economy on the rise

[strandinthewind]

Interesting take on the economy. BTW Dissention and Goldie - please note that Kerry's people concede Bush was handed a slowing economy and 9/11 has a dramtic effect on the economy. Thus, I was right and you were wrong :wavey: :D :angel: But, that does not excuse W's free spending liberal fiscal policy IMO :cool:
______________________________________________________________

Kerry Opens 2-Week Drive on the Economy

June 15, 2004
By ROBIN TONER

ATLANTIC CITY, June 14 - Senator John Kerry served notice Monday that he still considered the economy a central vulnerability for President Bush despite strong employment growth in recent months.

Beginning a two-week focus on the economy, officials with the Democratic challenger's campaign argued that Mr. Bush's record should be judged on his entire tenure, not on the turnaround of the past few months.

"If you get D-minuses for three and a half years in college, one semester of a B-minus does not get you on the honor roll," said Gene Sperling, who was a top economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and is now advising Mr. Kerry.

"Our economy doesn't recover after three and a half extremely weak years of job creation with just a few positive months,'' Mr. Sperling added.

Moreover, the Kerry campaign asserted, the quality of many of those new jobs, the shift to employment in lower-paying industries with scanty benefits and the pressures of rising health, education and energy costs have combined to create an increasingly strained middle class. The campaign issued a report Monday indicating that 1.6 million households filed for bankruptcy in 2003, up a third from 2000.

Bush campaign officials fired back, with a spokesman, Steve Schmidt, mocking Mr. Kerry for "his pessimism and misery tour.''

"Senator Kerry ignores the good economic news,'' Mr. Schmidt added, "and plays to people's fears and anxieties."


But Mr. Kerry, signaling the themes of the next few weeks, suggested that it was Mr. Bush who was out of touch. Landing here in Atlantic City to attend a fund-raising reception Monday night and then speak to the New Jersey A.F.L.-C.I.O. on Tuesday, he declared, "We're here to make sure that Americans get a job where if you work, and work hard, you can actually pay your bills at the end of the day."

"I've met parents all over this country who are struggling to be able to send their kids to school,'' he added. "Where 20 years ago one job allowed them to send their kid to college, now two barely does it."

Mark Mellman, the Kerry campaign's pollster, said voters overwhelmingly agreed with this more sober assessment of the economy, in several recent polls giving Mr. Bush decidedly poor ratings on his economic stewardship. Mr. Mellman said that voters felt besieged by rising prices and that they expected interest rates to rise soon and make their household budgets even worse.

The Kerry campaign officials brushed aside any notion that they would be perceived as this year's version of what Republicans have sometimes called "doom and gloom" Democrats. The Kerry aides said this was a year very different from 1984 and 1988, when such depictions proved effective against the Democratic nominees, Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis.

In general, Kerry advisers, buoyed by recent polls showing a tight race and continued problems for Mr. Bush, projected a decidedly bullish air at a briefing for the press in Washington on Monday. Mary Beth Cahill, Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, described Mr. Bush as "a rudderless incumbent" who had engaged in a campaign of negative ads rather than positive proposals for the future, a calculation that Kerry advisers argue will ultimately be proved decisively wrong.

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, declared, "I think it's fair to say that John Kerry won the spring general election, and I think he won it decisively."

Mr. Kerry is expected to take his economic argument this week to Ohio and Michigan, in a region achingly sensitive to the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs.

Mr. Sperling conceded at the briefing Monday that Mr. Bush was not entirely to blame for the economic troubles of the past three and a half years.

"No question, George Bush had a couple of bad breaks on his watch,'' Mr. Sperling said, "most specifically 9/11 and the slowing economy of 2001. But he also inherited 4.1 percent unemployment, a doubling of productivity, the strongest fiscal situation in our country, and he had a Congress that three different times did what he wanted'' on tax and economic policy.

The two economic views clashed throughout the day. Even as the Kerry campaign was briefing, the Commerce Department was hailing "strong" retail sales growth in May. Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans declared, "More Americans are going on spending sprees at shopping malls as more people are finding well-paying jobs" thanks to "President Bush's leadership."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/campaign/15econ.html?ex=1088311899&ei=1&en=5fcecb50126816e4

[dissention]

BTW Dissention and Goldie - please note that Kerry's people concede Bush was handed a slowing economy and 9/11 has a dramtic effect on the economy. Thus, I was right and you were wrong :wavey: :D :angel:

:rolleyes:

He was handed a slowing economy, not an economy in a recession, as you so readily would have people believe. Regardless of what you say, the recession did not start until he was already in office for a few months.

So, we were right, you were wrong. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

:rolleyes:

He was handed a slowing economy, not an economy in a recession, as you so readily would have people believe. Regardless of what you say, the recession did not start until he was already in office for a few months.

So, we were right, you were wrong. :wavey:

Spin, Spin, Spin - :cool: To my knowledge, the Bush WH has never said the economy was in a recession when they took office. DC said they were at the beginning of one, which was true and that means part of it was Clinton's "fault" (I use the quotes because I think the economy can be directed, but is inherently cyclical no matter who is the Pres.). Moreover, I have always said the actual textbook recession did not occur until we were in the Bush Presidency. What I said was the economy was on its way into it when W took office - in other words, the economy was no going full speed ahead until the very day W took office and then immediately after the swearing in, it tanked :laugh: This article backs up what I said - please correct me if I am wrong.

[dissention]

Spin, Spin, Spin - :cool: To my knowledge, the Bush WH has never said the economy was in a recession when they took office. DC said they were at the beginning of one, which was true and that means part of it was Clinton's "fault" (I use the quotes because I think the economy can be directed, but is inherently cyclical no matter who is the Pres.). Moreover, I have always said the actual textbook recession did not occur until we were in the Bush Presidency. What I said was the economy was on its way into it when W took office - in other words, the economy was no going full speed ahead until the very day W took office and then immediately after the swearing in, it tanked :laugh: This article backs up what I said - please correct me if I am wrong.

I wasn't talking about what Bush said, I was talking about you've said hundreds, if not thousands, of times. You've always stated that we were in a recession when Bush took office, and that is patently false. The recession did not take place until March of 2001. Methinks you're the one spinning. Shall I go wade through the millions of threads and quote you? You know I will. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

I wasn't talking about what Bush said, I was talking about you've said hundreds, if not thousands, of times. You've always stated that we were in a recession when Bush took office, and that is patently false. The recession did not take place until March of 2001. Methinks you're the one spinning. Shall I go wade through the millions of threads and quote you? You know I will. :nod:

Save yourself the time, if I ever said we were in a techinical recession when W took office I herein withdraw and retract that statement. I was wrong to say that - period.

What I meant to say, and I think the full quoting of me will support this, is that the economy was on its way down and into a technical recession in 2001 way before W took office - recessions just do not happen over night and I hardly think anything W did in his first three months of office caused it. So, I am glad we are in agreement on that. So, the next time you say the recession was all W's fault and Clinton handed W a peachy and rosey economic picture that automatically failed three months later :laugh: I will pleasantly remind you that you once agreed with Kerry's advisor and me that the ecnomy was in trouble when W started office. :cool: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

So, the next time you say the recession was all W's fault and Clinton handed W a peachy and rosey economic picture that automatically failed three months later :laugh: I will pleasantly remind you that you once agreed with Kerry's advisor and me that the ecnomy was in trouble when W started office. :cool: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Ah, but I've never said that and you can go searching through my posts if you must to prove it. :lol:

The economy wasn't in the greatest of shape in Clinton's last year of office, I've always admitted that. What I've said about Bush and his watch is that they screwed it up even worse with their terrible policies. Did 9/11 harm it? Of course it did. Should ChimpCo have continued to push more tax cuts after 9/11 and during wartime? F*CK NO! I have not, nor will I ever, believe in voodoo economics. It doesn't work.

Now, while we sit here and argue back and forth, let's put something into perspective: normal, regular Americans are not seeing the fruits of this supposedly "improving economy." They aren't. They're still busting their asses, holding down two or three jobs, watching their property taxes increase (along with their utility bills), it's just the same old-same old for them. So, while the Faux News can paint a pretty picture about how the Great White Savior of Humanity has turned our economy around, there these people sit, on their couches, tired and broke, at their wits end. Life isn't any easier for them and you can rest assured that they will take out that frustration at the polls.

Also, and quite ironically, one of the factories in Michigan where Bush held a fundraiser last month and touted the improving economy, has just closed down. Leaving everyone out of jobs. Food for thought.

[strandinthewind]

I am glad we agree!!!

I also agree most people who lost their jobs have not replaced it and cannot replace it with one that pays as much. I think, however, with a little luck and if these last two quarters of growth continue, that will change. I certainly hope it does :cool:

Far more interesting, IMO is what we are going to do about the deficit created by the de-tax and freely spend ( :laugh: ) so called conservative we have in there now :shrug:

BTW - it is not just Fox News. All news is reporting the economy is getting stronger. But, you all can never admit that because to do so would be to give W credit, which can never happen in the far liberal midset just as the far conservative mindset cannot ever give any D credit for anything :laugh:

Finally, if the economy is recovering, then W's tax cuts have worked - if not, what is alternate explanation?

[dissention]

Finally, if the economy is recovering, then W's tax cuts have worked - if not, what is alternate explanation?

Show me some proof that they have worked and not speculation. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there really is no way of saying that tax cuts stimlulate the economy; it's nothing more than a theory and it's shaky at best.

[strandinthewind]

Show me some proof that they have worked and not speculation. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there really is no way of saying that tax cuts stimlulate the economy; it's nothing more than a theory and it's shaky at best.

