Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's "Magic" Economic Formula: The Rich Get Richer; Regular People Lose Ground

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted June 4, 2007.


The economy keeps growing, as does the enormous largesse of the wealthy, while the average person makes less than they did when Bush took Office. This is Bush's magic economic formula.
Advertisement

Supposedly we are in a sustained economic recovery and have been since 2002.

Part of this is Bush hot air and the Republican Noise Machine, which the media quotes verbatim.

By a certain measure, however, it's real.

The economy has grown. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Average income is up. There's lots of money around.

But the recovery has some really strange features. Oddities never before seen in a recovery.

Jobs: During Bush's first term the US actually lost private-sector jobs.

It finally improved in 2005, and now job creation is almost keeping pace with the increase in population. Still, over all, it's the worst record since Hoover, the fellow who presided over the onset of the Great Depression.

How do you have a recovery without creating jobs?

Income: Yes, average income is up during the tenure of the current administration.

The joke about average income is: Bill Gates walks into a bar. The average income of every person in the room immediately goes up 10,000 percent.

But median income, the amount that people in the middle of the group earn, barely budges. So let's look at that figure. Median income is down. The average person makes less now than when Bush came into office.

Not only that, the downward pressure on wages is no longer just a blue-collar issue, it's moved up to white-collar workers, the educated classes, even doctors.

How do you have a recovery when people are making less than before the recovery?

Cost of living: Key factors of the cost of living are much higher than they were six years ago.

In particular, fuel is up 100 percent, higher education costs are up about 44 percent, health care premiums are up 80 percent, and affordable housing is scarce.

Normally, when the cost of living goes up, we have inflation. But we've had low inflation during the Bush years.

How can the cost of living go up while the cost of money stays low?

Here's the most peculiar statistic of all: the Dow Jones index

You may have been hearing that the Dow Jones Index is at an all-time high. It's true. However, it is only 16 percent higher than the day George Bush came into office. By comparison, when Clinton left office the Dow was 320 percent higher than when he came into office.

It's a very rough measure of course, and there are many others. But by that measure, during the Clinton years investment in America's leading business had grown more than three times over. Under Bush it's only grown 16 percent in six years. Since the consumer price index is up 18 percent over the same period, when the new all-time high is adjusted for inflation, growth is effectively below zero.

How can there be a "recovery" in which not even businesses grow?

When a government wants an economy to grow, it throws money at it.

The administration did that with spending on pharmaceuticals, homeland security, and a couple of wars. But their most important weapon of choice was tax cuts for the rich, especially on unearned income, capital gains, inheritance, dividends, and interest.

This was sold, and accepted, on the myth that the rich -- the investing class -- are the most creative and daring members of our society. Just unleash them and they will march off into the wilderness -- actual, urban, or cyber -- with sacks of cash over their shoulders and they will build things!

Factories! Airlines! Housing! Toys! Computers! Undreamed wonders! Entire new civilizations! With jobs! jobs! jobs! Like an Ayn Rand novel!

But that's not what happened.

Because a shortage of cash was not the problem. The country, the world, is awash with cash.

The good, old, risk for rewards version of capitalism -- the burghers invest in a daring sea captain sailing to the Indies -- still exists. In recent years, it's given us FedEx, Wal-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

But alongside it, over the last 50 years, the economy of credit has grown up.

In vastly oversimplified terms the credit economy works like this:

You own a house. It's worth $100,000.

Someone buys the house, no money down. They borrow that money. Let's say it's a straight-line 8 percent, 30-year mortgage. Forget closing costs, points, and any other complications -- that's a $220,000 debt. It goes on the bank's books as an asset.

Now you have $100,000. The bank has $220,000 (on paper). The buyer has a house worth $100,000. The bank has a lien on it, but the buyer will be gaining equity, plus he can get a second mortgage and home-improvement and other loans on it.

Again, this is a vast oversimplification, but that transaction has "created" something like $420,000 that is now "in play," as part of the economy.

No "thing" has been created -- no new business, no product, no jobs, no idea, no intellectual property, no entertainment.

But money has been created.

If you buy a dress on your Visa card or organize a consortium to buy a company, the same thing happens -- debt creates money. In every transaction, there's profit to be taken off the top.

