Merrill Lynch reports to clients: 7 reasons economy's screwed

NBC News First Read mentions a report released yesterday by Merrill Lynch's research department to clients (a clear majority of whom undoubtedly are Republicans). It's not a pretty picture, to say the least. The supply-side "trickle-down" economy is exposed as a complete farce. There's no way these people can believe in it, their own investment company is telling them it's a failure. Any time you hear one of them defending it in the future, you have your talking points listed below, courtesy of Merrill Lynch (I bolded critical numbers and terms):

The Merrill Lynch research department yesterday presented clients with a list titled "Seven Constraints Facing the Consumer:"

1) Personal "savings rate at -0.7%;"

2) "Debt/income ratio at a record 124% (was 117% a year ago);"

3) "Housing affordability at a 14-year low; 16-year low for first-time buyers;"

4) "Fed tightening... - households have $2.3 trillion of short-term debt that will get dinged by the relentless rise in short-term rates;"

5) "Higher energy prices;"

6) "Lagging wages: average hourly earnings" are growing at the "weakest pace" since December 1990; and,

7) "Regulatory credit changes: Fed letters of guidance (mortgages), tightened bankruptcy protection laws (Chapters 7, 13), higher minimum credit balance payments."

So, there you have it: The Republican economy at work for Americans.

•  Why Does

  Merrill Lynch Hate America?

  by bonddad on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:16:52 AM PDT

  •  I love the unanimity of the vote

    28 for "we're screwed because of the Republicans" when I voted.

    by billlaurelMD on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:20:59 AM PDT

  •  Hey I thought tax breaks would lead to more

    Consumer savings?

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:40:00 AM PDT

  •  Ha, almost put that in the diary. Slipped my mind.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:51:28 AM PDT

  •  Merrill Lynch ... BEARISH on America ... n/t

    by Grok Your World on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:17:53 AM PDT

    •  Bearish on the Administration

      If Merrill were a bit less Republican in its beliefs, the firm could have boiled its itemized list, Seven Constraints Facing the Consumer, down to a single linchpin:

      One Key Constraint Facing the Nation:

      1) Moron in the Oval Office.

      by marquer on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:52:51 PM PDT

      •  Merrill Lynch ... Bearish on BushCo !!!

        Thought of that one well after I had written the first one.

        by Grok Your World on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:56:55 AM PDT

  •  Hey bonddad...

    ...did you write that report? :)

    Seriously, though, folks, bonddad's been saying these things for what, at least a year now?  And it's only NOW that Merill's finally getting the picture?  Hell, they should fire whatever analyst wrote that and hire bonddad instead, clearly we here at dKos have been ahead of that curve for a while.

    by viget on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:39:56 PM PDT

    •  Where's Bondad?

      I seriously want to pull my investments. I've lost 3% in the last month!

      What's the word? Gold? Foreign real estate? Emerging economies?

      This "investing to keep up with inflation" shit isn't going to get me to retirement, if you catch my drift. (I won't even bring up how precarious that is if you get sick the day after you retire and lose your medical benefits, now.)

      So, any help? Is ANYTHING "safe" any more?

      by Timbuk3 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:22:27 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for remembering

      that I have been writing about this for awhile.  It's very flattering.

      by bonddad on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:44:11 PM PDT

  •  negative savings rate is GOOD for the economy

    its a big reason we had the '90's boom

    japan, mired in a decade long recession, had a savings rate of 30%, while the united states had a savings rate of -2.5% or so

    negative savings = more consumption = better economy

    by The Exalted on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:52:18 PM PDT

    •  Strange. Your signature says...

      ..."I believe in saving money."

      I would think a relatively low savings rate could be good for the economy, at least for awhile. And an extremely high savings rate would put the brakes on commerce, hurting the economy. But a NEGATIVE savings rate is not possibly sustainable, is it?

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:07:19 PM PDT

      •  re

        
        in the long term, certainly a negative savings rate is nonsensical, but in the short term, as presented in this diary, negative savings is very good for the economy

        p.s. my signature is merely the sentiment of a hoaxed chris walken candidacy for president . . .

        by The Exalted on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:12:34 PM PDT

        •  It doesn't look short -term to me.

          The negative savings rate looks to be a result of people going deeper and deeper in hock just to pay the bills.

          by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:26:36 PM PDT

          •  Dumb question

            For years now, we've been hearing about Americans' poor savings habits.

            But how is this rate calculated? Is it only savings that sits in traditional savings accounts in banks? Or is there some other measure that is taken into account to come up with the savings rate? Do brokerage, IRA accounts, and 401Ks get counted in this figure?

            In the past few years, interest rates on traditional savings accounts have been so low that this was a very unattractive place to park money for a rainy day.

            by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:24:17 PM PDT

            •  snart

              those low-rate savings accounts are going to look pretty good if/when the real estate bubble messily bursts and the stock market shits itself in response.

              I'm probably going to move a big chunk of my IRA into a CD, if I can, sometime this year, soon as I milk AAPL and GOOG for all they're worth.

              by mudskipper on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:44:47 PM PDT

  •  re

    for that matter

    the housing affordability and debt/income ratio are also indicative of a healthy economy

    the author of this diary does not know what he is talking about

    by The Exalted on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:54:45 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      Snapshots are never worth spit in trying to determine whether the economy is strong. The real key is the delta. In this case, I'd suggest the trend is not a positive ...

      by wystler on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:38:52 PM PDT

    •  Indicators

      The negative savings rate, housing affordability index and debt/income ratio are indicators of an economy at the top of the business cycle.  The analysts at Merrill Lynch are warning their clients about the rising risk of a turn in the business cycle in an economy so heavily dependent on consumer demand.

      A negative savings rate and a record trade deficit are indicators of an economy that has insufficient reserves to cushion it when the business cycle does turn.  The Japanese savings rate and trade surplus prevented their deep recession and deflation from turning into a depression.  What will cushion the US economy during the inevitable reversion to the mean?

      by mstein on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:13:57 PM PDT

    •  I guess that's why Merrill Lynch calls them...

