What do you think of Mr. Bush’s State of the Union Address?

I was very impressed with it. Bush addressed the economy, and what he plans to do to fix it. His plan to give more money back to the citizens and create more jobs. He addressed Iraq, and what the problem is with them.

He only studdered a few times, and I don't think he made up any words this time. He's definitely improving.

BTW did anyone else hear the jets flying overhead of the building? I heard them a few times near the end.

BTW did anyone else hear the jets flying overhead of the building? I heard them a few times near the end.


The president now has a no fly zone no matter where he is speaking. same thing when he was here in chicago a couple weeks ago

I think it was lacking in some points and emphasized his spending and programs too much... man those dollar figures were high for some of those 'name brand' sounding programs.

Oh, and I heard some jets flying over too ;-)

Well I for one will provide the spark that turns this into a 500-page thread that eventually gets closed and several people banned: he said absolutely no human cloning which is ridiculous; stem cell research is good.

*grabs some popcorn and a cocktail *

Hmm.. cloning... :D

I think he meant human cloning in the fashion that entire humans should not be cloned. Anyhow, that's how I took it.

I think Bush did very well and hit all the key parts. There were a few things he didn't hit on, but he has heavily discussed them the week prior to the Address so everything is well.

I for one am glad he said that on February 5th, Colin Powell will present to the entire U.N. Assembly all our evidence on Iraq. I knew the USA had something on him. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been putting up so much smoke about it.

Nice quote of Mr. Bush to the people of Iraq:

"Your enemy is not around your country, your enemy is ruling your country" (not exact quote, but very close to it.)

Bush .. Who's Bush ?

Isn't he that guy that thinks he's running the world. ..

Originally posted by JeremyV
*grabs some popcorn and a cocktail *

Hmm.. cloning... :D

lmfao

Originally posted by TheDoctor
Bush .. Who's Bush ?

Isn't he that guy that thinks he's running the world. ..

No, but you're close. You're thinking of Bill Gates. He purposely send out an "Internet Worm" this past weekend so tons of companies have to invest further into his products. Then again, Bush did say he was going to create more jobs so maybe... hmm... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by markblair


No, but you're close. You're thinking of Bill Gates. He purposely send out an "Internet Worm" this past weekend so tons of companies have to invest further into his products. Then again, Bush did say he was going to create more jobs so maybe... hmm... :rolleyes:

No Mark you didn't read it correctly. I said Bush THINKS he's running the world.

Bill Gates IS running the world. Then of course there's Headsurfer he just owns the internet.

Doc

I think he did a great job.

I think he did a good job for what his goal was-- to appeal to lower to middle class families by telling them that his economic plan will directly benefit them. He put out a lot of numbers, a few billion here, few billion here, and so on. I don't know the exact numbers, or what all goes into medicare, because that's well beyond me, but the double taxation of stock seems good and all, but he needs a reality check. He keeps saying how ridding the double taxation, or the taxes on dividends is going to affect lower to middle income families which is bull****. When was the last time you heard of a school teacher with 100k in investments, or a garbage man with 100k in investments? You may find people of these "ranks" with investments, but unless they have another source of income, they won't have anything worth jumping for, but he won't go into detail with that because the outside of it looks better-"No more double taxation, so you'll have more money!". This obviously will only have big benefits for the big investors, thus the ones that aren't school teachers, or the single parents, or lower income families that he isn't doing so well in right now. I don't have a problem with ridding double taxation, but it has to be realized that it's not going to play a role in lower income families, but instead, it's going to be less money to the government, meaning possible budget problems when it comes to medicare, or even funding schools, etc... I guess schools would be more on a state level, but you see my point.

The other thing I didn't like was the fact that the media stressed so much the level of security. Every time you have the vice president and president in the same building, especially when you combine all others, there is always security. However, the "president" wants us to think that we should remain on "alert" because it creates a sense urgency, or makes it look like we have all of these threats around, and "something must be done"! Skip the bull****, land a few of those planes and do something good.

Now, I started the 500 page topic. ;)

I think he did a good job. Touched on many issues and laid out his plans and ideas. I like when he started talking trash about some of the terrorists who are not in custody but who nevertheless are now unable to do us any damage...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I don't know how you can listen to a person who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly.

Originally posted by arpmn
I think he did a good job. Touched on many issues and laid out his plans and ideas. I like when he started talking trash about some of the terrorists who are not in custody but who nevertheless are now unable to do us any damage...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I think if the World was taught anything a year and a half ago that was that you never underestimate what can possibly go wrong due to terrorism. I don't live my life in fear but I certainly believe that if the right situations occur, another September 11th is very much possible.

I thought it was good.. except?


Who said he didn't make up any words? Tell me when the word HITLERISM was introduced to the dictionary.

I was taken off guard by "hilterism" too, but if "stalinism" is a word...then "hitlerism" can be too. =)

Originally posted by Lirath
I thought it was good.. except?


Who said he didn't make up any words? Tell me when the word HITLERISM was introduced to the dictionary.

Yes, i heared that too.

words are easy to say.

Hitlerism is a word.

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hitlerism

That State of the Union made some democrats cringe in their shoes... probably thinking "oh craps... it was too good". The rebuttal done by that one senator was one terrible attempt.

What I really liked about it was the calls against Iraq... and the cutting of double taxation on dividends. That will provide a massive boost to the economy. And who can be against those tax cuts? For goodness sakes... how can somebody be against those? Those would provide massive jump start to industrial production growth and at the same time provide tax relief for middle class folks.

Anybody can be against tax cuts when we have the national debt and already have a crappy economy.

Originally posted by filburt1
Anybody can be against tax cuts when we have the national debt and already have a crappy economy.

The national debt is 1% of the GDP. In Japan it is 150% of the GDP. They have debt at $8 trillion dollars.

And the economy is anything but crappy as most companies are expected to post better than expected profits this year.... tax cuts actually are proved to help the economy. Simple supply sided economics at work here. Once taxes are lower productivity increases.

serious , cutting taxes during a national debt is just lame . Bushonomics

Originally posted by case
serious , cutting taxes during a national debt is just lame . Bushonomics

During a national debt? Did you know there always has been national debt? Spending and cutting taxes in deficit is not a bad thing. Increasing taxes or doing nothing at all is a very bad thing especially now.

Oh really? Did you know increasing taxes reduces productivity and thus reduces tax revenues? Decreasing taxes can actually increase the amount of small businesses opened and thus the government can collect more revenues.

Try playing SimCity 4 and see what happens when you increases taxes. See what happens when you lower them. SimCity 4 is realistic beyond belief and extremely difficult. By applying Reaganomics the economy boomed. Initially there was a deficit but that was erased in a couple of years when businesses boomed and thus there were more businesses to pay the lower taxes in the first place.

lol sim city is not a valid tool for analysing the effectiveness of socio economic policies. its a game where you build houses and stuff.
america is a little more complex.
do you guys still have a 5% trade gap? do you still owe about 2.27 trillion? (ok not as bad as japan, but their tiered borrowing was always going to endup with tears before bedtime). lowering taxes in the right way can stimulate an increase in investment, law of diminishing returns etc, but thats a bell curve not an inverse power line, you can go too low and loose out as well.

Originally posted by giancarlo
Try playing SimCity 4 and see what happens when you increases taxes. See what happens when you lower them. SimCity 4 is realistic beyond belief and extremely difficult. By applying Reaganomics the economy boomed. Initially there was a deficit but that was erased in a couple of years when businesses boomed and thus there were more businesses to pay the lower taxes in the first place.

is this a joke ?

Originally posted by richy
lol sim city is not a valid tool for analysing the effectiveness of socio economic policies. its a game where you build houses and stuff.
america is a little more complex.
do you guys still have a 5% trade gap? do you still owe about 2.27 trillion? (ok not as bad as japan, but their tiered borrowing was always going to endup with tears before bedtime). lowering taxes in the right way can stimulate an increase in investment, law of diminishing returns etc, but thats a bell curve not an inverse power line, you can go too low and loose out as well.

Then again that is a inaccurate assessment. If you think Supply sided economics is wrong then prove it with facts. It has been proven that supply sided economics works every time. What Bush has proposed here is adequate, and not overdoing it because a government needs to collect taxes to pay for federal programs. Even SimCity 4 shows that.

Case... are your one liners jokes?

SimCity 4 is an incredibly detailed simulation. Granted I don't know if it's accurate but it already has given me ideas why Bush does things like lower taxes for the rich and such.

Originally posted by filburt1
SimCity 4 is an incredibly detailed simulation. Granted I don't know if it's accurate but it already has given me ideas why Bush does things like lower taxes for the rich and such.

