Where is the US economy headed?

@cicerone imposter,

Let me answer for okie. Nothing will be done in the next two years except maybe lowering taxes on the rich if Obama continues to show how weak he is.

2 Replies

@rabel22,

WILL OBAMA IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER 2010 PASS AN INCOME TAX INCREASE ?
WILL OBAMA VETO IN JANUARY 2011 CONTINUATION OR ADOPTION OF THE OCTOBER 2010 INCOME TAX ?

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2010
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 2009-2010]

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Obama doesn't have to 'pass' anything. Taxes will automatically revert to their pre-Bush levels if they do NOTHING. The Republicans are sort of over a barrel this one, because if they DON'T compromise with the Democrats, taxes are going to go up - period.

But they already promised their constituents that they will never compromise!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@rabel22,

The problem with our economy is the GDP growth at under 2%. This will remain true for many years to come, because consumers are not spending at the same level as before the financial crisis hit in 2008. GDP growth at this rate will not create more jobs or reduce the unemployment rolls. Our economy will not grow for five to ten years at the current levels of jobs, wages, benefits, and worldwide competition. The dollar may be losing value that helps our exports, but the cost of production in our country is still too high to compete with Asia.

The stock market is drunk; speculators are pushing the DOW even higher as the outlook for our economy doesn't show signs of growth.

My wife and I both decided to sell more of our funds this year to take advantage of the lower capital gains rate - and the unstable high market values that we believe will get punished next year.

cay sera sera

1 Reply

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19994&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Do Boost Economy

A political fight has erupted over the fate of the top income tax bracket rate and the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, say Alex Brill, a research fellow, and Chad Hill, a Jacobs Associate, at the American Enterprise Institute.

One particularly troubling idea that has emerged is summed up by a recent statement by President Obama, who argued, "These [high-income taxpayers] are folks who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don't think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy."

However, saving is not the practice of the wealthy stashing money under plump mattresses.

Rather, when we save, we defer consumption to the future, allowing our savings to be invested in productive ways that lead to long-term economic growth.

In short, my savings account is your investment fund.

Our collective savings are the funds available for investing in stocks, bonds and other securities that allow businesses access to the capital they need to grow.

Firms use these funds to start or expand businesses and to buy machinery and other physical capital.

The logic espoused by this spending-cult mentality denies the role of saving, or, at the very least, relegates it to the backseat.

Because much of the savings that can drive investment and economic growth over time comes from the relatively small fraction of individuals in the top income tax bracket, permitting a tax increase on high-income earners would be a significant disincentive for savings.

Alan Viard of the American Enterprise Institute recently cited Internal Revenue Service data for 2007 revealing that households with incomes above $200,000 received 47 percent of the taxable interest income, 60 percent of the dividends and a staggering 84 percent of the net capital gains reported on tax returns.

Consumer spending has its place, but it is not the answer to every economic question. By disparaging investment and in particular the taxpayers who account for most of that investment, Congress is biting the hand that feeds long-run economic growth, say Brill and Hill.

Source: Alex Brill and Chad Hill, "Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Do Boost Economy," Forbes, October 27, 2010

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican evidently doesn't understand history, logic, or our economy. GW Bush gave a tax break to the wealthy, but job creation has been dismal to non-existent for almost a decade. Our so-called economy is based on consumer spending, and when people continue to lose their jobs and homes, that's a recession - not economic growth.

Your garbage quote from ncpa.org are nothing but platitudes without any sense of reality.

Since about a year ago, more Americans are now saving. The savings rate for Americans increased from a negative savings in 2007 to about 6% two years later - after the financial crisis hit the world economy.

You don't know economics or history. FYI, our unemployment rate is still about 9.6%. Where's the boost to our economy?

0 Replies

Taxes will automatically revert to their pre-Bush levels if OBAMA does NOTHING. The Republicans are sort of over a barrel on this one, because if they DON'T compromise with the Democrats, taxes may go up MORE. But if they do not compromise, they can subsequently pass a bill CONTINUING the 2010 tax rates, and give OBAMA a chance to COOPERATE with the Republicans by not vetoing this bill.

By vetoing a CONTINUATION bill, OBAMA will be personally responsible for increasing taxes by $837.50 per year on those whose annual taxable income is between $16,750 and $68,000. For those whose taxable income is less than $16,750 per year, their taxes will be increased from 10% to 15%.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

But if they do not compromise, they can subsequently pass a bill CONTINUING the 2010 tax rates, and give OBAMA a chance to COOPERATE with the Republicans by not vetoing this bill.

They won't have an opportunity to do this; the tax rates automatically revert on Jan. 1st, 2011; the Republicans won't be in control of the House until almost a month after that, so there's no way they can possibly pass a bill before the rates go up.

Quote:

By vetoing a CONTINUATION bill, OBAMA will be personally responsible for increasing taxes by $837.50 per year on those whose annual taxable income is between $16,750 and $68,000. For those whose taxable income is less than $16,750 per year, their taxes will be increased from 10% to 15%.

