Down, Down, Down, it goes.... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-22-2002, 12:38 PM   #1
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Down, Down, Down, it goes....

The U.S. stock market has been on a steady decline since Bush and his big business F.O.B's (that's Friends of Bush) took over. It was reported on two different media outlets this morning that:

-The Dow Jones Industrial average is down 31.9% year to date-which just happens to be the WORST performance this average has seen during the first 18 months of ANY U.S. presidential administration. (this dates back to 1925, btw).

-For the third time in three weeks the market has had a steady selloff shortly after President Bush commented on the state of the economy and corporate scandal. Apparently, the majority of investors aren't taking comfort in his words.

The stock market reflects the overall attitude of individual investors towards the health of the economy. Gauging investor reactions nationwide...they don't feel to good about the economic direction of this country right now.

As Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean D-VT said yesterday to Tim Russert on "Meet The Press" when asked about the economy, Dean replied "Supply side economics doesn't work". Dean is correct, imo, and the stock market's slide over the past 18 months is but one example of this growing sentiment throughout the country.
__________________

__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 04:47 PM   #2
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 04:24 AM
While I'm on the subject of things going down...here is another example that will surely make Republicans nervous. The latest poll conducted by Zogby International (a nonpartisian public opinion firm) released today shows that fewer than HALF-yes HALF- of likely voters believe President Bush should be re-elected in two years. This puts Bush's job approval rating at its lowest level since before Sept. 11.

The Zogby America Poll, conducted Friday thru Sunday, showed that only 47 percent of likely voters believed Bush deserved re-election, compared to 32 percent who said it was time for someone new. 21 percent were undecided. Pollster John Zogby said "Here is a president who was elected with only 48 percent of the popular vote, and more than 1 1/2 years later, even in a time of war, remains stuck in that position."

This poll suggests that if Bush doesn't want to suffer the same fate as his daddy (Popular wartime president whose economic policies ruin the country) than he better start governing more from the center and not the extreme right. Bush forgets he came into office without a mandate-yet he mystically acts as if he won in a landslide. Unlike the title of a previous thread suggests...it IS ABOUT THE ECONOMY...and our economy stinks. Don't be surprised to see the Dems pick up 25-40 seats in the House and add 6-8 seats to their majority in the Senate.
__________________

__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 05:11 PM   #3
Babyface
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: on holiday
Posts: 23
Local Time: 10:24 PM
which of Bush's economic policies caused the stock market to crash?
__________________
Too Much Asleep is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 06:25 PM   #4
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Where to begin?

1. The economy's been slumping since Spring, 2000. (Remember GW Bush MENTIONED this in his campaign.)

Guess who was President then - and for eight years prior?

BILL CLINTON.


2. It appears that stock market is, for the moment, following the economy rather than predicting where it's going. Other economic indicators DO show things are improving.


3. If investors were showing "irrational exuberance" during the recent market peaks (when stocks were SEVERELY overpriced), it is quite possible that people are now being irrationally pessimistic.


4. It's a bit premature to call this a failure of "supply-side economics." Remember that the Bush tax cut is VERY back-loaded, so we're not yet seeing its impact.

(Also, how likely is it that a Democratic presidential hopeful from the People's Republic of Vermont is UNBIASED towards supply-side economics?)


5. A thought about Enron. Enron folded like a house of cards, and Dems blamed the collapse on the ties to Bush. There are NO such ties to Worldcom, but it fell too. Isn't it possible that the politically opportunistic Democrats were wrong about Enron?


6. That Zogby poll shows Bush at 47% with a 3.2% margin of error. This means that the actual number may be just over 50%, so you're proclamation of "HALF-yes HALF-" is statistically insignificant.


7. Unless one's poll numbers have HOVERED around the same number, you're not "stuck" at that number.


8. Even if these numbers do match the percentage of the vote that Bush got (Clinton didn't get the majority of votes in EITHER of his victories either, though that comes up SO rarely), the poll question doesn't correspond. The more important question is "WOULD YOU VOTE FOR BUSH?"


9. Bush's approval ratings, while they have dropped, are still around 63%. That's not too shabby, and may also be a better indication of relection numbers.


10. If we're to discuss poll numbers and the economy, let's discuss:

(On July 19th), the Washington Post reported the results of its own poll, and the findings are strikingly different. The Post says a substantial majority, 58 percent, approve of the way the president is handling the economy (versus 38 percent who disapprove). The Post also found that 50 percent of those surveyed approve of the way Bush is handling the issue of "regulating Wall Street and the stock market" (versus 36 percent who disapprove). And 49 percent approve of the president's handling of "the issue of financial fraud and accounting irregularities by large business corporations" (versus 43 percent who disapprove).

In addition, the Post pollsters asked the following question: "Who do you trust more to handle the issue of financial fraud and accounting irregularities by large business corporations Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Forty-two percent of those polled say Bush, while 44 percent say Democrats in Congress a virtual tie, and hardly the lopsided situation that the Times suggested. Then the Post asked, "Who do you trust more to protect your retirement savings Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Forty-four percent say Bush, while 35 percent say Democrats in Congress. Finally, the Post asked, "Overall, who do you trust to do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years George W. Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Fifty-three percent say Bush, while 37 percent say Democrats.



10. We're TWENTY-EIGHT months from the next presidential election. These numbers are absolutely irrelevant in any case, and they're certainly no reason for Republicans to panic.


11. From the McCain-Feingold bill to tariffs on steel, Bush is NOT acting from the "far right." He has yet to use his veto power, and his domestic policy is decidedly centrist.


12. Even if Bush DOES "mystically acts as if he won in a landslide," I must ask: must a PRESIDENT act like a centrist if he didn't win the majority vote? Where does it say that? Why didn't liberals criticize Clinton for his stimulus package and tax increases following his less-than-a-majority victory in 199s?


13. It's all well and good to say that Bush's numbers are low, "in a time of war," but the war itself is being underplayed. What was clearly an attempted act of terrorism a few weeks ago at LAX is being reduced to an isolated incident - and the news is focusing almost exclusively on the economy, despite the fact that a military excursion against Iraq seems immenent.

Let's reevaluate these numbers once Baghdad is bombed, shall we?

I know what will happen: Democrats will accuse Republicans of using the military for political gain; bombing Iraq to pull up Bush's numbers. But these are the same people who are playing down the war - and playing up pseudo-scandals - to pull down Bush's numbers.


Same old tripe from the left: not the least bit surprising, and quite unpursuasive.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 06:29 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 08:24 PM
__________________
adamswildhoney is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 07:55 PM   #6
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Achung Bubba: Where do you find the time to write so many opinions? Are you on the computer all day? Do you work? (LOL). Just curious.

By the way, thanks for mentioning Bill Clinton's relationship to the stock market crash. People are quick to blame Bush for the troubles, and some of the blame is warranted, but the Clinton Administration had eight years....EIGHT YEARS...to regulate the procedures taking place within our countries largests slaughterhouses ...urgh...I mean corporations. Bush could have saved face by starting his tenure with harder pressing legal suits and investigatory actions, but come on! Do you really think Bush would bite the hands that fed his campaign? Hell no.

This whole collapse shows what's wrong with politics in our country. Surely, the leaders of our country knew the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later, right? You can't hide trillions of dollars and expect the American public to roll over and let it continue. The times they are a-changin', and the depression is right across the horizon, You think the Great Depression was bad? Well, just wait for the Holy Fucking Shit Depression that's coming our way.

One last thing: Achung Bubba said "2. It appears that stock market is, for the moment, following the economy rather than predicting where it's going. Other economic indicators DO show things are improving."
Are you kidding me? Economic indicators DO show things are improving? What economic indicators are these? Are they located in the offices of those self-serving business stock brokers, because if they aren't I think you've step into a big, stinky, pile o' dog shit. Example that one to me. Please?
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 12:33 AM   #7
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
Achung Bubba: Where do you find the time to write so many opinions? Are you on the computer all day? Do you work? (LOL). Just curious.
I'm a computer science student, so, yes, I'm on the computer all day - and I can compose at about 60 words a minute, so it's not THAT big of a a strain.

As per indications that the economy's improving, read some of the latest from Larry Kudlow.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 08:38 AM   #8
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:24 AM
I'd also love to see the evidence that the economy is improving, being that unemployment is on the rise, the stock market is passing out, and my dad never shuts up about how badly his 401(k) is doing.

