Bush's economy is strong and getting stronger

Discussion in 'Politics' started by a529612, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. fhl


    It is exceedingly difficult to get everyone above the poverty level when x percent of the income distribution is defined as poverty.
    #21     Feb 2, 2007
  2. Actually my post was just a bit tongue in cheek. The economy is what it is.

    I'll give you one time when Bush said something true. "It's an ownership society." Like any other third world economy, U.S. asset holders are king and wage slaves compete with Mexican's for depreciating hourly pay and skyrocketing cost of living. American's can blame themselves.

    Too many of us are willing to buy a foreign automobile or buy Made in China toys for the kids or a suit from Brazil. The American consumer IS A FOE of the American worker. There's your self interest component.

    #22     Feb 2, 2007
  3. To the guy who's starving in Tampico or Caracas the U.S. job market looks pretty good, eh?

    American's had better grow up. And fast. In the "new world" menial labor jobs will be a BONUS compared to the 20% unemployment that lurks around the corner.

    I just love it when people assume that a living, COLA wage is their birthright. Most of us are no more skilled or intelligent than someone working in Shanghai or Sao Paulo. Why should globalization capitalize our productivity at a higher standard of living than workers in less developed nations? The gaps between developed (G8) nations and emerging economies are collapsing. That trend is NOT to be faded.
    #23     Feb 2, 2007
  4. You don't really get it.

    Z buys RAD. RAD rallies. Z sells RAD. Z uses RAD proceeds to buy Volvo. Z shows up as a "negative" saver.

    Another case in point. DooDoo works for the government. Government pays DooDoo 75k against a 65k pension at retirement. DooDoo spends his 75k each year to the tilt because his retirement is secure via pension. DooDoo shows up as a "negative" saver.

    None of this is to diminish the sad fact that many American's are struggling. I'm merely explaining the use of this particular data.
    #24     Feb 2, 2007
  5. Precisely. Lou Dobbs rails about this every night. It sounds like he has a point, but then you see the general level of prosperity and it seems like the free traders are right.

    The basic problem with liberals is that they simply don't understand economics. They want low inflation, but then they complain that the wage level has not gone up. Duuhhh...They want the "working poor" to earn decent wages, but they can't bear the thought of not letting in every illegal day laborer who comes here. Somehow they think that it is a reasonable outcome for people to lay around on welfare, taking drugs and having illegitimate babies, but they are entitled to free food, lodging, first class medical care and a decent retirement. Oh yeah, you're a greedy bastard if you object to paying for it.

    And they are simply outraged if an enormous company providing an essential product is profitable. Forget what their return on capital is, it's just the magnitude of the bottom line number that is significant. These are the people who sneer at the rest of us as being ignorant, uneducated boobs.
    #25     Feb 2, 2007
  6. King Henry The XVIII had an ownership society too, just that only the Lords had ownership, not the commons.

    You may see it is a good thing to have the gap widen between the haves and have nots, but that is a recipe for revolution down the road if it continues.

    We, yes I say we, Americans have some systemic issues that are not really healthy for the long run. Inability to delay gratification, willing, as you say to sell out Americans in favor of cheaper goods and services, and priorities that read like a kid in a candy shop.

    #26     Feb 2, 2007
  7. I show up as a negative saver?


    Now you think you know how much I spend relative to what I save.

    Mowronic, to the Pabst.

    Except for one thing, RAD can make one a fortune...

    Okay, a small fortune.


    #27     Feb 2, 2007
  8. It was an example Z, LOL. I suspect you do pretty well and your hours in front of the screen MUST keep your spending somewhat in check.....:)
    #28     Feb 2, 2007
  9. There was a rule I was taught by a successful man long ago.

    Live at least 10% below your means.

    How well do we see that applied in America?

    Then what happens when low wages make it impossible to even do so?

    There is a trend, at least here in California, that kids are living at home longer, simply because they can't afford to live on their own...wages are not enough to pay for housing, insurance, food, transportation, etc.

    Those who claim we have no inflation are not living in the real world at all...
    #29     Feb 2, 2007
  10. Here's a news flash. People NEVER earned enough beginning their work life to afford an upper middle class lifestyle right off the bat. Plus, what people consider the bare necessity has grown beyond belief. Look at the starter homes from the '50's and today. Today's consumers are spoiled rotten and have an entitlement mentality.
    #30     Feb 2, 2007