Acura MDX SUV Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
Mike_Platini said:
The US economy is RUNNING.

During his 4 year presidency (almost), Mr Bush Jr. did see Recession and now the Coming-Back of the US economy.

IMO, it is not strictly a cycle event. Agree or not, the economic policies of him and his team did a good job.


http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={F1C4DDC1-71CB-4E90-BEAF-2C485121E9DD}&siteid=mktw
Just like presidents, business cycles come and go. I do not think economic policies have changed that much with the current administration, not to say keeping it on an even keel during times of war, etc. is a routine task. We have seen lows and highs during most administrations as much as the politikers would have you believe prior admins are responsible for the bad economy now, and others take full credit for when it is high now. They all play the same game, and some suckers eat it up as gospel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Re: Re: Good news on Economy

DaleB said:
... We have seen lows and highs during most administrations as much as the politikers would have you believe prior admins are responsible for the bad economy now, and others take full credit for when it is high now. They all play the same game, and some suckers eat it up as gospel.
:4:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
Presidents do not have much affect on economy, at least not as much as Greenspan, but their economic policies do help along or slow down the economy. For example, if GWB did not push his tax cuts, or vetoed a tax cut bill, we'd still be in recession. Of course on the negative side, deficits were momentarily magnified as well but once spending is curbed (Iraq is over with and hopefully they do not come up with another costly prescription plan type entitlement) things should be fine.
But of course, without naming names, there are a few here who will chime in about the evils of tax cuts -- ones I like to call closet socialists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
keremoner said:
Presidents do not have much affect on economy, at least not as much as Greenspan, but their economic policies do help along or slow down the economy. For example, if GWB did not push his tax cuts, or vetoed a tax cut bill, we'd still be in recession.

:4: :2: :4:

Agreed. Well said.

Edit: We have Volvos, and no one in my family is a socialist! Lemme tell you! Hehe...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
keremoner said:

But of course, without naming names, there are a few here who will chime in about the evils of tax cuts -- ones I like to call closet socialists.

So a lot of presidents have had tax cuts what's your point?
Who is against less taxes? That's a ridiculous statement. Go ahead and name names.. what weight does your 'list of names' have anyway except give you something to do?
Do you hide behind a curtain while you take names and peek out across the room, or did you find a list on the internet?:2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
DaleB said:



So a lot of presidents have had tax cuts what's your point?
Who is against less taxes? That's a ridiculous statement. Go ahead and name names.. what weight does your 'list of names' have anyway except give you something to do?
Do you hide behind a curtain while you take names and peek out across the room, or did you find a list on the internet?:2:
:19: :21:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
DaleB said:



So a lot of presidents have had tax cuts what's your point?
Who is against less taxes? That's a ridiculous statement. Go ahead and name names.. 2:
Clinton had the biggest tax increase in history. I did not see him rushing to cut taxes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
DaleB said:
There is a right and wrong way to justify and implement tax cuts as well as tax increases.
Here is an interesting article on that very thing. Some of you with open minds who can read and absorb things objectively might get something out of this. Others (and they are on MY list) might find it difficult to absorb.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2001/05/07/PoliticalNotebook/Keynesian.Tax.Cuts.Are.Not.Panaceas-213245.shtml
Although Keynesian economics is not my cup of tea, article has valid points. I think that tax cuts shouldn't even be an issue since we should have a flat tax rate that is lower across the board compared to current rates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
keremoner said:


Clinton had the biggest tax increase in history. I did not see him rushing to cut taxes.
Most tax cuts are implemented by congress and announced by the President. Yes, Clinton was not the biggest socialist of other demos in office, but not quick to support tax cuts.
On the other hand, others like Kennedy initiated a huge one early in his term. Maybe he thought he would not have to bother with more cuts later on.
I think the damage done by unmonitored government programs is the bigger problem, and costs us much more than any tax cuts have ever saved us. And buy us, I mean the majority of working americans. The republicans always seems to favor big business saying it will trickle down, and demos promise more to the working man, which is always more than they can ever deliver while we continue to pay for them.
And while some demo presidents have been responsible for those, administrations of both parties have been guilty of perpetuating the crime.
While conservative administrations are less likely to initiate such programs, historically, they along with all administrations get squirmy at cutting government workers from the payroll with only a few exceptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
keremoner said:


Clinton had the biggest tax increase in history. I did not see him rushing to cut taxes.
Are you talking about this tax plan?

About 57% of the net Clinton tax cuts would go to families in the middle and fourth income quintiles. This compares to only 18% under the House tax plan and 21% under the Senate plan.

Taxpayers in the bottom 40% of the income scale would receive, on average, no benefit from Clinton's proposed tax cuts. Those in the bottom 20% would pay higher taxes, and those in the second 20% would pay about the same as now. The small income tax cuts in these groups are more than offset by higher excise taxes, primarily on airline tickets and cigarettes. In this regard, the Clinton plan is similar to its congressional counterparts.

The top 5% of taxpayers would receive 13% of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan. In contrast, the House plan offers 56% of its tax cuts to the top 5%, and the Senate plans offers 53%.

Unlike the congressional tax plans, the Clinton plan does not threaten to bust the budget after 2002. The House and Senate tax plans threaten to bust the budget not only in fiscal 2002 but to an ever-increasing extent in later years. Because the Clinton plan lacks the back-loaded, fast-growing provisions of the House and Senate plans and does not rely on optimistic estimates regarding capital gains taxes, the Clinton plan does not share this defect


http://www.ctj.org/html/clinton2.htm

The facts --> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=173

I agree with the flat tax scheme, but as DaleB mentioned, the establishment resists... probably because neither side wants to 'tighten its pocket book', like the average family has to...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
DaleB said:

I think the damage done by unmonitored government programs is the bigger problem, and costs us much more than any tax cuts have ever saved us. And buy us, I mean the majority of working americans.
Bingo! Get rid of state and federal government programs that are ineffective and wasteful. I wouldn't hold my breath though. The only way this would happen is if enough people (general population) make noise about it. Otherwise, they will continue funding failed and wasteful programs with the people's money and asking for more.

As far as the economy goes, president's claim credit and they also get the blame, right or wrong. Clinton definitely claimed credit for 'creating' all those jobs in the 90s but I don't see any correlation to any of his policies. In the same sense, Bush will at some point claim credit for the economic turnaround but he will link it to his tax cut's stimulative effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
The other elememt of the flat-tax rate is the reduction in IRS workers, or so they claim. Of course, I suppose tax perparers could use the same agrument against it.
But even with a flat-rate I believe there will continue to be abuses to be watched for, as well as the need for processing various tax credits, and deductions for special circumstances.
All the flat rate does is provide a level playing field, at least that's the concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
I suppose it may be different in some parts of the country, but I've watched thousands of high-buck jobs ($80,000--$200,000) leave this area in the past five years, while hundreds of Minimum Wage jobs have come in. Needless to say, the local pols point to job growth around re-election time, but only fools believe a word of what's said before election day. I *hope* we're all smarter than that, at least.

In the past two weeks alone, three of my friends have been let go... one was a VP/COO at my company with 15 great years devoted to the company... another was a hugely talented top level manager with nothing but very profitable successes to point to... and another was one of my best friends who was working at my competitor for 14 years.

All were let go with NO notice, two of them with NO severance, one with only 8 weeks severance.

And this is an election year? Sheesh. Cant' wait till *after* the election when all the rest of us will probably get the axe.

By the way, I'm in an industry that analysts have always considered a bell weather to the rest of the economy. This really doesn't bode well, despite the election year agenda the spin doctors are pushing.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top