Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (585807)	9/16/2010 1:24:41 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1574001

Thanks, Mr. Bush. Your tax cuts suck! Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers By Neil Irwin Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 2, 2010 For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different. The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth. It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable. There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well. Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s. And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s. "This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. Question of timing The miserable economic track record is, in part, a quirk of timing. The 1990s ended near the top of a stock market and investment bubble. Three months after champagne corks popped to celebrate the dawn of the year 2000, the market turned south, a recession soon following. The decade finished near the trough of a severe recession. But beyond these dramatic ups and downs lies an even more sobering reality: long-term economic stagnation. The trillions of dollars that poured into housing investment and consumer spending in the first part of the decade distorted economic activity. Capital was funneled to build mini-mansions in Sun Belt suburbs, many of which now sit empty, rather than toward industrial machines or other business investment that might generate economic output and jobs for years to come. "The problem is that we mismanaged the macroeconomy, and that got us in big trouble," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight. "The big bad thing that happened was that, in the U.S. and parts of Europe, we let housing bubbles get out of control. That came back to haunt us big-time." The housing bubble both caused, and was enabled by, a boom in indebtedness. Total household debt rose 117 percent from 1999 to its peak in early 2008, according to Federal Reserve data, as Americans borrowed to buy ever more expensive homes and to support consumption more generally. CONTINUED 1 2 Next washingtonpost.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (585807)	9/17/2010 2:23:36 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

The Democrats’ Alice-in-Wonderland Tax Guide by Thomas Del Beccaro If something stays the same, has it been cut? The answer is a resounding YES in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Demo-nomics. Of course, I am speaking of the Democrats’ claims that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage when the issue really is whether certain tax rates will remain the same or go up. Such folly is, to be generous, not the only upside down element of Demo-nomics under which we vassals must toil. Here is your guide to some of the more prevalent illusions . . . 1. Extending the current rates = a Tax Cut. It is not so much a subtle tactic by the Democrats to frame the discussion by claiming that the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage. Remember that he who frames the argument often wins the argument. The literal and basic premise of this Demo-nomics subtlety is that the rates, by all rights, should be higher. By pedaling their line of argument, however, the status quo becomes change - and it is they who are heroes for cutting them again from where they think ”should” be. In truth, who is to say tax rates should be this high? After all, when the income tax was ushered in by Democrat Woodrow Wilson the top rate was only 7%. Shouldn’t the question be: Why are we keeping rates so very high? Obviously not in the world of Demo-nomics. 2. Tax Cuts Are A “Windfall” for the Rich. This too is a brilliant job by the Democrats of framing the issue. According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “windfall” is defined as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.” Incredibly, so pervasive is this canard that one of the examples Websters uses for the word windfall is: “They received a windfall because of the tax cuts.” Of course, in 99%.9 of the cases, a tax is a government taking of money you have earned and probably not so suddenly but after a year of hard work. A tax rate cut, therefore, does not result in a gain – what it really represents a smaller loss for you – just not in the world of Demo-nomics. 3. Tax Cuts “Cost” the Government Money. According to Obama in Wonderland, not extending the tax cuts to the wealthy – read raising taxes – “would knock hundreds of billions of dollars off the cost of extending the cuts.” This is a favorite tax folly of the Democrats, i.e. that tax cuts COST the government money. Perilously referencing Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary again, we find that the definition of a “tax” to be: “a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” As you can see, the charge that is imposed is imposed ON US and therefore COSTS US – not the government. If they are charging us less it means that it is costing us less – it does not cost them at all – not to mention that lower rates foster higher economic activity and, therefore, greater revenue. By now, you have seen the main thrust of Demo-nomics. By framing the argument the way they do, their basic and not so subtle premise is that the money belongs to the all important STATE and that, if tax rates are lowered, YOU are taking money from the all-important State – never mind that it was once yours. It is worthy to note that Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that: “Some writers have so confounded society with government as to leave little or no distinction between them.” Of course, politicians make writers seem, well, simply academic on the point. Under Demo-nomics, Paine’s distinction becomes our pain which is what makes Demo-nomics actually Demon-omics. biggovernment.com