Where is the US economy headed?

Evidence of changes in total employment PLUS THE OTHER EVIDENCE I PROVIDED DOES constitute evidence that MY position is correct.

Which economists agree?

Which economists disagree?

What is the evidence that those who agree are correct?

I'll be back later!

It seems you missed learning from the courses you admit to have taken. If you really understood macroeconomics, you would know what influences the economy, but all you do is post tables of federal tax receipts and uses. That means you have no understanding for the cause of tax increases and decreases, and how a domestic economy built on fraud and greed will eventually collapse on its own weight. Yes, taxes will increase, but the future cost for such an increase cannot be sustained - as has been proven during the past several years.

The negative impact from the faux economic increase until 2008 (when tax revenues increased) turned into the Great Recession, and many Americans lost their jobs and homes. It impacted the world economy. Tax receipts are now at its lowest, and local, state, and the federal government's deficits only grows larger.

Make sure that you've found RATIONAL AND LOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR claim that the Stim bill caused more Americans to GAIN jobs, than LOST JOBS. And then present this evidence AFTER I return.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19818&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
The Naked Stimulus: Why Savings Stimulate More Than Spending
Despite the struggling economy, President Obama argues that his stimulus package is producing gross domestic product (GDP) growth that is far better than the disaster that would have ensued without the $862 billion in emergency spending. The reason, he and his advisors maintain, is that what really counts is spending -- the more the better, at least for now, says Shawn Tully, Fortune Magazine's senior editor-at-large.

But the administration's policy has a fundamental flaw. It's impossible to raise GDP by borrowing from one group of people, who would otherwise save that money, and transfer it to another group of people (and the government) to spend. Savings, in the short term, have precisely the same impact on national income as spending, says Tully.

GDP measures all spending on all the goods and services that America produces.

Savings translate, dollar for dollar, into a major component of that total spending: investment.

All the money that the administration successfully moves from savings to consumption simply channels one type of spending to another, in precisely offsetting amounts.

The GDP does not change when the government drains investment to lift consumption.

Over long periods, savings -- not consumer spending -- finance the investments in mainframes, robots and other capital equipment that enhance productivity and drive economic growth.

So what would have happened if we'd had no stimulus at all?

First, private investment would be higher, because of the bigger pool of savings -- a positive sign for the future.
Second, the United States wouldn't have to borrow nearly as much from abroad.

Source: Shawn Tully, "The Naked Stimulus: Why Savings Stimulate More than Spending," Fortune, September 9, 2010.

Make sure that you've found RATIONAL AND LOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR claim that the Stim bill bill CREATED jobs and didn't COST anyone any jobs. .

That evidence has NOT already been presented BY YOU to ME.

Savings, in the short term, have precisely the same impact on national income as spending, says Tully.

Savings translate, dollar for dollar, into a major component of that total spending: investment.

Over long periods, savings -- not consumer spending -- finance the investments in mainframes, robots and other capital equipment that enhance productivity and drive economic growth.

First, private investment would be higher, because of the bigger pool of savings -- a positive sign for the future.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19814&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Third-Rail Economics
The cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security is racing ahead at the same time that the federal government is ladling out dollars to fight the recession. Meanwhile, we are contending with chronically high unemployment, insurmountable debt payments and a crushing tax burden that could kill U.S. competitiveness. Maybe, just maybe, those entitlements have to be redesigned, says Congressman Paul Ryan.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal debt will, by 2020, rise to nearly 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- compared with 62 percent today and 36 percent only three years ago -- if the Bush tax cuts are extended, the alternative minimum tax is indexed for inflation and current spending policies remain in place. According to the Social Security Board of Trustees, by 2037 the program's trust funds will be depleted, says Forbes.

To keep that from happening, Ryan proposes to freeze nondefense discretionary spending -- 15 percent of the budget -- for 10 years and move to means-tested programs to cover retirees and sick people.

Ryan's tax plan would eliminate itemized deductions and set rates at 10 percent for the first $50,000 of income on an individual return and 25 percent for income above that.

He would replace the corporate income tax with an 8.5 percent business consumption tax.

Other proposals by Ryan include:

Wiping out ObamaCare and replacing it with a voucher-based system in which adults get a $2,300 refundable tax credit to pay for health care.

Similarly, Medicare recipients under age 55 today would, on retirement, get vouchers to buy private insurance.

He would also raise the eligibility age for both Social Security and Medicare to 69 and 70, respectively, by the end of this century.

Source: Brian Wingfield, "Third-Rail Economics," Forbes Magazine, September 13, 2010.