Macro vs. Micro Economics

Why the Bush Economy is not working for the American Family!

from JoeUser Forums



I have been accused of not acknowledging the GOOD Economic news. That is not true! I have acknowledged as the Bush administration has been telling us that we have had strong GDP growth. There has been some increase in productivity. Many Corporate profits have been UP and until to about two weeks ago the Stock market was UP.

Bush and his supporters say they can not understand WHY the public is NOT HAPPY with the way Bush has handled the economy. It is NOT that the administration has not told us about all the above GOOD Economic News. A new face at Treasury will not change the public perception. The answer is quite SIMPLE! This GOOD economic news that Bush points to is about the Macro economy -The overall issues like GDP Growth and Profit increases.

The issue for the masses during the Bush presidency is that his policies have NOT impacted the factors that the masses see week to week as they try to pay their bills. Things like Average weekly wage -What they have to spend. The cost to get to work and heat their homes. The cost of Food and Health care. Interest and the higher credit card bills they receive each month that are increasing because of the higher interest rates and higher balances. Some are loosing their long standing jobs to other countries in Manufacturing and High Tec. They read about the fact that the American Auto makers are loosing money and closing plants. They see the textile industry all but disappear in America. They read about the growing trade deficit and how much of it is due to China. They see their president turn a deaf ear to American Job Loss and how unfair China is in trade and currency matters. The see how many illegal aliens come across the border and depress the wage rates paid to Americans while President Bush does NOTHING for the past 5 years! They see the cuts backs in health coverage and pension plans by employers. They see the soaring cost of college for their children with no more money to pay for the higher expenses and cuts backs in Federal College assistance. These are the Micro economics of the economy. These are the issues that the Bush economic and tax policies have not improved or have made worse for the average workers. That is why the vast majority in America are NOT experiencing the GOOD Economic News Bush tells them about!
politics
12,495 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Things like Average weekly wage -What they have to spend"


Please stop passing on that lie. Wages in the US have risen steadily. What you are twisting is the fact that MORE jobs have been created at the low-end. That doesn't mean anyone is making less, that just means there are more jobs now than there was.

If you have 10 jobs that pay $20 an hour, the average wage is $20 an hour. If you create 10 more jobs that pay $7 an hour, you haven't lowered the wages of the first jobs, you've actually created more earnings. You, for propaganda reasons, total them all up and divide, pretending that suddenly "Average Wages" are suddenly almost half of what they were...

That's why you are able to look at months when the average wage has risen, and are still dishonestly able to claim Americans are making less. You've been told over and over that you are misrepresenting that fact and you continue to do so, which makes you a liar in my opinion. A society needs entry level positions, and they are always going to pay less. When we didn't have them you were bitching about unemployment.

"The cost of Food and Health care. "


Something that you have been challenged over and over to trace to Bush policies, and which you always refuse to do. Food and health care costs are not any higher now than they were under Clinton.

"Interest and the higher credit card bills they receive each month that are increasing because of the higher interest rates and higher balances."


You know as well as I do that credit card interest rates have very little to do with the Fed's interest rate hikes. You can't tell me people paying 15% interest on credit cards are harmed by the prime lending rate of what, 8%? If anything, raising interest rates is good for America in that it gives people incentive to stop spending money they don't have and to draw interest on their money to create wealth for themselves.

"Some are loosing their long standing jobs to other countries in Manufacturing and High Tec"


Someone who espouses higher taxation shouldn't start whining about losing jobs. In order to keep jobs here we have to be competitive in wooing businesses and entrepreneurs. Taxing them to death isn't going to persuade anyone to create jobs here.

"They read about the fact that the American Auto makers are loosing money and closing plants. They see the textile industry all but disappear in America. They read about the growing trade deficit and how much of it is due to China."


Explain to us, please, how this is Bush's fault, and how the situation would be helped by higher taxes. Higher taxes means higher prices means less competitive pricing.

"The see how many illegal aliens come across the border and depress the wage rates paid to Americans while President Bush does NOTHING for the past 5 years!"


Just like Clinton did nothing for 8 years. Just like Democrats who STILL want to continue to do nothing to please their Hispanic voters.

"They see the cuts backs in health coverage and pension plans by employers."


Which isn't something, again, that anyone who wants to punitively tax employers should want people looking at.

"hey see the soaring cost of college for their children with no more money to pay for the higher expenses and cuts backs in Federal College assistance."


Federal college assisitance has been what has driven up the price of college tuition over the past decades. Each time the government raises the level of assistance, the tuition rises to match it. Free money doesn't lower prices, it causes them to go up because people can afford to pay more.

