More good news in regards to the economy

[Mile High Shack]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131752,00.html

Greenspan: Economy Has Regained Traction
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search) said Wednesday the economy has "regained some traction" after a late spring slowdown that was triggered by a sharp spike in oil prices. Greenspan's moderately upbeat forecast was likely to cement expectations that the central bank will raise interest rates (search) for a third time when Fed policy-makers meet in two weeks.In testimony prepared for the House Budget Committee (search), Greenspan said that two key indicators, consumer spending and housing construction, bounced back in July after a weak performance in June."Economic activity hit a soft patch in late spring after having grown briskly in the second half of 2003 and the first part of 2004," Greenspan told the committee."The most recent data suggest that, on the whole, the expansion has regained some traction," he said.The Fed has boosted the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge on overnight loans, from a 46-year low of 1 percent to 1.5 percent in the past two months.Economists believe the Fed will keep raising rates at a measured pace at coming meetings, including another quarter-point increase on Sept. 21.


take it how you want, I view this as positive........go ahead and post the 7,000 job layoff for Delta now Roh.....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's the facts. We are exporting the American dollar to China. In return we get back poorly manufactured goods that Wal-Mart and others sells us. Wal-Mart and others, hire part-time, low-waged employees and don't offer health-care or pension plans to half of them. A good percentage of employees that are eligible can't afford their health-plans.

Oil and energy companies are enjoying record profits while we pay record gas and energy bill prices.

------------------------------------

NEW GOVERNMENT DATA SHOW CORPORATE PROFITS ENJOYING
UNUSUALLY LARGE GAINS, WHILE WORKERS’ INCOMES LAG BEHIND
Commerce Department data on national income trends released on August 27 point toward troubling developments in the current economic recovery. Of greatest concern, wage and salary growth for workers has been exceptionally poor while corporate profits have enjoyed unusually large gains.

This conclusion emerges from an examination of the Commerce data. First, we looked at the composition of the income gains that have occurred during the recovery. We focused on how much has gone directly into workers’ pockets as increased wages and salaries; how much has been received by corporations as profits; and how much has been absorbed by rising employer contributions for workers’ health insurance premiums and pensions. The data shows that the share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries (that is, the total increase in wage and salary income) has been smaller than during any other post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other post-World War II recoveries.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-3-04ui.htm

[Mile High Shack]

Here's the facts. We are exporting the American dollar to China. In return we get back poorly manufactured goods that Wal-Mart and others sells us. Wal-Mart and others, hire part-time, low-waged employees and don't offer health-care or pension plans to half of them. A good percentage of employees that are eligible can't afford their health-plans.

Oil and energy companies are enjoying record profits while we pay record gas and energy bill prices.

NEW GOVERNMENT DATA SHOW CORPORATE PROFITS ENJOYING
UNUSUALLY LARGE GAINS, WHILE WORKERS’ INCOMES LAG BEHIND
Commerce Department data on national income trends released on August 27 point toward troubling developments in the current economic recovery. Of greatest concern, wage and salary growth for workers has been exceptionally poor while corporate profits have enjoyed unusually large gains.

This conclusion emerges from an examination of the Commerce data. First, we looked at the composition of the income gains that have occurred during the recovery. We focused on how much has gone directly into workers’ pockets as increased wages and salaries; how much has been received by corporations as profits; and how much has been absorbed by rising employer contributions for workers’ health insurance premiums and pensions. The data shows that the share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries (that is, the total increase in wage and salary income) has been smaller than during any other post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other post-World War II recoveries.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-3-04ui.htm

I disagree with almost all of those arguments.......

but we've been over this before.

good news for america sucks huh

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I disagree with almost all of those arguments.......

but we've been over this before.

good news for america sucks huh
I guess it depends on your definition now don't it ugh!~

[Rohirrim]

The data shows that the share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries (that is, the total increase in wage and salary income) has been smaller than during any other post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other post-World War II recoveries.

You know, this really wraps up the whole Bush philosophy in a nutshell. This has been the conservative goal for a long time: No corporate tax, no "death" tax, no capital gains tax, etc. In other words, the wealthy get the free ride and the wage earners carry the burden of government. After all these years, they are finally seeing their goal within reach.

So, if you're in that wealthy class or believe in their philosophy, this is good news. If you don't, it isn't. George W. Bush believes it is good news.

[Mile High Shack]

while I don't agree with CEO pay continuing to rise......

what is the government suppose to do? They can't control how much a company pays a CEO and their top execs.

You can't tax big business to death either, b/c they'll simply move overseas and escape that tax burden.

There needs to be a change in the pay structure, but that isn't the governments responsibility is it?

[Rohirrim]

while I don't agree with CEO pay continuing to rise......

what is the government suppose to do? They can't control how much a company pays a CEO and their top execs.

You can't tax big business to death either, b/c they'll simply move overseas and escape that tax burden.

There needs to be a change in the pay structure, but that isn't the governments responsibility is it?

67% of corporations in this country pay no taxes. An unknown number of corporations have offshore tax shelters. The U.S. market is the most stable on earth. No company is going to leave that market over taxation. The Republicans have thrown out what used to be known as the "Social Contract." In simple terms, this meant that we, as Americans, were all in the same boat. They want to try a new philosophy that puts us in different boats according to our wealth. As an amateur historian, I've already seen how that one works.

[Mile High Shack]

so you want to enforce some sort of penalty on how companies pay their CEOs?

how socialistic of you.

[enjolras]

67% of corporations in this country pay no taxes. An unknown number of corporations have offshore tax shelters. The U.S. market is the most stable on earth. No company is going to leave that market over taxation. The Republicans have thrown out what used to be known as the "Social Contract." In simple terms, this meant that we, as Americans, were all in the same boat. They want to try a new philosophy that puts us in different boats according to our wealth. As an amateur historian, I've already seen how that one works.

How many of those 67% of non-tax-paying corporations are making a dime in profit? It's hard to tax something that doesn't exist. These scary numbers are such bunk it's unbeleivable.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Rohirrim]

How many of those 67% of non-tax-paying corporations are making a dime in profit?

I don't know. You'll have to check with Arthur Andersen on that one. After all, they made Enron look like a non-profit. rofl

[RaiderH8r]

67% of corporations in this country pay no taxes. An unknown number of corporations have offshore tax shelters. The U.S. market is the most stable on earth. No company is going to leave that market over taxation. The Republicans have thrown out what used to be known as the "Social Contract." In simple terms, this meant that we, as Americans, were all in the same boat. They want to try a new philosophy that puts us in different boats according to our wealth. As an amateur historian, I've already seen how that one works.
Yeah, and the same boat thing is a winner....**cough*** communism****cough****

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, and the same boat thing is a winner....**cough*** communism****cough****

Communism and socialism are two different things. Social security is socialism. So's Medicaid. So's food stamps, LEAP, Red Cross, etc. etc. As a matter of fact, strictly speaking, it's socialism to bail out Lockheed Martin or Chrysler as well.

By the "same boat" and "social contract" I meant that corporations were part of their communities and part of the taxpaying, social fabric of the nation. They still profess to be that in their commercials, but they're not. Not if the majority of their manufacturing takes place overseas. So, in all practical terms, many of these global corps. are "American" in name only. They've moved their offices (or "an" office) offshore in order to dump their corporate tax burden. Now, their CEOs (and Boards) want to get rid of inheritance tax and capital gains tax. They want to be free too. Go to the AEI or any other similar Republican think tank. You'll find the plan on the website. There's is no reputable economist alive who will not admit that once this Republican agenda is realized, the middle class will be carrying the burden of government. And as any historian can tell you, as the middle class goes, so goes the country.

[RaiderH8r]

Communism and socialism are two different things. Social security is socialism. So's Medicaid. So's food stamps, LEAP, Red Cross, etc. etc. As a matter of fact, strictly speaking, it's socialism to bail out Lockheed Martin or Chrysler as well.

By the "same boat" and "social contract" I meant that corporations were part of their communities and part of the taxpaying, social fabric of the nation. They still profess to be that in their commercials, but they're not. Not if the majority of their manufacturing takes place overseas. So, in all practical terms, many of these global corps. are "American" in name only. They've moved their offices (or "an" office) offshore in order to dump their corporate tax burden. Now, their CEOs (and Boards) want to get rid of inheritance tax and capital gains tax. They want to be free too. Go to the AEI or any other similar Republican think tank. You'll find the plan on the website. There's is no reputable economist alive who will not admit that once this Republican agenda is realized, the middle class will be carrying the burden of government. And as any historian can tell you, as the middle class goes, so goes the country.
It really doesn't matter one way or another in America. The system is dynamic so the further policies shift one way, sooner or later, will bounce back in the other direction. Quite amazing the fashion in which our country corrects itself. That said, it is much more difficult to remove a failed government program than it is to institute one Ultimately, we move, albeit slowly, towards socialism. You'll get your wish...patience.

[Rohirrim]

It really doesn't matter one way or another in America. The system is dynamic so the further policies shift one way, sooner or later, will bounce back in the other direction. Quite amazing the fashion in which our country corrects itself. That said, it is much more difficult to remove a failed government program than it is to institute one Ultimately, we move, albeit slowly, towards socialism. You'll get your wish...patience.

I'm not strictly a socialist by any means. I believe we should institute whatever economic system best serves the American people's needs at any given point. Sometimes, like in a depression, we may need to add elements of socialism, other times, like during periods of rapid growth, we should juice the capitalism. But the idea that market forces are some kind of cure-all is to me, plain and simple, mumbo jumbo. Or, as supply-side was once called "Voodoo Economics."

[RaiderH8r]

I'm not strictly a socialist by any means. I believe we should institute whatever economic system best serves the American people's needs at any given point. Sometimes, like in a depression, we may need to add elements of socialism, other times, like during periods of rapid growth, we should juice the capitalism. But the idea that market forces are some kind of cure-all is to me, plain and simple, mumbo jumbo. Or, as supply-side was once called "Voodoo Economics."
Whenever you add elements of socialism they rarely are removed. Once the the government teet gets stuck in the perverbial mouth people are very touchy about removing it. It's like an addiction, they get a taste and then they "need" it. So, by virtue of the fact that you add 2 social programs for every 1 (and that's a very liberal assessment) taken away, the inevitable progression towards overall socialism will one day be complete. And once that happens the good ol' USA will become victim of the mediocrity that socialism inherently breeds. But, that's for my grandchildren to deal with...right?

[Rohirrim]

Whenever you add elements of socialism they rarely are removed. Once the the government teet gets stuck in the perverbial mouth people are very touchy about removing it. It's like an addiction, they get a taste and then they "need" it. So, by virtue of the fact that you add 2 social programs for every 1 (and that's a very liberal assessment) taken away, the inevitable progression towards overall socialism will one day be complete. And once that happens the good ol' USA will become victim of the mediocrity that socialism inherently breeds. But, that's for my grandchildren to deal with...right?

Yeah, some of that is true. I think we still are paying to electrify rural America in some places; places that were "electrified" a long time ago. That's a problem of government and tied (IMO) to campaign finance reform; If you don't have a turf, you don't have a turf to protect - you have to argue issues. There's a few countries that are mostly socialist (Finland, Sweden, etc.) that I wouldn't consider mediocre. Nokia is in Finland. On the other hand, none of their citizens have to worry about health care or retirement or a college education or heating in winter or having some dinner on the table.

What I worry most about the Republican concept is that it will create an American aristocracy with enormous economic power that could turn the Constitution (over time) into a quaint piece of paper. Hell, we're close to that now, given the sums of money that are in effect, "choosing" our government for us. We're approaching the half a billion dollar presidential campaign. Accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is just as dangerous as radical re-distribution, IMO.

Just as a simple hypothesis: Let's say that multi-national, multi-billion dollar energy companies band together to select a bunch of office holders who share their views. Then, let's say that the country arrives at a collective understanding that it's time to move in a new energy direction and drastic action is required to make those moves. As a matter of fact, maybe you discover that one of your so called allied countries is actually funding terrorism against you and you realize that you must break all connections to that country as soon as possible - maybe even (eventually) go to war against that country for its betrayals? But now you discover that the politicians in league with the multi-nationals won't allow you to make those changes? They have the power and clout to politically block any of those changes. They would lose enormous amounts of money if those changes were adopted. Now, what do you do?

[RaiderH8r]

Yeah, some of that is true. I think we still are paying to electrify rural America in some places; places that were "electrified" a long time ago. That's a problem of government and tied (IMO) to campaign finance reform; If you don't have a turf, you don't have a turf to protect - you have to argue issues. There's a few countries that are mostly socialist (Finland, Sweden, etc.) that I wouldn't consider mediocre. Nokia is in Finland. On the other hand, none of their citizens have to worry about health care or retirement or a college education or heating in winter or having some dinner on the table.

What I worry most about the Republican concept is that it will create an American aristocracy with enormous economic power that could turn the Constitution (over time) into a quaint piece of paper. Hell, we're close to that now, given the sums of money that are in effect, "choosing" our government for us. We're approaching the half a billion dollar presidential campaign. Accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is just as dangerous as radical re-distribution, IMO.

Just as a simple hypothesis: Let's say that multi-national, multi-billion dollar energy companies band together to select a bunch of office holders who share their views. Then, let's say that the country arrives at a collective understanding that it's time to move in a new energy direction and drastic action is required to make those moves. As a matter of fact, maybe you discover that one of your so called allied countries is actually funding terrorism against you and you realize that you must break all connections to that country as soon as possible - maybe even (eventually) go to war against that country for its betrayals? But now you discover that the politicians in league with the multi-nationals won't allow you to make those changes? They have the power and clout to politically block any of those changes. They would lose enormous amounts of money if those changes were adopted. Now, what do you do?
1. No matter the amount of money spent on elections people still get to vote their minds
2.There will always be a dissenting voice among the people. Hell, Jeanette Rankin voted against a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor.
3.And if it makes money to blow the f&ckers up, a capitalist will do that too.

[Cito Pelon]

The bottom-line is, countries that allow huge fortunes - I said HUGE fortunes, not moderate fortunes - to slide under the tax radar are kknown as THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES!

There's a good reason for a progressive tax structure - it builds modern societies. It built our modern society. We're starting to go BACKWARDS.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oil and energy companies are enjoying record profits while we pay record gas and energy bill prices.

But it's just a coincidence that we have two oil men in the WH, right?

And it's just a coincidence that our national energy policies were written by Ken Lay, a.k.a., the highest bidder.

http://www.bartcop.com/liberty-boot.jpg

[Arkie]

Oil and energy companies are enjoying record profits while we pay record gas and energy bill prices.

Not in real dollars. Gas prices were higher in the late 70's. In nominal dollars, I paid those "record" gas prices four months ago. September prices are about 20 cents cheaper than May prices.

[Elevation 5280']

Are democrats really this stupid....or are they just brainwashed????

[azbronco]

Are democrats really this stupid....or are they just brainwashed????
It's kind of a chicken and egg thing. No one knows which happened first.