Bush tax cuts DO create jobs

[Donutboy 0]

Who says trickle down doesn't work???

Read it here!!

[rexbo 104]

Yes, thanks for making the argument, more jobs, and these are even manufacturing jobs!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiara Yachts builds luxury boats that sell for $120,000 to $1.172 million.

Hey, alright!!! If I take my Bush tax cut and add another $119,350 to it I could afford their cheapest model! Woo hoo!!!

[rexbo 104]

Tiara Yachts builds luxury boats that sell for $120,000 to $1.172 million.

Hey, alright!!! If I take my Bush tax cut and add another $119,350 to it I could afford their cheapest model! Woo hoo!!!

Another telling sign that the Democrats do not get it...

I guess TigerAl would prefer that these skilled workers be unemployed instead of building yachts???? Whether people are buying jet skis or yachts, the fact the people are buying things is what keeps an economy going...

[DKW 86 7,433]

Well let's just all quit our jobs and live off the govt tit.

Vote Democratic and we will all be intstantly fulfilled and the world will be perfect....NOT!

[Donutboy 0]

Well let's just all quit our jobs and live off the govt tit.

Vote Democratic and we will all be intstantly fulfilled and the world will be perfect....NOT!

No, living off the government tit is what we are doing right now. We're spending close to 400 billion more dollars this year then we're paying in. It's a credit card economy and somebody is going to eventually have to pay the bills. Chastise Clinton all that you want but his tax increase provided 11 million jobs to our economy, he reversed the budget deficit of the former President Bush and we actually had a budget surplus that was paying down our crippling debt.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

What tax bracket do you think the guys who build yachts are in?

[Donutboy 0]

What tax bracket do you think the guys who build yachts are in?

So, we turn a 240 billion$ budget surplus into a 385 billion$ deficit to create 100 yacht building jobs? We now need to find work for that other 3,600,900 that has lost their jobs since Bush took office. How many yachts can we build?

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Um...jobs are always the last thing to come in a recovery.

You never did answer my questions on the other thread, donut:

Convenient how you magically attribute each situation to the person in office.  What exactly did Clinton do to get the economy officially out of a recession a full 21 months before he took office?  And which of the numerous dot-com startups that fueled the stock market boom of the late 90s did he own?

While we're at it, what exactly did G.W. Bush have to do with those dot-coms being overvalued and start to drop in value like a lead balloon in early 2000?  How many of Bush's economic policies had taken effect by March 2001 (less than 3 months after he took office) that sent the country into a recession?  And exactly how would any other president done better on the economy in the wake of 9-11-2001, taking a hit like that when things were already shaky?

Just curious.

[rexbo 104]

...our crippling debt.

Yes, it is so crippling, the Government is borrowing so much money it has driven interest rates SKY high, and none of us can borrow any money to buy a house or a car. Oh wait, interest rates are the lowest in how many years?

[Donutboy 0]

Um...jobs are always the last thing to come in a recovery.

You never did answer my questions on the other thread, donut:

Convenient how you magically attribute each situation to the person in office.  What exactly did Clinton do to get the economy officially out of a recession a full 21 months before he took office?  And which of the numerous dot-com startups that fueled the stock market boom of the late 90s did he own?

While we're at it, what exactly did G.W. Bush have to do with those dot-coms being overvalued and start to drop in value like a lead balloon in early 2000?  How many of Bush's economic policies had taken effect by March 2001 (less than 3 months after he took office) that sent the country into a recession?  And exactly how would any other president done better on the economy in the wake of 9-11-2001, taking a hit like that when things were already shaky?

Just curious.

My bad, I thought I did. It's 100 manufacturing jobs and represents a replacement of the several million manufacturing jobs lost. Of course, there's not much future in these jobs either. How long can the demand for these yachts stay this high. Here's an idea. Let's cut taxes even more next year and we might create another 100 jobs or, at the worst, retain these 100 jobs!!

[TitanTiger 20,506]

That's not an answer. That's a strawman. Answer the questions about the economy I posted and what Clinton or Bush had to do with the situations they were in, or give up being taken seriously.

[MDM4AU 336]

bump

[Donutboy 0]

That's not an answer. That's a strawman. Answer the questions about the economy I posted and what Clinton or Bush had to do with the situations they were in, or give up being taken seriously.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you WERE taking me seriously.

