McCain camp revs up the lies

[HAL 9000 96]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Income for most Americans declined while the economy expanded. A first in recorded US history. And probably not the least important factor on the economic situation we find ourselves in today. Trickle down didn't work. Not last time and not this time. The GOP will probably never learn that lesson but trickle down economics is what George H. W. Bush labeled it: voodoo economics.

R-

The Heritage Foundation says the economy improved under GWB.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

charles approves this message

Charles has his GOP ROSE Color glasses on.

gop rose colored glasses are cheaper than the dem rose colored glasses. and i'm cheap.

If Al Gore was Pres when Bush stole the election, and all this happen in his terms, The GOP's would be all up in arms and yelling.. we need change. The gop would be un glued.

so you say. who can tell?

McCain says he will change and do the reform.. Talk is cheap. He will still continue to push Bush's plans. He just saying things cause he got his lips pucker up and attached to some America A$ so he can get elected.

kinda like obama is?

When Obama starts voting in line with the Bush-Cheney program, then we can agree on that one.

obama better put chap stick on his butt to keep it from being chapped with all butt kissing going on.

maybe that's part of his medical plan!

[HAL 9000 96]

charles approves this message

Charles has his GOP ROSE Color glasses on.

gop rose colored glasses are cheaper than the dem rose colored glasses. and i'm cheap.

If Al Gore was Pres when Bush stole the election, and all this happen in his terms, The GOP's would be all up in arms and yelling.. we need change. The gop would be un glued.

so you say. who can tell?

McCain says he will change and do the reform.. Talk is cheap. He will still continue to push Bush's plans. He just saying things cause he got his lips pucker up and attached to some America A$ so he can get elected.

kinda like obama is?

When Obama starts voting in line with the Bush-Cheney program, then we can agree on that one.

obama better put chap stick on his butt to keep it from being chapped with all butt kissing going on.

maybe that's part of his medical plan!

Huh?

[rin and john 71]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Income for most Americans declined while the economy expanded. A first in recorded US history. And probably not the least important factor on the economic situation we find ourselves in today. Trickle down didn't work. Not last time and not this time. The GOP will probably never learn that lesson but trickle down economics is what George H. W. Bush labeled it: voodoo economics.

Really? Data? Government stats say otherwise:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

Personal income has grown every year since 1950.

Even when inflation adjusted, this is true:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

Either believe the data or what Obama tells you. Up to you.....

[HAL 9000 96]

So then why is even the Bush administration accepting the economy is in bad shape?

Numbers say what they say. Reality says otherwise.

[rin and john 71]

If there was no increase from baseline under Clinton, then there was no Surplus under Clinton. Then pray tell, what did GWB blunder away? And more so, why is the Government lying to us?

Tax revenues had increased YOY every year since 1958. I agree that the rate of increase was greater during the 90's, but a forecast for the '00s would have projected some increase less the known impact of the tax cuts. We went way off the trendline by having a decrease in revenue for the first time in over 40 years. We are back on a trendline with a similar slope, but it is offset by $350 to $400 B a year. About $150 to $200 B of that offset is tax cuts.

[rin and john 71]

So then why is even the Bush administration accepting the economy is in bad shape?

Numbers say what they say. Reality says otherwise.

I dont' disagree. It is not great, and data would bear that out for 2007 to 2008, not 2002 to 2006. As Congress has been Dem for the past two years, the blame would have to be shared and not fall solely on GWB.

[HAL 9000 96]

If there was no increase from baseline under Clinton, then there was no Surplus under Clinton. Then pray tell, what did GWB blunder away? And more so, why is the Government lying to us?

Tax revenues had increased YOY every year since 1958. I agree that the rate of increase was greater during the 90's, but a forecast for the '00s would have projected some increase less the known impact of the tax cuts. We went way off the trendline by having a decrease in revenue for the first time in over 40 years. We are back on a trendline with a similar slope, but it is offset by $350 to $400 B a year. About $150 to $200 B of that offset is tax cuts.

Sure. That makes sense since the taxpaying population increases in the same fashion.

The variables here are output spending and the increased tax incentive to corporate welfare. Eliminate those two variables from the equation and Clinton's surplus would have been drawn out far into the Bush Administration. But that is speculation since we are not at a $407B deficit.

Another difference in the individual income tax contributor is the kind of tax generating revenue to the IRS. Compared to the growth under Clinton, the Bush years see an expected rise in absolute job figures (and not of the high paying type either- which shifts that baseline lower via lower tax revenue), but also a not surprising decrease in the ratio of money disposable to put back into the economy.

