.
I am not familiar with the Asian salary/reward structure so I can't comment.

I do not pretend to be happy with tax paying and from time to time wish for the days of the %70-80 or more marginal tax bracket. Karl did have one part of his book that I agree with; From each according to his ability and to each according to his need. Capitalism incorporates this in a subtle way or use to. Reagan turned this around to be; from each equally or nearly so with loopholes and to each if we must. Today I fear it has become; from each as little as possible and to each even less and let the debt make up the difference. Clinton tried to move us back to a more rational "business model" Debt should finance long term projects not current expense.

I enjoyed this reflection but I've papers to grade and tax returns to file.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Infos
BOBDN

You're wasting your time talking to the right-wingers
They not very good at comprehension or change or facing the truth.

I realize I'm wasting my time with them. I just wanted to post the facts and see them react in their usual manner.

They can't argue the facts because the facts prove them wrong. So the attack me or my politics or former presidents. Anything but the facts which they are UNABLE TO REFUTE!

It's a shame the number of them who are so brainwashed by their party and yet when presented with the facts they call me partisan.

I'll state my case one more time. The facts are posted above for those who want to take the time to read them. Or you can go to the US Dept of Labor or do a search on any economic data you like. It all proves the same thing.

Since Bush came into office we have lost 2.5 million jobs in America. The economic recession we are still suffering through began in Q1, 2001 under Bush's economic leadership. The gap between rich and the rest of us has widened since Bush took office and he and the Republican congress are attempting to widen it more with their irresponsible $760 billion tax cut proposed for the rich. Since Bush took office we have gone from record SURPLUS to record DEFICITS. We are now in a war that is totally unnecessary since the UN inspectors had Hussein in check. The first bill for $75 billion is about to be paid, while we are still in a recession and the bill for rebuilding the country we destroyed is an estimated $100 billion. That's if all goes well and the entire Muslim world doesn't try to treat us the same way they treated us on 9/11 only this time in Iraq and at home. The estimated cost of another terrorist attack at home to the economy for the year is $425 billion.

George W. Bush is the worst president of the past 59 years. And that's saying something! He's in the company of people like his father and Reagan. Hard to be much worse than them, but he has managed.

"W" still has 2 years left in his term. He may still have time to become the worst president in the past century.

Hail to the thief, the cowboy in chief.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Quote

I don't support socialism either. I have worked all my life, usually more than one job so I don't believe people should be given incentive to not work. But I do believe in a civilized society people who need a helping hand should be able to get one. There have been inequities in society since people began forming them. I'm not talking strictly about race although race has been the major source of inequality in our nation. I am referring to poverty as well as race. Poverty is color blind. And it's nice to read about those people who have been able to overcome poverty. For everyone of them there are a thousand who are unable.

What are the reasons for poverty in what we like to call the richest country in the world? Social programs? I think not. Our economy is big enough to lift every ship. But there are some very big yachts out there that take up way more than their share. And they perpetuate the status quo so they can keep those yachts afloat. The socialist programs in our country aren't in place for the poor or the working class. They are in place to maintain that status quo.

As for the package of incentives to reward CEO's for building wealth I would say that, just as some point out here, the economy is cyclical, these CEO's that build wealth many times happen to be in the right place at the right time. Does their presence justify the salaries they are paid? The CEO's who actually build wealth are a very small minority. Example: the CEO of Verizon Communications was paid $13.5 million in 2002. While Verizon was losing billions. The current treasury secretary, John Snow, was CEO of CSX. He received millions in pay and millions more in stock but CSX was in the red and their status was worsening for the past five years Snow was at the helm.

As for the stock options these CEO's and other top corporate officials receive, wasn't the recent problem with overstating profits a result of corporate execs trying to increase their company's worth so they could get more stock they could cash in before the company crashed ala Enron or Worldcom or others?

I have read that in Japan and other industrialized nations the person on the top floor earns approximately 10 times the amount the average worker earns. Sounds like a good ratio to me. The people on the top floor really don't have that much control over how well a company does. And in our country whether the company does well or not they are getting remunerated in record amounts while workers are being laid off or fired or having their retirement funds disappear.

That's the socialism I'm against. Like the Bush tax cuts. The socialism for the rich.

