 |
|
Topic started on 14-1-2004 @ 03:23 PM by DiRtYDeViL
|
A lot of liberals accuse George Bush of cowardice. It's a preposterous accusation to level at a president who is running at least two staggeringly
expensive wars at the same time, even as he threatens to take on more, not to mention planning an invasion of Mars and cutting taxes on all your rich
friends. And all this in the face of the world's biggest ever trade and budget deficits. Now that takes cojones ... unless, of course, you think that
the president keeps his brains in the same general area of his anatomy.
Most Americans, who have been hearing endless reports about the so-called economic "boom" on TV, may not realize that the country is, in fact, worth
a third less than it was a few years ago. With the dollar plummeting in value, the U.S. economy is far poorer when measured in terms of Euros or
pounds.
For 30 years, wealth inside America has been shifted from the working poor to the stock-optioned rich, and the White House and the media expects us to
celebrate – as though a booming stock market is going to cheer up the single mother who has been thrown off welfare and forced to look for a minimum
wage job. But with the dollar falling so precipitously, it's time to pay close attention to just how badly our economy has gone awry.
The secret to the looming catastrophe is our bloated deficits, trade and budget. Last year, for example, we bought over $100 billion more stuff from
China than we sold them. China took a leaf from Japan's book and bought U.S. treasury bonds with the surplus. This in turn kept our external payments
in balance, and gave George W. the money he needed for the Iraq war and beloved tax cuts. Neat, huh?
It is not just China and Japan, but also South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that are reinvesting their trade surplusin treasury bonds. In other words,
fast as you can sing "the West is in the Red," the U.S. budget deficit is now entirely dependent on Asian capital flows.
Rest at.
www.alternet.org...
I wonder why Bush is trying to bankrupt this country. With the constant hoopla about how strong our economy is on Fox news and CNN it’s important to
look at the big picture. The dollar and the deficit are important no matter how hard they try to convince you it’s not. We are heading towards an
economic meltdown!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 08:34 AM by Gazrok
|
Considering we had a "surplus" before he took office, and a strong dollar, I'm surprised more aren't criticizing his economic issues in the
press....Oh, wait a minute, that's right, we don't have a free press anymore....  (just remember back to the Jessica Lynch ordeal, even after
that lie was busted wide open, she was still a "hero" and tv specials, etc., all for crashing her truck and getting captured/treated by the enemy)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 09:05 AM by RANT
|
When we normally add more retail jobs than any month all year.
Of course, I haven't seen anything on the news about it. Just how great the stock market is doing with "revised expectations" [read as LAYOFFS].
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 10:26 AM by joehayner
|
Gazrok
Considering we had a "surplus" before he took office, and a strong dollar, I'm surprised more aren't criticizing his economic issues in the
press....
Well, the state of the economy isn't really his fault. I think it had something to do with a plane and a really tall building. Anyway, we need a low
spender and a tax slasher, not just a tax slasher. He's going to have to raise taxes again anyway, just to compensate for the deficit if he doesn't
quit his 'drunken sailor' spending.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 10:39 AM by mrmulder
|
I don't get it. Why don't they change the tax code completely? It would be alot better if they taxed everyone on what they spend. Not what they
earn. Instead they are doing both and I believe that's not neccesary. The government would have more than enough money if they did just that.
Mr. Mulder
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 10:43 AM by joehayner
|
But then, of course, you'd get those really wealthy people who don't spend anything. Just a thought.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 10:47 AM by mrmulder
|
Originally posted by joehayner
But then, of course, you'd get those really wealthy people who don't spend anything. Just a thought.
Why wouldn't they spend anything? I know alot of rich people who spend money.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 10:50 AM by joehayner
|
True, many rich people spend lots of money. But that's not what I'm trying to say. Let me rephrase that. Everyonce and a while you would get those
rich people who don't spend anything. Then their taxes would be next to nothing. I think we should just go for a flat tax of 10% as opposed to the
30-40ish percent it is now. If everyone was taxed the same they'd have more than enough money for what they need.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 10:52 AM by mrmulder
|
Originally posted by joehayner
I think we should just go for a flat tax of 10% as opposed to the 30-40ish percent it is now. If everyone was taxed the same they'd have more than
enough money for what they need.
Now that I completely agree with! I've been thinking that exact same thing for years. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 11:08 AM by joehayner
|
That way, it would not be possible to give only one class a tax break. You'd have to do a cut across the board. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 11:11 AM by mrmulder
|
You know I calculated that out once upon a time and I found that if the government did a flat tax rate across the board they would have more than
enough money spend on what they needed.
Mr. Mulder
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 11:16 AM by joehayner
|
I don't have the slightest clue why they haven't done it yet. Just like I don't know why they haven't thrown out the electoral college.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 03:02 PM by DiRtYDeViL
|
Originally posted by joehayner
Well, the state of the economy isn't really his fault. I think it had something to do with a plane and a really tall building..
The economy was doing bad before that happened. No matter what people say the President does influence the economy. His polices have huge impact on
it. Ever wonder why so many conservatives make that claim? Because no Republican has had a good economy since Eisenhower’s second term, kind of blows
a hole in your urban legend that Republicans are better with economic issues doesn’t it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 03:18 PM by ConspiracyTheory
|
First off, I don't think the economy was ever close to being as bad as some people believed. The unemployment rate reached a high of what, 7% or so?
That's only one percentage point above what is considered full employment. I believe that people had such good fortune for so many years that when
things started becoming not so hot, people overreacted and thought everything was going down the tubes.
Also, I don't think the government can have that big of an impact on the economy. Yes, it can have some, but the economy is such a huge
complex system that tinkering with just a small part (the government is big but it's only a small part of the economy) will have very little effect.
It's best to just allow the economy to progress on it's own. If you think there must be some tinkering, the Fed is probably in a better
position to effect the economy (for better or worse).
I will say that the ballooning deficits scare me. It's not just the war that is doing it, just about every kind of spending has increased. It's
insane! Hopefully a few people will finally look at this and realize there isn't really a damn bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The only difference, if there is one, is that Republicans are a bit more likely to spend more money on defense and Democrats are a bit more likely to
spend money on various social welfare programs.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 03:32 PM by REASON
|
THe economy was starting to take a dive before september 11 terrorist attacks and the whole surplus was a bunch of crap.....
Clinton and the set up of the Roth IRA where people could pay their taxes on there money ahead of time which helped cause the surplus.
Sale of one of the navys largest emergency fuel reserves to a commercial entity which made the figures look really good for the year.
the list goes on and on....
I don't think of myself as a Republican or a Democrat. I think of myself as an Independent so don't think this is a defence for Pres. Bush.
The surplus could only go on for a few years max due to the introduction of short term income.
.......
Too bad we can't just close our borders and get a democrat in the presidency for 4 years to focus strictly on our economy. By the end of the 4 years
we would have a great economy running. But with 4 years of international neglect we would leave terrorists unchecked with a great edge.
We live in a tough world with no right way of approaching anything. I just pray that when november 2004 comes we have the right person in office for
we are living in a critical time in the world today.
thats my 2 cent.
sorri fore mi spellinge.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 03:36 PM by MrJingles
|
The reason they don't do a flat 10% is because of businesses.
You also don't realize is that at this point, you can't get rid of a tax. You can get rid of income taxes... but you would still pay just as much
in taxes throught there other taxes because they would have increased.
What we need to do is end this stupid war, and get someone who can work on the economy. Becuase the government is a big factor upon the
economy.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2004 @ 09:51 PM by TheConservative
|
Just some quick facts:
Negatives:
-Since President Bush entered office, some 2.6 million Americans lost their jobs.
-Unemployment rate to go up slowly in the next few years.
-Deficite expected to be highest ever this year, at nearly $500 billion.
Positives:
-Unemployment rate went from 5.9%-5.7%.
-Consumer spending will increase with tax cuts. (e.g. APR 0% for cars, etc., etc.,)
-GDP expected to rise a few percentage points. (Currently at about $10.5 trillion)
What is everybody's take on these stats?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-1-2004 @ 05:13 PM by yergen
|
As any scholar in the field knows, taxes can only be used as a means of shifting wealth. In the long run tax cuts (without proportionate cuts in gov.
spending) will only increase deficits and have no influence on overall performance of an economy.
There is also a concept called marginal propensity to spend. This shows how much of the last dollar earned one is prepared to spend and save/invest.
It is widely accepted that the more money you make the less you are ready to spend (of your last dollar earned). If you are making low-income wages
there are more necessities to buy/less incentive to save than if you're a high wage earner. High end tax cuts are therefore less effective when it
comes to stimulate private consumption.
Moreover, the figures you've been fed about the booming economy are mostly the effect of government spending. Increased government spending and tax
cuts are two sides of the same story, but when you combine them you get a seemingly booming economy. If the economy doesn't take off on its own
(increased employment) things will turn exponentially worse. Especially with the downward trend of the dollar.
It makes you wonder if GWB wasn't made president in order to have a fall guy, and still acheive your goals. I mean, who benefits from this situation,
both economically and politically?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
