Apparently, the current US administration once again disagrees with its populace.

Increasing the debt ie stimulating is good, spending your way into prosperity is the primary function of government, a force for good ... blah, blah, blah.

I was gonna say, American Consumer #1 doesn't seem to mid maxing out every credit card every invented and even inventing new ones. What does he care? Someone else will pay the bill.

Well, this is actually positive news in some respects. I believe this reflects the individual's uncertainty over Obamanomics in the same way businesses are hoarding cash and not hiring at this time.

It appears there is pent up economic demand building which should see some release should the GOP make major gains in November. Unfortunately, I don't see a full release until Obama is summarily turfed from office.

On a smaller level, it reminds me of the B.C. economy through the 90s when we had an NDP (socialist) government that killed economic growth. But when they were turfed from office in 2001, businesses started to increasingly spend and hire again.

What never ceases to amaze me if that the Left seems to have no idea of cause and effect. IE if they succeed in destroying capitalism, what makes them think they won't be very quickly living in dire poverty as they do in all 'successful' socialist regimes.

I supposed that, just like alcoholics, they will need to see that rock bottom economy complete with it's hopelessness and despair before they consider that what we had wasn't so bad after all.

A quote from Equifax! What next? Come on guys, that's the bottom of the bucket!

Citizen:

Can you let us know where we can go for better information?

I guess since the government is borrowing record amounts on their behalf, what's the point of borrowing their own money?

The "fever swamp" where else?

Media Matters, DU, Kos, and the rest of lala land.

Not so long ago, there were articles headlining various business publications about the need for Americans to save more and use less credit. Now that data shows people have heeded that advice, they're being told "oh, it's all right after all - go back to using credit."

Stupid is as stupid does.

The less astute members of the American middle class who don't concern themselves much with politics or don't have government jobs are beginning to understand what is causing that itch on their backs: it's from the targets Washington's latest tax and spenders they elected stuck there.

Oh, hahahahaha...you guys you...so funny, so witty...so pathetic that you impersonate me...wow...what a compliment though. Funny this site claims to be a champion of Ayn Rand philosophy yet the only character that comes to my mind when I read most of the posts is Jim Taggart.

I find it a quite a relief to consider US consumers finally understanding that living above one's means is no way to prosper and that wealth cannot be created out of thin air.

Now if we could only get Ottawa to understand the whole "don't buy stuff you can't afford" thing:

http://consumerist.com/2007/04/snl-skit-dont-buy-stuff-you-cant-afford.html

The fact that both consumers and businesses are busily shoring up their balance sheets is the reason that the US economy continues to decline, despite massive fiscal stimulus. In economic terms, the velocity of money has gone into a tailspin. A number of homilies come to mind: "You can offer a consumer the money, but you can't make him spend", "pushing on a string", etc.

Keynes is much maligned (and generally misunderstood) here and elsewhere, but one of his justifications for government stimulus was to restore "animal spirits". By that, he meant the desire of individuals and businesses to take risk, to invest in new business, to put their capital to work instead of squirreling it under the mattress. But the usual economic wild card, ceteris paribus, is implicit in Keynes' thesis. And it just doesn't apply now.

How can you invest with certainty when the US administration picks winners and losers on whim? Why should Goldman Sachs be made whole on its billions of dollars of derivatives (which is a fancy word for "bet") with AIG, when the bondholders of GM receive not a sou in compensation, and instead of getting ownership of the company, see it awarded to unions instead? Why should responsible homeowners have their taxes raised to pay for irresponsible people who mortgaged homes they knew they could never afford? With an ever increasing number of unelected, unanswerable "czars" meddling in industry, who in their right mind would invest? (As an aside, when firms like GS and JPM are allowed sneak peaks at stock orders before they hit the floor, priviliged access to the bid/offer system, and then manipulate the market with high speed computers that routinely make and retract bids and offers in repetitive patterns - this is all covered in excruciating detail at Zerohedge - who in their right mind would commit funds to the equity markets? And, of course, people aren't - as these manipulations have become clear, the outflow from equity funds into bonds and cash has become a stampede.)

This is the real tragedy of Will Smith's doomed presidency. Never mind the broken promises, the fawning press, the insulted allies, or the massive deficits; he has broken the spirit of many Americans. In the "Consumer Confidence" survey, the Present Situation index is near its all time lows. Even the main index, which bottomed shortly after Smith's inauguration, is still less than half its average during the Bush years. Bankruptcies are up; new business formation is down. The average American was probably the most upbeat citizen in the world for the last two hundred years; today - not so much.

Oh, and BTJ: would you please give an example of a comment that you think channels Jim Taggart? Your reading comprehension skills appear to be those of a six year old.

"Oh, and BTJ: would you please give an example of a comment that you think channels Jim Taggart? "

It's the LACK of comments that channels Jim Taggart...the empty statements, the refusal to provide clarification or explanation when asked, rather responding with name calling or just plain ignoring the request. The fact that people fight against state power (when it may directly affect them) but for it (when it affects others)...ie. domestic policy vs. foreign policy.

"Your reading comprehension skills appear to be those of a six year old."

Good one, your creative writing isn't much better.