I believe in the notion it is better to teach one to fish than constantly giving away the fish we caught unless there exist reasonable needs. The teaching I refer to requires a particaptory effort on our part as well as the client. The tax credits I spoke of directed in this area will serve a two fold purpose. They will stimulate the employer to engage the client and trikle up to return tax dollars to the highly taxed (I cant recall the term) BUT not to all the highly tax just the ones who can and will particapate. I accept that even with great effort the transition may be obviated by attitudes and situations that are inherent with culture and bias.

The employment contracts enjoyed by the corporate leadership are, for the most part, established, as you know, by the Boards of the various entities. They are the guardians of the stockholders assets. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic that goes into some of the packages I read about. I am familiar with the smaller company scenerios that have reasonableness attached. BUT, the most common in the "traded on the market companies" is the option feature. This is the greatest incentive to steal that I can think of. To steal from you and the other investors. I am a Controller, A cop of sorts who is the historian of the company's activity. Even in a small company ($25 million in revenue) the focus is always on the recognition of revenue and the delay of expense. I battle constantly to report fairly and ethically the Company's financials. The question, I suppose, is how much reward is appropriate in relation to how instramental the Executives are in garnering the results. I am convinced that the incremental benefit achieved by most companies would not be materially differn't if the CEO's chair was populated by a monkey. And I suspect some are! When I read Peter Drucker's "The Effective Executive" I concluded that with a little training an inferior monkey could sit with an empty desk and with cigar in hand grunt incomprehensable directions that had the same validity as its human counterpart.
I am not familiar with the Asian salary/reward structure so I can't comment.

I do not pretend to be happy with tax paying and from time to time wish for the days of the %70-80 or more marginal tax bracket. Karl did have one part of his book that I agree with; From each according to his ability and to each according to his need. Capitalism incorporates this in a subtle way or use to. Reagan turned this around to be; from each equally or nearly so with loopholes and to each if we must. Today I fear it has become; from each as little as possible and to each even less and let the debt make up the difference. Clinton tried to move us back to a more rational "business model" Debt should finance long term projects not current expense.

I enjoyed this reflection but I've papers to grade and tax returns to file.[/quote]

I enjoyed your reflection as well. I hope some of the people on this forum take the time to read and understand it.

 

[BOBDN]

NY Times Editorial 4/3/2003

Mugging the Needy
By BOB HERBERT


I had wanted today's column to be about the events in Tulia, Tex., where a criminal justice atrocity is at long last beginning to be corrected.

(For those who don't know, prosecutors are moving to overturn the convictions of everyone seized in an outlandish drug sting conducted by a single wacky undercover officer.)

But there is another issue crying out for immediate attention. With the eyes of most Americans focused on the war, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress are getting close to agreeing on a set of budget policies that will take an awful toll on the poor, the young, the elderly, the disabled and others in need of assistance and support from their government.

The budget passed by the House is particularly gruesome. It mugs the poor and the helpless while giving unstintingly to the rich. This blueprint for domestic disaster has even moderate Republicans running for cover.

The House plan offers the well-to-do $1.4 trillion in tax cuts, while demanding billions of dollars in cuts from programs that provide food stamps, school lunches, health care for the poor and the disabled, temporary assistance to needy families ? even veterans' benefits and student loans.

An analysis of the House budget by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that its proposed cuts in child nutrition programs threaten to eliminate school lunches for 2.4 million low-income children.

Under the House plan, Congress would be required to cut $265 billion from entitlement programs over 10 years. About $165 billion would come from programs that assist low-income Americans.

This assault on society's weakest elements has been almost totally camouflaged by the war, which has an iron grip on the nation's attention.

The House budget does not dictate the specific cuts that Congress would be required to make. In its analysis, the center assumed (as did the House Budget Committee) that the various entitlement programs would be cut by roughly the same percentages. If one program were to be cut by a somewhat smaller percentage, another would have to be cut more.

The analysis found that in the year in which the budget sliced deepest:

¶"The cut in Medicaid, if achieved entirely by reducing the number of children covered, would lead to the elimination of health coverage for 13.6 million children."

¶"The cut in foster care and adoption programs, if achieved by reducing the number of children eligible for foster care assistance payments, would lead to the elimination of benefits for 65,000 abused and neglected children."

¶"The cut in the food stamp program, if achieved by lowering the maximum benefit, would lead to a reduction in the average benefit from an already lean 91 cents per meal to 84 cents."

When's the last time one of the plutocrats in Congress waded through a meal that cost 84 cents?

The Senate budget is not as egregious. It calls for a total of about $900 billion in tax cuts, and there is no demand for cuts in entitlement programs. But it is not a reasonable budget. In fact, there's something obscene about a millionaires' club like the Senate proposing close to a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich while the country is already cutting social programs, running up huge budget deficits and fighting a war in the Middle East.

At least in the House budget the first ? if not the worst ? of the cuts are in plain view. In the Senate plan the inevitable pain of the Bush budget policies remains concealed.

"There is a significant human toll in the Senate budget, but it's in the future," said Robert Greenstein, the center's executive director. "What I mean is that given the deficits we're already in, you can't keep doing tax cuts like this ? you can't keep cutting your revenue base ? without it inevitably leading to sharp budget cuts."

House and Senate conferees are now trying to resolve the differences in the two budget proposals. They will do all they can to minimize the public relations hit that is bound to come when you're handing trainloads of money to the rich while taking food off the tables of the poor. So you can expect some dismantling of the House proposal.

But no matter what they do, the day of reckoning is not far off. The budget cuts are coming. In voodoo economics, the transfer of wealth is from the poor and the working classes to the rich. It may not be pretty, but it's the law.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
NY Times Editorial 4/3/2003

Mugging the Needy


But no matter what they do, the day of reckoning is not far off. The budget cuts are coming. In voodoo economics, the transfer of wealth is from the poor and the working classes to the rich. It may not be pretty, but it's the law.

I am flaggergasted by what I read in your latest. The issue with the VA benefits (I am a Vet with Service Connected Disability), The foster and adoption issue (I just adopted my youngest grandson (12) I had to get him out of "the system") hits home. I have to do some research and I'll be back with my comments later..

Also, I am just learning this "on line forum" method of communication that does not allow for the non verbal communication that I use with all my criptic and esoteric statements. I'll try hard to include the little happy faces where appropriate.

:Q

 

[Dragnov]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Furthermore, Congress controls the purse. If you really wanted to blame Bush w/ his narrow agenda or such, you should also then blame Congress for simply folding as many Democrats in Washington have been doing. It's not simply Bush who passed the budget.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out the fact that BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE ARE NOW CONTROLLED BY ONE PARTY.

Any more excuses?

Do you have any understanding of politics? It takes more than 50% of the House or the Senate to pass bill. Even with Republicans narrowly controlling the both houses, it still requires a fair amount of Democrats to go along.

And furthermore, are you blaming Republican congress or Bush? Or both now? Please stay to the point.

Your argument sucks so much, not because I don't agree with your conclusion, but because you have so many logical fallacies.

 

[BOBDN]

Do you have any understanding of politics? It takes more than 50% of the House or the Senate to pass bill. Even with Republicans narrowly controlling the both houses, it still requires a fair amount of Democrats to go along.And furthermore, are you blaming Republican congress or Bush? Or both now? Please stay to the point. Your argument sucks so much, not because I don't agree with your conclusion, but because you have so many logical fallacies.

Well, another person posting their opinion without any facts to back it up.

To answer your questions.
First, I have a very good understanding of politics. The Republicans control both houses of congress and the White House. They used the Democrats as an excuse for every failure since Bush came into office. Now the have no excuse. So to answer your next question.

Second, I am not only blaming the Republican congress and Bush but if they EVER get anything right I'll credit them as well. They simply haven't done anything right as far as "the point" I'm posting about. The economy.

Your opinion of my argument is of course your right to have. It is I think still a free country. Well, to be honest, not as free as it was two years ago. But you may still post your opinion. Something to back it up, facts, figures, where my logic fails, would be nice. Until then it's just your opinion.

Oh, here is some more info to chew on from today's business section of The Star Ledger, my local statewide paper. As I said in another post, you can always trust the business section. They wont lie about their money!

Jobless claims soar

The number of American workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits climbed last week to the highest point in nearly a year as businesses trimmed jobs in the muddled wartime economic climate.
The Labor Department reported that new applications for jobless benefits jumped by a seasonally adjusted 38,000 to 445,000 for the week ending March 29 - a level last reached in the week ending April 13, 2002.
"It is the pall of the Iraqi war, higher energy prices and lower stock prices just weighing on the willingness of companies to maintain jobs,"
said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com "The uncertainty is so high they just can't think about expanding their businesses at this point."
A second report offered more unsettling news: Activity in the service sector - normally the engine of job creation in the United States - contracted in March, ending 13 months of growth.

Service sector slows

Activity in the service sector contracted in March on war worries, ending 13 straight months of growth, a report released stated.
The Institute for Supply Management reported that its non-manufacturing index fell to 47.9 last month from 53.9 in February. It was 54.5 in January.
The non-manufacturing index is comrpised mostly of services, which make up two-thirds of economic output. An above 50 reading indicates growth in the service sector, while anything under 50 denotes a pullback in business.
Economists had expected the index to fall but only to 52.5. The ISM service-sector report comes amid a slew of other data showing widespread economic weakness, largely due to either prewar worries or the actual conflict.
On Tuesday, the ISM's manufacturing activity index for March fell much more than economists had anticipated, indiationg a slowdown at some of the nation's factories on prewar jitters.


Now for my analysis. Bush and the Republican controlled congress continue to screw up the economy. There will of course be plenty of jobs in Iraq soon after the contracts for rebuilding the country we just bombed back to the stone age are passed out to Bush friends and insiders who are on the short list of the Defense Policy Board where 9 ov the civilian members have connections with contractors who will be receiving contracts from the Defense Department. Can anyone say, "Conflict of interest?" Or, "Richard Perle?"

Reports just released for last week's jobless rate show 108,000 more people lost their jobs in the US last week. This is what helped bring the total up to 445,000. Of course these figures don't include the people who have run out of jobless benefits because they couldn't find a job in a YEAR! Or the people who simply gave up and left the job market. So the actual jobless situation is much worse than the reported figures. The number was expected to be more like 60,000. I suppose we can start sending these unemployed Americans over to Iraq where they can work for the companies referred to above. But those jobs are probably going to people with connections as well.

Oh, here is another piece from the business section. It seems putting people out of work isn't the only job the Bush administration and the Republican controlled congress have. They also want to screw working Americans out of their pay as well.

Overtime bill update

The nation's overtime pay law took another hit as a House panel approved ligislation that would let employers offer paid time off instead.
A House Workforce subcommittee voted 8-6 along party lines to approve the bill, which the full committee will take up nxt week. House leaders want a floor vote by early May.
Business groups, emboldened by complete Republican control of Congress and the federal executive branch, are pressing the Bush administration to rewrite the labor law requiring employers to pay an hourly rate of time-and-a-half to some workers logging more than 40 hours a eweek.
The Labor Department last week proposed a drastic overhaul of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements, by making millions of low-income workers eligible for the time-and-a-half pay but cutting thousands of professionals off from it. Nearly 22 million workers could be affected by the proposal.

So you see the Republican controlled congress and executive branch agenda is war on working people as well as Iraq. Now, how do you explain the FACTS posted above? How do you make excuses for this?

LINKS:

Institute for Supply Management

US Deptartment of Labor

Economy.com

Whose argument "sucks" now? Who has "logical fallacies?"

Patiently awaiting your reply.

*EDIT* Here's a link to NJ.com. There is no direct link to The Star Ledger, only the NJ.com news link.

 

[BOBDN]

For those who just want the facts, you former "Dragnet" fans, I've posted info from The Star Ledger business section, New Jersey's statewide newspaper. The same info is in the NY Times but I always quote them. The Star Ledger is considered a fairly unbiased newspaper, especially the business section. If you like I'll provide links to The Wall Street Journal, The NY Times or any other paper you like. I have links to over 100 of them nationwide. There is no link directly to The Star Ledger, only on NJ.com

Jobless claims soar

The number of American workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits climbed last week to the highest point in nearly a year as businesses trimmed jobs in the muddled wartime economic climate.
The Labor Department reported that new applications for jobless benefits jumped by a seasonally adjusted 38,000 to 445,000 for the week ending March 29 - a level last reached in the week ending April 13, 2002.
"It is the pall of the Iraqi war, higher energy prices and lower stock prices just weighing on the willingness of companies to maintain jobs,"
said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com "The uncertainty is so high they just can't think about expanding their businesses at this point."

Service sector slows

Activity in the service sector contracted in March on war worries, ending 13 straight months of growth, a report released stated.
The Institute for Supply Management reported that its non-manufacturing index fell to 47.9 last month from 53.9 in February. It was 54.5 in January.
The non-manufacturing index is comrpised mostly of services, which make up two-thirds of economic output. An above 50 reading indicates growth in the service sector, while anything under 50 denotes a pullback in business.
Economists had expected the index to fall but only to 52.5. The ISM service-sector report comes amid a slew of other data showing widespread economic weakness, largely due to either prewar worries or the actual conflict.
On Tuesday, the ISM's manufacturing activity index for March fell much more than economists had anticipated, indiationg a slowdown at some of the nation's factories on prewar jitters.

