Curious question about the current economy.

Now I am no economics major but I always read that any economic plan that is laid out doesn't really have an effect for approx 5 years.

If that is the case how is every one blaming Bush for things that happened 2-3 years ago? I mean hell he wasn't even in office for a year and people are blaming his economy?

No one could have predicited 9/11 and the effect that has had. But every one seen the fall of the techs coming. I mean anyone could have seen that the prices the tech stocks were going for were insane and would crash. What they didnt see was how bad it was going to crash. Oh and lets not forget Enron and Worldcom. I bet those were his fault to.

So someone PLEASE explain to me how all this is Bushs' fault.

Thanx

Keeper
Post edited by Keeper- at 5/22/2003 7:00:19 PM

You, for once, are exactly right

People who claim that the economy is the current adminsitrations fault have NOT done their research. Also, at the same time, they sit back and don't support the tax cut bill.

So basically, they are convinced it is all GWB's fault - but refuse to let him do anything about it, and as it get's worse, they complain because he isn't doing anything about it!

Originally posted by: Naut

You, for once, are exactly right

FOR ONCE!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!! hehe

I graduated with an Economics Minor/Business Major. It can take years for fiscal policies to come into action. In large corporations its takes a least 1 year for large changes to be impactful at the earliest. Now compound that times 1000's. Thats the Gov't. Anyone who says this is Bush's economy has never taken economic study. This economy is Clintons. Plain and Simple.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 5/22/2003 8:17:35 PM

I had read a statistic that not once in the past decade has a republican party president balanced the budget... Seams as though Bush's plan is more of the same deficit spending, spend spend spend, even if we dont have the money. I hope he's right... cause if he isnt I'll be paying for it a decade down the line.

Just some food for thought...

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushcut.pdf

Sorry Cobalt, but you are wrong. Balencing the budget means spending less than you bring in. Democrats have never done that FYI. Dems want more gov't programs that bankrupted states like california. You better review your source of Info.

im talking federal government. I know all too much the results of a republican leader's spending plan. My state is millions upon millions of dollars in debt due to an incompitant, overly plump governer who takes state-financed vacations, meanwhile we're forced to cut snow plow staff durring one of the worst winters in a decade.

Snake maybe you might know how to answer this cuz you majored in this kinda stuff:

What would happen if while these cuts were still taking effect and something like 9/11 happened again? Knowing the effects of 9/11 on the economy, I would assume that some strange things could happen but I really have no clue.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Sorry Cobalt, but you are wrong. Balencing the budget means spending less than you bring in. Democrats have never done that FYI. Dems want more gov't programs that bankrupted states like california. You better review your source of Info.

also, what exactly am i wrong about?

Democrats AKA liberals are notoriously HORRIBLE at balencing budgets. They have more gov't programs, more spending hands down than any republican. I took 1 year of political study regarding economics and the general rule of thumb for Democrats is Spend. While this is complicated well above that basic premise, its still applicable in general. Republicans on the other hand have to balence too much tax cuts with cost. But tax cuts spur growth which increase taxes. So they are the much lesser of the two evils.

In conclusion, I don't agree with Bush's current cuts. But we will not know anything until they start and the outcome of them. I feel that he should not have the dividend piece for one.

So I don't mean to say you are 100% wrong. But I think you need to understand the overall philosophies of the major parties

Originally posted by: kevin184

Snake maybe you might know how to answer this cuz you majored in this kinda stuff:

What would happen if while these cuts were still taking effect and something like 9/11 happened again? Knowing the effects of 9/11 on the economy, I would assume that some strange things could happen but I really have no clue.

Good question. Hard to answer though. We have learned for one about the fragility of the economic state. If it happened again, it might not do much. Assumption and speculation are the EVILS of the market. Usually the actual event has much less impact than the speculation prior to it. But its hard to say. I hope we have learned and can take 6his lesson to heart if it happens again, but only time will tell.

P.S to cobalt. I appreciate you being courteous latelty. MUCHO GRACIOUS

I can be a pig headed SOB myself. hehe
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 5/22/2003 9:38:41 PM

Originally posted by: kevin184

Just some food for thought...

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushcut.pdf

Guess thats like the Congress voting themselves a 20% pay raise.

Originally posted by: kevin184

Just some food for thought...

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushcut.pdf

those numbers dont add up right, now i might be wrong but i can remember reading that once in office the president cant has investments in the stockmarket due to his influential position so what are these capitol gains that article speaks of?? isnt it law that a sitting presidents only source of income can be his salary?


Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw

Originally posted by: kevin184

Just some food for thought...

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushcut.pdf

Bush also already is a millionare, before he went for office. The more money you have, the larger tax returns you will get.


And eveyrone, please do not forget that over 95 million middle class American families will be getting back at least $1,600 this year alone.


edit: Also, I don't see anything other than speculation in that link.
Post edited by Naut at 5/22/2003 10:34:54 PM

Bush didnt make the economic problem.
But he did provide the 2 largest tax cuts in history, which in a lot of peoples minds is crazy.

What I found interesting in this whole thing, is the top economics persons in this country objected to his tax plans.

But I have faith in our nation and our people, the economy will go back up. I dont personally think it will be because its bush or any other person like that.

Keeper you hit the nail on the head.

It isn’t Bush’s fault.
The president controls fiscal policies such as tax cuts ect.
Alan Greenspan controls our economy more each year than any president does during an entire term and he is not to blame either. Greenspan is a monetary pimp, and for him to be against these tax cuts is unprecedented and definitely saying something. To give Clinton all of the credit for the 90’s boom era, is the same as saying Al Gore invented the internet.

Originally posted by: Naut

Bush also already is a millionare, before he went for office. The more money you have, the larger tax returns you will get.


And eveyrone, please do not forget that over 95 million middle class American families will be getting back at least $1,600 this year alone.


edit: Also, I don't see anything other than speculation in that link.

From this post I'm guessing that you use the "why should people be punished because of their hard work etc..." argument. The answer to that questions is simple: they shouldnt. But let me ask you another question - Why should people be punished if they are born into economic situations which they cannot help? I know that there are people in the world that are just genuinely lazy and could be making money if they actually tried to, but there are also people who cannot help it.

PS - if you dont use that argument disregard everything I just said

Originally posted by: Juzfugen

those numbers dont add up right, now i might be wrong but i can remember reading that once in office the president cant has investments in the stockmarket due to his influential position so what are these capitol gains that article speaks of?? isnt it law that a sitting presidents only source of income can be his salary?

The numbers for those capital gains were based on '99

The current economic slump is not due to Bush's policies. While economic policies can have an effect on the economy in a relatively short time (18 months), if you look at this economy it was turning sour all during Clinton's last year.

The main problem with this economy is a major self correction due to the wild speculating during the "dot com bubble". Investers became extremely shrewd when they realized their greed had allowed them to invest in really bad ideas just because they were on the internet.

Even liberal economists know that during poor economic times you need to cut taxes. Some have said "how in the world is that going to help my relative who lost their job? They will only get back $600 and that won't help them find a job". This displays a lack of understanding about what the tax cuts are supposed to do on a macro scale.

The idea (tested and proven) is to put the money back in the hands of the people so they will spend it in the open market. They will make the decisions about what products are the best value for what they need and the better company "wins". This influx of extra money poured into the economy causes the "better" companies to make more money which further allows them to expand or invest (or spend in other areas). The money trickles into other areas of the economy that provide the best service for what the people are spending the money on which leads to growth and more jobs, etc.

So, while it's true that relative x will not be able to buy himself a job with that extra $600, when 100,000,000 relative x's spend that $600 in the economy, the economy is strengthed.

The alternative is to tax the people more and allow the government to spend the money selectively into the economy. This concepts of Keynesian economics has proven itself to be unreliable for many reasons. The main reason being that governments are extremely inefficient entities and they will not spend the money where the market itself says the money should be spent. Think about it this way, when somebody spends somebody elses money to buy something for someone else, they aren't going to care about value (it's not their money) or quality (the product is not for them).

Historically, tax cuts worked for Kennedy and Reagan to stimulate the economy (not sure how long it tooko Kennedy's tax cuts to work, but Reagans took only about 18 months to bring a very poor economy around). Most recently, government spending to get out of economic slumps (ala Keynes) has been declared by most economists as a failed ideal when Japan has been trying to get out of a poor economy for the last 15 years by using this concept. They still haven't recovered.

Tax cuts will work, you just need to give it more time. If you're jealous that wealthy Americans will be "getting more money back", you need to understand that the wealthy pay much, much more in taxes than everyone else, so ANY tax cut will benefit those who actually pay taxes. You can appease your jealousy by remembering that yes, the wealthy will be able to keep more of their own money than you will, but they will still be paying much more tan their fair share.

