does the liberal media want us to believe it is? I am not an economist. I am a capitalist. I look at areas I can invest and earn a decent return on that investment. For the past decade or so, it has been real estate. We all know how good that sector has been. However it has only been good because, for the most part, other sectors have been equally as good or people could not have been able to invest in real estate to begin with no matter what the interest rates were. Why does the liberal media hate America? <form name="Form1" method="post" action="print.aspx" id="Form1"> <input name="__VIEWSTATE" id="__VIEWSTATE" value="/wEPDwUKLTE2NzAyMzgwNA9kFgICAw9kFgICAQ9kFgICAQ8WAh4 EVGV4dAWTATwhLS0tLS0tIE9BUyBBRCAnTWlkZGxlJyBiZWdpb iAtLS0tLS0+PHNjcmlwdCBMQU5HVUFHRT1KYXZhU2NyaXB0Pg0 KPCEtLQ0KT0FTX0FEKCdNaWRkbGUnKTsNCi8vLS0+DQo8L3Njc mlwdD4NCjwhLS0tLS0tIE9BUyBBRCAnTWlkZGxlJyBlbmQgLS0 tLS0tPmRkZWr2QVFv9ApeDk4zzxE6QYaFTsU=" type="hidden">
<table style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 4px;"> <tbody><tr> <td> <script language="javascript"> var sWinHTML = window.opener.sWinHTML; document.write(sWinHTML); window.print(); </script>The big-bang story of U.S. private business
By Lawrence Kudlow
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland and Belgium.
This is an extraordinary fact, although you may be reading it here first. Most in the mainstream media would rather tout the faults of American capitalism than sing its praises. And of course, the media will almost always discuss supply-side tax cuts in negative terms, such as big budget deficits and static revenue losses. But here's another suppressed fact: Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates, while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.
For those who bother to look, the economic power of lower-tax-rate incentives is once again working its magic. While most reporters obsess about a mild slowdown in housing, the big-bang story is a high-sizzle pick-up in private business investment, which is directly traceable to Bush's tax reform. It was private investment that was hardest hit in the early decade stock market plunge and the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist bombings. So team Bush's wise men correctly targeted investment in order to slash the after-tax cost of capital and rejuvenate investment incentives.
The move paid off. Investors now keep nearly 50 percent more of their after-tax capital returns -- an enormous increase that has resulted in a remarkably profitable and highly productive business sector. While the overall economy has grown by one-fifth since mid-2003, private business investment has expanded by 37 percent.
The dirty little secret here is that record low tax rates on capital are leading to continued job and income gains, as businesses continue to expand.
"But," you might respond, "I thought job gains were soft." Well, the marquis employment report for June may have showed "only" 121,000 new non-farm payroll jobs, below Wall Street expectations. But this leads to another factoid that the mainstream media largely ignores: The household survey of job creation has been booming at a much faster clip than headline corporate payrolls.
When this last happened in 2003-04 (remember the "jobless recovery" election-year rant of Democrats?), it was corporate payrolls that caught up to the more entrepreneurial household survey -- which more accurately records job creation by small-business owner-operators. This is the source of the bulk of American job creation.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, firms with less than 500 employees created 88 percent of the net new jobs in the United States between 1990 and 2003 (the last year for Census Bureau data). During this 14-year period, the share of total jobs created by small businesses was never less than 50 percent and was sometimes double the employment total.
Large corporations are reluctant to hire because it is so expensive to do so. Think health care and pension costs, as well as payroll add-ons for unemployment compensation and worker disability. The modern cost-cutting pressures of globalization also force large firms to take a highly cautious hiring approach.
But newly minted entrepreneurs don't face all these costs -- at least not initially. And that is why the household survey has become so important in the 21st century economy.
Wages are rising today, so we know domestic labor markets must be tightening, not softening. To wit, average hourly compensation has risen to 3.9 percent over the past year, while average weekly earnings have grown to 4.5 percent. In early 2004, these wage measures were only up 1.5 percent.
The June Labor report also revealed a 2.3 percent annual gain in aggregate hours worked -- which is consistent with 3.7 percent real GDP growth and a 6.6 percent gain in wages and salaries. These hefty numbers will bolster consumer spending in the period ahead.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is recognizing the importance of the small-business-driven household survey, and has suggested averaging household jobs with the corporate payroll survey to get a clearer jobs picture. Doing this yields a strong 186,000 new jobs per month over the past year, which is the key reason why the unemployment rate stands at a historically low 4.6 percent rate, with total employment now at a record high 144.5 million.
These data points hardly suggest a slumping economy. Instead, they reveal a low-tax, durable, resilient and flexible American market system that easily shifts from one sector (housing) to another (business investment). It is this American economic dynamism that separates our ongoing prosperity from the overtaxed and overregulated stutter-start stagnation of industrial economies in Western Europe and Japan.
Did someone say prosperity?
</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="1" style="padding-top: 30px;">Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
</td></tr> </tbody></table> </form> [/quote]
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/revenue%20growth.jpg

than the economy is going in the tank. the last big surge was fueled by the creative financing schemes of the banking industry and now that those balloon payments are coming up, or their interest rate is going through the roof there are now sales at loss, people being negatively amortized, etc.....
so no other sectors didn't have to be good. with the rising real estate market folks were trying to get 'in' before they thought they'd never have a chance to. So they over leveraged themselves, and now we are starting to see the first signs of this. The real estate market was alot like the Reagan economy, artificially pumped up like a meth addict with a stolen credit card. Unfortunately the bank and the law has come a callin'.

Youir whole chart is equally silly. Fed revenues are up but Fed expenses have gone up at an exponential rate so we're still at a huge loss. It doesn't hate America, it just doesn't candy coat a turd with one misleading stat. So in 5 years and with considerable growth in the contractors industry (a huge chunk of this 130 billion dollar gain over 6 years, not too impressive) has been in the 600 plus percent growth rates in companies like Halliburton, KBR, etc... which of course you know has been on our grandchildrens nickels

Dagnabbit, tax cuts can not stimulate the economy Steam!!! Only by repressing the most productive members of society can we move forward!!!:D <form name="Form1" method="post" action="print.aspx" id="Form1"> <input name="__VIEWSTATE" id="__VIEWSTATE" value="/wEPDwUKLTE2NzAyMzgwNA9kFgICAw9kFgICAQ9kFgICAQ8WAh4 EVGV4dAWTATwhLS0tLS0tIE9BUyBBRCAnTWlkZGxlJyBiZWdpb iAtLS0tLS0+PHNjcmlwdCBMQU5HVUFHRT1KYXZhU2NyaXB0Pg0 KPCEtLQ0KT0FTX0FEKCdNaWRkbGUnKTsNCi8vLS0+DQo8L3Njc mlwdD4NCjwhLS0tLS0tIE9BUyBBRCAnTWlkZGxlJyBlbmQgLS0 tLS0tPmRkZWr2QVFv9ApeDk4zzxE6QYaFTsU=" type="hidden">
</form>

it's better to stimulate it by giving said wealthy folks our tax dollars directly
130 billion in growth in 5 years next to how many trillion in debt. Boy we'll pay that off in a couple centuries for sure!

it's better to stimulate it by giving said wealthy folks our tax dollars directly
130 billion in growth in 5 years next to how many trillion in debt. Boy we'll pay that off in a couple centuries for sure!

I can't wait till the FY'07 budget figures start coming in and the projections for surplusses probably about '08 start from the CBO. Even with an out of control congress and a veto abhorrant pres. it's going to happen...with perfect timing I might add!!! :cool:

only 293 Billion $'s in the whole instead of 423 Billion $'s! That's like the wife telling you she saved the family over $100 by buying a $423 handbag for only $293!!!!
okay so let's again look at this stat. 2.15 trillion, when Clinton left office if we adjust for inflation to 2005 $'s the figure was at 2.3 trillion which means we are at a net loss of 150 billion.
Clinton at this point (mid 2 term '97) not the 1995 the RTP is spouting adjusted for inflation was 2.09 so about 60 Billion down.
Some subtle differences. Under Clinton Tax revenues went up every year, as the chart shows ain't the case for ole W. Clinton didn't create a corporate WPA project to help get these #'s. Poverty decreased every year under Bill while poverty has increased every year under W.
Now add in the population increase (about 6%) and what we wind up here is another case of 'How to lie with statistics'.

That looks like editorial content-- not news... but then again, as a FOX NEWS fan, you probably cannot tell the difference anymore. ;)

It is easy to manipulate stats... posting a chart of raw federal revenues means absolutely nothing other than they collected more tax now than ever. And touting the number of hours worked increasing? That can simply mean people are working longer or working multiple jobs to get by.

Quick lesson in economics. I work less, earn more, and have more rights as an employee working in Europe than in the US.

Finally, the author is a "moreon" for his misuse of the word "factoid" I submit:
But this leads to another factoid that the mainstream media largely ignores: The household survey of job creation has been booming at a much faster clip than headline corporate payrolls.

I should hope the mainstream media ignores "spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "facts" intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion."

I'm an investor as well, but one doesn't judge the viability of an economy on how well the affluent do or how many receipts the treasury gets. For another picture, here are real wages over time:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/real_earnings.gif

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

For many people heavily invested in the markets, like you and I, it can be deceiving to equate wall street with the economy, but Liberals tend to look at whether the typical American is living better as an indicator. Most research I've seen says that the poverty rate is constant or on the incline.

You're probably making more in EU because you're an American with skills and training they value and cannot readily obtain. Good for you. Maybe we should all look at the economic picture in EU to see who's doing better. I'll bet our economy is much stronger. Wanna take that bet?

Larry Kudlow is an investment analyst and economist. He does give opinions. So yes, that is editorializing. This board is editorial content. Good for you on picking up on that.

Factoid originally meant a wholly spurious "fact" invented to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion and was coined by Norman Mailer (Super Lib) :eek: in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer himself described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper". Mailer created the word by combining the word "fact" and the ending "-oid" to mean "like a fact".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid (http://forums.roadbikereview.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid)

rebutt any of the counterpoints showing your original 'opinion' is nothing more than RTP spin?

You chart says wee need Nixon back in office :eek: The chart I posted was not part of the Kudlow article. I posted it to refute the idea that tax cuts take money out of the treasury. The chart, coupled with the article, supports the idea that money in the hands of THE PEOPLE can do more to stimulate economy than in the hands of the government. Ever think the poverty rate is increasing because we are allowing 'poor people' to cross our borders at an alarming rate? Also, defining the poverty level is a political tool. Our poor do not equal the rest of the Worlds poor. Our poor own homes, drive cars, have cable TV and generally live in far better conditions than the rest of the World's poor.

My reason for posting the Kudlow article was to point out that the lights are still on and the dire predictions of the democrats have again been proven wrong. How could so many people always be so wrong and still get elected?

well it wasn't Nixon, it was all those damn libs in Congress.
the chart when viewed against other data shows
a) tax cuts have not produced more revenue for the govt
b) money in the hands of the people (in your view Really, really rich people) doesn't produce more jobs, hence the constantly rising poverty rate. sorry all those 'poor folks' crossing the border get jobs and since they really don't exist census wise don't make uppart of the rising poverty numbers

our poor own homes? some, fewer since Katrina hit, most rent and live in subsidized housing. you can't draw cross cultural comparisons. compare our poor with the poor of relative economic powers. sure ours are doing bgetter than those in Darfur? this proves nothing.

your chart and article proves only that you can lie with statistics and make a heaping pile of doo doo look good to people that only view it on 'face value'.

well it wasn't Nixon, it was all those damn libs in Congress.
the chart when viewed against other data shows
a) tax cuts have not produced more revenue for the govt
b) money in the hands of the people (in your view Really, really rich people) doesn't produce more jobs, hence the constantly rising poverty rate. sorry all those 'poor folks' crossing the border get jobs and since they really don't exist census wise don't make uppart of the rising poverty numbers

our poor own homes? some, fewer since Katrina hit, most rent and live in subsidized housing. you can't draw cross cultural comparisons. compare our poor with the poor of relative economic powers. sure ours are doing bgetter than those in Darfur? this proves nothing.

your chart and article proves only that you can lie with statistics and make a heaping pile of doo doo look good to people that only view it on 'face value'.

I stand corrected. The sharp increase started when Kennedy cut taxes. How can you argue a fact? The government's receipts are at their highest levels ever. Money in the hands of the people has fostered more private enterprise than ever too. Oh those illegals are counted and were demanded to be counted by the libs in congress. They do get jobs, but as we know many are paid 'off the books' and thus much of their earnings are not counted. Now you don't like relativisms when they don't fit your argument?

are only at their highest if you don't take inflation into account.
second compare money in vs money out, aghain worse than ever.
heck he was cheering about the annual deficit being only 293 billion instead of 423 billion. let's celebrate instead of being the worst deficit ever it is only the 4th worse. (he also holds 1-3)

Now if all this extra money (which as I originally stated) most of which is borrowed form our progeny is doing so much good, why has the poverty levels increased? Why hasn't unemployment dropped radically? Why are more Americans working longer shifts for no O/T?

I'm not arguing for or against Democratic policies. Based on your original posting I might have assumed this was a discussion about economics. I suspect the time-lag between policy enactment and market effect is long enough to make it difficult to assign blame or credit to a sitting President.

When someone claims, as you do, that the economy is good the next question must necessarily be, "good for whom?" The economic policy institute lays out the data pointing to a clear advantage for the wealthy while the poor have stayed pretty much the same:

http://www.epinet.org/datazone/05/avr_pre-tax_inc.pdf

I'll readily cede that the American economy is strong. Worldwide everyone knows the smart money is invested in America. The issue at hand is how to make the blessings of our strong economy of benefit to our community of service workers. We ignore this segment of society at our peril.

Our economic policy is like a farmer who owns 1000 acres. Every year he sells 20 acres to an absentee owner and buys a new car. The car dealer is happy. The farmer feels rich. In 50 years his grandkids work for the absentee owner and don't have squat.

How can a conservative say that the economy is good when we have a huge trade deficit, a huge federal deficit, and a huge social security deficit? We are transfering assets to the Chinese and other foreigners.

When the economy was good we had a positve balance of trade and we were buying assets all over the world.

Steam, you damn liberals spend money you don't have.

the head of halliburton excercised his stock options twice, once after the war started and once right after Katrina. Both times he made 700K plus in a day. His stock has tripled, how could the economy be bad?

and Steam if you put your money where there is money to be made Iassume you bought a boatload of Halliburton, KBR and Oil Stock in 99 or early 2000

the head of halliburton excercised his stock options twice, once after the war started and once right after Katrina. Both times he made 700K plus in a day. His stock has tripled, how could the economy be bad?

and Steam if you put your money where there is money to be made Iassume you bought a boatload of Halliburton, KBR and Oil Stock in 99 or early 2000


economy is not bad....it's not stellar either, but it has shown some increases. The real estate market is hitting hard times right now because builders maxxed out their equity during the low interest boom 4 years ago, now they have tons of spec homes sitting their collecting dust...add to that the absolute STUPIDITY of americans taking out interest-only and ARM's and there exists a small problem. Luckily, this is seeming to involve only a small percentage of home owners. sit down now ATP, I know this is hard, but tax cuts DO stimulate the economy. Large scale, short term. The problem with GW's plan economically was, that the tax cuts were not large enough, nor short term enough to really have the desired effects. The economy is beginning to show signs of life, but it is not due to the tax cuts, it is due to the normal ebb and flow of the american market.

I'm sitting down.
and Clinton raised taxes and upped the minimum wage twice much to the cries of "It will crush the economy" being screamed from the right. It didn't happen. Most succesful time in U.S. History was post WW2 where the rich and corp taxes were high and the middle class got the breaks (which they spent which did stimulate the economy). I know you'd like to argue this but please review the history books.
Reagan's tax cuts mostly helped the wealthy, W's will only help the really,really wealthy. Trickle down has been proven a joke and it's worse the second time around.
W's biggest issue is tax cuts while increasing spending exponentially. Who increases their home expenditures while home income is on the downslide? Someone who winds up broke. His cuts were huge to those who measure their funds in the 100's of millions. He's done a fine job at creating economic dynasties while the rest of the country sits stagnant or slides down. Again most of the stimulus in this economy is on yours,mine and everybody's grandkids. Halliburton's stock tripled on money from us that was unwisely spent and done so without oversight.

I'm sitting down.
and Clinton raised taxes and upped the minimum wage twice much to the cries of "It will crush the economy" being screamed from the right. It didn't happen. Most succesful time in U.S. History was post WW2 where the rich and corp taxes were high and the middle class got the breaks (which they spent which did stimulate the economy). I know you'd like to argue this but please review the history books.
Reagan's tax cuts mostly helped the wealthy, W's will only help the really,really wealthy. Trickle down has been proven a joke and it's worse the second time around.
W's biggest issue is tax cuts while increasing spending exponentially. Who increases their home expenditures while home income is on the downslide? Someone who winds up broke. His cuts were huge to those who measure their funds in the 100's of millions. He's done a fine job at creating economic dynasties while the rest of the country sits stagnant or slides down. Again most of the stimulus in this economy is on yours,mine and everybody's grandkids. Halliburton's stock tripled on money from us that was unwisely spent and done so without oversight.

agree...the really wealthy just hang onto the $$ cuz they already have the big screen TV etc, etc.

showing the lateral movement of $ amongst this crowd. trickles sideways, not down.
You know buying a 190' foot yacht or Falcon doesn't help that many folks

agree...the really wealthy just hang onto the $$ cuz they already have the big screen TV etc, etc.

If you think they aren't spending money, just try to live a week like they do.

In a way, W's cuts have raised revenues very directly.

For instance, the tax on corporations repatriating profits went from roughly 30% to roughly 5%. Every company with half a brain repatriated all the profits they had been holding overseas. Revenues go up this year, but down for the forseeable future.

We all know people and businesses make decisions based on tax implications. If they think that taxes are at a low point, they will make taxable transactions now, as opposed to later. So, we can safely assume that revenues on these type of events will go down in the future.

Just another way that the current tax cuts are harming the future for some benefit in the present.

Silas

In a way, W's cuts have raised revenues very directly.

For instance, the tax on corporations repatriating profits went from roughly 30% to roughly 5%. Every company with half a brain repatriated all the profits they had been holding overseas. Revenues go up this year, but down for the forseeable future.

We all know people and businesses make decisions based on tax implications. If they think that taxes are at a low point, they will make taxable transactions now, as opposed to later. So, we can safely assume that revenues on these type of events will go down in the future.

Just another way that the current tax cuts are harming the future for some benefit in the present.

Silas

And the amoun t of tax revenue from those hidden funds would have yielded future gains for this country?

The Bush administration intentionally overestimates the deficit and then when it comes in lower they point to the big drop and try to take credit for it. It's just more b.s. for the gullible. ;http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-26-federaldeficit_x.htm

And the amoun t of tax revenue from those hidden funds would have yielded future gains for this country?

Hidden funds? These are not panamanian bank accounts, these are fortune 100 companies which are audited by the IRS annually. Just imagine if you had a one year discount on capital gains tax. You would probably sell all your big gain stocks. The government would get a boost in revenue that year, but is essentially losing money in the long term.

Two reasonably balanced articles on what the law means, and what effect it had in 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801926.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/05/news/economy/jobs_overseas_profits/

One off the deep end by Slate, which seems to think it's a sign of the apocalypse:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139782/

Silas

If you think they aren't spending money, just try to live a week like they do.

many of the middle class are trying...through the use of credit which will eventually be devastating when the big recession hits.

It all depends on your definition of "bad".
If 25% of American jobs pay at the poverty level, is "bad", then yes, things are bad.
If 37 million Americans are classified as "Poor", then yes, things are bad.
If you're making 100-200 G's a year, then no, things aren't too bad.
If you're in the lower middle, then you can thank george for the $10 a year tax cut.
If you're in the middle-middle, you can put food on the table, and buy a new car every few years (as long as your job isn't sent to China)
If you're in the upper class, things are just dandy.

It all depends on your definition of "bad".
If 25% of American jobs pay at the poverty level, is "bad", then yes, things are bad.
If 37 million Americans are classified as "Poor", then yes, things are bad.
If you're making 100-200 G's a year, then no, things aren't too bad.
If you're in the lower middle, then you can thank george for the $10 a year tax cut.
If you're in the middle-middle, you can put food on the table, and buy a new car every few years (as long as your job isn't sent to China)
If you're in the upper class, things are just dandy.


If you are at the bottom of the mountain looking up and wondering from where all that poop is flowing down on you from, then it's pretty bad. If you are on the top dropping your poop off the ledge the view is pretty good.

The real problem is not this scenario, because it has pretty much always been like this, the problem is in how the right and left see it in different ways. The right expects you to claw your way up the slippery slope while being pelted in the face by the turds from above, while the left would like to stop the shower of excrement or at least give you an umbrella for your climb.

And woe be unto those that gave up the battle and slipped to the bottom, for they will be given no help by those that reached the top on the helicopter of inheritance or the chairlift of birthright.