Even more pitiful economic numbers released. Obama built that

Do you consider government regulations whereby a product's and/or service's price are increased to comply with the regulation to be a form of 'tax'?

 

Dow is up 60% since obama's inauguration day. So in that time period investors have done pretty well.

 

Almost all of those gains are attributable to the actions of central banks, loose money supply and low interest rates.

Obama's policies of higher taxes, massive regulations, and increased litigation certainly haven't helped at all. Just think how well this economy would be doing if we had a President who 'got it'.

The economy under Romney would be thriving.

 

Comedy GOLD!

 

No, a tax is a tax.

 

Seems rather narrowly defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax
To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. Taxes are also imposed by many administrative divisions. Taxes consist of direct tax or indirect tax, and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent (often but not always unpaid labour).
A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]

 

Yes so pitiful the job numbers that the stock market broke out in happiness today to a 3 month high on the hopes that the U.S. economy is stronger and more resilient than expected.

 

smh.... mark just now realizes Obama and the Dems have no clue how to fix the economy.

 

teej, again, I'm having a hard time remembering what the Dow was at on the day Bush left office. Can you help a brotha out?

Also, how many jobs per month was the U.S. economy hemorrhaging at the end of President "got it's" term?


Perhaps we can safely disregard your economic pearls of wisdom.

 

That whole Rice education, wasted.

 

I noticed you didn't deny the premise, just attacked me.

Try harder

 

They have plenty of ideas. Just that Repubs won't let them do any of them least that make Dems popular.

 

a lot of people joined an overheated debt fueled economy and now they are dropping out.

 

Well at least you are finally acknowledging the quote didn't come from the president.

Baby steps

Off to the country home for the weekend! Later chaps!

 

Economies are cyclical at best. The unsustainable, hyper cash creation of the dot com boom replaced by the loose credit real estate boom and massive deficit spending may have created a false image of what our standard of living and employment levels should be. This might be the new standard. It might not be 'fixable' in that there aren't any irrational booms on the horizon to make us feel rich.

If it's time to man the lifeboats, the 1% want on first.

 

If only Obama would run on your platform

Obama: 'I have no ****ing clue what I'm doing in regards to the economy, but I doubt anyone else does either'

That would get out the vote.

I don't think the Republicans are primarily responsible for the state of the economy. Happy?

Also I attacked Obama and the Dems as well, not just you.

 

Honestly, the debt deleveraging just has to be helped along with loose monetary and fiscal policy, and then you wait it out. Considering the extent of the damage, the fact that the recovery is at least happening, is impressive.

Now, if you have a president like Romney who wants to pull a Cameron...good luck with that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...th-in-2012-inconceivable-warn-economists.html

 

I doubt anybody, much less a political candidate would publicly speculate on a new Dark Ages, a time when the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than the one before it. But I'm not running for anything. I have merely been an observer (and beneficiary) of a system that actively promotes unsustainable economic booms in order to gain political power and enrich the power brokers.

I just don't see a possibility for the next big 'scheme'. And, I see that globalization applies it's 'mean' to all the working class around the planet, diluting the pockets of wealth and distributing it over the global masses.

The antidote I think, is education, infrastructure and innovation but the trend is a waning support for these at a the federal level, and that should be the focus in discussions of economic numbers, job levels and the security of American Society