Wednesday, November 24, 2004

US Dollar in Deep Doo Doo?

Check out this piece from former Labor Secretary Robert Riech, which reads in part:

Nearly all of the increase in public debt over the last four years -- some 1 trillion dollars -- has been financed by foreigners, lending us the money. But who wants to lend more and more to a drunken sailor? Foreigners are bailing out of dollars. Even the Chinese and Japanese, who have kept lending so we’ll keep buying their exports, are starting to wise up.

And in fact, the Wall Street Journal just had a big article last week on how Chinese citizens are trying to convert the dollars they once hoarded back into their own currency.

Uh oh.

Which points up one of the fallacies of the tax-cutting principles: that the wealthy who benefit will re-invest in the US economy. In fact, right now the US economy is not the best place to invest. People are putting their money in overseas banks; buying real estate abroad; and generally diversifying their portfolio right out of the US of A...

83 Comments:

At 12:43 PM, Blogger Charles Edward Mann said...

Krugman and Riech have it right--we're in for on hell of an economic ride in the near future. George Bush is ruining 50 years of social and economic progress and taking us with him.

 
At 12:47 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Well that's one way you could put it I suppose. Allow me to apply some perspective.

The deficit is roughly 450 Billion dollars. That's about 3% of an 11.5 trillion dollar GDP. So, if the USA was a person, that's the same as being $3,333.00 in debt if you make a little over $100,000.00 a year. THEN, you have to factor that our GDP grows lightning fast compared to any groups of 10 other countries combined, roughly another 3%. This means that our GDP will grow by the 450 billion dollars in a single year. Most homeowners are well over 100 thousand in debt making less than 30,000 a year. In short, don't worry about the deficit.

Yes, other countries need for us to increase the value of the dollar. This is because their socialized economies only seem to work provided they have this huge buyer in the west. If our dollar decreases, it puts them in peril, but increases sales of domestic goods which is good for us, not to mention the deflation is a back-door raise for workers.

Next, we are going through a large and unprecedented transition which is going to be at the largest expense to the U.S. which is going to be uncomfortable for us. Now with the advent of satellites, fed-ex, real-time communications and the internet, business management can now be handled globally. Outsourcing is here to stay because the same thing we get paid $10 an hour for plus government imposed benefits making employees roughly $16 an hour cost to a company, can do for about $3 a DAY in India or Malaysia. It's really no contest. This epoch if you will is going to depressurize the wealth within America by diffusion. Other countries are going to gain jobs, increase productivity, become less dependant on the dollar. While this happens, working conditions will be raised for their workers and eventually there will be more competition. This may take a while. Meanwhile back home, most of the companies that can afford this global transition are the large conglomerates. This is going to pave the way for small businesses to once again reign supreme for a while in the U.S. These time-frames are on the order of basically half-century or so.

Right now, the definition of an outsourcer is a company that is headquartered in the U.S., pays U.S. taxes, and shifts production overseas. A company such as G.E. does not HAVE to be headquartered in the U.S. Many of these underprivelaged countries have a heavy burden of unemployed drawing on the system. They are happy to give these corporations tax-free status for long periods or indefinitely for the favor of employing thousands. It sucks but its here to stay and fiscal policy has to address this in a way that doesn't push corporations away.

All of this is why now is not a good time to try to raise living standards of American workers. Making them more expensive means companies can purchase less of them, in an environment where its not profitable to buy us at all considering the overseas feasibility of our new era.

Scared? Probably should be. Government needs to keep their taxes low and shift as much funding as possible into higher education, and we need to be taking advantage of it as soon as possible. Our new economy is largely a service economy anyway. Leather, Coal, Iron are not terms of the future. Best bet is to seek education in high services, medical, obscure equipment repair, etc...

We are not going to be the brunt of the world any longer, we are going to have to become the brains.

 
At 4:36 PM, Blogger Rob Mortimer said...

On the one hand its good for importing to the UK.

On the other I am very very scared for my friends in the US right now. If Bush carries on the way he has, he will leave a bankrupt America, both morally and financially.

 
At 6:12 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

LOL... Bush would need at least 10 more terms and begin raising taxes on companies as an incentive to stop outsourcing (can't even believe I brought myself to say that) to put us in the U.K.'s shoes. Be mad about Iraq, at least there's some wiggle room there for opinion.

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger Easleycrat said...

A few comments.

First off...why would the Chinese pull out of American dollars and convert to their own currency when that currency is tied to the American dollar (that is a problem all unto itself).

The declining value of the dollar is a HUGE problem for America. A massive portion of our debt is financed by foreigners. The current account deficit is spiraling our of control. If they lose their faith in the future viability of the US economy (and international bodies have warned about our excessive borrowing) then interest rates will jack up - thus hamstringing the economy.

 
At 6:02 PM, Blogger PuzzledPatriot said...

CleverCynic- Your arguments would give me comfort if the deficit were just $450 billion. But that's not the whole picture. Bush's spending and tax cuts are projected to lead to trillions of dollars of deficit. To extend your mortgage analogy, that's like buying a money pit, ending up spending THOUSANDS of times the cost of your home on repairs. That IS something to worry about.

 
At 8:58 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

P.P. I don't see it. The supplement was originally returned to the people in the form of a one-time check. The tax cuts and programs were designed for zero sum, not a deficit. The costs associated with 9/11 and Iraq is almost dollar for dollar the deficit. In fact the 4 FL hurricanes and all of homeland security implementation did not even contribute to it. The 3% rise in GDP will only contribute to reducing the deficit with no change in spending, and there have already been cuts for next year. I actually think the deficit payoff is too aggressive considering U.S.A as a lone entity. I'm someone's kid too and so are you, we don't need to be paying for it all at once either. It is only to stabilize the world economy that there is any pressure to do it at all this aggressively.

And Easley, the other countries that have voiced concerns about lending to the U.S. just don't like the reason we're borrowing it. It's more political than economical. The U.S. economy is always the best risk. They will probably also invest more in India and Malaysia as well, sort of like junk bonds because they will more than likely rapidly increase over the next 20 years with the outsourcing. Even Theresa Heinz was no idiot when it came to business. Politics is another thing altogether.

 
At 9:15 AM, Blogger JimBlog said...

maybe the u.s. dollar needs to mege with canada, mexico and south america to create a single currency.

many us dollars are migrating south of the border anyway

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Yikes!

 
At 11:17 AM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

Please murging our dollars would be a disaster. Here in California millions of $ are sent back to Mexico. U.S. money makes the world go round. The Europeon Union is gathered to strengthen their dollar against ours. Let's face it everybody wants to be like us, what does that say about us. Nothin but good. As far as our morals being set back by Bush. He is trying to wake up americans to realize the good morals mean clean living and a more honest society. Our society has worsened because we have set aside good morals for the need to do as we please lifestyle. A return to good "morals" will have more people thinking of the good of all not just me,me,me.Lastly without a top-notch approach to education we will develop into a consumer society that in the long run may collapse on itself. That will take a while to happen though.

