The state of the economy is…sluggish.
By on Feb 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
The state of the economy is…sluggish.
“The economy grew at a sluggish 2.2 percent pace in the final quarter of last year, much slower than initially estimated, the government reported Wednesday in the sort of unusually large revision that has happened only seven times in the last 30 years.” Last month, President Bush touted the initial growth rate estimate — 3.5 percent — as a sign of a “strong” economy.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can you say ‘recession’?
February 28th, 2007 at 12:55 pmCut taxes for the rich. That should get it rolling again. Or invade another country….or sign another trade agreement that will send more jobs overseas. It’s the illegal immigrant’s fault…no wait it’s the gays….go Wal-Mart!
This message brought to you by the Not-So-Swift Boaters and Veternarians for Untruth.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:55 pmDidn’t Bubba make 40 million for speaking engagements?
February 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pmDlet you stole my thunder with the tax cuts and invasions, my friend! Bombing Iran should do the trick, yes? Of course, who was the economy ’strong’ for in the first place? We’ve all learned by now that anything the sociopath says, that the opposite is usually the truth.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pmI’d bet good money that dinkledorf doesn’t even know what GDP measures.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pmLast month, President Bush touted the initial growth rate estimate — 3.5 percent — as a sign of a “strong†economy.
(Turns out it was less than 60% of that number)
Last month, Bush also indicated that his little ’surge’ was the right way to proceed in Iraq.
Last year, Bush told us he would never forget New Orleans.
Last week, Bush told us American soldiers are receiving quality care at Walter Reed hospital.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
Sociopath?
Outright liar?
Stupid?
Drunk?
Fill in the blanks, they’re just like his mind.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pmGood post dlet, you forgot the” it’s Clinton’s fault” and the troll’s arrive in..3, 2, 1……Blessings
February 28th, 2007 at 1:01 pmBush’s term “strong” applies to anything and everything. His fourth grade vocabulary is limiting. He prefers one syllable words, short slogans, and he likes to smile when he speaks of tragedy, and giggle when asked a serious question.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:02 pmIt’s hard to even listen to him, much less put any stock in what he says (no pun intended).
Democrat Congress strikes again.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:18 pmDemocrat Congress strikes again.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 28, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Such a brilliant response to the topic at hand. Please Patrick1, continue to regale us with your rapier wit.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIts the fault of those who don’t say “the economy is going great”, right?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pmThanks, I will.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pmDoes Patrick1 even realize that those were the figures for last year’s final quarter, and that the 110th Congress didn’t get into office until January of this year?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThis isn’t surprising. The Federal Deficit is balloning out of control and investment in the USA is becoming more risky. It isn’t a surprise that our markets are becoming more unattractive as Social Secuirty is starting to bankrupt our government. The head of the Fderal reserve today came out once again in front of congress and demanded we change or remove social secuirty ASAP. He once again insisted that without change Social Secuirty can damage and even kill our economy. He went on to insist that without immediate action, the longtern fix could increase the tax burden to the average american to around $6,000 to $10,000 extra tax dollars per year per household. These things don’t seem to matter to congress.
This isn’t a Dem or Repug thing. This is beyond politics and both parties need to work together right now to fix the major flaws in the Social Secuirty system. For starters, the need to implement the idea that Greenspan and the current Fed Chairmen have asked for and increase the retirement age at least 10 to 12 years. Furthermore, we need to implement the other idea that Greenspan had and limit any Social Secuirty benefit to whatever the person put into Social Security. We cannot, like Greenspan suggests, continue to pay out more to people then they put in. The system was not designed that way. THese 2 changes would go a long way to help fix SS for the long run. We would still have to deal with the trillions of dollars of debt Social Secuirty has already put on us, but it is doable if we shrink other programs and start paying off the debt.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThe simple fear of socialism was enough to doom the robust Bush recovery.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pmStrong = halliburton profits
February 28th, 2007 at 1:41 pmNot Strong = working person’s take home, after medical expenses, gas, you know, stuff.
Or sign the free trade agreement with Colombia, his ally on the other fake war on terrorism.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pmAnother lefty lie debunked.
