Another Obama screwup, Citigroup executives consider sale of all or part of bank - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-22-2008, 11:01 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,253
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
I'm being thick; what does this have to do with Obama?
Qubes is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-22-2008, 12:16 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Everything is BO's fault now . . . keeping with a theme . . .

edfreeman is offline  
post #13 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-22-2008, 09:07 PM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
I'm being thick; what does this have to do with Obama?

Jay understands the theme, he invented it, get with the program..........
Jakarta Expat is offline  
post #14 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-22-2008, 09:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Obama could put an end to all this madness if he'd announce that once he is inaugurated he would extend the Bush tax cuts through his first term, and not raise any income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax rates and he'd extend the death tax reduction until the end of his first term. What the market needs is a long term view on the supply side, but all he has proposed is on the demand side, which is totally dependent on government spending, instead of increased production and economic growth as it should be.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #15 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-22-2008, 10:11 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Obama could put an end to all this madness if he'd announce that once he is inaugurated he would extend the Bush tax cuts through his first term, and not raise any income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax rates and he'd extend the death tax reduction until the end of his first term. What the market needs is a long term view on the supply side, but all he has proposed is on the demand side, which is totally dependent on government spending, instead of increased production and economic growth as it should be.
Maybe if he did this, everyone will be happy
YouTube - ????? ??????
(bonus points for the ones who figure out what he's saying , I will translate later when all else fails)
DP is offline  
post #16 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-23-2008, 12:07 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Obama could put an end to all this madness if he'd announce that once he is inaugurated he would extend the Bush tax cuts through his first term, and not raise any income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax rates and he'd extend the death tax reduction until the end of his first term. What the market needs is a long term view on the supply side, but all he has proposed is on the demand side, which is totally dependent on government spending, instead of increased production and economic growth as it should be.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


"Put an end to all this madness" Exactly what part of Bush Economic Doctrine CAUSED this madness don't you grasp?

We have seen that Trickle Down Economics have worked so well the past three times they have been tried. All we have to show for those exercises is a recession after 48 months of triggering the "plan", staggering debt and a select group of folks getting tax cuts while the vast majority of taxpayers don't receive them.

Here is a hint. There is a big ol gray area between "Socialism" and Trickle Down Economics. It's time to bring NEW THOUGHT into the process. Reaganomics are toxic.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #17 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-23-2008, 08:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


"Put an end to all this madness" Exactly what part of Bush Economic Doctrine CAUSED this madness don't you grasp?

We have seen that Trickle Down Economics have worked so well the past three times they have been tried. All we have to show for those exercises is a recession after 48 months of triggering the "plan", staggering debt and a select group of folks getting tax cuts while the vast majority of taxpayers don't receive them.

Here is a hint. There is a big ol gray area between "Socialism" and Trickle Down Economics. It's time to bring NEW THOUGHT into the process. Reaganomics are toxic.
Our economy doesn't grow from the bottom upward. In 2001 and again this year, the Bush administration put out tax rebates or stimulus payments that had no effect, economically.

No economic plan controls Congress' spending habits. Supply side works to create jobs, grow GDP, spur economic development and increse tax receipts.

But consider the tax cuts of May, 2003:
Dividend tax was cut from 39.6 to 15 percent.
Capital gains tax was cut from 20 to 15 percent.
Highest rate for personal income tax cut from 39.6 to 35 percent.
Tax on business investment in plant, machinery & equipment lowered.

What were the results?
Stocks climbed 20% over two years.
Overall asset values increased by $6 trillion; cuts cost $600 billion.
Business capital spending increased 7.4% in 2004 and 9.5% 2005.
Between 2003 and 2007 8 million jobs were created.
Households wealth increased by $6 trillion between 5/03 and 5/07.

Typical family of 4 with income of $40K had tax liability shrink by $1K per year due to a lower tax rate and increased child credit.

The top 1% of earners paid more income tax than the bottom 90%
despite the fact that the bottom 90% had three times the income of the top 1%.

DOL reported that labor productivity increased 5% in real terms in 2005, the highest single growth year since such records have been kept (1950s).

Tax revenue increase by $785 billion from 04 to 07, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.

The CBO reported a 70 percent increase in cap gains receipts and a 31 percent in dividend tax payments since 2003.

I suppose you will find something to pick apart, McBare, but the whole picture is not subject to your partisan dribble about "trickle down(there's that semantic infiltration thing again)". Go for it.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #18 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-23-2008, 08:42 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Our economy doesn't grow from the bottom upward. In 2001 and again this year, the Bush administration put out tax rebates or stimulus payments that had no effect, economically.

No economic plan controls Congress' spending habits. Supply side works to create jobs, grow GDP, spur economic development and increse tax receipts.

But consider the tax cuts of May, 2003:
Dividend tax was cut from 39.6 to 15 percent.
Capital gains tax was cut from 20 to 15 percent.
Highest rate for personal income tax cut from 39.6 to 35 percent.
Tax on business investment in plant, machinery & equipment lowered.

What were the results?
Stocks climbed 20% over two years.
Overall asset values increased by $6 trillion; cuts cost $600 billion.
Business capital spending increased 7.4% in 2004 and 9.5% 2005.
Between 2003 and 2007 8 million jobs were created.
Households wealth increased by $6 trillion between 5/03 and 5/07.

Typical family of 4 with income of $40K had tax liability shrink by $1K per year due to a lower tax rate and increased child credit.

The top 1% of earners paid more income tax than the bottom 90%
despite the fact that the bottom 90% had three times the income of the top 1%.

DOL reported that labor productivity increased 5% in real terms in 2005, the highest single growth year since such records have been kept (1950s).

Tax revenue increase by $785 billion from 04 to 07, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.

The CBO reported a 70 percent increase in cap gains receipts and a 31 percent in dividend tax payments since 2003.

I suppose you will find something to pick apart, McBare, but the whole picture is not subject to your partisan dribble about "trickle down(there's that semantic infiltration thing again)". Go for it.
The NUMBERS of what you write are correct. Much of how they got there has nothing to do with the TrickleDown Economic Doctrine.

Here is where Trickle Down goes badly wrong. You CANNOT use it and also deficit spend. With ALL the numbers you post above we still, not a single year were able to generate as much revenue as we budgeted for. EACH YEAR had a shortfall.

The tax cuts for the top level earners costs more in lost revenue than the total $785B increase in Revenue that is listed. In other words, we cut taxes for a small percentage of people, reducing revenue and then applaud when we increase revenue by a lesser amount.

How much would we have received in revenues during that same period, with out the tax cuts if we had only ridden the tax revenues from the housing, building and financial bubbles? I would be willing to bet that the number would have a Trillion attached to it.

You say that you can't build an economy from the bottom up. Sure you can. Much of the economy is built on the consumer market. THAT is dealt with by that dirty 90% of Americans that "only" make sub $80K. That is the group that doesn't even have to think about putting most of their money in various tax deferred accounts because they are just trying to make ends meet and that generates a tremendous amount of revenue. EVEN Tax cuts for that group provide a balanced feed of revenue back into the government as ALL of that money pours straight back into the economy, directly.

Did the rebates and stimulus packages work, NO. Why, because they were one time incidental acts. Most of that money went to pay mortgage or bills. It is the consistent added budget dollars that add fuel to an economy.

My "partisan dribble" about Trickle down has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. It is simply an economic model that has proven, in the three times that it has been tried to fail. It creates a recession every time, it creates budget deficits every time and it increases National debt which increases debt maintenance every time.

It has not shown a single time to produce revenues sufficient to sustain the model without heavy borrowing. And that is a failure by any definition.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #19 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-23-2008, 09:05 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
What were the results?
Stocks climbed 20% over two years.
Overall asset values increased by $6 trillion; cuts cost $600 billion.
Business capital spending increased 7.4% in 2004 and 9.5% 2005.
Between 2003 and 2007 8 million jobs were created.
Households wealth increased by $6 trillion between 5/03 and 5/07.
A couple of notes on your stats.

Between 1994 and 2000 Stocks climbed 300% at a time of NO Trickle down. It is not a relevant statistic for either date set.

Between 2003 and 2007 8 million jobs were created. You don't mention that there were millions of tech jobs lost in 2002 that never came back or the number of jobs lost in that same period of 2003-2007 and what the pay differential was between the average job lost and the average job gained.

Also, the population in that time frame went UP 4.1% and the total jobs "created" went up 5.8% so the net off pop growth is less. [BLS, Census] When you factor in the number of low wage service jobs that were created and the number of manufacturing jobs that were offshored, the numbers are not that impressive.

What is the source of your data? The household wealth number interests me as to what caused it and what the demographics are.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #20 of 27 (permalink) Old 11-23-2008, 09:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
The NUMBERS of what you write are correct. Much of how they got there has nothing to do with the TrickleDown Economic Doctrine.

Here is where Trickle Down goes badly wrong. You CANNOT use it and also deficit spend. With ALL the numbers you post above we still, not a single year were able to generate as much revenue as we budgeted for. EACH YEAR had a shortfall.

The tax cuts for the top level earners costs more in lost revenue than the total $785B increase in Revenue that is listed. In other words, we cut taxes for a small percentage of people, reducing revenue and then applaud when we increase revenue by a lesser amount.

How much would we have received in revenues during that same period, with out the tax cuts if we had only ridden the tax revenues from the housing, building and financial bubbles? I would be willing to bet that the number would have a Trillion attached to it.

You say that you can't build an economy from the bottom up. Sure you can. Much of the economy is built on the consumer market. THAT is dealt with by that dirty 90% of Americans that "only" make sub $80K. That is the group that doesn't even have to think about putting most of their money in various tax deferred accounts because they are just trying to make ends meet and that generates a tremendous amount of revenue. EVEN Tax cuts for that group provide a balanced feed of revenue back into the government as ALL of that money pours straight back into the economy, directly.

Did the rebates and stimulus packages work, NO. Why, because they were one time incidental acts. Most of that money went to pay mortgage or bills. It is the consistent added budget dollars that add fuel to an economy.

My "partisan dribble" about Trickle down has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. It is simply an economic model that has proven, in the three times that it has been tried to fail. It creates a recession every time, it creates budget deficits every time and it increases National debt which increases debt maintenance every time.

It has not shown a single time to produce revenues sufficient to sustain the model without heavy borrowing. And that is a failure by any definition.
I agree that spending was out of control; but that is a separate process and is not an indictment of supply side economics. Supply side only covers tax revenue and economic growth, Congress does the budget. Blaming the economic approach for a deficit is just partisan rhetoric.

Using a static model, the tax cuts cost $600, brought in $748 billion in tax receipts and generated $6 trillion in asset growth. Pretty good payback.

Since we agree that rebates and stimuli are worthless, economically, I assume that you will also then agree tax rate cuts do work. Consumer spending is more a result of confidence in larger economic factors, such as job security, investment stability and growth, etc.

I just proved to you that Bush's "trickle down" was a bona fide success, yet you remain unconvinced, despite saying my numbers were accurate. Tax cuts do not create recessions, cause deficits or add to the debt. If you can blame the recession of 2001 on tax cuts, who made them? They generate economic growth through increased investment which in turn increases job growth and increase wealth.

Once again, I have to remind you that the federal budget is made up of both income and expenses, but there is no supply side application to expenses.

There is more to talk about regarding reducing capital gains tax rates later.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Bush Imitates Obama, Part II Qubes Off-Topic 3 09-12-2008 12:12 PM
    Obama Met With FOXNEWS Executives; Sets O'REILLY Interview... Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 3 09-03-2008 12:54 PM
    Bank does not want customers who make less than USD 150,000 a year, Which Bank? HSBC Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 3 04-12-2007 10:48 AM
    Bank does not want customers who make less than USD 150,000 a year, Which Bank? HSBC Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 12 04-12-2007 09:56 AM
    BANK 1 AND BANK 2 FUEL TRIM MALF paul88 W202 C-Class 4 04-18-2005 11:45 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome