Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by American Brummie, Aug 4, 2011.
WHAT the hell happened?
Let's cut some more taxes. That'll fix it.
The realization that austerity combined with the escalating European tension due to the euro failures means that a continued US economic recovery is anything but guaranteed.
A poor jobs report tomorrow could make it even worse.
You know, there are still people who believe that.
panic. heard mentality. stupid masses.
Eurozone fears. I think ordinary people are starting to realize that this whole Greece bailout is just a pie in the sky, and that Greece is just a bottomless money pit that will never recover and be able to repay its debt no matter how many times said debt is restructured and Greece bailed out.. I think that's what's making people nervous.
I always love the profound analysis of the analysts....
"We are continuing to be bombarded by worries about the global economy," said Bill Stone, the chief investment strategist for PNC Financial"
"a perfect storm of selling," said Ryan Larson, head of U.S. equity trading for RBC Global Asset Management.
With the scars of 2008 still fresh," he said, "some clients don't want to miss the change to pre-empt further damage should it come."
invisible hand of the market..nothing to see here, move along.....
btw, often times it is laying off workers that pushes stocks higher...so why wait for the quite possible ominous job report tomorrow?
Technically we have a horrible jobs report....Stock comes down....ONe of the big companies lays off thousands the next day..that particular stock goes up.. i fail to see such a great direct correlation between jobs (in general) and the market....maybe someone could explain it in greater detail?
These guys kicked ass today:
Because raising them will!
(I'm sure this won't help, but Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of tax cuts as a sole solution to anything in any way)
Greece is peanuts. They're worried about Italy and Spain.
Actually, that will help more, yes.
Help what, exactly? Help revenue go from 19.2% of GDP to 19.3% of GDP?
Revenue which we would then spend, which is what the government should be doing.
But, of course, this is all moot. The poster to whom you responded wasn't suggesting "we need tax increases ASAP", he was making fun of the Republican idea that tax cuts are a solution to every single problem (like beer).
But not retire any debt, natch.
True, but it was kind of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur.
Anyway, everyone knows that beer is the cause of and solution to all of life's problems. You left off half!
Also, revenue is at 14.9% of GDP. I have asked you to respond to this before.
Depends on the measurement, but I pulled 19.2% and 19.3% out of my ass, admittedly.
Regardless, we've not been above 21% by the same method that gives us the average range of 18%-21% no matter what marginal rates are, and we've certainly been nowhere near the level of spending as a percentage of GDP. So...point remains.
Well my measurement is the Office of Management of the Budget. You may use whichever crackpot ones you want, but I'll use the ones who know what they're talking about. So, now that we've settled at (short-form) 15%, why can't we raise taxes to 18-21%? What is the giant obstacle to blocking that from happening?
1. It's not proven that simply raising taxes WILL cause a 20%-40% rise in income as a % of GDP.
2. It's not going to TOUCH spending as a % of GDP no matter what you do until spending decreases massively.
In other words, there's no real obstacle. But will it come anywhere near starting us toward solvency? No. It appears, by looking at historical numbers, that there is a relatively firm ceiling beyond which raising taxes will not do much to revenue collection. Spending right now is WAY above even the highest level of the revenue that we've ever taken in as a % of GDP.
However, it will a) ameliorate the debt problem and b) allow the government to do additional stimulus spending, which will in turn c) create additional economic growth and job creation. There's really nothing more for me to say that isn't in this graph:
Be a dear and notice that the growth pretty closely corresponds to payments out of the stimulus bill, while the post-stimulus, austerity economy, looks shitty.
Wasn't necessary to my argument.
Ceteris paribus, maybe. But try to enact a policy and observe absolutely no change elsewhere.
Wait, so assuming that revenue as a % of GDP will increase your maximum of 6%, you want to turn around and increase the spending side of that? How is that going to make the two numbers get closer together? This is similar logic to W. when he wanted to take the "surplus" he was left with (quibbles, there, but there's no question that revenue and spending were a WHOLE lot closer back then) and spend the shit out of it. How did that turn out (note: he didn't just cut taxes)?
Assuming a multiplier that amounts, basically, to magic, maybe.
How many jobs were created (actually created, not "created or saved") vice jobs that were lost since Bush's first stimulus?
You mean the graph that doesn't show anything but dates and bars?
I keep forgetting that the people who post here aren't educated on the details of major public policy...the stimulus was doled out over 2009 and 2010. So you can see that, as the stimulus payments died off, economic growth slowed. One of the major reasons Wall Street was forecasting stagnation was that there was no new stimulus from the government.
Because it's clearly working out so well to have outstanding debt equal to 100% of our annual GDP (just reached that awesome milestone today, I hear!) That's Italy stylee!
Correlation, causation, etc.
Rate of growth NEVER increases after it reaches a bottom!
Are you blaming the austerity measures for this crisis? Do you mean austerity measures in Europe or in the US?
Actually the austerity measures are more like a side effect of the problem, not the problem itself.