logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
PoliticalGround >> GWB: Worst Economic Leadership?
| 3/24/08 8:39 PM | |
Entreri
Edited: 24-Mar-08 Member Since: 12/25/2005 Posts: 7742 |
smac1, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I am neither biased in terms of the right or left wing. Source, would like the ECONOMIST? Why don't you go google and find out. I will not pretend to know everything about economics, but I know a little bit (MA Economics, undergrad economics). |
| 3/24/08 9:09 PM | |
FredHammer
10 
Edited: 24-Mar-08 Member Since: 12/21/2002 Posts: 12061 |
Bush has created a MUCH bigger mess than Jimmy!!! (flips all of you off). TTT |
| 3/24/08 9:22 PM | |
|
T0ki
Edited: 24-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 22292 |
e. kaye, your opinion is one that I respect. So I'm asking these questions seriously and without intent. 1. How would you rate the economic leadership of the Bush administration on a 1-100 basis? I mean economic decisions as well as political ones that result in high costs or gains (i.e. the cost of the war, tax cuts, etc). 2. How would you rate the American economy on that same scale? Why? |
| 3/25/08 12:27 AM | |
|
beerbelly
53
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 02/04/2006 Posts: 2309 |
Thank You cp31, now does any of the dumbshit Bush1/Bush2/Reagan apologists want to comment on that graph? Looks to me like the big spenders are republicans. Vote Democrat for fiscal responsibility!!! |
| 3/25/08 2:23 AM | |
|
easyrhino
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 900 |
lol@ the bad rap jimmy carter always seems to garner whenever people start talking about presidents. also lol@reagan being put in someones top 3......no. |
| 3/25/08 3:51 AM | |
|
Respect
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 09/21/2005 Posts: 1942 |
Clinton may not have created a budget surplus; however, he didn't create a deficit of $574 billion. Glad I live in Canada, where we pay our debts. |
| 3/25/08 6:58 AM | |
|
Sebastiaan
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 09/16/2002 Posts: 2406 |
Vote McCain: Four more years! |
| 3/25/08 7:19 AM | |
|
smac1
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 03/06/2006 Posts: 11434 |
"The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000--more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American." Wow, they gave people paying almost half of their money in income tax less than a 2% rebate and you're crying? People in the top 1% are paying more than twice as much of our tax burden as they were 20 years ago. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 5%. LMAO at the poor complaining in this country while they get a free ride. |
| 3/25/08 8:41 AM | |
|
Sebastiaan
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 09/16/2002 Posts: 2411 |
I guess you are rich? |
| 3/25/08 9:43 AM | |
|
Tomato Can
34
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 18690 |
"People in the top 1% are paying more than twice as much of our tax burden as they were 20 years ago. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 5%. LMAO at the poor complaining in this country while they get a free ride." Did it occur to you that this is because the income gap has gotten MUCH, MUCH wider? The top 1% is making more than ever while everyone else has been stagnant. Yea, screw all these spoiled poor people getting a "free ride". A free ride to what? A shitty, underfunded public school system and no health care? Awesome. |
| 3/25/08 10:02 AM | |
|
Dogman
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 03/14/2002 Posts: 2183 |
Wow, they gave people paying almost half of their money in income tax less than a 2% rebate and you're crying? "People in the top 1% are paying more than twice as much of our tax burden as they were 20 years ago. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 5%. LMAO at the poor complaining in this country while they get a free ride." and they make up over 99% of the wealth! |
| 3/25/08 10:12 AM | |
|
Tomato Can
34
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 18691 |
"Self-Made" is not the issue. Being "upset" at the rich is not the issue. The issue is that the income gap is widening rapidly and GW's strategy is to cut taxes on the rich at a time when the Iraq War is costing billions, our education system and infrastructure need work, and lower and middle class workers are getting their benefits cut more and more every day. This is fiscal irresponsibility, period. |
| 3/25/08 10:15 AM | |
|
e. kaye
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 16757 |
Sheeesh. I just got in. Will repsond in a little while. |
| 3/25/08 10:22 AM | |
|
Tomato Can
34
Edited: 25-Mar-08 10:28 AM Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 18692 |
It's not THE answer, but it would certainly be a more responsible, sensible policy in a time like this when spending is at unprecedented levels and the income gap is widening rapidly. |
| 3/25/08 10:54 AM | |
|
Tomato Can
34
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 18693 |
I'd say reducing spending would be a great idea, but the Iraq War is sort of preventing that right now. |
| 3/25/08 12:11 PM | |
|
e. kaye
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 16758 |
"1. How would you rate the economic leadership of the Bush administration on a 1-100 basis? I mean economic decisions as well as political ones that result in high costs or gains (i.e. the cost of the war, tax cuts, etc)." I would probably give them a 60. The good: 1-Tax cuts. Lower taxes lead to higher growth and a better economy. 2-Perversely spending on the war is good for the economy. Most of that money is spent here. Think of it as fiscal policy. Whatever you think of the war, most of that spending goes back into our economy. The bad: 1-Too much govt spending. No use of veto to stop Republican spending. New entitlements are just stupid(drugs), considering all the existing ones are fundamentally bankrupt. 2-Failing to understand that a strong dollar is absolutely essential to a strong economy and strong international relations. The administration is frighteningly stupid about this. A weak currency is the same as a devaluation. Just look at what the World Bank and the IMF have done around the world recommending devaluations. It never works. It is always a bad idea. I lived through the weak dollar policy in the 80's and it was a terrible idea then too. The dollar eventually came back. If the Fed, the ECB and the BOJ were buying dollars right now, there would be a huge rally in equities and commodity prices would come down rapidly. 3-Not taking advantage of their majority in Congress to make tax cuts permanent. 4-Not working hard to get rid of the AMT and the Estate tax. They could have done either easily. "2. How would you rate the American economy on that same scale? Why?" The economy is very strong. Despite the war, despite increased government spending and despite the sub-prime melt down, the economy is still rolling along. The economy has been immune to any stupidity coming out of Washington. There is definitely a slow down at the moment, but there are already signs that it may have turned the corner. The unexpectedly strong housing sales are a good indicator. "Bush has created a MUCH bigger mess than Jimmy!!! lol@ the bad rap jimmy carter always seems to garner whenever people start talking about presidents." LOL-You obviously where not alive back then or were in diapers. Jimmy Carter was the biggest unmitigated disaster in US history. Interest rates hit 24%. Gas lines. You have no idea how bad it was. "People in the top 1% are paying more than twice as much of our tax burden as they were 20 years ago. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 5%. LMAO at the poor complaining in this country while they get a free ride." For the most part true. "The issue is that the income gap is widening rapidly and GW's strategy is to cut taxes on the rich at a time when the Iraq War is costing billions, our education system and infrastructure need work, and lower and middle class workers are getting their benefits cut more and more every day. This is fiscal irresponsibility, period." Wow. The income gap is always going to grow. It is simple mathematics. The question is why is that a bad thing? We live in a capitalist society and have private property rights. The government should only be guaranteeing equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Benefits getting cut? By whom? "Republicans, intead of being fiscally conservative are spending your country slowly into oblivion of debt. The debt will be paid off by: higher taxes and/or less gov spending." True, except for the debt being evil part or needing to be paid off. (I can make the arguement that debt is beneficial. Liberal hate the idea of debt because they believe that they could be spending the money on something else.) All politicians it seems are addicted to spending. It is estimated by several think tanks that 30% of government spending is wasteful and can easily be cut. Problem is nobody in Washington wants to ever cut any program even if it is wateful or outdated. In DC, money is power. The more you control the more power you have. You cannot make millions creating highway exits if you don't have a lot of power. But the answer is not higher taxes. The total tax burden is now close to 60%. There is simply not that much more government can take. "One needs to run surpluses (like Clinton) and put those towards paying off the debt." LOL-There were no surpluses. Only accounting surpluses and projected surpluses. Just look at the national debt I posted. It increased every year Clinton was in office. You ever hear the old saying, "If you repeat a lie loud enough and often enough, it becomes the truth." The Clintons are masters of it. And the debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Don't be obsessed with the "DEBT". LOL-I am surprised that Hollywood has not made a horror film titled "The Debt", people are so scared of it. |
| 3/25/08 12:40 PM | |
|
fanat
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 06/06/2002 Posts: 3270 |
"LOL-I am surprised that Hollywood has not made a horror film titled "The Debt", people are so scared of it. " I'm sure Michael Moore is working on it after doing such a brilliant job with healthcare. |
| 3/25/08 12:45 PM | |
|
super chin
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 12/07/2004 Posts: 910 |
the increasing disparity between the top 1% and the rest is simply bad for a stable economy, issues of fairness aside. a footnote on the issue of fairness though: a lot of people in that top 1% currently got there by being heirs. obviously sam walton was a crazy hard worker with great business sense. however, many of the new generations of hiltons, duponts, hearsts, and other such landed gentry are at the very most responsible for maintaining wealth (which is a hell of a lot easier than creating it). |
| 3/25/08 12:52 PM | |
|
e. kaye
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 16759 |
"the increasing disparity between the top 1% and the rest is simply bad for a stable economy, issues of fairness aside. a footnote on the issue of fairness though: a lot of people in that top 1% currently got there by being heirs. obviously sam walton was a crazy hard worker with great business sense. however, many of the new generations of hiltons, duponts, hearsts, and other such landed gentry are at the very most responsible for maintaining wealth (which is a hell of a lot easier than creating it)." 1-Why is that an issue for a stable economy? That makes no sense. 2-Heirs? Not true. Just look at the Forbes 400. They have all the stories. Very few are actaully heirs. 3-Heirs usually destroy the fortunes they inherit. Ever heard the saying, "Shirtsleeves to shritsleeves in three generations." The average life for family businesses and fortunes is three generations. 4-Maintaining wealth is actually not that easy. If it was there would not be an army of Wall Streeters, Hedge Funders, Trust Companies and the like getting paid to help do it. 5-Occassionally some second and third generation heirs are really good business people and buidl on their legacy. |
| 3/25/08 12:57 PM | |
|
Tomato Can
34
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 18700 |
"Wow. The income gap is always going to grow. It is simple mathematics. The question is why is that a bad thing? We live in a capitalist society and have private property rights. The government should only be guaranteeing equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Benefits getting cut? By whom?" WTF is this nonsense? The income gap will always grow? Bullshit. The income gap hasn't been this big for a good 80 years. It was steady from the end of WW2 until Reagan came into office and it has been climbing ever since. Benefits are being cut in both the public and private sectors. CEOs are making record salaries while they cut their employee's pension plans. Cutting taxes and upping military spending to absurd levels is not a sound plan. Military spending has steadily climbed skyward and the stock market has done nothing but plummet for the last 6 months. Consumer confidence is at a 10 year low. Are you really telling me all is well here? |
| 3/25/08 1:15 PM | |
|
e. kaye
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 16760 |
Are you always so gloomy. Look at what people are doing, not the lagging surveys. Homes sales rose 2.9% in Feb, the first increase in 7 months. A home is the largest purchase someone can make. Once they buy the home they have to move in and that usually leads to other purchases. Recessions do not last forever. Some are long and some are very short. Let's see what happens. |
| 3/25/08 1:27 PM | |
|
Tomato Can
34
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 18702 |
Most analysts feel the housing slide is not over yet despite the February jump in home sales. Additionally, the probable cause for this jump in sales is due to plummeting prices, the lowest in 20 years. The equity that people have built in their homes is crumbling under their feet. |
| 3/25/08 1:55 PM | |
|
super chin
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 12/07/2004 Posts: 916 |
i said maintaining is easier than creating - if you are getting even 2% interest on a large amount, it's going to keep the wealth coming in at a higher rate than if you were to have a smaller amount at that rate. now maintaining wealth to a degree sufficient to keep you in the top 1% is one thing, but anyone who starts out with sufficient capital can never have to work a day in their life if they invest cautiously. also i did not state correctly what i meant was bad for a stable economy. i don't care if the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing (after all there could be ten poor people and the rest of society could be getting richer and richer). what's of concern is that wealth is accumulating rapidly in fewer and fewer hands. most economies need a middle class - people who contribute their labor but also can afford to consume and participate in the market. currently most households are downwardly mobile in terms of their income. that isn't good for a stable economy, because it isn't good for social stability. |
| 3/25/08 2:01 PM | |
|
super chin
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 12/07/2004 Posts: 917 |
and it also is hard to buy the nice products made by hard working capitalists when people have no disposable income with which to do so. |
| 3/25/08 3:47 PM | |
|
e. kaye
Edited: 25-Mar-08 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 16768 |
"what's of concern is that wealth is accumulating rapidly in fewer and fewer hands" Simply not true. The economy is not a zero sum game. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
