Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by HallGator, Dec 30, 2013.
From the WSJ.
Politics aside, it should be good news for all of us if true.
Thank god for Obama and his policy's that are finely kicking in. HAHA
As ever, the president has almost no impact on this.
curious, would this statement still be true if we had a president do nothing to bailout crumbling industries, offset a lack of spending in the private sector, like many conservatives said we shouldn't?
In all likelihood, yes.
So we would be at the exact same point, but with less debt?
No, we'd be worse off. But with possibly the same amount of debt due to lower tax receipts. The spending increases under Obama has been almost entirely mandatory spending that the president has little control over. So we would have had the same amount of spending, but with lower tax receipts due to lower GDP.
Hogwash. Tax and regulatory policy AS ALWAYS has a huge impact on this.
Same place, sure, but it's been a relatively negligible impact on debt itself.
A. History actually shows otherwise (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/, figure B)
B. I don't think that's necessarily the point you'd want to make given the context of this thread.
Only looking at corporate income tax rates is pretty meaningless.
Personal income taxes over time actually accentuates the point.
This sign tells us what direction our economy is heading towards.
Wrong just wrong. We would of had less debt as we bailed them out and lost most of it. Spending and the money used to bail out those companies are two different things.
We can hope that the "Safe to go back into the water" sign is now out. I kind of feel like the economy and jobs are like the shore birds that run in and out based on the waves rolling in. A bigger signal from DC assuring what will be occurring in the next 5-10 years would be quite a big step. But then that would entail making a stand and we know Mr. Obama doesn't want to do that.
No this is wrong. The bailouts and stimulus, along with monetary policy, prevented things from getting far worse.
In 1950, personal income taxes made up 40% of federal revenue, corporate income taxes made up about 26% and social insurance taxes made up about 11%. Now personal income taxes make up 46%, corporate income taxes make up 10% and social insurance taxes make up 35%. Corporations are funding a much lower percentage of the government now, but individuals are funding a much higher percentage. It's very difficult to single out corporate income taxes and draw any meaningful conclusions when the entire tax mix is changing so much. Your link has no meaning here.
Oh this has just begun. We will be talking about QE for quite a few decades as people retire and the government will have no choice but cut back nearly 50% of the benefits because we can't afford it anymore. Look at the youth of today and tomorrow. This Ponzi scheme only works when today's young workers pay for the exiting workers benefits. Yet, older workers are staying put and young workers aren't working at all. In fact, over half of the 2009 grads are still not working full-time or not in the area they went to college for. My son graduated from Ga Tech over a year ago and nearly half of his class are still looking for work.
Not for the next 30 to 40 years. This story will be with us past our lifetimes and into the next 2 generations. Actually, the best of times are right now, but as the global population retires, the impact on the revenues of every nation will be felt. With global debt 300% higher than global GDP (think about that number for a moment too), it's only a matter of time when most of the world falls apart. We are in uncharted territory here.
I truly doubt things are getting better. I already know of several places who planned on closing after they got through Christmas. When Barrycare kicks in it will get even worse.