Endymon32

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

isandro

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?

__________________
-Life, liberty and the pursuit of hamburgers.

rogue49

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.

Endymon32

Completly off. Dont believe the hype.

Endymon32

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.

madp

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>

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Superbelt

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.

Endymon32

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.

nanofever

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

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

nanofever

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.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

madp

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.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

rogue49

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.

Endymon32

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

Zeld2.0

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.

Endymon32

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

floydthebarber

"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.

__________________
wish you were here

kiwiman

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

nanofever

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

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Tophat665

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.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Endymon32

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.

Endymon32

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.

nanofever

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.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Endymon32

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.

nanofever

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.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

rgr22j

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.

Endymon32

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

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.

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.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

nanofever

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.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

reconmike

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.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

james t kirk

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.

silent_jay

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

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Endymon32

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?

Endymon32

Nice insightful comment. With plenty of back up.

cheerios

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.

2wolves

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

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

cheerios

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

silent_jay

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.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Endymon32

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

nanofever

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.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Gertie

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.