Here are some numbers about the disproportionate payment of taxes: The top 50% of wage earners pay over 95% of all the income taxes into the treasury, the top 10% of wage earners pay over 65% of all the income taxes and the top 5% of wage earners pay over 55% of all the taxes. If you are going to stimulate the economy by allowing people to keep more of their own money, then it only makes sense that the people who are paying the most will keep the most money.

I suggest people stop being jealous of the wealthy and start using the opportunities here in America to become one of them
Post edited by pheirce at 5/23/2003 1:30:40 PM

Exactly. Great post.

I came across some numbers that I was having a hard time understanding today... (all these numbers are from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030107.html)

"Raises the Child Tax Credit from $600 to $1,000 per child this year. An estimated 34 million families with children would benefit from this provision"

I have never paid taxes considering I am in high school, but do you pay more or less taxes depending on how many children you have or is this just based on statistics? (ie - a family with X income has an average of X children)

"A married couple with two children and income of $40,000 will see their taxes reduced by $1,133 (from $1,178 to $45) in 2003, a decline of 96 percent."

The only reason i wondered about this one is because if the presidents tax cut plan was not greatly reduced, families in this bracket would have payed almost nothing on their taxes.


Post edited by kevin184 at 5/23/2003 6:37:51 PM

You pay less taxes the more children you have because each child is a dependant write-off. The child tax credit adds to the this. A tax credit, however, is different from a write-off in that even people who pay zero taxes are still elligible to receive the full tax credit. In these cases, it's more like charity than a tax break.

-pheirce
Post edited by pheirce at 5/23/2003 7:06:54 PM

Originally posted by: kevin184

Originally posted by: Naut

Bush also already is a millionare, before he went for office. The more money you have, the larger tax returns you will get.


And eveyrone, please do not forget that over 95 million middle class American families will be getting back at least $1,600 this year alone.


edit: Also, I don't see anything other than speculation in that link.

From this post I'm guessing that you use the "why should people be punished because of their hard work etc..." argument. The answer to that questions is simple: they shouldnt. But let me ask you another question - Why should people be punished if they are born into economic situations which they cannot help?

**Do they have the right and ability to go to High School and complete it with flying colors? Do they have the right to then get either a college grant because of their GPA average, or a state grant to go to college? Or even if screw up go to a community college? Does this ensure a life of uncountable success and wealth? No. But to use the excuse that you can NOT be successful, can NOT get a job, and that it is all the Presidents fault is PATHETIC.


I know that there are people in the world that are just genuinely lazy and could be making money if they actually tried to, but there are also people who cannot help it.

**I don't want to sound like I'm a school counselor or anything, but, if you try hard enough you will make it. Maby you won't be driving a Mercadeze, but you can still live a better life than most countries' citizens can only dream of.

^^ Read my replies.

kevin, from your recent posts it sounds like you are either convinced - or someone is trying to convince you - that it is OK to blame everything on someone else. That if you can't get a job, to blame it on the goverment. That is WRONG, and it's a load of crap. I don't want to sound like a preacher or a counselor or something, but, no one can stop you from doing something like getting a job.

-Naut
Post edited by Naut at 5/25/2003 12:08:36 AM

Originally posted by: Naut
But to use the excuse that you can NOT be successful, can NOT get a job, and that it is all the Presidents fault is PATHETIC.

I dont think i used the words George, Bush, or president anywhere in my post...

Originally posted by: Naut
And eveyrone, please do not forget that over 95 million middle class American families will be getting back at least $1,600 this year alone.

I dont know where you got those numbers, but they are wrong.

"A married couple with one child and income of $40,000 will see their taxes reduced by $732 (from $2,235 to $1,503) in 2003, a decline of 33 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $60,000 will see their taxes reduced by $900 (from $3,750 to $2,850) in 2003, a decline of 24 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $75,000 will see their taxes reduced by $1,122 (from $5,817 to $4,695) in 2003, a decline of 19 percent."

----> http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/working_families.html

Originally posted by: kevin184

Originally posted by: Naut
But to use the excuse that you can NOT be successful, can NOT get a job, and that it is all the Presidents fault is PATHETIC.

I dont think i used the words George, Bush, or president anywhere in my post...

You have said that in previous posts, directly blaming the President.

Want me to quote you?

And, nice link. Guess I was wrong, but still, that page you linked us shows that more moderate income families will be getting more back.

http://www.whitehouse.gov

-------------------------------

Helping Working Families

The President’s plan helps working Americans by focusing tax relief directly at moderate-income families and those with children. The plan:


Accelerates Marriage Penalty relief by increasing the standard deduction and expanding the 15-percent tax bracket for couples in 2003. An estimated 46 million married couples would benefit from this provision;
Raises the Child Tax Credit from $600 to $1,000 per child this year. An estimated 34 million families with children would benefit from this provision; and
Moves several million working Americans into the lower 10-percent tax bracket immediately, allowing them to keep more of each paycheck.
Helping America’s Seniors

The President’s plan would also help America’s seniors make ends meet. The plan:


Eliminates the double taxation of dividends earned by stockholders. More than half of taxable dividends go to America’s seniors; and
Accelerates the rate reduction and marriage penalty relief for America’s seniors.
An estimated 13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384 under the President’s plan.

Eliminating the Tax Burden for Millions of Moderate-Income Families

Under President Bush’s plan, Americans in the lowest tax brackets receive the largest percentage reduction in their tax burden.


Three million moderate-income families will see their income tax burden eliminated entirely; while
Treasury Department estimates show the share of income taxes paid by high-income Americans will actually rise.
When the Jobs and Growth plan is enacted, high-income Americans will shoulder a larger share of the income tax burden while moderate-income families will see their tax burden go down.

Who Benefits?

A married couple with two children and income of $40,000 will see their taxes reduced by $1,133 (from $1,178 to $45) in 2003, a decline of 96 percent.

An elderly couple with income of $40,000 (of which $2,000 is dividends and $15,000 is Social Security benefits) will see their taxes reduced by $380 (from $930 to $550) in 2003, a decline of 41 percent.

A married couple with one child and income of $40,000 will see their taxes reduced by $732 (from $2,235 to $1,503) in 2003, a decline of 33 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $60,000 will see their taxes reduced by $900 (from $3,750 to $2,850) in 2003, a decline of 24 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $75,000 will see their taxes reduced by $1,122 (from $5,817 to $4,695) in 2003, a decline of 19 percent.

Originally posted by: Naut

And, nice link. Guess I was wrong, but still, that page you linked us shows that more moderate income families will be getting more back.

As long as we are admitting to being wrong, I did directly blame the president. Theres no need to quote me I realize I did it and considering that many MANY people with majors in economics etc. have said that it would be wrong to blame Bush, and I am in high school, I'll apologize if that offended you.

Also on the subject of being wrong, my dad was right because we would have only received roughly $700 in tax cuts, but he has a job now.

Originally posted by: kevin184

"A married couple with one child and income of $40,000 will see their taxes reduced by $732 (from $2,235 to $1,503) in 2003, a decline of 33 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $60,000 will see their taxes reduced by $900 (from $3,750 to $2,850) in 2003, a decline of 24 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $75,000 will see their taxes reduced by $1,122 (from $5,817 to $4,695) in 2003, a decline of 19 percent."

----> http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/working_families.html

sure looks like a tax cut that benefits the rich to me...........


Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw

Originally posted by: Juzfugen

Originally posted by: kevin184

"A married couple with one child and income of $40,000 will see their taxes reduced by $732 (from $2,235 to $1,503) in 2003, a decline of 33 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $60,000 will see their taxes reduced by $900 (from $3,750 to $2,850) in 2003, a decline of 24 percent.

A married couple with two children and income of $75,000 will see their taxes reduced by $1,122 (from $5,817 to $4,695) in 2003, a decline of 19 percent."

----> http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/working_families.html

sure looks like a tax cut that benefits the rich to me...........

Soo, how can there be ANY question what-so-ever about this tax cut helping out average, middle class Americans? We need to get someone on TWL to go say this on CNN We could show up with like blue hair and a t-shirt, and prove some liberal democrat in a $1500 suite WRONG

Originally posted by: Coba|t

I had read a statistic that not once in the past decade has a republican party president balanced the budget... Seams as though Bush's plan is more of the same deficit spending, spend spend spend, even if we dont have the money. I hope he's right... cause if he isnt I'll be paying for it a decade down the line.

well, I dont know when it was done before the last time, but it was done by a republican congress, not the president.