Where is the US economy headed?

What about the fact that corporations are being taxed as individuals are as well, and so why shouldn't they have the right to express their opinions politically? Seems like there was a phrase expressing the feelings of the founders of this country about something that was not fair, and that was "Taxation without Representation." So I would have a suggestion that they should either not have to pay any more taxes, or they should at least have a political voice in exchange for paying taxes.

Andrew Leonard on Paul Krugman, courtesy of Salon.com:

Reading Paul Krugman's blog these days is like looking into a hall of mirrors, infinitely refracting the same message: I told you so. Today he offers a perfect example. Noting Morgan Stanley's confession that its prediction that U.S. Treasury bond yields would rise sharply in 2010 had been a "mistake," Krugman agilely linked to a post he had written in November 2009 expressing strong doubts about that very forecast.

But even better, if you go back and read that post, you will find Krugman digging up a Morgan Stanley analysis of the housing market dating back to 2006 calmly dismissing any chance of "a much-feared decline in prices on a nationwide basis." Among those who had been warning of a housing bubble: Paul Krugman.


But this is small time stuff compared to the really-big-I-told-you-so. On January 8, 2009, before President Obama had even been inaugurated, Krugman wrote a column warning that Obama's economic plan -- the stimulus -- fell "well short of what's needed."

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

Then, in March, he followed up with a frightful display of prescience.

...The White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.

Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?

Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes -- which they always want to do regardless of circumstances. If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they'll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

That, I think, is an accurate summation of the current situation.

Pretty much the way I saw the "picture" of America's economy, and I might have learned that from reading Krugman.

I went heavy on bonds last year from 40% to 60% of my holdings. It's done very well, thank you!

This is interesting...
According to a report just released by the CBO, the war in Iraq has not cost nearly what the dems would have us believe.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

There are links in the article to the CBO report for you to examine.
I am reading the CBO report now.

And whats real interesting is that on the very first page there is a graph that shows the federal debt held by the public was higher under the Clinton admin then it was during the Bush admin.
Doesnt the left like to claim it was the other way around?

I couldn't get past the 1st sentence:
The Iraq war ends this month.

But, back in 2002 Paul Krugman wanted a housing bubble! This is what he said in August, 2002:



Well done on the bonds!!

Well, to tell you the truth (and I probably shouldn't say this, because I might get into trouble with online cranks), my username at this website is actually an abbreviation of my real full name. I had just started posting at website forums when I thought it up. Talk about a lack of imagination! I like your username; it's funny.

I didnt say I agreed with all of the authors conclusions.
However, I freely admit that I dont know how to cut and paste parts of a pdf file, and since I am still reading the CBO report, the easiest way for me to do it was just to post the entire article and let you make the jump to the reort.

That's 'as a percentage of GDP.' Not total dollars. Not only that, but do you see how that turned down in the middle of Clinton's term, and started to get paid off?

You don't see anything like that under Bush, no sir. I also think that you should note that by 2008 that had spiked way back up - before the recession...

Cycloptichorn

I have a hard time believing your Krugman quote. Do you have a link supporting that statement? Or is this another libelous hoax claim from the right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

He later admitted that it was a dumb position to take.

Cycloptichorn

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

The Left seeks more government control over people's lives.
The Right seeks more individual control over people's lives.

The Left seeks more equal distribution of wealth.
The Right seeks more merit distribution of wealth.

The Left seeks more dependence by the needy on government charity and less dependence on private charity.
The Right seeks less dependence by the needy on government charity and more dependence on private charity.

The Left rarely specifies what the Left thinks and regularly specifies what the Right thinks.
The Right regularly specifies what the Left thinks and regularly specifies what the Right thinks.

ican, what is your opinion about taxing and political speech by corporations? Do you believe as I do that if corporations pay taxes, specifically income taxes, they should therefore be able to spend money on political advertising, simply because taxation without representation would be unAmerican.

There is a part of me that says only individuals should be able to run political advertising, because not all shareholders would have like political views. For example, if I own stock in Apple Computer, what right should they have to spend my company's money on Democratic causes or candidates? Same principle would apply to unions, AARP, and other organizations.

I think a possible solution would be to eliminate all income tax on corporations and businesses, and only tax individuals, which would end up simply taxing the shareholders as individuals, and then limit all political donations and advertising to that of individuals.

What do you think?

The Krugman comment in his 2002 article about "needing a housing bubble" was dumb. The rest of the article made sense. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2001 (?), many consumers -particularly those who had investments in that arena- stopped spending and even healthy businesses stopped expanding.
That turned around and the recession was neither long nor deep compared to now. There turned out to be no double dip.
This time around, many businesses are reporting good profits but they are not yet willing to invest their profits in new stuff. Consumers, who account for 70% of our economic activity, are not spending. They are paying down their debt instead. And they (gasp) are starting to think about saving money.
That is good for them but bad for the overall economy.
By the way, I was reading an article this past weekend on the BBC. Some think-tank claims that inflation in the UK will rise from near zero to 8% in 2012 as their central bank raises interest rates. The article wasn't detailed enough for me to totally understand that.

The losses as a result of the war is high as it affected the economy. Many American products such as cars were shunned in favor of Japanese products. Then the cost of Homeland Security and use of National Guards and cost of Blackwater in the Katerina disaster in New Orleans all are all related to the war as it shifted the resources to the war. The damage to New Orleans would have been less if all the resources that went into the Iraq were available to shore up the levees. Yes, the direct cost may be as reported in the $700 billion range but the attendant costs should be included.

The financial meltdown should be included as GWB used the Home Ownership Program to cover up the war costs and debt or deficit. The stimulus money should be included as part of GWB's legacy as he was the cause of the financial meltdown.

They're not going to put their savings under a mattress, though, right? So, if I give my savings to a bank, then they'll lend it...same if I buy something, then the guy who sells to me puts it in a bank and that bank then lends, no? I'm not sure I see what difference it makes. Doesn't the economy gain either way whether they're lending my 'savings' or the money I gave to the seller?

maybe, maybe not. Right now the banks are sitting on a lot of cash and making no effort to lend it. They claim that they cant find any deals but no one believes it. We are near a depreciating economy, they are better off sitting on cash then using it, because they can make money by doing nothing and don't risk losing the money. Ditto for all Corporations, they are all sitting on their cash.

Of course, it was not Krugman's position. He was quoting another person who had that position. Krugman himself did not state or endorse that position.

Okie,
I am in favor of only taxing the incomes of individuals whether, they are employees, managers, owners, or share holders.

I am opposed to taxing private corporations and other buisinesses of any kind.

I am opposed to limiting the free speech of anyone or any organization.

Anyone or any organization that pays taxes to the USA should be able to spend money on political advertising.

Again, I think all income taxes on corporations and on other businesses should be terminated.

I am opposed to limiting the amounts of political donations. But I support prohibiting donations from anyone or any organization that is not located in the USA and is not either a citizen or is not majority owned by citizens of the USA.

Could be, Hawk. Hi, Irishk. Banks are indeed gun shy about lending. I don't believe it is about the threat of deflation. I suspect that it could be driven by uncertainty about whether there is a permanent shift in the American life style: the house in the suburbs with strip malls to serve them. And consumers who spend more than they earn.
But there is more, I think. In a former life I was a CPA. I know how to read financial statements, including the footnotes. In my mind, the banks are over stating profits by low balling their reserves for bad loans.
There is, in my mind, going to be a bunch of loans (home and commercial) turning sour in the next couple of years. The banks are not reporting that on their financial statements but they are stuffing their cash under the mattresses.