A recession has a specific, economic definition – a certain number of quarters of negative growth. By that specific, academic definition, the recession has been over. So there’s no reason to fire people who call it like it is.
Rampant and perpetual unemployment caused by companies not hiring is a separate issue, and doesn’t necessarily track with a recession. It can be addressed by either governments or businesses putting out money to hire people. And according to analysis by both the OMB and Moody’s, the worst way to address it is by cutting the taxes on the wealthy.
The problem liberals have in urging added taxes on the rich is their official definition includes families earning either $251,000/year or $1B/year.
When Democratic congressmen go back to their districts and tell their constituents earning $251,000/year you are rich and I am voting to increase your taxes they not only lose votes but the election. On both coasts $251,000 is not rich. If you earn $50,000 year you won’t feel sorry for them but remember they vote also.
If they changed the definition to say $1M it would be more realistic.
Why is it so hard to understand the semantic economic definition of the end of the recesion? Recession refers to the ride down. We are out of the recession, but not out of the dip. What we need (besides better news) is a new word to describe how deep we are in the hole.
@howgozit If you are unemployed, you are in a deep depression. This is a very weak, emphasis on the very weak, jobless recovery plus there is a threat of a double dip recession. Technical definitions of recession are meaningless when you can’t find a job.
@libertarian1 very few people make over $250K. Most Americans make much less than $250K. The median household income for 2008 was $50K. 97% of American households make less than $250K. If you are making more than 97% of your fellow citizens, you are rich. We we need is a progressive tax rate that grows with income. A $300K household should have a lover rate than a $3 Million household.
^ You ignore cost of living in certain areas. Assume you work hard, both partners work and live in NYC and have 2 children.
The reason you work is to raise a family. Sending children to public school is out of the question. Schools terrible and totally run by the union which doesn’t care.
Cost of private schools for the 2 is $50,000/year after tax dollars. If you earn $250,000 before taxes you struggle to make those payments.
You be a congressman and tell that couple they are rich and you are going to raise their taxes.
Remember NYC is the city that says if you earn $25,000 and want to live in Manhattan you have that right and the city will support you. Shouldn’t the $250,000 family have the right to live in NYC also?
“If they changed the definition to say $1M it would be more realistic.”
True. Though by your definition if both individuals are making $250K and $251K is “rich,” then $500K would be a reasonable cap. Still better than 98% - 99% of the country.
And the very people who are crying for erasing the deficit are the ones who supported the Bush tax cuts and the Republican deficit spending.
To get out of the trough (the word rottenprat wouldn’t say), spending must increase. Increase the spendable income (by cutting his taxes) of someone making less than $50K a year and he will spend it; ideally on products made domestically. Increase the spendable income of someone making $5M a year by cutting his taxes and he will increase his savings by investing in foreign companies.
It is instructive to compare the Clinton tax cuts of ‘93 with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
Clinton’s increased spendable income of everyone but the rich. The result was more than 6 years of economic growth and increased tax revenues. For one brief period Federal revenues actually approached Federal spending. Most notable, the tax income from the wealthy DECREASED in that time. This shows the improved economy was actually due to the greater income for and spending by the middle class.
Bush’s tax cuts mainly benefited the wealthy and upper middle class. While it drastically cut tax revenues, it utterly failed to stimulate the economy. Only massive deficit spending kept the illusion of a robust economy alive.
If reporters would actually read the report, they’d see that the June 2009 date was when the nadir of the recession occurred, not that the recession ended.
In economic terms, ‘recession’ is semantically equivalent to ‘fall’.
If you fall down a mine shaft, when you hit the bottom you FALL has ended. However, you won’t be happy until you get back up to level ground.
Likewise, the recession ended when the economy hit bottom. The time of it can only be determined when things start to get better. People still won’t be happy until the economy is back up to level ground.
Maybe sending your kids to public school is out of the question for those making more than $250,000 a year – but what about for those who make $50,000? I feel so sorry for the rich people who have to worry about associating with the lower classes.
“The reason you work is to raise a family. Sending children to public school is out of the question. Schools terrible and totally run by the union which doesn’t care.”
The vast majority of kids in the country go to public school and yet they live with it, why can’t you, princess?
I have a few friends who work in the Miami-Dade County School System. So far from what they tell me the charter schools are growing in number and are draining money from the public school system because public schools are being shutdown because of the FCAT, a private company’s exam. Because a public school’s funding is based on how many students they have and public schools shutting down, those students are now forced to attend charter schools. And since those charter schools are taking public school kids they get government money (meaning right wingers, that we subsidize those private schools). Did I also mention that those private schools are NOT held to the same standards as the public schools? It means your kid (or grand kid) could be sitting in class staring at the wall all day and they get passed not knowing anything.
Existing public schools, because they’re not building any new ones, are having a bit of an overcrowding situation. The ratio is 40 kids to one teacher. Also because of cutbacks and the fact that the Florida Legislature is funding schools equally big cities (like Miami) are getting less funding and small cities (Like Naples) are getting big money. Because of the lack of funds teachers are asking parents to provide the kids with xerox paper, crayons, wide rule paper, construction paper, etc. I used to get all this stuff for free when I was in school!
Man, have times changed! And for the worse. Their child is not learning how to critically think. Rather, she is learning how to beat a test that should never have been in existence to begin with. Thanks Jeb Bush! You screwed the kids really well!
rottenprat over 13 years ago
If things were really bad (clue: they are not) people would not be waxing political on an internet comics page.
ransomdstone over 13 years ago
AMEN to both human and rottenprat.
ARodney over 13 years ago
A recession has a specific, economic definition – a certain number of quarters of negative growth. By that specific, academic definition, the recession has been over. So there’s no reason to fire people who call it like it is.
Rampant and perpetual unemployment caused by companies not hiring is a separate issue, and doesn’t necessarily track with a recession. It can be addressed by either governments or businesses putting out money to hire people. And according to analysis by both the OMB and Moody’s, the worst way to address it is by cutting the taxes on the wealthy.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
The problem liberals have in urging added taxes on the rich is their official definition includes families earning either $251,000/year or $1B/year.
When Democratic congressmen go back to their districts and tell their constituents earning $251,000/year you are rich and I am voting to increase your taxes they not only lose votes but the election. On both coasts $251,000 is not rich. If you earn $50,000 year you won’t feel sorry for them but remember they vote also.
If they changed the definition to say $1M it would be more realistic.
Richard White Premium Member over 13 years ago
Why is it so hard to understand the semantic economic definition of the end of the recesion? Recession refers to the ride down. We are out of the recession, but not out of the dip. What we need (besides better news) is a new word to describe how deep we are in the hole.
rottenprat over 13 years ago
We have the word, which fittingly is a homonym for the thing pigs eat out of.
sandrino over 13 years ago
@howgozit If you are unemployed, you are in a deep depression. This is a very weak, emphasis on the very weak, jobless recovery plus there is a threat of a double dip recession. Technical definitions of recession are meaningless when you can’t find a job.
@libertarian1 very few people make over $250K. Most Americans make much less than $250K. The median household income for 2008 was $50K. 97% of American households make less than $250K. If you are making more than 97% of your fellow citizens, you are rich. We we need is a progressive tax rate that grows with income. A $300K household should have a lover rate than a $3 Million household.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
^ You ignore cost of living in certain areas. Assume you work hard, both partners work and live in NYC and have 2 children.
The reason you work is to raise a family. Sending children to public school is out of the question. Schools terrible and totally run by the union which doesn’t care.
Cost of private schools for the 2 is $50,000/year after tax dollars. If you earn $250,000 before taxes you struggle to make those payments.
You be a congressman and tell that couple they are rich and you are going to raise their taxes.
