13,000 jobs! In Alaska? No son... in the entire country.U.S. private employers added just 13,000 jobs in June, according to a report published Wednesday that suggested expectations of a big drop in the government's upcoming nonfarm payrolls report were on target.
News Headlines
Having a Senate (and Congress) that approves Obama's wishes and pursues empty legislation that promises what it cannot deliver almost guarantees that our economy will be in shambles
Project Jumpstart: FAILThat stimulus money is really working.
Project Jumpstart: FAIL
Will be interesting to see what happens after the stimulus money dries up and we've got a stagnant economy with an unprecedented proportion of debt.
Wow, George W and neocon deregulatory policy really screwed us over good.
Wow, George W and neocon deregulatory policy really screwed us over good.
WTF are you spewing about? Last time I checked, Bush was retired to a ranch in TX, eating enchiladas with nice senoritas and such and has no bearing on current decision making.
True, but he was the one who was in charge when the hole was being dug... Funny how you ignore that fact.
You have to dig a lot deeper than the last administration at most any fundamental fault-line,
you're right, it goes all the way back to reagan.
You're right, it goes all the way back to Reagan.
Funny how "cut taxes, raise spending" is perfectly valid economic practice until a (D) is doing it.
Address at the Economic Club of New York, December 14, 1962
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits...
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset+Tree/Asset+Viewers/Audio+Video+Asset+Viewer.htm?guid={A138FFB8-5B6A-4C6A-A8CC-70C6E4FF39DA}&type=Audio
If the stimulus money dries up before we witness real job growth (which is possible although unlikely), it could push the global economy into another recession.
IMO we are already in the next recession.
Reagan wanted spending cut... it was the only bit of his agenda that wasn't accomplished.
Had the Dem controlled Congress slashed spending as promised, Reagan would have signed on... without hesitation.
The other point is Reagan managed to cut taxes and regulation with Dems in power to get the economic engine going... exactly what a certain John Fitzgerald Kennedy proposed for long term growth 18-years before Reagan took office.
Clinton?
Reno?
Carter?
Johnston?
FDR?
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?