Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

jeff · 08-08-2004, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue

Only democrats would say growth, albeit slower than projected, is a failure.

The point you may not know is that Bush needed 190,000 new jobs per month (between now and December) to not be the first president since Hoover to have net job loss. Now, with the July results, and the restated employment figures for prior months, he needs 234,000 new jobs per month .

jBirch · 08-08-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

The point you may not know is that Bush needed 190,000 new jobs per month (between now and December) to not be the first president since Hoover to have net job loss. Now, with the July results, and the restated employment figures for prior months, he needs 234,000 new jobs per month .

So what you're saying is that, unless he can get more jobs into the economy, he's in danger of joining the ranks of Presidents that suck?

jeff · 08-08-2004, 04:19 PM

It's one of the factors!

esskreemr · 08-08-2004, 04:52 PM

So the Fact that he "promised" 300,000 new jobs per month to gather support for his tax cuts doesn't demand a certain amount of culpability for failure?

jeff · 08-08-2004, 05:04 PM

esskreemer, I guess we'll have to wait till we hear the mea culpa from GWB that tax cuts didn't do as advertised. I wouldn't hold my breath for that or any other admission of imperfection.

It's funny - I've watched this tango over tax policy with interest (no pun intended) for years now, and it really strikes me how the right wingers have touted tax cuts, especially tax cuts on the rich, as the panacea for any and all economic ills.

When the economy was booming (under Clinton, ahem), the mantra was "we can afford it - so let's do a tax cut now". When the recession hit (starting the March after GWB took office) it was "we need a tax cut now to revitalise the economy". Going to the Steve Forbes days and before, no matter what the ailment was, the answer always was "cut taxes". Whether the problem du jour was high unemployment, or high interest rates, or bad balance of trade, or a bad hair day - the answer was always "cut taxes". By funny coincidence, the people behind this program were almost always the direct beneficiaries of this largesse.

When the carnival barker is pushing the same patent medicine at your regardless of the ailment, you can be sure that it's snake oil.

Tireur · 08-08-2004, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

the answer was always "cut taxes". By funny coincidence, the people behind this program were almost always the direct beneficiaries of this largesse.

Couldn't you say everyone, at least who pays taxes, would be a "direct beneficiary" of a tax cut?

The0ne · 08-08-2004, 06:25 PM

very good point Jeff. . . More money to people, means less money for government, which means less money for programs for the poor among many things. Some people don't have enough money as it is, taking less away from them isn't going to help them at all.

jeff · 08-08-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tireur

Couldn't you say everyone, at least who pays taxes, would be a "direct beneficiary" of a tax cut?

I could say it, all right, but it wouldn't be accurate.

First, these tax cuts (certainly as enacted by the current administration) disproportiionately tilt benefits towards the extremely wealthy - if they're not the sole beneficiary they are by far the predominant one (tax cuts could have been structured to provide middle class relief, but they weren't) If you're not among the wealthiest: then don't spend your tax savings in one place, please. Second, there's the effect on state and local taxes I've noted elsewhere. Third, there is defunding of services which the non-rich depend on more than the rich. Fourth, the tax cuts we've had have also been funded by issuing debt, so the debt service will have to be paid for in future.

So sure - every middle class or working class tax payer gets their pittance of a tax cut, while the burden of supporting government is shifted more onto their shoulders.

"Beneficiary" is not the word that fits - unless you're rich.

Tireur · 08-08-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The0ne

Some people don't have enough money as it is, taking less away from them isn't going to help them at all.

Ok, I'm struggling with this logic.

Taking less money, from people who don't have enought to begin with, doesn't help them at all?????

Tireur · 08-08-2004, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

When the economy was booming (under Clinton, ahem), the mantra was "we can afford it - so let's do a tax cut now". When the recession hit (starting the March after GWB took office) it was "we need a tax cut now to revitalise the economy".

After riding the Reagan (ahem) tide.

I think that 2 1/2 months after GWB hit office, you could say that was riding the Clinton (ahem) ebb. Remember, the economic downturn began in 1999.

jeff · 08-08-2004, 08:53 PM

You have your facts wrong. NYSE and NASDAQ peaked in March 2000, and the downturn didn't happen till Bush was in office. At the time you describe I was running a market data department for one of the world's largest brokerages - so market and economic conditions were my daily job.

Maeve_Mari · 08-08-2004, 10:26 PM

Who's better off (economically) today than they were three years or more ago?

I'm not. My company, my career, my outlook have all been negatively impacted since the early months of the Bush Administration. At work I was on a great roll there for many years - high merit increases, regular bonuses, project opportunities, and a true sense of job security. Now, at least at my company, we're back to 2% merits and regular layoff watches. New projects have all but completely dried up.

Peach · 08-08-2004, 10:31 PM

I'm better off than I was three years ago . . .

. . . but I teach in a private school where the wealthy send their children.

Rogue · 08-08-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

First, these tax cuts (certainly as enacted by the current administration) disproportiionately tilt benefits towards the extremely wealthy - if they're not the sole beneficiary they are by far the predominant one (tax cuts could have been structured to provide middle class relief, but they weren't)

Everyone who pays taxes got a tax break. Is it because the "evil rich" got one too that bothers people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

If you're not among the wealthiest: then don't spend your tax savings in one place, please.

I purchased a new oven with my and my wifes paultry sum. Yep stuck it right back into the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

Second, there's the effect on state and local taxes I've noted elsewhere.

A state problem not a federal problem. Don't like your state raising taxes? Vote for someone who is against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

Third, there is defunding of services which the non-rich depend on more than the rich.

I don't believe there has been any reduction in federal spending on services. Maybe the growth was reduced but not any actual reduction of total funds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

Fourth, the tax cuts we've had have also been funded by issuing debt, so the debt service will have to be paid for in future.

The tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. War on terror and pork spending by both parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

So sure - every middle class or working class tax payer gets their pittance of a tax cut, while the burden of supporting government is shifted more onto their shoulders.

Hey, if getting to keep more (not less) of MY money is a burden, I'll take it.

The0ne · 08-08-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tireur

Ok, I'm struggling with this logic.

Taking less money, from people who don't have enought to begin with, doesn't help them at all?????

What they need is programs that actually benefit them, not just their 200 dollar child credit, or whatever pittance they received from the government.

The0ne · 08-08-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue

Everyone who pays taxes got a tax break. Is it because the "evil rich" got one too that bothers people?

I purchased a new oven with my and my wifes paultry sum. Yep stuck it right back into the economy.

A state problem not a federal problem. Don't like your state raising taxes? Vote for someone who is against it.

I don't believe there has been any reduction in federal spending on services. Maybe the growth was reduced but not any actual reduction of total funds.

The tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. War on terror and pork spending by both parties.

Hey, if getting to keep more (not less) of MY money is a burden, I'll take it.

Except for the fact that the amount that was spent on the tax cut would now be used to lessen the deficit.

Rogue · 08-08-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

You have your facts wrong. NYSE and NASDAQ peaked in March 2000, and the downturn didn't happen till Bush was in office. At the time you describe I was running a market data department for one of the world's largest brokerages - so market and economic conditions were my daily job.

What ever the date, 3 months of a presidency cannot make or break the economy. The economy was slowing at the end of the Clinton adm.

Tireur · 08-08-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Who's better off (economically) today than they were three years or more ago?

I am. And trust me, the government gets it's cut, more than they ever got during Carter or Clinton. Not counting sales taxes, or yes, lets count them, I (and my wife) paid a total of app. $53,000.00 in taxes last year.

I could use a break.

Rogue · 08-08-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The0ne

Except for the fact that the amount that was spent on the tax cut would now be used to lessen the deficit.

The deficit is not the result of the tax cut.
The deficit could be paid off if the politicians, both sides, wanted to pay it off. The amount of gov waste is sickening. I'll not support them getting anymore money to waste, no matter who it comes from (even the evil rich).

The0ne · 08-08-2004, 10:52 PM

Yes it could be payed off, but the Executive branch is the people who do that sort of thing (read the Bush administration). If you listened to Howard Dean when he was running, that was one of his top priorities, but that didn't fly with the american public. Why? Most people don't care, so why should politicians care? The problem with American politics is our people, not the politicians.

I completely agree with you, the amount of government waste is sickening. Such as waste on a Space Defence Initiative. Such as invading a country that didn't have the capability to attack the United States, and has not been proven to have been harboring terrorists. I see those as rather big wastes which the Bush administration has conducted.

I'm going to take a guess at your counter-argument which might be that democrats, even Kerry voted for the Iraq war. The Bush administration had something like 70% of the american people persuaded that Iraq was linked to terrorism. It was unpopular to be against the war, since it would be "unpatriotic" to take such a stand.

I was in support of the Iraq war in the beginning. The president told me that there were WMDs in Iraq, and Iraq was aiding terrorists. Those reasons seem to point to the fact that Iraq was a threat to the USA. Somehow, their clear evidence got lost, and no WMDs have been found. It looks to me like they made it up, so I am not in support for the war or the Bush administration.