LOL - in law this is called res ipsa loquitor or the thing speaks for itself. On the one hand, we have a significant number of people who do not have jobs because they were fired, laid off, etc. and that if they have a new job, it is not paying as much as the old job. On the other hand, spending is up and showing record growth - as indicated by the last two economic reports. So, the money must be coming from somewhere. If it is not coming from the tax cuts, then where is it coming from :shrug: So, the logical conclusion is the money is coming at least in part from people having more money from the tax cuts. In fact, to suggest none of it is ignores economic theory and IMO reality :cool:

[dissention]

LOL - in law this is called res ipsa loquitor or the thing speaks for itself. On the one hand, we have a significant number of people who do not have jobs because they were fired, laid off, etc. and that if they have a new job, it is not paying as much as the old job. On the other hand, spending is up and showing record growth - as indicated by the last two economic reports. So, the money must be coming from somewhere. If it is not coming from the tax cuts, then where is it coming from :shrug: So, the logical conclusion is the money is coming at least in part from people having more money from the tax cuts. In fact, to suggest none of it is ignores economic theory and IMO reality :cool:

Geez, you think in only black and white, babe. ;)

Tax cuts are band-aid's, Jason, they have no lasting effect, therefore they are rendered useless. Don't you get it? The onyl reason they are being pushed is because they know stupid people are going to see the words "tax cut" and automatically think "Ooh, more money for me! I LIKE this guy!"

ChimpCo's ridiculous stimulus package has not created the jobs they claimed it would. Not surprisingly, the jobs that they have regained pay not ONLY lower wages, but ALSO give less benefits and lower quality health insurance.

Here's another good point:

If ChimpCo hadn't been ideologically driven toward high-end tax cuts, it might have taken some important steps with the money instead. Rather than cutting taxes primarily for wealthy families, we could have financed substantial aid to the states, which would have obviated the need for recession-driven tuition increases and spending cutbacks. We could have invested heavily in children, for example, by fully funding Head Start. We could have provided more progressive tax cuts. Or we could have done all three -- and still had money left over to reduce the deficit!

[gldstwmn]

Interesting take on the economy. BTW Dissention and Goldie - please note that Kerry's people concede Bush was handed a slowing economy and 9/11 has a dramtic effect on the economy. Thus, I was right and you were wrong :wavey: :D :angel: But, that does not excuse W's free spending liberal fiscal policy IMO :cool:
______________________________________________________________



"No question, George Bush had a couple of bad breaks on his watch,'' Mr. Sperling said, "most specifically 9/11 and the slowing economy of 2001. But he also inherited 4.1 percent unemployment, a doubling of productivity, the strongest fiscal situation in our country, and he had a Congress that three different times did what he wanted'' on tax and economic policy.



Nice try. Heard Cheney's still out there giving speeches about a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. :confused:
Consumer spending is down and the PPI is being held back because "it can't be accurately calculated" at this time. Can you say cook the books? The "jobs" being created are either government jobs, driving empty trucks across the desert for Halliburton or low paying jobs.
As for 9/11, well Bush benefitted from that.

[strandinthewind]

Geez, you think in only black and white, babe. ;)

Tax cuts are band-aid's, Jason, they have no lasting effect, therefore they are rendered useless. Don't you get it? The onyl reason they are being pushed is because they know stupid people are going to see the words "tax cut" and automatically think "Ooh, more money for me! I LIKE this guy!"

ChimpCo's ridiculous stimulus package has not created the jobs they claimed it would. Not surprisingly, the jobs that they have regained pay not ONLY lower wages, but ALSO give less benefits and lower quality health insurance.

Here's another good point:

If ChimpCo hadn't been ideologically driven toward high-end tax cuts, it might have taken some important steps with the money instead. Rather than cutting taxes primarily for wealthy families, we could have financed substantial aid to the states, which would have obviated the need for recession-driven tuition increases and spending cutbacks. We could have invested heavily in children, for example, by fully funding Head Start. We could have provided more progressive tax cuts. Or we could have done all three -- and still had money left over to reduce the deficit!

and once again I ask - where is the money coming from that is driving this recovery if not from the horrific tax cuts?

BTW - I agree with you the tax cuts W offered as a whole were ill conceived. I would have done them differently - but not much in the way of personal income tax. But and again, they apparently are having some effect on the economy. Otherwise, and for the tird time :cool: - where is the money coming from? (Persistent little bastard aren't I :laugh: )

Finally, you assert this band aid theory as if it is gospel when you know good and well that no one can prove that and by your own words in another thread, for every economist that says the trickle down effect of tax cuts does not work, there is one that says it works. IMO - it makes sense that if people have more money, they are going to spend it and that is what is happening now.

In fact, here is the post :xoxo: :wavey: :wavey:

Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Could W have done something to stop the faltering economy? Well, he treid with the tax cuts. Have they worked? Well, the economy is currently moving on full steam ahead.


[Dissention] Voodoo economics do not work, IMO. But, to be fair and because I have a soft spot for ya, there are no conclusive studies that prove they do or they don't. For every study or analysis that says it does, there's another out there that says it doesn't.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=14612&page=4&pp=15&highlight=voodoo

[gldstwmn]

What I said was the economy was on its way into it when W took office - in other words, the economy was no going full speed ahead until the very day W took office and then immediately after the swearing in, it tanked :laugh: This article backs up what I said - please correct me if I am wrong.

The stock market dumped in December about three days after the Supremes made their decision. The effect of it was so tangible-like a gigantic asteriod smashing into a puddle. There was a definite loss of confidence.

[strandinthewind]

The stock market dumped in December about three days after the Supremes made their decision. The effect of it was so tangible-like a gigantic asteriod smashing into a puddle. There was a definite loss of confidence.

While that is true, the market had been on shaky ground way before that - trust me because I speak on a personal level there - can you say OUCH!!!! :laugh: Moreover, if W is so pro big business, big oil, etc. and anti environment (environmental restraints cost corps. $$$$), etc., why would the stock market be so opposed to him?

My point is the economy was on its way into the toilet when Clinton left office and the quote from Kerry's advisor supports that :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Show me some proof that they have worked and not speculation. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there really is no way of saying that tax cuts stimlulate the economy; it's nothing more than a theory and it's shaky at best.

Economists are predicting that this little spark we have seen lately will go out by the third quarter this year. :o

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind] On the other hand, spending is up and showing record growth - as indicated by the last two economic reports. [QUOTE]

It's not. I don't know where you're getting that info. Consumer spending is down.

[strandinthewind]

Economists are predicting that this little spark we have seen lately will go out by the third quarter this year. :o

I certainly hope not. My fear is there will be a recovery, which clearly is happening now. However, the recovery will not be enough to pay the HUGE deficit we currently have.

BTW - this "little spark" is the largest in 20 years or something like that :cool:

[gldstwmn]

and once again I ask - where is the money coming from that is driving this recovery if not from the horrific tax cuts?



Low interest rates. Borrowing money is cheap. :)

[gldstwmn]

While that is true, the market had been on shaky ground way before that - trust me because I speak on a personal level there - can you say OUCH!!!! :laugh: Moreover, if W is so pro big business, big oil, etc. and anti environment (environmental restraints cost corps. $$$$), etc., why would the stock market be so opposed to him?



Lack of confindence. A large part of the equitites are owned by other countries as well.

[strandinthewind]

Here are some articles on the economy:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20040604

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/02/news/economy/ism/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/?cnn=yes

http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4147 (could not resist this one :eek: )

[gldstwmn]

I certainly hope not. My fear is there will be a recovery, which clearly is happening now. However, the recovery will not be enough to pay the HUGE deficit we currently have.

BTW - this "little spark" is the largest in 20 years or something like that :cool:

I don't know what numbers you're referring to. :confused:

[gldstwmn]

Here are some articles on the economy:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20040604

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/02/news/economy/ism/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/?cnn=yes

http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4147 (could not resist this one :eek: )

I follow the markets and economic reports closely every day. :) Perhaps I should tell you to go read some law books. Ciao! :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Lack of confindence. A large part of the equitites are owned by other countries as well.

Do you have any objective data to support this? Because I submit the market was already on it way down long before that and that fall, which was one of many, was already in the works. Granted, the election turmoil allegedly caused havoc on the market.

BTW - other countries did not immediately hate W and even if they did, that does not obviate foreign investors' interest in a big business American President :shrug:

Here is an article about the fall of the stock market in 2000

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/index.cfm?story=20001121054920

Here is a chart of the DJIA for the last five years

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=1643&osymb=DJIA&time=5yr&uf=0&x=31&y=10

Here are other random articles on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2000/nf20001215_440.htm

Again, to me the reason the market fell was because of the corp. fraud in the 90's as well as the IPO fever dance ( :cool: ) that inflated stock prices FAR above any sustainable level as stock prices are generally measures (future earning, etc. ).

[strandinthewind]

I follow the markets and economic reports closely every day. :) Perhaps I should tell you to go read some law books. Ciao! :wavey:


Silly rabbit I know that :cool: All I am saying is the market was tanking before W took office and to blame it all on a vote of no confidence for Mr. Big Business himself just makes no sense to me.

[strandinthewind]

I don't know what numbers you're referring to. :confused:

I just cited a bunch of articles that go into it.

But here is another:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/?cnn=yes

In the end, I think we are moving away from a housing/mortgage driven recovery (although those remain very strong) and are moving into a personal spending recovery. But, only time will tell.

edit: and another (from the nytimes)

U.S. Consumer Confidence Rebounds in June
By REUTERS

Published: June 15, 2004


Filed at 11:01 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment brightened in early June as an improving jobs market offset the effect of high gas prices, the instability in Iraq and higher interest rates, analysts said on Tuesday.

The University of Michigan's preliminary survey of consumer confidence for June showed its sentiment index rose to 95.2 from a final reading of 90.2 in May, according to sources who saw the subscription-only report, breaking a two-month decline.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a fall to 89.9 as record-high gasoline prices and geopolitical concerns were expected to have offset some of the optimism over the improvement in the labor market.

``The data was a bit of a surprise. One, because it was stronger than expected and two, because it was stronger than the (Investors Business Daily) data, which it seems to track and perhaps inconsistent with the overall environment,'' said Alan Ruskin, research director at 4CAST Ltd in New York.

``We've been looking at gas prices increasing, interest rates on the rise and equities tracking sideways, and the political situation in Iraq far from calm. So none of that bodes particularly well for consumer expectations but nonetheless we have seen an increase,'' he said.

The expectations index rose to 86.9 in June from 81.6 in May, most likely in line with the dramatic pick-up in the jobs market over the past few months, while the current conditions component rose to 108.1 from 103.6, its best since January.