      ..."constraints on the consumer." Because that's what you want, in a healthy economy, after all: constrained consumers. People too debt-ridden to buy anything anymore. People who have to rent because they can't afford to buy and build equity. Jesus, go back to Economics 101.

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:50:41 PM PDT

    •  I'm sorry.....

      but what planet do you live on oh exalted one?

      Me thinks you are referring to bizarro world when you make comments like that. I guess you define a "healthy economy" as one where people are strapped down in debt with no cushion to get them through life's inevitable ups and downs.

      Sounds like a healthy economy only if you are assuming that reality will never rear its ugly head.

      by waf8868 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:47:16 PM PDT

      •  re

        healthy economy and affordable housing are not one and the same

        i didn't say it was the ideal situation for all people, i said it as a healthy economy. a healthy economy means, to me, an economy that is expanding without becoming overheated, ie, causing unhealthy inflation.

        by The Exalted on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:42:26 AM PDT

•  Consumer confidence has been tanking

  The latest numbers are the lowest since Bush 41 was in the White House.

  Prediction: Christmas 2005 is going to be "bah, humbug" rather than "ho, ho, ho" for the nation's retailers.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:21:58 AM PDT

  •  don't you worry.....

    I hear we are turning the corner on the economy!!

    by clammyc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:46:08 AM PDT

    •  Not quite a corner

      We're turning a curve... yeah, that's it.  

      We're turning a Laffer Curve

      by Heartcutter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:54:55 AM PDT

      •  turning the corner

        The problem is we keep turning the corner. This comic comes to mind...

        

        Same situation, different subject.

        by drewthaler on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:11:34 PM PDT

      •  more like the last throes!

        hey, maybe Cheney wasn't talking about iraq but the economy??

        The Economy is in its last throes.  errrm, I meant the meanie, unshaven terrorists.

        yeah

        Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

        by krazypuppy on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:12:10 PM PDT

    •  Hey! Haven't you heard...

      This bad economy is Clinton's fault.  After we climb out of this sand pit in, say, forty years from now we'll give Bush credit for that economy.  Probably Jenna Bush, who will have followed the Chelsea Clinton presidency.

      by blockbuster on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:17:26 PM PDT

      •  More like 2 generations rather than 40 years,

        I'm afraid!

        by CalDoc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:43:58 PM PDT

      •  It is, sort of . . .

        It's George W. Bush's fault. And Clinton's fault. And Papa George's fault. And very much Reagan's fault. Basically, it's the fault of every president and federal legislator going back 25 years who didn't actively fight the undermining of American manufacturing through "free trade," the undermining of the public sector through trickle-down economics, and the undermining of personal savings through a greedy banking industry that lowered savings interest rates every time the prime rate went down but never raised them when the prime rate (and, with it, the interest rates on debt) went up.

        The only point on which Clinton gets a pass is his insistence on reducing the federal deficit. And I think he only did that because Robert Rubin told him it would make Wall Street happy.

        by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:32:57 PM PDT

    •  And we're turning right into

      a brick wall. Or a plate glass window. Or a deer. Or the broadside of a truck.

      With no health or car insurance either.

      by mmacdDE on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:17:21 PM PDT

      •  An oncoming train! n/t

        by awnm on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:22:26 PM PDT

•  Easy to explain away

  "It's not trickle-down failing, it's Katrina."

  by RequestedUsername on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:24:53 AM PDT

  •  Don't Forget

    Don't forget 9/11 and Iraq.  Costs a lot of money you know.  Its hard work. [twitch]
    

    by DaveS on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:33:11 AM PDT

    •  Um,

      OK, for sake of argument I will give the apologists Katrina and 9-11.

      But they don't get to use Iraq.  That was an option that was chosen by the President.

      If that wasn't part of his economic calculations, it should have been.
      

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:21:59 AM PDT

      •  Iraq was gonna pay for itself

        Troops in, flowers, two to five months ("it's not going to be six months"--Rumsfeld), democracy, troops out, grateful Iraqi leaders shower Bush with cheap oil.

        What he didn't plan for is this clusterfuck, and they can say that without a hint of shame. "We didn't expect Iraq to fall apart and soak up this much of our blood and treasure".  And so they think they're entitled to include Iraq in the "how could we have seen this coming?" column.

        by Del C on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:22:01 PM PDT

        •  Just like they didn't know

          a hurricane was going to hit the Gulf Coast.

          You know, that place where all the oil rigs and natural gas suppliers are?

          by mmacdDE on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:18:36 PM PDT

    •  DaveS - I love the [twitch]!

      I had to suppress both two urges: to audible laughter in my office; and for a semi-autonomic neck movement as I read it!  LOL!

      by frisco on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:20:00 PM PDT

  •  Yup that's what they'll say

    Bush will argue that this all goes back to 9/11 and that because of that we had to invade Iraq and that with all of those resources committed plus Katrina, we just have a big mess to clean up and it's not his fault.

    What I find interesting about those 7 points is how they are tied together.

    
    

    1. Personal "savings rate at -0.7%;"
       
    2. "Debt/income ratio at a record 124% (was 117% a year ago);"
       
    3. "Housing affordability at a 14-year low; 16-year low for first-time buyers;"
       
    4. "Fed tightening... - households have $2.3 trillion of short-term debt that will get dinged by the relentless rise in short-term rates;"
       

    ALL of those are about housing prices.  Why are housing prices so high?  Because of fed policies and tax policies.  The average american isn't going to start a new business taking advantage of low interest rates.  Instead they dump it into a new house.  This in flow of cheap cash boosted house prices, and so people are leveraging themselves more and more.

    So what happens is that we get a low savings rate because people have so much debt tied in their home.  That means the debt/income ratio is higher.  It's also what leads to housing affordability.  Then finally what happens is that because of the rising home prices and the relatively lax regulation of mortgages people start getting into these no interest or negative amoritzation loans.  That creates the short term debt picture.  

