| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2006 10:19:09 PM |
| Object: |
The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
From the article:
If we look at the behavior of key defense stocks, they show just how early
that the market may have begun to get wind of the Iraq War. They also show
that what's good for defense stocks is bad for the market in general, at
least in this episode. War was definitely not good for the economy in
general.
Lockheed Martin (LMT) hit 16.50 on March 14, 2000, but at that point it made
a bottom and began a strong climb that took it to 70 by mid-2002. (By the
time that the war actually began in March 2003, LMT was back around 50. It
has since rallied back to 64.)
---
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
by Michael S. Rozeff
Ask Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and William Kristol. Ask Colin Powell and
Condoleezza Rice and ***** Cheney and George Bush. Ask the American Congress.
They not only know how to extinguish vast amounts of American wealth, they
have done it by attacking Iraq. Of this there is little doubt. They get A+
in destruction of wealth. They are fully qualified to teach a course in any
university on the annihilation of wealth.
Sad to say, they are not the only rulers and would-be rulers in many lands,
past, present and future, who have been, are now, and will be summa *****
laude at Terminator College. But we are Americans, and these are our
homegrown leaders. They are ours, and we are theirs. They have pressed the
buttons of war and can press them again. The bombs they have launched at our
well-being deserve our immediate attention. Every American deserves to know
what the price of terrorist reduction in Iraq is.
Ask not what your leaders can do for the country; ask what they can do to
the country. Ask what they already have done to the country. Ask how many
more Saddams they'd like to take out. Ask what removing one Saddam has cost.
Sad to say, I do not refer to the lives lost, the bodies wounded, and the
minds scarred. As each day passes, these relentlessly add still more to the
toll of damage done. I refer to the dollars and cents values that are
reflected in markets for securities.
On the eve of the Iraq War that officially began on March 19, 2003 but had
actually been fired up two years earlier with aerial bombardments, three
researchers produced a paper estimating that the stock market had already
priced in the upcoming war with a decline of 15 percent in value. Leigh,
Wolfers, and Zitzewitz provided evidence that $1.1 trillion in value had
been shaved off the S&P 500 stocks because of the Iraq War.
On September 30, 2002, Gary North wrote: "War is bad for stock market
performance unless the war is clearly going to be short-lived. War transfers
purchasing power from private consumer markets to weapons markets." He
criticized Lawrence Lindsay's view that regime change in Iraq would drive
down oil prices and be good for the economy. (Mr. Lindsay was President Bush's
senior economic advisor.) North added: "The invasion may very well drive up
the price of oil because of the fear of regional de-stabilization."
The cost forecasts of Lindsay or any politician who favors war or any other
government program whatever can always safely be tossed aside. A politician
has no incentive to reveal the truth about costs, except that falsehoods
might lower his chance of re-election. By the time elections roll around,
the past words of incumbents are mostly drowned in a sea of noise, rhetoric,
and memory loss. The middle-of-the-road apathetic voter pays little
attention to promises broken or forecasts wildly violated. Given these
facts, politicians have an incentive to play down and conceal the costs of
any program.
Salmon P. Chase, who was Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, estimated the
dollar cost (to the North) of the War Between the States at $240 million.
Excluding pensions, the government's own estimate in 1879 was that the war
cost the North about $4 billion. Chase was only off by a factor of 17.
Estimates of Vietnam war costs were underestimated by orders of magnitude
because the planners did not foresee the war's length, among other things.
On the eve of the Iraq War, Lew Rockwell demolished "the longstanding canard
that war is good for the economy," pointing out that war "destroys capital,
in the same sense that all government spending destroys capital. It removes
resources from where they are productive - within the market economy - and
places them in the hands of bureaucrats..." He observed that "The prospect
of war is inhibiting recovery. The stock market is now at 1998 levels, with
five years of increased valuations wiped out."
How right both North and Rockwell were. Wars have to be paid for. They are
paid for through taxes and borrowing that leads to future taxes. The taxes
are direct reductions of the wealth of citizens. Having less to spend, they
purchase less. This shows up in lower revenues to the sellers of products,
such as corporations. This, in turn, shows up in decreases in the values of
these companies. The value declines show up primarily as declines in the
values of the stocks of these corporations. This means that war and its
accompanying taxes make stock prices decline. It means that the size of the
war costs can be measured by looking at the size of the declines in stock
prices.
What needs to be understood, emphasized, and underscored, what needs to be
seen as clearly as possible, are the reality and the mind-boggling size of
the wealth destruction that our leaders have caused Americans to bear. It is
not believable that most Americans, presented with a choice between spending
one trillion dollars or achieving the current status in Iraq, would have
chosen to spend that sum. One trillion dollars is 100 million $10,000 bills.
It is not believable that 100,000,000 families would have willingly given up
$10,000 each for the results so far achieved by the Iraq War. I wonder if 10
million or even 1 million families would have given up half that amount.
Where does this $1 trillion figure come from, and how can we be sure that it
is accurate? The answers involve new but straightforward ideas and
applications of finance.
Leigh, Wolfers and Zitzewitz (LWZ) made their wealth destruction estimates
by using a then-existing Saddam Security futures contract trading at
TradeSports.com. These securities, which traded between 18,000-31,000
contracts a month, were contingent upon the ouster of Saddam by future
dates. This was a market in the prediction that Saddam would be removed from
office. In other words, the contract traded in the prediction of another
Iraq War.
For those who are unfamiliar with betting, stock, prediction, and futures
markets, the pertinent facts are these. Speculative markets in general,
whether they be horse races, bets on crop yields, futures markets in gold,
or stock markets all allow individuals to trade upon and profit from
information they might have about future events and outcomes. Individuals
then have incentives to seek, collect, interpret and trade upon relevant
information. The traders who are better at these activities tend to make
money, while the worse speculators lose. Prices then come to reflect the
best information known by the most successful traders.
Because market prices aggregate diverse bits of information, the trading
process causes speculative prices to forecast the future more accurately
than other methods such as asking experts or taking polls. The Iowa
Electronic Markets trade in bets on election outcomes, for example. They
regularly beat voting polls. Studies of odds at horse races also show that
they accurately forecast the chances of horses winning.
Many investors do not appreciate the fact that markets are forward-looking.
Prices today impound forecasts of what might occur in the future. They
"discount" the future. Over 100 years ago, Charles H. Dow (of Dow-Jones
fame) in his book Scientific Stock Speculation wrote:
"The best way of reading the market is to read from the standpoint of
values. [The market] represents a serious, well-considered effort on the
part of far-sighted and well-informed men to adjust prices to such values as
exist or which are expected to exist in the not too remote future...The
thought with great operators is whether the value of property which they
propose to buy will lead investors and speculators six months hence to take
stock at figures ten to twenty points above present prices.
"In reading the market, therefore, the main point is to discover what a
stock can be expected to be worth three months hence and then to see whether
manipulators or investors are advancing the price of the stock toward those
figures...To know values is to comprehend the meaning of movements in the
market."
Dow's comments unlock one of the major secrets of the stock market. Those
"in the know" buy at wholesale with the intent of selling at retail "six
months hence," or at some point in the future. That point is when the good
news that they anticipated is made public. At that point, public buying
enters and takes the stock off the speculators' hands. This is why stocks
very often sell off on the announcement of (anticipated) good news.
Conversely, if bad news is anticipated, the speculators sell short. When and
if the bad news materializes and the public sells, the speculators can buy
(cover their short sales) at lower prices and profit. This is why stocks
sometimes rally on the announcement of bad news. Please note. Speculative
operations are far from foolproof.
LWZ compared the Saddam Security with oil prices and found that a 10
percentage point rise in the chance of ouster corresponded to a $1 rise in
oil prices. That meant that ouster implied a $10 oil price rise. Similarly,
they found that a 10 percentage point rise in Saddam's ouster chance lowered
the S&P 500 index by 1.5 percent, implying that his ouster would lower
prices by 15 percent, which translated into a $1.1 trillion loss to
shareholders.