Overtime bill update

The nation's overtime pay law took another hit as a House panel approved ligislation that would let employers offer paid time off instead.
A House Workforce subcommittee voted 8-6 along party lines to approve the bill, which the full committee will take up nxt week. House leaders want a floor vote by early May.
Business groups, emboldened by complete Republican control of Congress and the federal executive branch, are pressing the Bush administration to rewrite the labor law requiring employers to pay an hourly rate of time-and-a-half to some workers logging more than 40 hours a eweek.
The Labor Department last week proposed a drastic overhaul of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements, by making millions of low-income workers eligible for the time-and-a-half pay but cutting thousands of professionals off from it. Nearly 22 million workers could be affected by the proposal.



LINKS:

The US Department of Labor

The Institute for Supply Management

Economy.com

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Do you have any understanding of politics? It takes more than 50% of the House or the Senate to pass bill. Even with Republicans narrowly controlling the both houses, it still requires a fair amount of Democrats to go along.And furthermore, are you blaming Republican congress or Bush? Or both now? Please stay to the point. Your argument sucks so much, not because I don't agree with your conclusion, but because you have so many logical fallacies.

Well, another person posting their opinion without any facts to back it up.

To answer your questions.
First, I have a very good understanding of politics. The Republicans control both houses of congress and the White House. They used the Democrats as an excuse for every failure since Bush came into office. Now the have no excuse. So to answer your next question.

Apparently you don't know what a "Filibuster" is, or "Majority Vote" for that matter. If you have 51% republicans, that doesn't mean 100% of republicans will always unaminously agree 100% of the time. A party consists of varying degrees of philosophy and goals. If the Republicans controlled 75% of Congress, then I can see a problem if they're not getting stuff done. But It's almost a tie right now, plus when Tom Daschle was Majority Leader he spent all of his time on the defense, bashing Republicans, rather than doing something constructive and productive.

I see the 2 parties as this - Democrats spend all their time creating partisanship with class warfare and using social programs to create a voter base, using feel-good language to describe points, using polls to decide what they're going to say next, but never doing anything, whereas Republicans have goals they want to accomplish, morals they want to protect, but they are always under attack because they're not trying to please everyone at once.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Hey genius. The market and economy tanked in spring of 2000. Who was in office then??? It wasn't Bush.

Thank for recognizing my genius.

The recession began in Q1 2001 according to the Fed. An administration with a viable economic plan would have been able to reverse the downturn by now. Bush's plan is not viable. He is catering to the contributors who paid for his campaign. The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down.

Even with the aid of Greenspan and 12 inrterest rate cuts in one year Bush can't get the economy back on track.
Bush is an economic failure. A foreign policy failure. An environmental failure.
Little wonder you support him.

The market tanked in spring of 2000? It wasn't Bush?

U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average Stock Index Monthly Values (Last Trading Day of Month)

Here are the numbers from 1/2000 through 2/2003.
Care to revise your statement, Aceshigh?

2000.01 10940.50

and on.

This just shows you being even more so of an idiot. If you go by numbers like that to judge the economy, then we are on an upswing today.

Very good. Your conclusion is spot on. We are on an upswing today. If it continues then bravo to Mr. Bush and we should see him for the great man he is and if the converse is true then so should the observation.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

Apparently you don't know what a "Filibuster" is, or "Majority Vote" for that matter. If you have 51% republicans, that doesn't mean 100% of republicans will always unaminously agree 100% of the time. A party consists of varying degrees of philosophy and goals. If the Republicans controlled 75% of Congress, then I can see a problem if they're not getting stuff done. But It's almost a tie right now, plus when Tom Daschle was Majority Leader he spent all of his time on the defense, bashing Republicans, rather than doing something constructive and productive.

