Fri
Feb 9 2007
11:13 am

A new survey shows consumer confidence at a recent high:

Consumers’ economic outlook has skyrocketed during the past month, as seen in the RBC Expectations Index, which stood at 83.8 in January, a dramatic increase from December’s 55.0. This month’s index score represents the strongest level of optimism for future conditions in more than two years (in October 2004, the Expectations Index stood at 95.3).

An analyst says "This increase is likely derived in substantial part from the takeover of the new Congress," but also "likely stems from the continued tight labor conditions, evidenced by the current low unemployment rate of 4.5 per cent."

But then there's this:

The Commerce Department reported Thursday [Feb. 1] that the savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, meaning that not only did people spend all the money they earned but they also dipped into savings or increased borrowing to finance purchases. The 2006 figure was lower than a negative 0.4 percent in 2005 and was the poorest showing since a negative 1.5 percent savings rate in 1933 during the Depression.

For December, consumer spending rose a solid 0.7 percent, the best showing in five months, while incomes rose by 0.5 percent, both figures matching Wall Street expectations.

I guess it sort of correlates.

mpower1952's picture

Who are these people?

I think this reflects my belief that there are a lot of really stupid (uneducated?) people in this country. Who are these people? Are they the poor, middle class, rich?

Yes, I feel more confident since the Dems took over Congress, but the money situation is not something they can fix in one or two years. We will be digging ourselves out of this Bush created hole for a generation.

Be a blessing to someone today.

Joe Taylor's picture

Economy

I hate to remind you but, most of the great expansions of our economy have come as direct result of tax decreases... even JFK knew this and reduced taxes...

so you better hope that the "dems"... keep taxes low... because if the raise taxes they will kill our economy...

R. Neal's picture

The top individual rate was

The top individual rate was over 90% and the corporate rate was over 50% when JFK proposed tax cuts.

Joe Taylor's picture

Economy

And thank you for making my point what about all the previous "dems" who did not lower taxes...

We need to lower taxes even more... to keep our economy moving

the more $$$ available to invest, start and employee people the better off all of us will be

rikki's picture

economy, stupid

You are describing an indirect relationship between tax cuts and economic expansion, not a direct relationship. That investment and innovation piece in the middle makes it indirect.

Deficit spending is a good way to boost the economy, don't you think?

Some of us are not as worried about killing the economy as about not killing more American soldiers. We have enough faith in the industry and ingenuity of Americans that we figure the economy will do fine if we hold off on tax cuts until our troops come home. Why do you believe the economy is so fragile?

Joe Taylor's picture

Economy

I don't think the economy is fragile...

I think the economy is doing great... I have made more money and my family is more financially secure under President Bush than it was under Bill Clinton... I just believe we should not raise taxes...

If someone wants to get out and work there are numerous opportunities to advance in today market than previously...

When small businesses owners are hit with higher taxes it takes away their ability to grow and expand their business which usually results in not hiring more employees...

I believe I read a fact that the largest sector for new job growth is with small businesses... and if we punish them with increased taxes, job growth in this country will stop, unemployment will grow and the economy will turn sour...

Andy Axel's picture

[sigh]

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Joe Taylor's picture

Economy

Joel, welcome to the site...

If you think your staff lost their jobs because Clinton left office... you are sadly mistaken... maybe it was mismanagement or something else... I don't know... but I am glad you have bounced back...

Let's remember one thing... Congress answers to the people... we put them in and we can take them out...

If this Congress starts messing with people’s pockets a.k.a. higher taxes... the people will vote them out too...

Sven's picture

most of the great expansions

most of the great expansions of our economy have come as direct result of tax decreases

The reality is a lot more complicated. The consensus among right-leaning economists* like Fed chairman Ben Bernake is that if you cut taxes and if you cut spending by a nearly equal amount, you will see a slight improvement in economic growth. (As left-leaning Keynes demonstrated, you can get an even bigger bang for the buck if you increase social spending, but plan to pay down the debt before it becomes a drag on capital markets - but that's another story).

However, if you cut taxes and increase spending - and Bush and the GOP congress did both to an unprecedented degree - you will eventually dramatically decrease growth. That's because you inevitably have to raise taxes significantly more than you cut them to make up the cost of borrowing. At the same time you also have to cut spending, which also slows economic growth.

The GOP has given us the worst of both worlds, and we'll eventually - and inevitably - have to pay the piper. So live it up while you can...until the Chinese come to collect your debt.

* As opposed to supply-side snake-oil salesmen who claim you can pay for tax cuts exclusively through increased revenues from economic expansion. This has not happened anywhere on Earth in human history.

Joe Taylor's picture

Worst of Both Worlds?

Worst of both worlds?

Cut taxes good...

increase spending to defend our freedoms good...

increase spending for social stuff iffy...

oh by the way... President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill which does not make me happy because I do not agree with a number of the new social programs...

ultron's picture

"oh by the way... President

"oh by the way... President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill which does not make me happy because I do not agree with a number of the new social programs..."

Wow! Good for you! Does that make you a fiscal conservative?

I'm all for cutting government spending, starting with various defense spending sinkholes/boondoggles. That's where the real fat lies.

Andy Axel's picture

I do not agree with a number

I do not agree with a number of the new social programs...

Like giving 364 tons of $100 bills to Halliburton?

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Sven's picture

Worst of both worlds? Ok, I

Worst of both worlds?

Ok, I should qualify that. It's only bad if you live in this universe, where the big number on a credit card statement is a liability and not an asset.

increase spending for social stuff iffy...

Regardless of your ideological views on social spending, basic principles of economics tell us putting more money in the hands of the most people possible increases growth more than putting it in the hands of fewer people through regressive tax cutting. This does not mean the government does not have to be careful about when it increases deficit spending for social programs - it does little good if the economy is already humming.

rikki's picture

pathetic idealism

increase spending to defend our freedoms good...

Sure, if that spending is in control and actually serves the intended purpose. If what you actually buy is a tenfold increase in the number of people willing to die fighting America and it costs ten times more than it should because you're handing out paper money by the pound to pay non-existent Iraqi police is it still good?

What I'm actually asking is when are you right-wing idealists going to stop arguing from principle and start paying attention to reality?

Joe Taylor's picture

pathetic idealism

First no one put me up to this...

Second, when are you left wing pathelic idealists going to realize this country was founded by men and homen who have fought and died for our freedoms and our ability to governor ourselves...

and your name calling and shouting at people who believe that our governement should not control every aspect of our lives is wrong on your part...

we the citizens should not depend on the government to "take care of us" we should take care of ourselves...

If you do not like your place in life... change it!! Just don't ask me to pay more taxes so the government can take care of you...

S Carpenter's picture

Conversation vs. Name calling

Hi Joe,

You said, "your name calling and shouting at people who believe that our governement should not control every aspect of our lives is wrong on your part..."

Where did anyone shout or call you a name in this thread?

And I'm not saying that you called anyone a name since "...you left wing pathelic idealists..." isn't that insulting, I think. What's pathelic mean?

Sincerely,
SC

Andy Axel's picture

men and homen who have

men and homen who have fought and died for our freedoms and our ability to governor ourselves...

Fite eliterassee!

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

I'll pile on...

Joe, Comment #1: "I have made more money and my family is more financially secure under President Bush than it was under Bill Clinton..."

I sure haven't made more money under the Bush administration. WRT to the stock market, I recall an eight-year rocket-thrust climb during the Clinton years, when every grocery checker and newspaperboy in America was buying no-load mutuals! Although a great many folks lacked much business acumen to guide their decisions, it seemed that their 20-25% returns were virtually guaranteed! I certainly hopped on board, too (and my decision to do so afforded me acreage and a house I hadn't previously imagined I could afford). Where were you?

What's more, there've been an awful lot of studies detailing the wider (and accelerated) rift between rich and poor in this nation since inception of Bush's economic and tax policies. I'll look for a pithy link in a minute.

Joe, Comment #2:"...this country was founded by men and homen who have fought and died for our freedoms.."

Here, I'd distinguish between genuinely defensive measures and offensive ones (and leave it to others to comment on the Bush administration's motives). This Bush agenda reliant on the dubious (and scary) platforms of "premptive war" and "exporting democracy," smokescreens, both, I feel, are brand new to our public policy vernacular. I'm hugely skeptical of both notions. I say no parallel here.

rikki's picture

little baby boo boo

Does Joe need his diaper changed? You used a single word in the title of my post as an excuse to ignore the entire content and issue an emotional rant. I'll assume that's because you have no intellectual defense for yourself and had to come up with something.

I realize who founded this country every time I look at my family tree. My ancestors were here more than a century before this country existed, so after you change your diaper, you can shove your scoundrel's patriotism up your ass and see if it might prevent the need for another diaper change.

Also, you are the one who wants the government to take care of you by spilling blood and dollars in Iraqi sand and Afghan caves, so your self-sufficient spirit seems a bit soft and runny, like a Yale cheerleader's pledge to capture or kill bin Laden.

Now go back and address the content of my post. Or, if a phrase like "pathetic idealism" is more than you can bear, go back to kindergarten.

Rachel's picture

Me too

I realize who founded this country every time I look at my family tree. My ancestors were here more than a century before this country existed, so after you change your diaper, you can shove your scoundrel's patriotism up your ass and see if it might prevent the need for another diaper change.

Amen to that. I am so tired of small-minded people telling me what my ancestors fought and died for. Believe me, I know.

My great-great-great-great-great grandfather Robert Craig served in the Revolutionary Army. He commanded the fifth company of militia in the Third Battalion and was at the battle of Brandywine in September, 1777. He also participated in the campaign in New Jersey. He was a member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly for the year 1784.

My great-great-great grandfather William Walker was a Capt. of the East Tennessee Volunteers in the War of 1812. He was with John Sevier in Alabama when Sevier died in 1815, and gave Sevier a military funeral (later they dug Sevier up and reburied him in Knoxville).

My great-great grandpappy J.W. Ventis was in the Union Army in the Civil War.

My grandfather J.C. Quarles, Sr. fought in Europe in World War I.

My dad was a senior in high school when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. As soon as he graduated, he joined the Navy, and served in World War II.

And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. I know exactly what they fought for, and what they were defending.

I'm sure I'm not unique either. A lot of liberals have ancestors and family members who have served their country in the military. Some - gasp! - have even served themselves.

So I'm with Rikki. Take your faux patriotism and stick it.

Joe Taylor's picture

So Predictable

You guys are too easy... you are making my point... someone offers a point of view counter to yours and you have to start the name calling... questions someone mental ability and on and on...

The problem I see is you want to blame someone else for your financial short comings... no one wants to take responsibility for their place in life... like I said before if you don't like you place in life today do something about it...

You mentioned the mutual funds and stock market under Clinton... what a joke... the NASDAQ is still half of what it was when it collapsed due to lack of oversight by Clinton who allowed the run up due to smoke and mirror tech companies... want have done for all the folks who lived high on the hog with artificially inflated tech stocks...

You talk about medical cost... I would rather have our current medical/healthcare system in the private sector than any government operated system... my sister whose husband is in the army has a 18 monthly little girls who need to see a specialist and it could be up to 6 months before an appointment is available.... government healthcare sounds great to me... you know what we are going to do... I am going to help my sister get and pay for an appointment with a specialist outside of the government system of healthcare... you want to know why... because that is what family and communities do... we take care of our own...

So will you guys wine and cry about how unfair our country is... quit blaming our country and go work harder and smarter and make a better life for yourself and your family...

take responsibility for yourself... work hard and spend wisely... if you don't have the cash don't go out for dinner and pay by credit card... set a budget and live with it... too many people just say charge and we will worry about paying for it later...

Life it tough... suck it up and make it better...

redmondkr's picture

.. my sister whose husband

.. my sister whose husband is in the army has a 18 monthly little girls

If I might make a friendly suggestion, Joe

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

Joe Taylor's picture

Typos

OK I will admit my last post has a few typos... it is late and I am tried... goodnight all

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Joe: "So will you guys wine

Joe: "So will you guys wine and cry about how unfair our country is... quit blaming our country..."

Your post seems mostly a laundry list of personal accusations about people I don't believe you know, including me, so I won't honor those ramblings with any comment.

I will comment, though, on your assertion that people in this conversation are somehow "blaming our country" when we cite public policy that we believe needs tweaking. And that comment is: We're citing public policy that we believe needs tweaking.

I do know a good many people on this forum and I know that they value very highly their freedom to participate in our government this way. But please don't mistake our interest in doing so for some lack of patriotism, or self-sufficiency, either, on our part.

My deepest sympathy to your sister who "has 18 monthly little girls." I will go "wine" now, and perhaps cheese.

rikki's picture

who are you talking to?

So Joe, now that you've gotten your presumption that everyone here is destitute, lazy and financially inept out of your system, would you like to converse with real people instead of stereotypes?

We all understand the dangers of too much government and high taxes. We also understand investment, budgeting and free markets. We are Americans, and we are really sick of being treated like an enemy.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Role of medical inflation in savings rates

"The Commerce Department reported Thursday [Feb. 1] that the savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, meaning that not only did people spend all the money they earned but they also dipped into savings or increased borrowing to finance purchases."

I homed in on the comment above...

Our household isn't dipping into savings, but we're certainly treading water WRT our rate of savings in recent years--and at a time we should be stepping up our efforts in planning for both my husband's retirement and our high school-aged daughter's college expenses.

Recently, I wagged three years of checkbook registers under my husband's nose to satisfy him that his net take-home pay had risen a total of just $3 per week over the last three years, 2003 through 2006! He could not, would not believe it, as he had earned satisfactory pay raises each year. I directed his attention to the incredible rise in his weekly payroll deduction for family health insurance coverage. Medical inflation, clearly, has taken a tremendous toll in our family's ability to step up our rate of savings!

Our household *did* recognize a bump in his take home pay this calendar year. Why? His employer has opted to do away with Christmas bonuses, extend employees slighty higher pay raises across the board, and apply the difference to their (the employer's) even higher health insurance premium costs this year! Where will it end?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives