NationStates Jolt Archive

The job numbers for July - down even further from the lousy 112K in June to only 32,000 new jobs created in July - well below the forecast 247k.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20040806/bs_nm/economy_jobs_dc

The retail sales? Still sluggish.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040806/ap_on_bi_ge/retail_sales_20

Consumers' frugal spending extended into a second month during July, giving many retailers lackluster sales gains, particularly at apparel chains including Gap Inc. and mid-priced department stores


the price of oil? Still skyrocketing with some analysts predicting $50/barrel by year's end
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes



I guess GW was right!

They HAVE turned the corner.... towards the drain!


Oh, and for those who think that Dicky-boys problems with Haliburton and the law are over with that settlement last week? Nope. the shareholders are suing now for "serial accounting fraud" from '98 to '01. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Cheney WAS still CEO for 98 and 99... pulling an Enron from the sounds of it. But hey - why is that suprising. It's not like Kenny-Boy Lay and the Bush crew weren't long time buds right?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/fortune500/halliburton.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
Among other things, the new filing accuses Halliburton of inflating results, failing to disclose a big asbestos verdict in a timely manner, and being unable to account for $3.1 billion of profit and cash.



Seems that fraud - like that perpetrated on the American public on the leadup to war - is a pattern with some people.....

the zepp disinformation campaign continues. you should move here and vote and enlighten us poor rubes with your obvious perfection.

the zepp disinformation campaign continues. you should move here and vote and enlighten us poor rubes with your obvious perfection.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttt.... it's ME writing all of those articles for Rueters, CNN, etc....

lmfao!

the zepp disinformation campaign continues. you should move here and vote and enlighten us poor rubes with your obvious perfection.

Truth hurts huh Eli ;)

the zepp disinformation campaign continues. you should move here and vote and enlighten us poor rubes with your obvious perfection.

Rube eh?

http://art.pro.tok2.com/BibleOld/BAbraham/01Abraham/rube.jpg

This is going to make yesterday on the stock market look good...

Oh, and with the final numbers in, the past two month's employment figures were also both downgraded. June has been revised from the 112K estimate down to 78K, and May was also revised down to 208K..

Oh, and with the final numbers in, the past two month's employment figures were also both downgraded. June has been revised from the 112K estimate down to 78K, and May was also revised down to 208K..
Oh dear.

The U.S. economy isn't weakening at all. Far less jobs were created than analysts had predicted. Most analysts also predicted that the unemployment rate would remain steady at 5.6% but instead it lowered one point to 5.5%.

_________________________________

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

The U.S. economy isn't weakening at all. Far less jobs were created than analysts had predicted. Most analysts also predicted that the unemployment rate would remain steady at 5.6% but instead it lowered one point to 5.5%.

_________________________________

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Which means people are leaving the job market FMF.

The U.S. economy isn't weakening at all. Far less jobs were created than analysts had predicted. Most analysts also predicted that the unemployment rate would remain steady at 5.6% but instead it lowered one point to 5.5%.


I think that you don't really understand how that number is compiled. It excludes those who abandon looking for work because they have become discouraged. A paltry 32,000 increase in jobs coupled matched against population growth in no way should drop the unemplyment rate by .1%

It's almost funny to see Bush supporters futilely grasping at straws, hoping that the economy won't actually continue to suck. It would actually be funny if it weren't for the real-world implications of such a bad economy.

the only rational measure of REAL economic health
is the ratio between how much effort it takes on
the part of an average person, for how much QUALITY
of anything else in return.

little green pieces of paper are a poor and often deceptive
measure of this as they are of any other real cost/bennifit
ratio.

likewise the only rational measure of morality is the degree
to which the avoidance of causing real harm is prioritiesed.

clearly the killing of woment and children and shopkeepers
in forign lands as a political and economic stratigy is
moraly bankrupt.

yet we have been led to call this practice 'bussiness as
usual' for corporate capitolism and the dominant political
influence which seems built entirely on pandering to it.

whatever numbers the movement of little green pieces of
paper may appear to generate, are of only minor relavance
given this greater over all context.

