Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Isn't it a little pathetic that the only economic solution republicans have for fixing the economy are tax cuts for the wealthy? Guess what? Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. Why? Because stimulating supply side means dick if you don't stimulate demand side. Obama understood this. Republicans didn't. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. That and the billions it added to our national debt. (Let's not forget the 10 trillion of our 17 trillion debt is from Bush's time as president).
According to the CBO, JP Morgan, and Moody, Obama's stimulus package created 2.5 million jobs. Why wasn't enough? Because republicans insisted it be smaller. But why? 280 billion of the 787 billion spent was TAX CUTS. Why did those tax cuts create jobs? Because it included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan. Not only that, but it included the extension of unemployment insurance. Unemployed people who would otherwise be not spending money were spending money. Those benefits were spent immediately on basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. That extra demand created jobs. 19000 jobs per billion dollar unemployment benefits. This is an example of DEMAND side economics in action.
Why would more tax cuts for the wealthy be useless? Well obviously because corporate profits are at an all time high and 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. More tax cuts for the wealthy would do dick to create jobs. That is republican's ONLY economic solution. That makes them useless.
What is the solution? More DEMAND side economic policies like the stimulus that is proven to work. Bigger this time so it will make a difference. Does that mean more national debt? Of course, but tax cutting means more debt as well. The difference is that Obama's economic policies work. Unfortunately 2.5 million jobs wasn't enough to make a dent in the 8 million jobs we lost from the 2008 crisis. Like I said, BIGGER.
Here is a non partisan analysis that confirms everything that I have said here. Proof the stimulus worked.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...he-obama-stimulus-a-success-or-a-failure.html
Here is an article from Moody that explains why extending unemployment benefits creates jobs.
Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy
Isn't it a little pathetic that the only economic solution republicans have for fixing the economy are tax cuts for the wealthy? Guess what? Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. Why? Because stimulating supply side means dick if you don't stimulate demand side. Obama understood this. Republicans didn't. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. That and the billions it added to our national debt. (Let's not forget the 10 trillion of our 17 trillion debt is from Bush's time as president).
According to the CBO, JP Morgan, and Moody, Obama's stimulus package created 2.5 million jobs. Why wasn't enough? Because republicans insisted it be smaller. But why? 280 billion of the 787 billion spent was TAX CUTS. Why did those tax cuts create jobs? Because it included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan. Not only that, but it included the extension of unemployment insurance. Unemployed people who would otherwise be not spending money were spending money. Those benefits were spent immediately on basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. That extra demand created jobs. 19000 jobs per billion dollar unemployment benefits. This is an example of DEMAND side economics in action.
Why would more tax cuts for the wealthy be useless? Well obviously because corporate profits are at an all time high and 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. More tax cuts for the wealthy would do dick to create jobs. That is republican's ONLY economic solution. That makes them useless.
What is the solution? More DEMAND side economic policies like the stimulus that is proven to work. Bigger this time so it will make a difference. Does that mean more national debt? Of course, but tax cutting means more debt as well. The difference is that Obama's economic policies work. Unfortunately 2.5 million jobs wasn't enough to make a dent in the 8 million jobs we lost from the 2008 crisis. Like I said, BIGGER.
Here is a non partisan analysis that confirms everything that I have said here. Proof the stimulus worked.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...he-obama-stimulus-a-success-or-a-failure.html
Here is an article from Moody that explains why extending unemployment benefits creates jobs.
Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy
The country by almost all measures is going down the tubes and you post your BS blaming the party that I am quite sure last week you would be laughing at for not winning elections. Businesses created the jobs not Obama. Corporations create wealth not Obama or the government. The stimulus packages may indeed have created some short term employment but at what cost to our grandchildren?
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
Which corporate profits? All of them? Do you have that list? Hardly. Gross revenues are spotty.
The primary reason stocks are high is because fundamentals are good. What are fundamentals? Net profit percentages are high because corporations are doing more with less. And, corporation balance sheets are fat because they're not spending money and that free cash flow looks good to investors.
Why are SOME corporations doing more with less, and why are they hoarding cash? One painfully obvious reason is that the current government/business environment is so hostile. I could provide all of the examples of that, but I'm not going to put out that much effort and I'm not sure this website is equipped with the requisite bandwidth for all of them. And companies are not motivated to hire when the government is this hostile. Good gawd, this really should be obvious.
And there are plenty of exceptions. AAPL for example, which just announced a freaking massive stock buyback. So THEY'RE hoarding STOCK in this environment. Smart.
This "corporate profits are at an all time high" meme is typical simplistic partisan patter.
Ironic thread title is very, very ironic.
.
Isn't it a little pathetic that the only economic solution republicans have for fixing the economy are tax cuts for the wealthy? Guess what? Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. Why? Because stimulating supply side means dick if you don't stimulate demand side. Obama understood this. Republicans didn't. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. That and the billions it added to our national debt. (Let's not forget the 10 trillion of our 17 trillion debt is from Bush's time as president).
According to the CBO, JP Morgan, and Moody, Obama's stimulus package created 2.5 million jobs. Why wasn't enough? Because republicans insisted it be smaller. But why? 280 billion of the 787 billion spent was TAX CUTS. Why did those tax cuts create jobs? Because it included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan. Not only that, but it included the extension of unemployment insurance. Unemployed people who would otherwise be not spending money were spending money. Those benefits were spent immediately on basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. That extra demand created jobs. 19000 jobs per billion dollar unemployment benefits. This is an example of DEMAND side economics in action.
Why would more tax cuts for the wealthy be useless? Well obviously because corporate profits are at an all time high and 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. More tax cuts for the wealthy would do dick to create jobs. That is republican's ONLY economic solution. That makes them useless.
What is the solution? More DEMAND side economic policies like the stimulus that is proven to work. Bigger this time so it will make a difference. Does that mean more national debt? Of course, but tax cutting means more debt as well. The difference is that Obama's economic policies work. Unfortunately 2.5 million jobs wasn't enough to make a dent in the 8 million jobs we lost from the 2008 crisis. Like I said, BIGGER.
Here is a non partisan analysis that confirms everything that I have said here. Proof the stimulus worked.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...he-obama-stimulus-a-success-or-a-failure.html
Here is an article from Moody that explains why extending unemployment benefits creates jobs.
Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy
The country by almost all measures is going down the tubes and you post your BS blaming the party that I am quite sure last week you would be laughing at for not winning elections. Businesses created the jobs not Obama. Corporations create wealth not Obama or the government. The stimulus packages may indeed have created some short term employment but at what cost to our grandchildren?
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
And yet you can't explain why it's wrong.
I don't need to explain anything.... I'M LIVING AND SUFFERING through it....
but you can keep making excuse for him like a good useful tool subject for a party by blaming everyone else, ho hum the usual
I'm not saying Obama fixed the economy. I'm saying he could have had republicans not fucked everything up. However what he did do is prevent the economy from collapsing from the 2008 crisis.
The country by almost all measures is going down the tubes and you post your BS blaming the party that I am quite sure last week you would be laughing at for not winning elections. Businesses created the jobs not Obama. Corporations create wealth not Obama or the government. The stimulus packages may indeed have created some short term employment but at what cost to our grandchildren?
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
I just thought I read where you were bragging that Obama created 2 million jobs. The reality isn't that Obama created one job, corporations and business created those jobs.
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
Which corporate profits? All of them? Do you have that list? Hardly. Gross revenues are spotty.
The primary reason stocks are high is because fundamentals are good. What are fundamentals? Net profit percentages are high because corporations are doing more with less. And, corporation balance sheets are fat because they're not spending money and that free cash flow looks good to investors.
Why are SOME corporations doing more with less, and why are they hoarding cash? One painfully obvious reason is that the current government/business environment is so hostile. I could provide all of the examples of that, but I'm not going to put out that much effort and I'm not sure this website is equipped with the requisite bandwidth for all of them. And companies are not motivated to hire when the government is this hostile. Good gawd, this really should be obvious.
And there are plenty of exceptions. AAPL for example, which just announced a freaking massive stock buyback. So THEY'RE hoarding STOCK in this environment. Smart.
This "corporate profits are at an all time high" meme is typical simplistic partisan patter.
Ironic thread title is very, very ironic.
.
What do you think is the effect of 401ks on keeping the stock market high? It seems to me that the American worker is pouring money into the stock market everyday. Naturally this would seem to keep the stock market growing while other economic indicators take a downturn.
Which corporate profits? All of them? Do you have that list? Hardly. Gross revenues are spotty.
The primary reason stocks are high is because fundamentals are good. What are fundamentals? Net profit percentages are high because corporations are doing more with less. And, corporation balance sheets are fat because they're not spending money and that free cash flow looks good to investors.
Why are SOME corporations doing more with less, and why are they hoarding cash? One painfully obvious reason is that the current government/business environment is so hostile. I could provide all of the examples of that, but I'm not going to put out that much effort and I'm not sure this website is equipped with the requisite bandwidth for all of them. And companies are not motivated to hire when the government is this hostile. Good gawd, this really should be obvious.
And there are plenty of exceptions. AAPL for example, which just announced a freaking massive stock buyback. So THEY'RE hoarding STOCK in this environment. Smart.
This "corporate profits are at an all time high" meme is typical simplistic partisan patter.
Ironic thread title is very, very ironic.
.
What do you think is the effect of 401ks on keeping the stock market high? It seems to me that the American worker is pouring money into the stock market everyday. Naturally this would seem to keep the stock market growing while other economic indicators take a downturn.
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
What do you think is the effect of 401ks on keeping the stock market high? It seems to me that the American worker is pouring money into the stock market everyday. Naturally this would seem to keep the stock market growing while other economic indicators take a downturn.
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
The retirement savings participation is not driving the stock market. it never has.
Americans on average save very little for retirement.
What's driving the market is the artificially low interest rates and the government printing money.
People are borrowing at near zero interest and then investing in the market and the people doing that are not your average Joe.
What will happen to your average Joe is that when the bubble fueled by the above scenario bursts is that he will get crushed again unless he is vigilant and protects his portfolio.
And history shows that the average Joe investor is not vigilant.
What do you think is the effect of 401ks on keeping the stock market high? It seems to me that the American worker is pouring money into the stock market everyday. Naturally this would seem to keep the stock market growing while other economic indicators take a downturn.
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
The retirement savings participation is not driving the stock market. it never has.
Americans on average save very little for retirement.
What's driving the market is the artificially low interest rates and the government printing money.
People are borrowing at near zero interest and then investing in the market and the people doing that are not your average Joe.
What will happen to your average Joe is that when the bubble fueled by the above scenario bursts is that he will get crushed again unless he is vigilant and protects his portfolio.
And history shows that the average Joe investor is not vigilant.
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
I just thought I read where you were bragging that Obama created 2 million jobs. The reality isn't that Obama created one job, corporations and business created those jobs.
With the help of government legislation.
As I said corporate profits are at an all time high. Where are the jobs?
Which corporate profits? All of them? Do you have that list? Hardly. Gross revenues are spotty.
The primary reason stocks are high is because fundamentals are good. What are fundamentals? Net profit percentages are high because corporations are doing more with less. And, corporation balance sheets are fat because they're not spending money and that free cash flow looks good to investors.
Why are SOME corporations doing more with less, and why are they hoarding cash? One painfully obvious reason is that the current government/business environment is so hostile. I could provide all of the examples of that, but I'm not going to put out that much effort and I'm not sure this website is equipped with the requisite bandwidth for all of them. And companies are not motivated to hire when the government is this hostile. Good gawd, this really should be obvious.
And there are plenty of exceptions. AAPL for example, which just announced a freaking massive stock buyback. So THEY'RE hoarding STOCK in this environment. Smart.
This "corporate profits are at an all time high" meme is typical simplistic partisan patter.
Ironic thread title is very, very ironic.
.
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
The retirement savings participation is not driving the stock market. it never has.
Americans on average save very little for retirement.
What's driving the market is the artificially low interest rates and the government printing money.
People are borrowing at near zero interest and then investing in the market and the people doing that are not your average Joe.
What will happen to your average Joe is that when the bubble fueled by the above scenario bursts is that he will get crushed again unless he is vigilant and protects his portfolio.
And history shows that the average Joe investor is not vigilant.
20 years ago there were no 401Ks. Thus any extra money, for most people, went into savings or CDs. Now it seems to me that every company offers a 401K plan. Most companies base their retirement plans on a 401K. I am not sure how this can not have an effect on the stock market.
Which corporate profits? All of them? Do you have that list? Hardly. Gross revenues are spotty.