Our markets respond to outside stimulus such as the strength of the American corporations, the stock market, consumer confidence and a myriad of other factors. When our government goes on a spending spree and charges it to a future generation, confidence grows short. People start storing away their money for future repayment of such loans instead of spending it and spurring growth. When our government starts acting responsibly and actually spending within their means, people have more confidence in the leadership of the government and are more willing to open up their wallets and purses to spend their money, and this spurs job growth; supply and demand.

Republicans work on the opposite theory. They see giving money to the wealthier out there as the solution, thinking more jobs will be created by giving money to the wealthy to create jobs. Unfortunately, you can't manufacture a recovery. Someone has to be willing to spend their money and buy your product, regardless of how many sprockets you manufacture. If no one is buying your products, your newly created jobs aren't going to last. You have to get the money into the hands of the people who will create and maintain a recovery, the workers themselves.

One of the best tax breaks that this country ever had was removed during the Reagan adminstration. I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember the tax credit for consumer interest that we used to enjoy. It worked this way. If you were out there spending money and spurring the economy, YOU were the one who got a tax break. It gave people reasons to buy new cars or other major purchases. The tax deduction from car loans and other consumer interest could amount to thousands of dollars that was directly deductible. You were in effect rewarded for spurring the economy instead of rewarded in hopes that you could.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

That's not an answer.  That's a strawman.  Answer the questions about the economy I posted and what Clinton or Bush had to do with the situations they were in, or give up being taken seriously.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you WERE taking me seriously.

Our markets respond to outside stimulus such as the strength of the American corporations, the stock market, consumer confidence and a myriad of other factors. When our government goes on a spending spree and charges it to a future generation, confidence grows short. People start storing away their money for future repayment of such loans instead of spending it and spurring growth. When our government starts acting responsibly and actually spending within their means, people have more confidence in the leadership of the government and are more willing to open up their wallets and purses to spend their money, and this spurs job growth; supply and demand.

Republicans work on the opposite theory. They see giving money to the wealthier out there as the solution, thinking more jobs will be created by giving money to the wealthy to create jobs. Unfortunately, you can't manufacture a recovery. Someone has to be willing to spend their money and buy your product, regardless of how many sprockets you manufacture. If no one is buying your products, your newly created jobs aren't going to last. You have to get the money into the hands of the people who will create and maintain a recovery, the workers themselves.

One of the best tax breaks that this country ever had was removed during the Reagan adminstration. I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember the tax credit for consumer interest that we used to enjoy. It worked this way. If you were out there spending money and spurring the economy, YOU were the one who got a tax break. It gave people reasons to buy new cars or other major purchases. The tax deduction from car loans and other consumer interest could amount to thousands of dollars that was directly deductible. You were in effect rewarded for spurring the economy instead of rewarded in hopes that you could.

That's all neat and stuff, but could you be a little more specific and answer:

1. Which Clinton policy caused the end of the recession to come a full 21 months before he took office?

2. Which Clinton policy caused the dot-com boom?

3. Which G.W. Bush policy caused the economy to go into recession less than 2 months after he took office?

4. On whom would you pin the responsibility for the dot-com bust that started the economic slowdown in mid-2000?

5. What president do you think could have done a lot better than Bush with an economy that officially went into recession less than 2 months into his term, then got waylaid 18 months later by the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001?

Am I speaking ancient Hebrew or something? Why aren't you answering the questions asked?

[Tiger Al 0]

As a guy with a background in Economics, that is the silliest explanation I have ever heard and flies straight in the face FDR and Kennedy economic policies.

Keynesian Economic Theory totally discredits this.

Man, they must know they are in trouble to be reaching that far for something to spin.

David, no offense to your economics background intended, but, 460 professional economists, ten of which are Nobel Laureates, disagree with the Bush tax cuts, especially as a means of creating jobs, which is what he said was the primary reason for the cuts.

My limited understanding of Keynesian theory is this: In a normal economy, there is a high level of employment, and everyone is spending their earnings as usual. This means there is a circular flow of money in the economy, as my spending becomes part of your earnings, and your spending becomes part of my earnings. Occasionally, something happens that shakes consumer confidence in the economy. Worried consumers may then try to weather the coming economic hardship by saving their money. But because my spending is part of your earnings, my decision to hoard money makes things worse for you. And you, responding to your own difficult times, will start hoarding money too, making things even worse for me. The cure for thisi s for the central bank (Fed) to expand the money supply. By putting more bills in people's hands, consumer confidence would return, people would spend, and the circular flow of money would be reestablished.

