People to Dubbya - We Know Why You Got a C in Economics

[BDawg]

According to the CNN/Gallup poll, Bush's popularity ratings are 5 points lower since late, last week. People aren't buying into his wealthy people's economic plan.

He'd better invade Iraq soon!

 

[Viper GTS]

The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

 

[Scarpozzi]

I think they're 5 points lower because of all the talk about Lieberman. (I'm not sure if I spelled that right)

It's not that he's really lost approval...there's just another guy in the spotlight that's eating up a little of the fame. I am a Demo, but I assume that Bush is going to win the next election and I expect that he's going to put off the war as long as possible to ensure that his services are needed when election time comes.

 

[GoodToGo]

You are too leniant, I bet he did not take economics in the first place. And for that no math, science, social sciences.... wow the list is shrinking fast.

 

[Ime]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

I agree, in part.

The president can't do something about the economy directly, but can through congress. Congress is controlled by the same party as the prez, so it's likely Bush will get his way.

Personally I'd like to see tax ratios. What % of americans pay the majority of the nations taxes.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

It's nice to have some people around here who understand what's going on.

ZV

EDIT:

Personally I'd like to see tax ratios. What % of americans pay the majority of the nations taxes.

The top quintile (top 20%) of the income bracket (mean income $141,620) pays 65.1% of Federal taxes. The second-highest quintile (maximum income: $81,960) pays 19.9% of Federal taxes. The bottom three quintiles pay 0.7%, 3.9%, and 10.2% respectively.

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

maybe in a textbook world...but bush's actions can and do greatly affect the economy in political reality...especially if he pulls the US into a war....govt deficit spending, large macroeconomic shocks

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

What a leader does that helps the economy is creating stability, having a looming war does not help create stability

edt. also the govermental books have alot to do with the economy

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You are too leniant, I bet he did not take economics in the first place. And for that no math, science, social sciences.... wow the list is shrinking fast.

Oops, wrong. Took and did well in courses in all of the above fields in college. Now, I'm going after a Masters degree just like Dubbya...except I'll have a good GPA.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

I didn't think you'd been to college. Where did you get macroeconomics?

And the President isn't powerless in terms of the economy. Control over imports vs. exports and lack of a deficit do help the economy. Sabre rattling doesn't.

People just aren't buying that Bush's dividen scheme is going to do anything.

The point of the thread wasn't to debate the effect of Presidents on the economy, but to show that his "stimulus plan" is causing him to lose support.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: BDawg
According to the CNN/Gallup poll, Bush's popularity ratings are 5 points lower since late, last week. People aren't buying into his wealthy people's economic plan.

He'd better invade Iraq soon!

Guess what? It doesn't matter what the masses think about his "economic stimulus" <laughs /> plan. All that matters is how much political juice he has in the new GOP-controlled Congress he helped to elect. With the slim margin in the Senate, it still will be difficult as hell to get controversial legislation passed.

 

[dullard]

The president has three main effects on the economy:
1) Immediate effects. The president can instantly change the countries confidence in the future. If I think that I'm going to be called into a war soon, I'm not going to go buy myself a new car. If I think the president is going to do things that might cause me to lose my job, I'm going to cut my spending on luxury goods. If I think the president is going to strongly support tax cuts for me, I'll go out and spend a bit more than I probably would have otherwise. Confidence is one of the major factors that determine the difference between a boom and a bust. The president can cause a swing in confidence in just a few minutes. Thus yes the president can have a MAJOR immediate effect on the economy.
2) Short term effects. The president can put pressure on congress to do the budget his way. If they don't, he can veto it, making it more likely to be shifted towards his goals. Sure he doesn't have full control here, but he can shift things significantly his way. Things like the size of the tax cut, the aim of the tax cut, etc can all be significantly controlled by him. These effects generally take up to a year to get accomplished. A tax cut today might not take effect until people file their taxes in 2004.
3) Long term effects. This is generally more on the business side of things. Bush can strongly encourage congress to allow drilling in the Artic for example. When passed it will take 5-8 years for this construction to be finished, which will temporarily effect gas prices (until the limited amount of oil is used up of course). Thus 5-8 years down the road the president can still have an effect on the economy.

Of course the biggest effect is #1. The president can terrify customers and businesses, causing them to drastically reduce spending. Or the president can make us feel certain that the federal budget will be balanced, that our future is stable (ie war avoided), etc. In my opinion, Bush Jr. is doing quite a poor job on consumer confidence.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

It's nice to have some people around here who understand what's going on.

ZV

EDIT:

Personally I'd like to see tax ratios. What % of americans pay the majority of the nations taxes.

The top quintile (top 20%) of the income bracket (mean income $141,620) pays 65.1% of Federal taxes. The second-highest quintile (maximum income: $81,960) pays 19.9% of Federal taxes. The bottom three quintiles pay 0.7%, 3.9%, and 10.2% respectively.

Aren't those numbers somewhat meaningless without also knowing what percentage of total income each quintile generated?

 

[tm37]

Poll results fluctate quite a bit over time. These things will change and the majority of americans equate a roaring stock market with a strong economy. As the market goes so goes the economy when in fact that isn't the case. The true indicators are stock levels, production levels and consumer spending. When you look at what people do with their money as opposed to what they say they think you get a much better indication of how the economy is running. Growth number have been sluggish but not declining so our ecomomy is growing albeit at a slower rate then we would like. This decline started BEFORE bush took office. The governement can do very little to make the economy grow but it can get the economy in the toliet quick by taxing the hell out of companies and people. Corperate tax is one of the biggest lies that has ever been told by so called defenders of the "little guy" Bt raising taces on companies the company in turn raises prices. WHo pays that 40% tax on profits? YOU DO when you buy a company's product or service. I like the dividend profram as it encourages companies to pay dividends to it's shareholders which have already been taxed at the coperate level. Also more shareholders will demand dividend payouts and it will make it much harder for companies to cook the books if they have to write checks to it's shareholders.

 

[etech]

BDawg

The point of the thread wasn't to debate the effect of Presidents on the economy, but to show that his "stimulus plan" is causing him to lose support.

So out of all the things going on in the world both in his control and outside of his control and while ignoring the fluctation of polls you decide that everyone that ranked the Pres. a little later didn't like his dividend plan. All I can say is wow, what are the lottery numbers going to be next week.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: etech
BDawg

The point of the thread wasn't to debate the effect of Presidents on the economy, but to show that his "stimulus plan" is causing him to lose support.

So out of all the things going on in the world both in his control and outside of his control and while ignoring the fluctation of polls you decide that everyone that ranked the Pres. a little later didn't like his dividend plan. All I can say is wow, what are the lottery numbers going to be next week.

Actually, the person who discusses this on CNN reported that gallup believes the cause to be from Bush's economic plan since the numbers dropped after he introduced it.

However, you can believe whatever you wish.

 

[brtspears2]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

Bravo, someone understands how the economy works and how theres no instant fix. Best answer so far to all those people who blame Bush directly.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Aren't those numbers somewhat meaningless without also knowing what percentage of total income each quintile generated?

Here's a complete run-down of the number:

-- The top one percent of Americans earn over $313,469. They account for 20.8 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 37.4 percent of income taxes.

-- The top five percent of Americans earn over $128,336. They account for 35.3 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 56.5 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 10 percent of Americans earn over $92,114. They account for 46.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 67.3 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 25 percent of Americans earn over $55,225. They account for 67.2 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 84.0 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 50 percent of Americans earn over $27,682. They account for 87.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 96.1 percent of income taxes.

-- But, the bottom 50 percent of Americans, who earn less than $27,682, account for 13.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., yet pay just 3.9 percent of income taxes collected.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Aren't those numbers somewhat meaningless without also knowing what percentage of total income each quintile generated?

Here's a complete run-down of the number:

-- The top one percent of Americans earn over $313,469. They account for 20.8 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 37.4 percent of income taxes.

-- The top five percent of Americans earn over $128,336. They account for 35.3 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 56.5 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 10 percent of Americans earn over $92,114. They account for 46.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 67.3 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 25 percent of Americans earn over $55,225. They account for 67.2 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 84.0 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 50 percent of Americans earn over $27,682. They account for 87.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 96.1 percent of income taxes.

-- But, the bottom 50 percent of Americans, who earn less than $27,682, account for 13.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., yet pay just 3.9 percent of income taxes collected.

Are those households or individuals?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Aren't those numbers somewhat meaningless without also knowing what percentage of total income each quintile generated?

Here's a complete run-down of the number:

-- The top one percent of Americans earn over $313,469. They account for 20.8 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 37.4 percent of income taxes.

-- The top five percent of Americans earn over $128,336. They account for 35.3 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 56.5 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 10 percent of Americans earn over $92,114. They account for 46.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 67.3 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 25 percent of Americans earn over $55,225. They account for 67.2 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 84.0 percent of income taxes.

-- The top 50 percent of Americans earn over $27,682. They account for 87.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 96.1 percent of income taxes.

-- But, the bottom 50 percent of Americans, who earn less than $27,682, account for 13.0 percent of all income earned in the U.S., yet pay just 3.9 percent of income taxes collected.

Are those households or individuals?

Don't know for sure but I would think that would count as per income tax return filed. ie Married couples filing jointly, each return for married couples filing seperately, individual returns, etc.

 

[Damage]

/rant

And I thought he was just bad at ecomonics for giving illegal aliens 345 billion..

rant/

 

[przero]

I have a novel idea. We take the total expenditures of the federal government divide it by the population and we each pay our very fair share!!!

 

[KenGr]

The income and tax numbers posted are on the basis of tax returns. Each return, whether joint, single, etc., counts as a taxpayer.

Before someone brings it up, these are income tax numbers. Other items we generally call taxes (even though some are more properly called insurance programs) like Social Security, Medicare, etc. are more regressive becuase of the limits on Social Security and the limits in taxing mostly wages (as opposed to dividends, etc.). The net result is that the US "taxation" is still somewhat progressive, but not as overwhelmingly as the income tax statistics show. State income tax is only slightly progressive while local taxes like property tax and sales tax tends to be neutral or slightly regressive. Of course, Lotteries and tobacco/liquor taxes are very regressive.

Net result is that overall taxation is slightly progressive and any tax reductions should probably be across the board on a percentage basis. The biggest threat to low income people is not the actual Bush tax proposals but the shortfalls in state tax revenues. States tend to boost regressive taxes when faced with deficits (quick fix). Case in point - California just boosted the cigarette taxes.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: brtspears2

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The president can do very, very little for the economy, he might as well be powerless.

I would say the same thing if the economy was marvelous, Bush had nothing to do with it nor can he fix it.

Perhaps YOU should have listened more closely in macroeconomics.

Viper GTS

Bravo, someone understands how the economy works and how theres no instant fix. Best answer so far to all those people who blame Bush directly.

you two dont have a clue about economy.

when you have people like Joseph Stiglitz saying that bush is making all the wrong moves. how can you not listen to him.

btw he only won a noble prize in economics.

short real audio of what he thinks.

 

[hdeck]

i'm sure he did better in economics than most of the people that are getting their panties in a wad. hell, they probably haven't even taken a college level economics course.