Dubya on 20/20

[Zero]

How does putting more money into the economy, which a tax cut does, hurt the economy?

Becuase it really doesn't put the money into the economy where it can do any good. I don't think J. Lo spent any more or less maney with her tax cut than she would have otherwise. Buying a $10,000 handbag does nothing for the economy, but average Americans buying $10,000 worth of $20 jeans at Walmart does have an effect.

 

[aerocontrols]

The fact is that projects that were supposed to be partially funded by federal dollars went underfunded or got scrapped, causing states to have to raise taxes or go into a deficit. Remember, it is a stated goal of many Republicans to destroy government programs by starving them of cash, and the tax cuts have had that effect.

Further, Bush's specific tax cuts were no boon to the working American. Between the fact that local and state taxes went up, and services became harder to get, or more expensive, tax cuts for the wealthiest few do NOT boost the economy. Bill Gates wasn't sitting around thinging "Jeez, I'd love to create more jobs, and pay my workers better, but without an extra $90,000 in my pocket, I just can't do it" Rich people don't boost the economy near as much as us poor folks do, because we spend nearly every dime we make.

I am a working American, and I got a tax cut, which I spent. Tax cuts, as you know, are being phased in by 2010, with the tax cuts that go 'only to the wealthy' being phased in last. The big tax breaks for Bill Gates get phased in last. The effect of the tax cuts that have not yet gone into effect have yet to be seen.

Your complaints about projects that got underfunded or scrapped due to tax cuts don't convince me, since it seems to me that (and this is the part that gets me angry, though it goes against your point) government spending has risen across the board.

That link talks specifically about the death tax.

Here is a link from March 2001:

My but you are stubborn.

And for this year's first installment of the tax cut, the check will literally be in the mail. (Applause.) Late this summer and into the fall, every single American who pays income taxes will receive a check. Single taxpayers will receive a check of $300. Single parents who are heads of household will receive a check of $500. And married couples will receive a check of $600.

That immediate tax relief will provide an important boost at an important time for our economy. And what is more is you can feel comfortable using it because more tax relief is on the way. (Applause.) The checks are the first installment of lasting, long-term reductions in tax rates. As a result, when this tax relief plan is fully implemented, a typical family of four will see their taxes cut by about half. (Applause.)

Here is Bush taking his case to the people:

Our economy is sputtering. Economic growth has stalled. Consumer confidence is falling. We can't just stand by and hope for the best. We must act, and act now, to get ahead of this problem, and blunt or reverse this slowdown. And the best way to respond is to get more money into the hands of Americans, who will buy products and build businesses and create jobs. We must put more fuel into the engine of this economy, and that's what my tax relief package will do.

Also, in the link you provide, he specifically claims that the tax cut will serve as a stimulus.

MattJ

 

[Samus]

2. Unless this administration can create 200,000 jobs a month for the remainder of W's term, it will be the 1st since Hoover with a net job loss.

A: Clinton's fault.

Negative. What he said was that he inherited a recession, which is true. The U.S. economy had already been on the downward trend months before he took office. Even if he had done nothing but continue the policies of his predecessor, the country would still have experienced a recession, because we already were. It's part and parcel of a cyclical free market.

Overall, I don't think it was a bad interview. He pretty clearly dodged questions about the existence of actual WMD, versus just a plan or intent. But hey, he's a politician, they all dodge questions.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Perhaps it implies 'Clinton' to people who believe that there is no such thing as a business cycle.

Do you believe in the business cycle?

MattJ

Sure, but the way he phrased it didn't imply anything as impersonal as the busines cycle. By saying that he "inherited" it, it tends to imply that the previous person was responsible for it.

It is an old, old game in politics to try to subtly blame one predecessors for whatever ills currently need to be dealt with.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Dubya on 20/20

Negative. What he said was that he inherited a recession, which is true. The U.S. economy had already been on the downward trend months before he took office. Even if he had done nothing but continue the policies of his predecessor, the country would still have experienced a recession, because we already were. It's part and parcel of a cyclical free market.

Overall, I don't think it was a bad interview. He pretty clearly dodged questions about the existence of actual WMD, versus just a plan or intent. But hey, he's a politician, they all dodge questions.

If he inhereted a recession, then why did the recession start in March, after he took office?

 

[Tony]

Becuase it really doesn't put the money into the economy where it can do any good. I don't think J. Lo spent any more or less maney with her tax cut than she would have otherwise. Buying a $10,000 handbag does nothing for the economy, but average Americans buying $10,000 worth of $20 jeans at Walmart does have an effect.

That doesnt explain how the economy was hurt.

And the average american didnt get a tax cut?

 

[Zero]

Your complaints about projects that got underfunded or scrapped due to tax cuts don't convince me, since it seems to me that (and this is the part that gets me angry, though it goes against your point) government spending has risen across the board.





MattJ

The government spending is the same as the tax cuts...big boon to the already wealthy, and a bit of table scraps for the rest of us.

 

[Zero]

That doesnt explain how the economy was hurt.

And the average american didnt get a tax cut?

Not enough of a tax cut to matter, and after money forpublic services were cut, no real tax cut at all.

 

[Tony]

Not enough of a tax cut to matter

What do you base this on?

 

[Samus]

Re: Re: Re: Dubya on 20/20

Zero: If he inhereted a recession, then why did the recession start in March, after he took office?

He took office in the middle of January. The pronounced start date of the recession was March, a whopping six weeks later. A president cannot possibly turn an economy around and cause recession in six weeks, especially considering that Bush didn't implement much economic policy during that timeframe.

IOW, the recession was "fated" to happen (where's Frankowraith when you need him!) before Bush took office.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubya on 20/20

He took office in the middle of January. The pronounced start date of the recession was March, a whopping six weeks later. A president cannot possibly turn an economy around and cause recession in six weeks, especially considering that Bush didn't implement much economic policy during that timeframe.

IOW, the recession was "fated" to happen (where's Frankowraith when you need him!) before Bush took office.

LOL, sure, I'm just being nitpicky. Business cycle and all that. If I am going to be consistant, which I am, I say that while Bush gets no credit for any upswing, I don't think he gets the blame for the recession starting.

 

[specious_reasons]

My but you are stubborn.





Here is Bush taking his case to the people:



Also, in the link you provide, he specifically claims that the tax cut will serve as a stimulus.

MattJ

Aren't those quotes from after the tax cut was passed? Note, in the first quote, the checks were already in the mail.

I think you're both right: The tax cut was to get rid of that 40 billion projected surplus, and it was also sold as getting the economy back in gear.

 

[aerocontrols]

Aren't those quotes from after the tax cut was passed? Note, in the first quote, the checks were already in the mail.

I think you're both right: The tax cut was to get rid of that 40 billion projected surplus, and it was also sold as getting the economy back in gear.

The first one is. The radio address link was not, nor was the link patoco supplied where it is called a stimulus in addition to the portion patoco points out.

We are both right in that the tax cut was sold on both issues, but we are not both wrong, since I never claimed that the tax cuts weren't also sold on returning the surplus.

MattJ

 

[Samus]

Zero: If I am going to be consistant, which I am, I say that while Bush gets no credit for any upswing, I don't think he gets the blame for the recession starting.

I would certainly say he cannot be blamed for the recession, regardless of the fact that it "started" on his watch (the trend didn't). It's tough to give him credit for the upswing, too. I wouldn't give him all the credit. The natural market cycle gets more credit than he does. Unfortunately, his decisions have a more lasting effect, viz. not controlling spending and allowing steep budget deficits.