We may be in another recession already.

[Rohirrim]

Let's see: You set up a capitalist, consumer society. The point is for everybody to buy stuff to keep the whole thing rolling. Then, you take the majority of the wealth and give it to the smallest segment of that society by massively cutting their taxes. You discover that they don't spend much. They prefer to hide the wealth offshore and figure out new ways to dodge old taxes. They prefer sitting on the sidelines (on their bags of money) where it's nice and safe. Then, you discover that you need to tax the hell out of the rest of the people in order to keep the government ball rolling (you've still got unfunded wars, the wreckage from a bankster ponzi scheme, and whatnot you have to pay for), but you find out that when you do that, the largest segment of the society (you know, the ones you are relying on to spend in order to keep the economy going) stop spending what little they have. Then, the ones with all the wealth say that they would love to help, but they're not going to put their money back into the economy until things get better. Call them the "Have your cake and eat it too" crowd. The majority say they're not going to spend because they don't have anything to spend. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise because the people who are trying to make stuff and sell it, aren't making enough to stay in business. So they start cutting jobs in order to trim their costs and charging more for their products.

Meanwhile, the ideologues on the Right decide that what is needed now is austerity. The government debt they haven't worried about for thirty years, well, they're suddenly worried about it now. And they decide that now is the time for the largest employer in the country, the government, to start cutting jobs. They decide that now, when the need is greatest, it's time for the biggest cuts. When they were riding high, in charge of government, slashing taxes and regulations during the boom times, not one of them mentioned, "Hey? Wouldn't this be a good time to start reducing government debt?" Hell no. They were in the lead in the spending frenzy. Hell, they were driving the government spending bandwagon. Their hero, George Bush, was spending like a drunken sailor. Of course, if you listen to them, they're not responsible for anything. It's all the other guy's fault. Remarkable, ain't it?

Oh, and all that money offshore? They say the best solution for that is to give the rich more tax breaks and THEN they'll bring the money back.

See why I keep going back to Mad Hatter's Tea Party meme?

[baja]

Do you get the feeling some entity is trying to destroy the financial system?

If so who and why?

[TonyR]

^ No, no, no, Roh. You have it all wrong. It's all the government's fault! And the poor people!

[BroncoBeavis]

Sad fact of the matter is that deindustrialization has much more to do with the decline of the middle class than tax policy.

You're mistaking the symptom for the disease. You can't preserve the greatest economy on earth by replacing plant workers with professional consumers.

The upper (ownership) class isn't impacted so much because they can own production (or at least importation) whether it's here or someplace else. And the less competitive we get as a nation, the more incentive they have to make sure it goes someplace else.

To borrow from the (old) Ford model others here have cited. We need to focus our nation on production. The rest falls into place.

[Rohirrim]

What we need is a little protectionism. The job of our government is not to uphold the free market ideology of global capitalism, it's to provide for the "general welfare" of the American people. Time to rewrite some trade policy and if the rich want to hide their assets offshore, they can take themselves and their families offshore as well. Bring the jobs home. If that disrupts globalism, tough ****. All globalization has done anyway is turn the third world into one giant slave labor camp on one end and a bunch of billionaires on the other.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What we need is a little protectionism. The job of our government is not to uphold the free market ideology of global capitalism, it's to provide for the "general welfare" of the American people. Time to rewrite some trade policy and if the rich want to hide their assets offshore, they can take themselves and their families offshore as well. Bring the jobs home. If that disrupts globalism, tough ****. All globalization has done anyway is turn the third world into one giant slave labor camp on one end and a bunch of billionaires on the other.

I agree with protectionism so far as "slave labor" nations go. Free trade with China should've never been on the table. Unfortunately it's a little too late to put that cat back in the bag.

As for trade protections against other free nations... that's more counterproductive than anything.

[cutthemdown]

So when a Republican is president IE Bush sr and Bush JR the recessions we face are all their fault. But when a Democrat has one he gets a free ride blaming the guy before him?

Get a clue liberals Obamas policies are dragging this recession longer then it needs to be.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What we need is a little protectionism. The job of our government is not to uphold the free market ideology of global capitalism, it's to provide for the "general welfare" of the American people. Time to rewrite some trade policy and if the rich want to hide their assets offshore, they can take themselves and their families offshore as well. Bring the jobs home. If that disrupts globalism, tough ****. All globalization has done anyway is turn the third world into one giant slave labor camp on one end and a bunch of billionaires on the other.

Ok so you do that and then prices for those good go up. How does that help us? The they just slap a tarrif on something we export and so on and so on. You should be smarter then this.

[mhgaffney]

Just wait until the mandated cuts take hold. Instant economic depression.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Let's see: You set up a capitalist, consumer society. The point is for everybody to buy stuff to keep the whole thing rolling. Then, you take the majority of the wealth and give it to the smallest segment of that society by massively cutting their taxes. You discover that they don't spend much. They prefer to hide the wealth offshore and figure out new ways to dodge old taxes. They prefer sitting on the sidelines (on their bags of money) where it's nice and safe. Then, you discover that you need to tax the hell out of the rest of the people in order to keep the government ball rolling (you've still got unfunded wars, the wreckage from a bankster ponzi scheme, and whatnot you have to pay for), but you find out that when you do that, the largest segment of the society (you know, the ones you are relying on to spend in order to keep the economy going) stop spending what little they have. Then, the ones with all the wealth say that they would love to help, but they're not going to put their money back into the economy until things get better. Call them the "Have your cake and eat it too" crowd. The majority say they're not going to spend because they don't have anything to spend. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise because the people who are trying to make stuff and sell it, aren't making enough to stay in business. So they start cutting jobs in order to trim their costs and charging more for their products.

Meanwhile, the ideologues on the Right decide that what is needed now is austerity. The government debt they haven't worried about for thirty years, well, they're suddenly worried about it now. And they decide that now is the time for the largest employer in the country, the government, to start cutting jobs. They decide that now, when the need is greatest, it's time for the biggest cuts. When they were riding high, in charge of government, slashing taxes and regulations during the boom times, not one of them mentioned, "Hey? Wouldn't this be a good time to start reducing government debt?" Hell no. They were in the lead in the spending frenzy. Hell, they were driving the government spending bandwagon. Their hero, George Bush, was spending like a drunken sailor. Of course, if you listen to them, they're not responsible for anything. It's all the other guy's fault. Remarkable, ain't it?

Oh, and all that money offshore? They say the best solution for that is to give the rich more tax breaks and THEN they'll bring the money back.

See why I keep going back to Mad Hatter's Tea Party meme?

The debt problem is the cover story. The real story is that the dollar is being destroyed day by day.

So what do the financial elite do? They use their power to save themselves. They arrange for the fed to give them free money (bail out $ and Q-E-3 $).

They take some of the free money and short down the price of gold and silver. Then they use the rest of the free money to buy up as much gold and silver as they can.

When the dollar tanks -- the rich will be sitting pretty with piles of gold and silver.

It's a fail safe strategy -- if you happen to own a bank.

MHG

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Just wait until the mandated cuts take hold. Instant economic depression.

Wow. For someone so honed in on misinformation, you seem to have plenty.

[cutthemdown]

All the dire predictions on layoffs and mass service interuptions are BS. This is how you force them to tighten the belt. Provide same services for less money. This is the goal we all should want to see. I know our military can still kick ass with a few billion less here and there. They can trim the fat its just that it will be painful to do so. It's hard work but unless we force them they won't ever do it.

Hell liberals should be loving these mandatory cuts. Do you really need another tax raise so bad you would be willing to give up cutting the military. Something you have hammered on for yrs.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Get a clue liberals Obamas policies are dragging this recession longer then it needs to be.

Which ones, specifically?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Which ones, specifically?

Healthcare reform, hostile towards energy producers through the EPA, high taxes on the job creators, lack of corporate tax reform and a new territorial system, a failed stimulus giveaway mostly to his union masters, poor leadership in the world when it comes to Libya, Syria, Egypt. Now he wants to raise min wage which is also another horrid idea that would hurt our economy and force more low wage earners onto the govt rolls. His on and off again energy policy in the gulf of mexico where he stopped them from drilling, then sort of let them start again, then stopped them, then sort of lets some open. Just a mish mash of policy that lost jobs. More regulations at the FDA which lead to higher food prices. The tax on medical device makers which is the worst idea of the whole healthcare reform. His stocking of the NLRB with union cronies who then attacked jobs in right to work states. AND THEN THE BIGGIE RUNAWAY SPENDING!

[cutthemdown]

It's time for liberals to admit having EPA go after power producers it has ramped up emegry costs. Those costs are hurting big business, small business and the general public. The benefits of this attack by the EPA are dubious as they have no facts to show these new EPA rules will cool the earth.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Which ones, specifically?

too many for you to go over? not surprising because there are so many of them.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Healthcare reform, hostile towards energy producers through the EPA, high taxes on the job creators, lack of corporate tax reform and a new territorial system, a failed stimulus giveaway mostly to his union masters, poor leadership in the world when it comes to Libya, Syria, Egypt. Now he wants to raise min wage which is also another horrid idea that would hurt our economy and force more low wage earners onto the govt rolls. His on and off again energy policy in the gulf of mexico where he stopped them from drilling, then sort of let them start again, then stopped them, then sort of lets some open. Just a mish mash of policy that lost jobs. More regulations at the FDA which lead to higher food prices. The tax on medical device makers which is the worst idea of the whole healthcare reform. His stocking of the NLRB with union cronies who then attacked jobs in right to work states. AND THEN THE BIGGIE RUNAWAY SPENDING!

Where do you get this information, because it's not remotely correct.

The Long Run History of Taxes on the Rich

We know that taxes on the very rich are at a historic low right now, which will go even lower if Mitt Romney wins. But how low, exactly?

All the detailed studies I know of go back only to 1960. I’ve written about Piketty-Saez; the 2010 Economic Report of the President (pdf) also provided estimates, not taking into account corporate taxes:

All these estimates show that taxes on the rich are the lowest they have been in half a century. But what about before 1960? Well, we know that the top marginal tax rate was even higher in the 40s and 50s than in the 60s; and it was very high by modern standards through much of the 30s too.

So I think it’s safe to say that taxes on the rich are currently lower than they have been for not 50 but 80 years. And if Mitt Romney gets his way, we’ll bring those taxes down to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.

[DenverBrit]

Corporate Profits Soar To Record, Now More Than Double Their Peak Under Ronald Reagan

U.S. corporate profits have soared 71 percent, after taxes, under the crushing grip of Dear Leader Obama, Bloomberg writes. No other president since World War II, when America was also run by socialist monsters, has seen such a profit increase. Corporate profits are the highest share of GDP since at least 1947, when record-keeping began, if you can trust the government's records. "Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy," Bloomberg writes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2494743.html

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

too many for you to go over? not surprising because there are so many of them.

Actually, yes. I don't have time to give each the time and effort they deserve. But a general response is that most of your list is either biased, oversimplified, not really Obama's fault (or remotely his fault alone), open to interpretation, or subjective. And most are more than one of these things.

Take for example foreign policy. These issues are extremely complex and in most cases you don't know exactly what the administrations policy or long game is, and you don't know exactly what's actually going on. Add to this that many foreign policy experts are very positive about Obama's overall foreign policy, particularly in the wake of what happened in the previous administration.

[El Minion]

Dow closes at record high



The Dow Jones industrial average rallied to a new record high Tuesday.

The Dow climbed more than 125 points to close at a record high of 14,253.77, topping the prior record set in October 2007. Earlier, the blue chip index climbed to an intraday record of 14,286.37.

The S&P 500 added 15 points and finished at its highest level since October 2007 and is now only about 2% away from its record closing high.

"We're back to the highest levels in history, but we've got more things going for the economy and the market than we did last time," said Art Hogan, managing director at Lazard Capital.

Back in 2007, the economy was on the verge of winding down and heading into a tailspin, he said, whereas now it's continuing to improve, albeit slowly.

Continues

[ZONA]

I've never understood why any middle or poor income person would be a Republican, in these days that is. Trickle down economics? Forget for a second that it doesn't create jobs. Let's say for argument sake that it does create some jobs. You can look at any report and they will all be the same. The income level for 99% of workers in the US has pretty much been at a stand still. You can create a billion burger flipper jobs all you want, it's not going to make a bigger and stronger middle class. The Republican party leaders don't want to give an inch to the middle and the poor. Oh you want jobs, that's cool, we'll create some jobs for you. We'll slash your benefits and pay you like crap and we'll skim everything else so that we, the rich, are the one's who see big hikes in salary. I've got to hand it to them though, they've had a masterful plan. Make these people focus on war and God and they'll be thankful for any damn job we provide. Meanwhile, we'll suck them dry of all the wealth and we'll live like kings. Open your F'm eyes already.

[frerottenextelway]

Lol, Cutt must be devastated witht he Job numbers out today.

[cutthemdown]

Sory but the labor force contracted by 130 thousand workers They did add more jobs then expected but the drop in rate is only because less people are looking for work. They added jobs last quarter also and the economy still shrank. This thread is about economic growth more then how govt fudges unemployment numbers to never show they true amount of unemployed. Still some good news in construction where new jobs were added.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Sory but the labor force contracted by 130 thousand workers They did add more jobs then expected but the drop in rate is only because less people are looking for work. They added jobs last quarter also and the economy still shrank. This thread is about economic growth more then how govt fudges unemployment numbers to never show they true amount of unemployed. Still some good news in construction where new jobs were added.

Actually about .1% of the .2% drop (half, to the mathematically challenged) is a result of new jobs.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Actually about .1% of the .2% drop (half, to the mathematically challenged) is a result of new jobs.

right the growth is so slow you could almost call it stagnant. You trying to prop this up as robust growth is a joke.

unemployment should be about 5%. Our economy should grow at about 1-2 a yr minimum.