McCain camp revs up the lies

[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.

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.....

Obama didn't tell anyone anything. The census bureau data gives it away. Median household income has declined for the first time during an economic expansion cycle. As a whole, incomes grew. I never disputed that. Problem is that most Americans haven't seen their incomes grow but shrink. The few have seen all the larger increases in their takes which makes it look like we're all doing better. Average figures don't tell a useful story when the income gap widens as significantly as it has under King George.

[GaryC 7]

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.....

Obama didn't tell anyone anything. The census bureau data gives it away. Median household income has declined for the first time during an economic expansion cycle. As a whole, incomes grew. I never disputed that. Problem is that most Americans haven't seen their incomes grow but shrink. The few have seen all the larger increases in their takes which makes it look like we're all doing better. Average figures don't tell a useful story when the income gap widens as significantly as it has under King George.

This old BS again? You know why wages didn't go up? Not because you and I didn't get raises,(I got my biggest raise increases over the last 8 years) but because of the 10 million illegal aliens working for low wages. They dragged down the average or worse caused the lower income people to take lower wages to compete with the illegals. Your trotting out of that stat is old hat and isn't accurate in the real world.

[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.

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.....

Obama didn't tell anyone anything. The census bureau data gives it away. Median household income has declined for the first time during an economic expansion cycle. As a whole, incomes grew. I never disputed that. Problem is that most Americans haven't seen their incomes grow but shrink. The few have seen all the larger increases in their takes which makes it look like we're all doing better. Average figures don't tell a useful story when the income gap widens as significantly as it has under King George.

This old BS again? You know why wages didn't go up? Not because you and I didn't get raises,(I got my biggest raise increases over the last 8 years) but because of the 10 million illegal aliens working for low wages. They dragged down the average or worse caused the lower income people to take lower wages to compete with the illegals. Your trotting out of that stat is old hat and isn't accurate in the real world.

Nonsense, Gary. We've had expansions where the bottom of the pack didn't see any benefit. This time, it's the middle income range that didn't get to participate in the boom. That's a problem. The median income got stuck at an inflation adjusted 61K (actually decreased slightly to 60.5K) from 2000 - 2007. The income gap is widening. Even you ought to be able to see that.

[GaryC 7]

Nonsense, Gary. We've had expansions where the bottom of the pack didn't see any benefit. This time, it's the middle income range that didn't get to participate in the boom. That's a problem. The median income got stuck at an inflation adjusted 61K (actually decreased slightly to 60.5K) from 2000 - 2007. The income gap is widening. Even you ought to be able to see that.

Really? Your graph shows median income. If you add 10 million to the bottom and add to that the downward pressure of the low income people competing for those jobs just what do you think will happen? It's simple math.

[jundp 191]

Wait..isn't this about sex ed?

Why all the boring graphs and data?

[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.....

Obama didn't tell anyone anything. The census bureau data gives it away. Median household income has declined for the first time during an economic expansion cycle. As a whole, incomes grew. I never disputed that. Problem is that most Americans haven't seen their incomes grow but shrink. The few have seen all the larger increases in their takes which makes it look like we're all doing better. Average figures don't tell a useful story when the income gap widens as significantly as it has under King George.

This old BS again? You know why wages didn't go up? Not because you and I didn't get raises,(I got my biggest raise increases over the last 8 years) but because of the 10 million illegal aliens working for low wages. They dragged down the average or worse caused the lower income people to take lower wages to compete with the illegals. Your trotting out of that stat is old hat and isn't accurate in the real world.

Nonsense, Gary. We've had expansions where the bottom of the pack didn't see any benefit. This time, it's the middle income range that didn't get to participate in the boom. That's a problem. The median income got stuck at an inflation adjusted 61K (actually decreased slightly to 60.5K) from 2000 - 2007. The income gap is widening. Even you ought to be able to see that.

I agree with Gary. Not only do you have more illegals entering the market and depressing wages, more high wage earners are either leaving the market or taking part time/lower income jobs in the market as baby boomers are retiring. The 65 yr old, 30 - 40 yrs of service guy making $60,000/yr retires. He is replaced by someone in their 30's or 40's making $40,000/yr. The 65 yr old then goes to be a Walmart greeter and gets $30,000/yr.

Also, 2007 may not be the "peak" in your graph. Cut any of the cycles off early and they would have been less or negative, as well.

[symbiosis 0]

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.

And that's just "business as usual" -- something the GOP very much favors. Don't forget that those illegal workers are here because business desires low-cost workers. Seventy-five percent of those illegal workers pay income taxes and payroll taxes. They contribute $7 billion a year in social security contributions alone -- for benefits they will never receive.

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.....

Obama didn't tell anyone anything. The census bureau data gives it away. Median household income has declined for the first time during an economic expansion cycle. As a whole, incomes grew. I never disputed that. Problem is that most Americans haven't seen their incomes grow but shrink. The few have seen all the larger increases in their takes which makes it look like we're all doing better. Average figures don't tell a useful story when the income gap widens as significantly as it has under King George.

This old BS again? You know why wages didn't go up? Not because you and I didn't get raises,(I got my biggest raise increases over the last 8 years) but because of the 10 million illegal aliens working for low wages. They dragged down the average or worse caused the lower income people to take lower wages to compete with the illegals. Your trotting out of that stat is old hat and isn't accurate in the real world.

Nonsense, Gary. We've had expansions where the bottom of the pack didn't see any benefit. This time, it's the middle income range that didn't get to participate in the boom. That's a problem. The median income got stuck at an inflation adjusted 61K (actually decreased slightly to 60.5K) from 2000 - 2007. The income gap is widening. Even you ought to be able to see that.

