Since 1990, Corporate Profits Up 200%, Household Income Up 2% - BCA

30 yrs of unAmerican conservative ideology ?.....Are you a comedian....???? Its more like 3 years of Obamanomics........Bush's record is a shining example of low taxes, low unemplotment and thriving economy....thats not opinion...thats fact.

If it's a fact, how come you failed to back up it with any evidence, Blabo?



The tax cuts that were sold as a stimulus to the American people, and that were projected to cost only $1.5 trillion over 10 years, actually cost the American people approximately $2.8 trillion dollars. This includes the extension of the Bush tax cuts under President Obama, who was given the choice by Republican lawmakers: Extend the Bush tax cuts or we shut down the government.


http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20110606/NEWS/110609893/1042/news?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar
 
and what did GDP do over the tax cut year? Bueler

The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II.


http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/




Most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html
 
If it's a fact, how come you failed to back up it with any evidence, Blabo?



The tax cuts that were sold as a stimulus to the American people, and that were projected to cost only $1.5 trillion over 10 years, actually cost the American people approximately $2.8 trillion dollars. This includes the extension of the Bush tax cuts under President Obama, who was given the choice by Republican lawmakers: Extend the Bush tax cuts or we shut down the government.


http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20110606/NEWS/110609893/1042/news?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar

Evidence ?.....was your head up your rectum since Jan. 2009 ?

2001 to 2008.......US revenue (all)................+32%
2001 to 2008.......US GDP............................+40%
2001 to 2008.......US Income Tax Revenue....+29%


Do your own research, google is your friend....
These are the stats...official gov. stats....not some left-wing pinheads what-if/coulda been/woulda been numbers.....
 

Evidence ?.....was your head up your rectum since Jan. 2009 ?

2001 to 2008.......US revenue (all)................+32%
2001 to 2008.......US GDP............................+40%
2001 to 2008.......US Income Tax Revenue....+29%


Do your own research, google is your friend....
These are the stats...official gov. stats....not some left-wing pinheads what-if/coulda been/woulda been numbers.....



No link, Blabo?

How come?
 
The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II.


http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/




Most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

Most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households
,...................No shit Charlie Chan....oddly enough, most taxes are paid by higher-income households....how about that shit....





top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners..................I guess its because those lower earners are the ones buying the Caddies and Lexis and Saabs....yachts....taking vacations....flying all over the country.....buying those lobsters and steaks, and filling the restaurants, etc........what a pinhead you are....
 
No links, Blabo?
How come?
Do your own research, google is your friend....
These are the stats...gov. stats....not some left-wing pinheads what-if/coulda been/woulda been numbers.....

Google....
Its the only way you're gonna learn to not rely on huffington and Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow
 
No links, Blabo?
How come?

The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP) due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9%.


The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007.


After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.


From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed, and, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years.








[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration[/FONT]
 
2001 to 2008.......US revenue (all)................+32%

2001 to 2008.......US Income Tax Revenue....+29%

Total Revenue was up ....Income tax revenue was UP......despite tax cuts....

Its obvious the problem was spending....what we've been telling you over and over again for decades......

I never claimed Bush wasn't a spender and Obama is a worse spender.
 
No links, Blabo?
Ashamed of your source for some reason?
 
No links, Blabo?
How come?

The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP) due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9%.


The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007.


After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.


From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed, and, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years.











[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration[/FONT]



You fail to mention that Democrats had already been in control of the entire Congress for the previous 2 years...and

did you expect Bush pull some magic in his last month or even the last five months in office, despite Congress, and wave his magic wand over the economy and Dem. Congress and Dem. committees inept handling of the issues, like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac...?

Bush did nothing to step on the toes of the incoming President ..... he did nothing to interfere with Obamas incoming ideas....he posed no new laws, etc.....the bailout was well known to Obama before Bush did anything and he embraced that bailout crap with open arms.....

This wasn't like the Clinton admin. trashing offices, destroying equipment, etc. for the new President to worry about....actual sabotage...
 
PressRelease829.gif


It has been the best of times for corporate profits, but rather less so for consumer incomes. Corporate earnings have soared 200% since 1990 while real median family incomes have increased by only 2%.

These data come from a recent article entitled, "High Profit Margins and Stagnant Real Incomes: Is Capitalism Working Properly?"

It didn't appear in The Nation but rather in The Bank Credit Analyst, the highly respected, long-time financial and economic research service that would never be thought of as some hotbed of populist fervor. And the author is not Michael Moore but Martin Barnes, the Bank Credit Analyst's long-time managing editor and self-described "dour Scot."

Moreover, rather than calling for a storming of the ramparts, Barnes poses questions of concern for the most self-interested of capitalists. Can the current high level of profit margins be maintained? Even more basically, can the corporate sector continue to prosper while the average consumer struggles?

What's stunning about the current cycle is that, despite a weak economic recovery, profit margins are near historic highs, albeit short of their historic peak in 2005. A major driver has been earnings from abroad, which have increased to 35% of total U.S. company profits from 20% since 1999. …

Bottom line, the main factors that have propelled corporate profits—cost-cutting, financial profits and overseas earnings—are waning. Even so, companies have done a far sight better than workers, as noted earlier. Since 2000, they've fallen even further behind; profits are up 70% while real median family incomes are down 2%.

Part of that has been because consumer prices have risen faster than corporate selling prices, which reflect costs of capital goods which have been held down by technology, Barnes notes. "However, it seems clear that labor has not received its fair share in recent years, even when using corporate prices," he adds, falling 4% short of what would be expected based on productivity gains.

"Ultimately, the health of the corporate sector depends on the financial health of its customers. Thus, the divergence between rising profits and weak growth in real consumer incomes will have to change," Barnes asserts.

Corporate Profit Gains at Labor's Expense May be Hitting Limit - Barrons.com

You started this thread but have not made a comment. What is your proposed solution?
 
You fail to mention that Democrats had already been in control of the entire Congress for the previous 2 years...and did you expect Bush pull some magic in his last month or even the last five months in office, despite Congress, and wave his magic wand over the economy and Dem. Congress and Dem. committees inept handling of the issues, like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac...? Bush did nothing to step on the toes of the incoming President ..... he did nothing to interfere with Obamas incoming ideas....he posed no new laws, etc.....the bailout was well known to Obama before Bush did anything and he embraced that bailout crap with open arms.....This wasn't like the Clinton admin. trashing offices, destroying equipment, etc. for the new President to worry about....actual sabotage...

Where are those links, Blabo?
 
Back
Top