The White House says that, on average, Americans will receive $1,083 under President Bush's Tax Cut Plan. This may be true. However, it is deceiving. Put another, and more understandable way, the average American will receive $289.

What will Bush’s tax plan do for you?

If you earn/year You are due to receive


$0-$16,000 $6
$16,000-$29,000 $99
$29,000-$46,000 $289
$46,000-$77,000 $657
$77,000-$154,000 $1841
$154,000-$374,000 $3524
$374,000 and up Avg. $30,127

President Bush $16,511
Dick Cheney $104,823

Who will pay for this tax cut? You and Your children.

You: Working families are paying the price. Unemployment is rising, with 108,000 jobs lost in March 2003 alone. With states facing massive fiscal crises, local governments have been forced to cut the vital services Americans rely on: public schools, health care, homeland security, and more. Many states have even been forced to consider tax increases as a result of their budget woes.

"In March 2003, more than 108,000 jobs were lost and the unemployment rate held at 5.8 percent. In addition, unemployment insurance claims hit their highest level in one year; more Americans stopped looking for work last month because they were discouraged over job prospects, and the critical growth in the service sector has abruptly ended. Under President Bush, unemployment has increased 41% and long-term unemployment has increased by 170%." [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4/3/03].

Your children: When Bush took office, the national debt, including the amount owed to Social Security, was $4.5 trillion and headed sharply down. But Bush’s new budget projects a $7.5 trillion debt by the end of 2008. The President refuses to offer an estimate for the size of the debt a decade from now, but the likely figure under the President policies is close to $10 trillion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's interesting to compare Bush's reaction to this looming fiscal disaster with how Ronald Reagan, reacted when the 1981 tax cuts sent deficits through the roof. Initially, Reagan's tax cut program was considerably bigger than Bush's. Reagan wasn't worried about the officially projected revenue losses from his tax reductions because he'd been convinced that cutting taxes would actually lead to higher revenues. But when that supply-side pipe dream failed to pan out, Reagan quickly shifted gears, signing tax increases in 1982, 1983 and 1984 that offset almost half of his 1981 tax reductions (and helped start an economic boom). That still left a huge hole in the budget, but at least Reagan partially learned from his mistakes.

By contrast, the worse the budget news gets for Bush, the more enamored he becomes of his tax cuts. When asked about deficits, the president fatuously blames overspending even though he has enthusiastically supported the only significant spending increases we've seen, for defense and security. Bush's indifference to the budget disaster he has created seems to reflect his vaguely held adherence to a revisionist right-wing theory, which holds that all that really matters is the amount the government spends, not whether it happens to be paid for or not -- and when it comes to spending, less is always better. As Republican strategist Grover Norquist famously put it, "I'd rather have a small government and a big deficit, than a big government and no deficit."

 

I will get atleast $1841, and depending upon earnings may hit $3524...both would be usefull for me.

And what alternative does the left provide ofr stimulating the economy they just so happened to ruin? So far only a smaller version of Bush's tax plan. Here is a President telling the people that they are going to be getting larger tax breaks so the people, not the government, can keep more of their money and the left is saying we are only going to give you about 1/2 of what President Bush wants.

So cut the above numbers in 1/2 and you have the Democratic version of economic stimulus.

 

The Congressional Budget Office -- run by an economist hand-picked by the Bush administration -- recently said the Bush plan's stimulative effect on the economy was "unlikely to be dramatic."

Moving toward a balanced budget provided stimulus in the mid 1980's, and an actual balanced budget provided the greatest period of economic growth in history in the 1990's. Supply side economics has always failed and is currently failing again.

People in America are always complaining about taxes. Fact: out of the world's 30 largest economys, America ranks 22nd in tax's collected as a percentage of GDP. That is not bad.

 

Wait wait, who ruined the economy? Last I checked, under a democratic presidency we had 8 straight years of RECORD economic growth.

Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy at a time when Americans are uncertain of the market. It isn't that they don't have the money to spend... they are too scared to spend it! Giving them money will not magically restore their faith in investment.

 

I think your representation of the economy in the 90s is kind of one sided here.

Although I too dislike Bush I think misrepresentation of facts is a bad case for argument.

In the 90s we had new technology that boomed out of control and it bumped the economy in a way never expected. The ".com" boom was one that never could have been predicted even by the most gifted.

Everyone and their mother was an overnight millionaire and they spent their money like there was no end in sight. Companies like Intel, Cisco, AMD, and many other tech based industrys saw the largest growth ever.

Once the new appeal wore off people started getting past the fad and started looking at what it really was. People realized that there were quality sites to visit and the low end ones dropped off.....and they dropped fast.

So from the large number of money making sites dropping off we see a slowing in the purchase of technology based products and the trickle down the chain begins.

What we are seeing right now is the economy trying to reel back in to pre .com times with the .com world still making a lot of the calls. The .com economy was one of the worst things to happen because it caused a "false" economy which was so volatile no one knew exactly what to do.

Cisco for example made 9 splits in its stocks in the course of 5 years (I believe this is correct) which is completely unheard of by any stretch of the imagination.

Clinton got lucky and came in to office at the beginning of the .com boom and left right as it wa falling apart. If you are going to make judgements like this then you need to look at the whole picture of what was going on rather than your one sided argument against Bush.

 

:werd:

The 1990's boom was a case of technology driving the market, combined with a geo-political age of reasonable calm at home. A distinct anomaly that must be understood before action is taken.

It really chaps my hide to see this partisan bickering bullshit. God Damn. :angry:

 

Anyone who actually paid attention in their econ class will understand that the economy had to implode. The explosion in technology of the 1990's had to reach a saturation point..... that point at which everyone who wanted a computer or cell phone had one. Internet stock never even had value. I knew 6 years ago not to purchase any internet stock because not one of those companies had a tangable product to establish the company's value. Stock needs something to standarize it's value, just like money itself. To blame the economic fallout on anyone except stupid investors is foolish. It was young, unwise, and uneducated investors looking to make a quick buck who artificially inflated stock prices. When there was nothing left to buy the bubble burst and people are crying. While my stocks in Southnern Company, Best Buy, GE, and CocaCola are still sitting pretty.

 

i partially agree, though i think that the main reason our economy took such big dive at the end of the dot com boom is mainly because of "what goes up, must come down". i think that what is happening now is just the trailing end of a rollercoaster effect caused by the introduction of those internet stocks in the early 90's. we can only blame our present economy on two things. the end of the dot com revolution compounded by drastic decline in the value of airline and insurance company stocks caused by 9/11. the economic effects of 9/11 are far more detrimental to our economy than the fall of the dot com boom simply because that one singular event caused a drastic decline in value and multiple bankruptcies to airlines and insurance companies, which are a huge part of our economy.

 

To add to what has already been said...

I feel that the accounting practices by companies like Enron, MCI-Worldcome, Tyco, Global Crossing, etc., etc. was not uncommon. The fact that it was done on such a wide scale indicates to me it was almost a commonly accepted practice to make your balance sheet look good. I wonder how many companies were able to pull it off?

However once 9/11 happened the period of time that these companies would need to cover and hide their losses got too great and many of the CEOs, CFOs, and other officers panicked. They were then in turn not able ot hide what they were doing and their companies folded. This created a worse environment with investors who already were not investing as much becasue of the tech slide and were now investing less because established companies were now in trouble.

And thus we come to today.

 

In the history of the united states, theres always been an increase of employment and a boom in spending after a tax cut...

~Peace