RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy".

RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dcnovice -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/11/2007 9:07:39 PM)
It's wonderful that revenues are higher than expected, making the deficit less astronomical than it would be otherwise. I'm not sure that vindicates the Laffer Curve, though. Wouldn't the real test be whether post-cut revenues are higher than pre-cut revenues?

minnetar -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/11/2007 9:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: Yes, official inflation rates undervalue real inflation (not to mention that they don't include loss of quality), but 35% inflation in one year? No... What I'm saying is that during the current Bush seven year tenure, the dollar has depreciated by roughly thirty-five percent. But I will tell you that if the CPI was still calculated the same way as during the Regan Administration, Americans would better understand how bad inflation is creeping up on them. The calculation method has been changed a host of different times since then by politicians who have vested interest in staying in office. Thirty-five percent inflation {across the board} in one year would almost me considered as what's known as ''Wheel Barrel inflation'' - Where you go into the supermarket, stand in line with your basket of goods, and by the time the checker/clerk calculates your purchases the prices will have increased from the time when you first entered the store. Americans will laugh at that and think it's really funny, but those conditions actually occurred in both Argentina and Zimbabwe in the not to distant past. quote: The US economy is seriously over valued. That's why so many companies are moving overseas, and the US economy is falling behind: the amount of work the US does not justify how much the US is being paid. Bingo!! - It’s gone from a mode of almost pure production to one of almost pure consumption. The rest of the world's production is being used to maintain our lifestyles here in the US. And it's not going to stay that way forever. I'd love to see our country put its inovative thinking cap back on and go back to producing things. - R our cost of living has increased so much for the most part based on the cost of gas and that percentage of a person's income. The basic cost of living increase isn't keeping up to the increase in the energy prices. minnetar

UtopianRanger -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/11/2007 9:31:38 PM)
quote: our cost of living has increased so much for the most part based on the cost of gas and that percentage of a person's income. The basic cost of living increase isn't keeping up to the increase in the energy prices. minnetar Minnetar ..... Go back to 2000.....You could still occasionally purchase ground beef here in Oregon for $1.29 -1.59 a pound - Now you can't purchase it anywhere for under $3.00 a pound. Look at the price of sugar. I was looking at the trend line for sugar the other day on one of my favorite web sites; the price has increased roughly 42 % during the Bush tenure. Paul Krugman was on NPR last week, and he mentioned that dry goods, like cereal, flour, bisquick, etc, have risen in price 21 % in the last 100 days. It's not good. - R

minnetar -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/11/2007 9:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: our cost of living has increased so much for the most part based on the cost of gas and that percentage of a person's income. The basic cost of living increase isn't keeping up to the increase in the energy prices. minnetar Minnetar ..... Go back to 2000.....You could still occasionally purchase ground beef here in Oregon for $1.29 -1.59 a pound - Now you can't purchase it anywhere for under $3.00 a pound. Look at the price of sugar. I was looking at the trend line for sugar the other day on one of my favorite web sites; the price has increased roughly 42 % during the Bush tenure. Paul Krugman was on NPR last week, and he mentioned that dry goods, like cereal, flour, bisquick, etc, have risen in price 21 % in the last 100 days. It's not good. - R You are right and that is what people need to keep in mind. They continually tell us that the middle class is losing ground. minnetar

Marc2b -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/12/2007 10:05:40 PM)
Griswold said: quote: Last time I checked...the Earth revolved around the Sun. (Call me if I missed something). Ring! Ring! You missed something. Look again at his first paragraph of his post. He made two examples of pseudo-science: meat producing flies and photographs stealing souls. The first example however, that the earth travels around the sun, is not pseudo-science. The point I believe he was trying to make is that the Laffer Curve is also pseudo-science (I disagree, but that’s not the point here). But his analogies only make sense for two of them. I concluded that he meant to say the sun travels around the earth (because that would be an example of pseudo-science) and that he had made a trans-positional error (one we all do sometimes and one I’m very prone to myself). minnetar said: quote: As the tax revenue rises, isn't our spending increasing more than the tax revenues are? So what is the point? Bush has never vetoed any spending bill in his two terms except the latest democratic war spending bill. If you mean government spending then, unfortunately, yes. Regan’s tax cut led to a near doubling of government revenue but during the same time period, government spending nearly tripled. It doesn’t matter how much you’re bringing in, if you're spending more you’re going to have deficits. We don’t just need to cut taxes, we need to cut government spending too. Selfbnd411 said: quote: Correct, my mistake. I can't argue with the rest of your post. How can my reasoned, fact based argument possibly stand against what you feel and know in your gut? I stand corrected Sigh. Fine... I get it. I disagree with you therefore I’m an idiot. It’s okay. I have a policy: when I feel the headache coming on I stop banging my head against the brick wall. If my calling your analogies nonsense offended you that much then you have my apology – but I stand by my conviction that the analogies are erroneous. Lower tax rates leading to economic growth and increased government revenue is not pseudo-science. It is historical fact. UtopianRanger said: quote: No personal offense but, I don't think you get it... etc. The 1970's... that was massive inflation. Sure we’ve got inflation now but how often don’t we have inflation? The simple fact is that if people suddenly have an extra one thousand, one hundred, or even twenty, dollars in their paychecks each week, they will spend it (even if it isn’t spent right away, saved money is eventually spent anyway and also enters the economy as capital in the form of loans). The demand for products and services will go up. More people working, more people being independent, and more people paying taxes, is a good thing. RealOne said: quote: yeh they have more money to spend because the fed pumped more money into the system thus your dollar buys less and you have to pay more dollars for the same amount of goods, including taxes. So it looks grand on the books doesnt it? SSDD my friend, just a different paint set and a creative picture. If by pumped more money into the system you mean printing more money, I would agree with you that that’s a bad idea and that we should not devalue our money so (hell, I’d like to see a return to the gold standard – I think, I haven’t really made up my mind yet) but tax cuts are still a good thing. Hey! Wait a second! Aren’t you supposed to be in your hole creating cold fusion? minnetar said: quote: They continually tell us that the middle class is losing ground. And "they" have been telling us that for as long (and probably longer) as I can remember. "They" have been telling us a lot of things. What you need to do whenever "they" tell you anything, is to constantly ask yourself these questions: Who are "they?" Why do "they" think this? What’s in it for "they?" What is ‘they’s’ agenda? Do "they" really have my best interests at heart? And the most important question of all: Why should I believe "they?"’ Bottom line: Tax cuts are good for the individual who pays taxes and for the economy and I really don’t understand why some people seem to be so afraid of them. Seriously! What is it about the idea of the government not soaking you as much as it usually does that is so frightening to some of you people?

dcnovice -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/12/2007 10:09:23 PM)
quote: Bottom line: Tax cuts are good for the individual who pays taxes and for the economy and I really don’t understand why some people seem to be so afraid of them. Seriously! What is it about the idea of the government not soaking you as much as it usually does that is so frightening to some of you people? For me, it's that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts seemed to spark significant deficits and hugely swell the national debt. My economist friends look askance at those results.

Griswold -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 5:54:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Bottom line: Tax cuts are good for the individual who pays taxes and for the economy and I really don’t understand why some people seem to be so afraid of them. Seriously! What is it about the idea of the government not soaking you as much as it usually does that is so frightening to some of you people? For me, it's that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts seemed to spark significant deficits and hugely swell the national debt. My economist friends look askance at those results. Tax cuts don't spark deficits. Spending more than we take in sparks deficits.

Sicarius -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 9:14:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger Minnetar ..... Go back to 2000.....You could still occasionally purchase ground beef here in Oregon for $1.29 -1.59 a pound - Now you can't purchase it anywhere for under $3.00 a pound. Look at the price of sugar. I was looking at the trend line for sugar the other day on one of my favorite web sites; the price has increased roughly 42 % during the Bush tenure. Paul Krugman was on NPR last week, and he mentioned that dry goods, like cereal, flour, bisquick, etc, have risen in price 21 % in the last 100 days. It's not good. - R I want to state first and foremost for the sake of clarity that you seem like a well-informed individual. I am not arguing against you because I freely admit that I'm not an expert in all of the more complex facets of global/national economy. I want to genuinely ask your response to other things that I have heard ... not because I necessarily embrace them, but I wish to contrast them with an alternative viewpoint. 1.) I have heard the argument made that the overwhelming increase in the price of gasoline over the same period of history that we are looking at has significantly contributed to the increased price in consumed goods in virtually any store in the country that has a sophisticated distribution network. Do you believe that any part of the "wheel barrel inflation" that you're speaking of could be attributed to this fact? 2.) I have also heard it said that criticisms of the "Bush Economy" with respect to the policy of tax cuts stimulating economic growth is not alltogether fair on account of the fact that past tax cuts have not simultaneously been accompanied by such overwhelmingly wasteful expenditures as a war that (at last estimate) is totaling an approximate $200 Million dollars a day. Most of the Conservative-leaning individuals who are critical of Bush are displeased by the fact that the Republican Party platform believes in smaller government ... smaller government spending. By contrast, Bush seems to be a very big spender (whether or not it's a "justified" expense is another debate that I don't wish to get into here). Do you believe that there is any credibility to this point, and how would you respond to it? Thanks in advance. And no, I don't mind if anyone else responds to this, either, so long as you keep it constructive. -Sicarius

juliaoceania -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 10:25:45 AM)
fast reply basically what we have here is a situation in which most middle income people have their largest investment lose value (their house), while the price of everything else goes up.. sounds like a healthy economy to me!

popeye1250 -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 11:11:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania fast reply basically what we have here is a situation in which most middle income people have their largest investment lose value (their house), while the price of everything else goes up.. sounds like a healthy economy to me! Julia, real estate is doing fine here in the Carolinas! Of course we didn't see the big run-up of the last 6-8 years that Calif and the N.E. had. And as for the "Bush Economy" one thing I noticed is that the workers in Starbucks and Home Depot are all highly educated now with advanced degrees! "Hey you! Yeah you with the Master's Degree, two lattes, no sugar!" And it seems like 3/4 of the waitresses these days have college or university degrees.

juliaoceania -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 1:09:05 PM)
Yes, and all the skilled jobs have high school drop outs working at them. A degree is an opening so one's resume does not end up in the trash, it is not a guarantee of anything

dcnovice -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 3:08:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Bottom line: Tax cuts are good for the individual who pays taxes and for the economy and I really don’t understand why some people seem to be so afraid of them. Seriously! What is it about the idea of the government not soaking you as much as it usually does that is so frightening to some of you people? For me, it's that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts seemed to spark significant deficits and hugely swell the national debt. My economist friends look askance at those results. Tax cuts don't spark deficits. Spending more than we take in sparks deficits. Tax cuts reduce what we take in, no?

popeye1250 -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 3:28:29 PM)
I like tax cuts too because that is not the "govt's money" it's "The People's money!" The government "has" no money. Not one red cent. All it "has" is what if any The People give it. So tax cuts are good but I think cutting spending is even better! Look at all those pork barral projects that can be cut. Bridges to nowhere, all kinds of "Grants" to study things that don't need to be studied. I'd like to see a bunch of things cut or done away with. 1. No more "Foreign Aid." 2. Cut the State Dept by 70%. 3. No more Energy Dept. 4. No more Education Dept. 5. No more E.P.A. 6. No more NAFTA, GATT, "UN" or NATO. 7. No more "World Bank". And that's just off the top of my head. I think I may vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

Griswold -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 3:48:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Bottom line: Tax cuts are good for the individual who pays taxes and for the economy and I really don’t understand why some people seem to be so afraid of them. Seriously! What is it about the idea of the government not soaking you as much as it usually does that is so frightening to some of you people? For me, it's that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts seemed to spark significant deficits and hugely swell the national debt. My economist friends look askance at those results. Tax cuts don't spark deficits. Spending more than we take in sparks deficits. Tax cuts reduce what we take in, no? Not according to the latest tax revenue stats.

SirKenin -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 4:27:29 PM)
For people who profess to be so smart, you really have absolutely no clue.. Like... none. This has nothing to do with Bush. Bush is a puppet on a string. Who controls the House? Oh yeah. Democrats. Who controls the Senate? Oh fuck. Democrats. Who votes on US policies, passes Bills, lesgislature, etc? Oh. Fuck. The House and the Senate. That would make it what? Ummm? Democrats? Last I looked Bush was a Republican. And Bush has exactly WHAT POWER in either one of them? Clueless. Absolutely fucking clueless. If you want to point the finger, look in the Democratic backyard... Those same Democrats who voted to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. OOOOOOPS. If you want to know who really holds the reigns of power in the United States, it's the pharmaceutical industry and the oil companies. They line the pockets of your senators and representatives. Pay those nice campaign budgets. Geez. You'd think Americans have at least SOME sort of clue how American politics works. Evidently not... Bush this... Bush that.. WAH WAH WAH. Give your heads a shake.

Sinergy -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 4:50:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold Tax cuts don't spark deficits. Spending more than we take in sparks deficits. So to bring it full circle to the point of this thread. Who gives a rat's ass how many new jobs were created? How much the tax cuts have given to multi-zillionaires? How much more we pay for an egg than we did 10 years ago? The Bush administration is acting like a kid away at College who continually reapplies for new credit cards, knowing they can spend and spend and spend and spend and never have to pay any of it back. Add to that that the Bush administration and their pet Republican Congress applied for credit with countries only an insane nincompoop would ever want to be indebted to. What is shocking is that there are people who think this incredible spending binge that Bush has been engaged in for 6 years is somehow a good thing. Sinergy

dcnovice -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 4:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Bottom line: Tax cuts are good for the individual who pays taxes and for the economy and I really don’t understand why some people seem to be so afraid of them. Seriously! What is it about the idea of the government not soaking you as much as it usually does that is so frightening to some of you people? For me, it's that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts seemed to spark significant deficits and hugely swell the national debt. My economist friends look askance at those results. Tax cuts don't spark deficits. Spending more than we take in sparks deficits. Tax cuts reduce what we take in, no? Not according to the latest tax revenue stats. Well, that's good news.

Griswold -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 7:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold Tax cuts don't spark deficits. Spending more than we take in sparks deficits. So to bring it full circle to the point of this thread. Who gives a rat's ass how many new jobs were created? How much the tax cuts have given to multi-zillionaires? How much more we pay for an egg than we did 10 years ago? Probably about as much more in 1940 as when compared to 1930, and about as much more in 1970 as when compared to 1960 and about as much more in 2000 as when compared to 1990 (plus or minus). The Bush administration is acting like a kid away at College who continually reapplies for new credit cards, knowing they can spend and spend and spend and spend and never have to pay any of it back. Zero argument...but, tell me an administration where that wasn't largely the case. Roosevelt spent 4 times the Gross Domestic Product during WWII. I'm not saying what's happening is right, or helpful, but we keep voting these pricks in. Vote for a guy who says "I'm going to cut spending...in YOUR city...and every other city...things are gonna suck for about 10 years...but, that seems to be what you all want...so I'm game if you are". (Ain't gonna happen). Add to that that the Bush administration and their pet Republican Congress applied for credit with countries only an insane nincompoop would ever want to be indebted to. So did/have the Democrats (and the Whigs, and the Tories, and the Federalists, and the....). Yeah, I know..."THIS time it's (different/worse/more scandalous...blah blah blah)". It ain't different this time. This election isn't "more important" than any other. This time isn't the tipping point anymore than it was in LBJ's "Great Society" (where about 30% of our current govt. spending comes from), or Nixons', Reagans', Woodrow Wilsons', or even George Washingtons'. We could have "solved this whole damn thing" 200 years ago, 175 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago and even last year. But we didn't. We didn't. Not them. What is shocking is that there are people who think this incredible spending binge that Bush has been engaged in for 6 years is somehow a good thing. I doubt anyone (other than the folks with a population of 37 who got a 24 million dollar bridge to nowhere, or the large corporations that get a billion dollar tax credit...etc.) believes that...but where's your march on Washington? Where are the headlines of all the armchair quarterbacks, indignant because it's killing us and our children? Where are the screaming throngs of people saying "we'll fix our own roads....you keep the money in Washington for the really important stuff..."? Uhmmmm....that would be the same people who make enough to pay for their own healthcare, but because Medicaid and Medicare only charge $50.00 a month...gladly take that service anyway, or drive 800 miles to Iowa in a 21,000 lb motorhome, and certainly they can afford it, but by virtue, cause America to import another barrel of oil. "They" aren't forcing you to drink any KoolAid that you didn't invite...whether out of a fire hose...or a thimble. Sinergy

Phantm173 -> RE: The Incredible "Bush Economy". (5/13/2007 9:54:32 PM)
Well, you might want to go hunt around on the Treasury Dept web site, or through various scholarly papers that have been presented over the past few years by Treasury officials, by well-respected economists, and by staff members of various congressional committees involved with taxation. You'll find something interesting. Almost every one of those sources has concluded that the tax reductions have NOT been the driver of the economy. In fact, an Assistant Secy of the Treasury presented a paper about two years ago in which he flat out stated that we could have increased tax revenues by about $100 billion/year WITHOUT any impact on the economy. Hunt around. You'll find some interesting stuff out there.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625