Where is the US economy headed?

I doubt it, cyclops, and if it is private sector, it is as a result of doing government contract work, which will not last, it will dry up once Obama gets done with the spending binge and the government is so broke that it cannot keep spending at the same pace.

I am hoping the economy gets better when it has reason to get better, when people begin hoping the next election will turn things around.

The economy can improve based upon future outlook, and if people begin to think Congress will be changed in a big way next fall, the market will begin to come back a little by mid year, I think, but of course who knows. This would be a similar effect as when the market and the economy began to sink when it became more and more apparent that Obama would win, and so far that outlook was a very accurate prediction, as his policies have utterly failed so far.

okie wrote:

I doubt it, cyclops, and if it is private sector, it is as a result of doing government contract work, which will not last, it will dry up once Obama gets done with the spending binge and the government is so broke that it cannot keep spending at the same pace.

But once the economy has recovered to a significant level, it self-runs. That's the whole point of stimulus - it's just a shot in the arm until the patient is back on it's feet.

A construction company who gets a government contract to build something and spends three years during a recession making freeways, upon the end of that contract often finds that there's plenty of private business waiting for them.

Quote:

I am hoping the economy gets better when it has reason to get better, when people begin hoping the next election will turn things around.

What? You don't want it to improve right now?

Quote:

The economy can improve based upon future outlook, and if people begin to think Congress will be changed in a big way next fall, the market will begin to come back a little by mid year, I think, but of course who knows. This would be a similar effect as when the market and the economy began to sink when it became more and more apparent that Obama would win, and so far that outlook was a very accurate prediction, as his policies have utterly failed so far.

Unbelievable. The market 'sank' because of the financial crash, caused by a failure of YOUR party to regulate while they were in charge. And this you call the market reacting to Obama's probable win?

******* nuts, Okie. That opinion is insane.

Cycloptichorn

Obviously I cannot speak for all, but the market responds to future outlook as much as it does current conditions, in my opinion. And I knew of a number of people that were very pessimistic about an Obama administration, and they quit investing and began to pull out of the market, plus business plans became more tentative because of the uncertainty.

I think that is flawed reasoning or a false assumption, because at the end of the round of government spending, the same conditions still exist that caused the recession in the first place, that is if nothing has been done long term to fix the underlying problem, and if the only thing government does is spend more money, then nothing has been done to fix the problem It is akin to ignoring the hole in the bottom of the boat, but claiming that bailing water from the boat for a few minutes will solve the problem.

Its not that I don't hope it gets better , but I just don't think there are long term reasons for it to get better. To use the boat analogy from my above answer, it does no good to hope the boat doesn't sink, if I know there is a hole in the boat. I would rather see the hole get fixed, and then I could have real hope, hope that is well founded.

You call any opinion that doesn't agree with yours as insane, but I can tell you what other business people were thinking and doing.

Obviously I cannot speak for all, but the market responds to future outlook as much as it does current conditions, in my opinion. And I knew of a number of people that were very pessimistic about an Obama administration, and they quit investing and began to pull out of the market, plus business plans became more tentative because of the uncertainty. I don't know what would have happened with a McCain presidency, but I believe the economy would be much better now than it currently is under Obama.

Hey cyclops, go back to basics, what do you do first if your budget does not balance, I think you look for cutting parts of your expenditures first. You can also look for a better paying job, but you cannot count on that and continue to spend more and more money, you must first cut spending.

And also, you cannot necessarily go to your employer and demand more money, which is akin to demanding the American people pay higher taxes. Your employer may be highly irritated that you want more money, if he or she knows you are already being paid handsomely. Same principle with taxpayers, they already know they are paying dearly for more government than they need

and they want to first see the government make a serious effort at cutting spending. Simply continuing to raise taxes only undermines the public's will to work as hard or harder to make up the difference, and in fact it can have a serious effect upon productivity. The best example I have is that I know I already pay many thousands in taxes, which I see wasted and frittered away on a continuous basis, and I am not going to be induced to work harder if my taxes are raised, especially if it involves higher marginal rates, because what would be the logic of going into a higher bracket if most of the money is paid to the government, only to then be wasted on farcical projects.

