NationStates Jolt Archive

It would appear that the Bush "tax cuts" are not having the desired affect of stimulating the economy, and that certainly is no surprise. The trickle down theory does not work too well, as is evidenced by past administrations trying the same old routine. Now it appears that Bush has a date with destiny:

Why Bush is on the carpet with Hoover:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1288551,00.html

......The similarity to Bush, also a Republican, is that the present incumbent faces the prospect of becoming the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in a four-year term.

As Bush's term has followed the eight years of economic boom under Bill Clinton, the Hoover comparison is one that hurts...............

It has been touch and go all year as to whether jobs growth, measured by monthly non-farm payrolls data, would be sufficiently rapid to save Bush from having to adopt the Hoover mantle.

But the low new jobs figure of 32,000 in July, compared with a Wall Street forecast of a 220,000 gain, combined with a downward revision of 50,000 to the jobs numbers of the previous two months, means Bush needs almost a quarter of a million new jobs a month between now and the end of the year to replace all the jobs lost since he took power in 2000.

True, the economy has created 1.5m jobs in the past year, but that has barely kept pace with the country's population growth so has made little dent in the ranks of the unemployed and is the slowest employment recovery in several decades.......

Bush regularly argues that the economy has "turned the corner". Kerry retorts that the recovery has made a u-turn to nowhere.........

AND the part that many intelligent liberals have been making on these boards is the scope of the Bush "tax cuts", which have been dearly defended by the conservatives. Why they have dfended them is anyones guess, unless of course they themselves were recipients of the windfall, and I suggest that MOST weren't?

Mr Bush's tax cuts have been staggering in their scope and audacity. A report this month showed that Bush's $270bn tax cut last year, which the Republicans said would boost growth and jobs, had overwhelmingly gone to the rich, as sceptics such as Harvard economist Paul Krugman have long argued.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said one-third of the tax cuts had gone to the richest 1% of Americans, who earn an average of $1.2m a year.

The average tax cut for them totalled $78,500.

By contrast, those in the middle income bracket got a tax cut of $1,000 and the poorest fifth were doled out the majestic sum of $250 for the whole year. Some tax cut.

Ahhh that Bush is a generous guy????

I dunno man, Americans have some sort of serious bug in their pants over taxes...it sends 'em into a lather, I've seen it happen in person. a number of them seem to think it's a legal form of theft. I just don't get that. It's strange, at best.

I dunno man, Americans have some sort of serious bug in their pants over taxes...it sends 'em into a lather, I've seen it happen in person. a number of them seem to think it's a legal form of theft. I just don't get that. It's strange, at best.
Yes but to give all that money to the people who need it the least and proclaim that is going to create millions of jobs and it doesn't....

Fire the accountant?

Well, you don't need to convince me on that score. It's amazing to me though how people rally 'round the guy who's putting the screws to them. Logic? Why, that'd be unpatriotic...ya durn commie!

Heh heh.

Well, you don't need to convince me on that score. It's amazing to me though how people rally 'round the guy who's putting the screws to them. Logic? Why, that'd be unpatriotic...ya durn commie!

Heh heh.
You suggest that it would be "unpatriotic" to suggest that the "tax cuts" have not helped the economy as forecasted by the White House?

Right now it might seem 'unpatriotic' to certain Americans, but give 'em time, they'll make it a treasonable offence to hold a contrary point of view...

well, who in this room gives at least 75,000 in taxes every year?

you need to compare it by what you give to wut you got back, wut the difference was....
these people getting back 75,000 are probably paying alot more taxes still.

i kno the single mothers that now get 1000 for every kid they got, are much happier
and now married couples can file taxes together and not end up paying more taxes
capital gains tax is down which encourages investment in housing and stock sectors of the economy.

now to say they havent grown as forecasted by the white house i will agree, but hesitantly.
i dont think the white house figured we'd have 50 dollar a barrel gas, weighing down on the economy.

well, who in this room gives at least 75,000 in taxes every year?

you need to compare it by what you give to wut you got back, wut the difference was....
these people getting back 75,000 are probably paying alot more taxes still.

i kno the single mothers that now get 1000 for every kid they got, are much happier
and now married couples can file taxes together and not end up paying more taxes
capital gains tax is down which encourages investment in housing and stock sectors of the economy.

now to say they havent grown as forecasted by the white house i will agree, but hesitantly.
i dont think the white house figured we'd have 50 dollar a barrel gas, weighing down on the economy.
Ahhhh here comes the apologies.....

So a small raise in the price of gas is the real culprit? Time for a reality check?

The price of gas has only recently skyrocketed, yet Bush's tax cuts have been filtered through the system over the past two years. The fact remains that not enough jobs are being created to offset first time job seekers.

Bush is going to have a net loss of jobs for the 4 year term of his Presidency, which hasn't happened since Hoover's days in the White House over 70 years ago.

Ahhhh here comes the apologies.....

So a small raise in the price of gas is the real culprit? Time for a reality check?

The price of gas has only recently skyrocketed, yet Bush's tax cuts have been filtered through the system over the past two years. The fact remains that not enough jobs are being created to offset first time job seekers.

Bush is going to have a net loss of jobs for the 4 year term of his Presidency, which hasn't happened since Hoover's days in the White House over 70 years ago.

for bushs second round of tax cuts he had job creation of about 150,000-300,000 for a bunch of months straight, he created over a million jobs in a short time, then what happened?until 2 months ago job creation was at 250,000 a month, then 2 months ago gas prices shot up alot more then they should have and suddenly job creation goes down for 2 months........ it seems kinda obvious why that happened.
even greenspan has said that we have hit a soft patch in the economy due to soaring energy costs.
The pre 911 tax cuts cant count becuase 911 happened, so you cannot fault the administration for not being able to great jobs during that.

for bushs second round of tax cuts he had job creation of about 150,000-300,000 for a bunch of months straight, he created over a million jobs in a short time, then what happened?until 2 months ago job creation was at 250,000 a month, then 2 months ago gas prices shot up alot more then they should have and suddenly job creation goes down for 2 months........ it seems kinda obvious why that happened.
even greenspan has said that we have hit a soft patch in the economy due to soaring energy costs.
The pre 911 tax cuts cant count becuase 911 happened, so you cannot fault the administration for not being able to great jobs during that.
Perhaps if you took the time to read the article, then you would know the real reasons why?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...1288551,00.html

The majority of the tax cuts was put into the hands of the wealthiest Americans, who being conservative by nature, haven't spent enough of it to spur the economy as Bush had predicted. So the rich got richer, the US Debt ballooned, and unemployment remains stagnant. Hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for a net loss in jobs? Bush should be held accountable?

Ooh, pretty! Bold and italics! Colors!

for bushs second round of tax cuts he had job creation of about 150,000-300,000 for a bunch of months straight, he created over a million jobs in a short time, then what happened?until 2 months ago job creation was at 250,000 a month, then 2 months ago gas prices shot up alot more then they should have and suddenly job creation goes down for 2 months........ it seems kinda obvious why that happened.
even greenspan has said that we have hit a soft patch in the economy due to soaring energy costs.
The pre 911 tax cuts cant count becuase 911 happened, so you cannot fault the administration for not being able to great jobs during that.

Could you please include a link verifying this? I tried really quick but couldn't get anything good; I assume you've got one in mind.

Gas prices have hurt, yes. But my question would be why are gas prices going up when we have just taken over one of the oil-richest nations on Earth. If we're going to lose hundreds of soldiers holding it down, we ought to get some freaking benefit out of it!

I would also argue that rising "energy" costs are in no small part due, in many areas, to the absolute failure of deregulation (cf. Enron). I know that down here in Georgia prices have gone up (I believe; not quite sure) something around 200% since deregulation came into effect for natural gas.

I would also note that this is the first war pretty much in the total sum of human history where the country supporting the war has had it taxes reduced to, ah, [not] pay for the war. Surely that situation is going to do something weird. IMHO the disgusting part of the Bush Administration with regards to the economy is that it did nothing to try and alleviate the cost of the war to the next (MY) generation, instead piling on the debt, when at such a high point of patriotism people would have been eager to chip in a little extra to fight terrorism.

Ooh, pretty! Bold and italics! Colors!
I was just trying to help out those that are stuck at the "My Pet Goat" level.

Bush made a claim that tax cuts (over $750 Billion worth), would create millions of jobs, and that just hasn't happened, yet some people want to defend the tax cuts because they got their $1,000 worth. Most observers would suggest that the inequity is fairly obvious?

Wasn't the Democratic case against G. H. W. Bush that he hadn't stimulated the economy? Yet it's true that the economy was recovering as he left office and that Clinton got credit for the turnaround.
Plus, I'm glad to hear that I'm apparently in the richest 1%. I mean, you would think that with three other kids in my family my parents would have enough expenses with our private school, college, and keeping us clothed and fed, not to mention paying off our house and car still. All I know is that we have two or three $600 tax refunds that we can use to keep a few corporate lawyers off our backs.

A really good question that no one asks is "what do you mean my 'new jobs?' Are these jobs that have been created actually replacing the old jobs lost in pay, quality and hours?" In other words, are the jobs being created decently paying, full time jobs or are they barely-above-minimum-wage paying, minimal benefits, part time jobs (McJobs in a word)? Just something to think about.

Could you please include a link verifying this? I tried really quick but couldn't get anything good; I assume you've got one in mind.
If you look at the link in The Guardian, it said it in there...
Economists blame the stumbling economy on the rising cost of energy, with oil prices up nearly a third this year, and the fading impact of last year's tax cuts.

US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has assured Americans that this is a "soft patch" that will prove short-lived.

Wasn't the Democratic case against G. H. W. Bush that he hadn't stimulated the economy? Yet it's true that the economy was recovering as he left office and that Clinton got credit for the turnaround.
Plus, I'm glad to hear that I'm apparently in the richest 1%. I mean, you would think that with three other kids in my family my parents would have enough expenses with our private school, college, and keeping us clothed and fed, not to mention paying off our house and car still. All I know is that we have two or three $600 tax refunds that we can use to keep a few corporate lawyers off our backs.
If your parents tax cuts were around $600 each then you certainly are nowhere near the richest 1%, whose average tax cut was $78,500 which is 133 times larger than the $600 refund.

I was just trying to help out those that are stuck at the "My Pet Goat" level.

Bush made a claim that tax cuts (over $750 Billion worth), would create millions of jobs, and that just hasn't happened, yet some people want to defend the tax cuts because they got their $1,000 worth. Most observers would suggest that the inequity is fairly obvious?

As a Canadian, why would, or should you really care?

A really good question that no one asks is "what do you mean my 'new jobs?' Are these jobs that have been created actually replacing the old jobs lost in pay, quality and hours?" In other words, are the jobs being created decently paying, full time jobs or are they barely-above-minimum-wage paying, minimal benefits, part time jobs (McJobs in a word)? Just something to think about.

Exactly. The term is called "under employment" basically you get rid of those pesky high salary jobs and replace them with service sector jobs(or did the shrub succed in his quest to reclassify fast food as manufacturing jobs).

Repubs and Libeterians argue "hey they have a job!"

As a Canadian, why would, or should you really care?

As Canada is one of our largest(if not the largest) trading partner; why shouldn't he?

Our screwups affect them as well.....

The majority of the tax cuts was put into the hands of the wealthiest Americans, who being conservative by nature, haven't spent enough of it to spur the economy as Bush had predicted. So the rich got richer, the US Debt ballooned, and unemployment remains stagnant.

Anyone remember the phrase "Voodoo Economics"?

Anyone remember the phrase "Voodoo Economics"?
Yeah I do. George H. W. Bush referred to "trickle down economics" as "Voodoo Economics". Yet his son George W. must be a practioner of "Voodoo Economics"?

Could you please include a link verifying this? I tried really quick but couldn't get anything good; I assume you've got one in mind.

Gas prices have hurt, yes. But my question would be why are gas prices going up when we have just taken over one of the oil-richest nations on Earth. If we're going to lose hundreds of soldiers holding it down, we ought to get some freaking benefit out of it!

I would also argue that rising "energy" costs are in no small part due, in many areas, to the absolute failure of deregulation (cf. Enron). I know that down here in Georgia prices have gone up (I believe; not quite sure) something around 200% since deregulation came into effect for natural gas.

I would also note that this is the first war pretty much in the total sum of human history where the country supporting the war has had it taxes reduced to, ah, [not] pay for the war. Surely that situation is going to do something weird. IMHO the disgusting part of the Bush Administration with regards to the economy is that it did nothing to try and alleviate the cost of the war to the next (MY) generation, instead piling on the debt, when at such a high point of patriotism people would have been eager to chip in a little extra to fight terrorism.

rising energy has to do with venezuala, russia, and people blowing up piepline sin iraq, and also threatening to blow up pipelines in saudi arabia. Also all our factories are running at 96% theres high demand in china, and abroud, and the US is building no new refineries.

Ill get you the greenspan link.

here is the linkhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A149-2004Jul20?language=printer

Peace.

rising energy has to do with venezuala, russia, and people blowing up piepline sin iraq, and also threatening to blow up pipelines in saudi arabia. Also all our factories are running at 96% theres high demand in china, and abroud, and the US is building no new refineries.

Ill get you the greenspan link.

here is the linkhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A149-2004Jul20?language=printer

Peace.

You're absolutely right. Of course, the fact that gas prices have fallen for days now; all beacuse the rise in oil prices was quite simply a speculation BUBBLE, created by investors who saw a chance to make a buck off a fearful market has nothing to do with this.