114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2011 11:32 pm
@reasoning logic,
You have livestock? Where do you live rl?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 07:40 am
Recession Officially Over, U.S. Incomes Kept Falling

H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 08:16 am
@revelette,



The Obama recession has been replaced with the Obama depression
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 02:34 pm
@H2O MAN,
The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that just 14 percent of the US public approves of the job Congress is doing, less than just before elections in 1994, 2006 and 2010, which all saw the majority party lose the House.

The poll found that just three percent of Americans "strongly approve" of lawmakers' performance -- "essentially as low as possible, given the poll's margin of error of four percentage points," the Post said.

The last nine months have seen bruising battles between US President Barack Obama's Democrats, who control the Senate, and rival Republicans, who retook the House in last year's mid-term elections.

The bickering came to a head in August, when fierce fighting over a plan to reduce the country's ballooning deficit brought the country to the brink of a devastating debt default and led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the once-sterling US credit rating for the first time ever.

Obama has blamed Republicans for slapping down his proposals to revive the economy, while the Republicans have said that the sputtering recovery and their 2010 election victory prove the president's policies have failed.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found a narrow majority support Obama's new jobs package and that he enjoys a 49 to 34 percent advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of the public's trust on creating jobs.

US unemployment, which has stubbornly hovered above nine percent for months, is widely seen as Obama's Achilles' heel going into next year's election.

Congress: Congress avoids shutdown (again)

“The House passed a spending bill yesterday to fund the government for six weeks, delaying a series of battles over spending and policy that include everything from labor law and environmental regulations to abortion and the Pentagon budget,” AP writes. “The 352-to-66 vote sent the measure to President Obama in time to avert a government shutdown at midnight. That ended a skirmish over disaster aid that seemed to signal far more trouble ahead as Obama and a bitterly divided Congress begin working to iron out hundreds of differences, big and small, on a $1 trillion-plus pile of 12 unfinished spending bills.”

“Frustrated House Republicans are grappling with the possibility that they will be forced to swallow the kind of massive spending package many of them campaigned against when Democrats were in power,” The Hill writes.

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) on Tuesday further distanced his Democratic Conference from President Obama by nixing a major component of the White House’s jobs plan,” The Hill reports, adding, “Reid told his Democratic colleagues Tuesday that he would put together a new plan to pay for the package after rank-and-file colleagues balked at proposals to limit tax deductions for the wealthy and raise taxes on oil and gas companies.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/05/8166182-congress-congress-avoids-shutdown-again
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 05:08 pm
Hi, Builder. Welcome back. I believe you posted here a few months ago.

A Washington Post/Bloomberg poll just out asked people whether a re-election of Obama or going for an unnamed Republican would improve their family's financial situation.
24% opted for Obama and 24% chose (most) any Republican. 44% said it didn't really matter.
Some political pundits opined that that 44% are fertile territory for candidates to mine if they can articulate a plan.
I am not sure that is true.
I think that many people believe that there are some fundamental shifts going on in the economy that can not be mitigated by increasing taxes on billionaires or deporting illegal immigrants. Kids with expensive degrees and no job opportunities, for example. Or houses in the suburbs that are likely to be worth less then the mortgages for years.
The economy may be an issue in 2012, but perhaps not as big as projected. I doubt that abortion or gay rights etc will be.
I think it will come down to who Americans think they can trust as we plod along.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 04:55 am
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
I think it will come down to who Americans think they can trust as we plod along.


Might have to take a leaf out of the USSR handbook, and hand out vodka/bourbon ration slips to keep the plebs amused for the long haul then.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome back. ;-)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 07:44 am
@realjohnboy,
It saddens me to think that abortion is not considered an important issue when a few million take place on every President's watch with official approval.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 07:49 am
@spendius,
Quote:
It saddens me to think that abortion is not considered an important issue when a few million take place on every President's watch with official approval.


It is not up to any president or any part of the US government to approve or not approve a woman having an abortion.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 01:12 pm
Obama's jobs bill is quite popular and should be passed immediately.

Quote:
When asked simply if Congress should pass the legislation or not, 30 percent of respondents answer yes, while 22 percent say no; 44 percent have no opinion.

But when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question -- that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, extend unemployment benefits, and that it would be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy -- 63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it.

What's more, 64 percent of respondents agree with the statement that it is a "good idea" to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, because they should pay their fair share and can afford to pay more to help fund programs and government operations.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/12/8288026-nbcwsj-poll-despite-defeat-obamas-jobs-bill-is-popular

The GOP position on this is a dead-end and I dearly hope that the Dems tie it around their necks and use it to choke them in the next election. And there's evidence that they are going to do exactly that - top Dems in Congress and the media (and even Obama) are beginning to openly accuse the GOP of sabotaging the economy to help their electoral chances. And the great thing about this strategy is that it's perfectly true, with a great deal of evidence to support it.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 02:55 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
It is not up to any president or any part of the US government to approve or not approve a woman having an abortion.


That's a neat litmus style test for contributors to this thread.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 03:06 pm
What I find so difficult to understand, here and elsewhere, is why a devout Christian would seek high office in a state in which every Christian teaching on sexual morality is set aside blatantly and sometimes with elaborately expressed pride whilst offering no policy to change anything in this respect.

The whole point of Christianity is the regulation of sexual morality.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 05:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You do realize that even if the Senate had approved this jobs bill 100-0, it would mean nothing.

I refer you to article 1, section 7 of the US Constitution...
Quote:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills


So since this bill would be new spending, and since it would also include a tax increase (raising revenue), it has to come from the House first.
So until the house acts, the Senate vote means nothing.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 05:20 pm
@spendius,
I assume that the answer is that devout Christians don't seek office for the very reason I suggest.

Of the rest those who have infringed the Christian moral code in the presence of witnesses who might seek tabloid fortune and fame are disqualified from office.

Which leaves a very small pool to choose from which is likely to consist of sophists and suchlike.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 05:23 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

You do realize that even if the Senate had approved this jobs bill 100-0, it would mean nothing.

I refer you to article 1, section 7 of the US Constitution...
Quote:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills


So since this bill would be new spending, and since it would also include a tax increase (raising revenue), it has to come from the House first.
So until the house acts, the Senate vote means nothing.


The Senate vote wasn't to pass the bill - it was a vote to begin debate on the bill. That's perfectly appropriate no matter what the House does; the two bodies of Congress very rarely pass the same version of a bill. By your logic, it would be impossible for the Senate to pass a version of the bill that is different than the House version of a bill. In reality, this happens all the time, and the Reconciliation process is used to satisfy the Constitutional requirement for revenue bills to pass in the House.

But, you knew that before you wrote this, right? Right.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 10:24 pm
Quote:
America feels a gloomier place today than when I arrived two years ago.

It is not hard to work out why. Most, including the president and the White House, expected people would be feeling the effects of the recovery by now.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has written a fascinating analysis of what went wrong.

"The promised recovery was always just around the corner, but it never quite came. Eventually, the American people stopped listening. A September poll showed that 50% of Americans thought Obama's policies had hurt the economy."

But a report from Sentier Research out today suggests the gloom isn't just down to punctured expectations.

People are actually poorer.

The report says that household income has gone down more in the period officially labelled as a recovery than in the recession itself.

The authors, Gordon Green and John Coder, who used to work for the US Census bureau, write that during the official recession, the real median annual household income fell from $55,309 (£35,287) to $53,518, a difference of 3.2%

But between June 2009 and June 2011 - a time when the US economy was in recovery - that same indicator of household income fell by an additional 6.7%, from $53,518 to $49,909.

Not surprisingly the figures indicate the unemployed suffered the largest drop in income (18.4% decline in median average income), but single-parent families (7.3%) and African-Americans (9.4%) also did badly.

The report found from the entire period of December 2007 to June 2011, real median annual household income has declined by 9.8%

"A decline of this magnitude represents a significant reduction in the American standard of living," the report authors say.

Being told the economy is officially in recovery when personally it feels nothing of the sort underlines the sense of disconnection between politicians and people.


This report is important because it suggests that this is not a question of mood, or the experience of some, but a hard fact of life for the average, or even median, American


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15250490

We hear nothing of this from our leaders, and the corporate class is celebrating their resumed theft from the American people so they are happy happy happy....IT'S PARTY TIME!


This does not end well
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 04:42 am
Is it too much to ask that the down-thumbers of my last post explain themselves. Otherwise they are in the role of the anonymous writers of poison pen letters.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 05:12 am
@spendius,
The anonymous thumbs-upper strikes again. LOL

Does it really mean anything, tho?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 05:16 am
@spendius,
I quite often thumb you up mate, not because I necessarily agree with what you've said, but more of a cosmic balancing act.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 05:23 am
@hawkeye10,
Is it really so bad living on $49, 909 hawk? I should think that at least 99% of mankind in history would have considered it a privilege if not actually heaven on earth.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 05:28 am
@spendius,
I suppose it depends on where you live, if you live somewhere like Monaco it may not go very far, but if you lived somewhere in the third world, like Oldham, you could probably live the life of Riley.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 10:47:45