Where is the US economy headed?

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

When the gold market crashes, who's going to pay $1,300 for an oz of gold? That's over $2,000 for one pound of gold;

Over 2k per pound by a lot Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Senate passes Small Business stim bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091600568.html?hpid=topnews

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Good!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Just as expected, the republicans voted against this bill, and they're supposed to be an advocate for small business (all business). Too bad the American electorate doesn't know all the politics the GOP is playing in Washington to defeat all of Obama's legislation that's good for our country.

Our country is desperate to create jobs, and the GOP wants to stop it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The Republicans are out to derail Democrats not to work for a better America. Wink

0 Replies

Cyc..., pla..., cic..., par... are continuing to repeat their frivolous falsities,
so I will continue to post my tenacious truths.

Quote:

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]

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] (current estimate for year not end 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........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end 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] (current estimate for year not end 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] (current estimate for year not end 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] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

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] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Much better to spend two trillion dollars on an unnecessary war while fighting on two fronts. A judicious use of resources. I might agree with the necessity of destroying al kida in afganistan but why leave it to attack Iraq who did nothing to us. Bush lied for oil and all his freedom bullshit was lies just just as weapons of mass destruction was. Tw0 trillion dollars would be a boon to our economy if we had spent it on infrastructure rather than destroying things!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I'm just waiting for you to post evidence to back up your claim. So far you have been unable to do so and have been reduced to simply repeating yourself, with no analysis or explanation, in hopes that this will somehow answer the question.

It does not, and if you post once again without answering it, I will be forced to conclude that you cannot; and were, in fact, talking out your ass.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

All ican does is repeat his posts millions of times (that's what it seems like on a2k), and that's the reason I put him on Ignore. His posts provide no new information, and the info he posts are meaningless without the underlying analysis.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It is obvious to an unbiased person that the data I posted shows that Obama's methods will not rescue our economy, and will not rescue our constitutional republic. Worse, Obama's methods have and will continue to make both our economy and our Constitutional republic far worse.

What you think of me or what you think of what I claim is not credible. You have proven yourself incapable of providing or unwilling to provide evidence or logic to support your previous claims. For that reason I claim that your claims are vacuous and constitute nothing more than your attempts to convince youeself of what you desire to believe.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cyc, I repeat my evidence in response to your repeats of what you desire to believe but cannot support.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

It is obvious to an unbiased person that the data I posted shows that Obama's methods will not rescue our economy, and will not rescue our constitutional republic.

That wasn't the claim you made. You made an entirely different claim. Now you have backed off from your claim without admitting that you are doing so.

Quote:

Worse, Obama's methods have and will continue to make both our economy and our Constitutional republic far worse.

You haven't shown that to be true through anything that you've presented.

Quote:

What you think of me or what you think of what I claim is not credible. You have proven yourself incapable of providing or unwilling to provide evidence or logic to support your previous claims. For that reason I claim that your claims are vacuous and constitute nothing more than your attempts to convince youeself of what you desire to believe.

I am not surprised to see you write that; weasels often turn on their pursuers when they are cornered.

I'll leave it for any reader to decide whether or not you have presented evidence to support this claim you made:

Quote:

The Stim bill LOWERED the amount that is saved by any citizen MANY DOLLARS; and in fact, it REDUCED the amount saved considerably, because it CAUSED many to LOSE their jobs instead of GAINING THEM. and those people are continuing to SAVE LESS, BECAUSE THEY ARE tapping their savings to pay for short-term costs.

I assert that you have not provided one bit of evidence to show that the Stim bill caused anyone to lose their job at all. The above statement is false, and what more, you simply made it up. You knew when you wrote it that it wasn't true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Hey cyclops, have you deciphered all of the tax policy propaganda being put out there by the Democrats? What are we supposed to believe, is this Obama's tax cut now when he prolongs Bush's tax cuts for example? If it was bad then, how come it may not be now? Also, is Obama going to actually make $250,000 the cutoff or is he being accurate or deceptive on purpose? Are many Democrats jumping ship on Obama? What does your party actually believe, or Obama believe? Does anyone know, including them?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, the Bush tax cuts for the super rich is what caused the deficits.

