From CNNMoney:
The zero-savings problem
Some savings measures show households are flush, but consumers are spending every dime they make.
August 3, 2005: 2:23 PM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The savings of U.S. consumers are:
a) at the lowest rate since the Depression.
b) at peaks not seen even during the stock market boom of the late 1990s.
c) all of the above.
If you're wondering how "all of the above" could be the correct answer -- and it is -- walk outside your front door and look around.
Even as a government report Tuesday showed the national savings rate at zero -- that's right nada -- the rise in the value of homes has given the average U.S. household a net worth of greater than $400,000, according to a separate report from the Federal Reserve.
Household real estate assets have risen by just over two-thirds since 1999, and the run up has enabled consumers to spend more money than they are bringing home in their paychecks. They're viewing their homes almost like ATM's, using home equity loans and refinancings to pull out cash and support a higher level of spending.
"[Rising home values] are making people feel they don't need to save," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute.
That means they are spending more of their paychecks than they would otherwise. That's good news for the current economy but it could cause trouble longer term, according to some economists.
cicerone imposter wrote:Not when the majority of Americans purchase those goodies on credit or spend their savings that they will need for their children's college tuition or their retirement.
I agree, many Americans are not properly saving, but overspending. That is as much a cultural problem than an economic problem. We have a generation of fast food, fast this, fast that, instant gratification. The money is there, but is isn't being managed as well as in the past.
okie, It's called "mismanagement."
Include your beloved government in that category, imposter. Your beloved bureaucrats are expert mismanagers.
okie, Our "bureaucrats" has been controlled by the conservatives for the past six years. You telling me "they mismanaged" the finances?
When did the conservative government of Bush become "your?"
How many dozen times have I reminded you that Bush is not conservative, and least of all in regard to domestic spending and programs?
I have been trying to vote for less bureaucracy for as long as I have been old enough to vote. You typify those people that constantly want more bureaucracy. So much of it is yours, imposter, not mine. I never voted for it, but got it anyway. I hope you are proud of your bureaucracy.
Reagan wanted to eliminate some bureaucracy, but was made fun of, ridiculed, and overruled. It is to the point now that nobody dares to suggest cutting anything, as the Democrats and the press will immediately proclaim that person is advocating children and old people to starve, go without education, medicine, the list goes on.
okie, You keep harping on the liberals wanting more government control, but you fail to even show any evidence of it other than your constant, worthless, unsupported rhetoric.
What the liberals want and are getting more of is "equal opportunity for all."
That simple conservative philosophy seems to vacate your brain. You need a brain wash/bath.
About the only thing you are good at is sarcasm, imposter. I don't know why I dignify your over the top sarcasm with answers.
One reason is you appear to be an open person, yes sarcastic, but at least open about your opinions. You don't sugarcoat them. I like that about you, so I continue this exercise in futility.
I will try to make this simple. He who advocates more government bureaucracy to insure the things you harp about, also advocates a bureaucracy to do it, which requires money, and it creates bureaucrats that want to justify their budgets and their jobs. Thus, he who controls the purse strings controls the power. Thus more government control. The concept is very simple, imposter.
Does anyone know who okie is talking to?
okie: I will try to make this simple. He who advocates more government bureaucracy to insure the things you harp about, also advocates a bureaucracy to do it, which requires money, and it creates bureaucrats that want to justify their budgets and their jobs. Thus, he who controls the purse strings controls the power. Thus more government control. The concept is very simple, imposter.
Gee, if I'm not mistaken, the fraud charges in our government in recent times have been about 99 percent against conservatives. Amazing! A very simple fact missed by your brain - again.
Where oh where is William Jefferson?
okie, Even your attempts to diversion doesn't make you look half way honest. It's grade school level.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You keep harping on the liberals wanting more government control, but you fail to even show any evidence of it other than your constant, worthless, unsupported rhetoric.
What the liberals want and are getting more of is "equal opportunity for all."
That simple conservative philosophy seems to vacate your brain. You need a brain wash/bath.
How about federalizing the entire health care system, for one area of more government control? Now to remind you, the argument here is not about whether such a program is good or bad, but whether such would increase the bureaucracy and bring about more government control of your health care and my health care. Hopefully, you can admit that 2 + 2 = 4.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, Even your attempts to diversion doesn't make you look half way honest. It's grade school level.
You are the one that brought up fraud, as if it was 99% a conservative problem, which of course is absolute and utter nonsense.
okie, You have your head in the dark again.
January 10, 2006, 8:16 a.m.
The Abramoff Scandal (R., Beltway)
It's the Republicans, stupid.
Republicans are looking for "their" John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the "Keating Five" sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.
The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.
Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.
From MediaMatters:
Summary: MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked "[D]on't you have to be a real ideologue, a real partisan to believe that one party's more crooked than the other?"
During a discussion of the Jack Abramoff scandal on the January 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Cook Political Report editor and publisher Charlie Cook: "Charlie, don't you have to be a real ideologue, a real partisan to believe that one party's more crooked than the other? In terms of -- not in terms of ideas or of philosophy, but taking cash home with you and stuff like that?" Cook responded: "Yes, but the thing is, I think the country's more ideological in that sense, more partisan in that sense, than it's ever been before."
Earlier in the discussion, Matthews had asked Rothenberg Political Report editor and publisher Stuart Rothenberg: "Will the stink of Abramoff ... hurt both parties, or is this primarily a Republican problem?" Rothenberg responded that "right now, it's primarily a Republican problem." Rothenberg noted that Republicans "have much greater vulnerability," adding that "the high-profile members of Congress who are mentioned as under the microscope at the moment are virtually all Republicans."
At least one prominent conservative has asserted that efforts to label the Abramoff scandal as anything other than Republican were "misdirect[ed]." In his January 10 column, subtitled "It's the Republicans, stupid," National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that the Abramoff scandal "is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection." Lowry added:
Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.
From the January 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Will the stink of Abramoff, as we assume it's going to, lead to more indictment, or indictments, I should say? Is this going to hurt both parties, or is this primarily a Republican problem?
ROTHENBERG: Well, right now it's primarily a Republican problem. They have much greater vulnerability; the high-profile members of Congress who are mentioned as under the microscope at the moment are virtually all Republicans. [Rep.] Tom DeLay [R-TX], [Rep.] Bob Ney [R-OH], [Sen.] Conrad Burns [R-MT], [Rep.] John Doolittle [R-CA].
MATTHEWS: [Rep.] J.D. Hayworth [R-AZ] is on that list, too.
ROTHENBERG: There are some Democrats involved, but at the moment, the focus is on the Republicans.
Looks like 99% republicans to me! Okay, maybe 90%.
cicerone imposter wrote:
ROTHENBERG: There are some Democrats involved, but at the moment, the focus is on the Republicans.
Looks like 99% republicans to me! Okay, maybe 90%.
Imposter, how do you do the math on that? Strange math. Is that how you solved the math problem so easy on the other thread? And it isn't any mystery as to why the focus is on Republicans, good grief, we know the bias of the press, and the Democrats in Congress do not care a whit about their own corruption. They try to promote their own corrupt members. And we just got rid of the most corrupt presidency in the history of the country a few years ago.
