UCLAri

garland,

Didn't you know that if you aren't living in Mantoloking, you're in poverty?

Trufax.

garland

Oh, and the houses in my neighborhood sell in low 200's to 300's, and going down. We'll sell ya ours for 200k, as is. See, you can afford NJ!

Edit: LOL, UCLari. Yes, there really are truly "middle class" neighborhoods in NJ, where people sometimes live on, really! just five figure incomes.

tom1944

northeatmom - I know them well enough to know their finances. No trust funds. No significant inheritance etc. They worked, kept debt under control. traded up at the right time for housing- 4 house sales and made financial decisions on need not want. Using criteria of need not want goes a long way towards increasing wealth. I want a large SUV but I really need a Corolla- it is all about choices. I have seen it in my own family some with significantly higher incomes do not save as much as others. 175k is still enough to live a very nice lifestyle- I make about 60% of that and I live fine.

StitchInTime

The debate over where the middle class starts and ends misses the larger issue: federal revenues are actually up...way up since 1990. In 1990 federal revenue was about 1.5 trillion. In 2008 revenues are expected to be $2.5 trillion.

What's counterintuitive is that revenue went up when tax rates went down in 2003. Moreover, revenues as a % of GDP has stayed constant as rates went down.

$2.5 trillion is more than enough money, if we just spend it appropriately, cut wasteful spending, prioritize and reform entitlements.

emeraldkity4

Iraq war eats into that a bit
Iraq war cost estimates run into the trillions | csmonitor.com

Bailey21

Some estimates on the financial impact of 9/11 run as high as $1 trillion. Another 9/11 or something worse would actually have been more devastating on the economy than the Iraq war. I'm not saying that an attack would have happened w/o Iraq but something to consider.

emeraldkity4

Bailey ,
What role did Iraq have with 9/11?
Afghanistan and Iraq are two different countries.


Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz does agree with you that current administration has had devastating impact on our daily life besides the Iraq war.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

UCLAri

Guys guys.

This is straying. Just a tad.

emeraldkity4

everything is interconnected.
Halliburton 1st-qtr profit up 6 pct, outlook better - Forbes.com

tsdad

I'm one of those happy old people. The sun is out. The lakes are unfrozen. The temps are in the 70s. I have a wonderful retirement job and a greyhound. My wife and I are healthy and have great medical care. Now if my son would only get a real job and his script was produced.

Bailey21

Mr. Stiglitz conveniently ignores the dot.com bust of the late 90's under Clinton's watch. Also, that the economy was in a near recession when he left office in Jan 2001.

Christcorp

excellent observation Bailey. Many people don't remember the spring of 2000 (Before Bush was ever elected) when Clinton and the SEC went after Microsoft. That took the economy already further down from where it was going.

UCLAri

Christcorp,

Are you honestly suggesting that the SEC going after Microsoft is a cause of the dot.com bust, rather than the simple fact that it was a bubble economy?

I find it incredibly hard to believe that prosecuting Microsoft for bad behavior is really a significant cause.

Christcorp

I didn't say it was the cause of the .com bust. The microsoft dive in stock was just part of the economy taking a down turn. It happen to just be one of the more publicized moments. I have said many times that the economy goes through it's cycles. Usually about every 7-8 years. I've said numerous times that you can blame or give credit to the president for the economy. My point was that if people want to believe stigllitz and believe that Bush is the cause of all our economic problems (Which there really isn't any); then they have to say that Clinton had the same negative impact on the economy in 2000.

I've been investing for many years. Actually decades. I like the economy where it is. I like it when it goes up and then back down. if it didn't we'd have uncontrollable inflation. Minor recessions but the economy back into check. Plus it's great for my investments. If people want to complain about high prices for oil, food, etc.... Then fight those that allow oil to be traded as a commodity instead of as a "Goods" like it use to be. Also; blame to republicans and democrats for supporting this B.S. garbage called "ETHANOL" and the subsidies. People are rioting and dieing all over the world due to starvation, and we're burning food in our cars. Now THAT'S SCREWED UP. Plus, I love how each day more and more scientists are starting to comment that maybe this global warming thing isn't what they thought. Unless you're making millions off of it like Al Gore.

UCLAri

For one, the "cycle" in the form of the dot com boom was little more than a bubble of speculation. While there are growth and contraction periods, sound economic policy can do a lot for enhancing the growth periods and taking the bite off the contraction periods.

You cannot blame a President solely, but a President's policies and direction can have a role in both short- and long-term prospects for the economy. Otherwise, we would probably find Presidents doing little in the arena of economic policy, as much of it isn't glamorous high politics anyway. There is much to be done as POTUS when it comes to appointing secretaries, supporting, spearheading, or vetoing bills, and choosing to engage in or withhold from military use.

The Microsoft dive in stock was not, however, solely the result of the pop of the bubble at the time (though you cannot ever be sure what ever truly causes a stock price shift.) Stock prices are, of course, the result of supply and demand, and I think it's safe to say that the stock price dive for MS during the monopoly proceedings was at least due in part to investor confidence dipping. Otherwise, why would a bunch of people be SELLING their shares in MS? Just to get liquid cash in an economy that was soon to be inflationary? Unless you're suggesting that people took their money invested in MS and put it in something less volatile like t-bills, I don't see what you mean.

Furthermore, Stiglitz does not say that "all" of the economy's problems are Bush's fault. No economist worth his weight in salt, and Stiglitz is certainly worth his weight, would be that myopic. However, to say that there are "no economic problems" seems to me to be "irrational exuberance" at absolute best. Many economists are warning of a severe contractionary period ahead of us, even to the point of a potential depression. Not 1929-style, of course, but I think you'd have a hard time telling the THOUSANDS laid off from Bear and Citi that there are no economic problems.