Americans aren't buying the 'good economy' the Republicans are selling!

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060421/ts_csm/apitch
Of all the problems Republicans face heading into the fall political season, one of the most exasperating is the economy.

In many ways, they say, these are the best of times: Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, lower than the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along.

Yet many Americans just aren't impressed. A majority tell pollsters they trust the Demo- crats more than the GOP to handle the economy. When asked in an open-ended question which is the most important problem facing the country today, respondents to a recent CBS News poll named "economy/jobs" second after the Iraq war - and ahead of immigration, terrorism, and healthcare.

"First, there's general concern about globalization and its effect on American manufacturing jobs," says GOP pollster Whit Ayres. "We see low unemployment, but the headlines are dominated by the thousands being laid off by General Motors and Ford."

Underlying that, he adds, is concern about healthcare and being able to afford and keep health insurance if something happens to one's job. The latest run-up in gasoline prices also doesn't help the Republican-led government in Washington, even if there's little it can do in the short term about that.

Independent pollster John Zogby sees the public's skepticism over the economy as part of a larger picture of overall concern over the direction of the nation and a president struggling to recapture Americans' confidence. "It's not just the economy," he says. "If we were at peace or the war was going well or there was confidence in other areas, then the economic news could be bolstered and people could begin to feel better."

In order to understand the full picture on public concerns about the economy, he says, a raft of "secondary indicators" must be factored in: health benefits, pensions, gasoline prices, as well as 401(k)s and stock portfolios.



And what is probably the biggest omission from everyones economic outlook opinion is the huge deficits. There is NO WAY that we can have even another 5 more years of a half trillion dollar deficit per YEAR. And without the deficit spending the economic stats would show it was sinking dismally.
So maybe the failure of the stock market under Bush to ever reach the level under Clinton despite over 5 years of Bush deficits is truly understood by Americans.
Maybe there is some hope for us after all?

 

[conjur]

People are VERY short-sighted right now.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060421/1034635.asp

...the Conference Board, a business-funded research group, said its Index of Leading Economic Indicators dipped 0.1 percent in March to 138.4 after falling a revised 0.5 percent in February to 138.5.

The March reading was slightly below analysts' projections; they had expected the index to show no change in March from February.

The declines followed four consecutive months of rising readings and came as soaring crude oil prices and higher interest rates are expected to begin cutting into consumer spending, which is the engine for two-thirds of the nation's economic growth.

Ken Goldstein, labor economist at the New York-based Conference Board, said the index declines appeared to be signaling weaker economic growth ahead.

"With the price of a barrel of oil rising above $70 and with interest rates slowly increasing, the global economy isn't likely to be picking up steam soon," he said in a statement. Higher oil prices, he said, would boost business costs and, likely, prices to consumers, dampening spending.

"The latest leading indicator readings suggest some slowing in the pace of economic activity through this summer," Goldstein concluded.

...

Investors, apparently more focused on quarterly earnings reports than economic news, sent the Dow Jones industrial average up 70.76, or 0.6 percent, to 11,349.53 in midafternoon trading.

 

[NetGuySC]

This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

 

[conjur]

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

good one.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC


This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

dumbya looks bad without anyone's help.
liberal media HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Phew, needed that. Thanks.
How good is the economy for anyone who doesn't have a stock portfolio? I am paying 60+ dollars a week for gas, grocery stores are raising prices to compensate for fuel costs, and any type of flight I take will be jacked up due to the fuel costs as well.

Liberal media ROFL. thanks again for the laugh.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well, the truth is that the economic outlook is dependent on who you are:

1) Country club sector
- family income no less than 2x median for your state/locality
- own your home (WITHOUT an ARM)
- stable employment . . . upper level management or a service sector that's difficult to outsource
- substantial investment portfolio . . . beyond your house

2) Typical American sector
- family income within shouting distance of median
- own your home but early in a mortgage or have refi to pay off . . . or rent
- one of the tens of millions Americans working in service sector or semi-skilled labor
- minimal portfolio or savings . . . beyond your home

3) Working poor (contrary to GOPie horror stories . . . most Americans work)
- family knows poverty level wages well
- short of winning the Habitat lottery . . . these people rent in the worst neighborhoods from atrocious slum lords
- Welcome to McDonald's can I take your order . . . or . . . Welcome to Walmart do you need a cart

It could scarcely get better for #1. Another cut in income taxes (say down to 32% since no American should have to pay a 1/3 of their income to the Feds), permanent reduction in dividend/capital gains taxes to 10% (creates investment and jobs), and permanent repeal of the estate tax (family farms, small bizness, yada yada yada).

