Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on January 2, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Below are two articles from the Economic Policy Institute. This is a VERY different picture then Bush is painting.


http://www.epinet.org/


December 21, 2005 | EPI Policy Memorandum

What's wrong with the economy?

by EPI President Lawrence Mishel and Policy Director Ross Eisenbrey

1. Profits are up, but the wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.

* Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 13.5%.

* Wage growth has been shortchanged because 35% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 22% in previous periods.

* Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.

2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.

* The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.

* The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 115% of after-tax income, twice the level of 30 years ago.

* The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.

* The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.

3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.

* The United States has only 1.3% more jobs today (excluding the effects of Hurricane Katrina) than in March 2001 (the start of the recession). Private sector jobs are up only 0.8%. At this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.

* The unemployment rate is relatively low at 5%, but still higher than the 4% in 2000. Plus, the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, 3 million more people would be employed.

* More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2000.

4. Poverty is on the rise.

* The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.

* The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.

* More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.

5. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.

* Households are spending more on health care. Family health costs rose 43-45% for married couples with children, single mothers, and young singles from 2000 to 2003.

* Employers are cutting back on health insurance. Last year, the percent of people with employer-provided health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Nearly 3.7 million fewer people had employer-provided insurance in 2004 than in 2000. Taking population growth into account, 11 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2004 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.



December 21, 2005 | EPI Briefing Paper #168

The boom that wasn't
The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts

by Lee Price

Since 2001 President Bush and congressional leaders have promised that enacting each of a series of tax cuts would strengthen the economy by bringing faster growth, more jobs, and greater investment. With Congress again debating whether to extend past tax cuts and enact new ones, it's time to review how much the last four years of tax cuts have affected the U.S. economy and budget outlook. Unfortunately for most Americans, the tax cuts since 2001 have not made today's economy stronger. Over the last five fiscal years, the tax cuts have had a direct cost of $860 billion and (with interest costs) a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. By creating excessive permanent deficits, they have lowered our future standard of living.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 02, 2006
Let's see the mindless right wing JoeUser morons pass this one over.

Down with Bush.
on Jan 02, 2006

4. Poverty is on the rise.

* The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.

* The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.

* More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.


Now you want to tell everyone by how much the poverty guidelines went up? Or should I? This in itself is a MAJOR factor in the increase in poverty.
on Jan 02, 2006
Let's see the mindless right wing JoeUser morons pass this one over.

Down with Bush.


Let us see you idiotic, moronic left-wing libs grow a brain.
on Jan 03, 2006
More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.
* The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.
* The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 115% of after-tax income, twice the level of 30 years ago.
* The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.
* The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.


I am with you on this one, as I am vehemently against credit cards and uncollateralized borrowing (non-mortgage, non-car, without a tangible asset to back up the loan).

However, this is a valid economic priniciple that was a complete reversal from the "thrift and ration" mentality espoused by the government in WWII. The principle behind this radical reversal is that we need to keep the economy going.

Greenspan lowering the prime rate was key to keeping the nation's economy alive. Who wasn't tempted to buy a new car when the APR was 0.0%?!?! People have to spend money to keep goods and services flowing. That keeps wages paying out to families who will then spend to keep food on tables. Otherwise a radical drop in demand will cause production to halt, jobs will be lost, and people will be penniless while unemployment will hit an all-time high. Want a new depression?

My point is that to keep America going, we've gotta keep America spending. It seems like it's counter-intuitive, but it's true. I don't like massive credit card debt, and the time will come when we all will have to pay the piper, but for the short term it was the best course of action to keep American jobs.
on Jan 03, 2006
Let's see the mindless right wing JoeUser morons pass this one over.

Bite me, trolling jackass. Wanna show how smart you are? Log in and post something constructive. Be a man, not a weasel. Bring it on.
on Jan 03, 2006
The point of this Blog is that the rosy picture Bush and company has been feeding us does NOT tell the true picture as it impacts the average American. We do need to keep people spending to move the economy forward which is why the tax cuts to the middle income workers helps. However, when spending comes from credit card debt, that spending is a negative. If the spending comes from added disposable income, then we get the benefits from the spending without the problems of larger credit card payments which will REDUCE spending in the future. The average balance per American family on credit cards has gone from $3,300 per family in the 1990’s to $8,600 as of November 2005.

Today the business news have stories about the MAJOR financial problems of the three American Auto Makers and the first of the bankrupt Airlines will be ending operations Thursday. It is great to tell us how the GDP went up, but the impact on the average American is VERY different from what Bush and Sec Snow is telling us. The problem of added debt that will come home to bite the average American family is the SAME policy Bush is following at the Federal Government. The Bush Tax and spend policy has taken the national debt from $5.7 Trillion in Jan 2001 to just over $8.2 Trillion as of 31 Dec 2005. The increased balance plus the higher interest rates will have the SAME IMPACT on the Federal budget as on the family budget when the higher interest payments come due. Like many families that are paying what amounts to INTEREST ONLY on their credit cards, the Fed only pays INTEREST ONLY on the National debt and derived up the amount of debt every second of the day.

The stock market fell 1.5% on 2005 and the expectation for 2006 is a Bear Market. Many believe the Stock Market is a leading economic indicator.

This is the debt Clock for those of you that need another link:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
on Jan 03, 2006
Today the business news have stories about the MAJOR financial problems of the three American Auto Makers


Sorry but this is BS! I've already proven KB wrong on FoMoCo. According to Reuters Ford post a positive gain in overall profits for 2005. And now I'll prove you wrong on Chrysler too! From MSNBC news:


(…) In the United States, former money pit Chrysler is hot. After years of red ink, including an incredible 5.3 billion loss in 2001, Chrysler is lean and healthy. As rivals Ford and GM lose market share, Chrysler has gained for six consecutive quarters, and earned more than 250 million from January to March. Last week it reported a sizzling 9 percent rise in April sales, led by popular new models like the 300 sedan and the Dodge Viper. While the rest of Detroit lives off the SUV, Chrysler is now the only member of the Big Three automakers that makes even one popular car in the U.S. market.



The only one that is in "real" trouble is GM. Once again shown incorrect. And that by an ex-enlisted man!
on Jan 03, 2006
drmiler

I could have guessed you were a "grunt" (I had some great enlisted members in my units but I doubt that you would have been one of them). Your results about Chrysler and Ford do not offset there overall financial outlook and the LACK of demand and reduced MARKET share of the three American car companies. Sorry to tell you enlisted man, you are just like Bush and Snow full of a few facts that DO not show the real picture.

This Blog was not about the Auto industry (they were just one example) but about how what Bush is feeding us is a LIE. He is doing the VERY same thing with the economic condition that he did with WMD. He uses only those data elements that seem to show support for his position even though there is credible information that shows his position is not correct.
on Jan 03, 2006
could have guessed you were a "grunt" (I had some great enlisted members in my units but I doubt that you would have been one of them). Your results about Chrysler and Ford do not offset there overall financial outlook


I'm sorry but how ignorant do you have to be to get into your club? How does it NOT offset overall financial outlook? Last time I went to school (maybe you should go back) and had basic economics....a + positive cash flow was usually idicative of a pretty "good" financial outlook.

You would not have "wanted" me to be in one of your outfits. One of us would not have survived the encounter!

This Blog was not about the Auto industry (they were just one example) but about how what Bush is feeding us is a LIE. He is doing the VERY same thing with the economic condition that he did with WMD. He uses only those data elements that seem to show support for his position even though there is credible information that shows his position is not correct.


More of your one sided economic drivel that is fueled by your Bush hate. All I did was to use "one" of your very own examples to prove you yet again wrong!
on Jan 03, 2006
What an ignorant person your are.! I will match my MBA and business experience with you any day.

Ford Outlook Hurt By Visteon Pact
03.11.05, 3:00 PM ET


Tear Sheet | Chart | News



Standard & Poor's Equity Research cut estimates reiterated a "hold" rating on Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) after the company reached a financing agreement with its "financially struggling former unit, Visteon (nyse: VC - news - people ). The agreement will cost Ford about $250 million in 2005 and will relieve Visteon of certain employee reimbursement payments due to Ford. S&P Equity Research cut the 2005 earnings estimate for Ford to $1.80 per share from $1.88. Based on historical and peer price/earnings multiples, the research firm kept Ford's 12-month target price at $14.

Fitch Cuts Ford to Junk, Outlook Negative
Monday, December 19, 2005


STORIES

Ford Cuts May Not Be Enough for Turnaround

Report: Ford May Close Five Plants

Ford CEO Urges Tax Help to Boost Car Industry

Ford Announces White-Collar Job Cuts

GM Gets Ready to Detail Job Cut Plan

Bridgestone Firestone to Pay Ford $240M for Tire Recall
NEW YORK — Fitch Ratings Monday cut its ratings on Ford Motor Co. (F) to junk status, the third of the three major rating agencies to strip the second-largest U.S. automaker of its investment-grade ratings.

The downgrade reflects ongoing market share losses, slumping sales of sport utility vehicles and competition at Ford's core North American auto operations, Fitch said.

Ford's profit margins have been squeezed by fierce competition from foreign rivals and a slowdown in sales of large SUVs due to high gasoline prices. Pension and health care costs also remain a concern, Fitch said.

Fitch also cut to junk the ratings on Ford's Ford Motor Credit finance arm, where most of Ford's $142 billion of consolidated debt is issued. The downgrade will eject Ford Credit from the widely followed Lehman Brothers credit index, limiting the investors who can buy its bonds and raising borrowing costs.

"It was already assumed that it would be knocked out of the indices," as both Moody's Investors Service and Fitch had Ford on review for downgrade, said Brad Rubin, senior credit analyst at BNP Paribas in New York.

Companies are ejected from the Lehman index if their debt is rated junk by two of the three major agencies. Ford and Ford Credit were both downgraded to junk status by Standard & Poor's in May.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

"We remain committed to accelerating our business plans," said Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans. "As we've said, further details of those plans will be announced in January and we really cannot comment further at this time."

Ford has said it will unveil a major restructuring plan next month to restore North American operations to profitability. Those operations lost $1.2 billion during the third quarter.

Ford's situation could start looking up if it gets cost concessions from its union and launches a successful new line of products before any recession hits, said Jeff Hines, president of Sovereign Advisers, which has $2 billion of fixed-income assets under management. A weaker dollar would also help by reducing the cost advantage Japanese automakers have because of a weak yen, he said.

"There's still some time and there's financial flexibility," Hines said.

Fitch cut Ford's senior unsecured rating to "BB-plus," the highest junk rating, from "BBB-minus." The rating outlook is negative, meaning another downgrade is likely over the next one to two years.

In the credit derivatives market, the cost of protecting Ford's debt against default rose about 10 basis points to 895 basis points, or $895,000 for every $10 million protected, while Ford Motor Credit's protection costs rose about 10 basis points to about 535 basis points.

Prices of Ford's 7.45 percent bonds due in 2031 fell to 71 cents on the dollar, down from 71.25 cents on Friday, according to MarketAxess.

Ford's shares fell 6 cents, or 0.72 percent, to $8.24 on the New York Stock Exchange.

usan Tompor
SUSAN TOMPOR: GM outlook turns grim on market

November 22, 2005

* emailEmail this
* emailPrint this

BY SUSAN TOMPOR

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Special report:

*

• More coverage of GM cuts

Wall Street's initial reaction to General Motors Corp.'s plans to cut 30,000 jobs was ho-hum. But then it got worse.

During early trading Monday, GM shares rose 18 cents a share. But by the market's close, GM stock had fallen 47 cents a share, or 1.95%. GM closed at $23.58.

Along with Wall Street, GM shares had been trending up since touching an 18-year low Thursday when the stock traded under $21 a share.

As of Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average finally was trading above the year-end mark of 10,783.01 for 2004. The Dow closed at 10,820.28 Monday, up 53.95 points for the day.

Million fewer cars

GM's restructuring is the most dramatic cost cutting at the automaker in 14 years. GM is out to cut its capacity, slash costs and reduce losses. GM would be able to build about 1 million fewer cars by the end of 2008. Its regular capacity would drop to 4.2 million vehicles per year.

"This is a major, significant step -- no question about that," said Joseph Phillippi, president of AutoTrends Consulting in Short Hills, N.J.

But unfortunately for investors, the cuts are steps most analysts had long expected.

"There wasn't anything outside of the box," complained Robert Bosart, senior vice president for McDonald Financial Group in Birmingham.

And a bankruptcy at GM -- something GM management says will not happen -- continues to be a threat, Bosart said, especially if GM does not get continued concessions from the UAW.

And there's another concern: Could a drastic sales slowdown next year clobber GM? We saw terrible sales figures in October, and more bad numbers are projected for November.

David Healy, auto industry analyst for Burnham Securities Inc., said the auto industry and GM saw a bad October because of the dramatic discounts in June, July and August. Many people bought cars in the summer and then didn't need to buy in the fall.

Healy says sales could pick up by next month, as companies boost incentives.

But others are less certain.

Bob Schnorbus, chief economist for J.D. Power and Associates in Troy, noted that several analysts (he's not one of them) now suggest that sales of cars and light trucks could fall to 16 million to 16.5 million units in 2006.

But such a drop would be dramatic next to expected sales of nearly 17 million units in 2005, Schnorbus said.

And such a drop remains a possibility.

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of reasons for that to happen. And if it would happen, there's reason to expect that GM would bear the brunt of it," Schnorbus said.

Given those worries, Bank of America's GM analyst Ronald Tadross continues to have a sell recommendation on GM stock. His report says GM stock could hit $16 in the next 12 months.

Even with the restructuring, such reports give GM stock no reason to rally. And GM investors have reason to worry.
on Jan 03, 2006
Takes quite a bit of stretching to argue that the current economy is bad.
on Jan 03, 2006
Better read the two articles in my Blog. For the Average family both middle and low income, the economy is not good. 2006 has some VERY disturbing possibilities including interest rates, personal debt, the stock market, to mention just a few.
on Jan 04, 2006
What an ignorant person your are.! I will match my MBA and business experience with you any day.


"I'm ignorant"? I'm not the one saying that "Reuters" doesn't know what they are talking about, fool! And to be quite honest.....I could care less about your MBA OR your business experience! They mean less than nothing when they are being used by a person like you.
on Jan 04, 2006
Did you read the two articles I posted? Did you see the Wal-Mart sales results? Keep telling yourself that the economy is good. I tell it like it is.
on Jan 04, 2006
Well I have to hand it to Col Gene. He decided to come out strong in the new year with links and all. Well it's about time you put more push in your articles. Look at the results, hardly any argument against your article. Now doesn't that feel good?

I have nothing to say ATM cause I am reading up to se what my opinion is on this.
2 Pages1 2