1. Greenspan was a chair of the task force in the Reagan years that called for an increase in the payroll tax to make SS last. It was enacted, and we still have those high payroll taxes today. Many people, around half I think, pay higher payroll taxes than income taxes.
2. Then in 2001 Greenspan supported Bush's tax cuts, which gave back gobs of money to the richest and created massive deficits.
3. Now in 2004 Greenspan is calling for a reduction in SS benefits because of those deficits.
Raise taxes on the poor. Cut taxes on the rich. Cut benefits for the poor.
It's funny how criticizing Bush's economic policies makes you a Bush hater. I'm so blinded by hate that I can't see how great things are!
Sure our healthcare system might be the best in some ways... but it's also the most expensive. Over 40 million uninsured?
Do you have any idea how big Japan is? Is our excuse for deteriorating highway system, overburdend airports and a crappy rail system... we're too big?
And don't even get me started with the digital infrastructure... ASIA will be far ahead of us in 10 years... we're falling behind alot of the world in technology, education and infrastructure. It's lame.
JOHNSTON: If you chart, Lou, the increase in income for the bottom 99 percent of Americans over that 30-year period, for each dollar that each person got in increased income -- and the average was $2,700, less than a hundred dollars a year -- you made it one inch high. For the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent, or 27,000 people, it is 625 feet high. 625 feet to one inch.
DOBBS: And the solution is there, the fact that Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman would raise the issue, I think, is commendable. The suggestion in my opinion that the first solution should be sought is to cut the benefits of future retirees is reprehensible. What is your reaction?
JOHNSTON: Well, we can choose in America, if you want, to have a system in which the middle class and the upper middle class, people making $30,000 to $500,000 a year subsidize people who make millions of dollars. And if Americans want to vote for that they should do it.
I just don't think, Lou, that Americans would have gone for this if they had known what is happening. And since it was Mr. Greenspan who said pay your tax in advance and now he says, no, we're not going to give you the benefits, but we can't raise taxes on the rich. That seems to me morally troubling.
chubakka you have to remember that you can cut taxes and increase spending with no consequences for the federal budget. Don't you know anything about basic economics?
If that's what you want to call Bush's economic policies... go right ahead Scott.
Bush is the excuses President... he has an excuse for everything that he's done that hasn't worked. Being accountable is not as important as "knowing what's right" for Bush.
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
Well it's my understanding that Mr. Greenspan wants to adjust SS to help strengthen the economy. And that's needed because guess why?
If that's what you want to call Bush's economic policies... go right ahead Scott.
Bush is the excuses President... he has an excuse for everything that he's done that hasn't worked. Being accountable is not as important as "knowing what's right" for Bush.
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
I don't see how you can say Bush's deficits have nothing to do with SS. Yeah, SS is going to get more expensive due to increasing retirements. And reforms like increased retirement age and decreased COLAs would help. But if we 1) had more revenue, 2) weren't spending so much on other stuff, and 3) weren't going to have increased interest payments on the debt eating away at our future budgets, then we could handle the baby boomer problem. The only entitlement reforms I've heard our of Bush involve spending more on them (drugs and privatized SS accounts). As it is now, Bush's fiscal policies will just exacerbate the problem, and IMO make the system untenable unless they are reversed.
Go ahead Republicans, keep blaming Bush's supposed spending increases for the problem. See if you can balance the budget with spending cuts (hint: you could get rid of ALL discretionary domestic spending this year, and we'd still have a deficit). You folks are in denial about these tax cuts and what they're going to do us in the coming years.
When I'm in a particularly cynical mood, I kind of hope Bush gets reelected and he gets to deal with the aftermath of his own policies. If he only serves one term, he gets off the hook, and the adults get to step in and clean up after him. Right now, the administration is either in denial or only thinking up until Nov. 2004.
I don't see how you can say Bush's deficits have nothing to do with SS. Yeah, SS is going to get more expensive due to increasing retirements. And reforms like increased retirement age and decreased COLAs would help. But if we 1) had more revenue, 2) weren't spending so much on other stuff, and 3) weren't going to have increased interest payments on the debt eating away at our future budgets, then we could handle the baby boomer problem. The only entitlement reforms I've heard our of Bush involve spending more on them (drugs and privatized SS accounts). As it is now, Bush's fiscal policies will just exacerbate the problem, and IMO make the system untenable unless they are reversed.
Go ahead Republicans, keep blaming Bush's supposed spending increases for the problem. See if you can balance the budget with spending cuts (hint: you could get rid of ALL discretionary domestic spending this year, and we'd still have a deficit). You folks are in denial about these tax cuts and what they're going to do us in the coming years.
When I'm in a particularly cynical mood, I kind of hope Bush gets reelected and he gets to deal with the aftermath of his own policies. If he only serves one term, he gets off the hook, and the adults get to step in and clean up after him. Right now, the administration is either in denial or only thinking up until Nov. 2004.
Well I hope he doesn't get reelected. It's the only way he's going to feel a little sting for what he's done. And we won't have to keep dealing with any fututre problems he might create.
The government basically forces people to retire, no? The government (and hence the people who more or less benefit from this system) should provide support for seniors. If we have a recommended retirement age, then we need to have support for people we cut from their life blood especially now since there is a significant disparity between the retirement age and the point at which people kick the can.
The problem with using a sales tax (and perhaps in some respects its benefit) is that it disconnects the money going into social security from the money earned by people. Yet so many people avoid paying the wage tax that wouldnt be able to avoid paying a sales tax...
Edit: BTW, I have yet to see whether a dollar spent by the government is less effective in stimulating the economy than a dollar spent by a consumer. While there is the argument of choice involved (and this is where I find sticky arguments on both sides -- i tend to think that the market is a horrible system for securing things that are of benefit to people in general and not as individuals...), the argument of economic value of a government's dollar and a person's dollar hasn't been fully evaluated and in all honesty it probably doesn't make a difference who spends the money.
1. What? How does the government force peope, to retire? Do you mean government employees? What are you talking about?
2. Are you kidding me on the "government vs. consumer" dollars point? A full 2/3 of our economy is based on consumer spending. Each and every time more money is put back into people's pockets over the long term, the economy improves. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And, it worked for Bush. You must be joking.
It's funny how criticizing Bush's economic policies makes you a Bush hater. I'm so blinded by hate that I can't see how great things are!
Sure our healthcare system might be the best in some ways... but it's also the most expensive. Over 40 million uninsured?
Do you have any idea how big Japan is? Is our excuse for deteriorating highway system, overburdend airports and a crappy rail system... we're too big?
And don't even get me started with the digital infrastructure... ASIA will be far ahead of us in 10 years... we're falling behind alot of the world in technology, education and infrastructure. It's lame.
JOHNSTON: If you chart, Lou, the increase in income for the bottom 99 percent of Americans over that 30-year period, for each dollar that each person got in increased income -- and the average was $2,700, less than a hundred dollars a year -- you made it one inch high. For the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent, or 27,000 people, it is 625 feet high. 625 feet to one inch.
DOBBS: And the solution is there, the fact that Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman would raise the issue, I think, is commendable. The suggestion in my opinion that the first solution should be sought is to cut the benefits of future retirees is reprehensible. What is your reaction?
JOHNSTON: Well, we can choose in America, if you want, to have a system in which the middle class and the upper middle class, people making $30,000 to $500,000 a year subsidize people who make millions of dollars. And if Americans want to vote for that they should do it.
I just don't think, Lou, that Americans would have gone for this if they had known what is happening. And since it was Mr. Greenspan who said pay your tax in advance and now he says, no, we're not going to give you the benefits, but we can't raise taxes on the rich. That seems to me morally troubling.
