O G M! Bush ruins teh economy!

[BrooklynBrett]

Or wait... no, he doesn't. It's stronger than ever with full employment.

Shut up.

Consumer confidence...

[Memorize]

Everyone knows it, but no one is willing to admit it.

Because the President is a Republican!

Kidding. Because approval of Bush is low so why would anyone report a positive story on our very own economy?

[BrooklynBrett]

At 7/31/07 02:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Everyone knows it, but no one is willing to admit it.

Because the President is a Republican!

Kidding. Because approval of Bush is low so why would anyone report a positive story on our very own economy?

Remember the UNENDING stories about gas prices when the GOP controlled congress?
Gas is just as high right now, and looking to go higher. But since the media is okay with who's in charge, they don't want the public to sweat it.

[JakeHero]

Anyone remember the unending stories of the economic boom during the 90s?

[JakeHero]

At 7/31/07 04:28 PM, Grammer wrote: I guess Bush is to blame for the dip in the Asian economy, too.

No it isn't, but alot of american ignorant of economics would naturally associate how good or bad things are going with the President. The media knows this mentality and constantly bombarded the masses with positivity during the Clinton years(except when the case is so large it simply can't be ignored) and constant negativity during the Bush years. I haven't heard MSNBC, CNN or PBS news pickup on how high the stock market has climbed.

Then again, maybe I'm just paranoid.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Bush doesn't have as much to do with this as you think. Nor has any President in the past. The economy is cyclical, periods of expansion and growth followed by recession, and is for the most part, uninfluenced by presidential policy. Even all the New Deal programs FDR created really didn't help end the depression--it took a war to really recover from it.

[Begoner]

If by "stronger than ever" you mean that people have more confidence in it than they did in 2001, then yes. That's what economies tend to do over time -- improve. The question is how much of this can be attributed to Bush. The answer is not much. For one thing, the national debt, which had been decreasing as a percentage of GDP under Clinton, suffered a sharp turnaround under Bush. We are spending more than we have for short-term rewards instead of long-term welfare. Plunging into debt isn't good; we'll eventually have to pay it back, and it won't be pretty when we do.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-
Debt-GDP-L.gif

Second, although unemployment is low, the gains in employment which had been seen under previous administrations have been greatly reduced. Fewer jobs have been added than was originally predicted by Bush's economic advisers.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/531-Bush-
Job-Loss-L.gif
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/jobs-grap h-L.gif
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/538-job-p redictions-L.gif

Thirdly, poverty, which had been greatly reduced during the Clinton administration (and even the Reagan administration), is again inching steadily up under Bush. This is symbolic of the gaping chasm separating the rich and poor, exacerbated by Bush's tax cuts.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts_pe rcent_poverty.gif

Fourthly, wealth disparity in general is a huge concern. As you may know, the Gini coefficient is a measure of the gap between the rich and poor. The bigger it is, the bigger the gap is. Right now, the gap is bigger than at any other time since records were kept. The divide between the rich and poor is starker than in any other developed nation.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/hi stinc/h04.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en /d/d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif

Fifth, the Bush tax cuts were not only an insanely reckless policy, but also stood to benefit the rich. An astonishing 52% of the money from the tax cuts will go to the richest 1% of Americans. A meager 1.2% will go to the bottom 20%.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0602c2.pdf
http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302 003.html

For a further assessment of the Bush tax cuts, you should read this article.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Of course, I have many more grievances with Bush's handling of the economy, but these are the most conspicuous in terms of contrasting Bush's tactics with those of other presidents.

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 04:38 PM, JakeHero wrote: I haven't heard MSNBC, CNN or PBS news pickup on how high the stock market has climbed.

Compare the recent climb with the surge during the Clinton years. In comparison, it looks like nothing. Also, I find the reporting to be very biased; I keep hearing things about how the stock market has topped all previous records by reaching x, where x is just an arbitrary value they are reporting simply to highlight "progress." Stock markets tend to climb -- there's no need to get one's feathers into a tizzy every time they jump up 5 points.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&
t=my&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 05:00 PM, Grammer wrote: So basically, you're whining that the economy isn't as good as it should, regardless that it is still strong.

Basically, I'm pointing out that the economy is going downhill. And I'm citing sources that don't include the Newgrounds BBS, mind you.

People who pay more taxes tend to get a bigger tax break?

