America's Economy Ailing

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
interesting article from forbes magazine...

Carl Gutierrez, 02.07.08, 5:10 PM ET

Wall Street was served on Thursday with a full plate of difficult news on the U.S. economy. In fact, Thursday began hurting as early as Wednesday afternoon when Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ) warned of a rapid slowdown in U.S. and European orders, signalling that technology spending would weaken and fanning recession fears. .

Investors then woke up to learn that Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people )?s January sales rose just 0.5%, well short of what Wall Street had expected.

The rest of the nation's retailers delivered more evidence of a stumbling economy, as companies provided their weakest January performance in nearly four decades, extending a malaise that has deepened since the holiday shopping season.

Looking beyond the retail figures, it is becoming increasingly clear that consumers wrestling with high gas and food prices, a slumping housing market, an escalating credit crisis, and a weakening job market retrenched, buying mostly necessities even when redeeming their holiday gift cards.

Of note, the weak numbers cut across all sectors including discounters like Wal-Mart Stores, teen retailers including Pacific Sunwear of California (nasdaq: PSUN - news - people ) and mall-based apparel chain Limited Brands (nyse: LTD - news - people ). Even more affluent shoppers are pulling back, hurting high-end chains like Nordstrom (nyse: JWN - news - people ).

On the economic front, initial jobless claims eased by 22,000, to 356,000, last week, a small ray of good news. But the pending home sales index fell 1.5% in December, a sign that the housing crisis has not yet ended.

"The risk of recession has certainly gone up," said Mark Vitner, an economist at Wachovia. Vitner added that he expects growth to remain lackluster until the housing market bottoms out around midyear.

Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Dennis Lockhart forecast said that with central bank interest rate cuts of 2.25 percentage points in place, the U.S. economy should be showing signs of recovery in the second half of this year.

The Federal Reserve acted "to avert a deep and protracted economic downturn," he said. But having acted decisively, rates are now down to a level he believes will support movement toward growth. At the same time, while current readings on inflation, especially from energy prices, have been elevated and are above his comfort zone, Lockhart said price pressures should moderate over the year.

That might be the case, but you couldn't tell from the bond market on Thursday. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note jumped to 3.77% in late trading from 3.62% late on Wednesday. Some of that might have been attributable to a rise in the stock market that could have lured money away from the fixed-income investments, but there seemed to be an element of inflation fear in that move.

Investor worries about the future value of the dollar were underlined by a weak auction of 30-year bonds. Demand for the longest-maturity U.S. paper was light, domestically and internationally, and interest rates shot higher. The $9 billion of bonds were sold at an average yield of 4.40%, up from the 4.36% price in late trading on Wednesday, and by the end of the day the return had risen to 4.52%, representing a nearly 3-point fall on the outstanding issues.

Reuters contributed to this article
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
well,i`m sure hillary will straighten it all out....more taxes,more freebies for illegals and throwing a few hundred billion at socialist healthcare ought to get this economy back on it`s feet...........

she`s enough to make me start to take heed of crazy uncle ron paul`s advice....

i may start hiding some gold in my mattress....
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
well,i`m sure hillary will straighten it all out....more taxes,more freebies for illegals and throwing a few hundred billion at socialist healthcare ought to get this economy back on it`s feet...........

she`s enough to make me start to take heed of crazy uncle ron paul`s advice....

i may start hiding some gold in my mattress....

i think when all is said & done my friend you will vote for mccain....
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Good article AR. The steady decline of US dollar coupled with massive deficits is going to be increasingly problematic for our economy.
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
i think when all is said & done my friend you will vote for mccain....

i was thinking that maybe...if hill wins....i`ll just stop working for a living(like my buddy wocky) and throw myself to the glories of the wonderful socialist state....


on second thought,i`ll probably think that over first......:142smilie


lemme see...does a bad tempered,mitten handed 72 year old lover of migrant labor and equal rights for murdering jihadis trump hitlery`s boot on my neck , her hand in my wallet and the fact that she`ll take us back to 09/10/01?...

does it?


f-ck!.....yeah,it probably does... :grins:

ar...."perspective"...that`s why you`re dearly needed here....:mj06:

not bad speeches they BOTH gave today....

i need to hear more from mcamnesty,though...
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
ar...."perspective"...that`s why you`re dearly needed here....:mj06:

thanks gw..i love you also..:142smilie :142smilie

mccain said that he understands he was wrong with the 'amnesty" bill & assured the people in the audience that he will secure the border...so i'll be waiting to hear how he does it...
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
i was thinking that maybe...if hill wins....i`ll just stop working for a living(like my buddy wocky) and throw myself to the glories of the wonderful socialist state....