    The government, rather than stimulating growth, stimulated borrowing.  Rather than putting money into the hands of the average consumer they just gave them new ways to borrow.  They cut taxes for the wealthy and the wealthy, of course, didn't go and buy things.  They also didn't invest in the stock market.  Where's the wealthy people's money?  It's in homes.  It's in oil and gas and gold.  It's not in the market.  If it were in the market, we wouldn't be hovering around 10,000 for the last couple of years.  Cutting taxes for the wealthy is good when there's a capital shortage, but when there's a demand shortage, it's just a waste.  

    The economy, ultimately is driven by consumers.  Consumers have no money.  The money they had over the past 3 or 4 years all came from borrowing.  They've run out again and now have no way to borrow more.  Housing prices will collapse, inflation pressures will rise, interest rates will climb and it's going to be VERY VERY ugly.

    by sterno on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:46:59 AM PDT

    •  sorry, but no

      the negative savings rate comes not just from housing prices but from wealth effects in general and from technological advances, namely the explosion of debt creating instruments, aka credit cards, that came about in the early 90's.

      in fact, we had a negative personal savings rate for the 90's as a whole, which is a big reason why the decade was a boom decade:  less saving = more consumption = expansionary economy

      by The Exalted on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

      •  the picture is a bit bigger than that

        A negative savings rate by itself isn't such a bad thing.  Couple it with a massive debt load borrowed against an asset that is about to lose 20%+ of its value in an economy that is tanking is NOT a good thing.

        The 90s were a boom for many reasons, one of which is that high paying jobs were created AND wages in general rose, even in inflation adjusted dollars, something that hadn't happened since the early 1970s!

        by Michaelpb on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:19:35 PM PDT

        •  jobs and wages was an effect of the boom

          not a cause, at least not at the start

          by The Exalted on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for the laugh.....

        I love how you refer to credit cards as a "technological advance". That is really very truly funny.

        Agressively pushing hard money loans on masses of financially unsavy and strapped consumers is not what I would consider a technological advance.

        by waf8868 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:57:57 PM PDT

  •  and you

    know what I say, Katrina isn't the first hurricane to hit the US. Jesse Jackson told America to stay out of the bushes! Maybe that's the real problem with america to much beaver on the brain.

    by rickpolitic on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:33:00 PM PDT

•  if the government would just cut taxes

  everything would be peachy, it's so damn simple, duh

  what, responsibility? how are the taxes getting collected being spent?  

  the GOP economic philosopy is collapsing before our eyes as a slow moving train wreck.  Just as conservative policies doomed the 30's, it appears that some type of correction is over the horizon.

  by gaspare on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:34:14 AM PDT

  •  They did it 3 times

    Republican did it 3 times and they still are not learning anything from it. Reagan, BushI, BushII. Cutting taxes won't cure bad economic policy. It only makes it worst.

    There is no trickle down economy. Just like there is no easter bunny and Santa Claus. It's all myth.

    by fugue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:45:02 AM PDT

    •  it is how they cut taxes

      for big business, individuals are paying a higher percentage of federal taxes, and those who are higher income pay less then those in the middle.

      Taxes include: tax on gas, on your phone bills, on cable, sales tax, property tax and then withholding for SS, Medicare, state taxes and the like.

      When wages are falling and other costs are increasing: health care, energy, and so on, there is little if any left over for "fun" stuff.  In addition Americans aren't saving any money at all, the bankruptcy bill comes into play and the GOP thinks that giving more money to the rich will solve all these problems.

      Mission Accomplished.

      by SanJoseLady on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:53:16 AM PDT

    •  Learning?

      Republican did it 3 times and they still are not learning anything from it. Repubs don't believe in the things they say. Their policies are about 3 things...Graft-Pork-Patronage. All the rest is pure Propaganda.

      by sooner on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:19:37 AM PDT

      •  And Bush?

        Is doing doing business using a "classic" business model. OPM. Other People's Money. Unfortunately, it's the American taxpayers, present and future.
        i hate seminars

        by sooner on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:27:50 AM PDT

    •  Yep...

      They cut taxes for corporations and they move jobs overseas and brag about how much money they're making and how great the economy is when the reality on the ground is far different.

      by Fro on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:59:30 PM PDT

      •  Speaking of shipping jobs offshore

        this article in the July 25, 2005 edition of Fortune is very interesting.

        Among other things, the article says this:

        [Economists] note that something extremely odd occurred in the U.S. economy last year: Average compensation, including pay and benefits, fell. That is a rare event; the last time it happened was 14 years ago. More important, it usually happens in or around recessions or when productivity is going nowhere. But last year wasn't like that. Productivity rose. The economy grew. The unemployment rate was low and falling. Every indicator pointed to strong wage increases, but just the opposite happened. Now some of the nation's most eminent economists, including professor Richard B. Freeman of Harvard and Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, believe the supply of overseas workers in newly globalizing labor markets is holding U.S. pay down and will do so for years.
        

        GDP, corporate profits and top executive wages go up, average wages and compensation go down.

        Stir that pot, let it stew for a while, and then what've you got? Revolution.
        

        by occams hatchet on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:50:13 PM PDT

    •  they're learning plenty

      3 times and they still are not learning anything from it.

      sure they are.  they're learning just how far they can go in f#$%ing over the middle-class in order to build $300MM houses on nantucket and get away with it.

      they're learning just how stupid and apathetic americans actually are.  plenty, it turns out.

      oh, sorry, were you thinking they'd be learning something about the overall health and long-term viability of the american economy?  whatever made you think they give two $#*&s about that?

      by zeke L on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:42:59 PM PDT

  •  So is this American history?

    Forty years of relative prosperity bookended by a couple Great Depressions?  Woooo, the future looks bright!

    by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:02:10 AM PDT

  •  The problem with Republicans

    They don't believe in Science and History

    Reading is good.  Bush doesn't read.  I rest my case.

    by egarratt on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:06:06 PM PDT

•  I can see

  the Republican response now:

  The analyst obviously donated to Democrats in the last election cycle....

  by bonddad on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:46:17 AM PDT

  •  no, we just didn't cut taxes ENOUGH...

    If those damn democrats would just let us completely eliminate taxes on the wealthy, this never would have happened.  So go ahead, keep voting democratic and this will continue to happen.