that these immaginary persons called corporations may appear
to have healthy amounts of monetary units flowing through
them, that the most gigantic and least humain of them are
pumping and pimping these hotly, hides a plethora of real
ills behind a mythical illusion of wellness.

yet even when we look at that fairy tale world where money
supposedly equals wealth and even happiness, all is not well

human dignity continues to suffer as does living wage.
dignity has been priced out of reach of the average american
even as it has been for years in less economicly 'fortunate'
nations, and those who can afford it often fail to recognize
its value or credit it with none

we have been flim flamed into gaining what we might have in
our homes at the expense of what we have to indure between
them for decades, and now even that is being taken away from
the great majority of us

in short we have all be conned by the pretense of what is
called economics and now we are all paying the pipers
in our sad current situation, corrupt, callus and misguided
pipers at that.

when no more then one weeks work is worth a pair of shoes
that will last more then six months, then i will believe
we have an economy in terms that actualy mean something of
at least some real value

=^^=
.../\...

This is going to make yesterday on the stock market look good...

Exactly my thoughts when I saw the articles on CNN thismorning.

Well, the article says it is weak growth, but growth nonetheless.

Watch what raising taxes will do....

Well, the article says it is weak growth, but growth nonetheless.

Watch what raising taxes will do....
No, its not, if the number of jobs added is less then the number of people entering the workforce (The number 121,000 rings a bell for no good reason, somewhere around there), then there is in effect a loss of jobs.

No, its not, if the number of jobs added is less then the number of people entering the workforce (The number 121,000 rings a bell for no good reason, somewhere around there), then there is in effect a loss of jobs.

Up and down swings....it is a normal economic reality. The sky is not falling...but you might want to buy some stocks today. ;)

Well, the article says it is weak growth, but growth nonetheless.

How can you call it growth when they still haven't brought the job level back up to what they started with? Looks to me like this administration is still running at a deficit when it comes to jobs!

Up and down swings....it is a normal economic reality. The sky is not falling...but you might want to buy some stocks today. ;)
I shorted quite a few stocks yesterday :)

Yeah, what can you do, the question is if this is just a temporary bump or a full fledged downturn...I think that we will be having a new president next november if it is the latter.

The U.S. economy isn't weakening at all. Far less jobs were created than analysts had predicted. Most analysts also predicted that the unemployment rate would remain steady at 5.6% but instead it lowered one point to 5.5%.

_________________________________

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

How much of that 0.1 % is due to people's unemployment benefits running out and them subsequently falling off the government's unemployment roster?

How can you call it growth when they still haven't brought the job level back up to what they started with? Looks to me like this administration is still running at a deficit when it comes to jobs!

Because the number of job losses was greater before. It is a constant thing, so if there are more people employed this month than last, it shows growth, if less, it is a loss. The number of employable people changes every day too...a 16 year old is employable and there are more of those daily too,

Well, the article says it is weak growth, but growth nonetheless.

Watch what raising taxes will do....

I think my big tax cut under Bush was just enough cash to pay for my increased cost of filling up my gas tank a couple times. Not to mention this "improving" economy gave all the professionals I work with a whopping $0 raise for the year. Yup, cost of living keeps on going up while my income doesn't.

Exactly how do you propose the government won't have to raise taxes at some point anyway thanks to the increasing deficit? Future scenario = Bush keeps spending while lowering taxes....next guy in white house stuck with big ass defecit has no choice but to raise taxes to clean up the financial mess, making him the evil "tax hiker" and Bush the tax lowering saint.

I think my big tax cut under Bush was just enough cash to pay for my increased cost of filling up my gas tank a couple times. Not to mention this "improving" economy gave all the professionals I work with a whopping $0 raise for the year. Yup, cost of living keeps on going up while my income doesn't.

Exactly how do you propose the government won't have to raise taxes at some point anyway thanks to the increasing deficit? Future scenario = Bush keeps spending while lowering taxes....next guy in white house stuck with big ass defecit has no choice but to raise taxes to clean up the financial mess, making him the evil "tax hiker" and Bush the tax lowering saint.

I guess we could sell Iraqi oil...LOL I don't have the answers...noone does. least of all John kerry who wants to initiate expensive programs right when we can least afford them.

Because the number of job losses was greater before. It is a constant thing, so if there are more people employed this month than last, it shows growth, if less, it is a loss. The number of employable people changes every day too...a 16 year old is employable and there are more of those daily too,

You know what, Biff? I'll grant you that it's growth. What it isn't is the projected growth.

In June of 2003, the Bush Administration pushed through a tax cut package they called the "Jobs and Growth Plan". The President's Council of Economic Advisors projected that this plan would create 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004. So, over the past 13 months, there should have been 3,978,000 by the President's own numbers. In reality, there is a 2,565,000 job deficit from his own numbers. Additionally, for his projections to be true, job growth would have to average 306,000 per month. Over the last 13 months, job growth has only made or exceeded this projection 11 times.

There is also job quality and underemployment to consider. Underemployment, or workers that are only marginally attached to the work force (part-time, contract, temporary), is rising. In March of 2001, the generally accepted start point of the recession, it was at 7.3%. In July of 2004, it had reached 9.6%.

Since the March 2001 beginning of this recession, 1.2 million jobs have been eliminated, a 0.9% contraction. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, since 1939 (the end of the Great Depression and the first year the BLS recorded statistics), the last 36 months represent the longest sustained job loss since 1939. All other losses had been offset and actually showed positive job growth within 31 months of the beginning of the recession. If this were true today, we would currently have over 5.4 million new jobs.

You know what, Biff? I'll grant you that it's growth. What it isn't is the projected growth.

In June of 2003, the Bush Administration pushed through a tax cut package they called the "Jobs and Growth Plan". The President's Council of Economic Advisors projected that this plan would create 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004. So, over the past 13 months, there should have been 3,978,000 by the President's own numbers. In reality, there is a 2,565,000 job deficit from his own numbers. Additionally, for his projections to be true, job growth would have to average 306,000 per month. Over the last 13 months, job growth has only made or exceeded this projection 11 times.

There is also job quality and underemployment to consider. Underemployment, or workers that are only marginally attached to the work force (part-time, contract, temporary), is rising. In March of 2001, the generally accepted start point of the recession, it was at 7.3%. In July of 2004, it had reached 9.6%.

Since the March 2001 beginning of this recession, 1.2 million jobs have been eliminated, a 0.9% contraction. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, since 1939 (the end of the Great Depression and the first year the BLS recorded statistics), the last 36 months represent the longest sustained job loss since 1939. All other losses had been offset and actually showed positive job growth within 31 months of the beginning of the recession. If this were true today, we would currently have over 5.4 million new jobs.

Well...projections are quite often wrong. Afterall, have you ever met a real psychic? The economy will go along as usual with it's ups and downs...there will be highs and lows. people will claim these as proof that they are right or others are wrong, but the one constant will remain....people will still buy goods and the economy will still be functioning.

The economy is always a political football because people get riled up about it very easily and it is always a good tool to garner votes by both the doom and gloom crowd and the silver lined cloud crowd.

Well...projections are quite often wrong. Afterall, have you ever met a real psychic? The economy will go along as usual with it's ups and downs...there will be highs and lows. people will claim these as proof that they are right or others are wrong, but the one constant will remain....people will still buy goods and the economy will still be functioning.

The economy is always a political football because people get riled up about it very easily and it is always a good tool to garner votes by both the doom and gloom crowd and the silver lined cloud crowd.
and of course if the projections had been right you would be scolding us for not being on our knees prasiing the great republican god Bush and citing the statistics yourself

Well...projections are quite often wrong. Afterall, have you ever met a real psychic? The economy will go along as usual with it's ups and downs...there will be highs and lows. people will claim these as proof that they are right or others are wrong, but the one constant will remain....people will still buy goods and the economy will still be functioning.

The economy is always a political football because people get riled up about it very easily and it is always a good tool to garner votes by both the doom and gloom crowd and the silver lined cloud crowd.

Did you just call the President's economic advisors no better than a group of psychics? Yet you still have faith in this man who listens to them, runs with their projections, touts them as promises and then, when it fails to come through, fails to address it at all?

The point is we have two instances now of Bush acting on bad information and doing nothing about it afterwards. Not even saying I'm sorry. I'm not going to even consider the fact that a President may not have much direct effect on the job market, what I'm going to do is say that Bush, in and before May of 2003, campaigned hard for the "Job and Growth Plan" tax cuts and promised these job numbers based on what his advisors were saying. They were as wrong as others were about WMDs in Iraq. Yet there have been no substantive changes to correct this. This speaks to a certain unconcernedness on the President's part, at the very least.

Because the number of job losses was greater before. It is a constant thing, so if there are more people employed this month than last, it shows growth, if less, it is a loss. The number of employable people changes every day too...a 16 year old is employable and there are more of those daily too,

I think you may have missed my point, which was to say, they have lost more jobs then they have created since taking office.

I think that you don't really understand how that number is compiled. It excludes those who abandon looking for work because they have become discouraged. A paltry 32,000 increase in jobs coupled matched against population growth in no way should drop the unemplyment rate by .1%


Also the number dropped because it is based on unemployment claims (i.e. thoose looking for jobs vs. the number with jobs). When your benifits run out cause you still can't find a job when you hit max. you are no longer in that ratio. So it only means people still can't find work and the government stopped helping.

and of course if the projections had been right you would be scolding us for not being on our knees prasiing the great republican god Bush and citing the statistics yourself

No, thats not true...because the next day things could be different. The economy is just too big to try and manage...it manages itself just fine. It is a political football because it illicits so much emotion. Look at how you guys are holding TODAYS number out as some divine sign that Bush is bad for the economy. He is neither good nor bad...and neither would kerry be.

Did you just call the President's economic advisors no better than a group of psychics? Yet you still have faith in this man who listens to them, runs with their projections, touts them as promises and then, when it fails to come through, fails to address it at all?

The point is we have two instances now of Bush acting on bad information and doing nothing about it afterwards. Not even saying I'm sorry. I'm not going to even consider the fact that a President may not have much direct effect on the job market, what I'm going to do is say that Bush, in and before May of 2003, campaigned hard for the "Job and Growth Plan" tax cuts and promised these job numbers based on what his advisors were saying. They were as wrong as others were about WMDs in Iraq. Yet there have been no substantive changes to correct this. This speaks to a certain unconcernedness on the President's part, at the very least.

Yes I did...just as Kerry claims he will do good for the economy. How? is he going to buy a lot of goods himself? The economy is too big for ANY president to have any control over and should not be used in politics because neither party can make it go up or down...only the people can do that by buying or NOT buying goods, thus stimulating growth or stagnation.

No, thats not true...because the next day things could be different. The economy is just too big to try and manage...it manages itself just fine. It is a political football because it illicits so much emotion. Look at how you guys are holding TODAYS number out as some divine sign that Bush is bad for the economy. He is neither good nor bad...and neither would kerry be.
blah blah blah

i am immune to republican propaganda, IMMUNEEE

i know, you know, and everyone else knows your tune would be completely different if everything was going all right, but its not, and you have to try and reason it out to people how financial advisors with their clever predictions are no better than psychics becuase the economy is like magic and changes in an instant

Yes I did...just as Kerry claims he will do good for the economy. How? is he going to buy a lot of goods himself? The economy is too big for ANY president to have any control over and should not be used in politics because neither party can make it go up or down...only the people can do that by buying or NOT buying goods, thus stimulating growth or stagnation.

Then why is Bush claiming he can affect it? The economy serves as an effective barometer of national satisfaction. If it's down, so is our happiness level. So while the President may not be able to direct affect the economy, his programs and policies in other areas most certainly do.

blah blah blah

i am immune to republican propaganda, IMMUNEEE

i know, you know, and everyone else knows your tune would be completely different if everything was going all right, but its not, and you have to try and reason it out to people how financial advisors with their clever predictions are no better than psychics becuase the economy is like magic and changes in an instant

Doom and gloom....I think things ARE going alright. My business is growing quite nicely and we are having a great year. However, we work for ourselves and do not rely on any gov't program and are not really listed as employed since my business partner and I own the company and do as we please.