``The rebound in hiring over the past three months is finally affecting consumer attitudes about the economy. However, the improvement in sentiment has been relatively sluggish,'' said Steven Wood, economist at Insight Economics.

``Although sentiment remains well below its levels of the late 1990's, further job gains will push it higher,'' he said.

Other measures of confidence, which some analysts use as a proxy to determine future spending patterns, had shown a marked decline in sentiment as high energy prices squeezed household budgets.

ABC News and Money Magazine said last week its Consumer Comfort Index fell for the third week in a row, as both gasoline and food prices continued to rise.

Meanwhile, U.S. credit counselor Cambridge Credit Counseling recently reported that over half of the 1,000 adults it surveyed in late May said they believed gas prices would force them to make sacrifices or curb spending.

[strandinthewind]

Low interest rates. Borrowing money is cheap. :)

I know, but you still have to qualify for it and that usually entails having a job. Again, I think it is many factors, but I think to say the tax cuts have not favorably effected the economy is incorrect.

[strandinthewind]

OMG - in my research, I found this - you HAVE to read it. This guy and that a$$$ Sean Hannity totally go at it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122264,00.html

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]I know, but you still have to qualify for it and that usually entails having a job. [QUOTE]

Not necessarily.

[dissention]

[Dissention] Voodoo economics do not work, IMO. But, to be fair and because I have a soft spot for ya, there are no conclusive studies that prove they do or they don't. For every study or analysis that says it does, there's another out there that says it doesn't.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=14612&page=4&pp=15&highlight=voodoo

Exactly. yet you put all your faith into voodoo economics and claim it works. And I'm in the camp that believes it doesn't. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]I know, but you still have to qualify for it and that usually entails having a job. [QUOTE]

Not necessarily.


Well, there are the credit card companies that loan money without a job and I suppose some mortgages can be obtained with no positive cash flow (reverse mortgages, etc.) - but I submit those cannot add enough money to the economy to support this large of an increase. I think people are geting jobs and paying less taxes, which equals more money in the economy. I mean that is not just me saying that, that is what those articles and many economists and the current numbers are in general saying. AND - that is a good thing IMO. I am happy people are getting jobs and spending more money. I hope it lasts because we have a HUGE deficit to pay because of W and his liberal spending.

[strandinthewind]

Exactly. yet you put all your faith into voodoo economics and claim it works. And I'm in the camp that believes it doesn't. :wavey:
But, you offer no other explanation for where the money that is driving the current economic recovery is coming from. You just dismiss the clear effect of the tax cuts. That is not winning an argument - that is just attacking without proof, a hallmark trait of the far left and far right I might add :cool:

[dissention]

Economists are predicting that this little spark we have seen lately will go out by the third quarter this year. :o

Of course it will, they've been predicting that since November of last year. :laugh:

Most of the $200 billion in tax cuts was distributed in the first six months of this year. What happens once those little tax refund checks run their course? There's going to be quite the windfall. There are going to be two fiscal drops for '05 and '06, which the Congressional Budget Office has been predicting based on the tax cuts and the income the tax cuts will generate. What does that prove? Tax cuts are band-aids, if anything. They have no lasting effect and once they run their course, the economy is going to go down once again. And they only a growth effect on the economy temporarily if the amount people spend multiplies ten times. Which, I submit, it hasn't.

[dissention]

But, you offer no other explanation for where the money that is driving the current economic recovery is coming from. You just dismiss the clear effect of the tax cuts. That is not winning an argument - that is just attacking without proof, a hallmark trait of the far left and far right I might add :cool:

Borrowed money, Jason.

[dissention]

I follow the markets and economic reports closely every day. :) Perhaps I should tell you to go read some law books. Ciao! :wavey:

Ouch! :laugh: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Of course it will, they've been predicting that since November of last year. :laugh:

Most of the $200 billion in tax cuts was distributed in the first six months of this year. What happens once those little tax refund checks run their course? There's going to be quite the windfall. There are going to be two fiscal drops for '05 and '06, which the Congressional Budget Office has been predicting based on the tax cuts and the income the tax cuts will generate. What does that prove? Tax cuts are band-aids, if anything. They have no lasting effect and once they run their course, the economy is going to go down once again. And they only a growth effect on the economy temporarily if the amount people spend multiplies ten times. Which, I submit, it hasn't.

Well, only time will tell. AND - you are looking at this issue from the point that the tax cuts have helped and that is it. The leading economic indicators show manufacturing is up and jobs are being created. This adds or at least continues the new money supply and is a direct effect of the tax cuts, i.e. people spent money - the factories need to produce more - they hire more - more people have money to spend, etc. In the end and again, only time will tell, but most indicators show we are on the road to recovery. Even Kerry's advisor admits that. I mean if we were not on the road to recovery, theat is what they would be screaming at the top of their lungs. They cannot say this and not be called on it. Som, they are saying people are being hired (e.g. jobs are being created), but at less pay, and then are urging people to look past that and jusge W by his last three years, which did not contain economic growth. That is rank spin :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Borrowed money, Jason.
Prove it. You cannot and you know it. Moreover, please show me where credit card and other loan companies have loaned ThAT much money and that money is being spent. You cannot. There is not that much money to be lent and you know it. Come on and just admit it, the tax cuts have helped the economy. You are not a bad liberal if you admit that. It is just stating the facts. I mean, I readily concede that tax cuts were not the be all and end all of the economic recovery. I am just saying they were one of many factors that helped. But, the far left cannot state the truth no matter how apparent :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Well, only time will tell. AND - you are looking at this issue from the point that the tax cuts have helped and that is it. The leading economic indicators show manufacturing is up and jobs are being created. This adds or at least continues the new money supply and is a direct effect of the tax cuts, i.e. people spent money - the factories need to produce more - they hire more - more people have money to spend, etc. In the end and again, only time will tell, but most indicators show we are on the road to recovery. Even Kerry's advisor admits that. I mean if we were not on the road to recovery, theat is what they would be screaming at the top of their lungs. They cannot say this and not be called on it. Som, they are saying people are being hired (e.g. jobs are being created), but at less pay, and then are urging people to look past that and jusge W by his last three years, which did not contain economic growth. That is rank spin.

That's what you don't understand, my man. I'm not disputing that that the money people get from these ridiculous cuts doesn't go into the economy, it does to some degree, although not as much as you'd have people believe. What I am disputing is that these tax cuts and the money generated from them are going to have any lasting impressions. I submit they will not and I will be proven correct over the next few years. Tax cuts are band-aids, not stitches.

[strandinthewind]

That's what you don't understand, my man. I'm not disputing that that the money people get from these ridiculous cuts doesn't go into the economy, it does to some degree, although not as much as you'd have people believe. What I am disputing is that these tax cuts and the money generated from them are going to have any lasting impressions. I submit they will not and I will be proven correct over the next few years. Tax cuts are band-aids, not stitches.

I am not hving anyone believe anything :laugh: I have cited many articles supporting what I am saying. All you can do is pooh pooh the idea without any support and then assert far left rhetoric, which equally is unsupported and directly contradcited by economic theory. Again, if you are correct, why is the ecnomy recovering :shrug: Perhaps it will fail, who knows, the current indicators suggest it will not - if we can control the deficit, which W cannot do given his liberal spending. Also, the world exists in a global economy now. The actions of the US alone and within the US are not as dispositive as they once were - so there is that factor as well. In any event, I certainly hope the current indicators are correct and that the manufacturing sector is improving because economic theory and in general history dictates that is what will sustain the economy.

[dissention]

I am not hving anyone believe anything :laugh: I have cited many articles supporting what I am saying. All you can do is pooh pooh the idea without any support and then assert far left rhetoric, which equally is unsupported and directly contradcited by economic theory. Again, if you are correct, why is the ecnomy recovering :shrug: Perhaps it will fail, who knows, the current indicators suggest it will not - if we can control the deficit, which W cannot do given his liberal spending. Also, the world exists in a global economy now. The actions of the US alone and within the US are not as dispositive as they once were - so there is that factor as well. In any event, I certainly hope the current indicators are correct and that the manufacturing sector is improving because economic theory and in general history dictates that is what will sustain the economy.

Methinks you should really read what the Congressional Budget Office has been saying and continues to say. You don't seem to comprehend it. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Methinks you should really read what the Congressional Budget Office has been saying and continues to say. You don't seem to comprehend it. :cool:

LOL - cut and paste it. And then juxtapose it with the June and other numbers indicating economic growth. That way we will have it all in the open. Again, most economic indicators, including Greenspan and his posse, state the economy is recovering and that the largest danger to that recovery is the huge federal deficit. But, you just cannot admit that. Insted, it is all deny deny deny and W is a meanie :laugh:

[dissention]

LOL - cut and paste it. And then juxtapose it with the June and other numbers indicating economic growth. That way we will have it all in the open. Again, most economic indicators, including Greenspan and his posse, state the economy is recovering and that the largest danger to that recovery is the huge federal deficit. But, you just cannot admit that. Insted, it is all deny deny deny and W is a meanie :laugh:

Bite my ass, babe. :xoxo:

I'll post it later tonight, I can't now because this computer is slower than Shrub at a press conference. Or maybe Chris could beat me to it. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Yet another article:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/16/news/economy/industry_output.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Industrial production jumps in May

Output at factories, mines and utilities posts its biggest gain in almost six years, Fed reports.
June 16, 2004: 9:31 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities surged in May, posting its biggest gain in almost six years, the Federal Reserve reported Wednesday.

The Fed said industrial production rose a larger-than-expected 1.1 percent in May after a 0.8 percent gain in April. The May increase was the biggest since a 2.0 percent rise in August 1998.

While the Fed said "unseasonably warm weather" caused output at utilities to surge, the gain in overall production was broad-based and reflected the continued revival in the U.S. factory sector, which began declining ahead of the 2001 recession.

Companies also operated at a faster rate in May, at 77.8 percent of full capacity, up from April's revised 77.1 percent capacity use rate and the highest pace since May 2001.

Wall Street had been expecting a smaller rise of about 0.8 percent, and capacity use to rise to 77.5.

