114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 02:30 pm
@farmerman,
I agree with all points, though if FICA applied to all earned income, someone is sure to point out that there should not be a ceiling imposed on Social Security benefits. I might even agree that that sounds kind of fair to me.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 02:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

If you listen to all the economists and/or talk shows about economics, you must be totally confused!


So, are you suggesting to reasoning logic that he should only follow commentary with which he already agrees? Maybe it works for you, but. . . .
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 03:10 pm
@farmerman,
Congress is really foolish: they don't want to any raise taxes, but build up the deficit, and not do anything about adjusting the age of retirement or increasing the FICA tax.

They're too ignorant to be running our country; they are on the road to destroy what we have left.

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 03:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There's no evidence that they are ignorant. Indeed they have ample information available to them and large staffs, both personal and on the Committees on which they serve to provide it for them.

Perhaps you are instead suggesting they are unintelligent. I suppose a few are, but I strongly suspect that on average they would beat the national averages in any objective test. Unfortunaterly the data are not available to either of us so this is just a matter of opinion.

The evidence does suggest however that they put their political and party loyalties and their own ambitions for staying in power ahead of their sworn responsibilities. Many have convinced themselves of the "rightness" of their political outlook and the supposed evils that will surely come if the opposition gets in power. They use these fabricated fears to rationalize the many things they do to hold on to their power - even in the face of real harm to ther public and the national interest.

Nothing new here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 03:26 pm
@georgeob1,
I just read your first paragraph for now, but I'll rebut your opinion right off, because the GOP is holding Obama and congress hostage with no increase in the deficit if the democrats considers any tax increase.

If they have staff who does research, they haven't learned anything about the economic damage it will do the US credit ratings across the world if the GOP won't approve increasing the deficit ceiling. They're playing politics; not sound economic policy.

It seems you lack any knowledge of macroeconomics yourself.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 03:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It seems you lack any knowledge of macroeconomics yourself.


What the hell did I say about economics? Nothing at all in fact.

Perhaps you didn't actually read it after all.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 04:27 pm
@farmerman,
Such as when Bush and the Boys passed the drug bill without funding it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 04:28 pm
@georgeob1,
He never reads anything George. He can't read. He just blurts.

I find it very amusing.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 04:36 pm
@RABEL222,
I think we've touched on this in a kind of peripherical way before, Rabel. Do you have any idea of what sort of funding those drug plans get, and how it's done? I think we've both noted that the Part D plans can be very expensive for the insured, and I know that I've mentioned the providers seem very able to determine (and change at will) their own formularies. The only restriction seems to be that there is a maximum allowable deductable they can charge.

From what I've seen from my end, if there is federal funding involved, it is more or less wasted.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 04:37 pm
@georgeob1,
You wrote,
Quote:
Perhaps you are instead suggesting they are unintelligent. I suppose a few are, but I strongly suspect that on average they would beat the national averages in any objective test


Objectivity and politics is an oxymoron.

I've addressed the reasons why those who will not negotiate but put in preconditions such as "no increase in taxes" are ignorant. They are playing with fire. The GOP approved debt increases seven times without blinking an eye during GW Bush's tenure, and now they're stipulating that they will not negotiate during a time of economic crisis to create a worse one with their ignorant choices at politics.

I don't care how many advisors or committees they have working for them; they're wrong in their ultimatum, and you should know that simple truth.

That they can show better scores on objective tests doesn't prove anything.

H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 04:45 pm
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2011/July/070211-01.jpg
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 04:52 pm
How the world paid the hidden cost of America's quantitative easing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 05:04 pm
@roger,
Theres always been a debate about the overall constitutionality of SS, but it has survived. I think it was FDR who wanted it to be a supplement . Im sure that an equitable max payout rate is possible wjhile still keeping the whole parade solvent.

Several economists have come out in favor of a doubling of the ceiling (after which the income level is out of the calculus of benefits. Course Americans are like many Mediterranean countries where people dont save for retirement
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 08:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
Perhaps you are instead suggesting they are unintelligent. I suppose a few are, but I strongly suspect that on average they would beat the national averages in any objective test


Objectivity and politics is an oxymoron.

I've addressed the reasons why those who will not negotiate but put in preconditions such as "no increase in taxes" are ignorant.

Both sides are applying fixed preconditions, and that is the cause of the deadlock. The Democrats insist on tax increases and no signifivant changes to entitlements. The Republicans insist on significant cuts on both discretionary spending and entitlements and no tax increases. Meanwhile our debt is increasing at an alarming rate, Ifg they cant reach an agreement with the debt ceiling looming ahead, they won't do it later or at all. Then we will have a worse problem: better to face it now.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 08:55 pm
@georgeob1,
Yes, the debt is increasing at an alarming rate, but you forget that most of the spending done by Obama was to recover from the Great Recession.

The biggest portion of the stim bill went for the following (from the NYT):
Quote:
Category Programs Cost
Tax Cuts for Individuals New tax credit for workers $116.2 billion
Health; Aid to States Help states with Medicaid $87.1 billion
Tax Cuts for Individuals patch for the alternative min tax $69.8 billion
Education and Job Training; Aid to States Help states prevent cuts to essential services like education $53.6 billion
Unemployment Extend and increase unemployment $35.8 billion
Transportation Provide money for highways and bridges $27.5 billion
Health; Unemployment Health coverage under Cobra $25.1 billion
Aid to Individuals Increase food assistancemore » $20.9 billion
Health Incentives to Medicaid and Medicare providers $17.2 billion
Education and Job Training; $15.6 billion
Tax Cuts for Individuals Expand Child Tax Credit $14.8 billion
Aid to Individuals Provide cash payment to seniors, disabled veterans and other needy individuals $14.4 billion
Tax Cuts for Businesses; Energy $14.0 billion
Education and Job Training; Tax Cuts for Individuals $13.9 billion
Education and Job Training to schools serving low-income $13.0 billion
Education and Job Training Prov for special education $12.2 billion
Energy Modernize the electric grid $11.0 billion
Aid to States; Education and Job Training Create new bonds for improvements in public education $10.9 billion
Health; Science and Research Provide additional financing to the National Institutes of Health for research and infrastructure $10.0 billion


According to some economics, this stim bill saved jobs. Can you refute this?
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 09:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
While Obama's lavish spending was done to aid a recovery from the recession, it didn't have the intended effect. Instead it merely delayed the budget crises in state governments for a year or so, further delaying constructive action to reenergize our economy. The only jobs it saved were those of government bureaucrats. Our unemployment has remained far lower and ffor much longer after this recession than any other. Can you explain that?

In short the money was wasted. It added significantly to our debt without proportionally benefitting the economy.

Meanwhile businesses across the country are waiting to see what regulations will come out of the grossly inflated Federal bureaucracies in the detailed enforcement of the loosely written and ill-conceived Dodd Frank and Healthcare legislation before they expand their activities. The administration is trying hard to kill the Boeing company on behalf of its labor union paymasters while it is competing with Airbus for the world market. It has also shut down oil exploration offshore and in Alaska to satisfy the environmental zealots in its camp. All things considered they have done far more to suppress our economy than to help it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 09:39 pm
@georgeob1,
If you really believe tax cuts for workers, extended benefits for the unemployed, and helping schools, are a waste of tax dollars, we believe in different priorities for our government.

As for Obamacare, I was a major critic in the way that legislation was implemented. I won't bother repeating all the short-comings of Obamacare again.

As you should know, the British and French governments subsidized Airbus from its inception. To remain competitive, Boeing had to offshore many of its factories and assembly plants, but Boeing is still a major employer in the US.

Quote:
A major industry today
In 2010, The Boeing Company delivered 462 airplanes to customers throughout the world, all of which were assembled in the company’s plants in Renton and Everett, Washington. With 787 deliveries and production rate increases for 737s and 777s this number will grow in 2012 and beyond.

Boeing’s production is supported by approximately 650 aerospace-related companies located in 28 counties in Washington Employment at Boeing and the other firms in the industry stood at 84,000 employees in early 2011. Each job in the industry generates nearly three additional jobs throughout the economy, so that aerospace is responsible for about 300,000 jobs in Washington, or 11 percent of all employment.

Not only is aerospace a large employer, but it also is a very well-paying sector with great career prospects for its workers. About 35 percent of aerospace employment falls under R&D, with thousands of engineers and scientists designing the next generation of aircraft. Thousands of highly skilled production workers bring home paychecks well above average. Many people in the Boeing workforce are third and fourth generation employees, a testament to the quality and loyalty of the state’s aerospace workforce.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 10:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From USA Today.

Quote:
Exclusive: Obama stimulus reduced our pain, experts say
Updated 4/23/2010 3:47 PM

By Paul Wiseman and Barbara Hansen, USA TODAY
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

But almost two-thirds of the economists said the government should do more to spur job growth. Suggestions included suspending payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, increasing spending on infrastructure, enacting a flat tax on income and extending jobless benefits.


I agree with the economists; the government needs to spend more to spur growth. Cutting now will only result in more public workers losing their jobs; we still need teachers, police and fire workers, and workers to work on our infrastructure.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 11:29 pm
According to the NYT, Cronyn and McCain are talking about a small increase that is neutral - without increasing taxes, but that's like giving a few mm when miles are needed to correct this fiscal problem.

I hope Obama doesn't cave this time. He needs to let the GOP pay the consequences of not increasing the debt ceiling; you can bet your bottom dollar, over 80% of Americans are going to be very angry - including seniors and the military.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 07:14 am
July 4 infamy: Democrats try to destroy the American economy
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 03:33:47