Bush’s Rhetoric on Family Incomes: Up = Down
By on Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Bush’s Rhetoric on Family Incomes: Up = Down
President Bush likes to sell his tax cuts for the rich by saying, “We want our families to have more money in their pocket.â€
And the White House reported in August 2004, “Real after-tax incomes are up 11 percent since December 2000.â€
But Bush’s economic statistics have no basis in reality. The Federal Reserve Board reported today that the “average income of American families, after adjusting for inflation, declined 2.3% in 2004 compared with 2001.†To see how poorly this compares to previous time periods, look at this chart:
To hear the wingnut pundits (Fox) talk, the economy is in great shape. They don’t just don’t get why Americans are so pessimistic about the economy.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:51 pmWhy are you surprised? This administration has been using Newspeak since 2000.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:53 pmIgnorance is Strength! Ingsoc!
It is not surprising that Bush has taken a page from the Enron playbook. It dosen’t take an economist to figure this out, just ask 5 friends if they are better off today than in 2000.
If they say they are, then they are either CEO’s or from Dubai.
Most Americans continue to struggle economically and more and more fall through the safety net into poverty.
Bush also cooked the numbers on the Medicare Prescription drug users, claiming over 25 Million whenthe actual number is around 5 million.
Big surprise!
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pmI think I remember hearing the same speeches on CNN, MSNBC, etc. I think all those folks underestimate the intelligence of the American people. No more money in my pay check means no more money in my pay check.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:56 pmPresident Bush likes to sell his tax cuts for the rich by saying, “We want our families to have more money in their pocket.â€
Well, technically isn’t a lie. Bush, Cheney and the GOP families do have more money in their pocket. UAE money, lately.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:57 pmI just read where Second Harvest said that this last year the National network of food banks are being frequented 9% more than 2004. That is a pretty large jump in a “good economy”.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:58 pmOver/under for a Republican to show up on this board saying that the economy really is going good, and this chart is wrong:
25
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:01 pmThe Bush economy is a train wreak that is about to plunge off a bridge into a raging river! I would not be surprised if the Stock Market crashes before November and results in 50% unemployed and riots too!
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 pmPhiladelphia Inquirer today has a story on the increased numbers of people who are turning to food-banks for food.
“25 million Americans sought food-bank help. That is up 9% over ‘01 - almost half are children and elderly. And many are working people.”
Sure doesn’t sound like real income is up to me
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 pmC’mon now. if King dumbya WERE to say that anything was wrong, he’d have to blame it on SOMEONE ELSE.
I’m wondering why he didn’t try to blame it all on Pres Clinton like his faithful brownshirt trolls here do.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 pm#6, #9: Check out this from the today’s Progress Report:
25 million: Number of people provided food by America’s Second Harvest — the largest charitable food distribution network — an 8 percent increase since 2001. (Learn what you can do to help.)
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmI wonder how many of those heartland red states’ families’ bottom line has been helped by having God’s choice in office.
Honestly, GOPers… are you better off than you were 6 years ago?
Are you making more money (adjusted for inflation)?
Do you feel more secure?
Do you approve of America’s position in the world?
Are sure your civil liberties are still protected?
Or are you making less at your job, fearful of retatliation against Americans in the country and abroad while worrying if your phone is tapped/email read/communications monitored?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmmmmmmmm…. breadlines and dustbowls… mmmm
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:15 pmHeard the preznit on faux news a bit ago…
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 pmHe said something about being hired to think for us…OH NO!
Also brought up the sorry “oshuns once pertectin us” bit again. Not sure where he went to school but I distinctly remember the civil defense drills for “nukcleir” attacks coming from overseas. Who buys this $hit anyway?
Who buys this $hit anyway?
Comment by WiscoDuk
Weak minded neo-conservatives, scared un-informed republicans, and rhebus monkeys.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 pmReaganomics!!!!!
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:21 pmWhat the Bush White House doesn’t understand is that the American people aren’t focused on economic growth; they’re concerned about economic insecurity. Call it the Insecurity Index, combining data and trends for health insurance, pension coverage, personal debt, energy costs, mass layoffs, and most of all, wages.
For more on the Insecurity Index, see:
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:25 pm“Bush League Economy”
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 23, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
God forbid anybody here disagree with you!
Sure the chart is accurate. It’s your interpretation that’s wrong. The MEDIAN income is much more representative of the population than the MEAN. The mean income is weighted towards the wealthier half of the population. The median is weighted evenly per family. So unquestionably the lower half of family incomes have risen. Why would the mean decline while the median rose? My best guess is that upper half of family incomes (the richer half) declined. So the poorer families made more while the richer families made less. That racist Bush!
Somebody will point out the dramatic chage between the two prior year ranges and the latest. Fair question. Remember that in 2001 our economy was declining from the market crashes of the prior year and the terrorist attack of that year. That we’re slightly above where we were then is GOOD news, not bad. Besides, for the first two ranges (’95-’98, ‘98-’01), the mean was increasing MUCH more than the median. So rich families were getting richer faster than the poor families were. I thought that was counter to what Clinton-supporters wanted?!?!
Finally, if anybody looked up the report for themselves, they’d see that Figure 2 shows an increase in BOTH the mean and median net worth. That’s good news, right? Why did I have to look it up myself? Selective presentation of facts? Or can Payson not see the right column of two-column print? You decide. But you can, because now you know.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmCome on people Bush got the “Average Income” and “National Budget Deficit” charts mixed up. It’s an interns fault.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:35 pmwhile my salary level this year was the same as last year, I ended up with less money in my pocket… what is Bush talking about? Orwellian doublespeak, no doubt…
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:36 pmHey Seth - Sorry, but I don’t agree with your analysis that the country, especially the poorer, have more money in their pockets.
I for one can say for a FACT that I have less money now then I had back in 2000. For example, until Bush applied his tax cuts I used to get money back from the IRS. Once he implimented his tax cuts, I started oweing. No changes in my claims, just the new tax cut.
The first year it was active, I owed $3,000 dollars to the IRS. The second year, I adjusted my holding, and still owed $1,000, hopefully this year I will not owe. I have more money being taken out of my pocket now then I did 4 years ago.
So you see, Bushes frigin tax cuts don’t do the middle class or lower class any frigin good.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:36 pmOkay, so anyone that had under 25, you can pick up your winnings at the window by the door.
Now, Seth. Even if we look at the chart with the Republican rose colored glasses, it doesn’t explain a couple of things.