Well the lowering of taxes Bush proposes are mainly for the middle class and yes the rich, but not just the rich. Also small and medium sized businesses will be helped.

Originally posted by giancarlo


Then again that is a inaccurate assessment. If you think Supply sided economics is wrong then prove it with facts. It has been proven that supply sided economics works every time. What Bush has proposed here is adequate, and not overdoing it because a government needs to collect taxes to pay for federal programs. Even SimCity 4 shows that.

Case... are your one liners jokes?

if you would like to compare americas economy to sim city 4 , then i feel sorry for you . As far as your Supply Side economics always working , i beg to differ . Were you alive during the regan era ?

The 1980 supply-siders claimed that the growth resulting from tax cuts would be so great, and the total tax collections increased so much, that America would simply outgrow its deficits. This did not happen, of course. Growth in the 80s was no greater than growth in the 70s. But the national debt nearly tripled under Reagan. Who deserved blame for this is a controversy that continues to this day.

heres a prime example of how supply side(voodoo economics / reganomics / trickle down economics) DOESNT Work . I cant even believe you said that , your joke was ten times better then mine .... Heres more on your joke , i mean supply sided economics

During the 1980’s the US economy became more and more unequal in its income distribution. It ranked top among industrialized economies in terms of widening inequality during this period. Top federal income tax rates fell from 50 to 28 percent of gross income, while earners in the bottom deciles actually paid higher federal tax rates and became poorer not only in relative, but absolute terms.

The reason?

The legacy of supply-side economics, whose supporters insist that reducing income taxes for the rich and shifting the tax burden to the middle and working classes will benefit the economy.

The supply-siders have convinced three successive presidential administrations that if the rich pay lower income taxes they’ll have a bigger incentive to work harder, save and invest more, and thereby cause the economy to grow. As a consequence, prices will fall and employment will rise. The economic pie will get increase, and everyone can have a bigger slice.

The outcome?

According to Barry Smeeding at Syracuse University, the worst income inequality in the developed world, with rising rates of child poverty any civilized country should be ashamed of.

And remarkable rates of growth?

No. Investment rates have not risen significantly as a result of the tax cuts, because the top earners in the U.S. prefer to spend their money boosting their affluent lifestyles.

if you truly believe in side-supply economics... then i feel sorry for you

I don't think so...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

There is some disagreement about what date should be used to measure the economic starting point of the Reagan era. A common ploy of Reagan's critics is to measure the economy's performance from 1979 to 1989 and falsely describe the record over this period as "the Reagan years." For example, in 1991 the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress released a report entitled "Falling Behind: The Growing Income Gap in America," which purportedly proves that the victims of Reaganomics were the least affluent Americans. The report concluded that "families in the lowest forty percent of the income distribution actually had lower real incomes on average in 1989 than they did in 1979." Upon closer inspection, however, what the income data really show is that when Jimmy Carter's economic policies were in effect, family incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent. In the Joint Economic Committee report, Reaganomics is blamed for the poor performance of the economy under Carter. Ronald Reagan had many seemingly magical qualities, but his policies were never able to influence the economic direction of the nation at least two years before they took effect. Some of Reagan's supporters, on the other hand, define the Reagan years as only the seven years of economic expansion, 1983-89, while conveniently omitting the recession years of 1981 and 1982. [6]

There are two defensible methods of measuring the performance of the economy on Reagan's watch. One method is to examine the economic record from the month Reagan formally took office, January 1981, through the month he left the White House, January 1989.

An alternative approach is to allow a one-year lag for the policy changes to be enacted and take effect on the economy. Reagan's tax cuts were not even passed by Congress until midsummer of 1981 and did not begin to take effect until October 1, 1981. His first budget proposal was for fiscal year 1982. Hence, if we define the beginning of the Reagan years as the first full year when the policies were in effect, the eight years in which Reagan's policies were in effect were 1982-89. This latter approach seems to provide a more accurate gauge of the economy's reaction to the change in policies Reagan enacted in 1981, and for this reason we adopt this as the standard for analysis in this study--that is, we measure the economic effects of Reagan policies beginning with January 1982 and using 1981 as the base year of comparison. (This still picks up the deep recession of the early 1980s.) For those who are unsatisfied with this method of measuring the Reagan record, in Table 1 we present the data both ways: first, from the month Reagan entered office through the month he left office, and second, with a one-year lag to adjust for the timing of the policy changes. The results do not differ substantially regardless of which dates are used.