What economic policies are you referring to? What did Bush do to hurt the economy? The only thing he's done is cut taxes. Before that, we were in recession. Now we're not. You can perhaps make a case that the tax cuts aren't the reason we had growth and recovery, but there is NO case to be mad ethat Bush has hurt the economy. Deficits and overall economic growth are not the same issue.
As far as the "poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer"...which is what it seems like you're pointing out, that's crap. Let the super rich get richer. Good for them. I don't begrudge them that. What would you like to do about it? Now, perhaps there's a case to made that they shouldn't be eligible for social security under the current system (which would be found unconstitutional anyway, but whatever)....but spare us the old liberal line for a moment.
Oh, and on your first points: Why is it the government's responsibility to provide health insurance? Where is that written?
On you Japan example regarding infastructure:
Japan's geogrpahic area= 377,835 sq km
United States=9,629,091 sq km
Now tell me how that's the same. And what's this? A deteriorating highway system? Where's the backing for that statement?
What economic policies are you referring to? What did Bush do to hurt the economy? The only thing he's done is cut taxes. Before that, we were in recession. Now we're not. You can perhaps make a case that the tax cuts aren't the reason we had growth and recovery, but there is NO case to be mad ethat Bush has hurt the economy. Deficits and overall economic growth are not the same issue.
As far as the "poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer"...which is what it seems like you're pointing out, that's crap. Let the super rich get richer. Good for them. I don't begrudge them that. What would you like to do about it? Now, perhaps there's a case to made that they shouldn't be eligible for social security under the current system (which would be found unconstitutional anyway, but whatever)....but spare us the old liberal line for a moment.
Oh, and on your first points: Why is it the government's responsibility to provide health insurance? Where is that written?
On you Japan example regarding infastructure:
Japan's geogrpahic area= 377,835 sq km
United States=9,629,091 sq km
Now tell me how that's the same. And what's this? A deteriorating highway system? Where's the backing for that statement?
You keep telling yourself this isn't true. The point is the more time that goes by the less people will be buying that Bush didn't hurt the economy. Right up until election time. Then you can be in denial all you want.
1. What? How does the government force peope, to retire? Do you mean government employees? What are you talking about?
2. Are you kidding me on the "government vs. consumer" dollars point? A full 2/3 of our economy is based on consumer spending. Each and every time more money is put back into people's pockets over the long term, the economy improves. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And, it worked for Bush. You must be joking.
1) Sorry. There is a now common practice of forcing people to retire at the age of full retirement, which has been set by the federal government indicating when benefits of SS would be applied. The idea was to induce people to leave work at a reasonable age and open the job market up; now, however, it has become expected that people will retire at a certain age, namely 65...So no the government doesn't force people to retire, it just creates a system where forcing someone to retire is feasible.
2) You and most fiscal conservatives fail to realize that government expenditures drive the economy as well. What I am asking is whether a dollar's worth of government spending (without debt) is equivalent to a dollars worth of individual spending in terms of economic benefit. More money to the people means nothing, since the government is spending that money anyway..
You keep telling yourself this isn't true. The point is the more time that goes by the less people will be buying that Bush didn't hurt the economy. Right up until election time. Then you can be in denial all you want.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
jimmac,
If you believe Bush has hurt the economy, then I suggest you show us HOW exactly he did it. What policy did he enact that put us into recession? It's an impossible question for you to answer, because any policy Bush would have put into place would take 2-3 years to become effective due to economic lag. Policy does not go into effect immediately, and even when it does, it takes a period of years to have results. So let's see: The Nasdaq began it's decline in March of 2000. By December 2000, we were being told we were in a global economic slowdown. By March 2001, before Bush got his tax cuts passed, we were in official "recession". Then in May 2001, we get tax cuts, followed by 9/11, and then more tax cuts. The recession officially ended in mid to late 2002. Say what you like about the deficit, but you cannot show anyting Bush did to hurt the economy.
