• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
I just love how LAM fucks everyone up in these political threads, he makes everyone sound fucking ignorant, definitely the most knowledgeable and level headed member when it comes to politics and economic issues.

LAM for President! :rocker:

:)

growing up and in HS I couldn't stand history, thought it was basically useless. but when I started self-learning econ it made it easy to see the connection between the two in the US and every other country. politics and economics are one and the same as the former drives the latter and the US is the epitome of this.

we have a country that is in denial, that it is falling and racing to the bottom of the OECD so the finger pointing and the blaming has escalated. those of us on this board regardless of what we do for a living, where we fall on the income ladder did none of this. the fate of the US was determined before most of us were even born (except for the old heads like ALBOB ;) ) .
 
I just love how LAM fucks everyone up in these political threads, he makes everyone sound fucking ignorant, definitely the most knowledgeable and level headed member when it comes to politics and economic issues.

LAM for President! :rocker:

:)

I just puked in my mouth reading that. ^^^
 
just like the GOP...you know that Solyndra loan deal was started by a Bush program and was approved by the Bush admin.


May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 ? October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the ?company?s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.?

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra?s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE ?without prejudice? because it wasn?t ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE?s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1705 program. From application to closing, the process took three years ? not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be ?scored.? OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

January ? June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra?s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month ? on time and on budget ? employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company ? which was a going concern ? for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): ?despite the Administration?s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] ? billions of dollars have yet to be spent.?

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): ?The whole point of the Democrat?s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars ? most of the money still hasn?t been spent.?

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE?s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that?s known to be troubled.

I knew it was bush's fault and the Illuminati:coffee:
 
I knew it was bush's fault and the Illuminati:coffee:

sorry you hate reading, learning and history but you can't change it. but then again your one of the "bright" ones that thinks the effects of policy just simply disappear because the date on the calendar changes. your understand of econ and policy is non-existent.

so much easier to go to gov websites and get the info 1st hand vs the opinion and interpretations of data/info by others.

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=41
 
just like the GOP...you know that Solyndra loan deal was started by a Bush program and was approved by the Bush admin.


May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 ? October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the ?company?s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.?

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra?s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE ?without prejudice? because it wasn?t ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE?s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1705 program. From application to closing, the process took three years ? not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be ?scored.? OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

January ? June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra?s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month ? on time and on budget ? employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company ? which was a going concern ? for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): ?despite the Administration?s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] ? billions of dollars have yet to be spent.?

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): ?The whole point of the Democrat?s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars ? most of the money still hasn?t been spent.?

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE?s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that?s known to be troubled.

the bush admin never gave solyndra a single loan. yes the bush admin supported it, but the half billion dollar loan was approved and given to solyndra under the Obama admin.
 
the bush admin never gave solyndra a single loan. yes the bush admin supported it, but the half billion dollar loan was approved and given to solyndra under the Obama admin.

so then we agree that the economic policies under the Bush admin caused the Great Recession then. because the reports from the IMF and BIS have clearly stated that the 2008 economic downturn has PERMANENTLY scared the global economy. your familiar with the word permanent aren't you?
 
so then we agree that the economic policies under the Bush admin caused the Great Recession then. because the reports from the IMF and BIS have clearly stated that the 2008 economic downturn has PERMANENTLY scared the global economy. your familiar with the word permanent aren't you?

It started with the tech and real estate bubbles that blossomed under Clinton.
 
