United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Horrible Economic Data Continues: ADP Plunges To 38K On Expectations OF 175K; Downward NFP Revisions Next (How's that stimulus working for you?)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/
Published: Jun 1, 2011
Author: zerohedge
Post Date: 2011-06-01 08:29:09 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 27413
Comments: 49
The latest economic data is out and it is horrendous: with expectations for the ADP employment number to come at 175K, following a downward revised 177K print previously, it tumbled to a puny 38K in May. While this number is extremely irrelevant in terms of correlating to the actual NFP number due out this Friday, expect to see a spate of downward NFP revisions on this latest confirmation that the US economy has stalled even with QE2 still in effect for another 29 days (and soon to be extended). From the report: "Today’s ADP National Employment Report suggests that employment growth slowed sharply in May. Employment in the nonfarm private-business sector rose 38,000 from April to May on a seasonally adjusted basis. A deceleration in employment, while disappointing, is not entirely surprising. In the first quarter, GDP grew at only a 1.8% rate and only about 2¼% over the last four quarters. This is below most economists’ estimate of the economy’s potential growth rate and normally would be associated with very weak growth of employment." Precisely as expected by Zero Hedge.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
The stimulus ended over a year ago, Paddy. Further eroding the economy is the general cut in government activity/spending which, after consumer spending, is a substantial element of GDP. You folks don't get it. A $1bln rail project in an area generates related private sector service industry jobs.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." You mean when unemployment was still over 9.5%? Wow. How impressive that was.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
Even the leftwingnuts spin has become comical as you just noted.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
And the Bush tax cuts were still in place. What a GREAT job extending them has done.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "I'M GETTING KILLED UNDER OBAMA," BOOFER WAILED, HIS GIANT LIPS FLAPPING LIKE A BROKEN WINDOW BLIND.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." You would have a hard time making a case that tax cuts damage the economy.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
We had a choice to pay down debt or cut taxes. We did not choose to pay down debt. What's one of the biggest issues? Debt. You get these lessons for free, btw. You should be grateful.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." Revenues rose for 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. Thank me for the free lesson.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
LMFAO I haven't looked at the Stocks this AM... betting their up...Let's see... My Bad...;}...but Global Trade by the World's Largest Oil Shipper, frontline, looks like gang busters out of the gate...LMFAO 8D
Thank me for the free lesson. Here's your lesson: Make Corps pay at 1940 levels and vote down the Oct 08 'stimulus' package... and DC/US EMpire operates in the black... And 2003 was the beginning of the crash with the Invasion of Iraq...and the end of your democaracy...just sayin'...8D
Yea so? So did debt. Revenues rose for 7 years after the Clinton tax hikes. Debt slowed and then was paid down. The fact is, in general, revenues are going to grow if the economy grows but that rule was violated in 2002 and 2003 because taxes were cut too much. The fact that they grew anemically compared to other eras of similar growth for 4 short years isn't anything to brag about.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." The Laffer Curve IS a curve, i.e. at some point/rate they are maximized. The obvious conclusion is that they were at a more correct rate under Clinton than under Booosh.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." That left a mark....lmao
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
The successful Clinton economy was based on tax cuts. No, really... At the end of this year, America will be looking down both barrels of one of the biggest tax increases in history: the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 rate reductions on income and dividends/capital gains. It's seldom a good time to raise taxes, but the imposition of the old rates during a recession may guarantee a Hooverian result. The country needs further tax reductions and an even larger reduction in spending to stimulate recovery. Though there is some disagreement about where the Laffer Curve bends, most agree that higher rates can and do reduce tax revenue and that the Curve allows for a point at which further tax rate reductions won't stimulate economic activity and create a corresponding increase in Treasury receipts. The United States hasn't found the latter point yet. Unfortunately, Democrats controlling Washington are unwilling to seek it. Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets. Often overlooked in the debate over tax policy is the success of the Clinton-era tax reductions -- reductions that, though fairly recent, are unknown to most Americans. That may be no accident. The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today. The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree. In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates. The Clinton tax policies of the early '90s were based on rate increases and luck -- the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy. There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats. To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result. The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to "generate revenue" for the federal government. Based on data from Congress's own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire. For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006. Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts. In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses. Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years. How could the CBO and Democrats have gotten it so wrong? It's very simple. Forecasts are guesses. When rates change in either direction, the CBO does linear forecasts on tax revenues, never estimating the stimulation or retardation of economic activity resulting from the changes. It is all policy permits them to do. Accordingly, CBO forecasts for rate changes are always wrong. CBO results, on the other hand, are facts -- the same facts that appear in reports from the OMB and the IRS. Four years of factual history on the 2003 tax rate reduction on capital gains and dividends in the CBO's own report showed that contrary to their expectation of revenue declines, the Treasury actually received record revenues from this class of tax obligation. For that matter, including the 2001 rate reductions on income, Treasury revenues set records through 2007, at that point exceeding original forecasts by roughly twice the cost of the two wars in which America was engaged. The CBO was wrong about that as well. Politicians and their enablers who embrace old, wrong guesses and ignore newer facts are either a little stupid, or they think we are. All of America's current deficits are the result of spending by both parties above the baseline, including spending on the costs of war, homeland security, and natural disaster. Despite those circumstances, at the rates of economic growth through 2007 and with simple spending restraint, the Bush-era 2001 and 2003 tax rate reductions should have yielded a surplus by 2009 with no increase in taxes. Unfortunately, federal expenditures have been setting records, too, and are increasing drastically. A typical Congress has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This Congress is no exception, except that its members are spending at exceptional rates and have no will to stop. Millions of Americans fell off the tax rolls following the 2001 rate reductions on income. Today, the top 1% of earners pays more taxes than the bottom 95%. Who really believes that taxing this top group even more is going to pay everyone's tab for the ambitious and irresponsible spending objectives of the Democrats in Washington? Unless clearer heads prevail, we will all pay. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
Feel free to talk out of both sides of your mout Paddy...don't let it interfere with your breathing. The cuts Clinton made were targeted - as were Obama's.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." State governments continue to slash spending, I don't understand while falling government employment and falling government spending isn't creating economic growth. ;-)
"Thats because your basically and idiot." Really? Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and the economy is in the tank and apparently getting worse. If tax cuts are so beneficial, why don't the Republicans just propose eliminating taxes all together? That should really get things moving, don't you think?
We did not choose to pay down debt. What's one of the biggest issues? the biggest issue now is turning medicare into a voucher program. Jobs, economic growth, and the deficit really don't matter. Heck, even the Ryan budget doesn't achieve balance until 2019, and only under an incredibly unrealistic set of economic assumptions.
"Thats because your basically and idiot." Explain how you think that eliminating the tax cuts will make the economy really take off.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
Explain how we can pay to fight three wars while cutting taxes. Show me when that was last done successfully.
Tax rates are still plenty high enough to adequately raise revenue. The main reason for the deficit is entitlement spending and a shitty Obama economy.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
Tax rates are at historic lows, and are completely inadequate to fund all the wars you guys want to fight.
It's a head scratcher fer shore...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." LMAO!!!
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: Any GOP candidate will pummel Obama if the economy stays like this. Here's the problem: the nation cannot afford another big spending Bush type. If RINO Romney is the next president, we are just as doomed as if Obama stayed in office. This is the most important election since 1980. In 1980, GOP voters wisely rejected Bush Sr. But Reagan had an advantage -- after 1976 he was the next one in line. It was his turn. That's how the GOP operates. It's RINO Romney's turn now. That's the problem.
DwarF: It's a head scratcher fer shore... That's because you're a couple of dumb-shit Keynesian sheeple. It's REALLY simple: the so-called "economic growth" you dopes are looking for, has been borrowed money, spent to maintain the illusion of continued prosperity, even as the underlying economic infrastructure has been sold, swindled and/or off-shored to your favorite socialist/communist country... The borrowed money- since it can't be invested in a growing manufacturing/goods-producing sector- was instead spent it on subsidies, welfare handouts and other "entitlements" to bribe the electorate. AND the money was spent on make-work projects, bloated budgets from Federal to local levels, union subsidies, kickbacks,, etc. NOW, the money is gone, and no more will be forthcoming... Either Congress grows a spine and refuses to raise the debt ceiling, or the world marketplace will quickly reject the dollar, in favor of some other currency. Either way, the money's gone, and the debt-financed house of cards is imploding. One can only promote a high lifestyle with credit-cards, unt the credit limit is reached. In the case of our govt., not only are we max'ed out to the limit, but we can't even make the minimum payments... And you two clowns- who think debt-based spending ad infinitum is a GOOD thing- wonder why, with no more money, the party still ain't rollin' strong? Nobody ever accuses either of you of being too bright, DO they? The party is OVER. The money is GONE. All that's left is the question of who gets stuck with the tab...? God knows, YOU dirt-bags won't willingly pay.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: Not true. Net Present Value of all government promises, is >$200 Trillion (includes both on and off-book debt obligations). These debts have been accumulating for decades, regardless of whether the POTUS has an "R" or "D" after their name. Current tax revenues =~$2T, meaning it would take us 100 years to pay off the debt, IF the govt.stopped spending, and interest rates were 0%. When you factor in real interest rates AND the fact the bastards in D.C. refuse to quit spending beyond our means, the financial collapse is inevitable. Even if you taxed every person 100% of what they earned (the socialism that ob@m@ really wants), it wouldn't be enough to matter... Is ob@m@ responsible? Sure. But don't lay it all on him- much as I detest him... Also blame Bushes-I&II, clinton, reagan, Nixon, Ford and Johnson... There's LOTS of blame to go around.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: Yep. Most people just really don't understand this. I heard someone the other day say: "just eliminate foreign aid so we won't have to cut entitlements". Well, foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget (and it should be eliminated). But it's nothing in comparison to the 60% of federal spending that goes to entitlement programs. One thing we need to do quickly is eliminate the "entitlement" status of all government programs. Pay them out of the general fund (which eliminates some book keeping debt) and remove their "entitlement" status, which eliminates future bookkeeping "obligations". Means test the programs -- take people off of them who who have money to pay themselves. Then they become nothing more than low income support programs. This would go a long way to fixing the issues.
Not all of it has been borrowed, Erica. Tax revenues once provided the bulk of receipts. Then Boy Blunder came in and refused to pay for his wars and the debt exploded. Then Boy Blunder imploded the economy and debt exploded worse. Keynes, btw, was not an advocate of long term debt. And he believed that tax cuts should provide the bulk of the stimulus - and thus be responsible for more of the deficit - when the economy was underperforming. He believed this because when the economy turned back up, rates could be increased again and any debt would paid down. Why did he believe this? Because he knew economies were cyclical and that when the next downturn occurred taxes could be cut and spending increased and not over a mountain of debt. Of course, you are woefully ignorant of what Keynes actually advocated because you get your information from MoonBat websites rather than anything remotely scholarly.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." Assuming a ladder in which a % of the budget adds up to that 60%, since SS and Medicare are paid for with dedicated taxes, it's really only 25% that is paid out of general revenues.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." Why are you spouting this nonsense that NOBODY believes anymore? All this money goes into the general fund with a promise to return it. But when I think about it, maybe you're right. I have dedicated funds for my mortgage, but when I tell my bank that I have other purposes for this money, they gladly accept the IOU I give them with promises to pay them back in full at some point in the future.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
If I really don't give a shit what YOU believe then why would you believe that I 'd care what you claim others believe? You believe Boy Blunder was a GREAT POTUS. That is something that NOBODY believes. All this money goes into the general fund with a promise to return it. How does that negate the fact that there are dedicated taxes that fund the program? Oh...I know...it DOESN'T. But when I think about it... Don't bother...the hernia alone will kill ya...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." How does that negate the fact that there are dedicated taxes that fund the program? Please tell me you are not really this obtuse.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
Did you do this to poor Sarah's barge when she stopped by Fox News today for her instructions from Roger?
1940 rates for Corporations, Eliminate the Fed Res and the Top 5 banks... Cut the Military by 50% and we're in the black... 8D
And I've always hated the pledge of Allegiance... OMFGPalin would've fit hand in glove with Germany 1933...
Please tell me that you'll one day learn to use that word correctly.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." The word is being used quite correctly towards you when you want to pretend this so called "dedicated tax" for SS means a damn thing. All of the money goes into the general fund and is used to fund everything.
Now, I know Iām not going to change the minds of any of the True Believersā¦those who read all of Reverend Alās sermons, and say things like, āYou know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, ā¦ā. Can I get an āamenā??
The 'lockbox' myth....(eyes rolling)
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Your analogy doesn't work.
It is our responsibility to protect that child once that child’s born too. When we start debating a budget, let’s make sure we don’t cut 100,000 vaccines. Let’s make sure we’ve got health insurance. We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby’s born, oh no, we don’t want to be intrusive. Texas is going to shrink government until it fits inside a women’s uterus. Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Kind of like when the bank mixes up your money with everybody else's and uses it for a variety of purposes?
It is our responsibility to protect that child once that child’s born too. When we start debating a budget, let’s make sure we don’t cut 100,000 vaccines. Let’s make sure we’ve got health insurance. We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby’s born, oh no, we don’t want to be intrusive. Texas is going to shrink government until it fits inside a women’s uterus. Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Comments (42 - 49) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHow's that stimulus working for you?
--GW Bush
#2. To: war (#1)
The stimulus ended over a year ago
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
You mean when unemployment was still over 9.5%?
--GW Bush
#5. To: Badeye (#3)
--GW Bush
#6. To: war (#4)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
You would have a hard time making a case that tax cuts damage the economy.
--GW Bush
#8. To: war (#7)
We had a choice to pay down debt or cut taxes.
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
(Edited)
Revenues rose for 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts.
#11. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
Revenues rose for 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts.
--GW Bush
#12. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
--GW Bush
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
#14. To: war (#11)
#15. To: no gnu taxes (#14)
--GW Bush
#16. To: war (#1)
The stimulus ended over a year ago, Paddy. Further eroding the economy is the general cut in government activity/spending which, after consumer spending, is a substantial element of GDP.
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
You would have a hard time making a case that tax cuts damage the economy.
#18. To: war (#7)
We had a choice to pay down debt or cut taxes.
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#19. To: Skip Intro (#17)
Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and the economy is in the tank and apparently getting worse.
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#19)
Explain how you think that eliminating the tax cuts will make the economy really take off.
#21. To: Skip Intro (#20)
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
Tax rates are still plenty high enough to adequately raise revenue.
#23. To: go65 (#16)
State governments continue to slash spending, I don't understand while falling government employment and falling government spending isn't creating economic growth.
--GW Bush
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
Thank me for the free lesson.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#25. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#26. To: war, go56 (#23)
go65: State governments continue to slash spending, I don't understand while falling government employment and falling government spending isn't creating economic growth.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#27. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
Tax rates are still plenty high enough to adequately raise revenue. The main reason for the deficit is entitlement spending and a shitty Obama economy.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#28. To: Capitalist Eric (#27)
Net Present Value of all government promises, is >$200 trillion
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#29. To: Capitalist Eric (#26)
It's REALLY simple: the so-called "economic growth" you dopes are looking for, has been borrowed money...
--GW Bush
#30. To: jwpegler (#28)
--GW Bush
#31. To: war (#30)
since SS and Medicare are paid for with dedicated taxes
#32. To: no gnu taxes (#31)
Why are you spouting this nonsense that NOBODY believes anymore?
--GW Bush
#33. To: war (#32)
All this money goes into the general fund with a promise to return it.
#34. To: war (#32)
#35. To: war (#4)
#36. To: Skip Intro (#34)
#37. To: no gnu taxes (#33)
Please tell me you are not really this obtuse.
--GW Bush
#38. To: war (#37)
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
#40. To: no gnu taxes (#31)
I have dedicated funds for my mortgage, but when I tell my bank that I have other purposes for this money, they gladly accept the IOU I give them with promises to pay them back in full at some point in the future.
#41. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
The word is being used quite correctly towards you when you want to pretend this so called "dedicated tax" for SS means a damn thing. All of the money goes into the general fund and is used to fund everything.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]