Just as controversial is the issue of when the Reagan era ended. Again, Reagan's political foes often describe the entire 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations as the "Reagan years." [7]At first blush this seems logical: two Republican administrations in succession would normally suggest a continuation of policy from one to the other. Yet the real and dramatic shift in economic policy in Washington occurred not in 1993, with the start of the Clinton administration, but rather in 1990, with George Bush's repudiation of his "no new taxes" pledge that led to both the enactment of a large anti-supply-side tax increase and a flurry of legislation--from the Clean Air Act amendments, to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to the Americans with Disabilities Act--that began the reregulation of America in the 1990s. [8] Indeed, the Clinton economic program in most respects has been closest to that of George Bush, particularly with respect to the direction of fiscal policy.

In sum, we delineate two years as marking turning points in economic policy in the United States: 1981 and 1990. Because these two years represent dramatic policy shifts, they provide a convenient and unique laboratory-like testing ground for assessing the success or failure of Reaganomics. In this study we compare the economic performance in the pre-Reagan years (1974-81), the Reagan years (1981-89), and the post-Reagan years (1989-95). [9]

For fiscal variables examined at the end of this report, there is much less controversy over the start and the end of the Reagan presidency. Reagan's first budget was for fiscal 1982 (not 1981), and his last budget was for fiscal 1989.


And more:

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.

Charts:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig05.gif

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig06.gif
(Notice the decline in the federal budget deficit in 1986)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig07.gif
(The Public debt actually started to fall in 1986)

Originally posted by giancarlo
Charts:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig05.gif

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig06.gif
(Notice the decline in the federal budget deficit in 1986)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig07.gif
(The Public debt actually started to fall in 1986)

your first graph means nothing . your second graph shows the regan administration with the highest deficit , spiking twice . Everyone knows reganomics was a 9 year strategy . If you look at your graph , its does fall , but in the 9th year ... raises drastically , and coninues to do so . Bush was quoted as saying "no new taxes" , well , in order to get us out of what regan created , it was impossible not to have new taxes . Your third graph shows a very tiny decrease in debt during the last years of the reagan administration , then booms during the bush/clinton administration . You can provide all the graphs and lit you want , voodoo/reaganomics/trickle down/mist down/tricky math is known as FAILING . Our last 3 presidents have all used it , and they have all failed ... just look at the economy now , bush has been using his tax cuts for awhile , has the economy really gotten any better ? Are we still in debt ?

Can you post something else than a run on sentence with no sources. No sources, no argument. I am sorry but my posting style has changed in the past year. I want to hear sources. Not hot air. If you don't post sources you will get nothing out of me.

By the way, CATO is a centerist libertarian organization with few political biases.

Your reasoning is completley false because Reaganomics is proven to work. You have failed completely in disproving it.

Next!

More analysis:

Reagan's political adversaries maintain that the economy expanded rapidly from 1983 to 1989 only because of the underused resources from the severe recession of 1981-82. This interpretation of the 1980s expansion is contradicted by two facts. First, even taking into account the deep recession years of 1981-82, the economy grew at a faster rate over the entire Reagan period than it did over the Ford-Carter years and the Bush-Clinton years.

Second, the economic expansion of the 1980s was notable for not only its strength but also its length. Figure 10 demonstrates that the Reagan recovery lasted 92 months, making it the second longest uninterrupted economic expansion in the century--outlasted only by the 1961-69 boom.[40]


And one particularily important section proving your logic all wrong:

It is a popular misconception that Presidents Bush and Clinton inherited large deficits "baked in the cake" from Reagan policies. When Reagan left the White House in January 1989, the fiscal outlook was expected to continue to improve rather than worsen. In that month, the CBO released its long-term forecast for the economy and the budget deficit.

Table 7 shows that the deficit was expected to continue to fall steadily to $110 billion and 1.5 percent of GDP by 1995.[42]These forecasts reflected in large part a continuation of the modest fiscal progress achieved during Reagan's second term. The CBO concluded that continued deficit reduction would occur even if Bush were to do nothing to improve the budget outlook and simply left fiscal policy on automatic pilot. In reality, the national debt was $622 billion higher than anticipated and as a share of GDP, the budget deficits were nearly 2 percentage points higher. Measured in real dollars, the 1990-94 period showed the worst five-year deficit performance in the post-World War II era. [43]

sources :

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/reagan.years/whitehouse/reaganomics.html

"Reagan was coming from this very simple proposition: If you lower the tax rate, then more people will work, there will be more income in the economy and everyone's lives would be better."