Uh... durr?

People who really need more money don't get it. Uh...what?

[Memorize]

Interesting.

The same people who blame Bush for all of iraq's problems and hail Clinton the 90's economy are now claiming that the president has little to do with it.

Funny stuff. Funny stuff.

So if Bush has little to do with it, why do you suddenly do a 180 degree spin and pin a supposed "faltering economy" on him then?

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 05:24 PM, Memorize wrote: The same people who blame Bush for all of iraq's problems and hail Clinton the 90's economy are now claiming that the president has little to do with it.

The president has little to do with "normal" business cycles. However, he can control various aspects of the economy (as he is now doing by giving vast tax cuts to the rich and plunging the nation into debt). Clinton was not responsible for the technological boom of the late 1990s and, personally, I detest many of his economic policies; Bush, on the other hand, is currently responsible for the effects of his ill-conceived tax cuts and other hare-brained measures.

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 05:09 PM, Grammer wrote: I linked to the the NG BBS because it's a logic-based argument that doesn't need stastitics to be proven right.

The fact that we have a progressive tax system and regressive tax cuts does not prove the mediocre analogy right. In fact, the analogy falls flat on its face when subjected to logic. First, although people are not forced to eat at the restaurant, they are forced to pay taxes. Second, it does not take into account how tax cuts are financed (the janitors may have been unhappy because the restaurant, in order to reduce their total costs, decided to stop paying for the education of the janitors' children). Third, it does not put things into any sort of reasonable proportion -- information on how much is paid in taxes according to income would be necessary to make a valid analogy instead of fallacious drivel.

[tony4moroney]

Here we go its the Bush Brigade ready to protect their president at even the slight suggestion that hes' a failure.

Never mind that several Nobel-Prize winning economists, statistics and consumer surveys have already shown quite clearly that the economy is going down the shitter.

Nope its either;

A.) Clinton's fault during the 90's

or

B.) There are lots of jobs though mommy!

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 05:39 PM, Begoner wrote:

I detest many of his economic policies; Bush, on the other hand, is currently responsible for the effects of his ill-conceived tax cuts and other hare-brained measures.

Either the president has something to do with it or he doesn't. Make up your fucking mind already.

Clinton's not responsible for the boom of the 90's, yet Bush is responsible for the "failing economy", even if the economy has hardly changed, really.

At 7/31/07 06:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Never mind that several Nobel-Prize winning economists, statistics and consumer surveys have already shown quite clearly that the economy is going down the shitter.

Wow, you just keep demonstrating your hypocracy every single time you post.

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 06:48 PM, Grammer wrote: So what's your point? No one said they were forced to eat at the restaurant, but for the sake of the example they do.

What I meant to imply was that if the consumers were not satisfied with the quality of the food relative to the price, they could find another restaurant. That is not so with the tax system; taxes must be paid whether or not the services rendered are adequate. Thus, if those services fail to perform up to a reasonable standard, those who benefit from them have a valid grievance, as they cannot go somewhere else where the services may be better.

That example doesn't apply to the US because we aren't cutting necessary programs for the tax cuts, but we are expanding our deficit. Which of course is a bad thing, but ya know, I just wanted to say.

Bush has slashed the spending for various social programs (one of the reasons why the percentage of people below the poverty line is increasing). For other programs, he has failed to increase the funding at a level relative to tax revenue (ie, although he nominally may be increasing the funding for certain programs, a smaller percentage of total tax receipts is funding them). Here are some articles about it (although they deal with the budgets for different fiscal years, the general theme is the same).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinio n/08thur1.html?ex=1186027200&en=7b5de113 b87b5836&ei=5070
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?fi le=/c/a/2005/02/08/MNGHOB7L821.DTL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/stor y/0,,2006815,00.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb200 6/budg-f07.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A58762-2004May26.html

And here's a site with a definite conservative bias that deals with the issue.

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/n ews/article.cfm?id=3836

It doesn't tell you how makes what, but it gives you the basic jist of how our tax system works. That doesn't make it wrong, that makes it simplistic.

If the point of the analogy is to paint a picture of how "reasonable" regressive tax cuts are, the figures are necessary. But I do agree that this is a more minor point in comparison to the other two -- it's not that I don't like simplifying the issue, but this is more of a distortion. For example, the lowest tax rate is 10%, so the janitors would still have to pay something.

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 06:24 PM, Memorize wrote: Either the president has something to do with it or he doesn't. Make up your fucking mind already.

I believe that everyone here understands the president's power to influence the economy, although significant, is not infinite. Why can't you?

[BrooklynBrett]

Sweet Jesus, you're stupid. I don't need massive paragraphs to refute this. Just Macroec 101.

At 7/31/07 04:55 PM, Begoner wrote: If by "stronger than ever" you mean that people have more confidence in it than they did in 2001, then yes. That's what economies tend to do over time -- improve. The question is how much of this can be attributed to Bush. The answer is not much. For one thing, the national debt, which had been decreasing as a percentage of GDP under Clinton, suffered a sharp turnaround under Bush. We are spending more than we have for short-term rewards instead of long-term welfare. Plunging into debt isn't good; we'll eventually have to pay it back, and it won't be pretty when we do.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-
Debt-GDP-L.gif

Fallacy 1: Really? When do we have to repay the national debt? You make it sound like the debt was decreasing under Clinton. Listen, Sally, you can't say that the President doesn't have an effect, and then compare Clinton to Bush. Does the President, or does the President NOT have an effect?

Second, although unemployment is low, the gains in employment which had been seen under previous administrations have been greatly reduced. Fewer jobs have been added than was originally predicted by Bush's economic advisers.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/531-Bush-
Job-Loss-L.gif
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/jobs-grap h-L.gif
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/538-job-p redictions-L.gif

Of course they've slowed, you pontificating buffoon. We're at fucking full employment.

Thirdly, poverty, which had been greatly reduced during the Clinton administration (and even the Reagan administration), is again inching steadily up under Bush. This is symbolic of the gaping chasm separating the rich and poor, exacerbated by Bush's tax cuts.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts_pe rcent_poverty.gif

Poverty "decreased" under Clinton, huh? So, with higher taxes all around, everyone had more money? You people will survive forever on the dotcom bubble, acting like socialist economics had the FIRST thing to do with them.

Fourthly, wealth disparity in general is a huge concern. As you may know, the Gini coefficient is a measure of the gap between the rich and poor. The bigger it is, the bigger the gap is. Right now, the gap is bigger than at any other time since records were kept. The divide between the rich and poor is starker than in any other developed nation.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/hi stinc/h04.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en /d/d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif

You didn't present a problem here, Tina. Fantastic job naming the Gini Coefficient. How is it "a huge concern" again? What exactly do rich people do with capital? Oh... what's that? They invest it? In... what? More jobs?... ohhhhhh Yeah, fuck those productive rich people.

Give me a goddamned break.

Fifth, the Bush tax cuts were not only an insanely reckless policy, but also stood to benefit the rich. An astonishing 52% of the money from the tax cuts will go to the richest 1% of Americans. A meager 1.2% will go to the bottom 20%.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0602c2.pdf
http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302 003.html

If by "reckless" you mean the government is pulling in more revenue than ever, than yeah, that DANGEROUS Bush.

For a further assessment of the Bush tax cuts, you should read this article.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Of course, I have many more grievances with Bush's handling of the economy, but these are the most conspicuous in terms of contrasting Bush's tactics with those of other presidents.

So, Esmerelda... You're still facing the facts of long strings of record GDP growth, huge consumer confidence, full, and record long employment rates, and a stronger America than ever.

If you have a problem with these things, you hate Bush with a foamier mouth than I imagined.

Shhhh, Rachel... it'll be okay.

[Gunter45]

The area that the position of president is weakest in is the economy. He has no control over the Federal Reserve, they're somewhat autonomous; he can't pass laws that affect the economy, that's Congress. Short of the judiciary, the president has the least influence on economy.

Stop giving presidents credit or assigning them blame simply because they're in the oval office.

[Begoner]

Fallacy 1: Really? When do we have to repay the national debt? You make it sound like the debt was decreasing under Clinton. Listen, Sally, you can't say that the President doesn't have an effect, and then compare Clinton to Bush. Does the President, or does the President NOT have an effect?