The primary reason stocks are high is because fundamentals are good. What are fundamentals? Net profit percentages are high because corporations are doing more with less. And, corporation balance sheets are fat because they're not spending money and that free cash flow looks good to investors.
Why are SOME corporations doing more with less, and why are they hoarding cash? One painfully obvious reason is that the current government/business environment is so hostile. I could provide all of the examples of that, but I'm not going to put out that much effort and I'm not sure this website is equipped with the requisite bandwidth for all of them. And companies are not motivated to hire when the government is this hostile. Good gawd, this really should be obvious.
And there are plenty of exceptions. AAPL for example, which just announced a freaking massive stock buyback. So THEY'RE hoarding STOCK in this environment. Smart.
This "corporate profits are at an all time high" meme is typical simplistic partisan patter.
Ironic thread title is very, very ironic.
.
What do you think is the effect of 401ks on keeping the stock market high? It seems to me that the American worker is pouring money into the stock market everyday. Naturally this would seem to keep the stock market growing while other economic indicators take a downturn.
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
What do you think is the effect of 401ks on keeping the stock market high? It seems to me that the American worker is pouring money into the stock market everyday. Naturally this would seem to keep the stock market growing while other economic indicators take a downturn.
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
It seems to me that the money put into a 401K is fairly constant. Like filling a swimming pool. As long as no one shuts off the hose or the pool gets a leak the level has to increase. That is why when the stock market goes down, in my opinion, it means that someone rich is taking money off the top.
umhmmm, how many time are they going post this..?
and as we see the Dear Leader is even worse at it...
thread fail
And yet you can't explain why it's wrong.
The retirement savings participation is not driving the stock market. it never has.
Americans on average save very little for retirement.
What's driving the market is the artificially low interest rates and the government printing money.
People are borrowing at near zero interest and then investing in the market and the people doing that are not your average Joe.
What will happen to your average Joe is that when the bubble fueled by the above scenario bursts is that he will get crushed again unless he is vigilant and protects his portfolio.
And history shows that the average Joe investor is not vigilant.
20 years ago there were no 401Ks. Thus any extra money, for most people, went into savings or CDs. Now it seems to me that every company offers a 401K plan. Most companies base their retirement plans on a 401K. I am not sure how this can not have an effect on the stock market.
FYI the 401 k was established in 1978.
If you raise the price of something, you get less of it sold. Obama raised the price of labor through an increase in min wage plus employer mandates like ACA. That makes hiring more expensive, ergo there is less of it. Corporate profits are high because companies have been cutting costs, not increasing revenue. They wont raise costs by hiring until they absolutely have to.Investment is important but it is only as good as the demand that is created out of it. That is how our economic system works.
No, that is not true. Business invesmtent stimulates the economy, increasing efficiency, bringing new products, and lowering costs. Consumer demand is relatively unimportant for growth.
Don't worry. Most of Obama's economic advisors believe just like you do. That's why their policies have faiiled decisively over the last 5 years.
Think about what you are saying. Lowering costs and bringing in new products means dick if people are not spending adequate money to meet the spike in supply. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, where are the jobs?
Tough question. On one hand, inflows to qualified plans generally remain fairly consistent because they're automatic out of paychecks, so the ebb & flow there doesn't have too much effect, I reckon. I'm an investment advisor and I rarely if ever see any kind of significant changes there with my business clients.
On the other hand, the mutual funds within the plans do buy & sell, and there's about $3.5T invested in them through qualified plans like 401K's.
Hmm. I guess my answer would be "a little". How's that for an evasive answer!
.
It seems to me that the money put into a 401K is fairly constant. Like filling a swimming pool. As long as no one shuts off the hose or the pool gets a leak the level has to increase. That is why when the stock market goes down, in my opinion, it means that someone rich is taking money off the top.
Remember that plenty of people are taking money out of 401K's via retirement income, and that number is increasing rapidly as the population increases. I don't have the comparisons of inflow to retirement outflow in front of me, but that's definitely a big mitigating factor.
The stock market is a lousy indicator of the economy. Right now the market is absolutely devoid of reason or rationality, and it moves up and down based on emotion, especially the emotion of institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension plans, etc. It moves based on split-second information, and even when that information is flat wrong.
"Someone rich" is always going to make money on moves, but the move can be up or down.
.
