Hey, We've Got The Lowest Consumer Confidence Since The First Bush Administration!
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]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
I guess history really does repeat itself....
Stupidity breeds stupidity...I doubt anyone's surprised with that rating.
"Perhaps the silver lining to this otherwise dismal report is that Consumer Confidence may be nearing a bottom," Franco said in a statement.
ok, so let me get this straight. you thought it was going to bottom out at 56. we're at 50. & the good news is that there's hope that this might be the bottom b/c the numbers blew past your estimate?
for some reason my confidence in your confidence has declined significantly.
I'm going to guess that McCains lobbyist told him to say:
"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."
And Obama's teleprompter told him:
"The disappointing consumer confidence numbers are yet more evidence that we need a change in our economic policy."
Then nobody asked for details for Obama's plan, because I think we all agree, he has no clue. It just sounds good, and makes people faint.
@Bladefist: Google is your friend. [www.barackobama.com] You can keep repeating that he has no plan, though -- that's good for a laugh.
For equal time's sake: [www.johnmccain.com]
I report, you decide.
Change! Damnit we need a change! A change is what we need! I think we need to make a change... We need to go ahead and make a change. Why? Because a change is what's called for, damnit!
"All of this happened before and it will happen again."
and idiot peabrains voted for BOTH of the douchebags. And there are STILL morons in this country who support them.
(In reference to previous quote.)Sorry got the quote wrong... it's this: "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
Oh, and I'm 100% sure that CNN fairly picked that statement from McCain. Because they would never be biased and try to make him look bad. Because CNN is reputable.
They're two sides of the same coin.
What exactly is this measuring. Consumers confidence in the goods they buy? Cuz if they're shopping at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Circuit City, it's understandable why their confidence is down.
"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the W Bush Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose.... The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of time.
But it was a beginning."
@PunditGuy: Let me translate that page for you:
We're going to tax our way out of half of the problems, and then for the other half, Wealth Redistribute.
Well people, get out there and start spending.
I just dont know what to do with this election.
I typically lean to the right, but McCain makes me want to cry. Obama, he motivates me, to do what, I dont know, change? But I'm not a fan on taxing the oil companies record profits (because they have record expenses also).
McCain admits he has no idea what he's doing when it comes to economy issues. Obama wants to socialize health care, i.e. like 20% of economy.
Obama looks like me, but then again so did the guy who mugged me.
So confused.
Wow, McCain ... eh, ahem, I mean "Candidate X" actually called economists "Geeks"? His respect rating with me just went up a couple of notches.
@Juggernaut: "We need some change, bro, we need a change in fucking candidates."
Part of the greatest* anti-Obama drunken rant I heard this weekend.
*racist, irrational, nonsensical but totally entertaining.
So you don't like Obama's plan, eh? What would YOU propose? How do you pay debt without income? How do you gain income without tax?
Obama says - let's tax the people that can afford it (the wealthy) and give tax breaks to those who can't (lower income people). Let's also cut tax breaks to companies who are making windfall profits (Exxon with $54 BILLION in profits paid only 11% of that in taxes - why do they only pay 11% when I pay close to 30%??). He also wants to give tax incentives to renewable energy research.
McCain says - let's keep giving tax breaks to the wealthy (who have a surprisingly good record at keeping that money to themselves) and do nothing for the lower income folks. And also continue to give tax breaks to oil companies, expand drilling, etc. - how does that help us? McCain also voted to end tax incentives for renewable energy.
Now, given that, please explain how Obama's plan doesn't make just a *little* more sense, because I'd really, really like to hear how you're justifying your position.
The first Bush was pretty good with the economy. He was able to deftly deal with the train wreck that Regan left. He decreased spending from year to year and increased taxes.
He was if not a fiscal conservative, at least a fiscal centrist. Clinton continued almost the same fiscal policies and after nearly a decade the country began a rebound... Then W came along. I do not like fiscal radicals in Republican clothing.
As the article goes I do feel the national economy is slowing. The resources that could be devoted to helping America solve our issues are being dedicated to Iraq. I feel that we are really in trouble because of our limited ability to affect domestic priorities at this point.
It was pretty easy to guess the quotes based on which campaign would use the term 'geeks' in speaking about potential constituents and which would talk about 'change'.
Maybe the policy itself is the reason why our economy sucks?
I bet nobody thaught of that one, huh?
I think someone broke the internet, call Al Gore.
@Bladefist: So the solution to a budget crisis is perhaps issue more credit? The budget hole that we have gotten into in the last 8 years can not be dug out of by spending cuts alone unless the US liquidated it's standing army.
Poor decision making has left taxation coupled with service and spending cuts as the only reasonable way to shore up the economy. The amount of debt acquired eliminated the normal possibilities of infrastructure improvement, even though it's required.
Less revenue and more spending aren't the answers to the current economy.
Less revenue and more spending aren't the answers to the current economy.
Then how do you feel about adding universal health care and cutting taxes?
@kcrusher: I wrote a massive response to you, and consumerist somehow screwed up and it didn't post. Can't do it again. sorry :(
@Bladefist: That would be a funny comment except Obama has a plan, try visiting his website...it should take 30 seconds to find the info.
There was no need to identify the candidates. If the quote contains either the words "hope" or "change", it must be from Obama. Bonus points if it contains both.
@parad0x360: If you read above, I already visited his site, and translated his economy plan for you.
@Git Em SteveDave has a crush on the Swedes: That would be consumer confidence in the idea that they can just spend money and not have to worry about still having a job next month.
@Bladefist: Again with the boilerplate. Repeating the same tired old crap over and over makes you sound like you don't have an original thought of your own in your head. Despite what you were told in propagandist school, repeating bullcrap doesn't make it into something other than bullcrap.
@parad0x360: But it's so much easier to just complain that he doesn't have a plan! It's also fun to say he's a muslim terrorist. He eats babies, too.
Giant douche or a turd sandwich.
@Steaming Pile: They're all my thoughts. I went to a liberal public school just like the rest of you. Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean I'm a zealot.
You are quite typical yourself. It's the same old arrogant socialist tactics. You must be trai_deps other half.
@Bladefist: What was Bush's economic plan again? Something like tax cuts and lax regulation drive spending and investment?
If you take the reins off the horses, the cart will move faster? (No, obviously the horses will move faster and leave the cart behind. Oooh I like this analogy.)
@Michael Belisle: I love it when people try to go after me for supporting a guy I've never supported. Hey why don't you make fun of my best friend Brad Pitt, and my gf, Uma Thurman.
@Bladefist: You mean you thought up that tripe all by yourself? Are you sure Rush Limbaugh didn't put those words in your mouth, because you sure sound like him.
And as for the 'arrogance,' isn't that just the 2008 version of 'hate filled rhetoric?' You see, that kind of stuff makes my BS meter go all the way to 11. I'm sorry, but when you serve up the same 80 MPH fastballs every single time, I just gotta swing at 'em, even on 3-0.
consumerist is really quite sucking lately, regarding technical quality. 3 times now I've tried to post in this thread, it's borked.
Since everyone is bashing Bush's tax cuts (which had to be approved by congress, and were) it's my turn to add some indisputable facts.
Lower taxes means INCREASED REVENUE.
Raising taxes means DECREASED REVENUE.
Lowering taxes across the board gives the greatest increase in revenue, period. Yes, the rich get the biggest tax cut in terms of actual dollar amounts, but that is because they pay the most in taxes to begin with.
If you raise taxes, regardless of which income bracket you do it to, you will DECREASE REVENUE.
No more graduated income tax!!!! Let those rich people feel a little pain. (Not that they would *really* feel any pain.)
@Bladefist: Am I in the wrong room? I thought we were discussing Bush I and II.
Oh I see now that we're discussing Bush III and Carter II. My bad.
@savvy999:
My friends did that in college once during the state of the union speech. Anytime Bush said "freedom" or "terror" they had to drink.
They didn't go to class the next day.
great! another useless consumerist post to stir up the trolls! /sarcasm
Obviously idiocy runs in the family. Bush Sr may not have been quite as stupid as W, but he was close.