Page 49 of 64 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 636

Thread: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

  1. #481
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Harry View Post
    You do know gas was higher under Bush, right?
    You do know the housing bubble burst under Bush, right
    You do know the recession began under Bush, right?
    You do know Bush doubled the debt, right?
    To claim the republicans are somehow better than the democrats is ridiculous
    not really.

    1. spending - as per the Constitution - comes from the House. Democrats took over the House in 2007. starting in 2008 is when we began to see our massive deficits. Obama has added more in three years to the debt than Bush did in 8, and if you compare the Democrat House numbers to the Republican House numbers, the stats are even further away than that. Republicans not good, Democrats - much worse.
    2. The housing market absolutely bubbled and burst under Bush's watch. Both Republicans and Democrats encouraged it while it was growing. A minority of Republicans attempted to do something about it, but were effectively shut down. Bush attempted to take action to limit freddie and fannie, but he lost Congress and it was never really his top priority. Both bad, Republicans slightly less worse.
    3. Bush put into place an expansion of drilling which - entertainingly - Obama is now taking credit for. Gas prices under Bush did spike in 2008 to higher than current levels - the difference being that the Obama administration wants them there, and many officials in his administration want them even higher. The easy money policy that we've been pursuing for a couple of years now means that gas prices are unlikely to see the same kind of collapse that they did after the 2008 spike, given that the dollar is rapidly being devalued due to the need for the FED to purchase all the deficit spending that Democrats are engaging in. Republicans sorta good, FED bad, Dems very bad.

    I don't know if I would feel good with the claim Republicans as "better" than Democrats. But I feel I'm standing on pretty rock-solid support when I argue that they are "less-bad".

  2. #482
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Harry View Post
    The trillion dollar deficits began under Bush's '09 budget year. Remember?
    the FY 09 Budget saw two great spurts of spending - both of which were created and pushed by the Democrat-held House, as required by the Constitution. The first was the TARP bail-out much of which has since been repaid. The second was the giant "Stimulus" pork-project, which was 100% Obama and Pelosi's baby. Can't really blame Bush for what they passed in February of '09.

    We shall see how Indiana does in a year or so with it's high unemployment rate.
    that is lower than the unemployment rate the nation is enjoying under it's current president.

    The stimulus was not a disaster. It kept us from falling into a depression worse than the Great One.
    really? people are still claiming this?





    By taking money out of the productive sectors of the economy and pouring it into the unproductive sectors (my personal favorite - millions spent studying robot bees!), the "stimulus" objectively reduced our recovery.

    Which is why our current recovery is so slow compared to the historical average.

    Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed...

    On average, three years after the four deepest previous recessions started, real GDP was 7.6% higher than the pre-recession level. During the Obama recovery, real GDP is up only 0.1%. Forty months after the start of the 1953, 1957, 1973 and 1981 recessions, total employment was on average 4.7% higher than the pre-recession peaks, while total employment today is still down 4.7%—that's a total employment gap of 13.9 million jobs.

    The problem is not just the weak recovery but increasing evidence that the economy is now on a growth path far different from the previous quarter century. Despite the largest monetary and fiscal stimuli in American history, in 2009 the capital stock of the nation actually shrank for the first time in the postwar period...
    cpwill notes: yes, that's one of the things that happens when you destroy productivity and capital by removing money from productive uses and putting it into unproductive ones.

    ...In 1982, unemployment reached 10.8% as the Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy in order to put the brakes on inflation. Conditions were hardly conducive to recovery and yet the strong, sustained recovery that followed is permanently identified in our collective memory as the good old days.

    If we had matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession—that's an extra $16,600 for a family of four—and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs. That's enough jobs to employ 100% of the 13.5 million Americans currently classified as unemployed. In addition, we would have provided jobs for 30% of both the 2.4 million discouraged or marginally attached workers and the 4.8 million who have totally dropped out of the work force since January 2008....
    Last edited by cpwill; 05-12-11 at 12:03 AM.

  3. #483
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    it only "shafts" those who choose to borrow to consume. which I am fine with, as that is dangeorus and stupid behavior that should be discouraged.
    Wrong, this has already been fact checked. The middle class making less than $200,000 will pay more under the so called "fair" tax.