 
At 11:17 AM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

Please murging our dollars would be a disaster. Here in California millions of $ are sent back to Mexico. U.S. money makes the world go round. The Europeon Union is gathered to strengthen their dollar against ours. Let's face it everybody wants to be like us, what does that say about us. Nothin but good. As far as our morals being set back by Bush. He is trying to wake up americans to realize the good morals mean clean living and a more honest society. Our society has worsened because we have set aside good morals for the need to do as we please lifestyle. A return to good "morals" will have more people thinking of the good of all not just me,me,me.Lastly without a top-notch approach to education we will develop into a consumer society that in the long run may collapse on itself. That will take a while to happen though.

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

Please murging our dollars would be a disaster. Here in California millions of $ are sent back to Mexico. U.S. money makes the world go round. The Europeon Union is gathered to strengthen their dollar against ours. Let's face it everybody wants to be like us, what does that say about us. Nothin but good. As far as our morals being set back by Bush. He is trying to wake up americans to realize the good morals mean clean living and a more honest society. Our society has worsened because we have set aside good morals for the need to do as we please lifestyle. A return to good "morals" will have more people thinking of the good of all not just me,me,me.Lastly without a top-notch approach to education we will develop into a consumer society that in the long run may collapse on itself. That will take a while to happen though.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

oops. Joe Caggiano

 
At 12:32 AM, Blogger I Hate Blogs said...

Economy talk makes my brain hurt.

 
At 7:39 AM, Blogger Zedd said...

This is more in response to Joe Caggiano than to the deep doo doo issue.
If you honestly think that "all of us" outside of the USA want to be like you, then I suggest you take a reality pill and spend more time in prayer for enlightenment. As to your "Bush imposing better morals" issue, that guy is so heavenly minded he is no earthly good. Since when has spilling the blood of innocent women and children constituted christian principals. Who gives you the right to say that your god is right and others are wrong? Remember one thing, for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and I honestly would not like to be in your shoes when all the "doo-doo" starts hitting the fan for real in the "good ol' US of A.
While I'm on my soap box, I notice your government is quick to point out the illegality of "other" countries elections but choose to ignore the blatant fraud that but your dearly beloved Bush into power in the first (and now second) place. In light of the above, I am sure you can understand why all of us who want to be like you think of you as warmongers, bullies and frauds hiding behind the frayed veil of christianity.

 
At 10:09 AM, Blogger Michael Gorsuch said...

Would it be too much to suggest that the US may be better of shrinking government spending as much as possible, cut taxes for companies that product products, and to lift trade restrictions?

At this point in time, it is estimated that goods produced by companies within the United States cost around 23%-25% more due to taxes that must be paid on each component, machinery, etc. By removing this burden, would business not be able to compete better abroad, thus reducing our trade deficit, thus strengthening the dollar?

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is this - ?

 
At 2:47 AM, Blogger Oily Messter said...

I've been following the dollar's adventures at my blog, Oil War. The biggest shoe waiting to drop, I think, is that the oil states are probably getting sick of the US's support for Israel and anti-Muslim racism. When they shift to Euros, the dollar is going to be permanently shot. I think Russia is already starting to do some oil sales or swaps in Euros. That at least was the hint in last week's WSJ article. But what do I know, I'm no economist. Take a look at my blog and see what you think.

 
At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

I'd like to contend that CleverCynic is missing the point about deficits. It's true that America's debt of $450 billion in one year is not as much as it sounds in terms relative to the size of the U.S. economy, but $450 billion is merely the amount Bush added to the debt in one single financial year: 2003/4. The true figure for America's total DEBT was reported in 2003 (the latest figure I could find) at $3913.6 billion (yes, nearly $4 trillion, or 36% of GDP), and of course this figure rises for every year that the American economy is in deficit. Every year that Bush fails to balance the budget (and he has failed by successively more each year he has been in office so far, as that is what happens when you increase spending and cut government revenue in the form of taxes) America's debt increases, and the country's economic future looks more unsteady; eventually those foreign governments like China's will start to call in the debts.
CleverCynic, I am no America hater, I'm not trying to bring down what I believe to be a great country. But unfortunately this is something Americans should be genuinely concerned about; that Bush's economic policy will in the long term be disatrous for America is not anti-American, pro-socialist conjecture, it is quantifiable fact, but of course people vote according to the money they have in their pockets now, and so Bush's tax cuts help secure him re-election. It's not even possible to blame Congress for this one: the tax cuts of the last 2 years were Bush's baby. Shame on the Republican Congress for passing them though, as they are supposed to be the party of fiscal discipline.

 
At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

I'd like to contend that CleverCynic is missing the point about deficits. It's true that America's debt of $450 billion in one year is not as much as it sounds in terms relative to the size of the U.S. economy, but $450 billion is merely the amount Bush added to the debt in one single financial year: 2003/4. The true figure for America's total DEBT was reported in 2003 (the latest figure I could find) at $3913.6 billion (yes, nearly $4 trillion, or 36% of GDP), and of course this figure rises for every year that the American economy is in deficit. Every year that Bush fails to balance the budget (and he has failed by successively more each year he has been in office so far, as that is what happens when you increase spending and cut government revenue in the form of taxes) America's debt increases, and the country's economic future looks more unsteady; eventually those foreign governments like China's will start to call in the debts.
CleverCynic, I am no America hater, I'm not trying to bring down what I believe to be a great country. But unfortunately this is something Americans should be genuinely concerned about; that Bush's economic policy will in the long term be disatrous for America is not anti-American, pro-socialist conjecture, it is quantifiable fact, but of course people vote according to the money they have in their pockets now, and so Bush's tax cuts help secure him re-election. It's not even possible to blame Congress for this one: the tax cuts of the last 2 years were Bush's baby. Shame on the Republican Congress for passing them though, as they are supposed to be the party of fiscal discipline.

 
At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

oops, sorry.

By the way, please visit my new blog at http://unitedstate.blogspot.com/.

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Kelly said...

You all can blame Bush as much as you want, but our economy has been doing poorly for years and years and years. Bush is only blamable because he's the president and no one likes how strong his convictions are. Clinton is more to blame for the economy then Bush. Yes, it is a pitty that the US dollor is not as valuable to other countries as it once was, but because of all the war going on, pretty much everyones economy is going through some changes. And yes, we do rely of foreign income WAY too much, but its been like that basically since the start of this country. We rely on foreign money, yeah its a problem, but nothing thats gonna really change how we live or anything. I read an aricle in Newsweek like a month or two ago, that said we rely less on foreign money today then we did 30 years ago, and our economy is actually in better shape since Bush took office almost four years ago. If any of you have problems with Bush and how he runs this country, well your gonna have to get over it because he IS president for a second term. Stop whining about what wrong with the world and go try to fix it, try and make a difference instead of just talking about it. Complainings great, but it doesn't change anything. So get off of your computers and go make a difference, and THEN blog about it. And yes, i did just use blog as a verb.
Go and make a difference

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Kelly said...

