George W Bush's fiscal policy

[Tom]

I want to know what President Bush's fiscal policy is ? Seriously.

To be straightforward, I don't like the results, so far. But when I tried started to reply to a post a while ago, I realized I'm not even sure what the "policy" is. I've heard different things at different times, and some of the things I've heard don't correlate to the things I've seen.

So I would sincerely like to hear from someone who supports Bush, precisely what is the fiscal policy you voted for ?

my speculations based on tidbits here and there, and observation of reality--

edit- to clarify, these are listed as alternatives, not as different points of one policy- additionally, notice I use the words "my speculations", I am not saying they ARE the policies, if I knew what the policy is then I wouldn't be asking the question.


a. deficits don't matter
b. deficits matter, but they're ok as long as you spend the money on something really important then they don't matter. (in fact if it's REALLY important, we don't even count it.)
c. deficits matter and if we just cut taxes enough the deficit will go away
d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.
e. if we borrow $ 2 trillion for social security "transition", then something will happen.
edit-
f. I forgot tax reform. If we reform taxes, something will happen.

 

[zixxer]

flamer

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: armatron
flamer

No. I want to know what the answer is. I can't imagine anything more "flamer" than a one word response calling someone names.




edit- perhaps I misunderstood. Maybe you were referring to yourself. Sorry.

 

[Snoop]

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

Ahhhh trickle down economics... how many administrations will it take before you folks get it through your heads that THAT DOESN'T WORK.

 

[TheGameIs21]

He has a plan.

That's all it took for most to be Pro Kerry.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
He has a plan.

That's all it took for most to be Pro Kerry.

A plan is a p, an l, an a and an n more than Shrub has.

 

[Snoop]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

Ahhhh trickle down economics... how many administrations will it take before you folks get it through your heads that THAT DOESN'T WORK.

I didnt intend to endorse the theory, but was just trying to convey the logic behind it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Snoop

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

Ahhhh trickle down economics... how many administrations will it take before you folks get it through your heads that THAT DOESN'T WORK.

I didnt intend to endorse the theory, but was just trying to convey the logic behind it.

Human nature trumps logic when it comes to trickle down economics.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

So is that Bush's plan then ? What I wanted to know is what his plan actually is. If that is the full extent of the plan, then I thank you for clarifying it for me.


No need for the condescending remark. I listed this plan as option C under my speculations.

I won't disuss my opinion of whether it will work or not, for now; all I really want to know is what the full extent of the actual, real, genuine, Bush fiscal plan is.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
He has a plan.

That's all it took for most to be Pro Kerry.

Kerry isn't the president. I'm not asking this question for some political campaign rhetoric reason. I'm asking it because it isn't clear to me what the President of the United State's fiscal plan is, exactly.

 

[Mursilis]

To understand the plan, you have to understand one thing about politics in the US - it's all about the short-term. Most of the people in the US prefer instant gratification (witness the upward trend of credit card debt), and expect the same from the government; benefits now, taxes later (or never). Therefore, Bush's fiscal policy makes perfect sense - low taxes now, and increased spending (such as the drug benefit for seniors), and don't worry about the future - that's tomorrow. Until Bush stole this plan from the Democrats, it was all theirs, which is why they hate him so, and no one believed Kerry when he claimed to be 'worried about the deficit.' He was just mad Bush was playing Santa Claus instead of him.
I hope this has been helpful.

 

[Genx87]

It was obvious in the first term with the recession and 9-11 that his fiscal policy was to redice taxes to jump start the economy. It jumped started the economy. 2003 saw nearly 4% rise in gdp. This year will be the same. The GDP has grown I believe ~16% using this policy.

The side effect was a large deficit and an increase in the debt. His second term policy is to reduce the deficit by 50% in 5 years. It is going to be tough to do considering he wants to overhaul the SS system.

 

[Sysbuilder05]

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

Umm,were you alive in 1982? That was the start of Reagans tinkle down economics which nearly threw is into the second Great Depression. TEN MILLION lost jobs because of that fool,taxes were INCREASED on the middle class and millionaires made out like bandits. Simple economics...

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

It really must. The supply-side theory states that cutting taxes to the rich will boost productivity by increasing the savings rate. This is because rich people save more. However, running a deficit decreses the savings rate more than tax cutting, because debt is negative savings, whether it comes from government or consumers. One step forward, two steps back.

The real reason that going into deficit may increase productivity is that pulling back the tax cuts will be politically unpopular, so when your oppsition gets into power, they are forced to cut back on social programs, and so you get the tax cut productivity benefits then.

It's a political tactic, not an economic one.

Must suck to talk out of your ass.

 

[Snoop]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Snoop

d. deficits matter and if we cut taxes and spending we can reduce the deficit, but I(Bush) have no idea how we can cut spending, so lets just cut taxes some more instead.

Its simple, decrease taxes, eventually create growth, thus reducing the deficit by collecting more taxes (without increasing taxes) on growing economy. Must suck to not understand simple economics.

It really must. The supply-side theory states that cutting taxes to the rich will boost productivity by increasing the savings rate. This is because rich people save more. However, running a deficit decreses the savings rate more than tax cutting, because debt is negative savings, whether it comes from government or consumers. One step forward, two steps back.

The real reason that going into deficit may increase productivity is that pulling back the tax cuts will be politically unpopular, so when your oppsition gets into power, they are forced to cut back on social programs, and so you get the tax cut productivity benefits then.

It's a political tactic, not an economic one.

Must suck to talk out of your ass.

I believe you are confusing the theory of supply side economics with your idea's as to why it does not work.

Specifically, supply-side economics grew out of monetarists' critiques of Keynesian economics, and instead focused on encouraging investment, which they asserted was the basis of classical economics. In particular the notion that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. In classical times this idea had been summarised in Say's Law of economics, which had been refuted by Keynes in the 1930s. This led the supply-siders to advocate large reductions in marginal capital gains tax rates in response to inflation, to encourage allocation of assets to investment, which would produce more capital, and therefore more supply. The increased supply would then lower prices because of competition, hence the term "Supply-Side Economics". This policy was generalized to call for lower marginal tax rates in general, especially at higher incomes.

Supply-side economics holds that increased taxation steadily reduces economic trade between economic participants within a nation and that it discourages investment. Taxes act as a type of trade barrier or tariff that causes economic participants to revert to less efficient means of satisfying their needs. As such higher taxation leads to lower levels of specialization and lower economic efficiency. The idea is said t be illustrated by the Laffer curve.

Link

BTW, for a political theory, Supply Side economics seems to get a lot of discussion from economists. :roll:

 

[dannybin1742]

acutally i spoke ith an economics professor here on campus, and he theory is that bush and his neocon pals, are simply trying to undo everything the new deal brought to the table, they don't have votes to simply undo it in congress, so plan be is to spend the country into so much debt that the government is economically unable to pay for the military AND social programs, and as usual, the military is more important, so guess what by default, they get rid of the new deal programs

i believe this was thought up by a harvard neocon economics professor, can't remember his name, but the phrase was (i think off the top of my head) "choke it to death and then drown it in the bathtub"-refering to the government

 

[nageov3t]

1. spend money
2. ?
3. profit!

 

[IAteYourMother]

plan?? what plan?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It was obvious in the first term with the recession and 9-11 that his fiscal policy was to redice taxes to jump start the economy. It jumped started the economy. 2003 saw nearly 4% rise in gdp. This year will be the same. The GDP has grown I believe ~16% using this policy.

The side effect was a large deficit and an increase in the debt. His second term policy is to reduce the deficit by 50% in 5 years. It is going to be tough to do considering he wants to overhaul the SS system.

The tax cuts had almost no impact on the economy according to economists. The economy is coming back due to ultra-low interest rates and natural economic cycles.

Dub's fiscal policy is the same one he has always used:
1. Run company (country) into the ground
2. Wait for daddy's friends to bail him out
3. Make someone else clean up the mess
4. Repeat with new company

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Jhhnn]

Dannybin has it right. It's called "Starve the Beast", the phrase having been coined by an economist/ideologue named Friedman during the Reagan years. Prominent Republican pundits openly support it, Grover Norquist being the foremost.

First, borrow the govt into an inescapable hole, then eliminate all the "social program" facets of the New Deal as an economy measure.

Taxes won't go down, they'll actually go up in the long run, but the govt will deliver less for each tax dollar. Well, unless you're holding US treasuries, the interest on such will be sucking the taxpayers dry. Welfare for corporations and the wealthy will remain, of course, and the disparities in income will explode....

Watch Uncle Sam dance to the Bankers' tune, just like the Argentines...

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Dannybin has it right. It's called "Starve the Beast", the phrase having been coined by an economist/ideologue named Friedman during the Reagan years. Prominent Republican pundits openly support it, Grover Norquist being the foremost.

First, borrow the govt into an inescapable hole, then eliminate all the "social program" facets of the New Deal as an economy measure.

Taxes won't go down, they'll actually go up in the long run, but the govt will deliver less for each tax dollar. Well, unless you're holding US treasuries, the interest on such will be sucking the taxpayers dry. Welfare for corporations and the wealthy will remain, of course, and the disparities in income will explode....

Watch Uncle Sam dance to the Bankers' tune, just like the Argentines...

Woah, talk about a backdoor way to kill the new deal mentality. It makes sense.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Dannybin has it right. It's called "Starve the Beast", the phrase having been coined by an economist/ideologue named Friedman during the Reagan years. Prominent Republican pundits openly support it, Grover Norquist being the foremost.

First, borrow the govt into an inescapable hole, then eliminate all the "social program" facets of the New Deal as an economy measure.

Taxes won't go down, they'll actually go up in the long run, but the govt will deliver less for each tax dollar. Well, unless you're holding US treasuries, the interest on such will be sucking the taxpayers dry. Welfare for corporations and the wealthy will remain, of course, and the disparities in income will explode....

Watch Uncle Sam dance to the Bankers' tune, just like the Argentines...

Thanks to you and Dannybin. This is the kind of info I'm looking for.

By saying that I'm not endorsing or saying that the plan you describe is or isn't really what Bush's plan is, I'd like to hear more from people who support Bush's policies too.