home

Meanwhile, Back At The Economy . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:11:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jobless claims rise:

The number of first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments jumped in the first week of 2011 to the highest level since October as more Americans lined up to file following the holidays. Initial jobless claims rose by 35,000 to 445,000, according to Labor Department data released today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey called for 410,000 filings. The average number of applications over the past four weeks, a less-volatile gauge, increased to 416,500.

And just wait until Part 2 of the Norquist Strategy kicks in.

< Will Defeating Sarah Palin Be A Victory For "The Left?" | Tom DeLay's Lawyer Confident of Appeal Outcome >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Meanwhile, Back At The Economy . . . | 130 comments (130 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not surprised (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:20:42 PM EST
    at hearing this. I expected it. People were hired for the holiday season and are now being laid off. Or budget projections are being made and people are being laid off.

    I can't believe the number of people that are sure Obama is going to sail to reelection in 2012. They must be completely unscathed by this economy.

    A point you need to think about BTD is that along with the "norquist strategy" is that many business have a 12/31 fiscal year end and they usually get the final numbers in March. So by the time the norquist strategy kicks people in the stomach the business are probably be going to be shedding employees too.

    It all makes me feel incredibly lucky right now to not have to struggle as much as some people are.

    Are there a lot of people that think he will (none / 0) (#7)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    sail to reelection?  I think he gets reelected because he is a better candidate than really any GOPer right now and the general election will have totally different demographics than the midterms.  If the economy improves (say unemployment falls below 8%) then he will win in a blowout.  Several respectable private sector economists are predicting it will.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    I'm talking about bloggers mostly. A lot of does depend on who the GOP nominates. I don't know if 8% would be now enough to reelect him or not. Bush V. Gore was close and the ue number was a lot lower than 8%.

    I think IF he wins, he wins in a squeaker and nothing like 2008. He has a record now to go on and he has really bad problems with working class whites that populate places he has to have like WI, MI, PA and OH. IN, VA, and NC are already gone I would say.

    Parent

    Got it. Also (none / 0) (#23)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    Not sure I agree about VA but I would certainly agree that NC and Indiana will not be in his win column without a major economic recovery.  I also am not sure Bush vs. Gore is a good comparison.  Gore was not really the incumbent, America was tired of Clinton and his scandals (as stupid as they were), and Gore ran a hideous campaign...(oh, and let's not forget, Gore actually won).  

    None of this will be an issue with Obama.

    Parent

    VA is gone (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    Jim Webb, who still hasn't officially decided to run for re-election, is tacking to the right because he knows it's the only way he can win again here in Virginia.

    Viriginia never "turned blue" - that was an illusion. Northern Virginia is blue, but there are a lot of disenchanted Obama voters here now too.  Plus a LOT of military who won't vote again for Obama.

    Parent

    Why won't the military vote again for (none / 0) (#31)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    Obama?

    Parent
    A lot of them (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:15:35 PM EST
    very disgruntled with him. A lot of them didn't vote for him the first time. Ask MT for a more up close analysis.

    Parent
    But if they did not vote for Obama the 1st time (none / 0) (#36)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    and he won Virginia by double digits, why do they matter the second time?

    Parent
    A lot of them DID vote for him (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    but a lot of them didn't.  More of them this time will not vote for him.

    And Obama didn't win by double digits. The margin was 6.3% (200,000 votes, give or take).  

    Parent

    For some reason I thought he won it by (none / 0) (#96)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:55:36 PM EST
    more.  I realize Virginia has the highest proportion of veterans/military families, but they only make up so much of the population and he did not do well with the military vote anyway.  Would it really matter that much?

    Parent
    The majority of the military that voted (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:21:57 PM EST
    voted for Obama.  My spouse has just got back from a conference that was all senior officers and some NATO officers.  He says that nobody is upset at him right now that he knows of.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#112)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:55:56 AM EST
    ALL the military families who I know in Virginia voted for McCain.  In fact they were rather rabid about it because of McCain's service during Vietnam.  they love the guy.  

    Parent
    I'm talking active duty verses (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:36:20 AM EST
    people who classify themselves as military families due to a past four years of service.  Active duty deployed soldiers contributed six times more money to Obama's campaign in 2008 than they did John McCain.  They even gave Ron Paul more money than they gave John McCain :)

    John McCain was trying to sell stay the course in Iraq, and it killed him with the active duty military.  Obama was selling scaling back Iraq and eventual leaving, and taking the fight to Afghanistan. That is exactly what people who take the job of "protecting the nation againt enemies" want.  And he delivered on all of it too.  We even have a couple of friends who got out of the military in disgust under Bush and what he did in Iraq, that came back to active duty under Obama and the Afghanistan mission.

    Retired military tend to be knee jerk Republicans and buy rhetoric over what is actually happening in real life on the ground to the flesh and blood people.  If Obama makes military cuts it will affect military industrial complex jobs...those people are often considered "military families" and they will turn on him in a heartbeat but they will turn on anyone making such cuts...even Republicans at this time.  The active duty military though....what do we have to be pissed at Obama about?  He has done everything we wanted.  He even gave us a raise when nobody else but Wall Street can get one.  I'm almost as important as Wall Street....that's pretty damned important in this current world.

    Parent

    There was also a problem (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    With military absentee ballots in Virginia in 2008 (not enough to overturn the results, but possibly make the margin much closer).

    Parent
    Military ballots are always an issue (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:24:27 AM EST
    They were also an issue in Gore vs. Bush in Florida.  But I don't understand what you are saying....are you saying that the military in Virginia all voted for McCain?  Why would the active duty military of one state be pro McCain when the rest of the military was not?  Do you have any evidence?  I'm not saying it isn't possible, anything is possible where generational brainwashing is concerned, but when it comes to deploying and war and Obama....the military is not upset at him at all at this time.  If you happen to know some crazy wingers...they don't speak for the majority of the military who actually have to preform the mission of whoever the CIC is.

    Parent
    Sometimes talking to lefties about the military (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    vote is as bad as talking to wingers.  Like when it was revealed that McChrystal voted for Obama but nobody on the left could beleive it or even wanted to believe it.  When people put their lives on the line they really do want the guy seeking the real solutions that work running things.  They really do, they've picked up body parts off the ground, they've buried their friends, their families have suffered, they really want the person willing to think things through and employ real solutions running things.

    Parent
    I've heard from several good sources (none / 0) (#111)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:54:14 AM EST
    That Webb will not run again.  Tim Kaine, former Governor is likely to run for that seat.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:21:24 AM EST
    write that seat off then.

    Parent
    The vast majority of military in (none / 0) (#115)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:15:36 AM EST
    VA don't vote in VA.  I didn't vote VA until I retired.  Absentee ballots.  

    Parent
    VA is Gone (none / 0) (#110)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:52:31 AM EST
    Big republican wins there in 2009 and 2010. Obama won't carry VA again.  

    Parent
    I am (none / 0) (#46)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    starting to look at the field of potential Republican candidate to try to figure out who I think will do the least damage.  ::sigh::

    Parent
    Romney probably ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    despite his attempts to repaint himself as a conservative, he's really a moderate Republican.  And I bet that's how he'd govern.

    In fact, I doubt he'll be that different than Obama on the big issues.  He'll mainly focus on the rich and corporate interests.

    Obviously, there's the problem of judges.  And a cabinet.  

    Parent

    Romneyca...er I mean Obamacare (none / 0) (#97)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:56:40 PM EST
    would probably not be at risk.

    Parent
    Yup, it won't be Romney because of health care (none / 0) (#113)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:57:43 AM EST
    I've heard people like Governor Christie and Tim Pawlenty.  Also two guys from IL, forget their names.  Unfortunately for us, Sarah Palin will not be on the ticket.

    Parent
    Christie (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:24:27 AM EST
    can't handle a snow storm so I think he's done but Pawlenty is perhaps a possibility but he had a bridge collapse on his watch didn't he?

    Parent
    Pawlenty would be a formidable opponent. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:38:06 AM EST
    I think Huckabee would give Obama a run for his money too.  Christie is hard to like which matters a great deal in a national election.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    people really underrate Huckabee. The club for growthers hate the guy but as far as I can see the GOP base loves the guy.

    Parent
    They also predicted that (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    By the end of 2009.  Then they predicted "recovery summer". And other economists are predicting that 10% unemployment is the new norm.

    Parent
    If only the Obama admins. wasn't so (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    "bad for business."  This was the GOPer conversation to which I listened this a.m.  

    As everything melts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    We have a municipal bond crisis right in front of us too now along with the looming mortgage backed securities crisis.  I was reading about fraudclosure yesterday trying to understand new ripples and what the recent MA ruling changes up, and it can have significant meaning for those of us who live in a Title Theory state.  If you live in a Title Theory state, nonjudicial foreclosures tend to be the norm but with what MA exposed....if the title AND the mortgage are not properly conveyed together they become separated and the mortgage is no longer securitized.  If you hold a mortgage in default in a Title Theory State and the Title was not properly conveyed...you may be holding an unsecuritized note and you are not entitled to the house.  So I guess that would mean you have to go to court now too along with everyone else :)

    I've begun placing my offerings to money... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    ...on my alter on the porch outside. I include nuts and seeds, which money likes to feed on when it arrives in its flocks of flying bills.  I only these offerings, finally, attract the money.  Or we're all really screwed.

    Soon I will take a pig to the river and sacrifice it to the gods of Geithner and Goldman.

    We're all primitive tribespeople now. At least when it comes to that most magical creature -- money.

    The stuff is magic too (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Check this out.  The S&P 500 is through the roof at the same time that our money is leaving the country at an insane rate.

    Is this even possible?  And where is it going and why?

    Parent

    Money doesn't leave the country (none / 0) (#5)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    Ownership of it changes, but it doesn't actually go anywhere. Paper currency might leave the country, but the amount of it in existence is trivial in relation to the total money supply.

    So maybe foreigners are using their US dollar holdings to buy US stocks? There's really no connection between the S&P and 'money leaving the country'.

    Parent

    This is outflow from our domestic equity (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:32:48 PM EST


    Parent
    It signals big domestic (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    trouble and economic instability. Yet the S&P is sky high.  Without utterly juiced to the hilt markets and market manipulation and Wall Street/corporate welfare....it isn't even possible.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#10)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    what you're talking about it or how the S&P matters in this.

