Aa
Ok, there was a post encouraging Americans to vote. Any thoughts on the results?
I have been out of work for a while now because of the hep c and tx, so I have spent quite a bit of time watching the progress of the elections in the USA. It was so heartwarming to see the positive reactions to the elections from so many parts of the world. However, I do know our media can be biased, and I'm sure there were some very negative responses in the world, but I found it a moving event. He is only a man and I hope he can hold on to his ideals for American and our children but, as we all know "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Wilful
Wilful
Obviously I meant income taxes. The unemployed poor do not pay. The lowest earners pay a very low rate. All my sources can be verified! Those numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I purposley use verifiable numbers/sources so you are unable to call me a rightwing radical.
"By every measure, the Bush 8 years was the weakest growth ever during a non recession period." Dude, it WAS a recession period! And I said households, not houses.
"Inflation is a pure monetary phenomenon. Decrease the value of the dollar and you have inflation. If there is not change in the value of the dollar, then the number of dollars are constant. In that environment, if someone raises prices, someone else has to lower prices because there are not enough dollars to pay for everything to go up in price unless you increase the number of dollars."
What kind of babble is this? Come on Eric, of course it is a monetary phenomenon. The problem is the Government IS decreasing the value of the dollar at an unprecedented level. The printing presses are running 24/7! No gold standard! We have increased the deficit by trillions in just a couple of months! Hyperinflation/stagnation is on the way unless someone with a brain wakes up.
Look, I know you believe in the Keynesian model. I know you like Robert Reisch. I like Art Laffey and Steven Moore. I believe history shows supplyside as the truth on what works economically. You see it differently, fair enough. One thing is for sure... We will see if Obamanomics proves you...or me...right. Time will tell for sure. Peace my friend.
"By every measure, the Bush 8 years was the weakest growth ever during a non recession period." Dude, it WAS a recession period! And I said households, not houses.
"Inflation is a pure monetary phenomenon. Decrease the value of the dollar and you have inflation. If there is not change in the value of the dollar, then the number of dollars are constant. In that environment, if someone raises prices, someone else has to lower prices because there are not enough dollars to pay for everything to go up in price unless you increase the number of dollars."
What kind of babble is this? Come on Eric, of course it is a monetary phenomenon. The problem is the Government IS decreasing the value of the dollar at an unprecedented level. The printing presses are running 24/7! No gold standard! We have increased the deficit by trillions in just a couple of months! Hyperinflation/stagnation is on the way unless someone with a brain wakes up.
Look, I know you believe in the Keynesian model. I know you like Robert Reisch. I like Art Laffey and Steven Moore. I believe history shows supplyside as the truth on what works economically. You see it differently, fair enough. One thing is for sure... We will see if Obamanomics proves you...or me...right. Time will tell for sure. Peace my friend.
I have just made it back from three days at our hunting camp.
It’s amazing what a short break from civilization can do.
I am kicked back watching the NASCAR race and I am more concerned about
Carl Edwards than I am Obama
It’s amazing what a short break from civilization can do.
I am kicked back watching the NASCAR race and I am more concerned about
Carl Edwards than I am Obama
Get serious! Let's see "low income people don't pay taxes :) Low income people pay a much higher tax than high income people. Is sales tax a tax? Are payroll taxes a tax?
The last time I looked, people that made $100,000 paid income taxes. The bottom line is that taxes have to equal spending. Deficit spending is ruinous except for dire emergencies.
We really can't debate if you continue to use made up numbers. Even the staunches conservatives admit that houses lost wealth over the last eight years.
Inflation is a pure monetary phenomenon. Decrease the value of the dollar and you have inflation. If there is not change in the value of the dollar, then the number of dollars are constant. In that environment, if someone raises prices, someone else has to lower prices because there are not enough dollars to pay for everything to go up in price unless you increase the number of dollars.
By every measure, the Bush 8 years was the weakest growth ever during a non recession period.
I don't know where you get your numbers from. They are very different from anything I have seen. Why don't you ask any middle class family if they think they are wealthier that they were in 2000.
The last time I looked, people that made $100,000 paid income taxes. The bottom line is that taxes have to equal spending. Deficit spending is ruinous except for dire emergencies.
We really can't debate if you continue to use made up numbers. Even the staunches conservatives admit that houses lost wealth over the last eight years.
Inflation is a pure monetary phenomenon. Decrease the value of the dollar and you have inflation. If there is not change in the value of the dollar, then the number of dollars are constant. In that environment, if someone raises prices, someone else has to lower prices because there are not enough dollars to pay for everything to go up in price unless you increase the number of dollars.
By every measure, the Bush 8 years was the weakest growth ever during a non recession period.
I don't know where you get your numbers from. They are very different from anything I have seen. Why don't you ask any middle class family if they think they are wealthier that they were in 2000.
Ahh, we are coming full circle now. It certainly sounds logical that when demand is low, then supply consequently is reduced. Hmmm... What causes a decrease in demand? Well, higher taxes for one. Inflation for another. Unemployment for a third. How do we remedy this? Maybe if we cut taxes on the lowest income earners, they will have more money to spend. Oops, they do not pay taxes. O.k., let's lower prices! But demand regulates that; so if demand goes up, then prices will follow. And that is inflation which immediatley gives the consumer less disposable income. (catch 22) An increase in wages would help, but companies are taxed at a high rate which stifles growth and expansion. Maybe if we increased employment! Oops again, those high tax rates are once again blamed for stifling growth, hence, no employment. Just the opposite. Jimmy Carter tried it and stagflation was born. What to do?
The economy was in trouble in 2001; still trying to recover from the ******* bubble and 9/11.Bushs' first tax cuts put money in the hands of the consumer. The stimulus checks. (demand side) It didn't work to pull us out of the recession because it was a redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers. Bush tried it again earlier this year and ..nope, doesn't work. Laffer talked to Bush in early 2003 and suggested Reagan like tax cuts. Bush agreed to cut taxes on corporations. The economy did a 180! The first and most immediate sign of expansion came from the stock market, it rose 20% in just 2 years. 8 million jobs created in 4 years. And businesses increased capital spending by 9.5% by 2005! Now the left cries tax cuts for the rich! Not fair! well, guess what? Households increased their wealth by 6 trillion between May '03 and May '07. We have lost 2 trillion due to this housing crisis, but that still makes us 4 trillion ahead of the game. So much for the argument that only the rich benefited. And, lastly I promise, The supplyside tax cuts increased the tax base which increased revenue into the treasury. Again, a win for all. Imagine if Bush had curtailed spending and the dems would not have got involved in causing the housing snafu. Things would be a lot sweeter right now. The last thing we need now is a tax hike on business or anyone else! Spending has got to be curtailed, and Government has to get out of the "business" business.
Oh yah, you said..
"I am very familiar with Art Laffer. Even he is now re-thinking much of what he has said in the past."
Art Laffer is a genius. His book, "The End of Prosperity", was just published. His views have not changed at all. I highly recommend it.
The economy was in trouble in 2001; still trying to recover from the ******* bubble and 9/11.Bushs' first tax cuts put money in the hands of the consumer. The stimulus checks. (demand side) It didn't work to pull us out of the recession because it was a redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers. Bush tried it again earlier this year and ..nope, doesn't work. Laffer talked to Bush in early 2003 and suggested Reagan like tax cuts. Bush agreed to cut taxes on corporations. The economy did a 180! The first and most immediate sign of expansion came from the stock market, it rose 20% in just 2 years. 8 million jobs created in 4 years. And businesses increased capital spending by 9.5% by 2005! Now the left cries tax cuts for the rich! Not fair! well, guess what? Households increased their wealth by 6 trillion between May '03 and May '07. We have lost 2 trillion due to this housing crisis, but that still makes us 4 trillion ahead of the game. So much for the argument that only the rich benefited. And, lastly I promise, The supplyside tax cuts increased the tax base which increased revenue into the treasury. Again, a win for all. Imagine if Bush had curtailed spending and the dems would not have got involved in causing the housing snafu. Things would be a lot sweeter right now. The last thing we need now is a tax hike on business or anyone else! Spending has got to be curtailed, and Government has to get out of the "business" business.
Oh yah, you said..
"I am very familiar with Art Laffer. Even he is now re-thinking much of what he has said in the past."
Art Laffer is a genius. His book, "The End of Prosperity", was just published. His views have not changed at all. I highly recommend it.
"*Between 2001 and 2007 alone the number of Americans with a net worth of more than 1 million quadrupled from 201 million, to 8.9 million! (TNS Financial Services)
* From 1994 to 2004 Americans in bottom 20% income had the HIGHEST increase in incomes. The poor got richer faster than the rich did. (Congressional Budget Office)
1994 was the year that the Republicans swept into congress. Under Newt Gingrich they passed a bill to balance the budget and to Bill Clintons credit, he signed it. (He still gets credit for the whole thing to this day)
* Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue into the US Treasury! That is what supplyside does. It is a win for all. "
We obviously live on different planets - L)OL. Wages for most Americans have actually gone down over the last 8 years when adjusted for inflation - from the government's own statistics.
If supply side economics actually worked, we would have a smaller deficit - not the largest in history. Are you actually telling me that the younger generation is better off than the boomers? The American standard of living has dropped more in the last 8 years than any time in our history. The average debt of an American family is at an all time high, while the savings rate is the lowest on record.
Our economy has a supply side and a demand side. One is meaningless without the other. Any sound economic policy has to satisfy the requirements of both..
During the years you have criticized, our economy grew by leaps and bounds and we became the dominant force in computers, medicine, science .... too many to list. We did this during Republican and Democratic governments.
I am very familiar with Art Laffer. Even he is now re-thinking much of what he has said in the past. When he is interviewed anywhere but on Kudlow, he is very reasonable.
So yes, supply side economics is very important, but so is the demand side. If you have a great supply with no demand, you get a depression (1929). Look at consumer spending; when credit dried up, so did the spending(demand). I agree with much of what you say, but you leave out the problems on the demand side and you have statistics that I don't agree with. If you lop off salaries over $200,000, the picture looks pretty grim.
We now have a demand side problem and Obama recognizes that. I am as worried as you are, that he will bring back a lot of failed economic policies that will not work. But at least he said that the problems is demand and he wants to fix it. McCain never acknowledged that during the campaign, although that was his mantra in 2000.
* From 1994 to 2004 Americans in bottom 20% income had the HIGHEST increase in incomes. The poor got richer faster than the rich did. (Congressional Budget Office)
1994 was the year that the Republicans swept into congress. Under Newt Gingrich they passed a bill to balance the budget and to Bill Clintons credit, he signed it. (He still gets credit for the whole thing to this day)
* Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue into the US Treasury! That is what supplyside does. It is a win for all. "
We obviously live on different planets - L)OL. Wages for most Americans have actually gone down over the last 8 years when adjusted for inflation - from the government's own statistics.
If supply side economics actually worked, we would have a smaller deficit - not the largest in history. Are you actually telling me that the younger generation is better off than the boomers? The American standard of living has dropped more in the last 8 years than any time in our history. The average debt of an American family is at an all time high, while the savings rate is the lowest on record.
Our economy has a supply side and a demand side. One is meaningless without the other. Any sound economic policy has to satisfy the requirements of both..
During the years you have criticized, our economy grew by leaps and bounds and we became the dominant force in computers, medicine, science .... too many to list. We did this during Republican and Democratic governments.
I am very familiar with Art Laffer. Even he is now re-thinking much of what he has said in the past. When he is interviewed anywhere but on Kudlow, he is very reasonable.
So yes, supply side economics is very important, but so is the demand side. If you have a great supply with no demand, you get a depression (1929). Look at consumer spending; when credit dried up, so did the spending(demand). I agree with much of what you say, but you leave out the problems on the demand side and you have statistics that I don't agree with. If you lop off salaries over $200,000, the picture looks pretty grim.
We now have a demand side problem and Obama recognizes that. I am as worried as you are, that he will bring back a lot of failed economic policies that will not work. But at least he said that the problems is demand and he wants to fix it. McCain never acknowledged that during the campaign, although that was his mantra in 2000.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
