Hillary Clinton does not speak for me

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'm SO FREAKING sick of the democrat party line:"the economy sucks unless you are uber rich"

Bullcorn! Hillary and her line about how you have to be very wealthy or well connected or the "economy is broken" is such crap. This is the same junk we heard in the last election. Besides the subprime problem, what the fudge is wrong with the economy? It's it the record low jobless rate? Is it the last 4+ years of amazing prosperity in the stock market?

Or is it the fact that there is still PLENTY of economic opportunity for Americans who wish to grab it?

Even if people's portfolio is taking a hit right now, it's on the heels of kicking ass for 4 years. Downturns are cyclical. It happens. It doesn't mean the "economy is broken"... And to be honest, if your portfolio is properly diversified...you aren't even hurting right now.

I'm not rich. I own a home (maybe this makes me rich in their formula). I am gainfully employed. I am in that "vast majority of Americans" who Hillary said are being hurt by a "broken economy"...yet I'm not on a street corner holding a will work for food sign...how can this be?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Sorry, this was meant for the political forum.

[Ranger12 46]

I'll move it for you.

Oh, and I agree with you. I do wish my mutual funds were doing better, but they are not hemorrhaging money either. While one fund may lose a little money, another one gains money for me. I have an overall net gain last year, so I can't complain.

[Auburn85 432]

can't believe the perception alot of people have that we are in a "recession."

Yes, over the next few months will be very crucial to our economy, but like you mentioned 5% unemployment is low.

Alot of houses were sold. Alot of houses have not foreclosed. Yeah, the housing market has definately cooled, but that's because the market was flooded with new houses. We went from record sales to the biggest decline in home sales in several years. From one extreme to the other.

People are better off now than they were 30-35 years ago.

Heaven forbid if anyone lived though part of the 70s and even some parts of the 80s. They'd have to invent a new word to have a bigger dramatic affect than the word "recession."

I feel that hurt Kerry alot in 04 focusing too much that the tax cuts "were only for the rich."

go ahead and raise the corporate income tax and other business taxes. Oh yeah, it will make the "greedy rich pay their fair share" , but do you think they're going to eat it or pass the new costs to us? ugh.

[RunInRed 16,488]

I'm not really interested in defending Clinton but I will say I don't think she is probably talking about people who have portfolios, or mutual funds or who even watch the markets ups and downs.

As for the mortgage crisis - while it's true we have a supply problem now, the root cause was that money was too cheap for entirely too long. Compound in the greed and some of the lending practices we saw in the subprime markets and you have a recipe for the current situation.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I don't think money was too cheap. I think that the stupid banks and lenders were just too lax in who they let get the money. Demonstrated creditworthiness doesn't change just because the interest rate goes down.

[TexasTiger 13,027]

Bullcorn!

Bullcorn?

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'm not really interested in defending Clinton but I will say I don't think she is probably talking about people who have portfolios, or mutual funds or who even watch the markets ups and downs.

That's really my point. The only people who are even affected (be it marginally) are people who DO have stocks and mutual funds...the so called "uber wealthy".

Besides the recent downturn in the dow, what indicator is there that we have an "economy in crisis"...none. But they throw that shiz out there and ignorant voters eat it up.

I remember about two years ago there was an election and all these voters were like "my number one concern right now is our troubled economy...and that's what's going to affect my vote"...that just shows you how freaking ignorant our voters are.

[CCTAU 3,346]

I'm not really interested in defending Clinton but I will say I don't think she is probably talking about people who have portfolios, or mutual funds or who even watch the markets ups and downs.

That's really my point. The only people who are even affected (be it marginally) are people who DO have stocks and mutual funds...the so called "uber wealthy".

Besides the recent downturn in the dow, what indicator is there that we have an "economy in crisis"...none. But they throw that shiz out there and ignorant voters eat it up.

I remember about two years ago there was an election and all these voters were like "my number one concern right now is our troubled economy...and that's what's going to affect my vote"...that just shows you how freaking ignorant our voters are.

It is what the media wants to convince the masses is happening. It is a nice subtle dig at Bush. And it makes it seem that the dims can help. The economy is flowing tenuously for now, but it does that from time to time. And as for money being too cheap, there is NOTHING any president can do about that. The fed will do what it thinks best independently of the president. So in all, it's just the media's way of getting more folks to vote dim. And it's another chance for the dims to let everyone know that they will save us. Unfortunately, some of the republican candidates are falling right in there with them.

[RunInRed 16,488]

More signs than just the market, starting with the latest jobs report:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers trimmed jobs from their payrolls in January, according to a government jobs report Friday that showed the first decline in employment in four years. That raised new concerns about the risk of recession for the weakening U.S. economy.

There was a net loss of 17,000 jobs in the month, according to the Labor Department reading. That was partly balanced by a sharp revision higher for the December reading to a gain of 82,000 jobs from the original reading of only an 18,000 increase.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had looked for a gain of 70,000 jobs for January.

The figures showed January as having the first decline in payrolls since August 2003. But the drop was based on the preliminary reading, which is subject to revisions. There have been a few months in the last four years, including August 2007, when the preliminary payroll reading showed a decline was later revised to a gain.

The unemployment rate slipped to 4.9%. Economists had forecast it would remain at the 5% rate reported for December. The drop in the unemployment rate, which is based on a different survey than the one used to calculate U.S. payrolls, was partly due to updated population figures used at the start of the new year.

The weakening state of the labor market has become a growing concern for economists, policymakers and Wall Street in recent weeks, as well as the general public.

Federal Reserve cited evidence of a "softening in labor markets" when it announced both of its rate cuts late last month. Congress is rushing to pass a $150 billion stimulus package that the Bush administration said should add 500,000 jobs to the economy.

Stock futures, which had shot higher earlier in the morning on news of Microsoft's $44.6 billion bid for Yahoo, fell sharply immediately after the jobs report, as investors prepared for recession fears to again dominate market trading.

Fed reaction

Still, some economists say after cutting interest rates by 1.25 percentage points in just the last two weeks, the Fed is unlikely to take any immediate action to calm markets even with this new sign of weakness. The central bank's policymakers will have another employment report to consider before they next meet March 18.

"I do not think this report compels the Fed to do anything," said economist Robert Brusca. "The Fed has eased a lot. Monetary policy works with a lag. The Fed knows weak data will continue for a while after its cuts. It will need to see something much weaker than this to get itself hopped up for another rate cut."

Despite the upward revision in the December payroll reading and the slight decline in unemployment, there was more weakness than strength in the report. The government made its annual revision to all 2007 employment readings, which amounted to a 191,000 drop in jobs, even with the big adjustment higher in December.

The report also showed the average hours worked in the private sector declined in January to 33.7 hours from 33.8 in December. That drop, coupled with only a narrow 4-cent gain in the average hourly wage, resulted in the first drop in weekly wages since April

And slowing GDP Growth:

Economic growth nearly ground to a halt in the last three months of 2007, according to a government report released Wednesday that showed the sharpest decline in growth since 2003.

The report raised fears of a recession and increased hopes that the Federal Reserve will make another significant interest rate cut today. But it included some worrisome inflation readings could end up tying the Fed's hands.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, grew at an annual rate of 0.6%, adjusted for inflation, in the fourth quarter, according to the Commerce Department.

That's down from a final reading of 4.9% growth for the third quarter. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast GDP growth would slow to 1.2%.

The anemic growth in the fourth quarter matched the slowest expansion in the economy in the past five years. The report comes amid rising concerns that the U.S. economy is falling into a recession, with some economists arguing the downturn started in the final month of 2007.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez told CNNMoney.com he still expects the economy to avoid falling into a recession, but the report is further proof that Congress must act quickly on an estimated $150 billion financial stimulus package passed by the House Tuesday.

"We're not happy with 0.6% GDP growth," he conceded. "This is exactly why we need to get the stimulus package out as soon as possible and get checks into consumers' hands."

Anywho, your point of it just being about the markets is wrong.

[Ranger12 46]

RIR, you don't get it. There are always going to be fluctuations in the job market. Heck that is Economics 231 in college. Even when there may be a drop in unemployment for a quarter, depending on the numbers, an economy could still be considered at "full employment". Most economists even suggest that an unemployment rate between 4 to 6 percent is an economy at full employment. With the unemployment rate still under 5%, what are you wanting?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Yeah to summarize: 4-5 years of explosive economic growth, 4-5 years of explosive job growth...three months of slowdown = the economy is "failed" and in peril.

I don't buy it. Especially the "anemic growth in the 4th quarter matched the slowest expansion in 5 years"...OF COURSE it does. The economy HAS to slow down at some point. Does that mean it's in dire straits? No. It means we are going through a cyclical adjustment, like the economy has done since its conception.

Sadly, American voters are too stupid to realize any of that...and go based on some party line that's thrown out there.

Just like the thread on this board "just curious, how's the economy"...sure pick the 2 week stretch in the last 5 years to suggest a "failed economy"...where were you the last 5 years?

Point of fact: Americans have enjoyed unprecidented economic success over the last 5 years. In spite of high oil prices, wars, and recovery from 9/11...not a single american had to worry about the economy. But all of that goodwill is for NOTHING now that the dow has dropped 7% (even though it was up like 30% over the last 5 years).

People forget the dow hitting record after record. People forget about the amazing job growth over the last 5 years. They want to look at THIS WEEK's numbers to say "oh my God the economy is failing"...

[RunInRed 16,488]

Nothing in that story is opinion. They were stating job loss numbers and GDP numbers (released by the Gov) for the month of January. Same info can be found on foxnews, yahoo finance, or wherever else you prefer to get your information.

I'm not an advocate that the economy is in a "dire" condition...but we certainly are seeing some disturbing signs.

Of course I love this line of thought...."we had 5 good years....it was bound to go down sometime"

[BamaGrad03 0]

Of course I love this line of thought...."we had 5 good years....it was bound to go down sometime"

So the concept of cyclical economics is new to you. OK.

Beyond that, where were the bashers for the last 5 years? Does the republican administration ONLY get credit for the last 3 months, and not the last 5 years and 3 months?

Does Bill Clinton ONLY get credit for the "awesome economy" (lower dow, higher unemployment), when most of the economic success under his watch was based on unjustified numbers during the internet boom?

To infer that the republicans are the CAUSE or RESPONSIBLE for the current economic "crisis", while giving NO credit for the last 5 years is beyond irresponsible.

[RunInRed 16,488]

The Bush administration is responsible for adding trillions of national debt. Past that, you can come to your own conclusions.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The Bush administration is responsible for adding trillions of national debt. Past that, you can come to your own conclusions.

That's a different argument all together.

I never said anything about the debt. Geez why don't you bring up the war, or his stance on gay marraige?

I'm talking about the economy. Especially over the last 5 years.

[RunInRed 16,488]

The Bush administration is responsible for adding trillions of national debt. Past that, you can come to your own conclusions.

That's a different argument all together.

I never said anything about the debt. Geez why don't you bring up the war, or his stance on gay marraige?

I'm talking about the economy. Especially over the last 5 years.

Yeah..the national debt has nothing to do with the ecomony and the situation we are in now?

Did you know, one of the biggest line items on the budget is Interest Expense on the national debt. But but but....Bush is going to give us a "tax cut" so all is good. And now 7 years later...he's talking about "extra pork" in projects that he will veto. His whole fiscal policy this past 7yrs is beyond laughable.

Nothing like $300 in my pocket, while I pile up debt on a credit card...brilliant.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Yeah..the national debt has nothing to do with the ecomony and the situation we are in now?

The debt has nothing to do with THIS discussion. THIS discussion where we are talking about a "failed" economy based on the last 3 months of economic data. You KNOW that because you posted your article.

But insted of having to face the last 5 years of economic prosperity, you change the argument.

[RunInRed 16,488]

You started this thread with the premise that the economy is fine and pointed to the market swings as the sole reason why you think people are pessimistic on the economy.

The article I posted on tax and spending was a separate thread.

Regardless, it's all interconnected. You can not look at the economy through the isolated prism of the financial markets or any other singular metric.

I'll maintain my point: our economy is out of balance b/c of deficit spending. You can argue all day about what tax approach is best to bring it back in check. You are for staying the course (current tax policy) and I tend to favor the tax levels of the 90s for the upper income class (over 250k/yr) and tax cuts for those making 75k or less (i.e. "tax cuts geared towards the middle class").

But let's assume we stay the course with the current tax levels. My question is: what are you going to cut to bring us back in check and begin to pay down the debt? I assume you won't advocate for decreasing defense speding and cutting pork alone still won't put us in check so where is the equilibrium?

[BamaGrad03 0]

You started this thread with the premise that the economy is fine and pointed to the market swings as the sole reason why you think people are pessimistic on the economy.

The article I posted on tax and spending was a separate thread.

Regardless, it's all interconnected. You can not look at the economy through the isolated prism of the financial markets or any other singular metric.

I'll maintain my point: our economy is out of balance b/c of deficit spending. You can argue all day about what tax approach is best to bring it back in check. You are for staying the course (current tax policy) and I tend to favor the tax levels of the 90s for the upper income class (over 250k/yr) and tax cuts for those making 75k or less (i.e. "tax cuts geared towards the middle class").

But let's assume we stay the course with the current tax levels. My question is: what are you going to cut to bring us back in check and begin to pay down the debt? I assume you won't advocate for decreasing defense speding and cutting pork alone still won't put us in check so where is the equilibrium?

Do you think we will always be at war with Iraq?

Look, I'm not a fan of how this current administration is spending money. But that is for another thread. I started this thread because I'm tired of democrats "speaking for me"...like the american consumer is some downtrodden person who has to decide between feeding their kids and keeping the lights on...because the economy is "so bad"...

The debt and deficit are issues for certain. But do they affect everyday joe consumer right now? No. They don't. So when Hillary talks of this "terrible economy that needs to be fixed" under the guise of it hurting the average Joe...she's wrong.

[RunInRed 16,488]

John McCain: "100 years in Iraq would be fine with me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

And who knows about Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

[BamaGrad03 0]

John McCain: "100 years in Iraq would be fine with me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

And who knows about Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

Sigh. There is a difference between having a presence in a country...and fighting a war there. Or do you think our bases in Germany and Japan are wreaking havoc on our current economic state?

[RunInRed 16,488]

hah...

But seriously...I do not think he is advocating bringing our troops home any time soon. Or have I missed something in regards to his Iraq policy?

[BamaGrad03 0]

He's advocating getting the job done.

[RunInRed 16,488]

A job with no military solution. Wonderful. Sounds like more of the same. No thanks.