Thread: Bush Says Signs Show Stimulus Plan Is Working to Boost Economy

To be fair, the stimulus checks are doing what they were intended to do. They are keeping us out of a textbook defined recession by encouraging people to spend money, which is why the economy has grown instead of contracted over the past couple months. And of course, when we start to see the negative side effects of this free money, they'll find some other scapegoat for our problems, and hope we forget what $150B infusion of cash has done to the dollar. And I'm not talking about just a $9 spike in oil. We haven't seen anything close to bad yet. My optimistic outlook is that by summer of 2010, we'll be seeing oil at $200-$250/barrel. My pessimistic side is screaming $300 by next summer.

It's kind of like the foreclosure problem. I have talked to many people who are convinced that poor banking regulation is to blame for all the foreclosures. They fail to realize that when you drop the interest rate to 1% and hold it there for a period of time, banks are going to be very interested in lending money to people who they probably shouldn't, and people are going to borrow more than they can really afford to pay back. Once the rates go back up and the inflation (due to artifically low interest rate) catches up with people, you have to expect a massive number of foreclosures. Giving the excuse that it was poor regulation of lenders simply gives a convenient excuse to bail people out. And rewarding people for poor choices is not a very good strategy for building a successful nation.

Originally Posted by Bourne

Yeah, just great. 1.5 out of 20 Americans is out of work. Very comforting. And that doesn't include those who have had their hours cut, or taken pay and benefit cuts.

And it's going to get worse, much worse.

Not a major problem at all.

Originally Posted by michaelr

This article pretty much sums things up, well sort of.


Job Losses and Surge in Oil Spread Gloom on Economy



Remember last Christmas, it may be your last.

That is funny , the sky is not falling. i think you just like to spread bad news.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

And the tax breaks weren't FOR the little guy. They were for the RICH.
The little guy ended up paying the cost of these tax breaks in the debt service for the money borrowed to pay for them. They also continue to pay increased state and local taxes because more or what the federal government SHOULD be doing is being transferred to the states (look at immigration enforcement for more on this).

sorry but that is not true. Unless you have a very low figure for what you call rich. state and local taxes really have nothing to do with it.I call BS. also you have it backwards because the States are supposed to be the ones doing more for themselves.

Originally Posted by Heel31ok

sorry but that is not true. Unless you have a very low figure for what you call rich. state and local taxes really have nothing to do with it.I call BS. also you have it backwards because the States are supposed to be the ones doing more for themselves.

For all your trumpeting of the great tax breaks Bush provided can you explain:

The shift in tax burden from the Federal level to the state level. The requirements for funding didn't just magically go away. "Between 2000 and 2003, the United States saw a federal-to-state tax shift of historic proportions: the share of the total tax burden borne at the state and local level jumped 15%. This is the largest such shift in the tax burden since the period 1947-1950. This shift is making the tax system more regressive. In 2002, Americans in the bottom 20% of households paid 11.4% of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top 1% paid only 5.2% of their income in state and local taxes — less than half the rate of the poorest fifth "http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Tax_Cuts.html

When the states receive this burden what do they do? They either cut services (like police, fire, or schools) or they RAISE sales, income and property taxes. These are typically REGRESSIVE taxes, meaning that the poorest parts of society pay more than the wealthiest. So,assuming that 80% of America got an average tax cut of 9.8% of income (or LESS) an average state tax increase of 15% results in a net tax increase of 5.2% per person. The top 20% of income netted an average fed tax reduction of 20.2% and assuming the same state average state tax increase of 15% nets a tax decrease of 4.8%
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

Still think the Bush cuts were a good idea?

Originally Posted by Heel31ok

That is funny , the sky is not falling. i think you just like to spread bad news.

Really, if it were up to me I would spread that every thing is fine, but you know what, I do not lie! I call it how it is, maybe you should talk to your local car dealers, go to the malls and see how many bags are missing, go grocery shopping, buy some gas, count the home for sale signs, ask people what they WERE FORCED to do with that stimulus check, look at the price of gold, take notice of the dollars fall to a new record low last week for weeks at a time, look at your power bill, the list goes on but there is no end in sight to the dilemma that we are in!

Originally Posted by Invayne

That makes no sense, Mike. If my business was being punished with high taxes, I'd move to Mexico.

Would you really? Hope you get some good armed gaurds - drug violence is up considerably. That truly is the issue - you want the infrastructure that helps create a good business climate, then you pay taxes.

Of course, under the Bushies, companies that moved their headquarters abroad in order to avoid taxes were still eligable for govt contracts - like haliburton, which sucked billions fro the public teat for a substandard performance which put out forces in danger. That should stop - if you don't want to pay any part toward maintaining and updating infrastructure - great - just go live somewhere where you're not degrading it by usage.