Obama pushes unemployment to quarter century high.

[vurbano]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

[msmith198025]

Yeah, unemployment is high. Time to start sending some of those illegals home, and open up some jobs for people out of work IMO

[Bob Haller]

yeah bush / republicans are responsible for the great depression obama is trying to fix it............

takes time to turn a ship as big as our country

[Skyhi]

Yeah, unemployment is high. Time to start sending some of those illegals home, and open up some jobs for people out of work IMO

Do you think that would help? Don't illegals get paid next to nothing? I'm currently looking for employment (and getting extremely frustrated), but I think I'd rather continue as a stay at home dad than make $4/hr digging ditches and picking crops.

[vurbano]

yeah bush / republicans are responsible for the great depression obama is trying to fix it............

takes time to turn a ship as big as our country
If you think this is a great depression then you need to go back to school boy. Its not there yet but Obama is trying. He has to devalue our currency some more to get there.

[vurbano]

Yeah, unemployment is high. Time to start sending some of those illegals home, and open up some jobs for people out of work IMOAmen. (But you expect black jesus to deport his voting block?)

[msmith198025]

Do you think that would help? Don't illegals get paid next to nothing? I'm currently looking for employment (and getting extremely frustrated), but I think I'd rather continue as a stay at home dad than make $4/hr digging ditches and picking crops.

They get paid very little in many cases simply because they get paid under the table. Not much need to follow federal labor laws when you are breaking the law by hiring them to begin with. Of course this is not true in every case, I would imagine some make more than others.

If these companies hired legal workers, then they would be required to pay them the correct wages. True, that can still be very little, but there are many out there now that would probably take it, and we would have fewer people sucking the system dry through government help checks.

[msmith198025]

yeah bush / republicans are responsible for the great depression obama is trying to fix it............

takes time to turn a ship as big as our country

That is a pretty one sided/blind way to see it Bob. Bush and his buddies did not help, but if you are going to hold Dems of the time totally free of blame then......well I do not not what to tell you

[fallout2600]

Its going to get worse, by the end of the year we may see up to 12%-15% unemployment.

[Derwin0]

That is a pretty one sided/blind way to see it Bob. Bush and his buddies did not help, but if you are going to hold Dems of the time totally free of blame then......well I do not not what to tell you
Nothing you can say to him.
He ignores the fact that Congress has been controlled by Democrats since Jan. 2007

[Bear Paws]

Do you think that would help? Don't illegals get paid next to nothing? I'm currently looking for employment (and getting extremely frustrated), but I think I'd rather continue as a stay at home dad than make $4/hr digging ditches and picking crops. Now I get it... I now understand..You've never worked for yourself..And here I was confused by the notion you where a self employed lawyer/consultant/bean counter/something.. Now I get it..
Sky.....Your smart.. Do what a Conservative Republican would.. Create a job.. Suggestion... Make old style peanut brittle.

[Skyhi]

Now I get it... I now understand..You've never worked for yourself..And here I was confused by the notion you where a self employed lawyer/consultant/bean counter/something.. Now I get it..
Sky.....Your smart.. Do what a Conservative Republican would.. Create a job.. Suggestion... Make old style peanut brittle.

Lol!

I was employed from ages 13-27...ABA rules prohibit one from working their first year of law school, so I had to quit. I've since graduated and its impossible to find an entry level job right now in my chosen field. I can't really hang my own shingle right now because 1) who wants to hire a lawyer with 0 experience and 2) because I have no experience my malpractice insurance would be sky-high.

It's so bad right now that very large law firms are paying newly hired associates 60-70k NOT TO WORK for the next year....

[Bear Paws]

Lol!

I was employed from ages 13-27...ABA rules prohibit one from working their first year of law school, so I had to quit. I've since graduated and its impossible to find an entry level job right now in my chosen field. I can't really hang my own shingle right now because 1) who wants to hire a lawyer with 0 experience and 2) because I have no experience my malpractice insurance would be sky-high.

It's so bad right now that very large law firms are paying newly hired associates 60-70k NOT TO WORK for the next year.... Offer to Take less for not working. That's free market..
Why do you have to be a lawyer now.. I mean right now this instant. Are you willing to starve to death on principle to your chosen field.. With your superb grocery store experience and newly found law degree you should be able to put that together into something lucrative.. Whats the need.. Better yet... create a need.. Invent a position that would be beneficial to a grocery store or chain and go sell it.. I'm not saying it will be that easy but no winner ever said it was easy. Only the losers think it impossible..

[Derwin0]

Whats the need.. Better yet... create a need.. Invent a position that would be beneficial to a grocery store or chain and go sell it.. I'm not saying it will be that easy but no winner ever said it was easy. Only the losers think it impossible..
I have to agree.

Some of us may pick on Bob for his negativity about the economy and anything Bush. But he went out there, saw a need, and established a business for himself. Bear did the same thing many many many eons ago.

During college, while working on my EE degree, software was the one thing I stayed away from, I hated programming. Yet my first Engineering job out of the Marine Corps was doing Software Test & Evaluation.

[Skyhi]

I have to agree.

Some of us may pick on Bob for his negativity about the economy and anything Bush. But he went out there, saw a need, and established a business for himself. Bear did the same thing many many many eons ago.

During college, while working on my EE degree, software was the one thing I stayed away from, I hated programming. Yet my first Engineering job out of the Marine Corps was doing Software Test & Evaluation.

Unfortunately, I'm not at all creative and am very risk-adverse. I went to law school because I want to practice law. I hate litigation, but I would take a job working for an ambulance chaser at this point.

I've only been looking for two months...Luckily, my wife makes enough money to allow me to be patient. If I can't get anything in the next three months, however, I'm either going to have to do something in the accounting field or go back to the grocery store....

I can speak for many recent grads in saying that it really, really tough to land an entry level job in any field right now.

[Derwin0]

I can speak for many recent grads in saying that it really, really tough to land an entry level job in any field right now.Are you trying to stay local, or open to relocation?
I've found being open to relocation makes a job search easier, it helped for when I left active service that I didn't mind moving to where the job was.

But with your wife having a job, you're probably tied to the area, so that would hamper the search some.

[Skyhi]

Are you trying to stay local, or open to relocation?
I've found being open to relocation makes a job search easier, it helped for when I left active service that I didn't mind moving to where the job was.

But with your wife having a job, you're probably tied to the area, so that would hamper the search some.

Yeah. My wife loves her job & we are really happy with our son's school, so moving is probably out of the question. If I moved out of state, I believe I'd have to take another bar exam and wait around 6 months to get licensed. I'm pretty much stuck looking in the greater Cleveland area which has an ugly job market right now.....

I'm hoping someone will at least hire me as a law clerk (on the cheap) so I can prove myself and then get brought on as an associate when the market picks up a bit...

[Bear Paws]

[QUOTE]I have to agree.

