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.
I'm chemically blond, and I have not taken ECON-101, like you.
But I can tell you that I just paid my taxes and there was just an e-dollar transaction, and GUESS WHAT? ---> Uncle SamTOOK from my economy!! (even though I cannot 'create' US dollars - I work like hell to make them )
Please esplain-a Lucy!!
"Your economy" pertains to microeconomics, not macroeconomics.
If you want to make the case that Texas as a state has top-notch public schools to other states, you would be in error. Handpicking a few of the best schools in Texas isn't valid evidence for your hypothesis.
Of course it is. The Clinton administration got to claim a solid economy because of two things: the "dot com boom and most importantly the Contract with America. Clinton had to work with the GOP Congress after the 1994 elections. That caused a good economy because the GOP held the purse strings. The GOP victory that year was the only good thing that happened in the terrible year of 1994. You would have to lived through it know what it was like. it was really depressing, just one hit after another.
If you want to make the case that Texas as a state has top-notch public schools to other states, you would be in error. Handpicking a few of the best schools in Texas isn't valid evidence for your hypothesis.
Of course it is. The Clinton administration got to claim a solid economy because of two things: the "dot com boom and most importantly the Contract with America. Clinton had to work with the GOP Congress after the 1994 elections. That caused a good economy because the GOP held the purse strings. The GOP victory that year was the only good thing that happened in the terrible year of 1994. You would have to lived through it know what it was like. it was really depressing, just one hit after another.
The balanced budget during the Clinton Administration did not cause the "dot com economy" to boom. If anything, those surpluses caused the recession in 2001.
Every significant, sustained reduction in the deficit has resulted in an economic recession.
....please explain how cutting spending will reduce unemployment and grow the economy.
It's taking money out of the unproductive government sector and investing in the more productive private sector. For comparison, see the USA versus Russia during the Cold War or better yet , China under Communism/Socialism versus China now embracing Capitalism.
President Clinton oversaw a period of considerable economic growth and expansion during his tenure. In particular, real GDP per capita increased from about $38,000 in 1994 to about $45,000 in 2001 (in real 2011 dollars).[1] The U.S. national debt as a percent of GDP also declined from about 66% to about 56% during Clinton's government.
Quote:
yeah, I'm still laughing my ass off that anyone believes that to be true.
Actually, your post doesn't really have a jolly vibe.
The response to everything you just said can be addressed by this one question to what you said here.
But then taxes need to be raised or new debt created to support this "profit" paid to BOFA, which is done through taxes, thus removing the money from the economy, or by selling treasuries, which again, removes the money from the economy.
So....
Why does the Federal Reserve need taxes or federal debt to pay BofA that 3% profit?
And that would likely come out of treasury not federal reserve.
of course they are buying stuff, using depositors money which is going to fund government debt, rather than going into the economy being spent by the private sector.
you cant give money to the government and then expect the same money to be spent by the private sector because they no longer have it.. they just gave it to the government.
President Clinton oversaw a period of considerable economic growth and expansion during his tenure. In particular, real GDP per capita increased from about $38,000 in 1994 to about $45,000 in 2001 (in real 2011 dollars).[1] The U.S. national debt as a percent of GDP also declined from about 66% to about 56% during Clinton's government.
Actually, your post doesn't really have a jolly vibe.
Great times. Clinton was an ally of the Republicans in Congress & Senate when it came to economic policy and he let Newt Gingrich (Dr. of Economics) run most economic policy during his tenure ...to Bill's great credit.
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.
)
Once again, I'm happy to school you.
