A fiscal conservative could support a giant government program that provides the same services to the American public for a lower overall cost (versus private industry)!rof
A fiscal conservative could support a giant government program that provides the same services to the American public for a lower overall cost (versus private industry)!rof
Well the rightwing better hope there is no trend towards lower unemployment. Or get some good spin going... if Obama straightens this economy out repubs are going to be in trouble... Clinton - Bush - Obama - two successful dem Presidencies with a Repub failure in between will be bad news for the GOP.
When we're at 9.7 in June, I wonder if they'll blame the heat.
A fiscal conservative could support a giant government program that provides the same services to the American public for a lower overall cost (versus private industry)!rof
When we're at 9.7 in June, I wonder if they'll blame the heat.
Yes it does
And what do you want the government to do about it?
Give everyone jobs?
immediately:
1. immediately halt the stimulus payouts
2. come out and say flat out we aren't going to pass cap-and-tax, or it's EPA equivalent
3. come out and flat say we aren't going to pass obamacare
4. Drastically simplify the tax code. I prefer the fair tax, but I'll take a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax or anything therein, or anything that gets rid of the death tax, and hopefully drastically cuts corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes.
longer term:
5. balanced budget amendment with a debt payment plan to protect the dollar
6. significantly lower the percentage of the economy taken up by the government through the removal of unconstitutional, unnecessary, and damaging programs, such as farm subsidies.
7. establish free trade agreements with all nations ruled by representative governments with at least moderate recognition of human rights.
8. minimize the regulatory burden of the US in accordance with #6.
9. lower unemployment benefits, and impose drastic cuts to the welfare state in accordance with #6.
10. immigration reform which imposes a minimum $5,000 fine or 1 year in prison for each illegal immigrant knowingly hired by an employer.
1. immediately halt the stimulus payouts
2. come out and say flat out we aren't going to pass cap-and-tax, or it's EPA equivalent
3. come out and flat say we aren't going to pass obamacare
4. Drastically simplify the tax code. I prefer the fair tax, but I'll take a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax or anything therein, or anything that gets rid of the death tax, and hopefully drastically cuts corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes.
5. balanced budget amendment with a debt payment plan to protect the dollar
6. significantly lower the percentage of the economy taken up by the government through the removal of unconstitutional, unnecessary, and damaging programs, such as farm subsidies.
7. establish free trade agreements with all nations ruled by representative governments with at least moderate recognition of human rights.
8. minimize the regulatory burden of the US in accordance with #6.
9. lower unemployment benefits, and impose drastic cuts to the welfare state in accordance with #6.
10. immigration reform which imposes a minimum $5,000 fine or 1 year in prison for each illegal immigrant knowingly hired by an employer.
There's nothing left to cut other than payroll taxes and that's not going to help anybody. Middle to lower end income earners don't pay income tax as it is.I can agree on cutting taxes on middle to lower end income earners as they tend to spend the majority of their incomes thereby creating a steady multiplier in which to feel confident about.
And watch demand take a nasty turn to the left (pun intended).
In this economic climate, you would be correct.
Well.... Something has to be done as something is better than nothing. And since there is no talk of a public option, i have no idea why you would be against such measures.
That is a mixed bag if i have ever seen one. During periods of very low monetary velocity, cutting taxes will be less than desirable.
I can agree on cutting taxes on middle to lower end income earners as they tend to spend the majority of their incomes thereby creating a steady multiplier in which to feel confident about.
Debt payment plan? Are you aware that treasury securities mature on a daily basis?
I can agree with this; but only to a certain point. It is a matter of national security to be able to produce much of ones food.
I can agree with that. Realizing it however might be a tad bit tricky although possible.
Do industries regulate themselves or are we to believe externalities will suddenly disappear?
Ehhhh.... Reform as opposed to cuts is optimal in my opinion. Why? Because **** does happen, and not everyone has the ability/fortitude to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Is Social Darwinism your end all desire?
One way to boost the economy (while lowering GDP/capita) is to allow the floodgates to be open, and promote a heavy onslaught of legal immigration.
i don't think so. people tend to forget that government deficit spending does not increase aggregate demand; it only shifts it around.
all that stimulus spending is doing is crowding out private investment in favor of political cronies.
you'd see some readjustment, to be sure, but i'd bet you'd see more than enough counter-investment due to the sudden drop in uncertainty.
yup; i'd say right now uncertainty about the costs of this and obama care are probably one of (if not the) main reason why employers aren't looking to hire.
"something" is not always better than nothing. Arguing that we should pass the Senate bill because it's not as bad as the House version is like arguing that we should shoot ourselves in the foot rather than the face; a better option to be sure but why shoot yourself at all?
i have to disagree; permanently cutting taxes is likely to put that money back into circulation in much more productive ways than government spending.
nor do i think that one of the major issues we are facing currently is that we haven't been spending enough. rather the opposite, i think; we need a cultural shift in how we approach consumer spending, debt, and savings.
ah. but not on those small business owners who create the vast majority of America's new jobs?
yes, debt payment plan. not as a means of paying out matured securities; as a means of reducing our debt exposure overall. we service our debt, to be sure, but we roll it over into new debt.
The US Government purchases, stores, and destroys massive amounts of food because the American farmer produces more than he can sell, both here and abroad at the subsidized prices.
The Midwest has served as the breadbasket of the world; I tend to look on the "national security" argument as a red herring.
it would be a powerful diplomatic tool in creating blocs that give struggling nations a place to go in the face of the rising regional dominance of China and Russia.
industries regulate themselves as it is; it's just that currently they do it by purchasing politicians to protect their market share.
Care to provide a quote?Entertaining that social Darwinism is the immediate tool that the opponents of such measures reach for. I'm not blaming you, mind you; it's the way we are taught. But these programs were put in place by social Darwinists for the purpose of social Darwinism. Even Paul Krugman recognizes that unemployment benefits increase unemployment.
If they can be integrated into the legitimate economy, instead of being integrated into a black market economy and a welfare system, yes. But we have opted for the second rather than the first and we need to fix that before we can worry about mass integration.
Nonsense. During a full employment GDP gap, AD has been shifted to the left thereby lowering overall demand. Why has this shift occurred? Because spending has been reduced which is why government has the means necessary to "smooth" out the effects.
Ah ha! Now we are getting somewhere. But to make a truly telling analysis, we have to dissect the nature of investment demand. Why..... Oh why do private investors feel the need... the desire... to invest into low yield securities offered by the public when they can put money into various aspects of private debt or equities that pay far greater returns?
Ill wait
What will suddenly drop the uncertainty facing both consumers and/or producers?
Nope! First and foremost, not all industries face decreased marginal profitability due to cap and trade. Secondly, the effect (cost) of health care reform is quite ambiguous in respects to firm profitability. You are going to have to do more than make blanket assertions.
Relating health care reform not sponsored by talk radio to shooting ourselves carries no merit. The costs of medicare are needed to be reduced long term if any talk of fiscal responsibility is to be taken seriously.
Going back to EGTRRA in 2001, what was the net effect of the Bush tax cuts? 2/3 were saved and not spent thereby negating the entire premise of tax cuts based on the guise of stimulation (what you are perceiving them to be). As deficits increase, tax cuts cannot be internalized by tax payers as being "permanent".
It most certainly is. A $1.5 trillion infrastructure stimulus would have been optimal (especially if we could have phased it into a three year plan).
Have you lived under a rock? The largest aspect of the current stimulus was in regards to tax cut/breaks.
With a balanced budget (no deficit), the debt will naturally expire as stipulated on the investors purchase of various instruments. You cannot make a 30 year treasury expire any sooner.
Care to expand on this a tad bit more with some quality sources? Not that i disagree with your premise entirely, but i feel you are leaving things out as a matter of convenience.
I am only explaining one of the main concerns in regards to international trade. You are the one claiming we do not need as many American farmers.
First, we have to consider the net effects on international trade before we can assume other positive externalities of free trade agreements.
That does not answer my question (weak attempt to shuffle). In the absence of US regulatory authority, would all private firms self regulate?
Care to provide a quote?
I can agree. But we must first consider what draws immigrants (legal or illegal) into the black market.
Individuals will get a tax credit of $400, while couples will get $800. The tax credit payments, expected to start around June, will be spread out through the rest of 2009 in the form of reduced federal tax withholdings taken from workers' paychecks. For 2009, the tax credit will amount to about an extra $13 per week and about $7.70 a week in 2010. Individuals with annual taxable incomes in excess of $100,000, and couples filing jointly with incomes in excess of $200,000 will not be eligible for the workers' tax credits. The credit begins to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.
So you want Obama to fix global warming, healthcare and give you a pacifier?
He's hiring temporary census workers that offsets the weather he's using as an excuse for his failed policies. How long his followers continue to sway in front of him as he announces more job losses with near 10% unemployment in anyone's guess.
'
Time for a reality check here.
Until everyone who is unemployed is back to work there are NO net jobs being created.
9.7% isn't close to the real number which is about 16%.
There is some happy talk circulating but is just that happy talk not based in reallity.
A local Mom and Pop neighborhood grocery store that has been in operation for over 50 years is closing near here because people don't have money and they can't compete with major chains 11 miles away.
They were doing fine until last year.
We are told the inflation rate will be 2.5% this month but does not figure in Food or Energy which are both way more than that.
Conservative,
Could you do me a favor and post the labor force statistics between the month of January and February?
You should include: The total labor force, the number of people employed, the number of people unemployed, and the unemployment rate. Following the postings, can you provide a brief description of your findings and a source for the numbers?
Thanks,
GB
The following information comes from BLS. Subtract the unemployed from the labor force to get the employment number. My findings are that unemployment continues to climb
Labor Force
2010-Jan-Feb
153170(1)
153512
Unemployed
2010-Jan-Feb
14837
14871
Discouraged Workers
2010-Jan-Feb in thousands
1065
1204
What this shows is that unemployment rose throughout 2009 and dropped in 2010 but the discouraged increased thus the unemployment rate did not drop at all.
Thank you for posting the labor force, discouraged workers, and unemployed for a 12 month plus time frame. However, you did not post the number of people employed and made an effort not to do so. Why?
Number of people employed
January 2010: 138,333,000
February 2010: 138,641,000
The reason i asked you to post the total labor force, and the unemployment rate is to give a little info behind job creation. You instead attempted to post unneeded data from previous months.
Care to provide a comment based on the number of people employed?
I told you how to get the number of people employed. The concern is the unemployed and the discouraged workers being ignored in the unemployment number.
What I showed you was that after passing that "emergency" stimulus plan that was going to keep unemployment at 8% that unemployment rose dramatically. What I showed is that the situation is worse today than it was prior to the stimulus and all we got for it was rising unemployment and debt.
I provided you what you asked for and your comments are the best you can do? Interesting attempt at diversion because the labor force dropping is the concern just like the discouraged and unemployed working.
Not a pretty picture is it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?