No, he won't, either. That would be the responsibility of those who wrote, passed and signed the bill: the Republican party. You have a funny definition of 'responsible.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

They won't have an opportunity to do this; the tax rates automatically revert on Jan. 1st, 2011; the Republicans won't be in control of the House until almost a month after that, so there's no way they can possibly pass a bill before the rates go up.

Wrong again, O' Cyclo!

The new Congress takes over January 3, 2011. The Republicans can if they choose to do so, can on January 3, 20111 pass a bill--and submit it on January 4, 2011 to Obama--that replaces whatever the then current tax system is with a tax bill specifying a tax system with tax rates equal to those of 2010.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:
They won't have an opportunity to do this; the tax rates automatically revert on Jan. 1st, 2011; the Republicans won't be in control of the House until almost a month after that, so there's no way they can possibly pass a bill before the rates go up.

Wrong again, O' Cyclo!

The new Congress takes over January 3, 2011. The Republicans can if they choose to do so, can on January 3, 20111 pass a bill--and submit it on January 4, 2011 to Obama--that replaces whatever the then current tax system is with a tax bill specifying a tax system with tax rates equal to those of 2010.

The rates will already have reverted by then. Not only that, but you don't seem to realize that bills have to be passed by both the House and the Senate before they go to the Prez. The chances of a bill being passed by the House, then going to the Senate, and then getting through reconciliation between the two versions of the bill, THEN going to the prez, by January 4th, is absolutely and totally zero.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, What do you think your votes for the GOP candidates will accomplish for Americans? More jobs? Less taxes? Overturn Obamacare? What "positive" things will they do for Americans?

I don't think they can do much to be honest, except hopefully block more of the really bad stuff that Obama wants to do. We need a Republican president so that Obama does not veto any positive Republican initiative.

Although I think Repubs are marginally better than the Democrats, I don't have huge confidence in them either, to enact positive change such as repeal of Obamacare, then positive change of a good system that we had, also reform of education, reducing the deficit, and so on. I have to keep in mind that it has been Republicans that have created some of the stuff that I don't like, such as the Prescription Drug Plan, a bigger federal Education Department, and so forth. We also need huge reform of our tax system, but I have little confidence in anyone to do what is needed.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

O' Cyclo, How do you know:
" The chances of a bill being passed by the House, then going to the Senate, and then getting through reconciliation between the two versions of the bill, THEN going to the prez, by January 4th, is absolutely and totally zero ?"

That probability is likely small, but "absolutely and totally zero" !

It's far more likely that you in particular don't have even a clue what that true probability is.

January ?, 2011
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

My wife and I both decided to sell more of our funds this year to take advantage of the lower capital gains rate - and the unstable high market values that we believe will get punished next year.

cay sera sera

Bingo!!
If you are reading this, cyclops, here is just one example of markets responding to future outlook and future projections, based upon political leadership, which I think it was you that have denied vehemently. Cyclops and wife are most assuredly just a couple of the millions that may be doing the same thing, or other things in response to the future outlook.

I am aware of people selling businesses now as well, because they wish to avoid Obama's raising of long term capital gains taxes. Other things to watch are the inheritance tax rates changing. I think a Republican Congress might be able to do something about that, I certainly hope so. When farms and businesses have to be sold to pay the taxes, what can happen is the farms or ranches are purchased by rich land developers and taken out of useful agricultural production, and businesses are terminated or they are purchased by owners that run them into the ground or by competitors that remove the business from being their competition. The end result of those consequences of high inheritance taxes can be a less healthy and less productive economy.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
My wife and I both decided to sell more of our funds this year to take advantage of the lower capital gains rate - and the unstable high market values that we believe will get punished next year.

cay sera sera

Bingo!!
If you are reading this, cyclops, here is just one example of markets responding to future outlook and future projections, based upon political leadership, which I think it was you that have denied vehemently. Cyclops and wife are most assuredly just a couple of the millions that may be doing the same thing, or other things in response to the future outlook.

So what? From a market point of view, who cares if CI sells his funds or not? The investment in those funds doesn't stop, it's just under new ownership. And what exactly do you think CI is going to do with that money, put it in his mattress? It continues to help the economy no matter where he decides to invest or spend it.

I don't understand why this is supposed to change anyone's viewpoint about anything, or show that Obama is somehow bad for business. I could just as easily turn around and blame the Republicans for putting such a ridiculous sun-setting provision in the tax cuts they passed, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

I am aware of people selling businesses now as well, because they wish to avoid Obama's raising of long term capital gains taxes. Other things to watch are the inheritance tax rates changing. I think a Republican Congress might be able to do something about that, I certainly hope so. When farms and businesses have to be sold to pay the taxes, what can happen is the farms or ranches are purchased by rich land developers and taken out of useful agricultural production, and businesses are terminated or they are purchased by owners that run them into the ground or by competitors that remove the business from being their competition. The end result of those consequences of high inheritance taxes can be a less healthy and less productive economy.

Less than 1% of those affected by the inheritance tax are farmers. The vast majority are wealthy businessmen and families with generational wealth. You have bought into a false canard and are trying to use a Slippery Slope argument to defend the falsehood, which isn't very compelling.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING ALL THE FOLLOWING DONE BY JANUARY 4, 2017?

Quote:

The Impetus for the Tea Party Movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values:
• Constitutionally limited Government
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Free Markets

Specifically, I Want:

A. Members of Congress, the President, and Judges of the Courts to abide by strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution according to the original intent of our founding fathers who adopted it, and according to the original intent of those who adopted each of its amendments;

B. Impeachment and removal from office of all elected and appointed persons who do not comply with their oath or affirmation to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution;

C. Defunding and repeal of all Obamacare, all Tarp bills, and all Stimulus bills;

D. Legislation that decreases the size and scope of the Federal Government;

E. Adoption and implementation of balanced budgets;

F. The establishment, or periodic continuation, of any union representing any group shall require a secret ballot with a majority of the members of the group voting to establish for a time, or continue for a time, union representation of the group;

G. Termination of funding of schools that grant tenure to their teachers;

H. Prohibition of the re-distribution of wealth by decreasing illegal entitlement programs, by decreasing earmarks, by decreasing non-essential government agencies, by decreasing non- essential government employees, and by decreasing excessive taxation of the wealthy;

I. Continuation of the 2010 tax system until it is completely replaced by a tax system that taxes each dollar value of taxable items at the same rate;

J. Adoption of legislation that allows the U.S. to fully develop and utilize all its sources of energy fuels;

K. Immigration laws that close the borders of the U.S. to illegal immigration, that heavily fine those who hire illegal immigrants, and that support law enforcement of lawful immigration of those who meet currently specified conditions for legal immigration;

L. Prohibition of legislators passing laws that exclude legislators;

M. Lawful casting and counting of lawful ballots in lawful elections.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Zero the whole way through, man. For all your posturing, you have little understanding of how politics works.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am aware of people selling businesses now as well, because they wish to avoid Obama's raising of long term capital gains taxes. Other things to watch are the inheritance tax rates changing. I think a Republican Congress might be able to do something about that, I certainly hope so.

The Republican Congress and A Republican President already did something about it okie. They passed the bill in 2003 that causes the current increase. It was a bait and switch where they claimed to be for low taxes and for lowering the deficit. They just kicked the can down the road and now you want them to do it again.

1 Reply

@parados,

okie still can't see the damage done by GW Bush and the GOP congress, the reasons they gave for those tax cuts, and when they would expire. He is so confused, he doesn't even know what the republicans did and why.

0 Replies

Congress was repeatedly informed in advance about the pending decline of the USA's finance industry being caused by Fannie & Freddie, but repeatedly refused to do anything about fixing it. In particular, the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate repeatedly ignored Bush's warnings that Fannie & Freddie had to be fixed.

2007
*06/23—Two Bear Sterns hedge fund groups collapse due to their mortgage investments.
*08/09— President Bush requests Congress pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*12/06—President Bush warns Congress of need to pass legislation reforming GSEs.

2008
*03/14—J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve recognize extent of Bear’s toxic assets, including sub-prime mortgages, and credit default swaps, and interconnection with other banks.
*03/14—At Economic Club of New York, President Bush requests Congress take action and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*04/14—President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/03—President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/19—President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/31—President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*06/06—President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*07/11—Senator Chris Dodd says: "There’s sort of a panic going on today, and that’s not what ought to be. The facts don’t warrant that reaction, in my opinion … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that. "
*07/13—Treasury Secretary Paulson asks Congress to grant him authority to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*09/07—Paulson takes over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and offers them $200 billion, despite the fact their government credit line had been limited to $25 billion.
*09/15—Lehman Brothers officially collapses, the government does not intervene, and panic occurs, triggering a big Dow decline.
*09/16—Nancy Pelosi is asked if the Democrats bear some responsibility for the current crisis on Wall Street. Pelosi answers, "No. "
*09/17—Harry Reid regarding the economic collapse: "No one knows what to do."
*09/18—About 11:00 AM, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States within two hours, equal to about $550 bilion. Treasury puts $105 billion in the system, but quickly realizes it cannot correct the problem.
*09/18—Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ask Congress for the required funds—and unprecedented authority to bail out the entire financial system. They say failure to act means "we may not have an economy on Monday."
*09/23— Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Senate Banking Committee testimony outline the $700 billion asset relief program (TARP).
*09/29—That TARP version doesn’t pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
*10/03—Three days later TARP is passed after about $112 billion is added.
*11/05—The day after Barack Obama’s election, stocks plunge 500 points.
*11/12—Paulson changes the TARP rules from purchasing "troubled assets" to buying bank stocks to spur lending.
*11/23—Paulson gives Citibank a $308 billion bailout.
*12/06—Both houses of Congress agree to bail out the U.S. auto companies.
*12/18—President-elect Obama hints at an $800 billion to $1 trillion stimulus plan within his first month of office, and the Dow drops another 2.5 percent.
...
2009
*02/21—Soros says, "The financial crisis marks end of a free-market model."

The Pelosi-Reid-Democrat-controlled Congress, which included Senator Barach Obama, caused the beginning of the Recession Obama inherited.

Quote:

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 September 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 September 2010 and not final year of term)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You blowup the mole hill of Fannie and Freddie but ignore the volcano of debt from GWB's mishandling of the economy.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know