Americans dissatisfied with the way things are going in the USA!!!

[zanner69]

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last weekend and interviews across the country this week found most Americans pessimistic about the economy, divided on the war and doubtful that Bush has the best plan to address the issues that matter most to them — among them health care and corruption

Those surveyed:

• Said the country has gotten off track. By 62%-35%, they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the USA. That's the most pessimistic view at the start of a year since Bush took office.

• Rated the economy as faltering. Six in 10 said the current economy was only fair or poor, and 54% said economic conditions were getting worse. Views differed by party: 68% of Republicans but just 16% of Democrats called the economy excellent or good.

• Questioned Bush's leadership. By 64%-34%, they said Bush didn't have a clear plan for solving the country's problems. The president received his strongest approval rating, 52%, on fighting terrorism. But on health care — ranked as an issue equal to the economy — congressional Democrats were more trusted, 54%-35%.

The poll of 1,006 adults Jan. 20-22 has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

"I'm too old to be worrying about much," said Bernice Tabor, 76, of Cleveland. But she frets about casualties in Iraq and layoffs at Ford Motor Co. "We're going backward instead of forward."


Way to go Georgie - keep up the good work!!!!!!!

 

[zanner69]

The poll is obviously crap,and the surveyors had it in
for GWB. All left wing propaganda!!!!!!

Don

There, beat you to it arcy and lange.

I'll ask Fox News to conduct a poll as well - I think a 100% approval rating for Georgie is a certain!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[langeweile]

A sidebar here:

The question was asked:

Are you financially secure?

64% said yes, but they did not credit the current administration.

 

[arclighter]

"68% of Republicans but just 16% of Democrats called the economy excellent or good."

Pretty well sums it up.

I wonder what the economic data says about the economy?

 

[arclighter]

How can they? The Rs repeatedly said the economic slump
wasn't their responsibility. That theme was used by many
on this board. It would be hypocritical for them to now say
they are responsible for the economic upswing.

So, the public have figured out the spin-meisters.

What "economic slump" are you talking about?

Leading Indicators Point to Continued Growth
Monday, January 23, 2006
Associated Press

NEW YORK — A closely watched gauge of future economic activity edged higher in December, pointing to continued but, perhaps, uneven growth in the year ahead, a private research group said Monday.

 

[arclighter]

Everybody's favourite left-wing rag, The Economist, Jan 12/06, has this to say:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[Truncador]

Cemetaries will be their cathedrals. And the cities your tombs.

 

[arclighter]

Cemetaries will be their cathedrals. And the cities your tombs.

The arrival of the Demoncrats was correctly predicted by Nostradamus.

 

[langeweile]

The arrival of the Demoncrats was correctly predicted by Nostradamus.

The rise of the anti christ???

 

[arclighter]

The rise of the anti christ???

That would be the Hildabeast.

 

[arclighter]

If you have an intelligent counter-argument to the article, by all means, let's hear it. Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth.

Only the future can provide a meaningful counter-argument. Endless hand wringing based on the speculations of economists is a waste of bandwidth. Every day that passes without an economic collapse weakens their argument.

 

[onthebottom]

As with most Economists articles there is something for everyone. While I agree that some amount of spending is driven by a housing bubble I think it's over reported. There is not a nation wide housing bubble, here in Southern Ohio (and much of the Red State Fly Over USA) there are very stable housing prices that are easily defended by comparisons to incomes. In a few markets (think Blue States like CA and NY) there have been enormous run-up and there will be decreases.

The less alarming but more important part of the article was how resilient the US economy is to shocks, the real value, and what separates our economy from almost any other, is the diversity and resilience. I think this has nothing to do with the current occupant of the White House and everything to do with DQ and me (and the other 200m Americans who work in the strongest economy in the world).

As for political fallout, you can look at Bush's numbers and see how bad they are, but the numbers are equally bad for leaders in Congress, both have better numbers than Blair (by about 10 points). The electorate is a fickle thing.

OTB

(hey, 3 paragraphs without a copy/paste or insult, this must be some kind of TERB record)

 

[arclighter]

Welcome back, OTB. Where have you been? Diving?
But it seems pretty clear in the article that the "spend-now, pay-later" mentality which has everything to do with the current White House denizen is setting up the economy for, if not a major catastrophe, certainly some heavy damage.

I agree. Let's cut spending/taxes/trade barriers and run her wide open for a while and see what this mother fucker can reallly do!

Who is with me?

 

[onthebottom]

Welcome back, OTB. Where have you been? Diving?

Thanks, working too damn hard, and a work trip to India that took me off line for a week.

It's a fool's game to argue that the US economy is not resilient and diverse. But it seems pretty clear in the article that the "spend-now, pay-later" mentality which has everything to do with the current White House denizen is setting up the economy for, if not a major catastrophe, certainly some heavy damage.

Disagree?

I do disagree, this is the same argument that was made in the early 80's when Reagan was running up deficits to build a large Navy (and cut taxes). The resulting 20 years have been the most impressive economic performance on the planet. I'm not saying that the US economy is perfect, it isn't, it's just much better than any other economy in the world.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I agree. Let's cut spending/taxes/trade barriers and run her wide open for a while and see what this mother fucker can reallly do!

Who is with me?

I'm in!

OTB

 

[langeweile]

I agree. Let's cut spending/taxes/trade barriers and run her wide open for a while and see what this mother fucker can reallly do!

Who is with me?

ME...ME...ME

 

[onthebottom]

*sigh* Another delusional supply-sider.

Here's some basic math:

The Government spends $100 in tax revenue.
Business pays 50%, personal taxes are 50%.
Government says, "Let's reduce business taxes!"
Business now pays 35%. Personal taxes now are 65%.
People paying personal taxes can no longer afford to buy from businesses because of the corporate tax cut.
Therefore, business suffers.

granted, it's impossibly more complicated than that, but I think the message is pretty clear

Don't believe me? Read David Stockman's book, The Triumph of Politics: Why The Reagan Revolution Failed. He was the darling Reagan neo-con wunderkind that finally realized how wrong his policies were.

So the obvious answer would be to cut personal taxes (hey, where have I heard that before) and then the economy would grow (hey, what was last quarters growth rate, how many jobs were added in 2005).

But it is more complicated than that but the results fit better with my scenario than yours.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

*
Business now pays 35%. Personal taxes now are 65%.
[.

Are you talking about Canada??


What is the alternative to supply side? The Russian model, well we know how that ended...The Euro model? Talk about a depressed economy...

 

[arclighter]

So the obvious answer would be to cut personal taxes (hey, where have I heard that before) and then the economy would grow (hey, what was last quarters growth rate, how many jobs were added in 2005).

But it is more complicated than that but the results fit better with my scenario than yours.

OTB

Precisely. I said cut taxes, not shift taxes. I venture to say that anyone who read the post instantly recognized the logic flaw, yet it was still posted? Can agenda bias alone account for this phenomenon?

 

[arclighter]

You missed the point, arc. So allow me to rephrase:

Government spends $100 in tax revenue
Business pays $50, personal taxes are $50
Supply-sider says, "Hey, let's cut business taxes!"
Business taxes are now $25, personal taxes remain at $50
Government is now $25 in the red. There's your deficit.

But wait! Government can simply not spend the $25, right? Well, since when has government ever, EVER, actually cut spending? Strangely, it seems that Republican administrations seem more bent on overspending than Democratic ones, though it's supposed to run counter to the Republican ethos.

But I digress...

Let's just assume, though, that the Gov. actually follows through with their $25 spending cut.

Oh... wait... can't do that... we're fighting a war in Iraq... we need to maintain bridges, roads, air traffic, government salaries of elected, appointed and staff officials, etc. etc.

Hence, a half-trillion dollar deficit, a monstrous amount by any measure.

I think I need a drink... better make it a double

I will only defend what I actually said: "Let's cut spending/taxes/trade barriers..." The word cut implies less spending. So cutting spending means cutting spending. Clear enough?