You all can blame Bush as much as you want, but our economy has been doing poorly for years and years and years. Bush is only blamable because he's the president and no one likes how strong his convictions are. Clinton is more to blame for the economy then Bush. Yes, it is a pitty that the US dollor is not as valuable to other countries as it once was, but because of all the war going on, pretty much everyones economy is going through some changes. And yes, we do rely of foreign income WAY too much, but its been like that basically since the start of this country. We rely on foreign money, yeah its a problem, but nothing thats gonna really change how we live or anything. I read an aricle in Newsweek like a month or two ago, that said we rely less on foreign money today then we did 30 years ago, and our economy is actually in better shape since Bush took office almost four years ago. If any of you have problems with Bush and how he runs this country, well your gonna have to get over it because he IS president for a second term. Stop whining about what wrong with the world and go try to fix it, try and make a difference instead of just talking about it. Complainings great, but it doesn't change anything. So get off of your computers and go make a difference, and THEN blog about it. And yes, i did just use blog as a verb.
Go and make a difference

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Kelly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

Kelly,

I'm not blaming Bush for all America's problems. Indeed, as you say, America in relative terms has very few problems. However, I do think his economic policy is misguided, and I don't dislike him because of his 'strong convictions'. In fact, that's about the only thing I do like about him.

In terms of Clinton's record, let's return to the facts. Budget data attests to the fact that, throughout the 90s, the deficit shrunk and shrunk until in 1998, for the first time since 1969, there was an actual budget surplus, that could be used to pay off the debt. This surplus increased up to exactly the point that Cinton left office (peaking
in fiscal year 2000) at which point it started to decrease, then again became a deficit - the largest seen in the history of the world. As a consequence, America's total debt is larger now than it has ever been, and will only continue to grow larger at an ever increasing rate. So Clinton's record is actually pretty good, and don't let any conservative idealogue tell you otherwise. Remember, I'm referring to the facts, I have no vested interest in this, I just tell it as I see it. I urge you to be wary of those who don't.

Next up: "We rely on foreign money, yeah its a problem, but nothing thats gonna really change how we live or anything." I'm afraid that's incorrect. There would be no point to his discussion if none of this mattered. I know that Americans, and indeed the rest of us, find it difficult to imagine a time when America is not the strongest nation on the planet, but I assure you that time is coming, and the rise of China's population and economy will be the clearest source of the change. How you live will most definitely change. Not for those in power now, of course, for the process is likely to take longer than they have left on this earth, but the effects of their inaction now will be felt by later generations.

Finally: I have no problem with Bush being president for another 4 years. America chose. I believe Kerry was the better candidate, but that's life. However, you urge people to go and make a difference. I put it to you that it is very difficult to make a difference when so many either cannot comprehend the problem, or simply fail to acknowledge it. All this blogging is an exchange of ideas (something duly encouraged by your First Amendment) in an
attempt to raise awareness of particular issues; this one, I believe, being the most important facing America right now, as I rate the threat from international terrorism to be greatly exaggerated.

 
At 3:44 PM, Blogger Jerry said...

Well, I guess Walmart is one of the main contributors, ol Buy American Walmart now has purchased 18 BILLION in products from China alone. Outsourcing and jobs lost will continue under Bush. Maybe they just need enough rope to hang themselves, they have four years to do it!

 
At 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The left in this country seems to ignorantly justify intant gratification. The fact is that, yes, President Bush's tax cuts and corporate outsourcing policies are hurting the economy now. Yes, it may look bad on the surface. However, we must realize that it is a cycle. Corporate outsourcing has proven to not only create more domestic jobs in the long run, but also, every dollar that goes abroad in outsourcing, returns at a greater rate. For instance, every dollar outsourced to India in 2003 returned to America at the rate of $1.12. Also, tax cuts are part of a proven, consistent cycle. First, the tax cuts are sent out and the deficit and economy in general suffer because of the depleted capital. However, consumer spending will inevitably go up and more money will be invested into the economy. Increased profits will allow for increased employment rates, and the whole economy, along with job numbers, will go up. This isn't an idealistic, maybe this will happen theory either. It's been done. Reagan did it, and it didn't start to take effect until the end of the first President Bush's turn. Clinton's credited with saving the economy, but guess who it was guys...Reagan!

 
At 5:17 AM, Blogger checkitontheinside said...

I agree with the last mysterious person who blogged here. I don't know how many business owners there are out there but there is an old adage that goes you must spend money to make money. When, you start a business it takes at the very least two years for a company to even break even. So when you invest money it takes time to grow. Just like a plant, it starts as many seeds. Some plants grow well, while others don't but you always end up with lots more seeds to plant from the plants. There are all sorts of euphemisms in our culture to support this idea.... example "seed money" ect, ect.

We (Americans) are not the best thing God, however you see him/her, placed on this earth. We are young, almost child like compared to other nations. We make big mistakes, example Civil War. To think that we are is prideful. Don't get me wrong the new kid on the block is doing great but there are other nations out there with snerkit hidden stuff too. A great example of this is Iceland. Iceland has many boreholes great for producing the next fuel source.

As far as the War goes I feel the question should be did we violate the "Just War" theory? And the question you should ask your self about that is how long are we required to wait?

Iraq was our monster, we placed Sad am into power because we was worried about Iran. In the early 80's?
With that in mind, how many times to you tell your children no before you correct them? After 18 times and a major warning maybe?

Wal-Mart sux just too much focus and change of values there for me to touch but yes I am a Wal-Mart addict.

" All this blogging is an exchange of ideas (something duly encouraged by your First Amendment) in an
Attempt to raise awareness of particular issues; this one, I believe, being the most important facing America right now, as I rate the threat from international terrorism to be greatly exaggerated"

Blogging by its nature is doing something about it. Despite what some may believe, ideas are what make the world go round. I am sure also that anyone on this site actively taking an action express their ideas hates the fact that you can't talk about it where ever you go.

Joe.... do you have a twitch or something :P

Merging with Mexico, Canada, South America is a really bad idea...... we would have to completely annex them at the very least. That would be way too much money to invest right now. It would be nice though eh?

Now it is time for my Shameless Plugs. Drink your Ovelteen, shoot a silly commercial. My website is www.faithandlogic.org Come by and drop me a line I am kind of new and it is lonely their. I do have a chat room on my site too for some live debatin' action :).

 
At 6:16 AM, Blogger Henry Wallace said...

Ah...I remember when we had a $200 million dollar surplus, and the dollar was strong and we didn't have to worry about this crap.

Thanks to Bush and his free-spending ways, namely a pre-emptive war of which he has changed the reasoning at least twice, plus a crazy tax cut FOR THE RIGH when the economy took a downturn. Reaganomics...didn't work then, won't work now. The whole trickle down idea is a joke. A joke that hurts the middle class and the impoverished people in our country. If we keep having $400 billion deficits, we will eventually find ourselves in a hole we will never get out of...a hole I fear we are nearing. The unbelievable trade deficit reflects what we've known for a while and something President Bush hasn't addressed--outsourcing. Companies can live on the cheap elsewhere, with more incentive to leave and make more money outside the country.

One of the previous posts mentions the idea that we need to increase education. This is a very valid point. The United States became the most powerful country in the world because of our inventive and creative nature. We used to be ahead of everyone else, but now they've caught up. Look at Japan. Strong economy, premier technology driven nation. And they lack most major natural resources. Yet somehow they have a strong economy. We have many natural resources, but are so reliant upon other nations for things, such as oil, that we are hurting. The thing Kerry was promoting was the idea of advancing ideas of new ways of making energy. I feel we may have missed out on possible new technologies and ideas that could've meant great amounts of money for U.S. companies.

 
At 7:34 AM, Blogger D. said...

"First, the tax cuts are sent out and the deficit and economy in general suffer because of the depleted capital. However, consumer spending will inevitably go up and more money will be invested into the economy. Increased profits will allow for increased employment rates, and the whole economy, along with job numbers, will go up. This isn't an idealistic, maybe this will happen theory either. It's been done. Reagan did it, and it didn't start to take effect until the end of the first President Bush's turn. Clinton's credited with saving the economy, but guess who it was guys...Reagan!"
-------------------------------------------------------
This is partly true. Tax cuts as a form of economic stimulus do pump money into the economy, and jobs will increase; but it doesn't decrease the defecit as supply-side economists predicted.
You might not know this but Reagan supported tax INCREASES in 1982, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87 to bring down the defecit. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
Reagan didn't propose the hikes, the Democrats ran the house at the time, but he did sign them. His legacy of tax cutting isn't that he cut taxes and kept gov't spending down, he didn't. But he did talk about the need to cut taxes and spending, which is what led to the Republicans obsession with them now.

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

I despair at the state of political discourse in the United States sometimes. There is no need for this debate to be partisan - it is not a simple case of the 'left' believes one thing and the 'right' believes another. Besides, those terms are hideously mis-applied in the United States anyway (see my blog http://unitedstate.blogspot.com for details). It is a question of economics: do supply-side policies 'work' when working is defined as a general improvement in the economy (manifested in a better standard of living for Americans)? The simple answer is we don't know. Economies are influenced by many differing factors that can each determine success or failure. Even if (and I in no way concede to, or endorse, this opinion) supply-side policies were employed by Reagan, and even if they worked, that in no way guarantees that they would work now. I am a neutral, but I must admit to being a little aprehensive when people start talking in terms of certainty: 'if you cut taxes, eventually investment will increase and employment will go up'. That is speculation and each of those assertions is, as I indicated earlier, heavily dependent on other factors.
Anyway, this is all a digression from the point. Obviously, there are cases to be made both for high and low taxes, and a happy medium will always be the objective. But the issue at hand is the deficit. As someone rightly said, lowering taxes may help stimulate empoyment, but it does not reduce the deficit. Growth can help, but at the moment America is hugely dependent on outside investment to sustain itself, and that is a poor position to be in for a country with such power. She is essentially at the whim of China, and the forecast is gloomy, as China's economy continues to outstrip that of the United States.
Furthermore, the deficit can have a negative impact on employment. If outside investment fails to cover it, interest rates (already rising, as they've been ridiculously low for so long) will be forced up a huge amount. Americans will stop spending, incentives to invest will be removed, as saving becomes preferable, and employers will therefore stop taking on new employees.
I sincerely hope that the positive assertions of many on this board are not merely the result of a partisan desire to defend Republican policy, but will instead come true. However, I fear the evidence suggests the turn around of the economy is already stalling, as growth and employment should be rising much faster than they are, at this stage of a recovery.
It is true you must speculate to accumulate, but remember that when speculating, it is also possible to lose everything.

And incidentally, as a neutral, I am tired of hearing both sides desperately attempting to take the credit for the economic boom of the 90s. If the economy were booming now, Bush would be trying to take credit, so let Clinton try for his time in office. The truth is, there is little anyone, in the White House or Congress, can do to change the path of the eocnomy - outside factors beyond their control are more important. The end of the Cold War and rise of new technologies such as the internet and home computers meant it would be hard not to have a booming economy in the 90s. Likewise, 9/11 and the Iraq war have made it difficult for Bush's term. If you're looking for something to judge a president on, make it foreign policy - as this is where they can have real influence (since Congress has a very limited role in that sphere) and the results are a lot more conspicuous.

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger jomama said...

"People are putting their money in overseas banks; buying real estate abroad; and generally diversifying their portfolio right out of the US of A..."

Did that years ago along with voting with my feet.

Never regretted it.

 
At 10:42 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

Intersesting are the problems younger liberals have. Thats right because people are on one side or the other weather they realize where they are or not. Younger people always struggle and hate the establihment. It is the way of youth. They too will get older and place an investment of time or moeney in something that will grow and support a growing lifestyle then they will want the protection of their money that we seek today.
Joe Cross you could not be more wrong in saying that the president has nothing to with the economy. President Carter set horrible economic policies and when Regan reset it his way it took oh so many years for the economy to come back. Industry is always influx and has been noted on this blog, some areas of US do well others need to regroup but it is hard to do when certain industries are entrenched and unwilling to look at the future and change. Human nature is difficult to change. There is a new future that needs to be seen and Mr. Bush has the information that will chart a future that will require people to change what they are doing now to adapt to new economy. Young liberals find your place and be prosperous and you too will want to keep as much as you can too. In my opinion a conservative agenda that empowers people,then being self sufficiant and free to aspire to being the best you can be. Goverment services will always be there to help out in times of trouble. Thats what makes the US such a great country. It's a safety net not a hammok. We cannot afford those that would be happy to live off of goverment services. There are not enough taxes to be tax and would a person ever be happy in life? To those that are no longer here in the states good ridens. In the end I like the direction Bush will attempt to go but with opposition all these policies won't be implemented. All presidents have had to get around this but like president Regan. He drove his agenda hard and it made a difference. Bush is not waisting his time trying to get the left on board any longer YEAH!

 
At 7:50 AM, Blogger D. said...

"It is a question of economics: do supply-side policies 'work' when working is defined as a general improvement in the economy (manifested in a better standard of living for Americans)? The simple answer is we don't know."
--------------------------------------------------------
We do know. IT DIDN'T WORK.
Supply-Side economic theory holds that high marginal tax rates and government regulation discourage private investment in areas that fuel economic expansion, and that more capital in the hands of the private sector will "trickle down" to the rest of the population.
The first part of this is true, lower taxes and less regulation DID fuel economic expansion. The second part didn't work. There was no, "trickle-down" in the sense that such policies caused massive federal deficits, penalized the poor and middle class.
How did Supply-side economics penalize lower classes when the economy improve? Because these are the people that rely on the gov't services that get axed to fund the tax cuts.
This includes public schools, health care, (specifically, the closure of a lot of mental hospitals which put more homeless on the street, public transportation, etc. This increases the burden on the middle class. Instead of sending your kids to public school, you send them to private school, which means you have less income to spend on other things. Less public transportation and higher fares on tolls and bridges is essentially a tax HIKE on the people who have to commute everyday.
The defecit is something that also effects lower income and middle class people's wallets since more of the tax burden goes to paying for the interest on the debt and less go to services.
This is something the president can deal with directly as the first Bush and Clinton did. They raised taxes, (along with Reagan in the 80's)to keep the defecit from spiraling out of control.
Clinton's 93 tax hike on the upper-class helped pay off the defecit which helped LOWER interest rates which also leads to more investment. So you see, lowering taxes is not the only way to grow the economy, as was proved in the 90's. The subsequent tax increases under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton and the concurrent corporate investment, economic growth, and drop in unemployment during the 1990s further undercut supply-side suppositions.
The real arguement for lower taxes is a social one. As a previous blogger suggested, we have a social net not a hammock. There is a large beief by the U.S. populace that people are getting lazy living off gov't largess.

I find it interesting that a lot of the so-called conservatives today are former Democrats. Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurman, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell were all Democrats in the 1960's. It wasn't until after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that these Democrats started talking about gov't getting off the backs of the people, and too many gov't programs, etc.
Yet when the were in office they had no problem with gov't largess for their political donors or pork-barrel projects for their districts.
I wonder why they would be against gov't projects then?

 
At 9:17 AM, Blogger checkitontheinside said...

I agree...... the President does not truly have much affect on the economy. The economy is truly the sum of what we as a nation create. If we want a different fuel source we need to stop buying huge SUV's. If we want new technology become a sciencist. If we don't want outsourcing to happen buy American.

The President can only propose laws, If they pass they pass if they fail they fail. The laws created are only loose ground rules. Companys,states, and pratice truly define any law proposed by government and passed by Congress. So yeah, the president can only say no more this thing or that thing but depending on Congress states and practice and inturpitation it can come out with loop holes and all sorts of other problems. This things naturally occur when you manage many people. I embrace corrution, reconize that there is nothing I can do about it but I do not knowingly further it. Most people in their quest for the true sprit of a law do not mean to do so but it happens.

Accually, Free will is a great thing, I don't want the U.S. to become the book 1984. Where what the President says, does, and inturpites is law. People skate by the law all the time and everyone has and does even just a little; just a little is where it needs to be nothing more and nothing less. Without free-will a person is nothing but a robot.

 
At 10:40 AM, Blogger D. said...

"the President does not truly have much affect on the economy."

He does effect it though. Do you think you'd have the same tax cuts we had under a Gore administration?

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

Interesting thoughts, D. It's true what you say about Bush's tax cuts, they are undoubtedly his project, and this is something I had noticed myself. However, he could never have passed those cuts without a sympathetic Republican Congress. My point is not that the president in no way effects the economy, but rather that the effect he can have is greatly exaggerated, and the influence of other factors (including Congress and world events) is too often overlooked. Reagan presided over a Democrat legislature, so, to any conservatives: I'm afraid to support the legacy of his fiscal policy is to support the Democrats of the 1980s.

The president is often cited as responsible for anything and everything that happened in America under his watch (and, as in the case of people crediting Reagan for the boom of the 1990s, sometimes for things that happened 10 or 15 years AFTER his watch) but this is a simplistic and flawed way of viewing things.

As for what you say about supply-side economics D, I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject. I happen to agree with you: in my view supply side economic policies don't work - or at least, not for everyone. The reason I said we don't know whether they do or not in my earlier post is more an indication of how it's almost impossible to separate this debate from the partisan nature of American politics. For every commentator saying these policies don't and won't work, there's one making the exact opposite point; normally for partisan political reasons. Again, I reiterate my point that if one wants to judge the effectiveness and vision of a president, use his foreign policy, as economics is much less clear (I make this point in a recent posting on my own blog, http://unitedstate.blogspot.com/).

I would like to say that the comment 'we have a safety net, not a hammock' is an excellent one, Joe Caggiano: that has the makings of a political slogan. However, I would contend that it is still incorrect, as so many in America have no safety net, or at least an insufficient one, as D indicated so eloquently when he described the necessary cut-backs in social programs that supply-side policies lead to. America has some of the lowest tax rates in the Western world, and also more poverty than any other Westernised nation (This from the UN Development Programme: "The United States, with the second highest GDP per capita, also has the highest extent of deprivations."). Are you happy with those facts? I would rather have somewhat higher tax rates, and not have the distinction of being the wealthiest nation with the most poor people. The trouble with supply-side policies, is they lead to a huge concentration of wealth with a relatively few individuals and companies, and I happen to believe this is not a healthy state of affairs. If only human beings were blessed with a greater spirit of benevolence, we would all give willingly to those less fortunate than ourselves. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and so the government has to enforce our 'giving' through taxes. I'm no socialist, I agree that the government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible, but there is a certain level of interference necessary, on an economic level, to ensure society continues to run smoothly. The frustration I have with conervatives in America (although I agree with them on many things) is that they advocate government interference in people's personal lives (abortion, gay marriage etc) but counsel against it economically. There is no consistency in that position.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:23 PM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger D. said...

"The trouble with supply-side policies, is they lead to a huge concentration of wealth with a relatively few individuals and companies, and I happen to believe this is not a healthy state of affairs. If only human beings were blessed with a greater spirit of benevolence, we would all give willingly to those less fortunate than ourselves."
------------------------------------------------------
Benevolence isn't necessary. What is necessary is for the media to start doing their job and report how these tax cuts are not what they seem.
When Bush says he wants to pass "tax relief" that's political slogan they came up with to describe dismantling the safety net brought about by the new deal.
I'd like to see more Dems address these issues especially since the tax cuts will eventually lead to tax increases to pay off the interest on the debt.

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

All, The president does set the pace for tax and spend policies (the Gore example is sure proof of that) that will or will not produce growth in industry. He sets the pace for Congress to act on.
While our saftey is there for all who go thru the ups and downs of life. The taxpayer cannot fund the hammock for people who do not have the capacity to cope with their problems in life. We make decisions that pick our work interests and there is unemployment for a while if it does not work out. I you have no insurance and something horrible happens you will not be denied care.At least you won't wait 15 hours to get cared for as a recent Canadian caller to Rush Lindbaugh's show on tuesday related.We have set a good saftey net here folks but we can't afford all that would make everybody happy. Because whatever the benefit people want more and more and more. 5% of the wealthy pay over 52% of the taxes and 13% pay 83% of the taxes. To me maybe I do not want to get to that income level. Those people are the investment future of a future line of work for myself. I want that person to invest or begin a business for all of us to work in and be succesful so that a hammock of goverment would not be my or anyone elses goal. Will taxes on the middle class go up with a change in the taxing public Yes, and all those liberals who can't pay enough taxes can begin to pay their fair share when they have to. Of course not! They hate the rich! The rich are responsible for the job they have. Very conveluted.

 
At 8:49 PM, Blogger D. said...

Joe, your comments seem miss the facts that the taxes our what pays for the infastructure that maintains the country. Roads, bridges, schools, cops, military etc, You have to pay for these essentials by taxes and at this point we are so deep in debt as a nation that to pay off the INTEREST on the debt you're gonna have to raise taxes and cut spending so much you won't have any social net left. There are no free lunches. You want the U.S. to stay strong, you have to maintain those services that keep the country together.

 
At 10:39 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

The national debt has always been just a debt. I remember back in the Reagan era they said the debt would be the ruin of the economy. It's an old song that certain people sing when they think it's appropriate for an argument. Let's turn the whole tax equation on it's head. If we funded maybe on a state level this is more workable. If we took the 5 or 6 Top needs like Police and Fire.Roads and future infrastructure,Schools, and other top needs that we look to goverment and our tax dollars to do. I am tired of the local politition asking us for tax increases for police when that should be a first funded issue ( a regular occurance here in California).A certain level of care would be able to be funded. Then when we run out of cash so to speak. Then they can ask us for increases for additional spending and then we would vote for those social style spending ideas that legislators thrust upon us. We as a caring america we would vote for working solutions to our social prgrams but we would not move forward until there was some fiscal assesment to all programs. This could work better in state spending but there is a federal level of use for this way of thinking..... I just woke up to read what I was dreaming of..... Sigh

 
At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

"The president does set the pace for tax and spend policies...He sets the pace for Congress to act on"

Sets the pace? What does that mean? That's a comment as asinine as saying someone "shows leadership" on an issue. It's meaningless. If you mean the president can propose certain policies or intitiatives, you're absolutely right. Congress doesn't have to pass them however, and even the preident's hand can (and indeed should) be forced by world events that are beyond his control. Indeed, that's probably the fairest crticism of Bush's policies regarding tax cuts - he didn't allow world events to change his mind about them; he pushed them through anyway. He's on the record during the late 90s saying that America's economy is doing so well, the people should have a tax cut. Then, when America's economy was performing poorly, what did he recommend? Yes, tax cuts. He is unwilling to compromise on this policy, regardless of what is happening in the real world, and that, I'm afraid, is the sign of a poor president.

Also, of course the wealthiest people in the country pay a majority of the taxes, that is only right. What is wrong, is the fact that 20% of the population in the United States control 80% of the wealth (from Inequality.org: "When we take wealth, in addition to income, into consideration, the top 20% of American households control 83 percent of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80 percent of Americans control only about 17 percent of the nation's wealth"). This is the result of a tax system that is already skewed heavily in favour of the rich. The gap between rich and poor in the United States is widening, and the long-term consequences of that can only be tragic.

As for the deficit and the debt, to say they are bad for the economy is not some specious argument consistently dredged up by liberals. The reason economists keep making the point is because it happens to be true. We know this administration doesn't think so, Dick Cheney has been quoted saying that "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter", but I fear Cheney was talking in terms of politics. Politically (that is, in terms of getting elected), deficits don't matter - not enough people pay enough attention to them. And for Cheney himself, it doesn't matter because he has plenty of money and will be long gone out of office by the time it all goes wrong. The problem is that deficits and debt make America weak. If, as an individual, you are in debt to someone, you are in a very weak position, for bargaining, for trade - in any situation where you want them to do what you want. Currently that sort of relationship is developing between America and the rest of the world, especially China, and as a result this administration is weakening America. Now, you may think I'm some liberal who is glad about that, but I assure you I am not. I want a strong America, but unlike George Bush, I recognise that strength is not only measured in terms of military might. The reason I oppose Bush is not because of some partisan desire, or because I hate America, it is because I think he is bad for the country. I only hope I am wrong.

 
At 11:20 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

Don't worry you are

 
At 2:16 AM, Blogger bmac said...

The strength of the U.S. does not lie within any specific tax structure. The fact of the matter is that the changes that occur within our economy often occur in spite of our tax policy, not because of it. The 1990's brought a paper reduction of our deficit because of an economic boom that came from a "peace dividend" (we redirected military spending elsewhere after the end of the Cold War) and the tech and dotcom booms. Government tax policy might have had a modest effect in enhancing or slowing that effect. During the last term of President Clinton, when our deficits were projected to decline, our national debt increased by 589 billion dollars. You can hardly blame or reward one man for that singular occurence. Our strength lies in adapting to changing situations. Just as we moved from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society to a service economy to a tech economy we will move to the next "big thing". While we complain about outsourcing, the U.S. has been insourcing at a rate roughly three times the rate of outsourcing. That's just in job numbers. The type of jobs we insource have an average income of just over 50k per year which is around 15k more than the U.S. average. Before you celebrate, those numbers may be waning-the point is sooner or later they will change. Our ability to adapt to that change is what makes the U.S. unique. That being said, the U.S. is best served when taxes and regulations are as low as they can be. Transferring money and production to government is the best way to sap our creativity. We need reasonable taxes to support infrastructure and ensure that there is a reasonable safety net for those unable to care for themselves. To that end we fight among ourselves over whether one group should pay 33 percent or 38 percent, whether another less affluent group should pay 18 percent or 15 percent. VERY few would suggest that we should abolish all taxes, just as very few would argue that a 70 percent tax rate is reasonable. We need to remember that on this issue we (Republicans and Democrats) are not that far off in our discussions. What we need to jealously guard are changes in laws that would make us less creative, less competitive. And it might help if we were just a little less positive about how stupid and wrong the other side is.

 
At 6:45 AM, Blogger Joe Cross said...

Thanks for backing me up, bmac. That's what I've been saying all along. Helpful, reasoned, well thought out and cogent arguments like that from Joe Caggiano above ("Don't worry, you are [wrong]") depress me. That very post symbolises all that is wrong with political discourse in the U.S. right now; the inability of one side to recognise any validity in the arguments of another, and the simplistic dismissal of someone as 'wrong' with no supporting evidence presented as to why that may be the case.
There are bound to be 'sides' in any adversarial system, but as bmac points out, we're all trying to get the same result. All that I'm asking is that you think, support what you say, and don't make a frankly personal assertion of an opinion with no reference to any facts.
In all truth, that post indicates one of two things: either I touched a nerve and you fear that I'm right, or you couldn't think of a decent counter-argument. I don't believe either of those things to be the case, so don't let yourself down by making them seem so.

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger D. said...

What's so reasonable about the Republican's economic policies of shifting the tax burden from the upper class to the middle and lower class? These tax rates you're referring to are only income taxes. The vast majority of people pay all sorts of other taxes, payroll taxes, for one that are extremely regressive. The idea that the rich are less likely to work because of an increase in the income tax is a red herring. As I'm sure you know, money invested is also used to fund new enterprises and the rich don't have to live off their salaries anyway, they live off the return on their investments.
The right-wing dogma of, "taxes bad" is so simplistic since they whole economic structure is based on confidence. People invest because they think they their money will grow. Those who work hard and don't have the leeway to stomach a market correction look to the gov't to maintain a safety net or else they won't invest their money at all.
This is what happened during the depression when you had people afraid to put their money in banks after millions lost their money from bank failures. This led to the creation of the FDIC to protect up to a certain amount of money you put in a bank.
This is the lynch-pin of a modern economy.
This idea of "Transferring money and production to government is the best way to sap our creativity." is political rhetoric by Republicans. You're not transferring money and production, you're paying for services!! You're not sapping creativity, you're insuring our economy against these boom - bust cycles of unfettered capitalism.

 
At 1:22 AM, Blogger bmac said...

Well then let's make it simple- send the government all your money- they can provide everything. I'm sorry D. but the partisan hack in the bunch is you. Any idea except yours is some sort of a Republican plot. If you're not sending all of your money then what number satisfies you? 90%? 80%? How will you get that number? It is not a Republican idea to tax at the lowest rate possible. Um, I think we call it capitalism.

 
At 5:27 PM, Blogger D. said...

bmac, you ignored all the factual points i made and went straight to rhetoric, The income tax is not the only tax. It's the tax paid by the wealthiest individuals, along with the estate tax. The conservatives aren't trying to cut payroll taxes. And let's be clear; when you're running half a billion dollar deficits annually you're not cutting taxes. YOUR DEFICIT SPENDING! This is not capitalism if you're taking money for services rendered and giving it away to your campaign contributors. No matter what your dogma is, you don't get something for nothing. You want a military, clean air, clean water, police dept. highways, bridges, hospitals etc. you gotta pay for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

A few years back on Rush's TV show he showed President Kennedy in 62 (I think) talking that tax cuts and various other arguments that the republicans now pursue as a regular course of action. It was good policy then too. Did he get his way?. I'm sure the republicans fought him. D, You have to have a limit to "sevices" in goverment as the deficet spending you complain about will continue to skyrocket out of control and the end will come as you see it. The private sector will do what it does in hopes that the goverment will get a hold on thier spending. Businesses could never survive the way goverment does it's biz. I know because of the good goverment has to do in regards to a safety net they can not work the exact same way. They can however grow the "net" responsibly. I'm not happy that Bush has not met my expectation on this front. Spending is as high as it has ever been. Giving in to the Dems only empowers them to want more and more. let's cut the largess. There has not been any meaningful services cut or they would have been screeming. Joe Cross, in my opinion your wrong. Sorry, I'm all for the exchange of thoughts. I'll take the chance of setting up the chance for biz to prosper. Goverment has never turned a profit and deficet spending really began when the social net was increased in 1966 under president Johnson. You can trace that increase in goverment spending to him. It has not been fiscally administered since and all is to blame.

 
At 9:26 PM, Blogger D. said...

What you fail to recognize is these tax cuts are no longer about economic stimulus or limiting the size of gov't. They are now just payoffs to the republican campaign contributors.
As you well know, services have been cut and cut and cut for the past 20 years. Schools have been eliminating music programs and sports programs. Veteran's hospitals and benefits have been cut back. Mental hospitals have been cut. These are not frivolous pork projects we're talking about.
The rich have unfettered access to politicians because they can donate money to campaigns. That sets the legislative priority, not economic stimulus, nor belief in smaller gov't.
How many new arenas and sports stadiums have been built in the last 10 years by tax payer money while public services get cut? Over a dozen. Let me make it clear, If a team-owner buys the land and raises the money for a stadium, that's capitalism. But when we have to cut school programs and raise property taxes for a new arena with skyboxes something is wrong.
These stadiums do not provide the revenue for the counties and states that justifies the outlay in dollars. If they had to make these stadiums from private investors, they'd go broke!
This is the problem with conservatives. They believe in free market for the middle class and socialism for themselves.

 
At 11:09 PM, Blogger Joe Caggiano said...

D, Tax cuts are not the panacia here for me but I still like that concept as a part of bigger plan. Dems would tax the rich as there as their answer. I just flat do not agree with that way and nothing can really change me from it. I agree with you and your thoughts about the rich team owner but States agree to these agreements. Yes the rich have there ways. I'll give you that. Long live capitalism. Both sides of the aisle have command in Congress, the one party in place wins this one.

 
At 7:31 AM, Blogger D. said...

"Tax cuts are not the panacia here for me but I still like that concept as a part of bigger plan."
-------------------------------------------------------
What's the bigger plan? Impoverish the nation?!?!?

"Dems would tax the rich as there as their answer. I just flat do not agree with that way and nothing can really change me from it."
-------------------------------------------------------
A progressive tax policy is the linch-pin of a liberal democracy. Adam Smith was a proponent of the progressive tax plan not Karl Marx.
Yes, the rich pay more in taxes, but they aren't taxed into the poor house. The reason the conservatives don't want to pay higher taxes is because they can "win" elections that way, but in reality we all lose because of the defecit.

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

I have a gift for all who want it. I can't believe these links still work but they do. This is the web material to compliment a year of University economics. Just click on the chapter to the left, then download the powerpoint presentation. Each one presents each chapter of the text. I barely used the books at the time due to this resource. If you were really interested you could probably get through the courses in about a month.

MicroEconomics:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072472006/student_view0/chapter1/

MacroEconomics:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072471883/student_view0/index.html

Grab it while you can... saves about $300 in books and another grand in classes!

 
At 1:43 PM, Blogger Kornlogic said...

AH, THE MIGHTY US DOLLAR. ALL I CAN SAY IS THE DOLLAR ISN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger dorothyblueeyes said...

CLEVER CYNIC IS FULL OF BULL____!!!

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger dorothyblueeyes said...

D. IS RIGHT; THE USA NOW CONSISTS OF A SMALL GROUP OF VERY WEALTHY,WHO OWN EVERYTHING,AND ALL THE REST OF US,WHO HAVE NOTHING,NO MONEY,AND NO POWER. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE. IT'S AN OLIGARCHY, A NATION OWNED AND COMMANDED BY A SMALL GROUP OF WEALTHY PEOPLE AT THE TOP,TELLING ALL US PEASANTS,AND HOMELESS,AND BROKE TAXPAYERS,WHAT TO DO. FORGET DEMOCRACY;WE NO LONGER HAVE ONE IN AMERICA. WE HAVE A TSAR,AND A ROYAL FAMILY,AND WE ARE A BUNCH OF POWERLESS,TAX PAYING PEASANTS.

 
At 10:59 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

There's no bull or particularly any party angle in what I said at all. 1998, 99, were the only years last century that we didn't deficit spend, well one year in late 60's too I don't remember which one but its hardly important. The defecit thing I always kind of thought was just talked about to incite young voters, most of us should know better. Most people also seem to think the deficit is owed overseas which is also not true, the overwhelming portion is internal, owed to the reserve, the public in bonds, the social security fund, etc. It's largely abstract in those areas and provides economic stimulus.

Find something you really like and pursue it with everything you have. This is a great country for the motivated and you don't have to have money to do it. The problems most people have with this country internally really are their fault for the most part. I don't even mean laziness. Women lobbied forever to join the work force and it was granted. There is no period of explosive GDP to cover it, and now we all make half what we used to and no one has the choice to stay home anymore. Just be careful of everything you wish for, you just might get it. The problem is not the ideas, its the consequences which is why liberalism sounds prudent but has a terrible effect on everyone in the long run.

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger D. said...

'Women lobbied forever to join the work force and it was granted."
This is a false statement. Women have always worked. Maybe not on wall street or corp america, but women worked. The 60's changed what was considered appropriate work for women and forced all of the USA to focus on what kind of society we want to be. What was meant by "equality and justice for all" and "we the people" if only some of the people can do make decisions and the rest are relegated to second class citizens, not because of any mental deficit but by a chance of birth.
You also seem to forget that during the 60's through 80's was when the manufacturing sector of our economy moved overseas. In 1960 you could drop out of high school and still get a good paying job, buy a house and take care of a family.
Now, our economy is service based. Which demands more education and less physical manpower. You gotta have a master or Ph.D to earn enough to be a sole provider of a family of four. That's not the fault of women's lib or feminism.

 
At 12:05 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

My statement wasn't inherently anti-woman. I'm not in the least bit sexist I assure you. I just think it would have been better if we had traded off or simply reversed roles. My point is exactly that in the 50's you could pick any job and support a family. Manufacturing was still only a segment of the economy, and I don't agree that services require more education overall. They are still mostly fast food, carpet steamcleaning, lawn services, domestic work, extermination etc... Really there are very few services requiring much education at all. I'm also saying that there was no one year or one decade from then to now that GDP grew more than the usual 3%, and if you look at GDP growth and per capita wages graphs superimposed, you'd be more likely to agree with me. If you don't want to just take my word, it was one of several projects required in economics and it was a large factor that had to be discussed. The instructor in that particular course was a tiny Italian lady that didn't put up with any bull.

 
At 5:30 PM, Blogger D. said...

I'm not arguing with your statement about GDP growth. My point is that you can't support yourself on these lesser services jobs that you mentioned. The avg. earner brings home less not because of women in the workplace but because companies moved the higher paying jobs overseas.

 
At 5:51 AM, Blogger Towardsinfinity said...

Well I am pretty pissed off about the smallmindness of politics and people with power.
For example - how come gay-marriage should be such an issue?
If two adult human being love each other and want to married the the world is only to congratulate.
I will not be a worse place but the opposite.
I would think that anyone could see the logic in that but apparently not.
I am not gay and I do not live in USA but in Sweden where I guess the situation is better.
But still there are reverends raging about gays in general and marriage especially.
And that makes me feel that they should take a spiritual timeout.
And consider plain humanity as a alternative instead of a misused (in my opinion) religious belief.

sincerely

 
At 12:03 PM, Blogger kredietlenenhypotheken said...

Hello Farai , Als je bij een bank niet slaagt voor hypotheken heb je dan nog kans op een hypotheken bij bijvoorbeeld postkrediet?

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger kredietlenenhypotheken said...

Hello Farai ,Als je bij een bank niet slaagt voor krediet heb je dan nog kans op een krediet bij bijvoorbeeld postkrediet?

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger kredietlenenhypotheken said...

Hello Farai ,Als je bij een bank niet slaagt voor een hypotheek heb je dan nog kans op een hypotheek bij bijvoorbeeld postkrediet?

 
At 10:15 AM, Blogger business cash advancebe9 said...

Inspiring blog. I love finding blogs this good on
the internet, when I have the time. I'm going to go
back to it!
I was in love with your cash advance invest blog site.

 
At 8:13 PM, Anonymous financiering said...

Hi, You have a great site!
I was looking for a Dutch site on krediet and Google gave your blog too. I thought it was cool! :-) Thanks!

 
At 7:50 AM, Anonymous krediet said...

Hi, You have a great site!
I was looking for a Dutch site on hypotheken and Google gave your blog too. I thought it was cool! :-) Thanks!

 
At 3:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cool Blog! If you get a chance I would like to invite you to visit the following toys Blog, it is cool to!

 
At 7:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Best D**N Training In The Industry.
Learn How To Create Your Own Leads And
Generate Instant Cash In Any Company.
http://theparkers.magneticsponsoringonline.com/

 
At 3:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Experience Breast Enhancement in 5 Minutes Or Your Money Back!

 
At 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

albanian personals

 
At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watiti.com
Join me and my circle of friends at http://www.watiti.com, an online social networking community that connects people from all over the world.

Meet new people, share photos, create or attend events, post free classifieds, send free e-cards, listen music, read blogs, upload videos, be part of a club, chat rooms, forum and much more!

See you around! Bring all your friends too!

Watiti.com

 
At 8:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

buy and sell free ads

 
At 11:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

boy date movie park release trailer

 
At 6:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adquity.com

Classifieds for our community. Buy, sell, trade, date, events... post anything. Adquity Classifieds.

Adquity.com

 
At 5:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.watiti.com

Join me and my circle of friends at http://www.watiti.com, an online social networking community that connects people from all over the world.

Meet new people, share photos, create or attend events, post free classifieds, send free e-cards, listen music, read blogs, upload videos, be part of a club, chat rooms, forum and much more!

See you around! Bring all your friends too!

http://www.watiti.com

 
At 10:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

buy and sell free ads

 
At 8:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

arizona forum

 
At 6:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blog about austin texas real estate land

Hi

Enjoyed the blog - nice to see someone else has activated their anonymous feature ;-)

I'm interested in investing in the real estate market in the US and am looking for some really cheap repossession properties in Beverley Hills, Santa Barbara, Denver, Colorado, San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale, Iowa, Hawaii, British Columbia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New England, Minnesota, Miami, Florida, California, New York, Washington, Dallas, Texas, Chicago and Los Angeles. I've found a couple of really good sites - Bargain network which has some really cheap homes and Texas Ranches for sale - ranches in Texas plus both sites have beachfront villas and cars that have been repossessed and are really cheap!! Just wondering if there are any more sites like this.

Thanks for this.

John

 

Post a Comment

<< Home