Of course, this thread is a good example of how predictable this place can be: someone says something negative about the (liberals/conservatives), someone else comes back and says that the (conservatives/liberals) are entirely wrong and that they are just slinging (Republican/Democrat) party line ideology.

Can we please have, like, the Communist Party's opinion on this one? From an actual communist? That might shake things up. How about any fascists or ecological feminist anarchists? Come on, there has to be at least one.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 11:58 AM   #9
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Let's look at those GREAT economic numbers that are being tossed around here by some conservatives:

1. The unemployment rate through June continues to hover at 5.9%-well above the 3.7% during much of the Clinton/Gore years. Payroll employment through June remained unchanged for the fourth month in a row. The number of unemployed persons (8.4 million) was essentially unchanged in June for the second month in a row, however, the number of unemployed persons was HIGHER for the second quarter than the first. The number of persons unemployed for 15 weeks or more INCREASED in June to 3.1 million. The number of such persons has increased by nearly 700,000 persons so far this year, and since June 2001, has about doubled. The total employment population in June of '02 is 1 million lower than June of '01. Employment in manufacturing jobs declined by over 23,000 in June. In retail trade employment was down in June. Employment in eating and drinking establishments was unchanged. Transportation and utility jobs were unchanged in June.

Bottom Line: These statistics show that our economy is certainly NOT ADDING JOBS under G W's watch. These statistics "indicate" one thing-the economy isn't yet improving.

2. Investors weren't showing "irrational exhuberance" during the recent market peaks when stock prices were "severely overpriced". None other than conservative economist himself Alan Greenspan admitted last week while testifying before a Congressional sub-committe that it wasn't "irrational exhuberance" but rather "infectious greed" that caused the market run-up and subsequent downturn. Greenspan is quoted as saying "It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously." Why is that, Alan? Possibly because our elected officials paved those avenues, barely set a speed limit and took the cops off the beat? Greenspan sheepishly admitted that he was in favor of the deregulation of the accounting industry that led to this mess. He had said "that regulation by government was utterly unnecessary and, indeed, most inappropriate. I was wrong." he admitted.

Bottom Line: The unfettered free market system touted by conservatives like Greenspan show that it is the very essence of this economic philosophy to cut corners, not only on its accounting ledgers, but also as it pertains to environmental regulations, product safety, workplace hazards, wages and hours. The pressure to show short term profits is irresistable and if it can't be done legitimately than they'll get them any which way they can. The fantasy that the free market system is self regulating is coming to an end. Greenspan acknowledges this in his above statements-Congress needs to follow suit.

3. Countless examples exist regarding the failure of supply side economics. Look no further than the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan. "Reaganomics" was disastrous-his tax cuts for big business and the wealthy along with huge increases in defense spending caused our deficit to TRIPLE under his watch. It may be the same old "tripe" from the left...but at least it's credible. The same thing is happening all over again. The bipartisian Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a recent report, cites the number ONE culprit to the erosion of the 5.6 trillion dollar surplus that had been projected over the next 10 years (of which only 1.6 trillion remained in January of this year) directly to Bush's 1.3 trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthy. CBO reported that over 2/3 of the lost surplus is due to the Bush tax cut. All of this before Bush's "guns and tax cuts" budget for fiscal year 2003 reached Congress. That budget calls for the largest increase in military spending in two decades (15% jump from last year) a doublilng of homeland security, and yet another round of lopsided tax cuts. This round of tax cuts would slice another 591 billion in taxes over 10 years, with 344 billion going towards making permanent the 1.3 trilliion cut passed earlier. Much of the cut again goes to big business.

Bottom Line: Government surpluses contribute to low interest rates and increased private capital for investment and business while shoring up viable government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. As former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin said recently, "...we need to restore the sound, broad-based strategy that was so central to the prosperity of the '90's." Rubin further stated that he wrote last May when the 10 year tax cut was being debated that its direct cost-later estimated at 1.7 trillion including debt service-and even more important the indirect cost in undermining political cohesion around fiscal discipline, threatened the federal government's long-term fiscal positon. Bob...you were right.

5. I don't recall the Dems directly blaming Bush for the collapse of Enron. I do recall them (and rightfully so) exposing Bush's and the GOP's overall ties to big business and their ardent support urging deregulation of the energy, telecom, and accounting industries currently and in the past. Democrats aren't wrong about Enron or corporate scandals-especially when Bush has ZERO credibility on this issue. How ironic of Bush to be criticizing as President the very business practice he engaged in at Harken Energy. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Bottom Line: The GOP's big business ties render it incapable of passing tough legistation to reign in corporate greed and shady business practices.

6. The Zogby poll. I can hear the nervous chatter of teeth on the GOP side. Regardless of how the Republicans want to "spin" the Zogby numbers...the fact is it is certainly problematic for their guy to garnering 50% or less support amongst likely voters. The poll illustrates that Bush clearly has problems going forward with the electorate. The further we get away from 9/11 the harder it will be for Bush to remain popular.

Bottom Line: The poll is troubling to Republicans, especially when reminded that Al Gore did win the POPULAR vote my more than 500,000.

To be continued....
__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 12:55 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Can we please have, like, the Communist Party's opinion on this one? From an actual communist? That might shake things up. How about any fascists or ecological feminist anarchists? Come on, there has to be at least one.
Name one way a Communist's post would likely be DIFFERENT than these posts by "Like Someone to Blame".

I can't think of a one.

Moving on to the latest from "Like Someone to Blame"...

Quote:
Bottom Line: These statistics show that our economy is certainly NOT ADDING JOBS under G W's watch. These statistics "indicate" one thing-the economy isn't yet improving.
Sorry, I don't agree: the stats indicate that the economy is not yet good, but IMPROVEMENT is not SOLELY tied to employment numbers.

Quote:
Bottom Line: The unfettered free market system touted by conservatives like Greenspan show that it is the very essence of this economic philosophy to cut corners, not only on its accounting ledgers, but also as it pertains to environmental regulations, product safety, workplace hazards, wages and hours. The pressure to show short term profits is irresistable and if it can't be done legitimately than they'll get them any which way they can. The fantasy that the free market system is self regulating is coming to an end. Greenspan acknowledges this in his above statements-Congress needs to follow suit.
I think a handful of cases of accounting fraud does not show that such actions are the ESSENCE of the free market. Beyond that, most of what happened was ALREADY illegal, new regulations will most likely have detrimental and unintended consequences, and I don't see how any of this has anything to do with "irrational exuberance" - or how irrational exuberance is disproven by "infectious greed."

Quote:
Countless examples exist regarding the failure of supply side economics. Look no further than the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan. "Reaganomics" was disastrous-his tax cuts for big business and the wealthy along with huge increases in defense spending caused our deficit to TRIPLE under his watch.
Ahem. TAX REVENUE INCREASED after the Reagan tax cuts.

(And they weren't just tax cuts for the rich and big business. Income taxes were cut across the board.)

If tax revenue increases after a tax cut and deficits still baloon, you cannot blame the tax cut: you must blame spending solely.

Certainly, military spending increased under Reagan, but the Soviet Union also collapsed trying to keep up: money well spent, I say.

Also, I find it amusing that you apparently think the Democratic Congress had nothing to do with the spending increases (did they oppose it?) and that ONLY military spending caused the deficit - the increased social spending had NOTHING to do with it.

Both the CBO and tax-and-spender Robert Rubin do not believe that tax decreases could POSSIBLY increase revenues. They are wrong.

Quote:
The GOP's big business ties render it incapable of passing tough legistation to reign in corporate greed and shady business practices.
And the Democrats are better? You're either niave or in denial.

Finally...

Quote:
Bottom Line: The poll is troubling to Republicans, especially when reminded that Al Gore did win the POPULAR vote my more than 500,000.
All you did was assert (without evidence) that you "can hear the nervous chatter of teeth on the GOP side," and then you repeat as a conclusion.

Hardly pursuasive, comrade.

Bubba
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 01:34 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:24 PM
The question is, why I am even debating this issue with this guy?

I should not expect anything resembling a reasonably unbiased eye when he clearly believes that Republicans are evil:

Quote:
Geez, now that you mention it...I do indeed remember Republicans WANTING to starve kids, kill the elderly, and destroy the environment. Well, practice does make perfect...so eventually they might accomplish this. So much for compassionate conservatism...
Again, and just to show that this wasn't sarcasm or hyperbole on his part:

Quote:
In closing, I would only add that many examples exist of Republican efforts to destroy the environment, starve kids, and hurt the elderly...I'm just not going to take the time to spell them out for you, well, ok...maybe just one for the road.......ANWAR.
This guy believes that Republicans ACTUALLY plot to kill grandmothers, starve toddlers, and ruin the environment - that things like environmental harm are THEIR OBJECTIVES rather side-effects of their policies that are certainly unwanted and debatably not worth the benefits.

Is it any surprise that he ALSO believes that Republicans are pawns of greedy big business?

And is there any reason to believe him?

No, and no.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 02:26 PM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Dude, come on. The Republicans are definitely owned by big business. Their interests lie in the lap of the corporations, not the stroller of the teenage mother.

I don't remember the exact numbers (I can get them) but if I remember correctly, something like 16 out of Bush's 18 cabinet members are millionaires... and several of them are billionaires. That's a record for the number of millionaires in the cabinet. They hardly represent the average citizen.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 02:37 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Most of the richest Congressmen are DEMOCRATS - and I don't remember any teenage mothers on Clinton's Cabinet. My point is that there is little difference - if ANY - between the GOP and the DNC in terms of ties to big business.

Beyond that, it is difficult to say that, because many Bush Cabinet members are rich, the administration itself will work to the benefit of the rich - and the detriment of others.

It's similar to the assertion that you must be a poor, young unwed mother in order to understand the plight of poor, young unwed mothers - AND to work to their best interests. If THAT's the case, the entire system of representative government cannot work because you cannot have a member of every little special interest group physically present in the legislature.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 02:55 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Why judge Bushes Cabinet members by how much money they make? How is that logical? George Bushes National security team is probably the best this country has ever had. I'd put Colin Powel and Condelezza Rice up against any democratic people that have held their positions any day. The fact is that we are at War, and are coming off the defense spending holiday's of the Clinton years, Defense spending needs to be increased BIG time. Several of my friends currently in the Military can testify to this fact! The economy is down, and economic theory states that expansionary policy's to get the economy moving again are needed. Increasing taxes now will only make the economy worse. Tax cuts may not immediatly rescue the economy, but in the long term it gets the economy moving just like it did after the Carter years in the 80s. The short term may create deficets, but in the long term the economy will start to move again which will eventually increase the revenue brought into the government which can then be used to balance the budget and pay of the debt and other priorities.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 04:03 PM   #15
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 04:24 AM
So much to say, so little time....

Bubba stated in an earlier post that "From the McCain-Feingold bill to tariffs on steel, Bush is NOT acting from the "far right." He has yet to use his veto power, and his domestic policy is decidely centrist." ???? Where to begin. How about with these headlines from the Washington Post "Bush Team Has 'Right' Credentials" Article states that President Bush is "quietly building the most conservative administration in modern times, surpassing even Ronald Reagan in the ideological committment of his appointments, White House officials and prominent conservatives say." It goes on "...he (Bush) has turned to a large number of formidable intellectuals drawn from conservative think tanks, journals and law firms. The appointments have come as a surprise even to conservative leaders, who expected Bush, particularly after the disputed presidential election, to follow a centrist path closer to his father's." Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, stated "What you're seeing is an administration that, believe it or not, is further to the right than either the first Bush or the Reagan administration." Another article from the Christian Science Monitor states (regarding Bush's cabinet) "...Though the nominees ultimately prevailed, the sharp exchanges provoked by the nomination of Sen John Ashcroft for AG may indicate a public unwillingness to let President Bush pursue a conservative agenda. Faced with the difficult task of spearheading a decidely bold and conservative agenda from their boss..." etc etc.

