It's the economy stupid!

[BOBDN]

While discussing the war in Iraq at The War and the Middle East thread a discussion on the economy ensued. The member who began the thread asked that I start a new topic here and link it since the economic discussion was hijacking his thread.

I think it is hard to separate the war and the economy. With the recession dragging on Bush is pushing yet another tax cut targeted mainly at the top 10% of earners. The cost? $760 billion. The cost of the war? $75 billion so far. Projected cost to rebuild Iraq? $100 billion. This doesn't include the cost of rebuilding our military after the war. If we have the time. We may very well be involved in another conflict soon after this one ends if Rumsfeld gets his way. But who knows when the war may end?

My original point was this. Why can't people see what is happening to our nation since Bush came into office? We have lost 2.5 million jobs. We have been in a recession since Q1, 2001. We have gone from record surplus to record deficit. We are now engaged in a war that was started unnecessarily in that the weapons inspectors had Hussein in check. They found no WMD. Iraq wasn't attacking us or any of their neighbors as in 1991. Bush didn't, as his father did in '91, build a coalition, get UN approval, have a clear objective (is it WMD, disarmament of Hussein, freedom for the Iraqi people, regime change, war on terror?), doesn't have an exit strategy, etc.........

With the cost of the war, yet another Bush tax cut for the wealthy and the lingering recession this administration is doing more harm to our nation than our enemies (whoever they may be, they seem to change daily according to the administration's needs). Not to mention the attack on our rights, the environment, Social Security, the FDA... you get the picture.

I wonder if those Nader supporters still think there's no difference?

 

[Sluggo]

Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

 

[Ryan]

AHHH ,this is sooo flaimbait!!!

IIRC, the economy was already in the shitter before Bush took office.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

Agreed

 

[MacBaine]

This isn't a thread on the economy, it's another Bush-Bashing thread. If you want to complain about what the president has done, say it, don't try to disguise it as an economy thread.

 

[Orsorum]

What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

 

[ElFenix]

you DO realize that all that spending goes directly into the economy, right? or do you think that the money just disappears?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you DO realize that all that spending goes directly into the economy, right? or do you think that the money just disappears?

Are you referring to Medicare and Social Security or the tax cuts Bush has proposed?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

Agreed

But who are the people working for these people that make the products that make the top 10% rich?

Don't get me wrong, I understand and agree that if you make more money i.e. get a bigger tax cut. But lets just say the top 1% (who benefit most) won't be hurting in the least bit if a tax cut isn't directly allocated according to income. A $300 rebate is much more important to the guy making $12K a year than one who is making 2 milliion a year. The 12K guy is more likely to spend that 300 than the 2 million/year guy.

Let us remember, it is the middle class that drives the economy not the upper class. Just to clarify, making 12K a year isn't middle class (obviously).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you DO realize that all that spending goes directly into the economy, right? or do you think that the money just disappears?

Are you referring to Medicare and Social Security or the tax cuts Bush has proposed?

the war and tax cuts. social security is destined to failure.

 

[calpha]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

Thank god for that idea. Medicare has it's own problems, but Social Security is a pot laden of mastadon turds. I'm for adding welfare to that list. I've never even liked "Welfare" as a title. Call it "Reformation" or "Rejuvination", or something. An guy I worked with at one company's wife was in social services working in welfare, and he had nothing but hatred for the welfare system (and he was a democrat if there ever was one).

Tax code wise. I am holding on to my belief, that Turbo Tax, and TaxCut be damned, there will be one day when the Tax code looks like this:

Income for Year: X
Losses for Year: Y
(Loss = lost income on investment, interest paid on certain loans such as houses, studen loans...etc)

Charitable Contributions: Z

Tax Owed= A
A = .15 * ((X-Y) - (X-.15*Z))

Wouldn't that be nice. A flat .15 percent tax rate. No complex tax code. No loopholes. Taxes could be done in less than 5 minutes.

And by the way. The economy was in the sh!tter before Bush took office. I don't just blame Clinton either. I blame Clinton and the Republican congress. But the economy in it's current state was inherited. Both from Clinton, and the Congress of 1996/1998. I blame all the companies that were foolish enough to buy into the Internet Mantra. Spend Spend Spend on an idea, and the idea alone is enough to make money. People killed warren buffet figuratively when he refused to buy into technology stocks (he only bought M$FT to follow it becauase Billy G was his friend). He didn't buy them because he couldn't see any long term profit potential. The burst of the Internet Bubble is a HUGE reason for the market being the way it is today. Anyone else remember when companies in the B2B sector were goiong to be the best thing since sliced bread? And the value of the stock soared, only to take one of the largest falls (across the sector).? So again, the economy isn't Bush's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. It's a lot of people's fault. But, I'll agree on one thing. it's Bush's job to fix. And his reelection depends on his results IMO.

Furthermore, corporate malfeasance has also damaged our market, and while you can blame some of it on Clinton's Laisezz-fairre (so sue me, I'm not a speller) approach to the corporate world, the real blame goes on the ones who cooked the books, regardless of the legislation that was or wasn't in place.

But I don't think the blame for the current economy job wise can be laid on the war, but the blame for a falling stock market can be put on the war's uncertainty. And if you're foolish enough to equate the job market with the stock market, go back to economics 101. Companies can no longer just make paper promises, or hook into good ideas. Companies have to prove their value in order for them to grow. Like it or not, we are still recovering from this adjustment which was essential after the fallout of Internet Stocks. P/E Ratios matter AGAIN. Company Debt/Asset Ratio matters AGAIN. It's the product and the service you provide, AND how well you run your company that will make a company grow. Warren Buffet was right, too bad I didnt' listen either.

 

[manly]

One opinion of the Bush "stimulus" plan:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/31/column.shields.opinion.silent.leader/index.html

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

because i'm not one of those top 10% wage earners. and i want to be subsidized by then tax the rich! i dont have any spare $

now lets see whats on cable on my new 72" flatscreen tv...

 

[BOBDN]

Well, let me try to answer a few points in one post. It's getting late and I'm hitting the sack soon.

Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

The hole in this argument is, this is an economy of scale. If you earn millions a year of course you'll pay more in taxes. But the regular working stiff is paying a higher percentage of his salary in taxes even though the millionaire is paying a much higher actual figure. I'm left with much less disposable income than that millionaire. And what's wrong with everyone paying their share? These are, after all, the same people who are guilty of the creative accounting that left our 401k's 201k's. They came through the recession in pretty good shape.

AHHH ,this is sooo flaimbait!!!

IIRC, the economy was already in the shitter before Bush took office.

This is not flamebait. It is an off topic about the economy. If you feel 'flamed' feel free to flame out.
The Fed says the recession began in Q1, 2001. Even so, if Bush and Co. are the economic genuises they claim to be why can't they get this economy turned around? Why another $760 billion tax cut targeted at the top 10% of wage earners when he just stared an invasion that so far has cost $75 billion and is estimated to cost another $100 billion? The Gingrich Republicans in the 90's complained that deficits were cheating our children out of their future. Now the Bush Republicans claim deficits are OK. There is a name for people change the facts to suit their needs. They are known as liars.

This isn't a thread on the economy, it's another Bush-Bashing thread. If you want to complain about what the president has done, say it, don't try to disguise it as an economy thread.

This is a thread on the economy. If you consider every criticism of Bush as bashing you are supporting censorship. I stated the facts. If the facts bash Bush that's his problem.

What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

I have faithfully paid Social Security tax all my life. I will have my Social Security benefit when I retire. If Bush had done as he said during the campaign and kept SS money in a "lock box" the system would be solvent. Bush didn't. He used the SS funds to fill the large hole he dug in our nation's budget. It still wasn't anywhere near enough. But like I said. I will get my retirement benefit. Any fund manager who takes money from participants and has nothing left when their retirement comes due ends up in jail for a long time, don't they? Why should the federal government be any different? My generation paid the highest SS tax in history to finance our parent's retirement income. Stop compalining and do your part. If Bush hadn't emptied the treasury we wouldn't have this problem now.

 

[LunarRay]

To understand the US economy and how the various administrations affect it you must first look to the strategic goals that are almost always obsecure at best. You are, therefore, left with trying to analize the differences between the budget submittals to see if you can detect what may be the REAL objectives. Evaluating market sectors for things like unemployment and how much Government spending is going there is a start. Of the total $ spent by for goods and services in the US how much is done by the government and what percent in what segment. You may be amazed that the redistribution of tax dollars back to the general area from where it came is pretty constant. So why do we have a deficit now and surplus at the end of Clinton 2? How much in $ went to service debt under Clinton and how much now.. into which segment is the increased spending going... or is it really lower spending and much lower inflow.
The debits don't equal the credits... assuming the absence of theft.. I suggest what we have today is the reality of the technological boom under Clinton 1 and 2 maturing into equilibrium with demand.. Supply siders have their time its just not now.

 

[Aceshigh]

Hey genius. The market and economy tanked in spring of 2000. Who was in office then??? It wasn't Bush.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

I have faithfully paid Social Security tax all my life. I will have my Social Security benefit when I retire. If Bush had done as he said during the campaign and kept SS money in a "lock box" the system would be solvent. Bush didn't. He used the SS funds to fill the large hole he dug in our nation's budget. It still wasn't anywhere near enough. But like I said. I will get my retirement benefit. Any fund manager who takes money from participants and has nothing left when their retirement comes due ends up in jail for a long time, don't they? Why should the federal government be any different? My generation paid the highest SS tax in history to finance our parent's retirement income. Stop compalining and do your part. If Bush hadn't emptied the treasury we wouldn't have this problem now.

I've paid for Social Security all my life as well (all 19+ years of it, ), but I am not naive enough to think that I will see any of that money. I'm saving money in a Roth IRA and soon a 401k, and am not planning on any government assistance when I retire. Even if the money was being held in a lockbox, it still won't be enough to cover the boom in retirees that will occur in the next two decades.

 

[BOBDN]

Hey genius. The market and economy tanked in spring of 2000. Who was in office then??? It wasn't Bush.

Thank for recognizing my genius.

The recession began in Q1 2001 according to the Fed. An administration with a viable economic plan would have been able to reverse the downturn by now. Bush's plan is not viable. He is catering to the contributors who paid for his campaign. The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down.

Even with the aid of Greenspan and 12 inrterest rate cuts in one year Bush can't get the economy back on track.
Bush is an economic failure. A foreign policy failure. An environmental failure.
Little wonder you support him.

The market tanked in spring of 2000? It wasn't Bush?

U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average Stock Index Monthly Values (Last Trading Day of Month)

Here are the numbers from 1/2000 through 2/2003.
Care to revise your statement, Aceshigh?

2000.01 10940.50
2000.02 10128.30
2000.03 10921.90
2000.04 10733.90
2000.05 10522.30
2000.06 10447.90
2000.07 10522
2000.08 11215.10
2000.09 10650.92
2000.10 10971.14
2000.11 10414.49
2000.12 10786.85
2001.01 10887.36
2001.02 10495.28
2001.03 9878.78
2001.04 10734.97
2001.05 10911.94
2001.06 10499.79
2001.07 10522.81
2001.08 9949.75
2001.09 8847.56
2001.10 9075.14
2001.11 9851.56
2001.12 10021.56
2002.01 9920.00
2002.02 10106.13
2002.03 10403.94
2002.04 10059.63
2002.05 9925.25
2002.06 9243.26
2002.07 8736.59
2002.08 8663.50
2002.09 7591.93
2002.10 8397.03
2002.11 8896.09
2002.12 8341.63
2003.01 8053.81
2003.02 7891.08

 

[BooGiMaN]

i dont understand why everyone blames the president for the recession ..open your eyes and look around its not liek we are the only ones in a recession..

If only the usa was in a recession id say yeah then bush sucks ..but this recession started b4 he came into office..and its global not localized.

The rest of the world was feelign the effects long before us..so yeah it will take a while for us to get out of the mess the dot com bubble got us in.

 

[LunarRay]

quote
I've paid for Social Security all my life as well (all 19+ years of it, ), but I am not naive enough to think that I will see any of that money. I'm saving money in a Roth IRA and soon a 401k, and am not planning on any government assistance when I retire. Even if the money was being held in a lockbox, it still won't be enough to cover the boom in retirees that will occur in the next two decades.[/quote]

*****************

If we deny funds to the entities that seek to extend the life span and if we send those over 50 to fight in the wars and if we devise a plan to allow immigration during the time when you'll be eligable to retire and if the SSA invests the funds it get into US debt instead of using it to pay the deficit and if the pups of the yuppy pups have lots of kids and if the manufacturing comes back to the USA and if we start to buy only American made products there will be.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1
quote
I've paid for Social Security all my life as well (all 19+ years of it, ), but I am not naive enough to think that I will see any of that money. I'm saving money in a Roth IRA and soon a 401k, and am not planning on any government assistance when I retire. Even if the money was being held in a lockbox, it still won't be enough to cover the boom in retirees that will occur in the next two decades.