Both parties are cunts, just keep voting them in though, things will change :loser2:
 
I just puked in my mouth reading that. ^^^

Lol, LAM states facts and he always has references to back up what he says, regardless if u agree with him or not I don't see how u can dispute the realistic and logical stance he takes and effectively defends on all political and economical issues. It's like listening to someone like Ross Perot, unfortunately people with intelligence, experience, knowledge and sense of reason never make it in politics. I am not joking when I say I would love to see someone like LSM in office with a brain and a spine to change this absurdly corrupt and fucked up government that is ultimately going to be the demise if America as we know it. :)
 
Lol, LAM states facts and he always has references to back up what he says, regardless if u agree with him or not I don't see how u can dispute the realistic and logical stance he takes and effectively defends on all political and economical issues. It's like listening to someone like Ross Perot, unfortunately people with intelligence, experience, knowledge and sense of reason never make it in politics. I am not joking when I say I would love to see someone like LSM in office with a brain and a spine to change this absurdly corrupt and fucked up government that is ultimately going to be the demise if America as we know it. :)
that person would be quickly assassinated by coporate backed CIA snipers, and we would be told Iran, North Korea or China did it so we could move on an invasion plan.
 
It started with the tech and real estate bubbles that blossomed under Clinton.

it started under Regan. that's when the debt (both public and private sectors) and fake wealth creation in the US took off and the bullshit in finance with the S&L crisis and corresponding tax payer bailouts of the 80's. it's funny to hear so many on the right bitch and moan about "socialism" when history shows it started under their admins in the US.

the real-estate bubble started with the passing of the tax payer relief act of 1997 (TRA97) and home values took off the month after it was passed, as is clearly seen in the historical case-shiller index below. TRA97 was GOP legislation proposed by John Kasich (R-Ohio) with the voting records below from the House and Senate. The POTUS can not veto any legislation that is passed with a 2/3 majority not that Clinton would have anyway. He's a supporter of the one world government as are almost all Rhode Scholars. In general you won't find any legislation that has to do with finance ever being proposed by the left, sure sometimes that vote for it but that they never introduce legislation supporting it's deregulation or any supply-side heavy tax cuts.

House
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll245.xml

Senate
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Case-Shiller Historical Home Price Index
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-Case-SHiller-updated.png
 
^^^ and you quote another far left economist with an agenda whose major influence is John Maynard Keynes. lol
 
^^^ and you quote another far left economist with an agenda whose major influence is John Maynard Keynes. lol

and what do you know about Keynes besides his name? you've never read a single book of his, like you've never read one of Smiths, Ricardo's, Mill's, Adam's, Marx's, Marshall's, Velben's, etc.

and if your disputing the validity of the case-shiller index that just proves your utter ignorance of US finance. because it's a measure used and accepted by the US national association of realtors the entire US financial sector and outside financial institutions from the BIS on down to the FED.



LOL...you don't even understand the different types of inflation! you only embarrass yourself when you try to talk about finance. a sector of the economy of which you know nothing about or have ever working in.
 
It started with the tech and real estate bubbles that blossomed under Clinton.

and the tech sector was a bubble not created by any legislation. it was a function purely of the markets when the industry blew up in the 90's. my last year at Agilent Tech (which was the worlds largest manufacture of telecom test equipment at the time) our sales dropped from 20B to 1B in 3 quarters when the bubble burst. of which our payroll alone was over 1B, that's when they laid off 35,000 of us over the next year.

that bubble was almost a purely financed by corporate owners which is why the recession of 2001 was very short in duration and in depth of financial losses. large businesses ate the losses in that with home values not dropping but continuing upwards. the majority of the job losses were also in the tech sector in the mid-high level skill ranges. those with plenty of income and non-investment savings. there was also plenty of positive wage growth among the 4 of the 5 income quintiles.

the years before the 2001 economic downturn there was a positive economic expansion which was wage and debt based. the exact opposite of the years between 2001-2008 when there was no wage growth that was not consumed by inflation or increasing medical costs, etc. and the majority of "economic growth" was based on mortgage debt from legislation and deregulation.

this is why the 2008 recession hit so hard and why the next recession will be even worst as it will have been preceded by another extremely weak period of economic growth with stagnant wage growth, low non-retirement savings and increasing costs of many goods and services.
 
Last edited:
and what do you know about Keynes besides his name? you've never read a single book of his, like you've never read one of Smiths, Ricardo's, Mill's, Adam's, Marx's, Marshall's, Velben's, etc.

and if your disputing the validity of the case-shiller index that just proves your utter ignorance of US finance. because it's a measure used and accepted by the US national association of realtors the entire US financial sector and outside financial institutions from the BIS on down to the FED.



LOL...you don't even understand the different types of inflation! you only embarrass yourself when you try to talk about finance. a sector of the economy of which you know nothing about or have ever working in.

I don't even talk about finance much but its clear Keynesian economics is complete garbage and is bankrupting us. but you'll ignore the facts because it doesn't fit your big govt agenda.
 
I don't even talk about finance much but its clear Keynesian economics is complete garbage and is bankrupting us. but you'll ignore the facts because it doesn't fit your big govt agenda.

Keynesian economic principles have been in use since the early 1900's but the debt didn't take off until the 80's and supply-side economics as this is what all the empirical data shows. and those highly profitable big businesses that you love so much, but have never ever worked for are a creation of large government and need large government for their creation and growth. small businesses have no excess capital and therefore no special interest groups, lobbyists, etc. to fund the ever increasing costs of the US election cycle. this is where the concentration of wealth and political power comes into play and why political power in the US has increasingly moved to the left to follow the money of US large firms.

the large population of the US, the large use of fossil fuels, growth of GDP and debt are all directly correlated. and as to your statement about keynesian economic principles bankrupting the US, that's laughable. it's the un-productive US financial sector that is the root of the crisis in the US and it's speculative markets that do not create wealth but destroy it. it's rather simple to understand if you don't have the brain of a radical like yourself. typically a true investment would be in say a manufacturing facility that employees labor and creates a final product via the processing of raw materials and that labour power. but since the 70's and the offshoring and relocation of the non-military manufacturing base in the US where then is all of this "investment" capital being spent? in unproductive over-valued assets privately owned but guranteed by the US government. so as usual you are 100% incorrect in your assumption. the graph below shows one of the effects of the un-productive growth of finance in the US as we see the growth of the US money supply continually increase to "support" the biggest welfare queen in the world, the US financial sector as was stated in the 2011 GAO report which showed the 16T in interest free "loans" handed out after the TARP monies were disbursed.

St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base (BASE)
St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base (BASE) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

and the growth of the unproductive FIRE economy which produces nothing of value and the corresponding decrease of manufacturing in the US. also you see the growth of business services as the costs of financing debt has replaced the actually manufacturing of any product. and this is what they are calling "economic growth" today. nothing but bullshit numbers. notice the dates, it all happened in the 80's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...of_US_Economy_as_Percent_of_GDP_1947-2009.png

and the decline of labors share of the national income once again we see taking a nose dive in the 80's.

Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
 
I don't even talk about finance much but its clear Keynesian economics is complete garbage and is bankrupting us. but you'll ignore the facts because it doesn't fit your big govt agenda.

to make it simple look at the table below taking note at columns A (Fiscal Year) and G (surplus and deficit). you see no massive increase in debt during the progressive years (35-40 years straight) of high government spending for infrastructure, etc. only during WWII. but you do see it increase drastically during the 80's as a percentage of GDP (column K) and in 2009 due to the economic downturn and the drastic loss of tax revenue.

so once again your theory of keynesian economics principles driving the deficit has been completely blown out of the water.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z3.xls
 
It's called war, when your country calls you, you go, no one wants to see americans die or get wounded, but thats not for us to decide


SheepWatchingGeorgeWBushOnTV.jpg
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
to make it simple look at the table below taking note at columns A (Fiscal Year) and G (surplus and deficit). you see no massive increase in debt during the progressive years (35-40 years straight) of high government spending for infrastructure, etc. only during WWII. but you do see it increase drastically during the 80's as a percentage of GDP (column K) and in 2009 due to the economic downturn and the drastic loss of tax revenue.

so once again your theory of keynesian economics principles driving the deficit has been completely blown out of the water.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z3.xls

so the almost 1 trillion dollar stimulus package didn't add to our deficit? lol. not only did it add to the deficit, it was also a complete failure.
 
so the almost 1 trillion dollar stimulus package didn't add to our deficit? lol. not only did it add to the deficit, it was also a complete failure.

once again see page 10 of the Treasury report below:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

as was stated by numerous nobel prize winning economists in 2008-2009 the original stimulus was way to small at only 3% stimulous of US GDP spread out over 3 years with far too much relying on tax cuts.

so in your mind it failed because it didn't reverse 30 years of supply-side economics and the 9T in home wealth lost in 2008. I guess in your world if that's what you expected then it did "fail". those of us that live in a reality based world only expected things to not get substantially worst.

if you bothered to read 1/10 of the reports that I post you would have a much firmer and realistic grasp of the economic situation in the US.

US economic recession recovery history clearly shows that infrastructure spending is the best bang for the buck. but as expected the GOP blocked any such spending as they did not want the economy to recover.

EPI BRIEFING PAPER
ABANDONING WHAT WORKS (AND MOST OTHER THINGS, TOO)
Expansionary fiscal policy is still the best tool for boosting jobs

Page 5. Figure B
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper304 (4).pdf
 
I think we all can agree that its reagan and bush's fault still:coffee:
 
once again see page 10 of the Treasury report below:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

as was stated by numerous nobel prize winning economists in 2008-2009 the original stimulus was way to small at only 3% stimulous of US GDP spread out over 3 years with far too much relying on tax cuts.

so in your mind it failed because it didn't reverse 30 years of supply-side economics and the 9T in home wealth lost in 2008. I guess in your world if that's what you expected then it did "fail". those of us that live in a reality based world only expected things to not get substantially worst.

if you bothered to read 1/10 of the reports that I post you would have a much firmer and realistic grasp of the economic situation in the US.

US economic recession recovery history clearly shows that infrastructure spending is the best bang for the buck. but as expected the GOP blocked any such spending as they did not want the economy to recover.

EPI BRIEFING PAPER
ABANDONING WHAT WORKS (AND MOST OTHER THINGS, TOO)
Expansionary fiscal policy is still the best tool for boosting jobs

Page 5. Figure B
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper304 (4).pdf

all speculation by far left economists. no credibility what so ever.
 
I think we all can agree that its reagan and bush's fault still:coffee:

according to leading economists it pretty much is because the effects of bad economic policy just don't go away.

BERKELEY - "Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush Tax Cuts are the Wrong Approach" proclaimed a full-page advertisement in the Tuesday, February 11, edition of the New York Times. Paid for by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, the ad went on to say that "there is wide agreement that [the Bush plan's] purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term.Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits."

The petition prominently displayed the names of 10 Nobel Laureates and four world-renowned economic experts, among them three current UC Berkeley faculty members: George Akerlof, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and the Goldman Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley; Daniel L. McFadden, also a Nobel laureate in economics and the director of UC Berkeley's Econometrics Laboratory; and Janet Yellen, a member of Berkeley's Haas Economic Analysis and Policy Group and an economics professor. More than 450 economists from U.S. universities and tax-policy institutes also signed the petition, including more than 10 from UC Berkeley.

The NewsCenter asked Akerlof to explain why such a petition was necessary and what flaws he sees in the current economic stimulus package.

Why do you feel it was important that you sign the petition about the economic stimulus package?

Akerlof: We shouldn't call it a stimulus package until there is evidence to show that in fact it is a stimulus package. Right now there is no such evidence. It's a horrendous bill. This must be well known by every single member of Congress, and I am sure that it is clear in the reports from the Congressional Budget Office, which has always done a good job. But the public does not seem to be aware of the extraordinarily serious consequences of this stimulus package.

The deficits being contemplated are out of sight. Each and every measure in this package contemplates long-term cuts in revenues, which means that the government will not have the revenues it needs to pay its bills. These bills fund extremely necessary things like Social Security, Medicare, and an effective military. In addition there's a grab bag of fairly small government expenditures, surprisingly small but nevertheless important, which includes such items as support for science, the justice system, Medicaid to help the disadvantaged, and some federal aid to education.

The budget deficits being contemplated are so very large and extend so far into the future that one doesn't see how in fact these needs are going to be met. These needs are only going to escalate as the baby boomers retire; more important than the population bulge, however, is the fact that people will be living longer and requiring more healthcare. The revenue will not be there over the longer term.

But we've known about the population bulge and longer life spans for a while. Wouldn't we be facing a revenue shortfall regardless of which stimulus plan is implemented?

No. The revenue shortfall as of January 2001 was serious but not tremendously so. Then there were the first major tax cuts. And with them, the revenue shortfalls became very serious. Now, with these additional proposed tax cuts, the revenue shortfall isn't just serious, it's extraordinarily serious. That's why it was possible to get so many economists to sign this petition so very quickly. Given the short length of time involved, it's truly remarkable the number of people who signed it.

So this is a near-term crisis. You're not just looking 10 years down the road and foreseeing huge cuts in social Security and Medicare.


This is permanent. Most of these tax cuts are envisaged as being permanent. That means it's a shortfall of tax revenues as far as the eye can see into the future.

'Horrendous': Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush economic stimulus package[/url

and the effects of the policy enacted are displayed quite clearly on Page 10 below:
[url]http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf


* so yes it was Bush's fault as that is what all of the empirical data shows and US legislative history. it's called cause and effect, you should try learning about it sometime. denial and ignorance is a motherfucker isn't it? imagine that the effects of economic policy have LONG LASTING EFFECTS, now who would have imagined that. gee I don't know anybody with a functioning brain maybe...
 
I think we all can agree that its reagan and bush's fault still:coffee:

by bushs you mean both 41 & 43 right? just want to make sure because bush 41 was a republican so it must be his fault too. obama cant be put on that list because we all know he can do no wrong. lol. oh and Clinton too no way he should take any blame.
 
Congressional Research Service

Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945
Thomas L. Hungerford
Specialist in Public Finance
September 14, 2012

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf

"Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced?lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.
"

* wow who would have thought that lowering the top rats didn't actually increase economic growth (sarcasm) but only resulted in the concentration of wealth which leads to the concentration of political power.

and where did all of that income go? well from the graph below from the FED obviously not to those that work for labor wages.

Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

* there's that "cause & effect" thing at work again. capitalism in the US is not zero sum. in order for one to gain, another must lose.

economics isn't rocket science...
 
by bushs you mean both 41 & 43 right? just want to make sure because bush 41 was a republican so it must be his fault too. obama cant be put on that list because we all know he can do no wrong. lol. oh and Clinton too no way he should take any blame.

Why do u think someone is a subscriber to the Democratic Party just because they disagree with you?
 
by bushs you mean both 41 & 43 right? just want to make sure because bush 41 was a republican so it must be his fault too. obama cant be put on that list because we all know he can do no wrong. lol. oh and Clinton too no way he should take any blame.

you obviously didn't read the excel sheet that I posed because the historical numbers are right there in black and white. it's why you know nothing about economics because apparently your to lazy to learn.

Increase in the deficit by % of GDP:

Reagan 34%
GHWB 15%
Clinton 4.8%
GWB 16%
Obama 36%
 
LAM is very aggressive in his views. He has mastered Google and the ability to cherry pick what he needs to make it sound like he is right on everything he wants to. LAM, you just go too far out of your way to "educate" the rest of us poor muscle head illiterates. In many ways you are simply boring. You probably have very little life experience. Your claims of "living in the grey" only supports the fact you are trying to show us you are smarter than we are. In fact, you are a leftist or a socialist. Everything you put up politically supports this. I have yet to see anything from you that criticizes Obama (for which there is plenty) and the give away mentality of the current political culture. You throw blame game names around like Bush and Reagen, but never mention Carter, Clinton or Obama. Point of fact, Barney Frank, a democrat, is the single most responsible politician that caused the housing bubble. And never mention the inaction of a DEMOCRATIC senate to pull the banks under control when the signs for the collapse were right in their faces. You sir, do not "look in the grey", you look through a lens that only sees a spectrum that you want.
 
Back
Top