The Federal Reserve Chairman and others around the nation have decided that the danger of a recession has passed. They have thoroughly examined the leading economic indicators, factored in the price of oil, patted themselves on the back for their response to the mortgage crisis and given each other high-fives for averting a major economic downturn. I think it must illustrate their being out-of-touch with the reality of working class Americans.
When gasoline takes a larger-and-larger share of the family budget and the price of food, cosmetics, plastics, and everything else that is either transported or manufactured with petroleum based products (I think that's about everything) rises dramatically, people are worse off. Either the wrong indicators are being used to measure the economy or the facts are being ignored. People have less disposable income today than they did a year ago. They have much less than they did two years ago. They will spend less for clothes, they will take less expensive vacations (or forego them altogether), they will go to the movies less, eat out less, and on-and-on. The effect is lagged. It will be months before we truly feel the impact of higher gasoline and oil prices.
I think the stock market already recognizes that fact. It is only a matter of time before the lack of capital investment in industry begins to show. It will take years for our economy to recover.
The Dem's want to make it worse with added burdens on consumers through Global Warming legislation. They also think the way to resolve the problem is through taxes. Let me see, if we (consumers) already have less to spend on non-fuel items, what happens when you soak us with additional taxes? Duh, we have less??
5 comments:
I get in my car which I cannot afford gas for and drive to the grocery store where they are I guess trying to make up for the price of gas by raising soup from 59 cents to 89 cents and everything else by 30 cents all my utilities up by 30 per cent . I guess their trucks need gas??
I don't hear any solutions anywhere, just delusions! as you say, and particularly not from Mr. Sound Bite - free ride by the media - Obamination.sorry that's abomination!!!sk whew thanks
Concise and accurate assessment, and I don't have a big commute, so I compared to people who travel as part of their livlihood, this gas-hike economy must be a disaster.
Keep up your great work!
You're right, it does appear we have similar political philosophies. The funny thing is, if Obama's elected it will take the country going into a severe depression before the media will mention an economic slow down.
You say the "Dems" will make things worse -- but under which party's president did we get into this financial pickle? Under which parties president did we have the longest period of economic growth in the last 40 years?
Sue: I'm happy you asked that question. The economic prosperity of the Clinton tenure was a result of the policies implemented originally in the Reagan administration (most government policies have a long-term lag effect -- particularly those that affect capital investment). The current difficulties actually began about the time the Democrats gained control of the Senate -- Fall of 2006. The Bush administration inherited an economy that had been thriving but began to experience serious difficulties toward the end of the Clinton administration. Those difficulties were compounded by the crash resulting from the attack on Sept. 11th, 2001. The Bush policies stimulated the economy to divert total disaster during the period that followed. Admittedly, some of those policies (excessive government spending) are contributors to the current economic issues that we face. However, if you look closely, you will see that it is primarily the international political turmoil (I don't refer to Iraq -- I refer to Africa and Asia) coupled with the growth of the Chinese economy (a result of implementing capitalistic reforms within their system) that have fuelled the greatest portion of the turmoil.
Post a Comment