"These are the issues that the Bush economic and tax policies have not improved or have made worse for the average workers. That is why the vast majority in America are NOT experiencing the GOOD Economic News Bush tells them about!"


This is just another rambling post in which you don't really point to any proof of these perceived problems, and which you do NOTHING to connect Bush to any of them, even if they were true. You could write one of these an hour, just rearranging sentences, but they would be just as meaningless.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet

In another post I gave you the EW-Mail I received from the Labor Dept that guides you to the Average Weekly Wage in constant dollars. It clearly showed that over the past two years Average Weekly Wages are DOWN and over the past 5 years they are FLAT. The 5 years prior to Bush the Average Weekly wage was up a modest amount.

Every issue I posted about the factors that impact individuals is 100% correct and is the reason why the average American is NOT happy with the economy. The simple fact is that those things that impact their daily life and ability to pay their bills are not better. In fact for the lower income working families their economic condition is worse because wage growth in the lower paying jobs is nonexistent while their cost have risen just like for everyone else.

The Bush approach helps Big business (Profits and GDP) but it does not help low and middle income Americans. His borrowing is in part responsible for high interest. Too much of the tax cuts go to the wealthy not the low or middle income families. That is why the vast majority are not happy with the way Bush has handled the economy.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I am really supposed to believe that if your skewed statistics showed otherwise you wouldn't be here claiming wage inflation? You really think the higher wages in the 90's were because of a healthy economy, and not because of untold thousands of tech jobs that paid insanely inflated wages that couldn't be sustained?

Again, it's like the unemployment thing. Unemployment high? You cry foul. Low unemployment with entry level positions? You cry lower average wages. Low unemployment with better paying jobs? You'd cry wage inflation and no jobs for the unskilled and new workers.

There is ALWAYS some way for you to turn this around. Worse, you always lay the blame on Bush and never, ever back it up when challenged. You just say that Bush should have been doing something about it, and leave it at that. The French government takes a strong hand and micromanages labor and wages, and look where it leaves them.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact remains, the vast majority are NOT doing better under the tax and economic policies we are following. Some Big Business is doing well. The salaries of the most senior executives have soared. The net worth of the top 10 % has grown very well. They are where the benefits from the policies we are following end. The cost of the policies to the country is record high debt at the Federal level and for individuals. We have ignored the impending funding problems that will first strike with Medicare and then Social Security. Medicaid is a problem today for both the Federal and States governments. The obligation we are creating to pay the interest on the debt will be staggering. There is no attempt to find real solutions to ANY of these issues which will cause a VERY serious problem for our children. They will be stuck with the issues that will face them plus be faced with the issued we refused to confront.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact remains, the vast majority are NOT doing better under the tax and economic policies we are following.


Something you still haven't proven to be "fact".

I think it's hillarious how you keep ignoring what Baker posts.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The proof is in the way Americans feel about the economy. They rest in the stagnant Average Weekly Wage. The are in the problems the average family is having because of inflation especially energy costs. Nothing Bakerstreet has posted has changed any of the facts that have caused the dissatisfaction with Bush about the economy by about 70 % of Americans!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The proof is in the way Americans feel about the economy.


Which you are basing on biased media polls that oversample the opposition party. Have you personally traveled the country and interviewed all of America?

You base your entire arguement on "average" wages. You have no idea what people are doing with their money or what wages they are making. All of this is just another pathetic attempt to blame Bush. Which Baker has pointed out you still can't explain how any of this is Bush's fault.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

First, the Average WEEKLY WAGE IS THE MOST BASIC ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS what people have to meet their bills?

Second, I have also posted the following that you ignore:

Inflation especially the cost of energy

Higher Interest Rates

Loss of benefits

Soaring College costs for their children

Soaring Credit card bills

Loss of jobs to foreign countries

Reports of the problems in American Auto companies, Airlines and the end to industries like the electronics and textile industries.

No, it is not just the Average Weekly Wage!!!!!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, the Average WEEKLY WAGE IS THE MOST BASIC ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS what people have to meet their bills?


Col, this is what we talk about with you. You, yourself, the "col", does not have any idea what the "average" family brings home and does with their money. You base all your opinions, and yes all they are is your opinions, on data that you distort. Baker has shown you otherwise and that's something you IGNORE.


Second, I have also posted the following that you ignore:


And several of us has explained these things to you. It's AMAZING that you don't understand that.

Just one example is the airline industry. For as long as I can remember the airline industry has been in trouble. That does not affect the "average" family col. Mostly everything you list there is not the fault of Bush. Try looking at things other than blaming Bush and you might see the world differently. What a sad life you must live.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I provided the source of the Average Weekly Wage data and it is NOT distorted. It clearly shows that over the past two years it has fallen and over the past 5 years it is FLAT. It also shows that in the 5 years BEFORE Bush it went up. Below is the E-Mail I received from BLS:

Mr. Abel,

The data you are seeking can be located at the Current Employment Statisitics (CES) portion of the BLS website. To get there from the main page of the BLS website (http://www.bls.gov/), click on the link for "National Employment" in the Employment & Unemployment section located on the top right side of the page. From there, click on "Get Detailed CES Statistics," then on "Create Customized Tables (one screen)." As you asked about Average Weekly Wages adjusted for inflation, select "Average Weekly Earnings, 1982 Dollars" as your data type in box 1. Select the sector of the economy where your interest lies in box 2, and any specific industries in box 3. In box 4, check the box for the type of data you want (seasonally adjusted, not seasonally adjusted, or check both boxes to get both data types), then click "Get Data." When the window containing the data opens, change the range of the data using the drop-down menus at the top and click "Go." The resulting table will contain the data you were searching for.

Thank you for your interest in the CES program.
Christopher Goodenow
Economist
Current Employment Statistics Program
Bureau of Labor Statistics
202-691-6555


Please show me how you have explained away the:

Increasing Interest Rate
Higher Energy Costs
Continued loss of jobs to other countries
Plant closings in the American Auto Industry
Loss of industries like Textiles and Electronics
Loss of employer provided Health and Retirement benefits
Higher College Costs
Inflation

You have NOT shown that these things are not taking place or that they do not adversely impact the average family.

NOT one of the issues raised by Bakerstreet in his first post proves these economic issue do not exist or that they are not impacting the people of this country. Bush telling the American public about GDP growth and higher productivity mean NOTHING to them. In fact higher productivity means that companies are able to generate higher profits WITHOUT adding jobs. Even when the Stock Market was doing so well that does not enable most families to meet their monthly bills. Now even the Stock Market is not performing. It is down almost 1,000 points in the past month!

As I said, the Bush Economy is not helping the VAST MAJORITY of Americans!!!!!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I said, the Bush Economy is not helping the VAST MAJORITY of Americans!!!!!


And as I said, this is completely your opinion. You do not know personally how the "average" American is doing. You are basing your opinoin on an e-mail from the government you don't trust anyways.

I love how you keep bringing up the stock market when it's down, and then turn around and completely ignore it when it's way up. Hypocrisy I say.

You keep complaining about jobs, the unemployment rate in this country is very low. Jobs are constantly being created. You just cannot be satisfied with anything. Seek help for your obsession with Bush.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I said the Stock Market does NOT (can you read) impact the ability of the average family to pay their bills. However the market has dropped about 1,000 points in a month!

The issues I posted are NOT opinion they are facts that you can easily verify.

Some time ago I posted the results of the U.S. Metro Economics 2004-2005 Report reported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors which is a non-partisan group. This was a VERY comprehensive study that looked at 5 years of jobs data across the United States. That study clearly documented the following:

On the AVERAGE, the wages of jobs created in 2004-2005 compared with the jobs lost from 2001-2003 are 21% lower

In 18 states the jobs created during 2004-2005 have not totally replaced the jobs lost from 2001-2003.

Jobs created in 2004-2005 compared with the jobs lost from 2001-2003 have fewer benefits.

Thus we have created jobs that, on the average, pay less and have fewer benefits.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said I do not trust the Government. I said our President and VP have given us half truths and distorted things to do what they wanted to do. I trust the data form BLS, OMB, GAO, CBO and Treasury. THAT DATA IS BEING GNERATED BY PROFESSIONALS THAT ATE NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said I do not trust the Government. I said our President and VP have given us half truths and distorted things to do what they wanted to do.


So you and them have something in common.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

Better look again. I document my claims.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just gonna refute a few points here:

1. Soaring Credit Card Bills
This is not indicative of anything on its own. To get any real data worth using from this you need to look beyond the dollar amount on credit and take a look at spending habits. Are these people doing what most college-aged kids do now and spend WAY beyond their means thinking they can just pay it off eventually? Are they going into debt over necessities? Or is it that new car/tv/stereo that they just HAD to have? Average debt is only a piece to the puzzle of the average person's finances.

2. Loss of Benefits
This is an issue for companies, not the government. Show me where there is a law saying anyone has to provide benefit packages to their employees? Most companies do it as a means to retain good talent. If a company cuts its benefits programs, they risk losing talent. The government doesn't step in and demand they cut back. Not a government issue.

3. Health Care Costs
Actually, you'd be surprised at how much of the responsibility for skyrocketing costs in health care actually rests with the average consumer, and secondly with the doctors themselves. The HMO encouraged people to go to the doctor for every little thing, cause they'd never pay more than $15 or so for a visit. So right there, a lot of the cost had to be passed back from employers and insurers into the monthly costs to the worker. Then you have doctors who gold-plate their bills, cause the customer never sees it, so increased costs there have to be recovered too and again get passed back indirectly to the consumer. Consumer behavior plus a system that allowed abuse caused this problem, not the government. And again, there is currently no law saying health insurance is a right.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better look again. I document my claims.



No you don't col. You quote some survey without links and think that's the end of it. I remember somebody here debunked your Mayors conference once. I am trying to find that post now.

You have told more half-truths and distortions than you could ever claim against Bush.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zoomba

The issue is those elements that impact individuals and how the average American perceives the economy compared with what Bush has been telling everyone.

Personal Debt is at an all time high. In the early 1990's the average balance that individuals were carrying was in the $3,300 range. In December 2005 it was reported to be $8,600. That is s significant increase even after inflation since the early 1990's. The other issue is the Personal Savings rate which is all but non existent!

The loss of benefits is part of the pressure for jobs to leave this country and the ever increasing push to increase company profits by cutting costs. The point is that this is impacting the American family and the point I made is that the new jobs that Bush brags about are providing not only lower wages but less benefits which puts more financial pressure on the average person.

I agree with the reasons you have mentioned for Health Care costs increasing but here again the issue are things that are adversely impacting the average worker. Their wages are NOT going up to offset the higher health costs and there is no effective policy to help restrain those increasing costs. The action that Bush has taken is to cut Federal money for Medicaid which just puts the pressure on the states it does not deal with the reasons why health costs are increasing. The same thing is true in Medicare. Reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are not even equal to inflation much less the higher medical inflation! In addition the addition of the prescription drug plan with NO FUNDING is a time Bomb!

All these economic issues are WHY most Americans are not happy with the way Bush has managed the economy. The ONLY group that is doing better are the wealthy and almost everyone else is not is good shape. The result of the Bush tax cuts is a that a greater percent of the total taxes are now being paid by the middle income workers then before the tax cuts!!
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I provide the sources and you ignore them. I gave you the E-Mail from BLS and you told me I distorted the Average Weekly Wage Data. I gave the study that showed the new jobs being created pay less with fewer benefits and you ignore it. That Links thing is just an excuse when you do not want to look at the facts! When I copy articles you tell me they are part of the liberal agenda no matter what the source. When I provide exert opinion you discount the opinion even when the people I sight are the MOST knowledgeable on the subject!

You are just like Bush—Do Not bother me with the facts just tell me what I want to hear!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
And col we have both showed you how income has risen. We have debunked many of your "facts" and you still won't acknowlegde it.


You are just like Bush—Do Not bother me with the facts just tell me what I want to hear!


What a load of bs. How many facts have you ignored that we post to you? I see you completely ignored the post that showed your lovely Zinni is affiliated with far left organizations. I see you completely ignore anything that is posted that is good about the economy or Iraq.

Every post you make here is an exact image of typical DNC talking points. You claim Americans are this and that, but you don't know anything about the "average" American.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

Income has increased but AFTER inflation the data from BLS clearly shows those increases have not offset the inflation during the past two years and Average Weekly Wage is the SAME as 5 years ago after adjusting for inflation! I have DEBUNKED your BS! I should say BLS has DEBUNKED your BS!

If there is a group that does not know or care about what the majority of Americans want it is GWB and the GOP leadership in Congress!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Financial Page today continues the GREAT news about the Bush economic Bust – sorry I mean boom.

The Dow dropped another 86 points

Wholesale prices are up in May

Shopping in down

That was on the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

On page 3 is an article by the new Fed Chairman who admits lower-income families are in trouble. (AP Article for those that need a source). The plight of the lower-income families and the continued pressure on the middle income families with the drop in Average Weekly Wage after inflation during the past two years leaves ONLY the wealthy cheering about this GREAT Bush economic growth. I guess the Polls are correct- Most Americans DO NOT approve of the way Bush has handled the economy!!!!!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Dow dropped another 86 points


Wow col. 86 points. The world is soon to end because of Bush.


Why don't you start linking these articles. You are famous for leaving things out of your quotes.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have still failed to say how personal debt increases is the fault of the government, or an indicator of a faltering economy. To me, from what I observe on a daily basis it's an issue of irresponsible spending and money management on the part of the individual. People go miles into debt because they want a fancier car (want, not need... and I hardly consider a BMW a necessity item). Today, when someone wants a new widget (car, house, TV, whatever) Instead of doing what our parents did in decades past and save up, making sacrifices in other areas to get the money together and waiting until they could afford to purchase it, we go out and just toss it on our AmEx with the intention of paying it later when we actually have the money.

I currently have about $6,000 in debt. This was entirely my own fault through stupid spending. The economy had nothing to do with it. It is not the responsibility of the government, economy, or even my employer to try and keep up with me when I go on a shopping spree. It is my responsibility to live within the means I have.

Again, credit debt is only relevant if it is being used to purchase necessities, otherwise it just shows personal irresponsibility.

Yet... despite my debt, despite my salary, and despite the fact that I live in the most over-taxed state in the nation (CT), I am not that bad off. No, I'm not in great shape, but I'm only 3 years out of college so I can't expect that much. I'm on track for doing much better once I get my debt taken care of. Not a single one of my friends who graduated within 2 years of me is in a bad spot either. They're mostly in IT too, which supposedly is all going overseas (it's not... the stuff you see in the media is largely ignorant fear mongering). We're all young, many with school debt, in an industry that is supposedly in the process of dieing. We're all doing OK. And we come from all walks of life too, from various financial backgrounds and from different cultures. We're about as average a group of Americans as you're likely to come across.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I gave you the sources ThePhiladelphia Inquirer Finacial Page and the AP. The 86 points brings the month down about 1,000. That is a BIG DEAL!

Dow gives up 2006 gains
Commodities' slide linked to stocks' fall

Bill Barnhart
Published June 14, 2006

Tuesday was another shake-and-bake day on Wall Street.

After at least seven moves into the plus column during the session, the Dow Jones industrial average gave up and closed down 86.44 points, to 10,706.14, wiping out its gains for 2006.

The stock market, like the commodities futures market, is reversing the sudden and inexplicable rally in hard assets that began in March.

Evidence of the commodity rout is not hard to find. The price of gold futures has plunged more than 20 percent in a month, as the precious metal Tuesday sank $44.50 an ounce, to $566.80, for August delivery. The 7.3 percent drop was the biggest single-day meltdown for gold in 15 years, according to Bloomberg News.

Copper futures, considered a play on economic growth in Asia, have lost 24 percent since peaking in late May. Silver, a favorite of many individual commodity gamblers, is off 35 percent from its mid-May peak.

Energy- and materials-related equities, like energy and materials commodity futures, were big winners in 2006 until early May.

At that point, commodity speculators realized the Federal Reserve, as well as central banks around the world, planned to continue tightening interest rates, boosting the cost of the loans they were taking out to bet on commodities.

What does the commodity tumble have to do with the stock market? Everything. The unraveling of this spring's commodity price gamble likely will discourage millions of ordinary investors who have never held a commodity futures contract.

The two biggest losers in the 30-stock Dow since the peak on May 10 have been aluminum producer Alcoa and mining equipment-maker Caterpillar.

Caterpillar was the Dow's biggest 2006 gainer in those heady days two months ago when pundits were looking forward to a record high for the Dow. Alcoa was the fifth-best performer in the Dow until the lights went out.

In the world of small-company stocks, materials producers led the 2006 small-cap rally, which peaked on May 5. Companies such as steelmaker Wheeling-Pittsburgh and Titanium Metals more than doubled between January and mid-May.

The hard patch in the markets, a bout of exuberance driven by investor lust for hard assets, might be ending.

But the effects linger, as the run-up in energy and materials prices feeds its way into a broad array of goods and services. Labor costs, the biggest single contributor to consumer prices, appear under control. The pace of hiring and wage increases remains modest.

But investors and Federal Reserve officials alike must consider whether this spring's speculative bubble in hard assets represents serious inflation pressure in the broad economy, and whether attacking those pressures with higher interest rates will kill the patient to cure the disease.

Tuesday's report on wholesale price inflation appeared to indicate signs of a pass-through on materials costs. For example, one of the surprises in the report was higher prices for heavy trucks, which contain metal. Food prices, on the other hand, fell.

Wednesday's report on consumer price inflation in May should provide some clues, as well. Gasoline prices probably were the major factor in consumer price inflation last month.

----------

[email protected]