Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Americans' net worth up for 2nd straight quarter

Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:01 PM EST
business, politics, us, federal-reserve, net-worth
Daniel Wagner, AP Business Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>FILE - In this Friday, Nov. 27, 2009 file photo, shoppers look at TomTom GPS devices at a Target store in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. Americans got wealthier for a second straight quarter in the fall, as the economic recovery again boosted home values and investments. (AP Photo/Amy Sancetta, file)</p>

FILE - In this Friday, Nov. 27, 2009 file photo, shoppers look at TomTom GPS devices at a Target store in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. Americans got wealthier for a second straight quarter in the fall, as the economic recovery again boosted home values and investments. (AP Photo/Amy Sancetta, file)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Inch by inch, Americans are recovering some of their vast loss of wealth from the recession, thanks to gains in stock investments and home values. It's likely to be a long trek. Net worth — the value of assets such as homes, bank accounts and investments, minus debts like mortgages and credit cards — rose 5 percent last quarter, to $53.4 trillion, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. That was the second straight quarterly increase.

Yet even with those gains, Americans' net worth remains far below its revised peak of $64.5 trillion reached before the recession began. That underscores the vast loss of wealth over the past two years. Net worth would need to rise an additional 21 percent just to return to its pre-recession height.

And many analysts don't expect a repeat of the strong second- and third-quarter gains any time soon. That's why Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics at Moody's Economy.com, thinks household wealth won't match its pre-recession peak until about 2012.

"We're clearly moving in the right direction, although we have questions about whether we can get there as quickly as we have in the past couple of quarters," Hoyt said.

Investments delivered by far the biggest boost to net worth in the July-September period. The value of corporate equities jumped $1.04 trillion, slightly less than the previous quarter's rise.

That increase mirrored the stock market's powerful showing. The Standard & Poor's 500 index, a barometer of the market, rose 15 percent in the third quarter. And it's surged about 60 percent since March.

Still, even with an additional 4 percent gain so far in the fourth quarter, the S&P index is still 32 percent off the peak of October 2007. The recession began in December 2007.

The gains in net worth are expected to slow, along with the broader economic recovery. Credit remains tight. And consumers still aren't spending freely.

Some analysts fear the Fed's policy of cheap lending and the weak dollar are inflating stock market performance and encouraging too much speculation. They say the gains of recent quarters aren't sustainable.

"We will eventually recover the loss in net worth, but it may take three to five years," said Mark Vitner, senior economist for Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, N.C.

Real estate was a smaller part of the increase in third-quarter net worth. The value of American households' real estate holdings rose 2 percent, or $348 billion. Analysts expect prices to dip again this winter as foreclosures spread and economic growth remains modest.

With those low-priced properties dominating sales, Barclays Capital economist Michelle Meyer forecasts an 8 percent drop in prices before they hit bottom next spring. Other analysts expect a drop of 5 to 10 percent before the market hits bottom in the spring.

Americans also are paying off debt at record levels, the Fed said. They reduced mortgages, credit cards and other loans by 2.6 percent in the third quarter and have been cutting household debt levels for a year. That's a healthy sign for personal finances, but a cautionary one for economic growth: Consumers are paring their debt with money they might otherwise be spending.

Even though stocks remain far below their pre-recession levels, employees who have stayed invested in 401(k) plans and continued to contribute have fared better: Major 401(k) providers say nearly 60 percent of such participants now have more money in their accounts than before the market decline.

Alan Hull, of Canton, Mich., said he feels better about the economy but doesn't feel any richer. His 401(k) account has recovered some, but his other investments have a long way to go.

"To say that we are wealthier — that's kind of a misnomer," said Hull, 56, who works in information technology for Ford Motor Co. "But I'm starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and I don't feel like it's an oncoming train."

___

Carpenter reported from Chicago. AP Real Estate Writer Alan Zibel in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Daniel Wagner's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (66)
WDH

the economic recovery again boosted home values and investments

Wasn't inflated home values part of the problem that caused the whole crash in the first place?

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:12 PM EST
Behind My Screen

Yes and No.

The underwriting of risky loans that were spun off into insurance securities allowed a lot of people to buy homes who shouldn't have. This huge home buying demand caused the rise in home prices.

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:37 PM EST
Doug-375144

Oh boy the regular folks are inching back while the gov't shovels cash to the banks who are again making huge profit.... and raising more money on huge fee increases , yes this is working out real well for us. Hello Barney ! thanks alot , what are you actually doing anyway ?

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:30 PM EST
Reply
GOP Rules

WHOOP WHOOP! I'm feelin' wealthy! Just a year ago, I had thousands saved. Now I'm behind on all my bills with no real chance at finding that second job to help me catch up. Thanks for the wealth. Can I go back to how poor I was under Bush instead?

  • 6 votes
#2 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:15 PM EST
mike from wisc

me too please.

  • 5 votes
#2.1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:19 PM EST
Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

Ok, I'm confused...I've read other articles this week that state:

  • Unemployment (save temp positions for the holidays) has risen...
  • People are pulling their money from banks...
  • More people are walking from their homes...
  • Foreclosure are on the rise...

And yet, Net Worth went up again?

I'm thinking this has got to be celebrities and politician highlights, not what normal people like you and I are feeling...lemme check.

Investments provided the biggest boost in the July-September period

Yup...the rich get richer.

It will be interesting to see what this nation will become when there are two completely separate classes: the have's and the have not's. I mean, we're close to that today (they don't share the same legal system we do, nor do they deal with the same health restrictions we do, but we're not completely distinct), but we're not quite there...yet.

  • 9 votes
#2.2 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:45 PM EST
Roy S

I too do not feel any wealthier. Its got to be the wealthy. I worked for 31 years to get my little pension, but I should have known our government would let all the economy get out of hand. I personally do not see home ownership as wealth. Is it not true that a house(shelter) should be part of the survival pyrmiad and not under the asset column. To show the disconnect between the wealthy and the poor, the Univ. of TX just gave the football coach a 3 million dollar raise go figure. What if in the remaining contract he has a bad season he still gets it. The board of regents are rich crazy people who have no consideration for others. How do you thing it makes the English or Math proffesor who makes probably under 100k, who are really doing the grunt work.

  • 3 votes
#2.3 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:25 PM EST
Behind My Screen

Bush caused this recession. The collapse happened during the fall elections.

Are GOPers really that forgetful?

  • 4 votes
#2.4 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:39 PM EST
bonos_rama

No, Obama is to be blamed for everything that happened during Bush's term. It's in the GOP 101 handbook.

  • 2 votes
#2.5 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:05 PM EST
eriq samson

What?

This isn't an MSNBC seed?

Then what's with all the ignorant childish posturing comments?

The article is simple - the total net worth:

Net worth — the value of assets such as homes, bank accounts and investments, minus debts like mortgages and credit cards — rose 5 percent last quarter, to $53.4 trillion, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. That was the second straight quarterly increase.

This is a fact, a specific number that is the net worth of all americans.

It also says

Americans' net worth remains far below its revised peak of $64.5 trillion reached before the recession began. That underscores the vast loss of wealth over the past two years. Net worth would need to rise an additional 21 percent just to return to its pre-recession height.

As per above comment 1.1; that number was inflated, which is what caused the recession, bogus numbers, fake securities

All these "My situation isn't better" simply demonstrate an intense lack of reading comprehension, the article says that; BUSH did this damage over 8 years and it will take a while to fix it (hopefully not another 8 years but there is no magic wand to be waved to fix this)

Too many conservatives living in Harry Potter-land childhood fantasies

  • 3 votes
#2.6 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:20 PM EST
GOP Rules

Libs only defense: "It's Bush's fault."

According to the libs it will be Bush's fault until another Republican comes in and straightens the mess out and then the recovery will have been caused by Obama.

Such shallow thinking and completely worthless. I challenge ANY lib to give me one good reason for continuing the Bush bashing when Bush has zero power. It's all to make yourselves feel better for electing the worst president in history. Oh, and on that note, how 'bout that November deficit? Guess who owns that? OBAMA!

  • 1 vote
#2.7 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:45 PM EST
Behind My Screen

GOP Rules,

Uhh... it is Bush's fault.

  • 3 votes
#2.8 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:44 PM EST
GOP Rules

Behind My Screen - "Uhh... it is Bush's fault. "

Uhh... no it's not. Nice trolling though.

    #2.9 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:12 PM EST
    Behind My Screen

    Im not the troll.

    Only an idiot would think Bush was not at fault considering the factors that brought us the recession, who was president when the recession started, and who was president when the bottom fell out of the economy.

    • 2 votes
    #2.10 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:27 PM EST
    eriq samson

    You were expecting common sense from someone with a name like that?

