Big win for Bush as he protects the middle class from the wealthy's higher taxes

I was talking about facts. You can pass the buck all you want. Make whatever excuses makes you feel better

 

I deny, just as people like you did during the Clinton economy (a REAL boom, not this tiny firecracker) that the president's actions have much if any effect on the economy. If you give Bush credit for the pedestrian gains seen in the past year, you have to give similar credit to the smashing success of the Clinton economy.

I do not deny that the nation needed some stimulus, but I will continue to maintain that other stimuli would have been more effective, would have produced a stronger recovery more quickly, and would have had less impact on the deficit.

Yes, you certainly seem to be amateur when it comes to substantive discussion and fact based debate. Instead of seeing facts and debating reality, you are more interested in the "CONSERVATIVE PWNERSHIP TRAIN!!!"

It doesn't surprise me, in a fact based discussion you lose. Oh, that's right, the facts have a well known liberal bias.

 

wouldn't keynes demand that in such a growing economy the taxes are raised?

and my bad. how about the fact that the debt is rising.

 

That's odd, given that the economic was already growing prior to the tax cuts.

The OMB. So now you have resorted to disputing official government data. Brilliant. Historical tax receipts are publicly available information, by the way. Here's a reference for you:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203

In 2004, tax receipts were down about 5% from 2000, even though the economy grew in each of those 4 years. In addition, individual income taxes were down by ~20% and corporate taxes down by 10% - much of the difference was made up by SS taxes by a 12% rise in SSI taxes which are simply being charged against our future.

Pure speculation - you have no idea if Bush *had* to stimulate an economy that was already growing.

 

No - ALL of the dips in the last 23 years came under the Bush administration. Half the dips in the past 80 years came under this admin, though.

Apparently, in bigtexxx's world, Bush is the only President during that time to face any national challenges, so it takes perfect sense. That's how desperate the argument has become. Tax receipts are rising - like they have for every other President in history - so that shows that Bush is doing well.

 

After dropping for several years straight, how could tax receipts NOT rise? I will agree that the tax cuts have been a major boon to the already wealthy, but as I illustrated for you a while ago, the median family is still worse off today than they were last year and were worse last year than the year before that.

This is the reason for the 28% approval rating for Bush's handling of the economy. Most people are not doing better than they were even last year or the year before, despite the "recovery."

Great advice. You should take it.

 

is it true that personal debt in america is at its highest since right before the great depression?

 

I have never felt so tight money wise or less confident in the market. While the numbers say that we are doing well, I do not feel it nor do I have any confidence in where we are going. I'm working two jobs simultaneously to build up a nest egg for just in case.

 

As suspected Bigtexx, the self proclaimed "country club Republican" misled about the tax cuts. They are mainly not for the middle class.

They raised tuition at UT about $2,000 per semester in the last two years, where bigtexx in typical country club GOP fashion sucks off the gov tit, while trying to eliminate his future taxes when an if he ever earns enough to pay some substantial taxes.

************
Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $20 from the agreement, according to the joint Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, while 0.02 percent of households with incomes over $1 million would receive average tax cuts of $42,000

The tax agreement would cut revenue to the Treasury by $90 billion over the next five years, but other measures would raise about $21 billion -- for a net loss to the Treasury of about $69 billion. By keeping the total five-year cost below $70 billion, negotiators satisfied arcane Senate budget rules, thus protecting the package from a filibuster and ensuring passage with a simple majority.

Some of those revenue raisers will be controversial. One measure would allow upper-income savers with a traditional individual retirement account to pay taxes on the account's investment gains and then roll over some of the balance into a Roth IRA, where the money can be withdrawn tax-free upon retirement. The provision would raise about $6.4 billion over 10 years, seemingly keeping the size of the tax-cutting package down. But over the next 35 years, it would cost the government $36 billion, according to the Urban Institute.

"And it's losing the money when we're really going to need it," said Leonard Burman, an economist at the Urban Institute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900651.html

 

Here's some more fodder for the tax cut argument:

http://www.jobwatch.org/


Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001.





And even if you believe the tax cuts stimulated the economy, here's another graph for you:



Apparently, the Bush administration has failed to help the economy for more than half of Americans.

 

Please explain how the tax cuts have improved the economy. I'm not convinced that one leads to the other since there is no explanation of the steps in between. Failure to explain means the presumption is false.

Thanks in advance.