A perfect example of the transformation of our society into a credit economy is the change in the way we finance higher education. States, and even cities, used to be in the business of building universities that were free, or nearly so. These were financed, up front, with tax money as an investment in our human infrastructure. Then, in 1965, the student loan program was invented. This changed the higher education business into a debt creation business and created a whole new creditor class, college graduates, who, were handed, along with their diploma, debts of ten to fifty thousand dollars or more.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush economy

Larry Beinhart is the author of Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
RE: "The economy keeps growing..." YES IT IS
Posted by: kbest on Jun 4, 2007 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dow just recently went over 13,000 for the 1st time ever. Unemployment at 4.4%
Lower than it ever was under Clinton. .06 % growth adds to the fact that it has grown over 15 straight quarters now.

My 401(k) is doing great. My income is doing just as well. I made more money this year than last, and more last year than the year before. I'm just a typical middle class worker and I think the economy is riding high. So quit yer bitchin' and get a job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Opportunity Posted by: slydad
RE: Wonderful...another propogandist argument brought to you by AlterNet!
Posted by: EagleMB on Jun 4, 2007 8:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You own a house. It's worth $100,000.

Someone buys the house, no money down. They borrow that money. Let's say it's a straight-line 8 percent, 30-year mortgage. Forget closing costs, points, and any other complications -- that's a $220,000 debt. It goes on the bank's books as an asset.

Now you have $100,000. The bank has $220,000 (on paper). The buyer has a house worth $100,000. The bank has a lien on it, but the buyer will be gaining equity, plus he can get a second mortgage and home-improvement and other loans on it.

Again, this is a vast oversimplification, but that transaction has "created" something like $420,000 that is now "in play," as part of the economy.


Really? Was anything actually created? Or is this just propaganda? Let’s look at the truth:

Before any money is borrowed or lent we have a house worth $100k, we have a bank lending $100k, and a debtor with an incremental income (i.e. salary).

After money is lent, we have a house worth $100k, we have a bank with a $100k encumbrance and an asset of $100k + interest, and we have a debtor with $100k + an incremental income.

Is an incremental income created money? No, it is transferred money. The debtor’s employer sells widgets which cause the buyers currency to decrease and the seller’s currency to increase. Part of that currency is transferred to the debtor as income on an incremental basis. The debtor pays part of that money to the bank as interest. Thus, nothing created nor destroyed.

The $420k of “created” value was actually in play form the start. However, one of the author’s fallacies is to combine liquid assets with non-liquid assets. The only currency in play was currency that was transferred from one party to another. Nothing was created or destroyed.

The author wants you to believe that whenever a bank loans money it gains an asset worth the value of the loan + interest, but loses nothing. The reality is the bank does gain an asset worth the value of the loan plus interest, but it loses the money it pays to the seller. Again, even the interest is not “created” money because it is just transferred money between the debtor, the debtor’s employer, and the employer’s customers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» tailfeathers Posted by: fanny666
Blaa blaa blaah...
Posted by: Temporary on Jun 4, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just start the damn trade war with China and get it over with! Stop buying there toothpaste, t-shirts and dog gfood and see what happens!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blaa blaa blaah... Posted by: paulaH
» Be Careful.... Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Be Careful.... Posted by: Iconoclast421
Reaganomics
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 4, 2007 1:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a speech to some clueless audience of right wing hacks the other day, the First Fool was forced to admit that the disparity in income between the rich and the not-so-rich has been growing "for over twenty-five years now". Right. He might have been honest and said, "twenty-six years"; which how long ago it was that this country stupidly sent a feeble minded, failed "B" movie actor by the name of Ronald Reagan to the White House. The beginning of the decline of the middle class in this once-great country can be pin pointed to the day, January 20, 1981.

And yet so many members of the American lower and middle economic classes - the ones who are getting screwed the most by this disgusting administration - will cheerfully, stupidly continue to vote with the GOP. It's hard to feel a molecule of sympathy for some half-witted bastard with a wife and three children who lost his home in late October of 2004 and voted for George W. Bush the following week. Talk about criminally stupid!