[strandinthewind]

and another:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/04/news/economy/factory_orders/

Factory orders soar 4.3%

March orders come in above estimates and four times the gain in February.
May 4, 2004: 1:09 PM EDT
By Andrew Stein, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Orders received by U.S. factories jumped in March, the government reported Tuesday, with the third gain in four months coming in well ahead of estimates -- another sign the beleaguered manufacturing sector may be finally regaining its footing.

Factory orders rose 4.3 percent in March, after a revised reading of 1.1 percent gain in February, the Commerce Department reported. Economists expected a reading of 2.4 percent, according to Briefing.com.

"The trend in orders is actually accelerating," said Conrad DeQuadros, senior economist with Bear Stearns. "It shows manufacturing in on firm footing in terms of inventories and eventually hiring."

Total orders of manufactured goods rose $14.9 billion in March to $360.7 billion, and new orders excluding defense rose 4.6 percent to $349.9 billion, up from $334.5 billion in February.

Following the report, stocks moved higher and bond prices moved little. However, stocks turned lower in later trading.

The reading on the manufacturing sector adds to a slew of strong economic reports from the retail, employment, and purchasing sectors. All the reports have contributed to the notion that the Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates to stave off inflation as the economy continues to recover.

The Fed was meeting Tuesday and was slated to release its decision on rates around 2:15 p.m. ET. Most economists believe the central bank will leave rates at the 46-year low of 1 percent, but change its accompanying language on the health of the economy.

"The release of the factory orders probably won't change the Fed's decision," said Anthony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist with Miller, Tabak & Co. "The report reinforces that the manufacturing sector is recovering."

Crescenzi added that the Fed will look at some of the nuances of the report, such as the inventory-to-shipment ratio, which measures demand.

That measure fell to 1.23 in March from 1.27 in February as shipments rose 3.8 percent, or $13.1 billion, to $361.3 billion, the largest increase since the department began tracking the figure in 1992.

Orders for durable goods, meant to last three years or more, notched its sixth gain in the past seven months, up 5 percent to $195.8 billion, led by a 4.1 percent gain in transportation orders.

The strong gains across the manufacturing sector led to only a slight 0.3 percent rise in inventories as continuing demand kept stockpiles in check.

The relatively low levels of inventories will eventually lead to a hiring pickup in some areas of the manufacturing sector, the hardest hit during last recession, according to Bear Stearns' DeQuadros.

"The manufacturing job cycle is tied pretty closely to the inventory cycle," he said. "We think the April jobs report will show the first rise in manufacturing in 40 months."

Indeed, the April figures from the Institute of Supply Management released Monday also pointed to an increase inmanufacturing hiring, as its employment index increased to 57.8 from 57.0.

That marked the strongest employment reading for that part of the index since December of 1987. It marks the sixth straight month of positive employment outlook, following 37 straight months that saw a contraction of employment.

[dissention]

Just to lighten the hostile mood until I can blow Jason's arguments out of the water:

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v95/pvsmack/assorted/babs1.jpg

[strandinthewind]

and another:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-05-07-unemployment-april_x.htm

Manufacturing sector creating more jobs at last
By Sue Kirchhoff, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — After more than three years of dramatic decline, the U.S. manufacturing sector is creating jobs again — improving the economic outlook.
The Labor Department said Friday that the nation's factories added 21,000 jobs in April. It revised earlier reports to show a 16,000 gain in February and March, rather than the loss reported. Manufacturing shed nearly 3 million jobs from August 2000 to January 2004. (Related story: Waiting game for higher rates could end in June)

Economists attributed the long-awaited pickup to a better economy; a decline in the value of the dollar against other currencies, making U.S. exports less expensive; and a probable slowdown in productivity, or output per worker.

"We hired a new person (Thursday)," says Val Zanchuk, president of Graphicast in Jaffrey, N.H., which makes parts for machinery — one of the areas of factory growth.

Zanchuk, who has increased his staff to 35 from 27, started noticing a pickup nine months ago. "We're seeing customers we haven't seen for two or three years," he says.

President Bush, campaigning in the Midwest Friday, hailed the numbers as proof his economic policies were working. Union officials called the gains a pittance compared with earlier job losses and warned that U.S. workers were still vulnerable to foreign competition. Economists said that while the sector was improving, not all lost jobs will return.

"Positions lost to the larger forces of globalization tend not to recover," says Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City.

Overall, the Labor Department said U.S. businesses created 288,000 jobs in April, far above economists' forecasts. It revised March's strong job gain up 29,000 to 337,000. Wages rose at a more rapid 2.2% year-over-year rate.

Stresses remain. Despite rising profit, for example, Dow Chemical plans to cut 3,000 jobs this year.

There are still more willing workers than available jobs. Steve Demos, president of White Wave in Boulder, Colo., which produces soy milk under the Silk brand name, receives 100 to 300 résumés for job openings.

The firm is paying more for soy, but rising dairy prices could make its products more competitive.

"We're definitely a magnet right now for a progressive type of employment," Demos says.

Federal tax breaks for capital spending are helping some firms, as is consumer spending. Scott Peterson, senior vice president of human resources at Select Comfort, a Minneapolis-based mattress maker, says the firm boosted its workforce 25% last year and sees a 15% to 20% increase this year.

"It's real," says A.D. "Pete" Correll, CEO of Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific. "We're walking around with a smile on our faces for the first time in a long time."

[strandinthewind]

Just to lighten the hostile mood until I can blow Jason's arguments out of the water:

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v95/pvsmack/assorted/babs1.jpg

Hooray for Babs!!!!!!!!

BTW - us hostile - NEVER :laugh: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

and another (albeit a skewed source - but the numbers support him):

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406021034.asp

June 02, 2004, 10:34 a.m.
Up in Smoke Stacks
The old economy is on fire.

The much-maligned factory sector is booming. Not rising. Not improving. Booming.

According to just-released data from the Institute of Supply Management, which tracks the manufacturing sector, new orders, production, order backlogs, export orders, and employment were very strong in May. The industrial sector is so strong that the speed of supplier deliveries has hit its highest level since April 1979. This means that firms cannot produce fast enough to meet rising demand, which is why commodity prices continue to climb. As a result, capacity use keeps growing and inventories are still too low in relation to skyrocketing sales.

Meanwhile, new factory hiring has jumped to a 31-year high, the best since 1973. Of more than 400 industrial firms surveyed, 36 percent added workers in May while just 7 percent had fewer workers. This is another nail in the coffin of the jobless recovery. As the inventory-rebuilding process ratchets up over the next year, expect even more job creation to follow.

Election-year battleground states in the Midwest industrial heartland are reporting significantly lower unemployment rates compared to one year ago, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April, Michigan registered a 6 percent jobless rate compared to 7.2 percent in April 2003. Ohio’s jobless rate fell to 5.8 percent from 6.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s dropped to 4.9 percent from 5.4 percent. West Virginia reported 5.4 percent from 6.6 percent a year earlier. Missouri’s jobless tally dropped to 4.5 percent from 5.5 percent.

In view of the political significance of these states, it’s surprising that administration officials are not loudly commenting on the remarkable ISM manufacturing report, including its sensitive jobs component. Did anyone say outsourcing? Did anyone say “hollowed out”? The naysaying is nonsense. The ISM numbers are consistent with 7.3 percent breakneck growth of gross domestic product.

Rapid productivity gains in manufacturing — 5.3 percent over the past year — have enabled this sector to produce more with fewer workers. But while the manufacturing share of employment has declined over the past decade, the manufacturing share of GDP has risen.

With the economies of China, India, Japan, and the U.S. booming, the so-called “old” manufacturing sector will be a major contributor to American economic growth. So will the sector that produces basic materials.

Meanwhile, the energy-price boom is completely a function of surging world growth — not deliberate supply shortages such as occurred in the 1970s. Today’s fuel-price story is not an economic negative. Jobs and incomes are rising along with energy prices. Personal income has increased by an outsized 5.7 percent over the past year, while 1.1 million new payroll jobs have been created since last August. Higher profits are already attracting new investment that will increase energy production — especially if government policies keep out of the way. Attracted by big international profits, the Saudis, Russians, and others are rapidly expanding production.

In the U.S., low tax-rate and monetary-reflation policies have been the key stimulants to the boom. These pro-growth policy levers are not changing anytime soon. Neither will the booms in Asia.

Economists who today predict a second-half slowdown because of high oil prices and reduced tax refunds are out of their minds. Tax-rate incentives, not tax-refund cash flows, have created large pro-growth rewards to those who supply investment funding to the industrial sector (along with all the other sectors). It’s this funding that results in job creation.

As for money-creation and liquidity, there is good evidence (e.g., the steeply upward-sloping Treasury yield curve) of monetary abundance in the economy. A few quarter-point hikes in the Federal Reserve’s basic policy rate won’t change this.

Is there an inflation threat to the old-economy boom? Yes, but it’s mild. If the Fed doesn’t remove some of the emergency liquidity they created since late 2002, industrial price increases from production shortfalls in relation to rising demand will be monetized into a generalized inflation. The Fed must act to prevent this. They should remove emergency liquidity that is no longer needed by the booming economy.

That said, tax cuts, record productivity, and the growth inherent to the sparkling recovery of America’s smoke-stack industries are significant economic developments that are intrinsically counter-inflationary. The headline story is that global competition and technological innovation are creating the biggest old-economy revival in twenty years.

There is no need to fear foreign trade. Nor is there need to worry about outsourcing jobs — there are no Benedict Arnold corporations out there. There is also no need for protectionist penalties. Nor is there a place for big tax hikes on investment.

The economic patient is recovering beautifully. Senator John Kerry’s European-style witches-brew policy elixir of trade protectionism and tax hikes would be exactly the wrong shot in the economy’s arm. If it ain’t broke, Sen. Kerry, don’t try and fix it.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is CEO of Kudlow & Co. and host with Jim Cramer of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer.

