Where is the US economy headed?

My problem with the car company bailouts is why them only? Why not other factories and suppliers?

European and Asian bidders were the big winners in this weekend’s auction of Iraq’s lucrative oil field auction while U.S. companies were left out in the cold.
According to a report in the Financial Times, European companies Royal Dutch Shell, Gazprom, and Lukoil, and Asian companies China’s CNPC and Malaysia’s Petronas were the big winners. This was the second auction of Iraq’s oil reserves, and reportedly the largest in history. The reserves auctioned off total more than the reserves of Mexico, the U.S. and the U.K. combined.
In June, at the first such auction, BP was the first western oil group to be allowed access to the Iraqi fields since the industry was nationalized in 1972.
Speaking before the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus in October, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens said the cost in lives and money entitled U.S. companies to some of the Iraqi crude.
“They’re opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world. We’re entitled to it,” he said. “Heck, we even lost 5,000 of our people, 65,000 injured and a trillion, five hundred billion dollars. We leave there with the Chinese getting the oil.”
American companies won bids on just two of the 10 fields up for auction, surprising many observers.
“Iraq finally opened its doors after six years of war, and instead of U.S. companies, you have Asians and Europeans leading the way,” said Ruba Husari, editor of Iraq Oil Forum.
Analysts said concerns over security, particularly with the recent wave of coordinated bombings, may have kept American companies away.

This post doesn't actually address any of my points - again. Why do you even bother?

I THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!

How do you explain the fact that, under Clinton, we had double - more than double - the growth that the Republican presidents had, WITH tax raises on the rich? Do you have any explanation at all for this?

Reagan's net reduction of the top tax rate was from from 70% to less than 39%. While Clinton"s net increase of the top tax rate was to less than 40%. Clinton's increases were minor compared to Reagan's decreases. So during Clinton's 8 years, the economy benefitted significantly because of Reagan's net tax rate decrease.

And, just to remind you, Reagan raised several taxes (other than income taxes) by a large amount during his term...

NO HE DIDN'T! Reagan increased the other taxes small amounts during his term.

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

Reagan's net reduction of the top tax rate was from from 70% to less than 39%. While Clinton's net increase of the top tax rate was to less than 40%. Clinton's increases were minor compared to Reagan's decreases. So during Clinton's 8 years, the economy benefitted significantly because of Reagan's net tax rate decrease.

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

Reagan's net reduction of the top tax rate was from from 70% to less than 39%. While Clinton's net increase of the top tax rate was to less than 40%. Clinton's increases were minor compared to Reagan's decreases. So during Clinton's 8 years, the economy benefitted significantly because of Reagan's net tax rate decrease.

Bush 2 LOWERED taxes, and employment did not significant change.
Cyclo, this post of yours contains your usual misinformation. I doubt even you actually believe it to be true.

BUSH 2's EIGHT YEARS EMPLOYMENT INCREASED BY MORE THAN 8 MILLION JOBS.

But during Obama's FIRST 8 MONTHS employment decreased BY MORE THAN 7 MILLION JOBS

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]

1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]

1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%

1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH 41 1989-1993]

1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%

1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]

2001- 2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%

2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
As of October 2009 ....138,275,000.........- 7,087,000

Reagan's net reduction of the top tax rate was from from 70% to less than 39%. While Clinton net increase of the top tax rate was to less than 40%. Clinton's increases were minor compared to Reagan's decreases. So during Clinton's 8 years, the economy benefitted significantly because of Reagan's net tax rate decrease.

Peter Wallison, who was White House counsel to President Reagan, responded to my analysis in the New York Times on October 26. He pointed to Ronald Reagan's resistance to tax increases in 1982, citing passages from Reagan's diary that were published in his autobiography, An American Life. The gist of Wallison's article is that Ronald Reagan successfully resisted efforts by his staff and many in Congress to raise taxes, thereby ensuring the victory of Reaganomics.

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

http://www.whatwouldronaldreagando.com/webpages/karlmarx.htm
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Karl Marx Utopia: America?
Is America the Communist Paradise?

Karl Marx a founder of the failed communist concept described 10 planks or ideas in his book The Communist Manifesto that were required for a state to be classified as Communist. In his Communist state the ten steps destroy free enterprise and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power.

Liberal often say Americans must "pay their fair share", but where in the Constitution do the words fair share arise? They don't, the concept of a person paying their fair share come from a Communist saying. The following are his ten steps and how they are currently enforced in America.

Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes
Current Supreme Court rulings on pre-eminent domain allow the government to take private lands any time they wish (A local government is taking a private golf course and making in public)

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax system
Known in America as the 16th Amendment or Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax, the various other taxes

Abolition of all rights of inheritance
Federal & State Estate Tax

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
In America its called government seizures, tax liens, the IRS, DEA, ATF, etc. confiscating propetry without due process


Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
The Federal Reserve is a privately controlled credit & debt organization that regulates all national banks

Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation are federally mandated to regulate communications, roads, rails, and air travel

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
The Department of Agriculture controls and subsidizes what, when, and how much farmers can produce; The EPA, Bureau of Mines, Land Management, and Reclamation, and Department of Interior regulate the use of land

Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
The Minimum Wage stop market forces from working and Illegal Immigration advocates seek to maintain a permanent underclass to work undesirable jobs

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country
Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These programs force relocation and force sterilization programs, like in China

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production
The public school system is a forced tax to fund school no matter the quality of the school your children are forced to attend. The Department of Education increased government intervention even more.

... The job gains in Clinton's era were not due to Reagan's tax cuts a decade before, and you have no data whatsoever showing this is true. ...

If the net reduction in maximum tax rates on income is from 70% to 40%, and at least the new net tax rate is maintained for say 20 years, then any increased growth of employment within that period is logically attributed to the original tax cut.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... The job gains in Clinton's era were not due to Reagan's tax cuts a decade before, and you have no data whatsoever showing this is true. ...

I refuse to believe you are really that stupid!

Your claim is that reduced taxes increases employment.