The economy, again, is too big for any one man to control. You can call it propaganda all you want, but the Democrats ALWAYS bring out the economy bandwagon and tout what they are going to do...but they never do anything in the end and noone remembers. LOL

I guess we could sell Iraqi oil...LOL I don't have the answers...noone does. least of all John kerry who wants to initiate expensive programs right when we can least afford them.

Its a nice thought that Iraqi oil could pay for everything....but it is my understanding that profit from Iraqi oil would go to the Iraqi's to rebuild their country. Not to mention paying off all the debts the nation owes (which I think some nations have forgiven some of those debts, Russia comes to mind for some reason).

If no one has the answers, that would mean Bush has no answers as well. I would call his invasion of Iraq based on WMD claims to be a rather expensive program, meanwhile the economy here at home has been sluggish.

As far as all this job talk, has anyone mentioned exactly WHAT kind of jobs are being created? Are these high paying, highly skilled jobs being created? Or is the Bush economy giving us a surplus of janitor/fast food jobs while the good ones are getting sent overseas or south of the border?

Doom and gloom....I think things ARE going alright. My business is growing quite nicely and we are having a great year. However, we work for ourselves and do not rely on any gov't program and are not really listed as employed since my business partner and I own the company and do as we please.

The economy, again, is too big for any one man to control. You can call it propaganda all you want, but the Democrats ALWAYS bring out the economy bandwagon and tout what they are going to do...but they never do anything in the end and noone remembers. LOL

Good. Are you hiring? Because I think we're about to lay more people off and eventually I'm going to get caught in one of these things.

Then why is Bush claiming he can affect it? The economy serves as an effective barometer of national satisfaction. If it's down, so is our happiness level. So while the President may not be able to direct affect the economy, his programs and policies in other areas most certainly do.

He can't...and neither can Kerry. When the people are worried about something and quit spending money, the economy goes down. So the politicians say whatever they think the people want to hear so they will be confident and spend more money...which creates a need...which creates jobs....which moves more money which makes the whole world go around.

Its a nice thought that Iraqi oil could pay for everything....but it is my understanding that profit from Iraqi oil would go to the Iraqi's to rebuild their country. Not to mention paying off all the debts the nation owes (which I think some nations have forgiven some of those debts, Russia comes to mind for some reason).

If no one has the answers, that would mean Bush has no answers as well. I would call his invasion of Iraq based on WMD claims to be a rather expensive program, meanwhile the economy here at home has been sluggish.

As far as all this job talk, has anyone mentioned exactly WHAT kind of jobs are being created? Are these high paying, highly skilled jobs being created? Or is the Bush economy giving us a surplus of janitor/fast food jobs while the good ones are getting sent overseas or south of the border?

I was joking about that....

Yes I did...just as Kerry claims he will do good for the economy. How? is he going to buy a lot of goods himself? The economy is too big for ANY president to have any control over and should not be used in politics because neither party can make it go up or down...only the people can do that by buying or NOT buying goods, thus stimulating growth or stagnation.

You make a good point, which is why I bring up how my costs of living are increasing while my salary (no raise this year for anyone I work with) is not. No extra cash to spend so the economy goes downhill. Latest report that goes along with what you are saying is that consumer spending has recently taken a significant drop. Don't have specifics though, but I imagine anyone could look them up.

Good. Are you hiring? Because I think we're about to lay more people off and eventually I'm going to get caught in one of these things.

We have been talking about hiring someone...but we are right at that level that Kerry wants to tax...so if he wins and does raise our taxes, we won't be able to afford to hire anyone. Of course he is only going to tax the "rich" but most small businesses fall into that category and it is these small businesses that create the most jobs.

Doom and gloom....I think things ARE going alright. My business is growing quite nicely and we are having a great year.

No offense, but you may need to understand you might represent the minority in this economy. By that I mean people having a good business year vs. those having a bad. You may find things going just fine and dandy, but alot more people are watching things go to crap at their jobs. There is a reason its a doom and gloom mentality. I'd be alot more optimistic too if I was getting some extra cash this year...

You make a good point, which is why I bring up how my costs of living are increasing while my salary (no raise this year for anyone I work with) is not. No extra cash to spend so the economy goes downhill. Latest report that goes along with what you are saying is that consumer spending has recently taken a significant drop. Don't have specifics though, but I imagine anyone could look them up.

Thats what I have been saying...consumer spending is what makes the economy go up or down, not ONE thing any politician does or says can make a dent in the economy if consumer spending does not increase.

I was joking about that....

I know you were joking about Iraqi oil....you missed some of my other points though...for example, I was more interested in what you think on the QUALITY of jobs being created in this economy instead of QUANTITY.

I think we could have things going pretty sweet here in America if we spent all that money that went to the Iraq war on domestic issues instead. We could have better education and healthcare. We could have mantained our faith in the furture of social security. yes sir $126 trillion could go along way to makign America better.

Thats what I have been saying...consumer spending is what makes the economy go up or down, not ONE thing any politician does or says can make a dent in the economy if consumer spending does not increase.

But even with all of Bush's tax cutting, consumer spending is still going down.

No offense, but you may need to understand you might represent the minority in this economy. By that I mean people having a good business year vs. those having a bad. You may find things going just fine and dandy, but alot more people are watching things go to crap at their jobs. There is a reason its a doom and gloom mentality. I'd be alot more optimistic too if I was getting some extra cash this year...

I agree, last year was bad for us, and the first few months this year were a disaster! However, there is NOTHING that Kerry or Bush can do to turn the economy around. Consumer spending is fickle and people buy the things sometimes that create a lot of jobs and sometmes they don't.

How much of that 0.1 % is due to people's unemployment benefits running out and them subsequently falling off the government's unemployment roster?
None. The federal government does not discount people who are no longer recieving unemployment benefits, they are counted in the total regardless of their recieving benefits.

What you want to ask is how much of the drop is due to discouraged workers, those who don't have a job and aren't even looking anymore. There may be a correlation between recieving unemployment benefits and looking for work (many states require people reiceving benefits to look for work), but benefits status and unemployement status are seperately measured.

I agree, last year was bad for us, and the first few months this year were a disaster! However, there is NOTHING that Kerry or Bush can do to turn the economy around. Consumer spending is fickle and people buy the things sometimes that create a lot of jobs and sometmes they don't.Not true--consumer spending is directly affected by the amount of money consumers have or can borrow, especially in the lower income brackets. The fact is that the poorer you are, the greater percentage of your available cash or credit you'll spend. A big reason for the current economic stagnation is because people at the lowest income levels--the bottom 50% let's say--just don't have money to spend on anything other than necessities, and perhaps not even enough for those. Those are the spenders in the economy--not the top 2%. The top brackets can save--and they're saving a lot thanks to Bush's tax cuts.

Everyone--even conservative pundits--said that Bush's tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans wouldn't give the economy a boost because the people getting the money wouldn't put it back into the economy, not at the same rate that people at the bottom would. If you want to boost consumer spending, give money to the people who need to spend it, not to people who can afford to save it.

One more thing--this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=1&u=/nm/20040806/bs_nm/economy_dc) provides a little insight as to why the unemployment number fell while job growth was so pitiful. Hint--it's a problem with the survey.

The [Labor] department said the unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month from 5.6 percent in June, but it warned the figure was drawn from a survey of households, which is a less reliable barometer of month-to-month changes in employment than its larger survey of businesses.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to the 5.6% number when the business survey comes out.

None. The federal government does not discount people who are no longer recieving unemployment benefits, they are counted in the total regardless of their recieving benefits.

What you want to ask is how much of the drop is due to discouraged workers, those who don't have a job and aren't even looking anymore. There may be a correlation between recieving unemployment benefits and looking for work (many states require people reiceving benefits to look for work), but benefits status and unemployement status are seperately measured.

You are partially right.

The key is that you have to be actively looking for a job. If none available and you stop, then you drop off.

*snip*

Everyone--even conservative pundits--said that Bush's tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans wouldn't give the economy a boost because the people getting the money wouldn't put it back into the economy, not at the same rate that people at the bottom would. If you want to boost consumer spending, give money to the people who need to spend it, not to people who can afford to save it.

Correct. Another factor in the equation is under-employment. Sure people are working but they are making much less then the previous job. Less free cash means less spending or the effort to eliminate debt.

The Tax cuts should have favored the middle class where most of the spending would have occured.