Consumers are hurting these days and they haven’t hurt this bad since Papa Bush was in office way back in 1992.
The New York-based research group Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 50.4 from a revised 58.1 in May. The reading was the lowest since February 1992, when it was 47.3.
Economists had expected the index to decline to 56, according to Briefing.com.
Because I accidentally and stupidly made this political by mentioning that dreaded “B” word, here’s what your two presumptive presidential candidates (well, actually it was just their campaigns) had to say about the numbers. We’ll leave it up to you to guess whose campaign said what (or you could just read the CNN article):
Potential President X: “We know that the public has been concerned and regardless of whether the geeks in the world think there’s a recession or not, the public feels like that.”
Potential President Y: “The disappointing consumer confidence numbers are yet more evidence that we need a change in our economic policy.”
Consumer confidence tumbles to 16-year low [CNNMoney]
More From Consumerist
-
Americans Are More Responsible With Credit Cards Than We’ve Been In A Decade
-
Barnes & Noble Will Happily Price-Match Website…When You Return Something Without A Receipt
-
Frontier Now Offering Confusing Range Of Carry-On Fees If You Don’t Book Through Its Site
-
Here’s An Even More Confusing Michaels Clearance Sign
-
Getting Kids Out Of The House Just Got Easier: Summer Jobs For Teens Hit 6-Year High
@opfreak: Mitt Romney (my hero), when he was governor, made a public fund, and told the tax payers that if they want higher taxes, just write a check to the fund, and he’ll use it in Government programs. They got $1200.
@Bladefist:
futher proof that the people that always scream about raising taxes, dont want to put their money where their mouth is.
I do applaud those that did pay the extra 1200, at least they stand for something. I can respect that.
What happened to making people earn their money? Instead, Obama wants to just take rich people’s money and give it to poor people for no reason. There’s no accountability anymore. Whenever someone else has something nice (money), instead of working harder to get it, they just expect people to hand it to them.
Obama’s New Slogan: “Change is good. But bills are better.”
Let’s tax our way back to prosperity!
@Bladefist: Don’t you think the reason behind Romney’s public fund was snark, and not any actual solution to his state’s budget problems? I mean, I could always write a check to the U.S. Public Debt, but why should I? It puts me out, and whatever I might be able to contribute all by myself wouldn’t make so much as a ripple when it arrived at the IRS.
What is required is for somebody to actually put together a plan to balance outlays with revenue. Although putting a stop to the current nonsense in Iraq might help considerably, I doubt this can be done without at least allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, but if you have any ideas, I’m all ears.
Read my lips … no consumer confidence!!
@opfreak: Going off memory, I think it was 1 person who paid, or maybe 1 huge one, and a few small ones.
@Steaming Pile: I think he was making a point. The people don’t want to pay more taxes. Everyone who shouts more taxes, is just assuming the rich will pay’em. Why should you? Why should you not? You want more programs, better funding on the programs we have, why not send more money? It may be a small amount, but it’ll help. Do your part man.
I got tons of ideas. Conservative ideas. You do tax reform, perhaps a fair tax, and you drastically cut spending and reduce government size. There are so many programs I would cut. The Iraq war is really not that huge of a burden on our economy. I don’t want to get into an Iraq debate, but in my opinion, I don’t want to co-exist with suicide bombers and a fear of a terrorist attack on united states. So we need to spend whatever it takes to clean up that mess. I think the world needs to realize, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc are the middle school drop outs, who are shooting up crack, and will always be a cost to society.
Back to the topic, you do what Bush hasn’t done, you cut everything. Take our Government size back 30 years.
@Bladefist: Of course people don’t want to pay taxes, but how else are you going to raise revenue to do the very necessary things government does? It’s like going to the dentist. Nobody wants to do it, but the alternative is letting your teeth fall out. Which do you want?
Now, if there are places, and I’m sure there are lots of them, where fat can be trimmed, then let’s trim the fat, by all means. I’m just saying that there isn’t enough fat in the domestic budget to fill the budget hole. The difference should be made up somehow. If we really need to be spending 18 billion dollars a month in Iraq, if that is the price of your being able to sleep soundly at night (I know better), then the revenue needs to come from somewhere. Since our feckless President isn’t about to ask us to buy war bonds, where is the money coming from?
@Steaming Pile:
and is the big O proposing any spending cuts?
I bet the goverment budget is full of fat. When was the last time it was actaully cut?
And not one of those Cuts liberals like to scream about:
You know, the ones where they say we should increase spend on say education buy 20%, but the otherside says no, only 10%. And they scream about the otherside not caring about education because they ‘cut’ the INCREASE?
@Neecy:
whos smarter? The Big “O”…
with his 57 states?
or with his not knowing he broke a promise with campaign fiancing?
Err, that new tone politics, stinks of same old same old.
@opfreak: Perfect!! That is exactly what I’m looking for! Thanks for showing me I need to vote for Obama in the fall.
@Bladefist: Romney was my pick this year (and I’m from MA.) He was a great governor, businessman and didn’t even take a salary out of principal.
@Steaming Pile: Although putting a stop to the current nonsense in Iraq might help considerably, I doubt this can be done without at least allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, but if you have any ideas, I’m all ears.
Dirty little secret is, even Barry Obama can’t pull out of Iraq. Oh he may have troop withdrawls or what not (and probably make it look like a defeat) but we’re there for a while. That’s an undeniable truth of life right now.
The Dept. of Health & Human Services spends more than the entire defense department. If we got rid of some of the all powerful state programs the feds would be able to pay off a lot of that debt quicker. If the states want to pick up those programs, let them vote on it.
Take for example, the School Lunch program. In 2007 we spent 11 Billion dollars on lunch in the public screwl system. There is absolutely no reason the federal government should be doing this. If I, Average American, can pack a healthy lunch for me to take to work that costs me, maybe, $1.50 (something almost all families should be able to afford) there is no reason that the Federal government should be spending 11 billion dollars.
Just a small example but a good way to see how waste piles up.
@Steaming Pile: I really like my dentist and look forward to going in. He’s so damn nice.
@IamNotToddDavis: Techguy isn’t saying that your guy isn’t providing figures. He is. Techguy1138 is saying the data cherry-picks. GIGO.
His simplest example is the best: why did the Heritage Foundation use a dataset that ended in the late ’20s? Perhaps something else, not tax rates, impacted the US economy after their cutoff point?
Does that make sense? Can you see how one can’t draw conclusions unless a full dataset is used? And if the Heritage site did use such cunning parsing of data, can you see how skeptical it makes reasonable people of their entire report?
@Trai_Dep: I gave several examples of tax cuts that helped to raise tax revenue.
Then you and several others made complaints about the Heritage Foundation being biased and “skewering Data” (which I completely disagree with) but for the sake of argument I included a London Economist who works for several well respected financial institutions, and he only further reinforced my point using data from across the globe.
I tried to simplify this AGAIN for sake of argument; what will raise revenue faster- and increase or a decrease in tax rates?
The fact that no one seems capable of answering this question (besides those of us who already know the answer) tells me that this isn’t nor has it ever been a serious argument.
W will not be beaten by his father at anything dammit!
By the time W leaves office consumer confidence will be lower than during pappy’s reign and gas prices will still be insane.
Dude, they windowed the periods to exclude the Great Depression, capturing only the frothy speculation bubble that brought the entire globe to its knees for nearly a decade.
Any reasonable survey of that length would use pickets of equal lengths of time, charting tax rates and whatever dependent variable they’re measuring. Throw the data into a chart and you’re done.
This is really basic statistical methodology. So basic that one can’t chalk it up to error: it’s intentional.
If so, it’s meant to deceive. If they deceive there, their entire report is meant to defraud. Citing CBO stats, while a clever stab at false respectability, doesn’t change that.
If you don’t see that, you’re not interested in truth. You seem to be a reasonably smart guy. Why do you enjoy being suckered?
@IamNotToddDavis:
The most conservative way to raise tax revenue is to increase taxes. Simply put the tax rates are not a drag on the economy. Lowering taxes from the current level will have no effect.
There is your plain and simple answer.
You have given me 4 examples where it has worked to middling results, leading 3 times into massive failure.
I can show you 200+ years of responsible taxation covering our national expenditure. Even in previous times of great distress, far greater than now, the nation has managed to do well.
Of course no one WANTS to pay taxes but our current national situation is that we have to start paying down the excessive debt that we have , and continue to, build. If we keep turning to radical ideas that are politically friendly but fiscally irresponsible America will loose its place in the world more so than it has.
Steadily and responsible cutting of expenses, investing in infrastructure, and taxation will lead to a gradual reversal of the current situation. Economic change regardless of what you believe does not need to be done in an all or nothing gamble.
Republicans like you are why I want a mainstream political party for conservatives.
@Trai_Dep:
The error isn’t with the heritage foundation article but instead the interpretation of it.
The article while skewed towards favoring lower taxes does not make the outright claim that lowering taxes increases revenue. It asserts that in those situations lowering taxes did increase revenue.
It falls flat because in reading the summary it actually makes the connecting between a simpler tax code and increased revenue. I can agree with that but no supporting evidence was given for that.
Overall the heritage foundation document isn’t nearly as extreme as Iamnottodddavis makes it sound.
I’d like to see a modern example that includes the bush administration and calculates deflation against the increased revenue.
@Techguy1138: I read an article today in the Kiplinger that Obama wants to cut more taxes then I was aware of. His recently hired finance adviser has advised him to cut corporate taxes down to 30.5%, and cut taxes all around the board (Even the rich).
So really, I’m happier today then I was yesterday. Looks like either way, the government is going to be lowering taxes. So, we both presidential candidates wanting to cut taxes, it makes me wonder if there is any significance in your data.
So now what are you libs gonna do? You have always been able to attack republicans for their flawed opinions on taxes, now you have the biggest leftist liberal in the modern world coming around. Now what?
@Techguy1138: First of all, I’m not a Republican, but nice attempt at projection.
And I didn’t ask you what was the most “conservative” way to raise revenue, I asked what is the most efficient. What will raise the most revenues? I am assuming that we both agree that an increase in tax revenues will help to retire the debt that you believe should be our priority.
Your answer is to raise taxes.
My answer is somewhat in congruence to your ideas about what overall tax rates do to the economy. I will use Hausers Law as an example-
[bp1.blogger.com]
[online.wsj.com]
“The data show that the tax yield (revenues divided by GDP) has been independent of marginal tax rates from 1950 to 2007 (see chart above), but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.
What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser’s Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That’s a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich – if they knew about it.”
@Bladefist: I dislike modern republicans for being for big government and their stance on fiscal responsibility. I am in disgust on what has happened in terms of reducing the powers of the constitution and the flagrant destruction of the military through sweetheart deals.
I am against big government and wasteful spending.
I am for states rights, a balanced budget, a strong constitution and the US military.
Do you even understand how far the Republican party has fallen? Why when given the house,senate and white house hasn’t the Republican party been able to defend of forward any of those core values?
How did values like mine get to be such fringe ideas that I am no longer identifiable as a Republican?
The party has been a miserable failure. McCain is a place holder candidate run by the party so that no one with a political future will be damaged.
Much needs to be changed and McCain isn’t talking about any of it.
Both candidates are going to be more of the same. Both are going to increase spending. I’ll look for the one that will spend most of that money on US infrastructure.
We have a city, a few bridges and a series of levees that need rebuilding and we also have a large number of unemployed construction workers.
@IamNotToddDavis:
Sorry my response got lost this is the short version
Lowering taxes will not have a significant effect. It will be far from the most efficient.
What you quoted shows only the tax rate on the rich compared to taxes as a fraction gdp. All that happened was the tax burden was taken off the wealthy. More ‘poor’ people are paying taxes.
Last year I paid more in taxes than Warren Buffet. I make far less.
“What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser’s Law says it will also lower tax revenue.”
That was proven wrong by the graph in the article. During the Clinton years taxes on the rich increased and the tax revenue went up.
It’s nice that you can find a few op-eds to support your position but 200+ years of fiscal prudence has shown better results in this nation.
The history you show provides a momentary bump fueled by inflation followed by a sharp fall off for the 1920,1980s and currently. Lowering taxes is a cheap parlor trick with a proven track record of dramatic failure.
@Techguy1138: “I paid more in taxes than Warren Buffet“
You mean in terms of perecentage of income or actual dollars?
” During the Clinton years taxes on the rich increased and the tax revenue went up.
“
Again, I could make the argument that on several other occasions taxes on “the rich” were lowered and tax revenue went up. But the main point was that GDP increased when the tax rates were lowered, which is more reflective of what happens when people are allowed to keep and invest more of their money than opposed to handing it over to the government to spend.
Lowering taxes is a cheap parlor trick with a proven track record of dramatic failure.
I disagree. I think raising taxes is a recipe for economic disaster especially considering the current economy and a further surrender of our liberties to a massive bloated bureaucracy with a horrible track record of economic mismanagement, fraud and waste.
I see that the Republicans have defaulted to their typical “we know what’s best arguments.” Poor people should use the salvation army since its not the government’s job to do this. Hate to tell you its the government’s job to do whatever the people say it is. Here are some more beauties from the “I don’t believe that a nation is measured in how it treats all its citizens but just how it treats it successful ones:”
“Take for example, the School Lunch program. In 2007 we spent 11 Billion dollars on lunch in the public screwl system. There is absolutely no reason the federal government should be doing this. If I, Average American, can pack a healthy lunch for me to take to work that costs me, maybe, $1.50 (something almost all families should be able to afford) there is no reason that the Federal government should be spending 11 billion dollars.” Do you know that educators say that this has been one of the most effective programs in government history? But hey, a government that does nothing is better than one that does good. Education investment? Why should the government want to do that?
“The Dept. of Health & Human Services spends more than the entire defense department. If we got rid of some of the all powerful state programs the feds would be able to pay off a lot of that debt quicker. If the states want to pick up those programs, let them vote on it.” And people will be better off? Most of what they “spend” is what you pay into medicare. Not some additional tax revenue.
“There are so many programs I would cut. The Iraq war is really not that huge of a burden on our economy. I don’t want to get into an Iraq debate, but in my opinion, I don’t want to co-exist with suicide bombers and a fear of a terrorist attack on united states. So we need to spend whatever it takes to clean up that mess. I think the world needs to realize, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc are the middle school drop outs, who are shooting up crack, and will always be a cost to society.” The Iraq war is not a huge burden? We spend over $2000 a minute on Iraq! And Iraq has nothing to do with suicide bombers in the US. Bin Laden whom Bust dropped the ball on does. He is in Pakistan.
“Tax cuts for people that dont pay taxes.
Tax increase for the ‘rich’ (whats his defination of rich, hmmm, in general liberals like him feel anyone making over 50k is ‘rich’)
Higher min wage
More lending rules..
Cap Loans at 36% max.. (bad credit people, your now SOL)
Kill free trade
More goverment manadate paid time off from work.
please tell me what ‘new’ ideas he has to help?
Answer = None, just more of the “The goverment is smarter then you, I am smarter then you, I will tell you what you should be making, and what services you should be getting”" Evidently mandating paid sick leave, pregnancy leaves, etc. are bad things. Look how bad it is in countries that do it. They seem to have less poor, higher educated people. Evidently we can compete with the rest of the world without actually investing in our people! Wow, no investment and infinite return on investment. You Norquist types really have that magic down. Tell us more.
And finally, even the supply siders contradict themselves. “Increase taxes, economy slows down. Lower taxes, expand the economy.” The Laffler curve shows that there is a optimum tax rate to maximize revenue and it ain’t zero. Because that is where your nonsense argument takes us. Additionally, let me explain mutual funds. By having many people invest small amounts of money, the fund manager can better use that money that anyone of us can with our small amounts. Same with government. We don’t build bridges or interstate highway systems, educate people, have an NIH with out government investment.
We see what it comes down to is these people seem to believe that a society is best remembered on how little the government does for its people by allowing some to get very rich. I can’t think of any good examples of a successful society that has done that, but perhaps they can point me to a few.
But doesn’t really matter does it? There will be a major wipe out this November. Obama may win 40 states and will win some southern states. The Dem majority will increase in the Senate and big time in the House. Why? Because the Republicans have pretty much messed this nation up for the last 8 years.
@Techguy1138: Alright. You got me there. I guess we agree. I do not like the current status of todays republican party. They look like democrats more often then not.
I am what I call a neutralist (I don’t belong to any political party). We should all keep in mind, the news media hates Republicans so much they make up stories like President Bushes’ military record (written in Times New Roman font), doctor up pictures like the American solder who said negative things about President Bush (actually a Canadian soldier doctored up), and many burning buildings in Iraq (one building and smoke copied over and over into the picture. Did you hear that after the Bush tax cuts there was more revenue going into the Federal treasury than there was BEFORE the tax cuts? No!!! All I want to know is how many times a poll is taken before the results the pollsters want are gotten?
Bottom line – republicans have had 8 years to show us what they can do and…they’ve fallen short, with no real hope for the future.
No responsible energy policy.
An EPA that is hobbled (more pollution for you!)
An FDA that’s run by insiders from the drug industry
The running roughshod over our constitutional rights in the name of ‘protecting’ us from the terra-ists.
The return of religious dogmatism
The violation of laws left and right
The falling value of the dollar
The mortgage crisis (if this is what gov’t ‘getting out of the way of business’ is going to produce, I think we need at least a modicum of regulation, don’t you?)
The start of a war based on false pretense and the complete irresponsible management and planning of the occupation.
I thought America was smarter than this – that we had such intelligence, such command of diplomacy and military wiles that we could capture the perpetrators, infiltrate and negate any of their efforts without having to blow up an entire country.
I guess that’s not the case – or at least not in the case of this administration, who seem hell bent on war with anyone who doesn’t please them. McCain seems only all to ready to continue that policy and the other failed policies of this administration.
Let’s see – have I missed anything?
8 years you’ve had to bring prosperity and peace – and this is what you have to show for it?
No wonder people are looking for something different.