Thanks to Obama Policies, DOW is up 8,000 points from Bush debacle

[Rozman]

The sequester cut the increases in spending not the funding itself.
So when the Libs say that kids aren't being fed and old people are being left in the streets to die
it's bullshit.

Funding of the Libs favorite programs were not halted.
The increase in spending for them were.

 

[Dot Com]

Krugman is right again

Riiight...because cutting tax rates ALWAYS results in less tax revenue. There's NEVER a stimulative effect on the economy, resulting in more revenue.



Idiot!

ad hominem AND no link to back up your supply side assertion.

 

[Oldstyle]

Krugman is right again

Riiight...because cutting tax rates ALWAYS results in less tax revenue. There's NEVER a stimulative effect on the economy, resulting in more revenue.



Idiot!

ad hominem AND no link to back up your supply side assertion.

Gee, Dottie...get a load of this "supply sider"...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The RATE of increase is dropping.

Of course, that's not the same as dropping like a stone or a rock.

But why quibble?

 

[Dot Com]

repubs and thier supply-side/voodoo economics

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2006 Sebastian Mallaby of The Washington Post quoted George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Chuck Grassley, and Rick Santorum misstating the effect of the Bush Administration's tax cuts. On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003–2004 responded to the claim:
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

 

[Oldstyle]

Notice you didn't respond to the Kennedy video, Dottie.

Gee, I wonder what MSNBC & Think Progress would do to a liberal icon like JFK if he gave that same speech today?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Something is wrong numbers from this link does not match with the real time clock

U.S. National Debt Clock

Real time clock
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[eflatminor]

Krugman is right again

Riiight...because cutting tax rates ALWAYS results in less tax revenue. There's NEVER a stimulative effect on the economy, resulting in more revenue.



Idiot!

ad hominem

No, statement of fact.

AND no link to back up your supply side assertion.

You need a link to understand the fact that no one can state with certainty how changes in tax rates will effect tax revenues? How sad for you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The debt keeps growing -- massively -- and with frightening speed.

BUT ... it is not growing quite as fast as it had been.

We are still dropping like a rock, but the speed of our descent is a little slower.

If we crash, we will still all get smashed to atoms, yet it might take us JUST a bit longer to hit the ground and meet our demise.

To the lolberals, this means "progress!"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And the problem there is that policy tends to get establsihed off these forcasts. So I guess it should be extremely evident now why central planning is a terrible idea. Probably the worst idea some humans ever concocted.

You have it exactly backward. Centrally planned economies have no need for forecasting. Why forecast when you know what Gosplan calls for?

Is that why everyone waits and watches so intensely when Bernanke has his little meets to tell market participants what the fed is thinking of doing next? And why it plays such a huge roll in what the markets end up doing?

 

[Sallow]

It's basically because of the Sequester. And it isn't a good thing.

Agreed. Sequester doesn't go nearly far enough.

Dunno.

Either it's going to take a couple more bridges falling into the ground or a visit to Shanghai to show what happens when you don't spend on infrastructure and innovation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You mean the bridge that fell while it was being worked on? That bridge? Here, I have another bridge to sell you. It'll help with that fictional debt reduction.

 

[boedicca]

Saying Obama has reduced the deficit is like saying an arsonist who shows up with a bucket of water is helping to put out a fire.

 

[oldfart]

And the problem there is that policy tends to get establsihed off these forcasts. So I guess it should be extremely evident now why central planning is a terrible idea. Probably the worst idea some humans ever concocted.

You have it exactly backward. Centrally planned economies have no need for forecasting. Why forecast when you know what Gosplan calls for?

Is that why everyone waits and watches so intensely when Bernanke has his little meets to tell market participants what the fed is thinking of doing next? And why it plays such a huge roll in what the markets end up doing?

The Fed is one of the few players which can actually control something (monetary base and short term interest rates) in the economy without having to organize a kum-ba-yah moment.

 

[asterism]

It's basically because of the Sequester. And it isn't a good thing.

Agreed. Sequester doesn't go nearly far enough.

Dunno.

Either it's going to take a couple more bridges falling into the ground or a visit to Shanghai to show what happens when you don't spend on infrastructure and innovation.

Are you talking about the one that wasn't designed to have a large truck crash into it?

Truck crash caused Washington state bridge collapse: officials | Reuters

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You have it exactly backward. Centrally planned economies have no need for forecasting. Why forecast when you know what Gosplan calls for?

Is that why everyone waits and watches so intensely when Bernanke has his little meets to tell market participants what the fed is thinking of doing next? And why it plays such a huge roll in what the markets end up doing?

The Fed is one of the few players which can actually control something (monetary base and short term interest rates) in the economy without having to organize a kum-ba-yah moment.

No, the Federal Reserve is the central economic planner. Hence why their moves are of the utmost importance to the remaining (what little semblance there is) market actors. They will determine interest rates, which in turn, decides a host of other important variables in a debt society.

 

[oldfart]

Is that why everyone waits and watches so intensely when Bernanke has his little meets to tell market participants what the fed is thinking of doing next? And why it plays such a huge roll in what the markets end up doing?

The Fed is one of the few players which can actually control something (monetary base and short term interest rates) in the economy without having to organize a kum-ba-yah moment.

No, the Federal Reserve is the central economic planner. Hence why their moves are of the utmost importance to the remaining (what little semblance there is) market actors. They will determine interest rates, which in turn, decides a host of other important variables in a debt society.

To equate the Federal Reserve with Gosplan may be rhetorically satisfying, but still inaccurate. Gosplan never had to deal with a financial sector and centrally planned economies have no financial sector markets to regulate. In theory, centrally planned economies have no interest rates. About the only financial sector needing attention is foreign exchange, and Gosbank handles that.

 

[Rshermr]

Agreed. Sequester doesn't go nearly far enough.

Dunno.

Either it's going to take a couple more bridges falling into the ground or a visit to Shanghai to show what happens when you don't spend on infrastructure and innovation.

Are you talking about the one that wasn't designed to have a large truck crash into it?

Truck crash caused Washington state bridge collapse: officials | Reuters

I live about 10 miles from that bridge. Drove across it all the time. There was no huge crash, an over sized truck simply did not move to the center lane where it could have passed without issue. It then did indeed hit an overhead support. But that had happened before. And should not have caused the problem it did.
By the way, the truck made it fully across the bridge and the driver watched behind him as the southbound span fell.

And yes, by the way, the bridge was noted as potentially hazardous and in need of fixing or replacing. It was not the first time it had had similar collisions to the upper supports. This one simply was a final straw.

 

[Avorysuds]

Falling like a stone?

FY 2014*: $744 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion


US Federal Deficit Definition - plus charts and analysis

A 50% reduction from what Bush and Republicans handed Obama, is certainly "dropping like a rock"

But those who created the $1.4 trillion debacle are convinced they could reduce it much faster.

Of course .....

Wouldn't we know what the deficit is only be the end of the year?

How many months left does the deficit have to grow?

Obama said he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, and get us out of Iraq in his first year in office.... Bush's timeline got us out of Iraq as Obama tried to stay and Obama grew the deficit while in office during his first term.

Where does the 80 billion a month in stimulus spending that the FED-R does get counted? Or does Obama get credit for the markets looking good but not at the cost? Basically, does the near trillion dollars in stimulus this year alone not get recorded on the books?


What happened to the deficit this year being around 400 billion... Year ain't up and we're almost 800 billion.... We'll prolly be around a trillion. Who lied to us and why did you push that lie?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Fed is one of the few players which can actually control something (monetary base and short term interest rates) in the economy without having to organize a kum-ba-yah moment.

No, the Federal Reserve is the central economic planner. Hence why their moves are of the utmost importance to the remaining (what little semblance there is) market actors. They will determine interest rates, which in turn, decides a host of other important variables in a debt society.

To equate the Federal Reserve with Gosplan may be rhetorically satisfying, but still inaccurate. Gosplan never had to deal with a financial sector and centrally planned economies have no financial sector markets to regulate. In theory, centrally planned economies have no interest rates. About the only financial sector needing attention is foreign exchange, and Gosbank handles that.

No one made equivocal rhetoric. Otherwise, nice undies.