American net worth is up $9 trillion dollars since the stimulus

[bigrebnc1775]

Does it bother you lefties that most of Obama's stimulus and spending has gone to the the big corps?

I doubt it does because "the one" did it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thanks, President Obama....

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/TNWBSHNO.txt

Scott Walker won, Chris.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

LOL, really? Nobody forced the banks to make risky loans.

Absolutely false. The federal government has indeed forced them to do that. Now, you can certainly argue that it was a minor factor in the crash, but don't say they have never been forced to make risky loans because that is factually wrong.

 

[rdean]

SO are you thanking Obama for making the rich, richer & the middle-class poor? What about all those unemployed who are now really poor? Yeah! - Obama!

Obviously you missed a part. Here, I highlighted it for you. Feel better?

Total BS. They left because of cheap labor & more customers. They were leaving even faster when Democrats took over in 2006. Obama also lost them faster than Bush at first until our dollar tanked to much that our labor got cheaper.

Oh, to have to explain to simpletons.

Infrastructure had to be built up in China. Even though millions of jobs moved to China so CEO's could squeeze out even more profits, from 2001 to 2008,, that was just the beginning. By the time Obama was sworn in the country was losing jobs at the rate of 800,000 a month.

But I bet you could move to China. Live in a dorm and make $174.00 an hour. Bet you would be welcomed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

American net worth is up $9 trillion dollars since the stimulus
Thanks, President Obama....

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/TNWBSHNO.txt

Thanks for the link showing your numbers, pointing out that--

--Obama's signature policy response gave us a 15% increase in wealth in just 30 months. Comparing that to Bush's tax cuts--

--we get more than twice the increase.



I like tax cuts more than deficit spending.

There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit. You will just be paying it as an inflation tax. The idea of starving the beast is stupid. All that happens is interest rates climb along with inflation. Stop the spending instead of cutting taxes. Government services may drowned in the bathtub but you will still be paying even more because of the debt & inflation.

It is impossible for a tax cut to add to the deficit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

LOL, really? Nobody forced the banks to make risky loans.

Absolutely false. The federal government has indeed forced them to do that. Now, you can certainly argue that it was a minor factor in the crash, but don't say they have never been forced to make risky loans because that is factually wrong.

No.

 

[expat_panama]

--Obama's signature policy response gave us a 15% increase in wealth in just 30 months. Comparing that to Bush's tax cuts--

--we get more than twice the increase. I like tax cuts more than deficit spending.

There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit...

Ah, changing the subject away from Obama's failed policy. Smart move; glad we agree on it though.

The tax cuts did not reduce revenue. In fact, annual revenue had been falling before the cuts and soared after. Revenue is still higher than it was before the cuts. The deficits were caused by spending which had increased more than revenue, but without the tax-cut's revenue increases the deficits would have been far worse.

 

[itfitzme]

American net worth is up $9 trillion dollars since the stimulus
Thanks, President Obama....

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/TNWBSHNO.txt

Thanks for the link showing your numbers, pointing out that--

--Obama's signature policy response gave us a 15% increase in wealth in just 30 months. Comparing that to Bush's tax cuts--

--we get more than twice the increase.



I like tax cuts more than deficit spending.

Ignorance. It was the Bush Tax Cuts AND deficit defense spending vs the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and whatever deficit spending Obama has done.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit. You will just be paying it as an inflation tax. The idea of starving the beast is stupid. All that happens is interest rates climb along with inflation. Stop the spending instead of cutting taxes. Government services may drowned in the bathtub but you will still be paying even more because of the debt & inflation.

It is impossible for a tax cut to add to the deficit.

This is really simple

Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

Revenues are, of course, taxes.

If Revenues are less then Outlays, then it is a deficit.

If revenues are lowered even further, then the deficit gets bigger.

The same reasoning goes with outlays.

Yes, tax cuts add to the deficit just as increased spending adds to the deficit.

Please don't be a complete moron.

 

[itfitzme]

--Obama's signature policy response gave us a 15% increase in wealth in just 30 months. Comparing that to Bush's tax cuts--

--we get more than twice the increase. I like tax cuts more than deficit spending.

There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit...

Ah, changing the subject away from Obama's failed policy. Smart move; glad we agree on it though.

The tax cuts did not reduce revenue. In fact, annual revenue had been falling before the cuts and soared after. Revenue is still higher than it was before the cuts. The deficits were caused by spending which had increased more than revenue, but without the tax-cut's revenue increases the deficits would have been far worse.

Clinton cut back military spending, the economy receded. Bush increased military spending , the economy recovered. What don't you get, it's a gov't jobs, retirement and fiscal stimulus program.

It was increased defense spending that drove the GDP and revenue increase, combined with some very minor and temporary bump from the tax cuts. And, in real dollar per capita terms, or in terms of % GDP, it wasn't even that remarkable.

Because of the tax cuts, the deficit was worse. See how it works, tax cuts equals less money. Less money equals bigger deficit. Spending equals more outlays, more outlays equals bigger deficit.

You either work more or spend less.

It's a math equation, Surplus (-deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

You took algebra, Didn't you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

OMG, I thought I had seen it all but really?

America's Average Net worth is DOWN by 40%.

What a fucking loser.

You're right. But so is Chris. Let's be honest, at least.

Right? About what?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes and no.

Yes, American corporations are making historic profits. They are sitting on trillions. Wall Street has made historic profits. Oil companies have never made so much. The number one US export is gasoline. Taxes for corporations are at historic lows. US oil production has never been so high. So in that regard, America's net worth is up "Trillions". No news here. It's something reported in every business publication for the last year.

Now about the Middle Class:

In 2007, the average wealth for a middle class homeowner was around $122,000.00. But at the end of the Republican economic recession in 2010, that number dropped to about $77,000.00. Pensions destroyed. Retirement accounts raided. From 2001 to 2008 millions of jobs were moved to China. Part of that move was paid for by the Bush/Republican tax cuts. Tens of thousands of factories closed and people making tens of millions of dollars are paying less than %15 in taxes. The wealth of the nation has been "redistributed" upward to the top 1%.

So over all, the nation has gotten richer. But not the "middle class".

SO are you thanking Obama for making the rich, richer & the middle-class poor? What about all those unemployed who are now really poor? Yeah! - Obama!

Obviously you missed a part. Here, I highlighted it for you. Feel better?

Millions? Have you been rubbing your Cialis on your head?
Yes, the President of the United States has the absolute authority to "send millions of jobs( Define "job") to one specific country. In this case China...
Ok..Prove it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

OMG, I thought I had seen it all but really?

America's Average Net worth is DOWN by 40%.

What a fucking loser.

You're right. But so is Chris. Let's be honest, at least.

Right? About what?

Gross wealth has increased. But the wealth of the average joe has decreased.

 

[expat_panama]

...I like tax cuts more than deficit spending.

Ignorance. It was the Bush Tax Cuts AND deficit defense spending vs the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and whatever deficit spending Obama has done.

Your post last night came out a bit hard to follow. I'm having to guess as to what the "ignorance" was that you were referring to and which subject was represented by your pronoun "it". Let's clean this up.

This thread credits Obama's stimulus for a 5.6% annual growth in private net worth. That's less than the 6.8% average since 1949. Bush's tax-cuts were followed by 14% growth. That's far better than average.

If you want to change the topic away from Obama's failed policy with private wealth (good idea) and start talking about deficits, please say what your understanding is.

 

[expat_panama]

... This is really simple

Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

Revenues are, of course, taxes...

We may be going wrong by not understanding the fact that the tax-rate cuts of 2003 were followed by revenue increases. Here are the historical revenue amounts as reported by the Obama Whitehouse:

Revenue had been falling before the rate cuts, and revenue soared to an all time high afterward. The deficits would have been far worse if revenue had continued to fall without the rate cuts.

 

[Big Fitz]

Thanks, President Obama....

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/TNWBSHNO.txt

Funny. None ended up in my pocket.

Where's my share?

If I got an equal share that means I should have gotten a check for somewhere around $900k. I never got it. And that's after taxes.

So how is it my net worth went up?

 

[itfitzme]

... This is really simple

Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

Revenues are, of course, taxes...

We may be going wrong by not understanding the fact that the tax-rate cuts of 2003 were followed by revenue increases. Here are the historical revenue amounts as reported by the Obama Whitehouse:

Revenue had been falling before the rate cuts, and revenue soared to an all time high afterward. The deficits would have been far worse if revenue had continued to fall without the rate cuts.

Yep and you have left out the increase in defense spending that began in 2001.

 

[KissMy]

... This is really simple

Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

Revenues are, of course, taxes...

We may be going wrong by not understanding the fact that the tax-rate cuts of 2003 were followed by revenue increases. Here are the historical revenue amounts as reported by the Obama Whitehouse:

Revenue had been falling before the rate cuts, and revenue soared to an all time high afterward. The deficits would have been far worse if revenue had continued to fall without the rate cuts.

Of course revenue pops when there is a fake sub-prime boom going on that also exploded the debt. How about showing us a chart of revenue as a percent of GDP? All that extra tax revenue came from Social Insurance Tax Increases on the little guy. Is it any wonder why it is to expensive to hire American labor? If business & the rich paid their share then they would not have to go to China to find cheap labor.

The job creators are small business owners who make between $250K to $2,000K. For some reason we tax the top 1% corporate raiders who make over $10 million way less than the small business job creators.

 

[expat_panama]

...Revenue had been falling before the rate cuts, and revenue soared to an all time high afterward. The deficits would have been far worse if revenue had continued to fall without the rate cuts.

Yep and you have left out the increase in defense spending that began in 2001.

Let's look at this better. Changing spending on defense (or anything else) does not change what the revenue is. Are we still together here?

 

[itfitzme]

... This is really simple

Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

Revenues are, of course, taxes...

We may be going wrong by not understanding the fact that the tax-rate cuts of 2003 were followed by revenue increases. Here are the historical revenue amounts as reported by the Obama Whitehouse:

Revenue had been falling before the rate cuts, and revenue soared to an all time high afterward. The deficits would have been far worse if revenue had continued to fall without the rate cuts.

Here is all the data, not some small selection. It is in real dollars per capita. It has to be in real dollars per capita or it is meaningless. Population grows, inflation grows.

Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

If not for the increased spending, the (-) deficit would not have been as bad.

Revenues just managed to get to the same level as they were during the dot.com bubble.

Some suggest that the housing bubble was caused, in part, by the decrease in taxes. Decreased taxes increased demand for MBSs. That drove interest rates for mortgages lower creating a boom in the housing market.

It just ain't so simply as you'de like to believe.

But this doesn't change my point that Surplus ( - deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

And it is clear from the complete data that the surplus is a function of both increased spending and tax receipts.

The problem with your analysis is that you haven't shown that the tax cuts caused the increased revenue. It's coincidental and coincidence doesn't make for causation.

If your right, that the increased revenues was caused by the tax cuts, then the most reasonable explanation is that it caused the housing boom which increased revenues.