Obamanomics

[DC Tom]

President Obama, in remarks about the economy today, said,

"The combined trends of income inequality and decreasing (economic) mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe."

 

He then called for— drum roll

 

– a higher minimum wage,

 

repeal of the sequester,

 

and extension of unemployment compensation benefits.

 

And he stressed that Obamacare will boost the economy.

 

.

 

 

 

It doesn’t appear to have dawned on the president yet that we’re entering the sixth year of the Obama presidency.

 

.

 

 

Did he blame Bush? Tell me he didn't forget to blame Bush.

[B-Man]

Did he blame Bush? Tell me he didn't forget to blame Bush.

 

it was implied............

 

 

This should help our "recovering" economy.

 

 

Obama Administration Preparing Flood of New Regulations

 

The Obama administration is preparing to roll out a wave of new regulations next year, covering everything from fracking to e-cigarettes, in an attempt to get rules in place before the president’s second term ends.

 

A semiannual summary of regulatory actions in the works, which the Office of Management and Budget published last week, reveals a full agenda. For example, the Interior Department is expected to issue a final rule for fracking on federal lands in May and the Environmental Protection Agency should propose performance standards for greenhouse-gas emissions for coal-fired power plants a month later. The White House has also been evaluating proposed Food and Drug Administration regulations on e-cigarettes.

 

.

[TPS]

So, Gatortard gets refuted and slinks away again with his tail between his legs.

Refuted? Hardly. Someone uses nominal revenues to support their case that revenues increased with Bush's tax cuts, and that's what counts as refuted? I guess that's acceptable here to support one's political bias.

Any serious evaluation would look at revenues adjusted for inflation or as a % of GDP. It took six years for real revenues to recover from where they were when Clinton left in 2000, and revenues as a share of GDP never come close to the 2000 level. Using revenues as a % of GDP, Bush's best year for revenue generation was 2001, before he cut taxes. You guys make Goebbels look like an amateur...

[3rdnlng]

Refuted? Hardly. Someone uses nominal revenues to support their case that revenues increased with Bush's tax cuts, and that's what counts as refuted? I guess that's acceptable here to support one's political bias.

Any serious evaluation would look at revenues adjusted for inflation or as a % of GDP. It took six years for real revenues to recover from where they were when Clinton left in 2000, and revenues as a share of GDP never come close to the 2000 level. Using revenues as a % of GDP, Bush's best year for revenue generation was 2001, before he cut taxes. You guys make Goebbels look like an amateur...

 

You are an idiot. Are you saying things are much better now than the 2000's? You continue to be the same idiot you've always been, Mr. Professor. You are just another hack.

[keepthefaith]

Refuted? Hardly. Someone uses nominal revenues to support their case that revenues increased with Bush's tax cuts, and that's what counts as refuted? I guess that's acceptable here to support one's political bias.

 

Any serious evaluation would look at revenues adjusted for inflation or as a % of GDP. It took six years for real revenues to recover from where they were when Clinton left in 2000, and revenues as a share of GDP never come close to the 2000 level. Using revenues as a % of GDP, Bush's best year for revenue generation was 2001, before he cut taxes. You guys make Goebbels look like an amateur...

 

You can get tangled up in all the numbers and percentages if you like. The government pays it's bills in dollars and not in percentages of GDP.

[TPS]

 

 

You are an idiot. Are you saying things are much better now than the 2000's? You continue to be the same idiot you've always been, Mr. Professor. You are just another hack.

no, you idiot.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I've never heard a good argument as to why government spending should be linked to economic growth. Why should government services expand simply because we produce more?

[TPS]

 

 

You can get tangled up in all the numbers and percentages if you like. The government pays it's bills in dollars and not in percentages of GDP.

then focus on the years the tax cuts were made effective, 2001-03. Revenues fall every year. End of story.

[3rdnlng]

then focus on the years the tax cuts were made effective, 2001-03. Revenues fall every year. End of story.

 

Your cherry picking removes any small sense of credibility that you might have had. You have now entered Gatortard territory.

[keepthefaith]

then focus on the years the tax cuts were made effective, 2001-03. Revenues fall every year. End of story.

 

Come on. The tax cuts weren't fully phased in until 2003 and even you know that the impact of tax cuts or increases won't change previous year tax receipts.

[TPS]

Your cherry picking removes any small sense of credibility that you might have had. You have now entered Gatortard territory.

You're still an idiot. I'm calling out Keep for cherry picking.

 

Come on. The tax cuts weren't fully phased in until 2003 and even you know that the impact of tax cuts or increases won't change previous year tax receipts.

Really? So when I filled out my 2003 tax forms in March of 2004 I wasn't paying my taxes for 2003?

The tax cuts were phased in from 2001-03, and revenues dropped each year. You can't spin that away. All you can do is take 3rd's position and declare someone an idiot.

[3rdnlng]

You're still an idiot. I'm calling out Keep for cherry picking.

 

Really? So when I filled out my 2003 tax forms in March of 2004 I wasn't paying my taxes for 2003?

The tax cuts were phased in from 2001-03, and revenues dropped each year. You can't spin that away. All you can do is take 3rd's position and declare someone an idiot.

 

Did anything happen in late 2001 to put a large damper on the economy? Did the economy and tax revenues pick up sharply from 2004 and on? You are acting childish and stupid here.

[B-Man]

Obama’s Failed Approach Has Increased Income Inequality

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Pinocchio Test on His Minimum-Wage Statement

 

Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler fact-checked the following statement from the president about the minimum wage:

We all know the arguments that have been used against a higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low-wage workers – businesses will be less likely to hire them. But there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs.

Kessler proceeds to show that there is in fact some very serious research finding that increasing the minimum wage may have an impact on employment. He cites the following studies: (at link)

 

In other words, it is wrong to argue that the debate is settled — and certainly, unequivocally wrong there is no evidence that it may reduce the demand for labor. The article ends with the following quote by an economist and supporter of indexing the minimum wage to inflation:

The statement is absolutely incorrect. There is substantial evidence that jobs are lost

. The relevant question is how many: And that depends on how high you push the minimum wage. An increase from the current low level (low compared to other rich countries) will cost a few jobs, but not very many. An increase to $15, a la living wage proponents, would either cause very large job losses or lead to substantial price inflation.

 

.

[TPS]

Did anything happen in late 2001 to put a large damper on the economy? Did the economy and tax revenues pick up sharply from 2004 and on? You are acting childish and stupid here.

Look in the mirror dumbass.

Who is cherry picking? Of course 9-11 caused a slowdown. Growth in 2001 and 2002 were both below trend. However, 2003 was at trend, yet revenues fell. Why?

Did revenues pick up after 2003 once tax cuts ended, of course. If you stop cutting tax rates and the economy (income) grows, of course revenues rise. That's why the relevant way to measure any change in tax policy is to look at the ratio of taxes paid to GDP, anything else is hogwash. Further, the most accurate way to measure the impact is to compare the ratios at similar rates of unemployment--if there's a greater proportion of people working, you get a higher Tax/GDP ratio (which relates to your point about 2001).

 

That's why, in the past, I've provided these numbers: for 1998 and 2007, the rate of unemployment was about 4.6%; the revenues generated as a % of GDP for those two years were 19.9% and 18.5% respectively. Conclusion 1: for the same relative proportion of the population working in each of those years, average taxes revenue collected as a % of GDP were lower by 1.4% due to the decrease in tax rates under Bush. There is no other way to spin this. This is why 99.9% of economists reject the supply-side argument that lower tax rates increase revenues. It's only stubborn, right-wing hacks who continue to cling to this religion...

 

Conclusion 2: It's apparent that "Gatortard" knows more than 3rdtard....

[IDBillzFan]

Obama’s Pinocchio Test on His Minimum-Wage Statement

 

So odd how one day Barack Obama is pleading for a higher minimum wage and the next day unions hire people to stage strikes outside fast food restaurants.

 

Coincidence is a crazy thing.

[B-Man]

If Obama hates income inequality so much, he should start with the difference between Washington, DC and the rest of the country.

 

 

 

 

 

Nick Gillespie: Big Labor’s Big Mac Attack.

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Look in the mirror dumbass.

Who is cherry picking? Of course 9-11 caused a slowdown. Growth in 2001 and 2002 were both below trend. However, 2003 was at trend, yet revenues fell. Why?

Did revenues pick up after 2003 once tax cuts ended, of course. If you stop cutting tax rates and the economy (income) grows, of course revenues rise. That's why the relevant way to measure any change in tax policy is to look at the ratio of taxes paid to GDP, anything else is hogwash. Further, the most accurate way to measure the impact is to compare the ratios at similar rates of unemployment--if there's a greater proportion of people working, you get a higher Tax/GDP ratio (which relates to your point about 2001).

 

That's why, in the past, I've provided these numbers: for 1998 and 2007, the rate of unemployment was about 4.6%; the revenues generated as a % of GDP for those two years were 19.9% and 18.5% respectively. Conclusion 1: for the same relative proportion of the population working in each of those years, average taxes revenue collected as a % of GDP were lower by 1.4% due to the decrease in tax rates under Bush. There is no other way to spin this. This is why 99.9% of economists reject the supply-side argument that lower tax rates increase revenues. It's only stubborn, right-wing hacks who continue to cling to this religion...

 

Conclusion 2: It's apparent that "Gatortard" knows more than 3rdtard....

 

You have artificially connected GDP to tax receipts by stating percentages. It's really quite simple, you dolt. Lowering the tax rates got the economy going and increased GDP significantly. Just because we didn't choose to spend a higher percentage doesn't mean we didn't spend a higher amount. Confuse the issue all you want, but it is a fact that tax receipts were much higher once the lower tax rates took full effect. You actually teach economics?

[OCinBuffalo]

You have artificially connected GDP to tax receipts by stating percentages. It's really quite simple, you dolt. Lowering the tax rates got the economy going and increased GDP significantly. Just because we didn't choose to spend a higher percentage doesn't mean we didn't spend a higher amount. Confuse the issue all you want, but it is a fact that tax receipts were much higher once the lower tax rates took full effect. You actually teach economics?

Um, dude, isn't this the same guy who is befuddled by the fact that the very same massive regulations and agencies he supports, are the means by which the government is, in his words, "captured"?

 

It's hilarious that he doesn't see that connection, and of course, suggests that the only way to fix the problem? More massive regulations and agencies. And, his answer: "what, no regulation?" means that somehow the relationship between more power for government = more ways to corrupt it...goes away?

 

So, why should we be surprised by the confusion here?

 

I am disappointed. Even my uber-liberal macro/micro teacher had the decency to teach supply-side with the same professionalism as Keynesian. He even said "well, maybe they are right after all?". Once.

 

Unfortunately, we are seeing the "fight fire with gasoline" aspects play out now, especially since we are entering year 6 of this mess, and it's been too long, with too much FAIL, for them to keep making the same excuses.

 

I am pretty sure even they are sick of themselves at this point. I would be. I mean, you can only keep it up for so long. So, now...it's going to be interesting to see what they have to say next, as nothing changes, and we still have crappy growth.

 

Of course, there's always taking credit for the outcomes...of government spending cuts...due to the sequester.

Edited December 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

In case no one was watching, the WH released it's economic plan to create 140,000 jobs.

 

Okay...here we go. From Barack Obama's twitter account.

 

Here's how to improve our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs: #RaiseTheWage. http://OFA.BO/tXMYUq 12:48 PM - 4 Dec 2013

 

[DC Tom]

In case no one was watching, the WH released it's economic plan to create 140,000 jobs.

 

Okay...here we go. From Barack Obama's twitter account.

 

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it!