Little evidence that tax cuts have had trickle-down effect [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : Little evidence that tax cuts have had trickle-down effect

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-16-2006, 07:44 PM

President Bush and congressional Republican leaders appear determined to make the annual tax-filing deadline a permanent tax holiday for millionaires.

Millionaires already have real reason to celebrate at the close of this tax filing season. Thanks to multiple tax cuts since 2001, they will enjoy an average annual tax savings of more than $100,000, according to the Tax Policy Center. That's twice the annual income of the typical American household.

And multimillionaires have even more reason to party. A recent study by The New York Times found that in 2003, taxpayers with income more than $10 million got tax breaks of about $1 million each. And they paid the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000.

It's no secret lawmakers' consistent tax-cutting policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. But the extent of the disparity is not widely understood. Households earning $75,000 or less saved an average of $550 this year, according to the Tax Policy Center. That's not even enough to cover the rising cost of gasoline. And working families face cuts in education, health care and other vital public services and an ever-growing national debt to pay for tax cuts for millionaires.

But these costs haven't curbed the insatiable drive of the White House and Republican congressional leaders for more tax cuts for the wealthy. They have all but banned the notion of taking future tax cuts off the table - even as the House is poised to vote on a budget that would force cuts in services for Americans of all ages, from prenatal care and Head Start to services for the elderly. Indeed, when lawmakers return to Washington from their spring recess later this month, two more tax breaks for the very, very rich are at the top of the agenda.

Bush and Republican congressional leaders are pushing to extend extra-low tax rates on income from investments. Under the bill, capital gains and dividends income would be taxed at just 15 percent through 2010. Millionaires are a fraction of 1 percent of households, but would get about half the benefits of this tax break. In contrast, less than 10 percent of the tax benefits would go to the more than three-quarters of American households with income less than $75,000.

Contrary to claims these tax cuts will stimulate the economy, there's little evidence that recent tax breaks would improve the economy for workers.

Despite the tax cuts since 2001, real wage and job growth have been slower during this economic recovery than during any recovery period since World War II, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Corporate profits have soared, income for the top 1 percent has jumped - but average Americans face stagnant incomes and rising costs.

According to figures from the Tax Policy Center, tax cuts for households with incomes of more than $1 million will cost the U.S. Treasury $252 billion over the next five years.

That's enough money to avoid all of the cuts that Bush's budget proposes to make in child care, K-12 education, community health services, medical research, services for the elderly, transportation, environmental protection and veteran's medical care, among other programs.

Paying taxes is one of our responsibilities for making this democracy work. But not everyone is paying a fair share. It's time to stop the tax holiday for millionaires.

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/041606/opinion_20060416055.shtml

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-17-2006, 09:47 PM

Tax Gimmickry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041600685.html

Paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with . . . more tax cuts for the wealthy!

Monday, April 17, 2006; Page A12

MUCH TO THE chagrin of the White House and the GOP leadership, lawmakers didn't get a new round of tax cuts done in time for tax day today. But when Congress comes back from its recess, it's expected to take up a deal to extend President Bush's capital gains and dividend tax cuts. To make their budget-busting tax policy appear less costly than it is, the lawmakers are resorting to a gimmick that is even more egregious than their usual tactics.

This one would, as usual, hide the cost of tax cuts that primarily benefit upper-income Americans. But it would accomplish that budgetary smoke and mirrors with a new tax provision, involving retirement savings accounts, that also benefits the well-to-do. And, to top things off, this new tax provision, while masking the cost of the tax cuts by bringing in more revenue in the short term, would in the long run worsen the fiscal situation by piling on more debt. No one who's serious about controlling the deficit -- whatever one's position on extending the tax cuts -- could support this dishonest approach.

The gimmick is intended to get around a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to approve a tax bill if it's going to deepen the deficit more than five years down the road; if it won't have that long-term impact, a simple majority could suffice for passage. Unfortunately for Senate leaders, a two-year extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, now set to expire in 2008, would cost $20 billion over the next five years -- but $30 billion more in the five years after that.

Taxpayers will scramble to take advantage of the lower rates now, thereby lessening tax revenue later. So to pass the cuts with only 51 votes, legislators have to find some way to offset that second five-year revenue loss.

Enter the retirement savings gimmick. As it's being discussed behind the scenes, this would let wealthier Americans use savings plans known as Roth IRAs. With traditional IRAs, taxpayers get to deduct the contributions they make from their income for that year; they pay taxes on the savings once they are withdrawn. Roth IRAs flip that arrangement around: Contributors pay taxes on the income they put into the accounts, but their savings then grow tax-free. So letting more people put money into Roth IRAs would increase tax revenue for a while -- offsetting, at least in theory, the cost of the capital gains cuts. But the Roth change would cost money down the road, as revenue once subject to taxation would grow tax-free.

Bottom line: A Senate rule designed to make it harder to increase the deficit would be circumvented with a maneuver that would end up increasing the deficit. And a tax cut for wealthier Americans that would cost $50 billion over 10 years would be "paid for" in part by another tax cut for the well-off, which would end up costing billions more. That's amazing -- even from this Congress.

ColoradoDarin

04-17-2006, 11:40 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 01:19 AM

Dunno about you, but I'd rather bypass the Heritage Foundation/Fox News spin in the preceding post and get the facts directly from sources like the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Commerce, the CBO, et al:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_assortjobs.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_pvtjobs70.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_unemployment_rate.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_unemployment.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_weeklyearnings.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_gdp50.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_income_byadmin.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_s&p.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 01:22 AM

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_income.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_poverty_byadmin.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_poverty.gif
http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_healthinsurance.gif

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 12:00 PM

Interesting that you use figures from January 2001, please tell me what policies Bush enacted on his first day in office (Jan 20, 2001) that caused a downturn in the economy? Since the federal budget runs Oct through Sept, shouldn't we start counting from that point (Oct 2001)? Even then, the economy doesn't turn on a dime and any policy takes time to enact. Additionally, a lot of the figures are from 2004, we’ve had over a year of growth since then. You wouldn’t be trying to cherry-pick data points? Nah, that would be disingenuous, and you wouldn’t stoop to that level…

March 10th, 2000 was the high of the stock market (specifically the Nasdaq), who was president then? The stock slide started then and continued into Bush’s term. Most people credit Bush for putting policies in place to stop the slide, turn around the market (as we are seeing 5 year highs these days).

This is the latest data (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls) for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%), and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Data from the final report for 2005 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) show tax revenues rising across the board last year. The following is a brief overview of government finances for 2005 at both the federal and state/local level.

Federal government receipts (current receipts) rose by 12 percent ($1.974 trillion to $2.225 trillion) with most of the increase coming from personal current taxes, which increased by 16.6 percent.

Federal excise taxes only rose by a mere 1.7 percent, which is largely due to the fact that high gas prices led to lower-than-average growth in gasoline consumption.

Federal tax receipts on corporate income, which is typically the most volatile variable took the biggest jump of any category as they rose by over 40 percent last year.

On the spending side, government expenditures rose by about 7.0 percent, which is less than the revenue growth rate, but because we have had a deficit last year, the fact that receipt growth exceeded expenditure growth merely implies that the deficit is lower this year than last year. We still had a deficit in 2005 of about $323 billion. (This is negative government savings, which comes from current receipts. Total receipts and total expenditures, which add in other variables like capital transfer payments/receipts, means that the federal government was forced to borrow $376.4 billion last year.)

At the state and local level, overall government current receipts increased by 6.8 percent. There was an 8.7 percent increase in tax receipts, including an 11.1 percent growth in personal current tax receipts, which are predominantly state/local income taxes. Note that state/local income taxes make up a relatively small percentage of total state/local revenue (about 15 percent) compared to the federal government where income tax revenue is the main source.

Sales taxes and property taxes grew at rates of 5.9 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively.

And although they make up a relatively small fraction of state/local government revenues, corporate income tax revenue rose by 41 percent at the state/local level, which is similar to the large increase that we saw at the federal level.

In summary, fueled by rising tax revenue from corporate income and personal taxes, government current revenues in the United States rose by nearly 11 percent in 2005, while government current expenditures rose by about 6.5 percent, leading to smaller deficits (yet still growing debts) in overall government finances.
(Data from BEA NIPA (http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N) Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.)

Seriously, Bush has been pretty good when it comes to the economy, just like Clinton was pretty good when it came to the economy. People remember Clinton’s tax rate hike in 1993, but forget that he signed cuts in 1997. Bush inherited a popped bubble, which led to a recession (and then had a terrorist attack on top of it), which led to job losses, which led to lower tax receipts. Tax rates were cut, leading to extra growth in the economy, which led to job creation, which led to increased tax receipts. These things don’t happen simultaneously (ie, tax receipts cannot drop before job losses, or jobs won’t be created until the economy grows), and they take time to filter through the economy. The government is spending too much and Social Security and Medicare need reform. However, a 4.7% unemployment rate is incredible, the markets are at 5 year highs, and GDP growth is strong.

DBruleU

04-18-2006, 12:05 PM

Rohirrim

04-18-2006, 12:35 PM

Watching the Economy Crumble
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The US continues its descent into the Third World, but you would never know it from news reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July payroll jobs release.

The media gives a bare bones jobs report that is misleading. The public heard that 207,000 jobs were created in July. If not a reassuring figure, at least it is not a disturbing one. On the surface things look to be pretty much OK. It is when you look into the composition of these jobs that the concern arises.

Of the new jobs, 26,000 (about 13%) are tax-supported government jobs. That leaves 181,000 private sector jobs. Of these private sector jobs, 177,000, or 98%, are in the domestic service sector.

Here is the breakdown of the major categories:

• 30,000 food servers and bar tenders;
• 28,000 health care and social assistance:
• 12,000 real estate;
• 6,000 credit intermediation;
• 8,000 transit and ground passenger transportation;
• 50,000 retail trade; and
• 8,000 wholesale trade.
(There were 7,000 construction jobs, most of which were filled by Mexicans immigrants.)

Not a single one of these jobs produces a tradable good or service that can be exported or serve as an import substitute to help reduce the massive and growing US trade deficit. The US economy is employing people to sell things, to move people around, and to serve them fast food and alcoholic beverages. The items may have an American brand name, but they are mainly made off shore. For example, 70% of Wal-Mart’s goods are made in China.

Where are the jobs for the 65,000 engineers the US graduates each year? Where are the jobs for the physics, chemistry, and math majors? Who needs a university degree to wait tables and serve drinks, to build houses, to work as hospital orderlies, bus drivers, and sales clerks?

In the 21st century job growth in the US economy has consistently reflected that of a Third World country--low productivity domestic services jobs. This goes on month after month and no one catches on--least of all the economists and the policymakers.

Economists assume that every high productivity, high paying job that is shipped out of the country is a net gain for America. We are getting things cheaper, they say. Perhaps, for a while, until the dollar goes. What the cheaper goods argument overlooks are the reductions in the productivity and pay of employed Americans and in the manufacturing, technical, and scientific capability of the US economy.

What is the point of higher education when the job opportunities in the economy do not require it?

These questions are too difficult for economists, politicians, and newscasters. Instead, we hear that “last month the US economy created 207,000 jobs.”

Television has an inexhaustible supply of optimistic economists.

Last weekend CNN had John Rutledge (erroneously billed as the person who drafted President Reagan’s economic program) explaining that the strength of the US economy was “mom and pop businesses.” The college student with whom I was watching the program broke out laughing.

What mom and pop businesses? Everything that used to be mom and pop businesses has been replaced with chains and discount retailers. Auto parts stores are chains, pharmacies are chains, restaurants are chains. Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Lowes, have destroyed hardware stores, clothing stores, appliance stores, building supply stores, gardening shops, whatever--you name it.
Just try starting a small business today. Most gasoline station/convenience stores seem to be the property of immigrant ethnic groups who acquired them with the aid of a taxpayer-financed US government loan.

Today a mom and pop business is a cleaning service that employs Mexicans, a pool service, a lawn service, or a limo service.

In recent years the US economy has been kept afloat by low interest rates. The low interest rates have fueled a real estate boom. As housing prices rise, people refinance their mortgages, take equity out of their homes and spend the money, thus keeping the consumer economy going.

The massive American trade and budget deficits are covered by the willingness of Asian countries, principally Japan and China, to hold US government bonds and to continue to acquire ownership of America’s real assets in exchange for their penetration of US markets.

This game will not go on forever. When it stops, what is left to drive the US economy?
(Aug. 2005)

Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University.

Rohirrim

04-18-2006, 12:42 PM

Rohirrim

04-18-2006, 12:50 PM

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 01:05 PM

LABF will 'choose' to ignore your post again Darin. He doesnt like to be confused with the facts.

BTW-What do you do? You seem pretty knowledgable when it comes to the economy. I wish I could just run things out of my head like that, when it comes to our economy.

I'm a private investment consultant, but I like economics and post about it on other boards (usually political boards). I would probably be an economist if I didn't do investing.

Rohirrim

04-18-2006, 01:15 PM

I'm a private investment consultant, but I like economics and post about it on other boards (usually political boards). I would probably be an economist if I didn't do investing.

So, just curious, given the realities of the posts above, what do you recommend as solid, long term investments, gold under the mattress or a basement full of canned goods? :giggle:

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 01:21 PM

In contrast to many European countries, the United States, in compiling jobless data, excluded persons without employment who had stopped looking for work. People who want to work but are discouraged about job opportunities and so have given up an active job search are not counted here as unemployed. Instead, they are considered not to be in the labor force. Part-time workers who wanted full-time jobs are nevertheless counted as fully employed. People working even as little as one day a week are categorized as "employed." About two million Americans, for example, are "on-call" workers who are called to work as needed -- sometimes for one day, sometimes for longer. Substitute teachers meet this definition. Such a methodology for determining the extent of unemployment in America is symptomatic, at the very least, of the lack of official concern regarding the problem. Many might say, with good reason, that it reflects an intent to mislead.

Well, when comparing current data to historical data, we are using apples-to-apples comparison. We counted these people the same way during the 1990s (and before). You're upset at the methodology, and while I would agree it doesn't paint a full picture, it is also a good measure (especially when it comes to comparisons). Monthly job creation numbers fall into the same trap as they fail to account for individuals who start their own businesses, and are only a 'survey' of selected businesses. If you pay attention to the new monthly job numbers you will see revisions of the previous months, most of the time these revisions show that the initial numbers are off by 25-33% (sometimes as high as 50%). Still they are more important in other ways, especially for trend analysis, and aggregated over a year or 2 can be meaningful.

You could look at how many manufacturing jobs have been lost under President Bush and complain, but then even during the go-go 90s we lost manufacturing jobs, and going back to 1977, we have lost manufacturing jobs every year. Outsourcing, some may cry, and while some outsourcing has occurred, some in-sourcing has occurred as well (Spartanburg, SC has a BMW plant, Hyundai has opened a plant in Alabama, Marysville Ohio makes most Hondas and Acuras). Then again China is now facing the same problems, over the last 5 years China has lost manufacturing jobs. Most of the losses come from advances in technologies where machines are taking jobs that people used to do. The world changes, otherwise we'd all still be working as farmers.

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 01:26 PM

So, just curious, given the realities of the posts above, what do you recommend as solid, long term investments, gold under the mattress or a basement full of canned goods? :giggle:

ROFL!