 

I think Keynes would agree with the push strategy that the government is using, in which a budget deficit, coupled with lowering taxes is used to 'jumpstart' the economy.

I think that if we maintain tax levels and reduce spending, then the deficit will decrease as the compounding effect of lowered taxes and its affect spreads through the economy. If this does not soon begin to lower the deficit, then taxes must be raised as a continued deficit is bad for many reasons. If the US's debt/equity ratio, so to speak, rises, then it can cause other countries opportunity cost of holding US Treasury bonds to rise, which will force us to raise interest rates to keep foreign investors. This will stifle growth and could weaken our country. Many such as Bill Gross and others feel that tax rates must be raised eventually to lower the deficit to keep our debt markets here that rely so much on the treasury strong.

As far as slowing down the economy as to not overaccelerate, I believe thats what Bernake's rate hike today (probably) is doing. Even Warren Buffet during his annual meeting is weary about some of our gains in areas like real estate and especially 'innovative' financing methods:


Buffett: "What we see in our residential brokerage business [HomeServices of America, the nation's second-largest realtor] is a slowdown everyplace, most dramatically in the formerly hottest markets. [Buffett singled out Dade and Broward counties in Florida as an area that has experienced a rise in unsold inventory and a stagnation in price.] The day traders of the Internet moved into trading condos, and that kind a speculation can produce a market that can move in a big way. You can get real discontinuities. We've had a real bubble to some degree. I would be surprised if there aren't some significant downward adjustments, especially in the higher end of the housing market."
Munger: "There is a lot of ridiculous credit being extended in the U.S. housing sector."
Buffett: "Dumb lending always has its consequences. It's like a disease that doesn't manifest itself for a few weeks, like an epidemic that doesn't show up until it's too late to stop it Any developer will build anything he can borrow against. If you look at the 10Ks that are getting filed [by banks] and compare them just against last year's 10Ks, and look at their balances of 'interest accrued but not paid,' you'll see some very interesting statistics [implying that many homeowners are no longer able to service their current debt]."
Buffett: "I don't think there's a bubble in agricultural commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans. But in metals and oil there's been a terrific [price] move. It's like most trends: At the beginning, it's driven by fundamentals, then speculation takes over. As the old saying goes, what the wise man does in the beginning, fools do in the end. With any asset class that has a big move, first the fundamentals attract speculation, then the speculation becomes dominant.
Once a price history develops, and people hear that their neighbor made a lot of money on something, that impulse takes over, and we're seeing that in commodities and housing...Orgies tend to be wildest toward the end. It's like being Cinderella at the ball. You know that at midnight everything's going to turn back to pumpkins & mice. But you look around and say, 'one more dance,' and so does everyone else. The party does get to be more fun -- and besides, there are no clocks on the wall. And then suddenly the clock strikes 12, and everything turns back to pumpkins and mice."

 

Ann Coulter has the same economic talking points as texxx does!

Hey! At least he's in good company!

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/prin...newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/8/181722.shtml

 

At some point the continued deficits have to bite you in the backside. I think the drop in the US dollar is a start...

But....honestly here for a moment....partisanship aside...

Isn't the economy doing pretty well??? Are y'all in Houston not reaping the benefits of $70 oil?

This isn't the early 80's with double digit inflation, high unemployment, upside down mortgages and the downsizing rage. I see young people making more money right out of school than ever before. I don't see -- at least in the urban centres -- any significant unemployment.

What's the starting rate for a lawyer these days? An accountant? Engineer? Nurse? Even tech guys -- though certainly not partying like it's 1999 seem to be doing OK for the most part.

I think the unemployment rate is a pretty good measure of how people, in general, are doing. When it's low (as it currently is) people have options. And employers have to keep their job attractive.

I happen to think the current admin is relying far too much on the no-money-down school of prosperity. And I think that the current obsession of lowering tax and running deficits well beyond what could be considered a short term strategy is irresponsible. Driven by ideology and politics rather than economics.

But I just don't see the doom and gloom in the economy today. On the horizon, perhaps...but not today. Not compared to recent history. Am I wrong?

 

Man Krugman nailed it in his "crazy" article. All the mainstream media has a "vested" interest in downplaying economic gains?

That's some seriously paranoid tripe.

 

Interesting section from Buffet...If that man says it doesn't make business sense then you can bank on which way the wind is blowing.

 

Bankrupt Social Security and Medicare first. Fix problems later....