You claim that the chart shows that the “upper half of family incomes (the richer half) declined.” Hmmmm… so the Bush tax-cut for the rich decreased their income? Interesting take.
Also, you incorrectly make the assumption that because the reason the “mean decline(d) while the median rose” was in conjunction with the rich making less (which I doubt), the poor made more. I could possibly see how this would work if it there were equal numbers of rich vs. poor. But as even you can not ignore or pretend doesn’t exist, the top 10% own 71% of all private wealth.
The top 1% alone have more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
So, your selective view of the economics is comical at best.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pmI don’t know crap about median and mean net worth, but I DO know that my money doesn’t go as far as it did 5 years ago. I’ve had to do some big time belt tightening, and now my belt is scraping my spine. Something’s got to give.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmComment by bobcat_grad — February 23, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Honestly, GOPers… are you better off than you were 6 years ago?
I now own a small business and am consulting for a good rate.
Are you making more money (adjusted for inflation)?
Per hour? Quite a bit more. But I’m in graduate school now, so I’m not working as many hours.
Do you feel more secure?
Well six years ago nobody let on that Islamic fundamentalists wanted to attack us. So now I know of an enemy that I didn’t know about six years ago. They were there six years ago, but I didn’t know about them.
But I also now know that we have somebody in office that won’t just let them attack our embassies and ships overseas and our skyscrapers here at home. So maybe it’s all a wash.
Do you approve of America’s position in the world?
Absolutely not! We need to get back to #1 in electricity generation by nuclear power. I also wish our cars were better than my Toyota.
Are sure your civil liberties are still protected?
Yep. Especially the civil liberty covering not being killed in a terrorist attack.
Or are you making less at your job, fearful of retatliation against Americans in the country and abroad while worrying if your phone is tapped/email read/communications monitored?
You worry too much. If innocent Americans are subject to retailiation, that speaks horribly of those who would harm them. You want to blame us for that?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 pmCrap, I didn’t italicize all the questions above. Sorry for the difficult read.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 pmComment by RemoveBush — February 23, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Your story makes an anecdote, not a median OR a mean. From the looks of how much you owed the IRS, you were in the upper half, not the lower half of family income. So that’s consistent with what I said earlier.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:46 pmSeth -
You’re in graduate school and are this staunch of a Republican? Wow.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
To the rest of the independent/liberal posters here on thinkprogress.org, please realize that as a young college Republican, there is little to no hope of having Seth realize the error or his ways.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:49 pmHey everyone Seth is doing allright. This whole economy discussion is moot. It’s good to know that he is in Graduate school. He must have got his bachelors from the School of Reaganomics and the “me” generation mentality. Hope that he gets his Masters from Bushomics so he can totally become assimilated. Wow..that’s just awesome..way to go Seth.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:51 pmThe Bush lover trolls are out in force today on TP, but their words ring hollow and desperate! Everyone call your Senators and Representatives to IMPEACH Bush and Cheney, or WE the people will demand that the entire Congress be replaced!
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 pmFederal Reserve: average family income dropped 2.3% under Bush…
Includes handy-dandy easy-to-read chart comparing the results with increases under Clinton….
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 pmSeth,
First, you say “MEDIAN income is much more representative of the population than the MEAN.†This is true when the data contains extreme outliers that skew the average value. The Fed is smart enough to know this. That’s why on page A37, the report says, “Individuals listed by Forbes magazine as being among the wealthiest 400 people in the United States are excluded from sampling.†Without these extreme outliers, the mean value becomes a much more accurate measure.
On your point about net worth, I did not include the second chart to keep the post short, but it does make two very good points. First, net worth is rising much more slowly than it did during the 1990s, and second, the small increase occurred because of the housing boom. But the boom has come with a price - as the report points out, “the amount of debt relative to total assets increased markedly, and the largest part of that increase was attributable to debt secured by real estate.†So while assets may have increased slightly, household debt has increased as well.
In the end, the point was to show how Bush’s numbers were well off the mark. Whether you use the Fed’s median (+1.6%) or the mean (-2.3%) figures, this is NOWHERE NEAR the 11% figure Bush cited in 2004.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 pmComment by bobcat_grad — February 23, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Okay, so anyone that had under 25, you can pick up your winnings at the window by the door.
Incorrect. The bet was that someone would say the chart was wrong. I agree with the chart. I’m saying the interpretation was wrong.
You claim that the chart shows that the “upper half of family incomes (the richer half) declined.†Hmmmm… so the Bush tax-cut for the rich decreased their income? Interesting take.
Hey, “tax-cut for the rich” has been the Democrats’ rhetoric all this time, not the Republicans. Maybe the rhetoric didn’t match reality. That’s be a shocker! Not really.
Also, you incorrectly make the assumption that because the reason the “mean decline(d) while the median rose†was in conjunction with the rich making less (which I doubt), the poor made more. I could possibly see how this would work if it there were equal numbers of rich vs. poor. But as even you can not ignore or pretend doesn’t exist, the top 10% own 71% of all private wealth.
You’re still thinking about the MEAN, which is a simple average. The MEDIAN is the income level at which 50% of families are above it and 50% are below it. If the MEAN goes up, that can only mean that the lower 50% is making MORE than than they did. Okay, it could also mean that a bunch of them died, removing them from the statistic. Do you want to argue that angle?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:53 pmIts pretty simple with natural gas prices and gasoline prices at such high levels, what ever gains in real dollars people have made have been eaten up by paying for their fuel bills. Of course those fuel bills go much further than perosnal use. Every manufacturer int he country has higher fuel bills thus higher costs to produce. Granted many of them have hedged their production costs, but smaller ones do not have that ability. It costs more to make goods, ship goods, store goods (have to run utilities in warehouses too) and go to purchase goods. My $600 tax annual tax savings have more than been eliminated by these costs. Toss on top of that the increased costs for health insurance and the rising cost of my out of pocket and my income has definately seen negative growth in the past year. The reality of it is that the growth has been negative for a number of years.
You can take the simple argument and say that a person has a 3% raise and slightly lower taxes, therefore they must have more money. But if that 3% and those taxes only equal 1/3 of the increase in fuel costs they have incurred, those people have in fact lost money on the year. There is really no real way around that fact. There are rhetorical paths to take, but nothing that deals with reality can shake what is really happening.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pmComment by bobcat_grad — February 23, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
ANNOUNCEMENT:
To the rest of the independent/liberal posters here on thinkprogress.org, please realize that as a young college Republican, there is little to no hope of having Seth realize the error or his ways.