Despite a 25 percent income tax cut, by 1982 Reagan faced a deepening recession, mounting unemployment and homelessness.

Former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein:

"Reagan was coming from this very simple proposition: If you lower the tax rate, then more people will work, there will be more income in the economy and everyone's lives would be better."

Despite a 25 percent income tax cut, by 1982 Reagan faced a deepening recession, mounting unemployment and homelessness

Former Reagan Deputy Chief of Staff Mike Deaver:

"All of the things that he said were going to happen, that things were going to get better, were not getting better. His budget had, in fact, not caught up with the recession in the country as fast as he thought it would."

more sources

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.45 billion per day since September 30, 2002!

http://www.s-t.com/daily/01-03/01-08-03/a10op069.htm

Listening to President Bush unveil his economic stimulus plan in Chicago yesterday, it all sounded too good to be true.
He offered a package of tax cuts, unemployment benefits, job-finding bonuses, child-care tax credits and other goodies and tied the box in a nice red bow, making it look like a belated Christmas present for the average American.
That's if you were listening uncritically to his words and not doing the math.
What he proposed yesterday was old-fashioned trickle down economics. His plan would give the largest tax cuts to a small percentage of the richest Americans and throw some scraps out for other Americans, as well.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/20030115/opinion/779904.html

But, we believe there's another trickle-down effect, which thankfully has been identified by Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican who took the unusual step of criticizing the Republican president's plan recently.

Taft's concern -- and ours -- is that the state stands to lose $581 million in just two years if Congress eliminates the dividend tax. That's because such income would no longer be considered taxable federal income, triggering an automatic decrease in residents' state taxes.

That's especially scary considering the current $3 to $4 billion state budget deficit projections and previous steep cuts in state funds coming into Licking County. More state cuts and Bush's plan could harm local governments and social service agencies even more.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776409243&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

Bloomberg News calculates that Bush himself would have reaped a $17,000 (U.S.) windfall from his dividend-elimination proposal had it been in place in 2001, when he reported taxable income of $711,453 (U.S.). By contrast, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that the impact on the average American making less than $10,000 (U.S.) would amount to a mere $6.

That's why the chief economist at Merrill Lynch & Co. estimated this week that the Bush "stimulus" plan would boost economic growth by no more than two-tenths of 1 per cent.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030109rendellnp2.asp

"There's no guarantee that the people who get these tax savings will invest it in the economy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,870455,00.html

It's payback time. As electoral bribes go, George W Bush's so-called economic stimulus package, launched yesterday, was about as shameless as they come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you say provide facts , what have you provided ? with the exception of some (in your words) "biased" statistics . In fact , you dont even provides sources for your facts . I see you mouthing off in other posts about facts and such . Saying the presidents words are facts , and that saddam is funding the taliban . Why dont you practice what you preach ? I also find it funny you have to insult in order to try and get your point across . Im going to make something real clear , hopefully you can understand it . Reagan , Bush , Clinton and now Bush Jr. have all used what is considered trickle down economics . All of those presidents budget plans have FAILED . For a brief couple of months , our country under the clinton administration was able to create a surplus , which was short lived . Other then that , there is no proof that your side-supply economics work . You show me the proof buddy , please ... point me to some factual information proving your point . If you have such a valid arguement , why are we in debt right now ? Bush's first tax cut was a prime example of side-supply economics , and we're yet to benefit. So please validate yourself ,and your arguement ....

Not to worry. We'll have a war soon. That will surely improve our economy. :uzi: :bomb: :unhappy:

Suppose, for example, that a young hoodlum hurls a brick
through the window of a shop, and the owner has to call a
glazier to repair it. The crowd who has gathered after the initial
excitement observes the glazier at work and sees that he is paid
$200. They conclude that the punk has done a service to society:
he has caused an instant boost in employment and economic
activity.

But what the crowd doesn't see is what the shopkeeper might
have done with that same $200 dollars, the new investments he
might have made, which might have moved his business
forward — if he had not been forced to replace what he already
had. Before the punk came along, the shopkeeper had both a
window and $200. Now he only has a window. Wealth has been
destroyed, not created.

There has to be something wrong about a theory in which
Osama bin Laden or Saddam is America's economic savior

The shopkeeper would have kept the $200 in the bank, and no one would have benefitted from it. This way, the glazier made $200...which he used to fix his car...which the car repair guy used to...........you get the idea.

Yeah, it sucks that we have to go to war and I'm not saying I want that. I don't. I'm just saying that war has pretty much always improved our economy. Which makes me suspicious of Bush's real motivation to go to war with Iraq.

--Tina

well thats possible , but then the bank capitalizes off his money through private investment . If the shopkeeper never had to pay for the broken window , he would still have 200 bucks . He can choose to spend it , or reinvest into his own company . If he just spends it on lets say a new dvd player , then the dvd player company will profit . In return , he has a dvd player that consumes electricity , and he will more then likely buy and rent some dvd's . Now lets say he buys more items to sell in his shop . The company he buys the items from profit , and in return , he will profit from the sell of those items as well , this can go on for quite sometime . Now if his window was broken and he gives the money to the glazier , he is left with nothing . The glazier profits , but the shopkeeper looses out . IF the windows was never broken , the glazier looses nothing , nor does the shopkeeper ....

No, the shopkeeper wins...because the car repair guy's wife buys a new coat from the shopkeeper.

Its all about MOVING the money...rather than sitting on it.

--Tina

Case you have yet to provide one source that can prove anything with real numbers.

And also, you have failed to prove your point. I am providing a source that is a centerist non-biased libertarian organization. CATO is an economic think-tank with hundreds of economists who are responsible for balancing out articles. If anything my article is far more credible than anything you have provided.

And your leftism is apparent... when you have the tendency of ignoring facts.

i cant believe you think sim city is an accurate way of measuring an economies response to tax situations. ITS A GAME. there is life away from the computer. sure f1 2002 is good for a driver coming from a different formula who needs to learn track layouts. its completely useless for gagueing car setups accurately. sure increasing wing angle decreases sl speed and increases grip, but there are 1000 factors it doesnt take into account, just like sim city. if your prepared to take the word of a computer game for tax stratergies then im glad you have nothing to do with my countries tax system. You seriously need to learn how to differentiate between reality and fiction. Sim city isnt nearly complicated enought to give accurate results, it doesnt map nearly enough variables its a game for entertainments sake and is easy to win at because it employs simple policies, it would be too hard to win at if it was totally realistic just like f1 2002 would be too hard to win at if it was realistice, you seriously think you can beat schumi? i didnt think so. its dumbed down lowest common denominator physics, just as sim is lowest common denominator macro economics. i cant believe i have to explain this to adults:(

I didn't say it was. But it shows one little fundamental thing... lowering taxes helps businesses. Point made. I take the word of history on top of that. And hence you ignored my sources completely... attacking what I said. If you ever played SimCity 4 (which I highly doubt) you will notice its financial set-up is one of the most accurate I have ever seen.

Also my year in a university level course, economics AP, helps me back up my own credibility.

lowering taxes to A POINT helps. i havent played sin 4, played a few others though simcity, sim 2k etc, point still stands its a game and not accurate.

sorry i cant say i have a univeristy level course, i actually went to university and got a real degree, half way through my second degree now.

you can lower taxes in certain situations and it can stimulate growth, you can lower taxes and it can stunt growth. it all depends upon the state of the economy and the stateof the govt finances. if the amount of tax income generated from increased volume of tax payers is less then the amount of money lost from decreasing taxes then it is a bad thing. you cannot state that lowering taxes is better for the economy because it is not so in every situation. if taxes are at 5% for arguments sake, and you lower them to 4% and you generate 4 million in new taxes but the drop costs you 5 million, you just got screwed. i didnt ignore your sources, your trying to apply a theory that applies in some situations to all situations which is clearly not prudent.

You went to university and got a real degree? In what?

you can lower taxes in certain situations and it can stimulate growth, you can lower taxes and it can stunt growth.

How can lowering taxes stunt growth?

if the amount of tax income generated from increased volume of tax payers is less then the amount of money lost from decreasing taxes then it is a bad thing.

That sort of reasoning is entirely false. If you look at the laffer curve, the lower taxes are at a certain point, the greater the revenues.

you cannot state that lowering taxes is better for the economy because it is not so in every situation.

If there is an economic boom occuring the best thing to do is not raise or lower taxes at all.

if taxes are at 5% for arguments sake, and you lower them to 4% and you generate 4 million in new taxes but the drop costs you 5 million, you just got screwed

Just got screwed? Excuse me? Adding to the GDP is not getting screwed.

i didnt ignore your sources, your trying to apply a theory that applies in some situations to all situations which is clearly not prudent.


My theory works in almost all cases. But I also propose nothing when an economic boom is occuring.

Raising taxation substantially as the democratic party proposes at any time especially during a recession is purely misinformed and idiotic.

It has been proven that supply sided economics and the lowering of taxation rates during a recession can help pull an economy out of recession. Something keynesism cannot do.

so lowering traxes from 1 to 0 % is a good thing?

yes there is a limiting factor to that equation. If lowering taxes produces a reduction in the governments income to the point at which is cannot sustain is obligations, e.g. military , healthcare, social, costs, then there is a serious problem. if lowering taxes helped then every country in the world would have a tax of 0.000001% but running a country takes money just like simcity, you need to maintain your roads, police, fire and ambulance right? so you have a base cost you have to cover that is proportional to your level of industry and population, if your taxing falls below the amount required to sustain these services no amount of lower taxes will bring increased businesses if your govt cant invest in grants to bring industry to the country nor maintain a viable infrastructure for the industry.
i dont advocate raising taxation in the us at the moment, they do require a drop, but dropping it too far will damage the govt just as much when they dont have enough to repair the roads or provide the amienities the citizens require. drop taxes too far and you face not having enough police and the matching increase in lawlessness, who wants their company in a country with rampant lawlessness? im not saying dropping taxation doesnt stimulate growth, im saying that it can be dropped too low which can have a negative effect.

my degrees are in MSD and the current one in Software engineering. we did cover some economics at the start of my first degree, in reference to businesses. i just added that i had a degree so you didnt think you were dealing with someone who wasnt schooled and because you thought it fit to add you had done a year of a degree level course.

so lowering traxes from 1 to 0 % is a good thing?


Umm no. Even I said earlier in this thread that the government must have funds to operate upon.

if lowering taxes helped then every country in the world would have a tax of 0.000001% but running a country takes money just like simcity, you need to maintain your roads,

Again if you would read my posts, you would know that I stated this before hand. That lowering taxes to a point is a good thing to do. But the government needs money to operate on.

if your taxing falls below the amount required to sustain these services no amount of lower taxes will bring increased businesses if your govt cant invest in grants to bring industry to the country nor maintain a viable infrastructure for the industry.


And never did I propose lowering taxes that far.

i dont advocate raising taxation in the us at the moment, they do require a drop, but dropping it too far will damage the govt just as much when they dont have enough to repair the roads or provide the amienities the citizens require.

And what Bush has proposed is proper.

Look I am not proposing lowering taxes all the way to 0%. But what Bush has proposed... eliminating some useless excessive taxation like double taxation on dividends and other matters is necessary.

drop taxes too far and you face not having enough police and the matching increase in lawlessness

Agian you are making statements that I never made and with my economic policies would never happen.

Also here is a statement I made before:

"What Bush has proposed here is adequate, and not overdoing it because a government needs to collect taxes to pay for federal programs."

Bottom of the second page.

my degrees are in MSD and the current one in Software engineering. we did cover some economics at the start of my first degree, in reference to businesses. i just added that i had a degree so you didnt think you were dealing with someone who wasnt schooled and because you thought it fit to add you had done a year of a degree level course.

Okay I understand.

sorry i must have misread you earlier, i got lost in all the quotes:), i agree with stimulating the economy in bush's manner, but i am wary he drops it too far. an economy is rarely perfectly stable, it generally flows in a since wave around a median point, and for the moment bush has an alledged budget suplus of 4tn over 10 years. My worry with america being such a large andpowerful country is that he thinks in 4 year terms and spends the money now, with little thought to 10 years time and the situation then, while you can be liberal for now with money and tax cuts, you have to after 6 years consider raising levels a little to prepare for what happens when it stablises at a lower level, he has to not overshoot and mistake the petering momentum of the economy as real performance. i suspect he has many people far wiser then us advising him, but he also has political matters to consider, im a firm believer in a government doing what is right not what sounds right or looks best. unfortunately this is rarely the case and soundbites win over reality.

But the entire thing is, the amount he is cutting taxes is proper. He is not overdoing it.

i agree for now :) yes it is proper, i just would like to hear more of his long term policies.

I would too like to hear more of them... but as it stands I think he is on the right track.

That was the most intelligent that he has ever spoken. From now on he should keep to his speech writers words only. Ad libbing don't (:D) get him anywhere.