GolfHos

...)

soooo... with most of the classic leading indicators of recession (and likely worse: stagflation)  trickling in (ermm, pardon that pun) ...   


1: how much of an issue will this be during the election.  (aka what will be invented to distract discussion away from it.. and who will still stand up and talk about it)


and with the national debt currently only about 1 year away from hitting the allowed ceiling...

2: what can really be done anyways?  deficit spending can barely even be increased.  will we really re-ceiling to a ratio greater than 1:1 with GDP ?  what would be the point and what would be the consequences ?


3: how long will OPEC endure this before deciding to ditch the U$D and switch to  the euro as default currency for petroleum trading ?   would this finally wake up the general population ?

4:  :sad3:

Inflation and a weak dollar are concerns, but the economy isn't 'that' bad.  Then again, perception can outrank reality and the press can report our way into a recession  [sm_devil].  I'm not saying a recession isn't in our future (wait long enough and it always happens), but Its its not a forgone conclusion at this time.

But that doesn't mean election cycle spin will not make it sound bad and great all at the same time.  There is NOTHING that will prevent Dems from painting an apocalyptic picture, and the Repubs from painting a rosy one.  And they're both going to be wrong.  Nature of the biz/beast.

National debt ceiling = farce.  Its ALWAYS increased after being held hostage by one party or the other for far too long (i.e., when the repubs locked down the g'ment under Gingrich - idiots).  Reason is - the ceiling doesn't keep pace with our ability to shoulder the debt.  Inflation and rising tax receipts allow us to spend more - but 1:1 would be irresponsible at this time (just because we can doesn't mean we should), I'd keep it under 75% myself (currently about 65%) but would like to see it less by reducing/eliminating our Iraq expenditures  ::) [sm_devil]

Do not repeal the tax cuts though (like more Dems want to you think is necessary) - that would be a mistake.  Want a real problem?  Take our currently slowing (but far from receding) economy and raise taxes - then see what happens.  You may get your recession.  Which is why its probably good strategy for the Dems to predict it  [sm_devil] :D  (oops, did I say that aloud in the company of liberals?  Yep - yep I did  ;) )

Nature of the beast being that the opposing party of the incumbent President generally tries to paint a negative picture while the party of the incumbent President does the opposite, right? You don't mean that Dems are naturally inclined to ALWAYS paint a negative picture and that Repugs are naturally inclined to ALWAYS paint a positive one, do you?

The former - I only phrased it that way because the Republicans are the current incumbents.

well here's the solution for sure.  more borrow and spend against the future.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/09/news/economy/stimulus_pkg_advances/index.htm?postversion=2008010912

regarding tax cuts / inflation.   isn't the most hard-hit the middle class?  why not cut their taxes (every cent not taxed is certainly going to be spent. these people have no $ to save as it is anyways) and offset by raising a bit* on the true upper upper class, who spend less than a penny on the dollar made anyways. 



ps, i'd argue anywhere there's a walmart opening with 400 jobs and 8000 applicants, i'd argue you're at least locally/regionally in a recession.   those "jobs" should not be a step up for that many people.


pps, based on current  estimates i've read (would be happy to see other sources,  the  ratio of  debt:gdp  is far closer to  70% than 65%)

 

well, all of this i can certainly agree on

Is this accurate?  How many people does that describe?  If you taxed them at 80% even how much revenue would it generate?

I like the way you think aske (says a middle class tax payer)

Is that including the funds thrown at investments, or are you talking just consumer spending?

consumer spending.  the 800lb gorilla  of the recession, so to speak

who gives a *fudge*-all if these golden parachute and old money *bunghole*s     have a year or two where their hand me down inheritance funds only  match inflation .     omg.    waah.     the dilution of the $ and the expansion of the $ supply have largely benefitted them already at the expense of the bottom 99% anyways

of course i'm exaggerating some what for effect, but there's a ton of them, and that old cliche about the top 10% paying 90% has been bantied about for many many years. 

no idea how accurate this page is ...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

Fair enough... sorta.  ;)

I can tell you as a former small (very small) business owner, there's are huge disincentives in the current tax structure.  When working overtime results in a significantly diminishing return something is wrong.  Obviously I'm not talking about Richie Rich here.  I'm talking about guys who are pushing hard to get in six-figure incomes and in doing so are taking all the risks (bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc.)  I think we're referred to as upper middle class.  Whatever.  When you get a $10K check for busting your ass and have to withhold 50% or so for fed/state income, self-employment, FICA, Medicare, whatever the hell else you start to think about the late nights and Saturdays and ask if it is worth it.  I'm sure there are those who will cry 'whhhaaaaahhhh' at our plight but that's immaterial.  What matters is that I never hired anyone in ten years and eventually sold out rather than take that next step.  All the economy got out of me was a few extra dollars.  Who knows, with compelling incentives I might be running a 100 man show right now.

fair enough, but I wasn't talking people just transitioning into 6 figures when I mention the 'elite' . hell ... barely really talking people trying to break into 7 figures either for that matter
 :)

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  'Cuz I'll be honest, you may not be talking about that demographic but those guys stumping in South Carolina right now are/do.

Ah.  Professional athletes.

Well, the lower class is usually hit the worst during inflation.  Its candidates pleading for your votes that claim its the middle class.  But thats no nevermind - it hurts folk either way.

But I need more details - what income level is upper upper?  What is a bit*?  What cut does what income level get?  I'm aware of the need for some redistribution of wealth, but be careful - its not easy to find the right formula.


ps - anecdotal evidence is misleading - exceedingly small sample size, etc.

pps - when I take 9.2B in debt and divide it by 14.1B in GDP I get 65%.  You have different numbers?

i had 13.6 for the gdp

Ah - that was Q3 of last year.

I just got the following added to next year's SAT exams:

True or false: rick is to national debt worryworts what blader is to lying creationists

Must be true, as I just couldn't help myself a moment ago on another site.

Keep on raging, my man, it colors life!