Consumer Spending...

[saveliberty]

Cantor said Obama’s stimulus was passed with the "promise" of keeping the unemployment rate below 8 percent.

The majority leader says the vow was made in a January 2009 report issued by the incoming administration. But the study did not guarantee specific results from the stimulus, it offered economic projections that contained disclaimers saying the estimates had "significant margins of error" and a high degree of uncertainty due to a recession that was "unusual both in its fundamental causes and severity."

Clearly, the Obama administration can be faulted for estimating the stimulus would hold unemployment just below 8 percent. But contrary to Cantor’s claim, Obama never promised that outcome, nor did his administration.

Again, we rate the statement Mostly False.

In context. Love how you dingleberries always create lies by taking statements out of context.

You and your idiot friend claimed I was mistaken when I said, The Obama Adminstration said unemployment would not get above 8%." That is 100% correct. Note I did not say Obama said it, nor did I say it was a promise. You lose and also created a lie at the same time.

 

[whitehall]

.

Republicans predicted Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. Republicans predicted Romney
would be elected POTUS. Republicans predicted, if Obama were reelected the stock market would
crash and-----and Republican gloom and doomers predicted decreased spending when payroll taxes went up but-----but consumer spending is ↑


Consumer spending surprisingly robust in February - latimes.com


By Don Lee March 13, 2013


WASHINGTON -- Consumer spending grew at a surprisingly strong pace last month, another encouraging sign that the economy may be gaining momentum despite the hit from higher taxes and gas prices and fears of government spending cuts.

Retail sales rose 1.1% in February from the prior month, seasonally adjusted, thanks in large part to robust gains for cars and building materials and at Internet stores, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. The overall sales rate increase was the biggest in five months and about double what many analysts had forecast.

Consumers did feel the pinch from higher fuel prices. Sales at gasoline stations jumped 5% last month from January, a big factor in the overall retail sales growth. Even so, after excluding consumer spending for gas and for cars, so-called core retail sales increased a solid 0.4% in February, and this measure was revised up to 0.3% for January from 0.1% previously estimated.

Taken together, the report suggests stronger underlying confidence and willingness to spend on the part of consumers, most likely reflecting rising stock prices, a recovering housing market and recent gains in employment and earnings.
.

The number of retail sales didn't necessarily rise. The amount that people paid for retail goods increased. Of course it did but it doesn't mean the economy is growing. The time of the year indicates that people are paying more for energy costs in an uncommonly severe winter that doesn't seem to want to end.

 

[saveliberty]

We met 40% of our quarterly objective for new car sales in January. That slowed in February and now we will probably miss the quarter all together, due to a very slow March. Weather was much better in 2012 for March in our region. I suspect that is a factor as well.

 

[Londoner]

1945-1973: Greatest Rate of Economic Growth in US History.

Policies: Pro Labor = high wages & benefits = massive consumer spending.

Finance was heavily regulated = no S & L, no Enron, no Wall Street derivative meltdown, no manipulation of oil prices through over-speculation in futures market. Result: 40 years of remarkable stability in Financial markets.

"After market" middle class policies designed to maintain full employment... reduce middle class cost of living by making college affordable... extend Social Security and Medicare so that middle class families are not bankrupted w/parental care. The result is that the middle class has more money for consumption.

When consumers have money - when demand is high - capital has an incentive to innovate and invest in the real economy. This is why the postwar model worked. Government took care of middle class demand, and capital worked its magic to capture that demand. (BUT... on the other hand, when demand is low, investors have no incentive to add jobs or invest in the real economy ...so they flee overseas or play the Wall derivative ponzi casino)

1980 - present. The era of Reaganomics. Cheap labor, high profits and the expansion of credit to American Families Eliminate postwar Labor policies for the purpose of giving investors and corporations cheaper labor costs (=higher profits). Liberalize trade. Allow investors to move capital to cheaper labor markets in Communist China. Roll back all middle class policies to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy. Defund education programs to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy. Eliminate as many benefits and entitlements as possible to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy. Allow mega-mergers and provide virtual monopolies to health and energy sector, allowing them to put a noose around the necks of middle class families.

Problem with the cheap labor, high profit model: As the wages, benefits and support programs of the middle class goes down (to give the wealthy higher profits), more and more consumer credit is required to make up for lost wages/benefit. This is why starting in the 80s the USA went on a 30 year orgy of debt-based consumption. Morning in America brought to by American Express, Visa and Subprime. (Once we cut the wages/benefits or workers, credit cards became the easy fix . . . )

Allow capitalists like Mitt Romney to profit immensely from this country's modern industrial infrastrcuture - but, at the same time, allow him to store his profits overseas so he doesn't have to pay for the resources he exploits. Use the Pentagon to protect the assets tied to his overseas supply chains, e.g., build bases around the globe in order to stabilize dangerous regions so that his products can flow efficiently from the developing world (FYI: this is where you need to remind republicans to look at the labels on their clothes. Those clothes were made in unstable places that require periodic military intervention).

Change the role of the Fed from maintaining full employment to fighting inflation. Give the wealthy subsidies, bailouts and monopolies. Give everyone else austerity. Break down all regulations to lobbying and election funding, thus allowing concentrated corporate wealth to fund elections and staff government. Use Lobbying to convert Government into an instrument of corporations and the wealthy. Then, when something goes wrong, blame "government". (Pour money into talk radio in order to fool morons into believing that someone besides the wealthy owns government)

Apply financial pressure to capture all regulatory bodies. Defang the SEC so Arthur Anderson can do Enron's taxes in the dark and AIG can sell 1 trillion dollars of CDO's without having the money on hand to cover it.

(funnel money into Talk Radio so well meaning morons don't understand any of this)

Blame the death of the middle class on government. Cover up the fact that you actually own government, and it was in your narrow special interest to give them credit cards instead of livable wages. . . as you ship more and more jobs to your factories in Taiwan.

Create an economy where the profits of the wealthy come from products made in Communist China and energy from the terrorists regimes you support, mostly in Saudi Arabia.

Claim to be fighting terrorism in the front of the house. Sell arms to Iran in the back of the house. Fund talk radio and think tanks and FOX News so they can change the topic to gay mexican islamo commie liberal atheist multicultural socialist secularists.

Game Over.

 

[sfcalifornia]

1.1 percent!?!?!?


Wow!!!!

Obama has saved us!!

Maybe, maybe you're right. It could be that people's positive outlook is because of President Obama and is therefore causal for increased consumer spending, but me, I'm thinking it's just another in a long line wrongheaded gloom and doom from the Republican party, but-----but you're entitled to give President Obama credit for the improving economy...


Consumer Spending Plummets After Payroll Tax Increase - BREITBART

by Tony Lee
22 Feb 2013

When President Barack Obama and Congress agreed to increase the federal payroll tax by two percent to temporarily avert the so-called fiscal cliff in January, Americans were left with less money to spend. Now, some of the country's largest companies are seeing sales plummet as a result.

On top of high gas prices, job uncertainty, and stagnant wages, the payroll tax cut expiration, which increased that tax by 2%, will "ding a household with $65,000 in annual income $1,300 this year." Citigroup estimates the payroll tax increase will take "$110 billion overall out of consumers' hands."

According to the Wall Street Journal, companies like WalMart, Burger King, Kraft Foods, and Tyson Foods have said they are lowering earnings forecasts and "adjusting sales and marketing strategies, expecting consumers with smaller paychecks to dine out less and trade down to less expensive purchases."

<snip>

I was being sacastic.

Obama has been the worst President for the economy in my lifetime.

Your lifetime must be very short.

 

[saveliberty]

Totally ignored post WWII conditions which created the whole economic expansion Londoner. Thanks for the load of crap, but I don't accept that kind of order.

 

[Star]

.
During the time period of Reagan Revolution rules/laws/regulations, i.e. the redistribution of wealth upwards, CEO pay has increased 725%, while an average worker's pay has increased only 5.7% -- not even keeping up with inflation.
U.S. CEOs are now paid 231 times more than average workers. IOWs the money American workers used to spend on consumer goods (during America's greatest economic years) is now being hoarded by the uber-wealthy instead of circulating thru the economy the way it was during America's greatest economic years.


THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Henry Blodget
Jul. 12, 2011​

<snip>​

Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?​

Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?​

And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?​

Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.​

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

• Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

• Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

• Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

• Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

• Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

Don't take our word for it, though.

Let's begin with a look at the top income tax bracket since the federal income tax was started in 1913. As you can see, relative to history, it's currently VERY low.​

​

US Income Tax Brackets 1913-2011​

<snip>​

.

 

[saveliberty]

Before 1913, income tax was not needed at all. Maybe that is where you need to focus.

 

[Star]

Before 1913, income tax was not needed at all. Maybe that is where you need to focus.

Maybe, but why -- that's history.
Maybe you should focus on explaining how you would go about generating the necessary revenue to fund the future.
.

 

[saveliberty]

Its called sales tax. Replace income tax with sales tax. You buy something, you pay period.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It is a sign we're going in the right direction for a change. Sadly where I live, Missouri and Kansas, things are not really improving much.

 

[Star]

Its called sales tax. Replace income tax with sales tax. You buy something, you pay period.

Your message reminds me of the story about a professor that asserted, sugar is the only word in the English language where the 'su' is pronounced 'Sh'!
A student replied, are you sure?

Are you saying you think that pre-1913, most revenue generated in the US was via a sales tax?



Since Ratification of the Constitution: Even after ratification of the Constitution, most federal government revenue was generated through tariffs -- taxes on imported products -- and excise taxes -- taxes on the sale or use of specific products or transactions.
.

 

[Star]

Totally ignored post WWII conditions which created the whole economic expansion Londoner. Thanks for the load of crap, but I don't accept that kind of order.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Let's begin with a look at the top income tax bracket since the federal income tax was started in 1913. As you can see, relative to history, it's currently VERY low.​

​

US Income Tax Brackets 1913-2011​

 

[saveliberty]

Totally ignored post WWII conditions which created the whole economic expansion Londoner. Thanks for the load of crap, but I don't accept that kind of order.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Let's begin with a look at the top income tax bracket since the federal income tax was started in 1913. As you can see, relative to history, it's currently VERY low.​

​

US Income Tax Brackets 1913-2011​

The discussion was what caused the economic expansion moron. You jump in with an unrelated topic all together. You also make the insane conclusion that higher tax rates drive economic expansion.

 

[Star]

Totally ignored post WWII conditions which created the whole economic expansion Londoner. Thanks for the load of crap, but I don't accept that kind of order.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Let's begin with a look at the top income tax bracket since the federal income tax was started in 1913. As you can see, relative to history, it's currently VERY low.​

​

US Income Tax Brackets 1913-2011​

The discussion was what caused the economic expansion moron. You jump in with an unrelated topic all together. You also make the insane conclusion that higher tax rates drive economic expansion.

Ooo lookee here, dinky dau claims that before 1913 the US source of revenue is called "sales tax"
then-----then when s/he gets proven wrong, s/he gets all pissy, LOL --- boocoo dinky dau or historically challenged, either way SMH @ U.
.

 

[uscitizen]

A pure flat personal income tax with no deductions.

You make 10,000 you pay x%
you make 10,000,000 you pay the exact same percent.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A pure flat personal income tax with no deductions.

You make 10,000 you pay x%
you make 10,000,000 you pay the exact same percent.

Im down for that....in a heartbeat

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I was being sacastic.

Obama has been the worst President for the economy in my lifetime.

No.

He isn't.

Junebug was.

Your emotions don't change a whole lot of facts.