William D. Nordhaus, a professor at Bush's alma mater, estimated in October
of 2002 that the war would cost anywhere from $121 billion to $1.6 trillion.
He used a variety of economic estimates. At present, estimates of
Congressional appropriations for the Iraq War are running about $231
billion.
Because of the market's ability to discount the future, much of the impact
of the Iraq War on stock market values occurred prior to the war's
beginning. The pre-war time frame is when LWZ analyzed the Saddam Security
and the S&P 500. This is when statements and actions by politicians and the
government began to tip off shrewd speculators to a war in the making. This
is the period when Washington insiders who possessed inside political
information, unavailable to the public, could speculate in their private
accounts. Knowing more surely than anyone else that a war was about to
occur, they could more confidently build larger positions in assets destined
to increase in price such as defense stocks or gold. They could buy put
options in order to bet on declines in stock prices.
To check up on LWZ's findings and the estimates of Nordhaus, I use a
traditional but different method than theirs. I directly examine the
relation between a few key political statements of Bush and his close
associates with changes in stock market values. This method is by no means
perfect, but it works. When done in more detail, it becomes the "event
study" found in many financial studies of the stock market. Jude Wanniski
used this method in his book The Way The World Works in order to argue that
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the stock market crash of 1929.
If we look at the behavior of key defense stocks, they show just how early
that the market may have begun to get wind of the Iraq War. They also show
that what's good for defense stocks is bad for the market in general, at
least in this episode. War was definitely not good for the economy in
general.
Lockheed Martin (LMT) hit 16.50 on March 14, 2000, but at that point it made
a bottom and began a strong climb that took it to 70 by mid-2002. (By the
time that the war actually began in March 2003, LMT was back around 50. It
has since rallied back to 64.)
The price patterns of Northrop Grumman (NOC) and General Dynamics (GD) are
very like that of LMT. GD reached its low on March 7, 2000 before commencing
a rise from 36 to a peak of 111 reached on June 24, 2002. NOC's low was on
March 2. LMT peaked out on June 27, 2002 and NOC peaked on June 19, 2002.
In all three cases, the lows of the stocks occurred in early March of 2000.
After each stock had more than tripled, each peaked out toward the end of
June of 2002. All three have since rallied back to the vicinity of their
2002 high prices.
While defense stocks were rising, the S&P 500 was falling. In fact, the high
for the index of over 1550 occurred in the third week of March 2000, in the
same month when the defense stocks were making their bottoms. What's good
for defense stocks was apparently bad for stocks in general. Furthermore,
the S&P 500 declined to a bear market low of about 780 in the third week of
July 2002, within a month of the tops made by the defense stocks.
Why did defense stocks top out in June of 2002? June/July of 2002 is the
time frame in which the knowledge of the decision to go to war against Iraq
began to be widely disseminated. This was the time when the bad news about
the war (and good news for the defense stocks) was coming out publicly, the
news that would propel the public to buy defense stocks. This was an
opportune time for speculators who had bought earlier in 2000 and 2001 in
anticipation of this good news to begin to liquidate their holdings. The
defense stocks sold off on their good news.
How do we know that the information about war was spreading at this juncture
and becoming publicly available? A cluster of events occurred. On June 1,
Bush addressed West Point and announced the preemptive war doctrine. On June
11, Rumsfeld was asked point blank at a press conference: "Are you planning
for a new war against them?" Another question was "Is it true, as we feel,
that the purpose of your visit is to gather support to topple Saddam Hussein's
regime?" Although he denied this, the questioners made clear that his strong
previous statements about Saddam had left the impression that war lay ahead.