I'm not a gold expert, so I can't speak to hoarding 14k under the bed. I'd say you go for the bling, get a grill of diamonds, maybe a Mr. T starter kit of gold chains. Hilarious!

Rohirrim

04-18-2006, 01:33 PM

Well, when comparing current data to historical data, we are using apples-to-apples comparison. We counted these people the same way during the 1990s (and before). You're upset at the methodology, and while I would agree it doesn't paint a full picture, it is also a good measure (especially when it comes to comparisons). Monthly job creation numbers fall into the same trap as they fail to account for individuals who start their own businesses, and are only a 'survey' of selected businesses. If you pay attention to the new monthly job numbers you will see revisions of the previous months, most of the time these revisions show that the initial numbers are off by 25-33% (sometimes as high as 50%). Still they are more important in other ways, especially for trend analysis, and aggregated over a year or 2 can be meaningful.

You could look at how many manufacturing jobs have been lost under President Bush and complain, but then even during the go-go 90s we lost manufacturing jobs, and going back to 1977, we have lost manufacturing jobs every year. Outsourcing, some may cry, and while some outsourcing has occurred, some in-sourcing has occurred as well (Spartanburg, SC has a BMW plant, Hyundai has opened a plant in Alabama, Marysville Ohio makes most Hondas and Acuras). Then again China is now facing the same problems, over the last 5 years China has lost manufacturing jobs. Most of the losses come from advances in technologies where machines are taking jobs that people used to do. The world changes, otherwise we'd all still be working as farmers.

I really don't know if I should trust an administration that alters the "Manufacturing" category of employment to include hamburger flippers. Ha!

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 01:34 PM

Data from a CBO report released on August 13 indicate that the tax cuts will exacerbate income inequality by boosting the after-tax income of high-income households far more than that of middle- and low-income households.
---------
A study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at the independent economic research firm Economy.com, finds the tax cuts were poorly designed for purposes of stimulating the economy. If designed differently, the stimulus package would have generated significantly more economic and jobs growth for each dollar it cost.
---------
The Economic Policy Institute finds that the number of jobs created in the wake of the tax cuts has already fallen 2.7 million jobs short of Administration predictions made in 2003.
-----------
Data in the Administration’s own Mid-Session Budget Review indicates that the tax cuts have played a larger role than all other legislation enacted since the start of 2001 in the emergence of the current sizable budget deficit, and that the tax cuts account for the majority of the current deficit.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm

The problem with this piece is that is was written in Sept 2004, we've had a year and a half of job growth (probably 3 million jobs added since then), tax receipts in 2004 and 2005 have surged. 'Experts' were surprised when the deficits were smaller in each of those years than they had forecasted (they were wrong by about 25%). Economics is not very good for static analysis (point in time versus point in time). I think a better way to look at it, is by using trend analysis, and the trend is good right now.

Rascal

04-18-2006, 01:49 PM

Wow...bitch slapped backed to reality.

Rohirrim

04-18-2006, 01:51 PM

The problem with this piece is that is was written in Sept 2004, we've had a year and a half of job growth (probably 3 million jobs added since then), tax receipts in 2004 and 2005 have surged. 'Experts' were surprised when the deficits were smaller in each of those years than they had forecasted (they were wrong by about 25%). Economics is not very good for static analysis (point in time versus point in time). I think a better way to look at it, is by using trend analysis, and the trend is good right now.

Given the trade deficits and budget deficits, not to mention currency valuation concerns, whatever trends we are riding right now are tenuous at best for the long term, IMO. I know the neocons love to say that deficits are meaningless, but given their mis-management of every pie they've stuck their fingers in so far, forgive me if I don't give that interpretation the benefit of the doubt.

It would also be interesting to know exactly what those 3 milllion jobs were.

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 02:32 PM

Given the trade deficits and budget deficits, not to mention currency valuation concerns, whatever trends we are riding right now are tenuous at best for the long term, IMO. I know the neocons love to say that deficits are meaningless, but given their mis-management of every pie they've stuck their fingers in so far, forgive me if I don't give that interpretation the benefit of the doubt.

It would also be interesting to know exactly what those 3 milllion jobs were.

Personally I think the trade deficit is meaningless, but I don't care to argue it one way or the other (I could argue both the pro and con of running trade deficits). Budget deficits aren't good all the time, but during and coming out of a recession is an ok time to run a deficit (somewhat a Keynesian view as I’m not totally a supply-sider). And I prefer to borrow to pay for a war than to raise taxes. If you look at your phone bill, we all are still paying for the Spanish-American War (1898) when Congress enacted a luxury tax on phones, the war is long over and paid for, but the tax remains.

As long as the deficit is manageable (which means different things to different people) as a percentage of GDP, I’m ok with it at this time as long as it continues to fall. Congress cutting spending would be ideal though to bring the deficit down. And I don’t want the US to be free and clear of debt though because some level of debt is good as it stabilizes the interest rate market (the level of debt is subject to debate though). The Chinese are taking steps to let their currency float, which should help the trade imbalance, I can understand why they and the US wouldn’t want to do so all at once as it would be a big shock to the world economic system. Americans love cheap stuff. I bought a 3rd DVD player last year for $30, the Yuan being pegged to the Dollar had a hand in that price being so low. At some point the Yuan needs to inflate, and is slowly doing so now, that will bring the trade deficit down.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 05:32 PM

Interesting that you use figures from January 2001

From 2001 to 2006.

Plus, the figures I cited are from sources like the U.S. Department of Labor, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Congressional Budget Office (as opposed to some right-wing spin piece.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 06:10 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 06:13 PM

LABF will 'choose' to ignore your post again Darin. He doesnt like to be confused with the facts.

:rofl:

Talk about the pot/kettle/blackism of the year.

I seldom see you present or argue facts - all you do is play "Tattoo" to other people's "Mr. Rourke."

"Ya Boss. What he said."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 07:42 PM

Personally I think the trade deficit is meaningless...

http://www.bartcop.com/deficit-parents.gif

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 10:45 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/deficit-parents.gif

So you don't know the difference between the trade deficit and the budget deficit (and it looks like you have a reading problem too since you neglected to read my entire post).

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 10:51 PM

Bush presided over the first net job loss since Hoover.

It doesn't take an economics scholar to understand that the recent addition of some relatively low-paying service sector jobs to the economy doesn't begin to offset the net loss.

Here's new info for you, looks like you have out of date information.

US economy's latest output: better jobs (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0411/p01s02-usec.html)
April 11, 2006

The US economy isn't just producing jobs these days, it's also producing good jobs. Alongside the ads for jobs handling a cash register or a spatula are these new opportunities:

• In St. Louis, AFB International is enlisting both technicians, paid $30,000 to $40,000, and PhD scientists, offered $80,000 to $100,000, in its quest for the perfect pet food.

• In Delaware, Honeywell plans to hire people at $40,000 to $100,000 to work in a data-storage center.

• In southern California, some of the latest openings involve working on the railroad, for $35,000 to $70,000 a year. Union Pacific plans to add 2,000 employees altogether.

These reports in the past month symbolize a welcome trend during an economic expansion that at first offered only tepid job gains, both in quantity and quality.

This good news about the breadth of job creation comes against a backdrop of labor-market anxiety that has persisted despite the economy's solid overall footing. Competition from imported goods, the threat of outsourcing services abroad, and a controversial influx of illegal laborers are just some of the forces that make many workers worried about their future.

Creating good jobs - the kinds that can keep American living standards rising - appears likely to remain a challenge. But the current employment picture at least indicates movement in a positive direction.

"We're creating lots of all kinds of jobs, across many industries, occupations, and pay scales," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. But he adds: "If your skill sets are rusty, or at the low end of the skill range, you're going to have a tougher time."

The economy added 211,000 jobs in March, according to a Labor Department report Friday - a solid showing about on par with expectations. The unemployment rate fell a notch, to 4.7 percent.

The new jobs still include plenty at the low end: An analysis by Merrill Lynch finds that some 40 percent of the net gain in March came in two areas known for low pay: retail services and leisure/hospitality, which includes restaurants.

But this is just part of a broader tapestry. Management and professional occupations are employing 1.2 million more people this month than a year ago - or about 1 in 3 new jobs in America. This is the highest-paying of five broad categories tracked by the Labor Department. Not all of them are CEOs or engineers, but the median paycheck for full-time workers in this category is $937 a week, far above the US median of $651.

The construction industry continues to hammer out more than its share of new jobs. It accounts for about 6.4 percent of US jobs, but has provided 14.4 percent of the past year's job growth. The quality of construction jobs is mixed - often offering higher hourly pay than the US median but with lower benefits.

Even the manufacturing sector, which has long offered blue-collar workers a measure of middle-class prosperity, appears to be stabilizing after a period of heavy job losses. Despite downsizing in the automotive industry, 175,000 more people are employed in production occupations today than a year ago.

"As this recovery gets under way, professional services have begun adding jobs fairly broadly," says Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington.

EPI tracks the weighting of higher- versus lower-paying jobs that are being added to the economy. For much of the current expansion, which began at the end of 2001, that indicator has been negative.

In the past year, however, it has turned positive, meaning that the new jobs in the economy are the kind that tend to pull average wages up, not down.

Beyond professional services, one example may be construction. The housing market is cooling, but commercial building is heating up.

"More of the work will be in nonresidential construction," predicts Michael Carliner, an economist at the National Association of Home Builders. That could mean demand for higher skills, such as equipment operation, that boost pay.

The question, however, is how much of today's strengthening labor market represents cyclical trends, rather than long-term gains.

At this point, perhaps midway into an expansion phase, it's not unusual to see the job mix improve and pay to rise in new and existing jobs alike. "I would expect wages and compensation to increase faster," says Rae Hederman of the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

How long that pattern lasts will depend in some measure on the Federal Reserve, which is now trying to decide whether to raise interest rates further. Setting rates too high, some experts warn, could slow the economy and dampen job growth.

The labor market's gains are beginning to take on the shape of a barbell, with growth weighted heavily at the two ends of the pay scale. During the current expansion, the bulk of new jobs have come in either the highest-paid of five broad occupational categories - management and professional - or the lowest-paid, services. Together the two sectors now account for more than half of all jobs. (The other three major categories are sales and office work, construction and natural resources, and production/transportation.)

The economy's overall share of jobs with strong pay and benefits has failed to grow during the past quarter century, even though workers today have higher skills and more technology to make them productive, says John Schmitt, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal research institute in Washington. That's a break with the past, he says, when "wages typically tracked closely with productivity."

ColoradoDarin

04-18-2006, 10:55 PM

From 2001 to 2006.

Plus, the figures I cited are from sources like the U.S. Department of Labor, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Congressional Budget Office (as opposed to some right-wing spin piece.)

You just don't read past the first phrase do you?

Please tell me what policies Bush enacted on his first day in office (Jan 20, 2001) that caused a downturn in the economy? Since the federal budget runs Oct through Sept, shouldn't we start counting from that point (Oct 2001)? Even then, the economy doesn't turn on a dime and any policy takes time to enact. Additionally, a lot of the figures are from 2004, we’ve had over a year of growth since then. You wouldn’t be trying to cherry-pick data points? Nah, that would be disingenuous, and you wouldn’t stoop to that level…

The IRS and bea.gov are right wing spin machines. That's a good one!

gunns

04-18-2006, 11:30 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 11:42 PM

You just don't read past the first phrase do you?

You just don't like inconvenient facts, i.e., the facts from the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Congressional Budget Office I posted, do you?

If I wanted to get your spin on Bush's economic record I could just ask the RNC to e-mail me its talking points.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-18-2006, 11:45 PM

You wouldn’t be trying to cherry-pick data points? Nah, that would be disingenuous, and you wouldn’t stoop to that level…

You mean like the way BushCo apologists conveniently overlook the fact that Bush presided over the first net job loss since Hoover when they're boasting about recent employment stats?

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 12:23 AM

You mean like the way BushCo apologists conveniently overlook the fact that Bush presided over the first net job loss since Hoover when they're boasting about recent employment stats?

Using old data again, he now has net jobs gain.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 12:25 AM

You just don't like inconvenient facts, i.e., the facts from the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Congressional Budget Office I posted, do you?

If I wanted to get your spin on Bush's economic record I could just ask the RNC to e-mail me its talking points.

Using your logic, you just post DNC talking points. I citeds the IRS and bea.gov.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 12:35 AM

Job growth? 35,000-40,000 a year?

We know where the primary job growth has been, we also know that yes those are some nice jobs for those that haven't had one, at 35-40K a year, and we also know that those same people are getting two of those jobs to make ends meet. Did no one take into account the dramatic rise in prices for the staples of every day life. Groceries, utilities that have tripled and quadrupled in the last couple of years. 35-40K a year is the new poor.

First, the median wage in this country is just over $29,000, so a job paying 20-30% above that is decent. Besides, a technician is an entry-level job (presumably without a college degree requirement), meaning that someone with limited education and experience can get paid a good wage for that particular job.

My grocery bill hasn't tripled or quadrupled in the past couple of years, seems to me it's about the same (and I'm all for amnesty for the illegals, they pick a good veggie). While energy prices have risen, inflation is well contained (the Fed statement released today says that), so I'm dubious of claims of skyrocketing prices. The economy isn't perfect (it never is), but we're in a pretty-good spot.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 12:37 AM

Using old data again, he now has net jobs gain.

Then a new job has been created for every job that has been lost hitherto since Bush took office?

That's ridiculous.

And what kind of jobs have been added to the economy (vs. the kinds of jobs have been lost on Bush's watch?)

Answer: Mostly low-paying, service-sector jobs - many of which are part-time, and/or provide no employee benefits, etc.

Using your logic, you just post DNC talking points. I citeds the IRS and bea.gov.

But you didn't cite anything that would disconfirm the facts from the dept of labor, dept of commerce, CBO, etc., re: Bush's economic record.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 12:43 AM

Besides, a technician is an entry-level job (presumably without a college degree requirement), meaning that someone with limited education and experience can get paid a good wage for that particular job.

???

"Technician" is pretty vague. What kind of technician?

While energy prices have risen, inflation is well contained (the Fed statement released today says that), so I'm dubious of claims of skyrocketing prices. The economy isn't perfect (it never is), but we're in a pretty-good spot.

It's how inflation is being "contained" that should be troublesome to those who aren't sleepwalking.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 12:54 AM

???

"Technician" is pretty vague. What kind of technician?

It's how inflation is being "contained" that should be troublesome to those who aren't sleepwalking.

