Jobless Rate Over 10%

[ming]

Originally Posted by spartanMF

I have not read every post. Are we blaming Ronald Reagan now? Has it come to this?

Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%

No he didn't. If you had read every post you would have seen the one that debunks "the promise"

[ming]

Originally Posted by STSM

Hmmmm How much tax revenue would the government collect if the income tax rate was 100%? (HINT: The answer is less than $0.01.)

For those who have an IQ that is higher than room temperature, unlike GRR Spartan, understand that a government deficit is based on two factors. Revenue collected from taxes and other assessments, and SPENDING.

So it is possible to cut taxes, have a record amount of revenue come into the government coffers, yet increase the deficit because morans in DC spend and spend and spend.

It is like the man who made the highest income ever in his career, but he is more in debt because his dingbat wife keeps spending at the mall and running up the charge cards.

Per GRR Spartan, if a pizza shop needed to increase revenue, than all it has to do is raise its price for pizza to $100 each.

Somehow, I think government spending could be reduced by billions if not over a trillion if we did not have to fund stuff that could be better handled by the private sector. Why in the hell do we need the NEA anyway? You want money to paint a picture of a dick in chocolate frosting? Find a private sponsor.

If you admire Reagan so much why not stop and listen to the dude who WROTE his economic policies?

In fact, my views haven't changed at all. What has changed are the facts, the circumstances, the actual economic conditions that policymakers must respond to. To erstwhile supply-siders like John Tamny it's always 1980--morning in America--and the exact same policies that were appropriate to deal with double digit inflation and interest rates are the exact same policies to deal with deflation and interest rates barely above zero. Moreover, they ascribe virtually magical power to every tax cut ever proposed because once upon a time Ronald Reagan reduced the top rate from 70% to 50% and got some pretty positive economic results. So if it worked once, then we must continue to do it again and again and again forever. (It's pretty absurd to think that temporarily lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 35% was going to yield anything close to the results from lowering the top rate from 70% to 50%, but many so-called supply-siders said it would; one even wrote a book called The Bush Boom, ascribing astonishing effects to this tax change.)


It's human nature to stick with what works and only change when there is strong evidence in favor of it. Normally, this serves people well. But this tendency is easily perverted into a foolish consistency that says we must never change our position on anything, regardless of the circumstances or the evidence in favor of a different position. If people like Tamny want to hold to such a foolish position, that's fine by me. But he and others who claim to be the true believers in supply side economics seem to feel compelled to label me a flip-flopper or an opportunist, rather than deal with the substance of my argument, because I threaten their position or perhaps just make them uncomfortable.

Think about it.

and subscribe to his blog while you're at it. He has some good ideas on implementing a VAT.

Bruce Bartlett's blog | Capital Gains and Games

[GRR Spartan]

Goes back top my premise. Economic simpletons think you can tax cut your way to prosperity regardless of history and changing circumstances.

[Tree Rat]

The economy has nothing to do with tax rates or benefits.

We have accepted representation that thinks all we want to be is salesmen or garbage men. Nothing in between.

[IGGcitable]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Well then, if keeping promises is so important to ole Bully, I expect bully to be fully outraged at his hero, Uncle Ronnie.

So Reagan knowingly lied to the American public about the deficit. Absolute fact.

Then proceeded to go ahead with his plan anyway, resulting in a near TRIPLING of the Federal Debt, all the while preaching "balanced budgets".

And the righty morons somehow think Uncle Ronnie was a good President.

Simply amazing. To say nothing of being totally hypocritical by holding Obama to a standard that the evidently let slide with their "Uncle Ronnie".

Notice also in this August 1987 interview, Grampaw Ronnie is very carefully blaming Jimmy Carter for his administration's galactic-class deficits.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

Goes back top my premise. Economic simpletons think you can tax cut your way to prosperity regardless of history and changing circumstances.

You've got a better chance tax cutting your way to prosperity then spending your way to prosperity on borrowed money.

The key is the accompanying spending cuts which NOBODY in Washington seems to have the stomach for.

[GRR Spartan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

You've got a better chance tax cutting your way to prosperity then spending your way to prosperity on borrowed money.

The key is the accompanying spending cuts which NOBODY in Washington seems to have the stomach for.

Based on what?

Your hero Ronnie Raegan took office in 1981, unemployment peaked in 1983 when it hit 10.2% and even 2 years after Reagan's famous tax cuts the GOP was assiduously blaming Jimmy Carter.

Roll forward and the GOP is blaming Obama's administration less than one year after taking office and trying tax cut its way out of deficits again. Yet today's G-NO-P and faux conservatives think Obama's 10 months in office is time enough. Only difference is their guy isn't in the White House. Had McCain prevailed he would need more time. Meanwhile countries with higher tax rates are seeing more recovery than the US. Go figure.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

Meanwhile countries with higher tax rates are seeing more recovery than the US. Go figure.

which countries are these?

[Quincy55]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

Thank God we did that massive stimulus package - otherwise unemployment would be really bad.

Sincerely

The WH Liberal Sheeple

If you were informed you'd know that less than 20% ($152 Billion) had been spent through early fall, of the $787 Billion total.

[Lake Lure Spartan]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

which countries are these?

I agree, where are these countries?

[GRR Spartan]

Originally Posted by Lake Lure Spartan

I agree, where are these countries?

Like Canada, Germany and France.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

Like Canada, Germany and France.

nope, they're still in worse shape than the US.

[spartanMF]

There is not going to be a second "stimulus" package. It will be called something else because "stimulus" is a dirty word now due to the failure of the first one.

[Zakath]

Originally Posted by Quincy55

If you were informed you'd know that less than 20% ($152 Billion) had been spent through early fall, of the $787 Billion total.

Then it's not really stimulus, is it?

Thank you for confirming what we all knew months ago...

[ming]

Originally Posted by ming

Or a hell of a lot more job losses. I believe that there were very few economists that publicly advocated doing nothing. In fact, many prominent economists did say publicly that the stimulus was not enough. No one in government had the stomach to do what you suggest. I find it tiring that I have to keep making that same point to the same people and no one ever refutes it, they just conveniently ignore it.

So, again, what is your point? Obama was wrong to pass any kind of stimulus? If he had not and US economy was 2x as bad, you would be here applauding him? Pardon me if I'm not convinced. I think you enjoy the game too much.

I think it's safe to say that the US economy is in uncharted territory, no? I'm expecting a lot of mistakes and bad predictions mainly because what we are experiencing now is unprecedented. There is a part of me that also wishes that the bailout and the stimulus were never passed. A worldwide economic reboot, I'm relatively young enough to dust myself from the ashes, what the hell. But I'm old enough to understand that that was a political impossibility. So I don't allow myself to get carried away too much with that fantasy.

the bolded part... as always.

[langmick]

the GOP was assiduously blaming Jimmy Carter.

Why shouldn't they have, Keith Olbermann Jr.?

[ninowesco]

Originally Posted by langmick

Why shouldn't they have, Keith Olbermann Jr.?

because it's more respectable to take responsibility for your actions



that's a foreign concept to republicans, I know

[Compound]

It's hilarious watching the libs make excuses for Obama's failed policies. They just can not admit that his policies don't work.

[spartanMF]

The problem is the economy low on Barack Hussiens list of priorities, which is disgusting.


By God we are getting new healthcare reform and cap and trade though.

[rodent]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

Thank God we did that massive stimulus package - otherwise unemployment would be really bad.

Sincerely

The WH Liberal Sheeple

Baa! Baa! Baa!

[Compound]

Originally Posted by spartanMF

The problem is the economy low on Barack Hussiens list of priorities, which is disgusting.


By God we are getting new healthcare reform and cap and trade though.

I don't even think it's low on his priority list, I think he doesn't understand how to get the economy back. He really thinks that spending money and increasing taxes is the way to fix things. Just like his VP.

YouTube - Biden: Avoid bankruptcy-spend more $

[ninowesco]

and another righty circle jerk

please keep ignoring the facts and claiming that you're right

we'll keep on fixing the country and proving you wrong