The Bush Recovery
Looks like the economy is in a recovery. In fact now that revised numbers are out some experts are saying we never had a recession. So much for the "Bush Recession" the Democrats talked up. The Bush tax cut was the only "economic stimulus" we got. Timed perfectly, before we knew what the numbers were like.
So I'm told that Clinton was responsible for the boom of his years I can only assume that Bush is responsible for the Lighting Recovery of his years.
Right?
So I'm told that Clinton was responsible for the boom of his years I can only assume that Bush is responsible for the Lighting Recovery of his years.
Right?
Comments
[quote]Bush is responsible for the Lighting Recovery<hr></blockquote>
I'm glad we're playing out this experiment once again - the Reagan Strategy vs. the Clinton Strategy. The data are crystal clear as to which works better, but lots of people, including Bush, apparently don't learn from the past. So now Bush is trying the failed program again. We'll see.
This entire 'recession' was a crock. It did not exist. We didn't even meet the 'requirements' to call it a recession.
December 2, 2000, Dick Cheney went on television and said the economy was headed towards recession unless the tax cut was passed. They talked up recession, killed shopping sales for the holidays, and people actually bought into the fact that they were headed towards recession for the next few years and started saving money. Businesses changed their strategies as well and laid people off.
But now things are getting better. No kidding. There wasn't a real reason for a recession, it was just all talk. If there was any area that's having a problem now, it's NYC. The economy down there is in terrible shape after the 9/11 attacks. But what does Bush do? He cuts the amount of money they will get.
[quote]Trickle down? $600 bucks in my pocket went to buy art from a Chicago artist. Not what I would call trickle down. <hr></blockquote>
Oh and by the way, don't make it look like you wouldn't have got this money any way. This was just an advance. It wasn't the actual cut., and the majority of that cut goes to the top 1% of tax payers, most of which are Bush's oil friends.
Edit: Does this mean that people weren't out of work? Of course not. Many people were affected. But most were in the computer fields which were headed for trouble any way.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Plus, after what it cost the government to advance you that money, it wasn't really worth it.
Hehe, I love that wording.
Some how this all reminds me of the "invisible hand" which will help everyone if they simply work to further their own interests. Granted that was mathematically proven wrong wasnt it?
And all you bitching about Bushs tax cuts, be happy that you dont have the BC "librals" making the decisions
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
<strong>LOL. I knew this was going to happen. Unbelievable. Does anyone listen to me? No...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a reason for that.
[quote]<strong>... Edit: Does this mean that people weren't out of work? Of course not. Many people were affected. But most were in the computer fields which were headed for trouble any way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see. So there are things that happen independent of what Dick Cheney says. You live in such a magical world, Fran. People just speak and recessions happen.
Ask any of my unemployed friends and peers!
All of this is a slippery slope- people don't spend money, therefore less jobs are available. That means less people spend money and there are less jobs. So what elected officials say DOES have an impact on the economy. Likewise, when politicians say people are getting better, then people with money tend to be more likely to spend it, and therefore more people get work.
As for the tech sector- yes, it was hit hard. But it was unfortunately inevitable. People like Artman are out of work. That's because there is less money to be made on the internet through banner ads, etc. The bottom just fell out of a lot of dot coms, and there are lots of people in the sector looking for jobs. But for the most part, the economy is NOT in a recession.
Of course the stock market got bad, but for all purposes, it was in March of 2000 that it was really bad.
[quote]YOUR RETURN ISN'T FOUND MONEY! IT'S YOUR MONEY THAT YOU OVERPAID. <hr></blockquote>
Yes, but that was based on last year. If you paid your taxes differently this year, you got the money early, and had to pay some later if you weren't careful. Most people thought it was a return from LAST year as well. So that's what the problem was.
Plus, if you guys really want no taxes, move up here to NH.
We just repealed the state property tax that funds education. We have no state income tax. No state gas tax (as of now). No state cigarette tax. No sales tax.
In fact, we have a few toll booths, meals tax, and local property tax and that's about it for the state taxes.
<strong>Actually, when people like elected officials speak, people DO listen. That's why businesses prepared to save money for the long haul, which included laying off workers. That's why people decided to save money and made the holiday season sales very poor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
THE ECONOMY HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO SOFTEN. For three quarters GDP growth was slowing. Look it up for yourself. The Nasdaq peaked on March 10 of 2000. From March to December the Nasdaq lost half it's value. That represents about $3 trillion in lost market value for just that one capital market. Blood was shed on the Dow and S&P 500 as well but not as bad as the Nasqaq. DICK CHENEY, SPEAKING IN DECEMBER, DIDN'T CAUSE THAT TO HAPPEN!!!!! December of 2000 was roughly the time when the Nasdaq had begun to bottom out. You're so determined to blame Bush and Cheney for what happened. The data just doesn't back you up. Give it up.
[quote]Looks like the economy is in a recovery. In fact now that revised numbers are out some experts are saying we never had a recession. So much for the "Bush Recession" the Democrats talked up. <hr></blockquote>
Democrats didn't start the talk of Recession. Cheney and Bush did. It was a ploy to get the tax cut passed, and it worked. Yes, the economy slowed, but a major part of it slowing was the fact that the future leaders of the country were saying we were heading towards recession and that gave them the clue to save money. Thus, the slippery slope I spoke of.
Despite the loss of money in the stock market, the economy was still GROWING, albeit at a slower rate. But we were never in any trouble of a recession until Sept. 11. NYC is still in trouble from it.
The Democrats never talked up the recession. It was always Bush. The Democrats had their own plan to help people who were unemployed rather than businesses, which Bush tried to use as political fodder saying that the liberals were trying to break the spirit of the country which was so united.
It seems oh so convenient now that the economy will be back to booming much 'earlier than expected'. Maybe even around September. Oh right, that's campaigning time! Like we didn't see this one coming.
<strong>Well, let's get back to the start of this thread.
Democrats didn't start the talk of Recession. Cheney and Bush did. It was a ploy to get the tax cut passed, and it worked. Yes, the economy slowed, but a major part of it slowing was the fact that the future leaders of the country were saying we were heading towards recession and that gave them the clue to save money. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The capital markets started to tank in MARCH. Bush hadn't even secured the nomination then.
[quote]<strong>Despite the loss of money in the stock market, the economy was still GROWING, albeit at a slower rate. </strong><hr></blockquote>
At a successively slower rate. The trend was clear and inevitable. You just can't have that kind of a loss in the capital markets and not have it affect other sectors of the economy. The tech sector was especially vulnerable.
[quote]<strong>But we were never in any trouble of a recession until Sept. 11. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The only quarter of negative GDP had already happened before Sept. 11 even happened.
But, to say that the Democrats "never talked about the recession" is a total lie. Tom Daschle himself actually said "The real reason for this recession isn't the terrorist attacks [or other factors], it is BUSH'S TAX CUT". WHAT THE ****? Explain to me how a tax cut that had only just begun to take effect (in January 2002 nonetheless) could have CAUSED a recession. News Flash: Tax cuts DON'T cause recessions.
On Reagan: Ronald Reagan will go down as one of the most popular and best presidents in history, like it or not. His economic policies DID work. In fact, they literally saved the economy from going from a deep recession into a full blown depression in my opinion. He pushed for massive tax cuts on ALL levels, including the poor, Fran. The better way, BRussell? Are you ****ing kidding me? We had balanced budgets in the 90's for two reasons 1) Because taxes were the highest at any point since WWII, and 2) The Republican house fought ridiculous spending increases tooth and nail. Don't give me that shit about deficits in the eighties either. This was caused by a house and senate that were democratically controlled and spent money like it was going out of style. Sure, defense spending was high. But I would argue that since the Soviet Union had about 5,000 nuclear missles and about 2,000,000 active troops at the time, we needed to spend it.
Face it. Both parties have tried to use the recession to their advantage. What do you expect? My problem is with Daschle. He PERSONALLY held up the stimulus bill in the senate. One can only assume that this was done to delay recovery, thereby creating an extended recesson that caused voters to turn away from the Republican party this November. This is perhaps the most selfish political move (putting a few hundred congressmen and senators ahead of an entire nation's population, in my mind) I have EVER seen, with the possible exception of Al Gore "unconceding" the election and trying to steal it depsite the fact he was never once declared the winner by anyone, ever.
Tax Cut: Despite what the criminal liberal media (and Mr. Daschle) tell you, the tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich. You are smoking crack if you think that. The top income bracket pays 39% of their income to the government (or they did). Is that fair? You know that people that make, say, $200,000 a year pay that much, not just millionares, right?
I got a $50 per check raise with that cut, and I make less than $35K a year. These numbers Daschle points out, the ones that say "if you are rich, you get a new Lexus out of this tax cut, if you are disadvantaged, you get to buy a new muffler" are totally bogus. Tax cuts are based on PERCENTAGES, not just dollar figures. Of course someone who makes $400,000 a year will get a higher dollar figure cut that the person who makes what I do...because they PAY more. NO SHIT! How would you do it?
You know the tax rebate was a DEMOCRAT IDEA, right? Fran441, if you want to complain then complain to your buddies Daschle and Gephardt. Speaking of that, why did my in- laws, who make upwards of 100K a year, get the same rebate I do? How is that fair to them, since they paid about three times the taxes I did?
The recession was/is real, though not as bad as predicted. It was caused by overvalued tech stocks, ludicrously high taxes, rising energy prices in 1999-2001 and rising interest rates in 1999-2000. A severe downturn was averted by drastically cutting rates, and strong consumer and real estate spending. Both parties wish to use this. That's politics. Deal with it.
I just don't know what kind of a liberal revisionist history world Fran441 and BRussell live in. A world where Reagonmics was a bad thing and Clinton was good for the country. A world where paying 50-60% of your income to a federal, state, or local authority is acceptable (trust me, that is what it is). And, a world where tax cuts cause recessions and are bad for the nation. Good God.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>Actually, when people like elected officials speak, people DO listen. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Greenspan doesn't. He acts on the numbers and what he thinks is best. He cut the rate until money was fire sale. Explain that away.