Grow the economy from the top ---> down (focus on supply)
Grow the economy from the middle ---> out (focus on demand)
These are the 2 fundamental economic choices in the coming election.
Which one is superior?
Printable View
Grow the economy from the top ---> down (focus on supply)
Grow the economy from the middle ---> out (focus on demand)
These are the 2 fundamental economic choices in the coming election.
Which one is superior?
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz; 423881]1. Do everything possible to harm the economy.
2. Wait for 2012.
3. Campain on the failed economy.[/QUOTE]It's the presidents job to bring the sides together and work for the good of the country. Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush's were able to do that with varying degrees of success but Obama has failed miserably, he wants to rule by decree.
[QUOTE=Esten;423904]These are the 2 fundamental economic choices in the coming election. [snip][/QUOTE]The choices are someone with a successful business track record or a [b]Failed Amateur[/b].
This make sense. The republicans, according to reliable sources, are doing everything possible to harm the economy. Not to worry. Obama is several steps ahead of the republicans. Obama has already destroyed the economy. There is nothing more for the republicans to do.
[QUOTE=Esten; 423904]Grow the economy from the top. Down (focus on supply)
Grow the economy from the middle. Out (focus on demand)
These are the 2 fundamental economic choices in the coming election.
Which one is superior?[/QUOTE]Esten, You mean "focus on investment" versus "focus on consumer consumption"? People in the USA have the highest standard of living or close to the highest standard of living in the world. Maybe Qatar and Luxembourg are better off. But it's financed by debt. Personal debt and government debt. The 2 fundamental choices are throwing gasoline on a fire or returning to sanity. Democrats want to throw gasoline. Republicans are a mixed bag. Some, like Bush, would throw Molotov cocktails. Others, like Paul Ryan, are voices of sanity. The choice to invest, in companies, businesses and improvements in productivity, is superior to the choice to borrow money so our citizens can buy more consumer goods from China.
Maybe just a little Alzheimers.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 423917]This make sense. The republicans, according to reliable sources, are doing everything possible to harm the economy. Not to worry. Obama is several steps ahead of the republicans.
[b]Obama has already destroyed the economy[/b].
There is nothing more for the republicans to do.[/QUOTE][b]That was Bush! [/b]
I am astonished to learn that Bush is still in control of the presidency. Clever how Obama can pretend to be the President but is secretly deferring to Bush on all important decisions. Only on Argentinaprivate do you find out what is really going on.
[QUOTE=Punter 127;423915]It's the presidents job to bring the sides together and work for the good of the country. Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush's were able to do that with varying degrees of success but Obama has failed miserably, he wants to rule by decree.[/QUOTE]Congress has a responsibility to work together too. But Republicans were determined to thwart Obama right from the start. They refused to support the Stimulus despite the fact it contained significant tax breaks; they plotted against Obama on health care reform ("It will be his Waterloo") ; and proudly announced their top priority was not jobs, but to defeat Obama. On the debt deal, Obama and Boehner were working on a big deal, but far-right Repubs reeled Boehner back in, reminding him they had all signed a pledge not to compromise.
Have Congressional Republicans been working for the good of the country? The answer is clear: NO.
[QUOTE]The choices are someone with a successful business track record or a [b]Failed Amateur[/b].[/QUOTE]Romney's main success was making money for himself and his rich buddies. Sometimes at the expense of hard working Americans. If this were an election on running a private equity firm, Romney would be ahead. But it's an election on running a country, and Romney is behind. I wonder why that is? What do you call someone who is getting beat by a "Failed Amateur"?
The White 99% Republicans say Obama wants to tax and increase spending.
[b]He has the lowest tax rate in 30 years! [/b]
Read and Weep.
The Economy went to Shit Under [b]Bush! [/b]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 423932]The White 99% Republicans say Obama wants to tax and increase spending.
[b]He has the lowest tax rate in 30 years! [/b][/QUOTE]What do you have against white people? Federal spending under Obama is 24% of GDP, the highest since the 1940's:
[url]http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents[/url]
Taxes as % GDP are down on your graph for two reasons:
1. A recession occurred in 2009. Personal and corporate taxable income dropped more than GDP.
2. The Bush tax cuts decreased income tax rates across the board.
Related to "2" above, according to a CBO study, quoted approvingly by the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Bush tax cuts made the income tax system more progressive. They caused people at top income levels to pay a greater % of the total income tax.
The implication that Obama doesn't want to increase taxes or isn't a big spender is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a reply. Read the newspaper. You know better.
Your other graphs conveniently stop before Obama became president. I believe presidents are given a lot more blame and credit for the state of the economy than they deserve. But if you correlate Obama's time in office with the state of the economy, considering we were "recovering" from a recession, he doesn't look any better than Bush.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 423936]What do you have against white people? Federal spending under Obama is 24% of GDP, the highest since the 1940's:
[url]http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents[/url]
Taxes as % GDP are down on your graph for two reasons:
1. A recession occurred in 2009. Personal and corporate taxable income dropped more than GDP.
2. The Bush tax cuts decreased income tax rates across the board.
Related to "2" above, according to a CBO study, quoted approvingly by the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Bush tax cuts made the income tax system more progressive. They caused people at top income levels to pay a greater % of the total income tax.
The implication that Obama doesn't want to increase taxes or isn't a big spender is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a reply. Read the newspaper. You know better.
Your other graphs conveniently stop before Obama became president. I believe presidents are given a lot more blame and credit for the state of the economy than they deserve. But if you correlate Obama's time in office with the state of the economy, considering we were "recovering" from a recession, he doesn't look any better than Bush.[/QUOTE]Like all Pelosi Liberals (WT69 is a san fran boy) , they never let the truth get in the way! Furthermore, WT69 most likely will never set foot in BA again, as he would have to answer for all this spam he is placing on this thread after he repeatedly call for the threads closure! FACT!
Crawl back under your rock WT69. Your're home state has enough problems (CA) that I am surprised you even follow this board anymore. Shame on you, you worthless union ***** that can't even see that your touted masters let you down long ago! You are totally an extinct species howling at the moon, acting like an uninformed fool. Shame on you for spamming this thread with misinformation and foolishness. Doubt we'll ever see you in BA again. Keep howling at the moon dude. Toymann
That was pretty harsh, why can't we disagree yet maintain civility? Personally I think this is the root of all the issues up in the states these days. They have us fighting each other while the banks rob us blind and the pols on both sides of the aisle strip away our civil liberties one by one. Just my opinion.
[QUOTE=Toymann; 423937]Like all Pelosi Liberals (WT69 is a san fran boy) , they never let the truth get in the way! Furthermore, WT69 most likely will never set foot in BA again, as he would have to answer for all this spam he is placing on this thread after he repeatedly call for the threads closure! FACT!
Crawl back under your rock WT69. Your're home state has enough problems (CA) that I am surprised you even follow this board anymore. Shame on you, you worthless union * that can't even see that your touted masters let you down long ago! You are totally an extinct species howling at the moon, acting like an uninformed fool. Shame on you for spamming this thread with misinformation and foolishness. Doubt we'll ever see you in BA again. Keep howling at the moon dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]
Romney's Contributors hiding money.
I have nothing against White People; being one, just the Racist ones.
I Like this Federal Spending Chart better.
[url]http://www.fedspending.org/[/url]
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 423936]What do you have against white people? Federal spending under Obama is 24% of GDP, the highest since the 1940's:
[url]http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents[/url]
Taxes as % GDP are down on your graph for two reasons:
1. A recession occurred in 2009. Personal and corporate taxable income dropped more than GDP.
2. The Bush tax cuts decreased income tax rates across the board.
Related to "2" above, according to a CBO study, quoted approvingly by the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Bush tax cuts made the income tax system more progressive. They caused people at top income levels to pay a greater % of the total income tax.
The implication that Obama doesn't want to increase taxes or isn't a big spender is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a reply. Read the newspaper. You know better.
Your other graphs conveniently stop before Obama became president. I believe presidents are given a lot more blame and credit for the state of the economy than they deserve. But if you correlate Obama's time in office with the state of the economy, considering we were "recovering" from a recession, he doesn't look any better than Bush.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;423942]Romney's Contributors hiding money.[/QUOTE]Yeah, it would be better to take money from the squeaky clean unions.