    Parent
    Why would the S&P be through the roof (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    when we are the country that is holding the currency that almost everything is based on and we have puked so much actual equity in the past year that we must be getting close to puking our guts out?  The Europeans are in the same boat too.

    Parent
    Because people (none / 0) (#14)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    are putting a lot of money into stocks now. What's that got to do with holding the currency that everything is based on and puking our guts out? Could you explain the connection and the problem? Someone is buying the stocks and that's pushing up the price.

    This myth has grown up that, because so many little guys got into the markets in the 90s that without their money stocks should be plummetting. But all the S&P says to me is that the little guy isn't needed to drive up stock prices. The little guy just gets in when the market is already way over valued.

    Foreigners who hold US dollars could be ploughing it into the US markets just as easily as Americans. Maybe that is a bad thing but I just don't understand what exactly it is you think it means.

    Parent

    Regular people aren't putting money (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    into stocks though right now.  Those figures are out there and it isn't happening.  If the stupid money doesn't show up, the smart money can't get anyplace playing by itself....but the smart money has lots of liquidity so I guess it is buying into stocks since the corporations are the only ones with any money right now and commodities.  Anything that doesn't pay a dividend is also a stupid longterm investment at this point, but that would only matter to someone like me.  If I were a big dog and too big to fail I don't really have to worry about the possibility of failure.  I can make stupid idiot bets even, and that's okay, I'm going to be covered.

    But all indicators are saying that little people who have to be responsible for  themselves and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps are pulling their money out of the stock market, many are having to right now...have no other choice, and that isn't going to improve in the next five years either.  So once again, in an economy where nobody other than the rich are investing....how can an S&P like we have signal anything other uber super duper wealthy and market manipulation?  And if you buy that what the manipulation is doing and creating is "normal", then you are also wanting to buy into "structural unemployment".  I am not a buyer into something called structural unemployment when it comes to democracies....structural unemployment in such a situation signals to me market manipulation and someone is gaming the corrections so they don't happen.

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    you are arguing that there is something inherently unjust going on when the little guy is priced out of the stock market. I don't share that opinion, but ok.

    Personally I'll take being priced out of the stock market over being priced out of the housing market or labor market any day. I don't need to own stocks, but I do need a job and a place to live.

    Parent

    No not arguing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    that little people being priced out of the stock market is unjust at all, but my tax dollars did go to save the stock market during the crash so isn't that really sort of unjust?  But the real picture is that our economy is so unhealthy that nothing else is going to stand in the end.  And the stock market would be long gone by now if our government had not stepped in during the last crisis.  What they did though, what many of us pointed out to them but they at first said wasn't so but appears to be true now is save only the rich.  Many traders are predicting that a munibond crisis is going to bring about a second overall crisis that was bigger than the first because all the old insolvency is still there and then they created new insolvency on top of it.

    Parent
    Super duper rich (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by the capstan on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    I am not, but what I have is invested in the market.  I dumped all my losers months ago, and my holdings had been largely chosen for their dividends, not for capital gains (except funds).  I took big losses at the beginning of the recession (as in 2 previous ones), so what I have now are winners I have held onto.  And the dividends and capital gains (funds) thankfully have poured in lately.

    My house, built in 1999, is mortgaged, but not to the hilt, because I used a chunk I inherited from a friend to reduce the mortgage when things started to go bad.  My mortgage is adjustable, interest only, so truthfully, I only rent the house (I probably do own the land).

    My only income is a state pension and social security from my deceased husband, a professor.

    We started the decade with huge credit card debt, mortgage, and medical expenses (but also an LTC insurance policy).  Still my income more than covers expenses, and left-overs go into my brokerage account rather than to that mortgage.

    There's a trade-off, of course; I'll sell the house when the rate readjusts, and possibly lose a little money.  So what is the lesson for 'regular people'?  Buy when things look a bit bleak, not when the general public is out looking for 'winners.'  Try doing what Peter Lynch (Fidelity) famously said--something like 'invest in what you know--and what you buy yourself.'  Then have the courage of your convictions and hang in--my 'earnings' follow the fortunes of the 'smart money.'  I am just along for the ride.

    Works for me (but then I had to wait till I was nearly 70 to start 'collecting.')  Better late than never!

    oh, Tracy, I know you have Josh to raise yet.  I know a bit about that, having had a severely retarded daughter.  Thank heavens for SSI and medicaid (and the social security and medicare she gets from her dad; goes to the county, yes, but it makes life better for her and for me).

    Parent

    You have been very smart (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    with your money and made meat and potatoes decisions too.  I'm impressed with what you did with what you had.  I don't think you are a typical American though.

    Parent
    Tracy, I did not do (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by the capstan on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:25:16 PM EST
    anything you could not do.  (And you may be able to start a bit earlier.)  It just takes a certain kind of stubborness, which I know you have: your son, my daughter.

    One thing I ought to have said: the amount I have left at the end of the month does not all go to financial investments.  I have friends in the housing trades who have no income and no unemployment insurance.  There are all sorts of jobs to be done on these 4 acres, especially knowing the house will go up for sale in a couple of years.  They do a lot better work than a casual laborer would--and I try to pay them a decent wage for excellent work.  THEN I send the leftovers to my brokerage.

    Parent

    So, you think if there is a second (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    crisis you are going to be okay?

    Parent
    Let me put it to you this way (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    If there another crash....are you wiped out?  If the answer to that is yes...well, you have a great deal of faith....if the answer is no then you can afford to lose what you are playing and most people aren't in that category.

    Parent
    Well, another crash (none / 0) (#99)
    by the capstan on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    would have to wipe out my state and my national government to finish me off.  All I have is my husband's pension (state) and social security, plus medicare.  And I do not believe my state is likely to cross off the university: this state funded higher education when it barely kept up i thru 12.  (Even the PTA evaporated when the schools desegregated.)

    The brokerage account hopefully will go to my kids. I take very little from it, but I can't leave my kids a penny from my monthly income.  So you see, I have faith that I am taken care of, but I want my children to have a decent retirement and my grandkids to go to college.  Guess you could say it is my kids (the normal ones) who must have faith when I play the market.  I've been knocked down before, but it always come back.  (I should know; I was born just before FDR was elected the first time.  And my dad was a college dropout who made himself into a 'professional engineer.')

    Parent

    The average (none / 0) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    annual return for the S&P 500 from the time you were born at the time of FDR's presidency until now is a little over 10% and your money would double about every 7.2 years. Funny thing about the market, it soars, it falls, it flounders, but over time you can pretty much count on that 10%. It's why I've continued to invest in an IRA and/or a 401K in the stock market since the day my daughter was born. As an only child, she might be in much better shape than she thinks someday.

    Parent
    the brokerage now figures my (none / 0) (#106)
    by the capstan on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:58:17 PM EST
    annual returns since (I think) 2003 when they began tracking portfolios.  Sure enough, mine at the end of November was just under 10%. And the end of December figures will be even better.  But if you had seen my annual return the year the depression/recession began, you'd understand why I have 2 years of capital losses that will be deducted for years to come likely. (Too bad the deduction against regular income is limited or maybe the gov. would owe me money.)
     

    Parent
    typo! (none / 0) (#121)
    by the capstan on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:00:49 AM EST
    I meant to write "'play'" the market, not "play the market."  That's important info about market investing.  The average joe and jane probably have no business "playing the market."  It's no game.  I go months without buying or selling either, which is why my money is relatively safe.  Always remember that what you read or hear is 'old' news to the big investors; they had a head start, and took the cream off the top (betraying my age with a metaphor!).

    Parent
    Play the market (none / 0) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    is the term that gets people in trouble. Investing in the market on the other hand can be extremely profitable over time. Chasing individual stocks takes knowledge in the fundamentals of each company. I'd prefer to have that knowledge as it would be more beneficial. I can also have no knowledge and put the money into something like the Vanguard 500 Index Fund* and, lo and behold over the course of time, there's that 10% return again.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#47)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:46:42 PM EST
    tone down the violent rhetoric directed against pigs. :-)

    Parent
    The 800 pound (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    gorilla is that property taxes are based on market value.

    I just had our property, home and land, appraised by a certified appraiser and will now notify our tax accessors of my intent to appeal the assessed  value at a hearing in May. And if we can't reach an agreement I will go on to the state.

    I don't think I will be alone in this.

    Of course the city and county can raise tax rates to make up for the difference but that will he political suicide. (Did I say something hateful?)

    We do live in interesting times.

    Yup...the next disaster (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    in the very long line of looming phucking disasters.  And commodities are going through roof too meaning that everything that is necessity is getting very expensive very quickly.  Not all Austrian's are idiots, unfortunately there is an element of truth in everything.  I wish we had A gorilla, but we are now at the point of Gorillas in the Mist.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    inflation went up 1.1% in Dec and unemployment jumped.

    It's starting to look a lot like Stagflation!

    Parent

    Except that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    you are completely wrong about inflation.

    The Consumer Price Index for the United States economy came in at 218.803 for the month of November 2010. The inflation rate year over year was 1.1432% (compared to 1.1722% for the previous month) which means inflation is trending downward. Inflation from October 2010 to November 2010 was 0.0421%. [source]

    Figures for December aren't even out yet. You just  made your numbers up.

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    I see that you are in the group out there who will ignore what has happened to commodities for as long as you can, until it is sitting on your head I guess.  I happen to be of the camp that acknowledges that when commodities are going up at such a rate that Algeria is having food riots....that inflation is baked in now at ground level.  If you in the stock market right now you have to believe your inflation numbers and believe that oracles that are giving them to you without asking hard questions or you face realizing that WE ARE ALL SCREWED :)

    Parent
    Once again (none / 0) (#33)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying I just made up the CPI numbers like jim did?

    Paul Krugman recently wrote a column in which he reminded people that supply and demand seems to be a forgotten concept. Commodity prices are going up? Well maybe, just maybe, it's due to supply and demand and not to inflation. The are NOT the same thing. Inflation is low and falling right now.

    Will rising commodity prices lead to inflation? They very well might, but they haven't done so yet and are unlikely to as long as the economy remains in the doldrums. There is no stagflation happening, contrary to jim's data-free assertion and contrary to your constant fear about everything.

    We are screwed? We've been screwed for 30 plus years now.

    Parent

    Commodities are going up (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    because the big players know the game is up and they are all buying commodities because that is the only thing that will be worth anything in the wake of the next crash.....it is the only place to hope to retain some wealth in any existing market.

    Parent
    But when commodities go up (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    everything you buy will cost more until inventories are flooded...then they will burn the fruit I guess in order keep the prices up :)  Anything to avoid corrections and haircuts....anything....starve children....just don't let the bubble break.

    Parent
    Commodity prices (none / 0) (#41)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:32:40 PM EST
    rising could cause inflation, as I have said. But they might not. It depends on what is causing commodity prices to rise, and whether the increase lasts.

    Furthermore, the numbers show that inflation is low and decreasing. The year over year inflation rate actually went down between November and December.

    Parent

    last year isn't us trying to survive (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:42:55 PM EST
    this year and trying to survive Ben Bernanke's new round of quantitative easing.  And exactly what is happening to commodities was predicted by several Leftie economists when they found out how irresponsible he was going to be with a new round of "easing".

    Parent
    Possibly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    But that's not inflation either. And it conflicts with your concerns earlier about the stock market. If the big players are running to commodities b/c that's all that will be worth anything after the next crash, then why are they buying stocks too?

    Parent
    You can call things what you want (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    and draw all the lines around stuff you want but the truth is that the basic price of necessities is going up and wages aren't....sounds a lot like inflation to me :)  Or I guess God forbid Jim is right and we are looking at stagflation, perhaps that fits since it isn't the word inflation.

    Parent
    How on earth (none / 0) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    is jim right? His numbers are fake. Stagflation means inflation in the face of a shrinking economy. Since inflation is low and falling, we are not experiencing stagflation. jim is wrong.

    Lower wages isn't how economists define inflation. If anything lower wages causes deflation. Once again, the numbers are on my side.

    In my local grocery store the basic prices of necessities hasn't budged in a year. Sounds a lot like low inflation to me.

    Yes certain commodities are going up in price. But that could be from speculation, flight to safety, or a drop in supply of those commodities in the face of relatively strong demand in countries like India and China. Rising commodity prices is not how inflation is defined.

    Parent

    It doesn't make any (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:03:44 PM EST
    difference as to why the prices go up. The facts are they have jumped.

    Parent
    They have jumped dramatically (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:10:17 PM EST
    and Alergia is only the first poor nation that is in trouble because of it.  We will now watch the world begin to starve for America's Wall Street welfare and quantitative easing.

    Parent
    This is riduculous (none / 0) (#59)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:13:58 PM EST
    The CPI is a measure of actual prices in the basket of goods that economists have long used to measure inflation. And that measure says inflation is LOW and decreasing.

    Parent
    How about reality? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    It isn't just Jim and I who see a real inflation problem here.  It's actually in the news.

    Parent
    I have said twice already (none / 0) (#70)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    that higher commodity prices might spur inflation. But the fact is it has not yet done so. And frankly I don't think it will, but I could be wrong about that. But that's in the future. If supply and demand forces commodity prices to rise in the long term that's just a reality we are going to have to adjust to. No amount of monetary policy or government austerity is going to change it.

    But I must repeat that the year to year inflation rate for November was LOWER than the rate for October, so this inflation that you worry about hasn't yet materialized. As the article says 'core prices, which exclude those volatile categories, rose just 0.2 percent.'

    Parent

    Tracy, give up (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    He'd disagree no matter what you wrote.

    Parent
    looks that way :) (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:07:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#92)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    because neither of you understands the concept of inflation.

    Parent
    Oh I think I understand what $5.00 bread means (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 11:00:53 AM EST


    Parent
    last night (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    $1.09 which is what I have paid for bread for a few years (except when I luck into the .99 sale)

    Parent
    Local price (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    is about 20 cents up from mid Nov...

    But the $5.00 was rhetorical... I could have said $5.00 gasoline... which we will probably see by August.

    Parent

    If the price of food (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:06:55 PM EST
    and fuel is going up and up how is it that we aren't experiencing inflation in people's every day life?  All you want to do is look at the silly baloney numbers that our government is pouring out trying to soothe everyone and in cases have even made up.....like they did to hide the double dip.  The truth is everything that the average Joe, who is the engine of this economy, needs right now on a daily basis is going up....commodities.....but wages aren't at all and aren't there figures out there showing wage deflation?  Do they throw that number in there when they are coming up with their "inflation figures" as an indicator of NO inflation or something?  I wouldn't be surprised if they did these days.  The housing market is due to deflate at some time soon but that will take more equity and jobs with it too so that to me is a wash....won't make anything more affordable in the near future because of the job destruction that will come with it and the inability of people to be able to qualify for a new mortgage even if they do get a magic minimum wage job.

    Parent
    I don't know what's happening in my part (none / 0) (#98)
    by esmense on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    of the country (the Northwest), but last week I returned from two weeks out of the country and was shocked to see a 40 cent increase in gas prices. Then, having cleared out the frig before I left town, I ran to the store to pick up a few basics -- canned tomatoes, celery, parsley, beef broth, milk, bread, butter, an onion, lettuce a couple of pounds of brisket, bananas -- and cold medicine. I wasn't checking prices, just mechanically gathering up a few things I normally keep on hand or figured I could easily make a few days meals from (for just me and my husband -- pot roast, soup, sandwiches, some kind of end of the roast casserole, etc.) The total was $124. My mouth almost dropped to the floor. Looking a little closer I noticed that the tomatoes were about 60 cents more expensive than they had been a few weeks before, and everything else in my (rather small basket) was equally inflated.

