114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 02:12 pm
In my posts in the thread, "AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND,"on pages 903, 906, and 907, I showed the following to be true facts:
(1) The Civilian Non-institutional Population increased annually 1980 to 2010;
(2) The Civilian Labor Force Employed-- except for the years 1981, 1991, and 2002 that had decreases of less than one million each--increased annually from 1980 to 2007--the Democrats gained majorities in the Congress and Senate in 2007;
(3) The Civilian Labor Force Employed decreased in 2008 about 3 million, from about 146 million to about 143 million;
(4) The Civilian Labor Force Employed decreased in 2009 about 5 million, from about 143 million to about 138 million;
(5) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 1981 from 70% to 50%;
(6) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 1981 from 50% to 38.5%;
(7) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 1991 from 38.5% to 33%;
(8) The maximum income tax rate increased in 1993 from 33% to 39.6%;
(9) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 2001 from 39.6% to 39.1%;
(10) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 2002 from 39.1% to 38.6%;
(11) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 2003 from 38.6% to 35%;
(12) The minimum income tax rate decreased in 2003 from 15% to 10%.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:38 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Could we not have taken the money we printed and have put it into the FDIC?

Not all banks would have failed.

Agreed, maporsche. I would rather see them spend the money on FDIC if and when it would be necessary than to throw it away on worhless projects.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 05:16 pm
I remain convinced, Maporsche, that the TARP plan as it was implemented by President Bush and President Obama, in coordination with governments from Europe to Asia taking similar action, was essential for keeping the banking system worldwide functioning when it was days if not hours of seizing up.
You evidently disagree, arguing that the developed world's economies would have been better off to let the banks fail.
We can argue about that until the cows come home, but I am convinced I am right. The cost to the FDIC would, I think, have far exceeded the loans and investments we taxpayers have made in banks.
TARP money for car companies, insurance companies, investment firms: that is more problematical. I won't go so far as to say that I agree with you, but...we are probably closer.

I am still digesting the employment stuff. No one here yet has posted anything informative. Back later.

Have a nice weekend, yall. Stay warm!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 06:03 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb wrote:
Quote:
TARP money for car companies, insurance companies, investment firms: that is more problematical. I won't go so far as to say that I agree with you, but...we are probably closer.


If anybody remembers what I've been saying about this same area of government bailouts, you would know I also agree with this.
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 06:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
i am reading " merchants of debt - KKR and the mortgaging of american business " - written by george anders in 1992 .

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2WwNsrQbKIgC&sitesec=reviews

Quote:
Editorial Review - Kirkus Reviews Copyright (c) VNU Business Media, Inc.
A revealing, albeit low-key, history of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., from a savvy Wall Street Journal correspondent who covers the leveraged buyout beat. During the merger mania of the 1980's, the tiny Manhattan-based firm of KKR wielded incredible economic power by dint of its ability to identify attractive targets and raise money to buy them. While the good times rolled, the partnership ...
More gobbled scores of sizable enterprises (Beatrice, Duracell, Lily-Tulip, Owens-Illinois, RJR Nabisco, Safeway, etc.), earning a handful of insiders and investors princely sums. As Anders makes clear, however, control changes were hard on affected companies and their employees. KKR acquisitions were invariably obliged to soldier on with austerity budgets, debt-burdened balance sheets, and greatly reduced payrolls; as often as not, they also had to make do without crown-jewel assets that had been stripped to recoup upfront funds, pay off lenders and advisors, or simply enrich the deal's ground-floor participants. While Anders doesn't portray KKR principals Henry Kravis and George Roberts as villains of the piece, he leaves little doubt that the gracious, if predatory, cousins put no stock in the human costs of their maneuverings but simply played the great game of an era harder and better than their rivals. Overtaken by events and public opinion, moveover, they've now become apostles of the principle of equity over debt. And for all the lost jobs, closed plants, disrupted lives, and allied upheavals, Anders concludes, the heyday of casino capitalism was essentially a wash from a macroeconomic standpoint. A thoughtful audit of a consequential Wall Street partnership and its impact.


imo the current financial problems started as early as the 70's but were "wallpapered " - hidden from public view .

a really good read imo - but darned scary .
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 06:40 pm
@realjohnboy,
I really think we needed to make some sort of determination on which banks would have been allowed to fail. Surely, intervention of some sort was needed. How much, and what kind is still fair game for discussion. I do recall that the AIG bailout was actually prior to TARP I.

I continue to have reservations about government ownership of corporations, though loans and guarantees were needed, at least for banks. I continue to be amazed at everything that came to be considered a bank.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 07:06 pm
@hamburgboy,
hbg, That's another truism about government's inability to control capitalism's greed. We've seen what's happened to the Enrons and Worldcom's, and what happened with cheap money during the past decade where leveraged buyouts and trading in derivatives created wealth and balloons that destroyed whole industries and the banking system.

We had obvious clues since the early 2000s when CEOs and officers were pulling in multi-million dollar salaries and benefits while the wages of the production workers stagnated - with many not even keeping up with inflation.

With that same easy money came consumer borrowing from the equity in their homes to spend money they really didn't have - which in turn created such a huge balloon, there wasn't anything to keep propping up consumer spending.

By the time we heard the BOOOM!~it was too late.

Look at consumer and national debt today; it's at an untenable level vs GDP when the economy of the world continues to shrink, and tax revenues can't possibly meet the demands government has allowed to spend on pork and unnecessary give-aways.

We're still in the job loss arena, and many more families are declaring bankruptcy - losing their homes and cars. More past middle class families are now going to food banks and charity kitchens to get some food and shelter.

Tax revenues have been on a down-trend for many years now, but all levels of government has never learned to live within their means.

The picture looks bleak, and situations for more families are going to look bleaker for many years to come.

The recovery from this great recession is going to take many years, and before it's over, many government safety nets are going to disappear.

Some will begin to disappear next month.

okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 08:54 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, you say nobody has posted anything informative. I posted the employment numbers when they came out today. And I keep informing everybody, although Democrats ignore it not only here but in Washington, that two of the biggest organizations that triggered this entire mess or meltdown by the name of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they still have not been called to account, and some of the same policies that caused this mess are continuing to be pushed by Democrats in Washington D.C.

I learned a long time ago that if you have a problem, you must first identify the cause of the problem or you have little chance of fixing it. The politicians in Washington continue to fail dismally in correctly identifying the causes of the problem, and so instead of fixing it, they continue the same old failed policies that caused it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 01:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Tax revenues have been on a down-trend for many years now, but all levels of government has never learned to live within their means.

Federal tax revenues have been on an up-trend 1976 - 2008, but a down-trend in 2009. The federal government has rarely lived within its means. The years 1998 - 2001 are the only surplus years since 1976.
Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BUDGET RECEIPTS OUTLAYS SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS 1789-2012 (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

YEAR " FEDERAL RECEIPTS

1976 " 379,292
1977 -- 355,559 CARTER
1978 -- 399,561
1979 -- 463,302
1980 -- 517,112
1981 "- 599,272 REAGAN
1982 "- 617,786
1983 "- 600,562
1984 "- 666,486
1985 "- 734,088
1986 "- 769,215
1987 "- 854,353
1988 "- 909,303
1989 "- 991,190 BUSH 41
1990 "- 1,032,094
1991 "- 1,055,093
1992 "- 1,091,328
1993 "- 1,154,471 CLINTON
1994 "- 1,258,721
1995 "- 1,351,932
1996 "- 1,453,177
1997 "- 1,579,423
1998 "- 1,721,955
1999 "- 1,827,645
2000 "- 2,025,457
2001 "- 1.991,426 BUSH 43
2002 "- 1,853,395
2003 "- 1,782,532
2004 "- 1,880,279
2005 "- 2,153,859
2006 "- 2,407,254
2007 "- 2,540,096
2008 "- 2,662,474


0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 02:31 pm
In case some people still wonder, here is an example of where some of the stimulus money is going. Its called "payoff to your friends."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/25/feds-pay-virginia-providing-obama-inauguration-buses/?test=latestnews

" Feds Pay Virginia $500K for Providing Obama Inauguration Buses

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Virginia is getting reimbursed the nearly half-million dollars it spent to provide free bus service in Northern Virginia to President Obama's inauguration.

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation says the federal government reimbursed the state $421,708 for its Inauguration Day transit costs

For the event, the state agreed to pay eight Northern Virginia public-transit agencies to run 300 buses to help avoid massive traffic jams. The state says the service an estimated 4 percent of those attending the inauguration.

The federal government reimbursed $2.8 million of the $5.7 million that 51 Virginia state and local agencies spent helping with security for the inauguration."[/b]
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 03:41 pm
@okie,
Gee, just think; they spent that money for the American people to prevent traffic jams. It cost taxpayers $2 billion every week to continue the war in Iraq. Which money was better spent?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 04:49 pm
TREND IN TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total employment in the USA in:
December 2006 = 144,427,000
December 2007 = 146,047,000
December 2008 = 143,338,000
January 2009 = 142,099,000.

Quote:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
October 2009 = 138,242,000
November 2009 = 138,381,000
December 2009 = 137,792,000

January 2010 = ?

Total Employment Losses:
December 2007 to December 2008 = 2,709,000
December 2007 to January 2009 = 3,948,000
December 2008 to January 2009 = 1,239,000
December 2008 to December 2009 = 5,546,000
January 2009 to December 2009 = 4,307,000
January 2009 to January 2010 = ?

How is President Obama doing?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 05:42 pm
@ican711nm,
It's obvious to most of us who knows how to read employment/unemployment numbers, and we also understand trends, and who's responsible.

If you get your head out of your ass, you might understand the numbers you cut and paste on a2k.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 05:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From the US Senate:
Quote:
Bush 2009 Budget with Omitted Costs
($ billions)......... 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009-13
Bush Budget Claim -410 -407 -160 -95 48 29 -585
AMT Reform........... 0.... -8.... -90.. -89. -103. -118. -408
Ongoing War........... 0.. -24... -119.. -126 -117. -103. -489
Debt Service........... 0.... -1..... -7.... -17 ...-29.. -41 -94
Omitted Costs ......-410. -440. -375 -327 -200 -233 -1,576
Increase in Gross Debt 704 791 756 735 660 671 3,613
Federal Debt Soaring
The debt has exploded on this President’s watch. We are now facing a wall of debt. At the end of
2001, the year the Bush administration took office, gross debt was $5.8 trillion. Under the
President’s budget with omitted costs factored in, gross debt will reach $10.4 trillion by the end of
2009. If we continue with these policies, gross debt is projected to soar to $13.3 trillion by the end
of 2013.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 06:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So, if we end all those policies the debt wont grow at all?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 07:45 pm
@mysteryman,
Mysteryman, Obama cannot end all of these policies, because he is committed to expanding all of these policies. If he were to end all of these policies, he would no longer be able to convince his supporters that his administration's growing economic messes are all George Bush's fault.

What a catastrophe that wouild be! Right?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 10:42 am
Here is a great graphic from the National Black Republicans Association website. A picture is worth a thousand words. It explains in a few words Obama's economic policy.

http://www.nbra.info/
http://cache.trustedpartner.com/images/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Affirmative%20Action%20Obama.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 12:07 pm
@okie,
okie, Like the Bush regime, the general public has no control over our president, and that includes Obama.

If you want to complain about Obama, why don't you compare him to Bush? You can identify many areas such as increased deficit, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign and domestic policy, and breaking of domestic and international laws.

I doubt you are capable.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 02:19 pm
Again!:
Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
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%


Quote:

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
December 2008….. 143,338,000…………. + 4,086,000
Obama
December 2009 ....137,792,000......... - 5,546,000

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 02:39 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Your one-dimensional stats doesn't really prove anything, except for the fact that you don't understand numbers in its entirety. That's probably how you fly airplanes - but thank goodness for GPS instruments.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.92 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 03:58:49