The Economy, stupid

[lostfan]

USAA gives better rates than most - we have our insurance and car loan through them, luckily.

 

If you know you won't need it at all during 12 months, then yeah, looks good. If you aren't 100% sure (and I never am), then I'd rather take the 3.5% from Citi or E-Trade without the penalty. The $4 over a year on $1000 is worth it to me to be able to get it out if needed.

How'd you get USAA, you were in the military or related to someone in the military? I haven't found anyone able to beat their auto insurance rates (although I believe auto insurance in general is a massive, borderline conspiracy-like scam).

 

I think Schwab does what you're talking about too don't they?

[StrangeSox]

Don't forget credit unions. They seem to offer better rates than most regular banks.

[NorthSideSox72]

How'd you get USAA, you were in the military or related to someone in the military? I haven't found anyone able to beat their auto insurance rates (although I believe auto insurance in general is a massive, borderline conspiracy-like scam).

 

I think Schwab does what you're talking about too don't they?

My wife's father was a marine. Lives in your neck of the woods, actually.

 

And yes to the post about credit unions - if you can fall into their membership realm, that can be a way to get great rates.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

One small bright spot in the economy... people have begun saving more, after years or decades of declining savings rates.

 

This is a short term bad, but a long term good.

 

[Texsox]

I was in a waiting room this morning and only saw the scrolling, is Dubya considering another round of free money to stimulate the economy?

[vandy125]

I was in a waiting room this morning and only saw the scrolling, is Dubya considering another round of free money to stimulate the economy?

Yes, he is. Thanks to Bernanke.

AP Story

[StrangeSox]

At this point, why don't they just give everyone their own at-home printing press?

[Balta1701]

Yay...we get to fill some of that vacant office space!

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. plans soon to sign a major lease of office space in Orange County, probably in Irvine, where as many as 600 people would liquidate the assets of troubled banks and thrifts based in California and other Western states.

 

The agency needs 200,000 square feet of space and has looked at locations across Southern California, FDIC spokesman David Barr said.

 

"It's a temporary office -- three to five years is what we're looking at," Barr said Tuesday. "We hope to find the space within the next few weeks."

 

Thanks largely to the housing bubble, not a single U.S. bank or thrift failed from June 2004 through February 2007, the longest collapse-free stretch in the FDIC's 75-year history. But three banks went under last year, 15 have folded this year, and the FDIC has warned of more failures in coming years.

 

A contingent of FDIC officials has been occupying the Pasadena headquarters of IndyMac Bank, a giant mortgage lender that failed in July. Barr said the FDIC wanted its new office to be reasonably close to IndyMac. The first 100 or so employees could be in the new office by December.

 

If no buyer emerges for all of IndyMac, the FDIC could wind up with billions of dollars in high-risk IndyMac mortgages -- loans that the agency, as the current operator of IndyMac, has been trying to modify en masse to stem foreclosures.

[southsider2k5]

So did Obama change his tune on this, or is Krugman just out in LF again? I thought he said $250,000 and below were safe from raises in taxes. Krugman quotes a figure of $182,400.

 

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions — divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions — he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys — white guys, it went without saying — who didn’t like the social changes taking place.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

 

Paul Krugman

Columnist Page

Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

Related

Times Topics: John McCain

Readers' Comments

 

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

 

* Read All Comments (542) »

 

It was a winning formula. And the great thing was that the new packaging didn’t require any change in the product’s actual contents — in fact, the G.O.P. was able to keep winning elections even as its actual policies became more pro-plutocrat, and less favorable to working Americans, than ever.

 

John McCain’s strategy, in this final stretch, is based on the belief that the old formula still has life in it.

 

Thus we have Sarah Palin expressing her joy at visiting the “pro-America” parts of the country — yep, we’re all traitors here in central New Jersey. Meanwhile we’ve got Mr. McCain making Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a k a Joe the Plumber — who had confronted Barack Obama on the campaign trail, alleging that the Democratic candidate would raise his taxes — the centerpiece of his attack on Mr. Obama’s economic proposals.

 

And when it turned out that the right’s new icon had a few issues, like not being licensed and comparing Mr. Obama to Sammy Davis Jr., conservatives played victim: see how much those snooty elitists hate the common man?

 

But what’s really happening to the plumbers of Ohio, and to working Americans in general?

 

First of all, they aren’t making a lot of money. You may recall that in one of the early Democratic debates Charles Gibson of ABC suggested that $200,000 a year was a middle-class income. Tell that to Ohio plumbers: according to the May 2007 occupational earnings report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual income of “plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters” in Ohio was $47,930.

 

Second, their real incomes have stagnated or fallen, even in supposedly good years. The Bush administration assured us that the economy was booming in 2007 — but the average Ohio plumber’s income in that 2007 report was only 15.5 percent higher than in the 2000 report, not enough to keep up with the 17.7 percent rise in consumer prices in the Midwest. As Ohio plumbers went, so went the nation: median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower in 2007 than it had been in 2000.

 

Third, Ohio plumbers have been having growing trouble getting health insurance, especially if, like many craftsmen, they work for small firms. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007 only 45 percent of companies with fewer than 10 employees offered health benefits, down from 57 percent in 2000.

 

And bear in mind that all these data pertain to 2007 — which was as good as it got in recent years. Now that the “Bush boom,” such as it was, is over, we can see that it achieved a dismal distinction: for the first time on record, an economic expansion failed to raise most Americans’ incomes above their previous peak.

 

Since then, of course, things have gone rapidly downhill, as millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and their homes. And all indicators suggest that things will get much worse in the months and years ahead.

 

So what does all this say about the candidates? Who’s really standing up for Ohio’s plumbers?

 

Mr. McCain claims that Mr. Obama’s policies would lead to economic disaster. But President Bush’s policies have already led to disaster — and whatever he may say, Mr. McCain proposes continuing Mr. Bush’s policies in all essential respects, and he shares Mr. Bush’s anti-government, anti-regulation philosophy.

 

What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets — and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.

 

Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama’s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains — America is a big country, and there’s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance.

 

I don’t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

 

But that’s the point. Whatever today’s G.O.P. is, it isn’t the party of working Americans.

[kapkomet]

Before you know it, it will be down to about $75,000 a year.

 

[Balta1701]

Before you know it, it will be down to about $75,000 a year.

After the damage Bush has done to the economy...in a few years, $75,000 a year might be the top .1% of wage earners

[southsider2k5]

So did Obama change his tune on this, or is Krugman just out in LF again? I thought he said $250,000 and below were safe from raises in taxes. Krugman quotes a figure of $182,400.

 

Or might it be even lower than that...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...WM4NzZlNTg1MTQ=

 

Since posting that, I've been meaning to look at what defines the top two brackets for each different filing status. I found them for 2008 here.

 

If your filing status is single, you hit those top two brackets once you make more than $164,550.

 

If your filing status is married filing jointly, you hit those top two brackets once you and your spouse make more than $200,300.

 

If your filing status is married filing separately, you hit those top two brackets once you make more than $100,150.

 

Now, obviously, once you're in those brackets you're doing pretty well — although the cost of living varies a great deal; $200,000 buys you a very different lifestyle in Oklahoma than it does in Manhattan. I'm not sure folks in that bracket think of themselves as "rich," and I'm not sure incomes at that level fit the public perception of "rich," either. Notice all of them are well below the $250,000 number we hear endlessly thrown around by Obama and his supporters.

[Soxbadger]

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

 

Those are the correct brackets and judging from that if Obama does in fact increase the top 2 brackets it would be accurate to say that some people making $160k would have taxes raised.

 

The problem is I cant find an all encompassing document on the tax plan. Here is a CNN break down of the tax plans and how it will affect people:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...s_tpc/index.htm

MCCAIN OBAMA

Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill

Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885

$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974

$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12

$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789

$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204

$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290

$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042

$19K-$38K -$113 -$892

Under $19K -$19 -$567

 

It seems to suggest what Obama is saying is true, that under his plan only those above 250k would see a tax increase on their bill.

 

Now this may be the case because of the following:

 

Lets say that Obama is proposing a 2% tax increase on incomes between 100k and 250k. This would result in the 100k person paying $2,000 more in taxes and the 250k person paying $5,000 more in taxes.

 

Now if the Obama plan also calls for in excess of $5,000 of rebates technically the persons tax liability has remained the same or decreased.

 

IE:

 

I make $100,000, I pay an extra $2,000 in taxes, but receive a discount/rebate of $5,000. My entire tax liability has gone down $3,000, even though my tax rate went up.

 

The problem is there just is really no way to fully argue this unless we have the entire plan to try and figure out where the numbers come from. My guess is that my suggestion is correct, but its basically just taking ideas that ive heard Obama say and then creating a plan from them that fits the results hes claiming.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

 

Those are the correct brackets and judging from that if Obama does in fact increase the top 2 brackets it would be accurate to say that some people making $160k would have taxes raised.

 

The problem is I cant find an all encompassing document on the tax plan. Here is a CNN break down of the tax plans and how it will affect people:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...s_tpc/index.htm

 

 

It seems to suggest what Obama is saying is true, that under his plan only those above 250k would see a tax increase on their bill.

 

Now this may be the case because of the following:

 

Lets say that Obama is proposing a 2% tax increase on incomes between 100k and 250k. This would result in the 100k person paying $2,000 more in taxes and the 250k person paying $5,000 more in taxes.

 

Now if the Obama plan also calls for in excess of $5,000 of rebates technically the persons tax liability has remained the same or decreased.

 

IE:

 

I make $100,000, I pay an extra $2,000 in taxes, but receive a discount/rebate of $5,000. My entire tax liability has gone down $3,000, even though my tax rate went up.

 

The problem is there just is really no way to fully argue this unless we have the entire plan to try and figure out where the numbers come from. My guess is that my suggestion is correct, but its basically just taking ideas that ive heard Obama say and then creating a plan from them that fits the results hes claiming.

Also, even if the tax rates go up above $160k, people making, say, $180k, may still have lower taxes. Tax brackets are not absolute - they are incremental. In other words, people making $180k would enjoy the tax breaks on all their income up to $160k, which may save them thousands. But then they start paying more. This means that they may need to make, say, 200k or 250k or whatever before the increases offset the decreases.

 

[Soxbadger]

Yeah that was something I didnt even bring up.

 

You are only taxed on the income over the tax bracket, thus your first XXX is taxed just like some one who only makes XXX. Its only the amount that is over the bracket that is taxed at the higher rate.

[NorthSideSox72]

Pre-market futures down around 7% before being halted. Delayed open for equity markets being discussed. Looks like an ugly day.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Equity markets open according to normal schedule, and promptly shed 5 to 6% in the opening minutes.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Home sales up in Sept by 5%, up 1.4% YOY. Prices down 9%. This has been a repeated theme in recent months, and its actually a good sign for the housing sector - inventory is sinking, prices are normalizing.

 

[SoxFan562004]

OK, as I've said before I'm very ignorant when it comes to the day and day out economic markets. What am I supposed to take from today? The futures were shut down, but as of a minute ago the Dow will basically only give up the gains from yesterday

 

EDIT: Oops, sorry, it must have dropped between the delay I was looking at and the closing numbers, look like it gave up a little over 300

Edited October 24, 2008 by SoxFan562004

[Balta1701]

OK, as I've said before I'm very ignorant when it comes to the day and day out economic markets. What am I supposed to take from today? The futures were shut down, but as of a minute ago the Dow will basically only give up the gains from yesterday

 

EDIT: Oops, sorry, it must have dropped between the delay I was looking at and the closing numbers, look like it gave up a little over 300

I think the take home message for the next year is probably going to be...even now that the credit markets seem to be unlocking as the worldwide government bailouts do their job...the market is still, at its base, driven by the profitability of companies, and right now, the biggest driver of profitability, the relentless spending of the American consumer...is just broken. We're facing a serious, year or more long worldwide economic recession, it's going to pound profits for the next year or two, and its' going to take a long time before we work our way out of it.

[mr_genius]

After the damage Bush has done to the economy...in a few years, $75,000 a year might be the top .1% of wage earners

 

 

"Typical vast right wing conspiracy. I don't get any credit for this disaster which I played a major role in creating."

[mr_genius]

New York Yankees get government bailout

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/...egoryId=3286128

[NorthSideSox72]

Holy crap - major markets up 11% TODAY. I'm getting whiplash over here.

 

Glad I made a couple new ETF buys yesterday - nice quick profit.

 

[southsider2k5]

I can believe the big snap back, what I can't believe is that we aren't selling off right now. My prediction is a quiet day until 1:15 with the Fed rate cut coming, and then a big (4-5%) selloff at the end of the day.

[Cknolls]

I can believe the big snap back, what I can't believe is that we aren't selling off right now. My prediction is a quiet day until 1:15 with the Fed rate cut coming, and then a big (4-5%) selloff at the end of the day.

 

 

I believe we test 960 S&P.