How disgustingly elitist.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:55 pmThere has been a substantial increase in costs for health insurance, gasoline, and heating oil–things you don’t have any choice but to spend money on. Any increase in income for average Americans has been eaten up by these increases. We had a negative savings rate last year, first time since the depression. That means people are borrowing money to meet expenses. Also the increase in food bank benefits is a sure sign that people are not able to make ends meet.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 pmSeth & Giacomo, two pug brains in a pod.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:57 pmYou can talk about this chart all you want, but behind all the numbers are flesh-and-blood real people who are falling behind and this administration doesn’t give a shit. The “anecdotal” information that Seth discounts is more accurate in showing how during this administration, the rich HAVE gotten richer and the poor HAVE lost ground. When Duhbya said that he “wants our families to have money in their pockets” - he was ONLY talking about HIS family.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm#21
What was your annual income?
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pmMr, Ms and Mrs poor/middle/working class America,
Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago?
If so, do you attribute your positive change in household income- in any way- to Bushiva’s domestic policies?
If not, do you attribute your downward spiral or stagnation in personal household income- in any way- to Bushiva’s domestic policies?
Should Bushiva and L’il Dick remain in office, or be impeached?
…I’d like to see Wolf, Jack, Lou, the propagandists at Faux, or MSNBC use these as a poll questions…
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:03 pmHow disgustingly elitist.
You came here looking for a fight, didn’t you? Just didn’t want to disappoint.
Oh, and it’s not elitist. It’s sarcasm. Turn your sarcasm filter off.
PS - The first line in this post is meant to be sarcastic, too. Don’t get your panties in a bunch.
PPS - The last sentence was not sarcastic.
PPPS - Neither was the last one. Or this one.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:10 pm#39 My brother in law, a firm and solid Bush groupie/apologist/defender is absolutely convinced that his financial well being today is directly attributable to Bush and his policies. Of course he completely ignores the fact that prior to 2001 his wife was nto working and that she now holds three jobs earning about 40% of their family income. This is true and he will hear no arguments to the contrary. His wife’s jobs are irrelevant and it is all due to Bush…period.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:16 pmSeth - got one for you here.
If the economy is so great under Bush, and you believe that the income has gone up a couple of percentage points, can you please tell the rest of America how to cope with the 30-40% increase in healthcare costs (depending on region), the 70% increase in gasoline cost, and the up to 50% increase in home fuel costs?
Congrats, America. Some of you get a %2 pay increase. Your cost of living just went up 15%. Good luck, you’re on you own.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:16 pmTracy ask Seth for his and his parents if you don’t want to appear too particin, which you usually do.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:16 pm“How disgustingly elitist.”
Comment by Seth — February 23, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Almost as “disgustingly elitist” as hunting quail with a $23,000.00 Italian shotgun and then having “your” Secret Service agents turn away the local police.
Or as ‘disgustingly elitist’ as a $50,000.00 junket to a posh golf resort in Scotland?
Or as ‘disgustingly elitist’ as going to prep-school in Andover and being a cheerleader and then going to Yale and belonging to aprivate club that uses the bones of an old Indian warrior(Geronimo) as decorations and then going on to business school at Harvard?
Just trying to get a feel for the level of disgust?
-GSD
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:17 pmComment by Payson — February 23, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
First, you say “MEDIAN income is much more representative of the population than the MEAN.†This is true when the data contains outliers that would skew the average value. The Fed is smart enough to know this. That’s why on page A37, the report says, “Individuals listed by Forbes magazine as being among the wealthiest 400 people in the United States are excluded from sampling.†Without these extreme outliers, the mean value becomes a much more accurate measure.
The removal of outliers is a good point and does make the mean more accurate, but still not more accurate than the median. The outliers reflected a large amount of the total income (affecting the mean, probably greatly), but were still only 400 data points removed from the median (which hardly moves it at all). That’s why the mean is almost always a better measure of these kinds of things — it’s resistant to outliers. If the outliers were not removed the mean would probably be positive too, and you would have had nothing to write about.
On your point about net worth, I did not include the second chart to keep down the post’s length, but it does make two very good points. First, net worth is rising much more slowly than it did during the 1990s, and second, the small increase occurred because of the housing boom. But the boom has come with a price - as the report points out, “the amount of debt relative to total assets increased markedly, and the largest part of that increase was attributable to debt secured by real estate.†So while assets may have increased slightly, household debt has increased as well.
I read that too, but debt secured by real estate is much better than, say, credit card debt. Mortgages are considered “good debt”. Almost everybody will need a mortgage to buy a house. You made it sound like it’s better for the economy if people don’t buy homes and take on real estate debt.
Bush’s 2004 number was cited as after-tax income, while the Federal Reserve numbers are before tax. I won’t say that reconciles the whole thing, but if the tax cuts do what Bush claimed they would, that might account for the apparent discrepancy.
By the way, thanks for actually treating an outsider Republican with some respect. I know I’m not welcome here by most other participants. The people who flame me for being a Republican…well it seems I’m much more their problem than they are mine. You showed a lot of class.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmSeth - You have a VERY NARROW VIEW of the situation.
“Well six years ago nobody let on that Islamic fundamentalists wanted to attack us. So now I know of an enemy that I didn’t know about six years ago. They were there six years ago, but I didn’t know about them.”
Really? I knew back in 1993 when they attacked the WTC for the first time. You must have been sleeping during this time?
“But I also now know that we have somebody in office that won’t just let them attack our embassies and ships overseas and our skyscrapers here at home. So maybe it’s all a wash.”
And you know that how? We attacked a country on false information cherry-picked by this administration to get us into a war that was not needed. Look at the Civil War that is taking place, isnt that just wonderful?
“Yep. Especially the civil liberty covering not being killed in a terrorist attack.”
Please show me this civil liberty in the constitution. I am willing to die to protect the constitution, and consider the constitution more important than my life. If the constition is “just a goddamn peice of paper”, then we really don’t have an American do we?
1) Bush had a PDB that told of an attack but did NOTHING
2) Bush implimented a program to spy on AMERICANS, not terrorists, after 9/11 to squash any discent people may have. The program in question has been reported by ex-NSA empolyees as spying on American people and the number ranges in the high 100 thousand to millions.