I agree with Gary. Not only do you have more illegals entering the market and depressing wages, more high wage earners are either leaving the market or taking part time/lower income jobs in the market as baby boomers are retiring. The 65 yr old, 30 - 40 yrs of service guy making $60,000/yr retires. He is replaced by someone in their 30's or 40's making $40,000/yr. The 65 yr old then goes to be a Walmart greeter and gets $30,000/yr.

Also, 2007 may not be the "peak" in your graph. Cut any of the cycles off early and they would have been less or negative, as well.

[symbiosis 0]

And that's just "business as usual" -- something the GOP very much favors. Don't forget that those illegal workers are here because business desires low-cost workers. Seventy-five percent of those illegal workers pay income taxes and payroll taxes. They contribute $7 billion a year in social security contributions alone -- for benefits they will never receive.

[kaydee457 13]

Desert- there's lots of young liberals in this forum that'll make great conservatives when they grow up. That's been the trend for many years......

On Topic- Since when is it incumbent on the government to legislate sex-ed on preschool babies? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It's just another example of the snooty liberals usurping parents by imposing their beliefs on family.....for of course as they've demonstrated in the past, only liberals possess the lofty intuitive knowledge and insight to "lead" the masses.

Kindergarten needs to stick with reading, writing, and arithmetic, and some playtime.......

Lastly, I ponder the fate of this forum after the McCain/Palin win in November......It isn't going to be a repeat of 2004, is it peeps?

Liberals seem to be particularly rabid when they lose, or as recently demonstrated by their reaction and hence behavior towards Palin, when they feel challenged by superior intellect.

It's not going to be that overly bitter experience here in this forum again, is it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You seem particularly fond the rabid diatribes yourself, sir.

[rclouse 0]

Maybe we should take our lead from the candidates today and not campaign on this sad anniversary.

But I have to correct this...

On Topic- Since when is it incumbent on the government to legislate sex-ed on preschool babies? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It's just another example of the snooty liberals usurping parents by imposing their beliefs on family.....for of course as they've demonstrated in the past, only liberals possess the lofty intuitive knowledge and insight to "lead" the masses.

Kindergarten needs to stick with reading, writing, and arithmetic, and some playtime.......

The "sex-ed for kindergarteners" was to be decided by the states, and the intention was for the kids to know what to do if someone tries to abduct them or touch them in their "private area". But of course the Republican reality distortion field is in effect, so....

If it's not OK for snooty liberals to impose their beliefs on kids, then neither is it OK for conservative Xtians to do the same. And we have a law that specifically proscribes that, I believe it's called the "Constitution". Which Dear Leader W. has said is "just a piece of paper".

[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.

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.

If you notice the numbers that range Bush Sr's years in office, that is hardly a shrink in deficit. If anything, its a rise.

We could speculate as to people's consumer habits... which would miss entirely the government's take on its plunder of our children's money. I guess you could argue that as the increasing number of taxpayers continues with time (natural phenomenon due to population growth), so does the absolute value of money spent within the economy- which if you compare it to the amount of money spent by the increasing monetary value of the rich (that not surprisingly doesn't increase in parallel in numbers of individuals) to the natural rise in population. And therefore give you the impression that people are outspending their savings.

And it could make some sense, given that since the number of individuals in poverty or hovering above it are 'not more now than they were before.' Unfortunately for that model, it is not the only factor defining poverty. Inflation adds, and so does the rise in the cost of living.

Obviously if consumers spent less in this economy, individual savings would increase. Specially in those sectors where people earn less to spend. However, since that would mean such a large segment of the population, that would mean that the consumer market in this country would begin to downsize its workforce. And that has been happening. Creating more unemployed. Which is occuring. Soon the numbers will catch up and things will not look as great as they did 'last year.'

That says a lot.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.....

I think he was referring to domestic income capital leaving the US. While ironically corporate profits do not. And corporate profits can easily be tied in to per capita income rates since for the most part, shareholders are individuals earning money in the US. The disparity grows.

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.

EXACTLY!

Wait..isn't this about sex ed?

Why all the boring graphs and data?

Well illegals got blamed.

[kaydee457 13]

Maybe we should take our lead from the candidates today and not campaign on this sad anniversary.

But I have to correct this...

On Topic- Since when is it incumbent on the government to legislate sex-ed on preschool babies? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It's just another example of the snooty liberals usurping parents by imposing their beliefs on family.....for of course as they've demonstrated in the past, only liberals possess the lofty intuitive knowledge and insight to "lead" the masses.

Kindergarten needs to stick with reading, writing, and arithmetic, and some playtime.......

The "sex-ed for kindergarteners" was to be decided by the states, and the intention was for the kids to know what to do if someone tries to abduct them or touch them in their "private area". But of course the Republican reality distortion field is in effect, so....

If it's not OK for snooty liberals to impose their beliefs on kids, then neither is it OK for conservative Xtians to do the same. And we have a law that specifically proscribes that, I believe it's called the "Constitution". Which Dear Leader W. has said is "just a piece of paper".

Government's role, whether decided by the States or not, is not to take on parental roles. We see too much of this kind of BS lately with the liberal push to legitimize gay lifestyles as well as "teaching" sex-ed to children.

These are mommy and daddy's responsibility..........

You seem particularly fond the rabid diatribes yourself, sir.

Yes, I am....thanks for noticing!

[panamania79 2]

Wait..isn't this about sex ed?

Why all the boring graphs and data?

Yeah,graphs are BORING !