on second thought,i`ll probably think that over first......:142smilie


lemme see...does a bad tempered,mitten handed 72 year old lover of migrant labor and equal rights for murdering jihadis trump hitlery`s boot on my neck , her hand in my wallet and the fact that she`ll take us back to 09/10/01?...

does it?


f-ck!.....yeah,it probably does... :grins:

ar...."perspective"...that`s why you`re dearly needed here....:mj06:

not bad speeches they BOTH gave today....

i need to hear more from mcamnesty,though...


stop working? Hey GW, I would happy to post my resume and I know damn well that I have worked for more fortune 500 companies, made more money on start-ups and small businesses founded by myself and others, and currently PAY A HELL OF ALOT more taxes than you do.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
GW, I don't know why you are blaming the economy on Hillary and the Liberals? Lest you forget Bush and the Republicanshad everything there way for 6 years and this is the result. It is not Hillary's fault Bush played into Bin Laden's hand and invaded Iraq. The cost of this invasion is choking us.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
stop working? Hey GW, I would happy to post my resume and I know damn well that I have worked for more fortune 500 companies, made more money on start-ups and small businesses founded by myself and others, and currently PAY A HELL OF ALOT more taxes than you do.

i didn`t know amateur egyptologists did so well.....

:rimshot


temper temper,petulant child.....you`re so easy,wocky.......:mj07:

ar...he picks huckleberry for vp,and i`m back on the fence...unfortunately...
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
GW, I don't know why you are blaming the economy on Hillary and the Liberals? Lest you forget Bush and the Republicanshad everything there way for 6 years and this is the result. It is not Hillary's fault Bush played into Bin Laden's hand and invaded Iraq. The cost of this invasion is choking us.

you think it`s bad now...this is nothing...

you don`t think universal healthcare will make iraq look like a blip in the rearview mirror?....

just the bureaucracy alone will be enough to bring this country to it`s knees....

not to mention hill throwing freebies at the illegals...



can`t raid the social security trust fund anymore....
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
i would be very surprised if this happens...

how about the former governor of ny (forgot his name..the one who followed cuomo)...he is a fiscal conservative...


not bloomberg?.....i hope not...

he should pander to his conservative base a bit,i think....hell,i`d settle for rudy....i
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
The US dollar under Bush, yet another gift from a great strong dollar conservative.

history.gif
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Declining dollar, record deficits yet again. Nothing new from the GOP.

War games, deficit games in Bush's budgeting

The Bush White House has been playing war games with its budgeting for years.

Now the White House is playing a deficit game as well.

The new, $3.1 trillion budget for 2009 which President Bush delivered to the Congress this week in a tree-saving e-budget transmission predicts deficit spending of $407 billion next year. This is close, in sheer dollar terms, to the record deficit of $413 billion which Bush set in 2004.

The deficit had been coming down, pegged last fall at $163 billion. But a slowing economy as well as the determination of both the Republican White House and Democratic congressional leaders to give the American public about $145 billion in tax relief this spring to spur the economy will push the deficit upward again.

It is projected at $410 billion this year, the White House says - just $3 billion shy of the record ? and at $407 billion in 2009.

But the White House, which also likes to save much of its funding requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for "supplemental" mid-year budget requests, has included just $70 billion for the wars in that 2009 budget submitted to Congress this week. The White House also concedes that the $70 million is only a ?piecemeal?? part of what will be needed, a ?bridge?? for wars that most "certainly" will cost more. The administration already is seeking nearly $200 billion for the wars in 2008.

So, if the White House had included only a modestly bigger bridge for the war in its 2009 budget - say $10 billion more - it would have had to forecast a deficit of $417 billion - a new record. And had the White House added a much more likely war number - say $100 billion more than the $70 billion it has posted for the year - that projected deficit would be even greater. That sort of added war cost would push total outlays in the 2009 document to $3.2 trillion - $507 billion beyond what the government expects to have on hand to spend. A new, half-trillion-dollar record deficit.

For more on the war and the deficit, read on below. For more on the budget, see the Tribune's report today. For more on the rising costs of war, see this Tribune report by Washington correspondent Aamer Madhani.

This is nothing that any departing president wants to advertise for his successor, certainly not a president who inherited a budget surplus at the start of his terms in 2001. But the true costs of the war have been hard to come by, year after year, since 2003.

?The war stuff, I have found beyond shameful for years now,?? says Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. ? This is just utterly dishonest. It is openly in your face dishonest. If you want to have a debate about national priorities, there is nothing wrong with that. When you manipulate the costs of the war year after year and try to hide it? by trying to throw it into emergency spending when it?s not an emergency? it goes beyond the usual budget legerdemain.??

Jim Nussle, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and a former congressman, doesn?t like to talk about the budget deficit in sheer dollar terms. Nor did his predecessors in the Bush administration ? why would they, considering the scenario we have spelled out here?

Rather, the director likes to speak of the deficit as a percentage of the nation?s Gross Domestic Product. By that measure, the deficit is certainly growing this year, but it will be shrinking, the way the White House reports it: From 2.9 percent of GDP this year to 2.7 percent of GDP in 2009.

As for war costs, Nussle suggests, the $70 billion contained in the 2009 budget is a good starting point for discussion. That may be because setting it only $10 billion higher would have prompted an entirely different discussion ? about not only spiraling war costs, but also new, record-level deficits, in dollar terms.

Nussle notes that it is a ?bipartisan?? tax relief plan that will ?raise the deficit by $145 billion, and obviously that will have an impact, but we believe that this up-tick is temporary, and is also a manageable budget deficit if we keep taxes low, if we can keep the economy growing, and if we can keep spending in check.

?In fact, as deficits go -- I checked back to see what it was like during the Reagan administration and Bush and Clinton -- and under Reagan in 1983, as an example, it was 6 percent of GDP; under President Bush 41, it was at 4.7 percent of GDP; and under Clinton, it was 2.9 percent of GDP,?? Nussle says. ?So this can be temporary, and we believe this is manageable.??

Now, as for that low-balled war cost in the 2009 budget:

?The president, last year -- in fact, on this very day,?? Nussle noted on Monday,?? sent up to Congress a very specific budget for the war, and in fact requested Congress to send to us and to the Defense Department resources in order to deal with our men and women who have been asked to do a tough job in the field. Congress, in a somewhat unprecedented way, did not act on it until late, and in fact has not acted on that entire package.

?There are still $108 billion that remains un-appropriated, that they have not yet demonstrated a desire to even consider or to pass on either floor,?? Nussle said. ?So we believe that we need to address 2008 first. We need to make sure that the men and women who have been asked to do a tough job have the resources they need to do that job. So Congress needs to act on the specific budget that we asked for last year.

?Congress has demonstrated that they only want to take this in piecemeal,?? the budget director says. ?And so rather than sending up a detailed budget that we saw last year had to change as a result of the Petraeus report and his testimony before Congress, Petraeus is coming back now again in March, will report to the President on the ongoing challenges and opportunities that are occurring in theater, and will hopefully give us a much better road map and strategy that we can then budget from. So we need to wait for the Petraeus report.

?So we put in a $70 billion bridge in order to deal with that which we know, as best as we can know it a year in advance,?? he says, ?without having the opportunity yet for the President to meet with his commanders in the field.??

And they have built a $407 billion ?bridge?? to the 2009 deficit in the budget presented to Congress this year, because it?s more palatable to deal with deficits in ?piecemeal?? as well.

?The future is difficult to predict,?? Nussle says. ?I mean, there's obviously a lot of fluid situation on the ground in Iraq, and to know -- and thankfully good news, generally -- but to know exactly what that strategy will be, at this point in time, would be unrealistic. I spoke with the Secretary just this morning about that, and he will testify this week in front of Congress that he doesn't know what that amount will be, but we know that $70 billion, based on the kind of piecemeal approach that Congress is taking to funding the war, is an appropriate amount to put into the budget at this point.??

We left Nussle with this question at Monday?s budget briefing at the White House: ?The up-tick that you spoke about in the deficit takes it from $162 billion to $407 billion. So clearly there's something more going on there than just a tax relief program of $145 billion. And if you start with that premise, and then you add the $70 billion placeholder for the war, and acknowledge that you're really going to be looking at something above and beyond that, how are you not, in effect, really looking at essentially a new record level in sheer dollar terms???

?You can only compare something in relationship to something else,?? Nussle replied. ?And comparing it on a nominal dollar figure amount really doesn't tell you much. It's only when you compare it to the size of the economy it tells you whether or not you're able to manage that debt or that deficit.

?So I believe that the right comparison is to compare it against the economy,?? he said. ?There's no question when you add in the final amount it will change, and it may grow higher, but we don't know what that is because Congress has not even yet completed its job of working on the 2008 war package.??
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
The US dollar under Bush, yet another gift from a great strong dollar conservative.

history.gif

remember...the economy was in decline during the last year of clinton`s presidency....he never had a surpus.......

but,they had some good years,as did the bush administration despite several natural disasters and a war....

are you getting these graphs from the same dude that sold dan rather those phony "bush nat`l guard" memos?....
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
GW, if you ever doubt the validity of any graph I post, just research it and point out how the data is incorrect. This one happens to come from the largest ForEx trading site on the planet. If you would like I can corroborate from any number of sources you would like.

As for Clinton not having a budget surplus, where did you get that piece of misinformation? Again, if CNN is not a reliable source to you I can post 5 more.

----------------------------------------------------------------

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
 
Last edited:

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
"despite several natural disasters and a war"

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

it is pointless, no matter the evidence presented, you and Wayne say but, but, Katrina.

As for the "war" (what nation are at war with again? I guess you meant to say occupation) if you had bothered to read the article you may have noticed

"But the White House, which also likes to save much of its funding requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for "supplemental" mid-year budget requests, has included just $70 billion for the wars in that 2009 budget submitted to Congress this week. The White House also concedes that the $70 million is only a ?piecemeal?? part of what will be needed, a ?bridge?? for wars that most "certainly" will cost more. The administration already is seeking nearly $200 billion for the wars in 2008.

So, if the White House had included only a modestly bigger bridge for the war in its 2009 budget - say $10 billion more - it would have had to forecast a deficit of $417 billion - a new record. And had the White House added a much more likely war number - say $100 billion more than the $70 billion it has posted for the year - that projected deficit would be even greater. That sort of added war cost would push total outlays in the 2009 document to $3.2 trillion - $507 billion beyond what the government expects to have on hand to spend. A new, half-trillion-dollar record deficit.

For more on the war and the deficit, read on below. For more on the budget, see the Tribune's report today. For more on the rising costs of war, see this Tribune report by Washington correspondent Aamer Madhani.

This is nothing that any departing president wants to advertise for his successor, certainly not a president who inherited a budget surplus at the start of his terms in 2001. But the true costs of the war have been hard to come by, year after year, since 2003.

?The war stuff, I have found beyond shameful for years now,?? says Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. ? This is just utterly dishonest. It is openly in your face dishonest. If you want to have a debate about national priorities, there is nothing wrong with that. When you manipulate the costs of the war year after year and try to hide it? by trying to throw it into emergency spending when it?s not an emergency? it goes beyond the usual budget legerdemain.??
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
you mean like the graph you posted from "whitehouse.gov"?....lol

it`s not so much the fact that we`re at war....it`s just sad that it took so long for us(i.e.clinton) to realize that they`re at war with us...

but the `conomy will straighten up....mommy(hillary) will take care of everything...

she`ll be giving MY money to every shithole,fad panic(global warming/healthcare) and social parasite...


btw,all this cutting and pasting...you`ve been hanging around with pt1 to long....

we`re gonna have to get you a "right wing conspiracy" membership card....:grins:
 
Last edited:

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
The graph stated, correctly, that it was based on data provided by whitehouse.gov. Would love to see you challenge it.

Remind me again what country we are at war with?

Yawn, your Clinton obsession is so tiresome. The posts in this thread reflect nothing other than the current economic realities of the US. They have nothing to do with Hillary, but I know it is impossible for you to address them directly. All you have is your Hillary rants. Its sad, and boring.

She isn't even going to be the democratic nominee. And let me tell you something, when the GOP trots out McCain, OBama is going to take him out behind the woodshed.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,521
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
-Per Jabbers---------------------------------------------------------------

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/[/QUOTE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++



Yep Jabbers but what liberals always fail to mention is how that occured--
You think when "the people" booted all the liberals and GOP took over with Contract with America had anything to do with it.

Kinda like those saying he was responsible for Welfare Reform when it was GOP and Slick actually vetod bill-twice I believe till it passed.

--and surely you haven'y forgot this post from just yesterday--per Romneys speech--


" we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend."

Yep cut military--do nothing when america was attacked by radicals--pass the cost of consequences and fight to the next admin--and rave how you cut spending and they vamped it back up--liberal logic?????

and on your corprorate history affiliation claims--you'll have to excuse me if I'm just a tad skepticle.

I don't know the 1st business orientated person--who is for a party that dictates what they pay employees--then want to cap what they charge for product--while taxing the hell out of them--doesn't leave a lot of room for solvency.:)

---and a bit more of history if I may--No doubt what Clintons legacy will be--but I might remind you on GW if you think this war and his 31% approval rating will be indicative of his future legacy--you might want to check these #'s out--

"President Truman had the lowest rating ever in the Gallup Poll with 23 percent approval in 1952 during the Korean War" and as Paul Harvey would say "We know the rest of the story";)
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top