Where is the US economy headed?

That's what happens when the government spends money without the necessary controls and regulations. That's the reason why I'm against all this spending that only increases our deficit, and does very little of what they claim as job creation and job savers. They're a bunch of incompetents that should be thrown out of office.

When more Americans begin to enjoy REPUBLICAN health insurance coverage

How the Government Is Swallowing the Economy
By Rick Newman
On 10:59 am EST, Monday November 9, 2009
Buzz up! 0 Print.You know about the bailouts, the stimulus plan, cash for clunkers, and moola for mansions. But for all the anxiety they've caused, those government giveaways are just a tiny part of a mushrooming problem.

By one measure, the government already plays an outsize role in our so-called free-market economy--and it has little to do with the recession. Economist Gary Shilling has calculated that 58 percent of the population is dependent on the government for "major parts of their income," including teachers, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other government employees; welfare and Social Security recipients; government pensioners; public housing beneficiaries; and people who work for government contractors. By 2018, Shilling estimates, an astounding 67 percent of Americans could be dependent on the government for their livelihood. The implications aren't comforting.

Cycloptichorn, your apparent certainty that Americans will NEVER begin to enjoy Republican health insurance coverage, and the Republicans will not win control of either house of congress in the next election is intriguing. What do you think you know that I don't know, And/Or what do you think you know differently than I do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
The Senate is currently composed of 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and two independents"Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont"both of whom caucus with the Democrats. Of the seats expected to be up for election in 2010, 16 are held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010
...
Elections will be held for all 435 seats, representing the 50 U.S. states.
...
However, by late September 2009, Rothenberg change his predictions, writing that the "national political landscape has changed noticeably over the past few months, with Republicans the beneficiaries" and that "Democratic control of the House is not now at risk."[27] In a May 2009 column for his Crystal Ball newsletter, Larry Sabato wrote "History instead suggests that the overall odds favor Republican gains in the House in 2010, but relatively modest gains. After all, Democrats now hold 257 House seats, 39 seats more than the minimum needed to control the House. Only Truman in 1946 and Clinton in 1994 yielded more than 39 seats to the opposition party in their first midterm election."[28] In an August 2009 column, Charlie Cook wrote that things had "slipped completely out of control" for the Democrats in 2010. He wrote that it was increasingly likely that the GOP could make big gains in 2010, but avoided any mention of the possibility that Republicans could regain control of the chamber.[29] In an August prediction, Nate Silver wrote that the Democrats would suffer a loss of between 20 to 50 seats in the 2010 House elections.[30] In another August prediction, Silver wrote "While the Democrats are not extraordinary likely to lose the House, such an outcome is certainly well within the realm of possibility (I'd put the chance at somewhere between 1-in-4 and 1-in-3)." [31] In September 2009, an article titled "Generic House Polling Suggests the Republicans Could Regain the House in 2010" was published on Silver's blog, FiveThirtyEight.com.

Pelosi Healthcare Bill Has Hidden Tax on Young

Monday, November 9, 2009 9:55 AM

By: Gene J. Koprowski

The under-30 crowd that clamored for Barack Obama last year needs to brace for a change they won’t believe: The return of income tax “bracket creep,” according to The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.
“Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over a lifetime, these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if their income gains aren't real", the editors write.

This is budget trickery at its worst. To raise money to make their plan appear as if it won't add to the federal deficit, House Democrats have intentionally not indexed the main tax feature of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge, and the tax on small businesses which don’t provide health insurance benefits.

“This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases,” write the editors.

The effects of failing to index compounds, generating a revenue windfall for government as time passes.

“Americans of a certain age have seen this movie before. In 1960, only 3 percent of tax filers paid a 30 percent or higher marginal tax rate. By 1980, after the inflation of the 1970s, the share was closer to 33 percent,” the editors write.

“These stealth tax increases were widely seen to be unjust. And in 1981, as part of the Reagan tax cuts, a bipartisan coalition voted to index the tax brackets for inflation.”

Overseas, the center-right coalition of German Chancellor Angela Merkel is taking the lessons of Reagan approach to economic stimulus, ending Germany’s “bracket creep,” as a way to boost the recovery there, reports Zeit Online.