Some of us may pick on Bob for his negativity about the economy and anything Bush. But he went out there, saw a need, and established a business for himself. Bear did the same thing many many many eons ago.

Hey Wino..I appreciate the complement but can we cool it with the many many eons stuff..:free-happy-smileys-

Actually been doing that my whole life. Shape shifting. In the 40 years being in business we went through a lot of economic periods and our major business plans must have changed at least 10 times if not more. Our target was always moving. "Whats the need we can fill and how can we do it better" was basically my partners and my credo.

Everyone was instructed and reminded that if a customer asked for some service we did not offer I wanted to hear about it. We where always looking for ways to reinvent ourselves.

[Bear Paws]

[QUOTE]Unfortunately, I'm not at all creative and am very risk-adverse.

Wow... that's too bad..my sympathies..I honestly feel bad for you.. That's where all the fun and rewards are. Ask even Bob.. And he started with practically a empty glass like I did.. Only a half baked idea, a vague dream and a belief we could do it. I don't know what happened to Bob... Maybe he lost it with all that weight.

[Bob Haller]

I worked for WG Johnston from 1975 till 1984 when they closed, I bought what was left of my department.

Business is actually pretty good right now, I am busy getting new customers and doing some promos.

I considered myself a republican for most of my life but soured of bush cheney. they didnt care what the voters wanted or needed.:(

the republican party is still shrinking and again still ignores the voters. currently they are the do nothing party

[Bear Paws]

I worked for WG Johnston from 1975 till 1984 when they closed, I bought what was left of my department.

Business is actually pretty good right now, I am busy getting new customers and doing some promos.

I considered myself a republican for most of my life but soured of bush cheney. they didnt care what the voters wanted or needed.:(

the republican party is still shrinking and again still ignores the voters. currently they are the do nothing party Think about what you said for a moment, Bob. Republicanism or actually conservatism is a way of life. What do a couple people or even a party have to do with the way you live your life. Unless your fickle and change with the blowing wind how are you as a person and your core beliefs any different now than before Bush Cheney? You where a conservative before but now because of Bush you have converted your core beliefs to Liberalism?? Bush wasn't even a conservative. The whole thing makes no sense. Ok, if you not a Republican then what are you??

Republican party is not shrinking but even if it was. So what. Where are they going.. Individuals abandoning everything they stood for and thinking a whole different way..? LIke what? All of a sudden big taxes and big government is good when it wasn't for just a few years ago?? Apparently they either where not republicans and useing it as a way to get into the country club and discovered there where more Liberals at the club than Conservatives or where trying to get elected. Either way they where liers.

[vurbano]

I considered myself a republican for most of my life but soured of bush cheney. they didnt care what the voters wanted or needed.:(



But Obama and the DEMs do?? When did we vote to bankrupt the government? Drive energy prices up as a tax on the middle class? high unemployment? Class warefare? I missed that one.:augentreher:

[Derwin0]

I considered myself a republican for most of my life but soured of bush cheney.That's where you've gone wrong. I've never let myself vote party, only the person.
Both parties have some real doozies of characters in them, and both have some winners.

My vote typically gets split. I even voted for Fast Eddie. Bush is no longer in office, so anything the Republicans do now has nothing to do with him, same with the Democrats and Clinton.

If the war is the reason you dead set against Bush, don't forget that Congress voted to okay the war, with a healthy number of Democrats voting for it (and don't say he lied, because the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee saw the same classified intel).
If it's the economy, well the Democrats share in that, as they've controlled Congress for 3 years.

Bear is right though, Bush wasn't a Conservative. The only President I remember spending more money than him, was Johnson, and now Obama. The reason his approvals were so low, was because people on the Right were mad at him for not beign Conservative enough. Those on the Left though, would vote against any Republican anyway. Those 2 things got his ratings in the toilet.

[Bob Haller]

Over the years the machines I serviced have changed a LOT.

Beginning with Ditto brand Ditto machines, pushed for johnstons to service all brands, including 3m thermofax, did copiers too, mostly smaller ones.

All of these gradually went away for a variety of reasons not in my control, and I replaced them with laminating machines.

Along the way have serviced some AV equiptment, Borg Warner teaching machines, dry mount presses including some as large as 4 by 8 feet, but laminators are the bread and butter today I am the low priced leader locally.

[msmith198025]

That's where you've gone wrong. I've never let myself vote party, only the person.
Both parties have some real doozies of characters in them, and both have some winners.

My vote typically gets split. I even voted for Fast Eddie. Bush is no longer in office, so anything the Republicans do now has nothing to do with him, same with the Democrats and Clinton.

If the war is the reason you dead set against Bush, don't forget that Congress voted to okay the war, with a healthy number of Democrats voting for it (and don't say he lied, because the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee saw the same classified intel).
If it's the economy, well the Democrats share in that, as they've controlled Congress for 3 years.

Bear is right though, Bush wasn't a Conservative. The only President I remember spending more money than him, was Johnson, and now Obama. The reason his approvals were so low, was because people on the Right were mad at him for not beign Conservative enough. Those on the Left though, would vote against any Republican anyway. Those 2 things got his ratings in the toilet.

Well said Derwin, and my sentiments exactly.

If one votes simply because of party, then we are in a mess. Party voting alone is scary. Think for yourself.

[Salsadancer7]

If you think this is a great depression then you need to go back to school boy. Its not there yet but Obama is trying. He has to devalue our currency some more to get there.

Your previous president has ALOT MORE to be blame than the current one. I mean blaming Obama for our current financial woes is like blaming the former Bush for 9/11. Hell all this started BEFORE Obama was even voted in....

...this is such a pathetic try that you can even get an "A" for effort...:free-happy-smileys-

[vurbano]

Your previous president has ALOT MORE to be blame than the current one. I mean blaming Obama for our current financial woes is like blaming the former Bush for 9/11. Hell all this started BEFORE Obama was even voted in....

...this is such a pathetic try that you can even get an "A" for effort...:free-happy-smileys-The current state of affairs is totally and utterly his responsibility sorry. I do not know how this nation is going to recover from him throwing our money down the toilet.

[Salsadancer7]

The current state of affairs is totally and utterly his responsibility sorry. I do not know how this nation is going to recover from him throwing our money down the toilet.

Yes...it IS Obama responsibility TO TRY AND FIX.

OH and BY THE WAY, it was THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT that started "making it rain" billions around like Pacman Jones at a strip club the the banks WITHOUT ANY rules to monitor the money BEFORE Obama was even elected.

..again, your effort AND delivery sucked.....:thumbdown:

[msmith198025]

I agree that it is the sitteng pres. responsibility to try to fix the situation that we are in, but we can not hang the whole fault on him, because it is not his fault in whole for where we are. I blame him for what he has done since, but not for where we were before hand.
Neither side did much to prevent this.

[Salsadancer7]

I agree that it is the sitteng pres. responsibility to try to fix the situation that we are in, but we can not hang the whole fault on him, because it is not his fault in whole for where we are. I blame him for what he has done since, but not for where we were before hand.
Neither side did much to prevent this.

Reread his comments Smith....according to HIM, it has ONLY been Obama that has sprayed all the stimulus money. But he seems to have forgotten that the previous president STARTED the give away 700 BILLION in money that NO ONE seems to know where the first 50% of that has gone.

...but hey, I could understand not wanting to remember THE WORST presidency in the last 100 years....

[HDRoberts]

The current state of affairs is totally and utterly his responsibility sorry. I do not know how this nation is going to recover from him throwing our money down the toilet.

I continue to not get how conservatives can blame 9/11 on Clinton because it happened too early in Bush's presidency to prevent, yet an economic collapse that started even before Obama got to office is now his fault.

[Salsadancer7]

I continue to not get how conservatives can blame 9/11 on Clinton because it happened too early in Bush's presidency to prevent, yet an economic collapse that started even before Obama got to office is now his fault.

It is the typical ring wing tactic of blame EVERYONE else because it is NEVER their fault....:026:

[msmith198025]

I continue to not get how conservatives can blame 9/11 on Clinton because it happened too early in Bush's presidency to prevent, yet an economic collapse that started even before Obama got to office is now his fault.
I agree.

The whole economic situation started well before Obama, and Bush for that matter. I do not see how anyone can honestly put the entire blame on him.
He is however responsible for the money that he has spent trying to fix it however (which was not the best way to go IMO), as is Bush responsible for his bailout package.

[msmith198025]

It is the typical ring wing tactic of blame EVERYONE else because it is NEVER their fault....:026:

I dont think it is restricted to the right wing. I see it all over. In and out of politics

[Salsadancer7]

I dont think it is restricted to the right wing. I see it all over. In and out of politics

I can agree with that....BUT republican politicans two main mantras are "accountability"...except when they are the blame and how much more morally they are than everyone else...except when one of their own commits a mistake...actually shows a human side....and suddenly, they attack the left for being morally corrupt.

....it's quite funny actually....

[Bob Haller]

so what mystic solutions have a republicans offered ?? show me a solid plan.

republicans just keep saying no to obamas ideas without offering a better solution

[HDRoberts]

so what mystic solutions have a republicans offered ?? show me a solid plan.

republicans just keep saying no to obamas ideas without offering a better solution

Indeed. Tell us your plan, conservatives. A plan that could actually happen, too. Eliminating the Fed and all banking regulation can be argued, but that would not happen no matter who took office.

[Bear Paws]

so what mystic solutions have a republicans offered ?? show me a solid plan.

republicans just keep saying no to obamas ideas without offering a better solution
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/Jobs/

House GOP Economic Stimulus Plan

House Republicans have offered an economic recovery plan that will create twice the jobs at half the cost for hard working Americans. The House GOP plan does not include wasteful pet projects and it ensures that the funding immediately goes into effect. No waste, just jobs.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions

http://www.gop.gov/press-release/09/01/23/house-republican-economic-recovery-plan

That should keep you busy for a while..

[HDRoberts]

OK



House Republican Economic Recovery Plan

House Republicans are proposing:

Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:

Rather than a refundable credit based on payroll taxes, House Republicans propose reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $500 in tax relief from the drop in the 10% bracket and $1,200 for the drop in the 15% bracket. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.

Help for America’s Small Businesses:

Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans, yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. House Republicans propose to allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.

No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:

The stimulus proposal pending in Congress includes record levels of government spending that will substantially increase the current deficit. House Republicans are concerned that this level of spending will result in some proposing near-term tax increases on American families. House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.

Assistance for the Unemployed:

Incredibly, the Federal Government actually imposes income taxes on an individual receiving unemployment benefits. House Republicans propose to make unemployment benefits tax free so that those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.

Stabilizing Home Values:

The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall even further. This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, House Republicans propose a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.

First, I see nothing that justifies the "plan that will create twice the jobs at half the cost" statement. Clearly those numbers come from the "pulling numbers out of your rear" institute.

A tax cut is fine. Be nice to know what spending they plan to cut, or how else they plan to replace the revenue.

A tax cut for small businesses in nice. It just needs to ONLY target small businesses (not simply those making in excess of a certain amount), and ONLY be for those creating jobs. Simply giving many small business owners money is hardly a guarantee of jobs. And gain, how is it paid for?

The other 2 points are fine. But again, where is the evidence this will lead to economic recovery?

[Bob Haller]

historially cash infusion from the government creates more spending tan tax cuts, today most individuals woud likely save the bucks, rather than spend them......

[msmith198025]

historially cash infusion from the government creates more spending tan tax cuts, today most individuals woud likely save the bucks, rather than spend them......

It also puts us more in debt. At some point we have to think long term Bob. We can not continually spend our way out of problems with money we do not have

[Bear Paws]

OK
[QUOTE]First, I see nothing that justifies the "plan that will create twice the jobs at half the cost" statement. Clearly those numbers come from the "pulling numbers out of your rear" institute. When you free up credit and tax money at the employer level that creates jobs and historically have created jobs. If its a previous winner, bet on it.. THe course or path we are on now has never worked and has always been a loser. Is that your bet?

Even Joe Bidin just admitted they made a mistake on the economy.. Oopps?? Sorry??
Bull-ticky! That don't cut it..


A tax cut is fine. Be nice to know what spending they plan to cut, or how else they plan to replace the revenue.
Even not spending 3 trillion of the future is a spending cut. WE wouldn't need to pay it back. Cutting back on 308 Billion pork in the stimulus would be good start.

A tax cut for small businesses in nice. It just needs to ONLY target small businesses (not simply those making in excess of a certain amount), and ONLY be for those creating jobs. Simply giving many small business owners money is hardly a guarantee of jobs. And gain, how is it paid for?
Its easier to pay for something you haven't spent than paying for something you spent and didn't have the money. AKA Debt.

The other 2 points are fine. But again, where is the evidence this will lead to economic recovery?
History.. precedent and common sense.. Everytime spending and taxing has been tried on a resession it has always prolonged it. Usually ending when the free market finally stabilized after years of turmoil cause by excess spending and taxing.
To the contrast every time Tax cuts and doing nothing else has resulted in very short( often measured in months) recession and pull backs.

[HDRoberts]

History.. precedent and common sense. ...To the contrast every time Tax cuts and doing nothing else has resulted in very short( often measured in months) recession and pull backs.

Name it.

[Bear Paws]

historially cash infusion from the government creates more spending tan tax cuts, today most individuals woud likely save the bucks, rather than spend them...... :augentreher: Hey Bob... A tax cut is a direct cash infusion...by the government.... into your pocket directly.. Because it never left your pocket.

So far the government has indirectly infused 3 trillion. Well actually it just ran up a big debt...You know,your way, nanny style... Do you know where your infusion is?? :free-happy-smileys- I'll tell you where....You haven't given it to the government yet in the form of taxes for the next 30 years... :stupid:

[HDRoberts]

:augentreher: Hey Bob... A tax cut is a direct cash infusion...by the government.... into your pocket directly.. Because it never left your pocket.

So far the government has indirectly infused 3 trillion. Well actually it just ran up a big debt...You know,your way, nanny style... Do you know where your infusion is?? :free-happy-smileys- I'll tell you where....You haven't given it to the government yet in the form of taxes for the next 30 years... :stupid:

But if the government spends it, it, well, gets spent. Make it a tax cut, it costs the EXACT same, yet millions don't spend. Obama's way is better.

[msmith198025]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5754447/US-lurching-towards-debt-explosion-with-long-term-interest-rates-on-course-to-double.html

[Bear Paws]

Name it. It would be easier to name the ones that got worse due to governmental meddling. I think you know the big ones. They are named after presidents.. FDR, Carter, and now the latest one... Obama .

[Bear Paws]

But if the government spends it, it, well, gets spent. Make it a tax cut, it costs the EXACT same, yet millions don't spend. Obama's way is better.
You rather the Gov spend your money for you?? OoooooKaaaayyy.:confused:

[HDRoberts]

It would be easier to name the ones that got worse due to governmental meddling. I think you know the big ones. They are named after presidents.. FDR, Carter, and now the latest one... Obama .

Nicely dodged question!:026:

And I am still thankful for much of what FDR did with the CCC and WPA.


You rather the Gov spend your money for you?? OoooooKaaaayyy.:confused:

I'd rather someone (anyone) spend it than see it stuffed into the figurative mattresses of millions of Americans.

[msmith198025]

I'd rather someone (anyone) spend it than see it stuffed into the figurative mattresses of millions of Americans.
Yours included? Or just everyone else?

If it is yours, I can get you my mailing address and you can send it to me.
I will be glad to spend it for you:thumbup::)

I really do not get this though. If someone wants to save THEIR money, why should anyone tell them that they cant? OR shouldnt? It is theirs is it not? If I want to be a tight wad and stuff mine away, shouldnt I be able to?

[Salsadancer7]

OK



First, I see nothing that justifies the "plan that will create twice the jobs at half the cost" statement. Clearly those numbers come from the "pulling numbers out of your rear" institute.

A tax cut is fine. Be nice to know what spending they plan to cut, or how else they plan to replace the revenue.

A tax cut for small businesses in nice. It just needs to ONLY target small businesses (not simply those making in excess of a certain amount), and ONLY be for those creating jobs. Simply giving many small business owners money is hardly a guarantee of jobs. And gain, how is it paid for?

The other 2 points are fine. But again, where is the evidence this will lead to economic recovery?

Nice job HD!:thumbup: Could not have said it better myself!

[Bear Paws]

Yours included? Or just everyone else?

If it is yours, I can get you my mailing address and you can send it to me.
I will be glad to spend it for you:thumbup::)

I really do not get this though. If someone wants to save THEIR money, why should anyone tell them that they cant? OR shouldnt? It is theirs is it not? If I want to be a tight wad and stuff mine away, shouldnt I be able to? Your young... I understand.. Here is a clue.. Its a liberal thing..
Conservatives will tell you to do whatever you like with it. BECAUSE ITS YOURS..

[Salsadancer7]

Your young... I understand.. Here is a clue.. Its a liberal thing..
Conservatives will tell you to do whatever you like with it. BECAUSE ITS YOURS..

...but then blame the left when their guy f** it up...LOL!

[HDRoberts]

Your young... I understand.. Here is a clue.. Its a liberal thing..
Conservatives will tell you to do whatever you like with it. BECAUSE ITS YOURS..

Really? Because when tax dollars were paying for AIG executive bonuses, all the conservatives were telling me that taxpayers had no say because the money was NOT ours anymore.

The problem is our economy is sustained by consumer spending. Current economic conditions has turned everyone into tightwads. So simply giving people more money with tax cuts is not the answer.

You say government spending never reversed depression? What about the Great Depression? Yeah, The New Deal may not have ended it (although it helped), but you know what DID end it? World War II. All that government spending on war equipment. All that spending on the GI bill to educate and house returning troops. So there.

No one has yet answered my question, though. When have tax cuts alone bulled this country out of recession or depression?

The Bush cuts sure didn't do much. See http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

[Salsadancer7]

Really? Because when tax dollars were paying for AIG executive bonuses, all the conservatives were telling me that taxpayers had no say because the money was NOT ours anymore.

The problem is our economy is sustained by consumer spending. Current economic conditions has turned everyone into tightwads. So simply giving people more money with tax cuts is not the answer.

You say government spending never reversed depression? What about the Great Depression? Yeah, The New Deal may not have ended it (although it helped), but you know what DID end it? World War II. All that government spending on war equipment. All that spending on the GI bill to educate and house returning troops. So there.

No one has yet answered my question, though. When have tax cuts alone bulled this country out of recession or depression?

The Bush cuts sure didn't do much. See http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

:thumbup:

[msmith198025]

Really? Because when tax dollars were paying for AIG executive bonuses, all the conservatives were telling me that taxpayers had no say because the money was NOT ours anymore.

The problem is our economy is sustained by consumer spending. Current economic conditions has turned everyone into tightwads. So simply giving people more money with tax cuts is not the answer. Now anyway.

You say government spending never reversed depression? What about the Great Depression? Yeah, The New Deal may not have ended it (although it helped), but you know what DID end it? World War II. All that government spending on war equipment. All that spending on the GI bill to educate and house returning troops. So there.




You think consumer spending sustaining our economy is the problem? Really?
I think spending more than we have is the problem.

Yes, some people do tend to become tightwads in this type of situation, but is that really a bad thing?
So they dont spend, they save. Some companies that are not being competitive go out of business, or file for bankruptcy. Sad, but it happens, and that is how it should go. At least THAT does not obligate you or me or any kids either of us may have to more debt than these idiots have already given us. Dont we have enough of that?

[msmith198025]

I'd rather someone (anyone) spend it than see it stuffed into the figurative mattresses of millions of Americans.

I still want YOUR money.;)

Should I send you the mailing address?:Shh:

[vurbano]

Reread his comments Smith....according to HIM, it has ONLY been Obama that has sprayed all the stimulus money. But he seems to have forgotten that the previous president STARTED the give away 700 BILLION in money that NO ONE seems to know where the first 50% of that has gone.

...but hey, I could understand not wanting to remember THE WORST presidency in the last 100 years....

Little of that money had been spent before Obama took office and Obama was directing how he wanted even that spent before he took office. He could have easily stopped all of it. :augentreher:

BTW

Obama is the worst president in the last 200 years. Totally incompetent and unqualified. A walking puppet for George Sorros

[Skyhi]

You think consumer spending sustaining our economy is the problem? Really?
I think spending more than we have is the problem.

Yes, some people do tend to become tightwads in this type of situation, but is that really a bad thing?
So they dont spend, they save. Some companies that are not being competitive go out of business, or file for bankruptcy. Sad, but it happens, and that is how it should go. At least THAT does not obligate you or me or any kids either of us may have to more debt than these idiots have already given us. Dont we have enough of that?

I'm no economist, but here is my rudimentary understanding:

The economy was fueled by "growth." As long as we were "growing," all was well. Why we need constant "growth" is a puzzle to me.....what is wrong with the status quo? Why did all hell break loose when the economy stopped growing?

Now the problem is that the growth of the past 10-20 years was fueled by consumer "spending." I put spending in quotes because we weren't spending real money. We were spending debt that we can now not afford to pay back....So now we're struggling to pay our debt, can't get new credit, and consumer spending as dried up.

What's the solution to this cycle??? I DON'T KNOW?!?!?! :)

[Skyhi]

Little of that money had been spent before Obama took office and Obama was directing how he wanted even that spent before he took office. He could have easily stopped all of it. :augentreher:

BTW

Obama is the worst president in the last 200 years. Totally incompetent and unqualified. A walking puppet for George Sorros

Considering (1) his predecessor and (2) his short time in office, that seems a bit extreme...

[froggigger]

Really? Because when tax dollars were paying for AIG executive bonuses, all the conservatives were telling me that taxpayers had no say because the money was NOT ours anymore.

Which is exactly why government should never have been involved in the affairs of a private company to begin with.


The problem is our economy is sustained by consumer spending. Current economic conditions has turned everyone into tightwads. So simply giving people more money with tax cuts is not the answer.

First of all, the government is not "giving" people anything. Tax cuts mean they take less from the people who earned it. Consumer spending does drive the economy but so does savings. Government spending, ie. stimulus spending, may possibly help but only for a very short term. When government spends, they spend money taken from the private sector where all wealth is created, which stifles wealth creation and economic growth. Or, they crank up the presses and hand the unborn the bill like your hero is doing now.


You say government spending never reversed depression? What about the Great Depression? Yeah, The New Deal may not have ended it (although it helped), but you know what DID end it? World War II. All that government spending on war equipment. All that spending on the GI bill to educate and house returning troops. So there.

Government made the Great Depression last longer. We've discussed it in the past ad nauseum. Also, WWII did not end the depression. It ended high unemployment. The Depression didn't end until after the war when FDR's New Deal policies were rolled back.


No one has yet answered my question, though. When have tax cuts alone bulled this country out of recession or depression?

The Bush cuts sure didn't do much. See http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

I'll be happy to answer the question. Tax cuts mean people have more of the money they earned to spend, which increases revenue to the government. It happened under JFK, Reagan, and Bush. The problem is that your beloved government sees the higher revenue coming in and promptly finds ways to spend it, and then some. Tax cuts must be used in conjunction with spending cuts for maximum effect but we all know government never, ever, spends less. Their thirst for our money is insatiable.

[froggigger]

I'm no economist, but here is my rudimentary understanding:

The economy was fueled by "growth." As long as we were "growing," all was well. Why we need constant "growth" is a puzzle to me.....what is wrong with the status quo? Why did all hell break loose when the economy stopped growing?

Now the problem is that the growth of the past 10-20 years was fueled by consumer "spending." I put spending in quotes because we weren't spending real money. We were spending debt that we can now not afford to pay back....So now we're struggling to pay our debt, can't get new credit, and consumer spending as dried up.

What's the solution to this cycle??? I DON'T KNOW?!?!?! :)

The answer is found in a few short words.

Reign in our out of control government.

[Bear Paws]

Really? Because when tax dollars were paying for AIG executive bonuses, all the conservatives were telling me that taxpayers had no say because the money was NOT ours anymore.

The problem is our economy is sustained by consumer spending. Current economic conditions has turned everyone into tightwads. So simply giving people more money with tax cuts is not the answer.

You say government spending never reversed depression? What about the Great Depression? Yeah, The New Deal may not have ended it (although it helped), but you know what DID end it? World War II. All that government spending on war equipment. All that spending on the GI bill to educate and house returning troops. So there.

No one has yet answered my question, though. When have tax cuts alone bulled this country out of recession or depression?

The Bush cuts sure didn't do much. See http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf Frogger did a good job but missed one important but awful factor. WWII also killed off the unemployed..

[froggigger]

Frogger did a good job but missed one important but awful factor. WWII also killed off the unemployed..

That's Mr. Frog to you. :free-happy-smileys-

[msmith198025]

I'm no economist, but here is my rudimentary understanding:

The economy was fueled by "growth." As long as we were "growing," all was well. Why we need constant "growth" is a puzzle to me.....what is wrong with the status quo? Why did all hell break loose when the economy stopped growing?

Now the problem is that the growth of the past 10-20 years was fueled by consumer "spending." I put spending in quotes because we weren't spending real money. We were spending debt that we can now not afford to pay back....So now we're struggling to pay our debt, can't get new credit, and consumer spending as dried up.

What's the solution to this cycle??? I DON'T KNOW?!?!?! :)

Hey Sky....you are not alone in not knowing:thumbup:
No one does. Not really.

[msmith198025]

The answer is found in a few short words.

Reign in our out of control government.

That is a start. But where do we stop? Goverment has its place, and everyone has an idea on how much is too much.

[msmith198025]

I still do not think anyone has answered the question of when tax cuts alone have pulled us out of recession or depression.

[Bear Paws]

I'm no economist, but here is my rudimentary understanding:

The economy was fueled by "growth." As long as we were "growing," all was well. Why we need constant "growth" is a puzzle to me.....what is wrong with the status quo? Why did all hell break loose when the economy stopped growing?

Now the problem is that the growth of the past 10-20 years was fueled by consumer "spending." I put spending in quotes because we weren't spending real money. We were spending debt that we can now not afford to pay back....So now we're struggling to pay our debt, can't get new credit, and consumer spending as dried up.

What's the solution to this cycle??? I DON'T KNOW?!?!?! :)
I'll try to keep it short too.. THe same reason you did not stay at status quo working at the grocery store..(Answering the phone about Birch beer and peanut brittle)

Growth is the incentive, that which makes the engine in the economy run.. other wise it would stagnate, stall, and the nation (people) die.. ..Its also natural to want to improve your standard of living. If we don't grow others will and make you into their slaves. As population inevitably increases so must GDP growth to sustain it.. Choose growth or accept poverty for billions. To answer your question about why hell did not break lose.. It will, give it time.. One only need to look back on history. When growth stopped wars began.
Growth is trade and Trade is all that stands between peace and war..

[Bear Paws]

That's Mr. Frog to you. :free-happy-smileys- My humble apologies Mr frog.. :bow:......:making-fun-054:

[msmith198025]

My humble apologies Mr frog.. :bow:......:making-fun-054:

Based on age shouldnt YOU be mister to everyone here.....:free-happy-smileys-

[froggigger]

I still do not think anyone has answered the question of when tax cuts alone have pulled us out of recession or depression.

That's an extremely simplified question that has no simple answer. There's just too much involved, all intertwined. With or without tax cuts, there can be no general expansion in economic activity without an expanding pool of real funding. To increase the pool of real funding, real savings are necessary to fund the expansion in the production of final goods and services. When the pool of real funding continues to increase, it permits further expansion of goods and services. Rinse and repeat. That's economic growth in a nutshell.

Add lower taxes to the mix. On the surface, it looks like we should have greater access to the pool of real funding. However, this is not possible unless government's access to the pool is reduced. When government wants to promote a certain activity, they supply money to those involved in that activity. These people have in effect tapped into the pool of real funding. For government to fund anything, it must first take wealth from the private sector because government is not a wealth generator. The more government spends, the less money that is on tap for the real wealth generators, ie. the private sector. This stifles the creation of real wealth and will impoverish the economy as a whole. That's why I said in the beginning that tax cuts had to be accompanied by spending cuts to have a real effect. If government could generate wealth, there would be no need to tax the private sector.

Tax cuts alone will not end a recession but they are a necessary part of a recovery. Hopefully we are in agreement that when Reagan took office, we were in a recession. He cut taxes and we had a recovery. In 1982, receipts to the government (in billions) were $617.8 and outlays were $745.7. By 1989, the economy was smoking along and receipts were $991.2 with outlays of $1143.8. The economy was expanding with lower tax rates, but so was government. An effective, real tax cut is simply not possible without a cut in government spending. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Here's something to chew on. If government is a borrower, which it must be since it consumes wealth without ever producing any, how does it repay debt? :confused:

[froggigger]

My humble apologies Mr frog.. :bow:......:making-fun-054:

:mockery-056::D

[froggigger]

Based on age shouldnt YOU be mister to everyone here.....:free-happy-smileys-

I was called Mr. Frog on the other site by a new poster and we had some fun with it. That's the short history. :)

[msmith198025]

That's an extremely simplified question that has no simple answer. There's just too much involved, all intertwined. With or without tax cuts, there can be no general expansion in economic activity without an expanding pool of real funding. To increase the pool of real funding, real savings are necessary to fund the expansion in the production of final goods and services. When the pool of real funding continues to increase, it permits further expansion of goods and services. Rinse and repeat. That's economic growth in a nutshell.

Add lower taxes to the mix. On the surface, it looks like we should have greater access to the pool of real funding. However, this is not possible unless government's access to the pool is reduced. When government wants to promote a certain activity, they supply money to those involved in that activity. These people have in effect tapped into the pool of real funding. For government to fund anything, it must first take wealth from the private sector because government is not a wealth generator. The more government spends, the less money that is on tap for the real wealth generators, ie. the private sector. This stifles the creation of real wealth and will impoverish the economy as a whole. That's why I said in the beginning that tax cuts had to be accompanied by spending cuts to have a real effect. If government could generate wealth, there would be no need to tax the private sector.

Tax cuts alone will not end a recession but they are a necessary part of a recovery. Hopefully we are in agreement that when Reagan took office, we were in a recession. He cut taxes and we had a recovery. In 1982, receipts to the government (in billions) were $617.8 and outlays were $745.7. By 1989, the economy was smoking along and receipts were $991.2 with outlays of $1143.8. The economy was expanding with lower tax rates, but so was government. An effective, real tax cut is simply not possible without a cut in government spending. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Here's something to chew on. If government is a borrower, which it must be since it consumes wealth without ever producing any, how does it repay debt? :confused:

A good explanation of a point:thumbup:

[msmith198025]

I was called Mr. Frog on the other site by a new poster and we had some fun with it. That's the short history. :)

Ahh, I got ya

[Bear Paws]

Here's something to chew on. If government is a borrower, which it must be since it consumes wealth without ever producing any, how does it repay debt? :confused:Every year the government fails to collect enough money in taxes to pay for all its spending requirements (consumption) it has to borrow money creating debt.

To make those repayments of borrowed money the government ultimately will have to collect extra taxes, beyond what it needs to pay for its other activities.

If the government owes the debt to its self the debt has no implication on the economy. Government debt to private investors needs to be repaid according to terms and can adversely effect the economy if greater than the GDP growth.
LIKE NOW...

[Bob Haller]

once inflation hits debt will be repaid with less valuable money..............

assuming the economy recovers in our lifetime.

the fiancial changes occuring now may prevent a reovery for a very long time.......

[vurbano]

I continue to not get how conservatives can blame 9/11 on Clinton because it happened too early in Bush's presidency to prevent, yet an economic collapse that started even before Obama got to office is now his fault.

Obama is turning a recession into a catastrophe by flushing currency down the toilet and wasting money at a record pace.

[vurbano]

once inflation hits debt will be repaid with less valuable money...............Part of the Obama plan to bring this nation down so that he can institute socialism. He is the one printing money and devaluing the dollar. Just wait if he gets the opportunity to print money to pay for his worthless Healthcare plan. It will be the deathblow to our dollar.

[Salsadancer7]

Collapse? Nothing collapsed under Bush. Obama is turning a normal recession into a catastrophe by flushing currency down the toilet and wasting money at a record pace.

A NORMAL RECESSION??!! That is amazing....:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

[froggigger]

Every year the government fails to collect enough money in taxes to pay for all its spending requirements (consumption) it has to borrow money creating debt.

To make those repayments of borrowed money the government ultimately will have to collect extra taxes, beyond what it needs to pay for its other activities.

If the government owes the debt to its self the debt has no implication on the economy. Government debt to private investors needs to be repaid according to terms and can adversely effect the economy if greater than the GDP growth.
LIKE NOW...

:thumbup::thumbup:

IOW, government borrows from you in order to repay you. The private sector, otoh, must generate wealth to repay debt.

[HDRoberts]

You think consumer spending sustaining our economy is the problem? Really?
I think spending more than we have is the problem.

Yes, some people do tend to become tightwads in this type of situation, but is that really a bad thing?
So they dont spend, they save. Some companies that are not being competitive go out of business, or file for bankruptcy. Sad, but it happens, and that is how it should go. At least THAT does not obligate you or me or any kids either of us may have to more debt than these idiots have already given us. Dont we have enough of that?

Hey, I didn't say it was a good thing. But unless consumers are buying houses, cars, TVs, refrigerators, and a plethora of other things, the economy stinks.

Problem is, all Wall Street wants is short term growth, and thus devalues the rest of our long term investments if there isn't sufficient short term growth on the back of consumer spending.


That's an extremely simplified question that has no simple answer. There's just too much involved, all intertwined. With or without tax cuts, there can be no general expansion in economic activity without an expanding pool of real funding. To increase the pool of real funding, real savings are necessary to fund the expansion in the production of final goods and services. When the pool of real funding continues to increase, it permits further expansion of goods and services. Rinse and repeat. That's economic growth in a nutshell.

Add lower taxes to the mix. On the surface, it looks like we should have greater access to the pool of real funding. However, this is not possible unless government's access to the pool is reduced. When government wants to promote a certain activity, they supply money to those involved in that activity. These people have in effect tapped into the pool of real funding. For government to fund anything, it must first take wealth from the private sector because government is not a wealth generator. The more government spends, the less money that is on tap for the real wealth generators, ie. the private sector. This stifles the creation of real wealth and will impoverish the economy as a whole. That's why I said in the beginning that tax cuts had to be accompanied by spending cuts to have a real effect. If government could generate wealth, there would be no need to tax the private sector.

Tax cuts alone will not end a recession but they are a necessary part of a recovery. Hopefully we are in agreement that when Reagan took office, we were in a recession. He cut taxes and we had a recovery. In 1982, receipts to the government (in billions) were $617.8 and outlays were $745.7. By 1989, the economy was smoking along and receipts were $991.2 with outlays of $1143.8. The economy was expanding with lower tax rates, but so was government. An effective, real tax cut is simply not possible without a cut in government spending. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Here's something to chew on. If government is a borrower, which it must be since it consumes wealth without ever producing any, how does it repay debt? :confused:

You largely make my point. Reagan took office in Jan 1981. He quickly passes the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. What happens on this news in 1982? Another recession. You no how everyone has been saying things are the worst in 26 years. Guess what? That was 1982, 2 years into the Reagan presidency.

While there was economic recovery, the cause of that recovery is debatable. Like Obama, Reagan was a huge spender. Even though tax receipts doubled from 1980 to 1990, the federal deficit tripled from $900B to $2.8T. How do we know the recovery was not due to that increase in spending?

The fact is conservatives on this board have contended that tax cuts are best and only way to get out of a recession, saying history has proved that point. Yet you can point to no examples of this, so history does not, in fact, support this view.

In fact you say a real tax cut is not possible without a cut in spending. I wholeheartedly agree. But you really see anyone cutting spending? Ha Ha! So by your own logic, a tax cut is not possible in the current political climate.

Also, the only reason the government does not create wealth is because we do not allow it to. If the government started to make money, private enterprise would be in a furor. This is a good thing. But look at the Permanent Fund in Alaska. Wealth created from the sale of oil, all coming though the state government.

[Salsadancer7]

Uh oh....now you did it....you just brought "the greatest president EVER" in a negative light....:05:

[HDRoberts]

Uh oh....now you did it....you just brought "the greatest president EVER" in a negative light....:05:

I think history will show him one of the worst. He is the one that started the out-of-control deficit spending.

If you ask me, Teddy Roosevelt was the best president.

[HD MM]

I think history will show him one of the worst. He is the one that started the out-of-control deficit spending.


One of?! Quite possibly, THE worst. ;)

[msmith198025]

I do not think he was the greatest by any stretch of the imagination, but I also do not think he was the worst. Middle ground is where I would peg him now, but I will give history time to make its decision

I do think he had some pretty unique circumstances to deal with where any choice he makes is damned if you do, damned if you dont, and I am glad we did not have Gore (or Kerry) in power to make those decisions.

[HDRoberts]

You do know I was speaking about Reagan, not Bush, right? Post #82 does not even refer to Bush.

[msmith198025]

You do know I was speaking about Reagan, not Bush, right? Post #82 does not even refer to Bush.

Bah, I swear my brain is mush the past couple of days. Babysitting today.
I am actually ready to go back to work....sad...lol

So ignore the crazy mans previous post:stupid:

[HD MM]

You do know I was speaking about Reagan, not Bush, right? Post #82 does not even refer to Bush.

Woops. My bad. Freudian slip I guess. :)

I thought you were talking about Dubbya also.

[msmith198025]

Woops. My bad. Freudian slip I guess. :)

I thought you were talking about Dubbya also.

Well then I of course was replying to YOUR post....lol;)

[froggigger]

You largely make my point. Reagan took office in Jan 1981. He quickly passes the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. What happens on this news in 1982? Another recession. You no how everyone has been saying things are the worst in 26 years. Guess what? That was 1982, 2 years into the Reagan presidency.

Oct.1981 - Sep.1982 was Reagan's first budget year. He had been in office less than 2 years. The year 1982 was not "another" recession. It was a continuation of the recession Reagan had inherited. Deficits as a percentage of GNP (a little different from GDP which is used now) were dropping during Reagan's second term. Don't be fooled by the media's games. They usually reference the dollar amount of the deficit when a Republican is in office but use the more accurate indicator, % of GDP, for a Democrat.


While there was economic recovery, the cause of that recovery is debatable. Like Obama, Reagan was a huge spender. Even though tax receipts doubled from 1980 to 1990, the federal deficit tripled from $900B to $2.8T. How do we know the recovery was not due to that increase in spending?

The 1980 federal deficit, under a Carter budget, was 73.8 billion at 2.7% of GDP. Reagan's last budget year, 1989, the deficit was $152.6 billion at 2.8% of GDP. Total GDP in 1980 was $2726.7 billion, $5400.5 billion in 1989. Outlays (spending) in 1980 were $590.9 billion and were $1143.8 billion in 1989. What this all means is that the economy grew substantially from 1980 until 1989 but government spending, while much higher in 1989, changed little as a percentage of GDP. Government effectively took, and spent, the same percentage of money from the economy. That's how we know the spending wasn't responsible for the recovery. Besides, Congress was raising holy hell about the deficits---the dollar amounts, of course. If their spending was stimulating the economy, they would have been fighting to spend more and not complaining about deficits. Kind of like now, except now they only hope it will stimulate the economy.


The fact is conservatives on this board have contended that tax cuts are best and only way to get out of a recession, saying history has proved that point. Yet you can point to no examples of this, so history does not, in fact, support this view.

In fact you say a real tax cut is not possible without a cut in spending. I wholeheartedly agree. But you really see anyone cutting spending? Ha Ha! So by your own logic, a tax cut is not possible in the current political climate.

Looking at the economy as a whole, a tax cut is not possible without corresponding spending cuts. That's because government never spends less from year to year. A tax cut for one economic sector means higher taxes for another sector(s) to make up the difference. IIRC, government only derives half its revenue from personal income taxes. There are a lot of places for government to increase taxes so they suffer no loss to the bottom line. At the basic level, a tax cut for wage earners is very real. They have more take-home pay meaning they have more to spend and save. This spurs economic growth even though the bigger picture shows no real tax cut.


Also, the only reason the government does not create wealth is because we do not allow it to. If the government started to make money, private enterprise would be in a furor. This is a good thing. But look at the Permanent Fund in Alaska. Wealth created from the sale of oil, all coming though the state government.

Government is a wealth consumer, not a wealth generator. Alaska is not creating wealth. It is redistributing wealth.
If the government started to create wealth, the private sector would not be in a furor. It would be in the Twilight Zone.

[Bear Paws]

Government is a wealth consumer, not a wealth generator. Alaska is not creating wealth. It is redistributing wealth.
If the government started to create wealth, the private sector would not be in a furor. It would be in the Twilight Zone. :mouse-28493: You tired yet??

[Derwin0]

You do know I was speaking about Reagan, not Bush, right? Post #82 does not even refer to Bush.
Actually I first thought of FDR when spending deficit was brought up.
Large deficits make me think of FDR, LBJ, Reagan, GWB, Obama. Them and the Congresses that served with them, because I'm sure we all know that budgets come from the House.

[HDRoberts]

Oct.1981 - Sep.1982 was Reagan's first budget year. He had been in office less than 2 years. The year 1982 was not "another" recession. It was a continuation of the recession Reagan had inherited. Deficits as a percentage of GNP (a little different from GDP which is used now) were dropping during Reagan's second term. Don't be fooled by the media's games. They usually reference the dollar amount of the deficit when a Republican is in office but use the more accurate indicator, % of GDP, for a Democrat.



The 1980 federal deficit, under a Carter budget, was 73.8 billion at 2.7% of GDP. Reagan's last budget year, 1989, the deficit was $152.6 billion at 2.8% of GDP. Total GDP in 1980 was $2726.7 billion, $5400.5 billion in 1989. Outlays (spending) in 1980 were $590.9 billion and were $1143.8 billion in 1989. What this all means is that the economy grew substantially from 1980 until 1989 but government spending, while much higher in 1989, changed little as a percentage of GDP. Government effectively took, and spent, the same percentage of money from the economy. That's how we know the spending wasn't responsible for the recovery. Besides, Congress was raising holy hell about the deficits---the dollar amounts, of course. If their spending was stimulating the economy, they would have been fighting to spend more and not complaining about deficits. Kind of like now, except now they only hope it will stimulate the economy.

I have no idea where you are pulling your numbers. Here is what I have:

1978 (Carter's first budget year): Debt: $776B, GDP: $2,217B, percentage: 35.0%
1981 (Carter's last budget year): Debt: $994B, GDP: $3,055B percentage: 32.5%
1982 (Reagan's first budget year): Debt: $1,137B, GDP: $3,228B, percentage: 35.2%
1989 (Reagan's last budget year): Debt: $2,867B, GDP: $5,401B, percentage: 53.1%

Here is a chart. I think slightly different numbers were used (maybe inflation adjusted) but it shows the same thing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/450px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png



Looking at the economy as a whole, a tax cut is not possible without corresponding spending cuts. That's because government never spends less from year to year. A tax cut for one economic sector means higher taxes for another sector(s) to make up the difference. IIRC, government only derives half its revenue from personal income taxes. There are a lot of places for government to increase taxes so they suffer no loss to the bottom line. At the basic level, a tax cut for wage earners is very real. They have more take-home pay meaning they have more to spend and save. This spurs economic growth even though the bigger picture shows no real tax cut.

So on whom do you suggest we raise taxes to pay for a tax cut for "wage earners"?


Government is a wealth consumer, not a wealth generator. Alaska is not creating wealth. It is redistributing wealth.
If the government started to create wealth, the private sector would not be in a furor. It would be in the Twilight Zone.

I'm not sure how you define "wealth." If it is my favorite definition "property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value", the oil flowing from the North slope is certainly wealth. As is many of the commercially viable inventions bought to us by NASA.

[HDRoberts]

Actually I first thought of FDR when spending deficit was brought up.
Large deficits make me think of FDR, LBJ, Reagan, GWB, Obama. Them and the Congresses that served with them, because I'm sure we all know that budgets come from the House.

That's true. But the president normally submits a budget and signs it.

Let's look at the time period from FDR through Reagan. During that time, the house was controlled by Republicans for only 4 years. Yet it is not until Reagan (and Reaganomics) that deficit spending suddenly started to go way up.

[froggigger]

:mouse-28493: You tired yet??

Not even close. :lol-047:

[froggigger]

I have no idea where you are pulling your numbers. Here is what I have:

1978 (Carter's first budget year): Debt: $776B, GDP: $2,217B, percentage: 35.0%
1981 (Carter's last budget year): Debt: $994B, GDP: $3,055B percentage: 32.5%
1982 (Reagan's first budget year): Debt: $1,137B, GDP: $3,228B, percentage: 35.2%
1989 (Reagan's last budget year): Debt: $2,867B, GDP: $5,401B, percentage: 53.1%

Here is a chart. I think slightly different numbers were used (maybe inflation adjusted) but it shows the same thing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/450px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png

I personally wouldn't use Wiki as a source unless I had verified it elsewhere. However, in this case, the numbers seem to be in the ballpark if the chart is total running debt. Debt as a percentage of GDP is not the same as the yearly deficit as a percentage of GDP. You'll notice on your chart that debt began to rise in the mid-1970's when mandatory spending was beginning to really kick in. That's one big reason the debt has continued to grow year after year. Yes, that includes the later Clinton years where the debt seemed to drop on the chart but it was actually another government smoke and mirror game. There was no real Clinton surplus but that's :offtopic-929432: The link to my source is http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php


So on whom do you suggest we raise taxes to pay for a tax cut for "wage earners"?

I guess I can't blame you for asking that question. After all, politicians use the same rhetoric. We hear them say "We can't afford a tax cut" or "We can't cut taxes because it is an expenditure we can't afford" or, as you said, how do we "pay for a tax cut". I have heard politicians say these things with a straight face, but the entire premise is utterly absurd.

For it to be true, politicians would have to believe all wealth belongs to the government. It makes no difference where the wealth comes from, ie. income, investments, etc. Indeed, government thinks this way. Whatever they don't take from you, or IOW what they let you keep, they consider an expenditure. Never mind you're the one who earned the money. Government thinks its spending is more important than your spending so whenever they "need" more, they take more. Of course, in their mind, they are just keeping more of their own money. A tax cut does not need to be "paid" for. They just say that because they have no intention of spending any less of our money than before. The only way to realistically "pay" for a tax cut is for government to spend less. Don't hold your breath.

Remember this one thing. When you keep your own money, it’s called criminal tax evasion. When others are allowed to own your money, they call it an entitlement.


I'm not sure how you define "wealth." If it is my favorite definition "property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value", the oil flowing from the North slope is certainly wealth. As is many of the commercially viable inventions bought to us by NASA.

The definition of wealth is irrelevant. However you define it, government is a consumer, not a generator. North Slope Oil creates wealth and government takes part of it. Consumer. All the inventions brought to us by NASA were funded by taxpayer money. Consumer. Government spending takes away from private spending and private spending is where wealth is created. As I said before, if the government could generate wealth, there would be no need to tax us.