Where is the US economy headed?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20097&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget
Federal spending is soaring, and government debt is piling up at more than a trillion dollars a year. Official projections show rivers of red ink for years to come unless policymakers enact major budget reforms. Unless spending is cut, the United States is headed down the road to economic ruin, says Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Short of a full balanced budget plan, policymakers could put in place a debt stabilization plan.

Such a plan would cut spending to 21.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020, which would trim annual deficits to 3 percent of GDP.

With deficits at that level, federal debt would be at least stabilized as a share of the economy, and we would avoid a Greek-style debt crisis.

Official budget projections show that federal debt is exploding because spending is at abnormally high levels.

With the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place, and with continued relief from the alternative minimum tax, federal revenues are expected to rise to 18.5 percent of GDP by 2020, which is a little higher than average over recent decades.

By contrast, it is federal spending -- currently at 25 percent of GDP -- that is far above normal levels.

During the last two years of the Clinton administration a decade ago, federal spending was just 18 percent of GDP.

Some analysts claim that cutting government spending would hurt the economy, but that idea is based on faulty Keynesian theories. In fact, federal spending cuts would shift resources from often mismanaged and damaging government programs to the more productive private sector, thus increasing overall GDP, says Edwards.

Source: Chris Edwards, "A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget," Cato Institute, November 2010.

Is there any interest in chatting about the BLS's Unemployment Numbers out today?

realjohnboy wrote:

Is there any interest in chatting about the BLS's Unemployment Numbers out today?

I'm really confused by them, seeing as I just read a report saying that retailers had hired 2-300 thousand workers for the holidays. Did the 'seasonal adjustments' go way overboard and just discount these people? Or what?
Cycloptichorn

I found the following article of interest, to try to figure out how elimination of the tax cuts actually would affect real numbers. I quote one section of the link as an example of what all is in the website.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120304580_2.html

"The tax debate is all about income tax rates. Wrong. For all the attention given to higher taxes on earned income if current rates expire, the big hit to some families will come from taxes on capital gains and dividends. The government now takes 15 percent of both. If the Bush cuts aren't renewed, the tax on long-term gains would rise to 20 percent."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Is there any interest in chatting about the BLS's Unemployment Numbers out today?

I'm really confused by them, seeing as I just read a report saying that retailers had hired 2-300 thousand workers for the holidays. Did the 'seasonal adjustments' go way overboard and just discount these people? Or what?
Cycloptichorn

I think we need to remember the unemployment rate is determined from a phone poll, is it not? If I am right, this is not an exact science by any stretch of imagination. It is entirely possible that the rate could be too high or too low, as compared to reality.

They usually 'adjust' it later on as more and more data comes in. My guess is that the numbers will be adjusted somewhat.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They usually 'adjust' it later on as more and more data comes in. My guess is that the numbers will be adjusted somewhat.
Cycloptichorn

Since this is based upon an actual survey, maybe we could substitute the word "fudge" for the word "adjust?" I guess I am wondering how you can "adjust" a statistic that is gathered via a phone poll?

'Some families' my ass. Try the Rich who make a huge percentage of their income from Cap gains. These tax cuts have cost the government BOATLOADS of cash and done nothing but increase the gap between the rich and the poor; they should be the first ones on the block.

Cycloptichorn

ps - you gonna address the fact that you were totally wrong about what Fasces meant? Or just try and skate by without ever admitting it?

Well, Okie, the preliminary numbers are based on a phone poll. But actual employment DATA based on payroll taxes and other factors, combined with further polling, is then used the refine what actually HAPPENED during those months. That's how you adjust a statistic to get the official number.

Do you just think that nobody thinks about any of this stuff - at all? Except for you? That there are no plans or models for how these things are done?
Cycloptichorn

I don't think so, because that is a legitimate meaning I pulled off the web.

You can find other sites that words it a bit different, but not far different.