At some indeterminate point in the future, the national debt must be repaid lest the US's credit rating plummets and the economy goes down the drain. Yes, the national debt (as a percentage of GDP) was decreasing under Clinton. As I previously pointed out, the president has a very limited ability to intervene with the functioning of "normal" business cycles, but can easily dictate other aspects of economic policy (ie, how much money to spend). The president has an effect, but not an absolute effect -- Clinton wasn't responsible for the technology boom and Bush wasn't responsible for the 2001 recession. However, Clinton, through somewhat restrained spending, was able to create a budget surplus; Bush, through reckless spending, plunged the nation into the red. In this, they are comparable.

Of course they've slowed, you pontificating buffoon. We're at fucking full employment.

Do you understand the difference between someone who is employed and someone who is not unemployed? During Clinton's tenure, the unemployment rate dipped below the natural rate of unemployment (ie, full employment), as anyone with a grasp of macroeconomic theory should know. That's because people who were not previously members of the workforce got a job. If you're going to call me a "pontificating buffoon," at least get your points right.

Poverty "decreased" under Clinton, huh? So, with higher taxes all around, everyone had more money? You people will survive forever on the dotcom bubble, acting like socialist economics had the FIRST thing to do with them.

The poverty line is a construct designed to gauge at which level of income a family cannot be assured of an adequate standard of living. If a family earns no money but is entitled to subsidized government care totaling $100,000 (for example), they would be above the poverty line. Because Bush decreased social spending in such areas, many old, young, and poor people who depended upon such money were no longer able to sustain their meager standard of living and thus fell below the poverty line. And, incidentally, Clinton was very capitalist in his measures -- tossing around the word "socialist" indicates your lack of knowledge on such issues.

What exactly do rich people do with capital? Oh... what's that? They invest it? In... what? More jobs?... ohhhhhh Yeah, fuck those productive rich people.

And yet the poor are still getting poorer. Perhaps the rich are not so generous after all. In the 1950s, a family could afford a nice house and a nice car in a nice neighborhood on one salary -- now they're lucky if they can maintain such a lifestyle with two paychecks. Jobs are important, sure, but so are salaries, which have been dropping relative to the cost of living. Of course, the very rich are getting richer by exploiting the working class.

If by "reckless" you mean the government is pulling in more revenue than ever, than yeah, that DANGEROUS Bush.

Because of the Bush tax cuts, the government pulled in less in tax revenue in 2004 than it did in 2001. That, my friend, is reckless.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/
TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=200

Shhhh, Rachel... it'll be okay.

Oddly enough, I enjoy you calling me by girls' names. By all means, continue.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 07:31 PM, Begoner wrote:

I believe that everyone here understands the president's power to influence the economy, although significant, is not infinite. Why can't you?

First you say the President has hardly any affect. Then you claim Bush does when things don't go well, then you claim Bush doesn't when things DO go well. Now you're just claiming their "influence is significant".

Please. Make up your mind.

[Gunter45]

At 7/31/07 08:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Please. Make up your mind.

To be fair, whether or not he makes up his mind isn't going to change the fact that the President has very little to do with the economy, whether it's up or down.

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 08:30 PM, Memorize wrote: First you say the President has hardly any affect.

I never claimed that the president has hardly any effect, except with respect to "normal" business cycles. Obviously, this does not equate with his impact on the economy at large, but rather a specific area.

Then you claim Bush does when things don't go well

Actually, I said that Bush was not to blame for the 2001 recession. I do, however, blame him for the disastrous effects of many of his myopic economic policies (ie, immense deficit spending, tax cuts, slashing social spending).

then you claim Bush doesn't when things DO go well.

I give Bush credit for making the rich richer, if you consider that something that "going well."

Now you're just claiming their "influence is significant".

That's what I've said all along. I never claimed that they wielded absolute power nor that they were powerless to change the economic situation.

[Begoner]

At 7/31/07 08:40 PM, Gunter45 wrote: that the President has very little to do with the economy, whether it's up or down.

Except, you know, proposing that whole "budget" thing that dictates how our tax dollars are spent (to be fair, though, you have a point insofar as Congress must approve the budget).

[Bolo]

At 7/31/07 08:30 PM, Memorize wrote: First you say the President has hardly any affect. Then you claim Bush does when things don't go well, then you claim Bush doesn't when things DO go well. Now you're just claiming their "influence is significant".

Please. Make up your mind.

The president's policies have a minor effect on the economy. He has a limited capacity to positively or negatively influence the state of affairs. End of argument.

[Gunter45]

At 7/31/07 09:01 PM, Begoner wrote: Except, you know, proposing that whole "budget" thing that dictates how our tax dollars are spent (to be fair, though, you have a point insofar as Congress must approve the budget).

You said it yourself. He PROPOSES it. From what I'm told, Congress doesn't take any of the proposal into consideration, it's just a formality. Congress is the one who passes the budget.

[Imperator]

I give Bush credit for making the rich richer, if you consider that something that "going well."

Well it's helping me pay my tuition...I'd certainly consider that as a benefit!

[BrooklynBrett]

Because of the Bush tax cuts, the government pulled in less in tax revenue in 2004 than it did in 2001. That, my friend, is reckless.

Penolope... You epitomize liberal ignorance. 2007 featured the LARGEST TAX RECEIPTS EVER.

Ever.

Ever, Tessa.

Eh-VER.

Sandra, EVER.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/31/07 07:30 PM, Begoner wrote:

What I meant to imply was that if the consumers were not satisfied with the quality of the food relative to the price, they could find another restaurant. That is not so with the tax system; taxes must be paid whether or not the services rendered are adequate. Thus, if those services fail to perform up to a reasonable standard, those who benefit from them have a valid grievance, as they cannot go somewhere else where the services may be better.

Your not being entirely accurate; you compare the actual restraunt to taxes, when you should be comparing the BILL from the restraunt to taxes, and the actual restraunt to America. If you find America's services to be not worth the price, you can always just go to Denny's.

Errrrr... Canada.

If the point of the analogy is to paint a picture of how "reasonable" regressive tax cuts are, the figures are necessary. But I do agree that this is a more minor point in comparison to the other two -- it's not that I don't like simplifying the issue, but this is more of a distortion. For example, the lowest tax rate is 10%, so the janitors would still have to pay something.

Ah, but the lowest tax rate belongs to those who are getting so much in federal aid and benifits that even after taxes, they really are paying nothing.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/31/07 08:10 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/31/07 07:30 PM, Begoner wrote: Thus, if those services fail to perform up to a reasonable standard, those who benefit from them have a valid grievance, as they cannot go somewhere else where the services may be better.

If they have a problem, they can leave America.

oh - my - god. I think this is about the ten thousandth time I've heard this.
'Well.. well.. if you don't like it then leave.'
Never mind the possibility that it may be unviable, the difficulties in migration, that perhaps people enjoy the place but are merely suggest it could be improved, that perhaps, they dislike the current administration and her policies but don't dislike the u.s in general.

But we don't have the world's strongest economy just by coincidence.

What the hell has this got to do with Bush's Admin.? He isn't responsible for us becoming or having the number one economy you know.

'Hey, Caesar, I've done some research, made some observations and it looks like Rome is treading on water.'

'Well uhh, Rome isn't the the world's number one empire by coincidence you know.'

That example doesn't apply to the US because we aren't cutting necessary programs for the tax cuts, but we are expanding our deficit. Which of course is a bad thing, but ya know, I just wanted to say.

If the point of the analogy is to paint a picture of how "reasonable" regressive tax cuts are, the figures are necessary.

Could you please show evidence the poor are paying a higher tax percentage than the rich?

Not necessarily poor in general but as Buffett has bet; 'I will give whoever proves that the middle-class pay less taxes then the upper-class $1M U.S'

The income gap has widened obscenely

and here

But don't mind me the overwhelming majority of americans like independents disapprove of his handling of the economy and believe it is in fact, getting worst.

Well hey, what would they know right? You're inherently superior to most of them, perhaps that's what you may be thinking. Well what about Nobel-Prize winning economists?

Well, I have to give you credit, at least you don't use personal attacks like some other people I know.

Fuck you..? :D

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 09:00 PM, Begoner wrote:

I never claimed that the president has hardly any effect, except with respect to "normal" business cycles. Obviously, this does not equate with his impact on the economy at large, but rather a specific area.

Either he has a significant effect on the economy or not.

Take your pick.

Actually, I said that Bush was not to blame for the 2001 recession. I do, however, blame him for the disastrous effects of many of his myopic economic policies (ie, immense deficit spending, tax cuts, slashing social spending).

Our deficit is pretty small, actually.

But you tell me. How do we pay back money we owe to ourselves?

Considering that makes up the majority of our debt.

I give Bush credit for making the rich richer, if you consider that something that "going well."

So basically you pick and choose to suit your stance.