[Mulderator]

Unemployment has hit double digits for only the 2nd time since WWII. In states run by liberals (like California) it's even higher--here its 12.5% and no end in sight as Democrats spends us into disaster:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/What-r...22944.html?x=0

Bush took over a recession and immediately cut taxes--it worked--the recession ended quickly--worked for Kennedy as well--worked for Reagan too. All you Moore-Ons out there need to learn this valuable economics lesson--you can't end a recession by government spending--the economists know that--Democrats know it also, but the special interest groups that drive them prevent them from doing what is needed. WE NEED MASSIVE TAX CUTS. The only way to reverse the recession is to give the people that drive the economy relief!!!!

I was reading that 4000 inmates received stimulus checks!!! Seriously--how the *&^*& is that going to help us? Bailing out unions (which is what the automotive bailout was) and massive spending on government healthcare is going to drive us to economic disaster.

The only good news is this disaster is going to bounce many Democrats out of office (along with Obamie the Comie). Then, Republicans will fix the problems (like always) and then the state controlled media will convince the zombie Democrat voters otherwise, Democrats will get back in office and destroy the economy again, then back to Republicans. If we had an honest objective press that was not controlled by the state (really no better than Nazi Germany here in terms of press being controlled by the state), we wouldn't have Democrats ever get a majority because every time they do (go back to the Carter years was the last time they had a complete majority--how did that work out? ). We got a complete majority in California when Grey Davis was elected and by the end of his first time we had fiscal disaster that we still have not recovered from because government unions control California through puppet Democrats.

Essentially, the practical, logical, and educated of us have to live with the emotional stupidity of liberal decision-making!

I am wondering for how long Obama and the Democrats will continue to blame this disaster on Bush? How long do you have to be in office before its your problem? If its WORSE now then when Bush was in office don't you share the blame for making it worse? Seriously--you Obama supporters have to take your blinders off--the man is destroying our economy! The only people having it good with Obama are government employees!!!

[Mulderator]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...lus-poll_N.htm

WASHINGTON — Six months after President Obama launched a $787 billion plan to right the nation's economy, a majority of Americans think the avalanche of new federal aid has cost too much and done too little to end the recession.
POLL RESULTS: Six questions
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found 57% of adults say the stimulus package is having no impact on the economy or making it worse. Even more —60% — doubt that the stimulus plan will help the economy in the years ahead, and only 18% say it has done anything to help improve their personal situation.

That skepticism underscores the challenge Obama faces in trying to convince the public that the stimulus has helped turn the economy around. It also could complicate the administration's plans to overhaul the nation's health care system.
"This is a wake-up call for the administration." says House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va. "People see the stimulus hasn't worked, and now you want to lay on over $1 trillion in a health care plan."

The administration declined to comment on the poll results.

The stimulus package contains $288 billion for tax cuts and $499 billion in new spending, much of it meant to pay for unemployment and other social services. The $1 billion "cash for clunkers" program was not part of the bill, although its $2 billion expansion comes from stimulus funds.

The government has allocated more than $200 billion in aid. Since the plan began, however, the recession has left an additional 2.2 million Americans without jobs, according to Labor Department surveys.

Economists generally say the recession would have been worse without the stimulus, though they disagree widely on how much it has helped.

"The economy was like a huge pothole we had to fill, and what we did was throw a little gravel in the bottom. You don't fill the hole, not even close. But you make it better," says University of Oregon economist Tim Duy. "Many people don't see the effects so they assume it's not working."

The poll Aug. 6-9 of 1,010 adults has a margin of error of +/–4% for the full sample. In a question asked of a subsample, 51% of Americans say the government should have spent less on the stimulus; 31% say the amount was "about right." Also, almost half in the full sample say they are "very worried" that stimulus money is being wasted.

You really have to wonder who the idiots are that think the stimulus is working?

[Stoner]

You'll be happy to know none of this is my fault......I didn't vote for that moron Bush or Obama.

[Paquadez]

Come on Chris!

The guys only been in post five minutes!

Fiscal Drag -as I have oft pointed out herein - means that any government policy on tax and/or the economy, takes a considerable time to work through the complex interactivities of the monetary system and be experienced by the majority.

This reality does not prevent government leaders from stealing the previous guy's clothes ad claiming the miracles for themselves: of course.

Which only goes to show how dumb 99% of electors really are!

So which nation states has Obama illegally invaded thus far?

For example!

[Wino]

"So how are all you Obama voters enjoying the "change?"

Actually, things are going along swimmingly well for me under the Obama administration. Same I suspect for you, too. Business has been good and much will carry over into 2010 first quarter. I'm looking forward to paying my quarterly taxes in January for the extra money made in 2009 vs. the disasterous 2008 year as Bush all but destroyed the economy.

If some are having a rough time, tough. They need to suck it up and get on with their life, correct their methods that got them into trouble and quit whining. Revising history to place the blame only on democrats and Obama is so childish since we all know it was the republicans fault now, same as in the past - the lefties always have to bail out the dumb wingers. How boring is that?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

"So how are all you Obama voters enjoying the "change?"

Actually, things are going along swimmingly well for me under the Obama administration. Same I suspect for you, too. Business has been good and much will carry over into 2010 first quarter. I'm looking forward to paying my quarterly taxes in January for the extra money made in 2009 vs. the disasterous 2008 year as Bush all but destroyed the economy.

If some are having a rough time, tough. They need to suck it up and get on with their life, correct their methods that got them into trouble and quit whining. Revising history to place the blame only on democrats and Obama is so childish since we all know it was the republicans fault now, same as in the past - the lefties always have to bail out the dumb wingers. How boring is that?

You live in Texas, which if read the article in the other thread I started (contrasting California to Texas) is the lone bright spot--because its run fiscally responsibly by REPUBLICANS.

And if you truly are are looking forward to paying your taxes (and I don't believe you really are), then you are a fool--you've essentially bought into the BS that policitians sell you hook, line, and sinker--they are stealing your money to use to bail out banks and unions and to line the pockets of the special interest groups that get them elected. You are the perfect American for a Democrat--a person willing to swallow the garbage the policiticans sell you, bend over and take it up the butt, and then thank them for the hosing you on the way out. I thought you were sharper than that?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

"So how are all you Obama voters enjoying the "change?"the disasterous 2008 year as Bush all but destroyed the economy.

How did Bush destroy the economy? Are you saying that for 7 years (with record growth) he was destroying the economy and it only came to fruition in 2008? And what role did the Democrats taking over Congress in 2006 (when things were great) and immediately passing three huge minimum wage increases have on the economy? I showed in another thread the fact that 3 out of the past 4 recessions immediately followed the large increases in minimum wage--only the 2000-2001 recession did not, but that was by far the mildest. These are FACTS not nonsense.

And let's assume Bush did destroy the economy. Obama's answer was to spend more money? Shouldn't his "stimulus" have reversed unemployment as oppossed to making it worse? Do you REALLY believe that spending trillions on government healthcare at this time in this recession is a fiscally responsible goal?

Honestly, this is not a debatable topic. What Obama has done--regardless of what Bush did, is completely and utterly irresponsible.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

Come on Chris!

The guys only been in post five minutes!

Fiscal Drag -as I have oft pointed out herein - means that any government policy on tax and/or the economy, takes a considerable time to work through the complex interactivities of the monetary system and be experienced by the majority.

This reality does not prevent government leaders from stealing the previous guy's clothes ad claiming the miracles for themselves: of course.

Which only goes to show how dumb 99% of electors really are!

So which nation states has Obama illegally invaded thus far?

For example!

A significant tax cut would have already lowered unemployment. What Obama has done is fiscally irresponsible. You don't have to be a economist to figure out that wreckless spending and increases in taxes on businesses is NOT going to help the recession.

I would rather Obama had spent the money on invading a country than on saving the unions. Unions, which essentially are communists organizations operating within a capitalist society, ultimately will destroy the economy. You know that as an economist Paq--you can't artificially raise the compensation of a select few and have it not have a detrimental effect on the rest of society. You can see it here in California and in other states where government unions are crippling the state's economies---huge amounts of money are being spent on ever increasing government jobs and benefits which is producing nothing in terms of real dollar jobs and is draining the sector of the economy that actually produces tax revenue. It is now and always has been a recipe for disaster and if you really understand what's going on, you would have to agree with me unless you were one of the select few benefitting from the corruption.

You yourself pointed this out in another thread on the federal level--that is the ever increasing size of government. The real travesty here is that we have a Constitution that was intended to prevent this--to limit the size and power of government because the founding fathers knew the corruption that comes from allowing those in government to act with no control. The problem is the left in this country has allowed the Constitution to be dismantled slowly over the years to the point now where there is no more limit on government and it is growing exponentially.

[Mulderator]

In case you missed my MW/Recession analyis, here it is again:



Can you see that in 3 out of 4 MW increases, a recession resulted--only in the BOOM years of the Internet explosion in the 90s did that no occur, but it was also the smallest increase. And do you REALLY believe that the largest MW increase by far (40% over two years) followed by the worst recession since the great depression is REALLY just a coincidence???

This is the kind of FACTS you won't see in the mainstream media--this is the kind of FACTS that are ignored by Democrats because it doesn't fit into their politically correct agenda. They were warned--over and over--that MW increases are horrible fiscal decisions--that they do nothing to help the poor and in fact hurt the poor, hurt the economy. They are political policies done because its a popular decision--like everything Democrats do--popular decisions to get them re-elected but with disatrous results fiscally!

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

You live in Texas, which if read the article in the other thread I started (contrasting California to Texas) is the lone bright spot--because its run fiscally responsibly by REPUBLICANS.

And you are are looking forward to paying your taxes, you are a fool--you've essentially bought into the BS that policitians sell you hook, line, and sinker--they are stealing your money to use to bail out banks and unions and to line the pockets of the special interest groups that get them elected. You are the perfect American for a Democrat--a person willing to swallow the garbage the policitican sell you, bend over and take it up the butt, and then thank them for the hosing on the way out. I thought you were sharper than that?

You don't know the first thing about Texas and believe all the BS you read from your right wing talking points source. While we may not be in as dire straits as California, we are headed for a $1 B short fall in our current budget. Not to mention the cut backs made in funding various state entities that are now adding on taxes and fees to make up for it. The parts of Texas that are doing well are not the republican controlled areas, but under lefties (6.2 unemployed). Perry, like most other governors is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will all come to roost sooner or later if the economy doesn't change for the better. He also isn't spending money, not because he doesn't have it allocated, but it makes the budget look healthier.

Yeah, you're correct. I love taking it up the butt from politicians regardless of their party affiliation. You got a better solution?? If I recall, your way (Reagan/Bush method) got us into the crapper we now sit. You are the perfect winger - sphincter tightly covering your eyes cutting off blood to the brain as you inhale abundant methane - may as well go for bust and get that frontal lobotomy to complete the job of delusion you so lovingly embrace.

We can trade insults all day and accomplish what you set out to do - nothing, except whine about your lot, bash lefties, extol wingers and cry crocodile tears about being taxed too much. Go tell it to someone who gives a flying flip.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

[B][If some are having a rough time, tough. They need to suck it up and get on with their life, correct their methods that got them into trouble and quit whining. Revising history to place the blame only on democrats and Obama is so childish since we all know it was the republicans fault now, same as in the past - the lefties always have to bail out the dumb wingers. How boring is that?

Well the good news is that the policies of your party are so bad that they will be bounced out of office very soon--one thing the left-controlled media can't do is convince people they have it good when the economy isn't good and that always spells change.

If you want an honest appraisal of the policies of Bush and what actually happened to the economy, read this article in the WSJ--which includes the actual facts (i.e., the actual performance of the economy by the numbers not what the liberal press told you). It does an excellent job of explaining both what Bush did right and what he did wrong:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html

Democrats like to claim the 1990s were a golden age while the Bush years have been disastrous. But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Bush inherited a recession. The dot-com bubble had burst in 2000, and the economy was sinking even before the shock of 9/11, the corporate scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mr. Bush's original tax-cut proposal was designed in part as insurance against such a downturn.

However, to win over Senate Democrats, Mr. Bush both phased in the tax rate reductions and settled for politically popular but economically feckless tax rebate checks. Those checks provided a short-term lift to consumer spending but no real boost to risk-taking or business investment, which was still recovering from the tech implosion. By late 2002, the economy was struggling again -- which is when Mr. Bush proposed his second round of tax cuts.

This time the tax rate reductions were immediate, and they included cuts in capital gains and dividends designed to spur business incentives. As the tax cuts became law in late May 2003, the recovery began in earnest. Growth averaged nearly 4% over the next three years, the jobless rate fell from 6.3% in June 2003 to 4.4% in October 2006, and real wages began to grow despite rising food and energy prices. The 2003 tax cut was the high point of Bush economic policy.

Mr. Bush's spending record is less admirable, especially during his first term. He indulged the majority Republicans on Capitol Hill, refusing to veto overspending and giving in to their demand that the Medicare prescription drug benefit include only modest market reforms. Even those reforms have helped to restrain drug costs, but now Democrats are set to repeal them and the main Bush legacy will be the new taxpayer liabilities.
Nonetheless, the budget deficit did fall mid-decade, as tax revenues soared with the expansion. In fiscal 2007, the deficit hit $161 billion, or an economically trivial 1.2% of GDP. That seems like a distant memory after the bailout blowout of the last few months, but the point is that the Bush tax cuts aren't responsible for the deficits. Before the recession hit, federal tax revenues had climbed above their postwar average of 18.3% of GDP.

Which brings us back to Mr. Bush's "hangover." While his Administration was handling the fiscal levers, the Federal Reserve was pushing the monetary accelerator to the floor. In reaction to the dot-com implosion and the collapse in business investment, Alan Greenspan rapidly cut interest rates to spur housing and consumer spending. In June 2003, even as the tax cuts were passing and the economy took off, he cut the fed funds rate to 1% and kept it there for a year.

His stimulus worked -- far too well. The money boom created a commodity price spike as well as a subsidy for credit across the economy. Economist John Taylor of Stanford has analyzed the magnitude of this monetary mistake in a new paper that assesses government's contribution to the financial panic. The second chart compares the actual fed funds rate this decade with what it would have been had the Fed stayed within the policy lanes of the previous 20 years.

"This extra easy policy was responsible for accelerating the housing boom and thereby ultimately leading to the housing bust," writes Mr. Taylor, who worked in the first-term Bush Treasury, though not on monetary affairs, and is known for the "Taylor rule" for determining how central banks should adjust interest rates.

By pushing all of this excess credit into the economy, the Fed created a housing and mortgage mania that Wall Street was only too happy to be part of. Yes, many on the Street abandoned their normal risk standards. But they were goaded by an enormous subsidy for debt. Wall Street did get "drunk" but Washington had set up the open bar.
For that matter, most everyone else was also drinking the free booze: from homebuyers who put nothing down for a loan, to a White House that bragged about record home ownership, to the Democrats who promoted and protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Those two companies helped turbocharge the mania by using a taxpayer subsidy to attract trillions of dollars of foreign capital into U.S. housing.) No one wanted the party to end, though sooner or later it had to.

While the Fed is most to blame, the Administration encouraged the credit excesses. It populated the Fed Board of Governors with Mr. Greenspan's protégés, notably Ben Bernanke and Donald Kohn, who helped to create the mania and even now deny all responsibility. Meantime, Mr. Bush's three Treasury Secretaries knew little about the subject, and if anything were inclined to support easier money and a weaker dollar in the name of reducing the trade deficit. We know because numerous Bush officials sneered at the monetary warnings in these columns going back to 2003.

When the bust finally arrived with a vengeance in 2007, the political timing couldn't have been worse. Mr. Bush tried to rally with one more fiscal "stimulus," but he repeated his 2001 mistake and agreed to another round of tax rebates. They did little good. The Administration might have prevented the worst of the panic had it sought some sort of TARP-like financing for the banking system months or a year earlier than it did last autumn. But neither the Treasury nor the FDIC seemed to appreciate how big the banking system's problems were. Their financial triage was well meaning but came too late and in a frenzy that invited mistakes.

This history is crucial to understand, both for the Democrats who now assume the levers of power and for Republicans who will want to return to power some day. Mr. Bush and his team did many things right after inheriting one bubble. They were ruined by monetary excess that created a second, more dangerous credit mania. They forgot one of the main lessons of Reaganomics, which is the importance of stable money.

The important lesson there is that TAX CUTS AND INCENTIVES WORK--TAX REBATES DO NOT. What we need now is a very aggressive tax cut for businesses and the wealthy. The problem is that the Moore-Ons see "tax cuts for the rich" as something bad when in reality it helps everyone--the high tide floats all boats. That will NEVER happen with Obama in office--we will NEVER see tax cuts for businesses--in fact, the opposite will happen--we will see tax increases eventually because its wha the idiot masses buy into with the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric--the jealousy and class warfare pushed by Democrats and the media, the policies that result from that attitude ALWAYS hurts the economy.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

You don't know the first thing about Texas and believe all the BS you read from your right wing talking points source. While we may not be in as dire straits as California, we are headed for a $1 B short fall in our current budget.

I believe numbers--you have no state income taxes--your cost of living is much lower than states run by Democrats. Businesses are moving into the state in droves and moving out of California--affluent people with money are moving into Texas and out of California. Your tax rates are much lower than California. Your unemployment rates are much lower than California. ALL THIS IF FACT. You can find it on the government web sites--it doesn't come from any right wing talking articles.

Are you denying the FACTS that I just presented???

The irony here is you are extremely fortunate to live in a state that is fiscally conservative and you have reaped the benefits for years and yet you cry with a loaf of bread under your arm!!!

PS--your budget shortfall is the result of your illegal alien problem, which is worst than California--what is amazing is that Texas can do so well fiscally with the amount of illegals you have and all the problems it causes you fiscally. If you expelled all the illegals and closed your borders, you'd probably be able to cut the sales taxes in half!!!

[Mulderator]

On a side note--I am looking forward to watching the Texas Longhorns kick the crap out of Florida (assuming the Gators get by Alabama)!

Oh--and nice talking with you again Wino--send me some of that Texas Chile!!!

PS--give me 10 years and I may be moving to Austin!!!

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Well the good news is that the policies of your party are so bad that they will be bounced out of office very soon--one thing the left-controlled media can't do is convince people they have it good when the economy isn't good and that always spells change.

If you want an honest appraisal of the policies of Bush and what actually happened to the economy, read this article in the WSJ--which includes the actual facts (i.e., the actual performance of the economy by the numbers not what the liberal press told you). It does an excellent job of explaining both what Bush did right and what he did wrong:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html



The important lesson there is that TAX CUTS AND INCENTIVES WORK--TAX REBATES DO NOT. What we need now is a very aggressive tax cut for businesses and the wealthy. The problem is that the Moore-Ons see "tax cuts for the rich" as something bad when in reality it helps everyone--the high tide floats all boats. That will NEVER happen with Obama in office--we will NEVER see tax cuts for businesses--in fact, the opposite will happen--we will see tax increases eventually because its wha the idiot masses buy into with the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric--the jealousy and class warfare pushed by Democrats and the media, the policies that result from that attitude ALWAYS hurts the economy.

The WSJ article just proves what we all know - Bush inherited a minor recession and left a huge recession (near depression) and mess for Obama to sort out. You can interpret that anyway you want, but it's a fact Bush was a fiasco. We will never know whether the bail outs helped or hurt - there are equals on both sides of that fence. Anyone that says they didn't is just playing 'iffies'.

I agree on the tax cuts, except I'm sure we will differ on who should get them. I was against the tax rebates. I thought they were stupid then (ande even more so now).

As for tax cut for the wealthy increasing hiring, that's a big fallacy. That would be like saying if your personal taxes were cut 20% you'd run out and hire a full time yardman or maybe a chauffeur, too - ain't gonna happen. Increase taxes on the top 3%; increase taxes on corporation making over $5M in profits; cut taxes on all small business below the $5M line and cut taxes for the middle 50%. Increase the top tax rate for Wall St and Banker execs (or anyone that took federal bailout money) to 95% for bonuses over $5M and I'm on board.

There is plenty blame to spread around. There are no innocents in this fiasco other than the American citizens. They have been screwed by their government, Wall St., Bankers, Credit Card Companys, insurance companys, Big Oil, Big Pharma, OPEC and medical providers and we all bent over the barrel and allowed them to do it because it was the easy way out.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

On a side note--I am looking forward to watching the Texas Longhorns kick the crap out of Florida (assuming the Gators get by Alabama)!

Oh--and nice talking with you again Wino--send me some of that Texas Chile!!!

PS--give me 10 years and I may be moving to Austin!!!

You'll fit right in with the insane in Austin (The Nut House on the Colorado).

Careful on that 'chili' thing - it has a dual meaning round these parts.! (Lord, I just realized how you spelt the word. Forgot you were originally a Yankee).