"Apples $5."
Posted on 07/07/2010 7:09:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Good. What do you think the result of the federal government taking over so much of the economy is?
Wait until the Census numbers are released, blue states get more congressional seats and congressional districts are remapped to make sure Conservatives and Republicans can never win. Unemployment numbers have nothing to do with this year's Census. The data collected will be used to crush us once and for all.
Don’t criticize the Dear Leader! Some eggs must be broken if you want to make an omelet.
Look at Mao, he had to starve and kill millions to achieve the communist paradise that is China.
And what about Stalin? A few million dead are a statistic.
Obama hasn’t even started the re-education camps yet, so give him a break.
So suck it up and keep quiet (later we will be able to add “or else”)
People don’t know that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke never had a normal job in his life.
All he did was “analyze” things. And now, being the “expert” in the Great Depression he likes to call himself he blames it on there not being enough credit.
Well guess what. You can’t force banks to lend to people.
So, the only solution that lends itself to Ben’s thinking is for the government to borrow money from the Fed itself, a private for profit bank.
They made a $50B profit last year. Of which 95% (so they say) went to the government. Do you really think the government used that $47.5 B to pay down debt? No way. Who got the other $2.5B? Old European Royal families? No one knows since the Fed cannot be audited. Why? Because not enough Senators and Congressmen supported Ron Paul with his bill to audit the Fed. But why? Who knows, but it’s certainly strange.
I’m just not bullish here. No reason to be. No one is getting a job and no one is buying a house. If there is a small blip up in house prices, I’d expect that to be normal, and then they’ll tank again until they are a “really great deal” at which point you can buy a house that used to cost $300,000 for $100,000.
What we’re actually doing is repeating the very same mistake that Japan made in the 1990’s which caused their lost decade(s).
“He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it” (George Santayana )
Hi, I like your comment. Where do you find the info on the deficit, unemployment rate and DJIA? Thanks. I wanted to share this info. with a democratic acquaintance.
RE: What do you think the result of the federal government taking over so much of the economy is?
Here’s something we can look forward to in answer to your question -— THE GOVERNMENT WILL GET BIGGER IN 2011 IF THINGS DON’T CHANGE IN NOVEMBER.
The top marginal income-tax rate is set to increase on the first day of 2011 to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The phase-out of itemized deductions will lift that, effectively, to 40.8 percent. In 2013, the 3.8 percent Obama health-care tax on investment income will kick in, making the top rate 44.6 percent.
This tax hike will push us into double-dip territory for two reasons.
First, it will hurt small businesses. In fact, it’s already having that effect. While some of the income in the top bracket is wage and salary income of high earners, a big chunk of the money is the profit of small businesses. If you lift the top rate, you depress small-business activity, which in good times is often the engine of job growth.
According to the latest ADP National Employment Report, goods-producing small businesses — those with fewer than 50 employees — have reduced their total payroll employment by about 20,000 jobs each month this year, including in June. (A corresponding rise in jobs at small service businesses is less revealing, since people get haircuts in good times and bad.)
So companies affected most by Obama’s planned tax hike are shrinking, while big businesses — primarily subject to the corporate tax code — have been adding jobs.
Why are small businesses battening down the hatches? In May, the National Federation of Independent Business asked small business owners about the most important problem they face. Twenty-two percent named taxes, up from 19 percent a year earlier. Sales performance was the top worry, cited by 30 percent, unchanged from the prior year.
The other way the tax hike will rekindle the recession is through its treatment of dividends. Absent action by the Democratic majority in Congress, which seems increasingly unlikely, the current 15 percent top tax on dividends will rise to the top income tax rate —39.6 percent in 2011, which, again, will grow to 44.6 percent.
This massive increase will reduce the desirability of equities, significantly harming the stock market, while giving firms a powerful incentive to pay dividends this year, while the rate is lower. Businesses may well focus on paying out cash in the second half of this year — not a terrible thing, but not as helpful to the recovery as spending the money to expand their operations.
If history is a guide, shareholders are unlikely to go on a consumption binge with their dividends — certainly not one big enough to compensate for the drop in business investment, which could well be enough to push growth in gross domestic product into negative territory in the second half of this year.
It is no surprise, given the dramatic changes in taxation and the winding down of stimulus spending just over the horizon, that the U.S. economy is getting weaker. The correct policy response is to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, giving small businesses and shareholders cause for renewed optimism, while enacting spending cuts to preserve budget discipline.
The alternative idea, to tax the economy into oblivion and then try to revive it with more Keynesian spending, is tragically wrong-headed (BUT THEN, THIS IS OBAMA’s PLAN).
As we’ve seen, the small businesses that are necessary to create a lasting recovery will be contracting while government reacts to any new stimulus.
There are two ways to stimulate an economy that is in trouble:
1) with tax cuts or
2) with increased government spending.
Declaring early and resolutely that he would extend the Bush tax cuts would have given Obama a chance to try both.
Instead, Democrats hoped that higher government spending would offset the suffocating prospect of tax increases. It hasn’t worked.
THAT, IS THE LONG WINDED WAY OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
I’ve had it on my wall for quite a while. I believe it’s accurate, although I don’t know if all three data points lined up together at precisely the same time. If you want to confirm, you can google the bits. 2006 and 2007 were pretty good years — although the Democrats and the media treated them as if we were on the verge of collapse.
Here in Ga. boiled peanut vendors have taken the place
of executives selling apples on the street corner.
Although I still think a bunch of Obama look alikes
selling apples at intersections would make a good
photo op before November.
I did some research. Turns out I was a bit off on the deficit —
The Democrats seized control of Congress in 2006, largely on the belief that the economy was in serious trouble.
Kerry and Edwards (and many other Democrats) talked about 2004 being the “worst economy since Hoover”.
The Washington Post (and many other Democrat papers) talked about a :”jobless recovery” in 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50822-2004Jan26?language=printer
But what was the reality?
Budget deficit of $248B in 2006
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2007/el0704.html
US unemployment at 4.6% in 2006
http://www.contactomagazine.com/biznews/unemployment2006.htm
DJIA Peaks at 14,164 on Oct 9 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Stock_Exchange
RE: Here in Ga. boiled peanut vendors have taken the place
of executives selling apples on the street corner.
Executives selling apples on street corners ? Now that’s a sight to behold ! I’d love to see how many apples an ex-company executive can sell versus selling toxic financial products.
Thank you so much! I had googled and found some things but your info was better. I am slowly turning a dem. over to the side of light and right. :)
Really, I bet it wouldn’t take many reps of people
wearing Obama masks, selling apples at intersections
before it would get picked up and go viral, every one
knows that apple stand from the great depression and if
the price was adjusted to today say have a sign,
“Buy an apple, help an out of work Executive. 5 dollars.”
it would really hit home.
"Apples $5."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.