how did bush fix the economy?

[Strk]

I'm still trying to figure out what items have decreased in price. I mean, Comcast raised their prices, food remains about the same, DVDs are still the same price, cars remain about the same for each car, electronics remain the same if you are looking for decent electronics(not that cheap crap Wal-mart pawns off).

Oh, and how about school. In two years the fees and tuition(tuition doubled) at my school went up over $4,000 combined; yeah, luckily there is that $400 extra bucks huh?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Genesys
Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

I can just see your intelligence oozing out in this post.

We are in a time of deficits and a stuttering economy. If the argument for reducing taxes is to reduce strain on individuals during this difficult time, then there is no case for reducing the tax rate on the highest bracket. Deficit spending is not sustainable. Why cut taxes for those who need it the least when you aren't even taking in enough money to cover what you are spending?

If there was intelligence in your post, it would be oozing out. The reason why we have a big deficit is because the economy went to crap when BJC was leaving office. Bush had two choices,
1. Do nothing. The economy would have contracted about 3x as much and unemployment would be 3x higher. Gov't income would have dropped SIGNIFICANTLY and we would have seen even more debt than we have now.

2. Give massive tax breaks and try to jump start the economy. This is what he did and it has worked. Granted, we still have debt, but ANYONE with an ounce of knowledge about economics knows that you run debts in times of economic distress.

So quit your crying about the debt. The alternative is massive job loss and HUGE economic problems (see what happened in 1929). 1929 is what happens when we do things your way. 2001-2004 is what happens when we do thing right (or as right as possible)

 

[maluckey]

DanJ, you keep talking about the servicemen like they support your views, as Democrats. Sorry to remind you of common knowledge, but the majority (of combat troops at least) are Republicans. Just FYI, Law enforcement is predominantly Republican as well. Funny you bring them up in your argument to supportyour cause, when they don't support yours.

Also, the party of money is no longer the Republicans (as you suggested). There are far Uber-Rich Democrats in Congress than Republicans. Tell me again, that they understand the common Joe....The Democratic fundraising also show an interesting pattern of much larger monetary sums per donation than the Republicans, even though the Republicands got more money overall (from more donations) so who is supporting the Democrats? Surely not Joe average.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: maluckey
DanJ, you keep talking about the servicemen like they support your views, as Democrats. Sorry to remind you of common knowledge, but the majority (of combat troops at least) are Republicans. Just FYI, Law enforcement is predominantly Republican as well. Funny you bring them up in your argument to supportyour cause, when they don't support yours.

Also, the party of money is no longer the Republicans (as you suggested). There are far Uber-Rich Democrats in Congress than Republicans. Tell me again, that they understand the common Joe....The Democratic fundraising also show an interesting pattern of much larger monetary sums per donation than the Republicans, even though the Republicands got more money overall (from more donations) so who is supporting the Democrats? Surely not Joe average.

Where did I say they supported my views? I said that the great majority of young servicemen sent to Iraq are there because enlisting was a good alternative economically to the life they lived before hand. Therefore, they're probably not the one's screaming about how the rich are taxed too much, that rather then have the rich pay a greater scale then the poor, let's make it equal acrossed the board so government funding is sunk significantly, removing programs that might help those that are in trouble helping themselves (and thus join the military).

Nowhere did I say what party servicemen may or may not align themselves with; I know not all Repubs are Repubs for tax reasons, many are Repubs because it falls in line with their religous beliefs (Pro-Life). What I'm saying is for Repubs (especially rich Repubs) to scream that not supporting the war is not supporting the troops and should be seen as the equivalent of treason, is ridiculous when tax cuts are so lopsided towards the rich and almost meaningless to the poor (which are often the pool where servicemen come from). You don't see the people screaming about losing an extra $5000 from their $400,000 annual income enlisting for the army.

 

[SuperTool]

I have an idea, since deficits don't matter, let's eliminate taxes and pay for our government with bonds.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Strk
I'm still trying to figure out what items have decreased in price. I mean, Comcast raised their prices, food remains about the same, DVDs are still the same price, cars remain about the same for each car, electronics remain the same if you are looking for decent electronics(not that cheap crap Wal-mart pawns off).

Oh, and how about school. In two years the fees and tuition(tuition doubled) at my school went up over $4,000 combined; yeah, luckily there is that $400 extra bucks huh?

Ding Ding Ding, The Companies did two things with the windfall:

1) Built overseas to send the jobs overseas.

2) Lined their own personal pockets bigger than ever with least Taxes ever to boot.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
If there was intelligence in your post, it would be oozing out. The reason why we have a big deficit is because the economy went to crap when BJC was leaving office. Bush had two choices,
1. Do nothing. The economy would have contracted about 3x as much and unemployment would be 3x higher. Gov't income would have dropped SIGNIFICANTLY and we would have seen even more debt than we have now.

2. Give massive tax breaks and try to jump start the economy. This is what he did and it has worked. Granted, we still have debt, but ANYONE with an ounce of knowledge about economics knows that you run debts in times of economic distress.

So quit your crying about the debt. The alternative is massive job loss and HUGE economic problems (see what happened in 1929). 1929 is what happens when we do things your way. 2001-2004 is what happens when we do thing right (or as right as possible)

Funny you claim to know my position, since I haven't articulated more than a small portion of it.

Tell me, what happened to the money that the top 1% got back? Did they buy cars? Did they buy more food? Did they put an addition on their house? Or did they put it in the bank, since the stock market was too volatile and they had no need for much else?

If you cut the taxes on the middle class, you know they are going to spend it on goods. Just look at the average household debt. Its over $15,000. The majority of money given back to the middle class would be spent in the marketplace, stimulating economic growth and recovery. Same deal for small businesses. Tax cuts for small businesses will go further than tax cuts for corporations.

I don't have a problem with cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact I favor it. Shocker, huh? However, you have to differentiate between tax cuts that help the economy more and those that do so less. The majority of the money went for tax cuts that help the economy less, and if I had to choose between half a trillion dollars in debt and such cuts, well, I choose keep the $500,000,000,000 for the government.

 

[maluckey]

DanJ,

I see what you are saying now, though I disagree with your conclusions.

 

[C'DaleRider]

how did bush fix the economy?

He hasn't yet unless you count a "jobless recovery" fixing the economy. Remember, the White House has had a little trouble forecasting job growth -- in early 2003, it promised that tax cuts would create an average of 306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. That forecast, obviously, was incorrect.

In fact, the current "jobless recovery" has been much worse than the last one during the first Bush administration. Some 2.35 million jobs have disappeared since the job market peaked in March 2001, 34 months ago. That long after the labor-market's peak in June 1990, about 400,000 jobs had been added.

And now the White House said Monday it expects 2.6 million new jobs in 2004........yeah, right. Interesting, that "prediction" for growth is just what has been lost in jobs under Bush. Guess election-time rhetoric is just starting to get pumped up. If you can't confound them with the facts, baffle them with BS.