kind of funny, probably the only person on earth that would even attempt to describe the Carter years as economically prosperous ones ... Today, the job market is SUPER-FANTASTIC, ask any college-grad worth their salt. I actually took undergrad economics courses with one of Carter's top economic advisors while he was in the white-house. (I have a BS in Math/Econ) The only thing he really said specifically about Carter's economic track record, (wasn't part of the scope of the courses), was "You don't want to be president during an OPEC oil embargo"... During that time the price of goods had a much higher fuel component. Energy costs have been declining as a percentage of production costs, so it hasn't yet had such an impact. Not yet anyways ...
"Bush made a big deal of the estimated budget deficit being reduced from roughly $400 billion to about $300 billion in 2006. Now how did this occur? The Homeland Investment Act, H.R. 767, and The Invest in America Act, S. 596, reduced for one year the tax rate on foreign earnings gained by American companies to 5.25 percent. Before that, U.S. firms operating overseas paid a 35 percent tax, minus any taxes theyâve paid abroad, when they bring foreign earned income back to the U.S. This one-time repatriation of foreign earnings provided an added $50 billion in revenue for the government. Then there was the damage created by the AMT (alternative minimum tax). That generated an addiitonal $25 billion. In sum, the Bush policies created greater tax burdens for those on Main Street, and this helped to widen the gap between the haves and havenots. The revenue growth is not expected to continue, according to the OMB, which forecast a 2.4 increase in receipts next year. You can be certain that the growth in government spending will continue and the deficit will only get larger in 2007. By that time, Bush will ask for another increase in the debt limit." - from Mel Dukes blog. They took in a pant load from RE cap gains too I say. My hat is off to anyone that cashed out of spec/second home/etc. RE in 2005 -- great trade!
How does the Homeland Investment Act hurt Joe Schmoe? I don't even think you can make a strong defense for saying that the AMT has affected lower income levels. Theories aside, do you have proof that the AMT has affected even 5% of the lower class. I know you didn't write this, but you posted it which leads me to believe that you agree with it.
Man, lay off President Carter! He had the dinstinct honor of presiding over the fallout from a freed up dollar that crashed in his face, arab oil embargoes, and Nixon's overheated printing presses, etc. Don't forget he appointed Paul Volker. And would have saved us approximately a Trillion dollars by not building the B-1 Bomber or the Sgt. York. Guess what we still rely on 26 years later for heavy bombing runs? if you guessed B-52 then you just won. Jimmy said the B-1 was a waste and it was. Also, have you seen any Sgt. Yorks running around lately?
Me? AMT? I don't have any proof and don't care about it. Awful hard for me to imagine it affecting lower class in any meaningful way though. What I say is the run up in tax receipts is real estate capital gains and receipts from corporate amnesty to repatriate foreign earnings. Neither is going to happen again. Most people aren't listening to Bush anymore other than what remains of his core constituency. Most Americans just want the Bushies to go away is how I read the poll numbers. The question this fall though, is whether people fed up with Iraq, energy prices, and the immigrant mess go out and vote against incumbents.
Look at you idiot right wing ass lickers! You fall for this incredible manipulated spin. You are STUPID! bt "Conservatives are ass-kissers by definition." E. Abbey.
The repatriation of foreign assets may not happen again, but the real estate capital gains certainly can. You can disagree with that all day long, but only time will tell. Most Americans I would say don't understand economics in even a basic sense. They hear numbers without understanding the larger picture of why they exist. Bush, the Senate, and the House need to cut spending in order for us to get back on track. Even though the House and Senate have Republican majorities, we all know that both sides have a problem with wanting to create their own pet spending projects to validate there positions to their constituencies. Until politicians from both sides understand that tax payer dollars are not their personal piggy bank, nothing will change.
I would say an idiot is someone who never contributes anything with even an inkling of intelligence to it. By the way, I am surprised that you were able to get your tongue out of Castro's ass long enough to type this.
US 'could be going bankrupt' By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor (Filed: 14/07/2006) The United States is heading for bankruptcy, according to an extraordinary paper published by one of the key members of the country's central bank. A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve. Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. "To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors," he asked. According to his central analysis, "the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds''. The budget deficit in the US is not massive. The Bush administration this week cut its forecasts for the fiscal shortfall this year by almost a third, saying it will come in at 2.3pc of gross domestic product. This is smaller than most European countries - including the UK - which have deficits north of 3pc of GDP. Prof Kotlikoff, who teaches at Boston University, says: "The proper way to consider a country's solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy. "Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke." Experts have calculated that the country's long-term "fiscal gap" between all future government spending and all future receipts will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars. The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters. The figure is massive because President George W Bush has made major tax cuts in recent years, and because the bill for Medicare, which provides health insurance for the elderly, and Medicaid, which does likewise for the poor, will increase greatly due to demographics. Prof Kotlikoff said: "This figure is more than five times US GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143pc." The scenario has serious implications for the dollar. If investors lose confidence in the US's future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds. Prof Kotlikoff said: "The United States has experienced high rates of inflation in the past and appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century." Paul Ashworth, of Capital Economics, was more sanguine about the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. "For a start, the expected deterioration in the Federal budget owes more to rising per capita spending on health care than to changing demographics," he said. "This can be contained if the political will is there. Similarly, the expected increase in social security spending can be controlled by reducing the growth rate of benefits. Expecting a fix now is probably asking too much of short-sighted politicians who have no incentives to do so. But a fix, or at least a succession of patches, will come when the problem becomes more pressing." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/ma...nuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/14/ixcity.html