On June 17, the New York Times wrote that the Bush administration was
codifying the preemption doctrine and that "Iraq is clearly first on the
target list." Reuters on June 20, after increased aerial bombardments in
Iraq, mentioned "speculation that the United States might be preparing to
invade Iraq..." Richard Haass, who was director of policy planning at the
State Department, says that he first learned that the war against Iraq was
definite in the first week of July: "The moment was the first week of July
(2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we
really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given
the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that
decision's been made, don't waste your breath. And that was early July." On
July 7, the Guardian reported on U.S. military activity in Jordan. Its
headline read: "US to attack Iraq via Jordan."
Why did defense stocks bottom out in March of 2000? How did the market begin
to learn that war was more probable? We need to review what Bush and others
said and the market's concurrent price action. We recognize that there are
innumerable events impinging on stocks, but if we examine enough statements
we see a pattern that can be explained by the information in these
statements.
On December 2, 1999, candidate Bush said he'd "take 'em out," referring, he
clarified, to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The stock market
rose about 0.5 percent that day. This goes against our hypothesis.
On February 11, 2000, Bush said "...there won't be any weapons of mass
destruction left in Iraq if I'm the commander in chief..." The market closed
down about 2 percent that day.
On May 17, 2000, Bush reportedly told a group of Republicans of his
intention to take out both Saddam and Iraq. The market closed down about 1
percent that day.
On Sept. 29, 2000, the Bush-Cheney Comprehensive Energy Policy referred to
ominous Iraqi threats to oil. The market closed down about 1.7 percent that
day.
In a debate on October 11, 2000 (after the market close), Bush said that the
coalition against Saddam had "fallen apart or it's unraveling..." He said
Saddam had better not be developing WMD or there'd "be a consequence..."
Bush was at that point in a comfortable lead over Gore. The market fell that
day and the next, a total of about 3.6 percent.
In retrospect, the evidence is quite one-sided. During the year 2000,
defense stocks were rising as the probability of war against Iraq was
rising. The speculation was also a bet that Bush would win the election.
Speculation is not a sure thing. According to the Iowa Electronic Market
history, Bush pulled ahead early and, after some wild fluctuations in
September in which he was seen as a loser, regained the lead and kept it
through the election.
In February of 2001, at the onset of the Bush administration, the pace of
public war-relevant statements and activities picked up. We also now know
that during this month the administration drafted secret plans for the war
and that the National Security Council's first meetings focused on war
against Iraq. Therefore, both Washington insiders and speculators attuned to
political news were recognizing that war lay ahead. Here's the
documentation.
The stock market rose on only 6 trading days in February. It fell on 13. The
decline for the month came to about 9.5 percent.
In particular, on Feb. 1 and again on Feb. 4 Powell said Saddam threatened
his neighbors with WMD. On February 15, Woolsey said that Iraq may have been
involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center. On Feb. 16, both U.S. and
British planes attacked Iraqi targets outside the no-fly zone. The market
dropped about 2.4 percent that day alone. On Feb. 20, Admiral Quigley said
that the bombings would continue. The President on Feb. 22 said that he had
been spending a lot of time on the Persian Gulf, that Saddam should be
peaceful, that the sanctions were not working, and that the bombing was a
message to Saddam. Between Feb. 15 and Feb. 23, the market dropped over 6
percent.
Lest the influence of these war-related statements be thought to be
coincidence, there were two occasions during this important month and
another in March when administration officials made statements that lowered
the odds of war and on all three occasions the market rose. On Feb. 11 with
the market closed, Rumsfeld said that Saddam was not a nuclear threat and
Powell said Saddam was much weaker. The next day, stock prices went up
somewhat over 1 percent. On Feb. 24 (market closed), Powell said that Saddam
had no significant WMD capability. The next day of trading saw stock prices
rise well over 2 percent. On March 6, Powell said that the sanctions would
prevent Saddam from acquiring a WMD capability (implying no war would be
necessary). The market rose about 1 percent that day.
If war statements and stock price movements were unrelated, the odds are
close to zero that we would observe so many instances when more likely war
news appeared with market declines and less likely war news appeared with
market rises.
The main alternative to explain the large February decline is economic news.