Hence the rebate stimulus that appears to not have done a whole lot.

So then why is even the Bush administration accepting the economy is in bad shape?

Numbers say what they say. Reality says otherwise.

I dont' disagree. It is not great, and data would bear that out for 2007 to 2008, not 2002 to 2006. As Congress has been Dem for the past two years, the blame would have to be shared and not fall solely on GWB.

I agree that the blame can be spread around. Right now at this point I believe the majority of the membership in Congress is more interested in acting like an actual check and balance to the Bush program of squandering money away.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So then why is even the Bush administration accepting the economy is in bad shape?

Numbers say what they say. Reality says otherwise.

I dont' disagree. It is not great, and data would bear that out for 2007 to 2008, not 2002 to 2006. As Congress has been Dem for the past two years, the blame would have to be shared and not fall solely on GWB.

I can agree with that - however given that the Democrats have controlled Congress for 2 of Bush's 8 years I certainly don't think its 'equal'.

[rin and john 71]

Some interesting pieces of data:

Unemployment rate:

1995 = 5.6%

2007 = 4.6%

Deficit:

1995 = $232B (represented 9.4% of total government expenditures)

2007 = $399B (represented 8.7% of total government expenditures)

Disposable personal income:

1995 = $22,153 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 1994

2007 = $28,614 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 2006

Personal savings rate:

1995 = 4.6%

2007 = 0.6%

I point this out as 1995 was widely seen as a good economic year leading up to the election the following year. Made for an easy victory for Clinton. Who told us it was a good year? The media. 2007 in most aspects is very similar. It is widely seen as a bad economic year leading up to an election year. Who is telling us it is a bad year? The media.

The personal savings rate is down due to substantial increases in personal spending. My initial thought, it must be energy. Reality is it is durable goods. Spending on both non-durable goods and services have increased (in inflation adjusted dollars) by about 50% between 1995 and 2007. Durable goods spending is up almost 250%. Americans are saving less and spending it on cars, furniture, electronics, etc. We want to consume more, but blame the economy (and therefore the government) for not meeting this want.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

[HAL 9000 96]

I hinted at type of employment making a much larger impact for tax purposes. Its obvious that on the personal side, one lives better off of a steady job working (and earning more) as a financial representative in a Bank than as a CSA at a retail store.

As I also stated, there are more taxpayers now than before.

Hence: (in bold)

Some interesting pieces of data:

Unemployment rate:

1995 = 5.6%

2007 = 4.6%

Government statistics vary as to actual rates of unemployment. And they rarely report KIND of employment.

Deficit:

1995 = $232B (represented 9.4% of total government expenditures)

2007 = $399B (represented 8.7% of total government expenditures)

Check out CBOs Deficit tracker. I'll put the numbers below.

Disposable personal income:

1995 = $22,153 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 1994

2007 = $28,614 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 2006

Again, subject to market factors that include inflation, cost of living, and greater increases for rich households that do not cancel out an increasing population earning less. Numerically, the averages follow the increasing trend, but the absolute numbers are not spoken for.

Personal savings rate:

1995 = 4.6%

2007 = 0.6%

Hence my previous statement. There are more earners, yes. Making less- MUCH less, compared to the few that are at the pinnacle earning LOTS more.

I point this out as 1995 was widely seen as a good economic year leading up to the election the following year. Made for an easy victory for Clinton. Who told us it was a good year? The media. 2007 in most aspects is very similar. It is widely seen as a bad economic year leading up to an election year. Who is telling us it is a bad year? The media.

People are. Less savings implies an individual decrease in available assets for injecting into the market.

The personal savings rate is down due to substantial increases in personal spending. My initial thought, it must be energy. Reality is it is durable goods. Spending on both non-durable goods and services have increased (in inflation adjusted dollars) by about 50% between 1995 and 2007. Durable goods spending is up almost 250%. Americans are saving less and spending it on cars, furniture, electronics, etc. We want to consume more, but blame the economy (and therefore the government) for not meeting this want.

While Americans are making less compared to higher salaries. Hence the slice of income going to a consumer habit is larger. Of course, we overspend. By how much? A lot. But to blame that solely as a primary cause agent for such a large discrepancy between 4.6% of the population vs 0.6% is a very large leap of faith that things are doing 'OK.' Which they are not.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

As per CBO Budget deficit:

Reagan 1981-1988

Deficit of $79B increasing to $155B

(Carter's Budget went from $54B to $74B)

Bush Sr 1989-1992

Deficit of $153 to $290B

Clinton 1993-2000

Deficit of $255B to a Surplus of $236B

Bush Jr 2001-2008

Surplus of $128B to a Deficit of $162 in 2007)

The numbers do not lie.

[rin and john 71]

I hinted at type of employment making a much larger impact for tax purposes. Its obvious that on the personal side, one lives better off of a steady job working (and earning more) as a financial representative in a Bank than as a CSA at a retail store.

As I also stated, there are more taxpayers now than before.

Hence: (in bold)

Some interesting pieces of data:

Unemployment rate:

1995 = 5.6%

2007 = 4.6%

Government statistics vary as to actual rates of unemployment. And they rarely report KIND of employment.

I quoted the Bureau of Labor - http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf for civilian, non-institutional employment. The most widely referenced number. The same website has limited data on industry, race, sex, etc; but only the past two years.

Deficit:

1995 = $232B (represented 9.4% of total government expenditures)

2007 = $399B (represented 8.7% of total government expenditures)

Check out CBOs Deficit tracker. I'll put the numbers below.

Disposable personal income:

1995 = $22,153 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 1994

2007 = $28,614 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 2006

Again, subject to market factors that include inflation, cost of living, and greater increases for rich households that do not cancel out an increasing population earning less. Numerically, the averages follow the increasing trend, but the absolute numbers are not spoken for.

The numbers above are inflation adjusted and represent per capita income. So a family of two had $44,000 in 1995 and $57,000 in 2007 - adjusted for inflation. These are average incomes, a more telling number would be a median or data on the number of individuals below the poverty level. As of 2007, the poverty rate for families was 9.8. In 1995, the poverty rate for families was 10.8.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.xls

The poor and near poor percentages are also lower in 2007 versus 1995. So rich people may be better off (speculation - no data), but the percentage of households living in poverty or near poverty has declined.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.xls

Personal savings rate:

1995 = 4.6%

2007 = 0.6%

Hence my previous statement. There are more earners, yes. Making less- MUCH less, compared to the few that are at the pinnacle earning LOTS more.

I don't agree they are making less. They are spending more.

I point this out as 1995 was widely seen as a good economic year leading up to the election the following year. Made for an easy victory for Clinton. Who told us it was a good year? The media. 2007 in most aspects is very similar. It is widely seen as a bad economic year leading up to an election year. Who is telling us it is a bad year? The media.

People are. Less savings implies an individual decrease in available assets for injecting into the market.

People are because they are lemmings and believe the media too much. The sky is falling....

I agree they have less available assets because their rate of consumption is outpacing their rate of wealth generation.

The personal savings rate is down due to substantial increases in personal spending. My initial thought, it must be energy. Reality is it is durable goods. Spending on both non-durable goods and services have increased (in inflation adjusted dollars) by about 50% between 1995 and 2007. Durable goods spending is up almost 250%. Americans are saving less and spending it on cars, furniture, electronics, etc. We want to consume more, but blame the economy (and therefore the government) for not meeting this want.

While Americans are making less compared to higher salaries. Hence the slice of income going to a consumer habit is larger. Of course, we overspend. By how much? A lot. But to blame that solely as a primary cause agent for such a large discrepancy between 4.6% of the population vs 0.6% is a very large leap of faith that things are doing 'OK.' Which they are not.

The increased spending levels are relative basis, 1995 to 2007, not a percent of income. An increase of 50% on durable goods would have been reasonable, given the increase in non-durable and service spending. 250% is gluttony for cars, furniture, electronics, etc.

The numbers are savings rates per person, not as a percentage of the population. I would bet the savings rates for high income earners is down more significantly than the average american. Those with investments have lost substantial amounts. That has contributed to lower "savings" data. For example, if Joe makes $40,000 per year and saves $1,000 per year that's a savings rate of 2.5%. Nine Joes save $9,000 per year. Bob may have made $150,000 but had $1,000,000 invested in his 401K and lost $100,000 during any down year (10% market drop). So the ten of them made $510,000 total and had negative savings of $91,000 for the year (approximately an 18% loss in savings).

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

As per CBO Budget deficit:

Reagan 1981-1988

Deficit of $79B increasing to $155B

(Carter's Budget went from $54B to $74B)

Bush Sr 1989-1992

Deficit of $153 to $290B

Clinton 1993-2000

Deficit of $255B to a Surplus of $236B

Bush Jr 2001-2008

Surplus of $128B to a Deficit of $162 in 2007)

The numbers do not lie.

Agree, they don't. But taken out of context they can say anything we want. Clinton inherited a deficit that was shrinking when he took over in 1993. Similarly, in 2000 the economy was slowing and the surplus was beginning to diminish. Timing is everything. Even the past few years, the deficit is decreasing, which is why becoming president now is a recipe for eight years as the economy will most likely be in a cyclical upturn from 2009 to 2011.

[IAMX 3,055]

Some interesting pieces of data:

Unemployment rate:

1995 = 5.6%

2007 = 4.6%

Deficit:

1995 = $232B (represented 9.4% of total government expenditures)

2007 = $399B (represented 8.7% of total government expenditures)

Disposable personal income:

1995 = $22,153 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 1994

2007 = $28,614 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 2006

Personal savings rate:

1995 = 4.6%

2007 = 0.6%

I point this out as 1995 was widely seen as a good economic year leading up to the election the following year. Made for an easy victory for Clinton. Who told us it was a good year? The media. 2007 in most aspects is very similar. It is widely seen as a bad economic year leading up to an election year. Who is telling us it is a bad year? The media.

The personal savings rate is down due to substantial increases in personal spending. My initial thought, it must be energy. Reality is it is durable goods. Spending on both non-durable goods and services have increased (in inflation adjusted dollars) by about 50% between 1995 and 2007. Durable goods spending is up almost 250%. Americans are saving less and spending it on cars, furniture, electronics, etc. We want to consume more, but blame the economy (and therefore the government) for not meeting this want.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

Huh? Americans are spending excessive money on hospital bills, credit debt, stupid adjustable rate mortgages. Not to mention in 1995, in terms of the cycle of money, quite a bit more of it was actually staying within the country, which ultimately benefits this economy and these workers.

[rin and john 71]

Some interesting pieces of data:

Unemployment rate:

1995 = 5.6%

2007 = 4.6%

Deficit:

1995 = $232B (represented 9.4% of total government expenditures)

2007 = $399B (represented 8.7% of total government expenditures)

Disposable personal income:

1995 = $22,153 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 1994

2007 = $28,614 per capita (in 2000 dollars - adjusted for inflation) - a 2.8% YOY increase over 2006

Personal savings rate:

1995 = 4.6%

2007 = 0.6%

I point this out as 1995 was widely seen as a good economic year leading up to the election the following year. Made for an easy victory for Clinton. Who told us it was a good year? The media. 2007 in most aspects is very similar. It is widely seen as a bad economic year leading up to an election year. Who is telling us it is a bad year? The media.

The personal savings rate is down due to substantial increases in personal spending. My initial thought, it must be energy. Reality is it is durable goods. Spending on both non-durable goods and services have increased (in inflation adjusted dollars) by about 50% between 1995 and 2007. Durable goods spending is up almost 250%. Americans are saving less and spending it on cars, furniture, electronics, etc. We want to consume more, but blame the economy (and therefore the government) for not meeting this want.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...&JavaBox=no

Huh? Americans are spending excessive money on hospital bills, credit debt, stupid adjustable rate mortgages. Not to mention in 1995, in terms of the cycle of money, quite a bit more of it was actually staying within the country, which ultimately benefits this economy and these workers.

Hospital bills? Doubtful this as reduced the savings rate 4% as more than 70% of the population has healthcare coverage.

Credit debt? Largely incurred to buy durable goods, many to satisfy wants and not needs. A little self control by the American people would allow for a higher savings rate

ARM's? Many of these were home equity loans or used to allow an individual to purchase a home he could otherwise not have afforded. Overbuy, incur debt, blame the economy/politicians. Great strategy for shirking personal responsibility.

Cycle of money? Got data? American companies' ability to export right now is better than in 1995 due to FX rates. Also, due to FX rates less capital leaves the USA (foreign assets are more expensive when the dollar is weak).

Without data, just opinions.....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Income for most Americans declined while the economy expanded. A first in recorded US history. And probably not the least important factor on the economic situation we find ourselves in today. Trickle down didn't work. Not last time and not this time. The GOP will probably never learn that lesson but trickle down economics is what George H. W. Bush labeled it: voodoo economics.

R-

The Heritage Foundation says the economy improved under GWB.

It did. The GDP grew, corporate profits grew, top tier incomes grew dramatically. Most Americans, however, saw their income decline.