114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 05:07 pm
@roger,
I thought I understood how companies like AT&T got to the amount of a charge against earnings that they are taking due to the loss of the 28% tax break. But I can't explain it, Roger. I tried. Maybe a new article will appear that will clarify it.
Meanwhile, evidently the March unemployment numbers are due out at 8:30 am Friday. 9.5% vs 9.7% but with lots of ***'s.
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:14 am
@realjohnboy,
Realjohnboy. I do not think you are correct. I believe the rate will be 9.7%-no decrease. Why?

Private Payrolls have decreased in March. The only saving grace for Obama will be the addition of census workers( an admittedly temporary gig).

Note:

US Treasury secretary Geithner says unemployment is ‘terribly high’ " The Guardian
April 1, 2010
Globe and Mail US Treasury secretary Geithner says unemployment is 'terribly high' The Guardian The US Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner warned today that unemployment was "terribly high" and would remain "unacceptably high for a very long time". The Obama administration was "very worried" about the jobless rate, Geithner said.

*********************************************************************

There will be millions of words written before November 2nd, 2010 when the mid-term elections are held, Realjohnboy, but the most important ones which will impact the elections and, thus, the direction of the country,are the ones spoken by Obama's Secretary of the Treasury above.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:23 am
Cyclopsto Okie--

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't respond to my question: which historical labor laws do you think could have simply been accomplished by 'common sense?' I do not think you will be able to offer a coherent answer to this question.

******************************************************************************
I don't think that Okie should respond, Cyclops never does. Who does he think he is? When Cyclops begins to respond to questions, then Okie should respond!


0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:30 am
Cyclops wrote:

Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:48 am @ican711nm,

This is fatuous, because nothing is forcing those companies to drop their prescription drug plans for seniors. Nothing except Corporate greed and an unwillingness to support their former workers, that is.
*************************************************************************
And nothing is forcing Barack Hussein Obama to levy such incredible losses on the backs of the people who work for these companies. Cyclops is so ignorant about business that he thinks that the Corporate Boards and the CEO's are the only ones that will suffer. Since he is ensconced in the Republic of Berkeley, he knows nothing about Board Meetings of major Corporations and the people who own the stocks in those corporations.

Cyclops pretends to be for the average man. He is ignorant of the fact that the average man( Perhaps 30 or 35 million of them) have 401K's which hold stocks in the companies whose value will decline because of the Socialist and redistributionist leanings of Barack Hussein Obama.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:35 am
Cyclops wrote:

The companies in question all run handsome profits and pay practically nothing in taxes as it is; removing a tax subsidy from them is the appropriate action to do in these austere times.

Nonsense--Note that the "erudite scholar" cyclops says that the companies in question ALL(unsupported generalization) run handsome profits(Not identified-what is a "handsome profit? 1%? 3% 5% 7% 10%.

"Removing a tax subsidy from them, Cyclops says, is the appropriate action to do in these austere times"

No- That is incorrect. Cyclops obviously flunked Economics.

Note:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

" John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference



okie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 05:14 am
@MASSAGAT,
Massagat, corporations and businesses do not really pay the taxes in the final analysis, their customers pay them, whatever customers are left after the taxes leave their path of economic destruction. Taxes are merely an expense of doing business, and all they actually accomplish are to burden down the businesses on which they are applied, thus hampering their ability to compete with the competition. Commonly in this country, it has driven the cost of business up to the point to where the products and services are priced out of the market, and either the companies have gone out of business or have had to move their operations offshore in order to compete. Taxes are one of the prime reasons for almost everything offered in almost all stores in this country are labeled as being made in China, India, Mexico, Vietnam, or somewhere else. It is precisely because of liberal policies by Democratic administrations.

Add to taxes the other overburdensome labor and other regulatory laws which skew the marketplace. Some of these regulations seem nice on the surface, but one must ultimately ask if they are nicer than not having jobs and instead watch the abuse occur on much larger scales in countries where the products are made instead, after all, by buying their junk, we are also consenting to the same abuse but even worse there as we think we are avoiding here with our regulations.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:42 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=aqAQE1llfl78

Quote:

Payrolls in U.S. Rose 162,000 in March; Unemployment at 9.7%


By Timothy R. Homan

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- Employment in the U.S. increased in March by the most in three years and the unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent as companies gained confidence the economic recovery will be sustained.

Payrolls rose by 162,000 last month, less than anticipated, figures from the Labor Department in Washington showed today. The March increase included 48,000 temporary workers hired by the government to conduct the 2010 census, as well as job gains in manufacturing and health services.

The government revised January and February payroll figures up by a combined 62,000, putting the March gain at 224,000 after including the updated data. Caterpillar Inc. is among companies adding staff, indicating the recovery that began in the second half of 2009 is starting to foster the jobs needed to lift consumer spending and sustain the expansion.

“There’s a lot of good news in this report,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, who had the closest forecast for payrolls. “We’re clearly on the recovery path. We expect to see this continue to build. We’re on our way.”


Not enough, but at least things are headed the right direction!

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:13 am
From the Speaker's office -

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/america.jpg

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:53 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Thats good, but a 1 month increase proves nothing.
Lets wait and see if it sustains and if the graph still goes up next month.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:01 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Thats good, but a 1 month increase proves nothing.
Lets wait and see if it sustains and if the graph still goes up next month.


Well, naturally I agree.

cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I have always figured that the economy would come back, even Obama cannot totally destroy the durability of the American economy and its people's ability to produce. However, I think his polices continue to dampen the rebound a little bit, and a sound economic policy would be infinitely better than what we now have. The key is the long run now, will the long term polices be sound or not, and that is still a very open question, and much of that hinges upon the upcoming elections in the next 3 years.

It is interesting to see that the DOW is almost back to 11,000. My stockbroker says the market looks for stability, without so much regard to which political direction, just a stability in terms of what it can count on. I keep telling him that one direction is much more stable than the other, and that I think the stock market will begin to rebound stronger when the polls increasingly look like a conservative / Republican victory this fall, which will bolster consumer confidence in the future outlooks for the economy.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:55 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I have always figured that the economy would come back, even Obama cannot totally destroy the durability of the American economy and its people's ability to produce. However, I think his polices continue to dampen the rebound a little bit, and a sound economic policy would be infinitely better than what we now have. The key is the long run now, will the long term polices be sound or not, and that is still a very open question, and much of that hinges upon the upcoming elections in the next 3 years.


Mmm Hmm. I have little doubt that you claim the exact same thing every single time a Dem is elected: that the sky is going to fall, and then when it doesn't, well, it's going to fall LATER unless we elect some Conservatives!

Quote:
It is interesting to see that the DOW is almost back to 11,000. My stockbroker says the market looks for stability, without so much regard to which political direction, just a stability in terms of what it can count on. I keep telling him that one direction is much more stable than the other, and that I think the stock market will begin to rebound stronger when the polls increasingly look like a conservative / Republican victory this fall, which will bolster consumer confidence in the future outlooks for the economy.


There's a reason your stockbroker is better at understanding the market then you are, Okie; because he understands that people will try and make money and be successful under whatever conditions exist. If your theories were to be believed, the stock market should have withered and died, America should have folded, for all those decades where our taxes were MUCH higher then they are today. But that wasn't the case, because your theory that politics drives the market is totally disconnected from the reality of the situation.

I don't know why you would say the market will 'rebound stronger;' it's already strongly rebounded from the 2008 crash.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 04:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There's a reason your stockbroker is better at understanding the market then you are, Okie; because he understands that people will try and make money and be successful under whatever conditions exist.
Cycloptichorn

Let me tell you something, the man did not understand how big of a bust Obama would be to the economy, because if he had, he would have told me to get out of the market alot sooner, probably right before Obama gained the advantage over Clinton and the polls became more indicative of an Obama victory in the presidential election.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 04:17 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There's a reason your stockbroker is better at understanding the market then you are, Okie; because he understands that people will try and make money and be successful under whatever conditions exist.
Cycloptichorn

Let me tell you something, the man did not understand how big of a bust Obama would be to the economy, because if he had, he would have told me to get out of the market alot sooner, probably right before Obama gained the advantage over Clinton and the polls became more indicative of an Obama victory in the presidential election.


How do you account for the fact that the market has rebounded pretty much 100% since those days? Under your predictions and estimations, that means businesses are now betting on success in the future.

That is, if consistency means **** to you. Your 'the market failed due to Obama's upcoming victory' meme is incredibly dumb, but hey - maybe you'll man up and stick with it now that things have turned around?

I mean, my god, you're blaming the guy for a crash that took place months before he was elected! Do you understand how crazy that sounds?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 04:59 pm
Quote:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2010/03/31/obama_outright_evil,_or_simply_wrong
Obama: Outright Evil, or Simply Wrong?

Will it be easier to persuade people that Barack Obama is wrong on the issues or to try to convince them that he is outright evil?

That’s a crucial question facing conservatives as we gear up for fateful election battles in 2010 and 2012.

Based on human nature and political history, the answer to that question ought to be obvious: Americans have often felt that our leaders make mistakes or pursue destructive policies but we have rarely (if ever) believed that they did it deliberately to damage the country. In the last 80 years, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush all got voted out of office by an angry electorate but a majority of the public never embraced the idea that these floundering presidents were actually bad guys. Only during President Nixon’s Watergate scandal did a substantial segment of the population come to believe that their president might well be evil or insane, and that belief led directly to the president’s resignation. The next impeachment crisis turned out very differently, of course: with GOP efforts to portray Bill Clinton as a dangerous ethical monster bringing the president the highest approval ratings of his career from a public that preferred to view him as a lovable (or at least forgivable) rogue.

Despite this history, many conservatives insist on outspokenly demonizing Barack Obama and express self-righteous certainty that these paranoid characterizations represent an effective political strategy. Leading talk show hosts repeatedly declare that the president is pursuing a diabolical, deliberate scheme to wreck the U.S. economy so that a desperate, impoverished populace will welcome the imposition of socialism. A prominent new group called the “Impeach Obama Campaign” asks: “Are you willing to let him construct a totalitarian regime: fascism, socialism, Obamaism… take your pick?” The leaders of this new movement (including former GOP office-holders and prominent political professionals) go on to declare: “Make no mistake. We’re now in the middle of a bloodless coup " the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd " a cold-blooded gang that despises America’s prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness….What can we do to stop this monomaniac, this American dictator?”

This sort of rhetoric has encouraged a climate of opinion among conservatives that resulted in an alarming Harris Poll in the midst of the recent health care debate. According to a survey of 2,230 individuals, 57% of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim, 45% agree that he “was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president,” and 38% back the statement that “Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did.”

If sane conservatives refuse to confront and discredit such attitudes and arguments, we will help to ensure the president’s re-election and the bitter collapse of the conservative movement. For several reasons, the instinct to portray the president as a traitor, an alien, a would-be dictator or a deliberate nation-wrecker represents a suicidally stupid strategy for blocking his power.

1. Obama remains far more popular than his policies. The ten most recent major polls on the president’s job approval (taken between March 10 and 26th) all showed an almost even division among the public, with no more than 50% and no less than 45% supporting the president’s performance in office (he averaged 47.1%). On health care, however, eleven polls (between March 3 and 21st) showed average support for Obama’s approach of only 39.4%, with every one of them showing more people opposed to the proposed reform than backing it. Why should Republicans concentrate their fire on the president’s personality and motivations, where at least half the country is still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than focusing on his ruinous policies, where most people already agree with us? In fact, debating the president’s character, or arguing about whether he truly intends to harm the nation, only takes attention away from his specific mistakes and wastes energy on an irrelevant argument we ultimately can’t win. No matter how fervently some movement conservatives may believe that the President of the United States intends to pursue some mad kamikaze mission of wrecking the country he leads, each time the TV screen fills with gauzy images of a smiling Obama interacting with his beautiful family, or the elegant commander in chief saluting the troops or performing some traditional ceremonial function, most viewers will come away convinced that he’s a hardworking guy who’s trying his best

2. Hysterical rhetoric about socialist takeover and looming dictatorship will lead the public to fear conservatives more than they fear the president. The same Harris Poll that showed a majority of GOP’ers think Obama is a Muslim also suggested that a full 24% of Republicans believe he “may be the Antichrist.” Why would independent, moderate or undecided voters ever want to associate themselves with such people? When Tea Party supporters eagerly tell the smirking New York Times about their preparations for armed resistance and potential civil war, most politically disengaged Americans (precisely the segment of the population we need to reach) will run in horror in the other direction. If we talk about out-of-control spending, rising deficits and the potential of economic disaster, we make the situation and Obama’s policies sound scary. If instead we talk about some invisible cabal to inflict totalitarian takeover, while we promise to play the role of musket-toting Colonial Minutemen, we make ourselves sound scary. Describing Obama as a Marxist or a Muslim or a scheming nation-wrecker doesn’t isolate him; it isolates us.