3) Bush pulled out of the Geneva Convention in order to commit torcher to detainees. He lied about the US torchering, and had secret camps. Now there is news about Gauntanamo also torchering and the FBI basically being told to buzz off.
4) Bush is tied to Abramhoff, as he was a “pioneer” in his election. Also was a member of his transition team. Not to mention him having been given access to the WH over 200 times in the 1st 10 months of the presidency.
5) Bush did nothing during katrina, even though he had 2 days notice of the situation. While the state was being flooded he was traveling around in AF1 fundraising.
I could go on, but the point is that Bush does nothing but try to cover up things. He IS NOT forthcoming to Congress, or the American People. Him and his administration cannot be trusted as far as I can throw the empire state building.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm#41 Mark -
You bring up a point I often speak to as well.
Bush claims he’s created more jobs. Great. So now those people that had to work 1 minimum wage job is forced to work 2 or 3 now to make ends meet.
Yup. He’s created more jobs. (By the way, that’s wrong, too. Private sector job growth is negative under Bush. But public sector jobs have increased. Bush = Bigger government, it seems)
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:24 pmTough to take the high road Seth(Giacomo) when you are the party of,death,torture,war,corruption,no accountability,destuction of the Constitution and the list just keeps going on and on…and Seth knows about class pfffft
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmIf you want to argue that Bush has hurt you personally, anecdotal evidence is just fine. If we’re talking about the population in general here, we have to talk statistics. Blending the two is just a distraction.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pm“If you want to argue that Bush has hurt you personally, anecdotal evidence is just fine. If we’re talking about the population in general here, we have to talk statistics. Blending the two is just a distraction.”
It’s not a “blending” if it is happening to the ENTIRE NATION. Are you still paying $1.70 for gas? Are you still paying $100 a month on electic or gas? Are your food costs the same as they were 4 years ago?
My cost and ALL of Americas cost has gone up and the amount of money I have left from my paycheck is much less than I had 4 years ago. My wife actually is pulling in about 20,000 a year to offset our added costs and we are still struggling. So you tell me how I, or the rest of America, is wrong.
I can show you figures that says I’m a millionair also, but that does not meant that it is so.
Look at the Unemployment figures. They do not account for those that have ran out of unemployment benefits and still out of work. So when the unemployment numbers change, they don’t include these still unemployed workers. So, figures can be played with and it does not mean that figures are always correct. If you believe 100% in figures, I bet you were one of the lucky individuals who lost all they had in the Enron scandal? After all, they represented nice figures to everyone, while all the time the company was crumbling.
Relavent? Absolutely, the same principal.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm#41 you are correct about the private sector and negative job growth. One thing often not discussed i.e. the elephant in the room is that while unemployment has hung out in the 5% range for quite some time it does not take into account those who have left the workforce. it takes into account only those eligible worker actively looking for work. Another issue is underemployment and there is no real way to measure that. But this country has a lot of seriously underemployed people. I have a friend who was one dissertation short of his doctoral degree, he now sells windows for a living. That is serious underemployment.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm#43
Ok Seth AND Clif what are your annual incomes? Mine is $48,900 and my wife’s is $33,200.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm#49
Really Seth. Anecdotal evidnence?
Hmmm… Thanks for all the useless anecdotal evidence about you in post #24.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:40 pmReally? I knew back in 1993 when they attacked the WTC for the first time. You must have been sleeping during this time?
Oh, in 1993 sure. But by 2000 (six years ago, the time period in question) nobody had done much to prevent it from happening again.
And you know that how? We attacked a country on false information cherry-picked by this administration to get us into a war that was not needed. Look at the Civil War that is taking place, isnt that just wonderful?
I was referring to Afghanistan.
Please show me this civil liberty in the constitution. I am willing to die to protect the constitution, and consider the constitution more important than my life. If the constition is “just a goddamn peice of paperâ€, then we really don’t have an American do we?
Are you serious? You don’t see life as a civil liberty??? I’d die for the Constitution too, but I wouldn’t die just so as to not be wiretapped. Even civil liberties have priorities. Life is on top, in my book at least. Without your life, the others are moot.
1) Bush had a PDB that told of an attack but did NOTHING
It wasn’t specific enough for a whole hell of a lot of action. If Democrats are objecting to what he’s doing now, what would they possibly have gone for prior to 9/11?!?!
2) Bush implimented a program to spy on AMERICANS, not terrorists, after 9/11 to squash any discent people may have. The program in question has been reported by ex-NSA empolyees as spying on American people and the number ranges in the high 100 thousand to millions.
No, the program was to spy on terrorists, and may have included Americans. Without specifics, we’re just wildly guessing.
3) Bush pulled out of the Geneva Convention in order to commit torcher to detainees. He lied about the US torchering, and had secret camps. Now there is news about Gauntanamo also torchering and the FBI basically being told to buzz off.
When did he pull out of the Geneva Conventions??? Did he torture any Americans? Do terrorists on foreign soil have civil liberties? Note, I’m not saying torture is no big deal. I just think you’re straying from topic here, whatever the topic once was.
4) Bush is tied to Abramhoff, as he was a “pioneer†in his election. Also was a member of his transition team. Not to mention him having been given access to the WH over 200 times in the 1st 10 months of the presidency.
5) Bush did nothing during katrina, even though he had 2 days notice of the situation. While the state was being flooded he was traveling around in AF1 fundraising.
Okay, we’re not even talking civil liberties anymore, you’ve just degenerated to Bush bashing. I can read about 90% of any page on this site to get the same. This article and my response were about family incomes. Why the hell does every topic have to revert to primate-like dung throwing contests when challenged?
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 pmSeth, the fact that people need to take equity out of their homes to make ends meet cannot be considered “good debt”. In the good ‘ol days, the goal was to pay off your house before you retire. Using one’s home as an ATM defeats that purpose.
BTW, since you are a college republican, I’m curious, why aren’t you in Iraq?
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pmWhat’s amazing about Republicans is the sheer selfishness involved.
They don’t want anyone touching their money. They don’t want to give a dime to help someone who could use some assistence. They believe that the current economic situation is great and hope it continues.
My household income is $160,000k/year. And I am happy to pay my share. I’ve never voted down any levy any where or against a tax increase. I’m believe in the liberal notion of a greater common good for the country than the conservative notiong of everyone fends for themselves.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 pmDude…you asked! I’m not going to insult you for dismissing it, either.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:48 pmPerhaps it’s that “after tax” bit that gives ‘em the numbers they want. I’d note that mean income is the one that’s down, but that’s also the one most skewed by the extremes (i.e. gazillionaires). But if we’re talking “after tax” income, this group — with capital gains and other such passive incomes getting huge tax breaks — may well be doing quite a bit better (even in today’s sluggish economy). So it may be possible to reconcile the numbers here … but the story it tells is something else.
Cheers,
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:50 pm#54 When did he pull out of the Geneva Conventions??? Did he torture any Americans? Do terrorists on foreign soil have civil liberties? Note, I’m not saying torture is no big deal. I just think you’re straying from topic here, whatever the topic once was.
In the moment the first prisoner was tortured by the USA. And yes, “enhanced interrogation techniques” amount to torture. Ask Human Rights Watch, Red Cross, UN, and a lot more. And yes, there are civil liberties outside USA. In fact in the world. And, in fact, are treaties signed by the USA.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:51 pm1) Bush had a PDB that told of an attack but did NOTHING
It wasn’t specific enough for a whole hell of a lot of action. If Democrats are objecting to what he’s doing now, what would they possibly have gone for prior to 9/11?!?!
So, he did nothing then to prevent it. And now, we’re letting him do whatever the hell he wants? Even if it means breaking the law?
I bet you also think the port sale is a great idea, too. If you do, tell me, Seth, if a Democrat had brokered that deal are you trying to say that you wouldn’t be screaming at the top of your lungs about “Democats being weak on national security?”
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:53 pmWe haven’t done our taxes yet, but my wife and I made ~$40k last year. I was full-time grad student last year; I worked only over the summer. But at the end of the year I started the consulting business, so this year will be better. I’m still a full-time student, though.
But nobody should care about my anecdotal evidence. I’m just one person.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmComment by bobcat_grad — February 23, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Really Seth. Anecdotal evidnence?
Hmmm… Thanks for all the useless anecdotal evidence about you in post #24.
Dude…you asked! I’m not going to insult you for dismissing it, either.
Comment by Seth — February 23, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
All I’m saying, don’t offer evidence about your personal situation trying to prove that the economy is great, and then when people off their personal stories as evidence the economy is poor dismiss it as anecdotal.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pmNo, the program was to spy on terrorists, and may have included Americans. Without specifics, we’re just wildly guessing.
Interesting that not one terrorist has been caught because of that. And those wildly guessing members of the American bar association must not know what they are talking about when they called this program unconstitutional.
This article and my response were about family incomes. Why the hell does every topic have to revert to primate-like dung throwing contests when challenged?
Because you spout ignorant responses like that one not based on any facts - just speculation. Your objections to the graph were addressed and dismissed and you are the one who actually denegrated this topic into a free for all to take the attention off of the fact that you are flat out wrong in your assertions (My best guess is that upper half of family incomes (the richer half) declined. So the poorer families made more while the richer families made less.) and have not data to back up what you say.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:57 pmSeth IS Giacomo, no doubt. what a bore. skip it, the guy is smashed on rightwing kool-aid and I”ll bet he is sporting a big cherry red mustache.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:57 pmSeth,
I disagree with you that the Fortune 400’s $1.13 trillion doesn’t make a significant difference in both the income and net worth figures.
While I agree with you that holding a mortgage is better than having large amounts of credit card debt, the housing bubble has caused people to go into what Paul Krugman calls “Debt and Denial.” “People who already own houses are treating them like A.T.M.’s, converting home equity into spending money” and “houses in the bubble zone are overvalued by between 35 and 40 percent, creating trillions of dollars of illusory wealth.” In other words, people are taking on debt that was once considered safe, but is now at dangerously high levels.
Finally, you make a valid point about Bush using after-tax figures, while the Fed uses pre-tax figures. I imagine that his tax cuts - especially those on dividends and capitals - are so skewed towards high-income earners that they might make a big difference on average income values.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:58 pmDid you read the part about new home purchases going up? I wouldn’t call that an ATM. Unless you can show otherwise, I’ll believe that new home purchases account for a lot more real estate debt than home equity loans.
BTW, since you are a college republican, I’m curious, why aren’t you in Iraq?
What, and leave the country to college Democrats?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:00 pmThis article and my response were about family incomes. Why the hell does every topic have to revert to primate-like dung throwing contests when challenged?
Comment by Seth — February 23, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Can you encourage the 98% of conservatives, right wingers and Republicans to stop talking about Bill Clintons cock then?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:00 pmSeth:
That’s why the mean is almost always a better measure of these kinds of things — it’s resistant to outliers.
I think you need to take the Sadistics 101 books out again.
If the outliers were not removed the mean would probably be positive too, and you would have had nothing to write about.
Ummm, you’re saying the mean would look better with the most extreme values added back in? That would mean that the people making out like bandits (that had a large increase, so as to bring up the mean) were those at the extreme top of the scale. Hey, that’s a real selling point for Dubyanomics: The filthy rich are doing just fine….
Cheers,
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:01 pmHey Seth the PDB has been declassified and states that the FBi had over 75 BinLaden investigations on going but bush did nothing, One of those investigations actually had Mousouai’s computer but they weren’t allowed to look
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 pm, another one wanted to find out why muslims wanted to know how to Fly big jets but didn’t care to learn how to land.
Break down on Bush Tax cuts.
taken from
Top1% down 4.1% in avg dollars 45,797
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 pmNext 4% down 1.6% in avg dollars between 5968 & 3,360
Next 15% down 2.1% in avg dollars between 3087 & 2,045
Next 20% down 1.7% in avg dollars between 1224 & 958
Next 20% down 1.6% in avg dollars between 704 & 550
Next 20% down 1.8% in avg dollars 486 & 370
Next 20% down .7% in avg dollars 105 & 65
Did you read the part about new home purchases going up? I wouldn’t call that an ATM. Unless you can show otherwise, I’ll believe that new home purchases account for a lot more real estate debt than home equity loans.
Have see the articles with regards to the drastic increase in home foreclosures on these homes?
The production home companies offer 2-1 buydown loans that allow people to afford their home in the first and second year, and by year three, a lot of families can afford the sometimes 30% increase in monthly mortgage (over year 1).
So, great. Lots of people buy new homes. Then 2 years later, they’re foreclosed on, credit is shot, house sits empty, and the housing market in that area starts to drop.
There is a bubble out there, Seth. And it will burst. It may work out for you if you haven’t purchased a home yet, in a few more years, you’ll be able to get a lot more house for your money. I’m just hoping the market in my area doesn’t drop (luckily, according to one real estate index, my city is actually one of the few places in the country that is undervalued).
