Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

They are ican's numbers okie..

But look at what else he posted..

Quote:

2010........$3,091 trillion [OBAMA] (June and not final year of term)

Do you really think Obama spent $3 trillion in ONE month? That would be more then GDP for that month. Use your head. Why would ican post money for the YEAR for one section and then for the month for another? Can't ican use his head?

1 Reply

@parados,

I don't know about ican's numbers, but something is obviously haywire. If you want to get serious about it, in the first place the number says it is over 3 thousand trillion, which is obviously wrong. Ican probably meant three point 091, or slightly over 3 trillion, but given the numbers quoted here, I think some clarification would be in order before arguing over them. For example, what does "June and not final year of term" mean, what does that actually mean, what is the period of time covered?

Going back to my previous post, I think it should be obvious to almost everyone that Obama's deficits are running between one and two trillion, far higher than Bush's, and I think you probably know that. But instead you choose to twist whatever numbers ican has cited here and make an issue of them. It is intellectually dishonest of you, I think so anyway, Parados.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Do you know why Obama has run up such a huge deficit?

1 Reply

The death of Alaska's Stevens has pointed out what hypocrites not just people in general are but Republicans in particular: NPR's long story about Stevens covered nothing but his large and rolling pork barrel.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Going back to my previous post, I think it should be obvious to almost everyone that Obama's deficits are running between one and two trillion, far higher than Bush's, and I think you probably know that.

Bush's last budget year - Oct 2008 to Sept 2009 - deficit 1.412 trillion
Obama's first budget year Oct 2009 to Sept 2010 - deficit (estimated) 1.555 trillion.
Obama's second budget year estimate of deficit 1.266 trillion.

I know what I know because they are government numbers. What do you know okie?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Bush's last budget year - Oct 2008 to Sept 2009 - deficit 1.412 trillion
Obama's first budget year Oct 2009 to Sept 2010 - deficit (estimated) 1.555 trillion.
Obama's second budget year estimate of deficit 1.266 trillion.

And that comparison even loads the dice against Obama because the Lehman crisis happened in autumn 2008---under Bush, but in budget year 2009. Most of Paulson's and Bush's bank bailout spending happened in what you categorize as Obama's first budget year.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

The death of Alaska's Stevens has pointed out what hypocrites not just people in general are but Republicans in particular: NPR's long story about Stevens covered nothing but his large and rolling pork barrel.

I don't suppose you would like to compare Stevens' pork to that of many Democrats' pork, such as former KKK "Exalted Cyclops" Robert Byrd, who served as senator for 51 years and was the longest-serving senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress from 1953 to 2010. Let me give you a hint, pom, he wasn't re-elected all of those times for not delivering pork to his state of West Virginia. It would be interesting to see how many buildings, bridges, and other taxpayer funded stuff that has Byrd's name stamped on them.

Among Byrd's other accomplishments was his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Also part of his legacy was an interesting letter he wrote in the late 40's to the KKK Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.".

1 Reply

Quote:

FACTS NOT ODD (OBAMA DEMOCRAT DISASSEMBLER) FAIRY TALES

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (June and not final year of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,091 trillion [OBAMA] (June and not final year of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (June and not final year of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (June and not final year of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (June)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (June)

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% [BUSH41 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% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Those numbers are meaningless without understanding how those numbers were created, and what caused them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

On the deficit, from Harvard Magazine, July-August 2010:

Jeffrey A. Frankel, Harpel professor of capital formation and growth, the Kennedy School, does put some blame for the national debt on the Obama stimulus package. That is the point at which okie and ican will stop reading and start screaming.

However, Professor Frankel stresses that the stimulus is "a relatively small part of the total picture."

In other words, Professor Frankel, unlike ican and okie, puts the economy is context. He has a perspective that rises above simply saying no and spewing irrational hatred.

The US was already a debtor nation when the economy began to slide and much of that debt was international. Frankel puts the stimulus in fifth place in terms of extending America's debt.

Leading the way are the increased cost of Medicare and Medicaid. This is followed by Social Security, which Frankel says can be fixed with some minor but "politically difficult" steps. (As these steps are not the focus of this article, they are not mentioned.)

The third contributor to the increase of debt is"the fiscal path that President George W. Bush put the country on in 2001. " That path included both tax cuts and increased military and domestic spending. In MArch 2007, Frankel elaborated upon the nation's rising debt noting that although the president ought to have cut taxes to relieve the 2001 recession, his failure not to eliminate those cuts and not to decrease spending after that recovery will make the next recession more severe. That next recession is here now.

In other words, Bush deprived future policy makers of the solution he used.

The fourth element is the recession itself which decreases tax revenues and increases spending on benefits for the unemployed.

According to Frankel, the stimulus package, in fifth place, "pales in comparison with the other factors."

3 Replies

@plainoldme,

A prediction:

ican will post his numbers again. I sincerely and seriously doubt that he knows what those numbers signify.

okie will deny that the speaker quoted above knows what he is talking about simply because he holds an endowed chair at Harvard. okie will then find some way to state that he knows better.

0 Replies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9oQHbkk2Lo

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

pom, Those are the missing pieces of info that ican and okie will never learn or appreciate. They're on a one-track mind that only looks at numbers without understanding their cause.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

In other words, Professor Frankel, unlike ican and okie, puts the economy is context. He has a perspective that rises above simply saying no and spewing irrational hatred.

And seeing things in context is like the Democrats did in regard to Bush, accusing him of being a little dictator with the Patriot Act because he cared enough about national security to check out some phone calls to suspected terrorists overseas while ignoring the fact your Democrat hero, FDR, rounded up tens of thousands of American citizens and placed them in concentration camps around the country during World War II, that was no problem, but Bush checking out a few phone calls, that was the worst thing any president had ever committed. Is that the kind of context you are so proud of using, pom, and is that an example of you and your fellow radical liberals being so rational?

By the way, it is not hatred for Obama, it is the reality that the man is an utter disaster of a president, way over his head in terms of ability. Frankly he is totally unqualified as a president. He was a cheap community organizer from Chicago that had no experience running anything of any importance. I was talking to a neighbor 85 years of age the other day about many things including the economy, and he said Obama has to be the worst president in the history of the country, no contest. The neighbor has farmed all of his life and has been very successful, hardworking, a military veteran, and basically just an all around great American with much wisdom and experience.

1 Reply

Actually, okie, Obama has done pretty well. As Business Week said, if he were a Republican, everybody would be cheering what he's done. He took the economy in freefall the Bush administration left him and got it producing again, got the banks giving credit again, and got the economy growing again, despite total Republican intransigence, and has made a start at a rational healthcare system. With any luck we might get to a single-payer system by the time he leaves office, and join the rest of the developed world with lower-cost, higher quality health care for everybody.

I'd say we've got a pretty clear inversely proportional relationship here, okie--the more frustrated you become, the better job Obama is doing.

1 Reply

@okie,

The right keeps bring up Obama's alleged lack of experience of running anything. However, these people voted for McCain, who never ran anything (except for the Keating Five). Obama is a natural leader -- he was president of the Harvard Law Review, ran great campaigns for public office, and is now running the administration in fine fashion.

The right also voted for Bush, who ran corporations into the ground, was a terrible governor, and was, for two terms, a horrible president.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

The right keeps bring up Obama's alleged lack of experience of running anything. However, these people voted for McCain, who never ran anything (except for the Keating Five).

At least McCain is a man that loves his country. We don't have a case of that in Obama, who seems to despise the country and the citizens he governs.

Quote:

Obama is a natural leader -- he was president of the Harvard Law Review, ran great campaigns for public office, and is now running the administration in fine fashion.

Sadly your view, but doesn't match with reality. The man is screwing up the country big time. And your statement that Obama is a natural leader, baloney, the man does nothing for us in terms of leadership. About all he does is go "uh, oh, uhhh, uh," and then provide some vague foggy answer to a question. The man is clueless, including any expertise in regard to the economy.

Quote:

The right also voted for Bush, who ran corporations into the ground, was a terrible governor, and was, for two terms, a horrible president.

Far from perfect, but many of us would love to have Bush back now in exchange for the current disaster. As much as you libs hated Bush, you will not erase the fact that he was an honorable man and a decent president.

I will agree with my great American neighbor that is 85 years old, that Obama is no question the worst president in American history, no contest.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

And he also got the unemployment numbers to go up, meaning that more people are out of work now then were when he got elected.
I dont consider that a good thing.

And him doing everything you claim he did means nothing if people cant find jobs.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

The death of Alaska's Stevens has pointed out what hypocrites not just people in general are but Republicans in particular: NPR's long story about Stevens covered nothing but his large and rolling pork barrel.

His pork barreling was incredible. The state received $7 from the American taxpayer for every dollar the state paid into the treasury. The state was truly a parasite.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

It was pumping oil wasn't it? Are you suggesting that the American taxpayer was getting fleeced by a bunch of moose hunters?

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know