    Don't know whether this had something to do with the weather back East, whether it's a trend or an outlier (just picked the wrong day and the wrong collection of not on sale items?) but I will be watching a lot more closely in the future. I haven't noticed such a large jump in basic food prices in years.  

    Parent

    My understand of what is driving the (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:39:06 PM EST
    stock market up and up is that the TBTF are getting tons of increased greased liquidity from the Fed and for each dollar they can squeak out of that liquidity they loan it back and forth to each other for investments that require only 10% upfront.  So each greasy fed liquidity dollar is leverage to the 10th power.  They were big enough to get the welfare liquidity and this is what they are doing with it.  Not the stuff that creates any sort of healthy market, particularly in the wake of any sort of crisis that would mean margin calls.

    Parent
    This very likely is (none / 0) (#49)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:54:56 PM EST
    what's driving up the stock market. But so what? The stock market isn't for the little guys. Stay out of the stock market.

    Parent
    Stay out of the market?? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    Have you ever heard of "401K" "IRA" and "Retirement?"

    And yes, it is starting to look like Stagflation. High unemployment and high inflation...

    BTW - Have you bought any gas lately? Do you understand that the groceries on the shelves are mainly carried by trucks that use diesel/gasoline?

    Parent

    Do you understand (none / 0) (#57)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    that anecdotal information about increases in prices isn't inflation? I've posted the real inflation numbers elsewhere. Your numbers are a complete fabrication. Live with it.

    If you own 401ks and IRAs you should be thrilled with the bubble market. What's the problem? Besides you don't have to buy stocks. You could keep government securities in your portfolio if the bubble scares you. The stock market isn't for little people.

    But in all seriousness this is a perfect illustration of the rot at the heart of the stock market, 401ks and IRAs. Average people have no business playing in the stock market and their retirements shouldn't be tied to it either. We used to have a wonderful system of company pensions, but that was destroyed on purpose by those who wanted to herd all that dumb money into the stock market.

    But what are  you going to do about it? Complain when the market goes up? Complain when it goes down? I'm well aware that you'll do both when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

    Parent

    During (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    the Bush Administration we were told the price of gas isn't inflationary. Has that changed all of a sudden?

    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    It costs me about $15.00 more to fill up my car...

    Maybe Warren will send me some non-inflationary money.

    Parent

    This is an interesting point (none / 0) (#84)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:03:27 PM EST
    The price of gas isn't included in the CPI because it's too volatile. Paul Krugman has written a couple blogs recently (well, within the past few months I think) pointing out to people just like jim and Tracy why volatile commodities are excluded and why rise in commodity prices isn't the definition of inflation.

    However I think economists agree that persistent hikes in the price of oil and other commodities can cause inflation, but they wait until this shows up in the CPI data. I leave it to Paul Krugman to explain how this works.

    There are other economists who argue that the sole driver of inflation is the price of oil, although they aren't mainstream economists. I think they have a good case though. Even so, they aren't arguing for inclusion of gasoline prices in the CPI afaik, because the price rise has to have some persistence for it to trigger inflation and oil prices are always volatile. There have been some pretty dramatic swings in price at the pump over the past few years and yet the CPI shows persistent low and decreasing levels of inflation.

    Parent

    By doing so (none / 0) (#109)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:49:00 PM EST
    I saved the my IRA from the 25% drop that afflicted
    many accounts that were in the stock market a few years ago.

    To think that the stock market is the only game in town when it comes to retirement accounts is a common error.

    There are fixed-income annuities that provide a constant income regardless of what is going on with the stock market, bonds, etc.

    Don't trust me on this one folks, do your research and you'll see for yourself that I'm not talking through my hat.


    Parent

    The stock market isn't for the little guys? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    You crack me up.  This is a know nothing meme and nothing more.

    Parent
    I think Warren is spot on there... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:42:06 PM EST
    the stock market is not for the little guy, I agree...we are not welcome at that gaming table, unless it is to get hustled or to subsidize the action.

    The problem is the people we hired to look out for the general welfare insist the stock market is for the little guy, it's better than a pension, they're even given out comps like they're Harrahs so we will wager.  (401k pretax = comp)

    Parent

    If the stock market isn't for little guys (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:46:15 PM EST
    kdog then why are they in it, why has the government gone out of its way to push it on the little guy and tell the little guy this is what you are supposed to do to retire...and now even go so far as to begin to look for ways to take away the little guys Social Security, why does the little guy have to bail it out too over and over and over again if it isn't theirs?

    Parent
    Because the masters of the universe... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:13:47 PM EST
    and their co-conspirators having nothing against our money, the meager fruits of our labor...and parting us with it.

    They've got something against us.  Maybe it's the 40 hour week and overtime pay our forebearers fought for and paid for in busted heads...I don't know, but it sure feels like hostility, thats why I try not to play.  I know where I ain't welcome:)

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#77)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    they want your money. Maybe they believe the lie that we can all be rich in the stock market. But it's still a lie. Have you not noticed that your government believes and says all sorts of things that are wrong?

    Parent
    Well yes (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    All the time right now.  But they did use my money to bail the market out and they still are.  So......the market owes none of us anything.....it is simply raping us now?

    Parent
    Bet your arse they owe... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    Sh*t the interest alone for all the shady floats from the Fed would boggle our minds...but good luck trying to collect.  

    If I could I'd sell that iou to a collection agency for 5 cents on the dollar...and feel lucky to get that:)

    Parent

    Precisely n/t (none / 0) (#76)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:50:16 PM EST


    Parent
    You don't have to give (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    comps back..

    ;-)

    The taxes come due at the back end.

    Parent

    It's not (none / 0) (#58)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:12:07 PM EST
    Where did you get the idea that it was? The 90s stock bubble, no doubt. rolls eyes

    Parent
    My grandfather had Mtn Bell (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    stock because he believed in their goal of a phone in every house.  Then we ended up with stock in all the baby bells and lots of juicey money from it that was actually worth something.  Oh the good ole days, when the market was made up of more than the Fed, the dollar was worth something, and nobody had brought the 401k game to the table yet where everyone just gives their money to Wall Street and doesn't make them actually accountable for anything.  I read that book too by that guy too in the 80's....who predicted that we were going to create a junk market by just giving people our money for no good reason....and we did and now it insists that it is too big to fail and we can't imagine a life without it.  But it is going down though because it is little more than a income tax deferred ponzi scheme now :)

    Parent
    Boy the way Glen Miller played .... n/t (none / 0) (#61)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:22:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey...I got to spend some of that money (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    It was real money, in hand, not make believe numbers that I will pay a big a penalty to see in real life when I want to :)  I'm sorry you never got to experience any of that.

    Parent
    If you think money today (none / 0) (#66)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:34:30 PM EST
    is just make believe numbers with no value then by all means send all your money to me. I'll be happy to take it off your hands.

    Parent
    I will not be sending you my gold (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    You have not been found worthy.

    Parent
    Just send the money (none / 0) (#71)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:43:21 PM EST
    you consider worthless, such as US dollars.

    Parent
    It was worthless (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:47:20 PM EST
    it became something worth something

    Parent
    So now (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    it's personal for you huh? Whatever happened to rational debate? Sad :(

    Parent
    Everything you say in this comment (none / 0) (#64)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:32:57 PM EST
    just confirms that the stock market isn't for the little guy. You complain that today the market is where everyone just gives their money to wall street and doesn't make them accountable, that we have created a junk market by giving ppl our money for no good reason, and that it's little more than an income tax deferred ponzi scheme. How does that refute my position that the stock market isn't for the little guy?

    Parent
    What I don't get is why it is so (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:37:02 PM EST
    important to you that the stock market not be for the little guy?  That is sort of weird and seems to be a personal goal of yours.  And hey, if that's your goal...run with it man...go for it.  This is a democracy though, so if the stock market can destroy all the little guys it is answerable to the little guys eventually and it seems to have made up its mind that it will revisit that reality the hard way.

    Parent
    It's not important to me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    that it not be for the little guy.

    Oh I get it you think I am some sort of elitist who doesn't want you in my market? LOL that's funny. I own no stocks whatsoever.

    Look, I'm just stating what I observe, that the stock market is a terrible place for the little guy to be. I never expressed any opinion of whether the stock market SHOULD be for the little guy too.

    Parent

    I have to add (none / 0) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    that this comment of yours shows you really do think it's unjust that the market is no longer for the little guy, contrary to your earlier denial.

    Parent
    If the little guy must bail the market out (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:53:39 PM EST
    it is theirs.  If the market can destroy the little guys it is answerable to them, it just doesn't think it is right now and somehow people have settled for being forced to bail out something that many seem to believe isn't for them because they don't "mean enough" in the big picture.  No wonder our fricken society is in decline right now in a huge way.  We really have all lost it.

    Parent
    Society (none / 0) (#81)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    is way more than just the stock market. Way more. The stock market has always destroyed the little guy. Have you not heard about what happened in 1929, for instance?

    Don't be so depressed over the state of the stock market, Tracy. Life is too short.

    Parent

    Okay Warren (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    Yeah...I heard about 1929.  I always go with what creates tangible wealth.  Back then my great grandfather was a bootlegger and he did really well.  When he bought the second ranch though that tipped off the feds...things were just going too well for him and they finally did catch him.  Then the markets were cleaned up and his son-in-law did well investing....so the stock market hasn't always destroyed little guys.  It isn't accountable to anyone though now and can't even take a default.  It's mostly just a pile of imaginary crap that some people still give money to for no real reason other than they have faith.  But almost everyone with a pension has their pension in there too in some form or another.  That's a lot of little guys

    Parent
    Please be accurate (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:05:47 PM EST
    I wrote:

    It's starting to look a lot like Stagflation!


    Parent
    The annual inflation rate (none / 0) (#62)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    is 1.1% It didn't jump 1.1% in December, and it's not looking anything like stagflation. You try being accurate for a change.

    Parent
    What is it about "look like" (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:00:21 PM EST
    that you don't understand??....and

    Is the Federal Reserve succeeding at raising inflation? The Producer Price Index (PPI) for finished goods rose by 1.1% in December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's the biggest increase since January. But most of the rise in prices was due to two types of goods: food and energy. That makes it a little more difficult to make any strong predictions about longer-term inflation trends

    Link

    Parent

    Yeah one month of data (none / 0) (#90)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:14:52 PM EST
    'looks like' stagflation to you because Obama is in the Whitehouse. If it was still Bush, you'd be here telling everyone that one month of data does not a trend make. Next.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    But I will say that when the Demos took over Congress in 2/2007.... gasoline was around $2.00...the market was around 12500....unemployment was around 4%....

    And things have gone down and down since...

    Sure wish we had some of those Georgie days back...

    ;-)

    And it is Jimmy "The Sweater" Carter I was thinking of...

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    it's always somebody else's fault isn't it? You might have point except name one time congress ever said no to Bush D or R? Never that i can recall.

    Bush's policies are what put in this mess but Obama has done little to nothing to solve the problems. He has continued the Bush policies on almost every front.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    I cut Bush no slack on his lack of getting more drilling started and his lack of nuke reactors.

    And I also cut him no slack for jamming reform of Fannie and Freddie through Congress over the complaints of Barney Frank. After all, he was the Prez.

    But the facts are we hired the Demos to do certain things in 2007 and then compounded the act by hiring Obama.

    You can't be in charge and blame the other side. If you couldn't fix it you should not have asked for the job.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:30:55 AM EST
    certainly NOT making any excuses for Obama in case you are wondering. I have said time and again that the mess that the country was in was KNOWN and if didn't have the moxie or experience to handle it he should not have run for president. I'm of the mind that the D party made a huuuge mistake nominating him.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:58:48 AM EST


    Parent
    They raised (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    our rates here in GA. Our house is now worth way less but our taxes went up. I live in a red district and no one complains when the GOP raises taxes it seems. They voted straight GOP last fall after the taxes were raised.

    Parent
    Tax rates almost always go up (none / 0) (#19)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    because costs go up, unless the schools and city hall and police stations and fire stations are supposed to work in the dark and find gas at a buck a gallon again, et.

    But that's different from assessment aka market value.

    Parent

    Then you see no (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    reason for taxes to stop increasing?

    Let me suggest one.

    The People have no more money.

    Parent

    Of course, taxes need not increase (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:29:08 PM EST
    if The People decide what goes.

    What stays will face the same increases as The People do in utilities and other overhead.

    So what goes?

    In my state, for example, the state university is going to continue to go downhill under the new (and very rightie and pro-business) governor and return to a rightie legislature.  A state that already had let funding for the state university slide for years, a state already below the average in college-educated citizens.  Now, I think that the state university is an investment that pays off for us.  And so do the citizens in poll after poll.

    But it is not really The People who decide; they elected The Governor and The Legislature backed by The Business Idiots who want more tax breaks, in a state that already ranks low in business taxes.  But they will get their way, and The People will not.  And The People will pay and pay and finally boot out The Governor and The Legislature.

    But The Business Idiots will remain in power to reign over the ruins . . . and still whine for more tax breaks, bet on it.  But are they willing to decide what they will give up?  Nope. They just decide what we The People will give up.  Or taxes go up.  One or the other.  It is what it is.

    Parent

    You might try looking at the years (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:47:11 PM EST
    of increases in tuition and the fact that the end product has not increased in value.

    Parent
    Well, first, you might tell me (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    how you define the "value."

    I'm guessing that you think that colleges and universities ought to be vocational schools.

    Parent

    I'm thinking that (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:00:50 PM EST
    a liberal arts degree isn't worth a lot in earning a living, even though it does yield a better educated person.

    The value of that person to society is open to debate. Which will circle around to who should pay what to keep these institutions going.

    In the meantime we are graduating too few engineers, scientists and doctors.

    I hope my Doctor has a degree in Medicine, not in English.

    Parent

    Join your local Tea Party (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    They managed to dis-elect several local Repubs after they raised our county tax rate.

    I think we will find that just as the Left demands primaries and works against disfavored Demos, the Tea Party does the same against Repubs.

    That some of the Repubs might be more favored by the Left than what the Tea Party wants is another story.

    Parent

    Not (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    here they didn't. They didn't even run a candidate for congress against Tom Price. They voted for all the same people they always vote for no matter how sorry they are or how bad things get. You have to understand that these people believe they are voting with Jesus so apparently this year they belive that Jesus wanted our taxes raised.

    The tea party candidate lost the gubernatorial race.

    Parent

    Here's the latest idiodicy (none / 0) (#120)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    from Tea Partiers, this time in TN, from TPAMMuckraker(dot)com:

    Tennessee's tea partiers are sick and tired of all the made-up criticism of our founding fathers -- and about schools spending too much time teaching about the "minority experience."

    Local tea partiers have presented state legislators with a list of "demands," that would alter school curricula to suppress the teaching of the "minority experience," elect a "state litigator," and, of course, reject Obama's health care reform legislation, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reports.

    On the education front, they're proposing that new textbook-selection criteria basically state that you can teach about minorities in history, just as long as it doesn't get in the way of teaching students about the majority or about how awesome the founding fathers were.

    "Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States," read documents distributed by the group. "We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government."

        No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.

    The group's other demands include amending the state Constitution so voters can elect the attorney general, and enforcing "constitutional law."

    Click or ignore Me

    Parent

    Meanwhile, Back At The Economy . . . | 130 comments (130 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment