Bush says tax cuts responsible for growing economy

[heartsurgeon]

so is the current housing market "crippled" or "booming", hard to have it both ways...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so is the current housing market "crippled" or "booming", hard to have it both ways...

Booming looming on bubble.

 

[Red Dawn]

The tax cuts received by the average Middle Class Person is easily offest by the rising costs of Fuel. Anyway the amount most received was not enough to purchase any big ticjket items and was mostly used for everyday expenses. Averaged out it probably wasn't more than a $1.50 a day which is just a small drop in the bucket.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Booming looming on bubble.

probably agree with that statement, but hard to n=know exactly how "big" or exagerated the bubble is...clearly, cheap interest rates have propelled both home ownership, and a rise in home prices for the same reason, cheap money with which to finance these purchases...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
o.k., so what your saying is the economy is in "recovery"
the economy has been "stimulated"
the economy has "grown"

i just wanted to be clear on the liberal view of the economy.

i would agree.

I would say the economy has grown, but not in one way that I would have liked it to have = manufacturing jobs (the field that I work in). This is the first recovery ever that didn't see an increase in manufacturing jobs as they are heading to Mexico and China (maybe Centra America now too) as quick as we can give them a pink slip.

We'll see how history pans out on Service jobs (although we still manufacturer alot using the best productivity in the world - automation)

However, our production capacity is up, because it appears more people like yourself are empployed than assembly line workers. But you are right, manufacturing employment has been flat the last several years even as production has expanded.

Actually, it's 10% decline (not flat). Some 4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001 and there is no end in sight (at least at the moment) as the automakers are taking more of a lead and shifting jobs out.

One statistic I would like to see is how temporary works effect the manufactuirng numbers. I know that many manufactures acutally use temp services (for up to several years as does Toyota in Georgetown, KY) for some time before making those employees permanent (if at all). Since there has been a boom in temporary workers, I wonder if many of those are replacing full time manufacturing workers (with no benefits and lower pay of course).

Over the last several years the employment indexes for manufacturing has neither been growing or shrinking. but you are right over the past couple of decaded manufacturing employment has been contracting and I expect that continue because of engineers like yourself.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
now i'm confused....one of you says the growth is in the housing sector.....the other says it's in the service sector.

the one who states it's in the housing sector claims it's because of Clinton's tax cut on capital gains from house sales from 1992.

This begs the issue why the boom in the housing sector happened 13 years later....oh well, don't let facts get in the way of good story..

You're the one letting not letting facts bother you, as the housing boom didn't start this year and no one has claimed that it did.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
o.k., so what your saying is the economy is in "recovery"
the economy has been "stimulated"
the economy has "grown"

i just wanted to be clear on the liberal view of the economy.

i would agree.

I would say the economy has grown, but not in one way that I would have liked it to have = manufacturing jobs (the field that I work in). This is the first recovery ever that didn't see an increase in manufacturing jobs as they are heading to Mexico and China (maybe Centra America now too) as quick as we can give them a pink slip.

We'll see how history pans out on Service jobs (although we still manufacturer alot using the best productivity in the world - automation)

However, our production capacity is up, because it appears more people like yourself are empployed than assembly line workers. But you are right, manufacturing employment has been flat the last several years even as production has expanded.

Actually, it's 10% decline (not flat). Some 4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001 and there is no end in sight (at least at the moment) as the automakers are taking more of a lead and shifting jobs out.

One statistic I would like to see is how temporary works effect the manufactuirng numbers. I know that many manufactures acutally use temp services (for up to several years as does Toyota in Georgetown, KY) for some time before making those employees permanent (if at all). Since there has been a boom in temporary workers, I wonder if many of those are replacing full time manufacturing workers (with no benefits and lower pay of course).

Over the last several years the employment indexes for manufacturing has neither been growing or shrinking. but you are right over the past couple of decaded manufacturing employment has been contracting and I expect that continue because of engineers like yourself.

I have wrestled with the above for many years and finally came to the conclusion that I'm saving jobs much more than killing them. Keeping a plant in the US via automation is much better than closing down the entire plant and sending to Mexico or China. Managers, maintenance personel, engineers, production workers, etc. all work if the plant stays open in the US. They all lose their jobs once it shuts down and very rarely do they ever reverse the decision and move the production back (occasionaly, but not often).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so is the current housing market "crippled" or "booming", hard to have it both ways...

once again, nice reading.

You ridiculed the notion that a housing boom could trail tax changes by nearly a decade. i gave you a reason why this might hae been the case. Don't forget the extreme unlikelihood of such a boom from 199-2003ish, given the overall state of your economy.

In fact you'll note that housing starts have generally increased since 1992 after a rather severe drop in 1990/91. census link.

A market can face crippling 'factors' and yet still grow - it is economically impossible that the softwood lumber dispute helped the housing market in the western United States, since the Canadian softwood lumber is not an 'inferior good' let alone one of the infamous-but-mostly-theoretical 'giffen goods'.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so is the current housing market "crippled" or "booming", hard to have it both ways...

once again, nice reading.

You ridiculed the notion that a housing boom could trail tax changes by nearly a decade. i gave you a reason why this might hae been the case. Don't forget the extreme unlikelihood of such a boom from 199-2003ish, given the overall state of your economy.

In fact you'll note that housing starts have generally increased since 1992 after a rather severe drop in 1990/91. census link.

A market can face crippling 'factors' and yet still grow - it is economically impossible that the softwood lumber dispute helped the housing market in the western United States, since the Canadian softwood lumber is not an 'inferior good' let alone one of the infamous-but-mostly-theoretical 'giffen goods'.

So now that capital gains have been cut again, the housing boom should continue for another decade?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so is the current housing market "crippled" or "booming", hard to have it both ways...

once again, nice reading.

You ridiculed the notion that a housing boom could trail tax changes by nearly a decade. i gave you a reason why this might hae been the case. Don't forget the extreme unlikelihood of such a boom from 199-2003ish, given the overall state of your economy.

In fact you'll note that housing starts have generally increased since 1992 after a rather severe drop in 1990/91. census link.

A market can face crippling 'factors' and yet still grow - it is economically impossible that the softwood lumber dispute helped the housing market in the western United States, since the Canadian softwood lumber is not an 'inferior good' let alone one of the infamous-but-mostly-theoretical 'giffen goods'.

So now that capital gains have been cut again, the housing boom should continue for another decade?

Depends on whether interest rates remain low or now. Also depends on whether people actually get over their heads, end up with lower paying jobs, etc. Much more than just capital gains in this picture.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so is the current housing market "crippled" or "booming", hard to have it both ways...

once again, nice reading.

You ridiculed the notion that a housing boom could trail tax changes by nearly a decade. i gave you a reason why this might hae been the case. Don't forget the extreme unlikelihood of such a boom from 199-2003ish, given the overall state of your economy.

In fact you'll note that housing starts have generally increased since 1992 after a rather severe drop in 1990/91. census link.

A market can face crippling 'factors' and yet still grow - it is economically impossible that the softwood lumber dispute helped the housing market in the western United States, since the Canadian softwood lumber is not an 'inferior good' let alone one of the infamous-but-mostly-theoretical 'giffen goods'.

So now that capital gains have been cut again, the housing boom should continue for another decade?

Possibly - I tend to agree that the mix of tax cuts and spending patterns means interest rates won't be falling again any time soon, and this will certainly moderate any continued boom. The problem with big government (and I say this as someone who doesn't entirely reject the idea of an economically active government) is that they can almost always 'buy' productivity and economic growth, at a cost that they hope to defer to beyond the next election cycle.

 

[heartsurgeon]

extreme unlikelihood of such a boom from 199-2003ish, given the overall state of your economy.

but liberals tout the fantastic state of the economy under Clinton!! Market was sky high, we had a budget SURPLUS [albeit funded by gutting military spending, and selling off our strategic oil reserves)..

according to liberals, the economy was robust under clinton, and in the toilet under Bush....so your logic still fails me...how a incentive for housing purchases created by Clinton during a booming economy, only become manifest 13 years later under a weak economy by Bush...

and while an market can face crippling factors and still grow, i don't believe it's reasonable to claim crippling factors are present during booming housing market.

i would argue that the use of the word "crippling" is hardly appropriate.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

extreme unlikelihood of such a boom from 199-2003ish, given the overall state of your economy.

but liberals tout the fantastic state of the economy under Clinton!! Market was sky high, we had a budget SURPLUS [albeit funded by gutting military spending, and selling off our strategic oil reserves)..

according to liberals, the economy was robust under clinton, and in the toilet under Bush....so your logic still fails me...how a incentive for housing purchases created by Clinton during a booming economy, only become manifest 13 years later under a weak economy by Bush...

and while an market can face crippling factors and still grow, i don't believe it's reasonable to claim crippling factors are present during booming housing market.

i would argue that the use of the word "crippling" is hardly appropriate.

There are always crippling, or potentially crippling factors at work in any market, regardless of it's state of 'booming' or not.

But fortunately, I didn't claim that the softwood lumber dispute was inpolace when the housing boom hit - in fact it was just in the process of being 'more or less' cleared away, creating first the expectation, and then the reality of cheap, high-quality lumber for home construction.

While I would say low interest rates probably had as much or more to do with the housing boom as softwood lumber (which was essentially regional, though its effects were concentrated in some of the richer areas of your country), the timing of the dispute resolution actually lines up pretty well with the start of the housing boom.

Now add in the huge increase in housing starts year over year starting with the introduction of the 'incentive', 13 years ago, and your argument becomes quite lost on me.

 

[DealMonkey]

In other news: On Monday, Bush goes to New Mexico to sign a $14.5 billion energy bill where Bush will claim credit for creating energy where none existed before. Then on Wednesday he visits Illinois to put his signature to a $286 billion highway bill to create highways where only dirt roads existed to connect our far-flung citizenry.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
o.k., so what your saying is the economy is in "recovery"
the economy has been "stimulated"
the economy has "grown"

i just wanted to be clear on the liberal view of the economy.

i would agree.

I would say the economy has grown, but not in one way that I would have liked it to have = manufacturing jobs (the field that I work in). This is the first recovery ever that didn't see an increase in manufacturing jobs as they are heading to Mexico and China (maybe Centra America now too) as quick as we can give them a pink slip.

We'll see how history pans out on Service jobs (although we still manufacturer alot using the best productivity in the world - automation)

However, our production capacity is up, because it appears more people like yourself are empployed than assembly line workers. But you are right, manufacturing employment has been flat the last several years even as production has expanded.

Actually, it's 10% decline (not flat). Some 4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001 and there is no end in sight (at least at the moment) as the automakers are taking more of a lead and shifting jobs out.

One statistic I would like to see is how temporary works effect the manufactuirng numbers. I know that many manufactures acutally use temp services (for up to several years as does Toyota in Georgetown, KY) for some time before making those employees permanent (if at all). Since there has been a boom in temporary workers, I wonder if many of those are replacing full time manufacturing workers (with no benefits and lower pay of course).

Yep, I know that is true.

I am a Temp worker, not in Auto Industry but nonetheless the same.

Sad when a whole Country is made up of Temporary workers and Republicans call that a good thing.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so you don't dispute that tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased tax revenues...your just against excess spending and deficits....

well, i would agree with you..

keep the tax cuts, reduce spending...

What tax cuts? There was no tax cut! Rather, as a result of the "tax cut" the nation's national debt will increase, which means higher taxes tomorrow to pay for a "tax cut" today. It was really a tax shift (or should I say shaft).

At the very least the "tax cut" should have come in the form of credits for businesses that increase the net amount of full time employeed with benefits receiving middle class wages. At least that would be tied directly to employment in some way.

Instead the tax cut went to the wealthy who haven't really suffered the negative effects of the nation's economic malaise. What a huge waste.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
so you don't dispute that tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased tax revenues...your just against excess spending and deficits....

well, i would agree with you..

keep the tax cuts, reduce spending...

What tax cuts? There was no tax cut! Rather, as a result of the "tax cut" the nation's national debt will increase, which means higher taxes tomorrow to pay for a "tax cut" today. It was really a tax shift (or should I say shaft).

At the very least the "tax cut" should have come in the form of credits for businesses that increase the net amount of full time employeed with benefits receiving middle class wages. At least that would be tied directly to employment in some way.

Instead the tax cut went to the wealthy who haven't really suffered the negative effects of the nation's economic malaise. What a huge waste.

The Tax Cuts went to the 50% of this nation who pay federal income tax. If you dont make enough to pay in, then it makes sense you didnt get a rebate check.

Tax cuts have shown in the past to stimulate the economy. Reagan's tax cuts in the early 80s lead to 7+% GDP growth rates and even Kennedy's tax cuts lead to 5-6% GDP growth the years following it.

The tax cuts arent the complete problem. It is the out of control spending that is going on in DC. Nobody ever wants to address that side of the equation because it means some special interest group gets their spending cut.

 

[NeoV]

Come on Genx, do we have to go over the differences with Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts to Bush's tax cuts again for you? It's apples to oranges - you know better, how very Sean Hannity of you to try and tie them together though..

HS, I thought you were a liberal, remember? Why do you keep referring to yourself as a non-liberal?

As someone stated earlier in the thread, it's bascially impossible to tell what impact the tax cuts had as a whole to the economy...certainly, for the majority of the people who received tax cuts, they didn't get very much - and any impact that had would have been completely wiped out by a huge increase in fuel costs...yes, there are people who received significant tax cuts, but those people were quite wealthy anyway - you know, the same people that are pretty much the beneficiaries of every major economic policy this administration stands for.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The tax cuts arent the complete problem. It is the out of control spending that is going on in DC. Nobody ever wants to address that side of the equation because it means some special interest group gets their spending cut.

That, I completely agree on!

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought the economy was rolling cause we were spending what we got left on all the new cheep stuff out of China.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
now i'm confused....

Tell us something we didn't already know.

 

[conjur]

This is the same idiot that wants "Intelligent Design" taught in schools.


:roll:

 

[mithrandir2001]

And they had to explain to him that "Intelligent Design" is not an art course.

 

[Jhhnn]

Add this bit of wisdom to the mix-

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor.../?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Op-ed+columns

 

[Strk]

The economy always grows, as a whole, it's just a matter of how fast and by how much.

Also, there is nothing in the OP that says his tax cuts were responsible for the growth, other than the President himself saying it. (biased towards his own opinion, maybe?)

And if you want to put it in a little bit better perspective; Clinton had over 20 million jobs created under him, what would your response be? Well, I'll take a guess. "He didn't have anything to do with them. He was just riding the internet bubble."

So, to me, this is nothing special, because it would have grown regardless.