Bush comes through for the working man
 

Once again George W. Bush comes through for the working man.

U.S. factory activity expanded at the fastest pace for 20 years in December, a survey showed Friday, adding evidence that a manufacturing recovery is under way and benefiting from the lower dollar in the form of higher exports.

The Institute for Supply Management said its barometer of manufacturing activity jumped to 66.2 in December from 62.8 in November. Wall Street economists had forecast the index at 61.0.

U.S. stock prices rose on the data while U.S. Treasury bond prices fell sharply.

"It's very positive for the the overall economic outlook, suggesting continued momentum in the manufacturing sector," said John Silvia, chief economist with Wachovia Bank in Charlotte, N.C. [Emphasis added]

What? You mean tax cuts can spur economic growth, and that increased growth will result in more jobs for the average person? How can this be? Michael Moore told me that the exact opposite was true! I'm so confused!

Oh, and for those of you who need a little help understanding these simple concepts, take a look at the text above. What year was it 20 years ago? 1983. Who was president in 1983? Ronald Reagan. What party was Reagan in? The GOP. Did Reagan cut taxes? No, he slashed taxes. What was the result of Reagan's tax cut program? Let's take a look.

Reagan's tax-rate cuts — combined with his emphasis on sound money, deregulation, and free trade — created a mighty economic expansion in the 1980s. Bob Bartley of the Wall Street Journal described this period as "the seven fat years." Any student of the 1980s, who wishes to know what really happened to the economy in the Reagan years must read Bartley's invaluable book by that title. This expansion carried through the 1990s as well — creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. "

The economy grew by more than one-third in size. Growth was so high in the 1980s that grouchy leftists were forced to resort to ridiculing the Reagan years as the "decade of greed."

Consider what happened to the net wealth of the nation over this lengthy period of peace and prosperity. In 1982 the Dow Jones hit a low point of 792. When Reagan left office, the market had more than tripled in value. Then in tripled again over the next 10 years. In other words, after the Reagan tax cuts, the stock market soared from a low of 800 to well over 10,000 today. Miraculous is the only word to describe this $15 trillion increase in Americans' wealth.

It wasn't just the affluent who benefited from the 1980s expansion. After Reagan's tax-rate cuts, real median family incomes, which had fallen sharply during the stagflationary period 1977-82, rose by nearly 10 percent. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile — from the richest to the poorest — gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data.

You can also check the data for yourself. Here's a summary.

The economic benefits of [Reagan's tax cut program] were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

So, bring on election 2004. I can't wait to see the Democrats trying to explain to voters their previous calls to repeal Bush's tax cuts.



Souces for this

http://www.nationalreview.com/balanc...ce081701.shtml

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

Uhm, as I'm not an american I'm not completely clear on the american tax system, but I'm lead to understand that mostly the rich benefit from anything bush has conjured up- or am i completely off?

Sorry, factory stats have nothing to do with what Bush has done.

This is from projections for future increased spending by the typical consumer,
who are just starting to emerge from the past downturn.

You can't not give Clinton credit for the 90's surge
and then say Bush has influence here.

Make your pick, they either both do or they both don't
Personally, I really don't think the President has that much control over the Economy.
The Treasury (ala Greenspan) probably has a bit more influence.
With lower interest rates for factory loans.
And they've worked under BOTH Presidents.

I do think they DO have significant influence on the budget
and the deficit.

And the tax measures passed are more for individual incomes,
not factory margins.
And they aren't significant enough to make a big different in spending habits.

Completly off. Dont believe the hype.

Clinton inherited a booming economy from Bush Sr, and if you remember he dropped the ball and the economy tanked in the last 18 months of Clinton's admin. Bush Jr inherited a floundering economy and turned it around and its growing like no one's buisness now.

No. I'm far from rich, and I received a very helpful sum of money from the Bush tax cut. The fact of the matter is that the wealthiest in the nation pay almost all of the taxes. In my opinion, those that paid the most deserve to get the most back in refunds.


Here's a resource which debunks the "tax cut for the rich" rhetoric. You'll have to got to the web page to get the graphs.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

<b>Below is an analysis of Congressional Budget Office (CB0) report entitled "Preliminary Estimates of Effective Tax Rates" (07-Sep-1999). The raw numbers can be scrutinized here:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...m=4&sequence=0
All I did was try to make heads or tails of the data by plotting it and extracting the most salient data. The Income Tax Burden is defined simply as who pays U.S. income taxes in the form of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and federal excise taxes. Based on this information, the following conclusions clearly emerge:
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.) </b>

Yes, comes through for the working man. Just like he tried to do for us working men with his planned destruction of our overtime benefits.

http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1307.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/B...ime030630.html

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17369

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

http://www.teamster.org/governmt/com...ionworkers.htm

And then killing OSHA ergonomics standards

http://www.teamster.org/sh/topic1.htm

Bush has NEVER been for the working man.

For a guy that has never been for the working man, he sure doesnt know how to do that right. 51% of the working man owns stocks, that are taking off. Jobs are being created, tax breaks, he sure doesnt know how to follow through on his hatred of the working man.

Oh man dude you are so right, the rich pay an unfair portion of the taxes. We should cut taxes for the rich... *ding* *brain turns on* I just remembered that the rich control a massive amount of wealth and that is why they are taxed so heavily.

The State of Working America 2002-03
"Like wages and incomes, wealth is a vital component of a family's standard of living. Several key features about American wealth stand out. First, wealth distribution is highly unequal. The wealthiest 1% of all households control about 38% of national wealth, while the bottom 80% of households hold only 17%. The ownership of stocks is particularly unequal. The top 1% of stock owners hold almost half (47.7%) of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% own just 4.1% of total stock holdings."

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bo...2_swa2002intro

The way you describe it one would think the economy moves in a somewhat cyclical pattern. I guess it's just that democratic presidents always mess things up and republican presidents always fix the economy, not that the economy moves in cycles that the president has no/little control over.

So what's your disagreement? Do you think that the wealthy shouldn't be included in a tax cut? Despite the fact that they pay most of the taxes?

I'm sure you had a point hidden somewhere in all that invective. . .please do share.

OK...forget about the rich vs. the poor thing.
And the taxes applied to them, these are the extremes of the curve.

Let's take the typical consumer, at the top of the curve.
Say a single person making 40,000 year.
What is the difference between what they gave in taxes before Bush's cut,
and after they went into effect.

And how much could they spend of it, especially distributed through paychecks in the year,
which is where it's usually taken from.

An official study of the tax laws passed by Federal government.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/RL31907.pdf

Page 8, lists the actual change inacted in the final bill.
Page 11, analyzes the Economic Stimulus & Growth Effects, and opinion
Page 14, analyzes the Distributional Effect, and opinon
On page 16 is the first chart of the rates, and their differences.

All of this is very interesting to review.
However, taking the example given above
A $40,000 income...taxes will be reduced on average approx. 3,856 over the year. (-4.3%)
Divide this into say 24 paychecks (most are getting paid twice monthly these days)
That's an extra $160.60 not taken from your paycheck.

An overall increase of after-tax income of only 2.1 %

Nice,
But does that necessarily help stimulate the economy?
Most experts say no, it's impact is minimal
including this report, done by the government itself.

To get back to the original topics point...
I doubt the monies that were saved on incomes directly impacted factory stats.
It's the fact the company outlook & economy overall is improving
after recovering from its overindulgence in the past years.

Damn...that was fun. :)

So you are saying that an extra 80 bucks in your pocket times how many millions of Americans does nothing for the US economy?

It does something for it, but unlike numerous projections, peopel fail to realize the alternatives to where that money goes, and simply from basic economics, one realizes that simply putting money into the pockets of people does not mean an overall better economy.

Really? So the average joe getting more money in their pocket doesnt help the econonmy? How so?

"Once again George W. Bush comes through for the workingman."
LOL Thanks for the laugh dude. That's one of the funniest things I've read.

I think you need to read what was under it. Either that, or say why you thought it was funny.

On the left hand you believe this and on the right you belittle the welfare state.

That what you are about to argue may be good for the middle class does not in any way mean that Shrub came through for them. What it means is that the tax cuts to pay off the richest americans for their support actually did put so much money into the economy that some of it slipped through their fingers.

Yes, the economy is really picking up. Can't argue with that. But is it the tax cuts that did it or was it something else? My contention (unsupported at the moment) is that the Bush economic fiasco actually delayed the recovery.

What Poppie Bush called voodoo economics. It's as dead and discredited a theory as Strange Famous's. Why Why Why must folks keep dragging it up?

That's swell, but I only want one job. This economic growth is coming at the expense of more costly healthcare, education, food, energy, insurance (roads deteriorate, driving gets less safe, insurance goes up), and state services ($6 a day to get into a frickin' county swinning pool!?). At this rate, any job growth is going to be sucked up by folks who need more than one job to get by.

You had a good argument going until you got there, and then I realized that you must be talking smack if you needed to go there.

George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Hell, he's no Dan Quayle. While those numbers look very convincing, they portray only the plus side of Supply Side econ. The Minus side is a boom and bust cycle that runs out of control and needs to be reined in every couple of years by someone who works for the people instead of the CEOs.

How's about: "Economy looks really swell right now. Most unfortunate you're not going to be able to afford to send your kids to college or any of that snazzy new medical technology they're coming up with. This economy is booming! Half of it is going like gangbusters, the half that makes headlines. And you are paying for it. Your Children will pay for it, and your Grandchildren and their grandchildren will still be paying for it. George W. Bush brought an MBA to the whitehouse and promised to apply modern business methods to government, and boy has he. Just like Ken Lay." You wanted some rhetoric explaining away a booming economy, you got it.

Thanks for documentation, though. I'm not all that good at it, I admit.

Endymon32 and I are both true believers in our respective ideologies (and thanks, Strange Famous, for moving the center under me) so neither of us are going to be convinced by the other, but I hope I have given the rest of you some reasonable doubts about the original post here, and perhaps some folks with a talent for substantiation want to step in at this point.

What is inconsistant about my stance? I belive in less taxes so the average person can have more of their own earned money. I think the more you hand out to people the less inclind they are to provide for themselves.

Sorry Tophat, but you can't argue with the results. You can try to convice me that Bush is wrong, but the soaring econony, lowering unemployment, rising stocks, and more money in my pocket claim otherwise.

You said that the average joe getting money in their pockets helps the economy. The welfare state does just that, gives money to the average joe. If giving money to average people helps the economy then why does it matter if they deserve the money.

Cause the welfare state takes away money from the average joe. That money doesnt magically apear. Someone, either buisness or the normal person has to loose that money. So all it really does is rob from the average to give to someone else. And it keeps the welfare reciever from paying their share, while at the same time keeps them from bettering themselves.

So giving people money doesn't spur the economy, the source of that money is what causes change ? Explain the economic difference between higher taxes leading to a larger welfare state and lower taxes giving money back to recipients.

We should clarify what these overtime rules mean. I'm drawing on the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...vertime11.html) and the Dayton Business Journal (http://columbus.bizjournals.com/colu...ditorial1.html) for two different looks at said overtime laws. First, the proposed major changes:

• Salaried employees making less than $425 a week, or $22,100 a year, automatically would qualify for overtime, up from $155 a week, or $8,060 annually, previously.
• Workers who make $65,000 or more a year and performed any of the revised list of duties would be exempt from overtime pay.

In other words, what the law was supposed to do was to ensure more low-wage Americans and less high-wage (typically salaried) workers received overtime. The idea is working on the perception that businesses paid already high-paid, salaried managers and white-collar employees overtime, essentially passing over the low-paid employees. Thus, businesses take what they would have paid one or two (already high-paid, salaried) managers' overtime and give them to four or five hourly workers. It doesn't seem so unreasonable.

Speaking from someone who made more than $8,060 but less than $22,100 not so long ago, I would have loved to have this law in place. It's ridiculous that only people who make less than $155 a week automatically qualify for overtime.

One other major point of contention that also needs to be clarified is how many workers will be affected. The Labor Department says 644,000 and the "Economic Policy Institute" says 8 million. The differences are as follows:

Labor Department: "What the Labor Department got is a snapshot of the average number of Americans paid overtime in a particular week and an estimate of how many wouldn't qualify if the rules were changed."

EPI: "The Economic Policy Institute asked, 'How many workers are eligible for overtime who wouldn't be eligible under the changes?'"

We see now how we get the difference in numbers. The Labor Department measures how many people working overtime would directly be affected. The EPI measured how many people could possibly be affected, regardless of whether or not they work overtime. Likely, the real number is somewhere in between, but probably closer to the Labor Department's number, as there are many people out there eligible for overtime that don't work it, either because they don't have to or they don't want to.

Counting those people is somewhat dishonest and artifically inflates the numbers; it would be like the Labor Department countering by saying that every worker making between $8,000 and $21,000 would benefit from the new overtime law. (The Labor Department says at least 1.3 million would benefit; according to the Census 20% of American households make less than $17,916.)

-- Alvin

EDIT: Grammar, "Business" changed to "Businesses" in the second paragraph.

This reminds me of that 80's Ratt hit....:rolleyes:

To fund welfare, you must take money away from people. Then you give that stolen money to people that did nothing to contribute to society. So you are rewarded for your hard work by paying for those that dont work hard.
THe people that dont work, dont need to work, and therefore have no incentive to work. This keeps a perment class of of people dependant on welfare, and the average joe is screwed out of their own fruit of their labor.
There are plenty of people that can not work. They need to be taken care off, but there are far more that can work that don't. To force one person to pay for another that does not work but is able to, is harmful.

Re: Bush comes through for the working man
 

Wow that is well written, I wish I could write things like that.... OR for that matter plagerize it from http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php . Taking someone elses work and claiming it for yourself citing the original sources is bad, bad academic/debate voodoo. Seriously, plagerizing others work is a bad habit, especially when a random google can reveal it. I'm not trying to detract from the arguments or Ad hom but just pointing out a fact.

I said ECONOMIC differences, not social, please explain the economic differences and quit question dodging. I was under the impression that from a GDP perspective, which I believe you have advocated in the past, no difference exists.

Rogue, I dont know about you but an extra 4-5k a year in my pocket sure makes me feel like my taxes were cut.

And Tophat, I dont know where you live but here in Jersey,
Healthcare, insurance, energy, food, and roads are all stable.

I have no knowelge on education costs, but then again I do not think it is the governments responsibilty to assist anyone in higher education.

Big tax cut eh?????

Hmmm, I have a few sobering thoughts to all you, "I have 3 or 4k more in my pocket now" guys out there.

Try this one on for size........

500 billion dollar annual US federal budget deficit.

500,000,000,000.00 Dollars.

Better read this one ...... http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Bush is just borrowing money to fund your tax cut. Plain and simple.

Oh, and next year, the budget deficit is projected to be even more.

Wake up, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You might think so, but there is not. It's all politics. Bush wants relected, so to make you feel like he's "coming through for the working man" he borrows money and hands the problem to some future poor slob of a president.

You can live in denial all you want, but that debt is REAL, and the tax dollars that go to pay just the interest will be staggering.

La la la la ho hum de dum. Living in a dream world........

Just wait till uncle alan greenspan has no choice but to raise interest rates to protect the plunging dollar and to satiate the falling bond market. It's going to be very very ugly.

I plan to liquidate all my stocks held (as trivial as they may be) prior to 2005 because this economy is going to shut down once the borrowed money tit dries up sometime after the next US election.

i think i see a pig flying outside my window..........................no wait it's just Dick Cheney

Re: Re: Bush comes through for the working man
 

Where did I claim it as mine? Its a valid argument that I posted, and you cant knock it so you attack the person. Nice tactic. Do you have anything real to add?

Nice insightful comment. With plenty of back up.

Re: Re: Re: Bush comes through for the working man
 

he has a point. in the future, if you're gonna bring an article up for discussion, please give it the proper references, and put the text in quote tags. as is, it appears you are the author.

Personally I'm for paying off the national debt before giving away the store. Let's balance the budget (highest percentage growth in non-defense, elective spending in the history of the Republic) and not indenture our children's children's children. But Americans love instant gratification so that is what they'll be spoon fed.

Were other posters here aware that the G.O.P. has compensated operatives that post in political boards?

2Wolves

no I wasn't... do you have some kind of proof to back that statement up?

it was meant to be comical sorry your sense of humour is in the shop. we get the point you love george bush with little snippets of kinda useful information. i still agree with rogue that the factories booming have nothing to do with bush. and if they do maybe it's because there's a war going on. insightful enough. of course not as insightful as you as you know all or this is what i've gathered from other threads.

So the factories have nothing to do with Bush, but they might.... Please pick a stance and stand by it.

quote:
Originally posted by nanofever
Wow that is well written, I wish I could write things like that.... OR for that matter plagerize it from http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php . Taking someone elses work and claiming it for yourself citing the original sources is bad, bad academic/debate voodoo. Seriously, plagerizing others work is a bad habit, especially when a random google can reveal it. I'm not trying to detract from the arguments or Ad hom but just pointing out a fact.

quote:
Originally posted by Endyomn32
Where did I claim it as mine? Its a valid argument that I posted, and you cant knock it so you attack the person. Nice tactic. Do you have anything real to add?


Actually, I was making it a point to say that it wasn't an Ad hom or personal attack, just a friendly piece of advice that taking other's work and making it appear as your own is a Bad habit to get into. It's one of those fark-up once on the wrong thing and get failed in a class, or kicked out of college or fired from a job. You don't have to get defensive as I responded to your argument after I pointed-out the plagery. Just chill and admit that your bonked on this one.

In this way. No specific cuts in any other Federal spending were made to provide the $80 in everyone's pocket. Therefore, the total handed out is added to the National debt. The debt is growing at record speed. It reduces the money available for loans and capital expenditures. More and more of our debt is owned by foreign individuals and governments. Our economy is a house of cards. Perhaps it won't fall until our grandchildren come of age. We are stretched way too thin.

I'll tell you my personal experience with Bush's tax cut.

I make 29,500 a year. I am a renter. I am getting 1.78 a week back in my federal taxes because of bush's tax cut. I am paying an extra 2.75 in local taxes now that came about several months after Bush's tax cut. That extra tax is a direct response to the choke on money Bush put on states.
I have no children, I have no stocks.

http://www.gopteamleader.com/

To see the "Action Items" you have to join up. I don't feel like being assimilated.

2Wolves

Gee that sucks. As a renter with no stocks,no kids, while I was in school making 15k a year being supported by my wife who made 34k we got back the full 600 from the first tax cut as well as have seen an improvement in our checks (don't recall amount). Maybe the problem is you can't see much of a tax cut when you don't pay very much in Federal taxes eh?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107341,00.html
Any fair tax cut gives more money to the 'rich' because the 'rich' are the ones paying the fucking taxes.

The rich should be the ones paying a greater share of federal taxes as it is the federal government that is ensuring that their income and collection of wealth are safe.

Federal Government is a form of insurance. When you have more to insure, you pay a premium to the insurer.

The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.78% of the taxes collected.

The top 5% pays 53.25% of ALL taxes. Yes 5% of America pays for over 1/2 the tax.

This is why whines about 'fair share' are really assinine.

This strikes me as totally fair, since the top 5% of America controls 57.4% of the wealth (at least in 1998):

http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/pol...ealthdist.html

Take a look at the distribution - the top 20% control more than 80% of the wealth. So quitcher whining about "fair."

So the rich are paying their fair share then, so why do people whine about 'tax cuts' for the rich. And note I'm using the democrat definition of rich, which is basicly someone with a good job.

Because, first, according to lurketts and your figures, the rich are already paying BELOW their fair share,

Top 5% are paying 53% according to you, when they control 57%, according to lurkette.

So the tax cuts are dropping their already unfairly low share even lower.

Does that seem fair to you?

And what is being dropped, a big part, are the top 5%'s vast assortment of stock portfolios, (taxes dropped entirely after next year) which for many accounts for their entire yearly income. Allowing them to live tax free, while I have to pay my fair share.

i was writing this at two in the morning sorry great one my words got mixed up. your great leader had NOTHING to do with the factories booming. maybe bush should try doing something good for the world and NOT run for re-election.

You might find this site interesting in defining "rich":

<a href="http://www.lcurve.org/">http://www.lcurve.org/</a>

"Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes of a few hundred thousand dollars may feel "rich". They may have nicer homes and cars, and they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings. Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2%."

My personal definition of the "rich" is someone who doesn't have to, or can stop working today and easily maintain a standard of living for the rest of their lives that is above the norm. The qualifier for the old is if a good portion of their adult life has been that way.

Ahhhh then why do you support people who think of rich as a household income over 60k, and tax them as such?

Maybe because what you said is a fabrication and Democrats do no such thing?

Do you want to address the top 5% skipping out on 4% of their tax burden, while you still define their tax cut within the confines of them paying their fair share?

Also, addessing the real meat of this topic, of Bush "coming through for the working man:

Look at these two charts from the economic policy institute.


The first one shows that Q3 2003 wage increases very low and Q4 2003 wages decreasing. Wage growth is FALLING behind inflation. That is not coming through for the america worker.


Now for job growth. Q4 98 to Q4 2000 we were creating more jobs, and higher paying ones at that.
Q4 2001 to 2003 we are making less jobs than we are losing, and the ones we are making are lower paying than the ones we are losing.

Median income has been falling for two years now.

I guess we're back again to the topic of how much does the President control the economy. Since he doesn't, the unemployment rate, poverty rate, and median income have no relevance to the discussion. But alas, some people continue to believe the President reigns supreme and can dictate the course of the economy.

Interesting that many of those same people claiming the Pres can impact the economy point to the tax cut as being the reason the economy grew at such an incredible rate in the 3rd quarter of 2003. Now, if this tax cut only went to the rich, how could it possibly have had such an impact?

Of course people who don't pay much in taxes won't get much relief when it comes to a tax cut.

As far as Bush being a boon to the working man, again, he has no real impact on the economy. The billions of dollars Bush has added to government spending is dwarfed by the size of the economy. Increased manufacturing, while slightly impacted by Bush's spending, is due to the perception that demand is increasing due to a strengthening economy.

Everything good that happens isn't because Bush is a genius, just as everything bad that happens isn't because Bush is the anti-christ.

I personally think the President has a very real, indirect effect on our economy.

Policy decisions, both internal and external such as tax cuts and starting wars, and helping america and the companies in its borders feel secure. Keeping the nation financially solvent, paying down our national debt (to me this is the most direct and powerful means a President can effect the economy). His ability to charge up the american population. The willingness of the government to go after companies who cheat the system such as the disregarding of several major corporations moving their accounts offshore.

I think these things, plus many others have a very real effect on the economy.

Or you can believe that what FDR did had no effect on taking us from the worst Depression this country has ever seen to the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

Here's an editorial from the Post talking about Bush's economic recovery, and what it's done for the working man.

Actually, what FDR did in the New Deal didn't have direct impact on the economy.
It wasn't until the miltary/industrial complex kicked in for WWII and after that the economy recovered.

Now what it DID impact, was it allowed many people out of work to have jobs that they might not have.
Plus it set up projects such as the Tennessee Valley Project that had overall regional infrastructure improvement
that increased the economic potential for that area over the long term.
And it setup protectionary standards, entities and programs that would protect the average person on down
and the local economies from corporate abuses, economic downturns, and personal crisises.

WWII was the rocket. (or at least the catalyst)
FDR's programs were the parachute afterwards.

Ok this statistic is directly out of James Carvilles latest book Had Enough

He says he gets his statistic out of the US Department of Labor Statistics

Rate of Job Growth (or loss) by President.

Democrats
5.3 Roosevelt
3.8 Johnson
3.1 Carter
2.5 Truman
2.4 Clinton
2.3 Kennedy

Republicans
2.2 Nixon
2.1 Reagan
1.1 Coolidge
1.1 Ford
0.9 Eisenhower
0.6 G.Bush
-0.7 GWBush
-9.0 Hoover

This is every President since Calvin Coolidge, Eight Republicans, Six Democrats.
Every Democrat presided over greater job growth than every Republican. Ability or Coincidence. Who knows, but those are some pretty steep odds.

Is that % increase or decrease, Superbelt?

percent increase... for everyone but Dubya and Hoover.

1) "factory activity" does not necessarilly mean "lots of jobs were created." It could, and probably does, mean that factories are producing more with fewer people than in the past. Meanwhile, Bush wants to cut the workers' overtime pay. Comes through for the working man my foot.

2) Cutting taxes while increasing spending to gargantuan proportions WILL stimulate the economy, but ONLY in the short term. It is not sustainable. That extra 4 or 5 grand in your pocket won't mean jack when the economy tanks again.
A simple explanation of this is: If you have $10, and you get $1, you now have $11. But if the value of the dollar falls so that your $11 can only buy as much as $9 bought before, you have actually LOST a real dollar, even though you appear to have gained one. Cash in your pocket is meaningless if the economy tanks.

3) Here comes the old "it takes 8 years for presidential policy to have an effect on the economy" - this is the excuse republicans used to claim Clinton didn't turn the economy around at all. Unfortunately, those same republicans had 12 YEARS to try trickledown economics and it didn't help anything. If it takes 8 years for a good economic policy to effect the economy positively, and they had 12 years, then obviously their economic plan isn't a good one.

These same republicans are now crowing that, in less than 4 years, Bush Jr. has boosted the economy, despite the fact that they claimed Clinton couldn't have boosted it in his first 4 years because of the 8 year rule. These arguments are made separately from each other in the hopes that the ignorant masses will fall for it, and in many cases those hopes have been realized.

The real story is very simple. You cannot cut your income while increasing your expenditures without winding up in a worse financial situation than you were before. Who here thinks that reducing their salary while increasing the amount of stuff they buy would result in them getting rich?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3882629/

"The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year.

The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms."

Warms the cockles.

2Wolves

There's something highly Orwellian about the Labor Department giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime. :crazy:

Yep, I've heard plenty of my neighbors say "You know, I wasn't going to get the bigger house/new car/the DVD player I always wanted, but Clinton/Bush/Carter/whoever has made me feel much safer so I'm gonna splurge".

The things you mention most people take for granted and they do not impact day to day or long-term spending. Americans feel relatively safe, they generally believe that, while not altruistic and certainly out for their themselves/their leaders, corporations are more or less safe investments. These aren't things at the forefront of their economic decisions.

Interest rates, home prices, inflation, jobs, ease of getting credit, consumer confidence, consumer spending etc have far greater impacts than anything you mentioned and are not directly controlled by the President. The President may be able to influence some of them perhaps putting pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates (although Greenspan is pretty good about keeping out of the politics game), inspiring consumer confidence to a minor degree, etc but he has no direct way of impacting these things. He could start a major government jobs initiative but that would only be a short term fix and would simply increasse the debt you rail about.

The President has no way to know what will inspire confidence or what the reaction of the consumer will be to any of his actions. The consumer is unpredictable because he/she has varying needs/desires/fears. What causes consumers to stop spending one year may influence them to spend more the following year. There are far too many influences on the consumer to think any one action can have a predetermined effect on him/her. And, in the end, it's the consumer who determines what the economy does.

Once again, throwing out one or two figures to describe the economy and the relative success or failure of an administration is misleading and in many cases just political finger pointing. How about throwing in the incredible levels of productivity increases for each administration? What do you think that does? More productive workers means fewer workers are required. How about throwing in the trends around women joining the workforce in a major way? What do you think that does to the numbers?

1. Yep, activity does not mean jobs.
2. First off, the spending does not significantly impact the economy. Look at the size of the economy versus the spending. It's a drop of water in the sea. Second, I don't know where you're getting the 4 or 5k figure but regardless, there's little evidence that there's inflation, so your spending power is not decreasing. Third, which would you feel better about in the face of a tanking economy, having that 4 or 5k you speak of or the government having it? Fourth, can you honestly say that the economy isn't going to tank again if the government just had more money? Of course it's going to tank again and there's not a person alive who can control it.

3. I'm a Republican and I've been saying the Pres has virtually no influence over the economy. Your brethren point to Bush as being the cause of the downturn, does that mean the election of a President retroactively effects the economy? Please. The economy moves in cycles the President simply suffers or prospers at the hand of the economy's performance.

And lastly, why would we want to make the government rich?

Are you forgetting to include the cost of the war?

Quote:

Second, I don't know where you're getting the 4 or 5k figure but regardless, there's little evidence that there's inflation, so your spending power is not decreasing.

the 4 or 5 k figure was mentioned by someone in a post above. I was just using it.

No, there's not much inflation now, but there will be when the economy takes a nosedive.

Quote:

Third, which would you feel better about in the face of a tanking economy, having that 4 or 5k you speak of or the government having it?

Woah, hold on. Sure in your hypothetical situation I'd feel better about me having it. HOWEVER, in the real world I'd rather the government have it if it means that the economy WON'T tank.

Quote:

Fourth, can you honestly say that the economy isn't going to tank again if the government just had more money? Of course it's going to tank again and there's not a person alive who can control it.

Just having more money isn't the only answer - you have to have responsible spending as well. I know that the republican mantra is smaller government, but that's not what they're actually going for. They love to rail on the dems for wanting to spend money on social programs, but when they seize the reigns of power, they cut the social programs but increase the spending on the military.

I'm all for national defense, but Bush has turned it into the Department of War again. This little adventure he's forced us in to in Iraq has cost us a fortune. Then he wants to dick around with Star Wars, which doesn't work even when they cheat on the test. This is not smaller government folks, this is just reallocation of resources. If you insist on paying for all this crap, you gotta have a means to earn enough money to do so.

Quote:

3. I'm a Republican and I've been saying the Pres has virtually no influence over the economy. Your brethren point to Bush as being the cause of the downturn, does that mean the election of a President retroactively effects the economy? Please. The economy moves in cycles the President simply suffers or prospers at the hand of the economy's performance.

No. Sure, the economy was in a standard cyclical downturn when Bush took control, but he's made that downturn much worse. The economy does move in cycles, BUT you can mitigate the downturns if you have intelligent fiscal policy. Bush is not interested in doing that.

Quote:

And lastly, why would we want to make the government rich?

Oh. OK. I guess you're saying you want to stop driving (government pays for the roads) and eating relatively safe food (who do you think inspects the meat you're eating?). I suppose you also want to revert to an anarchic system of vigilante justice, because the government pays for the police too. Hope your house doesn't catch fire, because you don't want to make the government rich so we'll have to kill off all the fire departments.

Live in an area that gets snow in the winter? There's two strikes against driving. The government funds the plowing, but we can't make the government "rich" so we'll just cut the plows as well. Might as well, because we no longer have any roads to plow anyway.

Let's not forget city sewer, trash collection, etc.

In short, if we don't "make the government rich" we'll quickly find ourselves living in one giant craphole. People want all these services but balk at paying for them with taxes. That's absurd.

Nitpicky point, but a lot of those services are funded by local governments - property taxes, per-use fees, etc. Granted, local governments do get some funding from state and federal sources that fund some services, but mostly these things are paid for on a local level.

Mostly, what letting the government keep the tax cuts would do is allow them to either increase spending in certain areas, or decrease the deficit, which would be good for the economy at least in the future. It's not a matter of the government being "rich," it's a matter of whether they are using the funds we give them efficiently, effectively, and for priorities that are in line with what the American people want.

Here's an interesting breakdown of U.S. government spending in 2001:

<a href="http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/resources/MNMilSpend2002.pdf">http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/reso...lSpend2002.pdf</a>

Whenever I see that kind of graph lurkette, I get so pissed off.
This nations biggest expenditure, is paying for our debt.

Conservatives, think of how much more money this country could one day give back to you, to put into your pocket and your childrens pockets permenantly if our government, like Clinton and the previous republican congress, just stressed a little fiscal discipline.
Our number one priority behind all the basics like defense, and infrastructure should be paying off our national debt. It is crushing us. You don't give "tax cuts" when you have something like that looming over you.

GW is steadily choking us out with his damned tax cuts. What will it take for you guys to get on board? Does our payment of interest alone have to outweight the entirety of the rest of our national budget for everyone to get serious about this? Because that day is going to happen if we don't reverse the course.

I enjoyed this deficit 30-second tv spot:

Child's Pay

Not forgetting the cost of war at all. GDP = $10 Trillion that's a mighty big ocean.

In the real world, the government can't guarantee a consistently growing economy, so no, them having money, even with fiscal responsibility, will not keep the economy on track.

How has Bush made the downturn worse? If you are of the opinion that the Pres can and does influence the economy, you have to say that he has made it better since there were three quarters with negative growth rates (two of which were barely negative making this "barely" a recession) and there have since been 8 quarters of growth.

If anything the government should be breaking even not generating a profit or becoming rich. Your assumptions about roads, garbage collection, fire departments, etc are completely misguided. In most cases you're talking state and local taxes versus national taxes. In the case of roads, the government is wholly inefficient when it comes to building and maintaining roads.

Nobody has "balked at paying taxes" I simply "balk" at paying MORE taxes when the current use of our taxes is riddled with fraud, abuse, and unaccountability.

We should be paying more into the federal government because we need to to pay off the deficit as quickly as possible.

First off, what makes you think you'd see any of that money back if we magically balanced the budget and paid off all debt?

Second, where do you think that money goes when the government is paying off debt? Got any bonds?

Third, I agree that we need fiscal responsibility. Why don't you call for more efficient use of the funds the federal government has rather than ask for more taxes to be paid by the population? While the masses buy into the "look who's spending what" finger pointing of our politicians they avoid having to make the tough decisions about cutting needless spending, fraud, and sloppy accounting.

Why are you limiting your possible solutions to binary sets? Would it burst the collective intellect of America to roll back the current administrations tax cuts, cut corporate welfare AND control spending? Have someone standup, head of Treasury for example, and be a real hardass about looking more then a quarter or two down the line. A continual gadfly pissing in the soup of whatever party/individual is being the most fugg headed at the moment. The president could stay a step back (they always want to get re-elected) and say "That Bob/Judy/X, kinda crazy but makes some good sense...."

Simple answers are for simple problems.

2Wolves

People love to bash the democrats for wanting to raise taxes. We don't. We want to do whatever is necessary to keep the budget in line and ensure the best economy we can have. That means cutting ridiculous spending and sometimes it means increasing taxes. That's unfortunate, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Bush, on the other hand, wants to run around cutting taxes (mostly for the more wealthy), increasing spending, and then claiming the budget is fine. He even said once "I don't care about balancing the budget, I just want to create jobs." Combine that with his bragging that he purposely avoids informing himself as to the current news situation, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I also find it hilarious that republicans like to say they don't raise taxes. Well, Bush Jr.'s daddy ran on the "no new taxes" promise, then he raised existing ones rather than create new ones.

Sure the GDP looks good NOW, but as I've said it is NOT sustainable. Our output exceeds our maximum output potential. That can't go on forever, and the longer we wait to do something about it the worse it's gonna hurt when the whole thing breaks.


Uh, if the government pays off debt, they buy back the bonds from the bondholder. Sure, that puts money in my pocket, but it's money I lent to the government in the first place. That's a VERY different story from giving me a refund on money I OWED the government. Paying off bonds is paying off a debt. Cutting taxes is giving expensive presents in a time when the government can't afford to.

We wouldn't see that specific chunk of money back, ever.
That money, our federal deficit interest payments, are needed to shore up Social Security. If we don't, Social Security is in danger of completely collapsing. We are currently on a course towards national bankruptcy.

This country does depend on social security, without it millions would sink into poverty. And as the baby boomers start retiring, it will become more and more important to shore up.

Please substantiate the first statement here. It's absolutely dumbfounding. How can our output possibly exceed our "maximum output potential"?

Yes, you lent them money and you were paid interest on it. Without government bonds what are the "safe" investment alternatives that limit risk to investors?

The government does not need more money. They need to be held accountable for the ways they use the money they already get.

Exactly, the government would keep it. That is the opposite of what you alluded to in your first post on what we could do with the debt payments.

As far as social security, it absolutely needs help and the baby boomers will be a huge burden to the system. Now, let's prioritize the current expenditures of the government and put the money where it's needed most. When you learn your expenses will significantly increase in the coming year (say rent goes up) do you expect your current employer to automatically cough up? It would be nice, but we know that doesn't usually happen. You are forced to cut back on going out to dinner, perhaps make due with your current car, give up the name brand products and go with generics. The government continually increases spending and almost never eliminates a program. They simply pass the cost along to the taxpayer. Taxes should not be raised unless all other options have been tried and or exhausted. Tax cuts can help to force that process along. Of course it won't work if the current admin decides later to raise taxes or the next admin repeals the cuts or enacts new taxes.

You're right. So what we need to do is bite the bullet, shout back at/deselect a president who wants to destroy our ability to pay down the debt, kick out the congressmen who have created the most disgusting batch of pork barrel projects this country has ever seen and sacrifice, through fair taxation, to free up that interest money.

Then when that money is free to be used, you're right. This country won't need a larger share of your money.

Well, actually no. By not paying down the debt it becomes necessary in the interest of this countrys solvency to raise taxes. That would just be more of your money you can't keep.
Paying off the debt frees that money up so you can stop fretting over your taxes being raised and used for ill.

And in your analogy.. (I) have tremendous credit card debt, crippling. I'm already barely making ends meet.
So I of course decide to give back part of my pay each week to my boss. That's your tax cut.

Now how can I pay off my credit debt?

Without prioritizing expenditures and cleaning house, raising taxes is pointless, it just gives the government more time to avoid making the tough decisions. Raising taxes has been the answer for far too long. First prove that every ounce of fat (hell, one ounce of fat is more than has been cut in decades) has been cut from current expenditures and then I will gladly contribute more taxes if the country is in desperate straits.

If you want to recall ALL the politicians based on their fiscal actions, I'll agree so long as we put people in place who will first cut spending before they reach into the citizens pockets again.

As far as how you will pay off your credit card debt, a start would be to stop subsidizing your crazy uncle's performance art then proceed to cut out every other expense that ranks lower than your priority of reducing credit card debt. Until that's done you're nowhere near a path to being debt free.

You weren't forced to take a macroeconomics class in school were you? ;) I hated that class, but it did lead to some understanding of the economy that I wouldn't have otherwise.

The output potential is a measure of the maximum sustainable output - i.e. all resources allocated at 100% and at maximum efficiency. Resources in this case means not only raw materials, but also machinery, and (most important for this situation) human resources. The output potential is figured with everyone working at 100%.

Government spending means government is buying stuff. The industries they're buying stuff from have to ramp up production to meet the demand, but the economy isn't very good and they aren't creating jobs to do it. Instead, they're making their people work longer hours, maybe increasing the length of time between inspection/repair on their machinery, etc. In short, they're operating at over 100%. You can do this for awhile, but eventually the people get tired, the machines break, etc, and things come crashing back below 100% (broken machine = output reduced far below 100%. People using sick leave to avoid having to work themselves to the bone = output reduced far below 100%).



That's a very simplistic example, but I didn't feel like writing a novel at 1:30 in the morning ;)


Basically, what Bush is able to do here is artificially boost the economy. He'll probably be able to maintain it past the election, but shortly after that we're gonna hurt.

Look at it this way. WHY is the economy so much better? We're in debt up to our eyeballs, and Iraq is not going to alleviate that situation at all any time soon. We've lost 6 million jobs since Bush took office, and they haven't been replaced yet. The government is cutting its income while increasing its expenditures despite the fact that we're already holding a massive deficit. Corporations are downsizing left and right. If you hold a job for 10 years you're damn lucky. In short, there is absolutely NO REASON for the economy to look this rosy, except that it's being artificially manipulated. This pseudo-boom won't last forever, and when it busts it's gonna hurt. Especially when you factor in the fact that in 4 years the baby boomers start retiring, which will stress the holy hell out of social security, medicare, etc. When the boomers are retired, we're gonna have a huge population of people who are not contributing to the economy but who are using resources from it, and they're likely to do that for 30+ years because our life expectancy is so high. This country is in deep economic trouble and unless we start fixing it right now, today, with none of this cutting taxes bullshit, and none of this "social security will fix itself, let's pretend there's no danger here" bullshit, and none of this "I don't care about the deficit" bullshit, we're going to suffer an economic meltdown that will make the depression look like a picnic.

After all, the depression was mainly a matter of confidence. People no longer had confidence in the economy, so they quit investing, spending, etc, so businesses started getting in financial trouble, so people got more worried, and spent even less, until it had snowballed into a terrible situation.

The coming depression won't be about confidence at all. It will involve real economic shortfalls rather than perceived ones. We can have all the confidence we want, but if the money's not there, the money's not there. In other words, the depression was relatively easy to get out of - create artificial jobs (new deal/WPA) to get money flowing so people would stop worrying so much and start spending. In the coming crash, we won't be able to get off that easy.

BTW, I completely agree with you that the government needs to spend responsibly, but Bush isn't doing that either. It's irresponsible to invest money in a system (Star Wars) that was already proven not to work, and is of limited value anyway. After all, Star Wars was designed to stop Soviet ICBMs from hitting us. They're not bloody likely to be launching any at us any time soon. Iraq is a huge expenditure that was not necessary. We are supposed to defend ourselves, not attack at random. Afghanistan harbored bin Laden, who attacked us, and therefore we had every right to go in and dismantle the organization that was sheltering him. I supported that fully.

Saddam did not attack us, had no way of attacking us (his best missile flew 120 miles. How is that a threat to us, thousands of miles away?). Plus, Iraq diverted military resources from finding bin Laden, who is still at-large. In short, Iraq was a war that we did not NEED to fight for our national security. We gained NOTHING from it (and lost much), so it was an irresponsible decision to invade - whether you look at it from a moral, humanitarian, or economic viewpoint. Bush will have spent billions on fighting Iraq - billions that could have gone into strengthening the economy. He is NOT a fiscally responsible president.


heh. went and wrote a novel anyway. sorry for the length.

In fact I took quite a few Macro classes. You're terminology is confused. Maximum sustainable output is different from maximum output potential. By definition you can never exceed the maximum output potential.

As far as your explanation, your analysis, while thoughtful, is mistaken. Bush has not artificially inflated anything. As noted, his spending has little real impact on the economy and corporations are not downsizing like crazy as you seem to think. Productivity levels are increasing making new jobs unnecessary until consumer demand ramps back up to the levels we saw in the recent past. The growth we saw under Clinton was far from sustainable (not blaming Clinton, just putting it in a time context) and everyone knew it. Articles were written for years about how even a slowdown in the economy would **feel** much worse than it is because we were used to seeing 5 or 6% economic growth. The Federal Reserve has had a goal of 2.5 to 3.0% GDP growth since Greenspan took over. That's the range (maybe a little more now that the economy has proved prices won't go crazy so long as productivity continues to increase) he will continue to shoot for with his monetary policy.

Your belief that it's all about confidence is absolutely right. So long as the consumer is confident and spending money, the economy will remain healthy. The things that have allowed the consumer to continue spending are increasing wealth due to their investments, savings (401ks and the like), and home values. Throw in the low interest rates which have allowed them to both tap into the equity in their homes and/or to save money on debt payments and you've got the answer to why the economy has been performing so well (with the exception of three quarters which showed negative growth rates more than two years ago).

Your forecast of a new depression based on things other than confidence is misguided. There are real economic problems and they have little to do with national debt. Personal debt remains at incredible levels. Credit card debt is particularly worrying as it carries very high interest rates. As far as the boomers who are retiring, not all will be relying on social security as their primary income. Retirees are, more than ever, better prepared for retirement. Access to the stock market, 401k plans, IRAs, etc have never been more prolific. With almost 70% of US families owning their own homes and the home market remaining strong, there is a very real base of wealth that no one seems to add into their "social security nightmare" scenarios. Your simplification of the end to the depression is mistaken as well. There were far more factors than just creating a few jobs, but I will leave that for another discussion.

As far as Iraq, on one hand you claim that his expenditures in Iraq are the reason the economy has been "artificially inflated" and then on the other you claim the money could have been used to help the economy. The fact is that the expenditures for Iraq are miniscule when compared to the economy. Your belief that he's looking to resurrect the Star Wars program is misguided. He wants to build missile defenses, yes but that doesn't just mean guarding against ICBMs. The Star Wars program was never proved impossible. Yes there are experts who claim that it's impossible but how many experts said flying was impossible? Any work done on a "missile shield" can filter down to the battle field. Missile technology is not that complicated, as proven by the guy in New Zealand building his own guided missile in his garage for $5k.

The strategy in Iraq is not just about Saddam being a threat to us directly. It's about putting fear into the governments who support terrorism. It's about showing that there are consequences for those who oppose us. Part of the reason that terror attacks have grown over the last several decades is that those organizing the attacks never suffered any consequences as a result. Creating a viable democratic(ish) economy in the heart of the Middle East will put pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the other states who continue to support terrorism without directly having to threaten them or invade them.