3. Pronouncements about “the end of freedom” or “the destruction of capitalism” will sound like crying wolf to the great majority of Americans. Within the next few months and years, as Democrats seek to defend their Congressional majorities and then the White House, there is little chance that the every-day lives of ordinary Americans will change dramatically. On the health care bill, for instance, Obama cunningly delayed the implementation of its most substantial provisions until 2014"long after he hopes he is safely re-elected. Even at times of economic suffering (like the current moment), all surveys show that Americans remain overwhelmingly optimistic about their personal situations and prospects; by huge margins, we like our jobs, our families and our neighborhoods. The chances that a majority of Americans will, within the next few years, actually experience the loss of freedom or the national destruction right-wingers warn them about are, fortunately, almost nil. After years of dire alarms from conservatives about imminent catastrophe, what are we supposed to do if that catastrophe doesn’t arrive? Assuming that the nation will somehow muddle through the next few years without a complete financial collapse or some devastating terrorist attack, we will look like demagogic alarmists who tried to frighten the public for political gain. Instead of concentrating on our own predictions of total disaster, we should focus on Obama’s predictions of robust recovery and falling unemployment. He’s profoundly unlikely to see his rosy scenarios unfold, just as GOP gloom-and-doomers are unlikely to see our worst-case scenarios come true. Why not highlight Obama as a failed and false prophet rather than embarrassing ourselves with our own far-fetched prophecies of destruction?

The practical arguments outlined above seem so obvious that it’s difficult to understand or explain the apparently powerful instinct to portray Obama as some sort of fanatical true-believer who craves America’s destruction more than he values his own popularity or place in history. Every week during the “Open Mind Friday” and “Disagreement Day” features of my radio show, the phone lines swarm with impassioned callers who are determined to persuade me (and the world) that Obama knows precisely what he’s doing and that he purposefully wants to wreck the nation in order to impose some alien system. These calls, often from highly intelligent and sophisticated individuals, test my commitment to on-air openness because they make conservatives look bad (and needlessly divided) while taking time from more fruitful lines of attack in discrediting the administration.

A recent caller, exasperated by my refusal to concede Obama’s malevolence, asked an important question: “If you’re so sure you’re right about this, why is it that everybody else on the radio says he’s a socialist who wants to destroy the economy? Why should we believe that you’re the only one who’s right, and everybody else is wrong?”

The answer to that question raises an uncomfortable fact about talk radio and highlights the dangers of allowing media figures to set the anti-Obama agenda. The great majority of Americans remain politically disengaged " they won’t ever listen to partisan talk on the radio or tune in to news programming on cable TV, shunning Fox and MSNBC with similar consistency. The leading political cable shows in the country draw viewership that amounts to barely 1% of the national population; the top radio program in the United States (hosted, of course, by Rush Limbaugh) will draw only 5 or 6% of the available listeners " and much less than 1% of the overall population " even in major markets where it crushes the competition.

This salient but seldom-acknowledged fact highlights the difference between the successful pursuit of media ratings and the successful pursuit of electoral majorities. Heavy-breathing warnings about impending doom can make for riveting radio, as can melodramatic descriptions of the president as the ultimate incarnation of pure evil. Such conversation can help deliver 6%, or even 9%, of all those tuned into the radio at a given time of day or night. But there’s a world of difference between a few percent of available radio listeners, and the more than 50% of available voters you need to persuade to win meaningful political power.

If conservatives persist in characterizing the President of the United States as vicious and radical, insanely bent on the destruction of the Republic, we may find reassurance from the already like-minded but we’ll lose nearly everyone in the persuadable middle. As a result, we could spend the next decade or more as an increasingly impotent, irrelevant and angry opposition, howling in the political wilderness.
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 05:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

ObamaCare Funds Abortion Coverage Nationwide

(ROUND ROCK, TX) " The Obama-Pelosi healthcare scheme fully funds abortion coverage nationwide at federal expense and must be repealed, says House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter.

“As much as the left is trying to obscure the truth on this issue of federal funding of abortion, it cannot be denied,” says Carter. “Pro-life Members of Congress nationwide will be attacked on this issue through November in an attempt to deceive the voter about this bill, but the truth will prevail.”

Carter was attacked this week by the liberal Austin American-Statesman newspaper and the partisan “PolitiFact” organization for confirming that full federal funding of abortion is included in the Obama healthcare bill. The attack was part of a nationwide Democrat propaganda campaign to change public opinion on their controversial bill before the November election.

Carter, a former Texas judge, says the new bill’s radical departure on the abortion issue from the current federal healthcare pool to the new health exchanges under ObamaCare more than determines the case.

“Current law specifically prohibits any plan offered to federal employees from covering elective abortion coverage,” says Carter. “But this new scheme sends massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans under the new health exchanges and government-chartered cooperatives that do pay for elective abortion.”

None of the more than 200 private health plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan are allowed to offer coverage for elective abortions, because these plans receive federal subsidies to cover 8 million federal employees and Members of Congress.

The point is one of many substantiating the position of Congressman Carter, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, National Right-to-Life, and many others of the nation's leading pro-life organizations.

Ironically, PolitiFact reached the same conclusion before reversing their opinion on a technicality. When PolitiFact reviewed National Right-to-Life Legislative Director Doug Johnson's position - the same position as Congressman John Carter - that the plan would provide federal subsidies for abortion coverage they found:

"Regarding Johnson's claim that the Baucus plan would result in 'federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion,' we think he is on solid ground.

One could argue whether or not this is a departure from making the bill 'abortion neutral' - each side has its take on that - but the fact is the plan would allow insurers to offer abortion. And the plan includes federal subsidies to some who might choose to join such a plan. And so we rule Johnson's statement True." - PolitiFact News Release, September 21, 2009

However, PolitiFact then contends that the National Right to Life statement that "federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions" was false, in spite of the seeming contradictions in their findings.

Carter says all Americans should be prepared for a torrent of similarly deceptive left-wing media attacks on every issue in the healthcare bill as the year progresses, as liberal Democrats try to ward off voter anger for passage of the unpopular and unconstitutional bill, and the underhanded political process used in the face of widespread public opposition.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 08:09 pm
@okie,
Members of Sigma Delta Sigma?

The left wing students in Michigan were the ones who studied, who attended their friends' art shows, musical recitals and plays. The left wing students also envisioned a world in which husbands and wives could share in supporting the family and keeping house together while pursuing a career. The lefties also made the Dean's List.

I remember some poor little thing who appeared the first day of a graduate seminar in Williams and Pound. Now it was a 500 level class and all undergrads had to take a 500 level to graduate. But the numbers that followed indicated that it was an American poetry class. BEsides, Pound is well known ("Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot, Fighting in the Captain's Tower"), while Williams is less studied. This little girl, straight out of a sorority, in the middle of class proclaimed, "William Carlos Williams? I thought it was Tennessee!" She never appeared again. The people who stayed were all lefties and we had one of the best academic experiences we might have had.

The professor was not being granted tenure: WSU often let popular professors go. They insulted him by tenuring his wife, so they both left, finding another uni where they could work together. It was his last term in Detroit.

One of those students opened a book store as soon as he finished his MA because he decided against a PhD, although Dutton had already published a volume of his poetry. Another was simultaneously working on two master's degrees . . . English in Detroit and film writing in LA. Just those lazy hippies, eh, okie? Achieving things. Writing brilliant papers that professors read aloud to classes.

If I were to answer you as you generally answer me, I would say that you didn't know which were the left and the right.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 08:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
This Depression Phase II is due to the relaxing of regulations under the two bushes and reagan.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 08:17 pm
@okie,
What was the name of that movie? Why does everyone you know take drugs? What kind of drugs, since you seem to know and want to reveal all the prurient details?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 08:18 pm
@okie,
The more appropriate question is can you write?
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.16 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 09:19:10