    I feel dirty...

    by theKK on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:56:07 AM PDT

•  Could someone explain the debt/income ratio to me?

  I am not an economist :-(

  Does it mean that the average household has 24% more outgoing debt service payment than it has income?

  If so the average family is bankrupt, no?

  by a view from afar on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Household debt vs. annual income

    It's mentioned here.

    Just as a declining personal saving rate has buoyed consumption spending so has a boom in household borrowing. The steady rise in household debt-income ratios reflects theincreased use of credit cards, home equity loans and other financial innovations that gradually and continuously diffused into the economy over the past two decades. Despite the recent rapid increase in national income, household borrowing has escalated even faster, producing a household debt-income ratio of 102 percent in 2000 - 19 percentage points higher than the previous cyclical peak in 1989. The scale of this increase suggests that households may have reached their debt ceilings (though this limit has risen with every cycle as credit availability expands for more and more households).

    "...households may have reached their debt ceilings..." Nope. The lenders were more than happy to keep piling it on.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:14:33 AM PDT

    •  Well, of course.

      The lenders were more than happy to keep piling it on.

      Of course, because it is a lot of easy money.  True, they do occasionally lose money on the principal portion of loans.  But I would be willing to bet that far more often, someone gets into  trouble with credit and pays off the "principal" (the amount the bank actually lent) in junk fees (late penalties, over the limit fees, annual fees, penalties), and still has a balance which is just gravy to the bank.  

      by msanthrope on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:41:08 AM PDT

      •  They make money even when you default.

        I fell into a situation where my cash flow could not keep up with the debt. I had several credit cards with $300 or $400 limits which I ultimately ended up paying $600-1200.00 just to close the accounts and have them listed as paid on the credit report. Even though these accounts went to collection, the credit card companies still made money hand over fist.

        I tried negotiating with these creditors, but was only able to remove a portion of this junk.

        The obscene amounts tacked on were the late fees and over the limit fees as a result of the late fees that were tacked on, which snowballed and vastly exceeded the interest that should have been charged. Fees should be capped at 100% of the principal lent.

         

        by NoMoreLies on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:24:27 PM PDT

    •  Re: Household debt vs. annual income

      Something interesting that struck me right away was this:

      Despite the recent rapid increase in national income, household borrowing has escalated even faster, producing a household debt-income ratio of 102 percent in 2000 - 19 percentage points higher than the previous cyclical peak in 1989.

      1989 was not so coincidentally when there were massive S & L failures and the housing market crashed sending alot of people into foreclosure.

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:36:59 AM PDT

      •  Ah yes, the S&L bailout...

        ...a legacy of the Reagan/Bush years.

        by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:11:11 PM PDT

        •  and the dirty dealings of GWB's Bro

          Funny how the SCLM  was always picking on Jimmy Carters trashy brother Billy  when Jimmy was pres.

          But we never hear a peep now about that other presidential brother - the scoundrel Neal Bush who cost the government $200 million dollars when his Savings and Loan (Silverado) collapsed due to shady, illegal kick-back schemes.

          
          Bush was reprimanded by the Office of Thrift Supervision for "multiple conflicts of interest" as a paid director of the S&L, including his approval of $132 million in loans from Silverado to two business partners, Bill Walters and Kenneth Good.  Bush, in turn, had received $550,000 in salaries from a company funded by Walters and Good plus a $100,000 loan from Good that was subsequently forgiven.

          I remember the S&L collapse well. Why? because my little brother, who was around 12 at the time of the S&L scandals lost his entire life savings: $1000 when a S&L he had money in collapsed. That money was savings from 4 years of being a paperboy, and practically every cash gift he had gotten from every birthday.

          He eventually recovered about 20 cents on the dollar, after a number of years. Sure taught him a lesson about the value of hardwork and savings huh?

          The Bush family is definitely a Crime family.

          by biscobosco on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:58:21 PM PDT

  •  The 124% number is total debt/disposable inc

    The graph on http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/02nov/ECON4.htm shows both.

    by anonymous coward 8 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:46:06 AM PDT

  •  Americans are in hock

    for an average of one and a quarter years of their annual income.

    I'd smirk, but my mortgage isn't paid down that far yet, so the average is doing better than me.  

    by Del C on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:28:32 PM PDT

•  My wingnut friend would just say

  'That just goes to show how much we need the Fair Tax!'

  Aside from being completely deluded, he's actually a pretty decent fellow.

  by wetzel on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:21:49 AM PDT

  •  Response: Under Bill Clinton...

    ...we had a booming economy, so I guess the tax must have been "fairer" under Democrats. Now, the Republicans control the White House and Congress, so the economy today is the result of the Republicans' policies.

    Bottom line: This is the Republican economy.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:27:50 AM PDT

    •  This is the Republican Economy...

      I love that slogan...can we run on this?

      It's Time for a REAL American Economy.

      by theKK on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:58:11 AM PDT

  •  you wanna see

    the fairtax principle in action, look at Texas.

    We can't get funding for shit.  I used to be all pro-Fairtax, but as I watch the state lege struggle to find funding for education and CHIP, and see that it just ain't there, I came to realize that Fairtax is just another shell game.

    Meanwhile, our property taxes keep creeping up b/c those institutions have to make up for the shortfalls from state money somewhere... so much so that I'm actually looking forward to selling the house and returning to apartment living.

    by bionicKitty on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:30:04 AM PDT

    •  Florida too

      It's the same all over the South actually.  The main problem with most of these states is that their state constitutions prohibit income taxes.  That would be communism after all and good God fearin Suthruners will have none of it.  Trouble is that even in Dixie you still need the rudiments of a modern society (at least until The Rapture of course) and that can get expensive.

      So if you can't have an income tax (progressive tax that is) to hit the rich up for state government funding, what do you do?  Well, you jack up sales taxes, tolls and property taxes.  Except for the latter these are all regressive in nature and get the middle class all riled up about them evil libruhls raising taxes.  So then you get gangs of local yokel Chamber of Commerce types starting "tax revolts" that fuck over the schools, the roads, mass transit and anything else that makes life for the non-rich tolerable.  But at least we avoid having any evil commie pinko income tax like Taxachussets.

      My property taxes just about doubled in three years.  That's one of the big reasons I sold my home.  That and the fact that it was very energy inefficient and I wasn't looking forward to electric bills that were bigger than the mortgage when Bush starts another war.

      by Event Horizon on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:11:15 PM PDT

  •  Yeah

    that's the problem.  We haven't found the way to encapsulate our argument for progressive taxation (i.e., the rich pay more), responsible competent government, social responsibility and strength in community into the kind of single sound bite that they scatter like pigeon-shit on the other side, e.g.:

        No-one is ever hired by a poor man.

    With this pseudo-fact, they imply that:
     1) more for the rich is more for us all (bullcrap).
    

    2. government regulation is bad for the workers. (double bullcrap)
       
    3. social programs are demeaning and condescending - the poor need jobs, not handouts - which cycles back nicely to their #1 above.  (whole big heap o steaming bullcrap).

    The thing is, we (and most Americans) ALSO believe that the poor need jobs, not handouts, but we (libs/progressives/Dems) differ on the KINDS of jobs, and we believe those jobs should pay a living wage, allow for skills accumulation, provide benefits and represent a long-term investment in workers' futures and families.  But that just doesn't have quite the ring of:

       No-one is ever hired by a poor man.

    by writeout on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:30:58 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but we're all poor men now

      That's the counterpoint. We are all made poor by an unregulated market - even the businesses.

      by Hoya90 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:53:58 AM PDT

    •  but the rich are only hiring Indians

      (as in, from and still in India)

      Just look at Delphi's bankruptcy papers.  Their bankruptcy plan seems to be to "divest" U.S. based operations - i.e., outsource - but keep the executive team here.

      So only the rich are (or remain) hired.  at least as far as U.S. citizens go.  

      by LegalSpice on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:56:05 AM PDT

    •  We need a candidate who can speak...

      ...about poverty and economic fairness as a morals and values issue. "We should value work, not wealth. No one who goes to work every day should live in poverty. Not in our America."

      There will be more and more people receptive to that message, thanks to the Republicans' policies.

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:22:01 PM PDT

    •  Bad meme

      No-one is ever hired by a poor man.

      This is actually an example of standing the problem on its head. Poor and moderately affluent hire a lot of people.

      You see, this economy thing works like this: some people make things which they then sell to other people, who they call customers. The customers pay for the goods, and that payment in turn is used by those who made things to pay for their needs.

      The "rich men" only enter this as hoarders of resources and money. Instead of making things themselves, they can get others to do it for them, for which they collect a cut from the top.

      In short, the employees of all companies are hired by the customers, many of whom these days are quite poor. No customers = no employees. It is that simple.

      That is why all of these insane "trickle down", "tax cuts for the rich" schemes are doomed to fail. They focus on accumulation of assets instead focusing of what makes the economy run: the flow of money from customers to makers of goods and services. The ultimate, "optimal" scenario of no taxation on the rich is a complete stratification of society, where top 1% literally owns the other 99%. It has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the economy.

      It is my view that progressive taxation is not harmful to economy because, while reducing the take of those at the top of our mostly haphazard and accidental social pyramid, it still affords rewards to innovators, while not impeding the flow of cash where it matters: between the vast majority of businesses and customers. That is also why I think that sales taxes are not very well thought out, as they impede that flow. Steeply progressive corporate and personal income taxes, with no sales tax are in my view the optimal strategy for economic growth. These, combined in high inheretance taxes also work against the other  serious weakness of capitalism: runaway accumulation of wealth, which in turn leads to rapid decrease of competetivness and in the long term to return of mercantilsim/feudalism.

      As to the other points:

      1) more for the rich is more for us all

      Negative: the accumulation of wealth leads to reduction of number of competing companies on the market, thus reducing the potency of the capitalist economy. Furthermore, the main engine of economy is the daily flow of goods and money between the bottom 99% of the global population not the top 1%.

      2. government regulation is bad for the workers.

      Regulation controls the emergence of cartels, trusts and other anti-competetive activities, thus preserving the functioning of the capitalist economy. And no, the capitalist economy is not magically immune from these and it is not self-regulating (another set of false memes). Regulation also prevents wholesale destruction of environment. It also allows for protection of workers from outright predation by the rich. Those workers then in turn use the incomes they now have and spend them to power the engine of the economy. Otherwise, given enough "de-regulation", they would be paid in "company money", redeemable only at the "company store". As it was the case in the past. Only someone who would like to see a return to feudalism would be against regulation.

      3. social programs are demeaning and condescending - the poor need jobs, not handouts - which cycles back nicely to their #1 above.

      Social programs are supposed be for those who are unable, due to circumstances beyond their control, to work in sufficient degree to make ends meet. They are also to protect those who are by definition not responsible and yet are in desperate situations thanks to the choices of others: children. As to jobs, that is true. From which it flows that the best way to stimulate economy is not tax breaks for the rich but public works programs designed to offer a dignified way for earning income, income which is then in turn used to "hire" companies, run by rich men, to provide services to these workers, who are now customers, which in turn jumpstarts the economy.

      No-one is ever hired by a poor man.

      Not true. Poor men hire rich men all the time. As I just explained, rich men hire poor men far less frequently the the other way around.

      Logic 101.

      by IgnoramusMaximus on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:56:03 PM PDT

      •  Nice returns

        on all those hits.  But note how each rebuttal requires a short essay that includes a history lesson, a civics lesson and a bit of sociology all thrown in.  

        What always amazes me is how/why we find it necessary to expound at length in challenging their simplistic and wrongly reasoned ideas, while they get away with the sound-punch.  Is it just that our ideas are, by their nature, complex and layered, and require a treatise?  Or is it that we are hard-wired to explain things because we believe that if the other side sees it our way, they can't help but agree.  Probably a bit of both.    

        But when they say "more for the rich is more for us all" why doesn't it work to respond: "more for the rich is more for the rich and the rest is wishful thinking."  Or, put another way:  

        "The CEO of my company earned a million bejillion dollars in salary last year and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

        Hmm - now that would be a pretty neat T-shirt!

        by writeout on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:08:14 PM PDT

        •  Wrong way to look at it

          What always amazes me is how/why we find it necessary to expound at length in challenging their simplistic and wrongly reasoned ideas, while they get away with the sound-punch.

