Who is President NOW, as the economy continues to sink? Who got us here? nm
Posted By: period on 2009-01-11
In Reply to: That is because Obama is a phoney. - Some of us have seen it all along.nm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
One way to sink the ship,
to continue your analogy, is to throw off the skilled crew, the engineers and carpenters to make more room; then pull more and more people onto the ship as it sinks, on the theory that at least they may survive a few moments more and then we can all go down together. Or maybe a miracle will happen and we'll all get rescued.
To answer the question about who might have done a better job: Because of the very poor ''reaching across the aisle'' candiate the Republican party put forth - in an attempt to pander to ''moderates'' - I can say only that McCain may have done less actual irreparable harm in the first four months, and probably the rest of his term, than Obama. The Dems would have fought his every proposal tooth and nail (even stuff they agreed with) just because it was his, and that may have put the brakes on some of this headlong rush into socialism that we see now.
we had a small business, you deduc everything including the kit sink! sm
coming out 250K after deductions you are sitting pretty. Deductions include payroll, etc. You are the owner of a company and with clear earnings after deductions of 250K you are better off than the majority of families in the US.
And the pattern continues.
Another swiftboating of a hero. Anyone who dares to disapprove of Bush's actions can expect to be dragged through the mud.
I wonder how many innocent Americans who simply disagree with Bush have been spied upon and deemed terrorists for merely disagreeing with his flawed policies. We'll never know because Bush refuses to obey the law and use warrants that would spell out probable cause for such surveillance. :-(
Maybe that is why FOX continues to skyrocket.
nm
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
Bush Approval Continues to Fall
Could the rest of America be getting a clue?
August 17, 2005
President Bush’s job approval has dropped to 41% nationwide, according to the results of 50 separate but concurrent, statewide public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA. Bush’s aproval rating ranges from a high of 59% in Idaho to a low of 29% in Rhode Island.
- Bush is above 50% in 7 states.
- Bush is at 50% in 2 states.
- Bush is below 50% in 41 states.
Compared to last month's poll, Bush's approval numbers dropped 5 or more points in 10 states. The single largest drop was in Minnesota, where it fell 10 points. Bush also fell 9 points in New Mexico.
You will have to ask him not to call you; report to supervisors if he continues - nm
x
If Netanyahu continues to bomb Gaza,
then Obama has to do some action, words are not enough anymore regarding this conflict.
Most probably Obama, as he is a wise guy, he will curtail US' financial and weapon support to Israel.
Obama will not start the bombing and he will not torture.
And the Sudan genocide continues under Bush's watch.
We could bounce these back and forth all day.
I think he was a good president overall, but not intervening in Rawanda was Clinton's biggest failure in my book.
But if you are going to talk about blind eyes on the genocide in Africa I suggest you go back a little further through American history than Clinton and bring it on up to this current administration.
Swiftboating continues; you're in good company.
Walter Cronkite may be next...
Cronkite: Time for U.S. to Leave Iraq
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterSun Jan 15, 6:47 PM ET
Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.
It's my belief that we should get out now, Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.
Now 89, the television journalist once known as the most trusted man in America has been off the CBS Evening News for nearly a quarter-century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them.
Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.
Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.
The best time to have made a similar statement about Iraq came after Hurricane Katrina, he said.
We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States, he said. Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home.
Iraqis should have been told that our hearts are with you and that the United States would do all it could to rebuild their country, he said.
I think we could have been able to retire with honor, he said. In fact, I think we can retire with honor anyway.
Cronkite has spoken out against the Iraq war in the past, saying in 2004 that Americans weren't any safer because of the invasion.
Cronkite, who is hard of hearing and walks haltingly, jokingly said that I'm standing by if they want me to anchor the CBS Evening News. CBS is still searching for a permanent successor to Dan Rather, who replaced Cronkite in March 1981.
Twenty-four hours after I told CBS News that I was stepping down at my 65th birthday I was already regretting it and I've regretted it every day since, he said. It's too good a job for me to have given it up the way that I did.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
*****************************
AND MURTHA:
Web Site Attacks Critic of War
Opponents Question Murtha's Medals
By Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 14, 2006; A05
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.
In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.
David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service, said the issue of Murtha's medals from 1967 is relevant now because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement. Thibault said: He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach.
Cindy Abram, a spokeswoman for Murtha, said, We certainly believe that the questions being raised are an attempt to distract attention from what's happening in Iraq. As for how Murtha won the Purple Hearts, she said: We think the congressman's record is clear. We have the documentation, the paperwork that proves that he earned them, and that he is entitled to wear them proudly.
Cybercast is part of the conservative Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, who accused some in the media of ignoring the Swift Boat charges, but Thibault said it operates independently. He said the unit, formerly called the Conservative News Service, averages 110,000 readers, mainly conservative, and provides material for other Web sites such as GOPUSA. We won't run anything against anybody if we don't have the goods, he said.
Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), who was quoted in the article, confirmed his account to The Washington Post yesterday.
In a conversation on the House floor in the early 1980s, said Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, Murtha told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts. He recalled Murtha saying: Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek. Murtha's spokeswoman would not address that account.
Bailey, who lost a House race to Murtha after a 1982 redistricting, said Jack's a coward, and he's a liar for subsequently denying the conversation. That just really burned me, he said.
While saying he has only responded to reporters' questions and is not bitter toward Murtha, Bailey said the congressman's approach to Iraq is not responsible and that it just turned my stomach to see Murtha acting as a spokesman for veterans.
He said he shared the information with Republican William Choby, who ran against Murtha four times beginning in 1990 and made the Vietnam decorations an issue. Choby raised the issue again during Murtha's 2002 reelection campaign.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, citing Marine records, reported that year that Murtha was wounded during hostile actions near Da Nang, Vietnam: In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation. The Cybercast article cites a 1994 interview in which Murtha described injuries to his arm and knee.
The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was pretending to be a big war hero. Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts but was turned down because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics.
In November, when Murtha called for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the congressman was endorsing Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party and called his stance a surrender to the terrorists. Days later, President Bush called Murtha a fine man and said they simply disagreed about Iraq.
The Cybercast article appeared shortly before a segment scheduled for CBS's 60 Minutes tomorrow in which Murtha predicts that the vast majority of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO OPPOSE THE WAR:
Bush to use speech in Kentucky to promote Republicans
January 11, 2006
LOUISVILLE (AP) -- President Bush will have an eye on the fall elections Wednesday when he heads to Louisville, Kentucky, to give a speech on Iraq.
Tuesday, the president told a veterans group that voters should punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives comfort to our adversaries. He said loyal opposition is one thing, but defeatism is another.
Thank you, also; I hate the polarization that continues between "right and left," Dem or Rep.,
AMERICANS. Is that too simplistic, altruistic, unrealistic? When can we get beyond LABELS and fingerpointing, US VERSUS THEM mentality, and become AMERICANS united for our own country, our own people; the divisions in this country is what has helped to bring us down. I fully support President Obama and feel very humbled and privileged indeed to have been able to witness history happening before me, but if we had an "us" and "them" division back during the revolution, we would still be paying taxes to England and flying the Union Jack! I love this COUNTRY, and pray that we can help each other crawl out of the horrific mess this country is in.
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976
Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down
By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01
A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.
In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.
The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.
With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.
"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.
Who Gets Abortions?
Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.
The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.
Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:
· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.
· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.
This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.
· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.
· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.
· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.
About the Data
There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.
Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.
Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.
Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.
Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·
Resources
For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."
For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.
Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect
for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.
Here's another one regarding the economy.
And you're right. Some people do. 
|
Falling gasoline prices have led to some improvement in consumer confidence over the past few weeks. But the public remains deeply unhappy about the state of the economy. According to the latest Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans rate the economy as only fair or poor, and by 58 to 36 percent people say economic conditions are getting worse, not better.
Yet by some measures, the economy is doing reasonably well. In particular, gross domestic product is rising at a pretty fast clip. So why aren't people pleased with the economy's performance?
Like everything these days, this is a political as well as factual question. The Bush administration seems genuinely puzzled that it isn't getting more credit for what it thinks is a booming economy. So let me be helpful here and explain what's going on.
I could point out that the economic numbers, especially the job numbers, aren't as good as the Bush people imagine. President Bush made an appearance in the Rose Garden to hail the latest jobs report, yet a gain of 215,000 jobs would have been considered nothing special - in fact, a bit subpar - during the Clinton years. And because the average workweek shrank a bit, the total number of hours worked actually fell last month.
But the main explanation for economic discontent is that it's hard to convince people that the economy is booming when they themselves have yet to see any benefits from the supposed boom. Over the last few years G.D.P. growth has been reasonably good, and corporate profits have soared. But that growth has failed to trickle down to most Americans.
Back in August the Census bureau released family income data for 2004. The report, which was overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina, showed a remarkable disconnect between overall economic growth and the economic fortunes of most American families.
It should have been a good year for American families: the economy grew 4.2 percent, its best performance since 1999. Yet most families actually lost economic ground. Real median household income - the income of households in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation - fell for the fifth year in a row. And one key source of economic insecurity got worse, as the number of Americans without health insurance continued to rise.
We don't have comparable data for 2005 yet, but it's pretty clear that the results will be similar. G.D.P. growth has remained solid, but most families are probably losing ground as their earnings fail to keep up with inflation.
Behind the disconnect between economic growth and family incomes lies the extremely lopsided nature of the economic recovery that officially began in late 2001. The growth in corporate profits has, as I said, been spectacular. Even after adjusting for inflation, profits have risen more than 50 percent since the last quarter of 2001. But real wage and salary income is up less than 7 percent.
There are some wealthy Americans who derive a large share of their income from dividends and capital gains on stocks, and therefore benefit more or less directly from soaring profits. But these people constitute a small minority. For everyone else the sluggish growth in wages is the real story. And much of the wage and salary growth that did take place happened at the high end, in the form of rising payments to executives and other elite employees. Average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, adjusted for inflation, are lower now than when the recovery began.
So there you have it. Americans don't feel good about the economy because it hasn't been good for them. Never mind the G.D.P. numbers: most people are falling behind.
It's much harder to explain why. The disconnect between G.D.P. growth and the economic fortunes of most American families can't be dismissed as a normal occurrence. Wages and median family income often lag behind profits in the early stages of an economic expansion, but not this far behind, and not for so long. Nor, I should say, is there any easy way to place more than a small fraction of the blame on Bush administration policies. At this point the joylessness of the economic expansion for most Americans is a mystery.
What's clear, however, is that advisers who believe that Mr. Bush can repair his political standing by making speeches telling the public how well the economy is doing have misunderstood the situation. The problem isn't that people don't understand how good things are. It's that they know, from personal experience, that things really aren't that good. |
The economy. It's not going anywhere
counting.
Economy going down is right.
work for, the largest transcription company in the US, is now paying us for ASR, 60% and others will get straight 4 cents a line.
Actually, no, not the economy....(sm)
I was actually referring to Pelosi and her power grab, cutting off all GOP opposition, behind closed doors, that no one will ever hear about again, from the other day.
And did you catch Barney Frank today on the retroactive rules on the TARP?
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/tarp/2009/01/09/169663.html?utm_medium=RSS
What I am doing to help the economy
1. I pray for this country and the president every day.
2. I'm not constantly complaining about everything.
3. I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.
4. I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.
5. I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.
I did not vote for President Obama. I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part. No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.
Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are. So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American. I would also advise getting some debt management help.
So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive. I have found that this helps me a lot.
Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other. Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.
What I am doing to help the economy
1. I pray for this country and the president every day.
2. I'm not constantly complaining about everything.
3. I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.
4. I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.
5. I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.
I did not vote for President Obama. I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part. No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.
Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are. So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American. I would also advise getting some debt management help.
So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive. I have found that this helps me a lot.
Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other. Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.
Please take Economy 101
Your pathetic little woe-is-me mentality is the problem with the economy.
Wake up, eejit. The 'rich' people are the ones paying all the taxes. The runts at the bottom - you know - the ones so unintelligent or unmotivated to make it in the world - pay no taxes and suck all the money out of the country.
No country ever got anywhere by taking down the successful people and raising up the ingrates. In America, you can get rich if you want to. But you have to work for it. If you don't have the guts or the self-motivation, you get to live according to your own means.
Suck it up.
The Economy
The Economy - Not the President - is Tanking the Market
by: Hale Stewart
One of the more ridiculous statements going around over the last few weeks is "this is an Obama bear market." This statement is, well, ill-informed at best and fraudulent at worst. Let's look at why.
First -- who is saying this? Such economic luminaries as John Hawkins at Right Wing News (who actually asked Is Obama Deliberately Tanking the Stock Market?), Powerline, Brit Hume along with a host of other right wing bloggers. What all of these people have in common is their incessant chearleading during the Bush years despite mounting evidence of an upcoming recession. There are the same people who argued that ... housing is a small part of the economy ... most people are paying their mortgages ... the US economy will decouple from the rest of the world .... it's the greatest story never told ..... you get the idea. Simply put, these are people who have distinguished themselves by being some of the best contrary indicators around.
Secondly, the SPYs -- the tracking ETF for the S&P 500 -- dropped from (roughly) 155 in the summer of 2007 to (roughly) 85 at the end of last year. Yet I don't remember any of them saying that was the Bush bear market -- even though that's a drop of roughly 43%. No -- it's the new President that's causing the problems. In addition, when Bush took office the SPYs dropped from roughly 130 at the begging of 2001 to 85 in the fourth quarter of 2002. Yet somehow I don't think any of them blamed Bush's policies for the drop. Then it was the "lasting effects of the Clinton recession" or something similar.
What all of these idiots are forgetting is the simple fact that the economy is the backdrop of the stock market. When the economy does well the stock market does well. When the economy doesn't do well, the stock market doesn't do well. And to that end, the economy isn't doing well right now. Let's look at some recent news events.
From the BEA:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008,(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by theBureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent.
From the BLS:
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
From the Federal Reserve:
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that national economic conditions deteriorated further during the reporting period of January through late February. Ten of the twelve reports indicated weaker conditions or declines in economic activity; the exceptions were Philadelphia and Chicago, which reported that their regional economies "remained weak." The deterioration was broad based, with only a few sectors such as basic food production and pharmaceuticals appearing to be exceptions. Looking ahead, contacts from various Districts rate the prospects for near-term improvement in economic conditions as poor, with a significant pickup not expected before late 2009 or early 2010.
Consumer spending remained sluggish on net, although many Districts noted some improvement in January and February compared with a dismal holiday spending season. Travel and tourist activity fell noticeably in key destinations, as did activity for a wide range of nonfinancial services, with substantial job cuts noted in many instances. Reports on manufacturing activity suggested steep declines in activity in some sectors and pronounced declines overall. Conditions weakened somewhat for agricultural producers and substantially for extractors of natural resources, with reduced global demand cited as an underlying determinant in both cases. Markets for residential real estate remained largely stagnant, with only minimal and scattered signs of stabilization emerging in some areas, while demand for commercial real estate weakened significantly. Reports from banks and other financial institutions indicated further drops in business loan demand, a slight deterioration in credit quality for businesses and households, and continued tight credit availability.
From the FDIC:
Expenses associated with rising loan losses and declining asset values overwhelmed revenues in the fourth quarter of 2008, producing a net loss of $26.2 billion at insured commercial banks and savings institutions. This is the first time since the fourth quarter of 1990 that the industry has posted an aggregate net loss for a quarter. The ?0.77 percent quarterly return on assets (ROA) is the worst since the ?1.10 percent in the second quarter of 1987. A year ago, the industry reported $575 million in profits and an ROA of 0.02 percent. High expenses for loan-loss provisions, sizable losses in trading accounts, and large writedowns of goodwill and other assets all contributed to the industry's net loss. A few very large losses were reported during the quarter-four institutions accounted for half of the total industry loss-but earnings problems were widespread. Almost one out of every three institutions (32 percent) reported a net loss in the fourth quarter. Only 36 percent of institutions reported year-over-year increases in quarterly earnings, and only 34 percent reported higher quarterly ROAs.
I could go on, but you you get the idea. The news of the underlying economy has been terrible (at best). And that's what's causing the problems.
The economy had nothing to do with ........
his jumping to grow BIG and BIGGER government; he was going to do that regardless of the economy. Obama is for big government and was WAAAY before he was elected. The economy was a good excuse to scare people into electing him, as if this country couldn't pick itself up, get rid of the bad, new companies come in, and the economy would continue all on its own, WITHOUT Obama's interference. But, of course, he jumped at the chance to push his HUGE government agenda by taxing us to death. Please don't tell me you won't pay any taxes. How in the heck do you think trillions of dollars of debt will be repaid..... and no, it won't be those mean old "rich" people everyone loves to hate and it won't be the big businesses Obama wants you to hate, it will be YOU and me..... business will just pass their increased tax load onto us!! Way to go Obama!!
And the economy isn't already gasping its
So is theft of the economy! nm
xx
why can't the economy be first and we have the debate...
after it is fixed. Why does the debate HAVE to be on Friday?
I have learned so much about the economy over...sm
the last week but it has only made me see how much more I don't know. Pretty scary! We are all at the mercy of those in Washington and on Wall Street. Plenty of blame to go around but blame will not get us out of this mess.
The candidate who ran from the economy...
Obama voted for the bailout and that is ALL he did. That is not running from it? He still wants to spend trillions, won't say he is willing to cut spending, and wants to RAISE taxes in an economic downturn. You can't turn around the markets by raising taxes on corporations and the so-called "rich." Common sense should tell you that.
McCain has run from nothing. All Obama does is repeat the same old vagaries and NEVER gets specific about anything, but why should he? You obviously don't care. lol.
The OP is talking about the economy. nm
z
Not as compelling as the economy.
x
In a McCain economy, you will be
su
Who has been in charge of the economy for the
Democrats own congress....... they are the ones responsible for the complete mess of this economy. But because there is a republican president, the republicans get the blame.
Republican president really can't get anything done with an all democrat congress.
He is going to do that by destroying the economy...
of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio...making us all pay higher utility bills? What are his proposals? He doesn't want coal. He doesn't want nuclear. We CAN'T do it with windmills, not all of it, even T. Boone Pickens will tell you that.
Nuclear energy and building plants WOULD bring thousands of new jobs.
Sorry...his energy plans make NO sense to me, nor where he is going to get the billions, in this economy, to put his ideas into action.
He is already preparing the speech where he tells his faithful he can't do a lot of what he said he would do.
Snake oil salesman.
You are for, then....destroying the economy of...
the coal producing states and skyrocketing our electric bills...THIS on top of everything else, and he still looks GOOD to you? Amazing. lol.
Yes, and the economy with still stink. O will put us
nm
how is it going right back into the economy?
and WHO is it benefiting?
and one more thing... if this was McCain's inauguration, you would have no problem with the amount being spent either?
come on, be honest now
What would you undertake to fix the economy?.
Any better idea?
If you criticize, you have to come up with a better alternative.
fixing the economy...
I hope that by the time these projects are over, the economy will be better and the companies will therefore have new projects to move on to. The money that these jobs generate in taxes and in spending will spur more movement forward and we can hopefully start getting back on track.
Would that not stimulate the economy? sm
Think about it. If a person has a mortgage payment of say $500 a month (or any figure, really) and the government wrote a check for, say, $50K to that individual and it would pay off their house, would that not free up that $500 to be spent in other ways that would stimulate the economy?
People who are struggling to make their house payment, regardless of the reason, are still consumers and those consumers would be able to put more money back into the economy if they didn't have a mortgage payment. Isn't that the whole idea? To get more people spending more money so that more jobs would be created and so that our economy would grow?
Economy notice
Economy Notice
Due to recent budget cuts and the cost of electricity,
gas and oil, as well as current market conditions and
the continued decline of the U.S. economy,
The Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
So much for fixing our economy
Mr. President. This is the biggest problem I have with Barrack Obama. He is all about implementing his personal agenda and making us all dependent on government while it grows bigger and bigger that he doesn't stop to think about the consequences that these actions will have on our already horrible economy. All he talks about are the jobs he has created or saved and I'm sorry.....but I don't see that from where I'm sitting. I see people all around me losing jobs or about to lose jobs and cap and trade will most definitely cause more job loss.
Let our economy fix itself, Mr. President, and then we can talk about your personal agenda. Any person who wants to raise taxes during a recession is a complete and utter moron. Obama is doing nothing but hurting the middle class....which is the class he professed to want to help so badly.
I have no doubt that Obama is smart or he wouldn't be where he is at. However, I think he lacks the experience to be our president. I personally feel that any person wanting to be president of the US should be required to have run or owned a business in the past.
I tell ya what....come 2012....I'm seriously going to be looking outside the box for our next president. Not only will I thoroughly check out the pub and dem candidate but I'm going to check out the indepedents a lot more than I ever have in the past. I think it is about time we show the two parties that they both suck and we have decided to go against both of them. Maybe that will wake them up because this going back and forth between pub and crat hasn't done us much good here lately.
cant have an economy without a healthy land
Frankly, you cant have an economy, if you have no livable land or healthy people. First and foremost is the land and it's people and animals. Without all of that, we will not have an economy. Funny how other industrialized countries are signing on..you know the countries who take care of their citizens with health care, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time..The caring countries..not the capitalistic class divided society of America. OMG, just in New Orleans now you can see who are the fortunate ones versus the unfortunate ones. The minorities are mostly all the unfortunate ones cause they could not afford to get out of town. They are the ones hurting and rebelling. This is the picture of America today. The *haves* and *have nots* and Bush continues to give to the *haves* and do nothing for the *have nots*.
Republican Cut and Pasate Economy
Subject: lousy economic news
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12032005.html
An Economy Driven By Debt
Don't Confuse the Jobs Hype with the Facts
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The November payrolls job report was announced Friday with the usual
misleading hype. Spinmeisters made the most out of the 215,000 jobs.
Looking
beyond the glitter at the real facts, this is what we see. 21,000 of
those
jobs were government jobs supported by taxpayers. There were only
194,000
new jobs in the private sector.
Of those new jobs, 37,000 are in construction and only 11,000 are in
manufacturing. The bulk of the new jobs--144,000--are in domestic
services.
Wholesale and retail trade account for 20,000. Food services and
drinking
places (waitresses and bar tenders) account for 38,000.
Health care and social assistance account for 27,000. Professional and
business services account for 29,000. Financial activities gained
13,000
jobs. Transportation and warehousing gained 8,000 jobs.
Very few of these jobs result in tradable services that can be exported
or
help to close the growing gap in the US balance of trade.
The 11,000 new factory jobs and the 15,000 of the previous month are a
relief from the usual loss. However, these gains are more than offset
by the
job cuts recently announced by General Motors and Ford.
Despite the gain in jobs, total hours worked declined as the average
workweek fell to 33.7 hours. The decline in the labor force
participation
rate, a consequence of the shrinkage in well-paying jobs, masks a
higher
rate of unemployment than the reported 5 percent. The ratio of
employment to
population fell again in November.
Average hourly earnings (up 3.2 percent over the last year) are not
keeping
up with the consumer price index (up 4.3 percent).
Consequently, real incomes are falling.
This is not the picture of a healthy economy in which growth in high
productivity, high value-added jobs fuel the growth in consumer demand
and
provide savings to finance Washington's red ink. What we are looking at
is
an economy that is coming unglued from the loss of jobs that provide
ladders
of upward mobility and from massive trade and budget deficits that are
resulting in unsustainable growth in indebtedness to foreigners.
The consumer price index measures inflation at 4.3 percent over the
past
year. Many people, experiencing household budgets severely impacted by
fuel
prices and grocery bills, find this figure unrealistically low. PNC
Financial Services has a Christmas price index consisting of the gifts
in
the song, The 12 Days of Christmas. The index reports that the cost
of the
collection of gifts has risen 6 percent since last Christmas. Some of
the
gifts have risen substantially in price. Gold rings are up 27.5
percent, and
pear trees are up 15.4 percent. The cost of labor (drummers drumming,
maids-a-milking) has remained the same.
Populations are hard pressed when the prices of goods rise relative to
the
price of labor, because this makes it impossible for the population to
maintain its standard of living.
The US economy has been kept alive by low interest rates, which fueled
a
real estate boom. Consumers have kept growth alive by refinancing their
home
mortgages and spending the equity in their houses. Their indebtedness
has
risen.
Debt-fueled growth is qualitatively different from economic growth that
results from an increase in high value-added jobs. Economists who look
at
the 3+ percent economic growth rate and conclude that things are fine
are
fooling themselves and the public. When the real estate boom ends, what
will
be the source of new spending power?
Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has
contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate
economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University
of
California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The
Tyranny
of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Economy 1st issue, Terrorism last sm
What is wrong with this country? What good will money do us when our country is attacked? There is nothing like one who has walked the walk to guide us. I am thinking of my family first, it won't matter how well off we are if we are not a "free" nation. McCain knows what evil is, he lived it.
Romney certainly has the background as far as the economy....
I kinda thought Obama was going to pick Biden, because Biden protested way too much...lol. But I really have NO idea where McCain is going. They have guarded it well.
With the onset of a global economy........sm
it might not be such a stretch of the imagination. Our cpl is dropping rapidly, if not for transcribed lines, then surely with ASR. With the quality of the ASR I have seen lately, I pretty much have to transcribe from scratch a good percentage of reports I get. This brings my overall cpl way below what I was hired to transcribe for.
Interesting view on the economy...
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
- Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
- Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
- The unemployment rate was 4.5%;
- The DOW JONES hit a record high — 14,000+;
- American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, and vacations overseas, living large!
But Americans wanted CHANGE! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep — we got CHANGE all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
- Consumer confidence has plummeted;
- Gasoline hovers near $4 a gallon;
- Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
- Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices are still dropping;
- 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
- As I write, the DOW is playing around 11,500. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM OUR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
Yes, in 2006 America voted for change. And we sure got it. Now Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, claims he’s really going to give us change.
How much more CHANGE do you think we can stand?
First 6 years, economy was great too. Then,
nm
Why did the economy spiral downward after the
nm
Yeah, and the economy has plummeted since
nm
You see crime being a result of economy, but I see
economy, war, health care nm
nm
|