Comments
2. Then in 2001 Greenspan supported Bush's tax cuts, which gave back gobs of money to the richest and created massive deficits.
3. Now in 2004 Greenspan is calling for a reduction in SS benefits because of those deficits.
Raise taxes on the poor. Cut taxes on the rich. Cut benefits for the poor.
Sure our healthcare system might be the best in some ways... but it's also the most expensive. Over 40 million uninsured?
Do you have any idea how big Japan is? Is our excuse for deteriorating highway system, overburdend airports and a crappy rail system... we're too big?
And don't even get me started with the digital infrastructure... ASIA will be far ahead of us in 10 years... we're falling behind alot of the world in technology, education and infrastructure. It's lame.
Here's a snippet from a recent Lou Dobbs..
http://billmon.org/archives/001125.html
JOHNSTON: If you chart, Lou, the increase in income for the bottom 99 percent of Americans over that 30-year period, for each dollar that each person got in increased income -- and the average was $2,700, less than a hundred dollars a year -- you made it one inch high. For the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent, or 27,000 people, it is 625 feet high. 625 feet to one inch.
DOBBS: And the solution is there, the fact that Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman would raise the issue, I think, is commendable. The suggestion in my opinion that the first solution should be sought is to cut the benefits of future retirees is reprehensible. What is your reaction?
JOHNSTON: Well, we can choose in America, if you want, to have a system in which the middle class and the upper middle class, people making $30,000 to $500,000 a year subsidize people who make millions of dollars. And if Americans want to vote for that they should do it.
I just don't think, Lou, that Americans would have gone for this if they had known what is happening. And since it was Mr. Greenspan who said pay your tax in advance and now he says, no, we're not going to give you the benefits, but we can't raise taxes on the rich. That seems to me morally troubling.
Bush is the excuses President... he has an excuse for everything that he's done that hasn't worked. Being accountable is not as important as "knowing what's right" for Bush.
But if you want to use it to club Bush feel free.
Talk about licking the third rail.
And they haven't said SS is wrong or should be scrapped entirely.
Originally posted by Scott
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
Yup.
Originally posted by Scott
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
Well it's my understanding that Mr. Greenspan wants to adjust SS to help strengthen the economy. And that's needed because guess why?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
If that's what you want to call Bush's economic policies... go right ahead Scott.
Bush is the excuses President... he has an excuse for everything that he's done that hasn't worked. Being accountable is not as important as "knowing what's right" for Bush.
Yup! Let's " manufacture " a better hamburger!
Originally posted by Scott
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
I don't see how you can say Bush's deficits have nothing to do with SS. Yeah, SS is going to get more expensive due to increasing retirements. And reforms like increased retirement age and decreased COLAs would help. But if we 1) had more revenue, 2) weren't spending so much on other stuff, and 3) weren't going to have increased interest payments on the debt eating away at our future budgets, then we could handle the baby boomer problem. The only entitlement reforms I've heard our of Bush involve spending more on them (drugs and privatized SS accounts). As it is now, Bush's fiscal policies will just exacerbate the problem, and IMO make the system untenable unless they are reversed.
Go ahead Republicans, keep blaming Bush's supposed spending increases for the problem. See if you can balance the budget with spending cuts (hint: you could get rid of ALL discretionary domestic spending this year, and we'd still have a deficit). You folks are in denial about these tax cuts and what they're going to do us in the coming years.
When I'm in a particularly cynical mood, I kind of hope Bush gets reelected and he gets to deal with the aftermath of his own policies. If he only serves one term, he gets off the hook, and the adults get to step in and clean up after him. Right now, the administration is either in denial or only thinking up until Nov. 2004.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't see how you can say Bush's deficits have nothing to do with SS. Yeah, SS is going to get more expensive due to increasing retirements. And reforms like increased retirement age and decreased COLAs would help. But if we 1) had more revenue, 2) weren't spending so much on other stuff, and 3) weren't going to have increased interest payments on the debt eating away at our future budgets, then we could handle the baby boomer problem. The only entitlement reforms I've heard our of Bush involve spending more on them (drugs and privatized SS accounts). As it is now, Bush's fiscal policies will just exacerbate the problem, and IMO make the system untenable unless they are reversed.
