For the libs who claim the economy is bad,, can you explain to me what formula you are using?

Question

Because, according to virtually every economist, the economy is very good.

We have full employment (look up the definition), the dow jones is constantly hitting record highs, consumer spending is up, etc. The only negative factor I am aware of is the deficit, which is largely due to the necessary war, and that is only ONE factor involved.


Please tell me what fictitious formula, and what factors you are using to come to this ridiculous conclusion.



Note: Foreclosures (I'm sure a dozen of you will still mention them) are not a measure of the economy. There is a reason there are a lot of foreclosures, and it has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with lenders giving out loans higher than people should have been qualified for (simplified explanation). But even after you put into account all those particular loans, 25% more home loans were written, and only 10% of THEM have foreclosed.

---

lmao,, go ask the families in the shelters? Ok,, that is great logic. So with that logic, there has never been a good economy anywhere in the world.

we've had full employment for at least 4 years (based on my memory), so the collecting unemployment line does not work. Try making up another one..

I was wrong,, only one 'yahoo' mentioned foreclosures (two if you count the homeless comment), not a dozen. Obviously the rest of what that person said is bogus also.

Answer 1

Wages have been going up! The stock market has doubled since it hit a low of 7000 in 2002. House ownership is up. Unemployment is at historic lows. Inflation is in check. Interest rates are still really low. Taxes are low but tax revenues are up(Gee how the hell did that happen).

The idea of taking a homeless person and asking him how the economy is really does not give a realistic overview of the economy. Libs love to use the single tear jerk-er story of someone who just doesn't have money to pay his cable TV bill. Boo hoo hoo. That of course is a sham. Any intelligent person looks at the economy as a whole and not individual circumstances to judge the economy. My question would be if this is not a good economy then what the hell is? Some people perceive that a good economy means that everyone has everything that they want. This of course is a fallacy.

I love when people on YA say they don't have money to buy food and thus economy is bad. They can't afford food but can afford to sit at home paying for broadband Internet to talk with people on line? If you don't have money to pay the bills then maybe think about cutting out the video games and high speed Internet and go get yourself a meal.

Just my rant. :)

Answer 2

Because it is, at least partially, true. Now I do agree with you that increased spending (usually associated with more Democrat policies) is not good for the economy. A rather immense understatement to be sure. It is a huge detriment to the economy. But the Republicans have failures in their plans as well. The general idea in the Republican economic plan is to cut taxes to the corporations. It is assumed that if they have more money, they will use it to build new businesses and expand current businesses; thus creating new jobs because they need people to run these businesses. As more people get jobs, they have more money to spend in the economy, thus increasing its size. It makes sense on the surface, in fact I used to support the idea a lot. But its been used three times, and two of those times it wound up in recession (Bush and Bush). And the first time was under Reagan, and while it wasn't recession it was a slowdown. Obviously there is something wrong in the plan. I went looking at it again and found the flaw. Corporations hold onto money as best they can. They do use the extra money to add businesses and add-on to current businesses. But they try to limit the money they have to pay out. They automate wherever they can, thus eliminating quite a few jobs. They pay the lowest wage they can get away with and refuse to allow overtime, so the worker gets as little money as possible even when they can get a job, they go for the cheapest materials possible to keep costs down (thus forcing their suppliers to limit how much they pay). Even when the Republicans give the money to the corporations, it stays with the corporations. Added to that, the corporations want to make as big a profit as possible, so they keep raising the price of their products. So what it creates is a situation in which its extremely hard to get a job, and even the ones who do have to keep paying more and more while the wages stagnate. Incidentally, we have seen that happen already. The worker/consumer still needs these things, so they keep buying. But at some point, they run out of money. So what do they do? They borrow the money. This allows a small remedy to the situation, but that money has to be paid back so it is only temporary and eventually makes matters worse. Incidentally, we see that also in the sub-prime mortgages crisis and the defaulted loans that have risen sharply in the past few years. Unemployment is on the rise, and so is inflation. Wages have stagnated, and no one can say anything because they will lose their jobs if they do. And there are few other jobs to take if they lose their jobs. It is precisely the Reaganomics idea that has been implemented by President Bush that has caused this. His war is only making things worse. And remember that Republicans are far more fond of war than Democrats, it is the foreign policy "strength" that they bump up every time they run for the presidency. Only a combination of the ideas of Dems and Reps can solve the issue. The economy is under attack from both sides, but the middle is where the economy can survive. First, taxes should be dropped. But not on corporations, which hold onto money. The economy only grows if there is money flowing through it, and corporations are the ones who stagnate it. Taxes should be dropped on the middle and lower classes. They are the ones who spend the money. Corporations hold onto money because that is how they convince shareholders to invest in them. But the middle and lower classes don't care about money, just the things they can get with the money. So they spend money, because they want the cars and homes and food and so on. We must get the money to the ones who will spend it. But corporations are still the providers of the jobs. We don't want to destroy them, so we need to keep some money in their hands. I would suggest getting rid of taxes completely on shareholder earnings. This encourages more and more to invest in companies, because they get more tax-free money. Investors would be able to keep more of their own money, and that would encourage more people to become investors. Corporations get their money, but not from the government. Jobs are created, and at the same time workers have the money to buy the products made by the corporations. Everyone wins, instead of immediate losses for the workers and delayed losses for the corporations.

Answer 3

Yes, I surely the hell can. It is the formula for my life. Fuel prices have doubled, my grocery bill is up 45% from 3 years ago. My wages aren't. Now, if I was rich enough to receive a decent tax break, I might also have been able to buy stock in this booming market, but that money goes to pay my bills. Where have you been? Last week I read the report that consumer spending did not reach expected goals due to inflated fuel prices. My formula is my bank account, rich person.

Answer 4

It is the gap between the rich and poor compared to the 60s 70s to today and what the average family income buys. The economy is a myth because most of that wonderful consumer spending is in the form of borrowed money and inflation does not include energy and food. I am doing OK so this is not related to my life.

Answer 5

The only reason that unemployment figures are down is that it only considers the people currently receiving unemployment. Most of the people that are unemployed used up their unemployment benefits and are still unemployed.

Incomes are down because the jobs that were created are on the level of burger flipper.

Fuel costs are up food costs are up.

Foreclosures are up due to incomes being down.

Inflation is up domestically and the dollar is down compared to the rest of the world which leads to even more inflation making what little income that you have worth even less.

Answer 6

They use a very simple formula:
1) George W Bush is President.
2) George W Bush is Republican
Therefore
3) The economy is bad.

See how easy things can be when you don't have to do your own thinking?

Answer 7

Short answer: It is not in the liberal's best interest to concede that the economy is, for all intents and purposes, booming.

They will take their own personal situation and extrapolate that across the country even though their situation is a direct result of their actions, or inaction, and not a result of a weakness in the economy. Or, they'll point to places like Detroit which are struggling because of a particular industry whose troubles have more to do with an inability to compete with better quality products...Note, NOT CHEAPER products.

I thought it was particularly humorous that John 'Hows My Hair' Edwards brought his Poverty Tour here to Virginia where the unemployment rate is below 3% and salaries have one of the highest averages in the nation. He's selling ice to Eskimos.

Facts continue to elude Chicken Little.

Answer 8

I know the formula you are using, nothing that is bad is used to measure a good economy.

Answer 9

The money I make (the same) - The money I need to spend (has gone up like crazy) = The money I have (none, debt)

That's simple enough!

Answer 10

Come on...we're talking about the same people who think Clinton had some miraculous control over the dot com business boom of the 1990s and, because of his control over Silicon Valley, our economy was a golden economy.

Of course...that doesn't explain the recession we were in when Clinton left office...

And I love how they quote that Clinton had a surplus his first year in office but fail to realize the first year in office is still running on the budget from the last year of the previous President.