[quote][b]fishin4u[/b] - The Treasury dept is still making paper $ @ the rate of $85 billion per month.
The large investment firms are "borrowing" most of this phony, worthless paper at 0% interest . All of this rise in stocks is artificial & the stock market will crash into record lows around this years end.
FISH............. [/quote]

And inflation is nowhere in the horizon. There is, quite likely, euphoria going on in the market right now-and a lot of dumb investors have been sitting on the sidelines out off Obama fear, but are now joining the party a little late.

There's no one alive who can predict what the market will be doing in Dec. However, there's no logical reason to expect record lows in Dec. P&E ratios are not that high; corporate profits are booming, and there's loads of investor cash still on the sidelines.

Oh, all the painful cognitive dissonance over Obama. A truly terrible affliction.

It's quite entertaining to watch gold prices plunge--mostly held by extremist Bubbas.

The place went to hell in the last year. New management was awful-service declined and the food quality declined.

"Collins seems to be a very good person who loves Jesus Christ, but he is a hypocrite when he says, “I can’t wait to start a family of my own.” Of course, that can’t happen if he stays honest and true to his sexuality."

Guess Mr. Robertson lives in a cave; probably never heard of guy couples adopting.

Mr. Robertson: You are setting a bad example for all young folks. Why are so many folks invoking "Jesus Christ" on their sleeves mean as hell?

[quote][b]Curls[/b] - The word is out-- come to Athens to do your thuggry.
[/quote]

Wonder why the violent crime rate in Athens is below the state and national average, and the lowest for any city its size or larger in the state. This is even more incredible given the average young age of the county population, and the large number of visitors coming to Athens.

[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] - How could it be happening under a Muslim socialist President from Kenya hell bent on destroying America and free market capitalism? How does he get away with playing golf 12 hours a day and taking luxury vacations every other week?
[/quote]

Cognitive dissonance is a destroyer of conservative life!

@JGForster: We've got to stop! But, I'm surprised to hear that you are quite the liberal with your view that 38% is about the right top marginal rate. I agree with this.

I well understand what marginal rates are all about. Good to see you are now reading from the CBO. As I pointed out, Reagan's supply-side economics worked so poorly-with such a revenue loss-that he had to raise numerous other taxes.

Simply because I don't want top marginal rates of 70% in no way whatsoever means I'm a supply-sider. All economists and sane individuals believe that at some high marginal rate-without numerous deductions, etc.-that folks will lose their incentive to labor or innovate. Given the true effective tax rates of the late 70's and in 2000, the supply-side arguments and policy just after these dates were a disgrace.

Not wanting taxes too high doesn't mean one is a supply-sidder. Lowering taxes when the marginal rates existing don't preclude more labor does not help the economy and hurts revenue, and hurts the middle class.

The fact that revenue rose more during the Clinton years of higher taxes in no way whatsoever shows that supply-side economics works at all. It shows the opposite.

I gather that your correct belief, like mine, that lowering marginal rates rom 80%, for example, to 60% will encourage growth/more labor, is a form of supply-side economics. In a broad way you could call it that, but in practice such examples have nothing to do with the reality of supply-side economics.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
My point is that there was at least some cooperation between the parties. Because the House is more easily swayed by partisian passion than the Senate, I do believe that 11 Democrats out of 48, almost 25% is as close to bipartisian as we will get on any highly contentious issue. Of course, since we are talking deficits, the other 75% of Dems in the Senate supported a much more expensive bill than the original 400 billion price tag, so it is easy to see why it got no support in the house.

You are correct...I should have said that it had about 22.5% Democratic support. My point above still stands. [/quote]

Nope, your point doesn't stand at all. You can't dance away from a completely dishonest statement: "That's a laugher..(Medicare Drug Bill) .supported whole heartily by Democrats as well as most Republicans."

The only sane interpretation from that comment is that the Bill had solid, massive support from Demos, and lessor, but strong support from most Reps.

In fact,--once again- it had virtually no support from House Demos--less than 5%-and about 23 % from Senate Demos. You can talk all you want about bi-partisan support issues, but your comment was egregiously wrong.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
I am afraid it is you who is the liar and not a very perceptive reader either I might add.
You use 1982 as the base when that refers to the 82-83 FY budget. You also use total federal revenue while I use federal income taxes (personal and business) Mr. Reagan's tax cuts began with the 81-82 FY budget and the federal tax revenue that year was about $325 billion. In FY 1989, it was $575 billion. That is almost double.

He left office with the top marginal tax rate at 28%. When he came in, it was 70%. Some tax increases eh??

You are making my point for me. Clinton's rates were 39.4%, significantly lower than 70% when Reagan came in. Lower top marginal tax rates do not hurt federal revenue and grow GDP faster than otherwise.
In FY 1993, income tax revenue was 649 billion; in FY 2001 it was $1,178 billion, almost a doubling again. In fact federal income tax revenues double about every ten years regardless of the top marginal tax rate. Tell me why we should maintain it at 70% when it makes no difference to the bottom line? [/quote]

Your comments are so bizarre and off point I don' t know how to respond.

Total federal revenue was the issue to begin with-revenues as a percentage of GDP.. You are still floundering trying to justify your total misstatements.

Reagan certainly didn't increase the top marginal rate--after all he is a God for the top 1 percent. He raised numerous other taxes to keep the deficit from exploding further-screwing the middle and lower classes. If I have to document that,you are simply clueless.

Top marginal rates aren't the sole issue; it's effective rates of taxation, based on all details of taxation. Supply-side economics, unquestionably, reduced the taxes the top 10 percent paid, particularly the top 2 percent.

I've never proposed or supported top marginal rates of 70%--higher of course during the Eisenhower years. The bottom line: Total federal revenue rose more, percentage wise, during the higher tax Clinton years. than during the Reagan or Bush 2 years. The idea that supply-side economics grows revenue the most is NUTS.

@JGForster: Just keep backpedaling!

You stated: " In addition, the tax code has gotten steeply more progressive with the top 10% paying much more than ever before."

You didn't say they "were paying a greater percentage of the total than ever before." Any reasonable interpretation of your remark is that the top 10% are having to pay more of their income in tax because of progressive tax rates. In reality they are paying a lessor percentage of their income in taxes now.

The main reason by far, really the only reason, that the top 10 % are paying a larger percentage of all taxes paid is because they are the ones with an ever increasing portion of the nation's income and wealth. It's not in the least because of wild progressive tax rates.

Demos in the Senate could have stopped the Reagan tax cuts??. How, by govt' overthrow????. After the 1980 Election, the Senate was about 60-40-Rep/Demo.

The source on supply side economics causing less revenue is the non-partisan Cong. Budget Office. Google it. Of course, most economists are the other source.

As to recessions, your analysis is simply more backpedaling from prior made-up contentions. While tax collections certainly go down in recessions, if supply side works tax collections should go up meaningfully once passed; they didn't. Moreover, the statistics involve revenue as a percentage of GDP--why should that percentage change much because of a recession. The change was largely because of tax policy.

We definitely have a revenue problem. Of course there's too much spending in defense, and medical expenses are causing medicare/medicaid increases. That's going to change I predict. Again, Obama's Budgets' discretionary spending is the lowest of any President in about 50 years.

Gone to celebrate Cinco de mayo.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
How many Republicans voted for Obamacare? I wish they had not passed the drug bill, but it did have support from both sides of the aisle. [/quote]

Don't see the significance of your question to the topic at hand. Few, if any,Reps voted for Obamacare, Rep Party is the party of opposing progress and change-the status quo Party.

As to the Drug Bill, quite a change from your original completely wrong remark. The Bill had minimal support from Demos, as it was unfunded, and prohibited the gov't from negotiating with drug companies on pricing--one of the biggest outrages in recent history.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
A rather bigoted statement, don't you think? [/quote]

Whatever you want to call it. I call it reality for many.

@JGForster: says: " During the 80's, federal revenue doubled after those cuts (Reagan's supply side fiasco) went into effect"

Forgot to point out your big fat LIE. Google "federal revenues by year."

In 1982, total revenues were $617,766,000,000; In 1988-$909,238,000,000.

Of course, making the supply-side argument even more idiotic, Reagan was forced to sign numerous tax increases afterwards to starve off budget disaster, as Bush 1 was also forced to do.

Let's go to the Clinton years and see how tax increases slowed federal revenue (if you believe in voodo economics): 1992; total revenue $1,091,208,000; 1998: total revenue $1,721,728,000.

Now let's go to W's voodo economics redux--2002; total federal revenue-$1,853,136,000; 2008-total federal revenue-$2,523.991,000.

Do the percentages on gain. Federal revenue increased at a higher percentage when taxes were higher--starting to happen significantly now also.,

@JGForster: also says: "Your assertion is of course incorrect, but even if it were, the Reagan tax cuts were supported by Democrats. During the 80's, federal revenue doubled after those cuts went into effect. In fact, federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has remained steady around 18% over the long term while top marginal rates have varied from 90% to 28%. In addition, the tax code has gotten steeply more progressive with the top 10% paying much more than ever before."

I understand modern day conservatives' great need to make up facts. You are the King of historical revisionism.

No, the Reagan tax cuts were not supported by the majority of Demos. W's tax give-a-ways to the wealthy were not supported by the majority of Demos. Clinton's tax increases-leading to budget surpluses (and not a recession as predicted) were not supported by any Reps. Obama's modest tax increases, to deal with the deficit,of course were not supported by any Reps. Supply side economics is a Republican fraud and disaster.

I'll take the CBO's analysis, and the vast majority of economists opinions, on the tax consequences of supply-side economics over your bald assertion. In the 80's and 2000's it is correct that federal revenues didn't decrease overall, given that the economy was growing for a good bit of the time. But, the experts conclude that revenues would have grown much more without the tax cuts.

If you will Google "Tax Policy Center" and "Federal Revenues as share of GDP" and the Center again and "Average Fed Tax Rates for All households," you will quickly see that the top 90 percent are not even close to "paying much more than ever before." In 1979, the top 1% paid 35.1% effective rate; 2009-28.9%. You can also check the figures for the top 10%.

While the 18 % fed revenue over the long-term may be true, check the statistics--about 15% for last 4 W. Budgets; 16% for two years in 1980's. A few percentages makes a lot of difference.

@JGForster: Says, referring to the Medicare Drug Bill: "That's a laugher...supported wholeheartily by Democrats as well as most Republicans. "

Final laugh is on you: The House Bill had 20 co-sponsors-1 Demo; 19 Reps. The Final Bill passed in the House had 207 Rep. ayes and 9 Demo ayes. Final Bill passed the Senate with only 11 Demo votes.

Just because Fox "News" and Rush say it doesn't make it true.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
Kind of hard to take ole Fred's analysis seriously when he directs nothing but ad hominem attacks against those with whom he disagrees. See what I mean??
[/quote]

Fred can defend himself, but name calling is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. Cantor is a scumbag in my opinion, as he's a regular liar. That said, if Cantor presents an analytical argument, it may be an ad hominem attack to simply dismiss it because he's a scumbag.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
Not supported by the statistics that show conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income and time to charity.

Dems are in trouble when the consequences of Obamacare become apparent. [/quote]

If so it's because of donations to churches; largely by social pressure and the desire to buy one's way into Heaven for many. Certainly most conservatives have some heart.

Ten years from now you won't find Reps running against Obamacare anymore that they would admit wanting to disband Medicare. Change conservatives hate and fear. Obamacare is just like the smoking ban-oh, the end of restaurants and bars--not quite.

[quote][b]fred astaire[/b] -
Actually people are leaving bonds (me too) because we are avoiding the impending interest rate rise that is coming. I am not what the wealthy call wealthy but anyone who didn't buy stocks in the Fall of 2008 and reaping the rewards of that crash today is an idiot. My stock portfolio is very happy and so is my real estate investments.
Troughs and peaks baby. Econ 101.
[/quote]

And maybe Ross ought to consider the booming corporate profits of corps (the driver of stock prices), and the massive cash they have on hand. Certainly the market may now be getting heated above profit analysis, but P/E ratios are still pretty good.

[quote][b]fred astaire[/b] -
Clearly you have been ignoring all the information about unemployment and exactly who are these persistent unemployed.
Perhaps if you spent more time reading up on the data and less whining and bitching about the White House you would be more educated.
It is those with no HS diploma or ONLY a HS diploma who are most effected by unemployment because they lack the skills needed for high tech jobs today.
Google companies looking to hire and their inability to get skilled workers, and become educated.
Then also look at the voting record of the GOP and how they have voted en block against anything promoted by the WH or Dems to kick start the economy--motivated SOLELY by politics--still voting GOP are you even tho they are working overtime to wreck the US economy???
Oh and finally, tax cuts stimulate the economy, no? Isn't that what Scumbag Eric Cantor and Bonehead Boehner have repeated ad nauseum?
So then where the [filtered word] are the tax cuts here in GA?? Why hasn't the GOP controlled GA govt cut taxes??? Hmmm??? Add to it neither MS, AL, or SC have cut their state income taxes either. Hmmmm???
Seeing the trend here genius?? So keep voting GOP and keep voting against your best interest and keep whining about Barry in the WH.
Grow up.
[/quote]

Fred: Backing-up your opinions with analysis will get you a lot of negative ratings on these posts--but, a badge of honor.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
Incorrect again. All spending originates in the House and the House has been controlled by Dems for the majority of the time since 1980. In fact, it has been controlled by Dems for 20 of the 33 years. [/quote]

Nope, you are incorrect. Your fatal flaw is that you blame deficits on spending. The supply-side tax cuts of Reagan and W were a massive cause of the current deficit (follow the CBO)--and, unfortunately, continuing today because the votes aren't there to reverse it. Of course W's disgraceful unfunded war in Iraq will add 2-3 trillion, as well as billions and billions from his unfunded Medicare Drug Bill. Reagan and W, by the way, did not cut spending--including massive increases in defense spending. You may agree with that, but it has to be put in the calculation.

Repubs since the 70's at least always scream about deficits until they get in power. Then they say deficits don't matter, and blow the budget up with tax-give-a-ways. A black guy with a funny name becomes President, and hoards of Bubba Tea Party types go crazy-completely ignoring economic history.

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] -
To paraphrase the great Mr. Churchill... If you are not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart and if you are not a conservative in your 40's, you have no head. [/quote]

A better way to put it, conservatives in their 40's have no heart. But, if you will look to see who are solid Demo voters you will find they include those with the highest levels of education, and those with the highest incomes.

While some folks get more conservative with age, political scientists will tell you most young voters of any period end-up voting that way when older. Reps are in trouble, particularly in 8 or so years.

[quote][b]Ross[/b] -
Participation in the work force by percentage is at a 30-year low. But you can't see it because you are too busy genuflecting to the narcissistic liar in the White House.
[/quote]

Thanks for backing me up when pointing out to the previous poster that workforce participation is not at an all time low.

Yep, no doubt the current problem is because of Obama's policies. It has nothing to do with millions and millions of jobs lost under W along with the greatest crash since the Great Depression. You know you historical economics quite well!!!!

Again, technology has killed jobs over the past several years, of which neither Party is to blame.

Keep snorting whatever it is that leads you to think things are not dramatically better than 4 years ago--apparently your group has anesthetized yourselves to any memory of 2008.

@Emperor1972: To say we are no better off today than when Obama took office is-no other way to say it-nuts. $750,000 job losses a month versus regular gains; seen the stock market lately and corporate profits; seen the housing reports-home price gains; consumer sentiment . . .

Of course, we are starting to spend much less in Afghanistan--and Obama has spending there "on-budget," unlike W. Iraq disaster was ended as quickly as possible.

Hard to call the bailouts selling out the taxpayer--most has been paid back with interest. The need for the bailouts was awful; but an absolute necessity. The regular contention that Obama was just currying auto union favor is silly. W. was attempting to bailout GM earlier out of necessity. Obama clearly knew at the time that the bailouts were very unpopular with the voters at large. Doing it purely to get auto worker support was risking suicide. The bailout was an absolute necessity. Certainly the auto bailout, a great economic and political success, hurt Mitt.

You are probably correct that Obama's deficits have doubled W's, but these contentions regularly include W's last budget going into Obama's term. Of course, much of the Obama increase has been paying for Iraq, which he had no other option; Afghanistan; the Medicare Drug benefit, which can't possibly be taken away; and did not have the votes to reverse W's tax give-a-ways. Obama inherited $1 trillion plus deficits.

We are very divided as a country, but less than the day Obama was first elected. Check W's favorability ratings then versus Obama's today--a gap of about 30 percent in Obama's favor. As today's under 30 crowd age, the progressive numbers are going to get higher.

[quote][b]Emperor1972[/b] -
Or we can look at numbers that are actually relevant, like:
Number of food stamp recipients.
Increase in the national debt.
Number of people not working because they're no longer in the labor force.
Number of people getting "disability" benefits.
Under Obama, in every category, these numbers are the highest they've ever been, compared to ANYBODY... [/quote]

My comment on Obama's record on discretionary remains true.

Of course, when you have a near financial system collapse, along with a massive housing bubble, it historically takes years and likely more than a decade for the carnage to play out. The bad figures come from minus 750,000 folks losing their job per month in late 08 and for sometime in '09--along with exploding technology killing jobs.

Food stamp recipients may be at their highest-because folks need them while recovering from the 08 meltdown. Disability recipients are up because the Obama Administration is not screwing folks as has long been the case.

As to: "increase in the national debt" and "Number of people not working because they're no longer in the labor force," I dispute your statements. W. increased the debt at a higher rate than Obama--and much of Obama's increase was to stop a Depression, not to give money to the wealthy (financed by borrowing), and to fight an unnecessary war.

There have been previous periods with the same or higher percentage of folks not in the labor force.

[quote][b]Emperor1972[/b] -
It happened as a result of the ridiculous notion that folks are "entitled" to anything and everything, whether they can pay for it or not, which is a core principle of LIBERALISM ... [/quote]

And night is day and day is night. All those liberal banks and brokerage houses-right.

Think if you will look at deficit spending by Party you will see which one is the all time leader-hint, not Demos.

You might want to compare Obama's discretionary spending versus W's or Reagans and see who's done the least--BHO.

[quote][b]matt1141a[/b] - The govt figures completely ignore the millions who have left the work force but are still unemployed.
Its like these millions of people don't even exist once their unemployment runs out or they go on disability.
The bloated welfare class is growing under President Foodstamp.
[/quote]

I hardly believe those millions who lost their jobs after an economic system near collapse due to greed are welfare recipients for receiving unemployment insurance. (Many jobs are gone because of exploding technology).

Of course, unemployment figures for decades have not counted those who left the workforce.

W.was President Foodstamp. His wonderful supply-side economics caused things to boom, right? I guess Obama should let folks starve.

If only we could go back to the conservative nirvana of 750,000 or so job losses a month, minus 11% GDP, and a DOW of 70% or more less than today. What Commie Presidential leadership we now have!