Watch the Dow roar

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My God, do you get your talking points straight from the DNC? You sound like your being paid to talk up the economy. Could you be any more robot like?

Talking point? I call it factual data. If there's anything factually incorrect in what I posted, feel free to correct me.

[SuperDuper! 230]

a. It's a relief rally after the recent losses in Nov

b. There was a rumor of US giving additional funding to IMF to stabilize Europe PIIGS issues. That drove EURUSD higher and boded as a positive signal for global stability, strengthening equities. The VIX got rocked also indicating that this was an increased-confidence related move.

c. It's a relief rally

d. None of the above. It's just Booyah finally opening up his wallet and buying up stocks.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Talking point? I call it factual data. If there's anything factually incorrect in what I posted, feel free to correct me.

And at the same time everything I have said is factual. Yours is just tilted so far to make this economy look good it is in danger of falling over. It does not matter. The tax cuts will be extended. Obama will sign the bill or he will sign his political death warrant.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And at the same time everything I have said is factual. Yours is just tilted so far to make this economy look good it is in danger of falling over. It does not matter. The tax cuts will be extended. Obama will sign the bill or he will sign his political death warrant.

Not really. You said that tax cuts create jobs. We've had tax cuts for the past decade. Where are them jobs?

I don't recall having said this economy looks good. Not sure where you got that from. I did say that I am doing better today than I did 4 years ago and that remains true. Managed to advance in my career despite the overall poor economic picture. That's a credit to myself not to the economy at large. Other than that, I am the first to admit that the economy still is rather sour. I am also the first to point out, however, that any expectation the the contrary would have required a set of pink colored glasses. I don't own such a set so I tend to be a bit more realistic in terms of what is and what isn't achievable.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Not really. You said that tax cuts create jobs. We've had tax cuts for the past decade. Where are them jobs?

I don't recall having said this economy looks good. Not sure where you got that from. I did say that I am doing better today than I did 4 years ago and that remains true. Managed to advance in my career despite the overall poor economic picture. That's a credit to myself not to the economy at large. Other than that, I am the first to admit that the economy still is rather sour. I am also the first to point out, however, that any expectation the the contrary would have required a set of pink colored glasses. I don't own such a set so I tend to be a bit more realistic in terms of what is and what isn't achievable.

They were created 10 years ago when they were instituted. They did their job already. Now if you want to kill jobs then take those tax cuts away. There is zero doubt that increasing taxes on business costs jobs. I notice you are ignoring an inconvenient truth. Obama's deficit reduction panel just recommended tax cuts for business. How about that?

Deficit-Commission Chairmen Recommend Lower Corporate Taxes

By COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The deficit commission set up by the White House has recommended cutting corporate taxes to a single rate between 23% and 29%, replacing the current band of rates that peaks at 35%.

In its final report released Wednesday, the commission said that without an overhaul of the U.S. corporate-tax system, the country's competitive position globally would suffer.

In exchange for lowering the corporate rate, the panel's report recommended eliminating all other industry-specific subsidies. Doing so would both help pay for the lower corporate rate and would end the current system in which the government in effect picks winners and losers through subsidies, the report said.

For individuals, the report recommends simplifying the complicated bracket system to three: bands of 12%, 22% and 28%.

It would tax capital gains and dividends at the same rates rather than maintaining a separate system.

The panel was established by the White House to come up with recommendations to bring the burgeoning U.S. debt under control.

Its specific mandate was to issue a report that could lower the federal budget deficit to 3% of gross domestic product by 2015.

http://online.wsj.co...DS=tax+business

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They [the jobs] were created 10 years ago when they were instituted.

Little problem with that one. From 2001-2005 (Bush's first term) there were actually net jobs lost. There were 132,469,000 jobs in Jan 2001 and 132,453,000 jobs in Jan 2005 - a net loss of 16,000 jobs over that time span. The tax cuts were instituted in 2001 and 2003. So, where were these jobs if they still hadn't shown up two years after passage of the second tax cut package and four years after passage of the first? Oh, they came during the second term? Nah, unfortunately, there were only 1.1 million jobs created over that time frame - the 90's produced more than 50% more each year. As well, we've added that number (1MM+) in private sector jobs during the last year alone. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. So I ask again, where are those jobs that these tax cuts produced?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Deficit-Commission Chairmen Recommend Lower Corporate Taxes

By COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The deficit commission set up by the White House has recommended cutting corporate taxes to a single rate between 23% and 29%, replacing the current band of rates that peaks at 35%.

In its final report released Wednesday, the commission said that without an overhaul of the U.S. corporate-tax system, the country's competitive position globally would suffer.

In exchange for lowering the corporate rate, the panel's report recommended eliminating all other industry-specific subsidies. Doing so would both help pay for the lower corporate rate and would end the current system in which the government in effect picks winners and losers through subsidies, the report said.

For individuals, the report recommends simplifying the complicated bracket system to three: bands of 12%, 22% and 28%.

It would tax capital gains and dividends at the same rates rather than maintaining a separate system.

The panel was established by the White House to come up with recommendations to bring the burgeoning U.S. debt under control.

Its specific mandate was to issue a report that could lower the federal budget deficit to 3% of gross domestic product by 2015.

http://online.wsj.co...DS=tax+business

I'd be all for it - lower the rates, end subsidies and close loopholes. Because of the offsetting aspects of this proposal, this isn't going to happen. Corporate America owns Congress and has effectively written the tax code. It suits them well. We have multiple fortune 500 companies that make billions of dollars a quarter and either don't owe Uncle Sam a dime or even qualify for tax returns they never paid to begin with. The corporations are better of with the current system - it's their system. They had it custom made and bought it.

[alienlovechild 75]

But you know how you can tell that your argument makes no sense whatsoever? By looking up the recent history of recessions and recoveries and then overlay that with who controlled the House during the recovery phase. There were strong recoveries coming out of the early 80's and early 90's recessions. And in both cases did the country overall look better at the next peak than it did at the previous one. Both of those recoveries happened while - you guessed it - the Democrats held the House.

And you know what happened with the recovery coming out of the early 2000's recession? It sucked. In fact, we are looking back at a lost decade following that recovery. A first in US post-war history. Job growth? Nope. Usually, we are looking at a 20% job growth in a decade. The aughts? Zippo. Middle-income household income in 2008 compared to 1999? Down - another first in US postwar history. Median income? Down. Net worth of American households? Down. Another first on record. Now who shepherded the economy out of the early 2000's recession? Yes, the GOP. And that approach has produced a lost decade.

I'm not wild about the prospect of another GOP led lost decade. We should try to make some gains once again.

Unemployment wasn't high under 8 years of Bush so no increase in net jobs was never a issue even for the Democrats until 2008. Pretty sure the median income hasn't gone up much if at all under Obama.

Based on your pattern, you're claiming there's no recovery because the GOP will control the House or it will set the stage to worsen even Obama's weak economic performance?

Considering the duration of the recession now is worse than in the 1980s, without a sustained reduction in the unemployment numbers, underemployment and discouraged workers is at a post WW-II high and unemployment benefits were extended throughout Obama's term. There's little for the Democrats to crow about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unemployment wasn't high under 8 years of Bush so no increase in net jobs was never a issue even for the Democrats until 2008.

That isn't the point, is it? The claim is that the Bush economic policies - namely the upwards geared tax cuts - are the way to go to create jobs. They haven't done that. Not even coming out of what was the mildest of recessions (GDP shrank 0.3% during the 8 months the recession lasted). And yet, even that mild downturn pushed unemployment from 4.2% to 6.3% - a full 2.1% upwards - with the peak unemployment rate having been recorded a full 1.5 years after the end of the recession, over a year and a half after the first and months after the second tax cut package.

Compare this to what Obama has dealt with: GDP shrank 4.1% over the 1.5 years that this recession lasted. Since taking office, the unemloyment rate has gone from 7.6% (starting point) to 10.2% (peak) back to 9.6% as of now. We're not quite 1.5 years out of that severe recession and have passed the unemployment peak already. That's on top of the fact that a recession that shrunk the GDP more than roughly 15 fold compared to the decline at the beginning of this century has not produced a rise in unemployment at a similar multiple. Not even close. Now, the private sector has created jobs month after month adding more than a million jobs over the last year alone (this is the count that Bush accomplished over his entire two terms with this "job creating" tax cut package - all of which really fell into the second term as the first was a total bust on the jobs side despite the tax cuts that were sold as being capable of creating upwards of 5 million jobs).

Where is the evidence that the tax cuts actually drove job creation? Where are those jobs?

Based on your pattern, you're claiming there's no recovery because the GOP will control the House or it will set the stage to worsen even Obama's weak economic performance?

No, I'm not making any such claim. I was merely debunking your suggestion that the GOP majority in the House will help the recovery along. No evidence to support any such claim out there. That's all I am saying.

Considering the duration of the recession now is worse than in the 1980s, without a sustained reduction in the unemployment numbers, underemployment and discouraged workers is at a post WW-II high and unemployment benefits were extended throughout Obama's term. There's little for the Democrats to crow about.

Well, again, you're not sticking with the reality. The recession of the early 1980s lasted 16 months, this one lasted 18 months though it was much steeper a decline than the earlier recession (-4.1% vs. -2.7% decline in GDP). At this point of his presidency, the Gipper was looking at an unemployment rate of almost 11% (Nov 1982) - a full percent and a half higher than what we have today. That was up from the 7.5% unemployment rate that he was handed (Obama was handed a 7.6% rate and a job loss rate of 750K / month). The recession the Gipper handled was not quite as severe as the one we just put behind us. All said, the record is clear - the economy is now recovering. If people say it isn't recovering fast enough, then I'd say they had unreasonable expectations. A look back would have managed those expectations and would make one realize that this economy turned around faster than historical comparison would suggest.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Unemployment wasn't high under 8 years of Bush so no increase in net jobs was never a issue even for the Democrats until 2008. Pretty sure the median income hasn't gone up much if at all under Obama.

Based on your pattern, you're claiming there's no recovery because the GOP will control the House or it will set the stage to worsen even Obama's weak economic performance?

Considering the duration of the recession now is worse than in the 1980s, without a sustained reduction in the unemployment numbers, underemployment and discouraged workers is at a post WW-II high and unemployment benefits were extended throughout Obama's term. There's little for the Democrats to crow about.

Quit trying to reason with him, he is just a robot spouting DNC talking points. In his little world anything that the GOP does is always bad even when it is good and anything the dems do is good even when it is bad. He is the poster boy for the kool-aid drinkers. Thank God he is an endagered species now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quit trying to reason with him, he is just a robot spouting DNC talking points. In his little world anything that the GOP does is always bad even when it is good and anything the dems do is good even when it is bad. He is the poster boy for the kool-aid drinkers. Thank God he is an endagered species now.

You must not have been reading what I posted. Not one piece of anything I posted here came from any source associated with any political party. All of it comes from established news sources or original data reports. You know, to sit there and worship the God of tax cuts, to sit there and still embrace the trickle-down voo-doo economics as the all healing and all capable solution despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is what I'd say resembles robotic spouting of talking points. That ain't me doing it, though. That's you.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You must not have been reading what I posted. Not one piece of anything I posted here came from any source associated with any political party. All of it comes from established news sources or original data reports. You know, to sit there and worship the God of tax cuts, to sit there and still embrace the trickle-down voo-doo economics as the all healing and all capable solution despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is what I'd say resembles robotic spouting of talking points. That ain't me doing it, though. That's you.

Yeah, try and turn it around. It will not work. You are spouting the very same talking points the liberal pundants and pols pound away at every day. You can't deny it, I see it every night on the news. No matter, you and your tax and spend friends were booted out of the house for this very way of thinking. The American people are on to you. The tax cuts will be extended, if not in the lame duck session then in the new congress next year. Obama will have no choice but to sign it. The economy will improve, not because of the stimulus or higher taxes that you want but because the new congress will restore the confidence that has been lacking in the last 2 years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, try and turn it around. It will not work. You are spouting the very same talking points the liberal pundants and pols pound away at every day. You can't deny it, I see it every night on the news. No matter, you and your tax and spend friends were booted out of the house for this very way of thinking. The American people are on to you. The tax cuts will be extended, if not in the lame duck session then in the new congress next year. Obama will have no choice but to sign it. The economy will improve, not because of the stimulus or higher taxes that you want but because the new congress will restore the confidence that has been lacking in the last 2 years.

Again, there is no evidence in recent history to back up your claim that the GOP having gained a majority in the house will help the recovery. As I pointed out earlier, the only recovery that the GOP shepherded as the majority party in the House was that of the early 2000's - and that recovery sucked. It didn't produce any jobs for a year and a half after the recession came to an end and had a dismla job creation record the years after. The recovery resulted in a lost decade. That's a fact. Go back to the voo-doo altar of trickle down and do your worshipping. Absent of evidence to support the claim that trickle-down economics are a functioning concept, it takes faith - lots of faith - to still believe that it actually works.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[^_^ 5,021]

Who needs evidence when they have faith?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who needs evidence when they have faith?

Sorry, my bad.