|
|
Post by Joe Cocker on Jul 27, 2012 15:18:47 GMT -5
It's time for Obama to not blame Bush anymore after his three years in office on his stagnate agenda.
Gross Disappointing Product: GDP growth at 1.5 percent
Flat June Jobs Report Brings Bad News for Obama - ABC News
35 percent approve Obama's job performance and 59 percent disapprove.
“We tried our plan, and it worked,” President Obama claimed in California on Monday. His plan, however, has seemingly aimed to bury the U.S. economy.
Most approve he be better to have a drink with and BS with than Romney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 28, 2012 23:06:36 GMT -5
Hello..... President Obama took on a "sluggish" economy. In other words, unlike W, who inherited a surplus, Pres. Obama inherited a recession/depression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Cocker on Jul 30, 2012 20:30:41 GMT -5
After three trillion dollars what has improved? BANK saving account paying one percent just as good as my mattress. If people don't invest where is the money? Let go back to the worst Democratic President Jimmy Carter, I hope in our life time. Don't know your age but housing interest rates were about 14 to 18 percent. MARKETS STALLED another recession. Car loans at 10 to 12, 14 percent, I think this was the end of the 3 year car loan and changed to 5 years, or 60 months. Today GM is making sub-prime car loans. CHECK IT OUT! Not another sub-prime for GM, they will never repay my loan or yours. 2DAYS AGO! GM Increases Subprime Lending www.breitbart.com/Big.../GM-Increasing-Use-of-Subprime-Loans2 days ago – As with home financing, a potential car buyer's credit score is rated on a ... Not only is government-owned GM making more subprime loans ... So it looks like GM will never pay back my loan or yours that OBAMA had saved for the union votes. 1980's Banks were paying around 6 percent on your savings account I know as my sister wanted to sell her PG and E stock and put it in the bank. It was paying 5 to 6 percent but not insured. She didn't sale it she still owns it. Now where did the debt came from was mostly LBJ's Great Society. Trying to invest in the poor Blacks. Yes in those fifteen years with the new projects built to house them created something special and jobs. It was called the Tapeworm Economy, this is in part is the redevelopment areas of the run down areas. It was found out in 89 that USA could not afford this as people that don't own anything really don't take care of it, even as free housing. solari.com/articles/tapeworm_economics/ In a Tapeworm Economy, a small group of insiders consolidate political and economic power at the expense of people, living things, and our environment in a manner that destroys real wealth. A Tapeworm Economy is one in which it is considered acceptable to make money from doing things that cause the Popsicle Index to go down. Those who achieve money and power by driving the Popsicle Index down are considered socially acceptable, even admired. In investment terms, it is an economy with a negative return on investment. It is parasitic in nature. The first step in moving to financial intimacy is to reduce our complicity and to navigate away from The Tapeworm. The second step is to identify opportunities to reduce risks and shift power and resources in decentralizing ways to ourselves, our family and our network and to a wider world that represent excellence and sound investments of our time and money. To take these steps, it helps to see The Tapeworm clearly and how Tapeworm political and financial interests --- both overt and covert -- are woven throughout our lives, our networks and assets. Catherine Austin Fitts has collaborated with reporters, researchers, and publishers to illuminate the financing and mechanics of The Tapeworm Economy. A selection of Catherine's published articles and interviews is listed below: www.karavans.com/tapeworm.htmlAll you need to do check out those nice apartments on Roberts Ave. This is the living in the future on top of each other. Enjoy those low cost housings there. This is our Agenda 21 plain for Santa Rosa nice an near that SMART train station. Now what has Obama done, health care? Killing of Osama, pulling out of the wars? Well this pulling out is the Bush's idea by 2014. That's ok. I'm not a Bush fan. BUT BLACKWATER OR HALLIBURTON WILL STILL BE THERE as they cost more anyway you look at it. How your investments doing? Hope your 401 k is OK! Hope your bank is paying your saving at one percent investment. CD'S a little over 1 percent. My non-insured stock is still paying six percent and yes if I cash out right now I'll pay 15 percent income tax the reason is risk of not being insured. GAMBLING my monies as I almost lost it all under their bankruptcy. If Obama stays in that will change quickly. No one will want to invest and we will let the government do it for you. CAIR |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Cocker on Jul 30, 2012 22:41:36 GMT -5
Hello..... President Obama took on a "sluggish" economy. In other words, unlike W, who inherited a surplus, Pres. Obama inherited a recession/depression. As a part of the Great Society, Johnson believed in expanding the government's role in education and health care as poverty reduction strategies.[1] These policies can also be seen as a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which ran from 1933 to 1935, and the Four Freedoms of 1941. The popularity of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s. Deregulation, growing criticism of the welfare state, and an ideological shift to reducing federal aid to impoverished people in the 1980s and 1990s culminated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which, as claimed President Bill Clinton, "end[ed] welfare as we know it." Prof. Tony Judt, the late historian, said in reference to the earlier proposed title of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that "a more Orwellian title would be hard to conceive" and attributed the decline in the popularity of the Great Society as a policy to its success, as fewer people feared hunger, sickness, and ignorance. Additionally, fewer people were concerned with ensuring a minimum standard for all citizens and social liberalism.[2] Nonetheless, the aftermath of the War on Poverty remains in the continued existence of such federal programs as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America, TRIO_(program), and Job Corps. Now what executive order did Obama just sign? Posted at 09:00 AM ET, 07/15/2012 Obama to Clinton welfare reform: Drop dead By Jennifer Rubin President Obama is the chief executive, obligated by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama, however, seems to have — by executive order — altered that to read “take Care that the Laws [which he likes or wished Congress had passed] be faithfully executed. The list of laws he won’t enforce or is unilaterally amending is getting long: Defense of Marriage Act, immigration laws, voting laws, and anti-terror laws. He won’t even enforce all the provisions of his signature legislation as we’ve seen in the bushels-full of Obamacare waivers. The latest and most inexplicable gambit is his decision to undo bipartisan welfare reform. www.washingtonpost.com/.../obama...welfare.../gJQAM49XkW_blo |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 31, 2012 21:24:38 GMT -5
Sigh...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Cocker on Jul 31, 2012 21:42:39 GMT -5
Clinton rode the Reagen's tax cuts as Willie started to increase the taxes. I don't know how to post the hockey stick 1940 to 2010. capoliticalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/081711_deficit-lg.jpgWhat our President is doing now been tried before it didn't work then and Hoover had to undo those tax rates this before any home ownership. Then came the depression. Mink, a single parent female hair cutter making 15,000 with three kids gets another 12,000 dollars from the IRS. Medical Healthcare, she didn't say she reported tips. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Cocker on Aug 1, 2012 14:36:03 GMT -5
Mink, do you have an extra 25,000 dollars for savings for this great deal?
CITI BANK CD
1.100% Wed Aug 01 1.090%Compounded daily, $25,000 investment for one year
This is why main street business are in trouble, if solar was a real good investment why does it need your tax dollars to invest in?
Put that same 25,000 in PG and E you get about 4.4 percent with the chance of losing that money as it's not insured.
SIGH,
Obama, is really playing class warfare, and possible civil unrest either before or after the election here in the states. Now it seams the tolerant ones will start it. Occupy
With God and family, moral and respect tossed out now they have a good start.
Don't forget to apply for your free birth control, and MRI on those breast, Obama Care started today.
Someone had to pay for that FREE unless you find a doctor that is salaried not a business owner. Like a government granted clinic, another free thing, that someone had to pay for.
I was high middle class WASP that put his kid through college, lost two retirements, lost fifty percent of my 401K my house is paid for and has dropped 50 percent of it's value from the highs of 2006.
Got a call from State Farm that my life insurance was up and I could cash it out now or keep collecting 4.75 for as long as I keep it with them. If I cash it out the government wants 25 percent for taxes. This on all ready taxed money that paid for that life insurance, not just the interest. Double dip.
Now you should understand why BUFFET only pay's 15 percent on taxes. He took the chance to invest his money and could lose it all. If it wasn't for that tax relief why invest? Not rich enough to say he could write off some losses, I'm sure for several years.
Check out President Hoover tax revenue. DON'T \/ CLICK ON ADDS
President Herbert Hoover asked for a temporary tax increase…in June 1932, raising the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% and quadrupling the lowest tax rate from 1.1% to 4%. That didn’t help confidence or the Treasury. Revenue from the individual income tax dropped from $834 million in 1931 to $427 million in 1932 and $353 million in 1933.
Now check out President Coolidge. I'll do it for you.
On March 4, 1921, President Woodrow Wilson relinquished the office of the presidency to Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding. The state of the union was poor. "With the exception of Lincoln, probably no president in our national history has taken office with as pressing a burden of unresolved questions." Those were the words of the Nation of February 1921. The national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% after a runaway inflation.
On April 12,1921, President Harding went before a contentious Congress and presented his program for economic recovery which he called "A Return to Normalcy". Harding's normalcy program consisted of the following measures.
1) A call for a national budget program (which was vetoed by his predecessor).
2) National debt reduction
3) Tax reduction
4) An emergency tariff to protect American industry and farm commodities.
5) Farm relief legislation (farm bankruptcies were up 20% from 1914).
6) Immigration restrictions to protect American jobs.
President Harding pushed hard for his program and got it passed by Congress in 1921. By late 1922, the economy began to turn around. Harding did not live to see it, but his normalcy program proved to be the foundation that Coolidge prosperity was built on. Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge had the wisdom to stay the course and build on Harding's program. The American people were the beneficiaries of the unprecedented prosperity of the 1920's. Unemployment was pared from its high in 1921 of 20% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade. The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding. The Gross National Product averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920's. Harding slashed federal spending by two billion from Wilson's last year and Coolidge maintained that spending level of 3.3 billion per year for the rest of the decade. The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts produced increased revenue that went to cut the national debt left by Wilson by one-third.
The 1920's saw the tax burden of middle Americans decrease while most lower income Americans were relieved of their tax burden altogether. By 1930, their was a sharp increase in the number of Americans who could afford what were then middle class luxuries such as ranges, ice boxes, radios, vacuum cleaners and other household appliances. There was even an increase in the amount of time Americans found for recreation and entertainment.
The 1920's saw the tax burden of middle Americans decrease while most lower income Americans were relieved of their tax burden altogether. By 1930, their was a sharp increase in the number of Americans who could afford what were then middle class luxuries such as ranges, ice boxes, radios, vacuum cleaners and other household appliances. There was even an increase in the amount of time Americans found for recreation and entertainment.
Many of our historical elite like to characterize the 1920's as the decade of greed and Harding and Coolidge as symbols of greed. This is simply not the truth. During the 1920's, neighbor still helped neighbor and charitable organizations still cared for the poorest of our lot. Few events more characterized the generosity of the American people than the joint private- government relief effort in 1921-1923 to help the victims of famine in Soviet Russia (a nation to which we did not have diplomatic relations). Nearly 30 million citizens of Soviet Russia faced starvation and it was the American people who answered the plea for help and saved countless lives.
Many scholars and historians blame the Harding-Coolidge economic program for the stock market crash of 1929 as well as the great depression. The stock market crash of 1929 was not the calamity Americans have been made to believe. There were no major business or bank failures resulting from the crash. The crash of 1929 occurred in October and by December of that year the economy was once again calm and remained so for the next six months. The depression did not occur because of the stock market crash. There were several errors on the part of policy makers that plunged our economy into a deep depression. The inaction on behalf of President Hoover, New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Federal Reserve Board to curb over-speculation proved very unwise. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which President Hoover supported and signed into law helped to paralyze global commerce. The huge tax increases signed into law by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt retarded economic growth, ballooned the national debt, and sunk the nation deeper into the great depression. If Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt had moved to curb over-speculation and otherwise continued the economic policies of Harding and Coolidge, the nation may have been able to have avoided the great depression. Most certainly, the depression would not have been as deep and prolonged as it was.
Despite what our historical elite have professed to us, the economic policies promoted by Harding and Coolidge during the 1920's created a level of prosperity our nation would not see again until the 1980's. It is long overdue for Harding and Coolidge to receive the acclaim they deserve for rescuing America from economic depression and returning it back to normalcy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Cocker on Aug 1, 2012 14:49:21 GMT -5
The disastrous mistakes from Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt underscore the importance that Washington not raise taxes in a weak economy. But that doesn’t stop the Left from advancing the notion. They point to Clinton’s record as proof. After all, Congress pushed through a big tax increase under President Clinton, and the economy boomed, right? Well, the truth is that the real boom didn’t happen until after 1997, the year Clinton cut taxes. From 1993-1996, a time when the economy was recovering from recession so expected growth should be strong, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent and 11.2 million jobs were added. During the period 1997-2000 real economic growth averaged 4.2 percent and employment increased by 11.5 million jobs. Heritage senior fellow JD Foster adds: The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase. In summary, coming out of a recession into a period when the economy should grow relatively rapidly, President Clinton signed a major tax increase. The average growth rate over his first term was a solid 3.2 percent. In 1997, at a time when the expansion was well along and economic growth should have slowed, Congress passed a modest net tax cut. The economy grew by a full percentage point-per-year faster over his second term than over Clinton’s first term.” The evidence is in: tax increases are damaging to economic growth and job creation no matter what point of the business cycle. In a weak economy, like ours today, tax increases are especially ill advised, as Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt discovered. But even in a bustling economy tax hikes hurt growth and prosperity, as they did in the 1990s under President Clinton. That we’re having a national debate about this from an economic standpoint at a time of instability and weakness is a sign of deliberate disregard of historical precedence and favor of ideological righteousness over economic concern. Posted in Entitlements blog.heritage.org/.../hoover-fdr-and-clinton-tax-increases-a-brief-hist... Tags: Bush Tax Cuts, FDR, great depression, Keynesian economics, Keynesianism, President Clinton, Smoot-Hawley, tax increases, taxes, the Obama tax hike blog.heritage.org/tag/great-depression/The Obama Tax Hike and Lessons from 1937 Guinevere Nell October 6, 2010 at 12:00 pm (1) Raising taxes on successful businesses is one thing we cannot afford to do. Large, successful businesses that create jobs would be hit the hardest, but small businesses would also be hurt by such a tax increase. Although economists disagree on many aspects of economic growth and recession, there is near-unanimity on at least one issue: raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. It seems clear then, that a jobs-killing tax increase, such as the one planned by President Obama, is a bad idea. Of course, Obama has argued … More blog.heritage.org/2010/10/06/the-obama-tax-hike-and-lessons-from-1937/ENJOY THE SHORT CLASS. |
|
|
|
Post by danceswithdogs on Aug 1, 2012 15:31:57 GMT -5
It does not matter what Obama "inherited". He made several promises that he would "cut the deficit in half by midway through his 'first' term". Instead, he has INCREASED the deficit and has only made things much, much worse. Supposedly he knew what he was "inheriting", yet he made those claims anyway.
So, Obama has FAILED on the economy as well as everything else he said/claimed/promised to do. Oh, except cram an unwanted socialized health 'care' plan down our throats....which is fast proving to be a major disaster and further cramp on the economy.
|
|