          That is because the problem is not with their "ideas", as they are laughable, but with the delivery. That is, we should realize that their "ideas" are designed around delivery. Their true notions are unspeakable: complete, sociopathic, narcisstic selfishness, wrapped in bigotry, supremacist belief of their own superiority, which they believe to be directly bestowed upon them by God, the rich = God's chosen and thus most worthy, etc. But these notions would be just about impossible to defend directly, far more so then ours, of humanitarian, egalitarian society are. So they do not even attempt to debate them.  Instead, in accordance with their aims, they make up fake, false "ideas" or "memes", the purpose of which is to distract and camouflage the real things, but which are specifically bred for delivery. We are at a disadvantage here since we cannot do that and at the same time remain intellectually honest. They do not care, as honesty or integrity are not amongst the things which concern them.

          This is the same system which was deployed by the Nazis in the 1930s Germany. "Jews = evil" is an easy to remember slogan, and just like the modern right-wing economic propaganda, also requires a lengthy rebuttal. That is the nature of the weapon they use.

          I am afraid that there is no easy counter-attack, as all of our side's weapons have one critical weakness: we require their target to have a functioning brain, at least nominally capable of critical thinking. Theirs not only do not require that, they in fact depend on a lack of such ability, and if present, attempt to destroy or circumvent that ability as a pre-condition. Which, again, due to the nature of things, is much more easily accomplished then inducing an ability to reason, where none existed.

          In fact the very all-encompassing, unifying concept of "evil" wes invented for this purpose by shamans and priests of old. Note how various right-wingers always speak of "evil" this and "evil" that. "Saddam is evil" is an example of such general-purpose, but utterly fake and meaningless meme, which is specifically designed to mean whatever they intend it to mean, nothing less, nothing more and which is nearly impossible to coherently argue against if it is used as "justification" for all sorts of "action". Note that there is no useful counter-meme here: "Saddam is only partially-evil" or "Saddam is less evil then Al-Queda" or "Saddam is good" are either not at all effective or just patently false, all of which can be easily demolished with one short example of some of his actions. The proper counter-argument, of complexities of Iraq and convoluted repercussions of the invasion is precisely that: complicated. And utterly useless in this fight.  

          Someone already diaried about this some time ago on DailyKos, explaining how the right-wingers secretly depend on most base, animalistic instincts and glorify them. "It is OK to be greedy and selfish, it is in fact Pious, and the most greedy and unscrupulous amongst us will be rewarded by our God." is their true motto.

          by IgnoramusMaximus on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:23:35 PM PDT

    •  a soundbite

      You should be able to feed and house your family if you work a full-time job.

      That's the goal. We're not saying a mansion, or steak every night, or designer clothes.

      But you should be able to keep a roof over your head and feed yourself if you work a full-time job.

      That's the way it used to be, way back in the hallowed 50s.

      by mmacdDE on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:31:49 PM PDT

      •  And may I add.....

        Not have to pay 1/3 your income just to buy health coverage to protect your family against catastrophic illness.

        by waf8868 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:12:05 PM PDT

        •  Definitely

          Universal healthcare. Just like every other civilized country on the face of the earth.

          by mmacdDE on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:37:25 PM PDT

  •  It's all Clinton's fault.

    This is all a result of the dot com bust.  And 9/11, which was Clinton's fault as well.

    No President can control the economy while they're in office, they can only set policies that will help shape the future.  So you see, the boom of the late 90's was thanks to the Reagan/Bush I fiscal policies, while the bust of the early 21st century was thanks to Clinton's tax and spend policies.

    So Clinton gets all the credit while Bush gets blamed.  Dear leader is being railroaded here.  It's all Clinton's fault, can't you see?

    by supergreen on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:37:05 AM PDT

•  Anyone else notice something interesting???

  Bullet #3--....14 year low....16 year low...hmmmmmm....who was prez-nit in those years?

  Bullet #6--....since Dec. 1990...hmmm....who was prez-nit in that year?

  oh..yeah...the first installment of the Bush Debacle....Repub pres....clueless and timid....

  AND THE CYCLE CONTINUES....
  

  by topicalstorm on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:29:36 AM PDT

  •  W. is making Poppy look good

    I used to think that it couldn't get much worse than Poppy Bush did with the economics policies carried over from his stint as VP.

    His son is making him look like a fiscal conservative with higher deficits, higher spending, and lower income for the government (as adjusted for inflation)

    by DaleNC on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

  •  He always did wanted "out do" dad. (n/t)

    by frisco on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:10:55 PM PDT

•  Founder of TheStreet.com: Bush makes LBJ look good

  Wall Street is turning on Bush. James J. Cramer, co-founder of TheStreet.com, lays it all out here:

  It's dawning on wall street that George W. Bush may be the first president since Lyndon B. Johnson who believes that we can have a guns-and-butter federal spending policy without creating a serious inflation spiral, if not outright government bankruptcy. At least LBJ, to his credit, believed that there were limits to profligacy and that taxes had to be raised. Not President Bush. He's making Johnson look like a fiscal conservative, what with his insistence on waging a war in Iraq that's costing $177 million a day and rebuilding New Orleans by taking on a monstrous load of federal debt.
  
  

  For the longest time, because Bush is a Republican, we on Wall Street simply didn't believe that he could be a reckless spender. We knew only two paradigms: You either spent less and cut taxes or you spent more and raised taxes. Both courses at least presumed some sacrifice at some time. Not Bush's plan. He's gone on both the biggest spending binge and the lowest taxation course in U.S. history, which, alas, will produce gigantic liabilities down the road. Of course, he'll be back on the ranch by the time his successor will have to deal with his inflation and currency debasement. Our only hope that financial disaster won't strike sooner lies with the Chinese, who actually fund our deficit by buying our Treasuries--$242 billion worth, or 12 percent of all foreign holdings. If the Chinese decide to be good communists and stop buying our bonds, the Feds will have to raise rates to attract new investors and the reaper will be at our doorstep with interest rates more akin to those of South than North America. Right now, it's not a problem. But in a year or two or maybe less, I perceive that the government will throw a bond auction and nobody will show, including the Chinese, until rates shoot up dramatically.

  
  Cramer goes on and on, outlining what will happen and what foreignstocks the prudent and fairly well-off can buy in order to save themselves from the Republicans ...check it out.

  by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:36:13 AM PDT

  •  What imaginary paradigm does he refer to?

    Reagan cut taxes and increased spending.  Like Bush, the reason the economy has grown at all is deficit spending.  It would be hard, even for W, to spend $400B on credit and not see any growht.

    by at a loss on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:36:00 AM PDT

    •  A lot of them have selective memory...

      ...when it comes to Reagan.

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:47:05 AM PDT

      •  only in his first term

        reagan lowered spending and raised taxes in his second term

        by The Exalted on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM PDT

        •  So, a Republican with dementia...

          ...will finally start doing things that are actually good for the country. Interesting.

          by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:08:57 PM PDT

          •  i dont know if he did good things for the country

            but at least he looked good doing it

            by The Exalted on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:14:36 PM PDT

•  Interest rates

  For those of us who DO save money, it will be nice to get more than 2% interest. I am getting less interest than any time in my life, including the savings account I had in high school that earned a whopping 4%.

  Not that it will keep pace with inflation.

  But I realize the flip side will be devastating for anyone who owes money at variable interest, like ARM mortgages and credit cards.

  by MagentaMN on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:37:20 AM PDT

  •  I tell you what

    All those people out there on their too expensive homes pushing the housing market with their ARM's- they are gonna have trouble keeping up.  
    

    by otto on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:55:39 AM PDT

  •  Banking online

    You can get (slightly) better rates at some banks that offer online accounts.  I opened an account at ING a year ago that offered at least double what any of my local bricks and mortar banks were offering.  Bankrate.com lists the top 100 and gives a rating for reliability.  EmigrantDirect.com is currently offering 4.0%.  FWIW!  

    by Thelesis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:09:44 AM PDT

  •  Interest Rates

    Making 2 % ain't bad when you consider people in the stock market are getting killed lately.

     

    by egarratt on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:18:54 PM PDT

•  the Merrill Lynch report

  ..is 'walking around knowledge" to those of us who haven't been unconcious for the past four years.
  ..but it's nice to see them admit it in print.

  by Cal45 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:49:55 AM PDT

•  Logical result of broad deregulation

  For 25 years, the GOP has pursued policies designed to extract maximum short term economic benefit regardless of the long term cost. They bought into a business ethos that annual profits could be maximized without any long term effect.
  
  As the process comes close to its completion with the elimination of most/all business regulation, the end results are becoming clear. We are sitting atop an economic Ponzi scheme that will come tumbling down absent a constant influx of foreign capital.
  
  If you look at today's business environment, firms and executives are rewarded by the market if they maintain excellent annual profits and/or offer the potential for larger future profits. What matters is today's number and whether you can pretend that next year's number will be better. There is little realistic effort that I've seen from Wall Street to identify sustainable business plans. Why work hard to identify the next IBM that will march along for 75 years, when I can chase today's hot money-maker? So Wall Street seeks to run the best gambling operation in town and the companies and execs do whatever it takes to bring your money to their table. They mortgage their long term profitability and sustainability to sustain today's share price.
  
  The GOP has a long history of supporting the unfettered market and so they fell into line with business groups that wanted to chip away at or kill the limits on business established during the New Deal. The surprising part is that the GOP realized that you could mortgage the future in government as well. In the near term, huge deficit spending allows the GOP to buy votes, while in the long term making sure that government has an unsustainable burden of debt. What's the worst that can happen? If the debts are called, then they get to slash government as much as they want!
  
  As the GOP did the bidding of business, the opened the door to greater and more creative marketing of debt to individuals. We are encouraged to buy more. Debt makes those purchases easy. Satisfy the near term need at the expense of the future. Never mind the long term cost or the impact of a credit crunch. Spend today to sustaing the system. And oh by the way, sell the rest of the world on the scheme so they keep giving the US funds to keep buying the products they produce.
  
  Meanwhile, the GOP realized it could also help keep business behind them by using government to make business more profitable. They realized you can't get rid of government and stay in control, so they came up with the idea of "privatizing" government functions. Pay companies to do the jobs of government workers. Never mind that it often winds up costing more to privatize those functions (mercs in Iraq being the most egregious example). It keeps business loyal.
  
  Every one of those stats on the Merril Lynch list has its roots in the GOP vision of business - make profits today and to hell with future generations. Business buys into it because they need today's dollar to keep those share prices up. GOP politicians buy into it because its a much easier way to get elected than to speak about REAL responsibility.

  by Hoya90 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:51:24 AM PDT

  •  well put Hoya

    by sooner on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:54:59 AM PDT

  •  Because the Top Owners are Survivalists

    I don't think their program is about everyday greed, because even if corporations are fearless, the rich who own them have families and societies and interests that stretch indefinitely into the future.

    It looks to me much more consistent with hauling a few people and everything they need up into the ark before an expected long, hard rain of resource and population peaks begins to fall on the mainstream world.
    

    by Gooserock on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:48:10 PM PDT

    •  --Or At Best,

      a historic "run on the bank" where the rich have to take everything out of the economy they can get, just because they think everyone else is or will soon start to.

      by Gooserock on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:49:51 PM PDT

  •  Yes, besides the short-term

    viewpoint taken by corporate executives, lamented by most business writers, and the looting of shareholder profits by executives, the very rich have a further ring of planning.

    They are thoroughly international in outlook.

    Wouldn't it be a wonderful documentary effort to see the foreign homes of "America's" top executives and wealthy families?

    Caribbean islands.  Chateaux in the Loire Valley of France.  Ranches in Argentina.  On and on...

    They'll get out; we'll be left grubbing around in the rubble.

    by HenryDavid on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:22:04 PM PDT

    •  Wouldn't this make a good diary idea?

      About the offshore homes of the US wealthy?

      I can't take the time tonight, and my fingers are frozen from typing in a cold house...

      by HenryDavid on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:14:59 PM PDT

      •  Where's your Victorian work ethic??

        Frozen fingers never stopped Bob Cratchett from working away on Scrooge's behalf. ;)

        by Hoya90 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:14:14 PM PDT

        •  And Scrooge never even got

          to have his Cayman Island getaway, his yacht to get there upon, or even a Swiss bank account, most likely.  Just a little cog in the machine of his day.

          Yikes! Man, I'm spooked -- just looking up my first factory job on the EPA toxic sites list in another window, and finding phrases like:

           "In addition, a light, non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) layer of "Varsol" up to 3.3 ft thick was documented on top of groundwater beneath the northeastern portion of the property."

          They spelled "Varisol" wrong...

          ...well, better get back to "Cratchitting"...

          by HenryDavid on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:37:11 AM PDT

•  Republicans - Good at Campaigning

  Terrible at Governing.

  by adigal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:54:56 AM PDT

  •  Good at NEGATIVE campaigning

    stealing elections, and scandals.  Oh, they are so good at scandals. If any of you aren't "clean" enough to run as a democrat, don't worry, the repugs will always take you.  If you can spew some filthy vitriol...  

    by theKK on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:02:28 AM PDT

•  Debt/income of 124% is high?

  Oh man, I have that beat five times over.  I must be winning!!

  by starkness on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:11:35 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations.

    Young people with new mortgages (like yours truly, but at least ours is a standard 30-year fixed, thank God, and not one of those interest-only balloon scams) obviously will tend to have much higher debt/income ratios than older people, whose homes are paid off or nearly so.

    The fact that this national average is skyrocketing (up from 102% in 2000 and 83% in 1989) DESPITE the fact that our population is getting OLDER is what's known in technical economist jargon as A REALLY FUCKING BAD SIGN.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:23:01 AM PDT

    •  As the fed rate goes up -

      many, many bad financial decisions will be suddenly thrust into the national spotlight, as home foreclosures reach an all time high.  At least that's my prediction.

      by starkness on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:46:48 AM PDT

      •  GOP policies will put MANY more people in poverty.

        And a lot more people will be facing the stark reality that they could soon become poor. Many of these people, who might have voted Republican in the past for the worst of reasons (bigotry, fear, self-righteousness, sheer ignorance) will be forced into making a cold, hard reassessment of their priorities. They won't have any other choice.

        After the election in November, I wasn't sure why John Edwards continued to focus like a laser on poverty -- opening the Poverty Center at the University of North Carolina, for example. Now it's obvious: He knew that the Republicans would be driving more and more Americans into a deep, dark financial hole, and those people would be looking for a leader with credibility on the issue, someone who speaks about it as a morals and values issue. "We should value work over wealth. No one who goes to work every day should live in poverty. Not in our America." Edwards' message will resonate with a whole lot of voters looking for an alternative.

        by MeanBoneII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:02:09 PM PDT

•  I only scored 4 out of 7..

  you didn't have the key for this quiz so people know what it means..

  If 1 or less apply to you- you are doing fine
  If 2 or 3 apply to you - better start saving more
  If 4-5 apply to you- your future is cloudy
  If 6 or more apply to you- kiss your financial ass goodbye...

  by Big Time Patriot on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:19:45 AM PDT

•  but

  The Republicans don't believe in having a good economy.

  To some extent, they believe in supporting big business, but that is overshadowed by the Project for a new American Century's ultimate goal: Cut taxes, increase spending (via the military industrial complex), and use the HUGE debt you run up as an excuse to de-regulate business and cut as many social programs as you can.

  Reagan did it, Bush Sr. Did it, its part of the Neocon movement.  Much more important than actually helping the economy is cutting taxes in order to reduce the government's power, by force.

  This is not conservatism, its fascist oligarchy.

  
  My Column

  by MadCasey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:40:30 PM PDT

•  Admittedly

  . . . The negative personal savings rate is the most fun.

  by dbratl on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:12:30 PM PDT

•  Why economies go bad

  The reason that should be obvious is that an economic transaction takes a buyer and a seller. They are both needed. Destroy either and the economy falls. There is a tension required that makes the well being of both to go forward in the future and it is a line that is walked that protects all concerned. Only Liberal Democratic ideas allow this. Conservative ideas that weaken the working person leads to everyone losing as in 1929. Conservatives are feeding us the same old line but remember the definition of insanity. Trying the same thing over again expecting different results.

  by Jlukes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:36:23 PM PDT

•  The Depressiontor

  I just got it!

  We can all quit worrying!  The Democrats have everything under control!

  Bush is a DEEP MOLE for the DLC --

  (probably the NYC high-finance faction -- think of who Roosevelt's backers must have been...)

  who is out to totally HOOVERIZE the Republican Party for the next 40 YEARS!

  (Fits profile.  Long naps, and longer vacations.  Druggie.  Hates his father, And where was he during those National Guard years -- some Democrat madrassas training camp, no doubt!)

  Think I'll go start a union, or something...

  by HenryDavid on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:05:32 PM PDT

  •  ouch -- that's "DepressionAtor"

    Cold typing fingers -- avoiding those high heating bills, y'know...

    by HenryDavid on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:10:45 PM PDT

•  some friends of mine

  just made an offer on a house.  i am scared for them, but not in any way i can articulate well.  it's just a han solo "i've got a bad feeling about this" kinda thing.  

  i did muster a "stay away from an ARM deal - that'll kill ya."  but i can't explain to them why buying a house right now is a really bad idea without sounding flaky and alarmist.  that is just the general conclusion my brain has formed from reading all these economic reports, which i don't fully understand - it's been a bit of analysis by osmosis.

  so, what's the cliff notes version of the real estate bubble for my friends who are about to do this?  

  by Cedwyn on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:18:17 PM PDT

  •  It depends on where they

    live.  In many ("less desirable") parts of the country, housing prices aren't that inflated.  If they plan to stay in their house for a long time, put a decent amount of money down,