Like Pavlov's dogs, they've been trained by the corporate News Radio Lie Factory to blaim all of their troubles on the least fortunate of aout society - the blacks, immigrants, etc....Is it any wonder that we're the laughing stock of the planet earth? When are these foolish Americans going to wake up?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eaganomics Posted by: willymack
» RE: eaganomics Posted by: paschn
» RE: eaganomics Posted by: outlander55
» RE: eaganomics Posted by: surfreality
» Franchised America Posted by: Sushi
» RE: eaganomics Posted by: Joseph4408
» RE: Hey Joseph Barnes! Posted by: Tom Degan
» Supply-Side Economic Theory Posted by: fanny666
The Bush dynasty is a (powerful) remnant of "English" rule
Posted by: Suzon on Jun 4, 2007 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps one-third of the colonists in America did not agree with the egalitarian philosophy of natural rights promoted by Tom Paine. Did these advantage seekers just fade away or did they continue to apply the royal strategies of secrecy and deception disguised as Christian charity and benevolence which was their modus operandi.

Brings to mind the image of George W in white tie joking about his people, "the haves and the have-mores".

I wrote "English" in scare quotes in the title because there is almost nothing English about the British monarchy and aristocracy. The real king of the UK, if you go by descent, is some bloke living in Australia.

Self-rewarding advantage seekers should be made accountable. Anyone know of a good district attorney?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When will the IMPEACHMENT Proceedings begin?
Posted by: thinkverybig on Jun 4, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's way overdue..... and if BUSH is not impeached, this would be the second greatest crime in American history, next to Slavery. Everything BUSH stands for, a majority of Americans don't. This selfish, arrogant prick should be impeached and sent to jail for the rest of his life. And it is past time that we Americans stood up and expressed our will. Let your congressmen know of your displeasure about all of the issues important to you. It's time for a change, it's time for a revolution and that time is now.

I need volunteers for "WeMustChange.org"

I can be reached at david@wemustchange.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» House Resolution 333 Posted by: fanny666
The US economy is not growing
Posted by: robchapman on Jun 4, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US economy is not growing.

If I sell my great aunt Tizzy's antique ironing board on e-bay for $ 50, I have increased the GDP by that amount, but I have not added an iota of value to the economy, and in fact with the cost of fuel for powering my computer and shipping the ironing board, I have added to our trade imbalance.

The GDP grows in this manner, but it is unreflective of the value of goods and services exchanged.

Our economy is becoming less and less a marketplace for exchange of valuable transactions and more and more a monopoly game.

Until and unless the government and industry start enterprises that add value we are merely exchanging toys and using money to keep score.

Bush and the GOP with their emphasis on protecting the value of existing equities rather than developing productive enterprises are singularly unsuited to successfully governing in this period of globalization and increasing competition.

Whatever their intent, the GOP policies are stifling innovation and value adding economic activity in favor of protecting the exchanges.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The US economy is not growing Posted by: Mamarianne
Promises, Promises...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 4, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's what these people keep giving us. "The economy will get better." "You'll be safe and secure." "We'll make sure gas prices don't go up anymore." "We'll stop the terrorists."

The promises never seem to end. But the results from these politicians always seem to be far different. The Bush administration and our current realty in this country is just further verification that politicians just can't be trusted to deliver anything but more corporate profits.

I guess that's the nature of politics - grandstanding to get support from the people, while never really doing anything substantive....well, except for their corporate backers!

Some further reading on this if you're interested:

"Overlooking the Obvious" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The poor are stealing from us!
Posted by: Poe on Jun 4, 2007 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The poor are stealing from us! That's right.....and I'm sick of it!!! Actually.....the people that pretend that they're poor are stealing from us!
Drive thru any poor neighborhood. Go ahead. I do it everyday for work. Take a stroll. I do....and what I see just pisses me off! 60 plus hours a week I work and here is where a certain portion of my tax dollars go.

Saw the car pulling out of a McDonald's......throwing trash out the window. Nice. No respect for your neighborhood....but the blight of that neighborhood is blamed on the rest of society. Since when do you have to be middle class or wealthy to learn how to deal with your own trash. People in my neighborhood pick up after their dogs....but the poorer neighborhoods....you get a pass.

The woman holding a baby.....gaudy jewelry.....large hoop earings.....and long blue nails. I know how much those nails cost.....if you can spend 60 dollars on nails.....you can't be poor. Maybe we're paying for those nails.

House after house with a satellite dish attached to it. Every ear pressed to a cell phone...who's paying for those calls.....120 dollar sneakers......cars with rims and tires that cost as much as a gold brick......air conditioners sticking out of windows in the summer, and in the winter, the thermostats turned up past 75, no doubt. Don't worry....Heap will pay for your gas bill.....while many of us keep our common sense...and keep our thermostat and our bills low. We deal with the winter chill with an extra layer of clothing.

The cars!! Yikes! Suv's and Caddies.....We should all be that poor!!

Yeah....the problem in this country is that people don't know how to live within their means.
Even people making very good money....spend more than what they can handle.

The crime, is that there are people that truly need the help of society.....and there's less for them because of the irresponsible lifestyle of so many.

Poe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm going to guess... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'm going to guess... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'm going to guess... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The poor are stealing from us! Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: The ghost of Reagan speaks!! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The poor are stealing from us! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The poor are stealing from us! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The poor are stealing from us! Posted by: Logic's Edge
» Redneck Suckers for the Rich Posted by: sofla100
» Hard to Keep Scraping Posted by: DataDoc
» How do you know? Posted by: launcher
An Interesting Twist on Old Economic Theory...
Posted by: yellow on Jun 4, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
comes into play at the very end. In fact we have two economies which is exactly why inflation is low despite high debt and high deficits. Inflation would result in severe pressures to raise interest rates which would kill off the entire Bush strategy by suppressing spending, hurting the stock market, and especially killing off the booming housing bubble upon which the credit generation component in largely based. Thus, we suppress income gains for the vast majority of the population, about 80% of them, and allow the income of the top 20%, of which only the top 1% really gains annually in any meaningful way at a rate of nearly 10%, to carry domestic growth through spending. Expensive cars, lofts and expensive urban condos and gated communities, jewelery, limousine transportation, vacation packages, gourmet resturants, and other luxuries for the rich with cheap Chinese imports from Walmart for all the rest. Walmart helps the spiral downward for the bottom 20% as it holds wages down and threatens those with union jobs through impossible price competition. Inflation is held down essentially by giving most people very little in the first place. Less to take back through a FEDERAL RESERVE BANK orchestrated recessions later on at crunch time.

The high rates of GDP growth over the past few years is increasingly earned abroad through Transnational Corporate output and cheap foreign labor. More globalization. Though it is interesting to note that more and more offshoring is shrinking domestic demand and slowing the economy to less than one percent average annual growtn over the past six quarters or so. Also, there is more manufacturing taking place in the US than was thought. It isn't just globalization and a whole new global division of labor created by capital retrenchment. It's also a matter of lean production. In 2006, according to a special report in the Economist, over $4.5 trillion dollars in manufacturing took place in the US. About $3 trillion of it was by US subsidiaries of foreign owned transnational companies like Toyota which is building more plants in the US all the time and expanding domestic production even as Ford is offshoring more jobs abroad. The point is, according to a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, that wages have been a shrinking portion of total domestic US manufacturing since the end of WWII standing currently at about 11%, a very big drop over time. Right at the end of the war Manufacturing was a third of the work force and the same proportion of GDP. Today it is 12% of the US GDP with scarcely 8% of the workforce. In the OECD countries manufacturing output has more than doubled in the post WWII era with a drop in more than 25% of the total workforce involved in the manufacturing sector. Technology is the key.

So global retrenchment and efficiency has created vast amounts of wealth produced by fewer people to be consumed by even fewer people. We don't have a jobless future as some have predicted just one with lower paying less secure jobs without benefits. This along with privatization and a shredded social safety net means the growing numbers of working poor must increasingly fend for themselves for basic needs. This can only skew the distribution of wealth. The harder people have to work to get basic needs the more they produce for the rich and spend what little gains they've made on the high priced goods and services offered by those same rich. And Al Capone was said to be a racketeer.

The middle class, if it is restored at all, will be restored directly through political struggle not through the trickle down dynamic of economic growth which will only bring more and more maldistribution of wealth. The '08 election is part of that stuggle but by no means the core of it or even the most important aspect of what must be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Markup on Money
Posted by: thornwolf on Jun 4, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The profit margin in lending is -- in a significant part -- the difference between the rate of the loan and the rate of inflation.

While I agree with the overall thrust of this article, the above statement is simply not true.

The profit margin in lending money is, like everything else, the difference between the cost and the selling price. If a Bank pays 2% on deposits and lends the money at 8% the markup is 400%. The rate of inflation does not play into this calculation and to claim it does is disingenuous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: in Upstate NY
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: in Upstate NY
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: in Upstate NY
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Markup on Money Posted by: in Upstate NY
» Ah, but Money Flows Uphill Posted by: thornwolf
EJ
Posted by: EJW on Jun 4, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right on Larry!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Corporate Oligarchy
Posted by: rac on Jun 4, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I’ve got to do for me and mine.”
~ Wash Hogwallop
O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Our representatives have abdicated their stewardship of democracy for all. Congressman Hogwallop has betrayed us. We don’t ask more in taxes from the rich simply because they hold most of the wealth. They also hold a greater responsibility to keep our democratic system well oiled and running smoothly. The rich and powerful, be they in government or private enterprise, have their hands on the wheel of America’s prosperity. When they act irresponsibly and selfishly, they drive the rest of us into a ditch. It is a purposeful and calculated act against the well being of us all. I say to those who are starting to understand this: We can no longer just boo the rascals from the bleachers. The officiating is all corrupt. The players are on steroids, the hotdogs are carcinogenic, and skyboxes overshadow everything. It’s time to get in the game!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you really expect???
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 4, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When all the numbers for economic prosperity that get reported or considered have to do with the prosperity of corporations and the wealthy????

We are being taken out of the equation completely... so that the picture will continue to look rosy for those who matter even after globalization has made us all into indentured servants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Try realistic. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
This is not news
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are still chimpanzees and the males are still divided into
Alpha, Betas and Charlies. The alpha male gets all of the
women, the beta males get some of the women each, and the
charlies get none. But the charlies instinctively vote for
republican "morality" anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is not news Posted by: David V
Rich get richer because the federal reserve is owned by the rich
Posted by: freedom on Jun 4, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“The question is, does the way government spends and invests create a sounder and healthier society?”

Good question, but how does a government living on credit itself do this? After all, the Federal Reserve is not really under government control, but by corporations who loan and collect interest on the money they loan the government.

Robert Lightfoot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rising income inequality and High Immigration
Posted by: DrGeneNelson on Jun 4, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article, albeit with some economic simplification. I strongly agree with the economic problems caused by the substitution of Chinese slave labor for the American middle class.

Here's a link to an article that I wrote a few years ago that shows the rise in income inequality in the U.S. as measured by the GINI Ratio, a measure compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. The graph shows that the GINI ratio has been rising since 1968. Huge revisions in U.S. immigration policy were unleashed by Sen. Ed Kennedy in 1965 that have resulted in a tidal wave of immigration into the U.S.

Dr. Nelson's 2005 article

High levels of immigration are a double - pronged means to increase income inequality. First, labor gluts drive down the wages that are paid. Second, people gluts drive up the cost of the necessaries of life. Those increased costs tend to end up in the pockets of the economic elite, just like the higher corporate profits that result from labor gluts. In our history, there have been "robber barons" that have promoted these open borders policies. Eventually, the middle class gets wise and demands reforms.

William Gates, III of Microsoft Corporation has aggressively promoted an obscure special visa program that imports technical professionals from India and China. His father retained a lawyer - lobbyist named Jack Abramoff. Abramoff and "Team Abramoff" helped to procure beneficial changes to the H-1B visa program in 1996, 1998, and 2000. That is the reason that this author has renamed the controversial program the "Abramoff Visa." Is it a coincidence that William Gates, III became the world's wealthiest man in 1995, a title that he has held ever since?

To learn more, please google on the phrase "Abramoff Visa."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great economy--if you're an employer
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 4, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you employ people, man you never had it so good! Advertise a professional job and get swamped with resumes. Are your computer and IT people grumbling? Just start leaving some of those flyers you got from that Indian tech outsourcing firm lying around the office--they'll get the message in a hurry.

Production-line people getting pissy? Just start talking about the wonders of moving production to Bangladesh--people who are dying to earn .25 cents/hour and zero benefits. And no OSHA or EPA to fuss-around with.

Threaten to leave and watch the local community leaders fall-over themselves to give you tax breaks and other perks if you stay.

For that matter, why even threaten to leave or go overseas for cheap labor? You can hire tons of illegal aliens right here in the U S of A. Just do what the local meat packing plants in my area did in the '80s. They took jobs that paid a good middle-class wage of $20/hour, cut it to $9/hour. Increase the line from 60 animals/hr to 200/hr. Then claim you "can't get enough local workers". Setup hiring offices along the Mexican border and bus your new eager employees up to Nebraska.

Hell--you can even be pious about it! After all, you got even the Lexus-liberal sites like Alternet on your side, with their beating the drum for illegal immigration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's even worse.... Posted by: CatDad
Grammar Patrol
Posted by: biochemurgic on Jun 4, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the first paragraph of the article:

"...while the average person makes less than they did when Bush took Office."

Come on. Singular-plural agreement is not that difficult to attain, but I see phrases like this in political commentary repeatedly. Make it "...while average PEOPLE make less than they did...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Shaddap Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Grammar Patrol Posted by: Logic's Edge
So quit griping and do something - buy American when you can.
Posted by: Gypsi on Jun 4, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unhappy about the balance of trade - refuse to buy from Wal-Mart. I manage to find just about everything I need somewhere else. Read the country of origin on every product you buy and if it doesn't give country of origin, call the mfgr when you get home from the supermarket. Particularly tools and pet products, non perishable stuff, a lot of it is being made elsewhere. If mfgrs get enough phone calls AND declining sales, they may reopen a few American plants. I quit buying Levis the day they closed their last US plant. But I don't have enough money to make much impact. Together, who knows????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY BUSH'S ECONOMY WORKS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 4, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because nobody does anything to change it. We whine incessantly, but Chinese goods still flood the market. We settle in so many areas. We get bogged down in political BS that is meaningless. Bank's thrive on fees alone, lending practices are criminal. Newsflash - it wasn't always like this. Nobody ever gave things away but business practices were ethical. Being ripped off was not part of life. Debt was not a given. Turn off the TV and look around. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Free Market Fantasies Posted by: fanny666
» Well, Greed was... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Well, Greed was... Posted by: fanny666
» Personally... I think... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
We are in recession, we just don't know it.
Posted by: SteveO on Jun 4, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Glad to see some of you are smelling the coffee.

Unfortunately you can't blame all this on Chimpy (as bad as we all want to).

The CPI has been cooked from at least the Johnson administration, although Clinton and Bu$h have truly mastered the art. See this site for more.

The unemployment statistics have also been cooked. The so called "Birth-Death" model has magically created jobs for years when there is no evidence to prove these jobs actually exist more info on birth death model

The reality of the economy is that we never came out of the 2002 recession, but the advertised numbers are so "Enronned" that the MSM believes everything is great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LARGESSE?
Posted by: pzzp on Jun 4, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice article, but I chastise you for the egregious and inexcusable semantic blunder with the use of the word "largesse".

American Heritage Dictionary:
lar·gess also lar·gesse (lär-zhěs', -jěs', lär'jěs') n.
1a. Liberality in bestowing gifts, especially in a lofty or condescending manner.
1b. Money or gifts bestowed.
2. Generosity of spirit or attitude.

I'm certain this is not what you meant to say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Inequality.org
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 4, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Inequality.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You left out the part about offshore tax shelters...
Posted by: mgloraine on Jun 4, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good observations and salient comments. But you left out the section regarding money-laundering and tax-sheltering by individuals and corporations via offshore investment companies in the Caymans, or Dubai, etc. This is a scam the Bush Crime Family has been championing since the 1920s and '30s when they were helping Fritz Thyssen build the Nazi war machine using exactly the same tools. This tactic removes the capital completely from the US economy, making zero jobs, starting zero businesses, and paying zero taxes. That's what "globalization" is really all about: the ability of the ultra-wealthy to take all the capital OUT of a localized economy without being held responsible for the human misery, environmental degradation, poverty, crime, etc. left behind in the vacuum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sutter
Posted by: Sutter on Jun 4, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The BLS estimates new jobs using its "Birth-Death" model. How accurate are their estimates? For the third quarter in '06, the BLS estimated 498,000 new jobs. Actual tax rolls, compiled later, show only 19,000 new jobs created for that period. Phantom jobs or massive tax avoidance?
The government has a lot of reasons to paint a rosy senario. If actual job creation is near zero, one can imagine a few nails in the coffin of immigration reform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sutter Posted by: Trazom
“Arkansas GOP