Sorry to rain on your parade...

Can't get the link thing to work today, but jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week.

Georgia,
Sorry to rain on your misery, but new claims for unemployment compensation do not raise the level of unemployed in the country. The employment rate has continually risen this quarter, while unemployment has dropped.

The best news is the rise in productivity while hourly compensation has also gone up significantly. Tax cuts all around, I say!

Huh. Tax Cuts = Rising Economy = Increasing revenue to the Federal Governemnt. Who'd have thought? Oh yeah. Ronald Reagan!

Dems just can't handle the fact that the Bush economy just keeps on getting better and better.

Bush's poll numbers have gone up 5% in 10 days per a new Fox News/OD Poll reported a few minutes ago on tv. This confirms the Rasmussen reports polls showing his approval up 3% in about the same time period. Don't know any details about the polls, but its no doubt due to the booming economy, increased home values, and increasing stock assets. I bet a lot of people just got their quartelry 401k/IRA statements.

Strong sales in April due to warm weather and "hot" fashion trends? Is this all that you have to report about Bush? What next? "Nobody died in Iraq today"

Georgia

Does it rain over your head 24/7?

I've never seen a group of people (the left) more pathetically miserable all the time. Sad. Always defeatist, always finding something wrong somewhere.

Hey, Frawg, what did you read during your vacation -- "The Power of Negative Thinking"?

Seriously, Frawg, you've got to get out of the "glass half empty" mode.

"tax cuts all around" - whoohoo! after we'ver ripped through that surplus and racked-up the most impressive collection of debt this country and earth has ever witnessed, hell, "tax cuts all around"

because supply side stimulus really works! ha!

The Republican leaders may or may not pass their cut-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich budget. It takes a degree of political incompetence usually associated with Democrats for the side that wants to preserve the true spirit of Christmas to invite so many coal-in-the-stocking metaphors at this time of year.

But there is something more important about this failure. It marks the dead end of a worn, haggard argument that conservatives have been peddling for 30 years, ever since that energetic guru of supply-side economics, Jude Wanniski, published his first articles on the subject and his exciting 1978 manifesto, "The Way the World Works."

Supply-siders asserted that cutting taxes on the wealthy -- and especially on savings and investment -- would help everyone, including the poor, by promoting economic growth. Tax cuts would produce so much growth that they would pay for themselves. Since government programs were flawed, private investment was always more productive than government spending. And deficits, if they did come, need not worry us very much.

For many of us, this whole argument was always a highfalutin rationalization for giving the rich what they wanted, and often even more. Bill Clinton's economic policies should have definitively destroyed supply-side claims: Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and cut the deficit, and an exceptional period of economic growth followed.

But it took until this moment in 2005 for Republicans themselves to realize (even if many won't acknowledge it yet) that the help-the-wealthy, damn-the-deficits approach doesn't hold together, either as policy or politics. They are learning that the public doesn't buy the idea that cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains should take priority over providing health coverage and child care for struggling Americans. The tax cuts, it turns out, don't pay for themselves. The poor have not fared well since the big supply-side tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

And given how much Republicans want to spend on defense, farm subsidies, homeland security, roads, bridges, subsidies for energy companies, a flawed drug program for seniors and lots of other stuff, there's no way they can cut enough from programs for the poor to offset the costs of their tax giveaways.

As a result, the Republican Party is fracturing before our eyes. Moderate Republicans know these cuts in programs for the poor are unsustainable. Very conservative Republicans want to cut spending far more than the rest of the party (or its voters) will allow. Republican leaders tilt this way and that, juggling this tax cut with that spending cut. In the process, they alienate just about everybody. The old faith is dying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501439.html

hey bane - what's our national debt up to now? wait, that debt clock in times square is going to run itself into obsolescence once we hit 10 TRILLION FRIGIN DOLLARS because it will lack the necessary 14th digit to register.

"TAX CUTS ALL AROUND" - im laughing so hard it hurts.

A WaPo editorial from last December? You nattering nincompoops of negativity need to get a new hymnal, and you need a better financial guru than E.J. Dionne.

Tax cuts! Worked for JFKennedy, worked for Reagan, working for W.!

The tax cuts have been timely. The Clintune recession lasted only 9 months, the shortest recession ever. Since enactment of the second round of tax cuts in mid 2003, there are over 5.1 million new W-2 jobs. This stat. does not include independent contractors. New business formation is at the highest level ever, more people are working than ever before, construction spending is at the highest level ever, the stock market has gained over 2000 points and may be at the highest level ever in couple of months, and homeownership is at the highest level ever. Manufacturers are doing way better than they did under clintune, as is our exports. Finally, 70% of the American public believe they are just as well off/better off than they were when Bush took office.

sure, anyone can borrow themselves into a high-rolling, glam lifestyle... and that's precisely what we're doing. that's ok, we'll shovel it off to the next generation to worry about at a time when this country will have to raise interest rates so high (so that overseas creditors will continue to bankroll our profligate spending), the economy will be struggling just to stay out of a recession...

Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and cut the deficit, and an exceptional period of economic growth followed.

Bloviator, you can believe this if you want, but the numbers say something different. Donald Luskin had a great article at NRO back in January that puts the lie to your statement. Go read the whole thing, but the following is of particular note:

Using the same kind of analysis, we can see that attempts to raise tax revenues by raising tax rates simply doesn’t work. Consider the massive increase in personal income-tax rates imposed by President Clinton and a Democratic Congress in 1993. Compare actual total tax revenues for the four years from 1993 to 1996 to what had been estimated by CBO in 1992 before the tax hikes took effect. Despite increasing the top tax rate on incomes by 16 percent to 28 percent, actual revenues only beat the 1992 estimate by less than 1 percent.

So what led to the gusher of tax revenues in the late 1990s that helped to put the federal budget into surplus? Simple: It was the capital-gains tax cut engineered by a Republican Congress in 1997. (emphasis - mine) Compare actual total tax revenues for the three years from 1997 to 1999 to what had been previously estimated by CBO in January 1997. Despite cutting the capital-gains tax rate by 28 percent, actual total revenues beat the 1997 estimate by more than 11 percent.

These are the numbers. They don’t lie. It’s the Left that lies — just like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin did this week in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal when he said

The proponents of supply-side theory who assert that tax cuts will wholly — or even significantly — pay for themselves (through increased growth and federal tax revenues), appear to be no more accurate now than they were in the ’90s.

The numbers show that supply-side theory is accurate now and that it was accurate in the ’90s. With the latest evidence from the CBO in hand, as Daniel Clifton says, “It’s time to make the capital gains and dividend tax cuts permanent. Congress has no excuse at this point.”

I wonder if anyone here has noticed the fact that the dollar is down about 8-9% this year alone against all major currencies. What does that tell all of you armchair economists?

3moreyears,
Oil Prices.

Sorry Bane, wrong answer, it's also down 30-40% over the last 5 years. What could this mean?

As time passes there has been neither as sharp decline in the value of the US dollar, nor an effort by foreign markets to sell off dollar-dominated assets. The international value of the US$ is tied to oil as the $ is the most fungible of species. Once Iraq moved back form the Euro to the USD as its source of valuation for petrodollars, the USD stabilized against foreign currencies. With the tension between Iran and the US, rising oil prices have made the Euro look more attractive as the European countries that sponsor the Euro consume more oil than does the US. this results in the buying of Euros and selling of U$D.

One benefit of the dropping dollar is that the price of all other foreign goods increases making the purchase of these goods less desirable, closing the trade gap.

To quote economists Brad Delong, "In other words, the market is betting that the dollar will fall gradually in the next five years, and that the US current-account deficit will narrow without a financial crisis. That is what happened in the late 1980’s, and in the late 1970’s, too. After all, God, it is said, protects children, fools, dogs, and the United States of America. But the odds on a soft landing are lengthening with each passing day."

Besides, don't presume to correct me.

More bad news for the Demorats, they only lead by 3% in the generic ballot in the upcoming elections per Fox News/OD Report. This is a substantial decline. It looks like maybe +1/-1 change in the Senate either way for the Republicans. Several Demorat incumbent Governors appear very vulnerable - MI, WI, PA.

I think it has to do with judges and gas prices since Clintune vetoed drilling 10 years ago. Also, the economy is just too strong now.

Bane, your quote is assbackwards. The current account deficit is at an all time high. The slide has begun and will continue. I'm glab you like your dollars worth 40% less than they were but I don't. As far as presuming, you certainly presume to tell everyone that doesn't agree with you that they are idiots. Just returning the favor. That's all for now.

And if you knew that 80% of all stocks and bonds are owned by the top 10% of the population, you might realize no one cares except for rich white people.

The Euro was first valued in 1998 at .86:1, After hitting a low point of .73:1 in 2004, it is back to .79:1 as of today.
To make your 30-40% you'd have to pick an arbitrary point along the way where it hit it's high @ 1.21: in May of 2000.

"current account deficit is at an all time high"
Obviously you're just parroting what you were told without understanding what it means, and even if it doesn't apply to the current subject. Your question was on the valuation of the US dollar. The value is tied to oil prices.

Try a little research before you spout off like the fool you are.

steve,
The majority of stocks are held in mutual funds. The majority ofd bonds are held in retirement funds. The majority of your brain fits in a peanut shell. but, at least you won't wear it out from over use.

Heh, I love saying stuff to get reactions out of people.

Funny thing is, succession does not necessarily necessitate causation. There are other forces at work here other than tax cuts (Easter/Passover/Eastern Orthodox Christmas Holidays, bathing suit season, etc). I'm not saying that the tax cuts had no influence on Consumer Purchasing Power; I'm just saying that it is not the sole factor.

i defer to 3moreyears in answer to bane's gibberish.
dollar decline is tied to to the bloated current account. the only thing oil has to with it is that oil is a commodity trade in dollars. the threat of certain nations to trade on euro-denominated exchanges is a downside threat to the dollar. if foreign net creditors begin shifting reserves out of dollars and into euros, that would be the end of dollar dominance and its premium.

I leave for five minutes and the armatures take over.
Bloviator,
Your Wikpedia explanation ignores several key principles; first you assume that oil is just a commodity, it is the most valuable traded commodity. Because the US has the military and the demand the US dollar is the most fungible of all species. Oil prices are calculated based on the USD, increasingly the Euro is being used, in fact Saddam switched to Euros before the war, we switched Iraq back to dollars.
Either way, the issue of the exchange rate vs. the USD was addressed by Alan Greenspan said 2005; “As the dollar rose, gross operating profit margins of exporters to the United States increased even as trade and current account deficits in the United States widened markedly. But these deficits have continued to grow over the past three years despite a decline in the dollar, whose broadly weighted real index is now much of the way back to its previous low in 1995.”

Check the dollar valuation versus oil prices going back to 1972 (after we went off the gold standard) and you'll see the correlation.

Finally, foreign creditors haven't shifted out of dollars to Euros, so that point is moot. Although you cut and pasted the bulk of your sophomoric analysis, you must have missed the part the author put before and after the part you copied. Please be more careful.

Just in case either of the two (ha!) missed it, Greenspan blows your current account theory out of the park; As the dollar rose, gross operating profit margins of exporters to the United States increased even as trade and current account deficits in the United States widened markedly. But these deficits have continued to grow over the past three years despite a decline in the dollar.

3more,

Perhaps you might wish to explain why you are so concerned over the exchange rate.

Is it because you have planned a European vacation this year and now its gonna cost you more?

Perhaps you are pissed that the new Mercedes is now out of reach. Or is it that your Brie and Champagne addiction are costing too much now?

You wouldn't have to worry about these things if you bought American goods and services, and traveled within our borders.

In fact, if you were manufacturing products, you'd be pleased to know that your products are now more competative on the world market against their foreign competitors. They'd even be more competative on the domestic market, so you could hire more people, grow your profits and grow the economy.

So which is it, are you a limo liberal, or just a poor dumb student who is repeating what your socialist prof told you last week?

spook says: "seriously, Frawg, you've got to get out of the "glass half empty" mode."

Spook as Stephen Colbert said the glass is actually 1/3 full.

Hey Bane (and stop me if you've heard it) A priest, a lawyer, and a forensic accountant go into a bar............

And the accoutant said, "It's the principle!

All income that exceeds $100,000 should be taxed at 100%. The $11.3 trillion national debt should be paid down by the top 10% of income earners. All income under $36,000 should be tax free. The first $1 million of any estate should be tax free and every dime over that should be taxed at 100%. It is high time that wealth is Earned and Not Inherited. Peace

Damn. That's good!

"All income that exceeds $100,000 should be taxed at 100%. The $11.3 trillion national debt should be paid down by the top 10% of income earners. All income under $36,000 should be tax free. The first $1 million of any estate should be tax free and every dime over that should be taxed at 100%. It is high time that wealth is Earned and Not Inherited. Peace"

Steve...you obviously don't live in California. I support my family of four on a salary not much above that and we can barely own a house. You obviously are either a college student or high school kid that hasn't earned a red cent in his life to make such a ridiculous statement like anything above $100K should be taxed at 100%. You would CRUSH the economy and put good, decent people on the street with such stupidity.

As for your equally dumb statement earlier about only 10% of white people owning stocks and bonds. Uhm, over 50% of the nation now owns stocks and bonds in the form of IRAs, 401Ks, their pensions, regular mutual fund accounts, etc.

The days of the "investor class" are over. The majority of Americans now make up that "investor class".

I weep for liberals, I really do.

Warrior,
I actually heard a group of loopies propose the same thing in 1969. At the time I tried to figure out which month my father would stop working and shut down the factory because he'd made all he was going to make for the year.

Think about it; your lawyer quits working in the middle of your trial, he's made his $100.000 everything else goes to the government.

The schools principal quits in September, Congressmen take the rest of the year off in August, you doctor makes no appointments after July. But, steve will continue working, he can't make $100,000 on minimum wage.

Good theory, why didn't we think of it sooner?

The funny things about the debt is that it's in dollars. Just wait a few years as dollars become worhthless and we'll be able to pay it off in no time. This is why the government loves inflation and also why they lie about the real CPI. Tomorrow's dollar are much cheaper than today's.

"The Bush boom keeps booming"

Is it an economic boom or the sound of thunder approaching?

So, you’re saying that all these foreign countries purchased bonds (current account), and then they devalued the US dollar so we’d pay back less than we borrowed?
You’re an economic genius! tell the truth, you dropped out of grade school, didn't you?

So, you’re saying that all these foreign countries purchased bonds (current account), and then they devalued the US dollar so we’d pay back less than we borrowed?
You’re an economic genius! Tell the truth, you dropped out of grade school, didn't you?