I see the 2 parties as this - Democrats spend all their time creating partisanship with class warfare and using social programs to create a voter base, using feel-good language to describe points, using polls to decide what they're going to say next, but never doing anything, whereas Republicans have goals they want to accomplish, morals they want to protect, but they are always under attack because they're not trying to please everyone at once.[/quote]
*************************************

The devil is in the details.
Do you not cherish the opportunity to spend your earnings in the manner you see fit? If this is true and if the tax dollars that the government directs hither and yon come from you don't you wish for those dollars to be spent as you see fit. The tax dollar is YOUR dollar. Well, I want my tax dollar spent where I see fit. That may not be where you wish yours spent. Why am I so wrong, if I am, to direct MY representative of either party to rise up and shout at the top of his lungs in support of my ideology? The Congress are US not some group of elite debaters. They are doing the job, hopefully, that they were sent to do by the majority with in their districts.
Now then, I think it is immoral to see truly needy people in this country suffer while the rich are busy asking If I have any Grey Poupon and using misdirected tax cuts to further their political and social agendas or building wealth. Let them participate in the resolution of the aforementioned issue because they can and as citizens ought to. If that is immoral or a irrelevant goal we may truly have decended from volcanic interference.

I edit to add. One voice having paid $500,000 in tax is but one voice.

 

[bGIveNs33]

After ready over this entire thread... besides some of the second page, I thought I'd chime in.

This Bush tax cut isn't a great idea right now. In theory, tax cuts should make the economy better. Put the money back in the peoples hand and they spend more and increase the tax revenue. Historically, it just hasn't happened. Anyway, this war and rebuilding efforts are going to cost enough. Next thing, IIRC, Steve Forbes calculated a while back that a flat tax rate of 17% work out correctly and bring in enough tax revenue. Which, I like, but, I do understand families with kids and what not, deserve a bit of a break because kids under 18 generally don't contribute to the families income. Now, Social Security. What a hiddeous little problem. I've read many opinions such as, cut it off, let the person decided while they're young, ect. Those ideas aren't too practical. Someone earlier read a balance that he had paid into social security. Thats a bit inaccurate. He should have said, "I've paid X amount of dollars out through social security". The truth is... THERE IS NO LOCKBOX. Your current social security deductions pay the social security recipiants of today. It doesn't just go into some bank account in the sky and wait for your retirement. So, I just don't have an answer for that problem. It's not fair just to cut it off, but, something needs to be reformed. I would definately say people my age, 18-25 should start saving. I've already started up a 401(k) and some other investment accouts. Don't count on social security being there for when you retire.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It was a security net. In this non socialistic country we are suppose to plan our retirement and medical out of our earnings... We should not try to emulated Grand Brittania on the outflow side and not consider the inflow side.... the social cost in europe is staggering.

I really don't care what the intention of SS was. I was forced to contribute to the plan. I expect a benefit. To do otherwise is not only anti-socialist it's plain old fashioned robbery.

If you were the administrator of a retirement plan and after you investors contributed over their lifetime you told them they were not receiving their benefit what would happen to you?

Don't think an entire generation will stand for the government sanctioned robbery of their retirement no matter who is in power or what economic theory is in vogue.

*EDIT*
I forgot to add. I did plan my own retirement. See above. Being forced to participate in SS and Medicare made my planning that much harder. I could have contributed more. Therefore, I demand the retirement benifit as promised.

You're right. Perhaps for us to get rid of SS, we should only pay the current ricipients how much they put into it, and those who have already gotten out more should owe the government. And a lot of my taxes I've paid that went to Welfare funds, I want to get back, I want to be on Welfare but still keep my job. And the taxes I paid that feeds 3rd world countries, I want those countries to give me back that money or food.

Your argument is that since the government has created a vicious cycle of a social program, we can never put a stop to the social program because to do so would interrupt it's vicious cycle. That's ignorance, selfishness, and silliness all rolled into one.

Currently taxes we pay for SS isn't going into an account with our name on it. So we've paid it up until now, why not dump SS, pay the current recipients what they are getting, and call it even. Our taxes are paying current recipients, nothing more. So to say you just want to get back what you paid in, is saying that every cent we've put into any taxes we should get back and that's just stupid. SS does not equal a retirement plan! It's just a social program!

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

You're right. Perhaps for us to get rid of SS, we should only pay the current ricipients how much they put into it, and those who have already gotten out more should owe the government. And a lot of my taxes I've paid that went to Welfare funds, I want to get back, I want to be on Welfare but still keep my job. And the taxes I paid that feeds 3rd world countries, I want those countries to give me back that money or food.

Your argument is that since the government has created a vicious cycle of a social program, we can never put a stop to the social program because to do so would interrupt it's vicious cycle. That's ignorance, selfishness, and silliness all rolled into one.

Currently taxes we pay for SS isn't going into an account with our name on it. So we've paid it up until now, why not dump SS, pay the current recipients what they are getting, and call it even. Our taxes are paying current recipients, nothing more. So to say you just want to get back what you paid in, is saying that every cent we've put into any taxes we should get back and that's just stupid. SS does not equal a retirement plan! It's just a social program![/quote]
*****************

The funds paid into Social Security go into a trust fund, not the dollars just the numerics. The dollars are used to pay the current out flow and the general fund current operations. The SSA fund has a large surplus which is in actual dollars not compounded with interest. There are lots of these Trust Funds here and there that total some 7 trillion or so as per my Congressman, Duke Cunningham. I think in 2030 the SSA fund will go into the red at the currently assumed dynamics.
Don't forget that SSI and Medicare are also associated. With all the Enrons and Perrigrins out there I think a good safety net is important. Besides, when someone becomes disabled should they be forced to beg on the street or be able to maintain some dignity. I figured that If I live to 71 I will get back all my input even if I compound it with the interest rate of a federal security ( No risk).

 

[BOBDN]

Apparently you don't know what a "Filibuster" is, or "Majority Vote" for that matter. If you have 51% republicans, that doesn't mean 100% of republicans will always unaminously agree 100% of the time. A party consists of varying degrees of philosophy and goals. If the Republicans controlled 75% of Congress, then I can see a problem if they're not getting stuff done. But It's almost a tie right now, plus when Tom Daschle was Majority Leader he spent all of his time on the defense, bashing Republicans, rather than doing something constructive and productive.

I see the 2 parties as this - Democrats spend all their time creating partisanship with class warfare and using social programs to create a voter base, using feel-good language to describe points, using polls to decide what they're going to say next, but never doing anything, whereas Republicans have goals they want to accomplish, morals they want to protect, but they are always under attack because they're not trying to please everyone at once.

Thank you Saga Lore for once again sharing your totally partisan (while accusing the Democrats of partisanship) view totally without substantiation. And thank you for making yet another excuse for the Republican controlled White House and Congress.

Did you bother to read ANY of the information I posted?

I didn't think so.

 

[BOBDN]

HJD1 wrote:

Very good. Your conclusion is spot on. We are on an upswing today. If it continues then bravo to Mr. Bush and we should see him for the great man he is and if the converse is true then so should the observation.

I must disagree with your characterization of Bush as a "great man." He has had what can be described as a checkered past.

While growing up in a family where there were no limits to opportunity he wasted much of his "birthright." Admitted to Yale on the rich man's version of affirmative action (which he now opposes for minorities) he squandered his opportunities there passing with a "gentleman's C."

The "leader of the free world" who now sends our troops into battle preemptively to fight and die, he spent the Viet Nam era in the Texas Air National Guard. Managing to get in even when there were NO openings (but daddy took care of that problem), learning to fly an obsolete aircraft that would keep him out of combat even if in the off chance he was called up for active duty, and spending the majority of his commission AWOL! The last year-and-a-half to be exact.

Afterwards he entered several businesses where he failed to ever succeed, but no problem, daddy's name kept the investment capital flowing and he finally sold a losing oil business to Haliburton where he was named to the board of directors. I guess some people win even when they're losers. After dumping his shares just months before they tanked (sound familiar, Enron?), and after "forgetting" to report the sale to the SEC as required he bought a small share in the Texas Rangers. The board of the Texas Rangers then decided to GIVE him 12% of the team! Just because they liked him! (NOT) After selling his share in the Rangers for millions he runs for office in Texas where he never met a developmentally disabled inmate he wouldn't execute. Then after his stint as Governor of Texas his daddy puts together a group of investors who back his presidential campaign (although he has NO foreign policy experience, a slight oversight we are paying dearly for right now) to the tune of $100 million. He manages to squander even that sum and daddy's pals have to reinvest another $50 million so junior can finish the campaign. In the end he still has to have the Supreme Court step in and stop a sovereign state from conducting their own election. So much for state's rights. But that's the story of George's life. Rules don't matter. If there's a problem just change the rules. But only for yourself, the rest of us regular people have to live and die by them.