Call the company, since they are hiring they can give you details about the technician job, but my best guess would be peon. Or 'quality control', or maybe someone who operates the line (they make pet food according to the article, so some sort of food processing I would assume). IE entry-level. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to control inflation. This is done outside the political process, so there is nothing to bas Bush about (although many people either loved or hated Greenspan, but he’s gone now and it’s Bernanke’s decision), but they signaled today that they were near the end of raising interest rates because inflation was ‘well contained.’ The markets loved it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 12:59 AM

Greenspan was a shill for the bush misadministration, and there's no reason to believe the same won't be true of his successor.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 01:03 AM

This author has Greenspan pegged:

The Financial Endgame Slowly Plays Out - and then...

by Nigel Maund

... the Sudden Systemic Implosion which will usher in the Brave New World

"Capitalism requires people to be quiet souls in the workplace and wild pagans at the cash register" - Ron Chernow, 1949, US Journalist

Amongst the growing plethora of warnings, some erudite some emotional, Mr. Paul Volcker's commentary in the Washington Post entitled, "The Economy on Thin Ice", of April 10th, has to be taken very seriously, given the former's position as Chairman of the Fed from 1979 to 1987, when he was succeeded by Alan Greenspan. Volcker was forced into making very tough economic decisions in 1980, which he did by raising interest rates sharply to cool a vastly overheated market. Volcker acted as the Fed Chairman should, responsibly, and, therefore, like few other market commentators has immense "gravitas" when he flags up major economic issues as he has done. However, the magnitude of the present Fed Chairman's problems are on a hitherto unimaginable scale. No country, or central bank, has ever attempted an exercise in FIAT money creation of such truly breathtaking proportions before. Moreover, no exercise in FIAT money creation has ever successfully worked over the long-term in any nation where it has been attempted. Before the post WW2 acceptance of the US dollar as a proxy global currency, no country has had the unique opportunity to try such an exercise out on a global scale. Dr Greenspan knows this. So, you may well ask, what on earth is he up to?.... and, equally importantly, why is it being done?

It is easy to caste Dr Greenspan as the befuddled "Mr McGoo" leading America to economic and financial ruin. However, such a denigration of this man's abilities is entirely misleading and dangerously erroneous. The Fed has some of the finest financial and economic brains on the planet. Therefore, the more acceptable answer as to why the (digital) US$ money base has been exploded on an astronomic scale has to centre on it being a part of a globally based economic and political strategy. The fact that this strategy has not been spelled out to "the world at large" implies a hidden agenda, and, furthermore, a conspiracy. Whilst "the conspiracy theory of history" is mocked by the media as the realm of scaremongers, the ignorant and the naïve, anyone who has merely studied the history of Britain's Kings and Queens, over the last 1,000 years, will readily see that conspiracies were very much part of court life, national government and Britain's international policy. Nothing has changed. Indeed, with the advent of widespread literacy, modern media and information technology, the obfuscation of, and power to corrupt facts has been raised to a new and more sophisticated plane.

"Baking the news cake" for palatable reception and consumption is an art form perfected for specific markets, based on the cultural and educational profile of the local, national or even international consumer. CNN, CNBC , NBC and Fox News are little more than propaganda organisations serving up a daily "McNews" for the generally poorly read and travelled, culturally naïve, and generally poorly educated US consumer, on the basis that those who eat junk, drink junk, read junk, watch junk and listen to junk deserve, well... just more junk? Mr. Hitler and Dr Goebbels would have been heartily jealous of such a malleable and docile, if not to say almost bovine populace, who could readily absorb such shallow rubbish and believe it all! Unfortunately, the insidious US style media is polluting the planet in the global attempt to produce a "dumbed down", ignorant, poorly educated and malleable global serfdom, hooked on trashy TV and video entertainments and other such puerile nonsense, and moreover, up to their necks in debt and easy credit. Again, one is led to ask why? Aren't we living in the enlightened 21st Century?..... or, are we regressing to type, as demonstrated over thousands of years of human suffering at the hands of our own dubious species?

Over the past four years, since the great stock market bubble topped out at over 11,000 on the DOW, innumerable commentators have been expecting the inevitable crash. However, time and again the Fed has wrong footed the bears, making apparent fools of many experienced and intelligent commentators, including lesser mortals like this writer. To a large extent, very few people are listening to the bears as a result of their dismal track record. Complacency is currently rife, as the markets defy financial and economic logic, and its economic paradigms and models are apparently refuted by the "new economics" of never ending FIAT expansion, akin to medieval alchemy. However, even at the physical scale of stars and galaxies, periods of great expansion are followed by sudden and very rapid implosion, as gravitational forces overcome spent nuclear reaction. In this writers' view, the end of the great global FIAT experiment, based on the United States Dollar, will end, not as most people think and hope for, as a well orchestrated gentle descent, but suddenly and very brutally like a collapsing red giant reduced to a white dwarf or X-ray star. Furthermore, an event, or a multiplicity of major events, such as a continuing rise in the price of energy and oil and/or sudden economically forced global rebalancing will be the trigger for a collapse of the entire financial "house of cards". This will destroy all the paper currencies, without any exception, as they are all interlinked within the global markets, and none are backed by gold or anything else of finite defined value. In this circumstance, Richard Russell's views on gold and silver rise to the fore, and he is to be much commended for "sticking to his guns". In this writers view he is 100% right.

For the average person in the US, Canada, Britain, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, not to mention much of the European Community, the quality of life is steadily declining amidst the illusion of paper wealth represented by assets such as houses, bonds and stocks. Since 1982, the money supply has been progressively pumped up at an ever expanding rate, whilst real earnings have been in steady decline, under steady erosion through real inflation as opposed to the statistically incorrect CPI as corrupted by manipulative "jiggery pokery" by successive governments.

The prime instrument in this global economic game has been one fundamental to the lives of everyone; i.e., the house you live in. Unless the householder is rich enough to afford to own two or more houses, which most are not, then the paper gain in the steadily, but rapidly rising, price of his home can only be realized if he sells his home and move into a lesser house in the same area, or, one of similar quality and size in a less attractive or sought after location. Most people do not like moving home for obvious reasons. Therefore, the only benefit one gains from ever rising house prices, and property prices in general, is if one can use some of the increased equity in ones home to finance other consumption needs, such as: education; cars; consumer durables; holidays; home improvements and non-essential luxuries such as speed boats and jet skis. As many writers have pointed out, a home is a source of finance amidst falling real earnings, a veritable private bank ATM to be tapped into as deemed necessary. This happy little arrangement has been facilitated and expanded by an increasingly lax and accommodative banking environment, which seems almost disinterested in whether one can ever repay ones debts in the face of unemployment or illness. Again, it is necessary to ask why this is being allowed to happen? And, furthermore, why does it fly in the face of prudent money lending, as deemed sensible practice, since the creation of the banking system. Why have supposedly responsible governments allowed it to happen without imposing regulations to protect the consumer from himself and for himself?

In the event of a collapse in the heretofore ever rising housing market, often at a factor of 3 to 5 times the increase in average earnings over a sustained period of nearly 20 years, one's house becomes a "financial lobster pot". Given the low equity in most new home purchases, in a collapsing market the mortgagee is little more than a tenant, albeit with a thumping great paper debt to pay off over the rest of his or her miserable life. In other words, modern society has reverted to one of Baronial serfdom reminiscent of 11th Century Europe at its impersonal worst. Genuine democracy and freedom has vanished in that other great illusion - so called Democracy. The biggest fear a family man will hold is losing his job. What a pernicious instrument of societal control the home has become. It's a corporate shareholders dream come true. Like a dead albatross slung around the neck of "the ancient mariner", as he thinks: "how I wish I had never bought this house!", and, how I wished that I had saved for what I have purchased and that it really did belong to me. The deep evil of credit, whose use appeals to man's darkest and bleakest being, as an instrument of acquisition, exploitation and control, will be brought home to the unthinking US, UK, Australian, and Canadian consumer like his very worst nightmares. As Yoda says to Luke Skywalker in the "Empire Strikes Back", "you're not scared? .....You soon will be! Oh yes! You soon will be!"

The downside of the exploding property market is immense and highly insidious. The vast inflation of property prices has served to bring about the following:

Distort the cost structure of the entire economy through increased "on costs" of mortgages, rentals and leases, which are recovered through higher charges on all goods and services;

Inflated house prices push homes into higher tax thresholds including: sales tax, stamp duties, council or local authority taxes and capital gains tax resulting in increased costs of living;

The increased purchase price, and lower equity downpayment in homes for most buyers, requires them to take out ARM's (adjustable rate mortgages) rather than fixed rate mortgages. This increases the lender's exposure to financial risks in an environment of rising interest rates, when unemployment and job loss risks increase. Furthermore, most mortgages issued in ARM contracts are junk status loans, backed by derivatives, with little or no financial due diligence performed by the lender on the debtor;

Further distortions due to high and rising house prices mean that vital labour mobility is restricted throughout the economy as lower wage earners, in important sectors of the economy, cannot afford to take out a loan or move from a location of low house prices to one of high prices. Such key labour includes: teachers, medical staff, police, firemen, and drivers of public transport vehicles;

Large mortgages, or home loans, come with a deep psychological load on the mind of the mortgagee or borrower. The thought that you have a mountainous debt overhanging your daily life effectively dominates your life whether you like to admit it or not. The fear of losing ones job, becoming ill, or having an accident, where you cannot pay your monthly bill, resulting in your family being made homeless is a socially destructive and degenerative influence, colouring a person's outlook on life and their entire social behaviour. The net result is greater mental stress and physical illness, increased crime, drug and drinking offences. In some, and by no means rare, cases, suicide results.

Now the great game plan starts to make some sense. Higher home loans and the greater indebtedness of society are well on their way to creating a modern version of serfdom, in which people will work for a nominal income from the cradle to the grave, merely giving birth to a new generation of serfs, as they live their constrained lives earning nominal wages, never being able to somehow get ahead as their income is whittled away by taxes, debt servicing charges and interest payments, and everyday (and ever rising) living expenses. Lives for most will comprise a few small pleasures and, mostly, endless drudgery in making the elite few richer and able to enjoy what most people can never have or even dream about having.

Modern Industrial-Corporate Dynastic families owe their origins to the age of technological expansion and industrial development in the 19th Century. The prime interest of these families is to insure their dynastic inheritance of power and wealth. The mentality of the rich and powerful is absolutely no different to what it is was in the age of Pharoah's, Kings and more obvious and recent megalomaniacs like Hitler with his 1,000 year Reich. Wealth and power corrupts and distorts the entire mental philosophy of those who wield such power. The main effect is to numb the senses to the feelings and wellbeing of all people and the enormous social responsibility that comes with wealth. Evidence of the preoccupation of the rich and powerful with grandiose, conspicuous consumption is evident in the French Chateaux, colossal British Estate Homes, Aztec and Egyptian monolithic structures and huge Roman villas etc. Time and again, throughout history, from Chinese Emperors, European Kings, Indian Moguls, and modern era Dictators, man has quested for dynastic power over his fellow human beings, murdering countless millions of ordinary people in the process, oblivious and indifferent to their suffering. Man's lack of wisdom and responsibility to his fellow beings has not changed, only his technology and knowledge base have, which he largely uses, unwisely, to further his personal ends. The current financial game plan is just another variant of an age-old desire to control people, this time not with brutal, and highly obvious and alarming, armies of jackbooted asphalt soldiers, but with pinstripe-suited, educated, suave bankers offering easy credit and good times, like the fox to Pinocchio in Walt Disney's classic film. How easily are the people gulled into economic slavery! Their hedonistic greed for easy and immediate acquisition of goods and comforts to fulfil a perceived need, that they cannot afford to pay for, is being used to enslave them; as in Judo, the Japanese art of self defence, a person's body and normal behavioural reactions are used to bring them down.

Hand in hand with the strategy of enslaving people with credit is a much wider-ranging, multi-pronged attack against the entire fabric of society's cohesion. The facilitating of divorce laws, abortion, gay rights, and a raft of more insidious measures such as the progressive downgrading of the education system, except of course for the elite schools like Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Browne, MIT, Cornell, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, UMIST, Durham, or ANU and Melbourne in Australia, etc, where the offspring of the elite get their university training. Furthermore, in most countries students have to pay for their education by taking out bank loans, financially enslaving them before they have commenced their working lives! At the 1st grade universities, academic requirements remain high to generally exclude those who have not had a good private education. Furthermore, these universities are usually located in more exclusive and more expensive towns, such as Oxford and Cambridge, further discouraging the poor from shouldering the extra costs of attending these schools.

In the scheme of the world to come, society is utterly atomised and totally malleable. Every aspect of normal home and social life is now under attack, and people are so preoccupied with debt repayment and just keeping their heads above water, that they are not able to focus on, let alone comprehend, the society they will bequeath to their own children. To keep the ordinary citizens happy, they are plied with constant mindless entertainments, similar to those staged by the Roman Emperors with their endless Games held in grand stadiums such as the Coliseum in Rome. These distract the minds of the masses from the reality of their pathetic existence. An ample supply of cheap food is also available through a sophisticated mass distribution and integrated farming system, provided by the powerful and omnipresent supermarket chains such as Wal Mart, Sears, Tesco's, Sainsbury's, Safeway, K Mart, ASDA, Coles, etc. The availability of cheap and plentiful food helps keep the mass of society placid and content. Furthermore, the availability of fast, hyper-processed, junk food is a godsend for planners as it is resulting is widespread obesity on a global scale. Obese people lack the impetus to protest and are typically inactive and sedentary.

The present concern over the massive US twin deficits does not worry the Fed for the simple reason that they fully understand what they are doing. Everything is pretty much going perfectly to plan. They know that one day the system will collapse, but only when they want it to, and have all their plans in place ready for that day. Since the creation of the Fed in 1913, the US has steadily but increasingly pursued a strategy of flooding the world with US dollars. Following WW2, which saw the destruction of the old power Europe, the US dollar was the only currency, with its solid backing of 22,000 tonnes of gold, and a strong and debt free US economy, backed by a strong resource base and pre-eminent military power, which could serve as financial collateral for international trade and settlements. However, first the militarily drawn out Korean War of 1950 and 1952, and then the enormously costly Vietnam War debacle, from 1962 to 1975, progressively sapped US economic power and undermined the dollar. In 1968, the post war Bretton Woods Agreement in which the gold price was fixed at US$35 per fine ounce was rescinded, and the US dollar was largely taken off the gold standard. The final vestige of gold backing for the US dollar was removed by President Nixon in 1971. This single act opened the credit floodgates and gold rapidly rose to US$ 120 per ounce by 1976. Thereafter, under Paul Volcker's tenure as Fed Chairman, FIAT expansion accelerated as the dollar was no longer tied to anything. By 1979, the inflation of the money supply was literally going out of control. Gold soared to US$ 850 an ounce and silver rocketed to US$50. Volcker had to act, and did so decisively, by using the only effective tool in his armoury, interest rates, raising them rapidly to 22%. This induced a severe financial recession which the incoming Chairman Alan Greenspan relieved by once again opening the liquidity spigot, financing Ronald Reagan's huge expansion of the US military in the 1980's, and a huge accumulation of US national debt. The economic brakes were applied to a vastly overheated economy in 1989 by raising rates into the teens again. However, from 1992 to 2000, the US has seen the liquidity spigot opened to an unimaginable level. The injection of so much cash into any economy is bound to cause major distortions and excess, and it did. The rest is history and is well known to readers. However, the colossal equity bubble has spilled over into an even larger bond market and now real estate bubble. US mega debts are collectively something of the order of US$ 45 trillion, comprising US$ 8 trillion of federal debts. The trade deficit is motoring along at US$ 600 billion + per annum, and the US needs to import US$ 2.6 billion a day to finance its debt. Furthermore, the war in Iraq, planned action in Iran, and maintenance of 700 + US military bases worldwide is accelerating military expenditure.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 01:04 AM

(Continued)

A serious attempt at resolution of the gigantic US economic imbalances is considered unlikely in the near future as the liquidity spigot is still pretty much wide open. Real interest rates are still negative or approximate to zero.

