Anybody else think.......

[Docta]

bush's huge proposed tax cut is just a ploy for him to use during his re-election bid after it gets defeated in the senate?

because what could he really say when his opponent points out (correctly) that his administration has sent the us economy into the toilet? at least with this he will be able to say he tried, but was unsuccessful in getting the senate to pass his bill which certainly would have created the best of times for our economy.

without such a failure on his part, his opponent can easily point to the fact that his party controlled all three wings of the government and still could not pull the country out of this or do anything meaningful.

all this republican control has done for our country is infringe on personal freedoms and produce more perks for the wealthy and corporations.

[postfeminist]

no arguments from me here...although i admit, that i'm really behind on governmental current events because my schoolwork and schooldrama has really been tieing up my brain lately.

i just hate Dubya so much that i can't even stand to think about it.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

Bush will get at least 50% and probably a bit more than he was asking for in terms of tax-cut size, so at the end of the day he'll count it as a victory for his agenda.

this is my point tho, i do not doubt he will get a tax cut passed. but what he has proposed is double what will actually be passed. this seems so much like it was done on purpose so he gets to argue either way come election time. if the economy picks up, it's because of the tax cut, if it doesn't it's because the cut was not big enough.

taking it a step further, i wonder if voinvich is a key member of this plot, being the republican taking a stand against such a large cut. ok, now i am becoming a conspiracy theorist. but i certainly think the size of bush's proposal is quite contrived with this in mind.

[DudeMan]

It never hurts to have a healthy skepticism about what politicians say and do, but in this case there's no grand conspiracy between Voinovich & Bush over the size of the tax cut. This is a case of Voinovich having a (fundamentally unsound) old-school republican root-canal type philosophy, and sticking to his guns over it. So even though I think he's wrong, he's being consistent with the philsophy he's had since his days as Ohio's gov'na.

Arguing over $350B versus $500B in tax cuts over 10 years is pretty ridiculous to begin with, because for an economy that will be $13-14 Trillion in size by 2013, that difference is little more than a rounding error. It's one of those typical Washington drama plays that is reported as if it is a huge difference when in fact it is a pretty small one.

And, for 2004, it doesn't matter a heckuva lot in the sense that the tax cuts are back-end loaded and won't kick in to any large extent until well after the elections are over. But, there are two things Bush is trying to accomplish: he wants to pass a package to show he 'cares' about the economy, and he wants to put in motion a direction that he genuinely believes will be good for the country, whether he wins re-election or not. One thing that can't be said about George is that he's not a risk-taker. Thus far in his presidency, most of his gambles have paid off, and we'll just have to see if this one does too.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Docta
but i certainly think the size of bush's proposal is quite contrived with this in mind.

shock and awe!!!! you mean that things in washington are done for political reasons!?? the "everyman" loving democrats would never do such a thing!! the horror!

last i looked, corporate earnings were up, taxes were down, the economy was perking right up, businesses were making money again after the free wheeling/no ethics 90's, and the market was back to over 8500 and going higher (this time, based on real earnings and projections, instead of "clintonized" earnings and projections - ie: based on lies).

i'll take this economy over the late 90's anyday, knowing what we know about the boom/bust that occured. right? i mean, who wouldn't, unless you simply like to repeat the bust over and over and over....

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Docta
because what could he really say when his opponent points out (correctly) that his administration has sent the us economy into the toilet?

What were the specific actions of the Bush administration that sent the U.S. economy into the toilet?

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar


shock and awe!!!! you mean that things in washington are done for political reasons!?? the "everyman" loving democrats would never do such a thing!! the horror!


this is what i am getting at here, do i think all dems are lilly white in doing things like this no, just pointing out the one in charge currently is all.

did not want to spurn on an argument over the state of the economy with this thread. but put forth all the big numbers you want and indicators; the fact is people don't have jobs right now, it's hard for people to find jobs right now, paychecks are low. these three things are what joe voter is interested in when it comes to the economy. reduction of taxes means dick if you don't have a job to begin with.

my bringing voinvich into this was purely a joke.

[monkey neck]

Isn't it funny that Bush gets the blame when it typically takes years for any economic policy to actually impact the economy?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by monkey neck
Isn't it funny that Bush gets the blame when it typically takes years for any economic policy to actually impact the economy?

My point exactly.

I'm not here to say the Bush Administration is some economic juggernaut, but I do think that the economy has held up remarkably well given the extreme level at which it had been operating. Yes, the economy is slow, jobs are less plentiful, pay raises are smaller, etc... But the 1990s were an anomaly. From 1996-1999 we were living a fiction of overstated productivity gains, imaginary growth levels, and corporate earnings that were "massaged" at best and outright fraudulent at worst.

The only time the economy and the stock market were as overvalued as they were in 1999 & 2000, was just prior to the Great Depression. The stock market has lost nearly half its value (NASDAQ has lost 70% +) but the economy is still growing (albeit slowly), unemployment is still historically low (albeit higher than the recent past), and hourly wages are still increasing.

Given the extensive wealth destruction, its amazing we skated by with a short shallow recession rather than a prolonged downturn. Does Bush deserve all the credit for this? No. Just like the boom was a combination of factors, the fact that we haven't gone into full "bust" mode is due to a combination of factors. But I don't believe you could find any Bush Administration actions that have led to the failure of the economy.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan

But, agree or disagree with it, but the tax plan is based on genuine conviction that it's the right thing to do for the economy.

I would agree with this statement were it not for the fact that Bush isn't balancing the budget. He's spending money right and left in addition to what we already threw into the war. If you are a conservative the right thing to do is downsize government, not run up a debt.

I'm with dcXhc on the economy. The downturn isn't Bush's fault.
On the other hand, he didn't save it either. It was a market correction, that's all.

The tax cut is being overblown by a lot of people. Let's say that conservatives are right and the government is bloated and inefficient. Cutting taxes and spending will lead to an increase in efficiency. You'll see a nice little one-time boom as we move to this level-- but that's it. Once we get to that level, the economy will be in equilibrium again. Not to downplay that, but you have people out there saying if we cut taxes the economy will just keep going up and up forever.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

I would agree with this statement were it not for the fact that Bush isn't balancing the budget. He's spending money right and left in addition to what we already threw into the war. If you are a conservative the right thing to do is downsize government, not run up a debt.

You only have so much political capital to spend, and Bush believes you're better off putting growth-policies in place to get the economy bigger than you would be cutting spending to a meaningful extent. I'd rather do both (cut both taxes & spending big-time), but I'll settle for a tax reduction and a modest growth in spending over time rather than actual cuts.


The tax cut is being overblown by a lot of people. Let's say that conservatives are right and the government is bloated and inefficient. Cutting taxes and spending will lead to an increase in efficiency. You'll see a nice little one-time boom as we move to this level-- but that's it. Once we get to that level, the economy will be in equilibrium again. Not to downplay that, but you have people out there saying if we cut taxes the economy will just keep going up and up forever.
Yeah, it's not a huge tax cut, but it's better than nothing, which is better than the last two presidents enacted.

And, you're missing the benefits of compounding. If Bush's tax policies create incentives which in turn spur the economy to grow by a modest increment of say 0.5% per year, over the course of 10 years that has a huge impact. (1.005 ^ 10 - 1) * $10T) = $511B, meaning the economy will be $511B bigger in 2013 alone than it otherwise would have been, and the additive impact over 10 years would be multiples of that. The Bush administration is saying the tax package will make the economy grow by around 1% per year more than it otherwise would, so I cut that in half to show that a little goose to the economy really adds up over time.

[Kwyjibo]

Originally posted by dcXhc


What were the specific actions of the Bush administration that sent the U.S. economy into the toilet?

Originally posted by Monkey Neck


Isn't it funny that Bush gets the blame when it typically takes years for any economic policy to actually impact the economy?

Originally posted by Sug


i'll take this economy over the late 90's anyday, knowing what we know about the boom/bust that occured. right? i mean, who wouldn't, unless you simply like to repeat the bust over and over and over....

Wow, for once I didn't have to be the one to say these things. This time I can just say, right on, man, right on.

Also, paychecks are small and unemployment is up. Hmm... how exactly do you folks figure that a tax cut won't help that? If people with money have more money, they'll spend more money. More money spent means more jobs and bigger paychecks. I really don't understand what's not to get about that.

[Docta]

whether we are having economic difficulties or not, whether bush's administration caused it or extended it or neither.

the question posed here is when (if) the question comes up during his reelection bid, did he create a fall back position by overinflating his tax reduction package knowing the full amount was doomed to go down in the senate?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Docta
whether we are having economic difficulties or not, whether bush's administration caused it or extended it or neither.

the question posed here is when (if) the question comes up during his reelection bid, did he create a fall back position by overinflating his tax reduction package knowing the full amount was doomed to go down in the senate?

I don't know. How would anyone know, barring a statement to that effect from somebody with access?

If the economy stays slow we can expect Bush to claim that it would have picked up with a bigger tax-cut. If the economy picks up we can expect Bush to say that it would have picked up more with the bigger tax-cut he proposed. That's the nature of the political beast.

Do you believe that other presidents have only proposed the exact amounts of spending increases/cuts and other budgetary items that they thought would pass in Congress? Or do you think that it is the nature of the proposal process to make the most optimistic proposals, knowing full well that you will have to give up something in the compromise?

[Danosaur]

I am all for tax cuts, but will any of Bush's babies receive cuts? Bush is beefing up the armed forces and border patrol, and he has created homeland security. Bush purports to give the workingman and woman back thier money so they can choose what to do with thier money, which ideally gives the average American more freedom. Yet the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to search our household and take property without letting us know until six months later. I had hope that Bush and the republicans would make strides in freeing us from government, but it’s just the same old same old.

[slow-dog]

I am shocked, shocked to find politics is going on here!

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by slow-dog
I am shocked, shocked to find politics is going on here!

LOL. Crazy kids.:D

[Docta]

Originally posted by dcXhc


Do you believe that other presidents have only proposed the exact amounts of spending increases/cuts and other budgetary items that they thought would pass in Congress? Or do you think that it is the nature of the proposal process to make the most optimistic proposals, knowing full well that you will have to give up something in the compromise?

i think the difference here is that the sitting republican president has a republican controlled house and senate. that is why i question this at all. in my mind i think bush knows he will get pounded with "your party had control of everything and still your policies did not produce the greatest of results" during the campaign. it's just my thought that because he had no responce that the other party controlled something so he couldnt fullfill the agenda, he did this to have an excuse if things do not get dramatically better.

and i don't agree dude that tax cuts no matter the circumstances are a winner for the voter. was reading recently where gov. pataki of new york was refusing a proposal to increase taxes a bit on those making over 100k in order to keep from pulling funding from education. polls of voters who made over this 100k line disagreed with this decision, thinking instead that they would be willing to be taxed a bit more so education cuts would not be made in the state.

[BigSugar]

this just in.....in a recent poll of pollsters, it was found that 50% of polls are just plain fiction (margin of error: +/- 50%).

i love that the dems among us are already setting up the "you had control of everything and still couldn't get anything done" attack.....it's crap, but it's fun to watch it start developing....it's like being present for the big bang (and no, i'm not talking about a Clinton White House orgy!).

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by BigSugar
i love that the dems among us are already setting up the "you had control of everything and still couldn't get anything done" attack.....it's crap, but it's fun to watch it start developing....it's like being present for the big bang (and no, i'm not talking about a Clinton White House orgy!).

Betcha didn't think it was crap in '96. ( I guess saying '94 would actually be more accurate.)