This thread has grown considerably since the last time I checked it. Not sure how many other points have been made in the last couple of pages but I'll start here for now.
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
onetime is supposed to step in here and support your point. We'll see if he stays true to his earlier comments...
|
Not sure what you mean here smooth as far as staying true to earlier comments but....
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
I don't accept that Bush's tax cuts are the cause for our economic recovery. That's a near unprovable proposition when considering a system as complex as our economy. You can't lay all the responsibility for the health of the economy on the level of taxes in society. Why was the economy doing well under Clinton, before Bush's tax cuts? Wasn't economic success dependent on them?
|
cthulu23, you are absolutely right that the Bush tax cuts were not the sole factor in the economic growth we're seeing. As I've said too many other times to count, I do not believe the President has much power over the economy. There are exceptions like the declaration of war when that war is economically substantial (I do not consider the wars of late economically substantial enough to qualify but that's an entirely separate debate). The Bush tax cuts may have edged the economy along somewhat but, in the end, the contribution was negligible. The big driver of the economy is the consumer. Sure the consumer spent that tax cut and contributed to the economy but they would have spent more than that tax cut anyway based on their confidence and spending prior to the cuts. Consumers have been spending at unbelieveable rates and that is almost entirely due to increasing wealth (home prices and stock market investments), security (401k plans taking money directly out of paychecks to be put towards retirement), and low interest rates (relatively cheap home mortgages, car loans, credit card rates, etc).
I'm getting more than sick and tired of hearing about how horrible the economy is. The economy is not struggling and probably did not need the boost from the tax cuts as it was already recovered from its barely perceptible "recession". (Recession in quotes because it was among the most minor corrections in our nation's history).
Anyway, there are many very political reasons that Bush had to do something to prove he was taking on the economy. Those reasons were generated by the press and the President's opposition (and before the partisan crap starts flying, it's true for any President whether Republican or Democrat). There is a perception (or maybe it's just a misplaced hope, I don't know) that the President and the government can control or influence the economy. This belief is pervasive and will not change anytime soon. So, any President who doesn't take the economy seriously will be punished (as the first Bush was) any that doesn't take credit when the economy is good is an idiot and any opposition party that doesn't castigate the incumbent when the economy is bad is derelict in their job.
cthulu23, I could put together an economic analysis that shows how much better the lower economic classes are compared with previous years but it takes a ton of time and I've made the mistake of doing that before only for it to be completely ignored and "rebutted" by those who do their economic analysis by proxy using article quotes from others that don't address the points I make in my analysis.
In all truth it's not worth the time because most here prefer the sound bite economic analysis presented in magazine blurbs by pseudo economists with partisan agendas. This isn't meant as a criticism of you (or anyone else that's responded in this thread) just the facts as I see them.