    Remember, you can't challenge their world view - crazies might go violent

    • 1 vote
    #2.11 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:04 PM EST
    GOP Rules

    BMS - "Only an idiot would think Bush was not at fault considering the factors that brought us the recession, who was president when the recession started, and who was president when the bottom fell out of the economy."

    Bush did just fine until the Dems took over then BAM! Yep, it WAS Bush's recession, you can have that. It is NOW OBAMA'S recession. Prove to me one thing: Prove to me that it does any good to blame Bush. I can prove that it does good to put the responsibility on Obama since he is the one who can now do something.

    Now we have the fool Obama above us all and dems can't seem to face the fact that this is now OBAMA'S recession. Sure, you can sit around collecting your checks and blame Bush. Or you can grow a set and accept responsibility for the fool you helped elect and hand him the recession that is his. I have many times accepted that I helped elect the last fool (Bush).

    eriq - "You were expecting common sense from someone with a name like that? Remember, you can't challenge their world view - crazies might go violent"

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Typical lib scared-of-everything response. Take your methadone and go to bed.

    • 1 vote
    #2.12 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:26 PM EST
    eriq samson

    ROTFLMAO

    The first Bush recession was 2001 - the Dems took back the House in 2007 (but according to you they were in charge in spite of this fact)

    Again; who expected facts or intelligence from someone using that childish screen name?

    Foolish!

    • 1 vote
    #2.13 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:51 PM EST
    mike from wisc

    I didn't see a recession in 2001. I had more work from 99- 07 then any other time in my 49 years. So now lets see Obama actually do something good. All he has done so far is @#%k things up.

    • 2 votes
    #2.14 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:16 PM EST
    GOP Rules

    Eriq - "The first Bush recession was 2001"

    Gotcha! BAM! So, according to your hypocritical thought process Obama is clear and free from this being his recession because he has only been in a year but BUSH on the other hand is guilty of owning the 2001 recession because he had already been in office for a year...

    ROFL... You see, my friend, you just hate Bush so much you can't see past the hate to realize that Obama makes Bush look like a saint...

    "Again; who expected facts or intelligence from someone using that childish screen name?"

    Gosh, I love this screen name... It sure keeps me entertained.

      #2.15 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:57 PM EST
      Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

      So, according to your hypocritical thought process Obama is clear and free from this being his recession because he has only been in a year but BUSH on the other hand is guilty of owning the 2001 recession because he had already been in office for a year...

      Actually a very good point and goes to show where the gray area is between what someone inherits, what benefits and fallout set forth from a previous administration fall into the new one, and what exactly is "zero hour" for a new administration.

      I mean...look at the market stats while Bush was getting into office:

      • Dow peaks at 10,900 in Jan 2000 before falling to 8,800. Then Bush spends the next 7 years getting it to break 13,000.
      • Nasdaq was at 4,700 in Feb 2000 before plummeting to 1,300. Then Bush spent the next 7 years getting it to break 2,600.
      • S&P 1,400 in Jan 2000 before dropping to 885. Bush spent the next 7 years getting it to break 1,400 again.

      Then the big drop hit and everything sunk again.

      SO...

      we can either give Clinton Bush's first year and deal with the plummet that would be his, and as such, give Bush Obama's first year and the state that it'll be in (actions taken that are coming to fruition) or say their first day in starts their impact (which I would personally disagree with).

      You don't get to cherry pick the best for the one and the later for the other as that simply unfair...and untrue.

      • 2 votes
      #2.16 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:05 AM EST
      eriq samson

      Mike, shawn, G R - at some time you might want to learn the basics of logic

      Bush inherited an economy that was growing; even using Shawn's figures where was the dow in december 2008? Clinton left a solid economy

      Bush, on the other hand left a crumbling economy; the recession started in 2007 (not 2009 as it would have to if you were comparing them as equal); the bank bailout was under BUSH, before Obama; the auto bailout was started under BUSH, not Obama

      See you get the dates mixed up and it makes L I E of your silliness. You ignored reality as it did not match your partisan beliefs

      There is a word for that - insane; a denial of reality

      Good luck with that

      • 1 vote
      #2.17 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:38 AM EST
      Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

      Both Clinton AND Obama have, on video, claimed some responsibility for a wonderful idea of a plan that failed miserably (opening up the gates to housing for people that couldn't possible afford it).

      The links to their videos have been put on a multitude of vines and still everyone wants to say that Clinton was 100% right, and that everything was heaven, and that it was Bush and Bush alone that caused the near collapse of the free world.

      While Bush holds responsibility...you may want to read a bit further as each has held their hand in the mess we went through.

      • 2 votes
      #2.18 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:51 AM EST
      GOP Rules

      eriq - Here is an old article about the 2001 recession. You are correct, it absolutely did happen but it started under Clinton. -

      Bush was not a great president in my eyes at least. Frankly, I haven't really ever observed a great president in my time. The closest, per history, was Reagan and I've heard many, many horror stories about Reagan. The one that comes to mind is when ketchup became an acceptable vegetable for school lunches. (I was very young under Reagan and at that time could not care less about politics) Sorry, I have not looked into your history or profile so I don't know your approximate age; you may know more about Reagan, either good or bad.

      I think you are making the mistake of assuming that I don't realize this recession started under Bush; I do. My point is that this is not Bush's recession any longer. The choices Obama make now are critical. Too much government intervention is worse than none at all. Obama now owns this recession, therefore obviously it is his. He has so far made nothing but poor decisions which are going to bite us all in the butt later.

      It would be best for everybody if Obama took the role of a leader and not one who blames others and then does nothing to fix the issue. A leader says "this is broke, lets work to fix it" not "it was Bush's fault we are in this mess." See the difference? One causes unity, the other causes division.

      • 2 votes
      #2.19 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:06 AM EST
      eriq samson

      GOP - NO, the recession did not start until BUSH (and quoting National review on economics is like quoting Mickey Mouse on economics - not credible and in the case of NR highly partisan as well)

      The NBER is the one that sets recessions and they have dated March - November 2001 as a recession; Bush took office in January 2001 so your dates are obviously off; as well this demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the subject and / or reality

      NO, you don't know what you are talking about; this is NOT government intervention (like wage and price controls under --- a republican president!) - speeding up purchasing from PRIVATE companies is NOT government intervention in those companies

      All you are doing is showing crazy partisanship. Please do some research, take some classes in economics, you are way off the course on this

      • 1 vote
      #2.20 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:26 PM EST
      Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

      The NBER is the one that sets recessions and they have dated March - November 2001 as a recession; Bush took office in January 2001 so your dates are obviously off; as well this demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the subject and / or reality

      Since you're mentioning NBER, from various articles I'm reading, those numbers were the initial estimates, but deeper research seems to conclude that the recession actually started a few months earlier. From one of the many I've read...

      The four series cited by the NBER in their decision about the recent business-cycle peak were revised as follows:

      • Real personal income less transfers:When the NBER dated the recession, this series showed a generally steady rise throughout 2000 and early 2001. Subsequent revisions reveal that income peaked in October 2000.
      • Nonfarm payroll employment: The data at the time of the recession announcement showed employment growing at a substantial pace in early 2001, with 287,000 jobs added from December 2000 to its peak in March 2001. Revised data show that employment grew less than one-third of this amount in early 2001 and peaked in February 2001.
      • Industrial production:The original data used by the NBER showed that this series peaked in September 2000. Revised data show that this peak came even earlier, in June 2000.
      • Manufacturing and trade sales: Original data showed a peak in August 2000; the most recent data show a peak in June 2000.

      Thus, the revised data show that the latest peak among the four series was February 2001, with some series peaking considerably earlier. Moreover, another data series, which the NBER has recently announced it will incorporate into its business-cycle dating process, also shows a peak before March 2001: monthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001, according to the most recently available estimates computed by a private economic consulting firm.

      While some arbitrariness in determining the date on which a recession began is inevitable, revisions since the NBER made its decision for the most recent recession strongly suggest that the business-cycle peak was before March 2001. The median date of the peak for the five series discussed here is October 2000. Other data support the notion that economic activity had slowed sharply or even begun to decline by this point, including the stock market, business investment, and initial unemployment claims. For these reasons, the analyses throughout this chapter (including the charts that compare this recession to past recessions) use the fourth quarter of 2000 as the peak of economic activity and the start of the recession.

      http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/08/the_2001_recess.html


        #2.21 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:18 PM EST
        Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

        or from another...more elementary article.

        What Caused the Recession of 2001?

        The recession of 2001 is a great example. In 1999, there was a economic boom in computer and software sales caused by the Y2K scare. Many companies and individuals bought new computer systems to make sure their software was “Y2K compliant” This meant that the operating code would be able to understand the difference between 2000 and 1900, since many fields within that code only had two spaces, not the four needed to fully differentiate the two dates. As a result, the stock price of many high tech companies started to increase. This led to a lot of investors' money going to any kind of high tech company, whether they were showing profits or not. The exuberance for dot.com companies became irrational.

        It became apparent in January 2000 that computer orders were going to decline, since the shelf life of most computers is about two years, and companies had just bought all the equipment they would need. This led to a stock-market sell-off in March 2000. As stock prices declined, so did the value of the dot.com companies, and many went bankrupt.

        (this was the case in the B2B company that I worked for at the time)

        High Interest Rates Cause Recession

        High interest rates are also a cause of recession. That's because it limits liquidity, or the amount of money available to invest. In spite of the stock market decline in March 2000, the Federal Reserve continued raising interest rates to a high of 6.25% in May 2000. The Fed didn't start lowering rates until January 2001, and lowered them about 1/2 point each month, resting at 1.75% in December 2001. This kept interest rates high when the economy needed low rates for cheap business loans and mortgages.

          #2.22 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:38 PM EST
          eriq samson

          And again the crazy shows up - what you are saying is that NBER is right when they say what you want but wrong when they disagree with you

          The dates I gave are NBER dates, you want to claim they are wrong by misinterpreting what they say, citing articles that do this. For example econbrowser uses quarters, not months as their data base but then cites the data by month so they cite "march" when they mean (first quarter" - which leads to some fishy results

          The article about what caused the recession of 2001 is royally false - the cause was EGTRRA; Bush's first tax cut for the Rich (this would be obvious to a child when stock prices on ALL companies crashed, it was NOT just one industry or a dot com crash - trust me I was in the Internet programming industry and there was a slow down caused by too many web sites but not a crash like some want to claim)

          Remember, we had a surplus of 1.5% (of National Income) in 2001 (EGTRRA), a deficit of 1.7% in 2002 (Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act) and a deficit of 3.2 % (JGTRRA) as each of these tax cuts for the rich resulted in less economic activity and the stock market dropped way down as it became obvious that less economic activity means less profits

          NO High Interest rates do not cause a recession (fals headline on that cite, not your I don't think) in the second sentence it states that Higher interest rates "limits liquidity, or the amount of money available to invest." yet this is not a cause - effect relationship and in theory higher interest rates should draw MORE liquidity, more money to invest (at this higher profit rate)

          That sentence alone is insane, it's just plain wrong and violates all market theories - as something has more real value there should be more demand for it, not less - yet what happened was that people refused to invest in spite of higher profits; Gee, I wonder why?

          Can you not see this?

          What happened can not happen in an open market, so it demonstrates we have a closed market controlled by aristocrats and when they decide something as a group it will happen in spite of all common sense or anti-trust enforcement (HA!),

          I t w i l l h a p p e n

          You can not apply free market solutions to a closed market system; and until republicans and economic conservatives figure this one out we will constantly have problems

          • 1 vote
          #2.23 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:05 AM EST
          Reply
          kjessym

          I'm sure those that are already wealthy are feeling wealthier again. I'd love it if they'd release polls on how average joe's really feel. Isn't anyone else tired of the media and the government (and I'm referring to all parties here) announcing how we feel, when it doesn't really seem to be how most of us feel?

          • 5 votes
          Reply#3 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:22 PM EST
          Shawn-552481

          Net Worth is Up? What about the Misery Index that was Carter's Waterloo?

          The Misery Index has risen by 2.4 since Obama has been in office. Under Carter it went up 7 points and under Reagan it went down 9.6 points.

          Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

          http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyPresident.asp

          • 3 votes
          Reply#4 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:26 PM EST
          HappyJack-1509548

          ...and I thought I was broke....dayumm, I feel better!

          • 1 vote
          Reply#5 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:38 PM EST
          HappyJack-1509548

          ...maybe I'll buy that McMansion across the street..the one that's been vacant for 18 months....

          I'm rich! I'm rich!...hot damn, I'm rich!!!!!

          • 3 votes
          Reply#6 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:39 PM EST
          COB)HO

          WAIT.......who's wealthy again,,,how can this article be taken seriously

          • 4 votes
          Reply#7 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:43 PM EST
          Scotty-1083859

          One cannot help but notice that there is no documentation or sources of information cited whatsoever in this article. The author is bylined as "Carpenter". Who in the world is Carpenter? Was this article written by the pop rock band of the 70s that had the hit "We've only just begun"?

          Whoever this "Carpenter" person is, he has apparently cobbled together some kind of balsa wood framing of reality. Anyone who has any knowledge of reality in our current day knows that this piece is sheer fantasy, written as science fiction in an alternate universe that exists behind a cloud of imagination and smoke and mirrors in a cave far away in another reality.

          The economy has been trashed by the Democratic Party. Our futures have been mortgaged.

          • 5 votes
          Reply#8 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:02 PM EST
          truthseeker9000

          Typical responses so far by you GOP'ers. The point of the article, since you seemed to have missed it, is that while the economy is far from recovered, there are indicators that it is headed TOWARDS recovery and AWAY from the abyss.

          I know it doesn't fit your doom-and-gloom Obama-is-Hitler I-want-my-country-back keep-your-change-I'll-keep-my-guns.... Oh, nevermind. No point in stopping the hate parade with facts.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#9 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:02 PM EST
          HappyJack-1509548

          Facts? What facts? 474,000 new jobless claims this week. That's a fact, Jack.

          • 4 votes
          #9.1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:17 PM EST
          Shawn-552481

          Jack, Jack, Jack, you know the current administration is not at fault for this...This is all Bush and the Republican congress. Now that we have that out of the way...who wants a pizza? GM is buying.

          • 5 votes
          #9.2 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:24 PM EST
          GOP Rules

          truthseeker - "The point of the article, since you seemed to have missed it, is that while the economy is far from recovered, there are indicators that it is headed TOWARDS recovery and AWAY from the abyss."

          And the point of us 'GOP'ers' is that nothing is getting better unless you are already wealthy. The rest of us are worse off.

          • 2 votes
          #9.3 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:50 PM EST
          mardigan

          The media is all about putting a silver lining behind a story when they feel like it. The news sources can take a bad situation under an administration they like and make it into a celebration. Conversely, they can really gin up a catastrophe for an administration they despise under the same circumstances.

          Instead of printing the truth of a story:

          "Americans are slightly less poor than they were 6 months ago"

          they go with:

          "Americans' net worth up for 2nd straight quarter"

          Instead of printing:

          "Your home is now worth 3/4 of what you paid for it"

          they print:

          "Your home is worth 1/32nd more this quarter than it was last quarter"

          Instead of printing:

          "Your stock portfolios are $80k below what you had in them 2 years ago"

          they print:

          "Your stock portfolios have rebounded a bit from what they were last quarter."

          Shrug... To be fair, though, you are right truthseeker... Towards recovery and away from the abyss is still better.

          • 3 votes
          #9.4 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:02 PM EST
          Shawn-552481

          well said

          • 1 vote
          #9.5 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:11 PM EST
          bonos_rama

          ". The rest of us are worse off."

          Well, according to my GOP handbook, p. 8, paragraph 3, that's because you aren't working hard enough and are looking for the gov't to bail you out of the mess YOU made.

          • 2 votes
          #9.6 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:06 PM EST
          GOP Rules

          BO - "Well, according to my GOP handbook, p. 8, paragraph 3, that's because you aren't working hard enough and are looking for the gov't to bail you out of the mess YOU made."

          Well according to reality we have libs in charge now so we don't get jobs, we lose jobs. That's page 1, paragraph 1. "To become more dependent on government, we will ensure zero added jobs and will offer countless government programs that cannot possibly be paid for by anybody anytime in the next hundred years."

            #9.7 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:58 PM EST
            eriq samson

            No; that's just the fcrazy conservative view

            Look at history; every time we have "Libs in charge" we make more jobs; the economy runs well.

            Just put a conservative in charge and - WHAMMO! - instant recession

            History, reality makes lie to this claim

            • 1 vote
            #9.8 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:15 PM EST
            GOP Rules

            eriq - "Look at history; every time we have "Libs in charge" we make more jobs; the economy runs well."

            I guess the millions (4.8 million by the estimates of a LIB SITE - Think Progressive)of jobs Bush created don't compare to the millions Obama has lost... Oh wait, that trashes your whole argument. In fairness, Obama has just began to lose jobs so we should really give him a shot, huh? So while Bush's record friggin' sucked, it is still way better than that fool Obama.

              #9.9 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:33 PM EST
              eriq samson

              Actually, since the recession started in 2007; BUSH lost the jobs, NOT Obama

              And again demonstrating the divorce from reality that is G.R.

              • 1 vote
              #9.10 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:53 PM EST
              GOP Rules

              eriq - "Actually, since the recession started in 2007; BUSH lost the jobs, NOT Obama "

              We could go on for years about who lost jobs. Per any article you read, Bush created at least 4.8 million jobs in his time (which is actually pretty bad), and Obama has so far lost millions. You can say "it's Bush's fault" but in doing so, then you would have to now say 9/11 and anything else that happened in Bush's first year was Clinton's fault. So which is it? Did Clinton own 9/11 or does Obama own the unemployment? You have to choose one or you are hypocritical.

              By the way, you keep choosing to insult me but it really isn't in your best interest. Attempt to have an intelligent conversation with me some time and you may find I'm not "way out there" or "unintelligent." You may even figure out we agree on a lot.

              • 1 vote
              #9.11 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:15 AM EST
              eriq samson

              NO; Bush lost jobs, gained some back, and then lost more. NET effect of the Bush years on jobs is negative (worse as the working population keeps growing you have to grow jobs just to keep even; in fact jobs should naturally grow as more people means more consumers)

              Your "choice" is equally silly, if not partisan and quite insane. NO Clinton does not own 9/11 as (a) bush WAS warned and (2) this happened several months AFTER he was elected. Neither does Obama own unemployment as the recession happened OVER A YEAR before he took office and the downturn / spiral was increasing as Bush did like hoover before him - did nothing hoping it would just go away then had to do things in emergency and finally left the problem to his successor

              You are being hypocritical in suggesting either was the responsibility of someone not in power when it happened. That is childish, partisanship; a denial of reality

              • 1 vote
              #9.12 - Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:32 PM EST
              Reply
              Dave-1509729

              I'm a non-partisan, middle of the road person as far as politics is concerned. I say this is not hate but reality. The democrats are trying to lead us in to a path of socialism and a one world government. It's already beginning to happen. Just check out any news media operation, and you'll see it . Open your eyes and your minds...

              • 4 votes
              Reply#10 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:17 PM EST
              HappyJack-1509548

              Great post, Dave. Even in the face of record multi-trillion dollar deficits, the democrats are trying to overtake the American health care industry and add millions of people to the bankrupt Medicare system.

              There must be some bad acid circulating the D.C. area.

              "Don't take the brown acid, man; it's strychnine"

              • 3 votes
              #10.1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:21 PM EST
              truthseeker9000

              Dave-1509729

              I'm a non-partisan, middle of the road person as far as politics is concerned.

              followed by

              The democrats are trying to lead us in to a path of socialism and a one world government.

              Dave, you are far from "middle of the road".

              • 1 vote
              #10.2 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:27 PM EST
              GOP Rules

              truthseeker - "Dave, you are far from "middle of the road".'

              How can you even say that? Dave simply made an observation. Just because it was not what you wanted to hear does not mean Dave was lying about his political position. That is one of the problems that keeps America divided; the "if you are not one of us, you are against us" mentality.

              • 2 votes
              #10.3 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:52 PM EST
              chucky1169469

              GOP Rules

              How can you even say that? Dave simply made an observation. Just because it was not what you wanted to hear does not mean Dave was lying about his political position. That is one of the problems that keeps America divided; the "if you are not one of us, you are against us" mentality.

              sure he did. and just cause it is in line with your doesn't make it true

              • 1 vote
              #10.4 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:05 PM EST
              GOP Rules

              Chucky - "sure he did. and just cause it is in line with your doesn't make it true"

              Dave simply pointed out an observation. If it is not what you expect, don't accuse Dave of leaning either way. It's like observing a car crash between two people and telling what happened. The person in the wrong may think you have shown favoritism towards the other person even though you reported only what was observed.

              • 1 vote
              #10.5 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:59 PM EST
              truthseeker9000

              GOP the fact that you don't see the contradictions in the statements I pointed out are evidence of the lack of reading comprehension skills that appear to run rampant on this thread.

              • 1 vote
              #10.6 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:12 PM EST
              GOP Rules

              truthseeker - Dave made a statement about an observation he had. He noticed that the Democrat party, the party with all the power, seems to be heading us down the wrong path. That is an observation that you too would notice if YOU were not so bias.

                #10.7 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:25 PM EST
                eriq samson

                your name says it all - talk about obvious partisan bias

                • 2 votes
                #10.8 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:12 PM EST
                GOP Rules

                eriq - "your name says it all - talk about obvious partisan bias"

                It's just a screen name. Don't let it get under your skin. I've thought many times about changing it but then I see somebody like you comment on it making silly assumptions and I know I have to keep it. It provides me with lots of entertainment.

                  #10.9 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:19 PM EST
                  eriq samson

                  It's a screen name that is a demonstration of partisan bias.

                  Seriously, do you ever consider how ridiculous these comments are; how childisyh? If you hadn't meant partisan bias you would never have thought of it

                  • 1 vote
                  #10.10 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:21 PM EST
                  GOP Rules

                  eriq - "It's a screen name that is a demonstration of partisan bias."

                  It is a screen name, that's all. I choose not to change it because, frankly, even with this screen name some good libs have figured out that I am not too bad. Some people, believe it or not, have figured out that a screen name tells you very little about the person behind it. Maybe if you weren't so quick to judge, you'd figure that out but you immediately assume that based on my screen name, I am an evil, unstable, crazy, right-wing loony. That, my friend, is a poor reflection on you; not me.

                  "If you hadn't meant partisan bias you would never have thought of it"

                  When I came up with the screen name I tried several other things. The other screen names were taken. The GOP Rules ended up being available. So judge me based on a screen name if you like but it really does show you are fairly close-minded.

                    #10.11 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:50 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Jimmy-915356

                    Who wrote this? What an idiot. Actual home values (sales prices)are down about 50% as compared to 2005 levels, and stocks are basically worthless-didn't anyone learn that lesson in the past 18 mos? the fact is that the dollar is worthless and our personal debt coupled with our portion of the national debt (which is about $300,000.00) per taxpayer and going up every second -there is no mathematical equation that could possibly show Americans are getting wealthier.

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#11 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:52 PM EST
                    Ryan-

                    They borrowed the system from the CRU.

                    • 1 vote
                    #11.1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:34 PM EST
                    Reply
                    mardigan

                    The diamond in the rough to take from this seed is:

                    Americans also are paying off debt at record levels, the Fed said. They reduced mortgages, credit cards and other loans by 2.6 percent in the third quarter and have been cutting household debt for a year.

                    That is great news! We let ourselves become a nation of debtors and this bullet indicates that perhaps we as a nation have become aware of it and are taking personal responsibility to correct that problem. Now if we as a nation can keep moving down that path, we just need to put a government in place that will do the same thing at the federal and state levels as well...

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#12 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:08 PM EST
                    SeattleBobb

                    Great! Now go out and spend spend spend people. It's the American Way! Spend more than you make, overdraft your account, rack up a credit card bill and then post a story on the vine complaining about interest rates. Wooohooooo!!! Save for future mortgage payments or health care premiums.......No Way.....buy a 55 inch Plasma instead.

                    Ok, enough sarcasm for one day!! :)

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#13 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:09 PM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    Where have I heard that before????

                    OH YEAH!!

                    With Recession Looming, Bush Tells America To ‘Go Shopping More’ Today, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed the “way forward” for the economy in 2007. Renowned Morgan Stanley economist Steven Roach says the the “odds of the U.S. economy tipping into recession are about 40 to 45 per cent.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes that “the odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1,” that the U.S. will teeter toward a recession in 2007. Bush’s solution? “Go shopping more.” Watch it:

                    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/20/bush-shopping/

                    Similarly, after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush simply asked Americans for their “continued participation and confidence in the American economy.” From the Internationald Herald Tribune, 1/14/03:

                    Bush did nothing to mobilize public opinion to accept the sacrifices that war implies — the first thing a leader would do. Tax cuts could go ahead as planned, and energy saving was dismissed out of hand. “Go shopping” was the administration’s message.

                    Ok, enough sarcasm for one day!! :)

                    o.k. me too....LOL

                    • 1 vote
                    #13.1 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:49 PM EST
                    Ryan-

                    Why spend your money, when Obama is going to pay for it.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

                    • 2 votes
                    #13.2 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:43 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Proud American-252641

                    What a load. We are in no way better off than a year ago or even two years ago. Our income has gone up this year and we are scraping bottom by the end of the month. Christmas this year is going to be slim to say the least.

                    Our taxes have gone up,our groceries have gone up, our utilities have gone up etc. Our church has seen the amount of people coming in for help each month increase by 100% this year,we run out of food and funds by the middle of the month easily.

                    This is just some of that Kool-aid they would like us all to drink.

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#14 - Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:54 PM EST
                    Scotty-1083859

                    Hey Obamafan.

                    I hate to be the bringer of bad tidings, but your favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush, is no longer president. We've got a new whipping boy now.

                    Btw, have you seen the poll results that came out today that show that approximately 45 percent of the American people wish that Bush was still president?

                    Ohhhhhhh. Too bad.

                    • 1 vote
                    #14.1 - Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:08 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com