Where is the US economy headed?

nha nha nha, cyclo is a socialist.

Okie- Note the language used by Cyclops-


Funny, that's exactly how we feel about you fiscal 'conservatives,' who can't wait to get into power and enact permanent tax cuts for the rich. It's the only thing you bunch ever seem interested in: more tax cuts for the rich. It's like a national duty to keep you guys out of office.

THAT'S EXACTLY HOW WE F E E L ABOUT YOU FISCAL CONSERVATIVES.

The truth reasserts itself again and afain--They F E E L-no statistics like those provided by Ican, no logic--Just liberal emotion.

Massagat, in cycllops and others here, you are trying to reason with people that deny the Laffer Curve and therefore believe that a 100% tax rate would generate more tax revenue than a tax rate much lower than that, such as 30%. They ignore the truths of human nature and economics, and the two are forever related. If people work without being able to reap the profits, they will quit working. The intimate relationship of human nature and economics is expressed in a mathematical principle called the Laffer Curve, which I think Art Laffer quickly sketched on a napkin, and he never claimed it was perfectly drawn, but he claimed that it did show a general relationship that illustrated that the optimum tax revenues would result from a tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100% tax rate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 0% of anything is zero, and 100% tax rate would be not much more than zero because people would quit working if they had to give their entire earnings to somebody else, such as the government. Such a graph or curve is really nothing more than common sense, and could be drawn approximately by anyone with any knowledge of high school mathematics, human nature, and econ0mics.

So, depending upon where our current tax rates fall on a Laffer type curve, lowering the rates would in fact result into higher tax revenues. This is indisputable. It is also true that higher tax revenues could result from higher rates, but it depends upon where on the curve we are, and it is still not a one to one relationship or straight line equation that can be applied to the economy. I think any rise in rates will always dampen the economy some, but it might not dampen it more than the rate would increase revenue. For example, 5% of 95 is 4.75, which is more than 4% of 100, but, if the last number is the total economy, and it shrank from 100 to 95, a 5% tax rate would generate more revenue than a 4% tax rate, but it still means there may be a shrinking economy, with more people unemployed, etc.

You are stupid! People do not quit working because they are taxed on their incomes. You have the gall to talk about the laffer curve when your own statements go beyond logic, common sense, and comedy.

Oh, you are so wrong, cicerone imposter! When my brother, who is a very successful entrepreneur, reached the point where he paid over 45% of his income to Federal, State and Local Taxes in New York, he retired to live on his investments. Okie is correct. You are the one whose statements go beyond logic, common sense and comedy. But, unlike Okie, you are sliding toward senility. Read your own posts! Show them to a person skilled in geriatrics>

Your one example does not make it true. Get a life!

Neither do your dementia fueled one lines, CI. Have you learned how to do research or is that too much for your addled brain to handle. Your one liners to Okie are childish. Rebut his comments POINT BY POINT or get lost!

I always rebut okie's opinions. It's just too bad you don't understand English.

No, I don't understand English, only Japanese!

Anata wa baka desu!

Did you learn that in the concentration camp?

How long before Massa gets off his medicine. Im already tired of his garbage.

If you are tired, don't read. If you think I write garbage, and you have more than a 90 IQ( I doubt it), show that it is garbage, if you can't do so, go to a site which appeals to your below average intelligence level/

Somehow interesting opinion by Paul Volcker:
America Must 'Reassert Stability and Leadership'

Our economy has to add about 150k jobs per month just to stay even with population growth. That comes out to about 1.5 million jobs per year. Bush added 9 million jobs over 8 years; that's hardly enough to keep up with the population growth here in America, let alone INCREASE the level of employment significantly.

Your assertion that those 'poor who got jobs, are richer' is asinine and has nothing to do with the point of this conversation at all. You glossed over the fact that the rich DID get much richer during Bush's term, while the poor DID get poorer. You glossed over this because it is directly harmful to your economic case. You ought to have the stones to admit stuff like this if you want to talk about economics.



Again, selective information from you, completely.

Reagan RAISED taxes, much more than he cut them, before employment began to rise. You ought to get your facts straight on this one.

Clinton RAISED taxes, and employment grew at a greater rate than we had seen in forever.

Bush 2 LOWERED taxes, and employment did not significant change.

Cycloptichorn

What ican and conservatives all forget is that most middle-class and the poor did not see their wages keep up with inflation since 2000.

Unless they are in the "wealthy" class, they are fighting against their own self interests; increased productivity that went to the officers and stock holders of the company while the working class got zilch.

That they would continue to advocate for lower taxes for the rich shows how misinformed and stupid they are! They can't figure out the simple fact that our deficit is being transferred to our children and grandchildren while they want more wealth for the wealthy.

How stupid is that?

(I note tonight the passing of Paul Samuelson at the age of 94. There are many of us who encountered the art/science of economics with his classic textbook decades ago in Econ 101.)

Yup, we used Samuelson too! 94, eh? He must've been pretty young when he published that Econ 101 textbook.

Our government is nuts! They want to increase the debt ceiling from $12.1 trillion to $14 trillion to keep increasing their spending.

The current budget that's going to be signed by Obama has over $3 billion in pork. They've all lost their freak'n minds.

That $3 billion in pork has to be paid back in the future, and the cost of interest on that money is not free - while they continue to increase the deficit.

They all need to be kicked out out of Washington DC starting with the next election cycle.