    "Former Reagan Adviser Bruce Bartlett: 23 Percent Figure Is "A Ruse.
    " According to former President Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett in a report for Tax Analysts: "...I think it is reasonable to conclude that the FairTax's emphasis on the 23 percent tax-inclusive rate rather than the 30 percent tax-exclusive rate is a ruse designed solely to increase support for the proposal above what would be the case if it were generally known that the more appropriate rate assumption is 30 percent. This conclusion is reinforced by other deceptions inherent in the FairTax proposal." [Tax Analysts, 12/24/07]


    Fair Tax Levy Is Actually 30 Percent. According to Businessweek:

    "The FairTax is like the sales taxes that many U.S. states charge, though critics contend that the way it is calculated makes it actually a 30 percent levy, not 23 percent. The 23 percent rate is set at a level designed to raise the same amount of revenue as the taxes it would replace. Yet it assumes full compliance. If experience is any guide, that's too optimistic: The current tax code, even with safeguards such as W-2 forms and automatic withholding by employers, leaks roughly $300 billion a year due to avoidance and evasion." [Businessweek, 4/7/11]

    FactCheck.org: 23 Percent Fair Tax Figure Is Equivalent To 30 Percent "On The Actual Price Of The Item.
    " According to an analysis of the 2007 FairTax bill by the nonpartisan FactCheck.org:

    CNN: "On Its Own, A National Sales Tax Would Be Extremely Regressive.
    " According to CNN: "On its own, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive that is, it would tax everyone who spent everything they earned (and that's a lot of us) at 23% of their income, while those who made enough money to set some aside would, in effect, pay a lower overall rate." [CNN, 2/21/08]


    Businessweek: "The Fair Tax Would Weigh Heavier On Lower-Income Households.

    " According to Businessweek: "The FairTax would weigh heavier on lower-income households, because they spend a larger proportion of what they earn. That's why Woodall's proposal calls for a 'prebate,' a monthly advance rebate that covers the cost of the tax up to the federal poverty level. Compared with the current system, the FairTax would be a boon to the highest earners, who spend a relatively low share of their income each year and would no longer have to pay taxes on capital gains." [Businessweek, 4/7/11]

    FactCheck.org: Fair Tax Would 'Make The Tax Code Less Fair.'

    "According to a FactCheck.org analysis of 2007 Fair Tax legislation: "It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair." [FactCheck.org, 5/31/07]

    Under Fair Tax, Workers Currently Paying Less Than 23 Percent Of Income In Taxes Are Worse Off.
    "According to former President Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett in a report for Tax Analysts: "But what if the worker is now paying less than 23 percent of his income in federal taxes? In this case, he is clearly worse off. The prices of the things he buys will rise by more than his income rises from the elimination of income and payroll taxes. Conversely, if one is wealthy and in a tax bracket above 23 percent, that person would be much better off. His income and payroll taxes would fall by much more than the prices of goods and services he consumes would rise." [Tax Analysts, 12/24/07]

    CNN: Under Fair Tax Scenarios, "Burden Of Taxes In Any Given Year Likely Shifts To Lower Earners.
    "According to CNN: "'Fair' is a value judgment, but a lot of people won't think this admittedly lurid scenario sounds fair at all: Let's say a hedge fund manager has a good year and earns $1 billion. If he can somehow manage to scrape by spending, say, $100 million, the other $900 million is tax free. He'll have paid about 2% of his income in taxes that year. If those who can afford to save a large chunk of their income pay less, the burden of taxes in any given year likely shifts to lower earners." [CNN, 2/21/08]
    Problematic And Unfair "Fair Tax" Would Burden Middle Class | Media Matters Action Network
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #484
    Professor
    Dirty Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-01-11 @ 01:48 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,390

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the FY 09 Budget saw two great spurts of spending - both of which were created and pushed by the Democrat-held House, as required by the Constitution. The first was the TARP bail-out much of which has since been repaid. The second was the giant "Stimulus" pork-project, which was 100% Obama and Pelosi's baby. Can't really blame Bush for what they passed in February of '09.



    that is lower than the unemployment rate the nation is enjoying under it's current president.



    really? people are still claiming this?





    By taking money out of the productive sectors of the economy and pouring it into the unproductive sectors (my personal favorite - millions spent studying robot bees!), the "stimulus" objectively reduced our recovery.

    Which is why our current recovery is so slow compared to the historical average.



    cpwill notes: yes, that's one of the things that happens when you destroy productivity and capital by removing money from productive uses and putting it into unproductive ones.
    The soaring deficits were mostly caused by the drop in revenue created by Bush's recession. You totally ignore that fact. Without stimulus, Bernanke would have been right. The country would have fallen into another great depression. There was a reason stimulus was needed. Bush had destroyed the economy. Remember it all came crashing down as Bush was exiting the Whitehouse.

  5. #485
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Probably why we shouldn't have sit around for the last 40 years with our oiled thumbs up our butts than, huh?




    It wasn't my plan. I voted for the guy who had an energy plan 30 years ago that would have prevented, or lessened the energy crisis we face now of our own making.
    You mean the guy that said lower your thermostats and put on a sweater?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #486
    Professor
    Dirty Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-01-11 @ 01:48 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,390

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You mean the guy that said lower your thermostats and put on a sweater?
    He said a little more than that. You guys really should do some research so not to look like fools.
    Carters plan:
    That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

    The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

    The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

    The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

    The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

    The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

    The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

    The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

    The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

    The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

    The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

    These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

    Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

    These are the goals we set for 1985:
    Carters policies started to work so well Reagan scrapped them because oil company profits were dropping. Even simple things like lowering thermostats can save 5 to 10% in heating costs. That's adds up. It's not really funny, now is it?

    If we had followed Carters policies we would be energy independent right now. Thank Reagan for screwing things up, once again.
    Last edited by Dirty Harry; 05-12-11 at 10:20 AM.

  7. #487
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Wrong, this has already been fact checked. The middle class making less than $200,000 will pay more under the so called "fair" tax.

    "Former Reagan Adviser Bruce Bartlett: 23 Percent Figure Is "A Ruse.
    " According to former President Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett in a report for Tax Analysts: "...I think it is reasonable to conclude that the FairTax's emphasis on the 23 percent tax-inclusive rate rather than the 30 percent tax-exclusive rate is a ruse designed solely to increase support for the proposal above what would be the case if it were generally known that the more appropriate rate assumption is 30 percent. This conclusion is reinforced by other deceptions inherent in the FairTax proposal." [Tax Analysts, 12/24/07]


    Fair Tax Levy Is Actually 30 Percent. According to Businessweek:
    "The FairTax is like the sales taxes that many U.S. states charge, though critics contend that the way it is calculated makes it actually a 30 percent levy, not 23 percent. The 23 percent rate is set at a level designed to raise the same amount of revenue as the taxes it would replace. Yet it assumes full compliance. If experience is any guide, that's too optimistic: The current tax code, even with safeguards such as W-2 forms and automatic withholding by employers, leaks roughly $300 billion a year due to avoidance and evasion." [Businessweek, 4/7/11]

    FactCheck.org: 23 Percent Fair Tax Figure Is Equivalent To 30 Percent "On The Actual Price Of The Item.
    " According to an analysis of the 2007 FairTax bill by the nonpartisan FactCheck.org:

    CNN: "On Its Own, A National Sales Tax Would Be Extremely Regressive.
    " According to CNN: "On its own, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive that is, it would tax everyone who spent everything they earned (and that's a lot of us) at 23% of their income, while those who made enough money to set some aside would, in effect, pay a lower overall rate." [CNN, 2/21/08]


    Businessweek: "The Fair Tax Would Weigh Heavier On Lower-Income Households.
    " According to Businessweek: "The FairTax would weigh heavier on lower-income households, because they spend a larger proportion of what they earn. That's why Woodall's proposal calls for a 'prebate,' a monthly advance rebate that covers the cost of the tax up to the federal poverty level. Compared with the current system, the FairTax would be a boon to the highest earners, who spend a relatively low share of their income each year and would no longer have to pay taxes on capital gains." [Businessweek, 4/7/11]

    FactCheck.org: Fair Tax Would 'Make The Tax Code Less Fair.'
    "According to a FactCheck.org analysis of 2007 Fair Tax legislation: "It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair." [FactCheck.org, 5/31/07]

    Under Fair Tax, Workers Currently Paying Less Than 23 Percent Of Income In Taxes Are Worse Off.
    "According to former President Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett in a report for Tax Analysts: "But what if the worker is now paying less than 23 percent of his income in federal taxes? In this case, he is clearly worse off. The prices of the things he buys will rise by more than his income rises from the elimination of income and payroll taxes. Conversely, if one is wealthy and in a tax bracket above 23 percent, that person would be much better off. His income and payroll taxes would fall by much more than the prices of goods and services he consumes would rise." [Tax Analysts, 12/24/07]

    CNN: Under Fair Tax Scenarios, "Burden Of Taxes In Any Given Year Likely Shifts To Lower Earners.
    "According to CNN: "'Fair' is a value judgment, but a lot of people won't think this admittedly lurid scenario sounds fair at all: Let's say a hedge fund manager has a good year and earns $1 billion. If he can somehow manage to scrape by spending, say, $100 million, the other $900 million is tax free. He'll have paid about 2% of his income in taxes that year. If those who can afford to save a large chunk of their income pay less, the burden of taxes in any given year likely shifts to lower earners." [CNN, 2/21/08]
    Problematic And Unfair "Fair Tax" Would Burden Middle Class | Media Matters Action Network
    Bruce Bartlett, the same guy that bashed Bush for not following Reaganomics; and then bashing Reaganomics as being wrong for the times?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #488
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    vote obama, 2012!

    jimmy carter had it right!

    reagan screwed it up!

    LOL!

    seeya at the polls, pals

  9. #489
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Harry View Post
    The stimulus was not a disaster.
    Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

  10. #490
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Harry View Post
    To claim the republicans are somehow better than the democrats is ridiculous
    american voters overwhelmingly disagree

    tsunami tuesday---most house seats since 1938, most state reps and assemblies in history, 10 gubs, 6 senators...

    seeya at the polls, pal

Page 49 of 64 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •