Where is the US economy headed?

Similar may await Obama as he continues his clueless governance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583747,00.html

"Tens of Thousands of Venezuelans Protest Hugo Chavez
Saturday, January 23, 2010

Jan. 23: Opposition members shout slogans against Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez during a protest in Caracas.
CARACAS, Venezuela " Tens of thousands of Venezuelans opposed to President Hugo Chavez took to the streets Saturday, blaming him for rolling blackouts, water rationing, widespread crime and other problems they say are making daily life increasingly difficult."

http://www.foxnews.com/images/595671/0_61_012310_matt_venezuela.jpg

1 Reply

The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." - Frank Zappa

Where Do We Go From Here?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/sanders

..................We can learn from the past. The last time our nation faced economic challenges as great as our own, Franklin Roosevelt embraced progressive social policies and major financial and economic reform. The nation did not ignore or forget his commitment to help American families, provide aid to the disadvantaged and take on the moneyed powers of Wall Street. Roosevelt's greatest political legacy was to build a coalition of Americans from across the country who understood that, if they stood together under a progressive banner, life could be better for the average person. Now is the time to remember that lesson.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, What's your point? How does the Venezuelans Protest equate to the US?

Your primary use of FOX News only provides us with how ignorant you really are!

0 Replies

@Magginkat,

Magginkat wrote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/sanders

..................We can learn from the past.

If we learn from the past, we will not follow the advice of an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders. Extreme socialism or Marxist philosophy has been responsible for tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of deaths and unmeasurable suffering around the world in the last 100 years alone.

Freedom is no illusion, it is reality, and it is what every human being yearns for and deserves. Visions of utopia by the ultra leftists in history have indeed turned out to be illusions only.

1 Reply

@okie,

And when did socialism take over the US? How influential is Bernie Sanders in this country? How many Americans call themselves socialist or Marxist?

You're out of your freak'n mind!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I agree Cicerone. Okie's insanity & ignorance knows no bounds! Bernie Sanders is an Independent, someone the Repugs hate unless they get suckered into voting for some of the pRes Cheney/Bush type garbage.

1 Reply

Cicerone, I discovered two articles that Okie should read but I doubt that his feeble brain could handle either one. BUT, just in case:

Cars fed on corn, people fed on horseshit (Dave and Joe ponder socialism and the Tea Party)
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/01/the-tea-party.html

The next article ...... http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/01/when-did-america.html

When did America become a goddamn homeland?

...........at 62, I am permanently disabled and alone. But, I had a pretty decent life. I am still working class, goddamn it all. I am so damn sick of what has become of this country we now call a "homeland". What the hell? When did America become a goddamn "homeland"? Yeah, I know, W. Shrub and "Five Deferments" Cheney. They gave us that goddamn Nazi Germany/Soviet Union term for what used to be America.

Stupid is what this country has become for damn sure. Big difference between stupid and ignorant. Ignorance can be overcome by learning. Stupid, well, there isn't much hope in hell for stupid. Faux Noise and the "two party" system are for the stupid.

Thank you for your time reading this rant. I usually blow off steam at my "corner" of this internet. Go to: http://bear47.blogspot.com/

It's gonna be a long walk back, brother, and if we make it to the end of the road (which you and I will not by virtue of our age) there won't be much smug self-deluding talk of a "middle class." Those left standing will know for damned sure what class they are in. Either the working class or the elites who own their asses lock stock and beans.

In art and labor,

Joe

0 Replies

This past week's market performance put many investors into depression, because it seems to signal that the huge loss from 2008 is being carried forward into 2010. Whatever recoveries made in 2009 could never make up for the loss of 2008. Many investors chose to escape the stock market into bonds again for safety, but is that really a wise choice?

We need to look at some history of the stock market in order to put some balance into last week's loss. In 1988 when the feds raised interest rates, the S&P stock index fell 6.7% in two months. When the feds increased rates in 1994, the S&P dropped 8.7% in two months. Should we now fear any increase in interest rates, or is the current great recession a completely different environment?

I believe we must look at the world economies to see where our economy is headed for the foreseeable future. The biggest problem I see is the growth of our national debt that will impact our currency and inflation. In this scenario, will the feds keep our interest rates near zero? If so, how does the treasury continue to sell bonds to China and Japan?

I also see banks as a huge problem for our economy. They're really not making profit, but are giving their employees huge bonus while ignoring the investors. Simple greed at play. How long will investors tolerate this greed?

Wow, bank stocks sank last week from 8% to 12%; they're still considering those huge bonus? They still haven't written off all those non-performing mortgages. They're still giving those bonus?

Wow. Somethings wrong in our capitalist economy.

0 Replies

Good evening to yall. 3" of rain overnight. A lot of localized flooding in VA.
A fellow Virginian, whom I don't know, Slkshock7, started a thread this afternoon re an email received from one of our U.S. Senators. I suggested that the comments be moved here to get a wider audience. That hasn't happened yet so I will summarize the idea - not unique - from Mark Warner (D-Va):
> There are many "...potential threats posed by long term budget deficits and unrestrained federal spending."
> "We need to establish policies now that will kick in after the current economic downturn has ended..."
> "I have joined a bipartisan group...in cosponsoring legislation to create a commission on federal budget and entitlement reform."
> The commission will make "...recommendations to be presented to Congress, with no amendments allowed, for a simple up-or-down vote."

Cyclo was the only one I have seen so far who responded. I hope he and Slkshock7 will join this discussion. I will be back later, also, but this post is long enough already.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I'm down for discussing it here.

The problem that I and a lot of Progressives have with this legislation is the fact that it seems designed entirely to slice and dice our social safety net, and ignore all other options of balancing the budget, including cutting defense spending and raising taxes. The 'no amendments' rule isn't really to keep out pork, it's to concentrate as much power in the hands of those on the Commission as possible. It becomes very difficult (especially in the face of the new USSC ruling) to imagine this Commission recommending anything that Progressives would support, at all.

I also don't see why Republicans should get any voice in this. Their party has spent the last two years completely ******* the US Congress up by using every trick they can think of to stall and wreck legislation. They have disrespected the President at every opportunity and really don't seem to give a **** about the future of our country at all. I cannot see a single Republican coming out in favor of anything but tax cuts and safety net cuts.

So what exactly is the upside of supporting or participating in such an endeavor?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The problem I have with a lot of Progressive legislation is the fact that it seems designed entirely to slice and dice our Constitutional Republ;ic and our Capitalist economy, and ignore all other options of balancing the budget, including cutting unnecessary federal government spending, and lowering federal taxes.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The problem I have with a lot of Progressive legislation is the fact that it seems designed entirely to slice and dice our Constitutional Republ;ic and our Capitalist economy, and ignore all other options of balancing the budget, including cutting unnecessary federal government spending, and lowering federal taxes.

It is impossible to balance the budget by lowering taxes. Period. A combination of cuts in spending and tax raises are required to do so.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I presume you mean Cyclo that balancing the budget is a utopian fantasy.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I presume you mean Cyclo that balancing the budget is a utopian fantasy.

On the contrary, a decade ago at this time, our budget was not only balanced - we were running surpluses. So it is clearly possible. And the major difference between now and then? Higher tax rates.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Here you go, John.

slkshock7 wrote:

Yeah right, you may say...Congress and fiscal discipline...isn't that an oxymoron?

Just got an email from Senator Warner of VA stating just that however. Abbreviated version of his suggestion is below:

Sen Warner wrote:

WASHINGTON -- The return of Congress in the new year presents an opportunity to take a clear-eyed look at our fiscal priorities and examine the potential threats posed by long term budget deficits and unrestrained federal spending.

When I served as governor, Virginia earned national respect for its distinctively bipartisan approach to effective government and its commitment to balanced budgets. These accolades were the result of much hard work and many tough choices -- but most of us serving in Richmond recognized the need to act in a bipartisan way to move Virginia forward.

<<<snip>>>>
We need to establish policies now that will kick in after the current economic downturn has ended -- policies that phase in, over time, some of the solutions that will ensure the nation's long-term fiscal stability.

That's why I have joined a bipartisan group of senators and representatives, including Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, in co-sponsoring legislation to create a commission on federal budget and entitlement reform.

We are calling for creation of a bipartisan task force that will make sweeping budget and revenue recommendations to be presented to Congress, with no amendments allowed, for a simple up-or-down vote.

As we've seen in the current health care debate, legislative deal-making too often allows parochial and political considerations to trump the national interest.

That's why I believe this Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action could serve as the basis for a new process to tackle this fiscal challenge.

Everything would be on the table, including spending and revenues. We can't solve this challenge by looking at only one side of the ledger.

The task force recommendations would be considered by Congress under expedited procedures with a "yes" or "no" vote required.

Most important, the task force approach would ensure a bipartisan outcome. A supermajority of the task force members would have to agree to adopt the recommendations, and congressional approval would require supermajorities in both the Senate and House.

This is the only way needed changes are going to be adopted and maintained over time.

<<<snip>>>

Couldn't help but respond with my own rejoinder below...think all like-minded folks should urge their Congressman and Senator to support Warner's initiative with the first piece of legislation to undergo the scrutiny being HealthCare Reform...

Senator Warner,
First, I applaud your efforts to regain fiscal discipline in Congress. However, I would urge you to apply that same discipline to current initiatives e.g. HealthCare currently moving through Congress. Use Healthcare as a first test of the feasibility and strength of your proposal. I would also urge you to revisit other initiatives enacted this past year including the Stimululus Bill and suspend any further expenditures under that Bill until it can pass the muster of your bipartisan commission.

Your actions and votes in Congress do not inspire trust that you really care about fiscal discipline first, and party discipline second. I would welcome the proof of your re-commitment to strict fiscal policy by your public statements that all Congressional initiatives will undergo the commission's scrutiny and first and foremost will be Health Care Reform.

1 Reply

@roger,

Thanks, Roger. I think I summarized Warner's comments okay, but not slkshock7's at all

0 Replies

Congress is so screwed up, I doubt very much they are capable of not spending money we don't have. It's not coming out of their own pocket, so they don't feel the pain that is being transferred to our children and grandchildren. They have no idea what a billion dollars spent now means to the future of our economy in terms of inflation and cheaper US dollar.

It's an exercise in futility.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cutting taxes like Reagan did, increased federal receipts and US jobs and GPD.

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:

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 " TERM %CHANGE
…
1976 " 379,292 --
1977 -- 355,559 CARTER
1978 -- 399,561
1979 -- 463,302
1980 -- 517,112 -- +36.3
1981 "- 599,272 REAGAN
1982 "- 617,786
1983 "- 600,562
1984 "- 666,486 -- +28.9
1985 "- 734,088
1986 "- 769,215
1987 "- 854,353
1988 "- 909,303 -- +36.4
1989 "- 991,190 BUSH 41
1990 "- 1,032,094
1991 "- 1,055,093
1992 "- 1,091,328 -- +20.2
1993 "- 1,154,471 CLINTON
1994 "- 1,258,721
1995 "- 1,351,932
1996 "- 1,453,177 -- +33.2
1997 "- 1,579,423
1998 "- 1,721,955
1999 "- 1,827,645
2000 "- 2,025,457 " +39.4
2001 "- 1.991,426 BUSH 43
2002 "- 1,853,395
2003 "- 1,782,532
2004 "- 1,880,279 -- -7.2
2005 "- 2,153,859
2006 "- 2,407,254 -- +28.0 (over 2 years)
2007 "- 2,540,096
2008 "- 2,662,474 -- +41.6 (over 4 years)

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
1980...................... 167,745,000.................99,302,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981...................... 170,130,000………….....100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000.................99,526,000
1983..................... 174,215,000...............100,834,000
1984..................... 176,383,000...............105,005,000
1985..................... 178,206,000………........107,150,000
1986..................... 180,587,000...............109,597,000
1987..................... 182,753,000...............112,440,000
1988..................... 184,613,000...............114,968,000
1989..................... 186,393,000...............117,342,000 [BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1990..................... 189,164,000...............118,793,000
1991..................... 190,925,000...............117,718,000
1992..................... 192,805,000…….….......118,492,000
1993..................... 194,838,000...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..................... 196,814,000...............123,060,000
1995..................... 198,584,000………….....124,900,000
1996..................... 200,591,000...............126,708,000
1997..................... 203,133,000………….....129,558,000
1998...................... 205,220,000...............131,463,000
1999..................... 207,753,000...............133,488,000
2000..................... 212,577,000...............136,891,000
2001..................... 215,092,000………………136,933,000 [BUSH 43 2001-2009]
2002...................... 217,570,000...............136,485,000
2003..................... 221,168,000...............137,730,006
2004..................... 223,357,000...............139,252,000
2005..................... 226,082,000………….....141,730,000
2006...................... 228,815,000……..........144,427,000
2007..................... 231,867,000...............146,047,000
2008..................... 233,788,000...............145,362,000
2009..................... 235,810,000...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009-?]

Quote:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
1976 " 1,825.3 ---------
1977 -- 2,030.9 CARTER
1978 -- 2,294.7
1979 -- 2,563.3
1980 -- 2,789.5 -- +52.8
1981 "- 3,128.4 REAGAN
1982 "- 3,255.0
1983 "- 3,536.7
1984 "- 3,933.2 -- +41.0
1985 "- 4,220.3
1986 "- 4,462.8
1987 "- 4,739.5
1988 "- 5,103.8 -- +29.8
1989 "- 5,484.4 BUSH 41
1990 "- 5,803.1
1991 "- 5,995.9
1992 "- 6,337.7 -- +24.2
1993 "- 6,657.4 CLINTON
1994 "- 7,072.2
1995 "- 7,397.7
1996 "- 7,816.9 -- +23.3
1997 "- 8,304.3
1998 "- 8,747.0
1999 "- 9,268.4
2000 "- 9,817.0 " +12.8
2001 "- 10,128.0 BUSH 43
2002 "- 10,469.6
2003 "- 10,960.8
2004 "- 11,685.9 -- +19.0
2005 "- 12,421.9
2006 "- 13,178.4 -- +12.8(over 2 years)
2007 "- 13,807.5
2008 "- 14,208.7 -- +21.6(over 4 years)

0 Replies

Slkshock7, as I read the posts, probably did not vote for Mark Warner (D-VA). I did. He seems like a pretty smart fellow.
But I, like Slkshock7, am not happy about his proposal for a "bipartisan commission."
My response to Warner, without the curse words, goes something like this:
"Dude, we elected you and your 534 colleagues in the House and Senate to make decisions for the good of the country. We did not elect you to punt until after the next election with the appointment of some unelected commission of 7 or 9 people to study the issue and write legislation that you would then vote up-or-down on."

1 Reply

@Magginkat,

Magginkat wrote:

I agree Cicerone. Okie's insanity & ignorance knows no bounds! Bernie Sanders is an Independent, someone the Repugs hate unless they get suckered into voting for some of the pRes Cheney/Bush type garbage.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist through and through, okay. You could start getting something right by figuring that much out.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know