adjusted GDP 1.1%

[SWIL]

Just print more $$$ - everything will be fiiiiine. Print baby, print!

 

[LouderVol]

With as much construction and etc going on in Nashville I can't help but think it's going to crash and burn at some point.

If it does it will be nasty

Atlanta is the same way. I don't know if it will be as bad this time with most of the construction being rental vs owned. but its hard to not see another downfall coming in the construction biz. money flowing a little too well right now and it isn't reflected elsewhere imo.

 

[1972 Grad]

Taxing our way to prosperity? How is that happening with tax rates at historic lows? If the Treasury is getting fat it is because there's plenty of money out there not because taxes are high.

Also business overall is not in a period of low growth. The stock marked reflects that. Unfortunately that's not true for small businesses and that's a problem.

The stock market is doing well due to a number of factors. The big one is the Fed keeping interest rates low, and purchasing bonds and mortgage backed securities, which has driven bond yields down, which drives a search for more yield. Thus, money is driven to riskier investments like the stock market.

Corporate profits are also up due low interest rates, which has led to corporations being able to refinance their debt, which increases their profit levels. Consumers have also refinanced their debt, thereby freeing up cash for other purchases. Corporations are also more profitable as employees' wages has dropped as a percentage of total income.

The Fed also was instrumental in bailing out AIG, and guaranteeing the commercial paper market, and money market funds.

The stock market is the only game in town right now.

 

[TheDeeble]

True or false: Under each of the Republicans in the last 50 years, the deficit has gone up, which by definition increases the debt.

True or false. The debt hasnt gone down under either party since the 50s.

Even if you decrease the budget deficit, the debt still goes up if you still run a budget deficit. Spending half a trillion dollars you don't have instead of 750 billion dollars you dont have increases it all the same.

 

[volinbham]

There's a ton of cash sitting on the sidelines. Corporations aren't afraid to invest because of regulation or taxes -- that is a complete myth. They are not investing because they don't see the level of consistency in the economic recovery they need to see to figure it is worth the risk.

Guess Gov Cuomo bought into the myth with his StartUP NY plan - their entire economic development plan is based on lowering taxes and regulation.

 

[volinbham]

Also business overall is not in a period of low growth. The stock marked reflects that. Unfortunately that's not true for small businesses and that's a problem.

It absolutely is in a period of low growth. Not sure how you can argue otherwise.

 

[1972 Grad]

Guess Gov Cuomo bought into the myth with his StartUP NY plan - their entire economic development plan is based on lowering taxes and regulation.

Wasn't that just for 10 years?

 

[lawgator1]

Guess Gov Cuomo bought into the myth with his StartUP NY plan - their entire economic development plan is based on lowering taxes and regulation.

I'm not saying you won't have states and localities trying to lure in new businesses with incentives.

That in turn does not mean that every decision, or even most decisions, by a company to keep the cash in its coffers rather than build a new facility is because of tax or regulation concerns.

 

[volinbham]

True or false: Under each of the Republicans in the last 50 years, the deficit has gone up, which by definition increases the debt.

True or false, the debt has gone up under every Dem president in the last 50 years?

True or false, the deficits under Obama went up considerably before the came down to still high levels?

As evidence - true or false the national debt doubled under Obama? Hard to claim he's making big progress on the deficit when under him we've added as much debt as all other administrations combined.

True or false, the Sequester has had a major impact on lowering the deficit since enacted.

Bottomline it's silly to point to either party as fiscally conservative when it comes to Federal spending and the debt

 

[volinbham]

I'm not saying you won't have states and localities trying to lure in new businesses with incentives.

That in turn does not mean that every decision, or even most decisions, by a company to keep the cash in its coffers rather than build a new facility is because of tax or regulation concerns.

That's a quite different statement then calling it a myth.

Taxation considerations and regulations most definitely are key components in expansion decisions.

 

[southgatevol]

True or false, the debt has gone up under every Dem president in the last 50 years?

True or false, the deficits under Obama went up considerably before the came down to still high levels?

As evidence - true or false the national debt doubled under Obama? Hard to claim he's making big progress on the deficit when under him we've added as much debt as all other administrations combined.

True or false, the Sequester has had a major impact on lowering the deficit since enacted.

Bottomline it's silly to point to either party as fiscally conservative when it comes to Federal spending and the debt

If answered honestly, too many truths in one post.

 

[lawgator1]

True or false, the debt has gone up under every Dem president in the last 50 years?

The debt has gone up under all presidents in the last 50 years. It has gone up slower under Obama and Clinton than with their predecessors due to lower deficits.

True or false, the deficits under Obama went up considerably before the came down to still high levels?

Due to the bailouts and spending necessary to prevent economic collapse as the Bush administration wound down.

As evidence - true or false the national debt doubled under Obama? Hard to claim he's making big progress on the deficit when under him we've added as much debt as all other administrations combined.

False. Plus Reagan TRIPLED the debt. Both Bushes added much more to the debt, percentage-wise, than did Obama.

True or false, the Sequester has had a major impact on lowering the deficit since enacted.

Its had some effect, in some places.

Bottomline it's silly to point to either party as fiscally conservative when it comes to Federal spending and the debt

True, but the GOP has been far worse.

 

[volinbham]

How on earth can you claim the debt has gone up slower under Obama than all others? It will double under him.

Due to bailouts? How convenient. Bush had to do bailouts from the crash of 2000/2001. Reagan had to do bailouts from the disaster from the Carter era. You can't cherry pick like that.

The Sequester only had some effect? What on earth would you attribute this "reduction" in deficits to? It certainly hasn't been roaring growth so it has to be slowing in spending.

GOP has been worse - laughable. It's a fools game to try to put this on one party or another.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I don't what is going on everywhere else, but the economy is fine here. Building is booming. No real estate inventory (Sellers market). It's all looking good.

I heard some real estate people on the radio talking about how Orlando doesn't have enough homes for sale. But its not that there aren't enough homes, its enough quality homes. Still lots of foreclosures. But after listening to him I did some research on my lil plot of land and I could probably unload it and walk away with 70K after all is said and done.



But then I'd have to spend that 70K to get my new mini mansion.

 

[Obsessed]

Lmao

 

[jackaro]

True or false, the debt has gone up under every Dem president in the last 50 years?

True or false, the deficits under Obama went up considerably before the came down to still high levels?

As evidence - true or false the national debt doubled under Obama? Hard to claim he's making big progress on the deficit when under him we've added as much debt as all other administrations combined.

True or false, the Sequester has had a major impact on lowering the deficit since enacted.

Bottomline it's silly to point to either party as fiscally conservative when it comes to Federal spending and the debt

True, the debt has gone up under every president, dems and republicans

True, with the deficit in 2008 due to a budget passed by the previous congress and previous president (this deficit is due mainly to the bailout of the big banks). It stayed about the same the next year (due to the stimulas package) and went down every year after that.

True, the debt has nearly doubled under Obama.

True, the sequester has been the main reason for the falling deficits. Another part is the expiration of Bush's tax cuts on the top marginal rates. What is funny is that Obama has blamed Congress for the sequester, saying the cuts were not his idea. Romney blamed Obama for the cuts. Seems like neither side wants to take credit for the sequester. Barack Obama says Congress owns sequestration cuts | PolitiFact

Neither party is fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to deficit reduction. Clinton balanced the budget through raising taxes and cutting the millitary budget. Obama lowered deficits through letting the Bush tax cuts expire and sequestration (which he claims was not his idea). Bush 43 was a borrow and spend kind of President, under his watch public debt increased 88% and gross debt increased 70%. Paul Sadler says national debt doubled under George W. Bush | PolitiFact Texas

 

[BeecherVol]

How on earth can you claim the debt has gone up slower under Obama than all others? It will double under him.

Due to bailouts? How convenient. Bush had to do bailouts from the crash of 2000/2001. Reagan had to do bailouts from the disaster from the Carter era. You can't cherry pick like that.

The Sequester only had some effect? What on earth would you attribute this "reduction" in deficits to? It certainly hasn't been roaring growth so it has to be slowing in spending.

GOP has been worse - laughable. It's a fools game to try to put this on one party or another.

Some of that Gore math.

He gets a warm feeling all over just thinking about one being better than the other.

 

[volinbham]

True, the debt has gone up under every president, dems and republicans

True, with the deficit in 2008 due to a budget passed by the previous congress and previous president (this deficit is due mainly to the bailout of the big banks). It stayed about the same the next year (due to the stimulas package) and went down every year after that.

True, the debt has nearly doubled under Obama.

True, the sequester has been the main reason for the falling deficits. Another part is the expiration of Bush's tax cuts on the top marginal rates. What is funny is that Obama has blamed Congress for the sequester, saying the cuts were not his idea. Romney blamed Obama for the cuts. Seems like neither side wants to take credit for the sequester. Barack Obama says Congress owns sequestration cuts | PolitiFact

Neither party is fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to deficit reduction. Clinton balanced the budget through raising taxes and cutting the millitary budget. Obama lowered deficits through letting the Bush tax cuts expire and sequestration (which he claims was not his idea). Bush 43 was a borrow and spend kind of President, under his watch public debt increased 88% and gross debt increased 70%. Paul Sadler says national debt doubled under George W. Bush | PolitiFact Texas

The Sequester should be claimed by both parties and they should be proud of it. Sure it's a clumsy, ridiculous way to attack spending but at least it actually attacked spending.

The only real policy choice made by Obama that significantly impacted the deficit was the reduction in spending associated with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here's the funny part (kinda like the Sequester). We left Iraq because the withdrawal had already been negotiated - that was Obama's rationale for not leaving troops in when he gets pressed on ISIS. So if that's true then W should get credit for stopping that spending since he negotiated the withdrawal from Iraq and Obama just implemented what was already done. Funny how politicians take credit for and distance themselves from the exact same thing depending on the context.

 

[GAVol]

There's a ton of cash sitting on the sidelines. Corporations aren't afraid to invest because of regulation or taxes -- that is a complete myth.

It's not a myth. Regulation especially is hindering this recovery. Dodd-Frank and the CFPB are hammering the banking and lending sectors.

 

[lawgator1]

How on earth can you claim the debt has gone up slower under Obama than all others? It will double under him.

Due to bailouts? How convenient. Bush had to do bailouts from the crash of 2000/2001. Reagan had to do bailouts from the disaster from the Carter era. You can't cherry pick like that.

The Sequester only had some effect? What on earth would you attribute this "reduction" in deficits to? It certainly hasn't been roaring growth so it has to be slowing in spending.

GOP has been worse - laughable. It's a fools game to try to put this on one party or another.

The debt under Reagan went from $934 billion to $2.697 trillion. That's over a 300 % increase.

The debt under Bush I went up over 80 %.

The debt under Bush II went up 110 %.

You were saying?

 

[FLVOL_79]

False. Plus Reagan TRIPLED the debt. Both Bushes added much more to the debt, percentage-wise, than did Obama.

Ah..liberal math.

Watch and learn.

Hillary has 1 seizure. During the summer she gets 2 more seizures. She had an increase of seizures by 200% Oh sweet baby jesus! 200%!! Oh..but wait..its only 3 total seizures.. shes healthy.

Now lets say she had 9,000,000,000 seizures then went up to 17,000,000,000 seizures. Well hells bells SJW's.. thats just an 88% increase! She's ok!..

Which is worse?...

 

[Carl Pickens]

Taxing our way to prosperity? How is that happening with tax rates at historic lows? If the Treasury is getting fat it is because there's plenty of money out there not because taxes are high.

Also business overall is not in a period of low growth. The stock marked reflects that. Unfortunately that's not true for small businesses and that's a problem.

You should ask Huff if you can borrow some of his Economics books

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Don't believe your eyes, believe what we tell you you're seeing. I don't understand how you keep voting for people who do not even attempt to reduce the spending, let alone the giveaways. How do you give money to immigrants when you are spending more than you take in? Its called exactly what Obama has called it himself, a redistribution of wealth. He has decided to increase the national debt to record proportions (take from the rich) and transfer that wealth to the poor. Doesn't even know how its going to be paid back, doesn't care. Its called changing the face of America. Its a huge mess and eventually adults will need to straighten it out.

 

[GAVol]

The debt under Reagan went from $934 billion to $2.697 trillion. That's over a 300 % increase.

The debt under Bush I went up over 80 %.

The debt under Bush II went up 110 %.

You were saying?

Before it's said and done, Obama will increase the debt by roughly the same amount as Bush II. That's not slower.

 

[volinbham]

The debt under Reagan went from $934 billion to $2.697 trillion. That's over a 300 % increase.

The debt under Bush I went up over 80 %.

The debt under Bush II went up 110 %.

You were saying?

So Obama will do more than Bush 1 and about the same as Bush 2

You were saying?