It�s Still the Economy, Stupid

“Yeah, sure seems like it's about to collapse for these folks. Sheesh. Watch out, guys!

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/”

“Now there's an unbiased source.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.............”

“Take your pic of sources. I just put that one on there to rile you up (worked). The story is out there ad nauseum on thousands of sites.

So, exactly, how are these companies and CEOs on the "brink of collapse' exactly? Sounds like a bunch of Republican whining to me (per usual)...”

“Whining? You're the one whining about other people's money. What gives you the right to judge anyone about how much money they make? Do people judge you for your wages? Should Richard Trumka decide what everyone in America makes?”

“No, but they're getting HUGE corporate tax breaks across the board at taxpayer expense and shipping jobs overseas by the boatload. How making those illegal? How about no more offshore (non-taxable) accounts allowed for U.S. citizens? Hey, how about reigning in military spending? The Repubs never seem to want to go after that. Ya wanna talk about pork barrel...[url] It ain't the social programs that are all the problem here, dood.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/two-never-used-navy-ghost-ships-sent-scrap-164452572.html[/url]”

“Huge coperate tax breaks, Like GM?

I'd ship my factory offshore too if everyone wanted to tax me more here.....DUH!”

“Liberal MSNBC Info-Babe to Congressman: 'Do you have a degree in economics?'

'Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors'...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/20/msnbc_to_gop_congressman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html”

“Right, so you could make more profits and not put into the system that allowed you to exist. Got it. The Republican mantra: I got mine, fuk the rest.”

“Democratic mantra: He has his and I want it”

“Unemployment Benefits Rise as Job Growth Falters
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43837880”

“Bad news for America = Good news for Republicans”

“no...bad news for America=typical result from Democratic policies”

“Actually not. If you read the BLS data, you'll see that private employment growth, while weak, is still positive.

What's causing the unemployment rate to increase is shrinking government employment.

Laying off cops, teachers and firemen to balance local and state budgets actually has an impact. Who'd have guessed?”

“Construction dOOd, where is it, you should know it's the missing member and you should know why?”

“Laying off cops, teachers and firemen to balance local and state budgets actually has an impact. Who'd have guessed?”
Rev Truth V Wicked

Public sector unions are a HUGE part of our problems”

“From now on it's (I), (r) and (d), Got it?”

“You won't believe this.


[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html#comments
[/url]”

“You won't believe this.


[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html#comments
[/url]”

“I give up.”

“Return of Mass Layoffs a Grim Sign for U.S. Workers

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html”

“The GOP is like shooting yourself in the foot while it is still in your mouth.”

“Hmmm. Who to blame for the vasy MAJORITY of our economic woes?

”

“Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts
By Glenn Kessler


((Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg))

“After Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program — but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country.”

— President Obama, April 13, 2011

Obama, in a speech on budget policy last month, offered this summary of how he thought the nation lost its way fiscally during the presidency of George W. Bush. Last week, we took a look at new data about the period of 2001-2011, and concluded that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of vast estimated surpluses was additional spending ($4.3 trillion), followed by incorrect revenue estimates ($3.3 trillion) by the Congressional Budget Office.

Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion, which we guess would count as “trillions,” as the president put it. Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion.

(In case you are wondering, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was $1.26 trillion through 2011 and the Medicare prescription drug program totaled $272 billion.)

Last week, we somewhat rashly speculated that the actual size of the Bush tax cuts might be lower because they were based on revenue estimates that ultimately fell far short of what was predicted in 2001. The true “cost” to the Treasury may never be known. Economists generally agree there are feedback effects from lower tax rates and the like, but little consensus has been reached on what that might be.

Still, we thought it might be worth looking at ways to run the numbers so there can be a proper comparison between spending increases — which has been duly catalogued — and the tax cuts.
The Facts

President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years.

Those estimates have never been updated, even as the economy and the budget have moved on.

Here are two ways to look at how the 2001 numbers might be different today.

First, although the JCT has not gone back and rescored the 2001 tax cuts, the committee recently estimated the revenue impact of virtually the same tax cut — the two-year extension negotiated by President Obama and the Congress. For simplicity, and because some elements were changed in other parts of the tax cut, we will focus just on the reductions in individual taxes.

In 2001, the JCT estimated that the tax-rate package would reduce revenues by $115 billion in 2010. In December, the extension of those tax rates in 2012 was estimated to cost $105 billion. (We have to skip 2011 for complicated, technical reasons not worth explaining.)

The $10 billion difference means the cost of the tax rates rose about 5 percent each year. At that trend, the 2001 prediction of the 2012 tax rate package would have been about $126 billion.

In other words, the current estimate of the cost of the 2012 tax rate reductions is 17 percent lower than what would have been predicted under the 2001 methodology.

This shift, however, appears to be largely because of the impact of the recession, which devastated all government revenues. The reduction is less dramatic if you go back all the way to 2001.

To do this, we compared the Congressional Budget Office’s 2001 prediction for the gross domestic product for each fiscal year. Then we looked up the actual GDP, found in the historical records of the White House Budget Office (Table 10.1). It was lower for each year, and we used the resulting ratio to adjust the size of the tax cut for each year. (Generally, the 2001 tax cut was just under or just above 1 percent of GDP.)

Under this method, for most years, the impact was minimal, just a slight reduction. But when the recession hit in 2008, and the GDP turned out to be 10 percent below predictions for three straight years, the cost of the tax cut was reduced by billions of dollars each year.

Over the 10-year period, the overall size of the tax cut dropped about 5 percent, or $65 billion, to $1.285 trillion. Some people might call that a rounding error in the context of a ten-year federal budget.
The Bottom Line

There certainly might be other ways to calculate the actual impact of the tax cut, and we would welcome suggestions. It seems clear that the impact was less during the recession — though one could argue that government’s fiscal condition would be much better if those revenues had been collected. No matter how you count it, nearly $1.3 trillion is a lot of money.”

“I don't care who did it, it's time to end the madness. We borrow 40cents out of every dollar we spend. Every day, we spend 4 billion more than we take in. Washington is addicted to spending. By any reasonable measure, we are bankrupt. Obama thinks we're too stupid to understand all these complicated things but he's wrong. Pay attention and get involved. Stand up for your children's future.

THEY WORK FOR YOU AND WE SURROUND THEM! Demand that they do your bidding.”

“You don't care who did it? This is why republicans should not be listened to . They are always wrong, because their base is based on lies and everything they do is so wrong. It is killing america to protect the Worshiped Rich from having to pay back what made them rich in the first place. Fire more cops and the castle wall will be over-topped sooner.”

“Bush is gone. The republican's are listening to us now. Get it? They know we will fire them if they don't serve us.”

“but you can't fire them. Like them or not, they finish their terms. All you've done is provide them with a new set of lies to tell in order to get elected.

Our two most recent presidents saw extended periods with an approval rating below 50%, but Bush finished off his term and Obama will finish off his. Once they're elected, they're pretty much untouchable - so they spin their BS to get your vote, then sit pretty in office while disregarding everything they promised (until they're up for reelection, that is)”

“Our debt would be paid off in a year if we sold Ad Time for our Top Rated Congressional Soap Opera now running.”

“I understand the desire to feel somewhat in control of your politicians - but that's just an illusion. You can shout "we surround them" and "they work for us" till the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. They have all the power and we will never be able to change it.”

“It's always convenient to forget who did it. The reality is, according to the above graphic (of course, completely discounted because it's an evil LIBERAL media source, scoff, scoff), Bush is responsible for policy decision that have lead to FIVE TIMES THE DEBT OF OBAMA.

Yup. He screwed us good. And if I remember right, you voted for him twice, Strat. So again, thanks for that!”

