THE Republican Party won a majority in the 2010 House of Representatives elections. As we know, the House has the power over the federal purse; all money legislation must pass from their operations.
Presently, the conservative Republicans argue
that the bad economy (high unemployment) must be solved by restoring private-sector confidence. That means one thing: lower taxes for the 1 percent (or 2 percent of the entire population)
because – we are told again and again – lower taxes on the entrepreneurs leads to investment in business. New businesses and revitalization of existing firms will increase and grow the economy, thus increasing jobs for the working and
middle-income groups.
Additionally, this is known as the “trickledown” or top-down theory. Unfortunately, this particular sound bite or economic model, as the GOP calls it, has been around for decades. In fact, it was the main economic idea of the George W. Bush eight-year administration (2001-2009). The signature economic legacy of “W’s” led us into the country’s worst depression since the 1930s.
Therefore, the GOP economic initiative pivots on a full recovery (unemployment decreasing to a low of somewhere near 4 percent) through growth of business entrepreneurs and Wall Street corporations. This assumption is a mistake because absent is the calculation of demand for the projected increase in products and services. Why would businesses step up and hire more workers when there are few in the working and middle classes with money to spend; when there is no confidence to spend? In other words, if people have jobs and income to spend, then they have increased needs, and therefore, they will create the demand for more goods and services.
In my view, President Obama finds himself in a win-win situation. Advocate for and advance legislation to Congress for continuing the Bush Tax Cuts for those earning $250,000 or less. This position is logical and popular; approximately about 97 percent of the income taxpayers make is less than this amount of income. No increase in their taxes.
As Mr. Warren Buffett (billionaire businessman) points out, the rich should pay more since they make much-much more than the working and middle classes. There is an inherent fairness and logic for a progressive income tax system. The more income you make, the more tax you pay on the increased earned income. President Obama – by supporting his position at the present time for legislation to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone making $250,000 and less – is exactly what is needed for the economy now. All these tax savings will be immediately spent; the economy grows.
If the radical conservative GOP members (the majority) in the House of Representatives hold out for tax legislation extending low taxes for the wealthy, President Obama wins. And, President
Obama campaigns to win the election by supporting low income taxes for the working and middle classes.
Automatically, in early 2013 the Bush Tax plan terminates for all income earners – even the billionaires. This will provide more revenues, and therefore offers a better chance of balancing the next federal budget. The President wins.
Can the political dueling be resolved?
- Wednesday, 12 Sep 2012 03:30am
- BY BRUCE KAROLLE
- Hits: 1585
Comments
There is one industry that o'bama, by himself has helped to record sales and record profits. An American success story across the whole industry:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ready-smith-wesson-posts-insane-earnings-revenues-skyrocket/
hast[censored]
If the economy is bad, we do not need a President to do anything. It is better if the President does nothing.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/11/an_economic_plan/page/full/
hast[censored]
While Congress dithers, Moody's and Standard & Poor's prepare to lower the USA credit rating from AAA to Aa1.
Soon Guam will have a better credit rating than o'bama and his free wheeling spending.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/11/u-s-budget-deficit-for-fiscal-year-2012-already-at-1-trillion/
hast[censored]
PART - 8
president o'bama is now in a win - win situation !
- According to the most recent official estimate by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product for 2012 will be $15.6061 trillion--or about $440.5 billion less than the $16.0466 in debt that the federal government had accumulated as of the close of business on Monday.
In other words, the debt is now approximately 103 percent of GDP.
The BEA, which is part of the Department of Commerce and which officially calculates GDP, based its current estimate of this year's GDP, published on Aug. 29, on economic data available through the end of the second quarter of this calender year.
If that current estimate is correct, the debt of the United States government eclipsed the value of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States on April 2 of this year
In addition to this favorable news, Moody's is on the verge of lowering America's credit rating. ( google that )
hast[censored]
PART - 7
Last week’s Democratic convention never mentioned any of these or other disturbing economic statistics in the Obama economy, belying the sanctimonious concern for the poor and the middle class, who have been hurt most by Mr. Obama’s harmful policies.
Instead, we got plenty of lame excuses, blame-shifting, a long list of false statistics and extravagant promises of better days to come, without Mr. Obama detailing a specific agenda to deliver the goods.
Clint Eastwood said it best at the GOP convention: “When someone isn’t doing the job, we’ve got to let him go.” The sooner Mr. Obama goes, the better off our economy will be
hast[censored]
Part - 6
o;bama has been so successful in the last 4 years, we need to give him another 4 !\\
```
Food stamp use hit a record high this summer, rising to 46.7 million Americans, according to the Agriculture Department. “Too many middle-class families who have fallen on hard times are still struggling,” says Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack.
An unprecedented number of U.S. households were going hungry as they struggled to feed their families in the past year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last week. Nearly 18 million families in 2011, 700,000 more than in 2010, didn’t always have enough food to feed themselves on a regular basis. That’s more than 50 million people, or about 1 in 6.
Household income is down significantly in the past three years. From June 2009 to June 2012, the nation’s median household income dropped 4.8 percent to $50,964, according to an independent study by Sentier Research. Median income means that 50 percent earn more than that and 50 percent earn less. The current median income level is 7.2 percent below where it stood in 2007
hast[censored]
PART - 5
Unemployment fell last month, from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent. (It’s been over 8 percent for 43 months.) But that’s because 581,000 workers stopped looking for jobs and thus were not counted among the unemployed.
To put last month’s 96,000 jobs into sharper perspective, the economy must add 377,000 a month, or 13.6 million over the next three years, to shrink unemployment to 6 percent. That will require economic growth rates in the range of 4 percent to 5 percent — levels Mr. Obama’s anti-growth, anti-capital-investment policies cannot produce now or ever.
There is more to Mr. Obama’s bleak economy than just the shrinking number of available jobs. A devastating list of other statistics, ignored by the nightly news shows, reveals a nation struggling to make ends meet
hast[censored]
PART I V
But Reagan “put in place a very different set of stimulus measures — emphasizing private-sector leadership — and when he faced the voters in 1984, the jobless rate had fallen to 7.3 percent,” economist Peter Morici points out.
Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts — which Democrats ridiculed at the time — injected needed capital liquidity into every part of the nation’s economic bloodstream, and the economy took off like a rocket. Quarterly economic growth rates in 1984 were 8.5 percent, 7.9 percent, 6.9 percent and 5.8 percent. Compare that to Mr. Obama’s quarterly economic growth rates this year: 2.0 percent and 1.7 percent.
Mr. Obama told the country to be patient and the economy would improve under his infrastructure spending policies. But that hasn’t happened, and forecasters are predicting growth rates in the 2 percent range at best, far too weak to create the millions of jobs needed to bring unemployment down to 6 percent or less
Hast[censored]
PART - III
Mr. Obama was playing fast and loose with the facts throughout his speech, as in his statement that “over the last three and a half years, we have focused on righting the ship … creating 4.5 million new jobs.”
But the Labor Department says job creation during Mr. Obama’s presidency has been several hundred thousand at best. In fact, “Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president since World War II,” says Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler.
Mr. Obama claimed in his convention speech that he’s had to deal with an economic recession that is the worst since the Great Depression. But Ronald Reagan similarly faced a severe recession in which unemployment rose to 10.8 percent in November 1982. (Mr. Obama’s peaked at 10 percent.)
----
president o'bama's job creation is the worst since WW I I
hast[censored]
PART- 2
Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago ?
The deepening weaknesses in the employment picture also were underscored by revisions in the June and July job numbers, which found 41,000 fewer jobs were created than was reported previously.
Not only is the rate of job growth shrinking fast in the fourth year of Mr. Obama’s presidency; the economy’s growth rate also is slowing this year to a snail’s pace: 1.7 percent in the third quarter.
But he didn’t say anything about the weak job-creation rate or declining economic growth in his speech last week. Instead, he rattled off a long list of specious claims, taking credit for things for that were not true.
He told convention delegates and the nation at large that he had saved the automobile industry and boosted overall manufacturing, too. But auto-industry employment was still 12 percent below pre-recession levels, and employment data show we lost 15,000 manufacturing jobs last month, after a string of previous job losses in that sector
hast[censored]
RSS feed for comments to this post