I probably agree with you though I suspect I shouldn't because of the first part. I don't think the government should drive GDP expansion just so GDP expands. It is a political shell game that distorts markets and hides problems. That said, if we decide that the government must act, then I do agree with you about where the focus should be. I also probably would agree with someone who says however that Obama's policies have been less about pumping up GDP and more about using every available cloud of smoke and sliver of a mirror in keeping the federal government from becoming insolvent.
I would imagine the level of panic at the top of government and within the Federal Reserve was quite high while they did their best to keep the public at ease to prevent a run on banks, a mass sell-off of stocks, etc. And I wouldn't want government to actually push GDP, but rather to sustain demand in the interim until GDP can grow on its own. Spending for the sake of growing an economy is a bit excessive unless that growth is just to get back to even, if possible, meaning keeping the economy afloat until workers are back to work helping to sustain supply to meet growing demand that's fueled by those new paychecks.
Why would you assume I am not increasing my business by increasing my market share by taking it from them?
Data is not evidence by inself, it's the interpretation and application of it which can be entirely fallacious as we often see here and repeated here. - - - Updated - - - Why does left try to hard to ignore it rather than get their elected President to adopt policies to get us out of this mess he has created.
You mean strong GDP with a false economy with its headquarters located at Wall Street USA., that ran us head on into what would have been the second great depression. And the reason why we rely on so much government spending, is that we invested in the rich in this country for about ten years through the failed policy of the Bush Tax cuts, only to find out that money is sitting overseas someplace tax free drawing interest for the thieves who stole it. Maybe if they brought it back and did the patriotic thing by putting that money to good use instead of their own, our economy might be on a role right about now. But no, they stole it.They are keeping it. And thanks to Bush Jr. we are not back to full recovery. And it has nothing to do with Obama's economic policies. And if THAT is the reason how bad will it get when Obama makes his austerity cuts to the defense spending?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and now you can keep it on yours whenever you need to refer back to it while keeping the truth with you whenever the subject of government spending comes up..
When was the last time total government spending was so high as a % of the economy? Simple enough question, come look and watch him dodge it everyone.
That's what happens when you build your economy on a house of cards like government debt. Eventually, the spigot gets turned off.
Federal spending as a percent of GDP has fallen every year Obama has been in office, was that what you were looking for? Outside of WWII, the Bush Administration had the highest Spending as a % of GDP, since Obama took office, it's fallen to where it's approaching the levels it was at when Reagan was in office. But nowhere near as low as during the Clinton years... http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
$17 trill in debt....lowest workforce participation rate ever.....mass immigration depressing wages.....the Fed manically printing money.....everyone and their brother on foodstamps...illegal aliens being caught with 6 EBT cards.....hope I'm gone before the collapse.....or hope I'm alive for a secession.
Probably the last time we fell into a depression in the nineteen thirties, which is before this last one Bush started. That was the only reason government spending was as high as it was when Obama initially took office. Hope that's not too much information you will have to dodge around.
I'm not sure you understand the term welfare since you think actually keeping more of your earnings=welfare..... and I LOVE the fact you progressives complain endlessly about capital gains when the LARGEST HOLDERS of capital gains are retired/retiring senior citizens...... Why do progressives HATE SENIOR CITIZENS!?!?!?!?!? - - - Updated - - - Mod Edit ~ Reply to deleted post
Not even during FDRs reckless and harmful spending in the depression it didnt get that high. Only ww2. Repudiated that debt, what do you think we will have to do with this one? Think we will scale back down? When the recession is over for how many years now? Savings are going to get hit, prices will rise, and wages will continue to stagnate. - - - Updated - - - Mod Edit ~ Reply to deleted post
Keeping more of your earnings through tax cuts is keeping more of your earnings. And those earnings were not earned. They were given to the rich to invest in the middle class for job creation through establishing businesses. It never happened. Therefore, that money was stolen. Not earned!
I'm not a progressive or a liberal, but your statements are false. First, capital gains are not "held". They're gains made via the sale of an asset held greater than one year, such as real estate or stocks. Second, the top 0.1% (about 315,000 people who are our wealthiest citizens in the country) account for HALF of the capital gains in this country, and it contributes to about 60% of their annual earnings. The elderly hold assets spread across millions of people and their capital gains tax burdens are substantially smaller, often taxed at the lowest 5% capital gains tax level because their annual earnings from those gains are small in comparison. So if 0.1% earn half of all gains, whose capital gains would you guess are being complained about when the subject comes up? The wealthiest Americans get to pay 15% tax on huge sums of money brought home annually while many working people pay higher amounts on actual earnings through productive work. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/ To sweeten the deal, Republicans today announced some tax reform they'd like to introduce. It increases capital gains at the top to 20%, up from 15%, but then they give an exemption to the first 40% of capital gains. For those 0.1% folks, that's called a tax break and they need one the least. On top of it, they also want to bring down the top tax bracket to 35% from the current 39%. So we have a slump in revenue due to job losses, millions on benefits, and spending cuts mandated to cut the deficit and slow the growth of debt...yet somehow we can afford some tax cuts for our top tier folks because....well, no reason other than some good ol' trickle down generosity that won't actually trickle down.