What Bush did was what those economists feel was to tweak the money supply too much towards the richest people. If they already had an overabundance of money for their necessities as well as their pleasures, they would not reinvest their tax cuts back into the economy, but would continue to hoard it.

Another area of Kennedy's plan you don't mention is that in 1962 he created the "Accelerated Public Works Program" which injected almost 900 million dollars into areas of the country where unemployment was highest and/or public works need was the greatest.

[rexbo 104]

2.  Which Clinton policy caused the dot-com boom?

Technically Gore should take credit for this one, he did invent the internet...

[DKW 86 7,433]

Our markets respond to outside stimulus such as the strength of the American corporations, the stock market, consumer confidence and a myriad of other factors. When our government goes on a spending spree and charges it to a future generation, confidence grows short. People start storing away their money for future repayment of such loans instead of spending it and spurring growth. When our government starts acting responsibly and actually spending within their means, people have more confidence in the leadership of the government and are more willing to open up their wallets and purses to spend their money, and this spurs job growth; supply and demand.

Let me see here. Where to start?

"When our govt goes on a spending spree" The Democrats utilized Keynesian Economics under FDR to justify deficit spending. That is fact, and it is what ended the Depression. Hoover said we must keep govt in the black and prolonged the Depression. Funny, the Dems are now SAYING they support the Hoover-nomics plan. Govt borrows money from the Federal Reserve to spend, they do not just print more money. Treasury notes and T-Bills from folks. They are govt secured notes you can buy to save your money. Printing more money is what the Europeans do and why their money fluctuates so badly.

People start storing away their money? When did this ever happen except the Depression? Never. Americans are notoriously bad at this folks. Wrecklessly bad a it. Expanding M1 and M2 would drive inflation through the roof and would be the number one news story in the world. The Fed is not controlled day to day by Congress or it would be a political dumping ground. The Number One Job of the Fed is to keep inflation in check and monitor fiscal policy.

When our government starts acting responsibly and actually spending within their means, people have more confidence in the leadership of the government and are more willing to open up their wallets and purses to spend their money, and this spurs job growth; supply and demand. Just laughable. If we were in a steady state, mid 90s economy that would work well. We were in recession, govt spending needed to increase to get the economy going again. That is Keynesian Economics. The Fed dropped the interest rates, that also spurred growth. The tax cut, given to those that ACTUALLY PAY TAXES also spurred investment in new eqiupment and building. That is what leads any recovery, and why jobs trail in recovery. Job loss also trails going into a recession.

Republicans work on the opposite theory. They see giving money to the wealthier out there as the solution, thinking more jobs will be created by giving money to the wealthy to create jobs. Unfortunately, you can't manufacture a recovery. Someone has to be willing to spend their money and buy your product, regardless of how many sprockets you manufacture. If no one is buying your products, your newly created jobs aren't going to last. You have to get the money into the hands of the people who will create and maintain a recovery, the workers themselves.

Simply missing here is the multiplier effect, (or the inverse 1/savings rate) and a good factor for growth. You see, if we save 10%, then any tax cut or govt spending would cycle 10+ times. On other words, even if the "wealthy" get the money they spend it on something, say a new piece of equipment, or car. The workers in that plant get the money and buy something else. The cycle continues over 10 times in this example. In reality our savings rate is more like <5%, so any new spending/tax cut money cyles in the economy around 20-30+ times. Money is not spent one time and then goes away. It is spent and respent.

One of the best tax breaks that this country ever had was removed during the Reagan adminstration. I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember the tax credit for consumer interest that we used to enjoy. It worked this way. If you were out there spending money and spurring the economy, YOU were the one who got a tax break. It gave people reasons to buy new cars or other major purchases. The tax deduction from car loans and other consumer interest could amount to thousands of dollars that was directly deductible. You were in effect rewarded for spurring the economy instead of rewarded in hopes that you could.

This idiotic tax break was just driving everyone into bankruptcy. It encouraged wreckless "spend now" thinking and high balances on credit cards and put workers at high risk for financial hazard. Besides you can do the same thing now with a secured second mortgage credit card or loan anyway. Really a non-issue.

[DKW 86 7,433]

My limited understanding of Keynesian theory is this: In a normal economy, there is a high level of employment, and everyone is spending their earnings as usual. This means there is a circular flow of money in the economy, as my spending becomes part of your earnings, and your spending becomes part of my earnings. Occasionally, something happens that shakes consumer confidence in the economy. Worried consumers may then try to weather the coming economic hardship by saving their money. But because my spending is part of your earnings, my decision to hoard money makes things worse for you. And you, responding to your own difficult times, will start hoarding money too, making things even worse for me. The cure for thisi s for the central bank (Fed) to expand the money supply. By putting more bills in people's hands, consumer confidence would return, people would spend, and the circular flow of money would be reestablished.

Oh man, so close but no cigar. I promise you fellow, print more money and the Fed would be under marchers in the street. We do not want a return to Jimmy Carter Economics. Fed lowers interest rates and that spurs spending. The Federal Govt, cuts taxes and that increases spending slower but on a more economy wide move as more are effected by it. Increasing Money supply is where you lose it. Homey dont play that. The Fed might tinker with rates, and give cheerleader talks but interest rates and tax cuts get the economy moving.

What Bush did was what those economists feel was to tweak the money supply too much towards the richest people. If they already had an overabundance of money for their necessities as well as their pleasures, they would not reinvest their tax cuts back into the economy, but would continue to hoard it.

What Bush did was put the money we earned back into our hands. When someone needs to waste my money I should be the one to do it not some govt bureaucrat. I can tell you, with a savings rate around 3-5% no one in America hoards a **** thing.

Another area of Kennedy's plan you don't mention is that in 1962 he created the "Accelerated Public Works Program" which injected almost 900 million dollars into areas of the country where unemployment was highest and/or public works need was the greatest.

Public works and infrastructure are great and needed in America. We just had those mean ole rascally Al-Qaeda fly some airplanes into buildings and so we had to invest in metal detectors, more cops, more gaurds at airports, an overhaul of security agencies, etc. We also put some serious fire power into Afghanistan and Iraq. No small expenditures here. We are likely safer and more secure and still have a lot to do. The public sector has its place and I support most of it. Bush came into a really bad situation and has dealt pretty well with it. Not perfectly, but pretty well.

[Tiger Al 0]

David, without getting too personal, how much money have all the tax cuts put into your hands? I can tell you we have probably seen about $750 in the three years and two tax cuts Bush has been in office. I'm guessing that's about average for middle class Americans. I know the "average" Bush quoted as the average was $1500, but that number was so skewed it wasn't a meaningul average. The way they presented it was if 100 people were getting tax cuts and the total amount being cut was $15,000, then the "average" cut was $1500. The thing was, three people split $8500 and the other 97 split $6500.

I don't say this as a complaint, but, rather, because the $8500 that went to the top 3% likely never changed hands again because those people already had an abundance of money and didn't need to spend it. He said the jobs would be created because of all the spending that was going to happen. The remaining $6500 was not enough of a bump into the economy to make a noticeable difference, and it certainly wasn't enough to create any jobs.

Here is an excerpt from the link I provided earlier:

There are certainly good reasons to be concerned about the economy. Over the last two years, unemployment has risen by two percent. We have lost more than two million private sector jobs. And the weekly wages of most workers is now growing slower than inflation, the first time in seven years. A very sharp reversal of trend.

This week job market is not only adversely effecting those who are unemployed and those who fear losing a job. This recession is effecting those who have jobs and earn wages. In this context, it is very appropriate for economic policy to focus on job creation and to strengthen the recovery.

But as the statement signed by these economists says, and let me read, "The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. The permanent dividend tax cut in particular is not credible as short-term stimulus."

There is a great contradiction between the needs of the nation for jobs and the likely impact of the Bush tax plan which is very expensive, which is permanent, which is going to bankrupt the government, create chronic shortages, and make inequality even greater. Yet, it won’t create jobs. While in the short run or in the long run.

Everything he said on February 10th has happened. And this was the concurrence of 460 economists. To put that in perspective, that is one less person than we have registered as users on WEN as of now! You could cherry-pick probably five or ten economists who could come to an agreement, but, FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY economists (10 of which are Nobel Laureates) agreed.