So let's recap. Rich kid who wastes opportunities other people would give their right arm for (while now opposing the very idea of any of those people ever getting a chance), draft dodger who wouldn't even finish the commission his daddy set up for him and wasn't even taken to task for being AWOL for 1 1/2 years (while the children of poor Americans were dying in rice patties half a world away), failed businessman who still had all the money he could lose handed to him just because he was George H.W. Bush's son while breaking laws the rest of us would still be doing time and paying the fines for, and finally a politician with no experience whose life of never having to work for anything or worry about learning to get along with anyone is now bearing fruit in the form of isolating the US as a world class imperialist oil grabbing pseudotheocracy and doing more damage to NATO in two years than the USSR could do in 50, not to mention coming very close to the conservative goal of destroying the UN.

Great man. Right.

And as for the "upswing" today in the DOW. Thirty seven points isn't exactly rescuing my 401K. Let's wait until the war is over and the underlying economic reality (as outlined in the business section and links above) kicks in. I doubt anyone will be throwing any parties to celebrate then, unless of course they want to celebrate the Guiness Book of World Records entry for record budget deficits.

 

[BOBDN]

The devil is in the details.
Do you not cherish the opportunity to spend your earnings in the manner you see fit? If this is true and if the tax dollars that the government directs hither and yon come from you don't you wish for those dollars to be spent as you see fit. The tax dollar is YOUR dollar. Well, I want my tax dollar spent where I see fit. That may not be where you wish yours spent. Why am I so wrong, if I am, to direct MY representative of either party to rise up and shout at the top of his lungs in support of my ideology? The Congress are US not some group of elite debaters. They are doing the job, hopefully, that they were sent to do by the majority with in their districts.
Now then, I think it is immoral to see truly needy people in this country suffer while the rich are busy asking If I have any Grey Poupon and using misdirected tax cuts to further their political and social agendas or building wealth. Let them participate in the resolution of the aforementioned issue because they can and as citizens ought to. If that is immoral or a irrelevant goal we may truly have decended from volcanic interference.

I edit to add. One voice having paid $500,000 in tax is but one voice.

I can agree with all of that. You are a truly complicated person HJD1. And I say that as a complliment.
Or is your grandson posting in your name again?

 

[BOBDN]

Someone earlier read a balance that he had paid into social security. Thats a bit inaccurate. He should have said, "I've paid X amount of dollars out through social security". The truth is... THERE IS NO LOCKBOX. Your current social security deductions pay the social security recipiants of today. It doesn't just go into some bank account in the sky and wait for your retirement. So, I just don't have an answer for that problem. It's not fair just to cut it off, but, something needs to be reformed. I would definately say people my age, 18-25 should start saving. I've already started up a 401(k) and some other investment accouts. Don't count on social security being there for when you retire.

I posted those figures. My point being I was forced to pay into the SS system all my life. Now it's a bit late to make other plans and suddenly everyone wants to end SS!

I understand fully that the money I paid in was providing the benefit for workers who retired. My generation paid the highest SS tax since the plan was instituted. We didn't complain (OK, maybe a little) we paid our SS tax and Medicare to provide for the generation before us retirement.

Now, everyone knows the "baby boomers" are coming. This was no secret. Part of the reason we paid such a high SS tax was, during the Reagan administration a commission was named to study SS and "fix" it. So even though the money isn't going into a lockbox everyone knew the money would have to be built up in expectation of the baby boomers' retirement.

So George W. Bush enters the White House and instead of taking into account the need to save something for the future he proposes a tax cut that is targeted at the top 10% of wage earners! Knowing what's coming in 10 years! He comes into office with a record budget surplus and his first act is to squander it on a give away to the top 10% of wage earners!

Do you think some of that surplus could have been used to shore up SS? Maybe keep Medicare going?

And you must realize, we didn't have 401K's. I still managed to save toward my retirement, but we were always told we needed a "three legged stool" for our retirement. SS, savings and pension. I have savings, pension and an annuity. Without SS my retirement is going to be a lot rougher than planned. My point is, if I had the choice to invest the $172,000 I was forced to pay into SS over the years and the, (what was the number - $35,000?) money I was forced to pay into Medicare I could have been in far better shape than I am now for retirement. I didn't have a choice. And money doesn't grow on trees. I was paying all my taxes and raising a family and buying a house and buying cars and paying tuition and buying necessities while managing to save some money for retirement while working three jobs.

Now my generation is being made to feel like thieves because we expect our Social Security benefit!

That is simply wrong.