Dems. already want your money

[Pigu 0]

Carol&Marc is not a member of the reality-based community.

[dougyceci 0]

Amen to that Steven. I loved the bantor today, thanks all. Broke the monotony of waiting for that damn NOA2 for me. Next week will be 60 days and I know it can be much longer, still doesn't make it any easier. Have a great day all! Remember today is day to remember why we have the ability to discuss these issues freely. To celebrate those who have fought for this freedom.. Happy Veterans Day!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Amen to that Steven. I loved the bantor today, thanks all. Broke the monotony of waiting for that damn NOA2 for me. Next week will be 60 days and I know it can be much longer, still doesn't make it any easier. Have a great day all! Remember today is day to remember why we have the ability to discuss these issues freely. To celebrate those who have fought for this freedom.. Happy Veterans Day!!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I remember when the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. Oh well. I think that went out of fashion along with them being the party of small government and keeping the government out of your business.

It's for that very reason why I've been unhappy with the Republican Party for a while. I've always voted Republican because I wanted fiscal responsibility and limited government -- specifically, the government out of my bank account and my personal life. As it turns out, the Republicans have been just as bad as the Democrats in recent years.

You know what amazes me, if you talk to most of those who actually have honest accountants who help run a successful business they will tell you that if a business had books that looked liked the US government they would all be doing the perp walk.

Both parties are guilty each tries to make the budget look as best they can by using accounting creativity that would land any US company in the courts.

There's a simple explanation for that. You see, all privately-run businesses in the U.S. have to use something called "accrual-based accounting" while the government uses a system called "cash-based accounting." What this basically boils down to -- without getting into the nitty-gritty details -- is that the government can legally state "do as I say, not as I do."

I'm in agreement with you, Doug. The neocon economic philosophy starting with Reagan was to not be concerned about the national debt. Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy by increased consumer spending. I personally see that as problematic - consumer spending. I'd rather see the emphasis on domestic production and the development of new technologies for a stronger economy.

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy actually does work. In fact, the U.S. has an excellent and extremely strong economy right now. Unemployment rates are only at 3 - 4%, which is fantastic. You don't want (and could never get) zero unemployment, and when compared to the 8 - 10% unemployment figures of Europe, the U.S. is doing well.

I wonder how unemployment rates will look once the Democrats raises the minimum wage. I feel sorry for a lot of low-paid workers who'll lose their jobs because of that. And if you don't think industries will do whatever they can to cut costs -- including firing people they can't afford to pay -- then you're not thinking like a business. The bottom line is the bottom line. How much someone with a GED or a high school degree makes at McDonald's is of little-to-no interest to the corporate arm of McDonald's. Right or wrong, that's how business works.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Are you kidding? We had a budget surplus under Clinton.

Look at the chart ? turn it upside right! Debt, always has been, always will be!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm in agreement with you, Doug. The neocon economic philosophy starting with Reagan was to not be concerned about the national debt. Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy by increased consumer spending. I personally see that as problematic - consumer spending. I'd rather see the emphasis on domestic production and the development of new technologies for a stronger economy.

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy actually does work. In fact, the U.S. has an excellent and extremely strong economy right now. Unemployment rates are only at 3 - 4%, which is fantastic. You don't want (and could never get) zero unemployment, and when compared to the 8 - 10% unemployment figures of Europe, the U.S. is doing well.

That's one spin on it.

What are all the factors by which we can honestly measure the strength of our economy? In other words, is it as simple as low unemployment and new jobs?

[mrc 0]

A balanced budget and the federal deficit aren't one in the same...two entirely different pigs.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Carol&Marc is not a member of the reality-based community.

I see the picture you got there is reality based?

[Caladan 19]

I'm in agreement with you, Doug. The neocon economic philosophy starting with Reagan was to not be concerned about the national debt. Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy by increased consumer spending. I personally see that as problematic - consumer spending. I'd rather see the emphasis on domestic production and the development of new technologies for a stronger economy.

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy actually does work. In fact, the U.S. has an excellent and extremely strong economy right now. Unemployment rates are only at 3 - 4%, which is fantastic. You don't want (and could never get) zero unemployment, and when compared to the 8 - 10% unemployment figures of Europe, the U.S. is doing well.

That's one spin on it.

What are all the factors by which we can honestly measure the strength of our economy? In other words, is it as simple as low unemployment and new jobs?

Deadpool, I have strong libertarian sympathies but the Republican party has become basically tax-and-spend warmongering bedroom monitors. They can ask me for their vote when they return to sanity.

--

There's also stability and the *quality* of those jobs. The unemployment measures themselves aren't bad, but people aren't feeling like there's a great economy. There's nowhere near the euphoria there was in the late 90s, for example.

But here's some other measures. Housing prices. New home growth (people only build new homes when they're feeling confident in their incomes). Consumer confidence index. Inflation. The sectors in which the new jobs are going to be created. GDP. Change in GDP.

There's also the fact that unemployment is usually calculated in six month increments. If you've been unemployed for longer than six months, you officially drop off the 'unemployment' list.

So, certainly, the unemployment rate can be low and people can *still* feel like the economy sucks. If I have a college degree and all I can get is a job at Wal-Mart because the jobs I trained for went to India, I have no health insurance, I can't afford a house and rents are skyrocketing, and I'm worried that I won't be able to send my kids to college, well, I may be employed, but I'm not going to think the economy is great. You can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, but structuring incentives to create the right kind of jobs is just as important.

A note for the people unable to add:

Debt = total amount owed. Deficit/surplus = the amount this year's budget is going to fall short or exceed tax revenues. Like the difference between having a savings account and living within your means or on a credit card. The Clinton administration balanced the budget, but didn't get rid of the debt. When we speak of balancing the budget, we're talking about deficits, not making the debt go away.

(Party of fiscal responsibility my foot.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm in agreement with you, Doug. The neocon economic philosophy starting with Reagan was to not be concerned about the national debt. Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy by increased consumer spending. I personally see that as problematic - consumer spending. I'd rather see the emphasis on domestic production and the development of new technologies for a stronger economy.

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy actually does work. In fact, the U.S. has an excellent and extremely strong economy right now. Unemployment rates are only at 3 - 4%, which is fantastic. You don't want (and could never get) zero unemployment, and when compared to the 8 - 10% unemployment figures of Europe, the U.S. is doing well.

That's one spin on it.

What are all the factors by which we can honestly measure the strength of our economy? In other words, is it as simple as low unemployment and new jobs?

Deadpool, I have strong libertarian sympathies but the Republican party has become basically tax-and-spend warmongering bedroom monitors. They can ask me for their vote when they return to sanity.

--

There's also stability and the *quality* of those jobs. The unemployment measures themselves aren't bad, but people aren't feeling like there's a great economy. There's nowhere near the euphoria there was in the late 90s, for example.

But here's some other measures. Housing prices. New home growth (people only build new homes when they're feeling confident in their incomes). Consumer confidence index. Inflation. The sectors in which the new jobs are going to be created. GDP. Change in GDP.

There's also the fact that unemployment is usually calculated in six month increments. If you've been unemployed for longer than six months, you officially drop off the 'unemployment' list.

So, certainly, the unemployment rate can be low and people can *still* feel like the economy sucks. If I have a college degree and all I can get is a job at Wal-Mart because the jobs I trained for went to India, I have no health insurance, I can't afford a house and rents are skyrocketing, and I'm worried that I won't be able to send my kids to college, well, I may be employed, but I'm not going to think the economy is great. You can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, but structuring incentives to create the right kind of jobs is just as important.

A note for the people unable to add:

Debt = total amount owed. Deficit/surplus = the amount this year's budget is going to fall short or exceed tax revenues. Like the difference between having a savings account and living within your means or on a credit card. The Clinton administration balanced the budget, but didn't get rid of the debt. When we speak of balancing the budget, we're talking about deficits, not making the debt go away.

(Party of fiscal responsibility my foot.)

One thing I find peculiar is that the Republicans poo-poo raising the minimum but say even better, let's cut income taxes. So in effect, those on the bottom of the tier of income remain stagnant, as they don't really benefit from a tax cut. Economic mobility is fundamental to the American Dream. If they talk about giving a break to those in the upper income, what is their answer for those in the lower income bracket? Find a better paying job?

[mawilson 2,133]

One thing I find peculiar is that the Republicans poo-poo raising the minimum but say even better, let's cut income taxes. So in effect, those on the bottom of the tier of income remain stagnant, as they don't really benefit from a tax cut. Economic mobility is fundamental to the American Dream. If they talk about giving a break to those in the upper income, what is their answer for those in the lower income bracket? Find a better paying job?

Don't they get the Earned Income Tax Credit -- essentially a "tax refund" even though they didn't pay any tax in the first place?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One thing I find peculiar is that the Republicans poo-poo raising the minimum but say even better, let's cut income taxes. So in effect, those on the bottom of the tier of income remain stagnant, as they don't really benefit from a tax cut. Economic mobility is fundamental to the American Dream. If they talk about giving a break to those in the upper income, what is their answer for those in the lower income bracket? Find a better paying job?

Don't they get the Earned Income Tax Credit -- essentially a "tax refund" even though they didn't pay any tax in the first place?

Why? Why not just raise the minimum wage? If the current minimum wage is below poverty level and the Republicans are claiming what a great economy we have then why not pay people a more sustainable wage?

...oh, I know the answer already...they should go get a better paying job...

..or go make babies and we'll give you a tax credit....sheesh.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[rclouse 0]

Carol&Marc is not a member of the reality-based community.

I see the picture you got there is reality based?

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[Carol&Marc 0]

What do you hear when you stand close to a liberal???

The OCEAN!

[Caladan 19]

I'm sort of split on the minimum wage, as it seems to me to be at best a stop-gap, but over at loony rightwing bin The Corner today some conservatives were discussing caving on minimum wage as it's really not the end of the world for their movement.

Certainly tax cuts do very little to help the working class, except to the extent that they create more *good* jobs. That doesn't seem to be borne out by experience.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of incentive to revitalize our manufacturing sector. Probably cheaper than trying to get everyone a good college education & a good service job.

Better than what you get when you stand close to a conservative.