[strandinthewind]

Here is the CBO's site:

http://www.cbo.gov

Interestingly, they predict that if the current tax system stays the same the deficit has peaked in 2004 and will decline over the next ten years. They also are worried about the retirement of the BB and its effect on SS, Medicare, etc. To wit:

The Budget Outlook
CBO projects that if current laws and policies remain unchanged, federal deficits will begin to decline after this year. In the ensuing years, under CBO's baseline, deficits drop as a percentage of GDP, from 4.2 percent in 2004 to 3.0 percent in 2005 and 1.7 percent in 2010. After 2011--if the tax cuts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) expired as scheduled, growth in discretionary spending continued to be limited to the rate of inflation, and other policies stayed the same--the budget would essentially be in balance.

Over the 2004-2014 period, outlays are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent and to
remain near 20 percent of GDP. That level would be slightly below the average share of the economy devoted to federal spending since 1962 (see Summary Figure 1).

________________________

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=1&from=0


I do not see how this supports any argument that the current economic recovery is grossly inadequate or a temporary band aid :shrug:

[dissention]

Here is the CBO's site:

http://www.cbo.gov

I know, but the site won't load on this ****ty computer. :laugh: Wait until I'm home tonight and have my real computer in fornt of me.

It's ChimpCo's fault, you know. He specifically made that site like that so us poor liberals with old and ****ty computers couldn't log on. Only the rich ones can.

[strandinthewind]

I know, but the site won't load on this ****ty computer. :laugh: Wait until I'm home tonight and have my real computer in fornt of me.

It's ChimpCo's fault, you know. He specifically made that site like that so us poor liberals with old and ****ty computers couldn't log on. Only the rich ones can.


Well, he does want everyone to have DSL or whatever. I think the DSL industry offered him a job come January 2005 :cool:

[dissention]

Well, he does want everyone to have DSL or whatever. I think the DSL industry offered him a job come January 2005 :cool:

Let me know which company so I'll know not to give them my patronage.

[strandinthewind]

Let me know which company so I'll know not to give them my patronage.

well, if it gets him out of the WH . . . . I'd support them :cool: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

and another (albeit a skewed source - but the numbers support him):

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406021034.asp

June 02, 2004, 10:34 a.m.
Up in Smoke Stacks
The old economy is on fire.



The National Review is a right wing cheerleader that would sell their granmother to the devil for these 'Cons. How do I know this? The editor used to be the editor of my hometown newspaper.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind] This adds or at least continues the new money supply and is a direct effect of the tax cuts, i.e. people spent money - the factories need to produce more - they hire more - QUOTE]

Yes, overseas. Those jobs are being outsourced.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]Prove it. You cannot and you know it. Moreover, please show me where credit card and other loan companies have loaned ThAT much money and that money is being spent. [QUOTE]

I actually can access that info but I don't have time to do it right this minute. :)

[gldstwmn]

LOL - cut and paste it. And then juxtapose it with the June and other numbers indicating economic growth.

You're hoping? May's numbers were just put out in the last two days.

[gldstwmn]

That way we will have it all in the open. Again, most economic indicators, including Greenspan and his posse, state the economy is recovering and that the largest danger to that recovery is the huge federal deficit.

Would you like me to post his speech from yesterday? I have it. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Well, he does want everyone to have DSL or whatever. I think the DSL industry offered him a job come January 2005 :cool:

But can he pass the drug test? :shrug:

[dissention]

The National Review is a right wing cheerleader that would sell their granmother to the devil for these 'Cons. How do I know this? The editor used to be the editor of my hometown newspaper.

Not to mention he was on Dennis Miller last week and said his paper was conservative. :shrug:

[dissention]

Would you like me to post his speech from yesterday? I have it. :laugh:

:lol:

I started to read about this morning, but this computer kicked me off and wouldn't let me read it.

[dissention]

But can he pass the drug test? :shrug:

Only if Babs pees in a cup for him. And even then, only if her male hormone therapy isn't mistaken for steroid use. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Not to mention he was on Dennis Miller last week and said his paper was conservative. :shrug:

I can't stand Cliff May.

[gldstwmn]

:lol:

I started to read about this morning, but this computer kicked me off and wouldn't let me read it.

Try this:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040615/default.htm

[dissention]

Try this:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040615/default.htm

Thnkas, darling! Tune into Randi, this song is cracking me up! "I'm a fat conservative butthead with the face of a horese's ass..." :lol:

[strandinthewind]

What in Greenspan's 6/15/04 speech is contrary to my point? He says the economy is recovering - to wit:

The performance of the U.S. economy has been most impressive in recent years in the face of staggering shocks that in years past would almost surely have been destabilizing. Economic policies directed at increasing market flexibility have played a major role in that solid performance. Those policies, aided by major technological advances, fostered a globalization, which unleashed powerful new forces of competition, and an acceleration of productivity, which at least for a time has held down cost pressures.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040615/default.htm

In sum, Greenspan says the American economy is chugging along and is adapting to the new global markets, a point I made earlier I might add :cool:

BTW - the National Review article was one of many and, despite the source, it is not contrary to the more main stream ones, the CBO webpage, and Greenspan's speech. Plus, I admitted the author was skewed :shrug:

Anyway, food for thought. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

What in Greenspan's 6/15/04 speech is contrary to my point?

Nothing. :shrug: I was providing disseention with the link.

[dissention]

Nothing. :shrug: I was providing disseention with the link.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Paranoid much, Jason?

[strandinthewind]

Nothing. :shrug: I was providing disseention with the link.


Hat in hand - I apologize :cool:

I was like WTF - this supports me :laugh:

BTW - OT - but did you read this weeks Time Magazine about religion and politics. It was VERY good IMO.

[dissention]

Hat in hand - I apologize :cool:

I was like WTF - this supports me :laugh:

BTW - OT - but did you read this weeks Time Magazine about religion and politics. It was VERY good IMO.

Not yet, but I saw the guy who wrote it on Paula Zahn last night and I didn't agree with what he said. So, if the article is more of the same, it's just more ****. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Not yet, but I saw the guy who wrote it on Paula Zahn last night and I didn't agree with what he said. So, if the article is more of the same, it's just more ****. ;)


In sum, he says the vast majority of America wants a President who is religious, which the numbers clearly support. He then examines the spirituality of W and Kerry and how each side views the other. I thought it was a good and objective article.

[dissention]

In sum, he says the vast majority of America wants a President who is religious, which the numbers clearly support. He then examines the spirituality of W and Kerry and how each side views the other. I thought it was a good and objective article.

Last night, he claimed that Bush's faith had nothing to do with middle America voting for him and that he doesn't think Bush consciously tried ot get votes with his faith. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Last night, he claimed that Bush's faith had nothing to do with middle America voting for him and that he doesn't think Bush consciously tried ot get votes with his faith. :lol:


He goes into that a little bit in the article. There are some interesting quotes from both W and Kerry. I found it thought provoking and well worth reading even if I did not reach the same conclusions as he did, etc. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Hat in hand - I apologize :cool:

I was like WTF - this supports me :laugh:

BTW - OT - but did you read this weeks Time Magazine about religion and politics. It was VERY good IMO.

I haven't seen it yet. I'll see if I can find it online.

[gldstwmn]

Last night, he claimed that Bush's faith had nothing to do with middle America voting for him and that he doesn't think Bush consciously tried ot get votes with his faith. :lol:

Bwhahahahaha. Oops. Sorry.

[strandinthewind]

I haven't seen it yet. I'll see if I can find it online.


I just thought it was interesting mainly because it shows how the party faithfuls totally buy into the nonsense that each party gives. For example, almost all hard core R's think Kerry is not a man of faith, when all evidence suggests he is. The R's are using this as a campaign issue, etc.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=pollitt

Desperately Seeking Health Insurance

Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!

s crises go, medical insurance is not a very sexy one. It's not that no one talks about the 43.6 million uninsured, skyrocketing drug costs, emergency rooms crammed with patients in search of routine care or the 18,000 Americans who, according to the Institute of Medicine, die each year for lack of care. Every politician has a stump speech and a plan--usually a rather complicated one. (Insert your Kerry joke here if you must, but give the man credit--at least he'll cover most people.) The simple solution would be a single-payer system like Canada's, a mantra the left has been humming for decades, but where's the big, irate, energetic movement for it? Health coverage doesn't seem to bring out the fire-breathers, like, oh, gay marriage or "partial-birth" abortion or whether "under God" belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why is that? Maybe we've been living this way so long that we've just accepted it, like the housing crisis. Maybe the kinds of people who are uninsured are the sort voters are all too used to ignoring. Maybe people don't want to pay for universal coverage (even though they tell pollsters they're willing). And maybe the political classes, who have good coverage and money and tend to live in places with lots of specialists and state-of-the-art hospitals, fear they'd have to stand in line under a Canadian-style system, as the New York Times is always warning them they would.

While wonks debate, the crisis deepens. Dr. Michele Barry, who directs tropical medicine at Yale Medical School, sent me her notes on three patients she saw within a single week recently at Yale-New Haven Hospital:


Mr. N. An Italian-American man in his early 50s who moved from Florida to New Haven to let his wife die up near her family in Maine. He went 250,000 dollars in debt trying to self-pay for care for his wife, who was diagnosed with cervical cancer over a year ago. He was admitted to my service with hyperkalemia (high potassium) due to using expensive medicines he could get for free from pharmaceutical donations--these were inappropriate for his kidney problems, which were caused by diabetes. He could not even afford the long-acting insulin we wanted to give him. His reply to my telling him he might die if we didn't treat his potassium was: "Doc, maybe that's for the better."


Mr. M. A 38-year-old auto mechanic who was admitted in narcotic withdrawal. A year ago, he was the victim of a freak accident when a clutch released and a car rolled back into him. He developed back pain which subsequently caused him to seek several neurosurgical opinions, but nothing was done because he couldn't afford follow-up appointments. He became addicted to the OxyContin the doctors prescribed. Unemployed, disabled and out of money due to medical costs of imaging and doctors, he lost his home and was forced to move to a motel and file for bankruptcy. He came into the hospital when he could not afford his motel room or any more narcotics and thus started to withdraw.