Remember NYC is the city that says if you earn $25,000 and want to live in Manhattan you have that right and the city will support you. Shouldn’t the $250,000 family have the right to live in NYC also?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“If they changed the definition to say $1M it would be more realistic.”
True. Though by your definition if both individuals are making $250K and $251K is “rich,” then $500K would be a reasonable cap. Still better than 98% - 99% of the country.petergrt over 13 years ago
The very crowd that that is now proclaiming that the economy is not that bad, was yelling how terrible it was during the Bush years …
PlainBill over 13 years ago
And the very people who are crying for erasing the deficit are the ones who supported the Bush tax cuts and the Republican deficit spending.
To get out of the trough (the word rottenprat wouldn’t say), spending must increase. Increase the spendable income (by cutting his taxes) of someone making less than $50K a year and he will spend it; ideally on products made domestically. Increase the spendable income of someone making $5M a year by cutting his taxes and he will increase his savings by investing in foreign companies.
It is instructive to compare the Clinton tax cuts of ‘93 with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
Clinton’s increased spendable income of everyone but the rich. The result was more than 6 years of economic growth and increased tax revenues. For one brief period Federal revenues actually approached Federal spending. Most notable, the tax income from the wealthy DECREASED in that time. This shows the improved economy was actually due to the greater income for and spending by the middle class.
Bush’s tax cuts mainly benefited the wealthy and upper middle class. While it drastically cut tax revenues, it utterly failed to stimulate the economy. Only massive deficit spending kept the illusion of a robust economy alive.
edrush over 13 years ago
If reporters would actually read the report, they’d see that the June 2009 date was when the nadir of the recession occurred, not that the recession ended.
Nebulous Premium Member over 13 years ago
In economic terms, ‘recession’ is semantically equivalent to ‘fall’. If you fall down a mine shaft, when you hit the bottom you FALL has ended. However, you won’t be happy until you get back up to level ground.
Likewise, the recession ended when the economy hit bottom. The time of it can only be determined when things start to get better. People still won’t be happy until the economy is back up to level ground.
lonecat over 13 years ago
Maybe sending your kids to public school is out of the question for those making more than $250,000 a year – but what about for those who make $50,000? I feel so sorry for the rich people who have to worry about associating with the lower classes.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
“The reason you work is to raise a family. Sending children to public school is out of the question. Schools terrible and totally run by the union which doesn’t care.”
The vast majority of kids in the country go to public school and yet they live with it, why can’t you, princess?
TruthfulTheocracy over 13 years ago
^Porque al los Americanos no le vale nada a great education. It is behind prime time television and sports.
WarBush over 13 years ago
I have a few friends who work in the Miami-Dade County School System. So far from what they tell me the charter schools are growing in number and are draining money from the public school system because public schools are being shutdown because of the FCAT, a private company’s exam. Because a public school’s funding is based on how many students they have and public schools shutting down, those students are now forced to attend charter schools. And since those charter schools are taking public school kids they get government money (meaning right wingers, that we subsidize those private schools). Did I also mention that those private schools are NOT held to the same standards as the public schools? It means your kid (or grand kid) could be sitting in class staring at the wall all day and they get passed not knowing anything.
Existing public schools, because they’re not building any new ones, are having a bit of an overcrowding situation. The ratio is 40 kids to one teacher. Also because of cutbacks and the fact that the Florida Legislature is funding schools equally big cities (like Miami) are getting less funding and small cities (Like Naples) are getting big money. Because of the lack of funds teachers are asking parents to provide the kids with xerox paper, crayons, wide rule paper, construction paper, etc. I used to get all this stuff for free when I was in school!
Man, have times changed! And for the worse. Their child is not learning how to critically think. Rather, she is learning how to beat a test that should never have been in existence to begin with. Thanks Jeb Bush! You screwed the kids really well!
Charles Brobst Premium Member over 13 years ago
Still working for the GOP in the Senate filibustering jobs.