Where is the US economy headed?

Quote:

On the other topic, here's a question back at you, Cyc... Do people living in other countries have the right to vote for the US presidency? After all, it is the most powerful political position extant in the world. Do foreigners have the same rights as American citizens in this respect? (And if not, then why would they automatically have the same rights in other respects? Do explain, please.)

I do believe that people have the inherent and equal right to select the leadership in their geographic area, as that is the best way to ensure that their own interests are being followed. I believe that the people in other countries have the right to control their own elections and laws of governance in their countries.

Don't make the mistake of Appealing to Extremes. One can share the same fundamental rights, while having differences in their application depending on the various factors involved, such as... geographic location.

For example, a French citizen has the right to select his leadership - in France, as the 'leadership' is supposed to be representative of his interests. If he were to immigrate here to America, he would have that right here. But his right to select leadership is not granted by either state, but inherent in his humanity.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Woiyo, c'mon.

Quote:

Also, you inaccurately state "savings rate" is lowest since the depression. More poeple invest in retirement account such as 401K/IRA/Roth IRA etc and minimize regular savings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/business/main1293943.shtml

Quote:

The government reported last week that consumers last year spent all they earned and then some, pushing the personal savings rate into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent.

The savings rate has only been negative for a full year twice before, in 1932 and 1933, when Americans were struggling with huge job layoffs during the Great Depression.

The investment into retirement savings is included in this calculation, man. Please do some research before spouting off on topics such as this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Let's try a better and more reliable source for your silly argument.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/20060308a1.asp

If your savings rate is negative, it doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have any savings. It means you're spending more than you earn, so you're dipping into your savings or you're borrowing to pay for purchases.

Our saving habits have been doing a gradual slide since May 1985 when we saved 11.1 percent of our disposable income. Here's a chart illustrating our choppy savings habits over the last 10 years.

People may engage in excessive spending for a number of reasons. It may be that they're not concerned about losing their jobs. Perhaps the rebounding stock market has boosted their portfolios, or they may be in line for hefty inheritances, or they may be assuming that the newly bloated value of their homes caused by the real estate boom will last forever.

In any case, the question remains: How serious a problem is the negative savings rate? We asked three experts to give us their view of the savings/spending situation and to give us some insight into the economics and psychology involved.

"There's going to be a serious price to pay when housing stops appreciating at the rate it's been appreciating. It's not that people aren't saving a negative 0.5 percent; they're saving, but they're overspending. They might be putting money into their 401(k) and their IRA but they're spending all their other income plus they're taking equity out of their home. That would work OK if housing keeps appreciating, but that's not likely. They're going to have to substantially reduce their lifestyles or they'll have to stop whatever saving they're doing."

Be reminded, this is a recent trend (while not exactly a good one), so do not distort fact with your partisen rhetoric.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote: If your savings rate is negative, it doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have any savings. It means you're spending more than you earn, so you're dipping into your savings or you're borrowing to pay for purchases.

That's right, and that's what we said. It's "negative savings;" people are spending more than they earn. HURRAH.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo wrote: If your savings rate is negative, it doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have any savings. It means you're spending more than you earn, so you're dipping into your savings or you're borrowing to pay for purchases.

That's right, and that's what we said. It's "negative savings;" people are spending more than they earn. HURRAH.

And what else did the article say, champ?

0 Replies

Does it matter?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Does it matter?

Not to me. Stay ignorant if it pleases you.

0 Replies

No, it doesn't matter one bit. In fact, the fact that folks are borrowing against their declining house values is a dangerous thing, the scary world of Negative Equity.

http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2006/01-31/n_gx_013106_savings31_300.jpg

Your article states:

Quote:

"There's going to be a serious price to pay when housing stops appreciating at the rate it's been appreciating. It's not that people aren't saving a negative 0.5 percent; they're saving, but they're overspending. They might be putting money into their 401(k) and their IRA but they're spending all their other income plus they're taking equity out of their home. That would work OK if housing keeps appreciating, but that's not likely. They're going to have to substantially reduce their lifestyles or they'll have to stop whatever saving they're doing."

Housing values have dropped for three quarters in a row, and it shows no sign of stopping. So we're not looking at a good or healthy situation at all.

You state that:

Quote:

Be reminded, this is a recent trend (while not exactly a good one), so do not distort fact with your partisen rhetoric.

What exactly is my 'partisan rhetoric?' Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, you still have provided no backup evidence concerning your poverty statistics graph from the Census Bureau.

0 Replies

Fine, I'll hold you by the hand and walk you through this.

Here's the original article I got the graphic from:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130002

Quote:

CNN contributor Watkins falsely claimed poverty reduction under Bush rather than Clinton

CNN contributor, talk radio host, and Bush-Cheney '04 campaign adviser Rev. Joe Watkins falsely claimed that the United States has experienced a "reduction" in poverty under President Bush. Misleadingly citing poverty statistics on the September 12 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Watkins stated that "under Bill Clinton, 15.1 percent of the population was poor; under President Bush, 12.7 percent of the population is poor. That's a reduction, that's a good thing." But the poverty rate declined every year Clinton was in office, from 15.1 percent when he took office in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.

The data to support the graph comes from... the US Census Bureau, just as it says on the graph. But here' s a link for you:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

And here's a link as to how poverty is calculated:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html

Now, I will admit that you bring up a good point: these are pre-tax calculations, so it is possible that the 'bush tax cuts' have brought a tiny percentage of folks out of the poverty line. But I doubt it, as the average tax cut for these people was somewhere around ten bucks.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

From FRAC News Digest:

Issue 8, February 20, 2007
House Budget Committee Hears Testimonies About Hunger, Malnutrition
Income Inequality Growing Wider
Op-Ed: President's Budget Misplaced Priorities
President's Budget Cuts Funding for Low-Income Energy Assistance
Editorial: Legislation That Raises Minimum Wage Should Not Contain Large Tax Cuts for Those Already Well Off
Department of Health and Human Services Offers Grants for Healthy Lifestyles Community Projects
New York City New Welfare Chief Promises to Make Access to Public Services Number One Priority
Alaska: More Needy Alaskans Can Receive Food Assistance with Untapped Federal Funds, Study Says
Ohio: Wage Stagnation in Central Regions Leads to Dramatic Increases in Food Stamp Participation
Michigan: Food Stamp Use Mushrooms in Economically Struggling State
New Jersey - Letter to Editor: Food Stamp Program Strengthens Communities, Stimulates Economy
Massachusetts: School Breakfast, Anti-Poverty Efforts and Food Stamps Help Combat Hunger in Communities Rhode Island: School Officials in East Providence Reverse Their Decision to Discontinue Free Breakfast for All Program
Texas: Austin School District Planning Summer Lunch Program
Montana - Editorial: Schools Should Be More Consistent in Promoting Healthier Eating to Students
New York - Letter to Editor: One Woman's Lesson of Slipping into Poverty
California: Lawmakers and State Officials Speed Help to Workers Suffered from Crop Freeze
Illinois: Poverty Is Growing, Especially in Suburbs, Study Says

0 Replies

From the Greater Boston Food Bank:

"I'm starving!" How many times have you heard people casually say these words as they consider their next meal? The availability of food just seems so automatic, as dinner follows lunch and lunch follows breakfast. But what if there is no automatic "next meal"?

Too many of us take food for granted. We only think of hunger in vague and abstract terms, believing it to be the province of children with swollen bellies in sweltering places a world away. Yes, hunger is a global epidemic. And, it's also a silent epidemic in our country.

The nature of hunger is different in the United States and its too common. There are millions of Americans who are impacted by hunger. In 2005, over 25 million Americans sought food assistance from America's Second Harvest - The Nation's Food Bank Network.

0 Replies

Key Findings

0 Replies

You guys need to consider other factors besides resorting to the simple-minded liberal approach, which is to blame any handy Republican, which now the butt of your blame is George Bush for virtually everything. Maybe the boogieman is in your own liberal closet?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test031501b.cfm

"Prolonged welfare dependence reduces children's IQ levels. Dependence also reduces a child's earnings in future years; the longer a child remains on AFDC in childhood the lower will be his earnings as an adult. Being raised on welfare also increases the probability that a child will drop out of school and will be on welfare as an adult. Analysis shows that these effects are caused by welfare per se, not simply poverty; a poor child without welfare will do better than a similar poor child with welfare.

Out-of-wedlock childbearing and single parenthood are the principal causes of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S. Children raised in single parent families are more likely to: experience behavioral and emotional problems; suffer from physical abuse; engage in early sexual activity, and do poorly in school. Boys raised in single parent households are more likely to engage in crime; girls are more likely themselves to give birth outside of marriage. These effects are the result of the collapse of marriage per se rather than poverty; a poor child living with a mother and father united in marriage will do better than a similar poor child living in a single parent home."

What did LBJ's Great Society accomplish when he declared the War on Poverty? It might have been a bigger failure than the Vietnam War.

0 Replies

okie has myopia; sees only one small detail, the tree, and forgets what happened to the greater population, the forest. Typical okie observation.

0 Replies

Yeah, when I'm looking for information on whether or not Democratic-sponsored programs are effective or not, I go straight to the Heritage Foundation every time. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So single parenthood and other cultural factors have no influence upon poverty? Ooooookay, typical liberal viewpoint, but obviously out of touch and totally blind to the obvious.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So single parenthood and other cultural factors have no influence upon poverty? Ooooookay, typical liberal viewpoint, but obviously out of touch and totally blind to the obvious.

Of course they do, and they always have.

Please stay away from the

http://www.shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie, FYI, listen closely. My siblings and I were "welfare children." Our mother probably didn't even have a high school education.

Today, my older brother is an attorney, and was an administrative judge in CA. My younger brother is an ophthalmologist and is today a legislator in CA. My sister is an RN.

My sister's four children are all professionals; two oldest are physicians, the third son a dentist, and the youngest doughter has a PhD in chemistry. My younger brother's children; oldest daughter is an ophthalmologist, younger daughter has a PhD in special education, and the youngest, his son, is an attorney. Both our sons graduated cum laude from college.

You usually don't know what you're talking about.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know