Fuel costs? No problem just got a new Cayenne.
Healthcare costs? No problem, my employer has great plans PLUS a funded HSA.
Housing costs? Couldn't be better, I'm getting enough from my rental properties to upgrade the summer house.
War in Iraq? I got a "Support the Troops" ribbon on my bumper . . . oops . . . my mistake . . . that's a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker . . . same difference.
Illegal Immigration? Build a wall and ship the ones here back . . . except for Pedro he cuts the grass and Isabel she cooks and Malena she cleans and Miguel I buy my pot from him . . . oh and Eva . . . she works at the massage parlor.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: NetGuySC


This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

dumbya looks bad without anyone's help.
liberal media HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Phew, needed that. Thanks.
How good is the economy for anyone who doesn't have a stock portfolio? I am paying 60+ dollars a week for gas, grocery stores are raising prices to compensate for fuel costs, and any type of flight I take will be jacked up due to the fuel costs as well.

Liberal media ROFL. thanks again for the laugh.

Aw come on. You negative nellies keep trying to talk down an EXPLODING economy! Don't you libs understand that soaring gasoline and grocery prices are a sign of an economy that's getting STRONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGER by the hour? Besides, NOBODY is worried about gas prices anyway!

:laugh:

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: conjur
People are VERY short-sighted right now.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060421/1034635.asp

...the Conference Board, a business-funded research group, said its Index of Leading Economic Indicators dipped 0.1 percent in March to 138.4 after falling a revised 0.5 percent in February to 138.5.

The March reading was slightly below analysts' projections; they had expected the index to show no change in March from February.

The declines followed four consecutive months of rising readings and came as soaring crude oil prices and higher interest rates are expected to begin cutting into consumer spending, which is the engine for two-thirds of the nation's economic growth.

Ken Goldstein, labor economist at the New York-based Conference Board, said the index declines appeared to be signaling weaker economic growth ahead.

"With the price of a barrel of oil rising above $70 and with interest rates slowly increasing, the global economy isn't likely to be picking up steam soon," he said in a statement. Higher oil prices, he said, would boost business costs and, likely, prices to consumers, dampening spending.

"The latest leading indicator readings suggest some slowing in the pace of economic activity through this summer," Goldstein concluded.

...

Investors, apparently more focused on quarterly earnings reports than economic news, sent the Dow Jones industrial average up 70.76, or 0.6 percent, to 11,349.53 in midafternoon trading.

In fairness, the article notes

Ed Yardeni, chief investment strategist with Oak Associates Ltd. investment firm in Akron, Ohio, said the leading indicators report was consistent with the economy "simmering down" to a sustainable growth rate of about 3 percent.

A projected 3% growth rate is still a healthly pace. He did express concerns about the cost of oil. I don't know if the increase in oil costs were considered in his reduced growth rate projection.


*edit: typo

 

[conjur]

Don't forget, the GDP would be 0% or even negative w/o MEW being factored in.

 

[jlbenedict]

What is used to come up with the unemployment statistics?

Couldn't those numbers be fudged as in, not counting the possibly hundreds of unemployed that have been unemployed so long that their benefits have run out?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
What is used to come up with the unemployment statistics?

Couldn't those numbers be fudged as in, not counting the possibly hundreds of unemployed that have been unemployed so long that their benefits have run out?

I mentioned that exact thing a long time ago. After 6 months, your benefits run out, and before anyone says, there's jobs available, you're right, however, if someone was making 60k a year and could only find a job at walmart, he'd need 2 or 3 jobs to take home what he/she previously made before, and in no way survive on one job.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
What is used to come up with the unemployment statistics?

Couldn't those numbers be fudged as in, not counting the possibly hundreds of unemployed that have been unemployed so long that their benefits have run out?

1. Employment and Unemployment Reporting - Aug. 24, 2004

"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE
SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"

A Series Authored by Walter J. "John" Williams

"Employment and Unemployment Reporting"
(Part Two in a Series of Five)

August 24, 2004
http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/article/id=341

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Department of Labor, conducts two monthly surveys of U.S. employment and unemployment. Results usually are released on the first Friday of the month following the survey:

Household Survey (also Current Population Survey) -- The household survey generates the unemployment rate from a statistically designed monthly sampling of roughly 60,000 households. Other surveys, such as the annual poverty survey, often are piggybacked on the employment questions. The survey measures the number of people who have jobs.

Payroll Survey (also Establishment or Current Employment Statistics Survey) -- The payroll survey generates an estimate of the number of nonfarm jobs in the U.S. economy, based on a monthly non-random sampling of payroll tax filings of about 160,000 U.S. corporations and government agencies. The survey measures the number of jobs (some individuals hold more than one job).

The household survey is conducted during the week that includes the 12th of the month. The payroll survey is conducted as of the payroll period that includes the 12th of the month. Other than for seasonal factors, the household survey gets revised only with series or population redefinition. The payroll series is revised for two months following the initial release and then again in an annual benchmark revision.

Where the household survey includes farm workers, the self-employed and workers in private homes, the payroll survey does not. The payroll survey counts jobs, making no adjustment for multiple jobholders. Yet, adjusting for all differences, the BLS never has been able to reconcile the two series within one million jobs.

Conventional wisdom in the financial community is that the payroll survey is more accurate, given its larger sampling base. To the contrary, the household is scientifically designed, and the error can be estimated to any degree desired. The payroll data are haphazard at best, and the BLS has no idea of potential reporting error.

The BLS estimates a 90% confidence interval for a change in the unemployment rate of ±0.22%, and a 90% confidence interval for the monthly change in payrolls of ±108,000. The BLS, however, admits the payroll survey's confidence interval is not solid, given built in biases and the lack of randomness in the monthly sample.

The payroll survey used to include a regular monthly bias factor of about +150,000 jobs. Those jobs were added each month for good measure, as an estimate of jobs created by new companies. Companies that went out of business generally were assumed to be employing the same number of people as before they went out of business.

In the last couple of years, the BLS has modeled and seasonally adjusted its bias factor; there is no more guesstimation. Accordingly, new monthly bias factors have ranged from -321,000 to +270,000 during the last year. This, combined with continuous seasonal adjustment revisions, has added to the volatility of recent monthly reporting.

Suggesting that the household survey is more accurate than the payroll survey, however, does not mean household survey accurately depicts unemployment. While its measures have definable statistical accuracy, the accuracy is related only to the underlying questions surveyed and to the universe of people surveyed.

The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration's monthly household survey.

While the preceding concentrates on the numbers that tend to move the markets, the household survey also measures employment. The payroll survey also surveys average hourly and weekly earnings and average workweek.
______


Addendum to Installment One (Published 9/7/04)

Bureau of Labor Statistics' Correction to Payroll Survey Description

In response to my comments on the "non-random" and "haphazard" nature of the payroll employment survey in Installment One, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) advised that my information was outdated, that the payroll survey used scientifically designed probability sampling, which had been phased in over several years and completed as of June 2003.

I was aware of the changes to the system, but did not think they improved the quality of the reported results much. I have just reviewed the BLS's current sampling methodology and have not changed my mind. While I may have used inaccurate terminology in describing the sampling method for the series, my general comments remain, and I still believe the household survey to be the more accurate of the two.

The household survey is proactive in nature and designed and sampled so its results can be determined with measurable statistical confidence.

While the payroll survey sampling approach may be sounder statistically than it was several years ago, it still is responsive, in nature, subject to whatever is reported or not reported by U.S. corporations. While individual companies are selected at random for following, the universe they are selected from still is not random and can vary meaningfully with changing times. An element of haphazardness is inherent in the universe of reporting companies.

During a recession, for example, firms go out of business and stop reporting, but the BLS does not know whether a company is out of business or did not report for some other reason. This supposedly is accounted for by the business birth (creation)/death (going out of business) modeling of companies, which replaces the old bias factor system.

There is no way to model these numbers with any meaningful accuracy, and the monthly swings in the birth/death data now often are greater than the reported monthly changes in total payrolls.

The BLS has a Herculean task in trying to measure monthly payrolls with meaningful results, and it has expended significant effort to improve its system. Nonetheless, it is difficult to see noticeable improvement in monthly reporting quality. Contrary to BLS expectations of improved results, I would be extraordinarily surprised if revisions to the series don't get larger, as opposed to smaller, as a result of what now is probably over-modeling of the series.

This already is evident in the monthly revisions to some individual industry series that I follow closely. It will be interesting to see how large the next several annual benchmark revisions are for the new system.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC


This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

In the county I live in Ohio about 40% of the people are getting some form of state welfare. And do you want to know whats shocking? In 1977 this county had the highest per capita income in the state.

How can you go from being so wealthy, to being so poor?

Big business moved in. The number 1 employer here now pays barely over minimum wage. Walmart came. Super walmart came. Kroger came. Super Kroger came. Lowes came. Staples came. Local farmers got beat out by huge farming companies.

Because of big business, over 40% of the people living here are too poor to get by on their own. It is very difficult to find a job that will provide a comfortable living. And you know whats so horrible about it all? The local government, elected by the very people suffering, encouraged the change every step of the way by providing tax breaks and incentives.

Those tax breaks were pretty costly.

 

[piasabird]

They were talking on the radio today that under Clinton the Feds were a lot tougher on immigration and since Bush took office enforcement of illegal immigration has almost completely stopped. Interesting fact.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC


This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

YET again, we have another attempt to blame the media for not reporting the good news. See, just like the media refused to compare the number of new schools opened in Iraq relative to the number of bombings/killings .... the media is not reporting that the economy is just GREAT!

But hold on. Here is a foxnews poll which has GWB at a 33% approval rating

By three-to-one the public says the recent news reports they have been hearing have been more bad news stories (54 percent) than good news on the economy (17 percent). Does this factor in to the decision-making process on how the economy is doing?

Overall, nearly half (48 percent) say their views on economic conditions are based more on their own personal experiences and one in five (21 percent) say more on news reports.

So people are looking at increased gas prices, health care costs, lack of job security and saying well gee who give a flying fvck if productivity rose or the GDP is at 4%.

try again.

 

[Zebo]

The problem is scut work for scut pay. What does it matter if we have 100% employment if mom and dad both have to work two jobs to barley scape by? The US economy is no longer creating jobs in high value sectors as BLS stats show.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060417_jobs.htm

Many of you reading this thread are to blame for that. Driving that import you chose to feed someone else children rather than your own.

 

[techs]

Anyone older than say, 40, remembers the government used to compile and publish all kinds of statistics about jobs: numbers, type, salary, benefits, location, etc. We used to know what was going on in the economy.
Since Bush came to office the government has stopped doing that.
For example we only see how many jobs were created last month, not how many were minimum wage, how many had health insurance, etc.
I suspect that these statistics would be really, really shockingly bad.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The sad thing is that the Republicans are selling lies and the Democrats have nothing to sell...a power shift at either the legislative or executive levels will change nothing so long as a two party system persists.

I don't understand how some of you can relish in the failure of the Republicans when the Democrats do not offer much of an alternative, other then to point fingers at Republicans...I don't see either party coming up with viable bi-partisan solutions to much of anything.

And the notion that one party is better at guiding the economy then another is absolutely absurd...there are simply too many dynamics at play to either credit or blame economic shifts and cycles on a political party.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC


This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

Yeah, that librul media, always a lyin' about that good 'ol George W. Bush. Hell, I can't walk down the street without someone offering me a $80k/year job with benefits! This is one great economy. Praise be! Yee-haw!!!

Seriously, public perception of the economy is negative because gas is now $3/gallon. Things are more expensive overall. The only people getting raises are executives. The American people don't need the news media to tell them when their bank accounts are running low.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: NetGuySC


This is a result of the liberal media constantly overlooking positive news in order to try and negatively influence public perceptiion of the economy thus making Bush look bad.

In the county I live in Ohio about 40% of the people are getting some form of state welfare. And do you want to know whats shocking? In 1977 this county had the highest per capita income in the state.

How can you go from being so wealthy, to being so poor?

Big business moved in. The number 1 employer here now pays barely over minimum wage. Walmart came. Super walmart came. Kroger came. Super Kroger came. Lowes came. Staples came. Local farmers got beat out by huge farming companies.

Because of big business, over 40% of the people living here are too poor to get by on their own. It is very difficult to find a job that will provide a comfortable living. And you know whats so horrible about it all? The local government, elected by the very people suffering, encouraged the change every step of the way by providing tax breaks and incentives.

Those tax breaks were pretty costly.

And yet, you want to invite illegal immigrants in to compete with those poor Americans for the menial jobs that are there. :roll:

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
And yet, you want to invite illegal immigrants in to compete with those poor Americans for the menial jobs that are there. :roll:

Please try to understand the subtlety of my arguments. When I point out the flaws, the sometimes bigotry, the xenophobia, and other sorts of irrationality in people's thinking about "illegal immigration" that does not mean I am automatically on the other side of the fence. There is no fence. There are thoughts, though, and those are always flawed. Mine in particular. Which is why opinion is not static, and indeed why my own bigotry comes out sometimes, and why the only "fence" that exists is ficticious.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


And the notion that one party is better at guiding the economy then another is absolutely absurd...there are simply too many dynamics at play to either credit or blame economic shifts and cycles on a political party.

Historically thats an untruth. Democrats inherit weak economies and strengthen them. Republicans take strong economies and break them.

A little history:

The Great Depression. That was the peroid when the cheap labor conservatives controlling both end of PA Ave. gave us 23% unemployment.

Liberal Democrats then held the white house and congress for twenty years, until 1953 culminating in 2.5% umemployment and a period which many historians refer to as the "golden era."

Eisenhower another republican wrecked that ending out his term with 6.5% unemployment.

The Liberal Democrats too over again in 1960 with John F. Kennedy and Johnson Leaving office with 3.5%

Nixon (R), Ford(R), carter(D), Reagan(R) Bush(R) all had unemployment above 5%.

What about Carter you say. Well he left office with same record he came in with. But in general it was republican rule the whole time never repeating thier adversaires record.

It took the Clinton administration to do it. Another liberal Democrat who dropped unemployment down to 3.9%.

Why is simple. A higher wage environment that democratic administrations demand produces more demand on the bottom which gets spent on more goods and service which in turn produces economic expansion and more hiring. I would also argue that huge republican deficeit borrowing locks up capital that would otherwise be used for business expansion, in effect freezing the economy.

 

[ericlp]

Sorry, I don't have faith in america anymore...

I along with million others have been telling the people to wake up and no one cares ....


Why should they now?

 

[ExpertNovice]

It is unfortunate that, per your subject, the current investors are not Americans. Guess the minority group that are investing will have to subsidize those that are not even more so in the future.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Historically thats an untruth. Democrats inherit weak economies and strengthen them. Republicans take strong economies and break them. A little history:

Your historical perspective is a bit one sided and selective...I would agree with you somewhat had you made a case regarding who controlled the legislative branch towards your selected eras of prosperity...the Executive branch in and of itself has little influence over the economy.

Similarly, unemployment is just one of numerous factors that measure prosperity...inflation, stable economic growth, R&D expenditures and any number of other dynamics also play a significant role.

If you examine the eras you selected, the Great Depression was due to a number of factors, most of them anchored on Wall Street and not Capital Hill.

The "golden era" you mentioned largely resulted from the jobs and industrial growth that occurred during WW2...not to mention America's elevated status as a world superpower, and a more integrated work force, across both gender and racial lines.

Eisenhower came into office as the Cold War began to heat up, and with that came numerous financial obligations and challenges...not to mention that America simply could not maintain the economic growth of WW2, resulting in much of the economic stagnation of that era...particularly as the military downsized, and veterans began to flood a work force that represented a greater number of women and minorities...a dynamic that was not a factor prior to WW2.

You mention Kennedy and Johnson, but I fail to see what programs or initiatives they developed that helped the economy...Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter perpetuated the Cold War mentality without providing much economic security at home.

Clinton largely inherited the economic prosperity and stability that built momentum through the 1980s, as America regained confidence in its prominant world power role. Again, that was due to a number of factors, Reagan being just one of them.

It took the Clinton administration to do it. Another liberal Democrat who dropped unemployment down to 3.9%.

Yet Clinton left office with an economy that began to stagnate and ultimately decline towards recession, largely due to the financial irresponsibility of the dot.com era...if you wish to praise Presidents for their economic vision, you should also point out their failures...Clinton's inability to define a post-Cold War role for America and sustain high tech growth were just two of his failures. Of course, the ripples of globalization also play a part in this story, so it is a bit premature to blame Clinton in this regard.

Why is simple. A higher wage environment that democratic administrations demand produces more demand on the bottom which gets spent on more goods and service which in turn produces economic expansion and more hiring. I would also argue that huge republican deficeit borrowing locks up capital that would otherwise be used for business expansion, in effect freezing the economy.

That is a fairly simplistic economic model, and fails to recognize that few Democrats or Republicans have managed to sustain economic growth largely because the cyclical nature of the economy is somewhat independent of who happens to be in office.