Unemployment Falls

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by WTF

And you have forgotten that we had higher taxes and a smaller deficits because of it...

I have forgotten no such thing.

No, I didn't specifically mention that in my earlier post, but I didn't have time to cover every related factor. But the main reason we had smaller deficits was that spending levels were so much lower. Remember, we were only spending (at the federal level) about $1.8 trillion at the end of the 1990s. The aggregate amount of subsequent tax cuts is certainly not insubstantial, but it's still only a fraction of the total spending increases.

Originally Posted by WTF

There are many many factors but the GOP has not been a help with this squack for lower taxes at every turn.

Indeed, but so have the Democrats. During the last couple of years, they have called for -- and gotten -- payroll tax cuts which in the aggregate far exceed the revenue lost from cutting taxes on the top 1%. I'm all for people keeping more of their hard-earned money, but we passed the point beyond which we can afford to hand out tax cuts to everyone years ago. And people forget that about 80% of the Bush-era tax cuts went to those earning less than $250K. (I think the number is really quite a bit higher than that, since CBO estimates use static analysis.)

Originally Posted by WTF

...the Feds are not letting the consumer off the hook by inflating their way out as Reagan did. The banks do not want to be paid back with those inflated dollars. They do not want for that to ever happen again.

Say what??

When did the Reagan administration "inflate its way out" of anything? The opposite is the case. Reagan correctly let Paul Volcker (a Carter appointee in 1979) continue to do the tough work needed to crush the back of inflation in 1981-83. As you recall, the requisite monetary tightening necessitated a severe recession in 1981-82, but after that inflation remained quiescent.

I think it's very important to remember that Reagan and Clinton ran, generally speaking, strong-dollar treasuries -- while Nixon, Carter, G. W. Bush, and Obama have all done the opposite.

See the difference? Uber-accommodative, ultra-easy monetary policy and weak-dollar policies always must be unwound. You cannot have a strong, solid recovery accompanied by the extended application of such policies. At no time in history has that ever happened. Now we've had over three years of ZIRP and multiple rounds of QE. In fact, the Fed's balance sheet (around $700-800 billion pre-crisis) is now up to about $3 trillion. I don't think that's a very healthy situation. But it has apparently been decided that extraordinary monetary policy is necessary to accommodate bad fiscal policy (out-of-control government spending). Fed and Treasury officials are terrified of the panic that would ensue if they wake up one day and find that a Treasury auction for new issuance of 5s, 7s, or 10s went badly. As we are soon likely to see, the world does not have an infinite appetite for U.S. Treasury debt.

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm with you on Simpson Bowles. Whoever gets elected will head in that direction.

He'd better, or we're likely to get into far more trouble that most of us could possibly imagine!

[CuteOldGuy]

We used to have budgetary restraints. It was called the Constitution. Maybe you heard of it in your history classes.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's so funny. You confront them with facts, and they go berzerk. They can't refute facts, but think if they use large enough fonts and different colors, it will make their misinformation believable. And then, of course, they either call you a homosexual or a racist. At no time do they present anything to rebut the facts that have been shown to them. That's why I love being here, it is just too damn entertaining.

LOL, I actually belly laughed on that one! I like this post almost as much as the Obama laundry list you posted earlier.

Obama has padded and played with the UE rate since he got in office. What's new now? Before you know it we'll be told there isn't any inflation.

[CuteOldGuy]

If you think that's funny, wait until you see me naked!

[Fast Gunn]

Now, that would not be a pretty sight!

But then CM posts are becoming not so attractive either.

From my perspective, given the horrendous economic hole President Obama inherited from the village idiot, I believe he has done well. Very well, especially considering the organized opposition he has met in Washington by those who care more about weakening the President than strengthening the country.

CM is taking issue with me on that point as is his prerogative, but we can disagree like gentlemen.

He won't convince me otherwise and I won't even try to make him see the light either.

. . . I believe that the only thing that keeps a person from knowing everything is believing that he knows everything!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If you think that's funny, wait until you see me naked!

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Now, that would not be a pretty sight!

But then CM posts are becoming not so attractive either.

From my perspective, given the horrendous economic hole President Obama inherited from the village idiot, I believe he has done well. Very well, especially considering the organized opposition he has met in Washington by those who care more about weakening the President than strengthening the country.

CM is taking issue with me on that point as is his prerogative, but we can disagree like gentlemen.

He won't convince me otherwise and I won't even try to make him see the light either.

. . . I believe that the only thing that keeps a person from knowing everything is believing that he knows everything!

I found yet another pic of you

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes, the President inherited a deep hole from his predecessor. He won because he promised to get us out. Since he has been in office, he has dug the hole deeper and faster. This is not a good situation.

And I don't hate President Obama as a person, but I intensely disagree with the direction he wants to take this country. I disagree with him funneling tax money to his campaign donors. I disagree with his assault on freedom in the name of "security." Security will soon become tyranny, and I oppose tyranny.

[cptjohnstone]

here is how my granddaughter feels about bho

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! Beautiful! But not accurate. Try 70 years of future paychecks.

[CuteOldGuy]

I am not a Reagan fan, but he did a hell of a lot better than President Obama under worse circumstances.

http://www.reagancoalition.com/artic...-vs-obama.html

[Texas Contrarian]

Fast Gunn, if you think my posts have become "not so attractive", you might want to consider removing the partisan blinders and taking a cold, hard look at reality. Emotions and raw political biases are subjective, but simple arithmetic is not. It cannot be amended or superseded by politicians. Did you not notice the staggering spending increases of the last three years, which of course were stacked atop already obese budgets? It would be quite interesting to see someone try to argue that we are coming even remotely close to getting something resembling our money's worth.

How do you think we should pay for all this spending? What sorts of taxes should be raised, when, and on whom? Do you support a VAT? Or do you think we should simply try to pay for all this largesse with borrowed and printed money forever, and simply hope against hope that nothing goes terribly wrong?

Do you think Obama was correct in completely ignoring the findings of the Simpson-Bowles commission? Don't you think he should have at least used it as a starting point to begin discussions of how we might be able to establish a glidepath to fiscal sanity?

I predict that many of those on the left will ignore or refuse to answer those questions, since they apparently have a tough time confronting reality.

We desperately needed an economic recovery and growth aganda, yet what we got was a blatantly political agenda. The results are plain to see. We have inconsistent, spotty growth, and that is likely to be the case for some time to come. As I noted before, big, entrenched increases in goverment spending retard the economy; they do not stimulate it.

Tough times require leaders who make tough decisions, and Obama has shown that he has no intention of doing any such thing. Does that really surprise anyone? While serving in the Illinois State Senate, he simply voted "present" any time he faced a difficult or controversial vote.

You're the President of the United States now, Mr. Obama. You no longer have the luxury of voting "present", at least not if you want to avoid doing considerably more damage to our nation's fiscal position.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

...........................

Tough times require leaders who make tough decisions, and Obama has shown that he has no intention of doing any such thing. Does that really surprise anyone? While serving in the Illinois State Senate, he simply voted "present" any time he faced a difficult or controversial vote.

You're the President of the United States now, Mr. Obama. You no longer have the luxury of voting "present", at least not if you want to avoid doing considerably more damage to our nation's fiscal position.

Thank you! Finally someone else said two things I've been saying all along. One, all he ever did was vote "Present" (and write books); and , two, he refuses to lead.

[Fast Gunn]

I have no blinders on CM, but your recent posts have become laden with emotion, and that is certainly not the clear objectivity I have been accustomed to hearing from you.

What terrible thing has happened to you?

The fact is that democracy is a messy and chaotic system and you have many obstacles and adamant positions to contend with. Sometimes you need to take devious paths to get things done when entrenched opposition is certain to block your more direct paths.

President Obama was dealt the most horrendous hand that any President has in generations, but he has maintained his famous cool and kept marching toward the goal line with the long game in mind.

. . . That is something that I would advise you to emulate and give the man credit for all that he has done right when so many just want to obstruct him regardless of the damage to the country they may cause.

I believe that he is going to win the election by a landslide and I fully support him.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Fast Gunn, if you think my posts have become "not so attractive", you might want to consider removing the partisan blinders and taking a cold, hard look at reality. Emotions and raw political biases are subjective, but simple arithmetic is not. It cannot be amended or superseded by politicians. Did you not notice the staggering spending increases of the last three years, which of course were stacked atop already obese budgets? It would be quite interesting to see someone try to argue that we are coming even remotely close to getting something resembling our money's worth.

[budman33]

People who stop looking for jobs don't fill out polls. stop being sheep people. Its a mostly made up fucking number.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by budman33

People who stop looking for jobs don't fill out polls. stop being sheep people. Its a mostly made up fucking number.

HUH?