Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent

I asked for something that occurred as the direct result of Clinton's policy.. Still waiting..

 

You completely misunderstood my comment, either accidentally or purposefully. It's difficult to determine which.

 

I encourage you to come back and check. My position of NOT selling out America and supporting our troops and finding positive things about our country will be the very same.

I continue to point out that one doesn't have to support Bush, to do those things. Unfortunately, there are a few here who are STILL not intelligent enough to know the difference (not referring to you, George).

I believe, more importantly though, that if a democrat were to win, we'll see some of the very liberals pretending to be a "conservative" (and never backing it up with action) to vote in the Republican party for a nutty libertarian, pull that box of patriotism off the top shelf, where it's been collecting dust for the past eight years, and start trying to figure out a way to put it to work again.

Time will tell

Thank you, though, for holding me to a higher standard than others. That's always very rewarding for me

 

Although I have been predicting Hillary for the next President for as long as I have been here on Digital Point, and she is absolutely nailed on to continue the utter disaster with the Bush/Clinton dynasty currently ruining the USA I would love to see Paul get the GOP call.

Having to see you choose between Paul and Clinton would quite literally have me laughing my ass off.

 

With Paul's current poll numbers among Republicans being so bad as to not even make it onto the charts, I don't see that as a likely issue.

 

I assumed your comment had to do with the gallup poll. What did you mean?

 

You had 2 questions not 1.

I answered the first. GDP. That is the biggest aspect of the economy.

With regard to an economic action that Clinton took that spurred the economy.....as I stated earlier I don't apply actions by the President to specific growth and shrinkage in the economy. I believe it is more a function of the business cycle and what the Fed does.

Since the most consistent index that has defined growth over the long term is a measure of productivity I guess the fact that Clinton maintained a tax structure that was not so skewed toward favoring the wealthy....led to a better distribution of funds that led to better growth.

Tax cuts that deepened the federal budget and put tons more money into the wealthy doesn't look as it spurred growth very well....does it?

I simply don't buy into the political garbage of low taxes spurring growth. Economists assess such a low factor to that action.

You want to know what was an enormous tax cut that put tons of money into all Americans pockets? Free trade and the flood of items that were produced overseas that were dramatically less expensive than American made products. That was the biggest "tax cut"....or more aptly.....put money in your pockets action that was taken in the last few decades.

That action has other consequences; loss of American jobs being the most severe.

But all such actions have consequences. Driving a big budget deficit while dramtically raising government spending simply drives up the the percentage of tax revenues going to pay off debt and has a further consequence of putting upward pressure on interest rates. Neither of those sit well with the American economy.

But I hope I answered your first question.

You should read about inflation. Voelker, when he was head of the Fed attacked the inflation of the late 1970's and early 1980's and set a tone for low inflation, augmented by a huge growth in international competition that has had an amazing impact on keeping American iflation low.

Current conditions may change that, but that has been a long term blessing for the American economy.

 

A little math equation:

Bob, Fred and John own stores. Say they are all in the 50% tax bracket and all make $100,000 /yr Without getting into some details we'll just say they each gave uncle same $50k x 3 = $150k

Alright, you lower the taxes to say 45%. They each have an additional 5k to spend, which let say they each did and produces another $2500 each in income. 45% of 102,500 = 46+k x 3=138k so the government lost about $12k in income tax didn't they? So lower taxes doesn't seem to help anyone...

oh wait, the math is wrong....
They actually have more to spend than I first thought, because they also made more money. PLUS, you have to figure that each person who makes more will spend more since this is currency (flows) not only to one person but many in a chain throughout the year, hence the increase of tax revenue, yet a decrease in percentage paid by individual.

 

Historically, no one ever taxed their way to prosperity. Ask any economist, even the liberal ones.. Taxing more equals lower income for the government. Taxing less, actually brings in more.

The Bush tax cuts prove this, as does history. In every case where the government raised taxes, income to the federal government went down. In every case where taxes were lowered, the federal government brought in more money...

Econ 101 at work!

 

nice theory guys.

in this post, http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4794035&postcount=60

I researched and found that actual govt revenues were down from 2000 in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004every one of those years. That was VERY unprecidented.

Finally in 2005 tax revenues exceeded the 2000 figure.

The Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2001. What happened?

The tax cuts didn't provide the stimulous from the preceeding recession. That reduction in tax revenues and overall slower growth in gdp during the early 2000's was not what occurred in the early 1990's after that recession. Of interest, the 1990's recession was deeper than that in the early 2000's.

So much for tax based stimulous huh?

Its a wonderful political argument. Bush does and did a great job with it. PUT more money in your pockets. We trust you to deal with your money more than we trust the govt. yak yak yak.

Look at deep economic reports assessing the importance of various economic impacts on the state of the economy. nine out of ten non-political economists will attribute growth to things other than tax cuts.

Don't get me wrong. I like lower taxes. I especially like controlled limited govt spending.

The political spin on tax cuts affecting the economy is way out of line with the real impact.

 

If I was to give my own personal opinion on Bush, despite the fact htat I voted for him, I would say I have a much weaker point of view of him. Its not because of how we got into the war, it is how it really hasn't been handled properly to get out of it. Its easy to get into a war, but the hard part comes when you have to finish it. I agree with the democrats on that issue, something needs to change even if that means changing the outlook people have at the leadership level.

I am not saying the ducking our heads and running is the answer either. We need someone with a plan. Unfortunately, thats not something Kerry had in 04.