How are they wrong???

This was, briefly, their alternative.

The proposed stimulus package outlined below meets all the key criteria of effectiveness. It would create jobs and income by generating more consumers; it uses temporary tax cuts and spending measures that do not effect the nation’s long-term fiscal situation; it will have an immediate effect; and, where possible, it addresses unmet needs and reduces inequality. The plan has two main elements:

One-time spending of $110 billion on: grants to states to offset financial crises and preserve health, education, law enforcement, and other critical services ($50 billion); school repair and renovation ($25 billion); federal extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, along with expanded eligibility for those who are currently ineligible due to having worked only part time or for low wages in the months preceding their unemployment ($25 billion); and other temporary spending measures ($10 billion).

One-time wage bonus from general revenues worth $65 billion would benefit 149 million workers by providing 3.5% of their first $15,000 in wages. For example, a worker who earned $15,000 in 2002 would receive the maximum rebate of $525, and a family with two such workers would receive $1,050.

This stimulus plan, described in more detail below, would generate growth amounting to an additional 2.0% of gross domestic product in 2003, creating 1.5 million jobs and lowering unemployment by an entire percentage point.

Again, how are they wrong???

[TitanTiger 20,506]

That's not an answer.  That's a strawman.  Answer the questions about the economy I posted and what Clinton or Bush had to do with the situations they were in, or give up being taken seriously.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you WERE taking me seriously.

Our markets respond to outside stimulus such as the strength of the American corporations, the stock market, consumer confidence and a myriad of other factors. When our government goes on a spending spree and charges it to a future generation, confidence grows short. People start storing away their money for future repayment of such loans instead of spending it and spurring growth. When our government starts acting responsibly and actually spending within their means, people have more confidence in the leadership of the government and are more willing to open up their wallets and purses to spend their money, and this spurs job growth; supply and demand.

Republicans work on the opposite theory. They see giving money to the wealthier out there as the solution, thinking more jobs will be created by giving money to the wealthy to create jobs. Unfortunately, you can't manufacture a recovery. Someone has to be willing to spend their money and buy your product, regardless of how many sprockets you manufacture. If no one is buying your products, your newly created jobs aren't going to last. You have to get the money into the hands of the people who will create and maintain a recovery, the workers themselves.

One of the best tax breaks that this country ever had was removed during the Reagan adminstration. I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember the tax credit for consumer interest that we used to enjoy. It worked this way. If you were out there spending money and spurring the economy, YOU were the one who got a tax break. It gave people reasons to buy new cars or other major purchases. The tax deduction from car loans and other consumer interest could amount to thousands of dollars that was directly deductible. You were in effect rewarded for spurring the economy instead of rewarded in hopes that you could.

That's all neat and stuff, but could you be a little more specific and answer:

1. Which Clinton policy caused the end of the recession to come a full 21 months before he took office?

2. Which Clinton policy caused the dot-com boom?

3. Which G.W. Bush policy caused the economy to go into recession less than 2 months after he took office?

4. On whom would you pin the responsibility for the dot-com bust that started the economic slowdown in mid-2000?

5. What president do you think could have done a lot better than Bush with an economy that officially went into recession less than 2 months into his term, then got waylaid 18 months later by the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001?

Am I speaking ancient Hebrew or something? Why aren't you answering the questions asked?

Still waiting Donutboy...

[Donutboy 0]

1. Which Clinton policy caused the end of the recession to come a full 21 months before he took office?

Well, the recession didn't end 21 months before Clinton took office unless you get your news from Talk radio or Fox News Network.

2. Which Clinton policy caused the dot-com boom?

Technology drove the dot.com boom. Build a beter mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The technology boom cannot be attributed to ANY economic policy.

3. Which G.W. Bush policy caused the economy to go into recession less than 2 months after he took office?

Trickledown economics (decreasing revenue without decreasing spending) which created a double-headed economic problem; spiraling budget deficits and a spiraling national debt. Our nation was swimming in debt from the Republican policies of Reagan-Bush and consumer confidence hit an all-time low. People stop spending and the economy tanks. (see Bush II)

4. On whom would you pin the responsibility for the dot-com bust that started the economic slowdown in mid-2000?

Well, that would be assuming that the dot.com bust was the cause of the recession or an end product of irresponsible economic policies. I tend to lean more to the irresponsible economic policies.

5. What president do you think could have done a lot better than Bush with an economy that officially went into recession less than 2 months into his term, then got waylaid 18 months later by the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001?

Clinton. He inherited the last Bush recession, with it's multi-trillion dollar debt and 1/3 billion dollar deficits and brought us into our most prosperous times, reversing the budget deficit and making payments on the debt. BTW, do you remember the reasoning behind the first George W. Bush tax cut? It was because we had a budget surplus and he felt he needed to give the money back to his rich friends, NOT because there was a recession. The last two tax cuts were to "spur the economy and help us create jobs."

Am I speaking ancient Hebrew or something? Why aren't you answering the questions asked?

Maybe it's because this is the first time you've actually posed the questions instead of expecting me to read your mind on what the questions were.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

1. Which Clinton policy caused the end of the recession to come a full 21 months before he took office?

Well, the recession didn't end 21 months before Clinton took office unless you get your news from Talk radio or Fox News Network.

Well, actually it did. And it's not according to FoxNews or talk radio. Try these on for size:

The National Bureau of Economic Research

"CAMBRIDGE, December 22, 1992 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call yesterday. The committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle that is widely used in the analysis of business conditions. In its meeting, the committee determined that the U.S. economy reached a trough of activity in March 1991.

Previously, the committee had determined that the economy reached a peak of activity in July 1990. The eight-month period between July 1990 and March 1991 is a recession in the NBER's chronology. The committee thus determined that the recession ended in March 1991 and that an expansion began at that time. "

The New York Times (quoted on a Princeton University website)

"Such a pattern was evident in the early 1990's. The recession officially ended in March 1991, with the unemployment rate at 6.8 percent."

The International Mass Retail Association

"After the last recession ended in March 1991, unemployment climbed for 15 months, to 7.8 percent from 6.8 percent."

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

"In some respects, the weak labor market resembles the jobless recovery that followed the 1990-91 recession. Then, payroll employment did not surpass its June 1990 peak until 32 months later (February 1993), 23 months after the recession's end in March 1991."

I could go on but the point is, this notion that the recession of 1990-91 ended 21 months before Clinton took office in Jan. 1993 is apparently news only to you.  

2. Which Clinton policy caused the dot-com boom?

Technology drove the dot.com boom. Build a beter mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The technology boom cannot be attributed to ANY economic policy.

The dot-com boom is what fueled the late 1990's economic boom. Investment in the stock market was sky high which floods companies with money. Subsequently hiring will be up as well. Just glad we're clear that Clinton was presiding over an economy that was growing through no real policy of his own rather than being responsible for it.

3. Which G.W. Bush policy caused the economy to go into recession less than 2 months after he took office?

Trickledown economics (decreasing revenue without decreasing spending) which created a double-headed economic problem; spiraling budget deficits and a spiraling national debt. Our nation was swimming in debt from the Republican policies of Reagan-Bush and consumer confidence hit an all-time low. People stop spending and the economy tanks. (see Bush II)

Wrong again. G.W. Bush took office January 20, 2001. Not one of his policies had taken effect by the time the recession began in March 2001.

4. On whom would you pin the responsibility for the dot-com bust that started the economic slowdown in mid-2000?

Well, that would be assuming that the dot.com bust was the cause of the recession or an end product of irresponsible economic policies. I tend to lean more to the irresponsible economic policies.

The recession didn't start until March 2001. The dot-com bubble began to burst in late 1999-early 2000...way before the recession began, much less any so-called "irresponsible economic policies". That is unless, you're tagging Clinton with implementing irresponsible economic policies in late 1999 that caused the economic slowdown.

5. What president do you think could have done a lot better than Bush with an economy that officially went into recession less than 2 months into his term, then got waylaid 18 months later by the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001?

Clinton. He inherited  the last Bush recession, with it's multi-trillion dollar debt and 1/3 billion dollar deficits and brought us into our most prosperous times, reversing the budget deficit and making payments on the debt. BTW, do you remember the reasoning behind the first George W. Bush tax cut? It was because we had a budget surplus and he felt he needed to give the money back to his rich friends, NOT because there was a recession. The last two tax cuts were to "spur the economy and help us create jobs."