Certainly dispels the myth that Bush is governing from the center. Need more evidence of his right-wing agenda? Let's rattle them off...abandoning a campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions, restricting labor unions and abortion rights, revoking ergonomic and arsenic regulations, deep supply side tax cuts including estate tax repeal, school vouchers, withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, withdrawal from Kyoto, packing the courts with right wing extremists, pro business environmental policies, a defense missile shield, pulling back from his original promise to fund the UN family planning center, reduction in American's civil liberties, privatization of Social Security (now THAT'S a great idea!), faith based initiatives, and drastic welfare reform that would 1)mandate more unpaid workfare "jobs", 2) Cut TANF spending by 22%, 3) Deny benefits to Legal immigrants 4)Make Parents with infantst work, 5) Reduce Access to Education and Training, and 6) Do Nothing About Time Lilmits. Need further evidence of this man's ties to the right? An abcnews.com article states "The president brought to the Oval Office a decidedly CONSERVATIVE agenda that called for a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut, controversial "school vouchers" and lower government spending."

Bottom Line: Stating that Bush is not governing from the far right is preposterous and denial ridden. His cabinet is a venerable who's who of far right activists with proven right wing credentials. Despite the Bush administration's centrist rhetoric this is the most conservative administration we've seen in the last 75 years.

Now, about those wonderful Reagan era tax cuts...

The oft-repeated message that tax cuts will not decrease goverment revenues certainly has a definite appeal. It says that not only can you have tax cuts (and therefore more disposable income) but there need not be any cost in terms of reduced public services. In my book this is mysterious math. Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics" but I think Bush Jr. prefers "fuzzy math." At any rate...this type of message should be treated with much skepticism...there is no such thing as a free lunch. Tax revenues grow primarily because of economic growth which tends to boost revenues whether tax rates are going up or down. This is exactly why one can always point to growing economies that cut taxes and witnessed increased revenues at the same time. But the idea that tax cuts cause so much economic momentum that they singlehandedly pay for themselves is a delusion.

This notion that is floated around by supply-siders that tax cuts actually "increase revenue" is laughable. It just doesn't hold up. A close look at what really boosted Federal tax revenues during the Reagan years was not individual income taxes but PAYROLL TAXES-whose 4.3% average revenue growth resulted from a tax INCREASE, i.e. the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. So, it is misleading to state that the Reagan tax cuts "increased revenue" when in fact it had no such effect. Had it not been for the increase in the payroll tax we would have seen even larger deficits. Additionally, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut and surged only after the 1986 tax reform law raised corporate taxes again. Please try explaining these phenomenom with supply side theory. I won't hold my breath.

If you are STILL not convinced about these "voodoo economics" than look no further than 1993 when supply-siders like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey etc predicted that the tax increase enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton, which raised taxes on the wealthy by 40%, would surely bring on a severe recession. I remember the Wall Street Journal saying the budget deficit would go through the roof. I even recall Forbes magazine saying the stock market would crash. Of course, all these predictions turned out dead wrong-but if I am to believe that supply-side economics works and is true than aren't all of these disasters exactly what should have happened? This is exactly why mainstream economists consider supply-side theory a joke.

And what of the supply-side notion that lower taxes result in better economic performance? Well, the economic data does not support this. A look at industrialized nations shows that since WWII there is no clear relationship between tax levels and economic performance as measured as GDP. You can find fast economic growth rates in high taxed countries just as easily in low taxed ones. Interestingly, high taxed countries such as Norway, Denmark, and The Netherlands have out-performed the U.S. in terms of GDP AND productivity growth in the 80's and 90's.

Bottom Line: The real legacy of Reagonomics is a tripling of the budget deficit. You want to blame the Democratic controlled Congress? Well, you can try...but non partisian goverment statistics show their spending actions added only 10% to Reagan's OWN budget proposals.

Bottom Line EXTRA: Mainstream economists can show you in detail why Reagan's tax cuts had little or no effect on the recovery of 1983-1989. They explain that it was merely the normal recovery cycle you get after a severe recession, i.e. the result of productive capacity being put back to use after sitting idle. If the economic recovery was due to a true supply-side surge of productivity we would have seen productivity rates INCREASE in the 80's...but they didn't.

This supply-side thing sounds so good that I'm thinking of Bushwhacking my employees with it. I'll explain to them that I'm going to give them a CUT in their gross weekly pay...while at the same time convincing them that they will actually have MORE MONEY in their paycheck as a result of my stinginess. Yeah, I really think they'll go for this.

I'll keep ya'll posted on what they think...
__________________

__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com