3 Replies

@talk72000,

Nonsense as usual, with no evidence whatsoever to support your statements. You have none because there is none.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Maybe not all the deficits, but it surely didn't help in the increase of the debt. Conservatives would rather our children paid for current spending by our government. How stupid is that? Most conservatives support our wars, but they don't want to help pay for it.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Hey cyclops, have you deciphered all of the tax policy propaganda being put out there by the Democrats? What are we supposed to believe, is this Obama's tax cut now when he prolongs Bush's tax cuts for example?

Yeah, any new tax cuts passed would be Obama's tax cuts.

Quote:

If it was bad then, how come it may not be now?

I assure you that it wasn't my idea. I think that all the Bush tax cuts should expire, including the ones on myself. This is the only fiscally responsible option.

Quote:

Also, is Obama going to actually make $250,000 the cutoff or is he being accurate or deceptive on purpose? Are many Democrats jumping ship on Obama? What does your party actually believe, or Obama believe? Does anyone know, including them?

Why the **** are you asking me? Do you think we have a secret Democratic message board where Obama logs on every now and then and lets us all know what the dastardly plan is?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Nonsense as usual, with no evidence whatsoever to support your statements. You have none because there is none.

I wouldn't necessarily say 'caused,' but they certainly contributed to it. Majorly.

It's not an opinion, Okie, it's common sense. When you are running a deficit and you cut taxes, you cut the amount that could have instead balanced that deficit. It isn't hard to understand.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No it isn't common sense. It might be Democratic logic, which assumes a zero sum game, that there is not more than one variable. Apparently you assume that increasing a tax rate will absolutely totally guarantee the increased revenues equal to the increase in tax rates. The problem with that goes back to our favorite topic, the Laffer Curve, which tells us that tax rates also affect the economy by affecting human behavior, including employers, employees, and consumers. If the tax rate is X, and the economy is Y, and Z being the product of the two, you cannot simply change the value of X without also affecting the value of Y. There is reverse feedback from X to Y as well. This is so obvious, otherwise politicians would not even consider giving tax breaks to spur the economy, including even Obama.

Cyclops, seriously, the entire income tax code is loaded with tax breaks, or otherwise known as tax incentives. The entire tax code is filled with not only incremental taxes, but breaks for spending on education, buying houses, cars, all kinds of stuff, which they know alters peoples buying habits and living habits. All of that stuff was put in the tax code to accomplish a political purpose, to help people get educated, to help universities, to help the auto business, to help small business, to help the real estate industry, to help develop more abundant energy, to get people to make their homes more energy efficient, the list is endless.

Frankly, I am amazed that such simple concepts have to be stated here, and even more amazed that so-called educated people actually disagree with them and will vehemently argue about it, to the point of treating reasonable people here with names and insults.

Now, to be clear, I am not making a statement that we are on the right side or left side of the peak of the Laffer curve, with our current tax rates. We could very well increase tax rates slightly, perhaps on the richest people, and also increase tax revenues, if the economy did not suffer more than what extra revenue the tax rate increase would yield. I am merely saying you have to consider the reality of more than one variable. Even many Democrats and Obama realize this right now.

The image below demonstrates the concept and general shape of the curve, but does not pretend to assert the exact point of the peak or the exact shape of the curve.

http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/laffer.gif

2 Replies

We've talked about this before - there's no historical proof that you can point to and see some so-called 'laffer curve' working. But we know for a fact that a dollar not collected in taxes never pays off a deficit or debt. That doesn't rely on a theory or specific set of situations to work.

On one hand, we have your theory, which may or may not be true and is unprovable.

On the other, we have the debt which actually grew by more than 4 trillion after the round of Bush tax cuts.

What do you trust? Theory, or fact?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know