The rich spend more per person. But there are way more middle class that rich, so the total $$ the middle class spends in the economy is probably more than the rich. The poor typical spend less than anyone, but are spending a greater percentage of their earnings on a daily basis.
So, based on which angle you are viewing, any group can be shown to be spending more.
The rich per person The middle class as a whole The poor as a percentage of their overall income.
There, everyone is right.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
The speech was incredibly unimpressive. It certainly wasn't the persuasive cool approach he's good at. He sounded surly and sarcastic......it reminded me of the behavior the people who disliked Bush used to bitch about.
"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." -- President Obama, Feb. 4.
WASHINGTON -- Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.
The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.
He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.
At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.
And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.
It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.
It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress' own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.
Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock insurance.
The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports The Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
I also thought it would take longer for people to realize what they voted for. Imagine how bad it's going to get if he doesn't pull things together -- and SOON. This may be the longest four years of our lives, folks. I am NOT impressed with Mr. Obama so far, are you?
What, did he think being president was a 40 hour per week job?
Quote: "I found this deficit when I showed up"
"Wrapped in a big bow for me when I stepped into office" Nice; so much for hope and change. More finger pointing, way to get the parties to work together.
Quote: "When was the last time no earmarks were in a bill of this size"
How about NOW being the first time Mr. Hope and Change! No time like the present!
All I can say is wow. VERY unimpressive; he did lack that calm and coolness that made him such a great speaker. Lots of blame and finger pointing to the past administration. Move on, hope and change, woohoo
The Stimulus is (was?) a huge over-reach by Obama and Congressional Dems. According to Jonah Goldberg, they blew it ... following is from his column at National Review.com:
The Great Overreach Ten pounds of manure in a five-pound bag.
By Jonah Goldberg February 06, 2009
The stimulus bill has failed. Barack Obama has failed. The Trojan Horse of Hope and Change crashed into the guardrail of reality, revealing an army of ideologues and activists inside.
Now, before I continue, let me say that Barack Obama will still be popular, he will still get things done, and he will declare victory after signing a stimulus bill.
But Obama’s moment is gone, and politics is about nothing if not moments.
The stimulus bill was a bridge too far, an overplayed hand, ten pounds of manure in a five-pound bag. The legislation’s primary duty was never to stimulate the economy, but to stimulate the growth of government, the scope of the state.
By spending hundreds of billions on things that have absolutely nothing to do with providing an immediate stimulus for the economy, Democrats hoped to make a down payment on their dream government. The billions for student aid, expanded welfare and health-care benefits, and bailouts for profligate state governments; the hundreds of millions for better museums and prettier government buildings; and the millions for smoking-cessation programs and bee insurance aren’t just items on crapulent Democrats’ wish list. The budget bloating was deliberate.
Remember what passes for a “cut” in Washington. Any decrease in the rate of increase counts as reduced spending. If you spend 20 percent more this year than you did last year, that’s a spending increase. But next year, that additional 20 percent is part of the baseline. And if your budget grows by “only” an additional ten percent, you’ve just "drastically cut" spending!
The stimulus bill was designed to give Democrats maximum maneuvering room. It would increase non-defense discretionary spending by more than 80 percent in a single year, in a single bill! Moving forward, they could grow government by smaller percentages while seeming to be responsible budget balancers. By putting chips on every square of social spending, they could let it ride for years to come.
Of course, this was more than a budgetary ploy. Democrats had good reason to believe that this was their moment. For the first time in a generation, they truly own the political commanding heights. They’ve won a string of elections, including the momentous presidential contest in which their candidate never really ran to the center the way Democrats normally do. He stayed on the liberal left all the way through Election Day, so liberals figured voters knew what they were getting with Obama. Indeed, that’s why the president keeps saying “I won,” as if that settles the issue. Funny how that argument didn’t work for the last president when he tried to reform Social Security.
Moreover, many actually believed Obama’s own hype. This was the moment for this, that and the other thing. This was the time when we, as Americans, were going to have our cake and eat it too. Future generations were going to look back and remember how Republicans and Democrats, cats and dogs, Klingons and Romulans came together and marched to the sunny uplands of history, where shopping carts have no wobbly wheels; airplane food is free, delicious, and filling; and we get all of our energy from 100 percent renewable Loch Ness Monster poop.
Throw in the media’s shock-and-awe campaign—which has been softening enemy positions with obsequious coverage of Obama as Franklin Delano Lincoln, the Jedi-Lightworking-Messiah community organizer from the south side of Krypton, combined with near-daily autopsies of conservatism and the Republican party (cue Richard Dreyfuss: “This was no voting accident!”)—and it’s no wonder liberals thought they had an open field in front of them.
The economic crisis was almost too good to be true. Like FDR and Lyndon Johnson, Obama was poised to act on Rahm’s Rule of Crisis Exploitation in a way that would not only guarantee a newer New Deal and an even greater Great Society, but would also receive bipartisan approval. That’s why Obama wanted so much GOP support—so as to ratify the left turn to European-style social democracy, particularly when voters cottoned on to the con.
But that didn’t happen. Obama and his party were undone by their hubris. There was just too much muchness in the bill. The once impressive support from conservative economists evaporated. Right-wing radio has been having one long tailgate party celebrating Obama’s overreach. According to the polls, voters are souring on the whole thing. Republicans finally discovered testicular fortitude—and they seem to like it.
There is still probably bipartisan support for a stimulus bill, but only for a measure intended to stimulate our market-based economy rather than one that hastens its Swedenization.
Again, Obama’s presidency has many victories ahead of it, and Democrats still run the show. But the perfect storm of liberalism has dissipated to mere scattered showers.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
Friday, February 6, 2009 6:00 AM By DARREL ROWLAND THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH DispatchPolitics
About halfway between Valentine's and Inauguration days, Ohio's feeling the love for President Obama.
The Buckeye State, which gave the Democrat a 6-point victory in November, now approves of his job performance by a margin of 67 percent to 16 percent, according to a new Quinnipiac Poll.
"The honeymoon between President Obama and Ohioans is still going," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's polling institute.
"President Obama's numbers are stratosphericWhat this number means is that an awful lot of Ohioans who didn't vote for him are giving him a thumbs up."
He is winning positive marks from 90 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents and even 31 percent of Republicans. Perhaps most astonishing, his performance is given approval by 52 percent of white born-again evangelicals a group that has strongly supported Republican president candidates in recent years.
"He also does much better on handling economy than Gov. Strickland, and since he's only been in office for two weeks that's obviously more of a judgment about him personally than his policy," Brown said.
Ohioans are reacting positively to the huge economic-stimulus package proposed by Obama as well, although the poll was taken before recent sharp GOP criticisms of the measure in the Senate, Brown said.
A total of 57 percent support the package, compared to 32 percent against even though 51 percent say they don't think it will help them personally.
Ohioans' assessment of both the national and state economy continues to be bleak: 68 percent rate the national economy as "poor" compared to 50 percent a year ago. Ohio's economy currently gets a "poor" rating from 61 percent.
Voters' depiction of their personal financial situation sunk even since the most recent Quinnipiac Poll in December. Fifty-six percent rate their economic status as "not so good" or "poor" now, compared to 47 percent two months ago.
The telephone poll of 1,127 Ohio voters was taken Jan. 29 through Monday, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. It can be viewed at www.quinnipiac.edu/x1321.xml.
All I can say is wow. VERY unimpressive; he did lack that calm and coolness that made him such a great speaker. Lots of blame and finger pointing to the past administration. Move on, hope and change, woohoo
I have never wanted to put a bumper sticker on my car, but I almost want to now. Something like, "Hope & Change, MY ASS!"
In a global downturn the Fed will have to print money to meet our obligations. By GEORGE MELLOAN
As Congress blithely ushers its trillion dollar "stimulus" package toward law and the U.S. Treasury prepares to begin writing checks on this vast new appropriation, it might be wise to ask a simple question: Who's going to finance it?
Chad CroweThat might seem like a no-brainer, which perhaps explains why no one has bothered to ask. Treasury securities are selling at high prices and finding buyers even though yields are low, hovering below 3% for 10-year notes. Congress is able to assure itself that it will finance the stimulus with cheap credit. But how long will credit be cheap? Will it still be when the Treasury is scrounging around in the international credit markets six months or a year from now? That seems highly unlikely.
Let's have a look at the credit market. Treasurys have been strong because the stock market collapse and the mortgage-backed securities fiasco sent the whole world running for safety. The best looking port in the storm, as usual, was U.S. Treasury paper. That is what gave the dollar and Treasury securities the lift they now enjoy.
But that surge was a one-time event and doesn't necessarily mean that a big new batch of Treasury securities will find an equally strong market. Most likely it won't as the global economy spirals downward.
The Opinion Journal Widget Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page. For one thing, a very important cycle has been interrupted by the crash. For years, the U.S. has run large trade deficits with China and Japan and those two countries have invested their surpluses mostly in U.S. Treasury securities. Their holdings are enormous: As of Nov. 30 last year, China held $682 billion in Treasurys, a sharp rise from $459 billion a year earlier. Japan had reduced its holdings, to $577 billion from $590 billion a year earlier, but remains a huge creditor. The two account for almost 65% of total Treasury securities held by foreign owners, 19% of the total U.S. national debt, and over 30% of Treasurys held by the public.
In the lush years of the U.S. credit boom, it was rationalized that this circular arrangement was good for all concerned. Exports fueled China's rapid economic growth and created jobs for its huge work force, American workers could raise their living standards by buying cheap Chinese goods. China's dollar surplus gave the U.S. Treasury a captive pool of investment to finance congressional deficits. It was argued, persuasively, that China and Japan had no choice but to buy U.S. bonds if they wanted to keep their exports to the U.S. flowing. They also would hurt their own interests if they tried to unload Treasurys because that would send the value of their remaining holdings down.
But what if they stopped buying bonds not out of choice but because they were out of money? The virtuous circle so much praised would be broken. Something like that seems to be happening now. As the recession deepens, U.S. consumers are spending less, even on cheap Chinese goods and certainly on Japanese cars and electronic products. Japan, already a smaller market for U.S. debt last November, is now suffering what some have described as "free fall" in industrial production. Its two champions, Toyota and Sony, are faltering badly. China's growth also is slowing, and it is plagued by rising unemployment.
American officials seem not to have noticed this abrupt and dangerous change in global patterns of trade and finance. The new Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, at his Senate confirmation hearing harped on that old Treasury mantra about China "manipulating" its currency to gain trade advantage. Vice President Joe Biden followed up with a further lecture to the Chinese but said the U.S. will not move "unilaterally" to keep out Chinese exports. One would hope not "unilaterally" or any other way if the U.S. hopes to keep flogging its Treasurys to the Chinese.
The Congressional Budget Office is predicting the federal deficit will reach $1.2 trillion this fiscal year. That's more than double the $455 billion deficit posted for fiscal 2008, and some private estimates put the likely outcome even higher. That will drive up interest costs in the federal budget even if Treasury yields stay low. But if a drop in world market demand for Treasurys sends borrowing costs upward, there could be a ballooning of the interest cost line in the budget that will worsen an already frightening outlook. Credit for the rest of the economy will become more dear as well, worsening the recession. Treasury's Wednesday announcement that it will sell a record $67 billion in notes and bonds next week and $493 billion in this quarter weakened Treasury prices, revealing market sensitivity to heavy financing.
So what is the outlook? The stimulus package is rolling through Congress like an express train packed with goodies, so an enormous deficit seems to be a given. Entitlements will go up instead of being brought under better control, auguring big future deficits. Where will the Treasury find all those trillions in a depressed world economy?
There is only one answer. The Obama administration and Congress will call on Ben Bernanke at the Fed to demand that he create more dollars -- lots and lots of them. The Fed already is talking of buying longer-term Treasurys to support the market, so it will be more of the same -- much more.
And what will be the result? Well, the product of this sort of thing is called inflation. The Fed's outpouring of dollar liquidity after the September crash replaced the liquidity lost by the financial sector and has so far caused no significant uptick in consumer prices. But the worry lies in what will happen next.
Even when the economy and the securities markets are sluggish, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s, when the Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who believed then, as now, that federal spending "stimulus" would restore economic health.
Inflation is the product of the demand for money as well as of the supply. And if the Fed finances federal deficits in a moribund economy, it can create more money than the economy can use. The result is "stagflation," a term coined to describe the 1970s experience. As the global economy slows and Congress relies more on the Fed to finance a huge deficit, there is a very real danger of a return of stagflation. I wonder why no one in Congress or the Obama administration has thought of that as a potential consequence of their stimulus package.
Quote: Did anyone just see the speech Obama made? Thoughts?
Just bits and pieces,,, seemed a bit spiteful to me,, meaner than his usual cool self. since I didn't hear the whole thing, I might have taken some of that out of context.
I'll take the time sometime today or this evening to listen to it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I want one with that says Hope & Change YOUR ASS!!!" With, you guessed it a Democratic party Jack Ass on it. I believe both of the 2 major parties are crooked, but I absolutely abhor the Democratic party.
It is what it is at this point. Unless one of us is willing to form a protest, to take action, to picket in front of the white house, to start a letter writing campaign, it's going to go on as it is.
We can only control our own actions and our own lives, and we can only hope by showing our friends and neighbors that we can live within our means, and we can still prosper, that they begin to follow by example, and this will all turn around.
It all starts with the American people. Congress can print and hand out trillions of dollars, it still won't fix the problems in this country. It all starts with fiscal responsibility, first on a personal level and then on a governmental level.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
jc Commentary: Stimulate the economy, not government
These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.
Mitt Romney says Obama's spending bill would stimulate the government rather than the economy.
We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.
We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.
It's still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.
It's his job to set priorities. I hope for America's sake that he knows that a chief executive can't vote "present." He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.
As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.
First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.
As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.
Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.
Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.
There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.
Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.
And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?
In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.
A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.
It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.
Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.
It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.
Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.
Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.
It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”
Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.
We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.
As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.
And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?
Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.
So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.
It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.
This entire process is such a waste of time the way that both sides are going about it.
Have you noticed, all both sides are doing is panning for the cameras.. Damn it, get the hell out from in front of the camera and get in behind some closed doors and work this stuff out.
We pay these damn fools enough to get to work on it without all the positioning.
I want them all behind the doors, banging thier heads together until they get a deal that gets the job done and done right.
I honestly don't care if you lean with the repulicans or the Dems... doesn't matter to me. Both of these groups seem to have valid points..
Ahh, what the hell do I know...... all seems rather childish to me and also unproductive.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss
We are already there, and I do not believe that there is any stopping it.
Quote: but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble
Blame the housing bubble on Bush, yep, he caused it.
Quote: Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.
Which is why sending everyone $500 will not do squat. They will either save it or pay off debt. Businesses need the tax breaks, as do consumers, so that investment continues IMO. I still liked HR07309 which would have helped both business and consumers but it of course died.
Quote: As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself
As does the constant pounding by the media of how horrible things are. I know they are bad, I'm not going to say they aren't, but a lot of the lack of spending is a self fulfilling prophesy IMO.
Quote: empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh
That is comical. Yep, a talk show host runs the nation! Woohoo! Limbaugh is a genius at marketing himself and getting press, but I hardly think anyone takes marching orders from him.
Quote: Not residents..taxpayers..what's the number of taxpayers ranging in the middle and lower class?
According to this the 2006 IRS reports showed the breakdowns as such:
Top 1% - 388.8k+ AGI 22% of total income and 40% tax burden Top 5% - 153.5k+ AGI 37% of total income and 60% tax burden Top 10% - 108.9k+ AGI 47% of total income and 71% tax burden Top 25% - 64.7k+ AGI 66% of total income and 86% tax burden Top 50% - 32k+ AGI 87% of total income and 97% tax burden Bottom 50% - under 32k 13% of total income and 3% tax burden
Interesting. Basically 15% of the top 25% is firmly in the middle class. Heck I think some would argue that 153k is the top end of the middle class.
Basically the top 5% pay 60% of the burden. The middle class pays about 37% of the burden (roughly depending on who you consider "Poor"). The poor pay about 3% of the tax burden. It does kind of lend some rationale as to why some groups are for higher taxes, they aren't necessarily paying them.
Mac, This is part of the problem. You post something from a Nobel Prize winning Economist and people are posting from some left leaning journalist who just months before were talking about how good the economy was and how good Bush's administration has been. . What a joke!
The republicans were RIGHT to question some of that spending in the stimulus bill but acting like all we need are tax cuts is foolish and people forget, Bush's tax cuts are in place now and they are not helping. SO in the senate, they will hopefully cut out some of the silly spending, make limited tax cuts and get the bill passed. After it leaves the senate, the bill still has to go to conference committee with the House again.
I believe in working with people but if they are still asking for the same things that got us in this mess, NOPE.. just do it without them. If the repubs and dems want to actually work together.. then fine. And Obama will have to tell some dems, do not add any more silly spending( Pelosi and Reid).
And BTW - now that latest employment numbers have come in, its not the media who has caused this either!!..LMAO
I'm not questioning Krugman's intellect or his awards.. but any guy who can say this....
Quote: " ... I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised."
Is going to have a hard time convincing me of a lot of things... I've read up on Krugman, I like some of his ideas but not a whole lot. I was half joking when I called him a communist, he's much more of a socialist and his economic policies are really similar to the best socialist ideals that Europe has to offer. I'm just not a big fan of Europes version of social democracy... he is. I can live with that.
He also advocates that we need a $1.4 TRILLION spending stimulus...
Quote: but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble
Blame the housing bubble on Bush, yep, he caused it.
The blame for the housing collaps should be put squarely on the shoulders of the people that caused it: Congress. What the hell did they expect to happen when they changed the rules for mortgages to allow people to just sign and buy with no requirement to show proof of credit worthiness or ability to pay.
But, the good news is, people that couldn't afford homes got them. And they are losing them. And they are taking the rest of us down with them, and now, only in America, the people that CAUSED the mess not only don't fess up to it, they assume they can "spend our way out of this".
Here's a freaking clue: gov't. spending out of control got us in this mess, spending more will not do anything but prolong it, make it deeper, tougher to get out of..............
DC, Although I cannot say what Krugman meant by that statement, I usually tell people that if you do not believe in the welfare state, travel to a country without one! You might to believe in a "social state" but it will change your mind about some "welfare" to help people. Not to maintain people forever but as an assistance.
As far as the 1.4 trillion, that is probably the number used to fix everything. And believe me, after this stimulus gets done, the congress will ask for something else.
Arch, Well they usually do not give them out to people who have no idea of what they are talking about either!! And/or can't prove what they are talking about.
Quote: Arch, Well they usually do not give them out to people who have no idea of what they are talking about either!! And/or can't prove what they are talking about.
In general, you are right. But apparently the year gore won his they may have, uh, loosened the standards?
A nobel is a nice achievement (except for gore's), but it doesn't mean your smarter, or a deeper thinker, than others, and it does NOT mean you are correct.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