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:07 pmooops…. # 71 should read
“The production home companies offer 2-1 buydown loans that allow people to afford their home in the first and second year, and by year three, a lot of families can not afford the sometimes 30% increase in monthly mortgage (over year 1).”
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:10 pmNo, no, I said:
The outliers reflected a large amount of the total income (affecting the mean, probably greatly), but were still only 400 data points removed from the median (which hardly moves it at all).
I agreed that the top 400 had a great impact on the mean. That’s why the median is a more stable measure with or without the outliers.
I honestly haven’t heard much about people using their homes as ATMs (besides here), but I have heard a lot about people buying homes all over the country. That’s the good debt.
I have heard about the “housing bubble”, but the value of a home is what buyers are willing to pay. It’s always been that way. Even if home values decline, it’s not like the money disappeared. It just moved from the buyer to the seller. This is just how markets work. It’s the risk we take in buying anything. Why Bush should be blamed really is beyond me.
Possibly, we just can’t know without spending a lot more time on it. Speaking of time, by the way, I have to go to class. Good talking with you Payson.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmDo you mean I was wrong to pay my house off and refuse to borrow against it by living within my means?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:19 pmBoil down all Seth’s rhetoric, and you get this:
“Life is on top, in my book at least. Without your life, the others are moot.”
Better to live on your knees than not at all.
The founding fathers would puke in their shoes if they were alive to hear you bleat that mewling crap. Graduate student you say? At what - cult-like servility?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:22 pmI have heard about the “housing bubbleâ€, but the value of a home is what buyers are willing to pay. It’s always been that way. Even if home values decline, it’s not like the money disappeared. It just moved from the buyer to the seller.
Umm… no. That’s exactly what happened. The money disappeared. If you buy a house for $300,000, put 10% down and have a $270,000 mortgage, the bubble bursts, and that house is now worth only $240,000… that $60,000 is gone.
Instead of have $30,000 in equity in the house, you owe the bank $30,000.
That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Even if you sell (paying the bank $30,000 in the process), that house then is still only worth $240,000 to the seller. So, yes, in essence, $60,000 just went up in smoke.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:22 pm“BTW, since you are a college republican, I’m curious, why aren’t you in Iraq?”
“What, and leave the country to college Democrats?”
Comment by Seth — February 23, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Both a physical AND moral coward . . .
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:24 pmSeth
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:26 pmThe discussion between you and Payson is interesting. Alternate points of view are required for a healthy analysis of complicated topics such as the economy.
Thanks for participating.
Bobcat, not if you own the bank(or your daddy does)
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:28 pmLooks like Seth lost that argument Monty.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:32 pmIf you want to argue that Bush has hurt you personally, anecdotal evidence is just fine. If we’re talking about the population in general here, we have to talk statistics. Blending the two is just a distraction.
Comment by Seth — February 23, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
I find it interesting that you say this, while previously arguing against the presented statistics. Why the deiscrephency?
By the way to say nothing was done between 1993 and 2000 is being absolutely disingenuous. The republican controlled congress worked very hard to twart any efforts the President went through during that time period. When Clinton bombed Sudan the repubs were up in arms, when clinton bombed Afghanistant the repubs were up in arms. They were only interested in Blow jobs and political malfiesence. Nothing was done Between January 2001 and 9/11 2001 in spite of warnings fromt he out going administration and the intelligence community.
Could 911 have been prevented if Gore was president? QAt this point we will never know. But if he had been elected, and if the Clinton people are telling the truth (at this point their honesty factor is way better than the current Bush administrations), a war against Afghanistan would have been launched in November/December/January of 2000/2001. The war plans were essentially the same ones that Bush used in November 2001. Bush chose not to exercise these plans when he entered office. Why? Clinton/Gore did not exercise them for one simple reason. WHen CLinton was elected Bush Senior rushed troops to a hotspot without consulting the incomming adminsitration and left them with a logistical and poolitical nightmare that included a timid Chairman of the Joint CHiefs. Clinton said he was not going to do that to an administration because it was not fair, and they assumed that the Bush people would take the defense of America seriously and actually do somehting about it…Clinton was wrong on that one.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:32 pmSeth, I’m reading your post #32 and hoping your graduate work is not in statistics or economics.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:38 pmYou know, I re-read what I wrote in #76, and I’m going to admit I was wrong. The money itself doesn’t disappear from existence. It’s sitting in the vault of the bank that gave the mortgage.
From the point of the homeowner, though, that money sure did go POOF!
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:51 pmPython
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:04 pmWhether Seth won or lost is not significant. He challenged our argument with factual statements and logic. This kind of exchange makes our arguments better.
The amount of people out there using their homes like an ATM is staggering. I’m a Realtor on the Denver area and I see it all day long. Just this morning I was looking up the particulars of a bank owned property for sale. The (former) owners of the house bought it in 1999 for $228,000. From 2000 to 2004 they refinanced and pulled equity out five different times. They now owe the bank $340,000…and the bank has it on the market for $324,000 trying to get rid of it. I have seen this more and more over just the last two years…it is SO sad!
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 pm#85 sorry “in” the Denver area!!
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pmRemember when his father embarrassed himself at a grocery check out — everyone said he was “out of touch” and that proved he didn’t know/understand/care about the average person — the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. That happens a lot in blueblood families, with their marriages of convenience, deals between families, money going to money — it’s a joke for them to even pretend they know that the rest of us actually have to worry about a budget and plan spending, and - gasp! - do without something.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:30 pmSeth want some statistics;
Jobs loss or gain by president and party;
(D) Roosevelt +5.3
(D) Johnson +3.8
(D) Carter +3.1
(D) Truman +2.5
(D) Clinton +2.4
(D) Kennedy +2.3
(R) Nixon +2.2
(R) Reagan +2.1
(R) Coolidge +1.1
(R) Ford +1.1
(R) Eisenhower +0.9
(R) Bush41 +0.6
(R) Bush43 -0.7
(R) Hoover -9.0
Numbers are percent of job loss or gain over all, figures as of 2004
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:32 pmAlso recall that Clinton’s personal behavior was blamed for the decline in morality in America — as if people were excusing themselves with some kind of implied consent of the president.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:36 pmPerhaps those same self-righteous moralists will blame Bush for the example he sets in society for his lying, for his irresponsibility in spending, for his starting a war, for his disrespecting those who had to die for his stupidity, and for families who suffer for his recklessness in all of the above.
The only decline in morality they seem to be interested in is sex. The right has no interest in the decline in morality when it comes to greed, or truth telling (unless it is about sex) and they sure as hell don’t relaly care about the do unto others golden rule, which I always thought was a major pillor of morality.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:42 pmOne point that I do not understand in Seth’s thesis is how a new housing sale would allow an individual to borrow against its equity. Logically, that event would occur 10, 20, 30 years down the line depending on ones circumstances. Anything less than 10 years is fraught with risk because of the dynamics of the national economy. Refinancing is a different animal, usually done 3 years down the line to take advantage of lower interest rates.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:45 pmWalt, much of Seth’s logic is opaque to me, but I can suggest one scenario to you. I bought a house last year. A bigger house. I rolled the equity of my old house into this house. So, I could borrow against about 50% of the value of this “new” housing sale.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:14 pm#92 - joe,
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:37 pmI’ll do you one better, I bought a new house when I retired to Florida. I sold my old house and rolled that equity into the new one and had to pay about $2000.00 out of pocket to cover differences and losses from real estate fees. But then, I am old fart and somewhat of an exception. The old house was already paid off.
Walt I sold my old house moved out to the country and bought 3 acres and a house for half the price of my old one, but us liberals don’t know anything about fiscal responsibility. But Bush with record deficits and falling real wages does…..go figure.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:49 pmClif,
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:58 pmMy old house was in the country. This is on a barrier island. Tending acres gets old when you get old. My current farm is three by eighteen and only exists so the granddaughter can pick her own veggies and I can get fresh spices. She loves the bananas and oranges in the back yard as well.
A lot to catch up on. I’ll do better on sticking to the topical stuff.
I welcome everybody who thinks I’m Giacomo to ignore me. I suspect things will stay a little more focused here with that policy in place.
I’m not arguing against the presented statistics. I’ve accepted the chart and the report behind it. I’m arguing against the INTERPRETATION of the statisics. This isn’t the first time I said those exact words, either.
Anybody who thinks the mean is a better metric than the median for this analysis, please justify it. Saying, “I hope you aren’t studying statistics” is just asinine.
Real estate debt is composed of both mortgates and home equity loans. By itself, saying that real estate debt has gone up in the past so many years says nothing about whether people are buying more expensive homes or taking out home equity loans. Even knowing the amounts related to HELOCs isn’t conclusive. I have a HELOC on a little less than 10% of the value of my home so I wouldn’t have to pay PMI. Anybody taking out HELOCs to buy cat food because they can’t afford groceries is indeed in bad shape and needs help. Nobody has indicated what percentage of HELOCs go to cat food as opposed to avoiding PMI (like me) or landscaping (like me soon to be).
bobcat_grad: You’re still mistaken. The money goes to the SELLER. I said that already too. The seller is another person, just like the buyer but on the other end of the transaction. Unless you think all home sellers are rich, greedy Republicans.
Bush’s job numbers look a whole lot better if you don’t stop at 2004. There’s three years to go still, so anything could happen, good or bad. I’m rooting for good.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pmMAYBE BUSH IS A SECRET GENIUS.
I MEAN, IT MUST BE DAMN HARD TO RUN UP RECORD DEFICITS AND ACTUALLY MAKE THE AMERICAN FAMILY POORER.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:02 pmSeth that was as fra as I have current stats, but if you can get me more current ones, some that will at least get him in his dad’s range I’ll be happy to revise
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmIf SETH thinks he will get a good job after he finishes college, lol, then he is very naive! The Bush economy is destoying all the high paying jobs and leaving WalMart greeter positions! Get ready for bread lines, soup kitchens, and internment labor camps for those who complain or cause trouble!
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:34 pmSeth,
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:35 pmThe only time all the money goes to the seller is when the seller is a real estate agent or in a private deal. In all other cases, some goes to the real estate agent or Buy Owner. Legal fees can be paid by both parties.
Clif,
I’ll look briefly, but I know that 2005 was twelve straight months of job increases, and he’s now a net positive for jobs.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:37 pmSeth,
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:44 pmHe’s short 7.1 million of job eligible population growth.
Seth,
Actually Bush is behind in jobs, because the economy needs to create ~150k new jobs a month in order to ‘break even’ due to increases in population. There are still more people out of work now than when Bush entered.
Don’t worry sweetie, this stuff is full of details, and requires actual studying to understand. You may be used to ‘Clif’ notes (pardon the pun) to help you, but I suggest you read up some more. This ‘recovery’ is the worst economic recovery in american history - hardly something to brag about.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:45 pmJay, I’m 32 years old and have had great jobs since I graduated in 1997 with my B.S. [stupid pun anticipated]. Well, that’s not entirely true. I was unemployed for more than six months in 1997 because the job market for environmental engineers was pitiful. Yes, that’s mid-Clinton. No, I didn’t blame him. After eight years of a good career I’m going back to grad school for further career development prior to starting a family. It’s a better plan than sitting around bashing the president.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm“It’s a better plan than sitting around bashing the president.
Comment by Seth — February 23, 2006 @ 7:46 pm”
Seth sweetie, I know a partisan sees all criticisms as ‘bashing’ in order to avoid actually processing the facts, so I forgive you your insult. The reality is that the country is worse off than when Bush entered office. You may believe otherwise, but the facts don’t back you up. After all, the income numbers listed don’t account for the 7 million people who can’t or don’t earn a living (like yourself), so they’re largely skewed now aren’t they pumpkin?
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:48 pmWaltTheMan,
The money to the realtor is part of the cost of their assistance in the business transaction. I’m simply pointing out that the money doesn’t just — *POOF* — vanish. This is mainly for bobcat’s benefit, who seems to think that when somebody’s home loses value the value difference either annhilates or Bush gets it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:49 pmSeth,
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:53 pmThe job market for Environmental Engineers is great. Try the power industry! They are still trying to clean up PCBs in 40 and 50 year old transformers. Pay is about $70-80K for a BS in the northeast.
“The money to the realtor is part of the cost of their assistance in the business transaction. I’m simply pointing out that the money doesn’t just — *POOF* — vanish. Seth”
Actually if a market is ’speculative’ then the money which hasn’t been converted to other resources does vanish when that market collapses. For instance when a housing market collapses, then property values collapse, and all of that ‘earned capital’ can disappear. It doesn’t mean it went into anyone’s pocket. As I understand it, much of the money supply is in fact based on speculative as opposed to hard currency.