Go ahead Republicans, keep blaming Bush's supposed spending increases for the problem. See if you can balance the budget with spending cuts (hint: you could get rid of ALL discretionary domestic spending this year, and we'd still have a deficit). You folks are in denial about these tax cuts and what they're going to do us in the coming years.
When I'm in a particularly cynical mood, I kind of hope Bush gets reelected and he gets to deal with the aftermath of his own policies. If he only serves one term, he gets off the hook, and the adults get to step in and clean up after him. Right now, the administration is either in denial or only thinking up until Nov. 2004.
Well I hope he doesn't get reelected. It's the only way he's going to feel a little sting for what he's done. And we won't have to keep dealing with any fututre problems he might create.
It's just another log another the Bush bonfire.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by billybobsky
The government basically forces people to retire, no? The government (and hence the people who more or less benefit from this system) should provide support for seniors. If we have a recommended retirement age, then we need to have support for people we cut from their life blood especially now since there is a significant disparity between the retirement age and the point at which people kick the can.
The problem with using a sales tax (and perhaps in some respects its benefit) is that it disconnects the money going into social security from the money earned by people. Yet so many people avoid paying the wage tax that wouldnt be able to avoid paying a sales tax...
Edit: BTW, I have yet to see whether a dollar spent by the government is less effective in stimulating the economy than a dollar spent by a consumer. While there is the argument of choice involved (and this is where I find sticky arguments on both sides -- i tend to think that the market is a horrible system for securing things that are of benefit to people in general and not as individuals...), the argument of economic value of a government's dollar and a person's dollar hasn't been fully evaluated and in all honesty it probably doesn't make a difference who spends the money.
1. What? How does the government force peope, to retire? Do you mean government employees? What are you talking about?
2. Are you kidding me on the "government vs. consumer" dollars point? A full 2/3 of our economy is based on consumer spending. Each and every time more money is put back into people's pockets over the long term, the economy improves. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And, it worked for Bush. You must be joking.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's funny how criticizing Bush's economic policies makes you a Bush hater. I'm so blinded by hate that I can't see how great things are!
Sure our healthcare system might be the best in some ways... but it's also the most expensive. Over 40 million uninsured?
Do you have any idea how big Japan is? Is our excuse for deteriorating highway system, overburdend airports and a crappy rail system... we're too big?
And don't even get me started with the digital infrastructure... ASIA will be far ahead of us in 10 years... we're falling behind alot of the world in technology, education and infrastructure. It's lame.
Here's a snippet from a recent Lou Dobbs..
http://billmon.org/archives/001125.html
JOHNSTON: If you chart, Lou, the increase in income for the bottom 99 percent of Americans over that 30-year period, for each dollar that each person got in increased income -- and the average was $2,700, less than a hundred dollars a year -- you made it one inch high. For the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent, or 27,000 people, it is 625 feet high. 625 feet to one inch.
DOBBS: And the solution is there, the fact that Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman would raise the issue, I think, is commendable. The suggestion in my opinion that the first solution should be sought is to cut the benefits of future retirees is reprehensible. What is your reaction?
JOHNSTON: Well, we can choose in America, if you want, to have a system in which the middle class and the upper middle class, people making $30,000 to $500,000 a year subsidize people who make millions of dollars. And if Americans want to vote for that they should do it.
I just don't think, Lou, that Americans would have gone for this if they had known what is happening. And since it was Mr. Greenspan who said pay your tax in advance and now he says, no, we're not going to give you the benefits, but we can't raise taxes on the rich. That seems to me morally troubling.
What economic policies are you referring to? What did Bush do to hurt the economy? The only thing he's done is cut taxes. Before that, we were in recession. Now we're not. You can perhaps make a case that the tax cuts aren't the reason we had growth and recovery, but there is NO case to be mad ethat Bush has hurt the economy. Deficits and overall economic growth are not the same issue.
As far as the "poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer"...which is what it seems like you're pointing out, that's crap. Let the super rich get richer. Good for them. I don't begrudge them that. What would you like to do about it? Now, perhaps there's a case to made that they shouldn't be eligible for social security under the current system (which would be found unconstitutional anyway, but whatever)....but spare us the old liberal line for a moment.
Oh, and on your first points: Why is it the government's responsibility to provide health insurance? Where is that written?
On you Japan example regarding infastructure:
Japan's geogrpahic area= 377,835 sq km
United States=9,629,091 sq km
Now tell me how that's the same. And what's this? A deteriorating highway system? Where's the backing for that statement?
Originally posted by SDW2001
What economic policies are you referring to? What did Bush do to hurt the economy? The only thing he's done is cut taxes. Before that, we were in recession. Now we're not. You can perhaps make a case that the tax cuts aren't the reason we had growth and recovery, but there is NO case to be mad ethat Bush has hurt the economy. Deficits and overall economic growth are not the same issue.
As far as the "poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer"...which is what it seems like you're pointing out, that's crap. Let the super rich get richer. Good for them. I don't begrudge them that. What would you like to do about it? Now, perhaps there's a case to made that they shouldn't be eligible for social security under the current system (which would be found unconstitutional anyway, but whatever)....but spare us the old liberal line for a moment.
Oh, and on your first points: Why is it the government's responsibility to provide health insurance? Where is that written?
On you Japan example regarding infastructure:
Japan's geogrpahic area= 377,835 sq km
United States=9,629,091 sq km
Now tell me how that's the same. And what's this? A deteriorating highway system? Where's the backing for that statement?
You keep telling yourself this isn't true. The point is the more time that goes by the less people will be buying that Bush didn't hurt the economy. Right up until election time. Then you can be in denial all you want.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. What? How does the government force peope, to retire? Do you mean government employees? What are you talking about?
2. Are you kidding me on the "government vs. consumer" dollars point? A full 2/3 of our economy is based on consumer spending. Each and every time more money is put back into people's pockets over the long term, the economy improves. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And, it worked for Bush. You must be joking.
1) Sorry. There is a now common practice of forcing people to retire at the age of full retirement, which has been set by the federal government indicating when benefits of SS would be applied. The idea was to induce people to leave work at a reasonable age and open the job market up; now, however, it has become expected that people will retire at a certain age, namely 65...So no the government doesn't force people to retire, it just creates a system where forcing someone to retire is feasible.
2) You and most fiscal conservatives fail to realize that government expenditures drive the economy as well. What I am asking is whether a dollar's worth of government spending (without debt) is equivalent to a dollars worth of individual spending in terms of economic benefit. More money to the people means nothing, since the government is spending that money anyway..
Originally posted by jimmac
You keep telling yourself this isn't true. The point is the more time that goes by the less people will be buying that Bush didn't hurt the economy. Right up until election time. Then you can be in denial all you want.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
jimmac,
If you believe Bush has hurt the economy, then I suggest you show us HOW exactly he did it. What policy did he enact that put us into recession? It's an impossible question for you to answer, because any policy Bush would have put into place would take 2-3 years to become effective due to economic lag. Policy does not go into effect immediately, and even when it does, it takes a period of years to have results. So let's see: The Nasdaq began it's decline in March of 2000. By December 2000, we were being told we were in a global economic slowdown. By March 2001, before Bush got his tax cuts passed, we were in official "recession". Then in May 2001, we get tax cuts, followed by 9/11, and then more tax cuts. The recession officially ended in mid to late 2002. Say what you like about the deficit, but you cannot show anyting Bush did to hurt the economy.