As is well known by most readers, the entire monetary system relies on the symbiotic relationship between the US consumer, financed by his vastly asset inflated house, bonds and equities, and provision of cheap labour in China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and India where much manufacturing has been outsourced by global companies. The US citizen will, over time, be reduced to earn the same wages as his Chinese and Filipino counterparts. He hasn't realized it yet, but he is being progressively reduced to sweatshop labour by being reduced to accepting a job at MacDonald's or Wal-Mart on US$ 7 per hour. Now manufacturing has been largely outsourced or relocated to China or other Asian nations. However, the time will come, maybe by 2015 or 2020, when his wages will be reduced sufficiently to make relocating manufacturing in Ohio an attractive proposition. Welcome to globalization and the New World Order. This is all wonderful of course if you are one of the owners of the means of production and the capital base. You can play one nation off against another, arbitrage wage rates and maximize profits, and reduce your labour force to compliant and malleable serfs. All this comes with the added benefit of "the Sword of Damocles" hanging over each employee's head in the form of a debt mountain. What a brilliant scheme this all is!

Far from being idiotic and improvident, Mr Greenspan's Fed has been a main control box for what is a brilliant global plan, awe inspiring in its breadth, depth and vision, and staggering in its extremely cynical execution. This is surely mankind at his most devious and is corruption of power taken to an ultimate level.

Using his incredible advantage of having a global currency, in which all commodities are traded, and all international loans and settlements made, the Fed has not only created an internal US Dictatorship via credit, but has gulled China, Japan and SE Asia into a brilliant trap. The highly imbalanced trading relationship between China, Japan and the US is well known, and has been frequently described in some detail by Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist, Mr. Stephen Roach. In this relationship, the US buys the majority of Chinese and Japanese goods with digital dollars (real money simply no longer exists) running up huge accounting surpluses with which they buy heaps of meaningless paper in the form of US Treasury Bonds and Equities, enabling the "economic merry go round" to happily continue. In this highly distorted and imbalanced market, no one dare flinch. It is the ultimate "Prisoner's Dilemma Game", and how Mr. Greenspan, a brilliant Harvard academic, must love every minute of it. The cost of anyone throwing in the towel and jettisoning the dollar is quite simply awesome. No one has the courage to dare try. Like it or not, Asia is America's hostage politically and economically and can be crippled at a moments notice. China has no internal market to replace the US consumer, and Japan, Taiwan and Korea are relatively saturated markets. However, Greenspan knows that this "circus" cannot be sustained forever. The dollar is under heavy pressure in the open market as nerves are jangling at the sheer size of the imbalances and awareness of the eventual correction. Europe has to a large degree borne the cost of this great experiment, with a 25% appreciation of the Euro, over three years, impacting seriously on their economies. Should the dollar drop significantly in coming weeks/months the Europeans will be screaming for Greenspan to raise rates into real positive territory before they are left no option but to short the dollar and precipitate a market crisis.

To add to the above, commodities, not least oil, are on an ever-upwards trajectory precipitated by sustained and increasing Asian demand. Eventually, the inherent inflationary costs, global trade and financial distortions will conspire collectively to force a resolution of current imbalances. The longer this situation is sustained, the greater will be the correction required. A soft, low trajectory, landing is considered highly unlikely. The system will implode when it finally goes. The US dollar's value is only a perceived value. Its real value is nothing. When the realisation dawns that there is going to be no nicely "stage managed" end to this situation, the normal human reaction will be to "hit the exits". The history of the markets is not one based on simple mathematical logic. Man is first and foremost driven by his primeval instincts; i.e., greed and fear. The latter is the more powerful of these instincts. When this market goes, it will do so across almost all sectors and go very fast. Greenspan knows this. This is the grand denouement of his global scheme, as any other end was never possible as it would fly in the face of simple mathematical and economic logic. We will then have his Brave New World, and the US will have Patriot Acts 1 and 2, and the Ministry of Homeland Security to sweep up the mess, as the citizenry finally wake up to their awful predicament. Those who have paid for their homes and hold private hoards of gold and silver will be the only ones able to enjoy any form of normal life. However, the future for the US looks pretty bleak given its current political drift. I thank God I don't live there!

Nigel H. Maund
BSc(Hons)Lond., MSc, D.I.C., MBA, MIMMM, SEG
Economic Geologist

http://www.safehaven.com/article-3134.htm

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 01:23 AM

Then a new job has been created for every job that has been lost hitherto since Bush took office?

That's ridiculous.

And what kind of jobs have been added to the economy (vs. the kinds of jobs have been lost on Bush's watch?)

Answer: Mostly low-paying, service-sector jobs - many of which are part-time, and/or provide no employee benefits, etc.

But you didn't cite anything that would disconfirm the facts from the dept of labor, dept of commerce, CBO, etc., re: Bush's economic record.

Yes, there has been a new job for every job that was lost (he broke even about Sept 2004, so even in his first term he didn't have a net jobs loss), and (according to the BLS) we've added about 3 million since then. BLS stats for number of non-farm employed workers Jan 2001 – 132 million, March 2006 - 135 Million (I would give the link, but bls.gov isn’t giving me a link to the results, you’d get an error page) But if you want to recreate the info, go here (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls) and click on Total Nonfarm Employment - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0000000001 (5th one down) and it should give you the numbers by month for the last 10 years.

Bush is nowhere near either Clinton or Reagan (both added over 10 million by the same time in their administrations), but Clinton never had to deal with a recession and Reagan never had to deal with a terrorist attack on our homeland (and the financial center of the US in NYC).

Wage growth has been lagging, but other than taking a little longer, that's normal. The order is always recession - job losses - growth (coming out of recession) - productivity gains - job creation - wage growth. We've had such a technological revolution in this country over the last 15 years, productivity gains were incredible this time around, pushing out job growth (don't know how much you can either credit or blame a president for that). For a year or so we saw all the headlines of "Jobless Recovery." Don't see those headlines anymore since we’ve added all those jobs. Then we started seeing "What kind of jobs are they?" headlines, but as I showed above, those are becoming a thing of the past. So it’s catching up. The economy doesn’t change on a dime, but it’s heading in the right direction now.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 01:24 AM

Greenspan was a shill for the bush misadministration, and there's no reason to believe the same won't be true of his successor.

But under Clinton he was awesome!

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 01:27 AM

This author has Greenspan pegged:

The Financial Endgame Slowly Plays Out - and then...

by Nigel Maund

... the Sudden Systemic Implosion which will usher in the Brave New World

Snipped, didn't read it, don't care to either. I have no love for Greenspan, but I don't hate the guy either. Thought he did an ok job, got some stuff right, got some wrong.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 01:29 AM

night man, catch ya tomorrow if I have the time :)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 01:45 AM

Yes, there has been a new job for every job that was lost (he broke even about Sept 2004, so even in his first term he didn't have a net jobs loss), and (according to the BLS) we've added about 3 million since then.

I already posted the stats from the BLS:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_assortjobs.gif

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_unemployment.gif

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_unemployment_rate.gif

At any rate, the big picture the recent job creation stats conceal is the hollowing out of the middle class that has taken place on Bush's watch via the loss of good-paying jobs (which have been replaced with comparatively low-paying and/or part-time service sector jobs with no benefits.)

broncocalijohn

04-19-2006, 02:26 AM

gunns

04-19-2006, 06:36 AM

First, the median wage in this country is just over $29,000, so a job paying 20-30% above that is decent. Besides, a technician is an entry-level job (presumably without a college degree requirement), meaning that someone with limited education and experience can get paid a good wage for that particular job.

My grocery bill hasn't tripled or quadrupled in the past couple of years, seems to me it's about the same (and I'm all for amnesty for the illegals, they pick a good veggie). While energy prices have risen, inflation is well contained (the Fed statement released today says that), so I'm dubious of claims of skyrocketing prices. The economy isn't perfect (it never is), but we're in a pretty-good spot.

Reading comprehension......utilities that have tripled and quadrupled in the last couple of years., I didn't say groceries had, note the comma in the statement. Yes the utilities have. My electric bill has doubled since 2003 and my gas bill has gone from the highest in the winter months of 120.00 in 2004 to the highest this past winter of 322.00. And even if groceries haven't tripled or quadrupled, they have definitely gone up in every area, are you a vegetarian? Also we pay 2.39/gal right now, one of the lowest in the country and we've been told to expect to pay 4.00/gal before the summer is over. I have chosen to take mass transit to my job each day, which has also doubled in the past 3 years and now they have made cuts to areas covered and lengthened times between each route causing some people who rely on it to have to give up jobs that they can no longer get to.

Yes if you are making 30-40K per year and are single, hell yes you are feeling alright. If you have a family to support it doesn't cut it. Housing costs have gone up and in my job we are seeing more and more families doubling up. If I had been making what I am now back in 98 I'd be living good and that is with all 6 of my children at home. With only two still at home and partially supporting themselves, and my salary having gone up 50% I'm no further ahead and see myself pushing retirement back each year as my 401K is not growing as fast and between social security, 401K and retirement at my job I just won't be able to make it. This is reality, not stats.

gunns

04-19-2006, 07:31 AM

This is just what's going on now, added to what's gone on in the past few years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060419/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
43 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Consumer prices shot up by a bigger-than-expected amount in March, reflecting higher costs for gasoline, clothing and hotel rooms.

The Labor Department reported that its closely watched Consumer Price Index rose by 0.4 percent, far higher than the modest 0.1 percent gain in February. The inflation surge was led by higher gasoline prices, which jumped by 3.6 percent.

With oil prices climbing to record levels above $70 per barrel this week, analysts said motorists should be braced for more pain at the pump in coming months.

Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, posted a 0.3 percent rise in March. It was the biggest gain in core inflation in a year and could be a worrisome signal that higher energy prices are starting to spill over into more widespread inflation pressures.

Through the first three months of this year, overall inflation has been rising at a 4.3 percent annual rate, far above the 3.4 percent price increase for all of 2005. The price acceleration reflected rising energy prices, which are up 21.8 percent at an annual rate through March, compared to a 17.1 percent rise for all of 2005.

Economists are worried that the relentless rise in energy prices could start to spread, resulting in inflationary pressures the broad spectrum of the economy. Core inflation, excluding energy and food, was up at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the first three months of this year, slightly higher than the 2.2 percent increase for all of 2005.

However, the 0.3 percent rise in core inflation in March was the biggest one-month gain since a similar 0.3 percent increase in March 2005.

The stock market soared on Tuesday after the Federal Reserve indicated in minutes of its March 28 meeting that its long string of interest rate increases to keep inflation under control could be drawing to a close.

But Fed officials have said that future moves will be heavily dependent on economic data, and economists are worried that inflation might be surging.

The 0.4 percent overall price increase for March was the largest since a 0.7 percent gain in January. It reflected a 1.3 percent jump in energy prices following a 1.2 percent energy price decline in February.

The energy increase was led by a 3.6 percent increase in gasoline prices. Electricity costs were up 0.5 percent but natural gas prices, which had soared on worries about adequate supplies during the winter, dropped by 4.3 percent in March and home heating oil costs were down 0.3 percent. Both declines were helped by the milder winter.

Food costs edged up a tiny 0.1 percent in March, reflecting big declines in the price of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Excluding food and energy, the 0.3 percent rise in core inflation reflected a big 1 percent rise in clothing costs, the biggest one-month jump in seven years.

Lodging costs were also up, with rental prices rising by 0.4 percent and hotel rates increasing by 0.8 percent.

The price of new cars edged down by 0.1 percent last month but airline ticket prices jumped by 1.1 percent as the industry continued trying to recoup higher fuel costs by rising ticket prices.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 11:17 AM

I already posted the stats from the BLS:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_assortjobs.gif
Yes, the first part shows that as of June 2005 he had a net gain of 1 million jobs, the 3rd part (manufacturing jobs) is included in that 1 million gain (meaning that these jobs were replaced by other non-manufacturing jobs)

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_unemployment_rate.gif
This is the problem with static analysis, it doesn't show the trend. Unemployment hit a low of 3.9% and was rising by the time Bush took office, hit a peak of 6.3% and now has dropped back to 4.7%. Plus this goes to my point before. Doesn't Jan 2001 count 2/3rds for Clinton? Does Feb 2001 count for Bush, I mean it's not like he had a bunch of policy decisions that already hit the economy in 11 days? Shouldn't it be better to count from his first budget taking effect? (I know, I know, that would mean that unemployment is lower today than it was when Bush's first budget took effect)

At any rate, the big picture the recent job creation stats conceal is the hollowing out of the middle class that has taken place on Bush's watch via the loss of good-paying jobs (which have been replaced with comparatively low-paying and/or part-time service sector jobs with no benefits.)

Already answered above.

Next time, can you provide the data directly from the BLS and not from the Senate Democrats?

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 11:32 AM

Reading comprehension......, I didn't say groceries had, note the comma in the statement. Yes the utilities have. My electric bill has doubled since 2003 and my gas bill has gone from the highest in the winter months of 120.00 in 2004 to the highest this past winter of 322.00. And even if groceries haven't tripled or quadrupled, they have definitely gone up in every area, are you a vegetarian? Also we pay 2.39/gal right now, one of the lowest in the country and we've been told to expect to pay 4.00/gal before the summer is over. I have chosen to take mass transit to my job each day, which has also doubled in the past 3 years and now they have made cuts to areas covered and lengthened times between each route causing some people who rely on it to have to give up jobs that they can no longer get to.

Yes if you are making 30-40K per year and are single, hell yes you are feeling alright. If you have a family to support it doesn't cut it. Housing costs have gone up and in my job we are seeing more and more families doubling up. If I had been making what I am now back in 98 I'd be living good and that is with all 6 of my children at home. With only two still at home and partially supporting themselves, and my salary having gone up 50% I'm no further ahead and see myself pushing retirement back each year as my 401K is not growing as fast and between social security, 401K and retirement at my job I just won't be able to make it. This is reality, not stats.

Sorry, I saw the comma and thought list, maybe you should have used a semicolon instead? My utility bills while up over the last year are still (much) lower than they were in 2000. I eat a bit of fruit and veggies, but not as much as steak (kinda of beef snob though, I won't eat anything lower than top sirloin, no roundsteak for me). I have a budget that I keep track of all my spending, and groceries haven't gone up for us.

Gas here is $2.74, but we can blame Congress and specifically Democrats (and the media for spreading ignorance). Congress for mandating ethanol to replace MTBE this year - ethanol is more expensive than gas, and additionally, they didn't give any lede time to ramp up production. Supply is constrained therefore, prices go up. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR (and other drilling such as more off-shore) for 10 years. Yes, ANWR would only add 5% to production, but that means it would be at least 12.5 cents per gallon cheaper (and who knows how much cheaper with more off-shore drilling).

Finally, entry-level jobs are for entry-level people. Presumably, an 18 year old getting hired is not going to have a bunch of kids to take care of.

errand

04-19-2006, 06:30 PM

What I find amazing is all these libs like LABF complaining about what the "rich" pay in taxes....like they personally benefit from the rich paying more.

Taxing Bill Gates to hell doesn't increase my income one red cent.....giving me a tax cut does.

As I said numerous times before, the more money "We the People" have in our pockets...(this includes the rich) the better off this nation is.

Let's say you get a net of $500 from the tax cuts...it doesn't sound like alot, but multiply that by how ever many million Americans get it.

Now if you spend it, you've helped the economy. Companies have increase in sales and hire people to handle the increased workload.

If you put it in the bank, you have helped the economy because banks loan your savings to small businesses to expand and grow...and loan money to people buying cars, and homes....which again helps the economy as noted in the preceeding paragraph.

And if you invest it in the private sector again you've helped the economy as businesses use your investment to expand and grow as they hire people to build and work for them and buy goods and services needed.

And as I've pointed out numerous times if cutting taxes won't help the economy it would stand to reason that raising taxes would. So why hasn't any presidential canidate (save for that moron Dukakis) advocated doing just that?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 07:16 PM

What I find amazing is all these libs like LABF complaining about what the "rich" pay in taxes....like they personally benefit from the rich paying more.

I find it amazing that simpletons like errant don't understand how the country as a whole benefits when corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

As I said numerous times before, the more money "We the People" have in our pockets...(this includes the rich) the better off this nation is.

Then you must have loved the Clinton years. The rich got richer and the poor got richer.

Under the smirking pinhead, the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, more Americans are living in poverty, and the middle class is being hollowed out as all the good jobs are lost and real wages decline/don't keep pace with inflation.

In fact, you can summarize Dim Son's economic policy as a reverse Robin Hood scheme. And Bush counts on dupes like you to voluntarily give up your standard of living so Exxon can make record profits followed by more tax cuts and government subsidies.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 07:24 PM

Yes, the first part shows that as of June 2005 he had a net gain of 1 million jobs, the 3rd part (manufacturing jobs) is included in that 1 million gain (meaning that these jobs were replaced by other non-manufacturing jobs)

That is, these jobs were replaced by lower-paying and/or part-time jobs with no benefits. That's the slight of hand that isn't reflected in the stats.

This is the problem with static analysis, it doesn't show the trend. Unemployment hit a low of 3.9% and was rising by the time Bush took office, hit a peak of 6.3% and now has dropped back to 4.7%.

The trend doesn't mean much to those Americans who are unemployed and/or who have given up looking for work (the latter are not reflected in the stats.)

Next time, can you provide the data directly from the BLS and not from the Senate Democrats?

What difference does it make?

The numbers are the same.

Rohirrim

04-19-2006, 07:34 PM

But under Clinton he was awesome!

Judging by O'Neill's book, "The Price of Loyalty", yes. That's why O'Neill and Greenspan (two old friends) split, when Greenspan made the political decision to buy into the Bush deficit spending, tax cutting, surplus blowing spree, which went against everything that O'Neill and Greenspan had agreed on for years. O'Neill was honestly bewildered by that change.

Funny, not the only guy the Bush administration is said to have affected that way. Scowcroft had been friends with Cheney for years, but after Cheney got into the Bush WH, Scowcroft said, "I don't even recognize him anymore."

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 08:12 PM

That is, these jobs were replaced by lower-paying and/or part-time jobs with no benefits. That's the slight of hand that isn't reflected in the stats.

There you go again :) Asked & answered a few times already in this thread. Reading is Fundamental.

The trend doesn't mean much to those Americans who are unemployed and/or who have given up looking for work (the latter are not reflected in the stats.)

And you know who else isn't reflecting in those stats, the self-employed, and there's more of them, but that's the way it is counted. You don't like it, take it up with the BLS, and make sure that they adjust the historical data while you're at it.

What difference does it make?

The numbers are the same.
But the end points aren't. See if you stop in June of 2005, you lack several months of job creation, rising wages, and productivity gains. Wouldn't want to skew the data to look poor when you can take the full picture of it right?

errand

04-19-2006, 08:16 PM

I find it amazing that simpletons like errant don't understand how the country as a whole benefits when corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

What's fair is the poor to pay taxes too...afterall 10% of nothing is still nothing. and corporations pay their fair share, clown. you know that little deduction on your pay stub that reads FICA? If your employer withholds $25, he has to send the government $50.

That's right moron half of the FICA taxes gathered by the government is paid for by those of us who hire people.....oh, and BTW...because we also have to pay ourselves as well...we also send in not only the part deducted by the corporation...but the corporation's half as well...so in actually my dim witted liberal friend we're paying more than anyone else.

So forgive me if i can deduct my cell phone useage and car washes....

Then you must have loved the Clinton years. The rich got richer and the poor got richer.

Under the smirking pinhead, the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, more Americans are living in poverty, and the middle class is being hollowed out as all the good jobs are lost and real wages decline/don't keep pace with inflation.

In fact, you can summarize Dim Son's economic policy as a reverse Robin Hood scheme. And Bush counts on dupes like you to voluntarily give up your standard of living so Exxon can make record profits followed by more tax cuts and government subsidies.

Wow, Exxon made record profits? Good for them...see, my liberal/ socialist/communist friend, capitalism works! Evidently the economy is doing better, because everyone can afford to pay Exxon's prices for gas.

Amazing how you clowns bitch about gas prices and the oil companies making a record profits, but you don't bitch about liberal Hollywood making millions of $$$ on a movie and charging you $8 for the ticket, $6 for the popcorn, $3 for a candy bar, and $4.50 for a medium coke. Gas is still lower than a gallon of freaking milk...and I can fill my SUV for less than a snack combo at the Epic movie theater, so quit yer yapping.

You libs tell us all the time if we don't like what's on TV...just change the channel, right? Well if you're tired of higher gas prices and hate that Exxon is making a killing, then walk to work clown. Take your $3000 mountain bike off that $800 car covered with bumper stickers and bike it to work. See higher gas prices don't bother me...I'll just raise my prices like every other business does when their costs go up.

My lifestyle has improved since '00...I left a retail mgt job and started my own business after cashing in my 401K. I'm making more $$$ now than ever...and the future is bright (you really should climb aboard this capitalism train dude).

BTW the poor haven't gotten poorer...every year we spend more and more on their welfare than the previous year. We've raised the poverty level numerous times. The poor in America have playstation on big screen TV's and $200 cell phones. The poor in America have $1,300 spinners on their cars. I see BMW's in government housing all the time.

Someone's getting duped all right....but it ain't me, clown.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 08:18 PM

Judging by O'Neill's book, "The Price of Loyalty", yes. That's why O'Neill and Greenspan (two old friends) split, when Greenspan made the political decision to buy into the Bush deficit spending, tax cutting, surplus blowing spree, which went against everything that O'Neill and Greenspan had agreed on for years. O'Neill was honestly bewildered by that change.

Funny, not the only guy the Bush administration is said to have affected that way. Scowcroft had been friends with Cheney for years, but after Cheney got into the Bush WH, Scowcroft said, "I don't even recognize him anymore."

I got no love for O'Neill, and don't know the whole story between him and Greenspan, all I know is that he was a poor TreasSec. Bush and the Congress have had a major spending problem, but I think he's been right in his tax policy (although I'd like to see major reform, either the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax implemented). One of Greenspan’s flaws IMO was that he never forcefully advocated for spending cuts (to be fair to him, it’s not really the Fed Chair’s responsibility).

Spider

04-19-2006, 08:23 PM

Amazing how you clowns b**** about gas prices and the oil companies making a record profits, but you don't b**** about liberal Hollywood making millions of $$$ on a movie and charging you $8 for the ticket, $6 for the popcorn, $3 for a candy bar, and $4.50 for a medium coke. Gas is still lower than a gallon of freaking milk...and I can fill my SUV for less than a snack combo at the Epic movie theater, so quit yer yapping. Dont go to the movies , it is a choice , I dont have a choice when I work , I just spent 586.00 in fuel in Glendive mt ...... Sitting on half tanks right now , I dont have to go to the movies ..........

You libs tell us all the time if we don't like what's on TV...just change the channel, right? Well if you're tired of higher gas prices and hate that Exxon is making a killing, then walk to work clown. Take your $3000 mountain bike off that $800 car covered with bumper stickers and bike it to work. See higher gas prices don't bother me...I'll just raise my prices like every other business does when their costs go up. I cant walk to work , Cant do my job without my truck ......... yeah we raised our prices also , vicious circle ... where does it end ?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 08:30 PM

There you go again :) Asked & answered a few times already in this thread. Reading is Fundamental.

Not "answered" - more like "spun."

But the end points aren't. See if you stop in June of 2005, you lack several months of job creation, rising wages, and productivity gains. Wouldn't want to skew the data to look poor when you can take the full picture of it right?

One of the charts stops in '05 - the other one stops in '06.

In any event, the "several months of job creation, rising wages, and productivity gains" don't amount to much when you consider the big picture and recognize the slight of hand at work behind the stats.

errand

04-19-2006, 08:42 PM

Dont go to the movies , it is a choice , I dont have a choice when I work , I just spent 586.00 in fuel in Glendive mt ...... Sitting on half tanks right now , I dont have to go to the movies ..........

I cant walk to work , Cant do my job without my truck ......... yeah we raised our prices also , vicious circle ... where does it end ?

Well now, you're getting a lesson in supply and demand.

You chose to drive a truck, Spider.

I understand a movie isn't a neccessity...but neither is gas. Sure you're business depends on it more than say a CPU tech's does. The point is you raised your prices when the gas went up...right?

So who are you to bitch about Exxon making a record profit? Your business will too if the price of gas drops and your prices don't.

BTW, the real reason your gas prices aren't lower is because of the state and federal taxes on the price of gallon aren't lower. From what I understand the oil cost of a gallon of gas is approx $1.00 give or take...so the rest is taxes, regulatory fees, destination charges (did you know that certain types of gas can only be shipped to certain states?) and profit....dropping the state and federal taxes, or the regualtory costs, or by making gas the same formula and refinement for all states the same you can lower the price of a gallon significantly. Having Exxon's retired CEO give back his $400 million retirement plan isn't gonna lower the price one red cent.

The point is if fuel prices are hurting you, then take alternative ways to work in your case buy a hybrid 18 wheeler if there is such a thing...or convert your diesel to that one that runs on used vegetable oil....cut back on other expenses like clothing, meals, etc.

Tell your wife to get a part-time job when the twins are old enough......there's many ways to reduce one's expenses elsewhere to free up money for fuel if need be. Same goes for any other crisis people endure.

I see "poor" people claiming they don't have health care...but have a razor cell phone that has internet access and plays music and music videos/movie clips...they have rims that are more expensive than my pool on their cars....they have cable or satellite TV...playstation systems and X-boxes....wearing name brand clothing from high $$$ malls. It's not that they lack the money...it's that they lack the priority

Spider

04-19-2006, 08:54 PM

Well now, you're getting a lesson in supply and demand.

You chose to drive a truck, Spider.

I understand a movie isn't a neccessity...but neither is gas. Sure you're business depends on it more than say a CPU tech's does. The point is you raised your prices when the gas went up...right? Well in a way , we have a fuel sur charge . but it is more then this , when I am on the road , I eat out alot , therefore , I have to pay more cause of the prices going up ......

So who are you to b**** about Exxon making a record profit? Your business will too if the price of gas drops and your prices don't. I will tell you who I am I am an American trucker , I drive the lifeline of this nation , and yes I pay more taxes then you , I dont see much more profit , then when I retired in 1999-2000 ...... that is sad

BTW, the real reason your gas prices aren't lower is because of the state and federal taxes on the price of gallon aren't lower. From what I understand the oil cost of a gallon of gas is approx $1.00 give or take...so the rest is taxes, regulatory fees, destination charges (did you know that certain types of gas can only be shipped to certain states?) and profit....dropping the state and federal taxes, or the regualtory costs, or by making gas the same formula and refinement for all states the same you can lower the price of a gallon significantly. Having Exxon's retired CEO give back his $400 million retirement plan isn't gonna lower the price one red cent. this I know also pay an IFTA tax on fuel , but it is supply and Demand , right now the mergers are in control .............

The point is if fuel prices are hurting you, then take alternative ways to work in your case buy a hybrid 18 wheeler if there is such a thing...or convert your diesel to that one that runs on used vegetable oil....cut back on other expenses like clothing, meals, etc. There is Bio Diesel , but you havent loooked at the Big picture , I cant just go anywhere and get Bio diesel no can I ? see this is why you just cant jump on the flavor of the month , you have to be able to refuel anywhere you go .........oh and going without food ? Do you understand what it takes to push a rig up and down the interstate ? last thing you want is to be next to a trucker that is tired ....could be the last mistake you ever make .......

Tell your wife to get a part-time job when the twins are old enough......there's many ways to reduce one's expenses elsewhere to free up money for fuel if need be. Same goes for any other crisis people endure.it is triplets , and my wife has worked before , but I wont have latch key kids ........ I will work somthing out I always do , thats the main difference between you and me , I made my Family , they are my responcibility , I will provide for them one way or another , but my Kids wont be shorted a mom ...........

I see "poor" people claiming they don't have health care...but have a razor cell phone that has internet access and plays music and music videos/movie clips...they have rims that are more expensive than my pool on their cars....they have cable or satellite TV...playstation systems and X-boxes....wearing name brand clothing from high $$$ malls. It's not that they lack the money...it's that they lack the priority
now here we agree , if you have the money for a big screen etc, you have the money to support yourself ...........

Spider

04-19-2006, 08:58 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 08:59 PM

and corporations pay their fair share, clown.

Wrong. Under the pretend administration you support, corporations have received one massive tax cut and/or taxpayer-funded subsidy after another.
(And opportunities to further avoid paying taxes by moving their headquarters offshore, etc.)

you know that little deduction on your pay stub that reads FICA? If your employer withholds $25, he has to send the government $50.

That's right moron half of the FICA taxes gathered by the government is paid for by those of us who hire people.....oh, and BTW...because we also have to pay ourselves as well...we also send in not only the part deducted by the corporation...but the corporation's half as well...so in actually my dim witted liberal friend we're paying more than anyone else.

So forgive me if i can deduct my cell phone useage and car washes....

You're confusing corporations with small businesses, dumb sh_t.

You are getting hosed by BushCo and all you can say is "thank you sir - may I have another?"

Wow, Exxon made record profits? Good for them...see, my liberal/ socialist/communist friend, capitalism works! Evidently the economy is doing better, because everyone can afford to pay Exxon's prices for gas.

:stupid:

Gawd, this has to be about the most asinine claim I've ever heard.

The economy is doing worse, i.e., real wages aren't keeping up with inflation, in large part because of out-of-control energy costs.

The moron you support has a solution: More tax cuts and taxpayer-funded subsidies for the energy companies (companies which are already swimming in cash surpluses and record profits.)

Knuckledraggers like you can't see the plain truth when it's right in front of your face: Bush's policies are nothing more than a big wealth transfer scheme - from the pockets of the middle class and working Americans into the coffers of his rich oil and arms cronies.

Gas is still lower than a gallon of freaking milk...

:stupid:

How many gallons of milk do you consume in a week, Einstein?

See higher gas prices don't bother me...I'll just raise my prices like every other business does when their costs go up.

Without a care in the world as to how this impacts the average customer or consumer, no doubt.

But hey - wouldn't want to "b*tch" about Bush's economic and energy policies now, would we?

