What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[RightField]

No, by your logic these tactics are judged by whether or not there was a recession or a recovery. The Bush tax cuts wholly failed to prevent the recession and according to you there's no recovery. All of these things happened despite the Bush tax cut policy.

Therefore, using your very own ten-cent logic, the Bush Tax cuts failed.

Your "nuancing" might work for John Kerry, but very few others. Your logic circles are silly junior high school games.

Like I said, the answer is simple. Obama's approaches are bad for the country. The new administration will be much better.

George Bush sends his regards and asks "Miss me yet?"

 

[richard_daily]

You were against the Bush tax cuts, MORON.

bush cut taxes for the wealth... Obama cut payroll taxes for people who work... so obviously you weren't affected.

 

[mercury14]

Your "nuancing" might work for John Kerry, but very few others. Your logic circles are silly junior high school games.

Like I said, the answer is simple. Obama's approaches are bad for the country. The new administration will be much better.

George Bush sends his regards and asks "Miss me yet?"

I called you on your bullshit logic. Somehow the Bush tax cuts are judged on what happened in 2003. But they're in effect today. Judge them if you want, but do it in the context of what happened during the entire time they're in place.

Call time-limited tax cuts "gimmicks" if you want. But then you have to do that for all time limited cuts.

You refuse to do this though. Instead your double standards and flip-flopping have been exposed once again.

 

[mercury14]

bush cut taxes for the wealth... Obama cut payroll taxes for people who work... so obviously you weren't affected.

Conservatives who insist that Obama didn't cut taxes are either too stupid to look at their own pay stub, or they're unemployed.

 

[RightField]

I called you on your bullshit logic. Somehow the Bush tax cuts are judged on what happened in 2003. But they're in effect today. Judge them if you want, but do it in the context of what happened during the entire time they're in place.

Call time-limited tax cuts "gimmicks" if you want. But then you have to do that for all time limited cuts.

You refuse to do this though. Instead your double standards and flip-flopping have been exposed once again.

You just can't comprehend the difference and you're not smart enough for me to bother explaining it to you yet again.

 

[koalabear]

bush cut taxes for the wealth... Obama cut payroll taxes for people who work... so obviously you weren't affected.

Still trolling for dates, lil stud Chihuahua.

 

[mercury14]

You just can't comprehend the difference and you're not smart enough for me to bother explaining it to you yet again.

You have nothing to explain. You hold a small, recent payroll tax cut to the same standard as the Bush tax cuts....... And then you turn around and hold them up to a different standard when it suits you.

Your logic is terrible and you have absolutely no analytical skills. You actually go out of your way to compare apples and oranges whenever you want to spin data to back your point and then when your logic is questioned you flip-flop back to a varying set of standards.

The Bush tax cuts cannot be judged by what occurs while they're in place EXCEPT for a small segment of their tenure that YOU decide upon. That segment of time is in the past and you're going to fence out anything negative that occurred while they were in place, cherry picking your ass off in order to make them look impossibly good.

Your posts are comedy. And straight out of the extremist blogosphere spin factory.

 

[koalabear]

WASHINGTON (AP) — First, do no harm. Economists say the most important part of the jobs plan President Barack Obama will unveil Thursday night is the renewal of two measures already in place — a cut in Social Security taxes and emergency aid for the unemployed.

His new proposals, like spending more for transportation projects and cutting taxes for companies that hire the unemployed, probably wouldn't add many jobs, they say. Not soon, anyway.

"These are not bold, new, big programs," says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist with IHS Global Insight. "You put everything together, it's going to be pretty small."

 

[mercury14]

You just can't comprehend the difference and you're not smart enough for me to bother explaining it to you yet again.

You have nothing to explain. You hold a small, recent payroll tax cut to the same standard as the Bush tax cuts - and then hold them up to a different standard when it suits you.

Your logic is terrible and you have absolutely no analytical skills. You actually go out of your way to compare apples and oranges whenever you want to spin data to back your point and then when your logic is questioned you flip-flop back to a varying set of standards.

The Bush tax cuts cannot be judged by what occurs while they're in place EXCEPT for a small segment of time that you decide upon. That segment of time is in the past and you're going to fence out anything negative that occurred while they were in place, cherry picking your ass off in order to make them look impossibly good.

Your posts are comedy. And straight out of the extremist blogosphere spin factory. I can literally find 99% of what you say in the extremist shot-o-sphere with a quick Google search.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

WASHINGTON (AP) — First, do no harm. Economists say the most important part of the jobs plan President Barack Obama will unveil Thursday night is the renewal of two measures already in place — a cut in Social Security taxes and emergency aid for the unemployed.

His new proposals, like spending more for transportation projects and cutting taxes for companies that hire the unemployed, probably wouldn't add many jobs, they say. Not soon, anyway.

"These are not bold, new, big programs," says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist with IHS Global Insight. "You put everything together, it's going to be pretty small."

Republicans will oppose him anyway in an effort to make sure America fails under his watch. Party before country, always.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Obama will take care of himself, he's going to fail without any help form the Republicans. The man is incompetent.

Who caused the S&P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating?

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Senate Democrats, who failed to vote for Cut Cap & Balance, had they done so, the downgrade wouldn't have occurred.

BZZZT! Wrong.

It was the fact that there was a debate on raising the debt ceiling and the fact that it wasn't raised until 12 hours before it was broken. So says the S&P as they very first reason they listed for the downgrade.

 

[richard_daily]

Senate Democrats, who failed to vote for Cut Cap & Balance, had they done so, the downgrade wouldn't have occurred.

Funny, that's not what Standard & Poors said in their report... They lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Republicans. You know, the party of "personal responsibility".

 

[RightField]

You have nothing to explain. You hold a small, recent payroll tax cut to the same standard as the Bush tax cuts - and then hold them up to a different standard when it suits you.

Your logic is terrible and you have absolutely no analytical skills. You actually go out of your way to compare apples and oranges whenever you want to spin data to back your point and then when your logic is questioned you flip-flop back to a varying set of standards.

The Bush tax cuts cannot be judged by what occurs while they're in place EXCEPT for a small segment of time that you decide upon. That segment of time is in the past and you're going to fence out anything negative that occurred while they were in place, cherry picking your ass off in order to make them look impossibly good.

Your posts are comedy. And straight out of the extremist blogosphere spin factory. I can literally find 99% of what you say in the extremist shot-o-sphere with a quick Google search.

I'm trying to compare economic approaches between Democrats and Republicans. What are you talking about (other than name calling)?

lol...You're going to try to tell me that long term large marginal tax rate reductions (they only got 10 years commitment from the tax-and-spend dems so they couldn't make them permanent) are the same as trifiling 2 year temporary payroll tax reductions?

Again, the bottom line is in the results. When we use democrat policies we get real-estate crashes that crush our economy and long term high unemployment (and inflation soon wouldn't surprise me). When we use Republican policies we get results like we had with Bush, 4.6% unemployment levels with democrats complaining that it isn't good enough. They seem uncharactoristically quiet about 9%+ unemployment that they created when they had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Democrats can't lead, vote them out.

What's even worse is that the payroll tax is supposed to pay for a specific set of programs that are underfunded even when there's no "temporary" 2 year reduction on them. It's like giving a holiday for a year or two on social security payments while the social security program is in the red. It's destroying the foundation of the program so that it can be decoupled from it's original purpose and if it's decoupled, then in the future the dems can raise the output (spending) without raising the input (payroll taxes) putting more pressure on our general fund.

The other factor is the effect on the economy. The temporary reduction in the payroll tax is clearly a demand-side incentive (that doesn't work). There's an article a few pages back that explains the difference between demand-side and supply-side incentives and explains why demand side doesn't work, it's another concept you don't seem to be able to grasp, but it's an important one, it's the difference between Jimmy Carter's approach and Ronald Reagan's approach. I thought that the difference between the two approaches was so well illustrated between those two that we'd never see another Jimmy Carter type Presidency again, but we got Obama with the same old-tired democratic dogma tied up in a nice ribbon and bow called "Hope and Change" which turns out to have given us another Jimmy Carter economic hangover. We won't be sucking that old hair-o-the-dog again for a long while.

It's like Nancy Pelosi saying that all government spending is the same. The dems seem to be of the opinion that paying one group of people to dig holes and another to fill them in is "stimulative". It is not. In order for an investment to be "stimulative" is has to create something useful or valuable. A new bridge to a congested city like Boston might be valuable by easing traffic and reducing time wasted on the highway while a multi-billion high speed rail between Chicago and Milwaukee that no one will ride without massive ongoing subsidies is wasteful and inefficient and no better than digging holes and filling them in. Yet, Obama pushes for the high-speed rail project because the laws are structured for the project to be built using union labor that has given him millions in campaign donations. Another example is the solar panel company that was a sinking business but one of Obama's campaign bundlers had a big investment in it and he prevailed upon Obama and the White House to sink another $500M of tax payer money into it. This is what you get with Democrat administrations, wasteful spending. I say reduce taxes and reduce spending and let the people who make the money keep it (get spending down to 18-19% of our GDP, use it in the private sector and keep it out of the manipulated free-spending hands of the crusading crony democrats.

At least in the private sector, "investments" get closely scrutinized for value (return on investment) and is far less likely to be wasted on political initiatives like the failed solar panel company Solyndra (no investor would touch it, but a friend of Obama convinced him it was a good "investment" and Obama even praised them in a speech).

Go ahead, you have no sanguine points, all you seem to be able to do is call me names and draw silly parallels.

 

[RightField]

The Bush tax cuts cannot be judged by what occurs while they're in place EXCEPT for a small segment of time that you decide upon. That segment of time is in the past and you're going to fence out anything negative that occurred while they were in place, cherry picking your ass off in order to make them look impossibly good.
.

lol...so, in order for us to really appreciate the genious of the democrat approaches, we have to ignore results? That explains a lot. Shall we base our analysis on good intentions instead?

 

[mercury14]

lol...You're going to try to tell me that long term large marginal tax rate reductions (they only got 10 years commitment from the tax-and-spend dems so they couldn't make them permanent) are the same as trifiling 2 year temporary payroll tax reductions?

No I didn't say that at all. Nice multi-paragraph diatribe based on things nobody ever said though. 'Gratz....

 

[mercury14]

lol...so, in order for us to really appreciate the genious of the democrat approaches, we have to ignore results? That explains a lot. Shall we base our analysis on good intentions instead?

Nope, I just called you out for your bullshit where you took the period of time the Bush cuts have been in place, removed all of the the undesirable years, and then called the cherry-picked remnants sound analysis.

It's just more of your rampantly disingenuous crap that you should be ashamed of. Really, your "analysis" is almost always fake, lying spin that you get called on repeatedly. Not only that but you eschew professional, nonpartisan economic analysis in favor of your tabloids. You're a joke. Until you get out of your rabidly partisan blogosphere you'll never be taken seriously by anyone other than other lying extremists.

 

[mercury14]

The other factor is the effect on the economy. The temporary reduction in the payroll tax is clearly a demand-side incentive (that doesn't work). There's an article a few pages back that explains the difference between demand-side and supply-side incentives and explains why demand side doesn't work, it's another concept you don't seem to be able to grasp, but it's an important one, it's the difference between Jimmy Carter's approach and Ronald Reagan's approach. I thought that the difference between the two approaches was so well illustrated between those two that we'd never see another Jimmy Carter type Presidency again, but we got Obama with the same old-tired democratic dogma tied up in a nice ribbon and bow called "Hope and Change" which turns out to have given us another Jimmy Carter economic hangover. We won't be sucking that old hair-o-the-dog again for a long while.

It's like Nancy Pelosi saying that all government spending is the same. The dems seem to be of the opinion that paying one group of people to dig holes and another to fill them in is "stimulative". It is not. In order for an investment to be "stimulative" is has to create something useful or valuable. A new bridge to a congested city like Boston might be valuable by easing traffic and reducing time wasted on the highway while a multi-billion high speed rail between Chicago and Milwaukee that no one will ride without massive ongoing subsidies is wasteful and inefficient and no better than digging holes and filling them in.

It depends.

If you're taxing middle and lower class people who spend almost 100% of what they make, yes it's like trying to fill a pool by taking water out of the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end.

If you tax wealthy people who were going to save it or invest in foreign companies, then yes it actually is stimulative for the government to pay people to do jumping jacks all day. Because what's happening is that money that's sitting around stagnant or actually leaving the national economy is being converted into salaries for people who then convert it into pure demand for goods in the local economy.

Of course I'd never advocate for a Department of Jumping Jacks. Give the funding to teachers, social workers who protect kids, county hospital staff, VA professionals to treat our wounded warriors, the military, etc. All these government programs create a ton of value.

You're thinking too concretely again though. A "thing" doesn't have to be created for spending to be stimulative. A county can expand its substance abuse treatment program by hiring a new team of professionals. Or government can fund research into prostheic limb replacement for wounded vets, or to develop Alzheimer's drugs. Those things all create value.

 

[eyer]

Of course it's partisan..... WTF...Does that mean you're in Obama's camp?

Not in this lifetime...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Conservatives who insist that Obama didn't cut taxes are either too stupid to look at their own pay stub, or they're unemployed.

Speaking of gimmicks and twisted logic...

Without that tax cut most of us would have simply had larger returns.



And if the Bush tax cuts were that destructive to the economy, Obama would not have come out in favor of extending them as to not hurt his *giggle* recovery...

If this is an example of the thinking of your independent financial reporting, then I'm glad I'm not a degenerate stock gambler to; you make the ponies and the dogs seem like safer bets; I know, to paraphrase Obama, we shouldn't call your bluff...

What's the new phrase being floated, "recoveryless recovery?"
__________________
If you ask me, I think what we're experiencing isn't in fact closer to a "growthless" recovery than to a jobless one. Because GDP started to grow more than a year and a half ago, but with the exception of just a couple of quarters, growth has not been noticeably above its trend rate of about 2-1/2 percent a year. I don't rejoice at the news that we added 216,000 jobs in March. About a hundred thousand of that 216,000 is needed every month just to keep up with the growth in the labor force. At this rate of job growth, it would take most of the decade to replace the eight 8-1/2 million jobs that were lost in the recession.
Christina Romer
Chairwoman of Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisors

"We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

No they didn't. You didn't read their report, and can't quote any passage that lays the blame on either party.

All the moderate, centrist, independent blogs they read said it was so.

We even quoted from the report earlier to impeach that point of view, but they feel that repetition of a lie is the key to success...
__________________
"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf