Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would be new? Like I said earlier, the only argument you want to have is how this is all Obama's fault, or democrats in general. Leave it to us to discuss with a broader perspective than you're willing to take.
You're wrong on Clinton tax policy as well. While Obama is not considering reinstating tax rates on those making under 200-250K (depending on individual or household incomes), he has been for going back to Clinton tax rates on the rest. He worked a compromise with republican in December which got the tax cuts extended for now. Don't count on it the next time around.
But, regardless of whether he does or not, do you now believe that tax cuts are an issue? Or, do you believe that they are an issue only as long as Obama is responsible for extending them?
Housing primarily increased demand around housing. People were taking "attractive" loans left and right to get the biggest they could find with hope of multiplying their "investment" because virtually nothing was expected off savings account. So yes, therein lies the difference. "Credit" was the new savings plan for much of last decade, leading to the credit bubble (a glimpse of such credit bubble showed up in late 1980s as well).
Can you be clearer? Your words were
Quote:
But I think Obama was wrong in extending the cuts.
If he hadn't extended them, everyones' taxes would have reverted to Clinton-era rates. Is that what you want or not?
In any case, you jumped into this tangential discussion on my post #352, which just corrected some misinformation in #351...
Either you really don't know or you are being dishonest.
You should know that there was a temporary stimulus of $787 billion. (Notice the word 'temporary.') You must also know that when the economy is bad, there are additional social spending, like unemployment benefits. I am sure you included TARP, which has been essentially paid back.
So, what would we have expected total government spending — federal, state, and local — to do over the past three years if there had not been a crisis and a change in government control? A first approximation would have been spending growing along with the trend growth in the economy — that is, real GDP growing with the economy’s potential, and government spending growing at real GDP plus inflation.
Let's have some detail:
Now, over the period 2000-2007 — from business cycle peak to business cycle peak — real GDP grew 2.4 percent a year. So a reasonable estimate for trend growth is 2.4 percent, or 7.3 percent since 2007.
We can use actual inflation: the GDP deflator rose 4.1 percent from 2007II to 2010II.
Put these together, and “normal” growth in government spending would have been 11.7 percent over the past three years.
Actual growth has been higher: 19.5 percent. So government spending is about 7 percent, or about $350 billion, higher than a simple trend projection would have suggested.
What accounts for the higher spending? Well, none of it is government consumption; it's all in transfer payments. BEA data aren’t quite as helpful here as I'd like, but it’s clear that a large chunk, roughly $100 billion, is unemployment benefits, which have surged along with unemployment, and another large chunk is Medicaid spending, which has surged because the slump has impoverished more people. Some more for other safety net programs, like food stamps. Also, Social Security and Medicare outlays have gone up about $85 billion more than my 11.7 percent norm -- medical cost growth, aging baby boomers, and maybe some people taking early retirement because they can’t find jobs.
So, there we have what explained the growth in government spending. No giant expansion of the welfare state -- just business as usual in the face of a horrific slump.
My mistake - your statement
Quote:
Fourth, what about the $1.6 trillion deficit? That's caused mainly by less tax receipts -- in other words, Obama hasn't increased the size of the government.
suggested that spending hadn't increased. I see now that you weren't disputing the additional $1T of annual spending, just that Obama had nothing to do with it...
It's not the number of jobs, it's that ALL of them (62,000 McDonalds) were minimum wage with no benefits.
If wages keep falling we are headed for a depression
It's not the number of jobs, it's that ALL of them (62,000 McDonalds) were minimum wage with no benefits.
If wages keep falling we are headed for a depression
This is why we're heading for disaster. Wages are falling and inflation is rising.
It's not the number of jobs, it's that ALL of them (62,000 McDonalds) were minimum wage with no benefits.
If wages keep falling we are headed for a depression
It's not that wages are falling; it's that the higher paying jobs are gone offshore and all that is left is min wage.
What is falling is government revenue. More people making less means the government gets less.
A scary statistic I read yesterday...only 51% of people derive their personal income from wages..51%. http://www.usatoday.com/news/usaedit...tsnew_ST_U.htm
"Wages slipped to another historic low of 50.5% of personal income in February."
Prove that it was the gold standard that resulted in people making less. BTW, is there a certain income group that this applies to, or was the effect universal?
Prove that it was the gold standard that resulted in people making less. BTW, is there a certain income group that this applies to, or was the effect universal?
The gold standard did not result in people making less. Going off the gold standard resulted in people making less.
The gold standard did not result in people making less. Going off the gold standard resulted in people making less.
And did it apply only to a certain segment of the populace, or all of them? Could you elaborate on it with facts, as in numbers on income before and after?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
