{OT:} Economic Indicators down for last quarter

Economists blame increase in fuel prices.

Check CNN.

Reply to
Hachiroku
Loading thread data ...

Now Hachi, why would I want to watch the Clinton News Network?

And what happened to the DemonCraps campaign promise to lower fuel prices? I want their feet held to the fire on this lie. They've been lying to get elected for 37 years, then conveniently 'forgetting' the lies they told to get elected. (Of course some Republicans have been more than guilty of the same thing.)

I didn't think Romney's the answer, either.

(Old rehash from old campaign: If Clinton's the Answer, it must have been a Stupid Question.)

(Another one: Clinton didn't inhale, the American Voters did.)

Charles of Schaumburg

Reply to
n5hsr

You believed it?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

LOL! I was watching Glenn Beck interviewing Al Sharpton and this little factiod scrolled across the bottom!! ;)

Reply to
Hachiroku

I'm not a real Glenn Beck fan...my leaning is to Neil Boortz.

Did you see Glenn's Global Warming special?

Reply to
Scott in Florida

The index of leading economic indicators isn't considered a reliable predictor until it points in the same direction for three months in a row.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Well, that's interesting. I missed the first showing. So, I figured I'd catch the second one.

There *WAS* no second one. There was something about Migraines.

Beck explained it on his radio show the next day. The cable providers

*HAVE* to show the first showing of his show by contract. Now, my cable provider always shows all showings of the Beck sow. *EXCEPT* for that one. And from the calls, I guess my provider wasn't the only one that snipped the second showing.... GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!! I WAS PISSED!!!!!!!!!

I DON'T LIKE BEING DICTATED TO!

Reply to
Hachiroku

You won't see this on CNN or elsewhere in the liberal media. Even during time of war, the income to the federal treasury has been higher than federal expenditures, and the highest than any time in the HISTORY of the country, for the past THREE quarters as a result of the tax rate reductions, for all Americans, passed under President Bush. LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

What?? I thought you said you were married?

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

But the Democrats want to raise taxes. Not to raise income but to CONTROL. And they wonder why I call them Communist?

Charles of Schaumburg

Reply to
n5hsr

But it's usually the first phase. The others soon follow. And housing has been down for a couple quarters now.

Reply to
Hachiroku

LOL! I were...I mean, I *WAS*!

Like I said, I don't like being dictated to!

My first wife, the Chinese girl and my Mom are still close. My wife came up last weekend and took my Mom out for the day. The next day, I told my Mom, "Every time I look at her, I wonder why I divorced her...

And every time she open her mouth, I remember!!!"

Reply to
Hachiroku

Down for a couple quarters? Down from where and what? ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

They're either positive or negative, and if they're negative for three months in a row, the economy will most likely soon go into recession.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Wow our friend Joe knows more than former Fed Chairman, Allen Greenspan. He says the economy is doing great. Nearly every part is at historical record levels. GNP is the highest in history. The unemployment rate is at an historical low. Millions of good paying jobs are going unfilled because of lack of skilled workers. Trained people can almost name the salary and benefits they want. For the first time, in the history of the county, in time of war, the US treasury is taking in MORE than it is spending! Because of the recent tax rate cuts for ALL Americans, income to the federal treasury is the highest in the history of the country, even though

49% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes and 36% receive a tax rebate greater than the amount that was withheld, according the IRS site. LOL

Guys like our friend Joe wonder why we call them lefty kooks, just read what the post in the NGs

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

It's rare that the GDP (GNP is archaic) hasn't been at a record high level as time has advanced, thanks to all the welfare and pension spending, said former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who knows more than Greenspan does.

But 4.5% isn't _the_ historic low, as this table from the US Labor Dept. shows:

formatting link

It was 4.0% in the last year of the Clinton presidency and was under

4=2E0% for a few years in the mid-1960s, both which were periods of increasing median real incomes. Also keep in mind that Nixon was worried about the economy weakening when unemployment reached 4.5% during his first term.

That too has been the case, except when the economy is in recession.

Again false. Look back at 1968, when the government ran a surplus for the year, and in 1991, when there was a budget surplus for about one month because of the money paid to the US by our Gulf War allies. But as with that latter surplus, it's highly, highly unlikely that any current short term surplus will continue.