Maybe someone with more expertise can expound on that, but your comment that money ‘doesn’t go anywhere’ is just silly. Ask the Thai people what happens to money when markets crash.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:54 pm“Nobody has indicated what percentage of HELOCs go to cat food as opposed to avoiding PMI (like me) or landscaping (like me soon to be). Seth”
May I suggest you review the recent rise in foreclosures. Once can readily speculation the relationship without much effort pumpkin.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:57 pmHoney pie, I’m not the only partisan here. I’m just one of the few right-leaning ones. That makes me a minority here. But babycakes, where I come from the following language is not criticism, but bashing:
And I’ll grant you, stickybun, that quite a few people in this thread aren’t so much bashing as repeating criticism from three years ago without realizing that time has gone by. So it may not bashing, but it sure ain’t valid criticism — peaches.
Boy, pet names DO make everything feel softer!
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:00 pmSeth I didn’t “bash” the prez I just posted the jobs rating of all prez since Coolidge, how they stack up is due to their policies, hell I wasn’t born until Eisenhower was pres for quite a while.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:02 pmThanks, but I’ve moved on. My fallback job became a career that I enjoy much more. Although if the nuclear power industry actually gets back on it’s feet, I might like to adapt both my old and new careers to it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:03 pmIf you buy a home for $200k, and the market collapses and you sell it for $100k, you’re missing $100k went to the person you originally bought the house from. Only if the house burns down is actual monetary value destroyed.
And even when markets crash the money doesn’t just disappear. The people who sell early do very well.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:11 pmPerhaps you can point me in the right direction? That still doesn’t say anything about real estate debt. The debt is when you still own the house. Foreclosure is after you’ve lost the house.
What I still don’t get is why Bush is responsible for the actions of all these individuals? We don’t elect a president to make sure we pay our mortgages! Bad things happen from time to time, under all presidents. The economy is all tied together, but nobody has said WHAT SPECIFICALLY Bush did as president to cause the NASDAQ to crash in March 2000.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:16 pm“Perhaps you can point me in the right direction? That still doesn’t say anything about real estate debt. The debt is when you still own the house. Foreclosure is after you’ve lost the house. Seth”
Well I can see when the partisan brain is talking, ‘obvious’ isn’t a word that should be used. Let me help you with this one pumpkin. You said that there’s no way of knowing whether the additional debt is related to people improving their real estate, or using it as an ATM. When people can’t pay their mortgages, it’s a fairly sure sign that many of them are in the second category.
Here’s a link on the increase in foreclosures in 2005.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:22 pm“What I still don’t get is why Bush is responsible for the actions of all these individuals? We don’t elect a president to make sure we pay our mortgages! Seth”
That’s true, but we do elect one to govern, and protect the common welfare. When he destroys jobs, undermines the economy, and develops policies that throw the economy out of whack, he is responsible for that. When people out of desperation overbuy a house they can’t afford, or take a second mortgage that undermines themselves because they don’t have a job - well I agree that they are responsible for their actions. However the government can do a lot in terms of regulations, policies, guidelines and assistance to help people live better lives, and not have their lives destroyed. And the government is responsible for that. I’d prefer he spend more time on the well being of average americans, and less time on the well being of wealthy and corporate donors. That misdirected focus is why republican administrations seem to have a historically bad economy, compared to their democratic counterparts.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:25 pmComment by RightPunch — February 23, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
First of all, I didn’t say “no way of knowing”. Read me again; I said, “nobody has indicated…” Talk about partisan glasses!
Secondly, from your own link:
Did you read that? Foreclosures are returning to their historic levels! A little more context would be helpful, but this apparently doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pmSeth,
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pmI suggest that you consult Tom DeLay for a position on his reentry to the extermination business (bugs). Home values in Houston are about to tank because of the admin’s downsizing of NASA. You have to slip in at just the right moment in sync with the advent of the new democratic congress and senate in 2007.
In the transactions you describe, approximately $25,000 would disappear in agent and transfer fees, including the effects of taxes and the fact that the agent’s after tax income reenters the economy unencumbered.
Still no specifics! There’s abstract mention of regulations, policies, and guidelines, but in the engineering business we call that “hand-waving”. It doesn’t explain how Bush caused the recession and stock market crash that PRECEDED his first term. Tangible evidence, like the stock market crash, is much more convincing to me than hand-waving regarding the recent economic decline. But then even more hand-waving is performed in order to claim that there has been absolutely no recovery! You people would make great magicians!
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 pmSorry, Seth, I should have done a refer-back to #113 in 118.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 pmWalt,
I still don’t understand why the President has to conduct his policies such that home values are maintained. A lot more goes into national policy than home values. I’m even a big admirer of NASA! That doesn’t make them invulnerable, even in my eyes, to budget cuts.
And the $25,000 still doesn’t disappear. It’s the cost of having people help you with your transaction. They get to keep it for their effort. You can skip a realtor if you think you can make more money without. The Realtor’s association says you’re not likely to, but there no doubt some self-serving in there. Doesn’t mean it’s NOT true, though.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:48 pmNo problem, it was recent enough that I got it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:53 pm#121 - Seth,
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:09 pmThe $25,000 goes overseas as China, Japan, Korea and OPEC assume the trade deficit. Your home loan is used to fuel that deficit. That home loan that you got from Chase, BOA, Citibank or Mom and Pop’s Trust House. is transferred to an overseas bank before the ink is dry on the paper.
Your Dollars and Sense…
Here’s a case where saying it over and over failed to “make it so”. And it goes right to your pocketbook….
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 pmAgain, why is this Bush’s fault? Were business not allowed to do this before he came along? Will the next Democrat president make it illegal? I don’t like the trade deficet either, but it’s a result of us having a lower-productivity economy after the recession and market crash. We produced less, so we imported more. We’ll recover, and so will our trade deficit.
And for the record, my mortgage is held by a bank in Arkansas. Just an anecdote with no population-trend implications.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:40 pmSETH I do not believe for one moment that you are on here to defend Bush for free! You are on here for hours, so if you are doing graduate work you must have homework? TP is known for Karl Rove PAID trolls and you must be one >lol.
Only about 25% of the population supports Bush and his policies now! Basically the wealthy and some Pat Robertson disciples!
We are not on here to bash Bush for the heck of it! If he is not stopped then you will be on a bread line with the rest