Real men don't complain when they're getting cornholed by the ruling class.

BTW the poor haven't gotten poorer...every year we spend more and more on their welfare than the previous year. We've raised the poverty level numerous times. The poor in America have playstation on big screen TV's and $200 cell phones. The poor in America have $1,300 spinners on their cars. I see BMW's in government housing all the time.

You forgot to add "war is peace," "ignorance is strength," and "freedom is slavery."

Someone's getting duped all right....but it ain't me, clown.

You're a member of an ever-shrinking minority of snake handlers and NASCAR dads who have yet to snap out of their denial and realize how BushCo has screwed America, so, as always, I'll take anything you have to say with several grains of salt.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 09:04 PM

Maybe errant will beleive the facts if he hears them from Reagan's boy - the guy who practically invented trickle-down economics:

Paul Craig Roberts: Another grim jobs report

Is your job safe? Not if it can be done abroad. The only safe jobs are in domestic services that require a "hands-on" presence, such as barbers, hospital orderlies, and waitresses.

For a number of years the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly payroll jobs reports have been sending US policymakers dire warnings, only to be ignored. The March report repeats the message. Ninety-five percent of the new jobs created are in domestic services. The US economy no longer creates jobs in export or export-competitive sectors.

Wholesale and retail trade, waitresses and bartenders account for 46% of the new jobs. Education and health services, administrative and waste services, and financial activities account for another 46%. (Wholesale and retail trade jobs for March were 40,000. These jobs would be sales clerks ringing up sales on registers, people stocking the aisles at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc.

Leisure and hospitality (primarily waitresses and bartenders) accounted for 42,000 March jobs.) In contrast, computer system services accounted for 3,600 jobs.

The biggest item (half) in education and health services is "ambulatory health care services."

This has been the profile of US employment growth for a number of years, along with some construction jobs filled by legal and illegal immigrants. It is the job profile of a third world economy.

From January 2001 to January 2006 the US economy lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs. The promised replacement jobs--"new economy" high-tech knowledge jobs--have failed to materialize.

High-tech knowledge jobs are also being outsourced abroad. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US employment of engineers and architects declined by 189,940 between November 2000 and November 2004 (latest data available).

Economist Alan Blinder estimates that as many as 56 million American jobs are susceptible to offshore outsourcing. That would be about half of the US work force.

Offshoring has contributed to the explosion of the US trade/current account deficit over the past decade to $800 billion annually and rising. The US has a trade deficit in manufactured products, including advanced technology products, of more than a half trillion dollars annually, a sum far larger than the oil import bill.

To cover the trade deficit, the US has to turn over to foreigners ownership of its accumulated wealth. This worsens the current account deficit as the income streams on the US based assets now accrue to foreigners.

Many economists pretend that the whopping US trade/current account deficit is evidence that the rest of the world has great confidence in America. They pretend that it is foreign investment in the US that causes the trade deficit, whereas the simple fact is that it is the US trade deficit that gives foreigners the dollars with which to purchase our existing assets.

Traditionally, a trade deficit might indicate that a country's industries were not competitive against imports from abroad, resulting in a decline in the exchange value of the country's currency. This would make foreign goods more expensive for that country and its goods cheaper for foreigners, thus restoring a balance.

This does not work for the US for three reasons:

(1) The US dollar is the world's reserve currency. The dollar can be used to settle all international accounts. Therefore, there is a world demand for dollars. This demand absorbs what would be an excess supply for any other country running such large deficits.

(2) China pegs its currency to the dollar, thus preventing an adjustment in the price of the two countries goods and services. Other countries, such as Japan, intervene in currency markets by purchasing dollars in order to support the dollar and prevent its currency from rising in dollar value.

(3) Offshoring turns US production into imports. Much of the US trade deficit results from offshoring, not from traditional trade competition. The collapse of world socialism and the advent of the high speed Internet made cheap foreign labor available to US companies. US firms use foreign labor to produce offshore the goods and services that they market to Americans. For example, more than half of the large US trade deficit with China is comprised of goods and services produced by US companies in China for American markets.

How can the US reduce its trade deficit when it deprives itself of exports and fills itself with imports by offshoring its production of goods and services, and when the devaluation of the dollar is limited by the dollar's reserve role and by other countries pegging their currency to the dollar or by intervening to support the dollar? Obviously, when balance returns to US trade, it will not come through traditional means.

One way balance can return is by the US oversupplying the world with dollars to the point at which the dollar is abandoned as the reserve currency.

Another way is through the limit placed on Americans' ability to consume that results from replacing manufacturing and engineering jobs with waitress, bartender and hospital orderly jobs. A country that loses high value-added jobs and gains low value-added jobs is in danger of losing its prosperity. Offshoring raises corporate profits in the short-run at the expense of destroying the domestic consumer market in the long-run.

Most economists are confused about offshoring. They mistakenly think offshoring is an example of free trade bringing mutual benefit through the principle of comparative advantage. It is not. Offshoring is an example of companies obtaining absolute advantage by combining high-tech capital with low-cost labor. The gains from absolute advantage are asymmetrical or one-sided. The cheap labor country gains, and the expensive labor country loses.

As Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Roach pointed out on April 7, "average hourly compensation of Chinese manufacturing workers is only 3-4 per cent of levels in the US, 10% of the pay rate of Asia's newly industrialized economies, and 25 per cent of levels in Mexico and Brazil." Roach also notes that with a rural population of 745 million (about two and one-half times the total US population) and headcount reductions of more than 60 million workers from state-owned enterprises, China will not experience a labor shortage any time soon.

This means that it will be a long time before Chinese wages rise enough to offset the benefits of offshoring. The same can be said about India. Consequently, a large percentage of US jobs is vulnerable to being moved abroad.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com.

http://counterpunch.org/roberts04182006.html

Spider

04-19-2006, 09:15 PM

gunns

04-19-2006, 09:18 PM

Sorry, I saw the comma and thought list, maybe you should have used a semicolon instead? My utility bills while up over the last year are still (much) lower than they were in 2000. I eat a bit of fruit and veggies, but not as much as steak (kinda of beef snob though, I won't eat anything lower than top sirloin, no roundsteak for me). I have a budget that I keep track of all my spending, and groceries haven't gone up for us.

I'll remember the puncuation lesson next time I post to you. I also keep a budget and track of where my money goes and my grocery bill has increased
$25/wk, 100 a month and that's buying less over the past 5 years. Maybe I should move to Colorado, seems the groceries are cheaper.

Gas here is $2.74, but we can blame Congress and specifically Democrats (and the media for spreading ignorance). Congress for mandating ethanol to replace MTBE this year - ethanol is more expensive than gas, and additionally, they didn't give any lede time to ramp up production. Supply is constrained therefore, prices go up. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR (and other drilling such as more off-shore) for 10 years. Yes, ANWR would only add 5% to production, but that means it would be at least 12.5 cents per gallon cheaper (and who knows how much cheaper with more off-shore drilling).

Ok, I'll blame the Republican dominated Congress.

Finally, entry-level jobs are for entry-level people. Presumably, an 18 year old getting hired is not going to have a bunch of kids to take care of.

It's definitely not the 18 year olds just taking the entry level jobs. It's those who have been squoze out of their careers also who have exhausted their unemployment.

gunns

04-19-2006, 09:22 PM

And you know who else isn't reflecting in those stats, the self-employed, and there's more of them, but that's the way it is counted. You don't like it, take it up with the BLS, and make sure that they adjust the historical data while you're at it.

No, the self employed are at my job, applying for welfare. The self employed on the welfare rolls have increased 47% in the last 3 years. That should adjust the data.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 09:23 PM

Warning: Tax cuts for rich harm nation's health

Did you get a $1 million dollar cut in your taxes?

Taxpayers with incomes above $10 million saved $1 million on average on their 2003 taxes, according to the latest available IRS data, thanks to tax changes under President Bush. Tax breaks will be bigger this year.

It would take about 29 years for a full-time worker to make a million bucks at today's average hourly wage, which is falling behind inflation.

Taxpayers with incomes above $10 million "paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income," reports tax expert David Cay Johnston. At the state and local level, low-income taxpayers pay a greater share of their income in taxes than wealthy taxpayers.

Taxpayers with incomes less than $50,000 -- the great majority of taxpayers -- saved an average $435 in 2003. It would take 2,300 years to match a million-dollar tax cut.

And taxpayers lost much more than $435 to deepening budget cuts and rising fees for services taxes once funded.

Why are millionaires getting big tax breaks while Congress cuts tuition aid for kids whose families can't afford to pay for college?

Why are millionaires getting tax breaks while soldiers are killed and maimed in Iraq for lack of adequate armor?

Why are millionaires getting tax breaks while vital levees are shortchanged from New Orleans to California?

Why are millionaires getting tax breaks while 46 million Americans have no health insurance and, as the Institute of Medicine documents, lack of health insurance causes thousands of needless deaths a year?

Taxpayers with incomes above $1 million will see their after-tax income grow by about 6 percent in 2006 because of tax cuts the nation can't afford.

The worst is yet to come. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, current and proposed tax cuts for households with incomes above $1 million would cost more than the combined cuts planned over the next five years for education, veterans health benefits, medical research, environmental protection and programs such as housing, energy, child care and nutrition assistance for families living in poverty.

President Bush has given so much revenue away in tax breaks, he's already racked up more new debt than all the presidents combined accumulated before 1990. We are in record-breaking debt to foreign countries. And without a change in course, Bush will nearly double the national debt during his presidency.

Borrowing money from economic competitors to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires is more stupid than borrowing money from Tony Soprano to gamble.

Tax expert Robert McIntyre says, in the last fiscal year, "one out of every four dollars in federal spending outside of Social Security was paid for with borrowed money. That $501 billion shortfall occurred mostly because personal income tax revenues as a share of the economy were 29 percent lower than they were in fiscal 2000. the year before Bush took office."

"Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add $3.3 trillion (including interest) to deficits over the next decade," reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Each year the tax cuts would cost as much as the annual budgets of all these federal departments combined: Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Energy, State, Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency."

It's madness.

Tax cuts are boosting the superrich and sales of "giga-yachts" longer than football fields, but they aren't boosting the economy. The current economic recovery has had weaker growth in employment, wage and salary, gross domestic product, consumption and investment than the typical post-World War II recovery.

Taxes are our dues for democracy. Taxes are how we pool our money for public health and safety, infrastructure, research and services -- from the development of vaccines and the Internet to public schools and universities, transportation, courts, police, parks and safe drinking water.

Without fair and adequate taxes, we cannot repair the public infrastructure inherited from past generations or meet the challenge of global warming. We cannot invest in the research and education vital for future progress.

Tax forms should come with a warning: Tax cuts for the rich are hazardous to the nation's health, economy and security.

It's time to change course.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Sklar18.htm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 09:30 PM

The economic tsunami, just months away

By Mike Whitney

"If the world's central bankers accumulate fewer dollars, the result would be an unrelenting American need to borrow in the face of an ever weaker dollar - a recipe for higher interest rates and higher prices. The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis."

- New York Times editorial

I know that many believe, as I do, that the economic tsunami planned by the Bush administration is probably only months away. Many of us have watched helplessly as the national debt has increased 3 trillion dollars while the dollar has continued its predictable decline. At present, the dollar has fallen a whopping 38% since Bush took office, due entirely to the massive $450 billion tax cuts Bush gave away to his constituents. At the same time, myriad laws have been passed (Patriot Act, Intelligence Reform Bill, Homeland Security Bill, National ID, Passport requirements etc) anticipating the need for greater repression when the economy takes its inevitable nosedive. Regrettably, that nosedive looks to be coming sooner rather than later.

The administration is currently putting as much pressure as possible on OPEC to ratchet up the flow of oil another 1 million barrels per day (well over capacity) to settle down nervous markets and buy time for the planned bombing of Iran in June.

Like Greenspan's artificially low interest rates, the manipulation of oil production is a way of concealing how dire the situation really is. Rising prices at the pump signal an upcoming recession, (depression?) so the administration is pulling out all the stops to meet the short term demand and maintain the illusion that things are still okay. (Bush would rather avoid massive popular unrest until his battle-plans for Iran are carried out)

But, of course, things are not okay. The country has been intentionally plundered and will eventually wind up in the hands of its creditors as Bush advisors planned from the very beginning. Those who don't believe this should note the methodical way that the deficits have been produced at (around) $450 billion per year; a systematic and orderly siphoning off of the nation's future. The value of the dollar and the increasing national debt follow exactly the same (deliberate) downward trajectory.

This same Ponzi scheme has been carried out repeatedly by the IMF and World Bank; Argentina being the last dramatic illustration. (Argentina's economic collapse occurred when its trade deficit was running at 4%; right now ours is at an unprecedented 6%.) Bankruptcy is a fairly straight forward way of delivering valuable public assets and resources to collaborative industries, and of annihilating national sovereignty. After a nation is successfully driven into destitution, public policy decisions are made by the creditors and not by representatives of the people. (Enter, Paul Wolfowitz)

Did Americans really believe they could avoid a similar fate?

If so, they'd better forget about it, because the hammer is about to come down Big-time, and the collateral damage will be huge.

The Bush administration is mainly comprised of internationalists. That doesn't mean that they "hate America"; simply that they are committed to bringing America into line with the "new world order" and an economic regime that has been approved by corporate and financial elites alike. Their patriotism extends no further than the garish tri-colored flag on their lapel. The catastrophe that middle class Americans face is what these elites breezily refer to as "shock therapy"; a sudden jolt, followed by fundamental changes to the system. We can expect tax reform, fiscal discipline, deregulation, free capital flows, lowered tariffs, reduced public services, and privatization. In other words, a society entirely "of, by, and for" corporations.

There are a number of signs that the economy is close to meltdown-stage. Even with cheap energy, low interest rates and $450 billion in borrowed revenue pumped into the system each year, things have still been in a virtual holding pattern. This has a lot to due with the massive shifting of wealth to the richest Americans. Supply-side, trickle-down theories have been widely discredited and Bush's tax cuts have done nothing to stimulate the economy as promised. Now, with oil tilting towards $60 per barrel, things are changing quickly, and the shock-waves should be felt throughout the country in very short order.

The Iraq war has contributed considerably to our current dilemma. The conflict has taken nearly one million barrels of Iraqi oil per day off line. In other words, the astronomical prices at the pump are the direct result of Bush's war. The media has failed to report on the negative affects on oil production, just as they have concealed the incredibly successful insurgent strategy of destroying pipelines. This isn't a storyline that plays well to the American public, who expected that Iraq would be paying for its own reconstruction by now. Instead, the resistance is striking back at the empire's Achilles heel (America's need for massive amounts of cheap oil) and its having a dramatic affect on the US economy.

Just as the economy cannot float along with a sharp increase in oil prices, so too, Bush's profligate deficits threaten the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. This is much more serious than a simple decline in the value of the dollar. If the major oil producers convert from the dollar to the euro, the American economy will sink almost overnight. If oil is traded in euros then central banks around the world would be compelled to follow and America will be required to pay off its enormous $8 trillion debt. That, of course, would be doomsday for the American economy, and the administration would do whatever is in its power to avoid that scenario. But, already a recent report indicates that two-thirds of the world's 65 central banks have "begun to move from dollars to euros." The Bush plan to savage the dollar has been telegraphed around the world and there's only one thing that the administration can do to insure that energy traders keep trading in dollars....control the flow of oil. That means that an attack on Iran is nearly a certainty.

The difficulties facing both the dollar and the economy are not insurmountable. The world has shown an unbelievable willingness to compensate for America's wasteful spending as long as America shows itself to be a responsible steward of the global economy. However, the military and economic recklessness suggests that some of the key players on the world stage (particularly Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Germany, France, China, Brazil) are collaborating on an alternate plan; a contingency plan. If Iran is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression, we will certainly see this plan activated. The most likely scenario would be a quick switch to the euro that would have grave implications for the American economy. For Iran, the attack would justify arming disparate terrorist organizations with the weaponry they need to attack American and Israeli interests wherever they may be. In any event, the attack will confirm for everyone that we are engaged in a new world war; a conflict for global domination.

Tough Years Ahead

The neoliberal chickens have come home to roost. America has become the latest and grandest experiment for the eccentric economic policies of the Washington Consensus. The architects of this maniacal plan are expecting to bankrupt the nation and precipitate a seismic (and irreversible) shift in the fortunes of middle class Americans. The overwhelming accumulation of public debt coupled with a one-party political system (that controls the voting machinery) ensures that we are facing years of collective struggle ahead. If there's a quick fix, I have no idea what it might be.

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 09:45 PM

Not "answered" - more like "spun."

One of the charts stops in '05 - the other one stops in '06.

In any event, the "several months of job creation, rising wages, and productivity gains" don't amount to much when you consider the big picture and recognize the slight of hand at work behind the stats.

Oh yeah, I forgot the pixie dust and the Keebler Elves.

ROFL!

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 09:49 PM

Warning: Tax cuts for rich harm nation's health

Did you get a $1 million dollar cut in your taxes?

[bunch of idiocy snipped]

The top 1% of wage earners pay over a third of all income taxes, but only earn 16%, the top 5% pay over 55%, but only earn 31%, the Top 10% pay two-thirds, but only earn 42%. The Top 50% pay over 95%, and only earn 86% of all income.

So the rich are paying more than their share of taxes.
Source IRS (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls)

Doesn't take a genius (maybe it does) to understand that when income taxes are cut, the people who pay them are going to get relief while the people who don't pay taxes aren't going to see much.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 09:54 PM

The top 1% of wage earners pay over a third of all income taxes, but only earn 16%, the top 5% pay over 55%, but only earn 31%, the Top 10% pay two-thirds, but only earn 42%. The Top 50% pay over 95%, and only earn 86% of all income.

So the rich are paying more than their share of taxes.
Source IRS (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls)

Doesn't take a genius (maybe it does) to understand that when income taxes are cut, the people who pay them are going to get relief while the people who don't pay taxes aren't going to see much.

Not surprisingly, you failed to notice that the piece by paul Craig Roberts I just posted completely debunked the spin you keep trying to put on Bush's record of economic destruction.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 09:58 PM

Income gap mentality

AS TREASURY SECRETARY John Snow meandered through his thoughts about the pay gap between CEOs and workers, it brought back memories of 1992 when the first President Bush toured a mock-up of a grocery checkout counter, watched a carton of milk, a lightbulb, and some candy ring up via a scanner and said about the technology, "This is for checking out?"

The scanner came to mind because, as the average American worker watches corporate America slash pensions and healthcare, as the average American has seen real wages decline in the last quarter century, and as the average American family has to work harder to maintain the standard of living it inherited, Snow talked about this as if it were not much of a problem.

He told Globe reporters and editors yesterday that the pay gap was symbolic of the nation's "aspirational" compensation system, a star system in which, for example, top baseball players are paid $30 million. But he thinks that the US economy shows there is still plenty of trickle-down money to go around, making our country one that still "shares the spoils of the game."

Snow was asked by Globe editorial board member Alan Berger about professional football. The National Football League has supplanted baseball as the nation's most popular spectator sport precisely because the NFL's socialist system of giving teams an equal share of television revenues offers more teams a chance to aspire for the championship. Berger mentioned to Snow that the Patriots won three of the last five NFL titles without a star system.

Snow did not address the Patriots. All he said was the "aspirational compensation system works pretty well. People will get paid on how valuable they are to the enterprise."

All we are left with is our aspirations in a game where the average share of the American dream is being spoiled. The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, the two liberal think tanks that annually chart the gap between CEOs and workers, currently list the gap at 431-to-1, or $11.8 million to $27,460. That compares with a gap of 107-to-1 in 1990. If salaries of the average worker had kept up with that of a CEO, he or she would be making $110,136. Had the minimum wage risen at the same pace as CEO compensation, it would stand today at $23.01. The federal minimum wage of $5.15 has not risen since 1997.

In 1980, the gap was only 42-to-1. Where the spoils go are quite clear. According to 2005 federal data from the Congressional Budget Office, the share of America's income that went to the highest 20 percent of households increased from 45.5 percent in 1979 to 52.2 percent in 2003. The remaining 80 percent of American households all saw their share of the nation's income drop.

The higher you go in that top 20 percent, the more the rise in their share of the income. The top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of America's income zoom from 9.3 percent in the last quarter century to 14.3 percent. The top 10 percent saw their share go from 30.5 percent to 37.2 percent.

How Snow thinks that 10 percent of Americans holding 37 percent of the income represents a sharing of the spoils is checkout-counter economics. His claim falls especially short considering that 46 of the nation's 275 largest companies, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, the United for a Fair Economy, and another liberal think-tank, Citizens for Tax Justice, paid no federal income tax in 2003. Eighty-two of the largest 275 companies paid no federal income tax at some point during 2001-2003 as the current President Bush cut taxes for the wealthy.

Despite this, Snow went on and on about how corporate governance has actually gotten better. He said "the marketplace" is the best place to leave the issues of pension and healthcare cuts to workers. "The best place to leave compensation is set in a market system," Snow said. But as to that pesky pay gap, he said, "A full explanation is still awaiting a full exposition."

Like the first President Bush, who did not know that checkout-counter scanners had been common in American supermarkets a decade before his discovery, Snow, in the guise of defending the fiscal policies of the second President Bush, talked about waiting for a full explanation of an American condition that for the average American is fully exposed as a betrayal of average aspirations.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/19/income_gap_mentality/

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 09:59 PM

Not surprisingly, you failed to notice that the piece by paul Craig Roberts I just posted completely debunked the spin you keep trying to put on Bush's record of economic destruction.

Are you high, can I get some of that good stuff?

So spin is IRS data?

I give up, really. This is pointless, I give you IRS facts and you post someone partisan's work? No more wrestling with pigs for me, Even if you win, you still get dirty.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 10:01 PM

So spin is IRS data?

Not the data - your cherry-picking of data in an attempt to obscure the big picture.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 10:04 PM

Are you high, can I get some of that good stuff?

Even Reagan's former Treasury Sec has admitted that trickle-down economics are a sham, and I'm the one who's high?

That's a thigh-slapper. :rofl:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-19-2006, 10:24 PM

Bypassing the right-wing spin, the real consequences of Bush's economic policies are clear:

Household Income Declined by Nearly $1,700 Under Bush

For the second consecutive year, median household income declined: income dropped last year by $93-down to $44,389. In real terms, median household income has declined by $1,669 since 2000. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/30/05; Table A-1, emphasis added]

Minimum Wage Has Not Increased Since 1997

Has Lost 14 Percent of Its Buying Power. The minimum wage of $5.15 an hour has not been increased since 1997. The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is 26 percent lower today than it was in 1979 and in real dollars, $5.15 an hour minimum wage is worth just $4.42. If the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968 when it was a $1.60 an hour, minimum wage would be $8.88 an hour in 2005. [www.aflcio.org]

Family Incomes are Down Four Years in a Row

...with Wages Stagnant and Increase Debt. Real household income has fallen each year of the Bush Administration, for a drop of $1,669 since 2001. The median wage has been flat or fallen for three years in a row. A new report by the Federal Reserve Board shows that median household debt climbed 34 percent to $55,300, so that families were spending nearly 15 percent of their incomes on paying interest on their debt. Workers' buying power continues to erode as average weekly earnings have dropped in the last year in real terms. [Office of the House Democratic Leader, 4/17/06]

Families are Paying Much more for Health Care and Education

For the past five years, health care costs have increased by nearly more than 70 percent, burdening hard-working families with added costs not covered by increases in their paychecks and driving up the number of uninsured to a staggering 45 million. Under President Bush, college tuition has gone up about 40 percent, even taking inflation into account. [Census, 8/05; KFF, 2005; College Board, 2005]

Americans are Paying Sky-High Gas Prices and Home Heating Costs

Gas prices are high and rising, squeezing the pocketbooks of middle-class families. This week families are paying $2.59 a gallon on average for regular gasoline - up 35 cents a gallon in the last six weeks, and 78 percent higher than in 2001. And experts expect that gas prices could rise another 30 cents a gallon this summer, in part due to changes in the energy bill. The price of a crude oil continues at more than $65 a barrel. Home heating costs are still high, with families having to pay more than $100 more than last year, and 62 percent more than the first winter of the Bush presidency. [CBS News, 3/13/06]

President Bush Still Has the Worst Jobs Record Since Herbert Hoover

Despite adding 234,000 jobs in February, President Bush still has the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. Further, 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost on his watch. [Office of the House Democratic Leader, 4/17/06]

Bush Tax Cuts Have Flattened Tax Rates, Helping Only The Very Wealthy

"Without any fanfare or philosophical debate, millionaires and middle-class Americans now pay taxes at almost the same rates. So what about the "fantastic growth waiting to burst forth"? Has leveling out federal income tax rates produced a cornucopia of financial benefits? The answer is probably yes- if you're a millionaire. And probably no- if you're almost anyone else. Flattened, and thus lower, tax rates have contributed to huge increases in the wealth of the wealthy, but so far most people haven't seen significant economic improvement." [Los Angeles Times, 4/17/06]

ColoradoDarin

04-19-2006, 11:43 PM

Not the data - your cherry-picking of data in an attempt to obscure the big picture.

Right right, the Keebler Elves again...I'm getting this now!

:thumbsup:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-20-2006, 01:31 AM

Right right, the Keebler Elves again...I'm getting this now!

I suppose the Keebler Elves have slightly more credibility than the increasingly small number of American voters who have yet to realize the extent to which the pretender in the WH and his scandal-ridden administration have hosed the country.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-20-2006, 01:53 AM

Further debunking Darin's right-wing spin:

Rethinking the 'Strong Jobs Recovery' Scenario

By Barry Ritholtz

http://www.thestreet.com/_tscana/markets/economics/10258387.htmlRealMoney.com

Job creation is crucial to any economic expansion. It directly affects consumer spending, and it's one of two key factors determining the health of real estate (the other being interest rates). One cannot overstate the importance of job creation to the economy.

Lately, the White House and Treasury Secretary John Snow have been trumpeting the fact that the economy has created 4.4 million new jobs since May 2003.

Inquiring minds want to know: How legit is that number? How was it derived? How does this job-creation data compare to prior cyclical recoveries?

Let's zoom in on the actual employment numbers and see what's there:

First question: How did the White House come up with that 4.4 million new-jobs number? Is it accurate?

The answer is simple math: Measured trough to peak, there were actually almost 4.5 million new jobs created. In May 2003, there were 129,827,000 people employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of November 2005, there were 134,289,000. That reflects 4,462,000 new jobs. So the "over 4.4 million jobs created" statement is numerically accurate.

So if that number is mathematically accurate, what's the problem?
As those of us who work on Wall Street know, you typically don't get to pick your time periods when measuring performance. You especially don't get to base it on trough-to-peak numbers. In most any series, there are more natural time periods, e.g., year to date, one, three and five years.

As opposed to cherry-picking the most favorable-looking time periods, job creation historically has been measured from the end of the recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research puts at March 2001. Another commonly used period is from the start of the president's term (Jan. 20, 2001).

When we plug those time frames into the BLS data, we derive a significantly less rosy picture: Those calendar periods generate job-creation numbers of about 1,835,000. Also, the 4.4 million-job number conveniently ignores the 2.6 million jobs lost from 2001 to 2003.

Over the course of four years, those numbers fail to keep up with population growth. The U.S., with about 275 million people, needs more than 1 million new jobs per year -- between 125,000-150,000 per month -- just to maintain the same percentage of employed relative to the labor force.

As with any data series, you can make the numbers better or worse depending upon when you mark the beginning of your time period, as the chart below of nonfarm payroll data since January 2000 shows.

So the answer to our second question is that the 4.4 million number significantly overstates the true jobs picture since the end of the recession. Indeed, if this were a mutual fund, the Securities and Exchange Commission would not allow such an advantageously selective timeline to be used in the advertising.

Third question: We know the BLS model is a bit quirky and has some warts on it. How "real" are these numbers, and how much is theoretical conjecture?
That's a complex question, but let's take a stab at it. In 2001, the BLS started a new numerical projection called the birth/death adjustment. This replaced a prior adjustment known as the "bias factor." This new adjustment has been gradually phased in since 2001, and became fully implemented in 2003. That's convenient for our analysis, as it was fully integrated at about the same time that Treasury and the White House have used to reach their 4.4 million new-jobs number.

The birth/death adjustment was created, according to the BLS, to capture job creation of new firms that is missed by bureau methodology "due to an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business, and its non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth."

What the BLS does is estimate the number of new businesses coming into existence. It then projects how many new jobs these new firms create.

http://images.thestreet.com/markets/economics/29888.gif

There is some debate on how accurate the birth/death adjustment is. Morgan Stanley's analysts have found it to be (mostly) reliable; John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics thinks it significantly overstates job creation.

I fall somewhere between the two. Given all the effort that goes into actually counting establishment jobs vs. merely estimating them, one would expect that this projection would be a relatively small number of the total new-job count. A modest estimate of new jobs created would be acceptable as a reasonable adjustment to the true data collection.

But that's not what we see when we take a look at the data closely: Of the 4.4 million new jobs from the March 2003 low until present, the birth/death estimate accounts for 1,639,000. That is an extremely significant 36.7% of new jobs.

By any measure, that's a hefty estimated adjustment to an actual data-based number. It is not particularly credible to me to have a statistical projection be more than a third of a measured data series. To be blunt, it is a game-changing "adjustment."

To get an idea of how big this is, imagine how your performance might be enhanced by goosing it more than a third: This would raise the output from so-so to spectacular. A mediocre baseball hitter (.250) becomes an MVP (.392); an average bowler (200) rolls a perfect game; meanwhile, a weekend duffer who shoots an 88 becomes club champ with a 56.

Nice statistical work, if you can get it.

Our last measure is not quantitative, as the prior three issues have been. It is qualitative:

As I've noted previously, the jobs recovery compares rather poorly with prior post-World War II recessions and their aftermaths. We've seen that the jobs created are unusually dependent upon the real estate complex. We also know that the private sector jobs created have, on average, paid less and have had weaker benefits than the jobs they've replaced. And we also see there has been an unusually large number of government jobs created. Overall, the jobs quality during this recovery is mediocre.
http://images.thestreet.com/markets/economics/29892.gif
Not Up to Snuff
Job growth in the current recovery is weak by post-World War II standards

After all this data-crunching, one query remains: How does this jobs-recovery era compare to prior ones?

The answer, it turns out, is not particularly well. In fact, this is the eighth-worst jobs recovery of the prior 10 recessions, according to The New York Times.

What made this cycle somewhat unique was that the job count fell for another year and a half after the recession ended.

The reason for this is quite simple: Most economists have been looking at the post-recession period incorrectly. Instead of viewing this as a post-bubble economy, with the 2000 crash a rare event, they are looking at it as if it's just another postwar recession-recovery cycle. That misses the bigger issues.

By nearly any honest measure, this has been a lackluster jobs recovery. That is not widely believed among the investing population -- though consumer sentiment shows plenty of hesitancy.

Base of the Bear

This is another in our occasional series of data analyses, looking beneath the headlines at the actual numbers to discern what's truly going on in the economy (see prior commentary on home sales data; Black Friday, and inflation).

This variant perception -- that the macro environment is far worse than most people believe -- forms the basis of my bearish expectations for 2006, which I'll explore in more detail in a forthcoming column.

errand

04-20-2006, 06:00 AM

see errand just like your Sig , I laugh everytime I see it , I pay more taxes then you so I ma supporting the roads you use to business , go home etc ....... you may have a Job son , but your line of work depends on People being lazy or not wanting to do some errands , where as my line of work I am needed , you just cant get around not using an 18 wheeler..........nuff said about that hey

Umm, we don't just run errands for other people, and it's not that they're lazy rich people...they're old retired people...and the sick and invalid. That's not to say we don't do some errands for some well to do people (like Darren Holmes a former MLB pitcher), but the majority of them are either too old to do it....or too sick to do it.

We also transport them as well to the airport, to medical specialists across the state, deliver antique furniture to towns in other states as well. I pay a road tax every year for the tags I have to have in order to do this and I'm the owner of a company, so I doubt you pay more taxes than I do....if anything I'd say we're about even.

errand

04-20-2006, 06:16 AM

LOL see this is whats wrong with people like Errand , yeah the one that gets up every morning Hilarious! His solution tell the wife to get a job ........ Well I am the man of the house , so it is my responcibility , not my wifes , I just got in from an 8 day run , wel I am leaving again tomorrow , load for Andrew texas ....See i take on extra work , Errand expects his wife to pick up the slack ....... Hey errand here is a tip , you work harder become the man of the house ......I throw 90 pound chains , tighten them down every 50-100 miles .........on second thought Errand maybe you should just stick to 1 job , probably cant handle much more then that ...........

No moron...errand doesn't work harder...he works smarter. He became an entrepenuer who now makes more money than he used to working for someone else. He doesn't whine about what the government is gonna do to help him out or make his life better. He staked his own claim in life.

My wife doesn't have to work because unlike you we aren't struggling to make ends meet... due to hard work, smart decisions and saving money despite not making as much earlier in life. She just holds down the fort when she's not out shopping. She's is however thinking about buying some homes and "flipping" them. Every woman needs a hobby I guess....

I suggested your wife take a job in order to help make ends meet (afterall you're the one bitching about not being able to do so)...or doesn't she have a stake in your families success as well? Your gone 8 days at a time...so when do your kids ever see their father? Perhaps if your wife worked, you wouldn't have to be on the road as much and here's a novel concept...both mother and father could have a hand in raising their children.

Spider

04-20-2006, 06:24 AM

No moron...errand doesn't work harder...he works smarter. He became an entrepenuer who now makes more money than he used to working for someone else. He doesn't whine about what the government is gonna do to help him out or make his life better. He staked his own claim in life.

My wife doesn't have to work because unlike you we aren't struggling to make ends meet... due to hard work, smart decisions and saving money despite not making as much earlier in life. She just holds down the fort when she's not out shopping. She's is however thinking about buying some homes and "flipping" them. Every woman needs a hobby I guess....

I suggested your wife take a job in order to help make ends meet (afterall you're the one b****ing about not being able to do so)...or doesn't she have a stake in your families success as well? Your gone 8 days at a time...so when do your kids ever see their father? Perhaps if your wife worked, you wouldn't have to be on the road as much and here's a novel concept...both mother and father could have a hand in raising their children.

in other words you are too damn lazy , to take on extra work . and if my wife did work I would still take on the extra work ,thats just me .......
you make your living off of the elderly and the sick ....
now lets look at what I concider making ends meet shall we ....
I have my eye on some property just south west of town here near Alcova , what I would like to do is put 3 or 4 Mod homes on there , use them as time share rentals .......and I dont have to prey on the elderly or the sick of Society to get this done ..........

Spider

04-20-2006, 06:39 AM

as for being even on Taxes , could be I apy a 1,000 alone per month in road use tax ..
I pay tax on 240 gallons per fill up at the pump then there is the IFTA fuel tax ..
Tax on permits , tax on food i eat tax on tolls , but i can deduct them as a truck expense , so they dont count .....then the norml pay roll tax ......

gunns

04-20-2006, 07:40 AM

I suggested your wife take a job in order to help make ends meet (afterall you're the one b****ing about not being able to do so)...or doesn't she have a stake in your families success as well? Your gone 8 days at a time...so when do your kids ever see their father? Perhaps if your wife worked, you wouldn't have to be on the road as much and here's a novel concept...both mother and father could have a hand in raising their children.

I love this when someone thinks they have the answer to someone else's life. Sure Spider, have your wife go out and get a job.....then you can contribute more tax AND pay day care costs. I'm sure the wife will be working solely for those day care costs. Oh here's an even better idea, you work during the day while the wife watches the kids and the wife can work at night while you watch the kids. Wait, then you still don't see each other. Hmmm.....

I think the point of this whole thread is the fact a lot of us were making it and a supposed great tax cut (for whom?) has done nothing to stop the downward spiral with the increase across the board in every day livng costs. Great for you errand that you are doing so great now but I don't see where that gave you the right to assume the high road and tell others that they are doing it all wrong and they should be as "smart" as you. You've done what you had to do, so is Spider.

Spider

04-20-2006, 07:59 AM

triplets in Day care ....... I am sure thats cheap .. oh well load change anyhoo ... Rig move to Culbertson Montana ....... be gone on that for about a week

bendog

04-20-2006, 09:48 AM

Just in from the "liberal" Wash Post and champion of the Neocon invasion and multinationalism

China's spectacular rise causes understandable alarm, and it probably has harmed pay for low-skilled U.S. workers. But the right answers to stagnant wages include Head Start, school choice and a fix for the regressive payroll tax; they should not include a national descent into xenophobic paranoia.

American business is in a golden phase right now because its imaginative culture fits the challenges of the post-industrial age. A low-wage economy that crams on science is not going to take that away from us.
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/OPINION/604200302/1285

errand

04-20-2006, 06:32 PM

I love this when someone thinks they have the answer to someone else's life. Sure Spider, have your wife go out and get a job.....then you can contribute more tax AND pay day care costs. I'm sure the wife will be working solely for those day care costs. Oh here's an even better idea, you work during the day while the wife watches the kids and the wife can work at night while you watch the kids. Wait, then you still don't see each other. Hmmm.....

I think the point of this whole thread is the fact a lot of us were making it and a supposed great tax cut (for whom?) has done nothing to stop the downward spiral with the increase across the board in every day livng costs. Great for you errand that you are doing so great now but I don't see where that gave you the right to assume the high road and tell others that they are doing it all wrong and they should be as "smart" as you. You've done what you had to do, so is Spider.

Never said I had the answer clown...I suggested a few options...if they help him, fine if they don't then that's fine as well. BTW, what's wrong with her working nights and his working days...sure they won't see each other alot...but tell how much they see of each other now with him being gone 8 days in a row? Nobody said climbing out of poverty was gonna be easy....

I couldn't help but notice you also whined about the wife working and paying more taxes....and yet, you dislike the tax cut? What's wrong with that picture? The tax cut is proportionate to the amount you paid...

if you didn't pay in, you got nothing back. If you paid in alot, you got a bigger slice of the rebate pie. Pretty simple if you ask me. 880 biilion $$$ went back to the American people...and you think that's a bad thing?

BTW, who said working meant leaving the home?

Alot of people (myself included) have started home based businesses.....of course you didn't even think about that being an option now did you?

So I can't say I work smarter than Spider, but he can claim he's working harder than I? Geez, clown show a little consistency. And if I'm doing great, and his life sucks...then wouldn't it give credence to my claim and not his?

Cito Pelon

04-20-2006, 09:05 PM

Myself, I don't see any evidence that indicates tax-cuts that favor the wealthy have a "trickle-down" effect. The implication is that a windfall to the investor class will stimulate job creation through investment. I can turn that around by saying a windfall to the middle-class will stimulate job-creation by increasing consumption, and will also increase savings rates.

Investment these days is covered by 401k plans. There's tons of money coming into the stock market through 401k's.

So really, the economy can be stimulated by increasing taxes on the wealthy, and giving the windfall to the middle class, the people that buy a lot of manufactured goods. And in the long run, that is probably the best path. After all, that's what got the US to where we are. ColoradoDarin I believe referred to Keynesian economics, deficit economics, which was the New Deal. Tax money was spread out to the consumer classes so they could consume, thereby creating jobs to make the stuff consumers wanted. The jobs were good paying skilled jobs.

Nowadays it seems to me like the investor class has way too much power. They move their factories around to get the cheapest labor, and thereby get too much of the profit for guess who? The investor class.

Either theory - deficit-side or supply-side - works and can grow an economy, but finding the balance I guess is the key. I don't want one sector to get too much power.

gunns

04-20-2006, 11:29 PM

Nobody said climbing out of poverty was gonna be easy....

That's the whole point, it isn't poverty, it's middle class or it was a few years back.

I couldn't help but notice you also whined about the wife working and paying more taxes....and yet, you dislike the tax cut? What's wrong with that picture? The tax cut is proportionate to the amount you paid...

Oh of course, work just to pay taxes and child care. That's good for the kids too, let the child care people raise the kids so they can pay taxes (not gain income) and the kids can relate to each of them on a separate basis. Problem solved.

if you didn't pay in, you got nothing back. If you paid in alot, you got a bigger slice of the rebate pie. Pretty simple if you ask me. 880 biilion $$$ went back to the American people...and you think that's a bad thing?

Well let's see, I pay 389.00 in taxes every two weeks and no that is not including the health insurance, 401K that I have taken out also. I still pay on April 15th. I don't think you can say I'm not helping make up what the wealthy no longer give. Yes sir, I love the tax cut!

So I can't say I work smarter than Spider, but he can claim he's working harder than I? Geez, clown show a little consistency. And if I'm doing great, and his life sucks...then wouldn't it give credence to my claim and not his?

I said it didn't give you the high road to come up with BS as to how he can improve it. Not everyone can do the same as someone else because of circumstances in their life. And I don't remember him saying his life sucks, just that the wonderful tax cut, yet a surge in higher prices hasn't done for him what it has done for others. Love it when they include the name calling, usually means you've hit a nerve.

Spider

04-20-2006, 11:33 PM

Never said I had the answer clown...I suggested a few options...if they help him, fine if they don't then that's fine as well. BTW, what's wrong with her working nights and his working days...sure they won't see each other alot...but tell how much they see of each other now with him being gone 8 days in a row? Nobody said climbing out of poverty was gonna be easy....
who said I ewas in poverty ? did this vision come to you in a snake venom induced high ?

So I can't say I work smarter than Spider, but he can claim he's working harder than I? Geez, clown show a little consistency. And if I'm doing great, and his life sucks...then wouldn't it give credence to my claim and not his?
who said my life sucks ? My life is great ásswipe .............. and yes I do work harder then you ............ I am in miles city Mt Right now , unload tomorrow in Culbertson MT , then load in Williston N.D. Headin to Laural Miss. .. the texas load fell through , then from Laural good chance of a rig move out of Okie city , headin to pinedale .............. Meanwhile you are still preyin on the elderly and the disabled ............

clarker

04-21-2006, 10:12 AM

bendog

04-21-2006, 10:47 AM

Well, whatever, but there's no debate that coinciding with stagfaltion and Carter cutting the cap gains tax, and Reagan's tax cuts 2-4 years later, wages began declining, after having risen from FDR to Carter. One could debate the effect of tax cuts on wages.

Spider

04-21-2006, 07:24 PM

Spider and Errand

Neither one of you have done each others work so you don't know how smart or how hard each other work. Neither one of you can prove that you can work harder or smarter than the other. So what is the point of exchanging insults?
you kidding me ? Moving oil rigs is serious damn work , I see guys all the time quitting ..........when is the last time you hurled 90 pound chains over a piece of iron and chained it to a trailer ? then go pick up some ones laundry and then come back and tell me what side the bread is buttered on ..............

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-21-2006, 07:48 PM

you kidding me ? Moving oil rigs is serious damn work , I see guys all the time quitting ..........when is the last time you hurled 90 pound chains over a piece of iron and chained it to a trailer ? then go pick up some ones laundry and then come back and tell me what side the bread is buttered on ..............

:D

And, if memory serves me, errant said he owned some kind of airport shuttle service.

(And here he is, just a few posts ago, celebrating those high gas prices - "Good! It means capitalism works.")

Real men don't complain when they're getting cornholed by the ruling class, eh Cletus?

:laugh:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

04-21-2006, 07:58 PM

Steak Night at the Deer Camp - A South Arkansas Message to George W.

by John R. Bomar

Hey George, I hate to have tell you this, son, but they’re talking bad about you out at the deer camp. That’s real bad. When you’ve lost the deer-camp-boys you’re in big trouble around here.

You see, these are the real good ol’ boys, the ones who make up the backbone in this part of the woods. They’re the ones who build the houses, sell the insurance, install the plumbing and fix your air conditioner when it goes on the blink. They’re just regular, hard working Joe’s trying to make life a little better and get ahead. And up to now they’ve done pretty good. Many of them own their own businesses and are members of the chamber and pay a lot of taxes – a lot of taxes. And a whole bunch of them read the papers and keep up with what’s going on in the world.

George, they’re a calling you a liar. Yep, they are. And if it’s one thing they don’t cotton to, it’s a liar, George. They know liars; they’ve had liars for employees and dealt with liars in trying to do businesses. “Cain’t’ trust a liar” just about sums it up around here, George.

Now, if you’re a known liar we’d give you a nod in passing, but we wouldn’t stop to talk. We’d try to be sociable enough if forced to be around you, but we’d leave as soon as possible. Out at the deer camp we’d mostly try and leave you out of the conversation, but if your name came up we’d all give each other that look that says; “yea, we know about dealin’ with him.”

more@link: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/04/con06153.html

clarker

04-21-2006, 08:56 PM

you kidding me ? Moving oil rigs is serious damn work , I see guys all the time quitting ..........when is the last time you hurled 90 pound chains over a piece of iron and chained it to a trailer ? then go pick up some ones laundry and then come back and tell me what side the bread is buttered on ..............You know what I never said you didn't work hard. What I was saying was you and Errand were being stupid and childish and have no clue what goes on in each others lives. I wasn't putting either one of your lines of work. I'm just saying that there is a good chance that both of you would be shocked about how hard the others work is.

BTW, just because someone doesn't do manual labor doesn't mean they are not working hard.