It's the Economy, Stupid?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    For 2012:
    http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/12/27/its-the-math-stupid-seven-devastating-facts-about-2012/
    1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.
    2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.
    3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.
    4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.
    5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
    6. The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.
    7. Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.

    And then these two graphs:
    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12224

    What they try to tell you: that we used to have significantly higher marginal taxes on the rich.
    What they don't tell you: that it was a lot easier for the rich to avoid them through deductions at that time and as a result, effective taxes were significantly lower.


    What they try to tell you: that the rich are not paying their "fair share".
    What they don't tell you: that the taxes they have been contributing have been rising to all other income groups by a significant margin over time (and faster than any increase in inequality).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 11:06 PM GMT


    We agree that its a dire situation.


    Just because Obama is now in office does not make it solely his bad economy, his policies may have been remise in accomplishing better improvement, but with the Repubs goal of making Obama a one term President they did their best to say no in every way, shape or form to insure that nothing improved under Obama.

    Case in point, the Repubs did all the blocking possible in the Senate and Congress, then in 2010 they road in on job promises and all they've done is more blocking and passing of TBagger pet projects like limiting Safety nets for the Middle class, limiting EPA, tried to gain control for corps of 'bush's interwebs' actions to limit Abortion, show support for Israel for that AIPAC Lobby money, created a problem over debt limits which led to a downgrading of our ratings, made efforts to block the ending of DADT and other wastes of time. but not a damn thing on jobs except say no to any dem initiativs.


    Now since the Repubs have done everything but work together to solve "THE ECONOMY, STUPID", would you like to start over and admit that Obama walked into a self perpetuating financial mess started by Bush's two unpaid for wars, Tax cuts for the wealthy at the worst possible timing, Unpaid for and very expensive Medicare Part D giveaway to the Medical industry, and unprecidented lack of oversite on Wall Street, Banks and ETC. I might remind you also that Obama inspite of all of the above created more jobs in his first year than Bush did in 8.

    My admission, a lot of bought and paid for dems were complicit in Bush War spending and lack of oversite, but they were afterall of minority blame in what Obama inherited.

    It will take both parties working together to fix this mess and it won't be done on just tax cuts I can tell you that. There has to be a revenue increase and the Military budget that the Neo Con Repubs are so hell bent on protecting will have to be drastically cut also.

    Can we start over at a point where all the blame isn't misplaced on Obama's lap ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 11:21 PM GMT
    "The ravages of the Obama economy"?

    LMAO!

    Its the ravages of the BUSH economy, stupid!

    The recession began in 2007 - ON BUSH'S WATCH.

    The fact is that since 1953 there have been nine recessions.
    Only ONE of the nine hit while there was a Democrat in the White House!

    There were three under Eisenhower,
    Two under Nixon,
    Plus the Reagan recession in 1982,
    The Bush Sr recession in 1990,
    And the 2007 Bush Jr recession.

    The Repub record on handling the economy is abysmal and far worse than the Democratic record.

    Plus the latest economic figures are looking better and better.
    The Obama recovery is picking up steam.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 11:25 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidFor 2012:
    http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/12/27/its-the-math-stupid-seven-devastating-facts-about-2012/
    1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.
    2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.
    3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.
    4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.
    5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
    You forgot to add these little gems:

    US corporations are making bigger profits than at anytime in American history
    US corporations are sitting on the largest cash reserves in American history
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    Did Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidDid Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif


    His news organization which is certainly more credible than many of the sources you cite - further, the columnist references point by point each of the facts involved. For you facts are irrelevant if the messenger can be attacked. Sadly the reality is that the economy as a direct result of Obama's actions and inactions are causal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:53 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidDid Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif




    Christian,

    Which of these are incorrect?

    1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.

    2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.

    3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.

    4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.

    5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.

    6. The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.

    7. Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.




    It is incorrect to label these as Obama's fault, true its his term, but the downward spiral started before him as you have admitted to before.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 1:16 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidDid Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif




    Christian,

    Which of these are incorrect?

    1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.

    2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.

    3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.

    4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.

    5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.

    6. The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.

    7. Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.




    It is incorrect to label these as Obama's fault, true its his term, but the downward spiral started before him as you have admitted to before.


    I might be more sympathetic to this argument were it not for the arguments he made that he would be a better economic manager, that the effect stimulus would have, and that he has had 3 years to supposedly turn things around. Instead things in many metrics have gotten worse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 9:38 PM GMT
    It's going to get worse before it gets better. Expect interest rates to climb. This is the problem with the accumulation of debt on unproductive spending. It has exposed countries like the US who have borrowed substantially to significantly more risk.

    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/world-s-biggest-economies-face-7-6-trillion-bond-tab-as-rally-seen-fading.html

    Governments of the world’s leading economies have more than $7.6 trillion of debt maturing this year, with most facing a rise in borrowing costs.

    Led by Japan’s $3 trillion and the U.S.’s $2.8 trillion, the amount coming due for the Group of Seven nations and Brazil, Russia, India and China is up from $7.4 trillion at this time last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Ten-year bond yields will be higher by year-end for at least seven of the countries, forecasts show.

    Investors may demand higher compensation to lend to countries that struggle to finance increasing debt burdens as the global economy slows, surveys show. The International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for growth this year to 4 percent from a prior estimate of 4.5 percent as Europe’s debt crisis spreads, the U.S. struggles to reduce a budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion and China’s property market cools.

    “The weight of supply may be a concern,” Stuart Thomson, a money manager in Glasgow at Ignis Asset Management Ltd., which oversees $121 billion, said in a Dec. 28 telephone interview. “Rather than the start of the year being the problem, it’s the middle part of the year that becomes the problem. That’s when we see the slowdown in the global economy having its biggest impact.”

    Competition for Buyers

    The amount needing to be refinanced rises to more than $8 trillion when interest payments are included. Coming after a year in which Standard & Poor’s cut the U.S.’s rating to AA+ from AAA and put 15 European nations on notice for possible downgrades, the competition to find buyers is heating up.

    “It is a big number and obviously because many governments are still in a deficit situation the debt continues to accumulate and that’s one of the biggest problems,” Elwin de Groot, an economist at Rabobank Nederland in Utrecht, Netherlands, part of the world’s biggest agricultural lender, said in an interview on Dec. 27.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 9:49 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidDid Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif


    His news organization which is certainly more credible than many of the sources you cite - further, the columnist references point by point each of the facts involved. For you facts are irrelevant if the messenger can be attacked. Sadly the reality is that the economy as a direct result of Obama's actions and inactions are causal.


    Incorrect. You're free to live in your alternate reality where Brietbart is a credible source but it just makes you look like an idiot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 1:28 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidDid Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif


    His news organization which is certainly more credible than many of the sources you cite - further, the columnist references point by point each of the facts involved. For you facts are irrelevant if the messenger can be attacked. Sadly the reality is that the economy as a direct result of Obama's actions and inactions are causal.


    Incorrect. You're free to live in your alternate reality where Brietbart is a credible source but it just makes you look like an idiot.


    Lol - says the guy who can't figure out the basics of accounting while living in a world where deficits and debt don't matter. No - if there are idiots here - you quite easily take the title icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 1:45 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidDid Riddler just cite Andrew Brietbart's blog? The same blog that spent the holidays attacking the Girl Scouts?

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... icon_lol.gif


    His news organization which is certainly more credible than many of the sources you cite - further, the columnist references point by point each of the facts involved. For you facts are irrelevant if the messenger can be attacked. Sadly the reality is that the economy as a direct result of Obama's actions and inactions are causal.


    Incorrect. You're free to live in your alternate reality where Brietbart is a credible source but it just makes you look like an idiot.


    Lol - says the guy who can't figure out the basics of accounting while living in a world where deficits and debt don't matter. No - if there are idiots here - you quite easily take the title icon_wink.gif



    LMAO!
    If you really cared about "deficits and debt" you wouldn't be a knee-jerk defender and extreme propagandizer for the Repub party!

    The fact is that the Repub record on deficits and debt is abysmal - and FAR worse than the Dem record.

    No Repub president has balanced a budget since 1957!

    And Repub presidents have added TRILLIONS of dollars more to the National Debt than Democratic presidents have.

    Plus the two worst presidents by far for debt creation are Bush Jr. who doubled the National Debt - and Reagan who left behind a National Debt that was a shocking THREE AND A HALF TIMES LARGER!

    The fact is that the fiscally insane Repubs spent the last thirty years saying that "deficits don't matter" while they blew up the National Debt and now they're trying to rewrite history and say it never happened.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 2:11 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    LMAO!
    If you really cared about "deficits and debt" you wouldn't be a knee-jerk defender and extreme propagandizer for the Repub party!

    The fact is that the Repub record on deficits and debt is abysmal - and FAR worse than the Dem record.

    No Repub president has balanced a budget since 1957!

    And Repub presidents have added TRILLIONS of dollars more to the National Debt than Democratic presidents have.

    Plus the two worst presidents by far for debt creation are Bush Jr. who doubled the National Debt - and Reagan who left behind a National Debt that was a shocking THREE AND A HALF TIMES LARGER!

    The fact is that the fiscally insane Repubs spent the last thirty years saying that "deficits don't matter" while they blew up the National Debt and now they're trying to rewrite history and say it never happened.


    RickRick,

    It's the House that controls the spending. And the House was controlled by Democrats for 40 years up to 1994 - running up all that debt that you love so much.

    And since the Democrats seized control of the House in 2006, they've increased the debt by 80% - almost $7 trillion.

    And, if we look at Obama's spending spree (since you are so hung up on it being the President's fault), he's added almost $6 trillion to the debt in just 3 years.

    And... thanks to the Democrat's refusal to pass a budget (i.e. an end to their free-spending ways), for the entire duration of the Obama administration, we're on track to imminent financial ruin, having just become a debtor nation (debt is more than 100% of GDP).

    Pretty impressive achievement, I'd say.






    Poor SB.
    What a dim understanding of the workings of our government you have!

    FYI - no spending legislation can get passed into law unless BOTH houses of the Congress pass that legislation AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE LEGISLATION INTO LAW.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 2:23 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    LMAO!
    If you really cared about "deficits and debt" you wouldn't be a knee-jerk defender and extreme propagandizer for the Repub party!

    The fact is that the Repub record on deficits and debt is abysmal - and FAR worse than the Dem record.

    No Repub president has balanced a budget since 1957!

    And Repub presidents have added TRILLIONS of dollars more to the National Debt than Democratic presidents have.

    Plus the two worst presidents by far for debt creation are Bush Jr. who doubled the National Debt - and Reagan who left behind a National Debt that was a shocking THREE AND A HALF TIMES LARGER!

    The fact is that the fiscally insane Repubs spent the last thirty years saying that "deficits don't matter" while they blew up the National Debt and now they're trying to rewrite history and say it never happened.


    RickRick,

    It's the House that controls the spending. And the House was controlled by Democrats for 40 years up to 1994 - running up all that debt that you love so much.

    And since the Democrats seized control of the House in 2006, they've increased the debt by 80% - almost $7 trillion.

    And, if we look at Obama's spending spree (since you are so hung up on it being the President's fault), he's added almost $6 trillion to the debt in just 3 years.

    And... thanks to the Democrat's refusal to pass a budget (i.e. an end to their free-spending ways), for the entire duration of the Obama administration, we're on track to imminent financial ruin, having just become a debtor nation (debt is more than 100% of GDP).

    Pretty impressive achievement, I'd say.






    Poor SB.
    What a dim understanding of the workings of our government you have!

    FYI - no spending legislation can get passed into law unless BOTH houses of the Congress pass that legislation AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE LEGISLATION INTO LAW.


    And many times - especially when the opposing party is controlling the Congress - a President has had no choice but to capitulate to the Congress.

    A historical tidbit you've overlooked.





    The Repub party spent the last thirty years claiming that "deficits don't matter".
    A historical fact you Repubs would like the American people to overlook!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 3:58 AM GMT
    As a reminder - the solution that Democrats consistently suggest is higher taxes and greater spending to practically any issue. Of course looking at the facts, historically spending is considerably higher while the rich are paying more.

    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12224

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 4:09 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidAs a reminder - the solution that Democrats consistently suggest is higher taxes and greater spending to practically any issue. Of course looking at the facts, historically spending is considerably higher while the rich are paying more.

    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12224



    The rich are paying historically low rates. The lowest in more than 70 years. The reason they make up the bulk is because corporate taxes have shrunk significantly and the tax base of the middle class has been hollowed out by 30+ year of stagnating wages, decreases in employer paid benefits and rising healthcare costs.

    When will you wake up and realize that the rich are not "creating jobs" but destroying their own primary market?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 2:53 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidAs a reminder - the solution that Democrats consistently suggest is higher taxes and greater spending to practically any issue. Of course looking at the facts, historically spending is considerably higher while the rich are paying more.

    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12224



    The rich are paying historically low rates. The lowest in more than 70 years. The reason they make up the bulk is because corporate taxes have shrunk significantly and the tax base of the middle class has been hollowed out by 30+ year of stagnating wages, decreases in employer paid benefits and rising healthcare costs.

    When will you wake up and realize that the rich are not "creating jobs" but destroying their own primary market?


    The rich are _not_ paying historically low rates. Their marginal rates may be lower but their effective rates are higher. You seem to think that value and wealth are just magic and exist when it has to be created through ingenuity and arbitrage. When will you get it through your head that taxing those who create the most will mean less of them especially as there are more opportunities elsewhere. The US does not exist in a vacuum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 4:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidAs a reminder - the solution that Democrats consistently suggest is higher taxes and greater spending to practically any issue. Of course looking at the facts, historically spending is considerably higher while the rich are paying more.

    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12224



    The rich are paying historically low rates. The lowest in more than 70 years. The reason they make up the bulk is because corporate taxes have shrunk significantly and the tax base of the middle class has been hollowed out by 30+ year of stagnating wages, decreases in employer paid benefits and rising healthcare costs.

    When will you wake up and realize that the rich are not "creating jobs" but destroying their own primary market?


    The rich are _not_ paying historically low rates. Their marginal rates may be lower but their effective rates are higher. You seem to think that value and wealth are just magic and exist when it has to be created through ingenuity and arbitrage. When will you get it through your head that taxing those who create the most will mean less of them especially as there are more opportunities elsewhere. The US does not exist in a vacuum.


    If your just going to engage in bald-faced lying, there's really no reason to engage with you. The average effective rate for high income earners is around 14%. That is historically low, and among the lowest in the Western world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 9:04 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidAs a reminder - the solution that Democrats consistently suggest is higher taxes and greater spending to practically any issue. Of course looking at the facts, historically spending is considerably higher while the rich are paying more.

    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12224



    The rich are paying historically low rates. The lowest in more than 70 years. The reason they make up the bulk is because corporate taxes have shrunk significantly and the tax base of the middle class has been hollowed out by 30+ year of stagnating wages, decreases in employer paid benefits and rising healthcare costs.

    When will you wake up and realize that the rich are not "creating jobs" but destroying their own primary market?


    The rich are _not_ paying historically low rates. Their marginal rates may be lower but their effective rates are higher. You seem to think that value and wealth are just magic and exist when it has to be created through ingenuity and arbitrage. When will you get it through your head that taxing those who create the most will mean less of them especially as there are more opportunities elsewhere. The US does not exist in a vacuum.


    If your just going to engage in bald-faced lying, there's really no reason to engage with you. The average effective rate for high income earners is around 14%. That is historically low, and among the lowest in the Western world.


    The only baldfaced liar is you - or perhaps more charitably the issue is plain ignorance. It's incredible to me that you can't differentiate between effective and marginal income tax rates and the effective rate for high income earners is significantly above 14% - not only that but the amount that they pay of the overall budget has consistently been growing despite your specious claim that they pay less.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 9:50 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidThe only baldfaced liar is you - or perhaps more charitably the issue is plain ignorance. It's incredible to me that you can't differentiate between effective and marginal income tax rates and the effective rate for high income earners is significantly above 14% - not only that but the amount that they pay of the overall budget has consistently been growing despite your specious claim that they pay less.


    I'm sorry it's 16.6%:

    "The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year.

    To make it into the top 400, a household needed an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million in 1992 (in 2007 dollars) and $139 million in 2007."

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090

    And federal income tax (not just on the top 1%) is around 45% of the budget and payroll taxes are about 35%, which has skyrocketed in recent years, while corporate tax revenue has plummeted.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 12:18 AM GMT
    Yes, too bad for Christian, these wealthiest 400 make much of their income through capital gains. Nearly all economists (left and right) are against increases in taxes to capital as it would discourage investments in the US.

    But even more inconveniently, taxes for the wealthiest fluctuate radically. In 2007 it was 16.6%. In 2008, it was 18.11%. In the meantime, the wealthiest are increasing the proportion of the overall federal budget -