Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

[Minor Axis]

FORTUNE -- It's well-known that government spending has grown rapidly in the three-and-a-half years since Barack Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president.

Who wrote this article and what was his agenda? The quoted statement is a misrepresentation. Mostly this is a problem when it comes to political narrative from self-serving conservative agendas. I am disgusted at how the GOP can look voters in the face and claim they are the responsible leaders. The GOP and specifically it's leadership is bad for our society along with the minions in forums like this reinforcing these false messages.

Forbes Magazine: Who is the Smallest Government Spender since Eisenhower?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

 

[The Man]

Who wrote this article and what was his agenda? The quoted statement is a misrepresentation. Mostly this is a problem when it comes to political narrative from self-serving conservative agendas. I am disgusted at how the GOP can look voters in the face and claim they are the responsible leaders. The GOP and specifically it's leadership is bad for our society along with the minions in forums like this reinforcing these false messages.

Forbes Magazine: Who is the Smallest Government Spender since Eisenhower?

There is a link in the first post.
Your post does not display the problem accurately and only considers growth after the initial spend as a comparison
Here is what it looks like on a chart.As we can see Obama wins easily

 

[The Man]

As we can see there is no further relief to be given to as lower wage earners pay a negative tax already.
Thus why Obama could not do the usual during a recession.

Taxes are generally lowered to stimulate the economy...after such they need to be eased back in.
If you dont wages and the price of a product will start to balance ...as people can pay more businesses will start charging more as a result....this then in effect raises the price for the next bracket up who receive less or no aid..slowing growth...and purchases that are made are at this elevated cost...making the rich get richer.
Income inequality is caused by fund shifting to begin with.


Bush should have eased taxes back in while he had good growth.
Note how taxes have been lowered in general since 1979....but the lower brackets to mid brackets receive almost all of the benefits....As we can see if Obama had an older tax structure he could have provided tax cuts for 1 year to the lower brackets and pulled us out of the recession.

 

[The Man]

To add to the above/ lower interest rates also aid in coming out of a recession and can be very effective....but the same rule applies...to much to fast for too long defeats the purpose

 

[Stone]

There is a link in the first post.
Your post does not display the problem accurately and only considers growth after the initial spend as a comparison
Here is what it looks like on a chart.As we can see Obama wins easily

You are absolutely correct on this issue.
The terminology Rick Ungar referred to was 'annualized growth' which compares not total spending, but the change in spending from the previous budgets.
GW Bush had pegged spending high at the end of his second term largely from the bank collapse with Obama then topping it.


Of interest, the terminology that Ungar used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_growth_%

 

[The Man]

You are absolutely correct on this issue.
The terminology Rick Ungar referred to was 'annualized growth' which compares not total spending, but the change in spending from the previous budgets.
GW Bush had pegged spending high at the end of his second term largely from the bank collapse with Obama then topping it.


Of interest, the terminology that Ungar used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_growth_%

Indeed akin to over eating {being 50 pounds over to start ..then the next year gaining 1 pound and claiming 2 percent growth} rather than the 51 pounds as a total.

 

[Stone]

As we can see there is no further relief to be given to as lower wage earners pay a negative tax already.
Thus why Obama could not do the usual during a recession.

Taxes are generally lowered to stimulate the economy...after such they need to be eased back in.
If you dont wages and the price of a product will start to balance ...as people can pay more businesses will start charging more as a result....this then in effect raises the price for the next bracket up who receive less or no aid..slowing growth...and purchases that are made are at this elevated cost...making the rich get richer.
Income inequality is caused by fund shifting to begin with.


Bush should have eased taxes back in while he had good growth.
Note how taxes have been lowered in general since 1979....but the lower brackets to mid brackets receive almost all of the benefits....As we can see if Obama had an older tax structure he could have provided tax cuts for 1 year to the lower brackets and pulled us out of the recession.

I do not have access to the .jpeg you posted.

As we can see there is no further relief to be given to as lower wage earners pay a negative tax already.

Sophistry......entitlements have increased under Obama
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/welfare-state-grows-nearly-19-under-obama-almost-1-trillion-year
Like it or not, that is increased 'relief' to low wage earners.

Taxes are generally lowered to stimulate the economy...after such they need to be eased back in.

You keep posting that even though the economy that the wealthy exist in is currently in a state of record breaking profit taking and at record breaking accumulation of wealth.............while the middle class has seen continual declines in wages and wealth accumulation.
It's obvious that the consumer base will experience further economic decline at the expense of your argument to lower taxes on the wealthy.

I suggest you read the various CBO projections.

as people can pay more businesses will start charging more as a result....this then in effect raises the price for the next bracket up who receive less or no aid..slowing growth...and purchases that are made are at this elevated cost...making the rich get richer.
Income inequality is caused by fund shifting to begin with.

Again,I suggest you learn what the concept 'supply and demand' means in a capitalist economic model.

Bush should have eased taxes back in while he had good growth.

On the wealthy, yes......on the middle class, no. And I've posted the reasons many times which you continue to ignore.

Note how taxes have been lowered in general since 1979....but the lower brackets to mid brackets receive almost all of the benefits.

Let's review:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86955-Fiscal-Cliff&p=2275110&viewfull=1#post2275110

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...e-middle-class


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...ncome-shrinks/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class_squeeze


http://www.examiner.com/article/midd...he-last-decade


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/09/the-middle-class/

So quit pulling your bogus claims out of your ass.

 

[The Man]

I do not have access to the .jpeg you posted.
.........................


So quit pulling your bogus claims out of your ass.

What bogus claim?
Just because you cant see the image doesn't make it bogus

Sophistry......entitlements have increased under Obama
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/welf...-trillion-year
Like it or not, that is increased 'relief' to low wage earners.

Welfare isn't tax relief.
Additionally if you read my posts it explains why funds shifting contributes to the income inequality you keep talking about....until you understand that there is really no point in continuing.

Let's review:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread....=1#post2275110

You respond to above to an image you claim you can not see.

 

[The Man]

Its a shame you cant see my image as your image below supports my image and its accompanying post in regard to income inequality.

 

[The Man]

Again,I suggest you learn what the concept 'supply and demand' means in a capitalist economic model.


.

This is what i sated below


Taxes are generally lowered to stimulate the economy...after such they need to be eased back in.
If you dont wages and the price of a product will start to balance ...as people can pay more businesses will start charging more as a result....this then in effect raises the price for the next bracket up who receive less or no aid..slowing growth...and purchases that are made are at this elevated cost...making the rich get richer.
Income inequality is caused by fund shifting to begin with.

Pretty simple...supply and demand the more money you have the more you can buy.

 

[Stone]

What bogus claim?
Just because you cant see the image doesn't make it bogus


Welfare isn't tax relief.
Additionally if you read my posts it explains why funds shifting contributes to the income inequality you keep talking about....until you understand that there is really no point in continuing.

You respond to above to an image you claim you can not see.

What bogus claim?
Just because you cant see the image doesn't make it bogus

Your claims, TM.....bogus as I listed .
I have no idea what that .jpg looks like other than what you claimed in text, but it appears I might have nailed it anyway.

Welfare isn't tax relief.

But it is 'relief' and why you are posting sophistry.

Additionally if you read my posts it explains why funds shifting contributes to the income inequality you keep talking about

Then why the hell do you argue to lower taxation on the most successful in our economy while arguing to increase taxation on the middle class with a regressive tax plan since the middle class is obviously the segment of our economy that needs the most help/relief?

Your arguments both avoid and deny reality.

that there is really no point in continuing.

Why did you even start discussing taxation inequalities?
I certainly did not introduce the discussion!

You respond to above to an image you claim you can not see

I'm psychic?..... .....

Here is what I see when I click on your link ( I've got an OTZ infraction which seem to stop your jpg from loading)

 

[Stone]

Its a shame you cant see my image as your image below supports my image and its accompanying post in regard to income inequality.

If true, you just acknowledged your past arguments are bogus......sweet.

 

[The Man]

On the wealthy, yes......on the middle class, no. And I've posted the reasons many times which you continue to ignore.

Actually he should have increased them on all while the growth was accelerating .
He lowered taxes on all...you people keep screaming he lowered taxes on the rich...yes he did..but he lowered them on all brackets..the lower brackets gaining the most benefit.
With these ubber low taxes and refunds amounting to more than people paid in...we have created an artificial wage.
Remember businesses charge what people are willing to spend,thus prices go up/ those in the next brackets up that receive little or no aid have less buying power due to the artificial inflation....this slows growth and leads to job loss.
Aid to the lower brackets equates to thousands a year...this gives them more buying power...follow?
This pushes the lower income towards the middle class...this elevates the price of products.
With these higher prices the middle class are purchasing less items and services...which leads to more job loss
Also with these artificially high prices the rich just keep getting richer {as they are able to charge more for the product}
You can not paint a middle class...as that will now be the new lower class...follow?

 

[Stone]

This is what i sated below


Taxes are generally lowered to stimulate the economy...after such they need to be eased back in.
If you dont wages and the price of a product will start to balance ...as people can pay more businesses will start charging more as a result....this then in effect raises the price for the next bracket up who receive less or no aid..slowing growth...and purchases that are made are at this elevated cost...making the rich get richer.
Income inequality is caused by fund shifting to begin with.

Pretty simple...supply and demand the more money you have the more you can buy.

as people can pay more businesses will start charging more as a result.

That's not an economic supply and demand scenario....


This is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

The four basic laws of supply and demand are:[SUP][1][/SUP]

1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
3. If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
4. If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.

 

[Stone]

Actually he should have increased them on all while the growth was accelerating .
He lowered taxes on all...you people keep screaming he lowered taxes on the rich...yes he did..but he lowered them on all brackets..the lower brackets gaining the most benefit.
With these ubber low taxes and refunds amounting to more than people paid in...we have created an artificial wage.
Remember businesses charge what people are willing to spend,thus prices go up/ those in the next brackets up that receive little or no aid have less buying power due to the artificial inflation....this slows growth and leads to job loss.
Aid to the lower brackets equates to thousands a year...this gives them more buying power...follow?
This pushes the lower income towards the middle class...this elevates the price of products.
With these higher prices the middle class are purchasing less items and services...which leads to more job loss
Also with these artificially high prices the rich just keep getting richer {as they are able to charge more for the product}
You can not paint a middle class...as that will now be the new lower class...follow?

You are only reenforcing my claim that you deny reality, TM.
You debate out of convenience.

 

[The Man]

If true, you just acknowledged your past arguments are bogus......sweet.

You still dont get it...excessive aid and tax relief{on lower brackets} are a large part of the cause of income inequality...as it attempts to paint a middle class....businesses charge what one is willing to pay stone...so prices go up...the rich therefore make a larger profit...it also slows growth as the "actual" middle class have less buying power due to the inflation.

Remember tax breaks and aid have to be temporary..or the "wage" and price of a product balance out ..the result is inflation....if you provide tax breaks and aid to much to fast and to long you have inflation...which defeats the entire purpose.

I am sorry you do not understand what I am trying to say.....
The purpose is not to "push" the economy just give it a kick
You can not have permanent relief.....as the prices will go up to match the relief.
This can be seen by how prices vary by region...the more they earn the higher the prices...Again people will charge what you are willing to pay..if you have more you will pay more.
Example if we raised minimum wage to 100 bucks an hour {just for demonstration} price will go up as people are willing to spend more...the prices will soon follow {just as they do by region}.
However if the wage increase was temporary we stimulated the economy

 

[The Man]

That's not an economic supply and demand scenario....


This is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Sure it is by your very source

If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
And I said
as people {can pay more{demand} businesses will start charging more {higher price}as a result.

 

[The Man]

You are only reenforcing my claim that you deny reality, TM.
You debate out of convenience.

Not at all...you merely only choose to believe what you want and ignore the facts to continue an argument...which is fine but they dont work on on this topic...perhaps religious threads or those of a moral decision...but not topics supported by the application of science

 

[Stone]

You still dont get it...excessive aid and tax relief{on lower brackets} are a large part of the cause of income inequality...as it attempts to paint a middle class....businesses charge what one is willing to pay stone...so prices go up...the rich therefore make a larger profit...it also slows growth as the "actual" middle class have less buying power due to the inflation.

Remember tax breaks and aid have to be temporary..or the "wage" and price of a product balance out ..the result is inflation....if you provide tax breaks and aid to mush to fast and to long you have inflation...which defeats the entire purpose.

I am sorry you do not understand what I am trying to say.....
The purpose of not to "push" the economy just give it a kick
You can not have permanent relief.....as the prices will go up to match the relief.
This can be seen by how prices vary by region...the more they earn the higher the prices...Again people will charge what you are willing to pay..if you have more you will pay more.
Example if we raised minimum wage to 100 bucks an hour {just for demonstration} price will go up as people are willing to spend more...the prices will soon follow {just as they do by region}

As I posted before.....your posts are obviously created out of convenience of the moment because you keep contradicting your own arguments.


Take this for instance:

You still dont get it...excessive aid and tax relief{on lower brackets} are a large part of the cause of income inequality

The inequality between middle class and the wealthy 1%ers is not because of excessive aid and tax relief on the middle class....it's because the current Bush tax cuts favored continued wealth generation of those that already had wealth.
You have argued to further increase taxes on the middle class and decrease taxes on those that are already successful.

Your argument that it helps the middle class is bogus

Remember tax breaks and aid have to be temporary..or the "wage" and price of a product balance out

What has this to do with your argument for increasing taxation on the middle class and lowering it on the wealthy?

businesses charge what one is willing to pay stone

That is not a supply/demand scenario.

I am sorry you do not understand what I am trying to say.....

Who the hell does?

The purpose of not to "push" the economy just give it a kick

So why have you argued a regressive tax plan that only kicks the middle class in the teeth?
Why do you continue to argue to reduce taxation on a segment of the economy that has been exceeding successful?

Example if we raised minimum wage to 100 bucks an hour {just for demonstration} price will go up as people are willing to spend more...the prices will soon follow {just as they do by region}

Really....why do you use such stupid analogies so far removed from reality?
The minimum wage is not going to rise that quickly unless there is a collapse of the economy through hyper inflation.


You are only debating out of convenience for the immediate conversation :cool

 

[Stone]

Not at all...you merely only choose to believe what you want and ignore the facts to continue an argument...which is fine but they dont work on on this topic...perhaps religious threads or those of a moral decision...but not topics supported by the application of science

Slick......your denials are of histrionic proportions