The actual figure isn't 49% but a lot closer to 35% because of reality, facts, etc. But even 35% may be an overestimate because only those who file are counted, and many lower income W-4 people don't file.

You're giving the false impression that all Americans shared about equally in the tax cuts, but in reality almost all of the tax cut money went to the top 2-5%, and the rest of the people received only pablum.

You were complaining about unfair name calling, yet you've always practiced it yourself. Hypocrite.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

It's rare that the GDP (GNP is archaic) hasn't been at a record high level as time has advanced, thanks to all the welfare and pension spending, said former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who knows more than Greenspan does.

But 4.5% isn't _the_ historic low, as this table from the US Labor Dept. shows:

formatting link

It was 4.0% in the last year of the Clinton presidency and was under

4=2E0% for a few years in the mid-1960s, both which were periods of increasing median real incomes. Also keep in mind that Nixon was worried about the economy weakening when unemployment reached 4.5% during his first term.

That too has almost always been the case, except when the economy has been in recession.

Again false. Look back at 1968, when the government ran a surplus for the year, and in 1991, when there was a budget surplus for about one month because of all the money paid to the US by our Gulf War allies. But as with that latter surplus, it's highly, highly unlikely that any current short term surplus will continue.

You're giving the false impression that all Americans shared about equally in the tax cuts, but in reality almost all of the tax cut money went to the top 2-5%, and the rest of the people received only pablum.

The actual figure isn't anywhere close to 49%. I thought it was about

35%, less if non-filers were included (many lower income people don't file), but for 2005 the Tax Foundation said the rate was around 32%, based on 143 million filings and 43.4 of them showing no income tax liability.

formatting link

You were complaining about unfair name calling, yet you've always practiced it yourself. Hypocrite.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

It was the Republican Congress that forced a balanced budget on Clinton, however a balanced budget has nothing to do with the national debt. Expenditures can be greater than income and still have a balanced budget. What we have now is income far above expenditures but we still have budget that is out of balance. The point is the extra income over the past three quarters, brought on by the tax rate cuts for all Americans is bringing the budget into balance more quickly. That has never happened before it time of war. Of course the richer one is, the higher is their tax rate, so naturally they will get back more dollars. The fact is although those that earn less got fewer dollars back but the got a much large PERCENTAGE of the amount of tax due. Some at the bottom got at least a 50% reduction and those at the very bottom received a 100% reduction and today pay no federal income taxes. Everything I posted is factual. One can verify those facts if one does a search of the IRS site

mike

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Mike Hunter wrote:

Wow our friend Joe knows more than former Fed Chairman, Allen Greenspan. He says the economy is doing great. Nearly every part is at historical record levels. GNP is the highest in history. The unemployment rate is at an historical low. Millions of good paying jobs are going unfilled because of lack of skilled workers. Trained people can almost name the salary and benefits they want. For the first time, in the history of the county, in time of war, the US treasury is taking in MORE than it is spending! Because of the recent tax rate cuts for ALL Americans, income to the federal treasury is the highest in the history of the country, even though

49% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes and 36% receive a tax rebate greater than the amount that was withheld, according the IRS site. LOL

It was 4.0% in the last year of the Clinton presidency and was under

4.0% for a few years in the mid-1960s, both which were periods of increasing median real incomes. Also keep in mind that Nixon was worried about the economy weakening when unemployment reached 4.5% during his first term.

Again false. Look back at 1968, when the government ran a surplus for the year, and in 1991, when there was a budget surplus for about one month because of the money paid to the US by our Gulf War allies. But as with that latter surplus, it's highly, highly unlikely that any current short term surplus will continue.

The actual figure isn't 49% but a lot closer to 35% because of reality, facts, etc. But even 35% may be an overestimate because only those who file are counted, and many lower income W-4 people don't file.

You're giving the false impression that all Americans shared about equally in the tax cuts, but in reality almost all of the tax cut money went to the top 2-5%, and the rest of the people received only pablum.

You were complaining about unfair name calling, yet you've always practiced it yourself. Hypocrite.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.