Please Say It Aint So. U.S.,Worst Economy On North American Continent...

[LordBrownTrout]

I can't wait to drive by a farm or an orchard so I can watch white Americans picking lettuce and/or oranges. Should be a sight. And after all, didn't the right say that these were jobs that Americans WOULD do?

Regardless of color, I'd be glad to see hundreds of Americans working in agriculture. Jobs that Americans wouldn't do? That was the left I believe.

It was G.W. Bush that coined the phrase "Jobs that Americans won't do."

Yeah Bush said something to that effect but Matt Lauer put a twist in there.

Jobs Americans Wont Do

Anyway, I've heard all different political persuasions proclaim this.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Who would have ever dreamed our nation could fall so far so fast? With Mexico's Unemployment Rate now at 4.5%,that's half of what the current U.S. Unemployment Rate is. We're up to 9.4%. And Canada has turned their Economy around and is doing well. So,Worst Economy in North America? Yes,it is true. I know it's shocking but it is reality. So thank you President Obama & Democrats,you've managed to achieve something once thought unimaginable. God Bless America...Cause we're gonna need all the prayers we can get.

It's 10 years of tax cuts and 20 years of global free trade that have screwed this country!

Because of global free trade, there are more high paying jobs in the United States. People complain about our own outsourcing, but foreign countries outsource twice as much to the US as we outsource to them. These jobs pay higher on average than US jobs. Tax cuts return resources to the private sector, allowing for more production.

You made a general statement with no reason to back it up. Before I can argue against it any further, I need to see your logic.

Global Free trade has increased the income of a minority of Americans - Executives only. It's destroyed our manufacturing and with it tens of millions of mid-level paying jobs.

Tax cuts do return a larger amount of wealth to the wealthiest Americans, which only allows for more production, but does not give incentive for more production - at least not here in the U.S.

In fact, lower tax rates promote lower risk, highly secure non-growth investments. Higher taxes on the wealthy force them into higher risk, less secure growth oriented investments.

Why should anyone take the risk of investing in R&D or new product development when they can meet their income goals thru safe investments? Greed only goes so far - security is worth quite alot in a capitalist society.

BTW, the largest rates for GDP growth have always occured when the tax rates are the highest.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Regardless of color, I'd be glad to see hundreds of Americans working in agriculture. Jobs that Americans wouldn't do? That was the left I believe.

It was G.W. Bush that coined the phrase "Jobs that Americans won't do."

Yeah Bush said something to that effect but Matt Lauer put a twist in there.

Jobs Americans Wont Do

Anyway, I've heard all different political persuasions proclaim this.

As the article says, Bush is the one that said this first. God knows who may have repeated it since, but it's Bush's line.

I think that what Bush really meant was:

"wages that Americans aren't stupid enough to accept"

That's more to the truth.

 

[ShackledNation]

It's 10 years of tax cuts and 20 years of global free trade that have screwed this country!

Because of global free trade, there are more high paying jobs in the United States. People complain about our own outsourcing, but foreign countries outsource twice as much to the US as we outsource to them. These jobs pay higher on average than US jobs. Tax cuts return resources to the private sector, allowing for more production.

You made a general statement with no reason to back it up. Before I can argue against it any further, I need to see your logic.

Global Free trade has increased the income of a minority of Americans - Executives only.

As I said, there are more high paying jobs outsourced to the US because of global free trade. I am not sure how you can make that claim. These are not executive jobs. They are jobs given by Toyota and other foreign companies to workers who would otherwise be unemployed. You need to provide reason for your assumption that only executives benefit. Why would free trade raise the income of executives only? Free trade results in increased efficiency, allowing production to expand. Cheaper products result in higher real wages.

It's destroyed our manufacturing and with it tens of millions of mid-level paying jobs.

Competition did not destroy our manufacturing. Our manufacturing base was dwindling far before the economy went more global. What destroyed it was heavy regulation and unionization making manufacturing inefficient and unprofitable. Protectionist policies only subsidize the government's own poor policy. And even jobs lost because of such policies are replaced because of free trade. Do remember that the Smoot Hawley Tariff was enacted prior to the Great Depression and resulted in economic stagnation.

Tax cuts do return a larger amount of wealth to the wealthiest Americans, which only allows for more production, but does not give incentive for more production - at least not here in the U.S.

First of all, tax cuts to everyone return wealth back to everyone. If people have money, they will either invest it or spend it. Both actions stimulate production, either of consumer goods or capital goods. Money does not hide under mattresses.

In fact, lower tax rates promote lower risk, highly secure non-growth investments. Higher taxes on the wealthy force them into higher risk, less secure growth oriented investments. Why should anyone take the risk of investing in R&D or new product development when they can meet their income goals thru safe investments? Greed only goes so far - security is worth quite alot in a capitalist society.

How do higher taxes make people more likely to make risky investments? If they have less money, they will be more careful with it. If they have more money, they will be even more likely to dedicate it to a portion of such "risky" projects that they research. I don't see the logic behind your assumption that people are more likely to make high risks with less money. It seems the opposite would be true. And they are high risk for a reason. Many of them fail. So fewer people will invest in them initially. But when it becomes clear the project is successful, there will be more investment. I reject your assumption that high risk is always better. It doesn't really make complete sense.

BTW, the largest rates for GDP growth have always occured when the tax rates are the highest.

GDP growth is not the best economic indicator because it considers spending and growth to be equivalent, which is not true. During wartime, GDP goes up, despite the fact money is spent creating bombs and machines that destroy lives and wealth. Would you say we should always be in war to grow GDP? GDP would go up if an economy only produced pins and increased production of pins, even if the people were starving because no food was produced. Government spending essentially results in pins. Not to mention you can't add televisions and potato chips.

The roaring 20s was a period of immense growth with relatively low taxes, as was much of the 19th century, so I don't see that the empirical evidence backs up your claim. Nor have you explained your assumption (which doesn't seem true). Why would higher taxes results in more growth if it means people are given less money to invest with and spend? Government does not create wealth, it can only redistribute it. And a lot of it just goes to bureaucrats that produce absolutely nothing.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Maybe The One's "Jobs Czar" GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt isn't doing such a good job? What do ya think? Time to fire the "Jobs Czar?"

 

[Hum Dinger]

Because of global free trade, there are more high paying jobs in the United States. People complain about our own outsourcing, but foreign countries outsource twice as much to the US as we outsource to them. These jobs pay higher on average than US jobs. Tax cuts return resources to the private sector, allowing for more production.

You made a general statement with no reason to back it up. Before I can argue against it any further, I need to see your logic.

Global Free trade has increased the income of a minority of Americans - Executives only.

As I said, there are more high paying jobs outsourced to the US because of global free trade. I am not sure how you can make that claim. These are not executive jobs. They are jobs given by Toyota and other foreign companies to workers who would otherwise be unemployed. You need to provide reason for your assumption that only executives benefit. Why would free trade raise the income of executives only? Free trade results in increased efficiency, allowing production to expand. Cheaper products result in higher real wages.


Competition did not destroy our manufacturing. Our manufacturing base was dwindling far before the economy went more global. What destroyed it was heavy regulation and unionization making manufacturing inefficient and unprofitable. Protectionist policies only subsidize the government's own poor policy. And even jobs lost because of such policies are replaced because of free trade. Do remember that the Smoot Hawley Tariff was enacted prior to the Great Depression and resulted in economic stagnation.


First of all, tax cuts to everyone return wealth back to everyone. If people have money, they will either invest it or spend it. Both actions stimulate production, either of consumer goods or capital goods. Money does not hide under mattresses.

In fact, lower tax rates promote lower risk, highly secure non-growth investments. Higher taxes on the wealthy force them into higher risk, less secure growth oriented investments. Why should anyone take the risk of investing in R&D or new product development when they can meet their income goals thru safe investments? Greed only goes so far - security is worth quite alot in a capitalist society.

How do higher taxes make people more likely to make risky investments? If they have less money, they will be more careful with it. If they have more money, they will be even more likely to dedicate it to a portion of such "risky" projects that they research. I don't see the logic behind your assumption that people are more likely to make high risks with less money. It seems the opposite would be true. And they are high risk for a reason. Many of them fail. So fewer people will invest in them initially. But when it becomes clear the project is successful, there will be more investment. I reject your assumption that high risk is always better. It doesn't really make complete sense.

BTW, the largest rates for GDP growth have always occured when the tax rates are the highest.

GDP growth is not the best economic indicator because it considers spending and growth to be equivalent, which is not true. During wartime, GDP goes up, despite the fact money is spent creating bombs and machines that destroy lives and wealth. Would you say we should always be in war to grow GDP? GDP would go up if an economy only produced pins and increased production of pins, even if the people were starving because no food was produced. Government spending essentially results in pins. Not to mention you can't add televisions and potato chips.

The roaring 20s was a period of immense growth with relatively low taxes, as was much of the 19th century, so I don't see that the empirical evidence backs up your claim. Nor have you explained your assumption (which doesn't seem true). Why would higher taxes results in more growth if it means people are given less money to invest with and spend? Government does not create wealth, it can only redistribute it. And a lot of it just goes to bureaucrats that produce absolutely nothing.

I live in the real world, not your phony hypothetical world, and I've worked in manufacturing for the past 25 years.

When profit per product line goes up, companies shut down R&D and new projects. When profit drop they are forced to invest in R&D & new projects.

My company was an entirely American conpany in the early 1990s, we haven't opened a new manufacturing facility in the U.S. since then, but we've opened dozens outside the U.S.

These are all jobs that would have been U.S. jobs if it weren't for free trade policies.

As far as tax cuts, we've had 10 years of Bush tax cuts -where is the economic growth?
No where. We've had a poor to terrible economy since.

When taxes were raised in the early 1990s, the economy boomed.

When Reagan cut taxes the economy tanks, and when he raised taxes the economy boomed.

I can only guess it WHY it works that way, but it obviously does.

You can theorize all you want - you can make a religion out of your stupid theories - but I'll stick with a scientific approach to economics. I'll look and see what works and what does not and form my opinions on those facts.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Mexico now has much lower Unemployment and their projected GDP Growth is much better than ours too. Yet we're supposed to believe everything is just peachy? Are the Hopey Changey sheep crazy? Things are very very very bad. This President & Democrats really have screwed the pooch. We're in big trouble.

 

[freedombecki]

The Great Depression was probably the worst economic crisis this country ever had. My mother told me they had to scrimp by on a shoestring and used the phrase, "Use it up, wear it out, make do, and do without."

I don't think we've quite gotten there yet, but if jobs aren't created here in America and kept in America, 9.4 will seem good.

Here's stats from the 30s: "The unemployment rate for the years 1923-29 was 3.3 percent. In 1931 it jumped to 15.9, in 1933 it was 24.9 percent. It remained at these extremely high levels until 1942, when it dropped to 4.7 percent. source

We have had issues with foreign products, though. We got both poison dog food and poison baby food cans from overseas; we had deadly spinach brought into the country not grown in the USA, instances of poultry and beef issues pawned off at the docks onto an unsuspecting American public, and I have two vacuum cleaners made elsewhere that are in pieces so complex, I can't put them back together again. I thought they were good as American-made vacuum cleaners, but the first time I used both of them, they fell into pieces when I tried to dump the bin on one and remove the inner sack from another. I miss American manufacturing, and this business of paying $99 for a vacuum every time I need to vacuum is something I just can't afford.

It's crazy to depend on a foreign country that doesn't build things that will last. I still have my American-made Sunbeam hairdryer from 1964 that my mom gave me as a graduation gift. It was then made in America.

Poured a cuppa lately from a foreign-made Mr. Coffee? Guess what. The glass carafes are so carelessly thrown together they dribble coffee all over the counter. Mr. Coffee didn't do that when Joe Dimaggio plugged them on tv.

I loved our country when we bought things from each other. They were made right and with respect for other people's good experiences.

Foreign made stuff is sickening, poorly made, and doesn't hold up to use or is so complex it takes a rocket scientist to put it back together after its first programmed break. It's now from China with pure-dee hate.

Let's fire 'em and make 'em ourselves.
​

 

[Vel]

Well aren't we glad we bailed GM out so that they could provide jobs for the Mexican economy?

UPDATE 2-GM to invest $540 mln in Mexican engine plant | Reuters

U.S. automaker to build fuel-efficient engines

* Mexican president sees vote of confidence in country (Adds background, details on investment and drug violence, byline)

By Michael O'Boyle and Luis Rojas Mena

MEXICO CITY, Jan 20 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) said it is investing $540 million in its motor plant in central Mexico to build more fuel-efficient engines for the recovering North American automobile market.

The move by GM, flush with cash after its 2009 restructuring in bankruptcy, follows other investments in recent years by American, European and Asian automakers seeking to produce more fuel-efficient models in Mexico.

 

[8537]

Mexico now has much lower Unemployment and their projected GDP Growth is much better than ours too.

Asset-based poverty rate: 47%.

Maybe you should take a look at Mexico before you start making claims that it is better off than the US.

 

[ShackledNation]

Global Free trade has increased the income of a minority of Americans - Executives only.

As I said, there are more high paying jobs outsourced to the US because of global free trade. I am not sure how you can make that claim. These are not executive jobs. They are jobs given by Toyota and other foreign companies to workers who would otherwise be unemployed. You need to provide reason for your assumption that only executives benefit. Why would free trade raise the income of executives only? Free trade results in increased efficiency, allowing production to expand. Cheaper products result in higher real wages.


Competition did not destroy our manufacturing. Our manufacturing base was dwindling far before the economy went more global. What destroyed it was heavy regulation and unionization making manufacturing inefficient and unprofitable. Protectionist policies only subsidize the government's own poor policy. And even jobs lost because of such policies are replaced because of free trade. Do remember that the Smoot Hawley Tariff was enacted prior to the Great Depression and resulted in economic stagnation.


First of all, tax cuts to everyone return wealth back to everyone. If people have money, they will either invest it or spend it. Both actions stimulate production, either of consumer goods or capital goods. Money does not hide under mattresses.


How do higher taxes make people more likely to make risky investments? If they have less money, they will be more careful with it. If they have more money, they will be even more likely to dedicate it to a portion of such "risky" projects that they research. I don't see the logic behind your assumption that people are more likely to make high risks with less money. It seems the opposite would be true. And they are high risk for a reason. Many of them fail. So fewer people will invest in them initially. But when it becomes clear the project is successful, there will be more investment. I reject your assumption that high risk is always better. It doesn't really make complete sense.

BTW, the largest rates for GDP growth have always occured when the tax rates are the highest.

GDP growth is not the best economic indicator because it considers spending and growth to be equivalent, which is not true. During wartime, GDP goes up, despite the fact money is spent creating bombs and machines that destroy lives and wealth. Would you say we should always be in war to grow GDP? GDP would go up if an economy only produced pins and increased production of pins, even if the people were starving because no food was produced. Government spending essentially results in pins. Not to mention you can't add televisions and potato chips.

The roaring 20s was a period of immense growth with relatively low taxes, as was much of the 19th century, so I don't see that the empirical evidence backs up your claim. Nor have you explained your assumption (which doesn't seem true). Why would higher taxes results in more growth if it means people are given less money to invest with and spend? Government does not create wealth, it can only redistribute it. And a lot of it just goes to bureaucrats that produce absolutely nothing.

I live in the real world, not your phony hypothetical world, and I've worked in manufacturing for the past 25 years.

When profit per product line goes up, companies shut down R&D and new projects. When profit drop they are forced to invest in R&D & new projects.

It is not hypothetical. It is called the balance of payments. Trade deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses. Foreign countries invest in us more than we invest in them. The dollars come back to the US. Foreign direct investment is one type of investment, and its common name is outsourcing. Your claim that you have worked in manufacturing is largely useless here. I could claim that I have worked in manufacturing, and then argue the opposite points.

My company was an entirely American conpany in the early 1990s, we haven't opened a new manufacturing facility in the U.S. since then, but we've opened dozens outside the U.S.

Great! You are providing jobs for many people who need them and increasing production.

These are all jobs that would have been U.S. jobs if it weren't for free trade policies.

No, if it weren't for government regulation. Free trade is simply the free market. The government makes you less competitive through high tax rates and regulations that increase the costs of production within the US and thus make prices higher. All protectionism does is make everyone else less competitive. It creates an economy that is less efficient and productive. The jobs would not be in the US because companies cannot afford the costs. That is why they go abroad. They can't expand effectively in the US as much as they can expand abroad. Also, when these companies expand, they often end up expanding at home too.

“In 2007, Matthew Slaughter, an economist at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, published a comprehensive study of the hiring practices of 2,500 U.S.-based multinational companies. He found that when U.S. firms hired lower-cost labor at foreign subsidiaries overseas, their parent companies hired even more people in the U.S. to support expanded operations. Between 1991 and 2001, employment at foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals rose by 2.8 million jobs; during that same period, employment at their parent firms in the U.S. rose by 5.5 million jobs. For every job “outsourced” to India and other foreign countries, nearly two new jobs were generated here in the U.S. Those new U.S. jobs were higher-skilled and better-paying.”

And you keep ignoring my point about foreign outsourcing. Even if we lose 2 million jobs to outsourcing, we gain twice as many from outsourcing to the United States. Foreign countries cannot pay their workers in dollars, so they exchange dollars we give them for their imports for their local currency. Foreign investors and importers then use those US dollars to invest in the US or buy our exports. Right now, they do the former more than the latter, giving us a capital account surplus and a trade deficit. But ultimately, the dollars are used to buy US goods domestically, because workers employed through outsourcing from foreign countries spend that money here at home. What they spend abroad comes back and follows the same cycle.

As far as tax cuts, we've had 10 years of Bush tax cuts -where is the economic growth?
No where. We've had a poor to terrible economy since.

The bush tax cuts were useless because there were not spending cuts coupled with them. Government expanded under Bush.

When taxes were raised in the early 1990s, the economy boomed.

Taxes were raised in 1993. In 1997, under Clinton, taxes were cut. It was then that the economy boomed.

When Reagan cut taxes the economy tanks, and when he raised taxes the economy boomed.

No, when the Federal Reserve reversed its inflationary monetary policy the economy boomed.

I can only guess it WHY it works that way, but it obviously does.

What is your guess? And it does not obviously work that way. I don't see any hard data comparing the growth rate of GDP and the overall tax rate. Nor does correlation mean causation.

You can theorize all you want - you can make a religion out of your stupid theories - but I'll stick with a scientific approach to economics. I'll look and see what works and what does not and form my opinions on those facts.

Science means nothing without reason. The entire system of mathematics is based on reason, and cannot be empirically proved. The scientific method is also based in reason which explains why such a method is correct. I am not ignoring empirical data, but it appears you are ignoring logic. It seems you cannot refute the logic I am using, so you are restoring to say "well that is only logic and the data proves otherwise" as if the data speaks for itself. It doesn't. Even if the data did seem to show that higher taxes correlate with more growth, which it doesn't, there could be other variables at work. It is not that simple.

You have to back up assumptions with data andreason. That is just basic argumentation.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea it's time for Hopey Changey's "Jobs Czar" GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to go. I would say he has failed pretty miserably. Give him the boot Mr. President.

 

[Toro]

Who would have ever dreamed our nation could fall so far so fast? With Mexico's Unemployment Rate now at 4.5%,that's half of what the current U.S. Unemployment Rate is. We're up to 9.4%. And Canada has turned their Economy around and is doing well. So,Worst Economy in North America? Yes,it is true. I know it's shocking but it is reality. So thank you President Obama & Democrats,you've managed to achieve something once thought unimaginable. God Bless America...Cause we're gonna need all the prayers we can get.

Canada #1!

But of course, you knew that ...

 

[auditor0007]

Who would have ever dreamed our nation could fall so far so fast? With Mexico's Unemployment Rate now at 4.5%,that's half of what the current U.S. Unemployment Rate is. We're up to 9.4%. And Canada has turned their Economy around and is doing well. So,Worst Economy in North America? Yes,it is true. I know it's shocking but it is reality. So thank you President Obama & Democrats,you've managed to achieve something once thought unimaginable. God Bless America...Cause we're gonna need all the prayers we can get.

Who would have ever thunk it that Canada, the haven for North America's Socialists where government accounts for almost 50% of their GDP, would be doing better than the good Ole USA? No doubt this is the fault of all the poor Americans sucking at the tit of the system.

Canada has moved away from Socialism. They know it's a failed system. They figured that out a long time ago. Now we just need to catch up and realize it too.

When I see stupid statements like this, I realize there is no point in arguing, because you can't have an honest discussion with people who distort everything so much just in a bad effort to support their ideology.

Here is a fact; 48% of Canada's GDP came from government spending (all levels) in 2010. If that is moving away from socialism, then we have a lot of catching up to do, in the opposite direction, because our total government spending (all levels) is only 40% of GDP, and that includes our spending approximatley 6% of GDP on defense where Canada only spends 1.5% on defense. Of course, in the 48% that Canada spends, they also receive their healthcare, so they don't have to spend $5000 to $10,000 extra per year on medical insurance and expenses.

 

[oreo]

Who would have ever dreamed our nation could fall so far so fast? With Mexico's Unemployment Rate now at 4.5%,that's half of what the current U.S. Unemployment Rate is. We're up to 9.4%. And Canada has turned their Economy around and is doing well. So,Worst Economy in North America? Yes,it is true. I know it's shocking but it is reality. So thank you President Obama & Democrats,you've managed to achieve something once thought unimaginable. God Bless America...Cause we're gonna need all the prayers we can get.

Not at all shocked here.

Canada went bright red a few years ago. They were tired of watching their country go down hill--lead by liberals.

The Federal Government is currently borrowing .43 cents on every dollar it spends. We have a President that believes he can micro-manage this diverse economy by throwing trillions of dollars at it. And he has failed.

If the Federal Government would just let the AMERICAN people loose--we would fix this.

But this President has continually threatened business in this country with higher taxes--the cost of Obamacare, etc.--and they have tucked in like a turtle--and are waiting until the threat is gone. And that threat is none other than Barack Obama and his comrades.

 

[auditor0007]

Global Free trade has increased the income of a minority of Americans - Executives only.

As I said, there are more high paying jobs outsourced to the US because of global free trade. I am not sure how you can make that claim. These are not executive jobs. They are jobs given by Toyota and other foreign companies to workers who would otherwise be unemployed. You need to provide reason for your assumption that only executives benefit. Why would free trade raise the income of executives only? Free trade results in increased efficiency, allowing production to expand. Cheaper products result in higher real wages.


Competition did not destroy our manufacturing. Our manufacturing base was dwindling far before the economy went more global. What destroyed it was heavy regulation and unionization making manufacturing inefficient and unprofitable. Protectionist policies only subsidize the government's own poor policy. And even jobs lost because of such policies are replaced because of free trade. Do remember that the Smoot Hawley Tariff was enacted prior to the Great Depression and resulted in economic stagnation.


First of all, tax cuts to everyone return wealth back to everyone. If people have money, they will either invest it or spend it. Both actions stimulate production, either of consumer goods or capital goods. Money does not hide under mattresses.


How do higher taxes make people more likely to make risky investments? If they have less money, they will be more careful with it. If they have more money, they will be even more likely to dedicate it to a portion of such "risky" projects that they research. I don't see the logic behind your assumption that people are more likely to make high risks with less money. It seems the opposite would be true. And they are high risk for a reason. Many of them fail. So fewer people will invest in them initially. But when it becomes clear the project is successful, there will be more investment. I reject your assumption that high risk is always better. It doesn't really make complete sense.

BTW, the largest rates for GDP growth have always occured when the tax rates are the highest.

GDP growth is not the best economic indicator because it considers spending and growth to be equivalent, which is not true. During wartime, GDP goes up, despite the fact money is spent creating bombs and machines that destroy lives and wealth. Would you say we should always be in war to grow GDP? GDP would go up if an economy only produced pins and increased production of pins, even if the people were starving because no food was produced. Government spending essentially results in pins. Not to mention you can't add televisions and potato chips.

The roaring 20s was a period of immense growth with relatively low taxes, as was much of the 19th century, so I don't see that the empirical evidence backs up your claim. Nor have you explained your assumption (which doesn't seem true). Why would higher taxes results in more growth if it means people are given less money to invest with and spend? Government does not create wealth, it can only redistribute it. And a lot of it just goes to bureaucrats that produce absolutely nothing.

I live in the real world, not your phony hypothetical world, and I've worked in manufacturing for the past 25 years.

When profit per product line goes up, companies shut down R&D and new projects. When profit drop they are forced to invest in R&D & new projects.

My company was an entirely American conpany in the early 1990s, we haven't opened a new manufacturing facility in the U.S. since then, but we've opened dozens outside the U.S.

These are all jobs that would have been U.S. jobs if it weren't for free trade policies.

As far as tax cuts, we've had 10 years of Bush tax cuts -where is the economic growth?
No where. We've had a poor to terrible economy since.

When taxes were raised in the early 1990s, the economy boomed.

When Reagan cut taxes the economy tanks, and when he raised taxes the economy boomed.

I can only guess it WHY it works that way, but it obviously does.

You can theorize all you want - you can make a religion out of your stupid theories - but I'll stick with a scientific approach to economics. I'll look and see what works and what does not and form my opinions on those facts.

The reason it works is because the super rich do not drive the economy, the middle class does. If the middle class is being squeezed, then they aren't buying and the economy goes down the shitter. What we must ask ourselves is why is it that the middle class has stagnated while the super rich have increased their wealth dramatically over the last ten years. What went wrong? And it wasn't Obama or the Dems.

 

[ShackledNation]

Who would have ever thunk it that Canada, the haven for North America's Socialists where government accounts for almost 50% of their GDP, would be doing better than the good Ole USA? No doubt this is the fault of all the poor Americans sucking at the tit of the system.

Canada has moved away from Socialism. They know it's a failed system. They figured that out a long time ago. Now we just need to catch up and realize it too.

When I see stupid statements like this, I realize there is no point in arguing, because you can't have an honest discussion with people who distort everything so much just in a bad effort to support their ideology.

Here is a fact; 48% of Canada's GDP came from government spending (all levels) in 2010. If that is moving away from socialism, then we have a lot of catching up to do, in the opposite direction, because our total government spending (all levels) is only 40% of GDP, and that includes our spending approximatley 6% of GDP on defense where Canada only spends 1.5% on defense. Of course, in the 48% that Canada spends, they also receive their healthcare, so they don't have to spend $5000 to $10,000 extra per year on medical insurance and expenses.

How much does the Canadian government spend on healthcare per individual on average per year? Because that is how much it costs them. It isn't free. Tax money comes from tax payers.

As for Canada, I dont know where you are getting your information, but here is what I found.

Total government spending in Canada has fallen by an astonishing more than 10 percentage points of GDP, from a (recession-bloated) high of 53.3% in 1992 to an estimated 39.5% of GDP in 2006. For the OECD as a whole, the decrease was far, far smaller – from 42.4% in 1992 to 40.6% in 2006. Spending cuts in Canada have been much deeper than in the US (where total spending has fallen from 38.5% of GDP in 1992 to 36.5% in 2006.)

Canada at 39%, US at 36%, hardly a huge difference as you claim.
The Progressive Economics Forum » Canada’s Incredible Shrinking Government

I am assuming you got your numbers from this site:
The Audacious Epigone: Government spending as a percentage of GDP by country

And if you read the comments, the numbers are criticized by commenters, especially US numbers which ignore all state and local spending. In 2009, US government spending was about 42% of GDP, the highest peacetime spending in the history of the country, coming close to World War II spending levels, and higher than any year during the Great Depression.
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP in United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local

How about Canada? 40% in 2008, and on a downward trend. Canada has also balanced its budget every year since 1998 through cutting spending.
Great Right North | Chris Edwards, Jason Clemens and Niels Veldhuis | Cato Institute: Commentary

Canada, with debt once at 71% of GDP in the 90s, now has debt levels at 32%. The US moved in the opposite direction, with debt going up to 60% of GDP in 2010.

Canadian social security is completely solvent. US social security has 10s of trillions of unfunded liabilities.

The US central government grew more centrally controlled over the past few decades, including under Bush (his education disaster). The Canadian provinces gained more control during the same period, and central government spending is larger in the US than in Canada. Canada leaves K-12 education to the provinces, whereas No Child Left Behind and other policies centralize it.

Canada has cut corporate tax rates from 28% to 15%. The US corporate tax rate is 40%, and Obama has talked about wanting to increase taxes. Canada does have higher individual income taxes than the United States, but when the Bush tax cuts expire we will be even with them. Also, needless to say, Canada has far less capital gains tax.

Yes, we do need to learn from Canada. Cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget, and decentralize power. Oh, and by the way, the Canadian Conservative Party won big in the 2011 elections.

Now tell me. What exactly was "stupid" about what Libocalypse said? It appears he was absolutely right.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Please Say It Aint So. U.S.,Worst Economy On North American Continent...

Who would have ever dreamed our nation could fall so far so fast?

Not to worry!!

Republicans shot.....and, missed.

(Don't laugh. It's not-as-if they've had much experience.)

*

Now, Republicans (merely) need to stand-still.

The DEMS will make their kill-shot as painless as is manageable.​

"There are now two sides in the American tax debate: the Republican Party, which refuses to have a serious conversation about taxes, and the Democratic Party, which . . . refuses to have a serious conversation about taxes.

Democrats will have exactly one chance to overcome the GOP’s resistance to tax revenue. Next year, the Bush tax cuts expire. If Congress does nothing, we revert to Clinton-era tax rates for everyone, and the federal coffers fill with $3.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next 10 years — enough to stabilize deficits. This is a rare opportunity in which it’s Democrats who hold the hostage and Republicans who have to compromise.

The White House should announce that it won’t extend any of the Bush tax cuts and will instead insist on a Gang-of-Six-esque plan that cleans the code, lowers rates for everyone, and raises $2 trillion or more in revenue. If the GOP refuses, the tax cuts will expire, our revenue problems will be solved, and Republicans will suddenly find themselves much more interested in tax reform. Sometimes, to govern like a Democrat, you need to negotiate like a Republican."

Makin' Republicans BEG For Mercy!!​

​

 

[Toro]

As a Canadian living in America, I can safely say that Canada is still much more "socialist" than America, even though Canada has been moving to the right over the past decade.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Mexico is now laughing at us people. MEXICO! Low Unemployment,Not nearly as much Debt,and much better GDP growth? What are they doing right? Maybe The One should head to Mexico and find out? It sure couldn't hurt.