just say not to clinton

[afr]

well maybe I'm wrong
but if the dollar keeps dropping everything will be worthless
isn't it true the more cash you put in to print the less the dollar is worth
the less our dollar is worth the less goods and services

ain't like they have the money laying around to give anyways
so it has to come from somewhere
how far do you think that 20 billion will go from the sautes

[Todd McCreary]

Are you blaming the sub-prime mortgage melt-down on him? I hope not, anyone can see that is caused by SUCKERS who signed up for a house deal that was too good to be true, and now they have to pay for their stupidity.

the bigger problem is that mortgage lenders were forced by Congress to make loans to "minorities" ... because the lack of loans to "minorities" was prima facie evidence of "discrimination". ignore the fact that "minorities" also tend to have lower incomes and a well documented tendency to default on loans they do get. ah well.





but if the dollar keeps dropping everything will be worthless

the dollar keeps dropping we refuse to drill for our own oil/utilize our oil sands

we price our own legal labor out of global competitiveness with minimum wage laws

the illegals that we bring in to "do the work we won't do" send 75% of their paychecks back home

etc, etc




isn't it true the more cash you put in to print the less the dollar is worth

physical numbers of dollar bills in existence is almost meaningless as something over 75% of all US dollars "in circulation" exist only on bank statements all over the planet. that is to say, not only is there no gold backing each US dollar anymore, there isn't even a greenback backing each US dollar.

the total quantity of US dollars in existence ( normally economists talk about M1 or M2 ) is primarily controlled by government tax policy and the Interbank lending rate set by the Federal Reserve. paper dollars printed by the Treasury have an effect but it's fairly minimal.

[ovalracer44]

Todd, I have to respectfully disagree with one of your points. We have not priced ourselves out of the global labor market. We are trying to compete in a game we cant win. We currently have free trade agreements with many communist countries that control the value of their dollar versus our own dollar. Therefor what seems like cheap labor to us really is not. They can live on 50 dollars a week, because of the cost of living. How can we expect people to work jobs here if the cost of living is what it is. We need industry back in this country. So what if a the price of a hamburger goes up. If everyone is making more money it should.

Here is some numbers to put in your ear.

Median income in 1960 was $20,337

Median income in 2006 was $48,201

What has the cost of housing done in that time frame?

Houses in the 60s sold for 20,000 here.

same house now here will set you back 225,000

See the disparity?

[Winger]

Ovalracer,
Where did you get your figures? I have a feeling you're comparing apples to oranges here. Let's use figures using current dollars, meaning in 1960 we'll use 1960 dollars, and 1998 we'll use 1998 dollars. I'm using these figures from the US Census from 1998. I don't have the most recent figures at hand.

Median Family Income in 1960 was $5620.
Median Family Income in 1998 was $46,737.

I have a feeling the figures you used were for "constant" dollars, which is adjusted for inflation, etc.

Median Family income in 1960 was $28,449 in 1998 dollars.
Median Family income in 1998 was $46,737 in 1998 dollars.

Your housing figures are probably off a little also but the only figures I have are from 1970 when the median sales price of a house in the south was $20,300. I think you'll find the price for 1960 in the $15,000 range. The housing figures support your argument. Consider the price of housing is 12 to 15 times higher now than in 1960. Income is 9-10 times higher. Your argument is still valid, just not as outrageous as you first implied.

I hate it when people start using "adjusted" figures to start comparing costs. I hear the media telling me all the time that gas prices are still cheap compared to "pick a date" prices. Well I can tell you that I paid less than 40 cents a gallon for gas in high school. For $2 I could ride my snowmobile all night long. I just can't afford to have this amount of fun now. But if I use the argument I made above, I guess we're paying a fair price. It just doesn't feel like it.

I had to check your figures because I lived in 1960 and a family making $20,000 in a year was very well off back then. I was better off in 1960 than I am now also. Course I was a kid living with my parents in Florida.

The problems with our economy are much more complex than any of us can put into a few posts. One of the main problems is greed by the people that stood to make money in our housing market. This includes investors, realtors, banks, mortgage companies, investment companies, and everyone else involved in housing. Yes, people were not very smart to take these loans but they were under extreme pressure to do so. I bought a house a few years ago and insisted on a fixed rate mortgage. I almost got into a shouting match with the bank and realtor because they were pushing for a variable rate mortgage. What seems to be common sense to me isn't to a lot of people, particularly when the "experts" are telling them to do something stupid.

[ovalracer44]

Winger, you are right. I copied and pasted a number without so much as thinking the relevance. housing is still askew to the income in this country. One thing i did read somewhere once, is our median income is propped up by extremely wealthy types that did not exist as prevalant back then. Think about how many people it takes to offset bill gates income. I would venture to say real world median income is somewhere in the 38,000 range.

[flvideo]

1960

In 1960 I made $1.10 an hour. Paid $.19 to $.24 a gallon for gas. I wrenched at a gas station so boss took my gas out of my pay. I rode a Harley 165 that got 100 mpg. Thought I was rich. In 1965 after the Air force I started with FPL making $1.90 an hour. In 1968 I bought my 1st house for $14.999. 2 bedroom 2 bath. I worryed about paying my $107 mortgage payment. I think I had less to worry about then. Bob....

[john tenney]

Kevin don't confuse average with median. The "average" income is affected more by Bill Gates than the "median" - he's still just one person.

The 2003 median income in Florida for a family of 4 (this is from census figures adjusted for 2006 dollars) was somewhere around $65,000 - which puts me well below median in declared income.

(Data taken from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...eandstate.html)

I am no economics expert, but the problem I see in the US is that with our political system the way it is, all politicians end up making promises to everyone, saying that "we can all be above average" .....


HUH?


By definition, half of us have to be below average, no?

[afr]

here john this goes with what you are saying not one of the politicians ever due one thing they say there going to do
WARNING VERY STRONG LANGUAGE
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CDnxIfjcSIc

[modracer22]

My opinion of the way things are is because we have gave big business alot of breaks to move out of the country which for you clinton fans it was he who pushed it with the nafta bill or however you say it. What the USA needs is quit giving are money away and our jobs. After standing on the steet for 5 mounths on strike I swore I would never vote for a Republican President again but to tell you the truth we got more support from the Rep then the Dem. So that being said anybody that thinks that Hilery Clinton will do anything for the working guy you need to get back under that rock.

[Todd McCreary]

We currently have free trade agreements with many communist countries that control the value of their dollar versus our own dollar.

while philosophically for 'Free Trade', i have made the point myself in off-line debates that 'Free Trade' with a slave economy ( communist dictatorship ) is a contradiction in terms and physically impossible.

in my opinion, normalization of relations with China was by far the most destructive thing Nixon / Kissinger ever did to this country. you'll notice that that is the only thing the news media ever speaks positively about him though. they still drool over Kissinger.



Todd, I have to respectfully disagree with one of your points. We have not priced ourselves out of the global labor market. We are trying to compete in a game we cant win.

not true. we aren't 'competing' successfully with Mexico, Ireland, India, Malaysia, etc. non of these countries are Communist dictatorships.

China is a symptom, not the problem. they're just the best at exploiting our problem.

we gave every other country on the planet a knife and then hog-tied ourselves. now we wonder why they're cutting slices off. duh. because we're fat and they're not.






They can live on 50 dollars a week, because of the cost of living ... So what if a the price of a hamburger goes up.

you contradict yourself here. either the COL matters or it does not. given the ease with which 3rd world countries sell products to us i would suggest that it matters a great deal.

you're also ignoring the impact that minimum wage laws have on artificially inflating the price of our own labor. which is why the US is so irresistable to illegal aliens. they can work 'off the books' for half of the legal minimum and still make 10x as much as they would at home.

don't even get started on the whole 'free health care from the hospital emergency room' thing.




The "average" income is affected more by Bill Gates than the "median" - he's still just one person.

the only problem is, at his height Gates was equivalent to 2 million households earning $50,000. he's still worth 1 million $50,000 households today.

wait, i said that wrong. i don't have a problem with Gates making that much money. i had a problem when Greenspan said that he would exclude executive compensation when calculating wage inflation. that was patently absurd and a large part of the reason why we've been having these speculation bubbles rolling around to various parts of the economy for the last 20 years. when you've got a spare $10 billion sitting in your pocket it's hard to restrain your spending on cars/art/real estate/etc. and why should you?





for you clinton fans it was he who pushed it with the nafta bill or however you say it.

1. while i have no fondness for Clinton it must be admitted that the result would have been no different with a Republican. but then, i don't have a problem with free trade between nominally free economies.

2. NAFTA had no effect on our trade deficit with China. being the "North American Free Trade Agreement" and all.

[afr]

anybody watch the state of the union address last night

[Winger]

Nope, I quit watching it a couple years ago pretty much. Might have watched it a little last year, just don't remember. It's a joke, with a "president" manipulating words trying to say things people want to hear. And it's interupted every few seconds by applause and standing ovations. If last night was different, tell me so.

[afr]

no same old same old
he was blaming congress and the house for not passing bills etc
begging the works
same same
the lady speaker of the house did more eye rolling and stare downs to some one
half the room stood the other half didn't

[Todd McCreary]

he was blaming congress and the house for not passing bills etc


but, er, they didn't pass any bills to speak of. well, at least not much beyond extending funding for the Iraq war. so much for majority Dem control of both houses, eh?

if Congress doesn't pass laws, there's nothing on the Presidents desk for him to sign. or veto, as the case may be. it's kind of the way our government is designed to work.

[Winger]

if Congress doesn't pass laws, there's nothing on the Presidents desk for him to sign. or veto, as the case may be. it's kind of the way our government is designed to work.

Todd makes a great point. We tend to blame the president for most of our problems because he is in the spotlight. (He's also quick to take credit, regardless of party.) However, it is actually the fault of the congress, representatives, and executive branch not working together. It seems like it been this way for the majority of my adult life. Politics have gotten so partisan that nothing beneficial gets done. Deals are made, pork barrel projects are put into every bill, and the only winners are the politicians, lobbyists, and large corporations. This is another reason I think the 2 party system is the wrong system to have. It is better than the one party system but why can't our representatives actually do what we want, not what the party leaders tell them to do. People say we can vote them out if we don't like what they do. That's true but the replacement will do, and has done, the same thing. (vote with their party) It doesn't matter what party it is. And if the president and majority of congress are on opposite sides of the aisle, nothing tends to get done. Take this last 1+ year as an example.