Great financial news!

[kev]

Great news on the financial front:

1. The economy grew at the 3.5 percent rate in the fourth quarter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013100422.html

and gas prices are way down...thank you, President Bush.

2. We all knew that the problem with communism and socialism is that there is no money in either (except for the politicians who advocate it), but who knew that there was no money in the purveyance of them.

a. The New York Times reports a $648 million loss for the fourth quarter:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/D8N0AEB80.html

b. Air America goes bankrupt:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013062airamerica1.html

 

[NickCole]

Great news on the financial front:

1. The economy grew at the 3.5 percent rate in the fourth quarter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013100422.html

and gas prices are way down...thank you, President Bush.

Who here has felt that economy growth in their personal finances?

2. We all knew that the problem with communism and socialism is that there is no money in either (except for the politicians who advocate it), but who knew that there was no money in the purveyance of them.

a. The New York Times reports a $648 million loss for the fourth quarter:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/D8N0AEB80.html

b. Air America goes bankrupt:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013062airamerica1.html

You report this in the opening post of your thread titled, "Great Financial News!"??

That's a BushRepublican for you. Cheering the financial losses of one of America's oldest and most important newspapers, and the bankruptcy of a radio station.

Explains so much.

 

[Orlandude]

Your post sounds like talking points on Fox News. Now lets balance the political spin with some facts:

Bush had nothing to do with gasoline prices falling. Nothing. The price of a barrel of oil hit $77 in August, 2006 because of the "doom and gloom" that there would be another horrendous hurricane season. It never happened and forecasters revised their earlier predictions down...TWICE...and the cost of a barrel of oil declined. That is old news. We are now just feeling that decline and prices are expected to go back up before summer. The 2007 Hurricane season starts June 1st. Watch what happens to gasoline prices.

The economy grew faster than expected because people borrowed and spent themselves dry in 2006.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy;...yzqxQcB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Net gain in GDP was actually 2.5%....only a half-percent above the feds comfort level of 2.0%. That's hardly "great" financial news. Mediocre at best.

The New York Times numbers have nothing to do with your political spin. READ your own source! ANY corporation that invests heavily in a given year via acquistions, is going to show that "loss" in their bottom line. It's called a "corporate tax writeoff".

Air America was a non-story from the get-go. It was totally underfunded and launched prematurely.

The long and short of it is that the economy did grow, however, when weighed against debt, deficit and insane war spending, performance was mediocre. Car sales are way down and the housing market is in recession due to the glut of new homes built in the 2005-2006 period. The feds held interest rates only because of the half-percent gain in GDP, which was prudent. It wards off recession. If they kept raising interest rates, this economy would deflate overnight and we would all be standing in unemployment lines.

 

[opinterph]

… That's a BushRepublican for you. Cheering the financial losses of one of America's oldest and most important newspapers, and the bankruptcy of a radio station.

The facts are whatever they are. I thought kev’s post was quite clever.


Other related facts:

The New York Times’ loss was actually the result of a non-cash impairment charge (accounting write-off) relating primarily to its earlier purchase of The Boston Globe. In spite of the Globe's sustained downturn, the Times management apparently does not intend to sell it; as they turned down an offer in November from a consortium which included former General Electric Co. Chairman Jack Welch and Jack Connors, a prominent Boston ad executive.

Subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, Air America has reached a tentative agreement to be sold to Stephen Green, brother of Mark Green, (who lost a bid to become Mayor of New York to Michael Bloomberg in 2001.) Al Franken, Air America’s longtime headline personality, will be replaced by Portland, Oregon talk show host Thom Hartmann in the 12 PM to 3 PM (ET) time slot.

 

[kev]

Bush had nothing to do with gasoline prices falling. Nothing.

There was supposed to be a hint of irony in my post, because, you see, Bush was blamed for the high gasoline prices before the election by the Democrats, and I figure, well, fair is fair.

 

[JayHawk]

There was supposed to be a hint of irony in my post, because, you see, Bush was blamed for the high gasoline prices before the election by the Democrats, and I figure, well, fair is fair.

ROLFLMAO................You can never expect the right or the left to shout the accomplishments of the other. I do find it alarming that Clinton's prosperity that was handed to him By Reagan was trumpeted yet he handed Bush a recession and we have climbed out nicely. Funny how Repubs don't get credit for good. Must be the conservative media keepin the man down.

 

[kev]

That's a BushRepublican for you. Cheering the financial losses of one of America's oldest and most important newspapers, and the bankruptcy of a radio station.

Well, if you have read any of my previous posts, you know my opinion of the "Let's-Print-Classified-Secrets-As-Long-As-It-Might-Harm-Republicans. The-Rest-of-The-Country-Be-Damned" "Newspaper of Wreckage".

But, actually, this was supposed to be more irony (I really have to work on my irony delivery). Because I have discovered that leftists (most typified in print by The New York Times) believe that it is A-okay to take away other people's money for whatever the leftists think is best, but when it comes to their money, leftists are ardent capitalists.

And Nick, buddy, don't take what I say too seriously. It is not worth an apoplexy.

 

[OtterJoq]

Yeah!

Everything's just fucking rosy, ain't it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_33

 

[1st love ron]

b. Air America goes bankrupt:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013062airamerica1.html

Old news. That was Oct. 13, 2006 and they are still on the air.

 

[kev]

Old news. That was Oct. 13, 2006 and they are still on the air.

Lots of businesses go bankrupt and don't close their doors. News is news.

 

[lancelva]

But, actually, this was supposed to be more irony (I really have to work on my irony delivery). Because I have discovered that leftists (most typified in print by The New York Times) believe that it is A-okay to take away other people's money for whatever the leftists think is best, but when it comes to their money, leftists are ardent capitalists.

Let's see...the who voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? You may recall that some of the richest people in the Senate at the time voted AGAINST the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, including John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Corzine, Tom Harkin, Jane Harman, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Jeff Bingaman (all Democrats). They also supported a measure that would have returned their tax levels to the standards that existed before the Bush tax cut--effectively raising their own taxes--while offering a tax cut for the middle and lower classes.

Meanwhile, millionaires Bill Frist, Darrell Issa, Robin Hayes, Chuck Taylor, John McCain, John Campbell, Mike McCaul, Kenny Merchant, Chris Chocola, Lamar Alexander, and others (all Republicans) were strong supporters of the tax cuts for the rich--for themselves. At the same time, Republicans blocked a minimum wage increase in the Senate last year and have stalled the one proposed this year (which finally passed today) after voting to give themselves $30,000 in pay raises since 1997--the last time the minimum wage was increased.

 

[NickCole]

The Bush economy is wonderful if you happen to be a billionaire.

Yep.

BushRepublicans can spin every which way to Sunday but average Americans know their financial lives are not improving.

The Bush economy has helped the very wealthy get richer. That's fine but the United States economy needs the middle class to prosper. But Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about the middle class. What I've never understood is why anybody in the middle class supports a regime that does not support them.

 

[lancelva]

Other than what's already been said, measuring the economy based on the performance of Wall Street and the salaries of CEOs is not always a good idea. First of all, trickle down economics is a myth--as we saw under Reagan and currently under Bush. Secondly, it says nothing about the economic condition of most Americans. Here is an example of what I mean, from CNN:

Americans once again spent everything they made and then some last year, pushing the personal savings rate to the lowest level since the Great Depression.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday 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.

[...]

The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only four times in history -- in 2005 and 2006 and in 1933 and 1932.

So not only are Americans working harder, they are getting less. As we heard in Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union, the average worker makes 400 times less than the average CEO in wages. At the same time, costs--such as energy, education, and healthcare--are skyrocketing.

 

[naked gent]

Lance just as a point of clarification when the CBO says we have spent more than we earned it does not mean overall household wealth has decreased. Many people see the value of their property or investments increase and take that into consideration when deciding what they might buy.

The economy is good, the problem with it is not in its ability to create wealth but in its ability to distribute that wealth. Should that distribution problem go unaddressed it will eventually exert itself on the ability to create wealth.

 

[jkirk3000]

The economic news is good on virtually every front.
Inflation is low, unemployment is low, interest rates are down, the stock market has hit new highs and energy costs have stabilized. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts have had the desired effect - individuals are spending more money, which fuels economic growth. And eventhough the dollar value of the tax cuts disproportionately favored the wealthy (a 10% tax cut on someone paying $100,000 in taxes as opposed to someone paying $10,000 in taxes will inevitably do that), the rich are now paying a higher percentage of the US tax receipts than they did under Bill Clinton.

As to wealth accumulation and distribution, that seems to be an intractable issue. We don't tax wealth per se, and I'm not sure that would ever be desirable. Why should someone pay out their wealth when they presumably earned it? I know many have complained about high CEO pay, but they wouldn't get paid it if they weren't worth it.

Besides, don't we all aspire to be one of those wealthy? Isn't that why we buy lottery tickets hoping to strike it big? Go to casinos? Buy squares on our Super Bowl sheets?

At times, I think this whole issue about the wealthy being wealthy is just about envy.