Reagan, 1980 to 1988, cut the maximum income tax rate 53%, and that, ? COINCIDENTALLY ?, was accompanied by an employment gain of 18.3%, AND a federal tax receipts gain of 75.8%.

All this occurred over the same period, while the inflation rate decreased 70% and the civil population increased 76%.

Go figure!

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
...
1980...................... 167,745,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981...................... 170,130,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000
1983..................... 174,215,000
1984..................... 176,383,000
1985..................... 178,206,000
1986..................... 180,587,000
1987..................... 182,753,000
1988..................... 184,613,000

If you make 250k a year and the tax rate for that is 10% you pay 25k in taxes (I am just using this rate as an example, I know the real one is higher). Your take-home is 225k.
Cycloptichorn

It pretty much never makes financial sense to turn down work due to marginal tax brackets, and the only people that suggest doing so are those who haven't really put much thought into the situation. I think you will find that in the real world, people don't actually do this.

Cycloptichorn

I don't think you are a competent judge of where tax monies are 'wasted,' Okie. My guess is that you don't consider any money spent on anything which doesn't benefit you, or someone you like, to be a waste. It's a terrible way to run a country.
Cycloptichorn

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18936&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
A DARK SECRET ABOUT CREATING JOBS IN AMERICA
Politicians in America and around the world like to talk about creating jobs. Their dark secret is that none of them know how to do it, says James Sherk, the Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy at the Heritage Foundation.

Look at the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's newest proposal: spending billions on home weatherization and highways. What will that do for the millions of Americans without construction or caulking skills? If the president had better ideas for creating jobs, he would have proposed them, says Sherk.

In fairness, no one should blame Obama for lacking a good plan to create jobs. No president -- Democrat or Republican -- could do much better. Why? Consider where jobs come from, says Sherk:

An entrepreneur has an idea.
Investors provide that entrepreneur with funding.
The entrepreneur then hires workers to help put his idea into action.
If the business competes successfully, those jobs last.
A real-world example:

A decade ago, two graduate students at Stanford -- Larry Page and Sergy Brin -- had an idea for a better way to search the Internet.
They persuaded venture capitalists to invest $25 million in their new company: Google Inc.
Today, millions of Americans use Google, and 20,000 employees work there.
Page and Brin's successful idea created thousands of jobs.
Of course, Google might not have succeeded, says Sherk. The economy works through decentralized trial and error as millions of entrepreneurs try to make their ideas work. That is why labor market freedom is so important. Both workers and entrepreneurs need the freedom to adjust to new market realities as they unfold. No one knows what business ideas will work before an entrepreneur tries them, explains Sherk.

That's why Obama can't create jobs. What politician could come up with even 20 good business ideas, much less the tens of thousands needed to get millions of Americans back to work? No one person has that expertise, says Sherk.

If Obama wants to create jobs, he should start by passing policies that encourage the millions of potential American entrepreneurs to take the plunge and their potential investors to fund them. That's the not-so-dark secret of how jobs are created, says Sherk.

Source: James Sherk, "A Dark Secret About Creating Jobs in America," Heritage Foundation, January 29, 2010.

For text:

http://www.jobsandfreedom.com/?p=59

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you make 250k a year and the tax rate for that is 10% you pay 25k in taxes (I am just using this rate as an example, I know the real one is higher). Your take-home is 225k.
Cycloptichorn

Then use the real one. I can tell you that I pay almost that much and I don't make half of that, so what are you smoking today, cyclops? If you are self employed, you will pay around 16 grand on the first 106,000, for FICA and Medicare alone. Thats before you even consider paying tax on the 225k, so your estimate is miles off, cyclops. I would advise you to become self employed for 5 years, then come back here and try to convince everyone that you would still believe what you believe now. It would grow you up in a hurry, and it would educate you a tremendous amount, as regards tax policy and government.

16 Grand in taxes on the first 106 is what? 15%? That's the tax rate you're bitching about?

Cycloptichorn

Self employed pay both employee and employer halves, except our Secretary of Treasury.

he is also anti-business.