Well, that seems to conflict with your assessment, and the evidence I provided on the timeline of events, of what caused the dot-com bust and the subsequent economic slowdown. Bush II couldn't have caused the slowdown since he wasn't in office at the time and wasn't in long enough to affect anything by the time it became a full blown recession a month and a half into his term.

My bet: there isn't a president in history that could have been handed an economy headed for recession coupled with the terrorist attacks of 9-11 that would have done any better.

Am I speaking ancient Hebrew or something? Why aren't you answering the questions asked?

Maybe it's because this is the first time you've actually posed the questions instead of expecting me to read your mind on what the questions were.

Are you blind or something? I posted the following questions on another thread, then reposted them on this one as the ninth message on the first page:

Convenient how you magically attribute each situation to the person in office.  What exactly did Clinton do to get the economy officially out of a recession a full 21 months before he took office?  And which of the numerous dot-com startups that fueled the stock market boom of the late 90s did he own?

While we're at it, what exactly did G.W. Bush have to do with those dot-coms being overvalued and start to drop in value like a lead balloon in early 2000?  How many of Bush's economic policies had taken effect by March 2001 (less than 3 months after he took office) that sent the country into a recession?  And exactly how would any other president done better on the economy in the wake of 9-11-2001, taking a hit like that when things were already shaky?

Just curious.

Is the problem that you can't read questions in paragraph form? I don't see how they could have been any clearer.

[Donutboy 0]

The International Mass Retail Association

"After the last recession ended in March 1991, unemployment climbed for 15 months, to 7.8 percent from 6.8 percent."

Again, what responsible source would declare a recession over when unemployment is still climbing?

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

"In some respects, the weak labor market resembles the jobless recovery that followed the 1990-91 recession. Then, payroll employment did not surpass its June 1990 peak until 32 months later (February 1993), 23 months after the recession's end in March 1991."

I could go on but the point is, this notion that the recession of 1990-91 ended 21 months before Clinton took office in Jan. 1993 is apparently news only to you.

Well, to me and the millions still losing their jobs.

2. Which Clinton policy caused the dot-com boom?

Technology drove the dot.com boom. Build a beter mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The technology boom cannot be attributed to ANY economic policy.

The dot-com boom is what fueled the late 1990's economic boom. Investment in the stock market was sky high which floods companies with money. Subsequently hiring will be up as well. Just glad we're clear that Clinton was presiding over an economy that was growing through no real policy of his own rather than being responsible for it.

He was wise enough to use the added revenue to reverse the budget deficit and start paying on the debt. Here's a few quick questions for you. What percent of the annual budget deficit goes to interest on the debt? Who pays that interest. If we were to eliminate that debt and the interest that goes with it, how much more money do you think we'd have to secure Social Security, fix our highways, schools, etc., Can you imagine the tax cuts we could get (without breaking the bank) if we eliminated the national debt and it's budget crippling interest.

3. Which G.W. Bush policy caused the economy to go into recession less than 2 months after he took office?

Trickledown economics (decreasing revenue without decreasing spending) which created a double-headed economic problem; spiraling budget deficits and a spiraling national debt. Our nation was swimming in debt from the Republican policies of Reagan-Bush and consumer confidence hit an all-time low. People stop spending and the economy tanks. (see Bush II)

Wrong again. G.W. Bush took office January 20, 2001. Not one of his policies had taken effect by the time the recession began in March 2001.

Consumer confidence. Tax cuts that would essentially reverse the eight years of fiscal responsibility spooked enough people into hoarding their monies instead of spending it.

4. On whom would you pin the responsibility for the dot-com bust that started the economic slowdown in mid-2000?

Well, that would be assuming that the dot.com bust was the cause of the recession or an end product of irresponsible economic policies. I tend to lean more to the irresponsible economic policies.

The recession didn't start until March 2001. The dot-com bubble began to burst in late 1999-early 2000...way before the recession began, much less any so-called "irresponsible economic policies". That is unless, you're tagging Clinton with implementing irresponsible economic policies in late 1999 that caused the economic slowdown.

No. Irresponsible economic policies are spending beyond your means. As a consumer, that can lead to bankruptcy. As a nation, that can lead to crippling debts that create a huge budget problem with interest that has to be paid on that debt annually before any other budget item is even brought before the Congress.

5. What president do you think could have done a lot better than Bush with an economy that officially went into recession less than 2 months into his term, then got waylaid 18 months later by the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001?

Clinton. He inherited  the last Bush recession, with it's multi-trillion dollar debt and 1/3 billion dollar deficits and brought us into our most prosperous times, reversing the budget deficit and making payments on the debt. BTW, do you remember the reasoning behind the first George W. Bush tax cut? It was because we had a budget surplus and he felt he needed to give the money back to his rich friends, NOT because there was a recession. The last two tax cuts were to "spur the economy and help us create jobs."

Well, that seems to conflict with your assessment, and the evidence I provided on the timeline of events, of what caused the dot-com bust and the subsequent economic slowdown. Bush II couldn't have caused the slowdown since he wasn't in office at the time and wasn't in long enough to affect anything by the time it because a full blown recession a month and a half into his term.

My bet: there isn't a president in history that could have been handed an economy headed for recession coupled with the terrorist attacks of 9-11 that would have done any better.

As I stated before, lack of consumer confidence can and does spur recessions. People slow their spending down and companies start laying off people. People start getting laidoff and it spooks more people into saving instead of spending.

Am I speaking ancient Hebrew or something? Why aren't you answering the questions asked?

Maybe it's because this is the first time you've actually posed the questions instead of expecting me to read your mind on what the questions were.

Are you blind or something? I posted the following questions on another thread, then reposted them on this one as the ninth message on the first page:

No. I'm not blind, but thanks for caring. I just have really crappy eye sight. It only gets worse with age. I must have missed the other questions that you posed and I hope you'll forgive me. Maybe now that I have answered these questions, we can forgive and forget. I'll try not to let it happen again.

Convenient how you magically attribute each situation to the person in office.  What exactly did Clinton do to get the economy officially out of a recession a full 21 months before he took office?  And which of the numerous dot-com startups that fueled the stock market boom of the late 90s did he own?

Gee, isn't that the Republican gameplan that first started in the eighties? Blame everything that happened badly in the economy on Carter, even though OPEC price gouging forced the recession in his term of office. Republicans even tried to blame the budget deficits and spiraling debt on Senate Democrats when Reagan's policies failed. The same policies are failing today with Republicans controlling everything and now, if we say there's not a problem enough times, we just might convince someone that they can't believe their lying eyes.

While we're at it, what exactly did G.W. Bush have to do with those dot-coms being overvalued and start to drop in value like a lead balloon in early 2000?  How many of Bush's economic policies had taken effect by March 2001 (less than 3 months after he took office) that sent the country into a recession?  And exactly how would any other president done better on the economy in the wake of 9-11-2001, taking a hit like that when things were already shaky?

Just curious.

Is the problem that you can't read questions in paragraph form? I don't see how they could have been any clearer.

Again, I apologize vehemently. I missed the post where you actually posed questions instead of a vague "give me your economic theory" post.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Again Donut, HOR spends the Money, not Reagan as a Republican. As TIp O'Neill said ad nauseum,"His budgets were DOA." The Clinton fiscal restraint was in reality from Republican's owning the HOR.

THe HOR spends and taxes. The recession in BushI tenure was due to tax increase in 1989. Tax increases cause recessions. See Jimmy Carter and his recession, all Reagan did was cut taxes and the economy slowly went wild.

As for the ludicrous response that money just vanishes when it gets into the hands of the "SUPPOSEDLY RICH" (btw, I reject that that is true. My refund was close to 4k.) I have studied many reports on those who acquire wealth. Something around 5% inherit their wealth. Almost all EARN it. They very proactively invest and research the uses for their money, that is a large part of how they got wealthy. They do not sit at the Country Club, sipping mint juleps. The work very hard to achieve their wealth. After all, IT IS THEIR/OUR MONEY!!!! They/we should keep our money, period. It is not like the Fed Govt will do much good with it anyway. The average federal program only has a ROI of about 28%. The entreprenuer will likely have a 200-500% lifetime return on their investment.

To think that the "rich" just throw money away is, for lack of a better word, STOOPID. They spend an inordinate amount of time watching and studying investments.

Donutboy, please get your head out of the sand and stop the blind rereading of the Dem talking points. We know you hate Bush. I can almost see why, but not really. The hatred for Bush will lead nowhere. The economy is turning and turning fast and hard, and the result will be a landslide in Nov.