Christian Science Monitor ^ | Februrary 21, 2007 | Mark Trumbull
February 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pmDespite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter. Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates. Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product. The shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits…
Roger_Roger, stop sh*ting in this country’s corn flakes you senile old fool.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pmGood job Patrick, way to nail those Fox Noise talking points down, otherwise you would know it’s DemocratIC party!!
February 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pmAs I am told the economy is doing well by this administration, I take a good look around at my family, friends, coworkers, and even my employers. Then, I widen the circle out to my community and city, ultimately looking at the state of my state.
Know what I see? Higher taxes and newer taxes on things we were taxed on before. I see energy prices ratcheted up yet another notch in in spite of all the mergers and legislative loopholes that were supposed to allow larger conglomerates to deliver low-cost energy and services. I see markets flooded with workers eager for employment, but few jobs to fill. I see the returns on invested income and pensions continue to dwindle.
I see closed factories and shops in places that thrived. I see and talk to people whose unemployment runs out in a few weeks and rent is going to be hard to make this month. I have never seen so much worry on the part of middle class families as I do now. Most of them are believers in America and though they bear testimony to the President’s lies, they hope that he is right and that our economy is in fact doing well and eventually, all of that will trickle down somehow into their lives. I never tell them otherwise.
Yes, I see the glass as more than 1/2 empty and I know that the bastard who drank most of it is still trying to convince everyone that the glass is still full.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmOr DemocratIC Congress even! That said, it’s still obviously you parrot what you’re spoonfed by Hannity, Rush, etc.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThe Oregonian ^ | February 8, 2007 | David Reinhard
February 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pmHow can this be? President Bush has pushed through several rounds of tax cuts and he’s spending boat loads of baksheesh on the Iraq war. Republicans and Democrats alike tell us federal spending is out of control, and the media focus largely on the economy’s negatives: housing and gasoline prices. Yet there Bush was this week submitting a budget with deficits that go down until there is, voila, a budget surplus? How is this happening? Heck, is it even happening? After all, Bush is the only one talking up the fact that the federal deficit is going down, so can…
This is no doubt due to the increasingly large wealth gap growing in the US. In fact, if our household debt weren’t growing at an equally appalling rate, we’d probably see much lower numbers.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pmGregor Samsa,
February 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pmPatrick1 doesn’t even know that there is a whole set of years that the Republicans have been the party that holds responsibility. 12 years in Congress and 6+ years in the White House. In his mind when it comes to repsonsility those years are diappeared CIA style. When a Dem gets elected as Pres in 08, I’ll after just two weeks and a reprt comes out saying something really bad about this or that the Cons will be saying “See its the Dem Pres’ fault.” Selective memory or just stupidity…take your pick.
Again, a quick perusal of all of Patrick’s posts shows clearly that he has nothing of any value to offer to any of our discussions. He’s here to provoke and annoy. My suggestion is that people ignore him.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:48 pmJust the truth.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pmThe economy is surviving due to borrowed money from foreign countries. Allan Greenspan indicated two days ago that this is a risky path. Borrowing now exceeding 6% of our GNP. Much higher than before with the trend keeps going upward.
There is no free brorrowed money. US government pays billions worth of debt annually.
We borrow money from countries which shows surplus on their books like China,Japan,South Korea and some other Arab oil producing countries.
We do that by selling Treasury papers. It was unwise to take money from the Treasury in the form of tax refunds and later borrow money to sustain spending.
The Debt ceiling keeps going up,so the government can print money to pay its debt and its obligation.
We are so much tied to our lenders…Yesterday the stock market got jolted because of troubled Chinese markets and Hong Kong.
The war is consuming a big slice of our budget pie. The housing market is suffering in many states. Yesterday the durable goods orders showed decline.
The dollar is in decline also , because some countries are changing their reserved money coverage to other currencies in their portofolios.
As the dollar goes down,the oil prices will go up,because all oil prices and quotas are made in US dollar.
So when the dollar goes down,the oil countries recieve less money..so the price goes up to make up the difference.
The health cost is becoming a big burden on the US industries; eating up a lot of their profits and making it harder to compete with other countries; forcing our industries to move abroad.
Unless we make up the difference in high tech to increase our productiviy,then we will have hard time selling our products abroad.
The service industry is not affected…but the high paying industrial base is the one will suffer unless our cost is reduced.
The problem here is if we start another war with a major oil producer in the Persian Gulf,like Iran..this might leave a big adverse impact on the health of our economy for a long time to recover,should oil price climbs very high due to such war.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pmFor starters, the need to implement the idea that Greenspan and the current Fed Chairmen have asked for and increase the retirement age at least 10 to 12 years. Furthermore, we need to implement the other idea that Greenspan had and limit any Social Secuirty benefit to whatever the person put into Social Security.
What if I told you I agree with you Roger? It’s rare, but you’re right on this one. When SS was created the average lifespan of an American was 63. People were never expected to live long enough to collect it, but due to the power of science and technology people live a lot longer now, as I hope to do. So the age limit should be raised before it goes bankrupt. It doesn’t need the wrecking ball taken to it like Bush was recommending, just amending.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pmdlet,
I concur, with one correction: It’s not an either-or choice, but a combination of both selective memory and stupidity.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pmThere goes RogerRoger my favorite idiot.
Roger if we’re in such serious trouble, why not go back to taxing the rich, corporate profits, and having the 109th congress return the trillions of dollars they stole from the American people.
You’re such a f’nut I swear your posts sound just like it was cut and pasted from Lusty Rumpballs site.
So when millions of Americans are dying in the street, don’t you think it’s gonna cost a lot to get rid of those bodies? Especially trying to hide “Compassionate Conservatism” from the foreign media?
USA… Greatest nation in the world my ass..
February 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pmJust the truth.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 28, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
The depth of insight in your response is amazing.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pmCONservative
Okay how about also RICH people who don’t need SS should not be able to withdraw it when their eligible? I know doesn’t sound fair does it, well I pay the same property tax as my neighbor basically, they have 3 kids, I have none. But it’s my part for what’s supposed to make us a better society..
How about this, if I win the lotto for 1 million, uncle sam takes about 650,000 of that for taxes..
Exxon made 45 billion or something, shouldn’t uncle same take 20 billion of that?
February 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pmExxon made 45 billion or something, shouldn’t uncle same take 20 billion of that?
Why?
February 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pmWell…I didn’t say I COMPLETELY agree with him, that’s why I only picked on that portion of his post. You’re right too, there’s no legit reason Exxon should be rakin us over the coals for those kind of profits, or that I should be paying $2.30 for a gallon of gas where I’m at. But hey, you at least spelled my name right, which Vince refuses to do!
February 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhy?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 28, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Because they enjoy far more benefits than the average citizen. After all, they are considered to be an individual under the law.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:11 pmPatrick:
Because I said so. now go do your chores!
February 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pmAgain, Patrick is obtuse and annoying. That’s why he is here. He is not here to offer any kind of intelligent argument or to find out what liberals think. He has demonstrated this over and over and yet, we continue to feed his psychosis. Let’s just ignore him.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:15 pmOnce again, we see the results of Republicans who have no ability to balance the budget. Reagan = record deficits. Clinton = record surpluses. Bush = record deficits. Bush’s tax cuts have resulted in job losses, a recession, and enormous debt. It’ll be nice when we elect a TRUE leader to the White House.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pmYah I’m having fun today as a left winger acting like a “moral right winger”.
ATTACK!
PROJECT!
RINSE!
REPEAT!!
February 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI think we should look up who registered R or D for the last election, and raise taxes on those wearing the R..
February 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAnd when we get the next D in the White House in 2008, we’re going to do what china did and restrict birth rates of republican families to ONE FEMALE. After all those lonely Chinese men are going to need someone! and we know females are generally more likely to vote D. We’ll keep democrats in office for the next 100 years…
weeeeee this if fun..
February 28th, 2007 at 2:27 pmI know what liberals think, or the lack there of. No one can give me a good reason why Exxon or anyone else should pay half their profits in taxes.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pmRoger_Roger
Social Security isn’t bankrupting our government, its a drip in the pan. Its our massive defense budget is much more to blame. Our defense budget accounts for over half of our country’s spending, and that is not counting the supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Social Security is in danger because the politicians keep taking money away from it in order to pay for other things in government. I say cut the defense budget by 5%, that way some can go back to what has been taken from social security and also go towards paying off the debt.
Speaking of debt, I’m sure the fact that it is almost 9 trillion dollars has a little something to do with our weakening economy.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pmPatrick 1.0
February 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pmThis beta test isn’t working.
Bad clone.
We’ll wait for version 2.0 to see if the bugs have been worked out.
Speaks, but incoherent.
Thinks it thinks, but no evidence of intelligence.
Prone to spewing ‘garbage in, garbage out’.
Technically inoperable.
This is a piece of junk, boys; back to the workshop.
#31
That is certainly an idea as well. You should write your congress man or women and suggest they ammend the Social Security laws and create news taxes that tax all of corporate America at extremely high rates to save Social Secuirty.
BTW, the 109th Congress did not decrease Social Secuirty taxes. Not even sure where you got that from. If your suggesting that they should simply move certain tax sums over to Social Secuirty, well that isn’t even legal. Again, you can certainly ask congress to change the law and add new super high taxes to corporate America to save Social Secuirty. I fear that the effect would simply mean a dead/dying economy and less jobs.
Why get upset with Greenspan? Social Secuirty was designed when the life expectancy was only around 65. What is the big deal with increasing the retirement age 10 to 12 years? If we do nothing, they will have to start taxing each and every family an extra $6,000+ per year for SS to survive. I highly doubt we can afford that. So, once again. Why are you so against saving SS by increasing the retirement age? That seems like a very simple step.
Going farther and limiting Social Security to make it that you can only receive what you put in is much more drastic, but it may come to that as well. I would start with increasing the retirement age as that alone should provide a good net effect.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pmThe initial report of 3.5% smelled when it was announced. There was no doubt but what it would be revised downward because it was out-of-sync with other economic date for that period. The only question was by how much. Was the original number padded for a sound bite in the State of the Union address? The size of the adjustment is outside the normal range of adjustment by a substantial margin. Somebody needs to explain how they got it so wrong in the first place.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pmWhy get upset with Greenspan? Social Secuirty was designed when the life expectancy was only around 65. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
The retirement age of 65 is already an adjustment up – that’s not the retirement age that was enacted with social security you st*pid old c*nt.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm1.Without the decline in the housing market, the GDP would have been about 4.2% in the 4th quarter. So housing, which has just started to fall off, has already caused a 2% GDP drop.
2. The FDIC in the spring of 2006 estimated that 10% of all current “exotic” (non-amortizing or negatively amortizing for at least some term of the mortgage) home loans would be foreclosed.
3. The type loans that today are referred to as “Exotic” mortgages were outlawed after the Great Depression. The Bushistas in their deregulation frenzy allowed them once again.
3. The subprime mortgage market has recently collapsed, and the collapse is bleeding over into other mortgage backed securities. Lenders are not going to be making the interest only loans, teaser rate ARM loans, and option payment loans that has fueled the housing boom because investors now are not willing to buy these loans from the lenders. This was not factored in to the above FDIC foreclosure estimate.
What this means for me & you:
1.If you have a loan that is not a fixed rate loan, you will probably be unable to refinance, unless you can afford a fixed rate loan, when the interest rate goes up. If you cannot afford to pay the higher rate, you can try to sell your house, but with high inventories, and a lack of buyers with incomes who can actually afford a fixed rate mortgage at today’s housing prices,you will more than likely face foreclosure.
2. If you are facing foreclosure, you are likely to do the prudent thing, and stop all possible consumer spending, in the hope that you can hang on to your house sells.
3. The related drop in consumer spending, when multiplied by other households that are in the same boat, will cause unemployment to rise.
4. The newly unemployed person may now be unable to afford his or her mortgage payments, and so the downward economic spiral continues…
5. We should be worried, very worried.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pm#48 I know it wasn’t the age when it was enacted. You still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so against raising the retirement age by another 10 to 12 years to save Social Security? Is it that you just want Social Security to fail or die? Personally, I would at least give it a shot at survival and raising the retirement age to somewhere around 75 to 77 sounds very solid. People were never meant to live on SS for years and years. It was meant to support someone for the few years they had to live after they stopped working. That is how it used to function and we can easily back to it hopefully saving SS.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pmTHAT’S NOT ALL–THANKS TO CHIMPya, Torticola Cheney, Bushland Uber Allies, the Military Industrial Complex, Iraq and Bush’s FLAWED ECONOMIC POLICIES, AIDED AND ABETTED BY the former Fed Res. Chair Alan Greenspan and the present chair Ben Bernanke, and Milton Friedman-STYLE DISASTROUS LUNATIC ECONOMICS PUSHED BY THE rightwingnut cranks and neocons, HAS BROUGHT AMERICA TO THE BRINK OF A STOCK MARKET CRASH WHICH WILL MAKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION LOOK LIKE A TEA PARTY BY COMPARISON!!!!! WALL-STREET, TIME TO DUST OFF THOSE MATTRESSES TO JUMP DOWN ON and TEST THOSE PARACHUTES(What Colour Is Yours?)!!!!! JUMPING OUT OF TALL BUULDINGS AND LOOKING FOR LOST SHIRTS WILL BECOME NATIONAL PASTIMES!!!!!
February 28th, 2007 at 3:55 pmRoger_Roger, why doesn’t congress tell us how much money they’ve spent raiding the Social Security “trust fund” to prop up the federal government?
How much money would Social Security have if they had not done that?
Also, you have to look at the numbers very carefully:
Currently, the US federal government takes in about 65 cents for every dollar it spends.
In 2040 Social Security will take in about 80 cents for every dollar that will be spent.
That means that in 2040, Social Security will be in better financial health than the current Federal Budget!
February 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pmDemocrat Soldier, forgot to tell you I love your posts…Blessings
February 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm#48 I know it wasn’t the age when it was enacted. You still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so against raising the retirement age by another 10 to 12 years to save Social Security? Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Because there’s no reason to? Do you want to have to work until you’re 77, or do you reserve that privilege for others – hypocrite?
Is it that you just want Social Security to fail or die? Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Fail? If we do nothing, then in 40 years we would have to reduce benefits by 17%. Wow, that’s failure to you? If we remove the wage cap on ‘wealthy’ workers *cough* – like the wealthy actually work – then no problem.
Personally, I would at least give it a shot at survival and raising the retirement age to somewhere around 75 to 77 sounds very solid. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Good, then you can refuse to accept your Social Security check until then to do your part. Why don’t you and your fellow Cons do this as a matter of Conscience? Or are you a hypocrite that won’t back up your words with deeds – st*pid c*nt?
People were never meant to live on SS for years and years. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Sure they were. Do you really think no one lived in their 90s when SSecurity was enacted? You’re a fcuking fool.
It was meant to support someone for the few years they had to live after they stopped working. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
It was meant to protect people that had worked a long life (40+ years) and deserved to have a pension. Even though Conservative run companies were too cheap to provided either a pension or a living wage.
Would you have preferred that we require you to provide a ‘living wage’ and a ‘pension’, you fascist c*nt?
That is how it used to function and we can easily back to it hopefully saving SS. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Saving SS? The only thing ‘dead’ is your ideology and political movement Norquist. You people are st*pid c*nts.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:57 pmMinutes ago on Hardball…
…Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money…
…just answered Chris Matthews’ question, “Does China control America’s economy?”…
…with, “Other than the Federal Reserve, China has the most influence on the American economy”…
…yesterday the Dow dropped 400 pts in part as a reaction to China’s stock market plunge of 9%…
…folks the Chinese…
…had a dry run yesterday…
…dumping U.S. dollars…
February 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pmGee, my grandfather retired after only paying into the system for 11 years. He collected for another 31 years. Because he worked for B&O as a design engineer, he fell under the RR workers act. Since he was a professional at B&O, he also fell under the management pension and health care plan. To top this off, he had fought in the Spanish American War and fell under the GI bill. He purchased a new Cadillac every year until he was 87 and rolled one into Chesapeake Bay and Maryland revoked his license. That is most likely the reason he survived to 96.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pmThat is most likely the reason he survived to 96.
Comment by WaltTheMan
Tell Pops we loved him.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:28 am