lawrocket 3 #26 August 6, 2012 Quotewe are going to let tax cuts expire, therefore raising revenues. And we are going to cut spending Picture a government that doesn't provide as many services as it did before because of spending cuts. Then picture a private market that does not offer the services it did before because of tax increases. Spending cuts and coupled wiht tax increases are a great way for a government to hamstring an economy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #27 August 6, 2012 Picture a private market that 15 years, ago which doing fine with higher taxes... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #28 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteI will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. If it were a psychological effect of Obama being elected, then the rate of job loss would not have begun decreasing once Obama was actually in office, but it did. The damage was already done. Think about it for a second. Obama says he is going to spread your wealth around. How will he do this? Things like employer mandates and Obama care. If you are a small business, you might be carrying one or two folks to buffer your business to make live easy for everyone, coverage during vacations and such. Now you have to look at each employee as a tool for Obama to spread your wealth. The rational thing to do is to let those marginal employees go. Once they are gone you are left with nothing but your bare bones operation. Thus the rate of job loss stabilizes. Notice how a trillion dollars of spending on "shovel ready” Have cofounded the models which suggested that if the stimulus bill was passed then unemployment would go no high than 8%. As far as inflation is concerned; the only reason it is not at double digits is because everyone is sitting on their cash, because of uncertainty, hardly a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #29 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. If it were a psychological effect of Obama being elected, then the rate of job loss would not have begun decreasing once Obama was actually in office, but it did. The damage was already done. Think about it for a second. Obama says he is going to spread your wealth around. How will he do this? Things like employer mandates and Obama care. If you are a small business, you might be carrying one or two folks to buffer your business to make live easy for everyone, coverage during vacations and such. Now you have to look at each employee as a tool for Obama to spread your wealth. The rational thing to do is to let those marginal employees go. Once they are gone you are left with nothing but your bare bones operation. Thus the rate of job loss stabilizes. Notice how a trillion dollars of spending on "shovel ready” Have cofounded the models which suggested that if the stimulus bill was passed then unemployment would go no high than 8%. As far as inflation is concerned; the only reason it is not at double digits is because everyone is sitting on their cash, because of uncertainty, hardly a good thing. Yeah, must be why the stock market indices took a nosedive under Bush and is nearly doubled under Obama. Those investors just hate Obama. That's the ticket.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #30 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. If it were a psychological effect of Obama being elected, then the rate of job loss would not have begun decreasing once Obama was actually in office, but it did. The damage was already done. Think about it for a second. Obama says he is going to spread your wealth around. How will he do this? Things like employer mandates and Obama care. If you are a small business, you might be carrying one or two folks to buffer your business to make live easy for everyone, coverage during vacations and such. Now you have to look at each employee as a tool for Obama to spread your wealth. The rational thing to do is to let those marginal employees go. Once they are gone you are left with nothing but your bare bones operation. Thus the rate of job loss stabilizes. Notice how a trillion dollars of spending on "shovel ready” Have cofounded the models which suggested that if the stimulus bill was passed then unemployment would go no high than 8%. As far as inflation is concerned; the only reason it is not at double digits is because everyone is sitting on their cash, because of uncertainty, hardly a good thing. Yeah, must be why the stock market indices took a nosedive under Bush and is nearly doubled under Obama. Those investors just hate Obama. That's the ticket. Yep nosedived when it was apparent that he would be president and is taking off once again now that it is apparent that he will not be reelected Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. If it were a psychological effect of Obama being elected, then the rate of job loss would not have begun decreasing once Obama was actually in office, but it did. The damage was already done. Think about it for a second. Obama says he is going to spread your wealth around. How will he do this? Things like employer mandates and Obama care. If you are a small business, you might be carrying one or two folks to buffer your business to make live easy for everyone, coverage during vacations and such. Now you have to look at each employee as a tool for Obama to spread your wealth. The rational thing to do is to let those marginal employees go. Once they are gone you are left with nothing but your bare bones operation. Thus the rate of job loss stabilizes. Notice how a trillion dollars of spending on "shovel ready” Have cofounded the models which suggested that if the stimulus bill was passed then unemployment would go no high than 8%. As far as inflation is concerned; the only reason it is not at double digits is because everyone is sitting on their cash, because of uncertainty, hardly a good thing. Your rationalizations are nothing short of foolish. The data do not support your assertions.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 August 6, 2012 Quote Yep nosedived when it was apparent that he would be president and is taking off once again now that it is apparent that he will not be reelected Bent - at least come up with fantasies that can be remotely supported with evidence. This is Flat Earth Society stupid, here. The bulk of the stock market recovery occurred over an 18 month span in 2009 and 2010, long before election prospects were set. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #33 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. If it were a psychological effect of Obama being elected, then the rate of job loss would not have begun decreasing once Obama was actually in office, but it did. The damage was already done. Think about it for a second. Obama says he is going to spread your wealth around. How will he do this? Things like employer mandates and Obama care. If you are a small business, you might be carrying one or two folks to buffer your business to make live easy for everyone, coverage during vacations and such. Now you have to look at each employee as a tool for Obama to spread your wealth. The rational thing to do is to let those marginal employees go. Once they are gone you are left with nothing but your bare bones operation. Thus the rate of job loss stabilizes. Notice how a trillion dollars of spending on "shovel ready” Have cofounded the models which suggested that if the stimulus bill was passed then unemployment would go no high than 8%. As far as inflation is concerned; the only reason it is not at double digits is because everyone is sitting on their cash, because of uncertainty, hardly a good thing. Yeah, must be why the stock market indices took a nosedive under Bush and is nearly doubled under Obama. Those investors just hate Obama. That's the ticket. Yep nosedived when it was apparent that he would be president and is taking off once again now that it is apparent that he will not be reelected I guess I should have [url "http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4352312;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread"] included the willfully ignorant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #34 August 6, 2012 >Yep nosedived when it was apparent that he would be president and is taking off >once again now that it is apparent that he will not be reelected Interesting to see the fantasies of conservatives. Obama will grab all the guns, the economy will tank due to Obama's bungling and only a brave republican will save it, someday soon everyone will realize that Limbaugh has been right all along, Obama will admit he's from Burkina Faso etc etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaitken 0 #35 August 6, 2012 QuoteWhat policies were those, exactly? The policies that provided the foundation for this crisis predate both Obama and W. You've got to go back to at least the mid-90s, if not much earlier. In particular, the concept of securitization set the stage for much of the mess we're in because it allowed investment banks to turn garbage into gold, literally. You can debate whether it was W or Obama that has made the bigger mess since then, but the truth is that BOTH of them were handed a shit sandwich to start with. To my knowledge, Brooksley Born was the first public official who raised the issue of OTC derivatives (in particular, swaps and hybrid instruments) with the CFTC "concept release" in 1998. However, any talk of regulation was vehemently opposed by Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers. As a result of their inaction, I think it's fair to assign a significant amount of blame to the Clinton administration. But it's not like they created the mess to begin with. Greenspan was initially appointed by Reagan in 1987, after all, long before Slick Willie entered the picture, and the Wall Street whiz kids were cooking up complex synthetic financial instruments even earlier. If you ask me, though, the real blame lies with JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, et. al. America made a deal with the devil in 1910, even if almost no one had any idea what had happened. And until someone figures out how to run a central bank without a hopelessly corrupt central banking cabal to go along with it, we're going to continue to pay the price. We will eventually recover from this crisis, but there WILL be another one, and regardless of the trigger (student loan debt? commercial real estate?) it will probably be even worse than the last one. Bernanke won't make the same mistakes that Greenspan did, he's too busy making new ones! And we haven't learned the lessons from the last one, obviously: there's still a complete lack of accountability, a still-growing derivatives timebomb, widespread corruption & fraud, etc."If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 August 7, 2012 QuotePicture a private market that 15 years, ago which doing fine with higher taxes... And that twelve years ago was not. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #37 August 7, 2012 QuoteQuotePicture a private market that 15 years, ago which doing fine with higher taxes... And that twelve years ago was not. It was doing far better in 2000 than in 2008 after the Bush tax cuts. Deficit was minimal to non-existent too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 August 7, 2012 Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #39 August 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotePicture a private market that 15 years, ago which doing fine with higher taxes... And that twelve years ago was not. It was doing far better in 2000 than in 2008 after the Bush tax cuts. Deficit was minimal to non-existent too. Taxes are one issue; bringing Truth, Justice and the American Way to remote parts of the world did not help our balance sheet, either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #40 August 7, 2012 Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 August 7, 2012 Quote Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s? How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #42 August 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s? How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? Same under Carter as under Nixon and Ford, and less than under Eisenhower. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #43 August 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s? How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? Same under Carter as under Nixon and Ford, and less than under Eisenhower. Well, there you go. Unless you are now going to claim Bush tax cuts were in effect back then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #44 August 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s? How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? Same under Carter as under Nixon and Ford, and less than under Eisenhower. Thanks for buttressing my argument; that it is phycology rather than policy that makes the difference. If the country feels confident about the future than it hardly matters what the policies are. Of course the inverse is true as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #45 August 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s? How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? Same under Carter as under Nixon and Ford, and less than under Eisenhower. Thanks for buttressing my argument; that it is phycology rather than policy that makes the difference. If the country feels confident about the future than it hardly matters what the policies are. Of course the inverse is true as well. Too bad data do not support your assertion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 August 7, 2012 Quote How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? oil and the lingering effects of another ill advised war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #47 August 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Right, it's all because of those damned Bush tax cuts. I don't even think you believe that. But then again, maybe you do. If you believe higher taxes on the wealthy will ruin the economy, how do you explain the late 1990s? How do you explain the economy under Carter when taxes were much higher? Same under Carter as under Nixon and Ford, and less than under Eisenhower. Well, there you go. Unless you are now going to claim Bush tax cuts were in effect back then. Thank you for admitting that the economy can prosper when tax rates on the rich are high. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 August 8, 2012 Glad you finally realized an admit the Bush tax cuts aren't the root of all that is wrong. Cool!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #49 August 8, 2012 QuoteGlad you finally realized an admit the Bush tax cuts aren't the root of all that is wrong. Cool!! Big contribution to the deficit. We didn't have a deficit 12 years ago when tax rates were higher. And the real "job creators" were making more jobs than they are now. Of course, salting your money away in Switzerland or the Caymans doesn't help create many jobs in the USA. Just having a lot of money doesn't automatically make you a job creator - you could be like Mitt instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 August 8, 2012 Ah, yes. I remember it well. The Republican Congress dragging Bill Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget. So since taxes were very high during bad economic times, it's clear lower taxes don't cause economies to tank. Surely you don't believe giving politicians more money to piss away creates better economics? You don't believe that do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
