Redshirt - there is no way to educate you on all the factors that go into this -
less alone seasonal demand and cost. Lets use your example of
increased use in summer . If what you said were true, when summer prices go up,
driving/consumption should go down. But the reality is the exact inverse.
Consumption and prices both rise together. Demand/Supply/Price all rise
together. If people are secure in their financial situations, they will still
take that trip regardless of fuel prices.But here is the other
problem with your proposition. Demand doesn't surge in summer like it
used to. More families are flying than driving on summer vacations now. That
huge spike we used to see is largely gone because there is also a huge drop in
demand for heating oil. Agricultural use goes up, institutional and industrial
use goes down in summers.Additionally - the overall miles being
driven in the US is flat. Year over year there is actually a decrease of .1%
from last year. Global oil demand has only increase less than 2% year over
year, and yet prices at the pump have increased nearly 20%. Demand and price
correlation for oil just isn't as strong as it used to be.
To "UtahBlueDevil" but gas use is elastic. When prices shot up a few
years ago people stopped driving as much. People carpooled more, and did what
they could to cut costs. While the 2 cents per gallon profit is not mandated,
that is the average profit the gas industry gets.If gasoline is
inelastic, why is it that demand surges in the summer and is decreased in the
winter?Funny to see the demand for gasoline drop like a rock in 2008
when prices shot up. I didn't think inelastic commodities did that.
Redshirt.... thanks for providing a needed giggle during my work day.
I'm not sure how you equate the deficit of 19.8 when Obama left to a
deficit today at 21.1 as being the same number with no change. But hey....
whatever. "Again, your lack of economics understanding is
lacking. If an oil company profits by 2 cents per gallon of gasoline regardless
of its price, why would they celebrate a price that causes people to buy less of
their product?"Maybe because oil isn't a regulated business
and they are not locked in at 2 cents per gallon profit. Since when is the
price at the pump based on a cost plus basis? Really? And you're
assuming demand is elastic, and people can choose to drive to work or not.
"hey gas us up, I'll use less of my car today". Do you decide to
drive to work or not based on the cost of gas? For every 1 percent energy cost
rise at the pump, demand doesn't come close to decreasing 1 percent. Fuel
is one of the most inelastic commodities out there.It's not my
lack of understanding of economics that is showing....
To "UtahBlueDevil" your understanding isn't exactly right.According to BLS data labor participation rate has remained relatively
constant since January 2017. Not really up, but not down either.The
Deficit last year was close to what it was the year before. This year we
don't know what the deficit will be because we haven't seen the full
effects of the tax cuts and low unemployment rates.Funny that you
complain about the Trump tax cuts when the Obama tax cuts were larger and
weighted more towards the rich than the Trump cuts were. Also, why not cut
income taxes for the rich since they are the ones who are paying the most in
taxes. They get 20% of the income but pay 25% of the taxes.However,
those are not exactly economics but are data points.Look up the
Laffer curve, liberals love this one while not understanding it. We are at the
point where increasing taxes DECREASES revenues. That is why cutting taxes can
lead to increased revenues.Again, your lack of economics
understanding is lacking. If an oil company profits by 2 cents per gallon of
gasoline regardless of its price, why would they celebrate a price that causes
people to buy less of their product?
"And you wonder why liberals are mocked for their lack of economics
understanding."Here is what I understand.Deficit is
up $1.2. Trillion in just 14 months.Employment participation rate is
down.Inflation starting to grow - energy up 15% in one year. Yes - Trump gave the ultra rich 2 extra cookies. For the average
family - they got gold fish cracker. You just wonder how grateful they will be
for it when gas reaches $3.50 + a gallon for gas.
@redshirtYou have to ask what is raising revenues though.
Republicans are under the illusion that tax cuts are raising revenues solely on
their own. They are not. Tax cuts plus continued deficit spending is what is
growing the economy. If Congress would have just cut the deficit with real
spending cuts the economy would have shrunk. If Congress would have cut
spending and cut taxes at the same time the economy would grow much more slowly
(or it may have contracted) due to the spending cuts. Spending
drives the economy and the tax cuts are essentially debt-financed and wouldnt be
any different if congress debt financed the equalivent on infrastructure. It
would have grown the economy because it is spending money into the economy and
raised revenue.As far as my comment you responded to I would rather
have a tax and spend liberal, not a tax and spend liberal and spend on top of
that like you insinuated. At least with tax and spend it is honest and upfront.
Republicans of the last thirty years have piled on debt by cutting taxes because
that is easy. Spending cuts are hard.
To "Shaun" so lets get this right. You would rather have somebody that
lowers tax revenues through higher taxes then spends more over somebody that
raises tax revenues and spends about the same.To be clear. You
would take somebody that destroys jobs through higher tax rates and is proven to
lower tax revenues, then spends more money. The alternative is somebody that
helps job growth through lower taxes which INCREASES tax revenues then spends
the same or slightly more money.To make it even more clear. You
would choose the guy giving you 2 cookies over the guy giving you 4 because you
like the guy giving you 2 cookies.And you wonder why liberals are
mocked for their lack of economics understanding.
@redshirtI would take a tax and spend liberal over a tax cut and
spend conservative any day of the week at this point.If we have
spending problem like you state then why did republicans go after tax cuts?
Shouldn’t they have cut the budget by the deficit amount first before
considering any tax cuts?
To "liberal larry" actually we did not balance the budget. The gross
debt increased each year under Clinton. It was only by an accounting trick that
the budget looked balanced. We have not balanced a budget since around 1957.What 99% of people don't realize is that we have a spending
problem. The income tax rates have little to do with tax revenues. Since the
1940s we have maintained roughly 18% GDP in tax revenues over time we have
raised spending to be 20% of GDP. Unless you spend the same or less than what
is brought in you will always be in debt.To those of you complaining
about the "unpaid for tax cuts", I hate to tell you this, but you are
wrong. History shows us that as unemployment drops, tax revenues increase. So,
over the past year we saw a tax cut, but it was accompanied by an increase in
employment. It is nearly impossible to determine if the tax rate reduction had
any ill effect due to the increased number of people working.
"December 2002,Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey, the
White House's top economic adviser, both resigned Friday in a dramatic
shakeup of the Bush administration's team charged with reviving the
nation's troubled economy."They both quit because GWBush
gave to many tax cuts to the wealthy and was on a spending spree. They warned he
was going to collapse the economy. George W bush being George W bush refuse to
heed their warnings and ask for the resignations.We are looking at
another false economy that is driven purely on speculation. We will see another
collapse. We have got to bring home the jobs stop exporting money
and start taxing offshore accounts and start taxing the rich! A collapse is
without question unless we take action now.
There is a lot of positive here. It's been improving for 10 years now,
and continues to improve. The one number that hasn't improved is the
labor participation rate. While one would think that low unemployment would
equal more people working - the fact of the matter is we are still at recent
history record levels of low participation. We are still hovering under 63% -
which means a lot of people have simply left the workforce for one reason or
another.... If we used participation rates of just 10 years ago,
we would be looking closer to 7 or 8 percent unemployment. But for what ever
reason a good number of people have left the labor force, which is helping keep
the unemployment numbers looking good. If we do see these people
enticed back into the market - if wage growth ever really does improve - we
could be seeing a different dynamic here. But right now there is little to no
wage growth - and people are staying out.
@NoName: Yes Japan's debt is 250% larger than ours, and they have zero
problem paying that debt. That suggests that we are far from a crisis point.
I believe the USA should run a balanced budget and be debt free, excepting
perhaps when engaged in an actual declared war.That said, like any
household or business, the real problem is not so much the raw amount of debt,
but how debt compares to income or assets. Comparing debt to GDP is, therefore,
on of the more accurate measures of how big debt really is.In 2008,
our total federal debt was 68% of our Gross Domestic Product.In 2009
that rose to 82% of GDP. In 2010, 91%. It was 96% in 2011.In 2012,
we crossed the threshold: Our total federal debt exceeded total GDP for the
first time since WWII.For comparison, Japan's national debt is
253% its GDP. Italy's is 131%.The UK, is at 85%. Germany at
64%. Mexico at 48%. Russia is at less than 13%.As the editorial and
some commenters note, this is not a partisan issue. Both sides love to spend
more than they make; just on different things.Nor, are the tax cuts
the real problem here. The federal government has brought in record income tax
revenue this year. Debate whether that is in spite of or because of the tax
cuts. But total fed income tax revenue is up.We just want to spend
more than we make.
Utah drinking water must be inducing amnesia!Under Clinton we
actually had a balanced budget in 1998, 1999, 2000, and his proposed budget of
2002! President Bush, cut taxes, and launched two ill conceived
wars, and bingo, it's been deficits ever since!Anyone who has
taken Econ. 101 knows that you raise taxes, and pay down debt in good times, and
cut taxes and increase federal spending in bad times.
Is "trouble looms" really a prediction?What makes life life
is that trouble always looms. Pretty bold prediction DN. How did you ever come
to the notion that trouble looms. lol
DN "Math is hard."..apparently reality is even more difficult.You're only bankrupt if you can't pay what you're asked to pay.
America meets it's obligations always...despite the antics of the
Republicans. The US has not had a debt only once, 1835. So
we've had a debt through good times and bad, making debt itself not the
issue, and not the inherent boogey man you all would want us to believe. That said debt can be a problem and a big one it's not what you
characterize it to be, and we are definitely not bankrupt.
91 straight months of private sector job growth. Trump has only been in office
for 16 months. 75 of those months were Obama's.
Ah yes. Cutting spending. And what happens every time someone suggests
government spending be cut?One party on the left goes into
hysterics. "You are pushing granny over a cliff if you cut so much as a
penny! From anything!" Heck, one government agency asked for zero dollars
because they can totally self fund from fines. And the left screamed bloody
murder and insisted they get money sent their way. It's the same way if you
suggest even a slower rate of funding--this year, why not 10 % budget increase
instead of a 15%? Oh, you'd think we will have rivers of blood in the
street. And so we get no spending cuts because the left and the
media scream about made up fatalities sure to happen if any cuts are made.Republicans are little better--they also love showering cash on their
favorite companies. I mean, all we have to do is just reenact the
last budget of GWB (plus inflation) and our budget would be balanced. Anyone
think we didn't have enough government the last year of Bush? Somehow, we
managed. I'm sure we could manage again, and the world wouldn't end.
Unless you ask a Democrat, who is somehow convinced that unless we spend 3
trillion a year we will all die.
@Flipphone: The economy has been expanding since 2010. It is not expanding any
faster now than it did while Obama was president, in fact the rate of job growth
has slowed somewhat. These are numbers, not opinions.
@ Marxist"@DN Subscriber "True, our nation is past bankrupt, with
no way to ever pay off the national debt, let alone the new deficits being added
every year, even with economic growth."The experience of virtually all
modern economies says your assertion is simply untrue. I'm no fan of much
of modern capitalism, but on this you are wrong."Math is
hard.$21 trillion debt divided by our 300 million population leaves us
with a current debt of $70,000 for every single person living in the U.S.-
babies, retirees, those below the poverty line, those paying no taxes at all,
and of course the much-maligned taxpaying workers and rich people. Where will we come up with $21 trillion on top of current taxes? Of
course, that does no include the unfunded Social Security funds Congress already
spent leaving worthless IOUs in the "lockbox." Nor the personal debts
for college loans for degrees in basket weaving and gender studies.Confiscation of all personal savings might make a dent. Confiscation of all
personal property might help but with no personal wealth there would be no money
to buy all the mansions and luxury cars and yachts.We're broke!
"As the recently enacted tax cuts showed, neither party seems worried any
longer about reining in the practice of spending more than the government
collects each year."Congress controls spending. Congress has the
power of the purse. The Senate has some balance there but the main power over
spending is owned by congress. Both the Congress and Senate have been controlled
by the GOP since 2010. 100% of all spending since 2010 at the federal level
falls to the GOP.
@DN Subscriber "True, our nation is past bankrupt, with no way to ever pay
off the national debt, let alone the new deficits being added every year, even
with economic growth."The experience of virtually all modern
economies says your assertion is simply untrue. I'm no fan of much of
modern capitalism, but on this you are wrong.
True, our nation is past bankrupt, with no way to ever pay off the national
debt, let alone the new deficits being added every year, even with economic
growth.Because, Congress members want to get reelected.Voters
love "free stuff."Congress votes for "free stuff"
and pork projects for their districts.Voters are happy and vote the
congressional spenders back in for another term.Congress votes for
more "free stuff" and pork for their districts and stay in officer
forever.Candidates who promise to cut spending on just about
anything, but especially "free stuff" don't stand a chance of
getting elected.Stand by for the big shock when the improving
economy and rising interest rates make the interest on our $21 trillion debt
every year an incomprehensibly large number, with diminishing chances of even
paying that off!Our country is headed for a disastrous collapse
where there will be no "free stuff," no nice to have govt programs, and
even essential govt programs will have to be cut to the bone. Or, we will go
full Venezuela collapse, and urban areas will be unable to sustain
themselves.Stop the spending, NOW!
@imsmarterthanyou;"I have a perfect solution. Immediately fire 50% of
all government workers. Give the rest a 5 -10% raise, and make them actually
earn their paycheck. Billions of dollars saved, problem solved."Brilliant. There are 22 million government employees. Yeah- let's place
11 million on the unemployment rolls and SNAP programs. That should save a lot
of money. No wonder you're a Trump fan.
The economic expansion that started in mid 2009 is now the third longest in our
history, and will be the longest in our history if it continues into mid 2019.
To suggest otherwise is to buy into the false narrative of the republican
establishment and the current administration.
Deficits...profligate spending only matter when the is a Democratic POTUS.
Funny Senator Rubio R Fla said the tax plan had only benefited the wealthiest
among us, now that everything is wonderful and the rich got their tax cut House
Speaker Ryan says we need to balance the budget, on the backs of veterans and
the working classes. By the effort to re-brand Social Security, Medicare, and
Veteran Benefits as "Entitlements" opposed to Earned Benefits.Truly the emperor has no clothes.
Tax cuts without spending cuts is no different than spending beyond tax
revenues. I agree that basic Econ 101 states the government spends
in bad times but pays off the debt in the good times.
The economy is expanding which it hasn't done for 8 long years managed by
Obama, kicked started by federal tax cuts, and the doomsayers can't stand
prosperity brought on by a pro business President.
I have a perfect solution. Immediately fire 50% of all government workers. Give
the rest a 5 -10% raise, and make them actually earn their paycheck. Billions of
dollars saved, problem solved.