On November 26, 2001, the NBER dated March, 2001 as the crest of a business
cycle peak. It is possible that the stock market decline in February of 2001
was partly due to the recession that was starting. However, prices had
already moved down from the 1530 level to the 1350 level, a drop of 12
percent, over the prior 5 months. As part of its usual discounting
capability, the stock market typically declines in advance of recessions by
a few months. Charles Dow in 1900 thought that the market looked ahead 3-6
months. Of course, in the months to follow, defense stocks continued to rise
and the stock market continued to decline, even as the recession deepened
and war became more likely.
Although the stock market is difficult to interpret because of its
forward-looking capacity and the multiplicity of information that affects
it, the evidence in this case clearly supports economic logic. War destroys
wealth. The Iraq War destroyed immense wealth. The trillion dollar estimate
made by Leigh, Wolfers, and Zitzewitz, predicated on a 15 percent drop in
the S&P 500 and derived from consideration of futures prices, is supported
by my direct examination of stock prices. When Bush the candidate made
statements that enhanced the chance of war and when Bush the President and
his men made statements, initiated plans, moved troops into Jordan, and
bombed outside the no-fly zone, stock prices dropped. Their actions are
associated with drops in prices that cumulate to over 15 percent by March
2001.
Our leaders not only annihilated a large portion of Iraq, the Iraqi people,
and the Iraqi economy, but they also annihilated American wealth to a
surprisingly large degree.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff57.html
--
Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and
German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in
some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago, those
who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so
because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and
individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to
achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
| User: "Arizona Bushwhacker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
07 Jan 2006 02:05:22 AM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
The war on drugs!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 10:53:10 PM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 10:49:40 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit society,
war doesn't. War drains economic, educational, infrastructure resources etc.
While social programs bring health, education, lower prison populations,
etc.
War, suffering, hate, etc., are what you fascists are all about.
--
fascism: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme
right, TYPICALLY THROUGH THE MERGING OF STATE AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP,
together with a belligerent nationalism.
The American Heritage Dictionary
copyright 1973
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 10:59:46 PM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b64ac$43bf4862$4e3c9aa$28354@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit society,
Liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 10:55:11 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11rui7v2dt6muaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b64ac$43bf4862$4e3c9aa$28354@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit society,
Liar
That's why you cut my post and then offered a sissy slap in reply. LOL!! SOP
for a neo-fascist.
--
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when
it deserves it." -Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 11:26:17 PM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3534c$43bf49ae$4e3c9aa$28385@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11rui7v2dt6muaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b64ac$43bf4862$4e3c9aa$28354@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American
Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit
society,
Liar
That's why you cut my post
I cut your post because it was pure garbage. Not a post based on facts, but
a post from your dnc masters spouting ***** leftist propaganda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 11:58:37 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11rujpn7iim6f98@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3534c$43bf49ae$4e3c9aa$28385@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11rui7v2dt6muaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b64ac$43bf4862$4e3c9aa$28354@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American
Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit
society,
Liar
That's why you cut my post
I cut your post because it was pure garbage. Not a post based on facts,
but
a post from your dnc masters spouting ***** leftist propaganda.
No you cut it because you're a sleazy fascist who believes that making
baseless accusations with demonizing propaganda to back it up proves your
point.
Behold fascist the high levels of social spending in Denmark, Finland,
Norway and Sweden:
UNICEF states that although the U.S. is still the wealthiest country on
Earth, with income levels higher than any other country, it also has one of
the highest incidences of child poverty among the rich, industrialized
nations. Denmark and Finland have child-poverty levels of less than 3
percent, and are closely followed by Norway and Sweden, thanks to higher
levels of social spending. In the U.S., 17 percent of children live in
poverty.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0104-24.htm
--
The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million
last year (2003), while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million,
the Census Bureau reported Thursday (August 27, 2004).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/
--
The number of uninsured Americans increased by 5 million over the past four
years and the government announced last month that Medicare premiums will
increase in January by a record amount in dollar terms of $11.60 per month.
http://tinyurl.com/5alrj
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deaf Power" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 11:20:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 20:26:17 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3534c$43bf49ae$4e3c9aa$28385@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11rui7v2dt6muaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b64ac$43bf4862$4e3c9aa$28354@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American
Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit
society,
Liar
That's why you cut my post
I cut your post because it was pure garbage. Not a post based on facts, but
a post from your dnc masters spouting ***** leftist propaganda.
DNC masters? Must be RNC's voice telling you it's from DNC masters.
--
A vote for republican is a vote for fascism!
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "salad" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers'pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 11:14:47 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11rui7v2dt6muaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b64ac$43bf4862$4e3c9aa$28354@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ruhrjkqe9pk7e@corp.supernews.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
For a clueless lockstepper like yourself social programs benefit society,
Liar
That's why you cut my post and then offered a sissy slap in reply. LOL!! SOP
for a neo-fascist.
Dana doesn't remember the financial malaise in the US after the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deaf Power" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
06 Jan 2006 11:05:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:53:10 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403c$43bf413f$4e3c9aa$28210@DIALUPUSA.NET...
How Did the U.S. Government Annihilate $1 Trillion of American Wealth?
Social welfare programs.
How compassionate of you.
--
A vote for republican is a vote for fascism!
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush cabal enriches war profiteers while picking taxpayers' pockets. |
07 Jan 2006 01:04:35 AM |
|
|
The Bush Economy: Low Wages, Low Standards
While we all hope that the economy will strengthen, the White House's
all-out PR effort today on the economy fails to recognize how
historically weak both wages and job growth have been. Most Americans
have good reason to believe the economy is not working for them. We
should not lower our standards to the point where our leaders can state
that our economy is doing great when the typical worker has seen his or
her wages drop in real terms over the last four years and when job
growth is at historic lows for this stage of a recovery.
A more candid assessment of the December jobs and earnings report -
and the full 2005 job record - would recognize the following 3
points.
1=2E The Unemployment Rate Would Be 6.6% if As Many People Were Looking
for Work Today as Were When President Bush Took Office.
There are two reasons that unemployment rate can drop: one, because job
growth is strong, or two, because fewer people are looking for work.
Unfortunately, the entire story of the unemployment rate's drop to
4=2E9% has been Americans falling out of the labor market.
In January 2001, 67.2% of Americans were working or looking for work.
If that number had held, there would be an additional 2.7 million
people looking for work and the unemployment rate would be 6.6%-1.7%
above its official mark.
We saw this effect in December, where the unemployment rate dropped
thanks largely to the labor force shrinking by 30,000 workers.
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm)
2=2E Both Average Real Weekly and Average Real Hourly Wages were Down in
2005 - and Indeed are Down for the 4 years Since the End of the
Recession.
Though we only have inflation adjusted wage data through November 2005,
the tiny increase in December average weekly wages from $550.60 to
$550.66 makes clear that real weekly wages will be down for 2005. It
will still be the case that real weekly and hourly wages will be down
over the 4+ years since the recession ended in November 2001.
=B7 For 2005, average real weekly wages fell, at least 0.7% from
$554.47 in to $550.66 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm)
=B7 For 2005, average real hourly wages fell even further, at least
1=2E0% from $16.45 to $16.34.
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm)
(Both declines could be even worse once inflation numbers for December
are released on January 18th)
3=2E The Rate of Job Growth for the Fourth Year of a Recovery is the
Weakest it has Been Since the 1930s.
=B7 The rate of job growth during 2005 - about the fourth year of the
recovery - was the weakest of any comparable period since the 1930s.
In 2005 (months 38-49 of the current recovery), total employment grew
just 1.5%. In months 38 through 49 of recoveries this length since the
1930s, employment growth averaged more than twice that rate: 3.1%.