*****************

If we deny funds to the entities that seek to extend the life span and if we send those over 50 to fight in the wars and if we devise a plan to allow immigration during the time when you'll be eligable to retire and if the SSA invests the funds it get into US debt instead of using it to pay the deficit and if the pups of the yuppy pups have lots of kids and if the manufacturing comes back to the USA and if we start to buy only American made products there will be.[/quote]

well i guess thats one way to get the growth rate of the working population to be higher than the rate paid out on social security... of course if we're buying only american made products then we'll lose to inflation most of our gains

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
AHHH ,this is sooo flaimbait!!!

IIRC, the economy was already in the shitter before Bush took office.

Thank you for making the appropriate reply. Some liberals will never learn.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
i dont understand why everyone blames the president for the recession ..open your eyes and look around its not liek we are the only ones in a recession..

If only the usa was in a recession id say yeah then bush sucks ..but this recession started b4 he came into office..and its global not localized.

The rest of the world was feelign the effects long before us..so yeah it will take a while for us to get out of the mess the dot com bubble got us in.

Thank you! What the original poster has failed to recognize is that recessions are sometimes inevtiable. I've personally lived through several of them.

And now, back to our regular scheduled programming.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Hey genius. The market and economy tanked in spring of 2000. Who was in office then??? It wasn't Bush.

Thank for recognizing my genius.

The recession began in Q1 2001 according to the Fed. An administration with a viable economic plan would have been able to reverse the downturn by now. Bush's plan is not viable. He is catering to the contributors who paid for his campaign. The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down.

Even with the aid of Greenspan and 12 inrterest rate cuts in one year Bush can't get the economy back on track.
Bush is an economic failure. A foreign policy failure. An environmental failure.
Little wonder you support him.

The market tanked in spring of 2000? It wasn't Bush?

U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average Stock Index Monthly Values (Last Trading Day of Month)

Here are the numbers from 1/2000 through 2/2003.
Care to revise your statement, Aceshigh?

2000.01 10940.50
2000.02 10128.30
2000.03 10921.90
2000.04 10733.90
2000.05 10522.30
2000.06 10447.90
2000.07 10522
2000.08 11215.10
2000.09 10650.92
2000.10 10971.14
2000.11 10414.49
2000.12 10786.85
2001.01 10887.36
2001.02 10495.28
2001.03 9878.78
2001.04 10734.97
2001.05 10911.94
2001.06 10499.79
2001.07 10522.81
2001.08 9949.75
2001.09 8847.56
2001.10 9075.14
2001.11 9851.56
2001.12 10021.56
2002.01 9920.00
2002.02 10106.13
2002.03 10403.94
2002.04 10059.63
2002.05 9925.25
2002.06 9243.26
2002.07 8736.59
2002.08 8663.50
2002.09 7591.93
2002.10 8397.03
2002.11 8896.09
2002.12 8341.63
2003.01 8053.81
2003.02 7891.08

well considerimg the stock market isn't the economu this is little more than emotional hogwash.

The economy is GROWING albeit slowly. Yes your stocks are down BUT look at ANY 10 year period and show me a time when you don't get a return. There isn't one.

Look at consumer debt number they have gone up, also look at durabvle goods orders. Thats right there up to.

People are again buying things and the economy is on it's way back. People fail to relieze that the governement CVannot fix the economy they can only hurt it.

 

[BOBDN]

well considerimg the stock market isn't the economu this is little more than emotional hogwash.

Hogwash? Try telling that to the millions of Americans who lived through the great depression.

The stock market is the barometer of business health in the USA and is indeed indicative of our nation's economic health. To dismiss the stock market is hogwash. Also, the retirement savings of millions of Americans are directly tied to the performance of the companies they have invested in. These companies trade on the stock markets. Their price of their shares is the determining factor in the rise or fall of the 401k's that have been touted as the basis for the economic security of millions of American retirees. Don't be ridiculous. Just because Bush can't provide the economic leadership that would give the country the confidence in our business community that would lead to economic health don't dismiss the stock market.

Look at consumer debt number they have gone up, also look at durabvle goods orders. Thats right there up to.

You obviously haven't seen the March 2003 numbers on durable goods or consumer debt.

CNN Money Report

Kiplinger's Forecasts

Durable goods orders down. Consumer debt up. Consumer spending down. Consumer confidence dow. Your assertions aren't backed by the numbers. Next you'll be trying to say consumer confidence/spending don't matter. They only account for 75% of economic activity in the US.

People are again buying things and the economy is on it's way back. People fail to relieze that the governement CVannot fix the economy they can only hurt it.

My point exactly. The Bush administration has hurt and continues to hurt the economy. Anyone for another unnecessary tax cut for Bush's rich pals?