Ms. W. A 40-year-old black woman from North Carolina who came into my service with hypertensive emergency (escalating blood pressure) and heart failure. She had stopped taking any blood pressure medicines in order to save for her husband's kidney transplant. Due to her prolonged non-treatment, she developed irreversible heart damage.

As these tragic stories show, health insurance is about more than treating an immediate illness. Lack of insurance can precipitate an avalanche of trouble: job loss, debt, bankruptcy, more illness, inappropriate charity treatment that worsens the original problem, prescription drug addiction, homelessness. The crisis doesn't even have to be yours: Mr. N.'s diabetes and Ms. W.'s hypertension--common, manageable conditions--became life-threatening because they skimped on their own medicine to help a spouse with an even bigger problem. In the case of Mr. N.'s wife, her fatal illness was itself possibly related to lack of preventive care because she didn't have health insurance: Cervical cancer is usually curable if caught early on by regular Pap smears.

Critics complain about the cost of universal coverage, but if you think of those 43.6 million uninsured as embedded in families, you have to count the privations endured by everyone in them as part of the true cost of the status quo. More money for a parent's doctor means less for the children's dentist--or summer camp, or college fund. Untreated or inadequately treated illness means stress and anxiety for the whole family. When a patient goes bankrupt, like Mr. M.--and healthcare costs are involved in 50 percent of bankruptcies, which have risen 400 percent in the past twenty-five years--the whole family suffers. Conservatives are always worrying about divorce--what about divorce as triggered by the financial and emotional stresses of uninsured illness? Maybe universal coverage could be sold as a family value.

Dr. Barry, who moves mountains for her patients, is doing all that one doctor can do. She was able to arrange donated drugs for Ms. W. and Mr. N., as a temporary stopgap. But what will happen to them down the road? As for Mr. M., she writes, "We gave him a long-acting morphine compound--not OxyContin!--for his pain and are trying to find him a surgeon who will accept state insurance. Not one orthopedic in our area does this. He was last seen living in a shelter in town."

* * *

[strandinthewind]

The medical care in this country has been a travesty for the last 30 years, which is as far back as I can remember :laugh:

Although it had some flaws, I think Hillary actually had a good plan - in fact it was so good, the R's used most of it in their initial plan. I am unsure what the answer is. I mean socialized medicine is an alternative, but I am unsure whether it would be Constitutional. I have often toyed with the idea of having doctors and hospitals (all of them) be required by the AMA to make something like 1/3 of their practice pro bono. But, I know few people in any industry that would think that was fair if applied to them, etc. But, in the end, we are talking about people living, etc. and that should IMO take a higher priority. AND - that all of those foolish politicians (R and D alike ) passed that assinine Rx coverage crapola is a farce. Although some will benefit a little from it, IMO it was just a boon to the Rx companies, which sickens me. Surely, we are better than that.

[dissention]

Bwhahahahaha. Oops. Sorry.

My reaction exactly. His faith is what brings in the votes, unfortunately.

[dissention]

I am unsure what the answer is. I mean socialized medicine is an alternative, but I am unsure whether it would be Constitutional.

As I've said for years, at this stage in the game, socialized medicine is the only acceptable solution to the disgraceful excuse for what we call health care. Anything else is utter ****.

But, I also think the US should vote the Kyoto Protocol into effect, but that'll never happen. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

As I've said for years, at this stage in the game, socialized medicine is the only acceptable solution to the disgraceful excuse for what we call health care. Anything else is utter ****.

But, I also think the US should vote the Kyoto Protocol into effect, but that'll never happen. :rolleyes:


Oh - the poor Kyoto protocol - I will always say that when the rest of the world comes on board, we should. I also think Clinton knew there was no way that would happen, so he set W up on that one. But, I agree, we should adopt the KP - it will just never happen until both R and D politicians get off the corp. tit :eek:

As for socialized medicine, I am not against it in theory, I am just scared of what will happen if the govt. takes it over. The govt. tends to screw up everything it touches and then makes it into a procedural nightmare like Medicare and SS. So, I think in the end, forcing doctors and hospitals to donate a third of their time and rape the ins. companies for the other 2/3 is the only way to ensure quality and non-bureaucratic health care. But, who knows, it seems to work in GB :shrug:

BTW - did you catch Preacher man Al Gore on CNN tonight :rolleyes: Bless his spot light deprived heart :laugh:

[dissention]

Oh - the poor Kyoto protocol - I will always say that when the rest of the world comes on board, we should. I also think Clinton knew there was no way that would happen, so he set W up on that one. But, I agree, we should adopt the KP - it will just never happen until both R and D politicians get off the corp. tit :eek:

No, we should go on board for the safety of the environment, not when someone else decides to. But, you're right, all politicians suck the tits of corporate America and it will only get worse. Just wait until the titty milk runs dry, though. Thank the heavens that I'll be dead and buried before I have to see this earth crumble to dust.

As for socialized medicine, I am not against it in theory, I am just scared of what will happen if the govt. takes it over. The govt. tends to screw up everything it touches and then makes it into a procedural nightmare like Medicare and SS. So, I think in the end, forcing doctors and hospitals to donate a third of their time and rape the ins. companies for the other 2/3 is the only way to ensure quality and non-bureaucratic health care. But, who knows, it seems to work in GB :shrug:

It can't be any worse than the health care these days and at least we'd be rest assured that everyone is getting some type of coverage without shelling out their first borns for f*cking penicillin.

BTW - did you catch Preacher man Al Gore on CNN tonight :rolleyes: Bless his spot light deprived heart :laugh:

As much as I love that man, they need to give it a rest and cover the evil this administration has done. Gore is no longer a politician, he is not running for office, Shrub and Kerry are. Cover them, goddammit.

EDIT: That came off as asshole-ish. :laugh: It was not meant that way! :o

[gldstwmn]

The medical care in this country has been a travesty for the last 30 years, which is as far back as I can remember :laugh:



My parents had excellent medical care and insurance in the 70's. As a matter of fact, my dad's employer continued to pay his premiums when he was dying of lung cancer even though he could no longer work for them. I had good health insurance when I was a waitress in the mid 80's. That just doesn't exist anymore.

[strandinthewind]

I was talking about state sponsored health care, not private ins.

I think the HMO system has had successess, but for the most part has failed. I am not in an HMO nor do I want to be. Interestingly, I am in a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO and I think it runs great. Rx drugs are $5 to $10 each time and I can choose the brand name one. Each doctor's visit is $25 and the choice of doctors is far greater than the HMO choice. My portion of the premiums are $48.90 per month. All ER visits are free to me no matter if the hospital is a PPO. I am unsure how I could do better than that. Moreover, BCBS widely offers my plan in its other companies (there are many BCBS's). If I leave my job, under Federal law (COBRA) I, like anyone else, can continue this health care coverage for a year or two (I am uncertain as to the exact amount of time). I can then join a private group for about $100 a month. The COBRA provision also allows, I think (its been awhile) you to join one while still covered under another so as to avoid the one year pre-existing exceptions most plans have. So, the private coverage is out there.

Thus, I was not really talking about private insurers (which I do think need a swift kick in the rear, esp. HMO's :laugh: ) as I think it is the publicly funded health care and the health care for seniors that needs to be overhauled.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm

This is the Fight of Our Lives
by Bill Moyers
Keynote speech Inequality Matters Forum
New York University
June 3, 2004

_________________________

This is too long to post, but it is relevant to the current discussion.

[strandinthewind]

and back to the economy in a more direct manner:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/markets/stockswatch/index.htm?cnn=yes

PPI to eat at stocks

Futures turn lower after report shows big pickup in wholesale inflation.
June 17, 2004: 8:51 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Stock futures edged lower, indicating a weaker start on Wall Street, after the latest government report on inflation came in a shade higher than forecasts.

About 40 minutes before the start of trading, S&P and Nasdaq futures pointed to opening losses in the market.

U.S. producer prices shot up a hefty 0.8 percent last month, the biggest jump since March 2003, as prices for food and energy surged, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The core producer price index, which excludes food and energy prices, gained a larger-than-expected 0.3 percent. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com on average had expected a 0.6 percent rise in overall producer prices with the core index up 0.2 percent

In another sign that the economy continues to improve, claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, coming in below estimates. Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped to 336,000 in the week ending June 12, the Department of Labor said. That's down from a revised 351,000 the previous week and below economists' estimates of 340,000.

In other news, influential bond fund manager Bill Gross of PIMCO told the Financial Times that he's worried about the outlook for the global economy.

"Too much debt, geopolitical risk and several bubbles have created a very unstable environment which can turn any minute," Gross was quoted as saying. "More than any point in the past 20 or 30 years, there's potential for a reversal."

Stocks ended little changed Wednesday as the market tried to digest the latest news on consumer prices, oil and comments from Fed officials about the outlook for the economy and interest rates.

Overseas, Asian stocks ended mostly lower while European markets were little changed in morning trading.

Treasury bonds edged lower, pushing the yield on the 10-year note up to 4.74 percent from 4.72 late Wednesday. Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.

The dollar fell against the euro and Japanese yen.

Oil prices rose, supported by the stoppage to Iraqi exports after a series of sabotage strikes on key pipelines and a drop in U.S. gasoline stocks as peak summer demand approached.

U.S. light crude added 44 cents to $37.76 a barrel in electronic trading, almost $5 off the 21-year peak hit earlier this month, while Brent crude in London added 45 cents to $35.65 a barrel, Reuters reported.

[gldstwmn]

I was talking about state sponsored health care, not private ins.

I think the HMO system has had successess, but for the most part has failed. I am not in an HMO nor do I want to be. Interestingly, I am in a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO and I think it runs great. Rx drugs are $5 to $10 each time and I can choose the brand name one. Each doctor's visit is $25 and the choice of doctors is far greater than the HMO choice. My portion of the premiums are $48.90 per month. All ER visits are free to me no matter if the hospital is a PPO. I am unsure how I could do better than that. Moreover, BCBS widely offers my plan in its other companies (there are many BCBS's). If I leave my job, under Federal law (COBRA) I, like anyone else, can continue this health care coverage for a year or two (I am uncertain as to the exact amount of time). I can then join a private group for about $100 a month. The COBRA provision also allows, I think (its been awhile) you to join one while still covered under another so as to avoid the one year pre-existing exceptions most plans have. So, the private coverage is out there.



Foul. Your employer has the best coverage, the "Gold Standard" if you will, of health care. What kind of beneifts do you think the folks at Wal Mart are getting?
COBRA is sure a nice idea. However, how many unemployed folks do you think can afford to pay the full premium of their insurance each month? Maybe if they live in a box.
HMO's were the beginning of the end.

[strandinthewind]

Foul. Your employer has the best coverage, the "Gold Standard" if you will, of health care. What kind of beneifts do you think the folks at Wal Mart are getting?
COBRA is sure a nice idea. However, how many unemployed folks do you think can afford to pay the full premium of their insurance each month? Maybe if they live in a box.
HMO's were the beginning of the end.

Touche'

ITA - HMO's are just not a good idea.

[gldstwmn]

and back to the economy in a more direct manner:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/markets/stockswatch/index.htm?cnn=yes


In another sign that the economy continues to improve, claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, coming in below estimates. Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped to 336,000 in the week ending June 12, the Department of Labor said. That's down from a revised 351,000 the previous week and below economists' estimates of 340,000.

They forgot to include this part:

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent for the week ending June 5, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.3 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending June 5 was 2,895,000, an increase of 31,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,864,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,920,750, a decrease of 9,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,930,250.


UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 311,906 in the week ending June 12, an increase of 3,927 from the previous week. There were 383,371 initial claims in the comparable week in 2003.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.1 percent during the week ending June 5, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,677,997, an increase of 43,039 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.7 percent and the volume was 3,376,503.




Extended benefits were available in Alaska during the week ending May 29.

10,895 individuals filed continued claims under the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program during the week ending May 29.

Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,343 in the week ending June 5, a decrease of 70 from the prior week. There were 1,865 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 15 from the preceding week.

There were 14,267 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending May 29, an increase of 1,033 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 24,916, a decrease of 77 from the prior week.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending May 29 were in Alaska (4.9 percent), Puerto Rico (3.8), Oregon (3.2), Pennsylvania (3.0), New Jersey (2.9), Michigan (2.7), Washington (2.7), Arkansas (2.6), California (2.6), and Massachusetts (2.6).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending June 5 were in California (+2,628), Tennessee (+1,613), Pennsylvania (+1,466), Michigan (+1,442), and Louisiana (+1,055), while the largest decreases were in Texas (-1,303), Florida (-1,154), New Jersey (-889), South Carolina (-821), and Arizona (-799).

Wow! Look at that job market go! :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

Perhaps that explains the market's tepid reception to this good news.

[gldstwmn]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBANVONKVD.html

Workers' Comp Claims From Americans Working in Iraq Could Cost Government Millions

By Leigh Strope The Associated Press
Published: Jun 17, 2004






WASHINGTON (AP) - Almost half of all injury and death claims filed by U.S. government contractors so far this year were for incidents that occurred in Iraq.
The federal government ultimately will spend millions of dollars for these workers' compensation payments.

Federal law requires all U.S. government contractors and subcontractors to obtain workers' compensation insurance for civilian employees who work overseas. If an injury or death claim is related to a "war-risk hazard," the War Hazards Compensation Act provides for government reimbursement to insurance carriers.

Of the 771 injury claims filed by U.S. contractors so far this year, 345 occurred in Iraq. Of the 66 deaths reported as of last week, all but nine occurred in Iraq, according to the Labor Department, which handles the reporting of claims and reimbursements.

Since January 2003, there have been claims for 476 injuries and 80 deaths in Iraq.

Casualties are rising. A convoy of contractors was ambushed Tuesday in Baghdad. Two people were killed and three were injured when shots were fired from a highway overpass.

Among the most gruesome deaths were four civilian security personnel who were killed March 31 in Fallujah, their bodies mutilated and burned. The remains of two were hung from a bridge.

"The security situation is virtually unprecedented," said Bob Hartwig, chief economist with the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group. "You've got the potential to be kidnapped, to be killed, to be tortured, shot at, blown up."

Labor Department officials said they had no cost estimate for reimbursements of Iraq-related claims, but given the maximum payment of $1,030.78 per week and the number of injuries and deaths, it could well climb into the multimillions. In past years, annual reimbursement costs under the War Hazards Act have ranged from $1 million to $2 million.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2004/06/17/2003175447

High-end tech jobs outsourced by Microsoft

INDIAN CONTRACTS: Critics say the software giant's deals for software architects and developers are just the tip of the iceberg of future job losses

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK
Thursday, Jun 17, 2004,Page 12
In the debate over high-technology work migrating abroad, there has been widespread agreement on at least one thing: The jobs requiring higher levels of skill are the least at risk.

Routine software programming and testing jobs, analysts agree, are the ones most susceptible to being grabbed by fast-growing Indian outsourcing companies. By contrast, the people who devise the early blueprints for projects -- the software architects -- have been regarded as far less likely to see their jobs farmed out.

But Microsoft contract documents show that as far back as 2001 the big software maker had agreed to pay two Indian outsourcing companies, Infosys and Satyam, to provide skilled "software architects" for Microsoft projects. The documents were obtained earlier this month by WashTech, an organization of technology workers based in Seattle, which gave copies to The New York Times.

"The policy prescription you hear from people again and again as the response to the global competition of outsourcing is for Americans to move to high-end work," said Ronil Hira, an assistant professor for public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

"It's important to dispel the myth that high-end work is immune to offshore outsourcing," he said.

"What is not clear," Hira added, "is how much of that high-end work will go abroad."

A Microsoft spokeswoman, Stacy Drake, said that as a matter of policy the company did not comment on individual contracts with suppliers. But, she said, "We often use outside companies for projects."

The outside contractors, Drake said, are used to bring in specialized expertise Microsoft may not have in-house or to bring additional technical support onto a project.

Still, Drake said, building the "core intellectual property" in Microsoft products is left to full-time company employees.

Though definitions vary, software architects are highly skilled workers who often earn six-figure salaries in the US. The Microsoft contracts with Infosys and Satyam show that the work of software architects, senior software developers and software developers was being done by employees of the Indian companies working at Microsoft facilities in the US.

Their work did not come cheap for Microsoft, which was billed US$90 a hour for software architects, or at a yearly rate of more than US$180,000. Senior software developers were billed at US$72 an hour and software developers US$60 an hour.

The on-site work, said Hira, an expert on offshore outsourcing, is usually done by Indian software engineers who come to the US on H-1B visas, which allow foreign workers to be employed in the US for up to six years.

The Indian workers themselves are paid a fraction of what their employers collect. The top annual salaries paid by Indian outsourcing companies to Indian software experts working in the US are US$40,000 or so, Hira said.

The contracts also say that for short stints of work, less than 90 days, Microsoft will pay for round-trip economy airfare for travel between India and the US.

The contracts also include work done in India, by project managers and by software development and testing engineers. The billing rate for this work ranges from US$36 an hour to US$23 an hour.

A spokeswoman for Infosys said the company did not comment on its contracts, and a Satyam spokesman could not be reached.

Critics of the outsourcing trend regard such agreements with Indian contractors, with work done both in the US and in India, as a step toward shifting more and more skilled technology jobs overseas.

"Microsoft has hired vendors whose whole reason for being is to transfer work offshore," said Marcus Courtney, president of WashTech, an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America.

The foreign competition for work at Microsoft, Courtney said, will help the company's management put more pressure on wages for its American workers and reduce employee benefits. Last month, Microsoft announced that it planned to cut costs by an estimated US$80 million a year by trimming prescription-drug benefits, tightening parental-leave policies and making it more expensive to buy Microsoft shares through the employee stock purchase plan.

Despite its use of foreign contract workers, Microsoft expects to add 3,000 to 3,500 full-time employees to its US payroll of 37,000 in the fiscal year that ends next month.

This country is quickly going third world.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

The market players are struggling back and forth with these forces of inflation and deflation. To further complicate things, we are engaged in wars all around the globe and face the politics of a presidential election year. To add even more fuel to the fire, when we look at economic numbers and developments, we have to determine if we are looking at the picture from a country-specific point of view or a global point of view. I believe we are seeing a huge global expansion of economies, but I’m not sure how much the USA will participate since we are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. We have debts and deficits like never seen before, but Japan, China and Europe have current account balances that are net positive and not bleeding red ink. We’ll see how it all goes!

Economic Jihad -- Lots on the Line

Japan is trying to get out of a decade-long recession, China is quickly becoming a huge economic force as the Chinese people get a taste of what it is like to enjoy many of the things we take for granted (energy, transportation, jobs and home comforts), and the European Union is working to place the euro at parity with the U.S. dollar as a world reserve currency. Have you ever noticed how upset the U.S. officials get when an oil exporting nation wants to trade their oil for euros rather than dollars? You can see the stakes are very high.

I got pretty fired-up yesterday when I read a column from one of the mainstream news media outlets about how all of the economic conspiracy theorists are a bunch of whackos. Names really aren’t important, so I’ll just say the author was trying to discredit writers that claim the markets are not manipulated by entities that are “in the know.” The columnist likened them to “black helicopter” writers and saying their ideas are far-fetched at best. An investor today would have to be really naïve to think that the Fed doesn’t work to influence the economy and markets with their rhetoric, open market operations, inflation expectations and through their dealers via the Fed repo pool. Additionally, what do you think the Exchange Stabilization Fund controlled only by the President and Treasury Secretary is used for? How much influence does the Working Group on Financial Markets have on the stock, bond and commodity trades?

Under our current circumstances, many would say they are completely justified in what they do to protect all of us in the U.S. and others would say they are wrong by not allowing the free-market system to determine asset values. Folks, we are at war! A great part of the war is what happens economically. Money means power and there are a lot of players around the globe that want more money and more power! I’ve gotten away from today’s market actions, so I’ll just use one example from today to highlight my case for market intervention.

