United States Heading towards a Depression?

Interesting. So Earl admits the recession started when the Democrats took control of Congress (and therefore the Congressional banking committees) in 2007.

 

@Blue Star: The most substantial responses are fairly simple: Have Congress do nothing in the next year. Should that occur the Bush Tax Cuts will expire and there won't be increases in medicare reimbursements to docs.

Might not solve everything but it would essentially reverse the impact of a 10 trillion dollar growth in the deficit over the last decade to 10 years. The bush tax cuts roughly added 5 trillion to the deficit in the last decade or so. By far the largest single impact of any element in the last decade.

Nothing else comes close.

you can total up all the things that caused this growth in the deficit over the last 10 years....wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, build up in defense spending, medicare increases, obama's tax cuts and stimulus bills, tarp, ....a really big issue has simply been that the economy went into severe recession and tax reveneues plummeted.

the bush tax cuts were responsible for 1/2 of the explosive increase in the deficit. FACT

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...s-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php

 

No answers here.


Who is going to pay ?

 

Earl, what color is the sky in your world?
According to Eric Toder, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, as quoted in the liberal Washington Post, the Bush tax cuts have cost $1 trillion. But since those tax cuts were investments in the economy, how much did they stimulate the economy? I bet you don't care, do you Earl!
This is up-to-the minute: http://costoftaxcuts.com/

Why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts? (I know, I know, you'll say Republicans held him down, put the pen in his hand, and forced him to sign the bill). Doesn't that make them the Bush/Obama tax cuts?

Meanwhile, Democrats spending on "stimulus" added about $6 trillion (some say $8 trillion) to the deficit in the last five years. By far the largest single impact of any element in the last hundred years.

Nothing else comes close.

 

LOL

Corwin: Its so terrific you acknowledged that the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the horrendous debt level!!!!! Basically, for the last decade not one GOP right wing talking head or even the junior defenders of the GOP here would ever acknowledge that. NOT ONCE!!! Everyone of them disregards the hard and obvious reality. Its so obvious that a monkey could recognize it. Again...only the folks who care only about political power for the GOP would refuse to acknowledge the reality!!!!

There are quite a few different estimates for the impact of the Bush tax cuts. They range from the minimal amount you cited to as much as $5 trillion. Its a fundamental problem.

Here is an entirely different estimate from the one you presented....though both do acknowledge that the terrible debt issues are in part a function of the significant extra debt layed on the US by the Bush era tax cuts:

Here is a graph showing just how much debt exploded during the Bush administration.....and that was before the recession!!!!!

Recent additions to U.S. public debt
Fiscal year (begins
10/01 of prev. year) Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.0 billion (proj.) 6.8%

Frankly Corwin, I can't understand how anyone with an ounce of reason could characterize those Bush era, debt creating tax cuts as "investment".... We had years of debt creating bush era tax cuts...and then we had a brutal, once in a lifetime worst recession we have experienced in about 70 years. Exactly please explain how this investment occurred.

Meanwhile if Blue Star wants to pay down the debt....we can cut govt expenses...but repealing the Bush era tax cuts especially on the higher income folks would also begin to do the trick.

BTW: Corwin: Congrats for admitting something none of the Right Wing Extremists could utter. Maybe you aren't an extremist.

 

LINK

Earl, surely you do not want to keep bringing us back down to the political level do you. Surely you would not want to stay focused on the same two groups who have been getting money from the same people?

 

Blue Star: The oil and gas industry in every way possible is one of the largest influencers on the political process, compared to virtually any group or industry.

Its long term contributions to politicians and its spend on lobbyists is amongst the highest spends of any industry group or so called "interest group".

Its long term spend is overwhelmingly toward the GOP on every political basis whether its the Presidential, Congressional or State race basis: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01 It also spends enormous enormous sums on lobbying.

There are endless groups that influence congress on both sides of the equation. Currently Karl Rove's Right Wing attack group has raised far more money than the efforts of the Romney campaign. Its donors are completely anonymous.

For all we know its supporters of a Right Wing political agenda could be foreign nationals, mid east oil barrons, and hugely wealthy sources who would plunder the US for their own political and financial well being: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...se-49-million/2012/04/20/gIQAP2SlVT_blog.html

The only way Romney won in primaries was via huge negative ad spends by his own, largely anonymous disconnected political fund. He wiped out Gingrich and Santorum time and again with enormous overwhelming spends on attack ads.

Way too much money pollutes the political process. It comes from all sources.

I'd wipe out all financial influences on the political process. I'd shorten all elections, have them funded by government sources, cut back tremendously on total expenditures, force more debates and public appearances, with ample questioning from the press and reduce advertising spends.

I'd also work to remove political pressure from lobbying groups.

Do it with all sources. From the Left and the Right.

Now back to paying off the debt.

The best solutions to eliminating the enormous debts are to both cut expenditures and raise taxes on the upper income population plus redo the tax system. Put us back closer to where we were in the late 1990's when the debt was being reduced before the Bush tax cuts.

In 2003, approximately 450 economists including 10 Nobel Prize winning economists opposed the 2nd round of additional Bush tax cuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists'_statement_opposing_the_Bush_tax_cuts

They stated it would increase debt, increase inequality and not have a material impact on economic growth.

The effort was clearly pushed by a liberal economic think tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute

Slightly more than 250 economists rebutted this argument. None of them were Nobel Prize Winners, btw:

The aftermath of the 2003 tax cuts were significantly higher public debt, and from 2003 to 2008 a national economy that was sluggishly oriented toward slow gdp growth, saw significant reductions in US employment by multi national companies, saw huge growth in employment by state and local governments, was highly impacted by the housing finance bubble, and resulted in the most severe recession in the US since the 1930's. Meanwhile, as the 450 economists predicted overall financial inequality rose dramatically. When the recession hit it really destroyed a large portion of the middle and lower classes, wiping out their housing values, resulting in incredible reductions in overall economic demand. It heightened the impact of the recession.

So...to effectively pay down the debt I'd look to a two sided approach.

 

Earl: Reading is SOOOOO fundamental. Please take your medication and read what I wrote because it seems you did not read it even once. I draw your attention to when I wrote:

As I wrote - You Do Not Care, Do You?

And your obvious and heavy-handed attempt to manipulate this conversation is just SO pathetic. I mean, c'mon. And it's more than creepy that you chose to label ANYONE that disagrees with you as "right-wing extremists". Very very creepy. Black helicopter creepy.

It's also very very cute that you chose not to show, in your "graph" (clearly you do not know the difference between a graph and a chart) that you chose NOT to show how the deficit went up under Clinton, and how Obama has expanded the deficit more than all previous presidents COMBINED!.

As for your last post - it would take time I do not have to show how almost everything you just wrote is wrong. But regardless, you don't really read posts that disagree with you anyway.

Seriously, Earl, you've lost your credibility in this argument. You sound as desperate as a goldfish in a leaky bag.

 

First, again, Corwin, thanks for being the first member of the right wing coalition here to acknowledge that the Bush era tax cuts increased the size of the deficit. You are the first. Probably wins you a prize.

Second: Please describe for us all the investments made by those tax cuts that worked so beautifully.

A: Describe those investments. B. Tell us how they worked.

BTW: Last thing I saw as Bush left the White House was the largest recession in the US in at least 70 years and the most devastating impact on the economy since that time.

Also please explain how what you call investments essentially led to the lowest US GDP growth rate among Presidents as calculated since John Kennedy.

The article below calculates and compares US growth rates under different presidents going back 50 years. The article was written in 9/2008 so doesn't show the huge impact of the negative 8% drop in gdp during the entirety of 2008.

Very curious about those investments. When are they going to kick in with real returns???

 

Clearly a political issue is never going to settle the debt problem. It has not mattered since the debt has gone up over both sides being in charge.

 

It is certain that if the USA keeps arguing on the political level about their debt, the congress will start looking like the above. ↑

 

Blue Star:

How would you cut the deficit?

 

Oh Earl, Earl, Earl, if bullshit were music, you'd be a symphony. Besides, i never ever claimed that the NET affect of the tax cuts were to increase the size of the deficit. NET effect was the DECREASE the deficit.

Um, Earl? In case you have too much shit in your ears, that is the question I have thrown at you THREE TIMES! I threw that question at you because I called you out on your bullshit. You made up a figure that the Bush tax cuts directly affected $5 Trillion in tax revenue. I pointed out that it is actually $1 trillion and that Obama approved the tax cuts, making them the Bush/Obama tax cuts. You seemed to take your humiliation as some sort of victory.

Oh, Earl, in case you haven't noticed, I've responded to your challenges. Now, don't be cowardly and throw questions you can't answer back at me. IT'S YOUR TURN!

For the fourth time, Earl, HOW were the Bush/Obama tax cuts invested in the economy? And WHY did Obama approve the tax cuts?
(like I wrote, YOU DON'T CARE, do you?)

And, a followup - WHO, exactly, were affected by the Bush/Obama tax cuts? (hint: not the rich. Side note: I've read the actual bill)

I'm happy to respond to your fair queries. But you run crying like a scared & wet kitten from mine.

 

Corwin: I wanted to repost part of what you wrote. But first, you really get mad don't you? All cap writing in various posts, insults, complete changes on the topic, challenges and dares? What gives?

Its hard to proceed rationally with someone that has that kind of behavior. If you were a kid you'd be punished for acting like a brat.

Look, while you claimed that the Bush tax cuts were an investment I asked you to describe what they invested in here...

I even used the word please.

Look, when Bush cut taxes I got more take home pay. It went to me. I didn't invest it in the government. I was free to do whatever I pleased with the cash.

Bush originally in 2001 and again in 2003 promoted his tax cuts on two premises:

1. It puts your money in your pockets.
2. it will spur the economy:

Here is an article from 2003 to refresh yourself about the bush perspective: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-01-10/news/0301100098_1_2001-tax-cut-bush-new-tax

Lot of promises about economic growth.

So where is the BEEF?

I'll repost a review on the results:

After 8.5 years of Bush II presidency the nation experienced its 2nd lowest growth rate in gdp than under any other president since 1960. When you add in the last 6 months of Bush II's term with a recession and negative gdp....the result are WORSE.

So what I see out of Bush...are a lot of general and entirely unsubstantiated promises about economic growth from his political speeches and the EXACT OPPOSITE RESULTS

So I go back to my original question to you.

In what did Bush invest in? Where are the results?

Was it individuals who invested? If so their aggregate investments from Bush tax cuts still resulted in the lowest or 2nd lowest percentage growth of GDP in the last 50 years. Also at the end of this period that you describe as "investment" we had the worst recession in the last 70 years. So that didn't work. Looks like all that "investment" you described went bad.

I personally don't see how a trillion dollars or substantially more (depending on who is doing the analysis) of cutting taxes is investment. Bush II might have campaigned on it with unsubstantiated promises...but the results look miserable.

 

One word: Iceland

 

LINK

..........

 

Ah, yes, Earl's personal attacks.

Let's stay on topic, shall we? Earl, your topic is the Bush tax cuts and how they affected the economy. I see you tried to change the topic, so I would like to stay on topic, O.K.? Your topic is the Bush tax cuts and how they affected the economy.

For the fifth time, Earl, HOW were the Bush/Obama tax cuts invested in the economy? And WHY did Obama approve the tax cuts?
(like I wrote, YOU DON'T CARE, do you?)

And, a followup - for the SECOND time, WHO, exactly, were affected by the Bush/Obama tax cuts? (hint: not the rich. Side note: I've read the actual bill)

Let's not change the topic, Earl. O.K.?

 

News is reporting that U.S. "unemployment rate" has ticked up to 8.2%. Real Unemployment (now called the Underemployment Rate) rose from 14.5% to 14.8%.
source

 

The problem is, Democrats do not understand the difference between net and gross. When you gain 60k jobs, but lost 160k jobs, your not gaining anything. What you have is a NET LOSS of 100k jobs.

This is why unemployment goes up even though jobs numbers have gone up.

Now we're still not even factoring in the number of people off the unemployment rolls that never returned to work. With that in mind, you can probably double that unemployment number.

 

I hear they are thinking about printing up more money... LOL