I understand that economy.
Posted on 03/20/2008 2:56:09 AM PDT by Fennie
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the US government's domestic expenditures. Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the president himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
A troubled currency and financial system and large budget and trade deficits do not present an attractive face to creditors. Yet Washington in its hubris seems to believe that the US can forever rely on the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis to finance America's life beyond its means. Imagine the shock when the day arrives that a US Treasury auction of new debt instruments is not fully subsribed...
Illegals removing these dollars from our economy by “western union” is another problem for our economy that congress needs to deal with.
You have misinterpreted my #176, which was a response to palmer’s #164.
Yes, I realized that a moment ago. I apologize.
This blame the American worker mentality just rubs me raw.
No problem. It’s fairly amazing to read here that the purpose of the US economy is apparently to reduce the wages of the “overpriced” American worker and increase the wages of the poor foreigner.
Maybe palmer would like to send that along to McCain so he can make it part of his stump speech, LOl. The old “straight talk express” might want to incorporate that.
But the truth is, there has always been an element of Americans in the trade debate whose goal is precisely to average down the earnings and standard of living of Americans (expect for them, of course), and to help the world’s poor by shifting jobs out of the US.
Wrong. This lie that Americans want cheaper goods was fomented by corporate America
That Americans want cheaper goods is a fact of reality. Many of us do not want cheaper goods, but the majority of Americans do. That is a result of free will and free choice, although one result has been restrictions in choice.
The purpose of any free economy is what its actors decide it is. Although I disagree with those decisions, there's no way to change it without having the government regulate some part of the economy. Your suggestion this has something to do with McCain implies that you are lumping the unlimited immigration problem. I don't. I am against unlimited immigration.
What is your stance on illegal immigration? We are talking two different matters here.
Naturally, because that would require that you post some.
Mostly everyone I know would pay more money for goods that are more durable and reliable.
I have absolutely no problem with product competition - if a sony plasma is better than a magnavox plasma, great! Let's have at it. In fact, a sony is more expensive than a magnavox and still sony beats the pants off of magnavox - people will pay more for a superior product.
What the problem is is this: products made overseas are not necessarily cheaper for the US consumer - it's been documented extensively that companies (like Walmart) take the savings they have due to cheap labor and fold them into the company profits.
Furthermore, the problem is that with employment insecurity (what job is actually considered safe these days when middle class jobs are being or in danger of being sent overseas), people don't buy goods at any price.
I understand that economy.
I get this too.
I’m sure you “get it,” any thing else you wish to post from a lib think tank?
What is the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities?
The Center’s Mission
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
The Center conducts research and analysis to inform public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that the needs of low-income families and individuals are considered in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty, particularly among working families.
In addition, the Center examines the short- and long-term impacts that proposed policies would have on the health of the economy and on the soundness of federal and state budgets. Among the issues we explore are whether federal and state governments are fiscally sound and have sufficient revenue to address critical priorities, both for low-income populations and for the nation as a whole.
Over the past two decades, the Center has gained a reputation for producing materials that are balanced, authoritative, accessible to non-specialists, and responsive to issues currently before the country. Our materials are used by policymakers and non-profit organizations across the political spectrum, as well as by journalists from a variety of media outlets.
I’m going to take a wild stab and guess that you had no idea of the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities until you found it during a Google search.
Payrolls sink in February, fueling recession anxiety. Unemployment rate declines, but that's because there are fewer people in the workforce
NEW YORK -- Employers made their deepest cut in staffing in almost five years in February, the Labor Department reported Friday.
There was a net loss of 63,000 jobs, which is the biggest decline since March 2003 and weaker than the revised 22,000 jobs lost in January. Economists had forecast a gain of 25,000 jobs.
The weak report fueled already mounting recession fears and is likely to keep the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates further when it meets later this month.
"Based on today's Employment Report, if we are not in a recession, it is a darned good imitation of one," said Kevin Giddis, managing director of fixed income at Morgan Keegan. "We are in an unprecedented real estate and credit crisis that is whipping its way through the U.S. economy like a Midwestern tornado."
Job losses were widespread, reaching beyond the battered construction sector, which lost 39,000, and manufacturing, where job losses hit 52,000.
Retailers cut 34,000 jobs.
Temporary staffing firms cut nearly 28,000 from their payrolls, another warning sign of employers pulling back.
Hotels cut about 4,000 jobs, a sign that discretionary consumer spending could be on the wane.
Overall the private sector cut 101,000 jobs, with only a gain in government employment limiting losses.
"Job growth appears to have weakened across nearly every industry with the exception of health care and government," said Keith Hall, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which prepares the jobs report, testified Friday before a congressional committee.
Hall would not give a forecast for hiring, but others said the latest report suggests more job losses likely lay ahead.
"Businesses have become too pessimistic about the outlook for the economy, and the capacity of the Bush Administration and Federal Reserve to manage it, to be adding new employees or replacing those that leave," said University of Maryland professor Peter Morici.
Despite the loss, the unemployment rate improved to 4.8% from the 4.9% reading in January. Economists had forecast the unemployment rate would rise to 5%. A survey of households is used to estimate the unemployment rate, while a survey of employers that is considered to be more accurate sets the readings on the changes in payrolls.
The unemployment rate fell because of an increase of 450,000 people whom the government no longer counts as being part of the labor force for a variety of factors, such as that they are not currently looking for work. That drop in the size of the labor force allowed for he modest decline in unemployment, even as the household survey showed 255,000 fewer Americans with jobs than in January.
Hall conceded in his testimony Friday that the labor market was weaker than suggested by the decline in the unemployment rate. He pointing to an increase of 637,000 workers over the past 12 months who have part-time jobs but would prefer to be working full time.
He said the bureau's broadest measure of the unemployment rate, one which counts as unemployed both those part-time workers who want full-time jobs as well as those not searching for a job at the moment but who are interested in finding work, now stands at 8.9%, up from 8.1% a year ago.
"We've clearly had a broad weakening in the labor market," Hall testified. "This weakening in the labor market is not a sudden thing, it has been happening for over a year."
You love posting pictures and graphs!!
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.