Where is the US economy headed?

@superjuly,

Quote:

There could be voting or the use of mass media to re-program cultural habits.

There could be sj. But there won't be. You would need to take a giant water cannon to arrive at that point. We are stuck with them I'm afraid. It's an addiction miles worse than any heroin. On another level.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

We (a small group) tend to repeat ourselves here a lot, saying the same things over and over again.

My problem Johnnie is my abject failure to do that.

0 Replies

okie talks about Obama's deficit as if the budget was spent on problems created by Obama. Most of that deficit went to help those who have lost jobs with extension of unemployment benefits, tax cuts, and some for infrastructure repairs and maintenance - which were long overdue.

Over and above all that, most of the pork were included by the GOP members of congress.

The conservatives talk about cutting taxes, and reducing government, but their actions don't reflect their rhetoric.

When will the American voters catch on?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It's also worth pointing out that the deficit is 122 billion dollars lower than last year; and that this is the biggest drop that has ever occurred year-over-year in deficit spending. Not that you give a **** about facts like that.

What is your source for these "facts" Cyclo?

1 Reply

@superjuly,

A Superjuly spotting???

(Hurray!)

Where ya been and what happened to your lips?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
It's also worth pointing out that the deficit is 122 billion dollars lower than last year; and that this is the biggest drop that has ever occurred year-over-year in deficit spending. Not that you give a **** about facts like that.

What is your source for these "facts" Cyclo?

It's always appropriate to ask for attribution of facts. Here ya go:

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/1986/pop-cork-biggest-deficit-reduction-us-history-occurred-2009-2010

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@squinney,

Isn't "superjuly" a gorgeous username. I have had a super July or two myself but I can't talk about it because I promised to be discreet.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Stan Collender's blog eh? ******* wonderful.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

How do you get 11% with a reduction of 122 billion? My calculator indicates that would be starting with a 1.098 trillion deficit the year prior, and I thought it was much higher, like about 1.7 trillion or so?

The deficit for FY 2009 was 1.4 trillion, not 1.098 trillion. 122 is around 11% of that.
Cycloptichorn

Uhh cyclops, I really wonder if you need some basic math lessons? 122 billion is not 11% of 1400 billion. It is about 8.7%. Even without a calculator, you should know that 140 billion would be 10% of 1400 billion, and obviously 122 billion is considerably less than 140 billion, so you should have known that it would not be 11%.

The only way I can figure out how you got 11% is - you must have divided 1400 by 122, which gives you 11.475, but that is not the right way to do it. Man, I hope you don't argue about this like you do everything else, because this is basic math, and you are obviously wrong. You might as well cut your losses and admit it now.

No wonder the Democrats cannot balance the checkbooks if they all have similar problems with math?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I can vouch for Cyclo's statement as being true, Spendi. Technically. I hope he was attempting to show how stats can be cast in a positive or negative light.
It was the largest decline in our deficit in real dollar terms. Adjusted for inflation or as a percent of our GDP, it was not a good year.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Stan Collender's blog eh?

If Collender's math is similar to cyclops's, it does appear to be the blind leading the blind, especially if the reliability of his numbers are as bad as the math.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

How do you get 11% with a reduction of 122 billion? My calculator indicates that would be starting with a 1.098 trillion deficit the year prior, and I thought it was much higher, like about 1.7 trillion or so?

The deficit for FY 2009 was 1.4 trillion, not 1.098 trillion. 122 is around 11% of that.
Cycloptichorn

Uhh cyclops, I really wonder if you need some basic math lessons? 122 billion is not 11% of 1400 billion. It is about 8.7%. Even without a calculator, you should know that 140 billion would be 10% of 1400 billion, and obviously 122 billion is considerably less than 140 billion, so you should have known that it would not be 11%.

The only way I can figure out how you got 11% is - you must have divided 1400 by 122, which gives you 11.475, but that is not the right way to do it. Man, I hope you don't argue about this like you do everything else, because this is basic math.

Whoops, you're right. I did do the math wrong. Not too proud to admit when I screw things up.

Quote:

No wonder the Democrats cannot balance the checkbooks if they all have similar problems with math?

Well, I would submit that the Republicans have no better a record of 'balancing the checkbook,' and indeed, an arguably much worse one, since the increase in deficit and debt is typically much higher under Republican leadership than Dem leadership.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

When will the American voters catch on?

You may see evidence that many have caught on by this November, ci, when a significant number of Dems get voted out.

1 Reply

@okie,

And what exactly are the conservatives going to provide with their majority in congress? They always talk about "tax cuts, and smaller government," but their actions even as the fight the democratic majority now, has included more pork into the legislation than the democrats.

Have we seen any detail on how conservatives are going to create jobs? FYI, tax cuts will not grow jobs in this country. We've lived with GW Bush's tax cuts for almost eight years now, and all we've seen are job losses. Also, where are they going to reduce government? Have you seen any details about this?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Whoops, you're right. I did do the math wrong. Not too proud to admit when I screw things up.

Congrats, cyclops. I was really interested to see if you might argue about it. If you had been parados, I think he might have been tempted to argue and try to weasel his way out of it, although I admit that is only my opinion, but there hasn't been one thing that he has ever admitted to. This reminds me of the story about a guy that needed to hire somebody for a job, and he had a choice between an engineer, a geologist, and a lawyer. He brought each in and asked them each just one question, how much is 2 + 2? The engineer answered "absolutely 4, no other answer." The geologist said "somewhere between 3 and 5, I don't want to be pinned down to an exact number." The lawyer leaned forward in his chair and looked at the guy and said "how much do you want it to be?" That is the impression I get from some of you guys here, that you can come up with any answer to any question to fit your pre-conceived notion of what you wish the answer to be.

Quote:

Quote:
No wonder the Democrats cannot balance the checkbooks if they all have similar problems with math?

Well, I would submit that the Republicans have no better a record of 'balancing the checkbook,' and indeed, an arguably much worse one, since the increase in deficit and debt is typically much higher under Republican leadership than Dem leadership.
Cycloptichorn

This is a more complex issue than simply looking at who is president at the time of the deficits, etc. It also depends upon Congress as well, and during Clinton's tenure, the Republicans gained sway after 1994, and I believe Newt Gingrich should get much of the credit for turning things around. Right now, we have a Democratic Congress giving Obama pretty much everything he wants, and so by now I think people realize Obama essentially owns the economy. Obama and Congress are attempting to continue to blame Bush, but I think that ploy is becoming less effective all the time, to the point that it is hardly working at all, except among the most hardened Democrats and liberals, which will vote Democrat anyway. It is the so-called Independents that will make most of the difference, at least that is my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I do not absolve the Republicans from being partly to blame for the budgetary problems in Washington. However, I still see Democrats as the primary culprit in terms of being big spenders, including the creation of huge entitlement programs, which are our primary problem with the budget. Obama is now in process of increasing more and more entitlement in the health care field. Bush did it with the Prescription Drug Plan, just one example.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

And what exactly are the conservatives going to provide with their majority in congress? They always talk about "tax cuts, and smaller government," but their actions even as the fight the democratic majority now, has included more pork into the legislation than the democrats.

We will have to just wait and see, ci. I do believe the Tea Party movement has not only put more fear into Democrats, but it has also influenced the mindset of bigger spending Republicans. In regard to pork, I don't know where you get your evidence for that statement about more pork by Republicans? I would doubt your statement unless you have some specific proof of it. For example, what senator other than Robert Byrd has more bridges, monuments, parks, and buildings named after him, can you answer that one?

Quote:

Have we seen any detail on how conservatives are going to create jobs? FYI, tax cuts will not grow jobs in this country. We've lived with GW Bush's tax cuts for almost eight years now, and all we've seen are job losses. Also, where are they going to reduce government? Have you seen any details about this?

I am hoping the Republicans plan to create jobs in the private sector, and at this point I have reason to believe that will be their approach. You do that by creating the right environment for the private sector to invest, hire, and compete better in a global economy. Tax reform is a huge part of that, but not all of it. I would remind you that unemployment under Bush was not nearly like it has been under Obama, and I believe his tax cuts did help soften the blow of the recession as it began. Remember, he had to deal with 9/11, and a recession right after that could have been much deeper than it was, because his economic policies were somewhat successful to soften that blow. I remember the travel industry took a huge hit in the following year, and it could have persisted longer and been much worse sooner than it was.

The current recession really took off in full force as the election of Obama became almost certain. I have pointed out many times that future outlook is hugely important to private investors and business, and people have had no confidence in Obama ever since it became likely he would be elected, and the economy has shown it.

2 Replies

@okie,

I've posted the link to the majority of pork by the republicans in congress. If you missed it or don't remember it, that's not my problem.

Right environment to create jobs? You've got to be kidding? That's the conservative solution? God help us all!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What is your solution, ci? Would it be more of Obama's version of Keynesian economics that is not working? More government spending only creates more demands upon tax revenues, which if satisfied it leads to further erosion of America's private sector being able to compete in the world market.

I look at it from a common sense standpoint, that running the government is not much different in principle than running a household. The solutions are not as complicated as they are difficult. In other words, they are not easy, but they are probably simple. We simply have to have the moral fortitude as a nation to do it. You have to first look at every household budget item and cut out or reduce each and every expense that we can, thus lessening the overbearing burden of taxation to support all of the expense. For example, a family needs to spend more time working and less time playing to get out of debt. Also, members of the family that are capable of working and helping out must practice a mature outlook and take on more responsibility of the membership of the family, in this case it is the citizenship of America. Working brings in money, while playing costs money. We have to shift the weight of the teeter totter or pendulum back to a more healthy and responsible position.

The answer lies with the private sector to create wealth, while the government must cut its spending and try to create an atmosphere that fosters and encourages private sector productivity. Government productivity will not solve the problem. History has proven that all over the world.

1 Reply

@okie,

I have also delineated by ideas to improve the economy. I'm not going to repeat it again.

0 Replies

@okie,

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

okie just said that he hopes the Republicans will create more jobs in the private sector!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKs7rLkqQcQ

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know