While the economy added 2.0 million jobs - in some cases a sound year
- it represented a weak rate, as mentioned above, for a fourth year
of a recovery. Indeed, since the economy had net job loss for 2002 and
2003 combined, the labor market needed more robust job growth to make
up for this unusual period of job loss. The job growth in 2005 is
therefore, particularly unimpressive in the context of such a weak
first two years of job performance in this recovery.
=B7 The Job Growth Since the 2003 Tax Cut is Also the Weakest for this
Stage of the Recovery Since the 1930s. The White House continues to
boast about job growth since its last tax cuts. In a speech early last
month, Bush argued that cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains
encouraged "job creating investment" that helped the economy add
"four and a half million new jobs." This morning the White House
used the same mark to herald the 4.6 million jobs created since May
2003. Yet, a real look beyond the talking points shows that this is
really nothing to brag about. The 4.6 million jobs during this 31 month
period represents only 150,000 jobs a month - or 3.6% rate. That is
half the average rate of job growth for similar periods in recoveries
since the 1930s-the worst ratefor such periods on record.
Posted by Gene Sperling 1/6/06 [Guest blogger and American Progress
senior fellow Gene Sperling was President Clinton's National Economic
Adviser.]
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/06/low-wages-standards/
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?cid=3D{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-=
5D6FF2E06E03}&bin_id=3D{0EE1C724-0C61-4D41-B660-FB061C28644C}
The Straight Truth About the Bush Economy
In evaluating President Bush's recent speeches aimed at talking up
the economy to the 63% of Americans who view it as either "bad,"
"very bad," or "terrible,"
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=3D10000087&sid=3DaBG8iYRJTHlI&refer=
=3Dtop_world_news)
I would describe the different parts of his speech as
"appropriate," "unwise," and "downright misleading."
I think it is appropriate for the President to want to tell the 43% of
the public that thinks that we are in an actual recession
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=3D10000087&sid=3DaBG8iYRJTHlI&refer=
=3Dtop_world_news)
that we have had solid GDP and investment growth over the last couple
of years. I also think it is appropriate for the President to honor our
nation's entrepreneurs, to remind people that globalization has
upsides as well as downsides, and to take an optimistic tone in
discussing the future.
I think it is unwise, however, to fail to acknowledge that much of the
pessimism in the economy is not, as I wrote last August
(http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=3D10000039&refer=3Dcolumnist_sper=
ling&sid=3Dag.ujNZ.MUjo),
a mystery we need Sherlock Holmes to solve. As Paul Krugman put it so
well in his Monday column, "Americans don't feel good about the
economy because it hasn't been good for them."
(http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=3Dhttp://select.nytimes.com/200=
5/12/05/opinion/05krugman.html&OQ=3DnQ3DTopQ252fOpinionQ252fEditorialsQ2520=
andQ2520OpQ252dEdQ252fOpQ252dEdQ252fColumnistsQ252fPaulQ2520Krugman&OP=3D56=
e8931aQ2F-Q5D4Q2F-Q24KvmmQ24-Q2All(-IQ2A-l(-mtYgYmg-l(yvkxqCgXQ3AQ24qe)
But it's downright misleading to ignore the economy's weaknesses so
the White House can falsely claim their fiscally reckless tax policy is
an unequivocal success. When it comes to economic policy, President
Bush is like the football coach with a 4-12 record who wants to tell
you how his strategy has led to the four victories while pretending he
has had an immaculate season. So if the President wants to claim his
tax cuts have been the primary cause of our current economic
performance since the end of the recession in November 2001, here are a
few more economic facts he might want to consider.
WAGES
American families have consistently seen their incomes decline during
the Bush Presidency-even when calculating only from the end of the
last recession.
=B7 Real hourly earnings are down in the four years since the last
recession-from $16.41 in November 2001 to $16.29 in October this
year. [Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Adjusted to October 2005
dollars]
=B7 Real weekly wages are down in the four years since the last
recession-from $557.44 in November 2001 to $550.60 this October. This
is the first time on record real weekly wage growth have been negative
this long after a recession. [BLS]
=B7 Since the 2003 tax cut, real hourly wages have fallen 2.2% and real
weekly wages have fallen 1.6%. [BLS]
=B7 Real median household income has fallen each year Bush has been in
office and by nearly $1,000 since the recession 2001 [U.S. Census
Bureau, Income Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2004, Aug. 2005, Table A-1.]
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
The President focused on job creation in both recent speeches, but
employment growth in the current recovery has been the weakest on
record.
=B7 Monthly private employment growth has averaged a meager 59,700 per
month even excluding the last recession and the months leading into
it-the weakest monthly average for any recovery of this length. [BLS]
=B7 The 4. 5 million job growth in the last two and a half years that
the President brags about is weak by historical standards. In the last
three recoveries, the economy created 7.9 million jobs during the
corresponding 30 month period-3.4 million jobs more than we've seen
in the last two and a half years-even with a smaller workforce and
smaller population. [BLS]
=B7 The only reason the unemployment rate has fallen to 5% is that a
smaller share of the population is working or actively seeking work
today compared to before the recession. If labor force participation
were as high today, as it was before the recession the unemployment
rate would be 6.6%-1.6 points higher than today's official number
[BLS]
=B7 Indeed, this is the first time on record that portion of the
population holding a job is down 48 months after the end of a
recession.
POVERTY
After seeing enormous gains in the fight against poverty under
President Clinton, the poverty rate has risen each of Bush's years in
office, as an additional 5.4 million people have fallen into poverty
since 2000. [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-1]
=B7 The poverty rate has risen each year since the end of the
recession-from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.7% last year as 4 million people
fell into poverty. [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-1]
=B7 African American poverty has also jumped-from 22.7% in 2001 to
24.7% in 2004 as nearly 1 million (864,000) African Americans have
fallen under the poverty line. [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-1]
=B7 Child poverty rate is on the rise-jumping from 16.3% in 2001 to
17.8% in 2004. As 1.3 million children under 18 have fallen into
poverty [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-2]
=B7 This is the only recovery on record where poverty increased from
the second to third year after the recession. [Census, Aug. 2005, Table
B-1]
SAVINGS
Though incomes have fallen, consumer spending growth has continued to
propel the economy. Unfortunately, this combination has pushed the
personal savings rate to historic lows, debt burdens to historic highs,
and exacerbated our already unsustainable current account deficit.
=B7 The personal savings rate has plummeted this year, hitting -2.18%
in August-a level not seen since the Great Depression. [Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA)]
=B7 Americans now pay a record 13.6% of their disposable income to
service their debt. Since we've had to borrow at record rates to
spend beyond our means, debt burdens have risen considerably. [Federal
Reserve]
=B7 Thanks in part to our recent fiscal deterioration, net national
savings have dropped from 4.9% when Bush took office to -1.0% last
quarter- its lowest level since the Great Depression. [BEA]
The transition from budget surpluses to budget deficits was a major
factor in this shift to dissavings. In January 2001, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) projected a more than $5 trillion 10 year surplus.
Today, Goldman Sachs predicts a $5 trillion cumulative deficit over the
next 10 years. They cite the extension of the tax cut as the "single
biggest factor underlying" that prediction.
=B7 The current account has deficit exploded-hitting a record $199
billion in the first quarter this year and on pace to top $800 billion
this year. [BEA, Global Insight Inc. projection in Greg Hitt, "Trade
Gap Eases, but Deficit Poised to Break a Record," The Wall Street
Journal, 9/17/05]
=B7 We now have to borrow about $3 billion
(http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050919-mon.html)from
abroad every business day to support our habits.
While President Bush may be trying to claim that everything positive in
the economy is due to his tax policies, I don't want to commit the
same error by trying to tie everything negative to the
Administration's choices. But on the other hand, four years of
declining wages, rising poverty and weak job growth is hardly strong
validation for a tax policy that has significantly contributed to the
largest fiscal deterioration in our nation's history.
Posted by Gene Sperling December 7, 2005
http://thinkprogress.org/author/gene-sperling/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