“Bush was in office 8 years and I agree he was part of the problem. He's progressive.

House GOP revolts against Boehner plan
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/”

“Yet when I was arguing against Bush's policies, you were one of his biggest defenders, strat.

You kept telling me that tax cuts would grow the economy something fierce and we'd all be rich by now.

I can dig up quotes if you want.

Now you're saying you really don't care how we got in this mess - YOU HELPED MAKE IT!!!

The policies that you're backing now will only make matters worse. If we cut spending during a sputtering recovery, we'll send the economy into a tailspin. Don't worry though, the uber-rich will profit on the downside too.

I doubt they'll thank you for enabling your own rape though.”

“Bush is responsible for policy decision that have lead to FIVE TIMES THE DEBT OF OBAMA. - Roseymonster

Just out of curiosity, I ran the numbers for the debt added under the Bush admin and the Obama admin.

Debt on 1/20/01: 5.7 trillion
Debt on 1/19/09: 10.6 trillion
Debt added under Bush: 4.9 trillion
Number of days in Bush Presidency: 2921
Debt added per day under Bush: 1.7 billion

Debt on 1/20/09: 10.6 trillion
Debt on 7/26/11: 14.3 trillion
Debt added under Obama: 3.7 trillion
Number of days in Obama Presidency: 917
Debt added per day under Obama: 4.0 billion”

“BLAM! Just like I said, every day we spend 4 billion more than we take in. EVERY DAY.

Violin-I was in favor of Bush tax cuts. It was the big government spending that I didn't agree with. Also, when the Dems took over congress under Bush, it accelerated and the economy took a nosedive. Don't forget Barney Frank causing the housing bubble via Freddie and Fanny.”

“Barney Frank.... right....

”

“http://www.usdebtclock.org/

”

“Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

Dems cause the housing crash and bush tried to warn us. Don't take my word for it and don't listen to Violin, watch it for your self....”

“Strat -

Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House at the time of those warnings. If they had wanted to reform the GSE's, they could have. Did a few words by Barney Frank terrify them into inaction?

The warnings, particularly from Greenspan, are against letting Fannie and Freddie get too large. At the time (2003), Fannie and Freddie were issuing about $2.7 trillion in mortgages. That fell to about $1 trillion at the height of the bubble in 2006:


http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/16591/ConservatorsRpt82610.pdf

Clearly, while they were part of the problem, they weren't the cause.

I worked in the commercial lending division at Washington Mutual and can tell you that originations was the name of the game. One co-worker compared it to a speeding locomotive and warned against stepping in front of the train. Anyone who raised a flag was fired. The story of the housing bubble and ensuing financial crisis is one of greed and corruption among our financial institutions. Period.”

“Are you 12?”

“Obama: More than Twice the Debt in Half the Time as Bush
by House Committee on Ways and Means
http://biggovernment.com/waysandmeans/2011/07/27/obama-more-than-twice-the-debt-in-half-the-time-as-bush/

A recent “infographic” released by the White House tries to assign the blame for our massive debt and deficits to former President Bush and Republican Congresses. However, the graphic conveniently omits President Obama’s record and his plans for the fiscal future of our country. If the President had his way and his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal was enacted, here is what a comparison of the increase in public debt would look like:

As the graph above shows, the debt held by the public increased $2.4 trillion between 2000 and 2008, from $3.4 trillion to $5.8 trillion. Under President Obama’s budget proposal, the debt held by the public is projected to increase $6.1 trillion between 2008 and 2012, from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion.

That means that President Obama will more than double the debt accumulated under President Bush in half the time. Twice the debt in half the time: courtesy of the Obama Administration.

Source: President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Proposal, Office of Management and Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables – Table 7.1”

“NOW Strat cares about the debt. LOL.

The damage was done when you voted for Shrub that first time, let alone the second. Smooth move, xlax.”

“NOW Rosey doesn't care about the dept.”