Fran got it right. While we may or may not have had an actual "recession" per se, the Bush Administration pulled one out of their asses in order to pass their controversial Tax Cut. Why is it that they would do so? <strong>The Bushies were losing badly to John McCain and his Straight Talk express, so in an effort to appease the far-right, they devised a tax cut that would benefit them the greatest.</strong> He's keeping his base unlike his father. Excellent political spin. Poor leadership. :cool: <hr></blockquote>
Oh **** dude. Are a total moron? I liked McCain and would have voted for him but he was never a threat to Bush and Bush knew it.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point, Scott. But Fran's argument is still silly. In '92 Clinton went around telling us how we had the worst economy since the Great Depression. His over-the-top rhetoric didn't abort the fledgling recovery that was underway then. In the 4th quarter of '92 the economy grew at a 4.8 percent clip. By Fran's "reasoning" that just shouldn't have happened.
First of all, we're not talking about "The Clinton Recovery", we're talking about "The Bush Recovery".
[quote]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".<hr></blockquote>
If Daschle said this, it was stupid. I'd love to see the actual quote, if you have it, because I'd like to know his reasoning. The main reason for this 'recession' was a slowdown of the tech industry coupled with 9/11. But things are bouncing back because the 'recession' was not a 'recession'. The economy's growth slowed down for a few quarters, fell during the quarter after 9/11, and started growing again this past quarter. That's why we're on the way to recovery. Greenspan kept all of the recession hype in check by cutting rates and getting people to spend money. I have a lot of respect for Greenspan, because he seems to know how to keep the economy moving.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
This is preposterous. Both parties had their own stimulus bill. The Republican bill went more towards businesses while the Democrats bill went towards the people who were out of work and needed the money. Then Bush came out saying how the Democrats were trying to destroy the unity the country had (more political spin).
But when spending so much money, it was better to figure out who needed it more- businesses or people. Bush's plans should most certainly not be rubber stamped because of the war, and the Democrats were doing what they thought was right to stimulate the economy. Looks like the economy was able to start recovery on it's own any way,.
[quote]the tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>First of all, we're not talking about "The Clinton Recovery", we're talking about "The Bush Recovery". </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, really? You still can't explain why Bush's talk about recession (and that wasn't the only argument he made on behalf of his tax cut anyway) had such a detrimental effect and Clinton's more alarmist rhetoric didn't. Does the "Fran411 theory about how recessions are caused" only hold true when it's a Republican doing the talking?
[quote]<strong>The economy's growth slowed down for a few quarters, fell during the quarter after 9/11...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>One could argue that The White House talked the econ' down and Greenspan had to react.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't talk an economy down that was already down. Greenspan had to react because he'd gotten the numbers wrong. In 1999 he increased liquidity in anticipation of the possibility of y2k problems. In 2000 he tightened to unwind his y2k play but his tightening came at a bad time for the markets. The air went of the bubble in the spring of the year. Last year, realizing that he'd tightened too much for too long, he reacted again.
The government's been fudging the numbers so long I don't really buy any of it. Since the first Bush administration they've been totally screwing with the way economic statistics are compiled and counted. BTW, this was gladly carried on by the Clinton administration. In the numbers that people are reacting well to there are a lot of "seasonal adjustments" and such. I don't even think the Fed uses the government's numbers anymore.
From an analytical point of view I think recessions are a necessary part of capitalism an important part. They're a time for reflection and learning. Did we bother to learn any lessons from this "recession"?
<strong>The government's been fudging the numbers so long I don't really buy any of it. Since the first Bush administration they've been totally screwing with the way economic statistics are compiled and counted. BTW, this was gladly carried on by the Clinton administration.</strong><hr></blockquote>Stockman under Reagan had the original "rosy scenario." Clinton and Panetta initially started using the more reasonable GAO numbers, but then later turned back to using their own numbers like Reagan and Bush had done.
[quote] If Daschle said this, it was stupid. I'd love to see the actual quote, if you have it, because I'd like to know his reasoning. <hr></blockquote>
I don't have it. It is the honest truth, though. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. That is verbatim, my friend. I don't know his reasoning either.....
[quote] This is preposterous. Both parties had their own stimulus bill. The Republican bill went more towards businesses while the Democrats bill went towards the people who were out of work and needed the money. Then Bush came out saying how the Democrats were trying to destroy the unity the country had (more political spin). <hr></blockquote>
It isn't preposterous at all. I know there were two versions. But holding up on a something like this is just not right. It was poltical, and that's all. I also never heard Bush come out and say anything like the Democrats are destroying the country's unity.....I did hear Cheyney say Daschle was being an obstructionist....which I agree with.
Now, a couple of points:
I want to know why you think the Democratic bill was better. The House went to the senate with four versions, and Daschle refused to bring them to a vote. Each version contained tax cuts for businesses, unemployment extensions, tax breaks for corporations and at least one accelerated the tax cut already passed. The dems took issue with the large corporate breaks and stalled accordingly. But they all contained other provisions as well. It was a political move by the Democrats, it had to be.
Tax Cut 2001: Best joke? Whatever. Every single American gets relief under the plan. That is a fact, not just rhetoric. Why doesn't the top deserve a break too? You make it sound as if only millionares and the super rich benefit, but that isn't true. I benefited and will continue to do so, and so will you. For God's own sake, Fran441, you do know that the bottom bracket will go down from 15% to 10%, right? You do know that many poor Americans will now pay ZERO tax under the plan, right? In fact, in terms of percentages the upper brackets get LESS of a break...or at least equal. Of course they will get a higher dollar figure, no shit!
Bush believes that no one should pay more than a third in Federal income taxes, and I totally agree. My taxes have already gone down and will continue to do so. And as far as your "advance" theory goes, it is true the recent refund was an advance, but that doesn't mean one has to deduct it from his/her refund or add it into the tax due this year. I know, I just did my taxes. What is the harm in getting it sooner rather than later? And don't even tell me it wasn't worth it....to me the $600 WAS worth it. Since I just wrote a check to the IRS this year (and last) for, well, A LOT of money I think it was definitely worth it.
Also true is rodger_ramjet's comment about Bush wanting a tax cut for many reasons. He proposed his plan before the economy had even BEGUN to turn south. He believed the tax code was unfair and wanted to fix it. It wasn't just about the recession.
Who do you think creates jobs, Fran441? One must bolster consumer spending, investment, and corporate bottom lines. The way to do that is with individual tax cuts, lowering interest rates, and giving corporations breaks as well.
The "evil" corporations have to make money or people lose their jobs.
Comments
Fran got it right. While we may or may not have had an actual "recession" per se, the Bush Administration pulled one out of their asses in order to pass their controversial Tax Cut. Why is it that they would do so? <strong>The Bushies were losing badly to John McCain and his Straight Talk express, so in an effort to appease the far-right, they devised a tax cut that would benefit them the greatest.</strong> He's keeping his base unlike his father. Excellent political spin. Poor leadership. :cool: <hr></blockquote>
Oh **** dude. Are a total moron? I liked McCain and would have voted for him but he was never a threat to Bush and Bush knew it.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point, Scott. But Fran's argument is still silly. In '92 Clinton went around telling us how we had the worst economy since the Great Depression. His over-the-top rhetoric didn't abort the fledgling recovery that was underway then. In the 4th quarter of '92 the economy grew at a 4.8 percent clip. By Fran's "reasoning" that just shouldn't have happened.
[quote]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".<hr></blockquote>
If Daschle said this, it was stupid. I'd love to see the actual quote, if you have it, because I'd like to know his reasoning. The main reason for this 'recession' was a slowdown of the tech industry coupled with 9/11. But things are bouncing back because the 'recession' was not a 'recession'. The economy's growth slowed down for a few quarters, fell during the quarter after 9/11, and started growing again this past quarter. That's why we're on the way to recovery. Greenspan kept all of the recession hype in check by cutting rates and getting people to spend money. I have a lot of respect for Greenspan, because he seems to know how to keep the economy moving.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
This is preposterous. Both parties had their own stimulus bill. The Republican bill went more towards businesses while the Democrats bill went towards the people who were out of work and needed the money. Then Bush came out saying how the Democrats were trying to destroy the unity the country had (more political spin).
But when spending so much money, it was better to figure out who needed it more- businesses or people. Bush's plans should most certainly not be rubber stamped because of the war, and the Democrats were doing what they thought was right to stimulate the economy. Looks like the economy was able to start recovery on it's own any way,.
[quote]the tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich.<hr></blockquote>
Best joke of the day.
<strong>First of all, we're not talking about "The Clinton Recovery", we're talking about "The Bush Recovery". </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, really? You still can't explain why Bush's talk about recession (and that wasn't the only argument he made on behalf of his tax cut anyway) had such a detrimental effect and Clinton's more alarmist rhetoric didn't. Does the "Fran411 theory about how recessions are caused" only hold true when it's a Republican doing the talking?
[quote]<strong>The economy's growth slowed down for a few quarters, fell during the quarter after 9/11...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it didn't. 9/11 came towards the end of the 3rd quarter. The quarter after 9/11 <a href="http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp401p.htm"; target="_blank">saw a rebound</a>.
[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
<strong>One could argue that The White House talked the econ' down and Greenspan had to react.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't talk an economy down that was already down. Greenspan had to react because he'd gotten the numbers wrong. In 1999 he increased liquidity in anticipation of the possibility of y2k problems. In 2000 he tightened to unwind his y2k play but his tightening came at a bad time for the markets. The air went of the bubble in the spring of the year. Last year, realizing that he'd tightened too much for too long, he reacted again.
[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
From an analytical point of view I think recessions are a necessary part of capitalism an important part. They're a time for reflection and learning. Did we bother to learn any lessons from this "recession"?
<strong>The government's been fudging the numbers so long I don't really buy any of it. Since the first Bush administration they've been totally screwing with the way economic statistics are compiled and counted. BTW, this was gladly carried on by the Clinton administration.</strong><hr></blockquote>Stockman under Reagan had the original "rosy scenario." Clinton and Panetta initially started using the more reasonable GAO numbers, but then later turned back to using their own numbers like Reagan and Bush had done.
[quote] If Daschle said this, it was stupid. I'd love to see the actual quote, if you have it, because I'd like to know his reasoning. <hr></blockquote>
I don't have it. It is the honest truth, though. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. That is verbatim, my friend. I don't know his reasoning either.....
[quote] This is preposterous. Both parties had their own stimulus bill. The Republican bill went more towards businesses while the Democrats bill went towards the people who were out of work and needed the money. Then Bush came out saying how the Democrats were trying to destroy the unity the country had (more political spin). <hr></blockquote>
It isn't preposterous at all. I know there were two versions. But holding up on a something like this is just not right. It was poltical, and that's all. I also never heard Bush come out and say anything like the Democrats are destroying the country's unity.....I did hear Cheyney say Daschle was being an obstructionist....which I agree with.
Now, a couple of points:
I want to know why you think the Democratic bill was better. The House went to the senate with four versions, and Daschle refused to bring them to a vote. Each version contained tax cuts for businesses, unemployment extensions, tax breaks for corporations and at least one accelerated the tax cut already passed. The dems took issue with the large corporate breaks and stalled accordingly. But they all contained other provisions as well. It was a political move by the Democrats, it had to be.
Tax Cut 2001: Best joke? Whatever. Every single American gets relief under the plan. That is a fact, not just rhetoric. Why doesn't the top deserve a break too? You make it sound as if only millionares and the super rich benefit, but that isn't true. I benefited and will continue to do so, and so will you. For God's own sake, Fran441, you do know that the bottom bracket will go down from 15% to 10%, right? You do know that many poor Americans will now pay ZERO tax under the plan, right? In fact, in terms of percentages the upper brackets get LESS of a break...or at least equal. Of course they will get a higher dollar figure, no shit!
Bush believes that no one should pay more than a third in Federal income taxes, and I totally agree. My taxes have already gone down and will continue to do so. And as far as your "advance" theory goes, it is true the recent refund was an advance, but that doesn't mean one has to deduct it from his/her refund or add it into the tax due this year. I know, I just did my taxes. What is the harm in getting it sooner rather than later? And don't even tell me it wasn't worth it....to me the $600 WAS worth it. Since I just wrote a check to the IRS this year (and last) for, well, A LOT of money I think it was definitely worth it.
Also true is rodger_ramjet's comment about Bush wanting a tax cut for many reasons. He proposed his plan before the economy had even BEGUN to turn south. He believed the tax code was unfair and wanted to fix it. It wasn't just about the recession.
Who do you think creates jobs, Fran441? One must bolster consumer spending, investment, and corporate bottom lines. The way to do that is with individual tax cuts, lowering interest rates, and giving corporations breaks as well.
The "evil" corporations have to make money or people lose their jobs.