In the Middle-East we have soldiers getting killed and oil pipelines getting blown-up that cut-off 1.6 million barrels of oil per day from reaching the markets. Global demand for oil is running very high and most exporting countries are already producing as much as they can. With the current developments I would have expected crude to add at least a dollar per barrel, but it barely budged today by only gaining thirteen cents to close at $37.32 per barrel. I could be wrong, but I take the lack of price movement as our guys sending a message to the pipeline terrorists that they can’t win by threatening supplies. There was also added pressure for higher prices because U.S. inventories grew less than expected. Crude was expected to add 1.15 million barrels, but only managed a build of 800,000 and gasoline inventories were forecast to grow by 1.25 million barrels, but actually declined by 500,000. Believe it or not, with inventories declining the price of gasoline futures went down fractionally on the day to close at $1.147 per gallon.

Stocks Treading Water

If you’re bullish on the stock market, you have reason to think twice. With all the great economic news, stocks could never get going. The Dow Industrials dropped a point to close at 10,379, the NASDAQ added two points to 1,998 and the S&P 500 added one point to 1,333. Most all of the sector indices flip-flopped around break-even, but the AMEX Oil Index managed to gain eight points or 1.3% to close at 621.81. One of the reasons for the pop in oil company shares was probably the news release saying the U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy policy bill that gives oil and natural gas producers a tax break and protects manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from product liability lawsuits.

[gldstwmn]

The party's over

NEW YORK (MONEY Magazine) - The Federal Reserve has signaled that it is likely to raise interest rates, just as energy and consumer prices are rising.

The fiscal stimulus provided by the Bush tax cuts is ebbing. And although 625,000 jobs were added in March and April, increases in salaries and wages remain alarmingly subdued.

I talked to Merrill Lynch chief North American economist David Rosenberg about how our nation's economic outlook is changing and how he expects consumers and investors to fare through the remainder of the year.


DOBBS: Let's begin with jobs. Will the recent improvement last?

ROSENBERG: Most of the leading indicators are telling us that we have turned the corner on the employment side. I'm not necessarily convinced that we're going to be seeing the very strong numbers continue. To me, the more important aspect is not so much the employment side but the income side.

Q. How are we doing on that front?

A. Even with these very large numbers, real wage and salary income in March was down 0.1 percent. Average weekly earnings were up 0.3 percent in April, but it looks like consumer prices rose about 0.3 percent as well.

So my sense here is that real income growth is actually still rather subdued. I think the critical thing for the consumer is that even though income growth is rising in nominal terms, it's barely keeping up with the increases in life's necessities: medical care, food and energy.

Interest rates are backing up, and the fiscal stimulus is basically over. You tack on higher energy prices and this headwind ahead for the consumer comes to about $180 billion between now and the end of the year at an annual rate.

Q. Gasoline prices are now at a record high. Oil is moving above $40 a barrel. What will the impact be on both the consumer and the investor?

A. In terms of the investor, it's a classic case where higher energy prices would be good news for the energy sector, but they're a margin crimper for a lot of other industries. And although energy use in the United States as a share of GDP has gone down over time, it's still very significant for individual sectors.

If these gas prices are sustained, they could easily shave half a percentage point off of GDP growth. You're talking about the difference between this year being in the high fours and the low fours. But half a percentage point on a $10-trillion-plus economy isn't exactly chump change.

[strandinthewind]

AND - inflation is coming!!!!!!!!!! YIPES!!!!!!

[gldstwmn]

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?siteid=mktw&guid=%7B8FC7A857-0C12-499F-BACA-ECD9F9929291%7D&

8:30am 06/17/04
U.S. jobless claims fall in latest week By Greg Robb
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - First-time claims for state unemployment benefits fell 15,000 to 336,000 in the week ended June 12, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The four-week average of initial claims fell 2,750 to 343,250. A Labor Department official said a portion of the decline in claims can be attributed to the closing last Friday of 15 state unemployment offices as for former President Ronald Reagan's funeral. The drop in claims was roughly in line with the forecasts of Wall Street economists. Meanwhile, the number of Americans receiving state jobless benefits rose 31,000 to 2.90 million in the week ending June 5. The four-week moving average of continuing claims fell 9,500 to 2.93 million, the lowest since June 2001.

[dissention]

Foul. Your employer has the best coverage, the "Gold Standard" if you will, of health care. What kind of beneifts do you think the folks at Wal Mart are getting?

None. Wal-Mart rarely hires full-time employees, only part-time so that they don't have to give any substantial benefits. Which is why those "Look what Wally World has done for our community!" commercials sicken me. ;)

[dissention]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBANVONKVD.html

Workers' Comp Claims From Americans Working in Iraq Could Cost Government Millions

By Leigh Strope The Associated Press
Published: Jun 17, 2004


Good article. ;) Maybe instead of agreeing to provide Halliburton employees with $45 cases of Sprite, they should've thought of this beforehand. One of the biggest blunders of this operation was giving Halliburton a cost-plus-plus contract.

[gldstwmn]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1203&e=4&u=/afp/20040624/bs_afp/us_economy_unemployment&sid=96001027

Queue of newly jobless grows in US

Thu Jun 24, 9:34 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The number of people filing new claims for US unemployment benefits soared at a faster than expected rate last week, government data showed.

The number of new claimants jumped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 349,000 in the week ended June 19, the Labor Department said.

Private economists had forecast an increase of only 4,000.

The previous week, claims had slumped by 15,000, partly because of the closure of some unemployment offices for the June 11 funeral of former president Ronald Reagan.

A four-week average of new claims, which smoothes out weekly blips, rose 1,000 to 344,250.

In raw, unadjusted figures, the number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits advanced 9,645 to 321,805. There were 376,560 claims in the comparable period last year.

The existing pool of claimants -- those lodging claims for two weeks or more -- leapt 75,000 to a seasonally adjusted 2.97 million in the week ended June 12, the latest date for which those figures are available.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/US/jobless_hopeless_CSM_040702.html

Jobless and Hopless
Some Unemployed Americans Are Backing Out of the Job Market After Months of Searching

By Ron Scherer


N E W Y O R K, July 2, 2004 — After 20 months of looking for work and sending out hundreds of résumés Jeffrey Schwab has given up trying to find another job as a draftsman. He's now taken early Social Security and is considering whether to sell his Bellingham, Wash., home to move to something smaller.

"From what I can tell, there's not much to look for," says Schwab, who has 35 years of pipeline-design experience. "I am standing around with nothing to do."

Even though the economy has created 1.2 million jobs since January, some 265,000 people have dropped out of the job hunt during the same period. They would join some 19.1 million Americans in the same situation as Schwab, who are unemployed and not looking for work largely because they are convinced they won't find it. This figure, at a record level, is up 44 percent from 10 years ago.

If the job market continues to improve, this large number of people could decide to get back in the job market — which would hold the unemployment rate relatively high, even as new jobs are created.

"If this flow of nonworking Americans were to reverse, it would send the jobless rate toward 8 percent," says John Challenger of the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas in Chicago.

That would certainly be the case in Pennsylvania, agrees the state's governor, Edward Rendell (D). The official unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, but it's "much greater," Rendell says, when factoring in men who have been cut off welfare and never got back into the workforce "and as a result never show up in the unemployment rolls."

Rising Jobless Rate a Positive?

Sometimes a rising jobless rate, says Bob Brusca of Fact and Opinion Economics in New York, can be a positive sign of a vibrant labor market that's luring more people in than it can absorb. But "that change has not occurred."

Many workforce dropouts in the age group of 25 to 54 have spent years working in shrinking industries, such as telecommunications or software development. "There are many people who have been downsized — a permanent job loss — that are taking a long time to return to work," says Andrew Stettner of the National Employment Law Project in New York. "They have had such a hard time when they are looking that they have given up, even though they don't necessarily want to."

In Tiffin, Ohio, that's the case with Merree Phillips, who lost her job a year ago as a development officer at Heidelberg College. She says that at times frustrations sap her motivation. "Some weeks you don't work as hard since it's so easy to get discouraged and you wonder whether it's worth it to keep pounding your head against the wall," she says. "I have not gotten to the interview stage of any job I have applied for."

Phillips thinks that the job market is actually shrinking in her area. A year ago, she says there were 20 to 25 listings for professionals in the want ads in The Courier, a Findlay, Ohio, newspaper. Sunday, the online edition had only four such ads. "I don't want to come off as a slacker, but there aren't even any decent prospects," she says.

Returning to School

Some workers who have officially stopped looking are going back to school. Enrollment at the nation's community colleges, which offer much of the job retraining, is soaring.

One of those who has gone back to school is Penni Neff, a divorced mother of a teenage boy who lost her job at a hospital.

Now, she's in school to become a licensed practical nurse.

"Gee, I don't know why people throw their arms up and say 'I give up!' " she writes in an e-mail.

"Sorry, I'm not doing it, but I get doors slammed all the time," says Neff, who has four months left to finish her courses before she starts another training program to become a registered nurse.

Neff's move is probably in the right direction, says Challenger. "She's evidence of the migration of going from the old economy to the new, particularly jobs that are service-related," says the outplacement guru. He says other areas that the long-term unemployed should consider include international business, housing construction, real estate, utilities, and the energy industry. "People often pigeonhole themselves," he says. "We're seeing almost 50 percent of people changing industries, but not functions."

Challenger adds that hiring someone who has been out of work for a long time can be rewarding for employers as well. "[The new workers] are really hungry to get back, so you are getting someone who is really committed and is not going to move quickly as a free agent," he says. "You can save people's lives and get very committed employees that way."

A job would certainly help someone like Schwab in Bellingham. His wife, who was also laid off, is now working 30 hours a week at a store, but she does not get benefits. They are now considering all options, including the sale of their home. "We needed a bigger house to care for my wife's mom, who had Alzheimer's disease," he says. "But it's more expensive to pay for and heat."

[dissention]

I was at the hospital Friday and watched CNN where they announced the new job report for june, which fell WAY below expectations. And let us not forget that once your unemployment checks stop coming, you stop being counted in unemployemeny statistics.

On a different note, Jack Cafferty's question of the day on CNN was "What would you do if you won $290 million?" Some guy wrote in and said:

"If I won $290 million, I'd buy CNN and fire your irritating ass." :lol: