Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Coito ergo sum]

Unemployment in the US to rise again -- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-0 ... rkers.html

Hiring census workers as "economic stimulus..."

[Coito ergo sum]

Economic recovery fizzling - weak economic data:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100701/D9GMF6SG2.html

Weak global demand.... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa81dd7c-8536 ... abdc0.html

And, in six short months, we in the United States will be on the receiving end of a biggest tax hike in American history. Our only hope is that it might not fit where they want to shove it....

[Martok]

And, in six short months, we in the United States will be on the receiving end of a biggest tax hike in American history. Our only hope is that it might not fit where they want to shove it....

At last those retarded Bush tax cuts will be over with.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, in six short months, we in the United States will be on the receiving end of a biggest tax hike in American history. Our only hope is that it might not fit where they want to shove it....

At last those retarded Bush tax cuts will be over with.

There is nothing more retarded than the largest tax hike in American history during the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

[Martok]

And, in six short months, we in the United States will be on the receiving end of a biggest tax hike in American history. Our only hope is that it might not fit where they want to shove it....

At last those retarded Bush tax cuts will be over with.

There is nothing more retarded than the largest tax hike in American history during the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

No, what's even MORE retarded was passing tax cuts while fighting TWO wars.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, in six short months, we in the United States will be on the receiving end of a biggest tax hike in American history. Our only hope is that it might not fit where they want to shove it....

At last those retarded Bush tax cuts will be over with.

There is nothing more retarded than the largest tax hike in American history during the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

No, what's even MORE retarded was passing tax cuts while fighting TWO wars.

Not if you want to help the economy, which the tax cuts did, in fact, do.

It's common sense that taxes are more easily absorbed when there is a good economy. You raise taxes when things are going good. When things are going bad, you take the burden off to help private business and industry stay afloat and get off the ground, and remove a discouraging factor to investment. It's supply and demand - economics 101 - when you make something more expensive, people buy less of it. When you tax an activity, you make it less attractive to engage in that activity.

That's the motivation behind things like cigarette taxes. Raise the cigarette tax to make it more costly to smoke, and reduce the amount of smoking, subject to the the elasticity. Why in the world would you think that concept would change when you tax other things?

[Svartalf]

I don't know if it really helped the economy that much, since everything still came crashing down when the real estate bubble, toxic bonds and Madoff ripoff came to light, but a state trying to conduct massive operations like a two front war, AND cutting taxes is seriously like a surgeon cutting off his best hand just before a delicate operation.

Oh, and saying that cutting taxes makes the economy better able to absorb taxes is an oxymoronic statement.

[Martok]

Not if you want to help the economy, which the tax cuts did, in fact, do.

[Rum]

Today, as a direct result of government cuts I had to make a decision as to whether to cut 50K off a particular budget for schools or make someone redundant.

Either way I get shit thrown at me, cos I meet with reps from schools who will rip into me if I do cut their budgets and the person who would be redundant works for me.

I decided to take the flak off the schools. The bastards. People are more important than budgets and I can take the flak.

Real life.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not if you want to help the economy, which the tax cuts did, in fact, do.

Dude, nobody disputes that the economy improved at that time.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know if it really helped the economy that much,

'It did at the time.

Oh, and saying that cutting taxes makes the economy better able to absorb taxes is an oxymoronic statement.

No it isn't. When the economy is good, the economy is better able to absorb taxes. When it is a horrible economy, there is less money to pay higher taxes.

[drl2]

Not if you want to help the economy, which the tax cuts did, in fact, do.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... ever-mind/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... mythology/

[drl2]

Dude, nobody disputes that the economy improved at that time.

Only for certain values of "nobody" which include "lots of people". Certainly the stock market was high, banks were raking in dollars (on paper), and home sales (and prices) were skyrocketing... but it was all illusionary, hidden behind lax regulation and propaganda. And while these bubbles were priming to burst, and those who cried foul were mocked, job creation was negligible, to the point where the WSJ - hardly a bastion of liberal economics - said the tax-cutting Bush administration had "The Worst Track Record On Record" for job creation.

[Martok]

Dude, nobody disputes that the economy improved at that time.

Only for certain values of "nobody" which include "lots of people". Certainly the stock market was high, banks were raking in dollars (on paper), and home sales (and prices) were skyrocketing... but it was all illusionary, hidden behind lax regulation and propaganda. And while these bubbles were priming to burst, and those who cried foul were mocked, job creation was negligible, to the point where the WSJ - hardly a bastion of liberal economics - said the tax-cutting Bush administration had "The Worst Track Record On Record" for job creation.

Under Bush 3 million jobs were created.

Under Clinton 23 million jobs were created.

[Robert_S]

I'm scared to look at the news, can anyone tell me if they've decided that letting housing costs drop to more reasonable levels might be a good thing yet? Has anyone in the mainstream news even started equating the "housing market" with it being really expensive to just get by?

I'm just sayin... if people aren't spending so much of their income on their mortgages, then maybe they'll have some surplus to spend (job creation) or save (stability).

It seems obvious to me, and it seemed all through the "Bush Boom" that raising the cost of merely living indoors might not be the greatest way to get and maintain this prosperity thing we seem to like.